Introduction to the synoptic Gospels

<<■■•',■

•Axt^^^i

^^ i\xt Iheolagial ^

/. 20

%/

^

PRINCETON, N. J.

:v.

5A^^

Diviiion
Section __
Number ,

4.,..&5fe

INTRODUCTION

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND 01 BB

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH

LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED

NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER's SONS

TORONTO: THE WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY

INTRODUCTION

J

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.

AUTHOR OB-
A COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS
ETC. ETC.

EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE SJREET

1895

THIS WOEK
IS DEDICATED TO

MY WIFE,

WHO HAS TJNWEAFJEDLY ASSISTED ME
IN THIS AND IN ALL MY OTHEK LITERARY LABOURS

PREFACE

This Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels completes a
series of Introductions to the books of the New Testament,
in the preparation of which I have been engaged for a
quarter of a century. The Introduction to the Acts of the
Apostles, with a commentary, was pubHshed in 1870; the
Introduction to the Thirteen Pauline Epistles, along with
the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, in 1874; the
Introduction to the Seven Catholic Epistles in 1887 ; the
Introduction to the Johannine Writings, especially the Fourth
Gospel and the Apiocalypse, in 1891 ; and now the Intro-
duction to the Synoptic Gospels in 1895. The design of
these Introductions was not to give any explanation of or com-
mentary on the sacred text (that to the Acts of the Apostles
forming an exception), but to examine the genuineness of
the writings, their authorship, the readers to whom they were
primarily addressed, their design, their sources, — especially the
sources of the historical books, — the language in which they
were written, their peculiar style and diction, their charac-
teristic features, the integrity of the text, the time when
and the place where they were written, and their contents,
in short, all that is necessary for their full understanding
and intelligent perusal.

Several controversial points have been discussed in all
these Introductions ; but none of them has presented so
many difficulties and perplexities as this Introduction to the
Synoptic Gospels. Critical controversy and inquiry have, in
recent years, in a great measure passed from the investigation
of the Pauline Epistles, to which they were directed by the

VUl PREFACE

ingenious investigations of Baur and the Tubingen school con-
cerning Petrine and Pauline Christianity, and from the import-
ant question concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
which recent discoveries of patristic documents and a more
rigid examination of the writings of the Fathers have in
a great measure settled, to the great problems connected
with the origin and sources of the Synoptic Gospels. I do
not allude to the mythical theory promulgated by Strauss,
which, at least in its original form, may now be regarded as
antiquated, but to the question whence the Synoptists
derived their information, and to the causes of the remarkable
coincidences and equally remarkable differences which are
found in their writings. This so-called " Synoptic problem "
is one of the great disputed questions in the biblical
criticism of the present day. In this Introduction I have
discussed it at considerable length, first giving the most im-
portant theories that have been advanced, and then stating
what I consider the most probable approaches to the truth.
I am very far from supposing that I have arrived at any
satisfactory conclusion, and am perfectly aware of the objec-
tions to which the theory advanced is exposed, and to which I
can only give an imperfect answer : all that I have been able
to do is to state what appear to me to be the most probable
results of the inquiry. The complete solution of the
problem is, I fear, for the present unattainable.

Another (question, about which it is still impossible to
pronounce an opinion with confidence, has regard to the
original language of the Gospel of Matthew. Here the
external and internal evidences confiict. Dean Alford
observes : " I find myself constrained to abandon the view
maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek
original." My experience has been precisely the reverse. At
first, giving weight to tlie internal evidence, I considered that
this Gospel was originally written in Greek, and could not
have been a translation ; but, owing to the overwhelming
weight of the external evidence, as seen in the unanimous and
unopposed testimony of the Fathers, I have been led to change
that opinion, and now consider the hypothesis of a Hebrew or
Aramaic original as upon the whole the more probable ; unless,

PEEFACE IX

indeed, the hypothesis be adopted that there were two originals
written by Matthew, the one in Hebrew and the other in Greek.

With regard to two other points of much difficulty, I have
come to the conclusion, in opposition, it must be confessed, to
some of our greatest biblical scholars, that the last verses of
Mark's Gospel (xvi. 9—20) are genuine and formed an
original portion of that Gospel ; and that the variations in
our Lord's genealogies, as given in the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke, can only be accounted for on the supposition that
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke that of Mary.

It is, I trust, wholly unnecessary to say that in this work
I have endeavoured to exercise strict impartiality. I have
practised that candour which I have so strongly recommended
as an indispensable qualification in all interpreters of Scrip-
ture. I am not conscious of having given undue preference
to any preconceived opinions or traditional views. On the
contrary, I have been led in the course of my investigations to
modify and alter several of my former views, although, I con-
fess, with some reluctance, and only after careful and repeated
examination. A notable instance of this may be seen in the
view maintained in this Introduction of the origin of the
" Sermon on the Mount." Certainly the opinion, that this
was one connected discourse delivered at one time, is that
which a perusal of it in the Gospel of Matthew most
naturally suggests ; but I have been led to think that whilst
a large portion of it was delivered on a single occasion, yet
other sayings of our Lord, given at different times and on
different occasions, were added by the Evangelist, as is
suggested by the fact that the same statements are found
in different portions of the Gospel of Luke, and there
mentioned in their historical connection.

This Introduction may be regarded by different classes of
readers from different points of view. Some may look upon
it as too conservative, and as not making proper allowance
for those advanced critical views which are now so prevalent ;
while others may regard it as too rationalistic, yielding too
much to the views of those who are considered by many as
deniers of inspiration. All that I can say is that I have
endeavoured to be honest to my own convictions.

X PREFACE

111 recent years great progress has been made in the text
and criticism of the New Testament, and new light has in conse-
quence been cast on many controverted problems. Manu-
scripts and versions have been carefully collated, and the
various readings compared. We have now a more certain
text : the additions to the original, inserted in the tcxtus
rcccptus, are now removed, and omissions are now supplied.
The result is that we have now obtained a text almost
approaching to a restoration of the original. Of course,
the readings of the oldest and uncial manuscripts still
occupy the first place, but more attention has recently been
paid to the cursive manuscripts and to the readings of the
versions, especially the Old Italic and Syriac, which have
perhaps hitherto been too much undervalued, seeing that they
were made from Greek manuscripts much older than any
which we now possess. A more accurate scholarship is now
applied to the elucidation of Scripture ; and the peculiar
character of the dialect of New Testament Greek is now
better understood. In the Eevised Version, whatever may be
its defects, we have undoubtedly a much better translation
than in the Authorised Version.

Within the last half century there have been several
discoveries of remarkable manuscripts, which have had an
important bearing upon various questions connected with
biblical criticism, especially upon the genuineness and age of
the different scriptural books. The Philosophoumena, or
Refutation of all Heresies, by Hippolytus, in whicli the
references of the early Gnostics to the books of the New
Testament are quoted, was discovered at ]\Iount Athos in
1841, and printed by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, in 1851.
A complete manuscript of the Clementine Homilies was
found in the Vatican by Dressel in 18. 'J 7, and published at
Gottingen in 1853. In 1858, Canon Cureton published a
Syriac manuscript containing fragments of tlie Gospels, found
by Archdeacon Tattam in a Syriac monastery in the Nitzian
desert in Egypt, and which is now regarded by many as
tlie oldest Syriac version. This version was last year
nearly completed by the important discovery of the Sinaitic
Syriac manuscript l)y ]\Irs. Lewis, if the supposition be

PREFACE xi

correct that it is a variant copy of the Curetonian. The
important Sinaitic manuscript, being, next to the Vatican, the
oldest in existence, and materially affecting the reading of the
received text, discovered by Tischendorf in the monastery of
St. Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1859, was published in 1862.
A complete copy of the Epistle of Barnabas, hitherto imper-
fect, was attached to the Sinaitic manuscript, and another
copy was among the documents discovered by Bryennios.
But, next to the Codex Sinaiticus, the most important of all
these discoveries is the Diatessaron of Tatian. A translation
in the Armenian language of Ephra?m's commentary on that
work was found in the Armenian convent at Venice, and was
printed in that city in 1836 ; a Latin translation was pub-
lished in 1876, from which it was proved beyond the
possibility of doubt that Tatian's Harmony was made up of
the four canonical Gospels ; and only a few years ago another
manuscript was found by Professor Ciasca in the Vatican
Library containing an Arabic translation of the whole work.
Another very important document, the " Didache," or the
" Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," was discovered by
Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the Jeru-
salem convent in Constantinople, and published in 1883,
which is considered by competent authorities to have been
written about the close of the first century and to be the
oldest post-apostolic document extant, except the Epistle of
Clemens Eomanus, and possibly the so-called Epistle of
Barnabas. Bound in the same volume with the Didache was
the only complete manuscript of the famous Epistle of
Clemens Romanus, the copy in the Codex Alexandrinus
being defective at the close. In 1889, J. Ptcndel Harris of
Cambridge discovered in the monastery of Mount Sinai the
Apology of Aristides to the Emperor Hadrian. A very
important fragment of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter,
found in a tomb at Akhman, in Upper Egypt, by the French
Archaeological Mission at Cairo in 1886, was published in
1892. And only last year the discovery of an important
Syriac version of the four Gospels was made by Mrs. Lewis
in that Sinaitic monastery which has yielded so many
important biblical manuscripts. These documents have l^een

Xll PKKFACE

discovered in different quarters — the Sinuitic manuscript and
the new Sinaitic Syrian version in the monastery of St.
Catherine, Mount Sinai ; Ephnem's commentary on the
Diatessaron in the Armenian convent at Venice ; the Arabic
version of Tatian, partly in Egypt and partly in liome ;
the riiilosophoumeua of Hippolytus in Mount Athos ; the
Didache, and the complete copy of the Epistle of Clemens
liomanus, in Constantinople ; and the fragment of the Gospel
of Peter in Egypt. The Vatican Library has also yielded
many important treasures.

These recent discoveries of biblical documents fill us with
the hope of still more important discoveries in the future,
when the libraries of the monasteries shall have been more care-
fully examined by competent scholars. The discovery of the
writings of Papias, of the Grospel of the Hebrews, and of the
Gospel of Marcion would be an enormous gain to biblical criti-
cism, and might elucidate many unsolved problems ; and who,
viewing the past discoveries so unexpectedly made, can affirm
that such discoveries may not be within the bounds of prob-
ability ? At the same time, we do not beheve that such
discoveries will materially affect the main conclusions already
arrived at, but rather that they will elucidate questions which
still remain unsolved or doubtful.

The present work forms a companion volume to the
other Introductions formerly published, and completes the
series of Introductions to the New Testament. The scriptural
(J notations are taken from the Eevised Version, except on
tliose rare occasions when the Authorised Version or an inde-
pendent translation appears preferable. The patristic quota-
tions are taken from Kirchhofer's Quelloisammlung zur
Geachichte dcs 7ieutcs(aiiicn( lichen Canons. Appendices are
attached, referring to certain special difficulties and disputed
points which seem to require special discussion.

A list of the most important books read or consulted is
appended at the end of this work, with references to the
editions in my possession, so that tlu^ ([notations made from
tluou may l)e referred to and verified. A vast amount of
literature lias been collected around the Syno]itic prol)lem,
and the nu)st important works on the sul)ject have ])een care-

PiiEFACE xiii

fully read whenever they could be obtained. It would, of
course, be an endless task to refer to periodical literature on
the subject, but I may mention several important articles
which appeared in the Expositor for 1891. As in almost all
theological discussions, we must betake ourselves to the great
German theologians, whose works on the Synoptic problem
have been carefully studied. Of these, I would especially
mention the works of Holtzmann, Weiss, Wendt, and Paul
Ewald. Of English theologians, the researches of Professor
Sanday of Oxford on the Synoptic question call for special
notice. They are distinguished alike by patience, caution,
and logical acumen, and in point of learning and exhaustive
investigation are unsurpassed by the above German theolo-
gians. It would not be right to omit special reference to
the Introductions of the venerable Dr. Samuel Davidson,
however much we may dissent from his conclusions. His
two Introductions, — that entitled Introduction to the Nao
Testament, published in 1848, and that entitled Introduction
to the Study of the New Testament, published in 1868, the
third edition of which appeared last year (1894), when the
author was in his eighty-eighth year, — though written from
different standpoints, are most valuable, and exhibit a learn-
ing and research seldom equalled by any biblical critic in our
country. I have found several commentaries very helpful,
especially those of Meyer, Godet, and the late Dr. Morison,
whose commentaries on ]\Iatthew and Mark are deserving of
careful study. Several monographs on particular subjects
have also to be mentioned, from which I have derived con-
siderable assistance, as that of Dean Burgon on The Last Ttoelve
Verses of St. Mark, Bishop Hervey on the Genealogies of
our lord, Eesch's Agiripha, and Zumpt's Das Gehurtsjahr
Christi. The value of Eushbrooke's Synopticon is acknow-
ledged in the body of the work.

Last year (1894) I wrote six articles in the Thinker on
the Synoptic problem. These, with the kind permission of
the editor, the Eev. Joseph Exell, I have freely used in
writing this work : they have, however, been rewritten and
much altered both by additions and omissions.

It is my pleasing duty to acknowledge my obligations to

XIV PREFACE

several friends who have kmclly assisted me in this work —
to the Rev. William Hastie, D.D., Professor of Divinity in
the University of Glasgow, and to my brother, Lord Kin-
cairney, for perusing the manuscript before the work went
to press, and for valuable hints and suggestions ; and to the
llev. David Hunter, D.D., of Galashiels, and the Eev. John
Patrick, D.D., of Greenside, Edinburgh, for the verification of
my references, and assistance in the correction of the press.

CONTENTS

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Literature. I. The Title : Synoptic Gospels — Use of the term
Gospel — Difl'erence between the Synoptics and the Fourth
Gospel — Number of the Gospels — Uncanonical Gospels — Frag-
mentary nature of the Gospels. II. Authors of the Synoptic
Gospels — Evangelical Symbols. III. Genuineness of the Synoptic
Gospels — The Testimony of the Fathers — The Gospel of Peter
— The Muratorian Canon — Tatian's Diatessaron — Testimony of
Justin Martyr — Statement of Papias — Versions — The Old Latin
■ — The Syriac — Credibility of the Narrative. IV. Relation of the
Sj'noptic Gospels to each other — Points of Agreement — Rush-
brook's Synoptico7i — The Threefold Narrative — The Twofold
Narrative — -'The Single Narrative — Summary of Resemblances —
Existence of Doublets — Points of Difterence — Narrative of the
Birtli of Christ — The Sei-mon on the Mount as given by Matthew
and Luke — The Passion — The Resurrection — ChronologicalOrder.
V. Sources of the Synojitic Gospels — The Problem stated :
A. The theory of Mutual Dependence — The originality of Mark
— Relation of Matthew and Luke to Mark — Relation of Luke to
Matthew ; B. The theory of an Oral Gospel — Wright's hypo-
thesis of Catechetical Schools — Modification of this theory by
Alford ; C. The theory of an original Document or Documents
— Modification of this theory by Eichhorn, Bishop Marsh,
Schleiermacher, Ewald, Abbott, and Smith of Jordanhill — Sup-
position of an Aramaic or Hebrew Document ; D. The theory
of two Documents — Nature of this theory — Statement of Pajiias
— Meaning of the term Logia used by him — Modification of this
theory by Holtzmann, Weiss, Wendt, Resch, and Sanday — Result
of this Discussion. VI. Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels —
Critical Ajjparatus — Editions of the Greek Text — The Revised
Version — Necessity of Candour — Acquaintance with the times
of Christ — Nature of Inspiration — Alleged discrepancies in the

\

XVI CONTENTS

Gospels — Instance of the Blind Man at Jericho — Sympathy
between the Reader and the "Writings — Sjnritual Discernment —
Teaching of the Synoptics compared with that of the other New <
Testament Writings — Distinctive peculiarities of the Synoptics. J
VII. Harmony of the Synoptics, ......

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Literature. I. Genuineness of the Gosjael — External Evidence —
Internal Evidence— B}' whom disputed — Examination of Objec-
tions. II. The Author of the Gospel — Notices of Matthew in
Scripture — Supposed distinction between ilatthew and Levi —
Notices of Matthew in Ecclesiastical History. III. Sources of
the Gosijel — Three Sources stated : Personal Observation, Oral
Tradition, W^ritten Documents. IV. The Design of the Gospel
— Written for Jewish Christians — Proofs of the Messiahshij) of
Jesus. V. Original Language of the Gospel — Difficulty of this
Subject — Theory of a Hebrew Original — External Evidence in
favour of it — t'^niform Testimonj- of the Fathers — This Evi-
dence disputed — Internal Evidence against a Hebrew Original
— The Greek Text not a Translation — Translation of Aramaic
expressions — Identity of Greek expressions in Matthew with
those in the other Synoptic Gospels — Hypothesis of two original
Gosjiels, the one Hel)rew and the other Greek — Opinions of
Critics. The Gospel according to the Hebrews^An inter-
polated Gospel of Matthew — Additions found in it — Language
of Judtea in the Days of Christ — Style and Diction of Matthew.
VI. Integrity of the Gospel : 1. Narrative of our Lord's Birth,
"^latt. i.-ii. — Evidence in its favour — Objections to it — The Visit of
the Magi — The Slaughter of the Infants of Bethlehem — Apjiarent
discrepancies witli St. Luke's Narrative — Chronological order of
events ; 2. Doxology to our Lord's Prayer. VII. Date of the
( rospel — Different Opinions — The early Date before a.d. 60 —
The later Date after a.d. 60 — Reconciliation of these two Dates
— Place of Composition. VIII. Contents of the Gosjiel — Disser-
tation : Quotations from the Old Testament. List of Quotations
— Use of the Septuagint — Formuhe and Modes of Quotation —
Examination of some difficult Passages : 1. Matt. ii. 15, "Out of
Egypt have I called my sou" ; 2. Matt. ii. 17, 18, Slaughter of
the Infants of Bethlehem — In what sense the Prophec\' of Jere-
miah is applicable to that event ; 3. Matt. ii. 23, "He shall be
called a Nazarene" — Different explanations : a lost Projihecy, a
despised Person, a Nazarite, the Brancli (Nazir) ; 4. Matt, xxvii.
9, 10, "The word spoken by Jeremiali the projihet" — The quota-
tion from Zech. xi. 12, 13 — Different explanations : in the
original Jeremiah omitted ; a lost Propliecy ; Zech. ix.-xi. consti-
tuted a part of Jeremiah; Jeremiah the first Book of the Pro-

V

CONTENTS XVll

etical Division ; the quotation from Jereniiali ; a quotation
■m two Prophets ; designed to show the unity of Prophecy ;
iiistake of the Author ; a mistake of the Copyist, . . 90-166

THE GOSPEL OF MAEK.

erature. I. Genuineness of the Gospel — External Evidence —
Internal Evidence — By whom disputed — Examination of Oljjec-
tions. II. The Author of the Gospel — Notices of Mark in Scrip-
ture : Supposition of two Marks ; the one the Disciple of Paul,
the other the Disciple of Peter — Supposed to be the young man
who followed Christ (Mark xiv. 51, 52) — Notices of Mark in
Ecclesiastical History. III. Sources of Mark's Gospel — Nega-
tively, not the Gospels of Matthew and Luke — Positively, the
Preaching of Peter — Statements of the Fathers — Connection
Ijetween Mark and Peter — Meaning of expression " Interpreter
of Peter." IV. Design of Mark's Gospel— Written for Gentile
Christians. V. Language of Mark's Gospel — Greek the original
Language — Style and Diction — Quotations from the Old Testa-
ment—Characteristics of Mark's Gospel : its brevity, vividness,
realistic character. VI. Integrity of the Gospel— Genuineness
of Mark xvi. 9-20 — By whom disputed and defended — The
External Evidence against and for its genuineness — Internal
Evidence against and for its genuineness — On the abrupt Con-
clusion — Result arrived at — Opinions of Critics. VII. Time and
Place of Writing — Conflicting Opinions of the Fathers— Written
before the Destruction of Jerusalem — Probaljle Date — Place of
Composition — Probably Ca^sarea. VIII. Contents of the Gospel
—List of Miracles and Parables, . . . . . . 167-2,08

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

Literature. I. Genuineness of the Gospel — Testimonies of the
Fathers — Argument drawn from the Acts of the Apostles —
Statement of Objections : 1. An amplification of the Gospel of
Marcion — Views of Marcion — The Gospel of Marcion — Its rela-
tion to the Gospel of Luke— A mutilation of it ; 2. Luke's
Gospel, the work of an Elnonite. II. The Author of the Gospel
— Notices of Luke in Scripture and in Ecclesiastical History —
—Connection between Luke and Paul. III. Sources of Luke's
Gospel— The Preface (Luke i. 1-4) : 1. Oral Tradition ; 2. Written
Documents— Relation of Luke to Matthew and Mark. IV. Design
of Luke's Gospel— Addressed to Theophilus— Written for Gen-
tile Converts. V. Language of Luke's Gospel — Purity of the
Greek Style and Diction. VI. Characteristics of Luke's Gospel
—Its universality— The Gospel of the Humanity of Christ-
Prominence given to Women — Contrasts in Luke's Gospel —
Spiritual Songs— Value of Luke's Gospel. VII. Integrity of

XVlll CONTENTS

PAGE

Luke's Gospel : 1. Tlie Narrative of our Lord's Birth, Luke i.-ii. ;
2. Different Readings of Luke ii. 14 ; 3. The Lord's Prayer,
Luke xi. 2-4 ; 4. The Bloodj^ Sweat, Luke xxii. 43, 44 — Evi-
dence for and against its genuineness. VIIL Time and Place
of Writing — Date inferred from tlie Acts of the Apostles — Sup-
posed to he written after the Destruction of Jerusalem — Place
of Composition. IX. Contents of the Gospel — List of Parables
and Miracles — Dissertation I. : Tlie Genealogies. Literature on
the subject — Points of Agreement and Difference between the
Genealogies of Matthew and Luke — The Sinaitic Palimpsest of
Mrs. Lewis — Its bearing on the Genealogies — Its importance
overestimated — The Genealogical Lists — Peculiarities in Mat-
thew's Genealogy — Genealogy from Salmon to David — Omission
of three Kings — Omission of Jehoiakim — The threefold Division
of Matthew's Genealogy — The Genealogy in Luke's Gospel —
On Shealtiel and Zerubbabel — Three theories of Reconcilia-
tion of the two Genealogies : 1. The hypothesis of a Levirate
Marriage — Statement of Julius Africanus ; 2. The hypothesis
that both are the Genealogy of Joseph — No Evidence from this
that Jesus is the Son of David — On the Davidic Descent of
Christ ; 3. The hypothesis that Matthew gives the Descent of
Joseph and Luke the Descent of Mary — Critical Interjiretation
of Luke iii. 23 — Conclusion arrived at — Genealogy among the
Jews. Dissertation II. : The Census of Quirinius : Luke ii. 1, 2.
Literature on the subject- — Critical remarks — On the Census
of the Roman Empire — Different methods of Chronology — The
Census emljraced Judaea — Date of our Lord's Birth — Herod
alive when Christ was born — ^The Census of Quirinius — State-
ment of Josephus in conflict with Luke — Different solutions :
1. Conjectural emcnidations ; 2. The enrolment was made l)efore
Quirinius was Governor ; 3. Completed l)y Quirinius ; 4. Quir-
inius an extraordinary commissioner ; 5. Called by his well-
known official name — Investigations of Zumpt — Quirinius was
twice Governor of Syria — Arguments in support of this fact —
Sepulchral Inscription found at Tivoli — Results of the Investi-
gation, 208-284

ERRATA.

Page 1, 1. 12, /or 1862 read 1802.
„ 6, 1. 24, for Synoptists read Synoptics.
„ 15, 1. 15, for imcanonised read uncanonical.
„ 4G, last line, /or Mark read Mattlu-w.
„ 51, 1. 4, /or beforehand read before him.
,, 53, 1. 20, for consistencies read coincidences.
„ 55, 1. 11, for Gusj)el read (Jospels.
„ 72, 1. 11, for collected read collated.
„ 280, hist line, omit (Dionysian era, n.c. 14).

THE SYKOPTIC GOSPELS.

GENEEAL INTRODUCTION.

Literature. — The Literature on the Synoptic Gospels, taken
conjointly, is very extensive, as the subject has of late
attracted much attention in this country, in Germany, and in
America.

The Genuineness of the Synoptic Gospels is treated in the
special sections in the Introductions to the New Testament.
The most important of these by German critics are those of
Bleek (translated 1869; the last German edition much
altered by Mangold, 1886), Credner, De Wette, Eichhorn,
Guericke, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Hug (translated 1827),
Michaelis (translated by Bishop Marsh, with valuable notes
and dissertations, 1802), Eeuss (translated 1884), Weiss
(translated 1887). Of works by English critics may be
mentioned Alford's Prolegomena to his Greek Testament ; the
two very different Introductions of Dr. Samuel Davidson, the
one entitled Introduction to the Nevj Testament (1848), and the
other Introditction to the Study of the Nevj Testament (1868;
third edition 1894); Dod's Introductioyi to the Netv Testament,
1888; Home's Introduction to the Scriptures, with additions
by Davidson and Tregelles, 1874; M'Clymont's The New
Testament and its Writers, London, 1893 ; and Salmon's In-
troduction to the New Testament, 1885. To these have to be
added Professor Sanday's Gospels of the Second Century, 1876 ;
Westcott's Canon of the New Testament, 1860 ; and Andrews
Norton's (of Harvard University) Evidences of the Genuine-
ness of the Gospels, 1847. Jones On the Canon, Lardner's

2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Credibility, Kirchhofer's Qitellensammlunff, and Charteris'
Ganonicity, contain the references to the Synoptic Gospels in
the writings of the early Fathers. The special references in
the works of Justin Martyr are discussed at considerable
length by Purves in his Testimony of Justin Martyr to early
Christianity (New York, 1888), and Sadler in his Lost Gospel
(London, 1876). Tischendorf's tractate, Wann vnirden unsere
Evangellen verfasst ? (4th ed. 186G ; translated 1867) has never
been refuted.

The important question as to the origin of the Synoptic
Gospels has been much discussed during the latter half of this
century, and at no period more so than in the present day.
The following are the most important works on this sub-
ject, given alphabetically : the article on the Gospels by
Dr. Abbott in the Encyclopaedia Britannica; Baur's Marcus-
evangelium, 1881 ; Badham on the Formation of the Gospels,
London, 1892; Bleek's Synoptische Erkldrung der drei ersten
Evangelien (Leipzig, 1862); Eichhorn's theory is contained in
his Einlcitung in das N.T., and the remarks on it by Bishop
Marsh in his translation of Michaelis' Introduction ; Paul
Ewald's Hauptprohlem der Evangelienfrage (Leipzig, 1890);
Ewald's Die drei ersten Evangelien, 1871; Gieseler's Historisch-
kritischer Versuch iiber die Entstehung und die friihesten Schick-
sale der schriftlichen Evangelien (Leipzig, 1818); Godet, "The
Origin of the Four Gospels," in his Studies in the N.T.
1873; Holtzmann's Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863;
Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschicht-
lichen Bedeutung, 1854; Jolley, The Synoptic Problem for
English Readers (London, 1893); Keim's Jesus of Nazara
(translated 1876-1883); Morison's Commentary on St.
Mark's Gospel (3rd ed. London, 1882); Norton's GeMuine-
ness of the Gospels, already adverted to ; Eesch, Agrapha :
ausserkanonische Evangclienfragmente, 1893; Koberts, Language
of Christ and His Apostles, 1888; Sabatier's Sources
de la Vie de Jesus, Paris, 1866 ; Schenkel's Das Char-
akterbild Jesu (1864; translated 1869); Sclileiermacher's
St. Luke, especially tlie introduction to it by the translator,
Bishop Thirlwall (London, 1828) ; Scholten's Das dltestc Evan-
gclium, 1869; Smith's Dissertation on the (rospc/s, Edinburgh,

)

THE TITLE : SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, 3

1853 ; the Introduction to the Gospels in the Speakers Com-
mentary, by Archbishop Thomson, and his article on the
Gospels in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (in the new edition
there is a valuable supplement to that article by Professor
Sanday) ; Volkmar's Marcus und die Synopse der Evangelien,
1876; Weiss, Das Marcus Evangelium tmd seine Synoptisehe
Parallelen, 1872 ; Wendt, Evangel. Quellenherichte ilber die
Lehre Jesu, 1886 ; Weizsacker, Untersttchungen uber die
evangelische Geschichte, 1864, and his Apostolisches Zeitalter,
1890, now translated 1894 ; Wright's Composition of the Four
Gospels, London, 1890. Besides these, there are many im-
portant articles on the origin of the Synoptic Gospels by Dr.
Sanday, Professor Marshall, and others in the Exjwsitor,
fourth series, vol. iii. The subject is also discussed by
Dr. Schaff in his History of the Christian CMcreh (vol. i,
pp. 575-612). To these also is to be added Eushbrooke's
Synopticon ; or an Exposition of the common matter in the
Synoptic Gospels, where the matter common to the three
Gospels and the matter common to two of them are so
distinctly indicated by different types and colours as to be
recognised at a glance. Other important works will be
mentioned in the course of this Introduction.

A list of the chief Harmonies of the Gospel will be given
when the Harmony of the Synoptics is discussed.

I. The Title: Synoptic Gospels.

The word Gospel is a translation of the Greek evayyeXiov.
It probably came into use through Wicklif's translation. It is
a contraction for Godspel, God's word, or more probably for
Goodspel, good news (from spellian, to tell). The English
version is the only European one in which the Greek word is
translated ; in other modern languages it is reproduced after
the modified form of the Latin evangelium, as in German
Evangelium, in French cvangile, in Italian evangelo, etc.
EvajyeXiov, as used in the New Testament, is correctly
rendered good neivs, and primarily denotes a good message ;
hence the glad tidings of salvation announced to the world in
connection with Jesus Christ. Thus the angel on the plain

4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

of Bethlehem proclaimed : " Behold, I bring you good tidings
(evayyeXl^ofiai,) of great joy" (Luke ii. 10). Hence the usual
phrase, " the Gospel of Jesus Christ " ; because Christ was the
subject of these good news. Taken in a general sense, the
word came to denote the whole revelation of salvation by
Christ. Thus Paul speaks of " my gospel " (2 Tim. ii. 8), that
is, the system of salvation which he preached. It was only at
a later period that the term came to be applied to a written
record, and especially to denote the record of the sayings and
doings of Christ, as in its application to the four historical
Lives of Christ whicli form our canonical Gospels. We have a
trace of this application in the introductory words to St. Mark's
Gospel : " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ " {o-pxh
rov evayyeXiov 'Irjaov Xptarov, Mark i. 1), where perhaps the
evangelist entitles his work a Gospel. In the writings of
Justin Martyr we have the first undoubted use of the term
in this sense : " For the apostles," he observes, " in the
memoirs composed by them which we call Gospels, have thus
declared." ^

The superscriptions to the Gospels in the manuscripts of
the Greek Testament are : evayyeXiov Kara MarOalov, Kara
MdpKov, Kara Aovkuv, Kara 'Iwdvvrjv} We cannot tell when
these titles were affixed to our Gospels ; but as these titles are
all similar, it is probable that it was not until they were
collected together in a volume. The force of the preposition
Kara has been variously explained. It may denote that the
traditions collected by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, i.e.
their oral teaching, were committed to writing or edited by
others, so that, according to this view, these evangelists were
only the indirect authors of their Gospels. It is thus under-
stood by Credner ^ and others. But the general testimony of
the Fathers is opposed to this meaning of the preposition ; for

^ A2)ol. i. G6 : o/ yeip aTroVroXo/ ev roi; yivof/.iuot; vtt uvtojv oi'Trou.VYif/.oviv-
f^xaiv (86 KXhiirui iiioc/yi'htu. ovto; TupeOUKXv. Kai'lior ilistiUlces tit the use
of the term are found in the Didache, and in tlie Ejji.stle of Ignatius
to the Philadelphians, v.

2 The important codices k and B have simply x.ut» 'Mmrdctiov, etc.

3 Einleitmuj, § 89, note. De Wette observes : " The titles jcxtx. 'M»r6»io»,
etc., do not definitely indicate these men as their authors ; but the ojjinion
of all anticpiity attests the commonly accepted sense." Einlcit uiuj, § 78.

THE TITLE: SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 5

the evangelists are always regarded as the direct authors of their
Gospels. The oneness of the Gospels is implied by the use of
the preposition instead of the genitive.^ There are not, strictly
speaking, four Gospels, but one given in four different forms ;
the Gospel not o/, but according to Matthew, the Gospel
according to Mark, etc.

The term sy7i02')tic is a recent critical designation. As the
adjective from Synopsis (which is compounded of avv and o-^c'i,
parallel to the Latin conspectus), it denotes that in these Gospels
we have a narrative of the life of Christ which may be arranged
into sections, so as to afford us a general view or conspectus of
His sayings and doings. The term is used to distinguish the first
three Gospels from the fourth, which is more concerned with
the discourses than with the actions of Christ. It is com-
paratively modern,- and does not occur in the writings of
the Fathers.

The specific difference between the Synoptic Gospels and
the Fourth Gospel is obvious. It is not necessary to enter
upon it here in detail, as it has already been fully discussed
in a former Introduction.^ We would only notice four points
of difference. 1. They differ in regard to the locality of the
events narrated. In the Synoptics the scene of our Lord's
ministry is chiefly laid in Galilee. Until the period of His
last sufferings there is little mention of Judaea, and we would
hardly have known that He frequently visited that country.^
On the other hand, in John's Gospel the scene is chiefly laid
in Judsea. The visits of Christ to Jerusalem at the great
annual feasts, His conversation with the Jews on these occa-
sions, and the miracles which He then performed, form the
chief contents of that Gospel ; whilst His ministry in Galilee
is seldom, and only incidentally, alluded to.^ 2. They appar-

^ TO iiimyyihiov rirpoe,f^op(pov, Ireiiseus.

2 According to Archdeacon Farrar, it was brought into general use by
Griesbach. See also Holtzniann's Einleitung, p. 370.

3 Gloag's Introduction to the Jolmnnine JFritiwjs, i)p. 130-147.

* Luke ix. 41 would seem to intimate a journey to Jerusalem in the
middle of His ministry : it may, however, allude by anticipation to His
last journey.

5 Allusions to a Galilean ministry in John's Gospel are found in John
ii. 12, vi. 1, 4, 59, vii. 1.

6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

ently differ as to the duration of Christ's ministry. In the
Synoptics our Lord's ministry would seem to be comprised
within the short space of one year. There is mention only of
one visit to Jerusalem, at the Passover when He suffered ; and
nothing would lead us to suppose that three Passovers occurred
during the course of His ministry. Whereas in John's Gospel
three Passovers are recorded/ so that His ministry must have
extended over two or three years. 3. They differ in the events
narrated. There is little in common between the facts and
discourses recorded in the Synoptics and those recorded in the
Fourth Gospel. Excluding the narrative of our Lord's last
visit to Jerusalem when He suffered, and tlie narrative of His
resurrection, there are only three incidents which John relates
in common with the other evangelists — the miraculous feeding
of the multitude, the walking on the Sea of Galilee, and the
anointing by Mary the sister of Lazarus. The miraculous birth
of Christ, His baptism and temptation, the transfiguration, the
institution of the Supper, the agony of Gethsemane, narrated
by the Synoptists, are omitted in John's Gospel ; whilst the
cure of the man who was born blind, the healing of the
impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, and the resurrection
of Lazarus, mentioned by John, are omitted by the Synoptists.
4. They differ in the character of the teaching or discourses of
Jesus. In the Synoptists the discourses of our Lord are
chiefly given in parables : His teaching is brought down to the
comprehension of the multitude. On the other ?iand, in the
Fourth Gospel this mode of instruction is entirely \wanting,
except where there is an approach to it in the allegories of the
Good Shepherd and of the Vine and its branches : the dis-
courses are for the most part of a subjective and mystical
character, relating to the deep things of God. These differ-
ences have been variously accounted for, and reasons have
been assigned for them ; but still tliey notably exist, and are
sufficient to justify the distinction which has been made
between the Fourth Gospel and the other three.

The Fathers have always recognised only four Gospels,
namely, the three Synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and
the Fourth Gospel, that of John. Thus Irenjeus, in a well-
^ John ii. 13, vi. 3, 4, xii. 1.

THE TITLE : SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 7

known passage, observes : " Since there are four regions of the
world in which we live, and four principal winds, and since
the Church is spread over all the world, and the gospel is the
pillar and ground of the Church, it is fitting that it should
have four pillars breathing out immortality and imparting life
to men. From which it is evident the Word, the Creator
of all men, and who sitteth above the cherubim, and is the
Sustainer of all, has given us the gospel under four aspects,
but bound together by one Spirit." ^ We have nothing to do
with the fanciful illustrations of Irenajus, but only with the
fact which he attests, that there are four Gospels, neither
more nor less. These Gospels he afterwards declares to be
those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. No other Gospel
was admitted among the sacred books of the early Christians :
neither in the writings of the Fathers, nor in the manuscripts
of the New Testament, is any other Gospel mentioned as
having received the authority and sanction of the Church.
Thus Clemens Alexandrinus, when referring to a passage
taken from an apocryphal Gospel, says : " We do not find
this statement in the four Gospels that have been handed
down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians." -

But although there were only four Gospels received as
of any authority by the Church at the close of the second
century, namely, those which we now possess, yet numbers of
non-canonical Gospels were written and disseminated chiefly
in the second century.^ Most of them are of no importance,
and are full of the most trivial and extravagant incidents.
Three may be mentioned which for certain reasons have
attained notoriety, but which, although frequently referred to
by the Fathers, were never regarded as of any authority.
The Gospel to the Hebrews (EvayyeXiov Ka6' 'E/Spaiov;)
was used by the Ebionites, Nazarenes, and other Jewish-

1 Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 11. 8 ; Charteris' Canonicitij, pp. 68, 69.
Dr. Taylor supposes that this statement of Irenaeus about the fourfold
Gospel was anticipated by Hernias, a.d. 143.

2 Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, iii. 13.

3 For a succinct account of the non-canonical Gospels, see Guericke,
Isacjocjik, pp. 225 ff. ; De Wette, EinUitung, §§ 63-74 ; translation, pp. 87-
124 ; and Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels.

8 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Christian sects. It appears to have been closely related to
the Gospel of Matthew, and will occupy our attention when
we come to the special consideration of that Gospel. The
Gospel of Marcion, an anti-Judaistic-Gnostic Gospel, con-
structed by Marcion for the propagation of his opinions, was
the subject of much controversy toward the close of the
second century, and was fiercely attacked by Tertullian.^ It
was closely related to the Gospel of Luke, which was mutilated
and corrupted by Marcion from dogmatic considerations.'^ It
will also occupy our attention when we consider the third
Gospel. The Gospel of Peter, which has recently obtained
additional interest from the discovery of an important
fragment, and which is especially valuable, as thaC frag-
ment contains an account of the trial and death of
Christ.

The four Gospels, whilst they contain an account of the
life and teaching of Christ, record only a small portion of the
events of our Lord's life. There must have been numerous
other works done by Christ, and numerous other discourses
delivered by Him, which are not recorded ; we have at best
only selected deeds and discourses narrated. St. John
expressly asserts the fragmentary nature of his Gospel :
" Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of
the disciples, which are not written in this book " (John
XX. 30; comp. John xxi. 25). When we reflect on the
fulness of such a life as that of Jesus, that He must have
been ever actively engaged in His Father's business, and ever
teaching the multitude in public and His disciples in private,
we cannot but conclude that the accounts which we possess
are of a most fragmentary nature. We have, for example,
only a few incidents of the early life of Jesus before He
attained to the age of thirty, when He entered upon His
ministry. Luke only states one incident. His converse with
the doctors in the temple (Luke ii. 41-51), when He was
about twelve years of age. And after He commenced His
pul)lic ministry, tlie C»()S])els themselves suggest the fiag-
raentary nature of their accounts. By comparing the Fourth

^ Contra Marcion.

2 Irenasiis, Adv. Ilor. i. 27. 2 ; Tcrttilliaii, Contra Marcion, iv. 2.

THE AUTHORS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 9

Gospel with the Synoptics we see what important events and
discourses they have omitted.^ In the accounts given us
there is also a want of chronological order.^ The Synoptists
do not follow the same order in the events they record ; so
that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to form a
harmony of their accounts.

II. The Authors of the Synoptic Gospels.

The authors of the Synoptic Gospels were Matthew,
Mark, and Luke ; one an apostle, the other two disciples of
the apostles. The author of the Fourth Gospel was " the
beloved disciple." They wrote for different readers, as we
shall see when we examine the Gospels seriatim. It has
been held that St. Matthew's is the Gospel for the Jews ;
St. Mark's is the Gospel for the Romans ; St. Luke's is the
Gospel for the Greeks ; St. John's is the Gospel for the
universal Church.

These Gospels have been symbolised in accordance with
the description of the cherubim in the prophecy of Ezekiel,
and of the living creatures in the Apocalypse. In Ezekiel
the cherubim are described as having each four faces — the
face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle (Ezek. i. 10);
whilst in the Apocalypse the living creatures are thus
described : " The first creature was like a lion, the second
like a calf, the third like a man, the fourth like a flying
eagle " (Rev. iv. 7). These symbols were, at a very early
period, taken to represent the Gospels, and have been
enshrined in Christian art. Irenseus thus explains theSe
evangelical symbols. The first living creature, the lion, the
symbol of strength, dominion, and royal power, represents
the Gospel of John, relating the glorious generation of Christ
from the Father, as the Word by whom all things were made.
The second living creature, the ox, the symbol of sacrifice
and priesthood, represents the Gospel of Luke, commencing

1 See Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. Prolegomena, cli. i. § v. ; Arch-
bishop Thomson in Speaker's Commentary N. T. vol. i. p. vii f . ; Westcott's
Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, jj. 20.

' See Eiclihorn's Einleitung in das N.T. § 136

10 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

with Zechariah the priest offering up a sacrifice to God.
The third Hving creature, the man, the symbol of humanity,
represents the Gospel of Matthew, proclaiming the human
birth of Christ, and commencing with His generation as a
man. The fourth living creature, the flying eagle, pointing
to the gift of the Spirit, hovering with His wings over the
Church, represents the Gospel of Mark, testifying to the
prophetic Spirit which comes from above by referring to the
prophet Isaiah.^ So that, according to Irenteus, the lion is
the symbol of John, the ox of Luke, the man of Matthew,
and the eagle of Mark. These symbols are given in a different
order by other Fathers. According to Athanasius, the man
denotes Matthew, the ox Mark, the hon Luke, and the eagle
John. Augustine assigns the lion to Matthew, the man to
Mark, the ox to Luke, and the eagle to John. The symbolism
now generally adopted and found in paintings and sculptures
is that given us by Jerome. " The first form, that of a man,"
he observes, " denotes Matthew, because he at once begins to
write of the man. The form of the lion denotes Mark, the
voice of the roaring lion in the wilderness being heard in his
Gospel. The third, that of the ox, represents Luke, who
begins with the priest Zechariah. The fourth form, that of
the eagle, represents John, who soars above as on eagle's wings,
and speaks of the divine Word." ^ These analogies are, no
doubt, fanciful, and of no importance in themselves, still
they bear upon tlie question as to the number of Gospels
regarded as canonical and authentic.

IIL Genuineness of the Synoptic Gospels.

The external aiul internal evidences accrediting each of
these Gospels will be examined when we consider them
separately. Here we take the Synoptic Gospels together as
a whole. We sliull commence with the period when they
were universally acknowledged by the Churcli, and trace the
proofs of their existence backwards as near to tlieir source
as possible. Irenieus (a.d. 180) thus mentions the four

^ IrenoQUs, Adv.Hcrr. iii. 11. 8 ; Kirchhofer's Qucllensammlu7Uf, p. 40.
2 Prulogue to liis Comment, in Ev. Matthcei.

GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 11

Gospels : " Matthew issued a written Gospel among the
Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were
preachmg at Eome, and laymg the foundation of the Church.
After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of
Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been
preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul,
recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards
John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His
breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at
Ephesus in Asia." ^ And we have already mentioned his
reference to those four Gospels in assigning to each of them
the prophetic symbols. The testimony of Irenseus is very
important, as he ministered both in the East in Proconsular
Asia, and in the West in Gaul. He was also the disciple of
Polycarp, and accordingly only one step removed from the
apostles. His testimony is corroborated by his contempo-
raries, Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian. Clemens
Alexandrinus (a.d. 190) repeatedly alludes to the four
Gospels. ■ He states that the Gospels containing the
genealogies were written first ; and that the Gospel of St.
John came last, that apostle writing at the instigation of
his friends a spiritual Gospel.^ In a passage already quoted,
he speaks of the four Gospels committed to us.^ Tertullian
(a.d. 200) is equally explicit: "Of the apostles, John and
Matthew instil faith into us, whilst of apostolic men Luke
and Mark afterwards renew it." ^

These testimonies are not only of importance as the
testimonies of these early Fathers, but as being the testi-
monies of the Churches which they represented ; so that in
Asia Minor, in Gaul, in Egypt, and in Ptoman Africa, we
have the assurance that toward the close of the second
century the four Gospels which we possess were in circula-
tion, and accepted by the whole Christian Church as authori-
tative histories of the life of Christ. In the forcible words

1 Irenaeus, Adv. Hmr. iii. 1.1; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8.

2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 14.

^ Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, iii. 13.

* Tertullian, Gontra Marcion, iv. 2 : Nobis fidem ex apostolis Joannes
et Mattlieeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant.

12 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

of Professor Norton : " About the end of the second century
the Gospels were reverenced as sacred books by a community
dispersed over the whole world, composed of men of different
nations and languages. There were, to say the least, sixty
thousand copies in existence.^ They were read in the
assemblies of Christians ; they were continually quoted and
appealed to, as of the highest authority ; their reputation
was as well established among believers from one end of the
Koman Empire to the other as it is among Christians at the
present day. The general reception of the Gospels as books
of the highest authority at the end of the second century
necessarily implies their celebrity at a much earlier period,
and the long operation of causes sufficient to produce so
remarkable a phenomenon." ^

A remarkable fragment of the so-called Gospel of Peter
has lately been brought to light. This Gospel, seldom
alluded to by the Fathers, is adverted to by Eusebius.^
He mentions among the spurious writings ascribed to Peter,
" the Gospel which bears his name." ^ He also informs us
that this Gospel is mentioned by Serapion, the bishop of
Antioch (a.d. 190), as in use in the church of Khossus in
his diocese, and that it was rejected by him on account of
the heretical doctrines which it contained. At first the
bishop permitted it to be read, because, not having seen it,
he was ignorant of its erroneous teaching ; but this having
been brought to his knowledge, he forbade its use : " Having
obtained this Gospel from others who have studied it dili-
gently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it,
whom we call Docetae, we have read it through, and find
many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the

1 Professor Norton hases tins calculation on tlie fact that at the end
of the second century there would be three millions of believers, anxious
to obtain cojiies of the Gos2)els; and supposing one copy for every fifty
Christians, this would give sixty thousand coi)ies. Tlie number is some-
what exaggerated, but it must have been very great. We have very little
information as to the cost of books in ancient times.

2 Norton, 77i,e Genuineness of the Gospcl.i, vol. i. \\ 123. See also pp.
31, 32.

^ Mentioned also by Origen, Ad Matth. xiii. 51.
* Eusebius, Hist. Ecrl. iii. 3.

GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 13

Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine which we
have pointed out to you further on."^ In 1886 a fragment
was discovered in a tomb near the town of Akhman, the
Panopolis of Strabo, in Egypt, containing an account of the
sufferings and resurrection of Christ, which has with extreme
probability been supposed to be a part of this Gospel.- It
completely agrees with the description given by Serapion,
being in general accordance with the orthodox doctrine of
Christ, but tinged with Docetism ; as, for example, it states that
when Christ hung upon the cross He was free from pain, and
that He was deserted by the Power at the moment of His
death.^ The latest date that can be assigned to it is a.d.
170, having been referred to by Serapion in a.d. 190 ; pro-
bably it belongs to the middle of the second century.^ Some
imagine that it may possibly have been one of the documents
referred to by Luke in his Gospel ; but this is extremely
improbable, as from the nature of its contents it is to be
classed among the spurious Gospels, The fragment we possess
is taken from our Gospels with several additions. The trial
of Jesus is transferred from Pilate to Herod. There are
references in it to all the Synoptic Gospels ; as, for example,
it is stated that Pilate washed his hands, which is mentioned
only in Matthew's Gospel ; that our Lord was tried before
Herod, to which Luke only alludes ; and although no incident
is recorded peculiar to Mark, yet this is accounted for by
the similarity of this Gospel to the other two. In this
fragment, then, we have a proof that the Synoptic Gospels
were current in the Church before a.d. 170.^

^ Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. vi. 12. See also Jones On the Canon, vol. i. pp.
284-290.

^ Along with this fragment of the Gospel of Peter were found portions
of tlie Book of Enoch and the Apocalypse of Peter.

^ Instead of the evangelic words, " My God, my God, why hast Thou
forsaken me 1 " the Gospel of Peter has, " My power, my power. Thou hast
left me," — ^ ^vvec[/.ig [/.ov, ^ Zvvxfug i/,ov Kot-rihitipctg f^e.

* Zahn fixes the date about a.d. 140 or 150 ; Sanday, hardly later than
the end of the first quarter of the second century ; Harnack, about a.d.
115. It has been supposed that Justin makes use of this Gospel. Sanday's
Bampton Lectures, p. 310.

* See TJie Akhman Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, by
Professor Swete, 1893 ; The Gospel according to Peter, two lectures by J.

14 GENERAL INTKODUCTION,

The next testimony to which we advert is the Mura-
torian Canon. This celebrated and valuable fragment,
mutilated both at the beginning and at the end, was dis-
covered in the Amljrosian Library in Milan, and first published
by Muratori in 1740. It professes to have been written by
a contemporary of Pius, bishop of Eome, and is therefore to
be placed about the year a.d. IGO. Its genuineness has
been generally acknowledged. Owing to its mutilation, the
first two Gospels are not named ; but there is no doubt that
the canon recognised the four Gospels, as the Gospel of Luke
is mentioned as the third, and the Gospel of John as the
fourth ; and we may therefore infer that the first and second
Gospels were mentioned in that part of the canon which is
wanting.^

Tatian (a.d. 160) is another hnportant witness to the
existence of the Synoptic Gospels in the middle of the second
century. He was, as he himself informs us, born in the land
of Assyria, and was a disciple of Justin Martyr. After the
death of Justin he fell into heresy, having adopted the errors
of the Encratites, a Gnostic sect of an ascetic natiu-e, related
to Marcion.- His Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Four
Gospels, was his great work, and was probably written before
his lapse into heresy.^ Eusebius informs us that " Tatian com-
posed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels,
to which he gave the name Diatessaron, and which is current

Ariiiitage Robinson and M. R. James ; BruchstUcke des Evamjelium und
der Ajyocalypse des Petrus, by Harnack, 1893 ; Das Evangelium des Petrus,
by Zahn, 1893 ; Gebliart, Das Evangelium und die Apocalypse Petrus ;
Schnljert, Die Composition der pseudopetrinischen Evangelien-Fragmente ;
Dr. Salmon's (of Dulilin) Introduction to the N.T., 7tli edition, Ajipendix,
Note III., The Gospel of Peter, pp. 581-589; The Ncniii- Discovered Gospel
of St. Peter, by J. Rendel Harris, 1893.

1 The fullest account of the Muratorian canon is given by Tregelles in
his " Canon Muratorianus, the earliest catalogue of the books of the New
Testament, edited with notes, and a facsimile of the MS. in the Ambrosian
Library at Milan." A transcript of it is given l)y Kirchhofer in his Quellen-
sam 111 lung, pp. 1, 2 ; l)y Westcott in his Canon of the Ncv) Testament, pp.
466-480 ; and by Dr. Charteris in his Canonicity, pp. 3-8.

2 Ireuajus, Adv. Hwr. i. 28. 1, iii. 23. 8.

3 Besides the Diatessaron, Tatian wrote an "Address to the Greeks,"
entitled, 'Yxriot.v'jv '7rp6;"E>^7.rrjetc, a work of great merit.

GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 15

with some persons even in the present day."^ And
Epiphanius says : " The Diatessaron Gospel is said to have
been composed by Tatian." - This harmony of the Gospels
was in great repute in the fifth century among the Syrian
Churches. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus (a.d. 420), informs
us that " Tatian composed the Gospel which is called the
Diatessaron, omitting the genealogies and whatever other
passages show that our Lord was born of the seed of David
according to the flesh ; " and he tells us that in his diocese
there were more than two hundred copies of it.^ Dionysius
Bar-Salibi, an Armenian bishop of the twelfth century,
informs us that Ephrsem Syrus (a.d. 370) wrote a commentary
upon it.* Its existence was called in question, and it was
asserted that Tatian's Diatessaron was not a harmony of the
four Gospels, but was to be ranked among the uncanonised
or spurious Gospels.^ This assertion has been recently proved
to be unfounded. The commentary of Ephr^em Syrus has
been discovered in an Armenian version in the Armenian
convent near Venice, in two manuscripts, bearing the date
A.D. 1195, and agreeing with what we know of Tatian's
harmony ; and a Latin translation of it by Aucher, one of the
Armenian monks, was corrected and published by Moesinger
in 1876.*" But more recently still two manuscripts have
been discovered by Professor Agostino Ciasca, the one in the
Vatican and the other in the Borgian Museum, containing
Arabic translations of the Diatessaron itself."^ A note attached

1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 29. ^ Epiphanius, Hcer. xlvi. 1.

3 Theodoret, Hcer. Fab. i. 20, ii. 158 ff. Theodoret regarded the
Diatessaron with prejudice. He says that he collected and jnit away all
the copies and substituted the Gospels of the four evangelists in their
stead. He is mistaken in asserting that Tatian purposely omitted
passages which referred to Christ being born of the seed of David.

* Assemanni, Biblioth. Orient, ii. p. 158 ff.

* Swpernatural Religion, vol. ii. p. 152 ft'.

^ Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a Sancto Ephrsemo Doctore
Syro. In Latinum translata a J. B. Aucher. Edidit Mcesinger.
Venetiis, 1876. See on the discovery of Ephrsem's commentary on
Tatian's Diatessaron two interesting articles by Professor Wace in the
Expositor for 1882, and Zalm's Tatian^s Diatessaron, p. 240 ff.

'' At the end of the Vatican MS. is written : " Here endeth by the help
of God the sacred Gospel which Tatian collected out of the four Gosisels,

16 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

to each asserts that it is Tatian's Diatessaron. A trans-
lation was published by Ciasca in 1888, based upon the two
Arabic manuscripts, accompanied by introductory explana-
tions.^ An English translation has been made by the Eev.
J. Hamlyn Hill (1894), with an important introduction and
several ap})endices.- It has also been proved that the Codex
Fuldensis, a Latin version of the New Testament belonging to
the sixth century in the form of a harmony, is probably based
on the Diatessaron.^ The importance of this discovery is very
great. There is no doubt whatever that we have here manu-
scripts of the translation of the Diatessaron ; and accordingly
it is now demonstrated that Tatian composed a harmony of
the four canonical Gospels."^ He used our Gospels only : there
is no trace of any non-canonical Gospels. The difference is
but slight between it and our Gospels : there are few addi-
tions and omissions. The most important omissions are the
genealogies of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as Theodoret
testifies, and as is found to be the case in the Borgian Arabic
manuscript.^ It is very valuable as a harmony, and, indeed,
can bear a comparison with recent harmonies.^ It is not
improbable that the Diatessaron was written, as Professor
Zahn surmises, in Syriac, and that the version which was
employed was the Curetonian version.'^ This will account for

and wliicli is commonly called the Diatessaron " ; and at the beginning of
the Borgian MS. : "With the assistance of the Most High God we begin to
translate the holy Gospel entitled the Diatessaron, which Tatian, a Greek,
compiled out of the four Gospels."

1 Tatiani Evanr/eliorum Harmonice Arabice, 1888.

2 " The earliest life of Christ ever compiled from the Four Gospels, being the
Diatessaron of Tatian, literally transcribed from the Arabic Version, and con-
tainimj the Four Gospiels woven in one story," by the Rev. J. Hamlyn Hill.
Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1894. The translation is from the Latin
translation of the Arabic versions by Ciasca compared with the Arabic.

3 See article by II. Wace in Expositor for 1881.

■• See Rendel Harris' Diatessaron of Tatian ; IlemjjhiU's Diatessaron.

5 The Vatican MS. contains the genealogies, but in the Borgian MS. they
are absent from the body of the work, and are inserted in an Appendix.

" See Hamlyn Hill's translation, and the A]ipendices attached to it. The
variations between the Diatessaron and the tiospels are wonderfully small.

^ Zahn's Tatian's Diatessaron, pp. 18, 229. Zahn, before the discovery of
the Arabic MSS., attempted a reconstruction of Tatian's works, chiefly
from Ephrajm's commentary.

GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 17

the comparative ignorance of it in the Latin and Greek
Churches, and for its use in the Syriac Churches. It was
looked upon with suspicion by the early Fathers, on account
of the heretical views of the author.^

Next in order is the important testimony of Justin
Martyr (a.d. 150). The extant works of Justin consist of
two Apologies and a dialogue with Trypho the Jew. The
Apologies were addressed to Antoninus Pius, and are assigned
to the middle of the second century. In them he speaks
frequently of the Memoirs or Memorabilia of the Apostles.
The Gospels are not named, but there are various quotations
from them ; and the incidents of our Lord's life mentioned
by Justin are in accordance with them. It is true that in
the quotations the precise words are not given ; Justin
appears to have quoted from memory ; but that is also the
case with his quotations from the Old Testament. Justin
informs us that the Memoirs of the Apostles were read
publicly in the churches, and were regarded with as much
reverence as the writings of the prophets. The quotations
and references to our Gospels are exceedingly numerous ;
and whatever dubiety there may be as regards St. John's
Gospel,^ there is no doubt whatever that the Synoptic
Gospels are repeatedly quoted. Thus Matthew is directly
quoted in these words : " Christ when on earth told those
who said that Elias would come before Christ, Elias will
indeed come and restore all things ; but I say unto you that
Elias came' already, and they knew him not, but did to him
all that they listed. And it is written. Then understood the
disciples that He spoke to them of John the Baptist " ^ (Matt,
xvii. 13); Mark is directly quoted in the following words:
" It is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles
to Peter ; and it is written in the Memoirs of Him that
He changed the name of other two brothers, the sons of

^ See an elaljorate article on Tatian by Professor Fuller of King's
College, London, in Smith's Dictionary of Biography, and another by
Miiller in Herzog's Real-EncyclopUdie, vol. xv. pp. 208 ff.

^ That Justin used the Gospel of John is now generally admitted.
See Ezra Abbot's work on the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

^ Dial. ch. xlix.

18 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means the sons of thunder " ^
(Mark iii. 16, 17); and Luke is directly quoted in these
words : " For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the
cross, He said, Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,
as I have learned from the Memoirs " ^ (Luke xxiii. 46).
It is true that there are one or two incidents mentioned by
Justin which are not recorded in our Gospels, and which
have given rise to the assertion that Justin did not quote
from the Synoptics, but from some uncanonical Gospel.^
Thus Justin says that " Christ being regarded as a worker in
wood, did make while among men ploughs and yokes, thus
setting before them symbols of righteousness, and teaching
them an active life ; " * and that " when Jesus came to
Jordan, where John was baptizing, upon His entering the
water a fire was kindled in the Jordan."^ But these
extra-canonical incidents are few, and ma^ be accounted for
either as inferences which Justin drew from the state-
ments of the evangelists, or as traditions of the life of
Jesus which at that early period survived in the Church.
As Paley remarks : " In all Justin's works, from which
might be extracted almost a complete life of Christ, there
are but two instances in which he refers to anything as
said or done by Christ which is not related concerning Him
in the present Gospels ; which shows that these Gospels,
and these alone, were the authorities from which the Chris-
tians of that day drew the information on which they
depended." ®

We now come to the important and much controverted
statement of Papias (a.d. 120). Papias, bishop of Hiera-
polis in Phrygia, may well be regarded as an apostolic
Father, as he was either, along with Polycarp, a disciple of
the Apostle John,'^ or a disciple of John the Presbyter.*^ He

^ Dial. ch. cvi. - Dial. cli. cv.

3 Thus De Wette mentions among the uncauonical Gospels the Gospel
of Justin, §§ 66, 67.

•* Dial, cum Try^jh. ch. Ixxxviii. " IcUm.

^ Paley's Evidences of Christianity, pt. i. cli. ix. § I.

' Irenseus, Adv. Hcer. v. 33. 4.

8 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. It is a question whether John the
Presbyter ever existed, or whether this is merely another name for

GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, 19

professes to have conversed with those who were intimate with
several of the apostles. He was a voluminous writer, his chief
work being an exposition of the discourses of our Lord (koylcov
KvpiuKwv i^iTyrjaea) ; but only a few fragments of his works
remain preserved by Eusebius.^ We have the followmg
important testimony to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark :
" John the Presbyter also said, Mark having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not
indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said
or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor
followed Him ; but afterward, as is said, he followed Peter,
who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but
with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's
discourses, so that Mark committed no error, while he thus
wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was
careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he
had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These
things are related by Papias concerning Mark Concerning
Matthew he writes as follows : Matthew composed his dis-
courses (koyia) in the Hebrew language, and everyone
interpreted them as he was able."^ This statement will,
in the course of our Introduction, frequently occupy our
attention ; much has been made of it in the question
regarding the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. It proves

John the apostle. Gloag's Introduction to the JoJiannine Writings, pp.
268-270.

^ On the fragments from Papias, see Holtzmann's Sijnopt. Evangel, pp.
248 ff. ; Weizsacker, Untersuch. iiber d. evang. GeschicJde ; Steitz in Herzog's
EncyTd. 1st ed. vol. xi. pp. 79 f.

2 Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. iii. 39. The words of Papias are so very
important, and will be so often referred to, that we give this quotation
from Eusebius in full : K«( rovro 6 ■rrpsrjfivrepog 'i'Ai'ys' Mocpx.og f^iv sp/^nvivr^s
nirpov yivo/iiivo; oaa. ii^m^ovivmv ix,x.pt(iZ)g 'iypxi^iV ov /xhroi tcc^h rx vtto rou
'KptiTTOv '/} 'Kix^ivtoi, »j Trpx^Siurot. Oinri yoip i]KOvas rov x.vpiov, ovrs Tcctpnx.o'Kov-
Syjuhi avru, varspov "hk, ug i(pyiv, Uerpa, og -yrpog recg x^s/a? I-Tvoiuro rxg ^loaa-
xxKiag, tiXfC ovx ua-TTip avvrx^iu ruv icvpiXKUv Trotovfuvog "Koyuv, aan ovoiv
yifi.xpTi M.»p>cog, ovroig hiot, ypocipotg ug oi7r£f/,VYift,6vev(rsv. EvoV y»p eTrotviaccTO
'^poi'oicc!/, roll fiYihiu av ^x-ovas ■KxpotT^iTrilv, vj ypsvaocirdxi ri Iv xvroig. Txurx fciv
ovv iirrcpYirxi ru Uxttix Trspl rou Mxpx.ov. liipi Ss rot/ Mxrdxiov rxvr
itpnrxr MxrdocJog /u,iv ouv ''Elipxi'di lixT^iuro) rx 'hoyix nvviypx-^xro. Hpfit]-
vivai xvrx ug ijdvuxro iKXarog.

20 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

that in the time of Papias writings did exist which bore
the names of the first two evangelists, Matthew and Mark.^

We do not carry our investigation further back. In the
writings of the apostoUc Fathers there are alhisions more or
less distinct to the Synoptic Gospels, and especially in the
Didache there is a distinct correspondence to the Sermon
on the Mount; but as such evidence relates to particular
Gospels rather than to the Synoptic Gospels collectively, it
will be considered in its proper place.

Besides these quotations from the Fathers, there is also
the evidence derived from the ancient versions, especially the
old Latin and the Syriac. The old Latin (Vetus Latino)
must have existed about A.D. 170, because it is quoted and
used by Tertullian and in the Latin translation of Irenaeus.
It was made, not for the use of the Church of Eome, which
was at first Greek, but for the Christians in the lioman
province of Africa, of which Carthage was the capital. All
the manuscripts contain the four Gospels. The Syriac is
probably the earliest version, as it would be the first
required ; and the probability is that Tatian made use of
it in the composition of his Diatessaron. There are good
reasons for fixing its date about the middle of the second
century (a. D. 150).- Although some of the books of Scripture
are omitted, yet in all the Syriac manuscripts the four
Gospels are found. Some suppose that the Peshito, the well-
known Syriac version, is not the original form of the Syriac,
but a revised version from an older form, of which the

' It lias l)ceu asserted that Papias does not here s^jeak of our C4os])els, l)iit
of an original Mark (Ur-Marcus) and an original Matthew (Ur-Mattha;us),
from which our Gospels were derived ; or else he mentions two distinct
documents, "the teaching of Peter," as given by Mark, and "the logia
of Matthew," which formed the chief sources of the Synoptic Gospels.
These opinions will afterwards form the sul)ject of discussion. Others
assert that there is no reason to suppose that Pai)ias does not refer
to our canonical Gospels then existing. See Lightfoot's Essays on Supei--
natural Religion, \\\i. 1G3-1G8. Papias does not refer to Luke ; and, of
cour.se, his testimony has no bearing \\\nni the gi'niiineiiess of that Go.si)el.

^ " There is no sufficient reason," observes Westcotl, " to desert the
opinion, which has obtained the sanction of the mo.st com])etent .scholars,
that its formation is to be fixed within «lie first half of the .second
century." Westcott, On the Canon, p. 211.

GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 21

Curetonian manuscript is a fragment ; and that the Peshito
bears the same relation to the ancient Syriac as the Vulgate
does to the old Latin.^

Such is the evidence for the genuineness of the Synoptic
Grospels as a whole. No classical writing of the ancients
has the same amount of testimony. When we consider the
universal acceptance of these Gospels toward the close of the
second century, the reverence shown to them as sacred
books, their wide distribution throughout all the provinces of
the Koman Empire, the explicit testimony of Justin Martyr
to them in the middle of that century, their translation into
the Latin and Syriac languages, we cannot fail to be con-
vinced that they are the genuine records of the life of Christ.
The hypothesis that they were inventions is inadmissible in
regard to documents written so soon after the events they
purport to record, and they were of an importance too vital
to those to whom they were addressed, to be received on
insufficient evidence. The theory of Strauss, that the Gospels
contain myths and legends, which half a century ago made
such a noise, and was regarded as a formidable objection, is
now generally discarded as utterly baseless ; the time between
the events recorded and the publication of these Gospels is too
short to admit of such a prolific growth of legends or
myths.^ And so, also, the more acute and ingenious theory
of Baur, that the Gospels and other books of Scripture
were written with a tendency-design, either as statements of
Pauline or of Petrine Christianity, or with a view to mediate
between two antagonistic systems, has now few adherents.^
Hilgenfeld and Holsten, and perhaps we may also include
Pfleiderer, are almost the only real representatives of the
Tubingen school, and yet their opinions differ materially from

^ See on this i^oint Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 84.
The Syriac version, found by Mrs. Lewis in 1893 in the monastery of St.
Catherine at Mount Sinai, is supposed to be a variation of the Curetonian
version.

2 Row's Jesus of the Evangelists, ch. xvi. ; Fairbairn's Clirist of Modern
History, pp. 232-242.

^ According to Baur, Matthew contained Petrine and Luke Pauline
Christianity ; whilst Mark was conciliatory, and John contained the full
reconciliation of Petrine and Pauline Christianity in the Catholic Church.

22 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

those of Baur. Even according to their own admission such
tendency - designs are hardly recognisable in the Synoptic
Gospels ; because, before these Gospels were written, the
antagonism of Pauline and Petrine Cln-istianity had been
smoothed down, and the Gospels were composed chiefly
with a conciliatory design. In short, we are led from all
evidence, external as well as internal, to accept the Synoptic
Gospels as credible records of the deeds and words of Christ.^
There are certainly great, perhaps insoluble, difficulties con-
nected with their origm ; but these, as we shall afterwards
see, are not sufficient to shake our confidence in the credi-
bility of the history.

IV. Relation of the Synoptic Gospels to each other.

Until recent times it has been generally supposed that
the three Synoptic Gospels were wholly independent narra-
tives ; that the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
infallibly guided by the Spirit of God, each made a selection
of the incidents of our Lord's life and of His discourses,
without having seen the writings of the other two, or without
having recourse to any common oral tradition or written
document. Such an opinion, however, has not been con-
firmed by an examination of their contents. A perusal of
the harmony of these Gospels, whether drawn up in English
or in Greek, and especially an attentive consideration of the
coincidences between them, both in the events recorded and
in the language employed, must convince every unprejudiced
reader that common materials must have been used in their
construction, that absolute independence is by the facts of
the case excluded, and that to a large extent there was a

' " Wc ought," observes Holtzniann, " at least with regard to the
Synoptic Gosjiels, to maintain definitely that they contain as their kernel
nothing else than the genuine, and in the chief features clearly recognis-
able Y)ortrait of Jesus of Nazareth." Holtzniaun's Kovimentar : die
Synryptikcr, ]). 14. "I look," says Goethe, "upon the four Gospels as
thoroughly genuine ; for there is in them a reflection of a greatness
which emanated from the ])ers()n of Jesus, and which w;vs of as divine a
kind as ever was seen upon earth." ConverMitions of Goeihc m'th Eckermann,
p. 567. Bohn edition.

RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 23

source or sources common to all three. But, along with
these coincidences, there are points of difference, especially in
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which prove that the
writers of these two Gospels must on these points have drawn
their information from different sources. The Synoptic
problem — which is the great question at present in the
criticism of the New Testament — has to take account of
these coincidences and differences, and to explain them by
reference to the source or sources of the Gospels themselves.
It is proved that there is a dependence between them, and
the question is, What is the original basis of this dependence ?
But before we attempt to answer this question, and to con-
sider the different theories that have been advanced, or to
suggest any probable solution, it is essential that we should
understand the conditions of the problem.

1. Points of agreement. — The Synoptic Gospels agree as
to the locality of our Lord's ministry. They narrate chiefly
the ministry in Galilee, omitting the ministry in Judaea,
until the period of our Lord's passion ; they are all Galilean
Gospels ; the references to the earlier Judsan ministry are
only indirect and inferential. They agree as to the duration
of the ministry. There is only mention of one Passover, that
at which our Lord suffered ; and, were it not for the informa-
tion afforded in John's Gospel, we might be led to infer that
our Lord's ministry did not extend beyond one year. They
agree as to the order of the ministry. Although there is a
considerable variation in the chronological order of particular
mcidents, yet the general order, in its main features, is the
same. In their accounts of Christ's public ministry they all
commence with the preaching of the Baptist and the baptism
and temptation of Christ, relate the ministry of Galilee in a
somewhat similar order, mention the great crises that occurred
in the middle of that ministry, — the confession of the Messiah-
ship of Jesus by the disciples, and the Transfiguration, — and
close their narratives by an account of our Lord's death and
resurrection. They agree, to a large extent, in the incidents
recorded. Although the works and discourses of Jesus must
have been far more numerous than those related, as the
Gospel of John proves, yet more than a half of the incidents

24 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

mentioned in the Synoptics are the same in all three. " If,"
observes Holtzmann, " Jesus doubtless delivered unrecorded
sayings, how is it that the narrators have limited themselves
to the same selection ? If Jesus healed so many sick, why
do all three record almost only the same examples ? If He
pronounces a woe on Chorazin and Bethsaida, as Matthew
and Luke record, how is it that neither of these evangelists
mention the conduct which merited such a denunciation ? " ^

But there is not merely a similarity in the selection of
incidents and discourses, but what is even more remarkable,
there is a similarity in the language in which these incidents
and discourses are expressed. In the examination of this
point we are greatly assisted by Eushbrooke's Synopticon, a
work of immense labour and utility.^

1. The threefold narrative. — As already observed, there is
a remarkable sameness in the incidents recorded by all the
three Synoptists. The following sections are common to all
three : —

Ministry of the Baptist, Matt. iii. 1-12 ; Mark i. 2-8 ;
Luke iii. 1—18.

Baptism of Christ, Matt. iii. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11;
Luke iii. 21, 22.

Temptation of Christ, Matt. iv. 1-11 ; Mark i. 12, 13 ;
Luke iv. 1—13.

Call of the four apostles. Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i.
16-19; Luke v. 1, 2, 9-11.

1 Holtzmanu's Einleitwng, p. 331. See also Salmon's Introduction to
the N.T. p. 139: "The Synoptic Gospels," he observes, "agree in the
main in their selection of facts — all travelling over nearly the same
ground, though independent narrators would be sure to have differed a
good deal in their choice of subjects for narration out of a public life of
three years. In point of fact, we find exactly such a dilference between
the life of our Lord as related by St. John and by the Synoptics."

2 Synopticon, an exposition of the common matter of the Synoptic
Gospels, by W. G. Rushbrooke, Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.
London : Macmillan & Co., 1887. Rushbrooke first gives us what he calls
" the triple tradition of the Synoptics," in imrallel columns, tjiking the
Gospel of Mark as the type, marking in red colour the words in which
all three agree ; and then in an appendix the twofold edition of Matthew
and Luke, with distinctive types marking their Jigreements and differ-
ences, and lastly, the single tradition of Matthew and Luke.

EELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 25

Cure of Peter's mother-in-law, Matt. viii. 14-17; Mark
i. 29-34; Luke iv. 38-43.

Cleansing of the leper, Matt. viii. 1-4 ; Mark i. 40-45 ;
Luke V. 12-16.

Cure of the paralytic man, Matt. ix. 1—8 ; Mark ii. 1—12 ;
Luke V. 17-26.

Call of Matthew, Matt. ix. 9-17; Mark ii. 13-22;
Luke V. 27-39.

Our Lord's discourse on the Sabbath, Matt. xii. 1—8 ;
Mark ii. 23-28 ; Luke vi. 1-5.

Cure of the man with the withered hand, Matt. xii. 9—1 5 ;
Mark iii. 1-6 ; Luke vi. 6-11.

Confutation of the statement that Christ cast out devils
through Beelzebub, Matt. xii. 22-45; Mark iii. 20-30;
Luke xi. 14-23.

Parable of the Sower, Matt. xiii. 1-23 ; Mark iv. 1-20 ;
Luke viii. 4-15.

Stilling of the tempest, Matt. viii. 18-27; Mark iv.
35-41 ; Luke viii. 22-25.

Cure of the Gadarene demoniac, Matt. viii. 28-34;
Mark v. 1-20 ; Luke viii. 26-39.

Eaising of the daughter of Jairus, Matt. ix. 18—26 ;
Mark v. 21-43 ; Luke viii. 40-56.

Mission of the twelve. Matt. x. 1-15 ; Mark vi. 7-13 ;
Luke ix. 1-6.

Feeding of the five thousand. Matt. xiv. 13—21 ; Mark
vi. 31-44; Luke ix. 10-17.

Confession of the apostles that Jesus is the Messiah,
Matt. xvi. 13-28 ; Mark viii. 27-33 ; Luke ix. 18-27.

The transfiguration, Matt. xvii. 1—10; Mark ix. 2—9;
Luke ix. 28-36.

Cure of the demoniac boy, Matt. xvii. 14—21 ; Mark
ix. 14-29 ; Luke ix. 37-43.

Dispute among the disciples concerning precedence. Matt,
xviii. 1-5 ; Mark ix. 33-37 ; Luke ix. 46-48.

Blessing pronounced on children. Matt. xix. 13—15 ;
Mark x. 13-16 ; Luke xviii. 15-17.

Our Lord's address to the rich ruler. Matt. xix. 16—30;
Mark x. 17-31 ; Luke xviii. 18-30.

26 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Cure of the blind man at Jericho, Matt. xx. 29-34 ;
Mark x. 46-52 ; Luke xviii. 35-4:3.

Entrance into Jerusalem, Matt. xxi. 1-11 ; Mark xi.
1-11 ; Luke xix. 29-44.

Expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the temple,
Matt. xxi. 12-14; Mark xi. 15-17 ; Luke xix. 45, 46.

Parable of the Vineyard, Matt. xxi. 33-46 ; Mark xii.
1-12; Luke xx. 9-19.

Refutation of the Sadducees, Matt. xxii. 15—33 ; Mark
xii. 18-34; Luke xx. 20-40.

Our Lord's appeal to Ps. ex., Matt. xxii. 41-46; Mark
xii. 35-37 ; Luke xx. 41-45.

Prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv.
1-36 ; Mark xiii. 1-36 ; Luke xxi. 5-36.

Institution of the supper, Matt. xxvi. 17-29 ; Mark xiv.
17-26; Luke xxii. 14-23.

The agony in Gethsemane, Matt. xxvi. 30-46 ; Mark
xiv. 26-42 ; Luke xxii. 39-46.

Arrest of Christ, Matt. xxvi. 47-58 ; Mark xiv. 43-54;
Luke xxii. 47-58.

Denial of Peter, Matt. xxvi. 69-73 ; Mark xiv. 66-72 ;
Luke xxii. 54-62.

Narrative of the Passion, Matt, xxvii.; Mark xv.; Luke xxiii.

Narrative of the Resurrection, Matt, x xviii. ; Mark xvi. ;
Luke xxiv.

In the narration of these incidents there is frequently a
close identity of language. We give two examples in the
words of the Revised Version, in which the nature of the
resemblance may be as clearly seen as in the Greek. The
first example is the words spoken by Jesus to tlie Pharisees
when He cured the paralytic man.

Matt. ix. 4-8. Mark ii. 8-11. Luke v. 22-26.

Wherefore think ye Why reason ye tliesc Wliat reason ye in

evil in your hearts ? For things in your hearts? your hearts? Whether

wliether is easier, to say, Whether is easier, to say is easier, to say. Thy

Tliy sins are forgiven ; to the sick of the palsy, sins are forgiven thee ;

or to say, Arise, and Thy sins are forgiven ; or to say, Arise, and

walk ? But that ye may or to say, Arise, and walk ? But that ye may

know that the Son of take up thy bed, and know that the Son of

Man liatli power on caith walk ? But that yc may Man hath jiower on earth

RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER.

27

to forgive sins (then
saitli He to the sick of
the palsy), Arise, and
take up thy bed, and go
unto tliy house.

know that the Son of
Man hath power on earth
to forgive sins (He saith
to the sick of the palsy),
I say unto thee. Arise,
take up thy bed, and go
unto thy house.

to forgive sins (He said
unto him that was
palsied), I say unto thee,
Arise, and take up thy
couch, and go unto thy
house.

The other example is taken from our Lord's prophecy
concerning the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matt. xxiv. 32-35.

Now from the fig tree
learn her parable : when
her branch is now become
tender, and putteth forth
its leaves, ye know that
summer is nigh ; even
so ye also, when ye see
all these things, know
ye that He is nigh, even
at the doors. Verily I
say unto you, This
generation shall not pass
away, till all these
things be accomplished.
Heaven and earth shall
pass away : but my
words shall not pass
away.

Mark xiii. 28-31.

Now from the fig tree
learn her parable : when
her branch is now be-
come tender, and putteth
forth its leaves, ye know
that summer is nigh ;
even so ye also, when ye
see these things coming
to pass, know ye that
He is nigh, even at the
doors. Verily I say
unto you. This genera-
tion shall not pass away,
until all these things be
accomplished. Heaven
and earth shall pass
away : but my words
shall not pass away.

Litre xxi. 29-33.

Behold the fig tree,
and all the trees : when
they now shoot forth, ye
see it and know of your
own selves that the sum-
mer is now nigh. Even
so ye also, when ye see
these things coming to
pass, know ye that the
kingdom of God is nigh.
Verily I say unto you.
This generation shall
not pass away, till all
things be accomplished.
Heaven and earth shall
pass away : but my
words shall not pass
away.

But these passages are only examples of a similarity of
language, approaching to identity, which pervades the accounts
of the three evangelists. Numerous other examples might be
given: as the call of Matthew (Matt. Lx. 9-17; Mark ii.
13-22; Luke v. 27-39), the parable of the Sower (Matt,
xiii. 1-34; Mark iv. 1-34; Luke viii. 4-18), the stilling
of the storm and the cure of the Gadarene demoniac (Matt.
viii. 18-34; Mark iv. 35-41, v. 1-20; Luke viii. 22-39),
the feeding of the four thousand (Matt. xiv. 13-21 ; Mark
vi. 30-44 ; Luke ix. 10-17), the transfiguration and the cure
of the demoniac boy (Matt. xvii. 1-21 ; Markix. 2-8, 14-29 ;
Luke ix. 28-43), and the entrance into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi.
1-11 ; Mark xi. 1-10 ; Luke xLx. 29-44).

Such similarities, not merely of incident but of expression,
with only slight variations, would in other writings demon-

28 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

strate an inherent dependence.^ If we heard three discourses
which although in some respects dissimilar, yet were inter-
woven with passages almost identical, we would rightly infer
that in these passages the preachers copied from each other, or
that they plagiarised from the same discourse. If, in the
writings of the Fathers, we found passages almost identical
with those contained in the Epistles of St. Paul, we should be
justified in inferring that there was a distinct reference to the
writings of that apostle. Three eye-witnesses in recording the
same facts, if their reports were independent of each other,
would not express themselves in the same words. And the
case is still stronger if the general opinion be correct, that our
Lord spoke, not in Greek, but in Aramaic,^ and that con-
sequently the words of His discourses given us by the
evangelists are translations ; and it is highly improbable that
in translating they would use precisely the same words. We
are then constrained to adopt one or other of three supposi-
tions : either that the evangelists copied from each other ; or
that they all had recourse to some common document ; or that
there was an oral or traditional Gospel — a collection of the
sayings of Christ and of the incidents in His life which had
in many points become stereotyped. These suppositions are
reserved for after consideration.

The twofoldnarrative. — But there is not onlya threefold nar-
rative, — an agreement of all three evangelists in the incidents
recorded, and often almost an identity of language, — but there
is a twofold narrative, where two of the evangelists agree —
Matthew and Mark, Mark and Luke, and Matthew and Luke.

The principal incidents and discourses common to Matthew
and Mark and not found in Luke are : —

The mode of the Baptist's martyrdom, Matt. xiv. 1-12;
Mark vi. 14-29.

Our Lord's walking on the water, Matt. xiv. 22—33 ;
Mark vi. 45-51.

^ " Tlie verl);il and material agreement," observes Archbishop Thomson,
of the first tliree evangelists " is such as does not occur in any other authors
who have written independently of one another."

^ The ordinary language of our Lord and His apostles will afterwards
form the .subject of discussion.

RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 29

The discourse on the traditions of the elders, Matt. xv.
1-20; Mark vii. 1-23.

The cure of the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Matt. XV. 21-28 ; Mark vii. 24-30.

Feeding of the four thousand, Matt. xv. 32-38; Mark
viii. 1-9.

Discussion on the Mosaic law concerning divorce, Matt.
xLx. 3-10; Mark x. 2-11.

Petition of the sons of Zebedee and their mother. Matt.
XX. 20-28; Mark x. 35-45.

The withering of the fig tree. Matt. xxi. 18-22 ; Mark xi.
13, 14, 20.

The anointing of our Lord before His passion,^ Matt.
xxvi. 6-13 ; Mark xiv. 3-9.

The utterance of Jesus on the cross. My God, my God,
why hast Thou forsaken me? Matt, xxvii. 46-49 ; Mark xv.
34, 35.

Here also there is often a close identity of language.
We take as an example the anointing of our Lord before His
passion, an incident which is also recorded, but in very
different language, by St. John.

Matt. xxvi. 6-13. Mark xiv. 3-19.

Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in And while He was in Bethany, in

the house of Simon the leper, there the house of Simon the leper, as He

came unto Him a woman having an sat at meat, there came a woman

alabaster cruse of exceeding precious having an alabaster cruse of ointment

ointment, and she poured it upon His of spikenard very costly ; and she

head, as He sat at meat. But when brake the cruse, and poured it over

the disciples saw it, they had indigna- His head. But there were some that

tion, saying, To what purpose is this had indignation among themselves,

waste ? For this ointment might have saying, To what purpose hath this

been sold for much, and given to the waste of the ointment been made ?

poor. But Jesus perceiving it, said For this ointment might have been

unto them. Why trouble ye the woman ? sold for above three hundred pence, and

for she hath wrought a good work given to the poor. And they murmured

upon me. For ye have the poor always against her. But Jesus said, Let her

with you ; but me ye have not always, alone ; why trouble ye her ? she hath

For in that she poured this oint- wrought a good work on me. For

ment upon my body, she did it to ye have the poor always with you, and

prepare me for burial. Verily I say whensoever ye will ye can do them

^ We consider this anointing different from that by the sinful woman
mentioned in Luke's Gospel.

30 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

unto you, Wheresoever this gospel good : liut me ye have not always. She
shall be preached in the whole world, hath done what she could ; she hath
that also which this woman hath done anointed my body aforehand for the
shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. burying. And verily I say unto you,

Wheresoever the gospel shall be
preached throughout the whole world,
that also which this woman hath done
shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

This example is perhaps not so convincing an argument in
favour of a conimou source, as it is just possible that two
witnesses might have expressed themselves in terms somewhat
similar ; but compare with it the narrative in St. John's
Gospel, where the difference is much more marked.

The incidents common to Mark and Luke, but omitted by
Matthew, are not numerous. They are as follows —

The casting out of an unclean spirit, Mark i. 23—28 ;
Luke iv. 33-37.

Declaration of our Lord that He must preach the gospel
in other places, Mark i. 35—38 ; Luke iv. 42, 43.

The apostles forbidding a man to cast out devils in
Christ's name, Mark Lx. 38-40 ; Luke Lx. 49, 50.

The incident of the widow's mite, Mark xii. 41-44;
Luke xxi. 1-4.

We take this last as an example of identity of language —

Makk xii. 43, 44. Luke xxi. 3, 4.

Verily I say unto you, This poor Of a truth I say unto you. This

widow cast in more than all they poor widow cast in more than they

which arc casting into the treasury : all : for all these did of their super-

for they all did cast in of their super- fluity cast in unto the gifts : but she

fluity ; but she of her want did cast in of her want did cast in all the living

all that she had, even all her living. that she had.

The coincidences in the twofold narrative of Matthew
and Luke are still more remarkable. These two evangelists
agree in recording the following particulars : —

Address of tlie Baptist to the scribes and Pharisees,
Matt. iii. 8-10; Luke iii. 8, 9.

Threefold temptation of our Lord, ]\fatt. iv. 1-11 ; Luke
iv. 1-13.

Cure of the centurion's servant, Matt. viii. 5-13; Luke
vii. 1-10.

EELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHEK. 31

Our Lord's address to those who professed a desire to
follow Hmi, Matt. viii. 19-22 ; Luke ix. 57-60.

His exhortations to His disciples, Matt. x. 5-16, 24-26 ;
Luke X. 1-12, xii. 2-9, 51-53.

Mission of the disciples of the Baptist to Christ, Matt,
xi. 2-19; Luke vii. 18-35.

The woe pronounced on the cities of Galilee, Matt.
xi. 20-24; Luke x. 12-15.

The gospel hid from the wise and prudent, Matt.
xi. 25-27; Luke x. 21, 22.

Our Lord's answer to the Pharisees when they asked of
Him a sign from heaven, Matt. xii. 38-45 ; Luke xi. 29-32.

The parable of the Leaven, Matt. xiii. 33; Luke xiii. 20,
21.

The parable of the Lost Sheep, Matt, xviii. 12-14 ; Luke
XV. 3-7.

The parable of the Marriage Feast, Matt. xxii. 1-10;
Luke xiv. 15-24.

The woe pronounced on the Pharisees, Matt, xxiii. 1 3—3 6 ;
Luke xi. 37-80.

The woe pronounced on Jerusalem, Matt, xxiii. 37—39 ;
Luke xiii. 34, 35.

The faithful and unfaithful stewards, Matt. xxiv. 45—51 ;
Luke xii. 42-48.

The parable of the Talents and of the Pounds, Matt.
XXV. 14-30 ; Luke xi. 11-28.^

The instances of identity of language in these two Gospels
are very numerous and striking ; sometimes the identity is
absolute, as in the two following examples : —

Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13.

No man can serve two masters : for No servant can serve two masters :

either he will hate the one, and love for either he will hate the one, and

the other ; or else he will hold to love the other ; or else he will hold to

one, and desjiise the other. Ye cannot one, and despise the other. Ye cannot

serve God and mammon. serve God and mammon.

Matt. xi. 25-27. Luke x. 21, 22.

I thank thee, Father, Lord of I thank thee, Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, tliat Thou didst heaven and earth, that Thou didst

^ These parables, notwithstanding tlieir resemblances, are generally-
considered as different. See Trench on the Parables.

32 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

hide these things from the wise and liide these things from the wise and

understanding, and didst reveal them understanding, and didst reveal them

unto babes : yea. Father, for so it was unto babes : yea, Father, for so it was

well-pleasing in Thy sight. All things well-pleasing in Thy sight. All things

have been delivered unto me of my have been delivered unto me of my

Father : and no one knoweth the Son, Father : and no one knoweth who the

save tlie Father ; neither doth any Son is, save the Father ; and who the

know the Father, save the Son, and he Father is, save the Son, and he to

to whomsoever the Son willeth to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal

reveal him. him.

Numerous other passages might be given where the
identity of language is also striking ; for example, compare
Matt. iii. 7-10, 12 with Luke iii. 7-9, 13; Matt. vii. 7-11
with Luke xi. 9-13 ; Matt. vi. 25-33 with Luke xii. 22-31 ;
Matt. xiii. 33 with Luke xiii. 20, 21; Matt. xxiv. 43-51
with Luke xii. 39-46. Now this greatly complicates the
problem. If the fact were that only the three Gospels
agreed, or if only Matthew and Mark, and Mark and Luke
agreed, we might refer them to a common source or an
original Gospel, either the Gospel of Mark or one closely
resembling it. But when Matthew and Luke also agree in
incidents and discourses not found in Mark's Gospel, and
where there is an identity of language in their statements,
we are constrained to conclude, either that Matthew copied
from Luke, or conversely, — an hypothesis which we shall
afterwards see cannot be maintained, — or that there was a
common source, whether oral or written, which contains the
sayings found in both.

3. The single narrative. — But besides the coincidences
common to these Gospels, each Gospel has its own peculiar
incidents and discourses ; there is a single as well as a
twofold and threefold narrative.

The following incidents and discourses are peculiar to the
Gospel of Matthew : the genealogy of Jesus from David
(i. 1-17); the annunciation to Joseph (i. 18-25); the adora-
tion of the Magi, the massacre of the infants in Bethlehem,
and the flight nito Egypt (ii. 1-23); the Sermon on the Mount,
given as a whole (v., vi., vii.) ; the cure of two blind men
(ix. 27-34); the invitation to the weary and heavy laden
(xi. 28-30); the parables of the Tares, the Hidden Treasure,
the Merchant seeking goodly Pearls, and the Drag Net

RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 33

(xiii. 24-53); the attempt of Peter to walk on the sea
(xiv. 28-33) ; the blessing pronounced on Peter (xvi. 17-19) ;
the parables of the Unforgiving Servant (xviii. 21-35), the
Householder hiring Labourers for his Vineyard (xx. 1-16),
the Ten Virgins (xxv. 1-13), and the Sheep and the Goats
(xxv. 31-46); the resurrection of the saints after Christ's
death (xxvii. 52, 53); the bribery of the soldiers to say that
the disciples stole the body (xxviii. 11—15); the appearance
of Christ on a mountain in Galilee, and the institution of
Christian baptism (xxviii. 16—20).

The Gospel of Mark has little that is peculiar. Nearly
the whole of it is contained in the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke ; about two -thirds of it are common to these Gospels,
whilst the other third is contained partly in the Gospel of
Matthew and partly in the Gospel of Luke, — a mere frag-
ment, in all about seventeen verses, is peculiar to Mark.
These peculiarities are the parable of the inperceptible Growth
of the Seed (iv. 26—29), the cure of a deaf man who had an
impediment in his speech (vii. 32-37), the cure of a blind man
at Bethsaida (viii. 22—26), and the account of the man who
followed Christ from Gethsemane, having a linen cloth cast
about him (xiv 51, 52). It may be thought that Mark's
Gospel is a compilation, and that the incidents are borrowed
from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But we are pre-
vented from adopting this solution ; a careful examination
of Mark's Gospel proves that he is more graphic in his
descriptions than the other two evangelists ; that his account
is more like that of an eye-witness than of a compiler, and
that the incidents recorded are more expanded than those
found in the other Gospels. Mark's Gospel is shorter,
because it relates chiefly the incidents of the life of Christ,
and gives only a few of His discourses.

The Gospel of Luke contains the following incidents and
discourses peculiar to it: — The vision of Zacharias (i. 5-25);
the annunciation (i. 26—38); the meeting between Elizabeth
and Mary (i. 39-45) ; the song of Mary (i. 46-56) ; the birth
of the Baptist and the prophecy of Zacharias (i. 57-80) ; the
journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem (ii. 1-7); the
angel's message to the shepherds (ii. 8-20); the song of

3

34 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Simeon (ii. 25-35); Anna the prophetess (ii. 36-40); Christ
and the doctors (ii. 41-52); the genealogy of Jesus from
Adam (iii. 23-38); the rejection of Jesus by the inhabitants
of Nazareth (iv. 14—30); the miraculous draught of fishes
(v. 1—11); various sayings of Jesus scattered througliout the
Gospel, and which are contained in Matthew's Sermon on the
Mount; the raising of the widow's son at Nain (vii. 11—17);
the anointing of the woman who was a sinner, and the parable
of the Two Debtors (vii. 36—50) ; the wish expressed by James
and John to call down fire on the Samaritans (ix. 51—56);
the parable of the Good Samaritan (x. 25—37); our Lord's
reception by Mary and Martha (x. 38—42); the parable of
the Eich Man who boasted of his Goods (xii. 13—21); the
parable of the Barren Fig Tree (xiii. 6-9) ; the cure of the
woman with the spirit of infirmity (xiii. 10—17) ; the cure of
the dropsical man on the Sabbath (xiv. 1—6); the parables of the
Marriage Feast (xiv. 7-24), the Lost Piece of Money (xv. 8-10),
the Prodigal Son (xv. 11—32), the Unjust Steward (xvi. 1—13),
and the Eich Man and Lazarus (xvi. 19—21); the ten lepers
and the grateful Samaritan (xvii. 1 1—1 9) ; the parable of the
Unjust Judge and the Importunate Widow (xviii. 1-8) ; the
parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (xviii. 9—14); the
visit to Zacch?eus (xix. 1—10); our Lord's examination before
Herod (xxiii. 8—12); the address to the daughters of Jeru-
salem (xxiii. 27-31); the disciples going to Enimaus (xxiv.
13—35), and the ascension (xxiv. 50, 51).

There is a considerable passage in the middle of the
Gospel of Luke, including at least three chapters (xiv., xv.,
xvi.),^ which has only a very few resemblances to the other
two Gospels. There are in it a few sayings and incidents
which are common to all the Synoptics, and a few which are
common to Matthew and Luke, but by far the larger portion
is peculiar to Luke. It contains the important parables of
the Marriage Feast, the Lost Piece of Money, the Lost Sheep,-
the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, and the Eich Man and
Lazarus. It has received various name*, being called " the

^ Most critics consider the great insertion as inchiding Luke ix. 51-
xviii. 41.

- The i)aral)le of the Lost Slieep is also conUiined in MattheVs GospeL

RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 35

Journal of Travel " (Reisehericht), " the great interpolation or
insertion " (die grosse Einschaltimg), and " the Persean section."
It would appear that Luke here made use of a source of in-
formation which was not possessed by the other two evangelists.
The amount of agreement between the three evangelists
has been given in various forms by different writers. Thus,
Archbishop Thomson says : " If the history be harmonised and
then divided into 89 sections, it will be found that in 42 of
these (nearly a half) all the narratives coincide, that 1 2 more
are given by Matthew and Mark only, that 5 are common to
Mark and Luke only, and that 14 are found in Matthew and
Luke. To these should be added 5 peculiar to Matthew,
2 to Mark, and 9 to Luke, and the number is complete." ^
Bishop Westcott observes : " If the total contents of the several
Gospels be represented by 1 0, the folio wing table is obtained : —

Peculiarities.

Concordances.

" Mark, .

. 7

93

Matthew,

. 42

58

Luke,

. 59

41 "2

Another peculiarity, proving the mutual dependence of
the three Synoptists, is the coincidence between them in their
quotations from the Old Testament. In general, the quota-
tions are made from the Septuagint ; and in these cases the
verbal agreement between them is easily accounted for, as
these quotations are from the same version. But there are
a few quotations from the Old Testament, in which the
evangelists verbally agree, which are taken neither from the
Hebrew nor from the Septuagint, and which accordingly seem
to indicate that they were found in the document or docu-
ments which were common to them. Thus, for example, the
quotation from Isa. xl. 3 is thus given in the three Synoptics:
(^(ovr) ^oa)VTO<; ev tt) iprjixw, 'EroL/jidaare rrjv oSov Kvpiov,
ev6eia<i iroteire Ta<; rpi^ovi avTov (Matt. iii. 3 ; Mark i. 3 ;

1 The Speaker's Bible : New Testament, voL 1., Introduction, p. viii.
See also article on the Gospels in Smith's Didionartj of the Bible.

2 Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 177. Eeuss gives
a list of agreement according to the number of verses {History of the N.T.
p. 177, translation), and Schaff according to the number of words.
Bishop Westcott's table is taken from Stroud's Greek Harmony of the
Gospels, Introduction, p. cxvii.

36 GENERAL INTEODUCTION.

Luke iii. 4) ; whereas in the Septuagint, instead of rpi^ov;
avTov, we have the very important variation rpi^ovi rov
Oeov rj/xMv} So, also, the quotation from Zech. xiii. 7, in
which Matthew and Mark agree, except that Matthew adds
rij<i TTOLfxvrj'i, is given as follows : Trard^o) top iroifj-iva, /cat
BLaa-KopTnaOrjaerai ra irpo^aja : " I will smite the Shepherd,
and the sheep shall be scattered abroad" (Matt. xxvi. 31;
Mark xiv. 37); whereas the words in the Septuagint are:
nrard^are 70v<i Troi/jbiva'i Kal eKairdaare ra irpo^ara : " Smite
ye the shepherds, and draw out the sheep. '\^

It is also important to remark that the identity of
language is found chiefly in the sayings of others, and
especially in the sayings of Jesus, and not in the mere
narrative or statement of facts.^ The words of our Lord
are frequently found verbatim in the different Gospels,
especially in the sayings of our Lord contained in the
Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel, and the
precisely similar sayings found in different parts of Luke's
Gospel. " By far the larger portion of this verbal agree-
ment," observes Norton, " is found in the recital of the words
of others, and particularly of the words of Jesus. Thus, in
Matthew's Gospel, the passages verbally coincident with one
or both of the other two Gospels amount to less than a sixth
part of its contents ; and of this, about seven-eighths occur in
the recital of the words of others, and only about one-eighth
in what, by way of distinction, I may call mere narrative,
in which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, was
unrestrained in the choice of his expressions. In Mark the
proportion of coincident passages to the contents of the
Gospel is about one-sixth, of which not one-fifth occurs in
the narrative. Luke has still less agreement of expression
with the other evangelists. The passages in which it is
found amount only to about a tenth part of his Gospel ; and

^ In tlie Hebrew : " Make straight in the desert a liighway for our
God."

2 There is liere, however, a difference of reading in tlie manuscripts of
the Se])tuagint. In the Hebrew it is : " Smite tlie Shepherd, and the
sheep shalf be scattered."

3 See Bishop Thirlwall's introduction to his translation of Schleier-
niacher's St, Luke, \). 3G.

RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 37

but an inconsiderable portion of it appears in the narrative,
in which there are very few instances of its existence for more
than half a dozen words together." ^

Another peculiarity in the Synoptic Gospels, on which
stress has recently been laid, is the supposed existence of
what have been called " doublets " ; that is, expressions or
incidents which are repeated in the same Gospel. Attention
has been drawn to this point by Mr. Badham in his ingenious
work on the Formation of the Gospels. He gives a long list
of doublets, extending over twenty pages, found in the three
Synoptic Gospels.^ Most of these doublets, however, when
examined, depend only on slight resemblances, or the repeti-
tion of a few words, and many of them are strained ; and
when the number is reduced by the omission of these, only
a small residue remains. The following are a few of the most
obvious and striking : In the Gospel of Matthew it is twice
stated, in almost the same words, that Jesus went through
the cities and villages of Galilee, preaching the gospel of the
kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner
of sickness (Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35).^ The cure of a dumb man
possessed with a devil, with the remark of the Pharisees upon
it, that He cast out devils by Beelzebub, is twice recorded
(Matt. ix. 32-34, xii. 22-24). So also in the Gospel of
Luke, the saying about lighting a candle and putting it under
a couch (Luke viii. 16, xi. 33), and the warning, "Whosoever
shall save his life shall lose it ; and whosoever shall lose his
life for my sake, the same shall save it " (Luke ix. 24, xvii. 33),
are twice repeated in language almost identical. It is twice
stated that there was a contention among the disciples which
of them should be the greatest (Luke ix. 46, xxii. 24). The
inference which Mr. Badham draws from these phenomena is,
that these doublets occurred in separate documents used by

1 Norton on The Genuineness of the Gosfeh, vol. i. p. 240.

2 Badham's Formation of the Gospels, pp. 12-23. This is a very
ingenious, but somewhat unsatisfactory book. The recognition of
doublets in the Gospel is interesting and suggestive, but we do not
think very important.

2 These words refer to two different circuits of Christ in Galilee ; the
one at the commencement of His Galilean ministry, and the other towards
its close.

38 GENERAL INTKODUCTION.

the evangelists. But other reasons may be assigned for
them. There is no improbability in the supposition that our
Lord might repeat sayings of primary importance, especially
if they were of the nature of proverbial expressions, such as
that of concealing the light, and that solemn warning about
saving the soul ; the contention among the disciples for pre-
eminence might have occurred on two different occasions ;
and the two incidents recorded in Matthew's Gospel of the
cure of the dumb man possessed with a devil differ in some
respects, and both might have occurred.^ Thus there are
two miracles of feeding the multitude which differ in several
particulars, and only one of them is recorded by Luke.

II. Points of difference. — In considering the Synoptic
problem we must attend, not merely to the points on which
the evangelists agree, but also to the points on which they
differ ; the one class of phenomena is of as much importance
as the other. We have already seen that whilst there is
upon the whole an agreement between the Gospel of Mark and
the other two, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differ
materially in their contents. Each has incidents and dis-
courses which the other wants. Even in those passages where
there is a general agreement, there are often important verbal
differences. Thus in the encouragement to prayer given
by our Lord, Matthew has : " How much more shall your
Father which is in heaven give good things (dya6a) to them
that ask Him?" (Matt. vii. 11); whilst Luke instead of
" good things " has " the Holy Spirit " {irvevjjba a<yLov) (Luke
xi. 13). In repelling the assertions of the Pharisees that He
cast out devils through Beelzebub, Jesus is reported by
Matthew as saying : " If I by the Spirit of God (eV irvevfj-aTL
6eov) cast out devils" (Matt. xii. 28); whilst Luke has "by
the finger of God " {iv BaKTvXq) Oeov) (Luke xi. 20). Speak-
ing of the power of faith, our Lord, according to Matthew,
says : " If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall
say to this mountain (tw opeu tovtw), Rismove hence to
yonder place" (Matt. xvii. 20); " whilst Luke has : " Whoso-

^ In Matt ix. 32-34 the man is represented as duinb, and possessed
with a devil ; whereas in Matt. xii. 22-24 he is rei)resented as both blind
.and dumb.

RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 39

ever shall say to this sycamme tree " (rfj avKafiLVM ravTy)
(Luke xvii. 6). These differences cannot be accounted for on
the ground that they are different translations from the
Aramaic.^

There are also striking differences in many of the events
of our Lord's life which are recorded by Matthew and Luke.
Thus in the accounts given of the birth of Christ — an event
omitted in Mark's Gospel — there are important variations.
There is no discrepancy between their accounts ; both assert
that Christ was born in Bethlehem, but they evidently drew
their information from different sources. In Matthew the
annunciation is made to Joseph ; in Luke it is made to Mary.
Matthew mentions the visit of the wise men ; Luke, the visit
of the shepherds. Matthew relates the massacre of the
infants in Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt, neither of
which particulars is recorded by Luke ; whilst Luke mentions
the circumcision and the presentation in the temple, both of
which are omitted by Matthew. There is also a remarkable
difference between Matthew and Luke with regard to the
so-called Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew's Grospel it is
given as one connected discourse ; whereas the sayings con-
tained in that discourse are scattered throughout Luke's
Gospel, and are to be found in at least ten different places ;
almost the whole sermon given in Matthew's Gospel is thus
contained in the Gospel of Luke. Comparing it as found in a
connected form in Matthew's Gospel with the scattered
portions of it in Luke's Gospel, we have the following table of
coincidences : —

Matt

. V. 3-12.

Luke

vi. 20-25.

Matt

vi. 24.

Luke

xvi. 13.

V. 13.

xiv. 34, 35.

vi. 25-34.

xii. 22-31.

V. 15.

xi. 33.

vii. 1-5.

vi. 37-42.

V. 18.

xvi. 17.

vii. 7-11.

xi. 9-13.

V. 25, 26.

xii. 57-59.

vii. 12.

vi. 31.

V. 31, 32

xvi. 18.

vii. 13, 14.

xiii. 23, 24

V. 38-48.

vi. 27-30, 32-36.

vii. 15-20.

vi. 43-45.

vi. 9-15.

xi. 1-4.

vii. 23.

xiii. 27.

vi. 19-21.

xii. 33, 34.

vii. 24-27.

,,

vi. 47-49.-

vi. 22, 23.

xi. 34-36.

1 See on these verbal variations, Bruce's Kingdom of God, p. 17.

2 See Ruslibrooke's StjnoiMcon, pp. 138-147 ; Holtzmann's Einleitung,
pp. 356, 357.

40 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

But not only are the sentiments the same, but there is
often a remarkable identity in the language in which these
sentiments are expressed. Compare Matt. v. 25, 26 with
Luke xii. 57-59 ; Matt. vi. 9-13 with Luke xi. 1-4 ; Matt,
vi. 21 with Luke xii. 34; Matt. vi. 24 with Luke xvi. 13;
Matt. vi. 25-34 with Luke xii. 22-31 ; Matt. vii. 3-5 with
Luke vi. 41, 42 ; Matt. vii. 7-11 with Luke xi. 9-13.' On
the other hand, there are remai^kable differences, as, for
example, in the Beatitudes ; - in Matthew they are extended,
whilst in Luke they are abbreviated, and a series of
corresponding denunciations is attached to them. Different
inferences have been drawn from these points of agreement
and difference.^ Some suppose, but contrary to all probability,
that our Lord delivered two similar discourses, the one on the
mount, recorded by Matthew, and the other on the plain,
recorded by Luke.* Tholuck gives the preference to the form
contained in Matthew's Gospel, arguing from the continuity of
its thoughts, and thinks that the narrative of Luke has less
claim to originality.^ Others, as Olshausen and Godet,
suppose that Matthew collected the sayings of our Lord into
one discourse ; whereas Luke gives them at the time when
they were spoken,^ or, according to others, inserts them as he

^ See Paul Ewald's Evangelienfruge, p. 216.

2 In Matthew there are eight l^eatitudes ; in Luke there are four.

^ In Matthew's Gospel it is said that our Lord went up to a moimtain
and there addressed the multitude ; and from the manner in wliich the
discourse is introduced, we are led to suppose that it was then delivered.
Probably a large portion of it was delivered on that occasion ; and
additions were afterwards added by the evangelist.

•• There can be no reasonable doubt that the discourse related in Luke
vi. 20-49 is the same as that related by Matthew.

^ Tholuck's Sermon on the Mount, translation : " The narrative of
Luke," he observes, "has less claim to be considered a faithful accoiint
than that of Matthew " (p. 17). " Our conclusion is that the arrangement
of the sayings of our Lord given by Matthew in his account of the Sermon
on the Mount is in the main correct " (p. 27).

''' Olshausen, On the Gospels, vol. i. p. 182 : "Tlic unity ol' tlic Smnuu
on the Mt)uut," he observes, "has not descended to us from the Saviour
Himself, ])ut from Matthew." "It does not appear to me," observes
Godet, "that in the majority of these crises (those given by Luke) a
thorough student of the subject could refuse to give the i)reference to the
position indicated by the third Gospel." Godet's Biblical Studies, pp. 15, 16.

RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 41

found them in the written documents which he employed, or
in the oral sources from which he drew his materials.^

Several remarkable points of variation occur in the
accounts of the passion given by Matthew and Luke.
Matthew relates the suicide of Judas, the dream of Pilate's
wife, and informs us that at the death of Christ the vail of the
temple was rent in twain, the earth did quake, the graves
were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.
Luke relates the examination of our Lord before Herod, the
conversion of the penitent thief on the cross, and gives us that
divine prayer for forgiveness : " Father, forgive them : for they
know not what they do.'"^

Matthew and Luke also vary in their accounts of the
resurrection of our Lord. Matthew relates the rolling away
of the stone by an angel, the address of the angel to the
women, the appearance of Jesus to them, the terror of
the guard, the bribery of the soldiers to induce them to
diffuse a false account of the resurrection, the appearance
of Christ to the disciples in Galilee, and the great commission
to make disciples of all nations. Luke relates the address of
the angels to the women at the sepulchre, the appearance of
Christ to the two disciples going to Emmaus and to the
disciples in Jerusalem, and concludes with a reference to the
ascension. In his Gospel the appearances of Christ after
His resurrection are confined to Jerusalem and its neighbour-
hood ; there is no mention of Galilee ; and were it not for the
accounts contained in the other Gospels, it might be inferred
that all the appearances occurred on one day.

There is also a considerable difference in the chrono-
logical order in which the events are recorded.^ There is a
general agreement, but a difference in detail. Thus our
Lord's lamentation over Jerusalem was, according to Luke's
Gospel, pronounced during the course of His ministry in

^ It must he acknowledged that tlie connection discernihle in the
different parts of Matthew's account is in favour of the unity of the dis-
course as given by him. We must leave this point undetermined.

2 For the different Synoptic histories of the passion, see Westcott,
Introductio7i to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 299-304.

3 Credner's Einleitung, p. 169.

42 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Galilee (Luke xiii. 34); whilst Matthew's Gospel gives it in
nearly identical words as uttered at Jerusalem before He
suffered (Matt, xxiii. 37y The cure of the blind man at
Jericho is stated by Luke as having occurred when our Lord
entered Jericho (Luke xviii. 35), and by Matthew and Mark
when He was leaving it (Matt. xx. 29 ; Mark x. 46).^ The
cure of the leper is represented by Matthew as having taken
place before He entered into Capernaum (Matt. viii. 1, 5),
whilst by Mark and Luke it is represented as having been
performed after He had left that city (Mark i. 39, 40 ; Luke
iv. 44, v. 12). It is evident that the evangelists did not
confine themselves to any precise chronological order ; their
object was to give incidents in the life of Christ, but without
any reference to the precise time of their occurrence.^

Such, then, are the conditions of the problem. There is an
agreement not merely in the incidents recorded, as if*a selec-
tion had been made of the numerous actions and discourses of
Jesus, but frequently also in the very language employed; whilst,
on the other hand, there are remarkable points of difference.
The solution of the problem must meet all the facts of the case
— the points of agreement as well as the points of difference ;
the key must be suited to the lock — the discovery of that key
is the great question of present New Testament criticism.

V. Sources of the Synoptic Gospels.

We now come to the most perplexing and difficult
division of our subject — the sources of the Synoptic Gospels.

^ There is no improbability in sujiposing that the denunciation was
twice uttered by our Lord.

2 This api)arent discreimncy in the Synoi)tic Gospels is afterwards
fully discussed.

3 See Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, chapter vii.
The differences in arrangement of the Synoptic evangelists. " Each
evangeli.st," lie observes, " lias a characteristic arrangement, coincident up
to a certain point with that of the others, and yet so far different that
harmonists are commonly driven to violent exjjedients — assum]>tions of the
repetition or confusion of similar events — to bring all into agreement. . . .
It is from the iirst unlikely that writings which do not aim at completeness
should observe with scrupulous exactness the order of time" ()>p. 32.3, 324).

SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 43

Indeed, it is the most difficult problem in the criticism of the
New Testament. The recent literature upon it, both in
Germany and in our country, in special works, monographs,
and periodicals, is not only extensive,^ but confusing. Each
author advances a theory of his own ; and one is perplexed
with their number and variety, and with the plausibility of
antagonistic theories. The task of weighing the different
arguments is great ; and the problem is so complicated and
involved that one almost despairs of a solution which would
meet all the points of the case. Still some approach to a
solution has been made. There are points which are now re-
garded by most writers on the subject as settled: although there
are others still under discussion, and perhaps a full explanation
is not yet attainable. Four hypotheses have been advanced 1
to account for the points of agreement in the Synoptic
Gospels : the hypothesis of mutual dependence ; the hypo-
thesis of oral tradition ; the hypothesis of an original docu-
ment or documents ; and a variety of this last hypothesis, the
so-called two document-hypothesis. Each of them is com-
pHcated by different forms of presentation ; thus the theory
of mutual dependence admits of no less than six variations,
each of which has been supported ; the hypothesis of oral
tradition is complicated by the different languages in which
the tradition may have been transmitted, whether Greek or
Aramaic ; the hypothesis of an original document or docu-
ments admits of an almost endless number of variations ; and
the two document-hypothesis is complicated by the different
views of the nature and extent of these documents. These!
hypotheses are not mutually exclusive ; the adoption of
one does not necessarily assume the rejection of the other
three. There may be an element of truth in each ; hideed,
the true settlement of the question may be the result of a

1 Of recent books may be mentioned Abbott and Euslibrooke's
Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, 1884 ; Carpenter, TJie First
Three Gospels, 1890 ; Badliam, The Formation of the Gospels, 1892 ; Jolly,
The Synoptic Problem for English Readers, 1893 ; Barnes, Canonical and
Uncanonical Gospels, 1893 ; Wright, Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890.
Besides the able articles by Dr. Sanday and Professor Marshall in the
Expositor for 1891, and Dr. Sanday's article on the Gospels in the new
edition of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 1893.

44 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

combination of all four. The Gospels may be mutually
dependent : much of their contents may have their origin in
oral tradition : some common document or documents may
have been used : and there may have been one fundamental
original Gospel and a collection of the sayings of our Lord
which may have been the primary sources of the Synoptics.
The examination of the subject requires the greatest caution,
and complete freedom from preconceived opinions.

A. THE THEORY OF MUTUAL DEPENDENCE.

The most natural solution of the problem is to suppose
that the evangelists copied from each other. The similarities
between them may be accounted for on the supposition that
one Gospel was a compilation from the other two, and that
one of the two borrowed from the other ; for example, it
may be supposed that Mark is an abbreviation of Matthew
and Luke, and that Luke is indebted to Matthew. Thus
Augustine, assuming the priority of Matthew, asserts that
Mark was dependent on him. " Mark," he observes, " follows
Matthew as if he were his attendant and abbreviator.^ In
his narrative he has nothing in concert with John, he has
very little peculiar to himself, he has still less in concert
with Luke alone ; but in concert with Matthew he has a
very large number of passages. He relates much in words
almost identical with those used by Matthew, or by him in
connection with the other Gospels." ^ This theory has in
recent times been brought into prominence by Griesbach,^
and was formerly accepted as the true solution by many
eminent critics. It was adopted and ably supported by
Bleek.^ It has now, however, been generally abandoned, as
insufficient by itself alone to account for all the difficulties
of the problem.

' Marcus t-uui (MiiUluciiiii) .siibsecutns, lanquiiiii pL-dissiMjuus et
breviator ejus videtur.

2 Augustine, Consensvs evangelistarum, i. 2.

^ Hutorisch-Kritischer Versuch iiber die Entstchung der schriftlichen Evan-
(jelien. Tlie hypothesis has received the name of Griesbach's theory.

■• Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. j). 2^>d 11". translation.

SOUECES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 45

The three Gospels admit of six possible arrangements,
each of which has been supported by different critics. 1.
There is the order in the canon, Matthew, Mark, Luke.
Matthew wrote first, Mark made use of his Gospel, and
Luke was indebted to both.^ This order was adopted,
although on different grounds, by Bengel, Credner, Grotius,
Hug, Hilgenfeld, and Hengstenberg. 2. Matthew, Luke,
Mark. Mark's Gospel has been supposed to be a compilation
drawn from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, whilst Luke
is supposed to have drawn from Matthew. This was the
theory advanced by Griesbach, and adopted by De Wette 2
and Bleek. 3. Mark, Matthew, Luke. Mark has been
regarded as the original Gospel, whilst Matthew is supposed
to have made use of Mark, and Luke both of Mark and
Matthew. The theory adopted by Eitschl, Eeuss,^ Meyer,
Smith of Jordanhill ; and with various modifications
by Ewald, Holtzmann, Weiss, and Weizsacker. 4. Mark,
Luke, Matthew. Mark has been supposed to be the original
Gospel, Luke copied from him, and Matthew from both
Gospels. The theory adopted by Hitzig and Volkmar.^ 5.
Luke, Matthew, Mark. Luke has been held to be the original
Gospel followed by Matthew, whilst Mark is supposed to
have copied from both. This arrangement has been adopted
by Evanson ^ and Stroud.*^ 6. Luke, Mark, Matthew. Luke
has been supposed to be the original Gospel followed by
Mark, whilst Matthew copied from both. The theory adopted
by Vogel and Schneckenburger.

The directly opposite theory has been maintained by
other critics : that the three Gospels are all independent of
each other : that the Gospel of Mark, although most of its
contents are contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke,
was never seen by these writers, but that the agreement is

1 The order of the Gospels generally found in manuscripts and
versions, and which would seem to presupjiose the order in which they
were written, gives plausibility to this theory.

2 De Wette's Einleitumj in das N.T. § 82.

3 Eeuss, History of the N.T., translated by Houghton.
* Volkmar's Markus.

^ Evanson's Dissonance of the Fo%ir generally received Gospels.
^ Stroud, Greek Harmony of the Gospels, Introduction, p. lix.

V

46 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

to be accounted for from other causes, as the preaching of
the apostles, forms of catechetical instruction, or oral tradi-
tion. This opinion is supported, thougli for different reasons,
by Alford, Ebrard,i Schaff, Abbott,- and Kow.^* Thus Alford
observes : " There is no reason from their internal structures
to believe, but every reason to disbelieve, that any one of
the three evangelists had access to either of the other two
Gospels in its present form." ^ And Schatt" remarks : " There
is no dii'ect evidence that any of the three Synoptists saw
and used the work of the others ; nor is the agreement of
such a character that it may not be as easily and better
explained from antecedent sources."^

But it is difficult to see how the resemblances in the
Gospels, extending not only to incidents and discourses, but
even to verbal expressions, can be accounted for on the
supposition of mutual independence. If three writers had
such a close resemblance in their writings as the evangelists
have, we would naturally conclude that they depended upon
each other. At least it is evident that there must be some
common groundwork. If the evangelists did not see each
others' writings, there must have been either an oral Gospel
which had become stereotyped, or some connnon document or
documents used by all of them.

The Gospel of Mark cannot be considered as a compila-
tion from Matthew and Luke. That it is a compilation has
been often asserted by those who hold the theory of mutual
dependence. It was first brought forward by Augustine, and
is the hypothesis advanced by Griesbach. Almost all the
contents of Mark's Gospel, with a few exceptions, are to be
found either in the Gospel of Matthew or in that of Luke.
This theory has been ably supported by Bleek. He adduces
several passages where it would appear that Mark combined
the statement of Mark and Luke. Thus in the narrative of

^ Ebrard, The GospeTliistory, § 120, translation, p. 554 ff.

2 Abbott and Ruslibrooke's Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels,
p. vi.

" Row, The Jesus of the Evangelists, p. 242.

■* Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. Prolegomena, p. 12, last edition.

" Scliaffs History of the Church, \o]. i. p. 598. Dr. Scliafl' afterwards
changed his opinion ; see farther on.

SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 47

the miracles of Christ, Matthew states that they were per-
formed "when even was come" (Matt. viii. 16); and Luke:
" when the sun was setting" (Luke iv. 40): Mark combines
the two: "at even when the sun did set" (Mark i. 32). So
also in the cleansing of the leper, Matthew says : " Straight-
way his leprosy was cleansed " (Matt. viii. 3); Luke: "Straight-
way the leprosy departed from him" (Luke v. 13); Mark
combines the two : " Straightway the leprosy departed from
him, and he was made clean " (Mark i. 42). In the account
of the Lord's entrance into Jerusalem, Matthew writes : " And
when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Beth-
phage, unto the Mount of Olives" (Matt. xxi. 1); Luke:
" When He drew nigh unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the
mount tliat is called the Mount of Olives" (Luke xix. 29);
Mark combines the two : " And when they drew nigh unto
Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of
Olives " (Mark xi. 1 ). From those and similar examples
Bleek draws the inference : " This is best explained by sup-
posing that Mark had both Matthew and Luke before him,
and used them both." ^

On the other hand, Mark has not the characteristics of a
compiler or epitomiser. Although his Gospel is much shorter
than the other two, and may at first glance be considered as
an abbreviation, yet when it is attentively studied it is
found that this cannot be the case. What Mark does narrate
is recorded at greater length than by the other evangelists,
and he adds a variety of particulars and little touches which
are wanting in the other Gospels ; so that in many of the
incidents recorded by him, instead of epitomising, he enlarges.
There is a peculiar freshness and originality in his descrip-
tions. However we may account for it, Mark has more of
the characteristics of an eye-witness than the other two.
He descends to particulars, and describes the events as if he
had actually seen them. Thus, to take a few examples: in
describing the case of the demoniac boy, whom our Lord
cured after His descent from the Mount of Transfiguration,
Mark tells us of the scribes disputing with the disciples, of

1 Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. ijj). 260-262. For a similar
opinion, see Davidson, Introduction to the N.T. 4th ed. vol. i. jip. 481 fF.

48 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

the amazement of the people when they saw the Lord, of
the conversation between the father of the boy and Christ,
and of the paroxysm that seized the lad (Mark ix. 14—29).
It is Mark who tells us that the amiability of the rich ruler,
who came to our Lord asking what he must do to inherit
eternal life, excited the love of Christ : " Jesus, beholdmer
him, loved him" (Mark x. 21). It is Mark who tells us that
when our Lord cured the deaf and dumb man, He took him
aside from the multitude, put His fingers into his ears, and
spit and touched his tongue ; and looked up to heaven, and
sighed, saying, Ephphatha (Mark vii. 33, 34). It is Mark who
tells us that when the Pharisees manifested their unbelief
and hostility, demanding a sign from heaven, Jesus sighed
deeply in spirit, filled with indignation on account of the
hardness of men's hearts (Mark viii. 12). Mark relates the
incident of the young man rising from his bed and in his
night clothes following Jesus, and those who apprehended him
(Mark xiv. 51); and he informs us that Simon the Cyrenian,
who carried the cross of Christ, was the father of Alexander
and Kufus (Mark xv. 21). We have here the account of an
eye-witness, recording minute particulars, imparting vivid
touches to the narrative.^ The omissions of Mark also prove
that he could not have had the other Gospels before him.
There are events recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke which an abbreviator would not have omitted ; for
example, the account of the supernatural birth of Christ.

But whilst we maintain the originality of Mark, it is a
much more difficult question to determine the relation of his
Gospel to those of Matthew and Luke. That the relation is
intimate, is undoubted ; but does it extend so far as to imply
that these two evangelists used the Gospel of Mark as one of
their authorities ? The negative has been strongly main-
tained by many eminent critics,^ and the agreement between
the Gospels has been referred entirely to oral tradition.

1 Many other instances might be given ; compare the healing of the
paralytic, Mark ii. 3-12, with Matt. iv. 2-8 ; also the accounts of the murder
of John the Baptist, and of Peter's denial. See Salmon's Introduction
tothe N.T. pp. 185-187.

2 Alford, Westcott, Schaff, Plumptre.

SOUECES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 49

But the resemblances are too minute, exact, striking, and
numerous to be attributed to this source alone. Not only-
are the mcidents the same, but there are long sentences
where the words are almost identical. In ordinary literature,
if two writings were found to agree in incident and in form
of expression with a third, and if that third writing bore all
the marks of originality, we would naturally infer that the
authors of these two writings borrowed from the third.
There is, of course, another alternative, that all three bor-
rowed from a connnon document ; but that document, on
account of the nature and extent of the similarities, could
not have rested on oral tradition, which in its nature is
diversified, but must have been written. This is the third
hypothesis of solution, that of a written document, which we
shall afterwards consider. Besides, the order of the narrative
followed in the three Gospels is a presumption in favour of
the use of Mark's Gospel by Matthew and Luke. There is
often a difference in the chronological order in which the
events are recorded by the evangelists ; but the order laid
down m Mark's Gospel is that which has been generally
followed. " There are," observes Professor Sanday, " a few
cases where all three Gospels diverge from each other ; but, as
a rule, if Matthew deserts Mark, Luke agrees with him ; and
if Luke deserts Mark, Matthew agrees with him. There is
no case in which the order of a section common to all three
is supported by Matthew and Luke against Mark." ^

There are, however, various difficulties connected with
the assumption that Matthew and Luke saw and made use of
the Gospel of Mark. It is difficult to account for Matthew
omitting certain portions of Mark's Gospel which are found
in Luke, and, conversely, for Luke omitting certain portions
of Mark's Gospel which are found in Matthew. A difficulty
also arises from the omission, both in Matthew and Luke, of
those few passages which are peculiar to Mark.^ Yet although

1 Tlie Expositor for 1891, vol. iii. fourth series, p. 189.

2 It has been considered as derogatory to the evangelists to suppose
that they used each other's writings ; that Luke, for example, should be
dependent on Mark. But if he used other documents, as is admitted,
why might he not also have used a canonical Gospel ?

4

50 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

the facts of the case do not permit us to arrive at a positive
conclusion, the presumption is that both Matthew and Luke
saw and used the Gospel of Mark. They did not slavishly
and mechanically copy from it ; the language, though similar,
is not precisely the same ; but they made a free use of it as
one of their authorities. In this manner the coincidences of
all three G-ospels, in incident and expression, so far as we see,
can be explained.

But there are not only coincidences between all three
Gospels, but also between Matthew and Luke in events and
discourses not recorded by Mark. In order to account for
these, can we postulate a mutual dependence between those
two Gospels ? This has been done by several eminent theo-
logians. Ritschl, whilst he asserts the priority of the
canonical Mark, further maintains the dependence of Luke
upon Matthew.^ This view has also been maintained, though
on different grounds, by Holtzmann, Weiszacker,^ Wendt, and
Paul Ewald.^ It is essential to this theory to suppose that
the use which Luke made of Matthew's Gospel was not
slavish, but very free and untrammelled. Now, if this opinion
is correct, we certainly have a remarkable approach to the
solution of the problem. The points of agreement in the
Gospels are thus, in a measure, all accounted for. The
coincidences between the three Synoptists arise from the use
of Mark as a fundamental Gospel ; and the coincidences
between Matthew and Luke from the use of the Gospel of
Matthew by Luke.

But there are great, and probably insuperable, objections
to the adoption of this hypothesis. Whilst it may account
for the points of correspondence, it does not account for the
points of difference in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
The diversities in the narrative prove that the one Gospel
must have been independent of the other. Take, for example,
the variations in the genealogies of Christ as given by Matthew
and Luke. " If no other proof," observes Dean Alford, " were
in existence of the total independence of the present Gospels

> Godet'.s Co)iimcntar>j on LiiMs Gospel, vol. i. p. 41, transliition.
2 Apontolisrhes Zeitalter, p. 414.
^ Evangelienfrcuje, p. 1G9.

SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 51

of Matthew and Luke, their genealogies would furnish what I
conceive to be an undeniable one. Is it possible that either
of these evangelists could. have set down his genealogy with
that of the other beforeK^ScT? Would no remark have been
made on their many, and on such a supposition unaccountable,
variations ? " The same is the case with the variations in the
narratives of the birth, the passion, and resurrection of Christ.
If these Gospels were mutually dependent, there would certainly
have been a greater agreement. So also in Matthew, in the
" Sermon on the Mount," there is a collection of the sayings
of Jesus ; whilst in Luke the same sayings are scattered
throughout his Gospel. If Luke used Matthew's Gospel, we
can hardly think that he would have cut up that wonderful
discourse into different portions. These facts convince us that
the Gospel of Matthew was not one of those documents which
Luke employed in the composition of his Gospel.^

B. THE THEORY OF AN ORAL GOSPEL.

According to this theory, the oral teaching of the apostles
and the oral traditions of the actions and discourses of our
Lord are the main sources of the Synoptic Gospels. This
theory has been denominated the hypothesis of Gieseler,
because that eminent theologian was the first who brought it
into prominence. He svipposes that without any preconceived
plan an oral Gospel gradually resulted from the preaching of
the apostles in Jerusalem ; and that from this oral Gospel the
three Synoptic Gospels were composed about the middle of
the first century.2 This view, with different variations, has
been adopted by Neudecker, Guericke, Thiersch, Lange, and
Ebrard in Germany; by Archbishop Thomson,^ Afford,

1 So Meyer, Reuss, Thiersch, and Weiss. The results of our examina-
tion of the hypothesis of mutual dependence are : 1. Mark is an original
Gospel. 2. in all prol)al)ility, though not certainly, Matthew and Luke
make use of the Gospel of Mark as one of their sources. 3. Matthew
and Luke wrote independently of each other.

2 Gieseler's Hist.-krit. Versuch uber die Enstehimcj und die frUhesten
Schiclcsale der schriftlichen Evangelien.

3 In his introduction to the Gospels in the Speaker's Commentary, and in
the article on the Gospels in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible.

52 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Westcott, Plumptre, Lumby, and Farrar ^ in England ; by
Godet '-^ in Switzerland ; and by Norton ^ and Schaff in
America. Thus Bishop Westcott observes : " The primary
Gospel was proved in life, before it was fixed in writing. Out
of the countless multitude of Christ's acts, those were gathered
in the ministry of twenty years, which were seen to have the
fullest representative significance for the exhibition of His
divine life. The oral collection thus formed became in every
sense coincident with the ' Gospel ' ; and our Gospels are the
permanent compendium of its contents."* So also Schaff
remarks : " The chief and common sources from which the
Synoptists derived their Gospels was undoubtedly the living
apostolic traditions or teaching. This teaching was nothing
more or less than a faithful report of the words and
deeds of Christ Himself by honest and intelligent eye-
witnesses." ^

The great office of an apostle was to narrate the history
of the life and death of Christ. Thus, on the election of a
successor to Judas Iscariot, the apostles resolved that, " of the
men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord
Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the
baptism of John unto the day when He was received up from
us, of these must one become a witness with us of His
^ Farrar's Messages of the Books, p. 26.

2 Godet's Commentary on Luke's Gospel, vol. i. pp. 33 ff.

3 Norton, The Genumeness of the Gospels, pj). 284-289.

* Westcott, Introduction to the Gospels, p. 158, 1st edition.

* Schaff 's History of the Church, vol. i. p. 602. Dr. ScliaflF appears
lately to have modified his opinions. In a private letter to the author,
written shortly before his death, he says : " I am pretty certain that there
must have been various fragmentary Gospels l)efore the canonical Gospels,
as is evident from the preface to Luke ; I am also convinced that the tradi-
tion of Papias concerning an original Hebrew Matthew is well founded,
and it would l)e a great help to critics if this Hebrew Matthew could be
discovered, which is by no means imjiossible in view of recent experience
in this age of discovery. I am also settled in my mind as to the originality
and priority of Mark, who has so many pictorial traits, which can only l)e
e.xplained by a personal eye-witness-ship. He was the interjireter of
Peter, and in his rapid movements reflects the sanguine impulsive
temperament of his master. I have no settled opinion as to how far
Matthew and Luke have used the Hebrew ' Logia,' but Matthew and
Luke are certainly independent of each other."

SOUKCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 53

resurrection" (Acts i. 21, 22). The apostles, in their dis-
courses to the people, and especially in the instructions given
to their converts, would dwell upon the actions and teaching
of their Master, — the miracles He performed, the parables
with which He taught the multitude, His divine utter-
ances and discourses. By degrees this teaching would
become to a considerable extent stereotyped : the same
incidents would be dwelt upon, the same discourses re-
peated, especially the most striking parables and the most
weighty sayings, and thus gradually an oral Gospel would
be formed.

But with this similarity there would coexist a consider-
able diversity. There would be different centres of tradition
in Galilee and in Jerusalem, and these local traditions would
necessarily vary. The oral Gospel in Galilee would be
different from the oral Gospel in Jerusalem ; and thus
different collections of traditions might be made. When the
Gospel extended beyond the boundaries of Judaea into
Samaria, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring provinces, the
preachers would carry with them a variety of traditions ;
one uniform Gospel would not be promulgated. This theory
of oral tradition, admitting both of a general uniformity, and
of variations, is supposed to account both for the o^tsts li e ne t e s
and the diversities in the Synoptists. " In the oral narratives
of the apostles," observes Norton, " we find the common
archetype of the first three Gospels, — an archetype, from its
very nature, partly fixed and partly fluctuating, and such,
therefore, as is required to account at once for their coincid-
ence and their diversity." ^

The Eev. A. Wright of Queens' College, Cambridge, in
a valuable contribution to the literature of the Synoptic
Gospels, lays great stress on this theory of an oral Gospel. He
supposes that among the early Christians, catechetical schools
were established in which the converts to Christianity were
instructed in the life of Christ. We are informed that those
baptized on the day of Pentecost continued steadfastly in
the apostles' teaching (Acts ii. 42). This teaching (SiSa'xr])
would consist chiefly in imparting oral instruction in the life
^ Norton, The Genuineness of the Gospels, p. 289.

54 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

and discourses of Christ ; in slioiL, in matters resembling in
substance and form the contents of our canonical Gospels.
So also Luke, in dedicating his Gospel to Theophilus, says
that he wrote that he might know the certainty of the things
wherein he was instructed, literally, catechised {Karrj'^^fjdri'i)}
These schools were established in all places where the
Christian religion was planted, in Asia Minor as well as in
Palestine. Over these schools qualified teachers would be
appointed, men who were instructed by the apostles or
primitive disciples of Christ in the events of His life ; some
of them, as Mark, belonging to the Petrine school, and others,
as Luke, belonging to the Pauline school. These instructions
were at first given in an oral form, and it was not until the
removal of the apostles from Jerusalem that the necessity for
a written Gospel was felt. According to Mr. Wright, there
were six sources from which the Gospels sprung — 1. The
Petrine teaching, contained chiefly in St. Mark's Gospel, and
found also in Matthew and Luke, being an oral Gospel. 2.
" The utterances of our Lord," mentioned by Papias as the
Logia of Matthew, also orally communicated, embedded in
Matthew's Gospel, and found also in Luke. 3. The peculi-
arities of Luke's Gospel, being an oral Gospel, the work of
an unknown pupil of Paul, and collected by Luke. 4. Frag-
ments of an oral Gospel outside of these, as the two intro-
ductory chapters in Matthew, and a few sections in Luke's
Gospel. 5. Written documents collected by Luke, as the
first two chapters and the genealogy. 6. Editorial notes
written by the writers of these Gospels.^

This theory of oral tradition has much to commend it.
The ultimate sources of the Gospels, before anything was
committed to writing, must have been the oral teaching of
the apostles and primitive disciples. There must have been
an oral before there was a written Gospel. The oral element
is an important factor in the formation of our Gospels which
must not be overlooked. It must enter largely into any

^ Mr. Wright puts special weight on GaL vi. 6, where the verb KXTn^cia
is employed.

2 Wright's Composition of the Four Gospels, London, 1893 ; also article
in the Thinker fur February 1895.

SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 55

theory which professes to be a solution of the Synoptic
problem/

But this theory by itself is inadequate to account for
all the coincidences and diversities of the narrative. There
are at least three objections to it. 1. It cannot account for
the similarity or agreement which pervades the Gospels. If
the Grospels arose from oral tradition, we should not have
expected so great an identity of particulars in a life so full
as that of Christ. Nor is this agreement confined to events,
but extends to expressions and words. Tradition does not
express itself in the same terms ; even in the description of
the same event by eye-witnesses, there is always a variety
in the expressions employed. It has indeed been said that
there might be set phrases and current expressions ; but not
to speak of the mechanical formation of the Gospels which
such a view involves, and which is opposed to freedom of
composition, the agreement which pervades the Gospeh is of
such a minute nature as cannot be accounted for by tradi-
tion. " It extends," as Professor Sanday observes, " to
phrases which are mere connecting links between the sec-
tions, and which are just of a kind that on a purely oral
tradition would be the first to vary."^ 2. It is difficult to
suppose that in a general oral Gospel which dwelt on the
actions and discourses of Jesus, the account of the ministry in
Jerusalem, as given in the Johannine narrative, would be
entirely absent. The ministry of our Lord in Judsea would
have occupied in an oral tradition, if not so large a space as
the ministry in Galilee, owing to the shorter period of time
which it embraced, yet a proportionate space. 3. The
specimens of the teachmg of the apostles which we have
in the Acts do not bear out the supposition that their
teaching consisted almost entirely in the narratives of Christ's
life or in the repetition of His parables and discourses. In
the discourses of Peter, Stephen, and Paul, as recorded in
the Acts, we find that these preachers dwelt almost entii'ely
on the advent of Christ, on His sufferings and death, and

1 " At bottom all the Gospels rest on oral tradition or anecdotal remin-
iscences." Holtzmann, Einleihmg, p. 340.

2 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd ed. p. 1220.

56 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

especially on the crowning miracle of His resurrection, as
the authorisation of His mission, without mentioning the
particulars of His life. And the same remark is true of
the Epistles of the several writers : there are in them few
traditionary sayings of our Lord. The record of the life of
Christ gathered from the speeches and Epistles of the apostles
is surprisingly meagre.

An important modification of this theory was made by
Dean Alford, which lessens, if it does not remove, many
of the objections brought against it. He supposed that
besides the mere oral Gospel, which had in a measure
become stereotyped, there were also written statements em-
bracing both the incidents in the life of Christ and His
teaching, and that these were independently used by the
evangelists, and, it may be, incorporated in their Gospels.
" I maintain," he observes, " the probability of a very early
collection of portions of such oral teaching into documents,
some of which two or three of the evangelists may have
used." ^ This combination of traditional narratives with
written documents would account for the identity of the
expressions frequently used by the evangelists.

C. THE THEORY OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OR DOCUMENTS.

According to this theory, there lies at the foundation of
the Gospels an original document or documents, which all
the three evangelists made use of ui the composition of their
writings ; the source of the Synoptic Gospels is not so much
oral tradition as written documents. We learn from the
prologue to Luke's Gospel that many such writings, purport-
ing to convey a narrative of the life of Christ, or giving a
collection of His discourses, did exist in the early days of
Christianity (Luke i. 1-3). Luke does not pass any approval
or disapproval of such documents, he merely testifies to their
existence. This theory of an original document or docu-
ments is the prevalent theory in the present day, and has
given rise to a great number of suppositions.

Eichhorn, at the close of last century (1794), was the
^ Alford's Greek Testwmcnt, vol. i. Prolegomena, ]>. 11.

SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 57

first to give prominence to this theory.^ He gave great
offence by the boldness of his criticism, coming into direct
collision with the then traditional view of the Gospels as
independent narratives. At the time the work was regarded
as a direct attack on the genuineness and credibility of the
Gospels.^ He supposed that there was an original Aramaic
Gospel, which lay at the foundation of the Synoptic Gospels.
This document was soon translated into Greek. In process
of time additions were made to it and inserted in the nar-
rative. There were three translations and three sets of
traditions, and these constituted the Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke. In addition to this original Aramaic
Gospel there was another document containing a collection
of precepts, parables, and discourses delivered by Christ,
which was used by Matthew and Luke, and accounts for the
similarities in their Gospels.^

Bishop Marsh adopted this theory of Eichhorn, and
endeavoured to improve it. He gives the following state-
ment of his theory : " Matthew, Mark, and Luke used copies
of the common Hebrew document, the materials of which
Matthew, who wrote in Hebrew, retained in the language
in which he found them ; but Mark and Luke, besides their
copies of the Hebrew document, used a Greek translation of
it, which had been made before any additions had been
inserted. Lastly, as the Gospels of Mark and Luke contain
Greek translations of Hebrew materials which were incor-
porated into Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, the person, who
translated Matthew's Hebrew Gospel into Greek, frequently
derived assistance from the Gospel of Mark, where Mark had
matter in common with Matthew ; and in those places, but
in those places only, where Mark had no matter in common
with Matthew, he had frequently recourse to Luke's Gospel."*

1 Eichhorn's Einleituncj in das N.T. vol. i. §§ 78-88. Le Clerc (1716)
appears to have been the first critic who suggested it ; afterwards it was
maintained by Michaelis and Lessing, but it was left to Eichhorn to
develop this hypothesis, and to draw it out into a regular theory.

2 There was certainly some reason for this opinion, as Eichhorn con-
siders that our first three Gospels did not come into use l)efore the end of
the second century.

3 Eichhorn's Einleitung, § 84. ■* Marsh's Michaelis, vol. v. p. 361.

58 GENERAL INTKODUCTION.

This hypothesis does not commend itself ; it is intricate and
complicated. Besides, it is very mechanical, and makes the
evangelists mere compilers. Although at the time embraced
by several eminent critics,^ it is now as a whole generally
rejected, though many of its particulars are still adopted ;
indeed there is often a striking resemblance between it and
some of the more recent hypotheses.

Much more plausible is the theory of Schleiermacher.^
Instead of one original Hebrew document lying at the
foundation of the several Gospels, he supposes that there
were several documents. There must have been, at an early
period, many evangelical fragments dispersed throughout the
Churches, — traditions floating about, — of which writings had
been made. These the evangelists worked into their Gospels,
along with materials which each had himself collected ; and
in this manner Schleiermacher accounts for the coincidences
and differences. " Why," he asks, " should the harmony of
the three evangelists admit of no other explanation than that
they either borrowed from each other, or drew from one
common source. Subsequently, at all events, there appear
several common sources. Why should we not content our-
selves with a plurality of them from the beginning, as some
eminent critics have done ? For, in itself, surely this often-
repeated alternation of common and peculiar portions of
history points to nothing else than the previous existence of
several sources, some of which the evangelists had in com-
mon, some not." ^

Heinrich Ewald supposes that there were nine distinct
elements which entered into the formation of the Synoptics.
The first was an original Gospel, containing a brief account of
the chief events of Christ's life from His baptism to His
death, used by Paul, and which he strangely attributes to

1 Esijecially by Bertholdt of Erlangen in his Historisch-Kritischc
Einleitu)uj in sdmmtliche kanotnsche und apokryphisclie Schrifteii des alien
und neuen Testaments.

^ See Schleierniaclier, Commentary on St. Lulce, and a valuable intro-
duction to it by the tran.slator, Bishoj) Thirlwall.

'^ Ibid. p. 7. "It is more natural," he observes, "to imagine many
circumstantial memorials of detiiched incidents, than a single connected
but scanty narrative."

SOUKCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 59

Philip the deacon. The second is the collection of our
Lord's sayings made by Matthew, as mentioned by Papias.
The third is Mark's Gospel, made up of these two. The fourth
is what he calls " the book of the higher history," being an
enlargement of the original Gospel. The fifth is our canonical
Gospel of Matthew, based upon the preceding writings. The
sixth, seventh, and eighth are three lost works — detailed
accounts of special events in our Lord's life. The ninth is
the Gospel of Luke, based on all the other documents, with
the exception of the fifth document, namely, the Gospel of
Matthew.^ Such a theory, though ingenious, is very fanciful,
and without much ground to rest upon.

Dr. Edwin Abbott has brought forward a new theory.
He marks all those passages where Matthew, Mark, and Luke
agree, which he calls the common or triple tradition.^ This
tradition constitutes a kind of narrative ; and this he supposes
to have formed the original Gospel, from which the three
evangelists borrowed independently of each other. " Is it
not possible," he observes, " that the condensed narrative
which we can pick out of the three Synoptic records repre-
sents the ' elliptical style ' of the earliest Gospel notes or
Memoirs, which needed to be expanded before they could be
used for the purposes of teaching, and which might naturally
be expanded with various and sometimes divergent ampli-
fication ? " 3 According to this theory, the Gospels are
independent expansions of notes taken down of the teachings
of the apostles. Such a hypothesis has met with no favour
from any critic* It does not account for the twofold
tradition of Matthew and Mark, of Mark and Luke, and of
Matthew and Luke ; whilst it leaves the diversities found in
the Gospels without explanation.

There is one other theory which, on account of its
ingenuity, plausibility, and originality we would not omit,

1 Bleek's Introduction to N.T. vol. ii. pp. 256, 257.

2 Article on the Gospels in the Encydopcedia Britannica ; Abbott and
Rushbrooke, Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels.

^ Abbott and Rushbrooke, p. 11.

* For adverse remarks on the hypothesis of Dr. Abbott, see Salmon,
Introduction to the N.T. p. 177. It is in its main features a revival of the
hypothesis of Eichhorn.

60 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

that of Mr. Smith of Jordanhill.i He supposes — (1) That
several of the apostles, especially Matthew, Peter, and John,
committed to writing accounts of our Lord's life, in the
Ai-amaic language. (2) That Matthew drew up, from the
origmal Memoirs a life of Christ, botli in Hebrew and in
Greek. (3) That Luke composed another life, founded upon
the authority of eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,
including the Hebrew Memoir of Peter and the Greek Gospel
of Matthew. (4) That after Peter's death, Mark translated
the Memoir written by Peter into Greek.^ This hypothesis
he illustrates in a most ingenious manner. He takes three
histories of the Peninsular War — those of Suchet, Napier,
and Alison. Suchet's history was the testimony of an eye-
witness, and was translated into English, and used both by
Napier and Alison ; whilst Napier's history was known and
made use of by Alison. He places three quotations from
their histories in parallel columns, showing the remarkable
resemblance between them — a resemblance containing some-
times a sameness of expression in all three, and at other times
extending only to two of the histories.^ He draws a parallel
between these resemblances and the resemblances in the
three Gospels, and in this manner explains their verbal
coincidences. Certainly the parallel is very striking in these
histories ; there is the same mixture of variety and identity
of expression as is found in the Gospels.

Pecently much has been made of the theory of an
original Aramaic or Hebrew document lying at the root of
the Synoptic Gospels. This theory has been unfolded in
several interesting and valuable articles by Professor Marshall
in the Exj)ositor,^ and especially by Eesch in his work, entitled,
Tlic Agraj^ha.^ It is in some respects a revival of Eichhorn's

' Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels ; the author of
that classical work, The Voyage of St. Paul.

2 Ibid. p. XXV. 3 Ibid. pp. xxix.-xxxi.

■* These articles are to be found in the Expositor for the year 1891.

^ This is a work of enormous labour and erudition, the result of
upwards of twenty years' research. It proceeds on the assumptions that
there was an original Gospel in the Hebrew lanffuage, that this was chiefly
composed of the sayings of our Lord, and that it not only formed one of the
main sources of our Synoptics, but was used by Paul and quoted by him.

SOUKCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 61

theory, though not so mechanical and rigid in its nature.
These writers suppose that there was an original document,
an Ur-Evangelium, written according to Professor Marshall in
Aramaic, and according to Eesch in Hebrew. This document
was used by all the evangelists. The variation in the words
and clauses in the Gospels is accounted for by the different
translations given to the Aramaic or Hebrew words. Both
Professor Marshall and Eesch give examples of how this
may be done, and, if the vowel points are neglected as not
belonging originally to the languages, how variations in the
sense might easily have occurred. Eesch gives a list of fifty-
nine cases in point, where, as he supposes, Hebrew words in
the original document are translated by different words in
our Gospels.^

This theory, if admitted, certainly accounts in many
instances for variations in expression ; but, when put to the
test, it leaves most of these variations unexplained. It is,
indeed, asserted by the Fathers that Matthew wrote his
Gospel in Hebrew ; ^ but the Gospel, to which these critics
allude, is an entirely different Gospel from our canonical
Matthew : it is an Aramaic Gospel which lies at the founda-
tion, not of Matthew only, but of all the three Synoptics.

D. THE TWO DOCUMENT THEORY.

According to this theory, not one but two documents
form the main sources of the Gospel narrative. One docu-
ment is a narrative of the events in the life of Christ — a
statement of His actions, and the other is a collection of
His sayings — a statement of His discourses. This hypothesis,
it is supposed, affords a complete solution of the Synoptic
problem. " The narrative of events " accounts for the great
sameness of the incidents recorded by all three evangelists ;

1 Kesch's Agrapha, pp. 59-64 ; as, for example, st»>3 is rendered by

?^otfi(ionisiv (Matt. X. 38), ui'psiv (Mark viii. 34), (iccrrxS^uv (Luke xiv. 27),
in the same address of our Lord to His disciples that they must take up
His cross.

2 The language in which Matthew's Gospel was written is the subject
of future discussion ; so also is the " Gospel according to the Hebrews."

62 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

whilst " the collection of sayings " accounts for the striking
resemblance in the expressions employed. But although this
hypothesis is apparently simple, it is in reality highly com-
plicated, and has given rise to great differences of opinion
and to several distinct theories.

This hypothesis is supposed to be supported by the state-
ment of Papias,' where, according to those critics who adopt
this theory, these two documents are mentioned. Papias first
affirms of Mark's Gospel, on the authority of John the
Presbyter, that " Mark, having become the interpreter of
Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatever
he remembered of the things said and done by Christ, and
that he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs
of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected
account of our Lord's discourses." In this record, containing
the preaching of Peter, edited by Mark, we have one of these
fundamental documents, whether this be the canonical Gospel
of Mark or a previous Gospel (Ur-Marcus), from which our
canonical Mark is derived.'^ Concerning Matthew, Papias—'^
writes : " So then Matthew wrote the oracles (Xoyia) in the
Hebrew language.^ In this collection of the XSyia of Christ
made by Matthew we have the other primary document —
whether this is the canonical Gospel of Matthew or a primary
Gospel (Ur-Matthseus) used by some unknown person in the
composition of our Matthew, and also used by Luke in the
composition of his Gospel.

This hypothesis of two documents has been adopted by
Eeuss,'' Weizsiicker,^ Holtzmann, Weiss, Weudt, Beyschlag,*^

1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 ; see svjjra, j). 19.

- Dr. Sanday remarks : " It is not improbable that our St. Mark is
descended from a copy which did not exactly reproduce its predecessor,
even after the Gospel had cvssumed substantially its jjresent form." Bamijton
Lectures, p. 295.

' The words i/.iu ovv, so thru, show that this sentenre in regard to
Matthew doesnoL immediately follow the j)assngi' in rogard lo Mark, (pioted
above.

■* History of the Neio Testament.

" Apost. Zeitalter and Untersuchuiujen iiber die cvangcli^clie GeschichtCf
ihre Quelleji und der Gang ihrer Entvnckhmtj.

" Leben Jesu.

SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 63

Eesch, Dr. Paul Ewald, Pfleiderer/ Sanday, and other recent
writers on the Synoptic problem. " All things considered,"
observes Holtzniann, " the two source hypothesis appears the
most probable solution of the Synoptic problem."

Dr. H. Holtzniann of Strasburg, who is regarded as the
great authority on the Synoptic question, and has devoted
much attention to the subject, supposes that these two docu-
ments — the record of the preaching of Peter given by Mark,
and the Logia, or the collection of the sayings of our Lord
compiled by Matthew — were the main sources of the Synoptic
Gospels. He supposes the first document to be, not the
canonical Gospel of Mark, but an earlier document (Ur-
Marcus), fuller than the present Mark ; and the second
document to be, not the canonical Gospel of Matthew, but a
collection of the discourses of Christ compiled by the Apostle
Matthew (Ur-Mattha^us). The canonical Mark is a revision
of the Ur-Marcus, without any intermixture of the Logia of
Matthew ; whilst the canonical Matthew and Luke are formed
from both documents, and from other written and oral sources.
Recently Professor Holtzmann has somewhat moSTRed and
altered his views, and supposes that Luke had access to the
canonical Gospel of Matthew, and made a free use of it, and,
consequently, that all the discourses in Luke's Gospel need
not necessarily be referred to the Logia ; and he observes :
" So that at least most of the reasons for distinguishing
between an Ur-Marcus and the present Mark have been
removed." '

The view of Weiss of Berlin differs from that of Holtz-
mann as to the prominence to be given to Matthew. He
supposes that Mark not only used the " notes of Peter's
preaching," but had also access to the Logia collected by
Matthew. According to him, " the Logia of Matthew " is the
oldest Gospel, and next to it is the Pe trine Gospel, or the
tradition transmitted by Mark from Peter's preaching. All
three Gospels are composite, and these documents were used in

^ Gifford Lechires, vol. ii. p. 27.

2 For Holtzman's views, see Die Sijnoftischen Evanrjelien, 1863 ; Ein-
leitwig in das N.T. 1885 ; commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Die
Synoptiker, 1889.

64 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

different proportions. The original Gospel was a Matthew
(Ur-Matthoeus), containing the Logia, with a small number of
incidents. The canonical Mark is a combination of the
Memoirs of Peter and a portion of the Logia of Matthew :
the canonical Matthew and the canonical Luke are dependent
on Mark and on the Logia.^

Wendt, of Heidelberg, also adopts the two document
hypothesis. He asserts the priority of Mark to Matthew
and Luke, and supposes that the series of narratives reported
by Mark consists chiefly of the oral evangelical discourses of
Peter. Both Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel. The
Logia of Matthew lies at the foundation of the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke, and Wendt attempts the reconstruction
of the text of the Logia from these Gospels. He restricts
the Logia to the discourses of Jesus.^

Eesch, in his Agrapha, maintains the following points : —
1. The priority of the Gospel of Mark. 2. The existence of
a Hebrew original Gospel containing chiefly the discourses of
Jesus, written before the canonical writings, and lost at an
early period. 3. The two document hypothesis. From these
two documents — the Gospel of Mark and the pre-canonical
Gospel — the first and third canonical Gospels were chiefly
composed. 4. The secondary character of the first Gospel.
The Gospel of Matthew is in no sense an original Gospel, also
not a translation of the original Hebrew Gospel ascribed to
that apostle, but a combination of Mark's Gospel with a
Hebrew Gospel source, and that by an author who personally
was not an eye-witness, but was in a position to add several
traditionary facts to the two chief sources. 5. The use of
the pre-canonical Gospel of Mark.^

Dr. Sanday of Oxford, in a series of valuable articles in
the Expositor,^ and in his elaborate article on the Gospels in
the new edition of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, gives what
is the present state of the Synoptic problem. He himself
adopts, or, at least, greatly favours, the two document hypo-

1 For Wc'iHs' views, see Ikis Marcus Evangelmm und seine Synoptischen
Parallelen, Lehen Jesu, and Einleituiig in (la.t N.T.

2 Weiidt's Die Lehre Jesu. ^ Rescli's Aijrajiha, j). 27.
■• Expositor for Ihe year 1891, fourtli series, vol. iii.

SOUKCES OF THE SYNOrTIC GOSPELS. 65

thesis. He considers the following particulars as practically
proved : — 1. That there was a fundamental document.

2. That it is represented most nearly by the Gospel of Mark.

3. That it is highly probable that the common foundation
of the three Gospels was a document, strictly so called,
written, and not oral. 4. That the exact relation of this
document to our present Mark must be regarded as still an
open question.^ With regard to the second document, or the
Logia of Matthew, Dr. Sanday thinks that it was chiefly
restricted to the sayings of Christ, and that these sayings or
discourses were employed in the first and third Gospels. He
considers that the Apostle Matthew did not write the first
Gospel as we have it, but that it was called by his name,
because it contained the Logia collected by him, a section so
important that the name passed from that to the whole.^

One great point of dispute regards the meaning to be
affixed to the term Xo7ta as used by Papias when referring to
the writings of Matthew, — whether it is to be restricted to the
sayings and discourses of Jesus, or whether it also includes
the incidents of His life. The critics above mentioned, as
Holtzmann and also Meyer, restrict the term chiefly to the
sayings of Jesus ; whilst other critics, as Bleek and Zahn,
assert that it was not so restricted, but included the whole
life of Jesus — His actions as well as His discourses. This
opinion has also been maintained by Bishop Lightfoot.^ The
term in the New Testament is used for the Scriptures (of
course, of the Old Testament), and is not restricted to mere
sayings. Thus Paul, speaking of the privileges of the Jews,
says that unto them were committed " the oracles of God " (ra
Xoyta Tov deov, Rom. iii. 2).* And the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews refers to " the first principles of the oracles of
God" (Heb. v. 12). In both passages the reference is to the
Scriptures of the Old Testament.^ The word, then, as applied

^ Expositor, vol. iii. fourtli series, p. 180.

2 Ibid. p. 303.

^ Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 173, 174.

* See Pliilippi, Commentary on the Romans, vol. i. p. 105, translation.

^ The word occurs only in two other passages in the New Testament,
and there also the reference appears to be to the Scriptures of the Old
Testament, Acts vii. 38 and 1 Pet. iv. 11.

5

66 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

to the New Testament, would be nearly equivalent to
euayyekiov ; and in this sense it is used by the early Fathers.^
" There is nothing," observes Bleek, " in the manner in which
Papias expresses himself to justify this supposition (namely,
that the expression simply refers to a writing wherein
Christ's discourses only were collected) ; he would certainly
have expressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical
work like our New Testament Gospels, if he were referring to
a writing the contents of which were those of our Greek Gospel
according to Matthew. Papias uses the name ra Xojia of the
entire Gospel, without making any distinction between the
historical narrative and the discourses of Christ." -

Some progress in the solution of the Synoptic problem has
been made. It is now generally agreed by those critics who
have studied the question, that the Gospel of Mark, or a
writing closely resembling it, and a collection or collections of
the sayings of Jesus, are among the main sources of the
Synoptic Gospels. A theory which embraces these two points,
forming a modification of the two document hypothesis, is now
regarded as the probable solution of the Synoptic problem.

1. The canonical Gospel of Mark, or at least a document
closely resembling it, is supposed to be the primitive or
original Gospel — one of the main sources of the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke — used by them either directly or indirectly.
For reasons already stated, we inferred the probability that
the first and third evangelists were cognisant of the writing of
the second. In order to remove certain difficulties, to which
we have already alluded, attending the assumption of the use
of Mark's Gospel by Matthew and Luke, some critics affirm
that not our canonical Mark, but an original Mark, an
Ur-Marcus, of which our Mark is a recension, containing a
narrative of our Lord's life, is the common foundation of the
three Synoptics.^ Some suppose that the original Mark was
of larger compass than the present ]\Iark, and embraced those

1 Irenseus, Adv. Jlwr. i. 8. 1 ; Polycarp, riiU. 7.

2 Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. ii. jip. 109, 110.

^ Thisopinien has 1 teem adopted liy Kns^tlin, Volkinar, Woizsiickcr ; and
was at one tinier advocated l)y Holtzniaim, tli(nigh afterwards al)andoned
bv liini.

SOUKCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 67

sections in which Matthew and Luke agree almost verbatim.
Others think that it was shorter. Those who do so, argue that
the statement of Papias, that Mark wrote down accurately
though not in order (ou fjbivrot Tci^ec), that is, not consecutively,
is only suitable to a shorter Gospel than that which we now
possess, inasmucli as the canonical Gospel of Mark is generally
considered the most systematic of the three Synoptics.

But, so far as we can see, there exists no reason for this
supposition. The Fathers mention no such previous Gospel.
They speak of the Gospel of Mark, but never indicate that this
was only an edition or recension of a former Gospel now lost.
Papias distinctly asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel from the
teaching of Peter ; and Irenasus aihrms that the second Gospel
was written by Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter.
The substitution of the canonical Gospel of Mark for a lost
Gospel must have occurred either before Papias wrote (a.d.
116) or between the time of Papias and Irenseus (a.d. 180).
It could not have occurred before the time of Papias, for
there is not the least indication given by him of a previous
Gospel, and the time between the composition of the Gospel of
Mark and Papias is too short to admit of a silent, unnoticed
substitution of one Gospel for another. Still more incredible
is it to suppose that it disappeared after Papias wrote and
before Irenaus composed his work against heresies ; for we
have an almost unbroken chain of testimony between these
two periods, alluding to the Gospel of Mark ; so that the
Gospel mentioned by Papias could not possibly have been
superseded by a different Gospel, without some statement or
intimation of this fact in the writings of the early Fathers.^
We conclude, then, that our canonical Gospel of Mark, as we
have it, is the primitive Gospel which the other two evangelists
saw and used, and which was one of the chief sources of their
Gospels.2 The use of this Gospel by Matthew and Luke

^ Tliis argument against the existence of an Ur-Marcus is well put by
Barnes in his Canonical and Uncanonical Gospels, p. 68.

2 This opinion is now adopted by most critics. " The testimony of
Papias," observes Meyer, "regarding tlie work of Mark furnishes no
reason for regarding this work as different from our second canonical
Gospel." Commcntarij on Matthew, vol. i. p. 38, translation.

68 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

accounts for the similarity of incidents in the three Gospels,
and also of expressions where all three agree, and where
Matthew and Mark, or Mark and Luke agree.

2. The collection or collections of the sayings of Christ,
partly oral and partly written, was the other main source of
the Synoptic Gospels. It was most natural, indeed in-
evitable, that the apostles and early Christians would treasure
up the sayings of Christ. These sayings would be often
repeated by them in their pu])lic assemblies, and become
indelibly fixed in their memories, and would soon be reduced
to writing. The shorter sayings, as that quoted by Paul, " It
is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts xx. 35), would
be retained in the memory ; but there would also be written
collections of the longer sayings or discourses of our Lord
which would be taken down at an early period, before the
recollection of them had faded away. We cannot suppose
that twenty or thirty years would have elapsed before there
were any written documents containing the parables of our
Lord, or the words with which He taught the nmltitudes.
" A few detached aphorisms," observes Professor Salmon, " of a
great teacher may be carried by the memory for some time,
and be passed from one to another ; but discourses of the
length we find in the Gospels would, in the ordinary course of
things, have perished, if they had not been from the first
either committed to writing or, if committed to memory, kept
alive by constant repetition. It is surprising how little of
spoken words ordinary memories are able to retain. ... If
Boswell has been able to give a vivid representation of Dr.
Johnson's Table-Talk, it is because he used to stand behind
the chair of the object of his veneration with note-book in
hand."i

Different collections of these sayings would be made in
different localities for the use of different Churclies. Some
would be written in Aramaic for the use of the Hebrew
converts, and some in Greek for the use of the Hellenistic
converts. Such collections of the sayings of Christ, both oral
and written, l)oth in Aramaic and in Greek, woulil be used by
all three evangelists in the composition of their Gospels.
^ Introduction to the New Testament, \k 137.

SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 69

This hypothesis accounts for the similarity, often amounting to
identity of expression, found not only in all the three Gospels,
but especially in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Thus,
for example, the thanksgiving of our Lord to the Father, when
the disciples recorded the success of their mission, found in
almost identical words in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
(Matt. xi. 25-27 ; Luke x. 21, 22), is one of those sayings of
Christ which these evangelists incorporated in their Gospels.
We have already seen that the identity of expression occurs
chiefly in the sayings or discourses of Christ. It has been
objected that no such collections of sayings are mentioned by
the early Fathers. But their existence was inevitable ; the
early Christians would feel constrained to collect the words of
the Lord, and their incorporation into our Gospels may account
for their disappearance. Besides, we do not suppose that
there was any single authorised document containing the
sayings of Christ, but only that fragmentary writings or
detached narratives were dispersed throughout the Churches.
We do not consider that the Logia of Matthew, mentioned by
Papias, was one of these collections of sayings, because, as we
have already observed, the term \6yia there employed is not
used in a restricted sense ; but, at the same time, it must be
admitted that the Gospel of Matthew is remarkable among
the other three Gospels for its collections of the sayings
of Christ.

We do not know whether these collections of the sayings
of Christ entirely disappeared in the apostolic age in con-
sequence of their incorporation in the written Gospels. A
collection of sayings attributed to our Lord, not recorded in
the Gospels, but dispersed through the writings of the early
Fathers, and preserved in the apocryphal writings, has been
made by Bishop Westcott.'- Wendt, in a valuable appendix
to his Die Lehre Jesu, adverts to several indications of the
words of Jesus in the Epistles of Paul ; for example, he
adduces the command of the Lord, that the wife should not
depart from her husband (1 Cor. vii. 10); the injunction of
the Lord, that they which preach the gospel should live of the

1 Westcott's Introduction to the St^tdy of the Gospel, 1st ed. Apiiendix C,
pp. 424-438.

70 GENERAL INTKODUCTION.

gospel (1 Cor. ix. 14); the institution of the Lord's Supper
(1 Cor. xi. 23—25); and the announcement of the second
coming of the Lord, which Paul introduces with the words :
" This I say unto you by a word of the Lord " ( 1 Thess. iv.
15). Kesch in his great work, the Agraplta, supposes that
" sayings of Christ," contained, as he thinks, in the Logia
of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language, are to be found
in the Epistles of Paul and other canonical writings, as well
as in the writings of the Fathers. He gives a list of sixty-
two Logia found in the canonical Epistles and in the writings
of the Fathers, which he considers to have been the words
of Christ — Agrapha not contained in the Gospels.^

We shall, when we come to the investigation of the
three Synoptic Gospels separately, consider at length the
sources from which each Gospel is derived ; but it may be
advisable before we close this discussion to advert to these
sources in a general manner.

Many suppose that the Gospel of Matthew is a compila-
tion, and that Matthew's name is attached to it because he
wrote a section so important that his name passed from that
to the whole ; an opinion which we shall afterwards consider.
The sources of Matthew's Gospel, according to our hypothesis,
are the Gospel of Mark, the sayings or discourses of our
Lord either handed down by tradition or in written fragments,
and Matthew's own personal observation as an apostle, and his
communications with his fellow apostles — of those who were
" eye-witnesses and ministers of the word."

Papias, on the authority of John the Presbyter, informs
us that Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote down
whatever he (Peter) remembered of the things said or done
by Christ : nor is there any reason to discredit this statement,
as it is confirmed and attested by the Fatliers. But, besides
the oral teaching of Peter, the general oral tradition of the
Church would form another source of Mark's Gospel. Mark
appears to have been a native of Jerusalem, and to have
been intimately connected with the apostolic Church.

Luke, in his preface, informs us how his Gospel was

^ The most remarkable of these found in the Epistles of Paul are
1 Cor. ii. 9, vii. 10, ix. 10 ; Eph. v. 14 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; 1 Tim. v. 18.

INTEKPKETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 71

composed. He used his utmost diligence in the collection
of authentic facts and sayings of our Lord, " tracing the
course of all things accurately from the first." One of the
documents which he would employ was the Gospel of Mark.
He would, no doubt, make a careful selection of the evangelical
fragments in circulation containmg the sayings of Christ.
He might have learned the account of the birth of our Lord
either from the brothers of Christ, or it may be from Mary
herself. His intercourse with Paul, and perhaps his residence
in Judaea during Paul's imprisonment in Ctesarea, afforded
him exceptional opportunities of ascertaining the incidents in
our Lord's life. And perhaps also there was an additional
narrative or document to which he had access, the so-called
great insertion or Peraean section (Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14),
which does not appear to have been used by the other two
evangelists.

The subject is still beset with difficulties ; there are still
many points not ascertained or settled ; many objections to
which no satisfactory answers have been given. Especially
the relation of Mark's Gospel to the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke requires to be more closely examined. We reject
the theories of an Ur-Matthseus and an Ur-Marcus as not
supported by the statements of the Fathers, and in themselves
improbable. And with regard to the statement of Papias, we
do not think that it refers to a previous Mark, or to a
document containing a collection of the sayings of Christ
by Matthew, but to the canonical Gospels of Matthew and
Mark then existing, and which came under his notice. At
the same time, we must leave the question concerning the
sources of the Synoptic Gospels in a considerable measure
unanswered, but we look hopefully forward to a satisfactory
solution by future critics.

VI. Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels.

In the interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels, as of all
other ancient writings, the first prerequisite is to secure
as correct a text as the nature of the case will permit.
For the attainment of this we have the greatest advantages.

72 GENEKAL INTRODUCTION.

The materials for forming such a text are numerous : there
are more than two thousand manuscripts of the Greek New
Testament, besides numerous versions and quotations from
patristic writings. Eminent scholars have expended much
labour in a critical examination of these materials, and have
published carefully studied critical editions of the Greek
Testament. Griesbach arranged the different manuscripts into
families, and formed a new text on the basis of the textus
receiJtus} Lachmann advanced a step farther, by forming a new
text from the most ancient manuscripts, giving no preference
to the textus receptus, and thus made it his object to restore
the text to the state m which it was in the fourth century.^
Tischendorf, by the discovery of numerous manuscripts, especi-
ally the Codex Sinaiticus, and by the collation of the most
important, formed a text which may be regarded as perfect as
can possibly be made, almost a restoration of the originals.^
Tregelles, in our own country, carefully collected additional
manuscripts, and published a Greek Testament, vying in
accuracy with the editions of those illustrious German scholars.*
And Westcott and Hort, profiting by the labours of their
great predecessors, conjointly published a critical edition,^
which by many is considered as a standard work, almost
rendering all additional research unnecessary, unless new
materials for examination should be discovered. The result
of these investigations has been thus stated by Dr. Hort, in
terms certainly not too strongly expressed : " In the variety
and fulness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the
New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone
among ancient prose writings." '^

* Griesbach, Novum Testamentum grcece, Londini, 1818.

2 Lacliniann's Novum Testamentum grcece et latine, Berlin, 1832.

* Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum grcece, editio sejitima, Leipsic,
1889 ; editio octava, 1873.

* Tregelles, The Greek New Testament, edited from ancient authorities
with their various readings in full, London, 1857-1879.

^ The Neio Testament in the original Greek. The text revised by Dr.
Westcott and Dr. Hort. By the recent death of Dr. Hort, the Church of
England lost one of its ablest scholars, and one of the most amiable of men.

" The manuscripts of the New TesUiment are divided into two classes,
those written in uncial characters, which are the most ancient, and those

INTEKPEETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 73

Having obtained a correct text, the next task is to trans-
late it. Whatever modification the element of inspiration
may necessitate in giving to the text a higher and more
spiritual meaning, yet, in the first instance, the ordinary
methods of interpretation must be employed to ascertain its
literal sense. As the late Professor Jowett observes : " Inter-
pret the Scripture like any other book. There are many respects
in which Scripture is unlike any other book ; these will appear
in the results of such an interpretation. The first step is to
know the meaning, and this can only be done in the same
careful and impartial way that we ascertain the meaning of
Sophocles or of Plato." " Scripture is to be interpreted like
other books, with attention to the character of its authors
and the prevailing state of civilisation and knowledge, with
allowance for peculiarities of style and language, and modes
of thought and figures of speech." ^

written in cursive characters, which are the most recent. No manuscript has
been discovered older than the fourth century. Of ancient manuscrijits there
are five which have pre-eminence on account of their age and the consequent
value of their readings ; these are the Codex Sinaiticus (s), discovered by
Tischendorf, and now in St. Petersburg ; the Codex Alexandrinus (A),
now in the British Museum ; the Codex Vaticanus (B), now in the
Vatican ; the Codex Ephrsem (C), a palimpsist, containing fragments of
the New Testament, now in the Imperial Library of Paris ; and the
Codex Bezae, now in the University Library of Cambridge. Perhaps
Westcott and Hort, in their critical edition, have ranked too highly the
Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus to the disparagement of the Codex Alexan-
drinus. The cursive manuscripts are much more numerous than the uncial;
and it has been thought by Dean Burgon, Canon Cook, and others, that
their value has been underestimated, and an undue preference given to the
uncial, inasmuch as many of these cursive manuscripts are doubtless
transcripts of older manuscripts than any which we possess ; but as it is
impossible to prove this, the only course left open to us is to form
our text chiefly from the readings of the most ancient codices. Of the
versions of the New Testament the most valuable are the Old Latin and
the Syriac, both of which were formed about the middle of the second
century, and thus contain readings older than those of our oldest Greek
manuscripts. The quotations from the Fathers are for critical purposes
of inferior value, unless on those rare occasions when a peculiar reading
is mentioned, because most of these quotations were made from memory.

^ Jowett's essay on the Interpretation of Scripture in Essays and
Reviews, 8th ed. pp. 377, 404. The whole essay is well worthy of a
careful perusal ; some of the statements are of doubtful tendency.

74 GENERAL INTKODUCTION.

The result of all these scholarly investigations has in our
age been the publication of the Revised Version, a work which
occupied for several years the attention of the most distin-
guished biblical scholars, both of this country and of America.
It has not, it must be admitted, answered the expectations
either of those engaged on it or of its admirers. The
Authorised Version has not, as was fondly expected, been
superseded by it, nor are there any symptoms of this ever
being the case ; yet it is a great gain to Christians in our
country, and a great advantage to biblical scholars. The
translation possesses the weight of authority. It is formed
on the most approved text, the nearest approach that has
yet been made to the original, and hence several passages
which are inserted in the Authorised Version are now, after a
careful examination of authorities, regarded as interpolations,
and a few which were omitted are now inserted as genuine.
The chief omissions are the doxology to the conclusion of the
Lord's Prayer (Matt. vii. 13), and the testimony of the
heavenly witnesses (1 John v. V); in 1 Tim. iii. 16, He
is substituted for God ; whilst the incident of the woman
taken in adultery (John viii. 1-11), and the concluding verses
of Mark's Gospel (Mark xvi. 9-20), are marked as doubtful.
The additions to the Authorised text are few ; in 1 John ii. 23,
the clause : " He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also,"
is no longer printed in italics, as if it were doubtful. The
translation is also distinguished for its accuracy ; and thus
many obscure passages are elucidated, and many misapprehen-
sions corrected. The great fault of the Eevised Version is that
it often departs unnecessarily from the fine old English of the
Authorised Version, which has endeared itself to the hearts of
the people, and has had almost a sanctity imparted to it.
Some of the alterations are also of doubtful advantage, as the
substitution of " the evil one " for " evil " in the petition in
the Lord's Prayer : " Deliver us from evil."

A number of words used in the Synoptic Gospels may
be considered as translations either from the Hebrew or
from the Aramaic. We have already alluded to the
hypothesis of a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel, advanced by
Professor Marshall and Eesch, as one of the main sources

INTERi'EETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 75

of the Synoptics.^ Bvit although we do not think that there
is much or any ground for this hypothesis, yet we have the
testimony of Papias, followed by many of the early Fathers,
that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. This important
statement will afterwards be considered ; but, if we admit its
truth, it follows that the Gospel of Matthew, as we now
have it, is a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek.
There may also have been Gospel-fragments in Hebrew used
by all three evangelists. If this is the case, it would account
for many verbal variations which occur in the Synoptics, in
describing the same events and recording the same discourses.
As already observed, it never happens that two translators
of a passage use precisely the same words ; and this is
especially the case when translating from the Hebrew and
Aramaic, owing to the peculiarities of these languages with
regard to their vocalisation ; the omission or change of vowel
points, which are of comparatively recent origin, occasions a
variation of meaning.

On account of its importance, we repeat what has already
been said in our Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, that an
essential prerequisite for the interpretation of Scripture, and
of the Synoptic Gospels in particular, is candour. This is a
quality in which many biblical scholars and exegetes are
sadly deficient. From sectarian or doctrinal bias we are apt
to err in this particular, and to come to the study of the
Synoptic Gospels with preconceived opinions, and seek to
read into them our doctrinal views. This is especially seen
in the numerous and conflicting interpretations which are
given to the Sermon on the Mount.^ We must reverse
the process, and come to the study of the Scriptures
as much as possible without prepossession ; not asserting
dogmatically that such must be the meaning of a passage
because such are the views we have adopted ; but that
such are our views, because such is the obvious meaning of
Scripture.^

1 See supra, p. 60.

2 Besides tlie interpretations given in the diflferent commentaries, the
reader is especially referred to the suggestive views of Count Tolstoi.

^ Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 54.

76 GENEKAL INTKODUCTION.

Another prerequisite for the interpretation of the Syn-
optic Gospels is to put ourselves as much as possible in
the times when these Gospels were written. We must
acquire a knowledge of the circumstances of tlie times, of
the political condition of Judaea, of the opinions of the
various parties into which the Jews were divided, — the
Pharisees and the Sadducees, — and of the feelings which
actuated the mass of the people. We must try and under-
stand the disposition of the Jews toward Christ ; His
popularity with the people at first, and its gradual decline ;
and the reason of the hostility of the chief rulers which
culminated in His death.^ We must, with the spirit of a
historian, live over in thought that period. " If," says
Cardinal Wiseman, " we wish to understand an author, we
must transplant ourselves from our age and country, and
place ourselves in the posture of those whom our Saviour
addressed. We must invest ourselves with their knowledge,
their feelings, habits, opinions, if we wish to understand the
discourses which were addressed primarily and immediately
to them. For the true meaning of a word or phrase is that
which was attached to it at the time when the person whom
we interpret wrote or spoke."

It has been objected, that if the evangelists had not
written their Gospels independently, but either used each
other's Gospel, or incorporated other written documents, or
had recourse to oral traditions ; especially if there were
original Gospels, now lost, tliat lay at the foundation of our
canonical Gospels, they cannot be considered as inspired;
the evangelists are left entirely to the use of their own
mental powers, and in many respects are mere compilers.
" The inspiration of the Gospels," says ]\Ir. Sadler, " is incom-
patible witli tlie theory that they were all taken from one
document, for in such a case that unknown and lost docu-
ment must liave been the only one tliat could be called
the work of the Spirit ; and the alterations which each one
made in it, which their mutual discrepancies show, prove

1 See especially on this point the great and exhaustive work of
Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Christ ; also Hausrath's History
of the New Testament Times : The Time of Jesus.

INTEEPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 77

that in altering it they individually were not so far guided
by the Holy Spirit." ^

It is foreign to an Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels
to enter into any discussion of inspiration, either in proof of
its truth or in explanation of its nature and extent ; this
belongs to the sphere of dogmatic theology. The inspiration
of the Grospels does not affect the mode of interpretation, nor
the consideration of the sources from which they were
derived. The Gospel-fragments, used by the evangelists, or
incorporated into their writings, may have been inspired
documents ; of course of this we have no direct evidence,
except that which arises from the nature of their contents.
Luke, for example, in his preface, indicates that he had
access to several traditionary accounts or written documents,
and among them might be the Gospel of Mark and these
Gospel-fragments. The Holy Spirit might influence him
in the choice of his materials, and might guide and direct
him to what was true and important. Our Lord, on the eve
of His departure, promised the gift of mspiration to His
apostles. The Holy Spirit was to enlighten their minds in
the knowledge of the truth, to guide them into all truth,
to show them things to come, to reveal those " many things "
which Christ had not disclosed, and to assist them in their
apologies before kings and rulers. " These things have I
spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you. But the
Comforter, even the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that I have said unto you " (John xiv.
25, 26). "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come. He shall
guide you into all truth : for He shall not speak from Him-
self ; but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He
speak : and He shall declare unto you the things that are to
come" (John xvi. 13). The Fathers repeatedly assert the
inspiration of the sacred writers. Tertullian speaks of them as
having their minds flooded with the Holy Spirit ; ^ and Origen
affirms that the sacred books are not the works of men, but
were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.^

1 QuoLed in Salmon's Introduction to the N.T. p. 156, note. - Apol. 18.
3 De Princif. iv. 9. It is difficult, if not impossible, to define the

78 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

It has, however, been asserted that there are discrepancies
in the Synoptic Gospels of such a nature as disprove their
inspiration. Whether these discrepancies exist is one question ;
and whether, granting their existence, they are of such a
character as to disprove the inspiration of the Gospels, is
another. We have already admitted, what is indeed un-
deniable, that there are great differences in the Gospels,
especially in those of Matthew and Luke, in their narratives
of the birth of our Lord, of His sufferings and death, and of
His resurrection ; and we have dwelt upon these differences
in considering the nature of the Synoptic problem. But
many of these differences are not inaccuracies or discrep-
ancies, but additions to the history or variations in the state-
ment of the same incidents seen from different points of view.^
It is also to be observed that there may have been a repeti-
tion of the same incidents. Thus to take a notable example :
we learn from Matthew and Mark that there were two occasions
on which our Lord miraculously fed the multitude, with points
of similarity and dissimilarity in the accounts, whilst only
one of these instances is recorded by Luke. Now, supposing
that Matthew and Mark had only recorded one of those
miracles, the feeding of the four thousand, whilst the other
miracle, the feeding of the five thousand, was only recorded by
Luke, it would be asserted that there were numerous discrep-
ancies in the accounts of the evangelists ; the one account
asserting the number of those fed to be four tliousand, and
the other five thousand ; according to the one the supply of
food was seven loaves, according to the other four loaves and
two fishes ; the fragments gathered, according to one narra-
tive, were seven baskets full, and according to the other,
twelve baskets. Whereas all these discrepancies are at once

nature of iusi)ii'ation ; and hence in confe.s.sions of faith, Avhilst the inspira-
tion of Scrii)ture is asserted, it is generally left unexplained. It implies
that the sacred writers were infhienced by the S])irit of God. But this
general assertion does not admit of being iiarticularised. See Sanday's
Bam'pton Lectures on " Insi)iration," pp. 31 ff.; Row's Bampton Lectures,
pp. 443-448.

1 For the consideration of these dill'erences in the Synoptic Gospels
the reader is referred to the various commentaries, especially these of
Meyer, Godet, Alford, Morison, M'Clellan, etc.

INTEKPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 79

removed and disappear by the information we possess, that
our Lord fed the multitude, not on a single, but on two occa-
sions. A similar solution may solve other difficulties ; as, for
example, in the case of the anointing of our Lord ; one
anointing is related by Luke (vii. 36—40), and another by
Matthew (xxvi. 6, 7) and Mark (xiv. 3). Both agree in the
facts that the person who anointed was a woman, and that the
name of the person in whose house it occurred was Simon,
one of the most common Jewish names. But in all other
particulars they differ essentially ; the one occurred during
the course of our Lord's ministry in Gralilee, the other in
Bethany shortly before His passion ; in the one case the
woman was a penitent sinner, in the other she was the
saintly Mary, the sister of Lazarus. All these differences
disappear on the reasonable supposition that the anointing
occurred on two different occasions. So also there is nothing
improbable in the supposition that the disciples twice dis-
puted among themselves which of them should be the greatest
(Luke ix. 46, xxii. 24); and that our Lord twice purified the
temple by casting out the buyers and sellers, once at the
beginning (John ii. 13-17), and a second time at the close
of His ministry (Matt. xxi. 12, 13). Many of the sayings
of our Lord might have been repeated, as they partook of the
nature of proverbial expressions, as " He that humbleth him-
self shall be exalted ; and he that exalteth himself shall be
humbled" (Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14). "Whosoever shall save
his life shall lose it " (Luke ix. 24, xvii. 33). So also much of
the Sermon on the Mount may have been twice repeated,
and our Lord may have given to His disciples on two occa-
sions a similar form of prayer.^ The alleged discrepancies
in the Gospels are greatly diminished in number by these
considerations, and the differences which do still exist are
proofs of the comparative independence of the writers ;

^ In Matthew's Gospel, the Lord's Prayer constitutes part of
the Sermon on the Mount, whilst in Luke's Gospel our Lord is
represented as giving it in answer to the request of the disciples to
instruct them in the mode of prayer (Luke xi. 1). There are also
considerable verbal variations in the two forms. See on doublets in the
Gospels, swpra, p. 37.

80 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

indeed, the marvel is that so few alleged discrepancies
exist.^

There is one incident, however, which requires special
consideration owing to the extreme difficulty of harmonising
the accounts. We allude to the incident of the cure of the
blind man at Jericho, as given by all three evangelists
(Matt. XX. 29-34; Mark x. 46-52; Luke xviii. 35-43).
In tlie accounts given there is a twofold variation as regards
the number of those cured, and as regards the locality
where the miracle was performed. Matthew affirms that
there were two men,^ whilst Mark and Luke seem to intimate
that there was only one. Luke tells us that the cure was
performed as our Lord entered Jericho, whilst Matthew and
Mark say that it happened when He departed from Jericho.
The attempted solutions of these discrepancies have hitherto
been forced and unnatural, mere evasions of the difficulty.
M'Clellan supposes that as our Lord entered Jericho two
blind men sat by the wayside begging, but made no applica-
tion ; and, on the next day, when our Lord was departing,
they cried out, " Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us!"
and were cured ; ^ which is certainly at variance with the
account given us by Luke. Greswell supposes that two
miracles were performed in Jericho, but at different times
and on different individuals ; that Mark relates one of the
miracles performed when Jesus was departing from Jericho,
and Luke relates the other as Jesus was entering Jericho,
and that Matthew embraces both cures in one narrative.*
But the language employed by the blind men and our Lord,
as recorded by all the evangelists, was the same, thus
indicatmg that the miracle was the same. Surely it is

^ Other apparent discrepancies, as the genealogies, the census of
Quirinius, the prophecy of Zechariah referred to Jeremiah, are discussed
farther on. The diflerence between the Synoptics and St. John as to
the day of our Lord's death is di.scussed in the Introduction to the
Joh(innine Writiwjs.

2 In Matthew's Gospel the nunilxT cured is oftt'n douliled : as here
the two blind men at Jericho, tlie two demoniacs at Gadara (Matt. viii. 28),
the two lilind men at Capernaum (Matt. ix. 27).

3 M'Clellan's New Testament, vol. i. p. 467.
■♦ Greswell's Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 569.

INTERPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 81

better frankly to admit the discrepancy than to have
recourse to such forced methods of conciliation. There
may be some method of reconciliation of which we are
ignorant, owing to the scantiness of our information. Even
admitting the discrepancy, it is evidently of a slight nature,
and does not at all affect the principal fact, that a miracle
of healing was performed at Jericho.^

It is an obvious remark, that in interpreting any writing
there must be a certain sympathy between the reader and
the writing : a poetical spirit can only understand and
appreciate poetry ; a mathematical mind can only solve the
problems of mathematics ; a philosophical mind can only
follow the discussions of metaphysicians ; an historical mind
can only fully enter into the great political and social
questions of the age. This is especially the case with the
interpretation of the Scriptures : the word of God can only
be truly understood by a religious mind. There must be an
inspiration within us, an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to
correspond with the inspiration of the Scriptures without us.
In this sense we may understand the words of the apostle :
" The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God : for they are foolishness unto him ; and he cannot know
them, because they are spiritually judged" (1 Cor. ii. 14).
In order, then, to interpret the Synoptic Gospels aright, to
fathom the depth of their meaning, to grasp the fulness of
spiritual truth which they contain, we must have spiritual
discernment : we must feel the truth in our hearts."

The Synoptic Gospels to the religious mind possess
internal evidences of their inspiration ; they bear impressed
upon them the mark of their supernatural origin. The

^ See on this subject some excellent remarks by Row, Bampton Lectures,
pp. 472, 473. Tatian mentions only one blind man, Bartimoeus, who was
cured when Jesus was departing from Jericho.

2 The Scriptures address themselves not so nuich to man's rational
nature, the ypv^vl, as to man's spiritual nature, the ttusv/hu. We require the
assistance of a higher spirit than our own, even the Spirit of God, the
great Inspirer, to understand His word ; we miist be in sympathy with the
great Author. There is great truth in Neander's famous adage : Pectus
est quod theologum facit. See some excellent remarks on Insj^iratiou in
the IFestminster Confession, ch. i. 5.

6

82 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

discourses recorded in them are the words of One who spoke
as never man spoke. The parables of our Lord, for example,
are full of inspiration. Those wonderful discourses, linking
the world of spirit with the world of matter, transfiguring
with a divine glory the phenomena of nature, at once so
simple and so profound, so natural and so supernatural, so
many-sided, awakening a response, not merely in the hearts
of those to whom they were primarily addressed, but in the
heart of humanity, are revelations of the Spirit of God.

So also that wonderful discourse of our Lord to which
we have already adverted, the so-called Sermon on the
Mount, whether we consider it as given on a single occasion
in one discourse as is recorded in Matthew's Gospel, or
whether we consider it as given in detached portions on
different occasions as related in Luke's Gospel, has been
almost universally acknowledged to bear upon itself the
impress of inspiration.^ It is the most wonderfully inspired
discourse that ever was uttered. It is the revelation of the
laws of the Gospel — not the destruction, but the fulfilment
and completion of the law — rescuing it from the formal
interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees, bringing its
precepts to bear upon the heart, declaring that it relates
not to outward actions, but to the disposition. It is the
inauguration of the kingdom of God. There was doubtless,
after the completion of our Lord's work by His death and
resurrection, and after His departure from the world, a
subsequent development of Christianity by the apostles ; but
the germs are found in this discourse ; it is tlie fountain
from which all subsequent streams of spiritual truth liave
issued. Plato and Socrates never uttered truths so profound,
so living, so transforming, so universal in their application,
as those given in this discourse by Jesus of Nazareth.

' In all })rol)iibility the large portion of it given hy Luke, the so-
called Sermon on the Plain (Luke vi. 20-49), is identical with the occasion
when the Sermon on the Mount was delivered. The circumstances
attending both discourses are similar, there being in both cases multi-
tudes of liearers from Galilee and Judica and from beyond Jordan ; and
the time w-hen they were spoken appears to coincide. So Stroud,
Thohick, Ewald, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott, M'Clellan, and Ellicott.
See supra, p. 39.

INTERPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 83

It has been maintained that the Sermon on the Mount
and the other discourses and parables of our Lord contained in
the Synoptics form the main truths of Christianity — the funda-
mentals of the religion'of Jesus. We have been, it is said, too
long deriving our Christianity from the teaching of Paul, we
must return to the Christianity of Christ. We must draw
the living water, not from the stream, but from the fountain-
head. On all sides the cry is : " Back to Christ ! " ^ It is
from His teaching, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels
chiefly, that we derive our knowledge of the way of salvation.
Even the Gospel of John, long regarded as " the spiritual
Gospel," as disclosing the heart of Jesus, must, it is said, yield
the palm to the Synoptics, and occupy a secondary place.
" The heart of the man Jesus in its rich fulness of grace and
spiritual truth, is more adequately shown in the first three
Gospels than in the fourth.^ And with regard to the Epistles
of Paul, the view of Christianity, as there exhibited, must be
regarded as inferior to the revelation in the Synoptic Gospels.
" Paul's point of view is individual ; Christ's is social." " It
is the business of theology to determine the affinities between
the Galilean and the Pauline Gospels, but it is the privilege
of religious faith to enter into life by the door which Jesus
has opened, without stopping to inquire whether Paul's key fits .
the lock. The words of Jesus are ' words of eternal life,' and
no truth not spoken by Him can be essential to salvation, how-
ever helpful for upbuilding in faith." ^ Even with regard to
the death of Christ, whilst Paul insists on it as the great
atonement for sin, yet he has not " presented in all its aspects
the meaning of Christ's death ; he has not taught with breadth
and emphasis the precious doctrine of Christ's temptations
and priestly sympathy." ^

Now this exaltation of the Sermon on the Mount and

1 Bruce, The Kingdom of God, p. 329. See also this thought developed
in Principal Fairbairn's recent suggestive work, Christ in Modern Tlieology.

2 Bruce's Apologetics, pp. 485-490. See, on the contrary, Tholuck's
Sermon on the Mount, trans, p. 35 ; here he states : " In the further
development of Rationalism, the ground it took was most jilainly
indicated by its preference of the Epistle of St. James to those of St. Paul,
and of the Sermon on the Mount to the Gospel of St. John."

3 Bruce's Afologetics, pp. 427, 428. ■* Ihid. pp. 426, 427.

84 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

the Synoptic discourses above other parts of Scripture,
appears to us erroneous. Most certainly the teachmg of
Christ is of primary importance ; but it did not contain the
full revelation, it was necessarily of a preparatory character.
Jesus Himself said : " I have yet many things to say unto
you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the
Spu'it of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all the truth "
(John xvi. 12, 13). The apostles during the life of their
Lord were not capable of receiving the full revelation of
salvation ; the atoning nature of the death of Christ could
not be fully declared until Christ had died and the atone-
ment had actually been made : the Holy Spirit was not
given until Jesus was glorified (John vii. 39). He by His
teaching laid the foundation of the spiritual temple, but the
apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were the
instruments employed in rearing the superstructure. Paul
and the other sacred writers unfolded truths which Jesus
had only revealed in part. They explained the way of
salvation more distinctly ; the agency and work of the Holy
Spirit was not clearly made known until the outpouring of
His influences on the day of Pentecost.

The three Synoptic Gospels have their distinctive peculi-
arities. There are properly not three Gospels, but one Gospel
under different aspects. It is one Person who is described ;
they contain memorabilia of Christ. They are three photo-
graphs of one original, shown in different lights, and placed
in different positions. Yet there is no unvaried uniformity ;
the characteristics of each writer are impressed upon his
writing : there is no slavish copying of one from the other :
inspiration does not obliterate the personality of the evan-
gelists. Matthew, writing to the Jews, dwells upon Jesus
as the Messiah ; he heaps proof upon proof that the prophecies
of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Him ; he does not
dwell so much as the other evangelists on the incidents of
our Lord's life, but groups His discourses and gives them in
a compact form : he imparts to us the teaching of Him who
came to redeem Israel and establish the kingdom of God.
Mark, writing perhaps to the Ivomans, dwells upon Jesus as
the Imperator, the great King of men, the Son of God : he

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 85

dwells chiefly on His miracles and less on His discourses ; he
writes with the freshness of an eye-witness, and gives graphic
and lifelike descriptions of the incidents he records. Luke
dwells on the human nature of Jesus : he discloses His
divine compassion and condescension ; he describes Him, not
so much as the Son of David, but as the Son of Man; he
indicates the universality of His mission, and reveals Him as
the Saviour, not of the Jews merely, but of the world, as the
Friend and Eedeemer of the human race.^

VII. The Harmony of the Gospels.

It is natural to endeavour to arrange the statements of the
three evangelists into a harmony ; to represent the life of Christ
as a unity. This was attempted at a very early period. Many
suppose that Justin Martyr (a.d. 150) in quoting from the
Gospels, as the memorials of Christ, used a harmony. It is
certain that shortly afterwards (a.d. 160) Tatian drew up his
celebrated Diatessaron, or the four Gospels in one (evayyiXiov
Bta Twv reaadpcov)} He was followed by Ammonius
(dpfioviov, a.d. 230) and Augustine (De consensu evangelist-
arum). Calvin drew up a harmony of the Gospels in a
liberal manner, making full allowance for their variations :
according to him, in Matthew the greatest attention is paid
to consecutive order ; in Luke, the least. Osiander in his
Harmonia evangeliorum proceeded on an entirely different
principle. His dogmatic assumption was that as the evan-
gelists were inspired, the discourses of Jesus, when there was
any considerable difference, must have been repeated, and His
actions must have been related in the exact order in which they
occurred ; hence the same events were represented as having

1 For tlie distinctive peculiarities of the Gospels, see EUicott's Hulsean
Lectures on the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, Lecture V. ; Westcott's
Introductio7i to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 308-313 ; Fairbairn's Christ in
Modern Theology, pp. 334-338.

2 We have now (1894) the great advantage of perusing the Diatessaron
of Tatian in a translation from the Arabic, and have to exjiress our high
admiration of it. As a harmony it is not inferior to many of modern
times.

86 GENEEAL INTKODUCTION.

happened twice or even three tiines.^ Modern harmonies
of the Gospels are exceedingly numerous, and some of them
of great value. Greswell's Dissertations 7(po7i the priiicijyles
and arrangement of the Harmony of the Gospels^ contain matter
of high importance, well deserving of attentive study.
Stroud, arranging the Gospels in parallel columns, formed
out of them a combined Greek text.^ Wieseler's Synojms of
the Four Gospels,'^ is chiefly a series of important discussions
on the chronology of our Lord's life. The value of Paisli-
brooke's Synojiticon has already been adverted to.^

But the question meets us : Is a harmony of the Syn-
optic Gospels possible ? If the evangelists do not follow a
chronological order, how can we draw up a harmony of their
accounts ? Alford denies this possibility, and asserts that all
attempts at arrangement are fruitless labours. The endeavours
of harmonists to force into agreement the different accounts,
he asserts, have been most prejudicial, and have given occa-

^ Schaff asserts that according to Osiander, Peter's wife's mother was
healed three times.

2 Published at Oxford, 1830.

^ Stroud's Greek Harmony of the Four Gos'pels, London, 1853. This is
a work of great labour and erudition. There is a long introduc-
tion or dissertation of 216 pages. Stroud was not a clergyman, but a
physician.

•* Translated by Venables, Cambridge, 1864.

^ We giv^e a list of the principal Harmonies of the Gosjiels given
alphabetically : Anger's Synopsis Evawjelioruni ; Bengel's Richtiye Harmnnie
dcr vier Evawjelien, Tubingen, 1736; Calvin on the Gospels; Camiibell, Dr.
Colin, Greek of the Three First Gospels, Glasgow, 1882 ; Caspari's Life of
Christ, trans. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1876 ; Chemnitz, Harmonia
qiuttuor Evamjelistarum, Hamburg, 1704 ; Credner's Einleitung, pp. 161 ff.;
Doddridge's Family Expositor ; Greswell's Harmonia Evamjelicn, Oxford,
1840 ; Griesbach, Synopsis Evanycliorum, Halle, 1776 ; Lightfoot's
Harmony, Ltjndon, 1655 ; Macknight's Harmony of the Gospels, London,
T7G3; Micluelis, Introduction, translated ])y Marsh, vol. iv. pp. 40-84 ;
M'Clellan's New Testament, pp. 539-621 ; Newcome, Harmony of the
Gospels, Dublin, 1778 ; Ilulunson, Harmony of the Four Gospeh, Boston,
1848; Rcjcdiger's Synopsis Evamjeliorum, Halle, 1739; Rushbrooke's
Synopticon, London, 1880 ; Stroud's Greek Harmony of the Gospels, London,
1853; Tischendorf's Synopsis Evawjclica, Leipzig, 1851; Thomson (Arch-
Ijishop), Table of the Harmony of the Gospels in Smith's Didioimry of the
Bible ; article, " The Gospels " ; Wieseler's Vhronoloyische Sympisis der vier
Evawjelien, Hamburg, 1843.

THE HAKMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 87

sion to objections to the Gospel narrative.^ But although a
minute harmony, embracing details, is perhaps impossible, yet
there is a general harmony ; the great events of our Lord's
life can be arranged in the order of their occurrence, although
the subordinate events cannot. Luke, in his preface, states
that having traced the course of all things accurately from
the first, he intended to write them in order (/ca^e^?}?) ; but
this order is only generally maintained. On the other hand,
Papias declares that Mark followed Peter, who adapted his
teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of
giving a connected account of our Lord's discourses {ov^ oxrirep
avvra^Lv twv KvpiaKwv iroLov^evo'i \6<y(ov).^ The allusion
here may be only to our Lord's discourses, and not to the
incidents of His life ; for it is now generally admitted that
the order observed in Mark's Gospel is the most trustworthy.
Whilst, then, it cannot be maintained universally that the
order of events, as given in harmonies, is chronologically
correct, yet there is an undisputed order in which many
particulars are recorded. The baptism of John inaugurated
the ministry of our Lord, then follows an account of His
missionary journeys through Galilee, with the two great
crises in His life, the confession of His Messiahship by His
apostles, and His transfiguration ; then His entrance into
Jerusalem, and the account of His passion. The record of the
six days which intervened between His entrance into
Jerusalem and His death, can be so drawn up that the events
of each day can be recorded with extreme probability.^

Until our Lord's last visit to Jerusalem, the Synoptic
Gospels are restricted to His ministry in Galilee. The time
occupied in that ministry is not stated, and hence the
arrangement of these Gospels is not according to time, but
according to the special missionary journeys through Galilee.
It would appear from these Gospels that three circuits of

1 Alford's Greek Testament, ch. i. § vii., " The practicability of con-
structing a formal harmony of the three Gospels."

2 He also says that he wrote down accurately, but not in order

3 Definite marks of time and place are seldom given ; the particles of
transition are in general indefinite ; and it is only rarely that a con-
nected series of events is recorded.

OO GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Galilee are mentioned, each of them proceeding from and
returning to Capernaum. The first circuit was at the
commencement of the ministry, and is recorded by all the
evangelists. They tell us that Jesus went about in all
Galilee, teaching in the synagogues, and preaching the gospel
of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all
manner of disease among the people (Matt. iv. 23 ; Mark i.
35-39 ; Luke iv. 42-44). It was at the close of this
circuit that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered. The
second circuit is most fully recorded in Luke's Gospel, where
we read that " afterwards He went through cities and villages
preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom
of God," accompanied by the women of Galilee, who
ministered unto Him of their substance (Luke viii. 1-3). It
was during this journey that He commenced teaching the
people by means of parables. The third circuit is mentioned
by Matthew and Mark in language precisely similar to the
statement of the first circuit : '' Jesus went through all the
cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching
the gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. ix. 35-38; Mark vi. 6).
It was during this journey that He twice performed the
miracle of feeding the multitude, and sent forth His apostles
to pave the way for His mission ; then also the confession of
His Messiahship by the apostles and the Transfiguration
occurred. Greswell remarks that there are " clear evidences
of three general, and, at least, two partial circuits — the two
last of the general and each of the partial within the compass
of the same year, and the first of the general during the six
months of the year before." ^ A harmony of the Synoptic
Gospels may be drawn up according to these three circuits and
the events stated, which probably occurred during each of
them.

If, however, the Fourth Gospel is taken into account,
then the harmony of the Gospels must proceed upon a
different principle — not according to the circuits in Galilee,
but according to the order of time. From John's Gospel we

^ Greswell's Dissertations, vol. ii. jJ. 343. See also for tlie missionary
journeys of Jesus in Galilee, and starting from Capernaum, Halcomb,

IVhat think ye of the Gospels 1 pp. 48 ff.

THE HAIIMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 89

learn that our Lord's ministry must have extended over two
to three years, as three Passovers are mentioned (John ii. 13,
vi. 3, 4, xii. 1). Accordingly, harmonies have been made
comprising the three years' ministry, stating the events which
in all probabiHty happened in each of these years.^ This is
a difficult task, as the only incident in John's Gospel which
comes in contact with the ministry of our Lord, as recorded
by the Synoptics, is the feeding of the five thousand (John vi.
1—13), until we come to the narrative of the Passion. Most
of this arrangement must, of course, be conjectural.

It is unnecessary to give a table of the harmony of the
Gospels, as this has been so frequently done by others. If,
as is most probable, Mark is the original Gospel, and was
consulted by Matthew and Luke, then it is best to use the
Gospel of Mark as the basis, and to draw up the harmony
with the order there laid down. In this manner it is not
difficult to group all the events recorded in the three
Gospels (the triple narrative). We can then fill up the
outline with the incidents recorded separately by Matthew,
Mark, and Luke. It is probable that the great insertion in
Luke's Gospel (Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14) is correctly termed
the Persean Gospel, and that the incidents therein recorded
occurred in Persea during our Lord's residence in that district,
as stated by John, toward the close of His ministry
(John X. 40).

^ See esj^ecially Caspari's Clironological Introduction to the Life of
Christ.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

LiTEKATUKE. — The Gospel of Matthew has been often com-
mented on. Omitting those commentaries inchided in the
general commentaries of the New Testament, and those
already indicated in the Literature of the Synoptic Gospels,
the principal commentaries are those of Alexander of Prince-
ton College (New York, 1861); De Wette (4th ed. Leipzig,
1857); Ewald, Die drei ersten EvaiigeUen ubersctzt und erklart
(Gottingen, 1850); Lange (Bielefeld, 1861; English transla-
tion by Schaff, New York, 1864); Morison (London, 1870 ;
lasted. 1883); Meyer (6th ed. 1876; 8th ed. by Weiss,
1890; English translation by the Eev. P. Christie, Edinburgh,
1877); Keil (Leipzig, 1877); Mansel in Speaker's Com-
mentavT/ (London, 1878); Plumptre (London, 1878); Kiibel
(Munich, 1889) ; Carr in Cambridge Bible for Schools (London,
1890). Also Tholuck's Commentary on the Sermon on the
Mount (Hamburg, 1833; English translation, Edinburgh,
1860); Ebrard's Gospel History (translation, Edinburgh,
1860); Lord Arthur Hervey's Genealogies of Our Lord (Cam-
bridge, 1883); Eobert's Discussions on the Gospels (London,
1862); and Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hchreivs
(London, 1879).

L Genuineness of the Gospel.

We have already considered the genuineness of the Syn-
optic Gospels conjointly ; but we require to consider the testi-
monies which relate to each Gospel separately ; and this is
especially necessary with regard to the Gospel of Matthew, on
account of the peculiar nature of the evidence referring to it.

90

GENUINENESS. 9 1

Some critics have gone the length of asserting that the
Gospel of Matthew has scriptural attestation in its favour,
being quoted or referred to in the Epistle of James.^ The
similarities between that Epistle and the Sermon on the
Mount are indeed so numerous and striking that they cannot
escape notice.^ Out of numerous instances may be adduced
three, in which the resemblances are most remarkable. " How-
beit if ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture,
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well " (Jas.
ii. 8). These words, found in Matthew's Gospel (xxii. 39),
appear to be given as an express quotation from Scripture
{Kara rrjv ypa(p7]v).^ " Can a fig tree, my brethren, yield
olives? or a vine, figs?" (Jas. iii. 12), where there is a
strong similarity to our Lord's words in the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt. vii. 16). "But above all things, my brethren,
swear not ; neither by the heaven nor by the earth, nor by
any other oath : but let your yea be yea ; and your nay, nay "
(Jas. V. 12). This prohibition against swearing appears to
be a direct citation from the Sermon on the Mount, where
tlie same prohibition is given in almost identical terms
(Matt. V. 34-37). We do not, however, think that these
and similar expressions in the Epistle of James are refer-
ences to or citations from Matthew's Gospel. The probability
is that the Epistle was written before the Gospel. These
similarities may be accounted for by referring them to the
sayings of Christ, which, either in a written or in an oral form,
were current among the early Christians, and which, as we have
seen, formed one of the main sources of the Synoptic Gospels.

Th^jnost. important document bearing upon the genuine-
ness of the Gospel of Matthew is the Didache, or " Teaching
of the twelve apostles." This valuable document was dis-
covered by Philotheos Bryennios in the Jerusalem monastery
in Constantinople in 1873, and published by him in 1883.*

1 See Scliiuid, Biblical Theology of the N.T. pp. 364-.366.

2 Lists of these similarities are given hy Theile, Kern, Hutlier, Sclunid,
Beyschlag, Reuss, Erdmann, Alford, Davidson, Bassett, Plumptre, and
Sahnon.

^ James may be here quoting from the law of Moses, Lev. xix. 18.
■^The reader is referred to Schaff's Oldest Church Manual for an

92 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

There can be no reasonable doubt of its genuineness. It
was repeatedly mentioned by the early Fathers. Clemens
A]£^^^];;[^dilnils__£uotes it as Scripture,^ and it is referred to by
Irenaeus. Eusebius mentions it among the spurious writings.^
It appears to have been an early Church manual, possibly for
the use and instruction of catechumens, describing the " two
ways," the way of life and the way of death. It has all the
marks of high antiquity, as there are in it no references to
the Gnostic heresies, nor to those changes in Church orders
which arose in the beginning of the second century.^ " The
Didache," observes Dr. Schatf, " has the marks of the highest
antiquity, and is one of the oldest, if not the very oldest, of
post-apostolic writings. There is nothing in it which could
not have been written between a.d. 70 and 100."^ It
abounds with reminiscences of the words of Christ as given
in Matthew's Gospel. There are at least twenty-two refer-
ences, and several of them almost exact quotations. The
following are the most striking references : " If anyone give
thee a blow on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,
and thou shalt be perfect. If anyone shall compel thee to go
with him one mile, go with him twain. If anyone take away
thy cloak, give him thy coat also." ^ " Baptize ye into the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,

exhaustive account of the Didache ; see also Teachiwj of the Twelve
Ajwstlcs, edited, with a transLition and notes, by Boswell D. Hitchcock
and Francis Brown, New York, 1884.

1 Clemens Alexaruhinus, Strom, i. 20 : " It is such a one that is called
in Scripture (ypcc(pijg) a thief. It is therefore said : " Son, l,)e not a liar ;
for lying leads to theft." Conq). Didaclie iii. 5 : " My cliild, become not
a liar ; since lying leads to theft."

^ Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. iii. 25. All tliat Eusebius probably means is
that it was not written by the ajjostles. It is included in the Strichometry
of Nicephorus.

' It is a matter of dispute whether the descri^jtion of "the two ways"
in the Epistle of Barnabas is taken from the Didache, or conversely. The
priority of the Didache is advocated by Zahu, Funk, and Langen, and
denied by Bryennios, Hilgenfeld, and Harnack ; whilst Bishoji Lightfoot
and Warfield supposed that Ijoth Barnabas and the writer of the Didachd
drew from a common source which is lost.

* SchaflTs Oldest Church Mamcal, p. 119.

"' Ch. i. 4; comp. Matt. v. 39-41.

GENUINENESS. 93

in living water." ^ " Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but
as the Lord commanded in His gospel. After this manner
pray ye " ; and then follows the Lord's Prayer, including the
doxology.2 " The Lord hath said, Give not that which is
holy unto dogs." ^ Now, the question is, How are we to
account for these minute resemblances ? If the citations had
been confined to passages contained in the Sermon on the
Mount, we might suppose that, as in the case of the Epistle
of James, they may have been taken from the oral Gospel as
preached by the apostles.* But as they extend to other parts of
Matthew's Gospel, we appear to be shut up to the conclusion i\]^ ^ ^
that they are actual quotations from that Gospel : that the ^Z,^.^ -i
author or authors of the Didache, in drawing up this Church >' /

manual, drew many of the precepts contained in it from the
first Gospel. The parallels are much closer than those found
in the writings of the apostolic Fathers or of Justin Martyr.^
The Gospel of Matthew is referred to or quoted by all
the apostolic Fathers. Thus Clemens Eomanus (a.d. 96) says :
" Eemember the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke
concerning gentleness and longsuffering. For thus He said.
Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy. Forgive, that it
may be forgiven you : as ye do, so shall it be done unto you ;
as ye judge, so shall ye be judged ; as ye are kind, so shall
kindness be shown to you ; with what measure ye mete, it
shall be measured to you." ^ And again : " Eemember the
words of the Lord Jesus Christ, how He said. Woe to that
man ; it would be better for him that he had never been
born, than that he should offend one of My elect. It were
better for him that a millstone should be hung about his
neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that
he should offend one of My little ones." ^

^ Ch. vii. 1 ; comp. Matt, xxviii. 19.

2 Ch. viii. 2 ; comp. Matt. vi. 5, 9-13.

3 Ch. ix. 5 ; comp. Matt. vii. 6. * The opinion of Lechler.

^ It is, however, to be observed that Dr. Salmon supposes that the
Didache of Bryennios had been preceded by a shorter form which did not
contain the references to the Sermon on the Mount ; Introdiidion to the
N.T. 7th ed. p. 559.

^ Clemens Komanus, ch. xiii. ; comp. Matt. vi. 12-15, vii. 2.

5" Ibid. xlvi. ; comp. Matt, xviii. 6.

94 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

One of the earliest of the Christian writings is the so-
c alled Epistle of Barnabas . The whole Greek text of this
Epistle is found in the Sinaitic manuscript (a), not, however, as
if it were one of the canonical books of the New Testament,
but as an extra - canonical book, being placed after the
Apocalypse. Another manuscript of this Epistle was one of
f4^ the important discoveries of Bryennios.^ It is of doubtful
origin. Clemens Alexandrinus repeatedly quotes it, and
expressly attributes it to the Apostle Barnabas, the com-
panion of Paul.2 Elsewhere he states that he was one of
the Seventy. Origen quotes it twice, and calls it the Epistle
of Barnabas.^ Jerome also assigns the authorship of the
Epistle to Barnabas.^ Eusebius, on the other hand, ranks
it among the spurious books.^ In the present day it is
generally regarded by biblical scholars as not the work of
Barnabas.*^ But whether genuine or not, its great antiquity
is universally admitted. Such high authorities as Bishop
Lightfoot"^ and Weizsacker, arguing from a passage found in
it giving an enumeration of the Koman emperors, infer that
it was written in the reign of Vespasian, shortly after the
destruction of Jerusalem^ (a.d. 70). But the inference

^ In the same volume wliicli contained the Didache. The documents
contained in that volume are as follows : — 1. A Synopsis of the Old and
New Testaments by Chrysostom ; 2. The Epistle of Barnabas ; 3. The
First Epistle of Clement ; 4. The Second Epistle of Clement ; 5. The
Didache ; 6. The Spurious Epistle of Mary of Cassoboli ; 7. Twelve
Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles.

2 Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, ii. 6.

^ Origen, Be Principiis, iii. 2 ; Contra Gelsum, i. 63.

* Jerome, De Vir. III. 6. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 25.

^ Its genuineness has been defended by Professor Milligan, Smith's
Cliristian Biograjilirj, article " Barnabas." Its genuineness is also main-
tained by Gieseler, Guericke, Bleek.

'' Lightfoot's Ajjostolic Fathers : St. Clement of Rome, vol. ii. p. 506.
With Lightfoot and Weizsiicker, Professor Sanday also agrees. See
Sanday's Bampton Lectures, p. 235, and also Dr. Salmon's Introduction to
the N.T. 7th ed. p. 518.

^ The passage is as follows : — " Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the
earth, and a little king shall rise up after tliem, who shall subdue three
of the kings under one. In like manner Daniel says concerning the same :
And I saw the fourth l)east, wicked and strong and savage beyond all
the beasts of tlie earth, and how from it sprang up ten horns, and out of

GENUINENESS. 95

which they draw from this passage is doubtful. The most
generally received opinion is that the Epistle of Barnabas
was written by an unknown author toward the close of the
first century (a.d. 100). The following quotations from
Matthew's Gospel are found in it : " Let us beware, lest we
be found (fidfilling the saying) as it is written (yeypaTrrat),
Many are called, but few chosen." ^ "But when He chose His Pyyti^
apostles who were to preach the gospel. He did so from among
those who were sinners above others, that He might show that
He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." ^
The next Father, in order of date, is Ignatius (a.d. 118).
The genuineness of his Epistles has long been the subject of
dispute. They exist in two recensions, the larger and
smaller or Vossian recension. Cureton discovered a Syriac
manuscript containing only three Epistles, and these in a
more abridged form than the smaller recension. After the
learned investigations of Bishop Lightfoot, it is now generally
acknowledged that the seven Epistles found in the smaller
recension are genuine, though perhaps containing several inter-
polations, and that the Curetonian recension is an abridgment.^
Now, in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Komans, the best at-
tested of all his Epistles, we have the following distinct quota-
tion from Matthew : " It is better to die for the sake of Jesus
Christ than to reign over all the ends of the earth : for what
shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world, but lose his
own soul." * And in the Epistle to Polycarp we have the fol-
lowing words : " Mitigate violent attacks by gentle applications. ^
Be in all things wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove." ^
them a little horn, an offshoot, and how it subdued under one three of
the great horns," Barnabas, ch. iv. According to Lightfoot, the three
great horns are VesjDasian, Titus, and Domitian, who ruled conjointly ;
and the little horn who was to subdue them was Nero revived. See also
Ramsay's The CJiurch in the Roman Empire, p. 307.

^ Barnabas, ch. iv.; comp. Matt. xx. 16.

^ Barnabas, ch. v.; comp. Matt. ix. 13.

^ The reader is referred to Bishop Lightfoot's learned and exhaustive
work, Apostolic Fathers : St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. See also Zahn's
Ignatius von Antioch ; Gloag's Introduction to the Johannine Writings,
pp. 100 f.

* Ep. ad Romanes, ch. vi. ; comp. Matt. xvi. 26.

^ Ep. ad Polycarp, ch. ii. ; comp. Matt. x. 16. The words here are

96 THE GOSPEL OF iMATTHEW.

The Epistle of Polycarp (a.d. 116) was written shortly-
after the martyrdom of Ignatius. Its genuineness is attested
by Irenaeus, who was one of his disciples : " There is also a
powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from
which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about
their salvation, can learn the character of his faith and the
preaching of his truth." ^ In this Epistle of Polycarp there
are two quotations from the Gospel of Matthew. " Eemember
what the Lord said in His teaching, Judge not, that ye be
not judged : forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you : be
merciful, that you may obtain mercy. With what measure
ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And once more,
Blessed are the poor and those that are persecuted for
righteousness' sake : for theirs is the kingdom of God." ^
" Beseeching the all-seeing God in our supplications not to
lead us into temptation ; for as the Lord has said. The spirit
truly is willing, but the flesh is weak." ^

We have already had frequent occasion to allude to the
testimony of Papias (a.d. 120). "So then Matthew wrote
the oracles (Xoyia) in the Hebrew language, and everyone
interpreted them as he was able."* We have endeavoured
to show that Papias here does not, as many biblical scholars
affirm, speak of some original document which lay at the
foundation of Matthew's Gospel — the nucleus of that
Gospel ; but that he alludes to the canonical Gospel as we
possess it, and which was in existence in his days.^

It is unnecessary to refer to the testimony of the early
post-apostolic Fathers ; for it is now hardly disputed that
the Gospel of Matthew was received as authentic by the
Christian Church in the middle of the second century.
Justin Martyr (a.d. 150), when he speaks of the Memoirs or
Memorabilia of Christ, frequently refers to this Gospel, with-
out, however, naming it, often quoting the precise words, but

nearly identical with those in the Gospel of Matthew : (Pp6vif<,o; yivov ug
S(pi; iv oi-Tretaiv kxI ctKipettog uael TTipianpu, the singular being employed.

1 Irenoeus, Adv. Hwr. iii. 3. 4.

2 Polycarp, Ep. ad Phili]). ch. ii. ; conip. Matt. vii. 1, 2, v. 3, 10.
^ Ibid. ch. vii.; conip. Matt. vi. 13, xxvi. 41.

* Eusehius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 40. '" Hupra, i)p. 18-20.

GENUINENESS. 97

more frequently quoting from memory, thus occasioning a
slight difference between the words of Jesus as quoted by
Justin and those found in the Gospels. It is unnecessary
to give instances of the quotations which are scattered
throughout all the writings of Justin. Jeremiah Jones gives
twenty-seven quotations from the Gospel of Matthew by
Justin/ whilst Kirchhofer increases the number to thirty-
one.^ Professor Sanday gives us a table of all the references
-of Justin to our Gospels, and observes : " The total result
may be taken to be that ten passages are substantially exact,
while twenty -five present slight, and thirty -six marked
variations." ^

Irenteus (a.d. 180) is the first Father who names Matthew J
as the author of the first Gospel. " Matthew, the apostle, I
declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to
those who were boasting of their relationship to Abraham :
O generation of vipers, who hath shown you to flee from the
wrath to come ? Brmg forth therefore fruit meet for repent-
^mce." * And again : " Matthew, when speaking of the angel,
says : The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep." ^

But the genuineness of Matthew's Gospel is not only
attested by the early Fathers, but also by the early Gnostic
heretics. Basilides (a.d. 125), Valentinus (a.d. 150),^ and
Heracleon (a.d. 160), in the fragments of their works pre-
served in the writings of the Fathers, have references to or
citations from it.'^ Besides, there are the Old Latin and
Syriac versions made about the middle, or at least before the
jclose of the second century. It is more than probable that
the Gospels were the first books which were received by the
Christian Church as canonical and divinely inspired, and were
read, as Justin informs us, in their public assemblies. This
would naturally be the case, as the life of Christ, His dis-
courses and actions, would be regarded by the early Chris-

^ Jones, On the Canon, vol. iii. ]). 27.

- Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, pp. 89-104.

^ Sanday's Gospels of the Second Century, pp. 113-116.

■* Irenseus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 9. 1 ; coinp. Matt. iii. 7.

^ Ibid. iii. 9. 2 ; comp. Matt. i. 20, 21. « Ibid. i. 8. 2.

'■ See Davidson's Introduction to the N.T. 1st ed. vol. i. pp. 70, 71.
Sanday's Gospels of the Second Century, pp. 188 ff.

7

\v'

98 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tians of primary importance. This consideration sufficiently
accounts for references to them being of such early
date.

Although, certainly, the genuineness of Matthew's Gospel
rests chiefly on the external evidence, which is in itself per-
fectly sufficient, yet there is not wanting internal evidence
which confirms the external, though we do not place
the stress of the argument on it. The attributing of the
Gospel to Matthew, a comparatively unknown and obscure
apostle, is in itself a presumption in its favour. If the design
were to palm a Gospel upon the Church, it would not be
attributed to an apostle who is never mentioned, except in the
narrative of his call and in the lists of the apostles, and of
whom there are hardly any records in ecclesiastical history ;
but to some more distinguished apostle, such as Peter,
James, Andrew, Thomas, or Philip, whose names occur in the
Gospels in connection with events in the life of Jesus.
Besides, this Gospel contains within itself the evidences of its
authenticity ; it bears upon it the impress of truth. The
discourses of our Lord, especially the parables and the Sermon
on the Mount as there recorded, are beyond the capacity of
the human intellect to compose ; they are divine utterances,
and all attempts to imitate them end in failure. Even those
inspired writings which follow the Gospels are cast in a
different mould ; they want the simplicity, the freshness, the
naturalness, the impressiveness of the parabolic element. As
Professor Salmon says : " In point of style we travel into a
new country, when we pass from the Synoptic Gospels to
the Apostolic Epistles " ; ^ whilst the writings of the apostolic
Fathers are mere dross compared with the gold found in the
Gospels.

But, notwithstanding this strong attestation in favour of
the Gospel of Matthew, its genuineness has been disputed on
various grounds. The doubts as to its apostolic origin are
drawn from the nature of the work, and not from any
defect in the external evidence. They arise chiefly from the
exigencies of the case in the attempts of critics to solve the
Synoptic problem. It has in recent times been disputed by
1 Salmon's Introduction to the N.T. p. 136.

GENUINENESS. 99

Schleiermacher, Sieffert/ Eichhorn,^ Meyer, Eeuss, Holtzmann,
TDe Wette,^ and Davidson.

1. It is affirmed that the Gospel, as we now have it,
cannot be the original Gospel of Matthew, but must be a
compilation ; that there was a previous Aramaic Gospel, or a
collection of Logia, probably written by Matthew, which
formed the groundwork or nucleus of the canonical Gospel ;
that this Aramaic Gospel was increased by subsequent additions
at different periods, and was translated by different persons,
and that from this our canonical Gospel was gradually formed ;
that the original Gospel is now lost, and that what we now
have is a translation or recension of it with additions by an
unknown author or authors. This is the opinion of those
who hold the two document hypothesis. Thus Meyer observes :
" In the form in which the Gospel now exists, it cannot have
originally proceeded from the hands of the Apostle Matthew." ■*
Professor Sanday, in his article in the Exjjositor, already
referred to, says : " This at least is a point on which there is
increasing unanimity, that the Apostle Matthew did not write
the whole of the first Gospel as we have it. That he
wrote a section of it, so important that his name passed from
that to the whole, is by most writers willingly conceded ; but
analysis reveals the composite nature of our Gospel too clearly
for it to be probable that we have in it the original work of
our apostle, as it left his pen."^ And so also Dr. Marcus Dods
observes : " In the present state of criticism, it is impossible
to speak with certainty of the origin of the first Gospel.
That the apostle, by whose name it is still called, had some-
thing to do with its composition is tolerably certain, but it is
also certain that it passed through more hands than his before
it reached its present form." *^

Now it is admitted that in a certain sense the Gospel of

^ TJeher den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums.

2 According to his theory of the original Gospel, which regards the
canonical Gospel as a later edition. So also all those who adopt his
theory or the modern modification of it.

« See De Wette's Einleitung, § 98a.

* Meyer, Mattheiv, vol. i. p. 3, translation.

* The Expositor, vol. iii. fourth series, p. 303.
^ The Supernatural in Christianity, p. 83.

100 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Matthew may be regarded as a compilation. How far it is
so will be more fully determined when we come to consider
the sources of the Gospel. But it is not a compilation in the
sense of those objectors, namely, that there is only a nucleus
which can primarily be referred to Matthew, whilst the rest
has arisen from subsequent additions or accretions. A
change of Gospels, the substitution of one for another, or the
enlargement of a previous Gospel, is not only never hinted at
by the Fathers, but its occurrence is difficult to conceive,
considering the sacredness attached to these records of the
life of Jesus ; it would involve time, and the early formation
of Matthew's Gospel does not give sufficient time for such
a growth and development. This Gospel was certainly
recognised before the close of the first century, and time
must be allowed even for this early recognition. Besides,
the uniformity of style and expression in our Gospel proves
the unity of authorship. There are the same expressions,
as, for example, " That it might be fulfilled," " the kingdom
of heaven," ^ " the end of the world," continually recurring,
and marking the individuality of the author.^

2. It has been maintained that the first Gospel, at least

as we now have it, could not possibly be the work of an

apostle who was the constant follower of our Lord, because

it wants all the characteristics of an eye-witness. Many of

the most important incidents of our Lord's life are omitted.

^''^' There is no mention of the Judaean ministry which, as we

y Y v^ learn from the Gospel of John, formed so important a part

.\y of our Lord's mission. In the narrative there is a complete

V* want of graphic description ; it is a narrative of incidents

without anything to suggest that the narrator himself was

present when these incidents occurred.

To this objection it is replied that it was not the design
of Matthew or of any of the evangelists to compose a
complete biography of Christ, but merely to give a sufficient

^ "Whilst elsewhere in Scripture the phrase is the kingdom of God,
s) jiot.ai'hiiec toD 6iov, Matthew uses the phrase, the kingdom of heaven, ^
liecatMix ruv ovpxuuu, more than tliirty times.

"^ A full list of these i)ecuHavities in Matthew's Gosj)ol is given by
Crcdner, Einkitumj in das N. T. j). 63.

A

GENUINENESS. 101

selection of facts from a life so full and beneficent. The
Judsean ministry is omitted probably because that ministry
occupied so small a portion of the life of Christ ; it was only
occasionally, at the annual festivals, that He went up to
Jerusalem ; by far the greater portion of His life was spent
in Galilee. Besides, there are indications in this Gospel that
our Lord, during the course of His public ministry, did visit
JudcTa. Thus we read : " It came to pass, when Jesus had
finished these words. He departed from Galilee, and came
into the borders of Judtea beyond Jordan" (Matt. xix. 1).
And with regard to the want of graphic details, this has
been greatly exaggerated, although it is admitted that in this
particular the Gospel of Matthew is surpassed by the Gospel of
Mark. This, however, is no objection to the genuineness of
the Gospel. "^ write in a graphic manner depends upon the
idio s yncrasy of the writer ; ^ and, as has been well remarked :
" This is a phenomenon which meets us every day ; it is not
the contemporary and the eye-witness, but the historian of a
succeeding age who takes the keenest interest in minute
detail, and records with faithful accuracy the less prominent
circumstances of a great event." ^

3. The want of chronological order is frequently adduced
as an argument against the genuineness of Matthew's Gospel.
We have already had occasion to advert to the chronological
order of the evangelists.^ It is seldom that the three
evangelists are at variance on this point. The most obvious
case is the stilling of the storm and the cure of the Gadarene
demoniac recorded by all three.^ In Matthew these inci-
dents are stated as having occurred before our Lord had

^ " It is," observes Dr. Davidson, " a weak argument to adduce tlie want
of graphic description in one who was an eye-witness like Matthew. The
power of vivid description is a talent which does not depend on an
external call. ... If the writer had not the gift of picturesqvieness
before he became an apostle, he did not get it afterwards." Introduction to
N.T. 3rd ed. vol. i. p. 343.

2 Carr's Gospel of Matthew, p. 11. He illustrates this by Macaulay's
graphic description of the reign of James ii.

^ See snpra, p. 41.

■* Matt. viii. 23 ; Mark \y. 35 ; Luke viii. 22. See Norton, Genuine-
ness of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 293, 294.

102 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

delivered the parable of the Sower and the other kindred
parables ; whilst Mark and Luke reverse the order, and
inform us that it was after our Lord had delivered these
parables on " that day when the even was come tliat He said
unto them, Let us go over unto the other side " (Mark iv. 35^
But we cannot see how this is any objection against the
genuineness of the Gospel ; the difference is very slight and
unimportant. The evangelists do not seek to follow a
chronological order in their narrative ; there are undoubtedly
variations on this point between them. The order laid down
in the Gospel of Mark is in general the order to which
Matthew and Luke adhere ; but it is doubtful if even this
order is correct. Exact chronology was a mere secondary
consideration with the evangelists.

4. It has further been objected that there are mythical
incidents recorded in the Gospel of Matthew which render
his whole narrative suspicious. The incidents alluded to are
those which are stated to have occurred at the death of
Christ — the rending of the vail of the temple, the earthquake,
and the saints coming forth from their tombs (Matt, xxvii.
51—53). The rending of the vail of the temple is mentioned
by the other two evangelists, so that it is to the resurrection
of the saints, which is recorded by Matthew only, that the
objection applies. Many admit the legendary nature of this
incident, and suppose that it was not an original part of
Matthew's Gospel, but an insertion by a later hand. Thus
Meyer calls it " a mythical apocryphal addition," and sup-
poses that the Greek editor of Matthew inserted it in trans-
lating from the Hebrew Matthew.^ Similarly Norton observes :
" The story must be regarded as a fable, probably one which,
in common with others now utterly forgotten, was in circula-
tion among the Hebrew converts after the destruction of
Jerusalem. Some possessor of a manuscript of Matthew's
Hebrew Gospel may be supposed to have noted it in the
margin of his copy, wlience it found its way into the text of
others, one or more of which fell into the hands of the Greek
translator." - There is, however, no critical ground to justify

1 Meyer, in loco.

^ Norton's Genuineness of tJie Gospeh, vol. i. pp. 214, 215.

GENUINENESS. 103

this supposition. The incident is omitted in no Greek
manuscript. It is adverted to by Ignatius when, speaking of
our Lord's descent into Hades, he says : " He whom they
rightly waited for being come, raised them from the dead." ^
Others suppose that the passage is not to be understood
literally, but symbolically, as an emblem of Christ's victory
■over death and the grave ; but for this supposition there is
no ground : it is recorded as part of a narrative. It is one
of those supernatural incidents which meet us in every page
•of the Gospels. It is true that this wonderful and miraculous
incident is only recorded by Matthew ; but there are other
supernatural events, equally wonderful, which are recorded in
only one of the Gospels : as the raising of the son of the
widow of Nain by Luke, and of Lazarus by John.

5. Another objection to the genuineness of the Gospel
according to Matthew is, that there are in it frequent re-
petitions of the same events, showing that the author of the
Gospel incorporated without revision two documents, each of
which gave a narrative of the same incident. Thus Dr.
Davidson observes : " Other particulars are wrongly narrated,
as is the case with the miraculous feeding of the four
thousand men in the wilderness very soon after a similar
•event (comp. xv. 32-38 with xiv. 16—21). In like manner,
the same transaction is repeated in xii. 22—30 and ix. 32-34,
which passages are so similar that we must assume a double
narrative of the same event. A similar repetition of the
same thing appears in xvi. 1, where the event in xii. 38 is
re-enacted. The number of these duplicates is considerable,
so much so as to show carelessness, forgetfulness, or needless
accumulation of material." ^

We have already alluded to this subject when we con-
sidered the existence of doublets in the Synoptic Gospels, and
need not repeat what was then said.^ In the instances stated
by Dr. Davidson there is a similarity, but not an identity of
particulars. The two accounts of the miraculous feeding of

^ Ignatius, EiJ. ad Magnes. ch. ix. It is also referred to in the
apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemvis. Jones, 0?i the Canon, vol. ii. p. 255.
2 Davidson's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. pp. 339, 340, 3rd ed.
^ See supra, p. 37.

104 THE GOSPEL OF .MATTHEW.

the multitude differ in many points, in the amount of
provisions, in the number fed, and in the quantity of fragments
afterwards gathered ; in the two miraculous cures, in the one
case the man possessed with a devil was blind and dumb, in
the other case he was only dumb but not blind ; and the
demand of the Pharisees for a sign from heaven might have
been twice repeated, as such signs were regarded by them
as the credentials of the Messiah.

II. The Author of the Gospel.

Irengeus is the first Father who assigns our first Gospel
to Matthew. We have an account of his call to the apostle-
ship given us by all the Synoptists.^ The name Matthew in
Hebrew (i^lJJiinD) signifies the gift of Jehovah, similar to the
Greek ©eoBcopa. In the list of the apostles given by Mark
he is called "the son of Alphseus " (Mark ii, 14), and as
another apostle is called " James the son of Alphseus " (Luke
vi. 15), it is inferred that these apostles were brothers.
Others, inferring from various indications in Scripture that
Alphseus is the same as Clopas the husband of Mary, the
sister of the Virgin,^ suppose that Matthew was nearly
related to our Lord. And others from his frequent con-
junction with Thomas, called Didymus or " the twin,"
that he was his brother. All these are idle conjectures.
Matthew was by occupation a publican or tax-gatherer, a
member of a class hated and despised by the Jews, as collectors
of a hateful tax and standing memorials of their subjection
to the Eomans. Hence the phrase " publicans and sinners."
As, however, Capernaum was in the province of Galilee, the
dominion of Herod Antipas, it is not improbable that IMatthew
was an officer under that monarch, and not under the IJomans.
The promptitude with which he obeyed tlie call of Christ is
an indication that there had been a previous preparation going
on within him, and that he had been impressed with the teach-

1 IMatt. ix. 9-13 ; Mark ii. 14-17 ; Luke v. 27-32.

^ The Apostle James the Less is mentioned as the son of Alphajiis
(Mark iii. 18) and as the son of Mary (Mark xv. 40), supposed to be the
same as Mary the Avife of Cleophas or Clopas (John xix. 25).

AUTHOR. 105

ing of Jesus. Matthew made a great feast in honour of Christ,
at which many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus
and His disciples.

In the account given by Mark and Luke, Levi appears as
the name of the publican who was called ; ^ whilst in the
lists of the apostles given by the same evangelists the
name is Matthew, without any notification that he is the
same as Levi formerly mentioned."^ Hence it has not
unreasonably been inferred that we have the account of the
call of two different persons, of Matthew who afterwards
became an apostle, and of Levi who was only a disciple.
Some suppose that Levi was a superintendent publican and
that Matthew was his subordinate, and that our Lord called
both at the same time. This distinction between Matthew
and Levi was recognised by the Fathers. Clemens Alex-
andrinus, quoting from Heracleon the Gnostic, mentions
Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi and many others who did
not suffer martyrdom, but died a natural death.^ So also
Origen in his answer to Celsus, who taunts the Christians
with the low condition of the apostles, inasmuch as they were
publicans and fishermen, observes that Matthew and Levi,
or as he calls him Lebes (o Ae^rjs:), were publicans.'* The
same opinion was held by Grotius, Michaelis, Neander,
Sieffert, Hase, Hilgenfeld, and Eeuss.^ As, however, the
incidents are recorded by the three evangelists in almost
precisely the same words, it is highly probable that their
narratives relate to the same event ; and consequently that
the Levi of Mark and Luke is the same as the Matthew of
Matthew's Gospel. The use of two names was not un-
common among the Jews at this time ; for example, Simon
was called Peter, Lebbaeus was surnamed Thaddaeus, Thomas
was called Didymus, Joses was called Barnabas, John was sur-
named Mark, Simon was called Niger, Judas was surnamed
Barsabas, and Saul was also called Paul.

1 Mark ii. 14 ; Luke v. 27. ^ ]yj[ark iii. 16 ; Luke vi. 15.

^ Clemens Alex. Strom, iv. 9.

* Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 62. It is, however, possible that by Lebes,
Origen might intend the Apostle Leliba?us, Matt. x. 3.
^ De Wette's Einleituny in das N.T. § 97rt.

106 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

We have hardly any notices of Matthew in the patristic
writings and in ecclesiastical history, and what we have are
of a legendary nature. Clemens Alexandrinus tells us that
he led an ascetic life : " The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds
and nuts and vegetables without flesh " ; ^ and he has preserved
the following saying of Matthew recorded in some Gnostic
writing: "They (the Gnostics) say in the traditions that
Matthew the apostle constantly said, ' If the neighbour of
an elect man sin, the elect man has sinned. For had he
conducted himself as the Word prescribes, his neighbour also
would have been filled with such reverence for the life he
led as not to sin.' " ^ Eusebius informs us that Matthew, after
he had preached the gospel to the Hebrews, that is, to the
Jews in Palestine, went forth to other lands, but without
mentioning any particular country.^ Socrates, in his Church
history, says that he went to Ethiopia.* Other writers
mention Parthia, India, and Macedonia. Some affirm that
he died a natural death, whilst Nicephorus states that he
suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia.^

III. The Sources of the Gospel.

It is a very difficult question to answer, Whence did
Matthew obtain the materials out of which he formed his
Gospel ? We may distinguish three sources : 1. Personal
observation. If the author of this Gospel was the Apostle
Matthew, he would be one of the constant followers of
Christ, a witness of many of His actions, and a listener to
many of His discourses. He would also come into intimate
contact with his fellow-apostles, and thus from their narra-
tives would supplement his own. Matthew then would not
be merely a compiler of the sayings or writings of others,
but a narrator of what he himself saw and heard. 2. Oral
tradition. This must have been the source of much of the
Synoptic narratives. As we have already seen reason to

^ Clemens Alex. Pcvdag. ii. 1. 2 Clemens Alex. Strom, vii. 13.

3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 24. •* Socrates, Hist. Ecd. i. 19.

^ The Catliolic Churcli keeps Sejitember 21st as the anniversary of his
martyrdom. See Cave's Lives of the Apostles.

SOURCES. 107

believe, that before anything was reduced to writing there was a
certain stereotyped form of an oral Gospel which constituted
the teaching of the apostles for the use of catechumens.
3. Written documents. We have stated that it is probable
that at a very early period there were Gospel fragments. To
the use of these written documents we attribute the great
similarity that exists in many portions of the Synoptic
Gospels. There was a historical framework common to all
three. The account of the birth of our Lord, the visit of
the Magi and the flight into Egypt, in the first two chapters
of this Gospel, was probably an early document derived from
Mary or from the brethren of our Lord, and treasured up by
the primitive Church. The discourses and parables of our
Lord were perhaps collections made of the sayings of Christ
which would be distributed throughout the churches. We
have also seen that it is extremely probable that Matthew
made a free use of the previously written Gospel of Mark.

According to Papias, Matthew composed his oracles
(Xoyia) in the Hebrew language. We have already seen
that the term \6yia is not to be restricted to the discourses
of Jesus, but includes also the incidents of His life, in short,
that it is equivalent to Gospel. It is, however, undoubtedly
true that this Gospel, more than the other two, contains long
■discourses of our Lord, and in this particular resembles the
'Gospel of John ; whether these discourses were delivered in
full at one time, or whether they are collections of the
sayings of Jesus delivered at different times. Examples of
these are the Sermon on the Mount (v.— vii.), the apostolic
•commission (x.), the testimony concerning the Baptist (xi.),
the series of early parables (xiii.), the characteristics of
disciplesbip (xviii.), a second series of parables (xxi. 28—
xxii. 14), disputes with the Pharisees and Sadducees (xxii.
15—40), the denunciation pronovmced against the scribes
and Pharisees (xxiii.), the prediction concerning the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem (xxiv.), and the so-called parables of the
passion (xxv.). The designation Xoyia, applied to the Gospel
•of Matthew, is highly appropriate. It is a plausible and
attractive idea that these sayings or discourses of Jesus formed
the original Gospel of Matthew, and that the other portions

108 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

were subsequent additions made by unknown editors.^
Thus Weiss supposes that the discourses of Matthew
formed the original Gospel, and were the groundwork of the
three Synoptics. But such an idea is extremely problematic
and incapable of proof. As already stated, the same style
and language, the same favourite expressions, pervade the
whole Gospel, and prove the unity of authorship. Matthew,,
it would appear, was a collector of the sayings of Jesus, and
united in one discourse many utterances which were spoken
at different times, and many parables which were delivered on
difierent occasions. In all probability these collections were
made by Matthew himself of the sayings of Jesus, which
were either handed down by tradition, or existed in written
documents, or were heard by himself. Matthew drew them
from Galilean tradition, whether oral or written, or from
actual knowledge.

IV. The Design of the Gospel.

It is the uniform testimony of the Fathers that Matthew
wrote his Gospel for the use and benefit of the Hebrew
Christians ; that is, not only for those who were resident
in Palestine, but for Jewish converts scattered throughout
the world. Thus Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, observes :
" Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable
ones in the Churches of God, I have learnt by tradition that
the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican,
but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was pre-
pared for the converts from Judaism and published in tlie
Hebrew language." - Its chief design was evidently to prove
that Jesus was the Christ; that the Messianic prophecies of the
Old Testament received their accomplishment in Him. The

^ View of Godet, New Testament Studies, ]>. 20 : " Some coiidjutor of
Matthew," lie observes, " wlu) had liel])ed liim in his work of evangelisa-
tion, undertO(jk tlie hxboiir of translating into (Jreek the (lisrourses which
had l)een drawn up by him in their original language, and to complete
this work by distributing their contents tlu't)Ugh an evangelical narrative,
(•fim])lete in itself and conformable to the type of Christian instruction
adopted by the apostles."

- Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25.

DESIGN. 109

genealogy of Jesus is traced back, not as in Luke's Gospel to
Adam, the ancestor of the human race, but to David the
Messianic king, and to Abraham the father of the Jewish
nation. The Gospel commences with the words : " The book
of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son
of Abraham." In the Sermon on the Mount, where the prin-
ciples of the religion of Jesus are enunciated, our Lord says
that " He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but
to fulfil them " ; to impart to the commandments of the
moral law a higher and more spiritual meaning. Jewish
customs and localities are supposed to be known to the
reader. Jerusalem is called the holy city, and Bethlehem
the city of David. The teaching of Matthew's Gospel
resembles that of the Epistle of James in regarding Chris-
tianity not as superseding Judaism, but as its development.

Hence the Gospel of Matthew, above all the other
Gospels, is pervaded by the Old Testament ; there are more
than seventy quotations from it, or references to it. This
Gospel is interwoven with proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus.
His birth is foretold under the Messianic name, Emmanuel
(i. 23); He is born in Bethlehem of Judsea, because so it
was foretold by the prophets (ii. 6) ; He and His parents fled
to Egypt, " that what was spoken by the prophets might be
fulfilled" (ii. 15); the massacre of the children of Bethlehem
took place, in fulfilment of the words spoken by Jeremiah
the prophet (ii. 18) ; He came and dwelt in Nazareth, " that
it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet "
(ii. 23); John the Baptist was His forerunner, as was
foretold by the prophet Esaias (iii. 3, xi. 10); leaving
Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, that the words
of Esaias the prophet might be accomplished (iv. 13, 14) ; He
cured diseases, that that which was spoken by Esaias might
be fulfilled (viii. 17); He was possessed of a meek and
retiring disposition, according to the description of His
character given by the same prophet (xii. 17—21); He
taught the multitude in parables, as was foretold of Him
(xiii. 35, 36); He entered Jerusalem in lowly triumph
riding upon an ass, in accordance with the prediction of
Zechariah (xxi. 4, 5); He appealed to the words of David,

110 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

iu proof of His Messiahship (xxii. 41-45); at His appre-
hension all His disciples forsook Him, in fulfilment of the
prophet's statement (xxvi. 31); He was sold for thirty
pieces of silver, the exact sum stated by the prophet
(xxvii. 9) ; the soldiers who crucified Him parted Hi&
garments among them, and thus unconsciously fulfilled the
statement of the prophet (xxvii. 35); and on the cross, in
the hour of His agony. He appropriated to Himself the
words of the prophetic Psalmist (xxvii. 46). The formula,
"that it might be fulfilled" (ottco? irXr/pcod^), occurs eight tunes-
in this Gospel.^ The life of Jesus is recorded as the fulfil-
ment of prophecy ; He is portrayed as the great Messianic
King, to whom all the prophets bear witness, and in whose
life their predictions received their accomplishment.^

V. The Language of the Gospel.

The subject which we have now to discuss is one of
extreme difiiculty. In what language was the Gospel of
Matthew written ? Was it Hebrew, that is, Aramaic,^ or
Greek ? The difficulty consists in the conflict between the
external and internal evidences : the former being in favour
of an original Aramaic Gospel, and the latter tending to
show that the Gospel of Matthew, as we now possess it,
must have been written in Greek, and cannot be a translation.
There is no difficulty in believing that some of the docu-
mentary sources of the Synoptic Gospels may have been
written in Aramaic ; but the question is, Was there an
original Aramaic Gospel, of which the canonical Gospel of

» Matt. i. 22, ii. 15, 23, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 35, xxi. 4, xxvii. 35.

2 " Matthew desired to set forth Jesus to the Jews as their very Christ ;
the Legislator of a new and spiritual law ; the King of a new and spiritual
dominion ; the Prophet of a new and universal Churcli ; the divine
Messiah who should soon resolve all doubts, returning in the clouds of
heaven to judge and save." Farrar, The Mensatjcs of the Booh, p. 40.

'"• We fre([uently use the term Helirew, because it is so used in Scrijv
ture and in the writings of the Fathers ; but the vernacular language was
Aramaic or Syro-Clialdaic, a cognate language, resembling Talmudic
Hebrew, and substantially the same as that in which part of the Books of
Ezra and Daniel are written.

LANGUAGE. Ill

Matthew is the translation ? And with this is closely con-
nected another important question, What was the nature of
the " Gospel according to the Hebrews " used by the Hebrew-
speaking Christians, so often referred to and quoted by the
Fathers, and which has for centuries been lost ? ^ Was it,
as many critics suppose, the original Aramaic Gospel of
Matthew, of which ours is only the translation ?

With regard to the language of the Gospel of Matthew,.
the external evidence is entirely in favour of an original
Hebrew Gospel. The testimonies of the Fathers are unani-
mous. Papias (a.d. 120), in the passage preserved by Eusebius,
so often quoted, and which has proved so fruitful of conjec-
tures, writes : " Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew
dialect, and everyone translated them as he was able." -
We have endeavoured to show that by the " oracles " is most
probably meant the Gospel ; ^ and if so, we have in this
testimony of Papias an assertion of its Hebrew origin.
" Everyone," he says, that is, every Greek Christian who
was ignorant of Hebrew, " translated them as best he could."
Irena:!us (a.d. 180) writes: "Matthew published his Gospel
among the Hebrews in their own dialect." * Eusebius relates
that Pantaenus (a.d. 200), the chief of the catechetical school of
Alexandria, having gone to the Indians to diffuse the Christian
religion, found among them the Gospel of Matthew ; for
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had before his arrival
preached the gospel to them, and left with them the
writings of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they
had preserved till that time.^ The same statement is made
by Jerome.® Origen (a.d. 230), in a passage preserved by

^ Considering the reniarkal)le discoveries wliicli have lately been made,
there is nothing extravagant in siq^posing that this Gospel of the Hebrews
may yet be found. This would be of great importance, would solve
many difficulties, and throw a flood of light on the Synoptic problem.

2 Eusebius, Hist. JEccl. iii. 39. Vide sufra, p. 19.

3 Vide supra, p. 65.

* Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 1 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8 : o /iciv I'/i
MxT^xiog i'j roig 'JLfipxi'oi; rfi i^icc diotT^iKTCfi xvrojv xod ypxCpViV liyiviyyAv
iijctyyiXiW.

^ Euseljius, Hist. Eccl. v. 10 : 'Elipxiuv ypx/^cfixai.

•"• De Vir. Illustr. ch. xxxvi.

112 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Eusebius, writes : " Among the four Gospels, which are the
only indisputable ones in the Church of God, I have learnt
by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was
once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ,
who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the
Hebrew language."^ Eusebius (a,d, 325) also attests the
Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel. " For Matthew
having first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to
go to other nations delivered to them the Gospel in their
native tongue.""^ Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d. 345) says:
" Matthew, the author of the Gospel, wrote it in the
Hebrew language."^ Epiphanius (a.d. 348) writes: "They
(the Ebionites) also receive the Gospel according to Matthew,
and this is the only one they use. They call it the Gospel
according to the Hebrews : for the truth is that Matthew is
the only one of the New Testament writers who published
his Gospel in the Hebrew language and in Hebrew char-
acters."^ Augustine (a.d. 380) observes: "Of these four
(evangelists) only Matthew is reckoned to have written in
the Hebrew language ; the others in Greek." ^

But the most important testimony is that of Jerome /
(a.d. 390), both on account of his intimate acquaintance
with Hebrew, and on account of the minuteness of his \
statement. He not only asserts that Matthew wrote his
Gospel in Hebrew, but that he himself possessed a copy of it,
and translated it into Greek. " Matthew, also called Levi,
who from being a publican became an apostle, first of all
wrote a Gospel of Christ in Judwa in Hebrew letters and
words for the sake of those of the circumcised who believed.
Who afterwards translated it into Greek is uncertain. More-
over, this very Hebrew Gospel is in the library at Ca^sarea,
which was collected with great care by Pamphilus the martyr.
With permission of the Nazarenes, who live at Beroea in Syria,
and use that volume, I took a copy." ^ And again : " The

' Euselniis, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25 : yo«,M,£*<«a/v 'EfipxiKol; avjrirx'/fiii/ov.
- Ibid. iii. 24. 3 Catechet. 14.

■• Epiplianius, Hccr. xxx. 3. * Coiisciisus evaiigelutorum, i. 2. 4.

" De Vir. Illustr. cli. iii. : Mattlioeus, qui et Levi, ex publicano
Apostolus, primus in Jud;i>a proi^ter eos qui ex circumcisione crecli-

LANGUAGE. 113

Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which we
lately translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is
called by most the authentic Gospel of Matthew."^ The
testimony of the later Fathers, of Chrysostom, Athanasius,
Gregory of Nazianzus, and Theophylact, are to the same effect.
Thus, then, the external evidence is entirely in favour of
an original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. All the Fathers,
from Papias to Jerome, and from Jerome to Theophylact,
attest that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and that
the Greek Gospel, which we now possess, is only a translation.
Nor is there any contrary testimony ; not one of the Fathers
speaks of an original Greek Gospel. " No matter of fact,"
observes Greswell, " which rests upon the faith of testimony
can be considered certain, if this is not so." ^ Bishop
Westcott writes : " Till it can be showtl that the writers
quoted are untrustworthy generally, it is purely arbitrary to
reject their statement because it is not sufficiently explicit." ^
And Tregelles observes : " If early testimonies and ancient
opinion unitedly are to have some weight, when wholly
uncontradicted, then it must be admitted that the original
language of the Gospel of Matthew was Hebrcu\ and that
the text which has been transmitted to us is really a Greek
translation." * Besides, it is to be observed that there is an
antecedent probability that Matthew would write his Gospel in
Hebrew. If he wrote chiefly for the Hebrew Christians, and
if Hebrew was the vernacular language of Palestine, as we
shall afterwards see was most probably the case, then the
probability is that he would write in that language.

devant Evangelium Christi Hebraicis Uteris verbisque composuit ; quod
quis postea in Graecum transtiilerit, noii satis certum est. Porro ipsiiin
Hebraicum liabetur usque liodie in Csesariensi bil^liotlieca, quam Pam-
pliilus martyr studiosissime confecit. Milii quoque a Nazaraeis qui in
Beroea urbe Syrise lioc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit.

^ Comment, ad Matth. xii. 13 : Evangelium quo utuntur Nazareni et
Eljionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus et
quod vocatur a plerisque Mattbaei autlienticum.

^ Greswell's Harmony of the Gosi^eh, vol. i. ]). 101.

^ Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 208, note 2.

■' Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. p. 1623. Article, "Versions,
Ancient (Greek)."

8

114 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Nevertheless, this evidence, apparently so strong and
unanimous, has been disputed by the majority of modern
critics. Papias, it is said, is described by Eusebius as a man
of very limited understanding,^ and certainly many of his
statements recorded by Eusebius seem to prove this ; that,
however, is no reason why we should refuse credence to his
assertion of a matter of fact, that Matthew wrote his oracles
in Hebrew. Irenteus, it is suggested, may have founded his
opinion on the testimony of Papias, whom he held in high
estimation ; but for this there is no proof ; it is a mere con-
jecture. The statement about Panta?nus, given- by Eusebius,
has been discredited as mythical ; it is, however, a statement
independent of Papias ; and if it be a legend, yet it presup-
poses the prevalence of the belief in a Hebrew Gospel.
Origen, the only onfe of the Fathers before the fourth century
who was skilled in Hebrew, and thus qualified to judge, gives
his testimony as a tradition : " he had learned by tradition
(a)9 iv irapaSoaei fxadcov) that Matthew wrote in Hebrew " ;
but this tradition presupposed the prevalent behef regarding
a Hebrew Gospel in the time of Origen. The strongest testi-
mony is that of Jerome. He affirms that he had the Hebrew
Gospel in his possession ; and not only so, but that he took a
copy of it and translated it into Greek. An attempt has
been made to neutralise this statement. It has been asserted
that if this Hebrew Gospel was the same as our Greek Gospel
of Matthew, there would have been no reason for its transla-
tion. It would appear, besides, that Jerome vacillated in his
opinion. At first, when he obtained possession of the Gospel
of the Nazarenes, he believed that it was the Hebrew Gospel
of Matthew ; but afterwards, when he came to examine and
translate it, he expresses himself hesitatingly, and gives his
judgment in a modified form. " The Gospel which the
Nazarenes and Ebionites use is called by most (a 2^^cris-
qve) the authentic Gospel of Matthew." - " The Gospel

1 Eusebiiis, Hist. Ecd. iii. 39 : a:p6opx afUKpo; uv tov uovv (pxivi-rett. Else-
where, indeed, Eusebius says : " Papias wa.s well known as a man skilled
in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures,"
iii. 36. But this sentence is now regarded as spurious.

2 Comment, ad. Matth.

LANGUAGE. 115

according to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic lan-
guage, but in Hebrew characters, which the Nazarenes use,,
is by most supposed {ut pleriqiie autumant) to be the Gospel
according to Matthew." ^ Now, it is admitted that there i&
some ambiguity in the language of Jerome, and that he
appears to have confounded the Gospel of Matthew with the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, regarding them as the same.
But, notwithstanding this ambiguity, which certainly weakens
his testimony, he still holds to tlie opinion that the original
Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The relation of
these two Gospels — the Gospel according to the Hebrews and
the Gospel of Matthew — is reserved to form the subject of
future consideration, in order not to interrupt the course of this
discussion.

But whilst the external evidence, as contamed in the
testimonies of the Fathers, is wholly in favour of an original
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, the internal evidence is to the
contrary effect ; and it has been affirmed that the Gospel of
Matthew, as we now possess it, must have been an original
document, and could not have been a translation. Some of
the arguments in proof of this are not convincing, but others
are undeniably strong.

1. It is affirmed that from its nature the Greek text of
our Gospel cannot have been a translation from the Hebrew.
It bears no marks of being a translation : the style is clear
and flowing, without the slightest stiffness, bearing the impress,
of originality. There are in it numerous explanations of
Jewish customs which would have been unnecessary had
the Gospel been written in Hebrew for Hebrew converts.
Thus : " On that day came to Him Sadducees, who say that
there is no resurrection" (xxii. 23). "That field was called,,
The field of blood, unto this day " (xxvii. 8). " Now at the
feast the governor was wont to release unto the multitude
one prisoner, whom they would" (xxvii. 15). "This saying
was spread abroad among the Jew^s, and continueth until this
day " (xxviii. 15). Further, if the Gospel was written origin-
ally in Aramaic, there would have been little use of a Syriac
translation, as it would be understood by the Syrian Chris-
^ Dialog, adv. Pelagianos, iii. 2.

116 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tians ; or at least the Syriac translation would have been
made from it, and not from the Greek, which on this hypo-
thesis was itself a translation. " We have," observes Professor
Moses Stuart of America, " the Peshito, a version of a very
early age, in a language which was twin-sister to the Hebrew
of that day, yea, almost identical with it : and yet this version
is demonstrably not from a Hcbrcio original of IMatthew, but
from the present Greek canonical Matthew." Besides, it is
the present Greek text that is uniformly (j^uoted or referred
to by the Fathers, and that at a period so early as the time
when the Epistle of Barnabas was written (a.d. 100). There
are also paronomasiae, or plays on Greek words, which could
hardly occur in a translation, as kukov'^ KaKco<: aTroXeaei
(xxi. 41), acfjavL^ovai ottco? (fjavcoai (vi. 10).

To these objections it is answered : that the excellence of
the translation may remove all traces of its having been
written in a foreign language ; that the explanation of Jewish
customs was necessary for those Jewish converts who lived
outside of Palestine and used the Hebrew language ; that the
Fathers quoted from the Greek because it was before them,
whilst they may not have seen the Hebrew original, which
might not have been circulated beyond Palestine ; and that
paronomasi?e are very few, and may occur in translations
as well as in the original. We have a remarkable instance
of a paronomasia in the Authorised Version of Jas. i. 6 :
" But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering ; for he that
wavereth {8aKptv6fjbevo<;) is like a wave (kXvScovl) of the sea
driven with the wind and tossed." ^

2. There are in the Gospel of Matthew several Aramaic
expressions, the translations of which are subjoined. Thus :
" They shall call His name Immanuel, which is, being inter-
preted, God with us" (i. 23). "They came unto a place
called Golgotha, that is to say. The place of a skull "
(xxvii. 33). "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtliani ? that is. My God,
My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? "(xxvii. 46). These
Aramaic expressions may have been preserved in the Greek
Gospel on account of their weighty character ; but the inter-
pretation of them could not have formed part of a Hebrew
* So also in Rom. ii. 18.

LANGUAGE. 117

original. To this objection, two answers are given : The
translation of these Aramaic expressions may have at first been
put as a marginal note for the information of Greek readers,
and afterwards have been inserted in the text. For this,
however, there is no critical authority, as they are found in
all manuscripts. Or the translator of the Hebrew original
might himself have given the interpretation ; a supposition
which is not improbable.

3. A far more formidable objection to a Hebrew original
arises from the fact that there is often an identity between
the Greek of Matthew's Gospel and the Greek of the Gospels
of Mark and Luke. This, it is evident, could not possibly
have been the case if the Greek Gospel of Matthew was an
independent translation. A Hebrew original of Matthew
may account for a variation in his Gospel in the narrative of
the same events and discourses contained in the other Gospels,
but the agreement in expression is a proof that the Gospel
of Matthew could not be an independent translation. If
Matthew and Luke use precisely the same words, as is often
the case, it is a proof that both had the same Greek source
before them.

Here, undoubtedly, there is an objection to an original
Hebrew Gospel of great force, and the answers given to it are
somewhat unsatisfactory. Meyer gives the following answer :
" The frequent identity of expression in Matthew with Mark
and Luke does not necessarily point to an original composi-
tion of the former in Greek, but leaves the question quite
unaffected, as the translated Matthew might either have been
made use of by the later Synoptics, or might even have
originated from the use of the latter, or of common soiirces." ^
According to this distinguished critic, either Mark and Luke
may have made use of the translation of Matthew, or the trans-
lator of Matthew may have used these Gospels, or all three
may ha^•e drawn from common sources. But none of these
suppositions can be correct. The Gospel of Luke, we have
seen, was independent of that of Matthew ; ^ and to suppose
that the translator of the Hebrew Matthew drew from the

^ Meyer's Commentary on Mattheio, p. 10, translation.
2 See supra, p. 50.

118 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

same common source as Luke, may not indeed be an impos-
sible, but is a highly improbable supposition, and detracts
from the value and accuracy of the translation.

Some attempt to solve this difficulty, arising from the
conflict between the external and internal evidences regardincr
the language of Matthew's Gospel, by the assumption that
Matthew wrote two editions of his Gospel, the one in
Hebrew, for the use of Christians who spoke Hebrew, and
the other in Greek, for the use of Christians who spoke
Greek. This hypothesis of a twofold Gospel of Matthew is
of comparatively recent origin, and has no support from the
writings of the Fathers, who never attribute the translation
of the Gospel to Matthew himself. It is, however, very
plausible and not indefensible, because, if adopted, it at
once reconciles the declarations of the Fathers concerning an
original Hebrew Matthew with the proofs that our present
Gospel was written in Greek ; the external and internal
evidences are brought into agreement.^ Such a theory, with
various modifications, has been adopted by such distinguished
critics as Bengel, Schott, Olshausen, Thiersch, Guericke, and
Schaff ; and among English theologians by Townson, Whitby,
Benson, Bloomfield, Home, Archdeacon Lee,^ and Bishop
Ellicott. Thus Schaff writes : " If we credit the well-nigh
imanimous tradition of the ancient Church concerning a prior
Hebrew Matthew, we must either ascribe the Gospel of
Matthew to some unknown translator who took certain
liberties with the original, or what seems most probable, we
must assume that Matthew himself, at different periods of
his life, wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, in Palestine, and
■afterwards in Greek. In doing so, he would not literally
translate his own book, but, like other historians, freely
reproduce and improve it. Josephus did the same with his
history of the Jewish war, of which the Greek only

^ If we cannot positively assent to its truth, yet neither can we reject
it, but, on the contrary, may favourably entertain it as a solution of
difficulties. *' There seems," observes Dr. Townson, "more reason for allow-
ing two originals than for contesting either : the consent of antiquity
pleading strongly for the Hebrew, and evident marks of originality for
the Greek."

- Dr Lee, Inspiration of the Holy Scri})ture, \)\). 506-574.

LANGUAGE. 119

remains.^ When the Greek Matthew once was current in
the Church, it naturally superseded the Hebrew, especially if
it was more complete." ^

Others, admitting that Matthew wrote his Gospel in
Hebrew, in order to give apostolic authority to the transla-
tion, assign it to different apostles. Thus the author of the
Synojjsis Scriiiturm sacrcc, in Athanasius' works, assigns it to
James ; Theophylact, to John ; Anastasius Sinaita supposes
that Paul and Luke conjointly translated the Gospel into
Greek. Gresswell makes the strange supposition that Mark
was the translator of the Hebrew Matthew.^ All these are
mere fanciful conjectures. Another opinion is that the X6<yia
■or oracles of Matthew mentioned by Papias was not the
Gospel of Matthew, but another work of his written in
Hebrew, containing chiefly discourses of our Lord, which he
afterwards translated and embodied in his Gospel written in
■Greek.*-

It is exceedingly difficult to arrive at any certain
conclusion as the result of this discussion. On the one hand,
the external evidence in favour of an original Hebrew
Gospel is uniform and undisputed : the Fathers are unanimous
on this point, and there is no contrary testimony. But, on
the other hand, the internal evidence in favour of an original
Greek Gospel is so strong and apparently so convincing, that
were it not for the external evidence it would hardly have been
doubted. The attempt to overthrow the external evidence
by asserting that the Fathers, following the assertion of
Papias, were mistaken, is a violent solution ; the testimony
•of Origen, for example, cannot in this manner be set aside.
A possible solution may be that the Gospel according to the

^ So also lime wrote his excellent history of the Romans both in
German and in English. They were separate works : the English was^
not a translation of the German,

2 Schaff's Church History, vol. i. p. 626.

2 Greswell's Dissertations, vol. i. p. 122. He gives it as his conjecture
that "Mark translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and wrote
his own supplementary to it, either both at R-ome, or both about the same
time."

■* For this ingenious supposition, see Morison's Commentary on Matthew,
Introduction, pp. xlvf.

120 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Hebrews may have been originally the Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew, but afterwards became much altered from its
original form by interpolations and omissions. In general,
greater weight nnist be given to the external evidence which
relates to matters of fact than to the internal evidence
which, for the most part, rests on subjective considera-
tions.

Critics are nearly equally divided upon this question.
Grotius, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Michaelis, Sieffert, Tholuck,
Olshausen, Meyer, Ebrard, Godet, Lange, and Luthardt ; and
among English theologians, Walton, Mill, Principal Campbell
of Aberdeen, Greswell, Norton (of America), Tregelles,
Cureton, Dr. Samuel Davidson, and Westcott, maintain the
Hebrew original of the Gospel. Whilst the Greek original is
maintained by Erasmus,^ Beza, Wetstein, Hug, Credner, De
Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Tischendorf, Holtzmann, Zahn, and
Weiss ; and among English writers by John Lightfoot,
Lardner, Jones, ' Moses Stuart (of America), Archbishop
Thomson, Alford, Morison, Eoberts, and Salmon.

Another important point, intimately related to this dis-
cussion, remains to be considered : the nature of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews (euayyeXLou KaO' 'E^palov^), and its
relation to the Gospel of Matthew. Many critics suppose
that this Gospel, divested of its apocryphal additions, and
having its omissions restored, was the original Hebrew Gospel
of Matthew, and that our canonical Gospel is a translation
of it before it was mutilated. Undoubtedly such a Gospel
was in use among the Hebrew-speaking converts at a very
early period. It is often quoted by the Fathers, and was
held in estimation among them, being sometimes cited as
Scripture. It occurs under various names, as " the Gospel of
the Ebionites," " the Gospel of the Nazarenes," and " the Gospel
of the Twelve Apostles." Its origin is obscure. Some
suppose that it is cited by Ignatius in his Epistle to the
Smyrneans, when, in opposition to the Docetic conception of
our Lord's body, he says that our Lord, after His resurrec-
tion, said to His disciples: "Lay hold, handle Me, and see

' Erasmus a])i)ears to have lieeu the first tu suggest that Greek was the
original hiuguage of tlie Gosi)el of Matthew.

LANGUAGE. 121

that I am not an incorporeal demon." ^ Eusebius states
that he knew not whence Ignatius derived his information ; ^
but, according to Jerome, it was a quotation from the Gospel
of the Nazareues.^ The probability, however, is that the
reference is to Luke xxiv. 39 : " Handle, and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having." Eusebius
informs us that Papias gives us an account of a woman who
had been accused of many sins before the Lord, which is
contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.^ It is to
be observed that Eusebius does not here affirm that Papias
quoted this statement from the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, but merely that such a statement is to be found
in that Gospel. The first direct testimony to the existence
of such a Gospel is contained in the somewhat ambiguous
statement of Eusebius concerning Hegesippus (a.d. 180).
" He (Hegesippus) states some particulars from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, and from a Syriac Gospel, and
particularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he
himself was a convert from the Hebrews." ^ Irenseus (a.d.
180) states that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to
Matthew only, and repudiated the Apostle Paul, maintaining
that he was an apostate from the law.*^ In these words of
IreniTeus we have an evident reference to the Gospel of the
Ebionites (the same as the Gospel according to the Hebrews),
which was attributed to Matthew. It was accordingly in
existence in the time of Irenaeus, and appears to have been
regarded by him as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Clemens
Alexandrinus writes : " Matthew, in the traditions exhorting
us, says, Wonder at what is before you, laying this (namely,
wonder) down as the foundation of all further knowledge.
So also in the Gospel to the Hebrews it is written, He that
wonders shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest." '^

^ Ignatius, Ej). ad Smyr. ch. iii. ouiy^oviou uauf^ctrou.

- Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 36. " Be viris illustr. cli. xvi.

* Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.

^ Ibid. iv. 22 : sx, rs to2 y,xd^ 'Efipxiovg liia.y/i'kiw kocI tou 'S.vpiay.aZ x.ix.\
ih'a; Ik rijf ' Efipeti'loc hx'hUroii rivoi rl6miv. The exact meaning of the
words is very difficult to determine. May it not be that Hegesii^j^us
alludes to the Syriac version ?

^ Irenceus, Adv. Hccr. i. 26. 2. '^ Clemens Alex. Strovmta, ii. 9.

122 , THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Origen speaks of this Gospel in douljtful terms : " If anyone
admit the Gospel according to the Hebrews." ^ " It is
written in a certain Gospel, which is entitled, ' according to
the Hebrews,' if anyone please to receive it, not as of authority,
but for illustration."- Eusebius classes it among the voOoi
or spurious writings : " In this number some have placed the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Heb-
rews who have received Christ are particularly delighted." ^

The strict Jewish Christians, who held that the law of
Moses was not abolished, but still bindmg on all Christians,
and who refused to hold communion with the Gentile con-
verts, separated of their own accord from the Catholic
Church, soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, or were
cast out. They are known in ecclesiastical history as
Ebionites.^ Irenaus is the first who mentions this sect :
" Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made
by God ; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are
similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They practise
circumcision, persevere in the observance of the customs
which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their
style of life that they even adore Jerusalem, as if it were
the house of God."^ After their separation from the
Catholic Church, they adopted various heretical opinions.
They held low views of Christ, denied His divinity, regarding
Him as the son of Mary born in wedlock, and rejected the
Epistles of Paul. There seems, however, to have been at an
early period a diversity of opinion among them. Thus
Origen observes : " Let it be admitted that there are some
who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being
Christians, and yet would regulate their lives like the Jewish
multitude in accordance with the Jewish law, and these are
the twofold sect of the Ebionites, who either acknowledge
with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and

^ Comment, ad Joann. ^ Origen on Matt. xi.x. 19.

^ EiLsebius, Hid. Ecd. iii. 25.

* According to Tertullian, the Ebionites were the disciples of a lieretic
called Ebion ; but it is more probable that the word is an api)ellative
iiieaning j)oor.

^ Adv. H(er. i. 2G. 2. So also Hippolytus, Refutat. omn. har. vii. 22.

LANGUAGE. 123

maintain that He was begotten like other human beings." ^
And the same distinction is made by Eusebius : " The
Ebionites," he observes, " hold poor and mean opinions con-
cerning Christ. They considered Him a plain and common
man, who was justified only because of His superior virtue.
There are others besides them who were of the same name,
but avoided the absurdity of these opinions, not denying that
the Lord was born of a virgin." ^ Epiphanius is the first
Father who calls these two classes by different names ;
those who held heretical opinions concerning the person of
Christ he terms Ebionites, and those who held comparatively
•orthodox views he terms Nazarenes.^ Probably the heretical
views of the Ebionites were of later growth, as Justin
describes the strict Jewish Christians only as weak brethren
who had not attained to the liberty of the Gospel.* In
accordance with this difference of opinion, there appear to
have been two recensions of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, the one called the Gospel of the Ebionites, and
the other the Gospel of the Nazarenes ; ^ and there is also
a difference in the quotations from them as given by Jerome
and Epiphanius. It was the Gospel of the Nazarenes that
Jerome translated.

Mr. Nicholson, in his learned work. The Gospel according
to the Hebrews^ supposes that it was written by Matthew, and
that he also wrote the Greek Gospel that bears his name.
The one was an edition of the other, just as modern authors
jDublish editions of their works, often much altered. " My

1 Contra Celsum, v. 61.

- Hist. Ecd. iii. 27. These two classes are to be identified with the
Ebionites and Nazarenes. See De Wette's Einleitung, § 63a.

^ Hce7: XXX. 3. 13. * Dial cum. Trifph. ch. xlvii.

^ According to a statement of Epiphanius, the language of the
Ebionite Gospel would appear to have been Greek, Hcer. xxx. 3. 13,
an opinion adopted by Hilgenfeld. This, however, is very doubtful.
The language of the Nazarene Gospel was undoubtedly Hebrew.

^' This is a work of great erudition which has been too much over-
looked. In it there is a most valuable collection of all the fragments of
this Gospel, scattered throughout the writings of the Fathers, with
valuable critical annotations. He gives thirty-three fragments, many of
them of a highly interesting character. See also Anger in his Sy7iopsis
Evangeliorum.

124 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

hypothesis," he observes, " is that ]\Iatthew wrote at different
times the canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, or at least that large part of the latter which runs
parallel with the former." ^ Afterwards, as he supposes, the
Gospel of the Hebrews became corrupted with additions,^
abbreviations, and heretical views ; but in its original state
it was the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

It would certainly appear that the Gospel of Matthew
lies at the foundation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
whether in its corrupt state as used by the Ebionites, or in
its comparatively pure state as used by the Nazarenes. For
this we have the distinct testimonies of Epiphanius and
Jerome. The Ebionite Gospel, or the Gospel of the Hebrews
in its corrupt form, as is evident from the extracts from it
and references to it contained in the writings of the Fathers,
is clearly heretical, and is to be classed among the spurious
Gospels, being a mutilation of the Gospel of Matthew, just as
the Gospel of Marcion was a mutilation of the Gospel of Luke.
On the other hand, Epiphanius informs us that the Nazarenes
had the Gospel of Matthew in a comparatively complete
form in Heljrew.^ The question then naturally arises :
Might not this Gospel of the Hebrews, as preserved by the
Nazarenes in its original state, when divested of its accretions
and with its omissions restored, be the Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew attested by the Fathers, and which was lost after
its translation into Greek ? This, however, is exceedingly
doubtful, as the fragments of it which remain are additions
which find no place in our canonical Gospel.^

Some of these additions found in the writings of the

' Tlie GosjkI accordinrj to the Hehrcvit, p. 104.

2 Many of these extra canonical additions !Mr. Nicholson defends, and
supposes to he j:;enuine.

^ TO KUTtH 'M.ctrd. iiixy/ihtov T^'Knpirrxrov.

* For a most interesting list of these fragments, see Nicholson's Gospel
accordiiuj to the Hebreivs, pp. 28-77 ; Resch's Afjrnpha, pp. 322-342 ; "West-
cott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospelx, pp. 433-438 ; Salmon's
Introduction to the Study of the N.T. i)p. 208 tt". The Gospel of the
Hebrews with these e.\tra canonical additions must be of a later origin
than the Gosind of Matthew. See Abbott's article on the Gos-Tpeh, Enct/clo-
IKddia Lritnnnica, vol. .\. p. 818, note.

LANGUAGE. 125

Fathers are of an interesting nature. We give a few
examples. The man with the withered arm is described as
a mason, who came to Jesus saying : " I am a mason, seeking
a livelihood by the labour of my hands. I pray thee, Jesus, to
restore me to health, that I may not beg my bread." ^ The
Holy Spirit is called " the mother of Christ." The Lord is
introduced as saying : " My mother, the Holy Ghost, lately
took Me by one of the hairs of My head and carried Me to
the great mountain Tabor." ^ The account of the rich man
who came to Jesus asking, What must I do to inherit eternal
life, is thus expanded : " Another rich man said unto Him,
]\Iaster what good thing must I do to live ? He said to
Him, Fulfil the law and the prophets. He answered Him,
I have fulfilled them. He said to him. Go, sell all that thou
hast, and distribute to the poor, and come follow Me. But the
rich man began to scratch his head, for it pleased him not.
Then said the Lord to him. How sayest thou I have fulfilled
the law and the prophets, seeing that it is written. Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself ; and behold many of thy
brethren, the sons of Abraham, are clothed in filth, and dying
from hunger, whilst thy house is full of much goods, and
nothing goes out of it. And He turned and said to Simon,
sitting beside Him, Simon, son of Jonas, it is easier for a
camel to enter through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man
to enter into the kingdom of heaven." ^ It is in this Gospel
that the legend of our Lord's appearance to James is found.
It is given as follows : " And when the Lord had given His
linen cloth to the servant of the high priest, He went to
James and appeared to him. For James had taken an oath
that he would not eat bread from that hour on which he
had drunk the cup of the Lord until He saw Him risen from
the dead. Then our Lord said. Bring a table and bread.
And He took the l^read, and blessed, and brake it, and gave

1 This is found in Jerome, ad Mattli. xii. 13. See Rescli's Agrapha,
p. 379 ; Nicholson, p. 46.

2 Found in Origen, Comm. ad. Johann. § 63. See Nicholson, jij). 74-76.

3 This passage is found in the Latin version of Origen's connuentary on
St. Matthew ; see Resch's Ayrafha, p. 387 ; Wescott's Introduction to the
Gospels, p. 434 ; Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrcivs, j)p. 49-51 ;
Salmon's Introduction, p. 213.

12G THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

it to James the Just, saying, Eat thy bread, My brother, for
the Son of Man is risen from the dead."^

Another important point, intimately connected with
the subject under discussion, regards the language spoken in
Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles. Hug was
among the first to maintain that the prevailing language of
Judtea and Galilee at this time was not Aramaic but Greek,
and that, consequently, if Matthew wrote his Gospel to the
Jews in Palestine, he must have done so in Greek.^ This
opinion has recently been maintained with much learning
and ingenuity by Professor Koberts of St. Andrews. He
thus states his theory : " What I maintain is that Greek was
the language which our Lord and His followers habitually
used in their public addresses." " While it is generally said
that our Lord for the, most imrt spoke in Hebrew and only
sometimes in Greek, what I venture to maintain is that our
Lord spoke for the most part in Greek and only now and
then in Hebrew."^ Now, certainly it must be admitted
that Greek was commonly used in Palestine in the time of our
Lord. The conquests of Alexander, the policy of the Pioman
government, the intercourse with Greek Jews who came to
worship at the annual festivals, and the Hellenic tendency
of the Herodian family, must have diffused the Greek
language. There were numerous Greek cities scattered
throughout all Palestine, especially in the province of Galilee,,
called on that account Galilee of the Gentiles.'* Greek was
the language in which legal proceedings were carried on by
the Eoman government, and must have been used in
commercial transactions with foreigners. It was doubtless
the language in which our Lord spoke before Pilate. At
the same time, we can hardly assume that Greek was the
prevailing language. Palestine appears at this time to have
been bihngual ; both Hebrew and Greek were spoken ;

^ This tradition is fouml in Jeroiue'.s Dc xir. illusir. ii. For remarks
on it, see Rescli's Agrajiha, p. 421, and Nicholson, pp. 62-88. Compare
1 Cor. XV. 7.

- Hug's Introduction to the N.T. vol. ii. p. 54 ff.

3 Roberts, Greek the Langucuje of Clirist and His Apostles, pp. l.'j, IG.

* Ca^'sarea, Ptolemais, Scytliopolis, Pella, Tiberius, Ca?sarea Pliilippi,
Samaria, Antipatris were Greek cities.

LANGUAGE, 127

Hebrew probably by the country people, and Greek by
the educated and those residmg in towns ; as is the case
with the Celtic and English in the Highlands of Scotland,,
and with the Welsh and English in Wales. Panl in address-
ing the Jewish mob in Jerusalem, spoke to them in the
Hebrew tongue, in consequence of which he was heard with
greater attention (Acts xxii. 2). And in his address before
Agrippa he mentions that the voice which came from heaven
at his conversion addressed him in the Hebrew tongue (Acts-
xxvi. 14). The few words of our Lord which have been
preserved are Aramaic, apparently intimating that this was-
the language in which He generally spoke : as Cephas,,
Boanerges, Ephphatha, Talitha-cumi, and the exclamation on
the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. So also we learn the
same use of Hebrew by the people from the writings of
Josephus. He wrote his history first in Hebrew, which he-
calls his native language, and then in Greek. " I propose,"
he says, " to narrate in the Greek language to those
under the Roman dominion the things which I formerly
composed for the barbarians of the interior in my native
tongue." ^ And whilst ha calls Hebrew his native tongue
{irdrpLO's <y\(x>(7(Ta), he speaks of Greek as a foreign language
{^evT} hioXeKTO'^)} When, at the request of Titus, he addressed
his countrymen, it was in Hebrew : " Josephus, standing where
he could be heard, declared the message of the emperor in
Hebrew." ^ From all this it would appear that although
Greek was well known to the Jews, and they could converse
in it, yet their native language, that which they usually
employed in mutual intercourse, was not Greek but Aramaic,,
called in Scripture " their language" (Acts i. 19).*

We have already had occasion to refer to the style and
diction of Matthew, There is a frequent recurrence of
peculiar expressions. The phrase, " that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophets," is of constant

'^ Josephus, Bell. Jud. Preface. - Ant. Preface. ^ Bell. Jucl. vi. 2. 1,
* For the extent to which Greek was spoken in Palestine, see Schiirer's
Jewish People in the Time of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 47 ff. He comes to
the conclusion that the lower classes in Palestine possessed either no-
knowledge, or only an insufficient one, of Greek,

128 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

occurrence. The expression, " the Son of David," the Mes-
sianic title of our Lord, occurs eight times. 'O Xe'yofievo'i is
a favourite expression, announcing the meaning of the
epithets applied to Christ and His disciples. " The kingdom
of heaven " is used in this Gospel instead of " the kingdom
of God " employed by the other Synoptists. The phrase,
avvreXela tov alS}vo<i, occurs four times, and is only found
elsewliere in Heb. ix. 26. Td<f)o^ is the word for a tomb,
which occurs six times, and is never used by the other
evangelists, who use either fivrj/jia or fivqfielov. Tore is the
usual particle of transition. There is also a large number of
words which are peculiar to this Gospel.^ Hebraisms occur,
but not more frequently than in many other writings of the
New Testament, and are not sufficiently numerous to indicate
traces of a translation from the Hebrew. " The style of
Matthew," writes Schaff, " is simple, unadorned, calm, dignified,
even majestic ; less vivid and picturesque than that of Mark,
more even and vmiform than Luke's, because not dependent
on written sources. He is Hebraising, but less so than
Mark, and not so much as Luke in his first two chapters.
In the fulness of the teaching of Christ he surpasses all
except John. Nothing can be more solemn and impressive
than his reports of those words of life and power, which will
outlast heaven and earth (xxiv. 34). Sentence follows
sentence with overwhelming force, like a succession of
lightning flashes from the upper world." ^

VI. Integkity of the Gospel.

1. The principal passage in the Gospel of Mattliew, the
genuineness of which has been disputed, is the first two
chapters, containing the genealogy of our Lord and tlie narra-
tive of His birth. Doubts were first thrown upon the
apostolic origin of this jmssage toward the close of last century
(a.d. 1771) by an Englishman named Williams, hi a work

1 For the characteristic words and expressions in Matthew's Gospel,
see Q,v<i(}irniv'A Einkilung in das iV.T. pp. 62-39 ; Davidson's Introduction to
the Study of the N.T. 3id ed. vol. i. pp. 371-379.

2 SchafFs Church History, vol. i. p. G20.

INTEGEITY. 129

entitled, A free inquiry into the authenticity of the first and
second chapters of St. Matthcio's Gospel. He was followed
in Germany by such distinguished critics as Eichhorn,
Schleiermacher, and Bertholdt, and by Priestley and his
school in England. Andrews Norton of America, an Arian,
though belonging to the positive school of criticism, supported
the same opinion. He conceived that these two chapters did
not form a part of the origmal Hebrew Gospel, but were an
extraneous document inserted by the translator into the
Greek Gospel. " There are," he observes, " strong reasons
for thinking that the first two chapters of our present copies
of the Greek Gospel of Matthew made no part of the original
Hebrew. We may suppose them to have been an ancient
document, which, from the connection of the subject with his
history, was transcribed into the same volume with it, and
which, though first written as a distinct work with some mark
of separation, yet in process of time became blended with it,
so as apparently to form its commencement. Being thus
found incorporated with the Gospel in the manuscript or in
manuscripts used by the translator, it was rendered by him
as part of the original." ^ So also Meyer, while admitting
that the passage formed an integral portion of the Hebrew
Gospel, of which our canonical Gospel is the translation, yet
calls in question its apostolic authority. " The portions com-
posing both chapters," he says, " were originally special Gospel
documents. Ch. i. 1—16 appears to have been one such
document by itself, then vv. 18—25 a second, and ch. ii. a
third, in which are now found for the first time the locality
and time of the birth of Jesus." ^ He appears to regard it as
a legendary account which found admission into the Gospel.
The passage has been defended by Griesbach, Mliller,^ and
Alford, and even by such rationalistic critics as Credner,*
Paulus,^ and Kuinoel.*^

1 Norton, The Gemdneness of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 16, 17.

2 Meyer's Commentary on Matthetv, Eng. trans, vol. i. p. 80.

•^ Ueber die Acchtheit der zicei ersten Kapitel des Evang. nach Matth.
■* Einleitung, p. 68. ^ Exegetisches Handbuch, vol. i. p. 137.

•"' Novi Testamenti Libri Historici : Prolegomena, § 3, De aiithentia, cap.
i. et ii. Evangelii Mattlisei.

9

130 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW,

The external objections to the genumeness of these
chapters are of no weight. The chief argument is that they
are not contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews
as used by the Jewish Christians, and hence it has been
inferred that they formed no part of the original Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew, Epiphanius, who appears to have regarded
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or as he calls it, the
Gospel of the Ebionites, as the same as the original Aramaic
Gospel of Matthew, though in an incomplete, adulterated,
and mutilated form, states that it commenced with the
baptism of John : " The beginning of their Gospel was this :
It came to pass in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
that John came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in
the river of Jordan " (Matt. iii. 1-7).^ We have already
considered the relation of this Gospel to the Gospel of
Matthew. It is not now in existence, so that we cannot
verify this statement. But as the majority of Hebrew Chris-
tians were Ebionites who called in question the divinity of
Christ, it is highly probable that from dogmatic motives they
did reject the first two chapters of Matthew, which taught
the miraculous conception, Tatian also, in his Diatessaron,
omitted the genealogy. But this is no serious objection to
the genuineness of these two chapters, since Tatian, although
he omitted the genealogy of our Lord as not being essential
to his harmony, did not omit the narrative of the birth of
Christ, — the miraculous conception, the visit of the Magi,
the appearance of the star, and the slaughter of the infants
of Bethlehem.

But the principal objections arise out of the narrative
itself. The visit of the Magi and the appearance of a star
are said to be of a legendary character, resembling the accounts
which the heathen gave of the birth of their demigods. The
massacre of the infants of Bethlehem, an act of unexampled
and unheard of barbarity, is unrecorded in history, and besides
was wholly unnecessary, as Herod might easily have accom-
plished his purpose without having recourse to such a deed of
cruelty. And it is affirmed that the account of the birth of
Christ as recorded by Luke is wholly dilferent from that here

J Har. XXX, 13.

INTEGKITY. 131

given us by Matthew, and that the events which follow are at
variance : instead of the visit of the Magi and the flight into
Egypt, there is the presentation in the temple and the return
to Nazareth.

The external testimony in favour of the passage is so
strong and convmcing, that we do not see how it can be set
aside by any objections of a subjective or internal nature.
The passage is contained in all Greek manuscripts and in all
the ancient versions of the Gospels. It is frequently
alluded to and quoted by the early Fathers. Thus, in the
Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (a.d. 115), there is an
allusion to the star. " How was He manifested to the world ?
A star shone forth in the heavens above all the other stars,
the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck
men with astonishment." ^ Justin Martyr (a.d. 180) mentions
all the incidents contained in the narrative — the visit of the
Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the massacre of the infants.
" Now this King Herod, at the time when the Magi came to
him from Arabia, and said that they knew from a star which
appeared in the heavens that a king had been born in your
country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned
from the elders of your people that it was written regarding
Bethlehem in the prophet : ' And thou Bethlehem, in the
land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of
Judah : for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall
feed my people.' Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to
Bethlehem and worshipped the child, and presented Him with
gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh ; but returned not to
Herod, being warned in a revelation, after worshipping the
child in Bethlehem. ... So Herod, when the Magi from
Arabia did not return to him, as he had asked them to do,
but departed by another way to their own country, according
to the commands laid on them ; and when Joseph, with Mary
and the child, had gone into Egypt, as he did not know the
child whom ' the Magi ' had gone to worship, ordered the
whole of the children then in Bethlehem to be massacred." ^
As we have already stated, the whole passage, with the excep-
tion of the genealogy, is contained in the Diatessaron of
1 Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. ch. xix. ^ j){^i ^_ Trijph. cli. Ixxviii.

132 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Tatian (a.d. 160). There are frequent references to it in the
writings of Irenajus (a.d. 180). Thus he refers to the gene-
alogy of our Lord as recorded by Matthew : " Matthew relates
His generation as a man : The birth of the generation of Jesus
Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham : and also. The
birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." ^ And he mentions the
visit of the Magi and the appearance of the star : " Matthew
says that the Magi, coming from the East, exclaimed : We
have seen His star in the East, and are come to worship
Him." - It is needless to pursue the references to the passage
further. There is no doubt that it constituted an original
portion of the Greek Gospel of Matthew. To affirm, with
Norton, that it formed no part of the original Hebrew, but
was an insertion into our Greek Gospel by the translator, —
granting the existence of a Hebrew original, — is a mere asser-
tion, for which the only proof is its omission in the defective
Gospel according to the Hebrews.

The internal evidence is in favour of the genuineness
of the passage. It forms an appropriate introduction to the
Gospel. Thus the beginning of chap. iii. : " And in those
days " (Ev Be raZ? rifjuepaa eKeivat^), is, by reason of the
conjunction Be and the phrase ■^fiepai'i eKecvai'i, in apparent
connection with what precedes. So also the statement, that
Jesus leaving Nazareth, came and dwelt in Capernaum
(iv. 13), presupposes the previous residence in Nazareth
mentioned in the passage (ii. 23). The style and diction of
the passage correspond with the rest of the Gospel. The
favourite formula of Matthew, when introducing any prophetic
statement : " That it might be fulfilled wliicli was spoken of
the Lord through the prophet " (tva irXrjpwOfj to prjdev irrro
Tov Kvpiov Bia Tov '7rpo(f>t]Tov), occurs, either in full or in an
abbreviated form, five times (i. 22, ii. 5, 15, 17, 23). The
Messianic title used by Matthew, the son of David (uto?
AavelB), occurs twice (i. 1, 20). The favourite term,
Xeyo/xevo^, used in announcing the meaning of an epithet
applied to the Messiah (^Ir]aov<i 6 Xeyofxevoff Xpt,aT6<;, i. 16),
or in stating names and surnames (et<? iroXiv Xeyofievrjv
Na^apir, ii. 23), is twice employed. Tlie peculiar use of
^ Irenoous, Contra Har. iii. 11. 8. ^ jjjj,i ijj 9 2.

INTEGKITY. 133

prjdeU, prjOev, occurs four times, whilst of the other
Synoptists only Mark has to pr^Oev (Mark xiii. 14y Of
course it may be answered, that these smiilarities of diction
are attributable to the translator in rendering the Hebrew
original into Greek.^

The visit of the Magi and the appearance of the star are
objected to as being legendary, and giving countenance to the
superstitious ideas of astrologers. " In the story of the Magi,"
observes Norton, " we find represented a strange mixture of
astrology and miracle. A divine interposition is pretended,
which was addressed to the false opinions of certain Magi
respecting the significance of the stars, and for which no
purpose worthy of the Deity can be assigned." ^

The incident occurs as part of the continuous narrative
of the evangelist ; and, if we admit the supernatural in the
narrative, there is no reason why it should be regarded with
special suspicion. Many eminent critics, among them
Alford, explain the incident from natural causes. The
Magi were a well-known body of religious astronomers, or
perhaps astrologers, resident either in Chaldiea or in Persia.
The country from which they came is not stated ; there is
merely the indefinite expression : " Behold wise men came
from the East." The Fathers, in general, have fixed on
Arabia. Whether the star was a miraculous or a natural
phenomenon is a matter of dispute. An extraordinary
astronomical fact, regarded by astronomers as demonstrated,
is mentioned by Kepler. About the period of the birth of our
Lord there was a remarkable conjunction of the planets
Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces, which occurred
three times in the year of Eome 747, or B.C. 7, on May 29,
September 29, and December 5. This fact was carefully
examined by the Eev. Charles Pritchard, the honorary
secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, and its accuracy
was vouched by him. At the same time, it must be
observed that the planets were never so closely conjoined

^ See Guericke, Isagogik, pp. 240, 241.

2 So Mej-er : " The unity of the Greek style and expression is to be
explained from the unity of the translator."

^ Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 208.

134 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

as to appear one large star ; there was always a space equal
to the diameter of the moon between them.^ But to star-
gazers as the Magi, and especially to astrologers, it must
have proved a striking phenomenon. It has accordingly
been supposed that this celestial phenomenon constituted the
star which appeared to the Magi, and that its occurrence
three times seemed to guide their steps from the East to
Bethlehem.2 " Supposing," observes Dean Alford, " the Magi
to have seen the first of these conjunctions, they saw it
actually 'in the East'; for on the 29th of May it would
rise three and a half hours before sunrise. If they then
took their journey, and arrived at Jerusalem in a little more
than five months " (the September conjunction would occur) ;
" if they performed the route from Jerusalem to Betldehem,
the December conjunction would be before them in the
direction of Bethlehem. These circumstances would seem to
form a remarkable coincidence with the history in our text."^
The coincidence is certainly very remarkable, but it is doubt-
ful whether this conjunction of these planets is to be identified
with the star of Bethlehem. For one thing, we would requu-e
to put Ijack the birth of our Lord seven years, to B.C. 7.
This, however, is no insuperable objection, as it is now
generally admitted that there is an error in our Christian
era, and that our Lord's birth is antedated by several years.
Still, in all probability, the star was a supernatural phenomenon,
as it is apparently so described in the narrative — some meteor,
divinely formed for the purpose, which, by its movements,
guided the wise men to the infant ]\Iessiah. The supreme
dignity of our Lord, as the long promised Messiah, the Son of

1 See art. "Stern der Weisen" in Winer's 7>i7;Zisc/tc.s Eealworterhuch ; art.
" Star of the Wise Men," by Rev. Charles Pritchard, in Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible ; Alford's Greek Testament on Matt. ii. 2 ; Kepler, DeJesu Christi
vero anno natalitio ; Wieseler's Syno2)sis of the Four Gosjich, pp. 86 ff.,
Eng. trans. ; Ellicott's Lectures on the Life of our Ljord, p. 72, note 2.

2 A distinguished Jewish rabbi, Abarbanel, states that there was a
tradition that the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the sigii Pisces
was most important for the Jewish nation, that it took place at the birth
of Moses, and that it will occur at the advent of the Messiah. Ebrard's
Gospel History, p. 178 ; M'Clellan, On the Gospeh^ p. 400.

3 Alford's Greek Testament, note on Matt. ii. 1, 2.

INTEGRITY. 135

God, and the Eedeemer of the human race, were reasons
sufificient for the occurrence of extraordinary phenomena at
His birth.

The massacre of the infants of Bethlehem is regarded as
another incident which casts a doubt on the truth of the
narrative (Matt. ii. 16). There is no reference to such an
occurrence in the contemporary history of Josephus. The
barbarities of Herod are there minutely described, but this
barbarous and apparently unnecessary slaughter of helpless
infants is not even hinted at.

The answer to this objection is obvious. Such an act of
barbarity is entirely in conformity with the character of
Herod. He waded through blood to his throne, and his
whole reign was steeped in blood. He put to death his wife,
Mariamne, and his three sons, Alexander, Aristobulus, and
Antipater. Immediately before his death, he caused the
principal men among the Jews to be arrested and collected in
the Hippodrome at Jericho, and gave orders that they should
be put to death immediately at his decease, so that there should
be a general lamentation at his death.^ Nor is the massacre
of the infants to be exaggerated. Bethlehem was a small
village, and the infants slain, from two years old and under,
would be few in number, — a trifling incident compared with
the other enormities of Herod, who rivalled Nero in his
cruelties, though on a smaller scale. Josephus might easily
pass over such an act of cruelty in recording atrocities of a
much more stupendous nature.

But the chief objection is the apparent discrepancy
between this narrative and the narrative of our Lord's
birth as recorded in the Gospel of Luke. We have already
had occasion to allude to the striking difference between these
two narratives in proof of the statement that the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke must have been written independently of
each other ; it is here referred to for another reason, because
it has been maintained by those who deny the genuineness of
Matthew's narrative that the difference is so great as to
amount to a contradiction, so that both accounts cannot

^ For a striking statement of the cruelties of Herod the Great, see
Neander's Life of Christ, p. 30, Bohn's edition.

136 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

possibly be true.^ For example, it is affirmed that the resi-
dence of Joseph is differently stated by these two evangelists.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Xazareth.
" Joseph," we read, " went up from Galilee out of the city of
Nazareth to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem "
(Luke ii. 16). He remained there until the rites according
to the law of Moses were completed, and then he and Mary
returned to Nazareth, which is expressly called their own
city (649 rrjv iroXiv kavrwv Na^apir, Luke ii. 39). Whereas
Matthew, without mentioning any previous residence in
Nazareth, relates that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea ;
that Joseph and Mary left that city in consequence of a
divine warning and fled to Egypt, where they remained until
the death of Herod ; that after the death of that monarch
they returned, but, in consequence of another divine pre-
monition, did not resume their residence m Bethlehem, but
withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a
city called Nazareth (Matt. ii. 23). Now, certainly, the
natural impression from this narrative is that Bethlehem and
not Nazareth was the residence of Joseph. This, however, is
not asserted by Matthew, and the fact that Joseph came and
dwelt in Nazareth is in itself a presumption that he had some
previous connection with that town.

The difference in the incidents recorded by the two
evangelists is certainly remarkable, but they are not so much
at variance as to create a distinct discrepancy. "We have only
to suppose, what is in itself probable, that Joseph and Mary
remained a full year in Bethlehem, and that the visit of the
wise men did not follow directly after the visit of the
shepherds. The Magi found Jesus and His mother, not in
the stable of tlio nativity, but in a house (iXOovTc^ et? rrjp
oIkIuv, Matt. ii. 11); and the age of the infants who were
slaughtered was from two years old and under, according to
the time which Herod had carefully learned of the wise men
(Matt. ii. 16).

The possible chronological order of events, which is that
given in its general features by Tatian in the Diatessaron, is

^ See Meyer, in loco, and Schleiermacher'.s St. Luke, translated by
Bishop Thirhvall, pp. 44 If.

INTEGRITY. 137

as follows : Jesus, according to both Matthew and Luke, is
born in Bethlehem of Judnea. According to Luke, He was born
in a stable, and on the evening of the day of His birth He was
visited by the shepherds. Soon after, Joseph with Mary and
the child would remove to a house. Forty days after, accord-
ing to the provisions of the law of Moses, the presentation in
the temple of Jerusalem took place, where the child was
recognised by Simeon and the prophetess Anna. From
Jerusalem they returned to Bethlehem, perhaps with the
intention of takmg up their permanent residence there, as the
city of David so hallowed in their view by what had occurred.
Probably about a year after this the visit of the Magi and the
appearance of the star occurred. Then, warned by God of the
danger which threatened the child from the jealousy of Herod,
they fled into Egypt, where they remained until his death,
probably for a very short period. During their absence the
massacre of the children of Bethlehem occurred. On hearing
of the death of Herod, Joseph and Mary returned to Judtea,
possibly to resume their residence in Bethlehem ; but, in con-
sequence of another divine warning, they returned to Nazareth,
their former abode. By such a method any apparent dis-
crepancy is obviated ; at least it is shown that there does not
exist any antagonism between the two narratives. We have
only to suppose that Luke omits in his narrative the events
which occurred during the temporary residence in Bethlehem.
The return to Nazareth which he mentions (Luke ii, 39) is the
same which Matthew mentions as taking place on their commg
back from Egypt (Matt. ii. 23).^

2. Another passage, which has been and is still disputed,
is the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer : " For Thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen "
(Matt. vi. 13).

The argument for the omission or retention of these
words rests entirely on external evidence : there is nothing in
the words themselves which can be adduced as an argu-
ment either for or against their insertion. The argument in
favour of the genuineness of this doxology is that it is found

1 See Wieseler's Synopsis of the Four Gospels, p. 136, chap. iii. Succes-
sion of events in the history of our Lord's childhood.

138 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHE^Y.

in scveical important uncial MSS. (E, G, K) ; in all the cursive
MSS. except five ; in all the Syriac versions ; in the Codex
Brixianus (/), an important manuscript of the Old Latin, in the
Ethiopic and Armenian versions, and in the two Egyptian
versions, the Sahidic and the Coptic. It is found in Tatian's
Diatessaron, and in the Didache, though only in part, rj jBacrCkeia
being omitted.^ It is quoted by Chrysostom and subsequent
Fathers. The argument against its insertion is that it is
not contained in the principal uncial MSS., the Sinaitic, the
Vatican, and the Codex Bezse ; the Alexandrian and the
Codex Ephraemi are here defective. It is wanting in the
MSS. of the Old Latin, with the exception of the Codex
BrLxianus, and in the Vulgate. It is not quoted by any of
the Greek Fathers until Chrysostom, and is omitted by the
great Latin Fathers — Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and
Jerome. It occurs with several variations, as : " Thine is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is omitted in the form of
the Lord's Prayer as given in the Gospel of Luke.-

The words are rejected by the vast majority of the
critical editions of the New Testament, by the Complutensian
editors, Erasmus, Bengel, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz,
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.
Scrivener is almost the only one who expresses any dubiety.
" It is right to say," he observes, " that I can no longer regard
this doxology as certainly an integral part of St. Matthew's
Gospel ; but I am not yet absolutely convinced of its
spuriousness." ^ The words are regarded as spurious by
Grotius, Luther, Melanchthon, De Wette, Tholuck, ]\Ieyer,
Olshausen, Alford, Davidson, Wordsworth, M'Clellan, Morison,

^ Didachu, ch. viii.

2 For discussions on tlie genuineness of the doxolog\-, see Alford's
Cheek Testament, in loco ; Davidson's i)z6KfaZ Criticisin, vol. ii. pp. 427-430 ;
Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T.yol. ii. pj). 323-.3i28, 4th ed.;
Cook, Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, pp. 57 fl'.; M'Ck^llan's New
Testament, p. 647 ; Westcott and Hort, Neio Testament in Greek : Notes ou
select readings, pp. 9, 10 ; Roediger, Syno2)sis Evanijelionnn, Appendix iii.
p. 229.

3 Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T.vo\. ii. 323, 4tli
edition.

DATE. 139

and the most noted commentators. It is expunged in the
Eevised edition without any marginal note expressive of
hesitation,! " There can be little doubt," observes Dr. Hort,
" that the doxology originated in liturgical use in Syria, and
was thence adopted into the Greek and Syriac Syrian texts
of the N.T. It was probably derived ultimately from 1 Chron.
xxix. 1 1 (Heb.), but, it may be, through the medium of some
contemporary Jewish usage; the people's response to the
prayers in the temple is said to have been : ' Blessed be the
name of the glory of His kingdom for ever and ever.' " ^

VII. The Date of the Gospel.

The time when the Gospel of Matthew was written is
still a point of great dubiety. There is much diversity in
the statement of the Fathers. Irenseus places it after a.d.
60; Eusebius, about a.d. 44, when the apostles were dispersed;
Theophylact, at A.D. 41; and Nicephorus, at a.d. 48, fifteen
years after the ascension. Different years, between a.d. 37
and A.D. 100, have been assigned by critics.^ The question
may be put in this form, Was the date of this Gospel before
or after a.d. 60 ?

The early date, before a.d. 60, has been adopted by
Townson, Michaelis, Eoberts, and Davidson (1st edition of
his Introductio7i). Those who fix upon this date have the
support of Eusebius, who says : " Of all the disciples (apostles)
of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written
memorials; and they, tradition says, were led to write only
under the pressure of necessity. For Matthew, who had at
first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to
other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native
tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to

! We, however, think that there shoukl have been a marginal note
stating that the passage is not altogether devoid of support.

2 Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament : Notes on select readings,
p. 9.

3 The Tiibingen school assign a much later date to Matthew's Gospel :
Pfleiderer supposes that it was written about the middle of the second
century. Dr. Davidson, in the last edition of his Introduction, says :
" The Gospel may be dated about 105 a.d." vol. i. p. 370.

140 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

leave for the loss of his presence." ^ According to tliis state-
ment, whilst the apostles remained in Judsea, there was an
oral communication of the Gospel ; the actions and the
discourses of Christ formed the subject of theh^ preaching,
and of the instructions given to the disciples ; the want of
a written Gospel was not then felt ; but when they had to
leave Judiea and go to other nations, the loss of their
oral communications had to be supplied by some written
documents ; and, according to Eusebius, this was the occasion
of Matthew's writing his Gospel. It is difficult to determine
the date of the departure of tlie apostles from Judiea, but it
could not have been long after the ascension. At the council
of Jerusalem (a.d. 51) there were only present Peter, John,
and James the Lord's brother ; and on a previous occasion
(a.d. 40), on his visit to Jerusalem, Paul saw none of the
apostles save Peter and James the Lord's brother (Gal. i.
18, 19). The probability is that the persecution by Herod
Agrippa (a.d. 44) drove the apostles from Jerusalem.
According to an ancient tradition, the apostles were com-
manded by our Lord to remain for twelve years in Jerusalem.
Thus Apollonius, who wrote in the second century, states that
it was handed down by tradition, tliat our Saviour com-
manded His disciples not to depart from Jerusalem for
twelve years.- And the same tradition is recorded in an
apocryphal work, quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, entitled.
The PrcacMwj of Fetcr. " The Lord said to His apostles,
' If anyone therefore of Israel repent, and through My
name be willing to believe in God, liis sins shall be forgiven
him. After twelve years, go ye out into the world, lest any
say, We have not heard,' " ^ This period coincides with the
persecution by Herod Agrippa. As, however, Peter, Jolm, and
James were present at the council of Jerusalem, a.d. 51, the
final dispersion of the apostles must have taken place some
years later. According to this view, we fix the date of
Matthew's Gospel between a.d. 55-60.

There are several presumptive reasons in fa\'our of this
date. So long as the apostles remained in Jerusalem, and

J Eusebius, Hid. Ecd. iii. 24. - Und. v. 18.

^ Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, vi. 5.

DATE. 141

the disciples were privileged with their instructions, the oral
Gospel was sufficient. But when the apostles left, and the
Church was unprovided with qualified teachers, — with those
who were personally cognisant of the life of Jesus, and were
the eye-witnesses of His actions and the hearers of His
discourses, — a written Gospel was indispensable. And especi-
ally would this be the case when we consider that in a short
time Christianity overstepped the boundaries of Judsea, the
Gospel was diffused throughout the adjacent countries, the
Gentiles were admitted into the Church of Christ, and before
A.D. 50 Paul had founded Churches in Phoenicia, Syria,
Cyprus, and Pisidia. The apostles could no longer supply
the wants of the times : it was essential that the actions and
discourses of Christ should be committed to writing. We
cannot suppose that no Gospel was written until thirty years
after the death of Christ, and that the life of Christ, His
words and actions, were left to the uncertainties of tradition.
Early Gospel fragments would be dispersed throughout the
Churches, — probably different in different Churches and
localities, — and many of them would be collected and
authenticated by apostolic men. And we know, as a matter
of fact, that authoritative Gospels were at an early period
recognised by the Church.

The later date, after a.d. 60, appears not so probable;
but nevertheless it is the one that has been adopted by the
majority of modern critics. It is the opinion of Eichhorn,
Credner, Hug, Michaelis, Lardner, Bertholdt, Bleek, Davidson
(3rd ed.), and Weiss. Those who fix upon it have the support
of Irenteus. " Matthew," observes that Father, " issued a
written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect
while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Eome,
and laying the foundations of the Church." ^ As Paul did
not reach Eome until a.d. 61, the date here assigned must
have been after a.d. 60. It is argued that there are in the
Gospel of Matthew itself intimations of a late date. Thus
we read that the field purchased by the treason money of
Judas is called the field of blood ^lnto this day (Matt, xxvii.
8) ; that the report of the soldiers about the stealing of the
1 Irenaeus, Adv. Hair. iii. 1.1; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8.

142 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

body of Jesus was spread abroad among the Jews and
continued until this day (Matt, xxviii. 15), — a phrase which
implies that there must have been an interval between the
occurrence of these events and the writing of the Gospel.
]jut, so far as we can see, an interval of fifteen years is
sufficient to answer the requirement.

Another argument on which some critics ground the later
date of Matthew's Gospel, is the mention of Zachariah, son of
Barachiah, who is said to have been slain between the
sanctuary and the altar (Matt, xxiii. 35). Hug, Credner,
Eichhorn, and apparently Weiss,^ suppose that this Zachariah
is Zachariah the son of Baruch, whose murder at the com-
mencement of the Jewish war by the Idumeans in the
temple is mentioned by Josephus ; ^ and hence they argue
that the Gospel was not written until after this event ; that it
was an assertion put into the mouth of our Lord by the
writer of this Gospel. Hug attempts to escape the objection
drawn from this anachronism by supposing that our Lord
spoke of the death of Zachariah in a prophetic spirit, although
in the Gospel it is mentioned as a past event (ov ecftoi/evaare).^
But the supposition is wholly fanciful. The Zachariah of
Josephus is the son of Baruch, not of Barachiah. There is
indeed a difficulty in identifying the person of whom our
Lord speaks with any prophet mentioned in the Old Testa-
ment ; but the common opinion is probably correct, that
the allusion is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada, who was
murdered in the court of the temple by order of King Joash*
(2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22).

The statement of Irenteus, which has given rise to this
opinion of the later date, is of doubtful credibility. He
speaks of Matthew's Gospel being written when Peter and

1 Weiss, Einlcitumj in das N.T. § 47, trans, vol. ii. p. 288.

- Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 5. 4.

3 Hug's Introduction to the N.T. vol. ii. p. 12, Eiig. trans.

•' The diflerence of name, .Jehoiada instead of Barachiali, is a dilliculty.
In the Gospel according to the Heljrews, Zachariah is caUed, not tlie son of
Barachiah, but the son of Joiada. Ebrard, taking into account the extreme
age of Jehoiada, supposes that Zachariah was his grandson. Is it not
possible that it might have been the prophet Zechariah who is called the
.son of Barachiah ? (Zech. i. 1).

DATE. 143

Paul were in Eome preaching and founding the Church.^
But the Eoman Church was not founded by Peter and Paul :
it was in existence long before either Peter or Paul arrived
in that city. Paul, when he came to Eome, found Christians
already there, and had several years before written an Epistle
to them. It is very doubtful whether Paul and Peter were
ever in Eome together ; indeed it is a question whether
Eome was ever visited by the Apostle Peter. His first Epistle
is written from Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13), and the fact of his
residence in Eome greatly depends upon the answer to the
question, whether by Babylon is meant the renowned city on
the Euphrates, or whether it is a metaphorical name for
Eome.^

Some critics endeavour to reconcile these two dates — the
earlier and the later — by the supposition that two editions
of Matthew's Gospel were written, the one in Aramaic and
the other in Greek, and that these editions were written at
different times. The Aramaic Gospel, being at first the most
requisite, was written earliest, about a.d. 44, on the departure
of the apostle from Judsea. Afterwards, when the disciples
became more numerous, and were composed for the most
part of Greeks, it became necessary that it should be trans-
lated into Greek ; and this was done, either by Matthew
himself or some other person, about a.d. 60. "I can," says
Michaelis, " see no impropriety in beheving that both the
early and the later date, assigned to St. Matthew's Gospel,
are consistent with truth ; that it was originally written in
Hebrew in the beginning of the year 41, before Herod
Agrippa was appointed king of Judaea, but that the Greek
translation of it was not made until the year 61 or later." ^
That there were two such editions, an Aramaic and a Greek
Gospel, is a supposition perfectly admissible, indeed has
presumptive evidence in its favour.

The place of composition was most probably Jerusalem

^ rdi) nsTjOoy xsei tov Wa.v'Kav Iv Vuf^'fi siiw/ys'ht^ofiii/cou x-otl difisKtovvruv

TTIV iKX.'KmiOtU.

2 See Gloag's Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, pp. 144-161 : Dis-
sertation, " Peter's residence in Rome."

3 Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 112, 2nd ed.

144 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

or some part of Judtea. Everything in the Gospel points to
this : the references to the customs of the Jews, the mention
of localities, the Hebrew garb of the narrative, are all re-
concilable with the supposition that it was written in
Palestine. In Judaea also Matthew would find his authorities
and the sources of his narrative.

VIII. Contents of the Gospel.

It is unnecessary to give a table of the contents of the
Gospel of Matthew ; this is given in every commentary, and
may be easily gathered from a survey of the Gospel. At
the same time, the Gospel can only be studied in connection
with the other Gospels in the form of a harmony, as they
mutually supplement each other.

The Gospel of Matthew may be conveniently divided into
six imequal parts.

1. The birth of Christ (i., ii.). This part contains the
genealogy of our Lord and the narrative of His birth.

2. The xjreparation for His ministry (iii.-iv. 11). This
part includes the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism
of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit upon Him, His in-
auguration as the Son of God, and the temptation in the
wilderness.

3. The Galilean ministry (iv. 12-xviii. 35). This part,
which forms the main body of the Gospel, contains the call
of the apostles and the first missionary journey in Galilee,
the Sermon on the Mount, a narrative of several miracles
performed by Christ, instructions given to the apostles when
sending them forth to preach the gospel, the deputation from
the Baptist, our Lord's dispute with the Pharisees, a series of
miracles, the fate of the Baptist, the twofold feeding of the
multitude, the confession of the Messiahship of Jesus by
His disciples, the transfiguration, various instructions imparted
to the disciples.

4. The journey to Jerusalem and residence there (xix. 1-
XXV. 46). This part contains His departure from Galilee,
His gradual progress to Jerusalem and His triumphal entrance,
the denunciations pronounced on the scribes and Pharisees,

CONTENTS. 145

the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, and a series of
parables delivered toward the close of His ministry.

5. The Passion (xxvi., xxvii.). This part includes the
anointing of our Lord at Bethany, the institution of the
Supper, the agony in Gethsemane, the examination of Jesus
before Caiaphas, the trial before Pilate, the crucifixion, death,
and burial.

6. The Eesurrection (xxviii.).

Perhaps the most characteristic portions of this Gospel
are the Sermon on the Mount (v.— vii.), and the two series
of parables on the nature of the kingdom of heaven, the one
delivered about the middle of our Lord's ministry (xiii.), and
the other toward its close (xxv.).

DISSERTATION.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The consideration of the quotations made by the writers of
the New Testament from the Old Testament is a very wide
subject, and can only be touched upon in this dissertation.
It is complicated by the fact that there are two sources from
which these quotations have been derived, — the original
Hebrew and the Septuagint or Greek translation, — and these
often differ from each other. In general the difference is
trivial, but sometimes it is important, and alters the sense.
The subject has been carefully examined by the late Dr.
Turpie in his book, entitled. The Old Testament in the Neio}
a work of much learning and labour. He arrives at the
following results. There are 275 undoubted quotations
from the Old Testament by writers of the New. These are
arranged under five divisions. 1. Those passages in which
the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the New Testament all
agree, of which there are fifty-three. 2. Those in which the
New Testament agrees with the Hebrew, but differs from the
Septuagint, of which there are ten. 3. Those in which the
Hebrew and the Septuagint agree, but differ from the New
Testament, of which there are seventy-six. 4. Those in which
the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint, but differs from
the Hebrew, of which there are thirty-seven. 5. Those in

i"A contrilmtioii to Biblical Criticism and Interpretation. Tlie
quotations from tlie Old Testament in tlie New classified according to
their agreement with, or variation from, the original." London, 1868.
This was followed by a companion volume, entitled, The New Testament
View of tlie Old. London, 1872.

140

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS.

147

which all three — the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the New
Testament — differ, of which there are ninety-nine. To
those have to be added three passages (John vii. 38, 42 ;
Eph. V. 14) which are only doubtful quotations.^

The Gospel of Matthew has, in proportion to its length, a
greater number of quotations from the Old Testament than
any other New Testament writing, with the exception of the
Epistle to the Komans. The reason is obvious, because the
special design of this Gospel was to prove the Messiahship of
Jesus, and for this purpose the evangelist had to draw his
proofs from the Old Testament. The number of quotations
has been variously estimated. Dr. Davidson, who includes a
number of coincidences which are not strictly citations, gives
the number at sixty-one ; ^ whilst Dr. Turpie, restricting him-
self to undoubted citations, reduces it to forty-one. Taking
Dr. Turpie's book as guide, though not strictly following it,
we give the list of quotations in Matthew's Gospel with the
following distinctive marks : a, denoting those which agree
both with the Hebrew and the Septuagint ; /3, those which
agree with the Hebrew, but dijffer from the Septuagint ;
7, those which agree with the Septuagint, but differ from
the Hebrew; and S, those which differ both from the Hebrew
and the Septuagint.

N.T.

8 Matt.
S

ft
8
8
8
8
8

a

8
8

i. 23 .
ii. 6 .
ii. 15 .
ii. 18 .
ii. 23 .
iii. 3 .
iv. 4 .
iv. 6 .
iv. 7 .
iv. 10
iv. L5, 16

O.T.
Isa. vii. 14.
Mic. V. 1, 2.
Hos. xi. 1.
Jer. xxxi. 15.
Isa. xi. 1 ?
Isa. xl. 3.
Deut. viii. 3.
Ps. xci. 11, 12.
Deut. vi. 16.
Deut. vi. 13.
Isa. ix. 1, 2.

1 Turpie's Old Testament in the Neio, p. 267. See also Farrar's Life of
Christ, vol. ii. pp. 483 f .

2 Davidson's Introduction to the Stiuhj of the N.T. 3rd ed. vol. i.
p)p. 375, 376. See also Davidson's Hermeneutics, pp. 334 ff.

148

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

N.T.

O.T.

8 Matt. viii. 17 . . . Isa. liii. 4.

8 „ ix. 13

Hos. vi. 6.

8 „ xi. 10

Mai. iii. 1.

8 „ xii. 7

Hos. vi. 6.

8 „ xii. 18-21 .

Isa. xiii. 1-4.

7 „ xiii. 14, 15 .

Isa. vi. 9, 10.

8 „ xiii. 35

Ps. Ixxviii. 2.

8 „ XV. 4 .

Ex. XX. 12.

8 „ XV. 8, 9

Isa. xxix. 13.

8 „ xviii. 16

Deut. xix. 15.

8 „ xix. 4

Gen. i. 27.

8 „ xix. 5

Gen. ii. 24.

a „ xix. 18, 19

Ex. XX. 12-16.

8 „ xxi. 5

Zech. ix. 9.

8 „ xxi. 13

Isa. Ivi. 7.

a „ xxi. 16

Ps. viii. 2.

a „ xxi. 42

Ps. cxviii. 22, 23

8 „ xxii. 24

Deut. XXV. 5.

8 „ xxii. 32

Ex. iii. 6.

8 „ xxii. 37

Deut. vi. 5.

a „ xxii. 39

Lev. xix. 18.

a „ xxii. 44

Ps. ex. 1.

8 „ xxvi. 31

Zecli. xiii. 7.

8 „ xxvii. 9, 10

Zech. xi. 13.

a „ xxvii. 35

Ps. xxii. 18.1

P „ xxvii. 46

Ps. xxii. 1, 2.

From this list of quotations it appears that there are six
in which the Hebrew, Septuagint, and New Testament agree
(iv. 7, xix. 18, xxi. 16, 42, xxii. 39, 44); two which are
taken from the Hebrew original, but which differ materially
from the Septuagint (ii. 15, xxvii. 46); and one which agrees
verbatim with the Septuagint and differs from the Hebrew
(xiii. 14, 15).^ By far the larger number, amounting to
twenty-seven, differ both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
These differences are, however, in general immaterial. They
consist in a different arrangement of the words, in the

1 This passage is not considered genuine, and is omitted in the R.V.

2 In this class also iv. 7 and xxi. 42 are placed by Dr. Turpie, but the
difference from the Hebrew is very slight.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 149

omission or insertion of connecting particles, and in the
change of tenses ; the meaning remains in general unaltered.
It would appear that the New Testament writers frequently
quoted from memory, without examining either the Hebrew
original or the Septuagint. In the same manner the early
Fathers quoted from the Scriptures both of the Old and
New Testaments, as is seen in the numerous quotations in
the writmgs of Justin Martyr and Clemens Alexandrinus, in
which there are many deviations from Scripture. The same
is the case in the present day : theologians often do not
quote accurately ; they give the sense of a passage, without
using the precise words.

Different opinions have been adopted regarding the
quotations from the Old Testament in general. Some hold
that the New Testament writers quoted always from the
Hebrew, giving their own free translation ; others, that they
made use of the Septuagint, quoting from it in a free and
general manner ; and others, that they adhered uniformly to
neither, but frequently quoted from memory, and made a free
use of their sources.'^ Bleek asserts, with special reference to
the Gospel of Matthew, that in the citations which occur in
the body of the narrative the Septuagint was used, whilst in
those which the evangelist introduces in his own reflections,
the Hebrew original is employed. But this statement is not
borne out by fact, as may be seen by an examination of the
passages. It would rather appear that the Septuagint lies
at the root of most of the quotations, even of those which
differ from it.

The extent to which the Septuagint was used in the
days of our Lord is a matter of dispute. Some affirm
that it had superseded the Hebrew original, and was used
in the Jewish s}Tiagogues.^ Hebrew was then a dead

^ Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the N.T. 3rd ed. vol. i.
pp. 375, 376 ; Bpeaker^s Commentary, " Introduction to the Gospels," by
Archbishop Thomson, p. xxviii ; Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the
Gospels, Appendix A, " On the Quotations in the Gospels " ; Bleek's
Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. p. 295 ; Davidson's Hermeneutics, pp. 334-
516.

2 " Every available source of evidence," observes Professor Roberts,
" which is worth anything, points to the conclusion that the Greek transla-

150 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

language, and was not understood by ordinary Jews, and, so
far as we know, there was no Aramaic translation. Besides,
copies of the Hebrew Bible would be exceedingly expensive,
whereas copies of the Septuagint would be more easily pro-
cured, owing to the abundance of Greek slave labour employed
in transcription. Most probably in the synagogues the original
Hebrew, being the sacred language, would be used, even as in
the present day ; whilst Jews, for their own private reading
and edification, would possess copies of the Septuagint, owing
to its comparative inexpensiveness. When our Lord appeared
in the synagogue of Nazareth, there was delivered to Him
the roll of the prophet Isaiah, most probably in the original
Hebrew. The passage which He read, as quoted in the New
Testament : " The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He
anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor ; He hath
sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering
of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord " ^ (Luke iv.
18, 19), differs both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint.
The difference is immaterial, but we cannot say from which
source the quotation is made; so that no inference can be
drawn from it as to the comparative use of the Hebrew or
the Septuagint in the Jewish synagogues. On the other
hand, the quotations made by the New Testament writers
are in general pervaded by the spirit of the Septuagint,
whilst the Hebrew is very seldom literally translated. Dr.
Turpie mentions only ten passages which agree with the
Hebrew but differ from the Septuagint,^ and thirty-seven
which agree with the Septuagint but differ from the Hebrew.
All those far more numerous passages, amounting to 175,
which differ alike from the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
in general approach more nearly to the Septuagint ; so
that there appears reason for Professor Eoberts' remark:

tion of the Old Testament Scriptures was then regularly used in the syna-
gogues of Palestine," Greek, the Language of Clirist and His Apostles, p. 453.

^ Revised Version. The words liaxadxi roiig avvTirptftftivovs r^y
Kccphiuv, " to heal the broken-hearted," are omitted, as not found in the
best manuscripts.

2 These passages are Matt. ii. 15, xxvii. 46 ; Mark ii. 29, 30, xv. 28, 34 ;
Luke xxii. 37 ; 1 Cor. iii. 19 ; 2 Cor. viii. 15 ; 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Heb. v. 12.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 151

" In the vast majority of these quotations the Septuagint is
either exactly followed, or the resemblance is so close as to
be virtually identical." ^

There is little variation in the formulae of quotation
used by Matthew. In general it is 'iva TrXrjpwOfj to pi]dev,
" that it might be fulfilled which was spoken " ; to which is
added, i/tto Kvplov Sia rod irpocjiTjTov, " by the Lord, through
the prophet" (i. 22, ii. 15), or simply Bca tov irpoj)i]Tov,
"through the prophet" (xiii. 35, xxi. 4), or hia rcov TrpocpT]-
Toov, " by the prophets," or Sta 'Haatov, Bia 'lepefitov, " by
Isaiah," "by Jeremiah" (ii. 17, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17,
xxvii. 9) ; or the simple fyeypairTai, " it is written," is used
(iv. 4, 6, 7, 10, xi. 10, xxi. 13, xxvi. 31). This last form
is generally employed by our Lord in His quotations from
the Old Testament. In general the quotations are given as
direct proofs, stating that the prophecies were fulfilled in the
events recorded. Sometimes the connection between the
prediction and its fulfilment is not clearly discernible, and in
these cases it has been supposed that the evangelist quotes
the words of the prophet by way of accommodation or
illustration.^ And sometimes words are given in the form
of a citation, which are not to be found in these precise
terms in the Old Testament, so that there is a difficulty in
knowing to what prophecy the evangelist refers.^

In the Gospel of Matthew there are four quotations
which in themselves are either of doubtful application or
obscure in meaning.

I. The first is Matt. ii. 15: tva irXTjpcoOr] rb pr]6ev viro
Kvplov Sia rod irpocpTjrov Xe'yovro'i' e^ Al'yvirrov eKoXecra tov
vlov jxov : " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I
call My Son."

The words are quoted with special reference to the flight
of Mary and Joseph into Egypt, and are stated as a pre-
diction of that event. The quotation is from Hos. xi. 1,
and is taken from the Hebrew, with which it literally agrees.
It differs from the Septuagint, which reads : " Out of Egypt

1 Roberts' Greek, the Language of Christ, p. 135.

2 See Matt. ii. 15, 17, 18. ^ gee Matt. ii. 23.

152 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

did I call His children."^ Some suppose that the difference
between the Hebrew and the Septuagint arose from the
difference in the Hebrew vowel pointing ; but it would rather
appear that the Septuagint translators must have read V33p
instead of V??- The allusion by the prophet Hosea was
probably to the message of Moses to Pharaoh, being the only
passage where Israel is called the son of God : " Thus saith
the Lord, Israel is My son. My firstborn : and I have said
unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me " (Ex. iv.
22, 23). The nation of Israel was God's adopted son, chosen
from among the nations of the world.

The words of the prophet are rather a historical state-
ment than a prediction. They refer to a past transaction
rather than to a future event.^ The deliverance of the
Israelites from Egyptian bondage is evidently the event
alluded to. Hence it is asked, How can this historical
event, which refers to the nation of Israel, possibly be a
prediction which has received its fulfilment in our Lord's
sojourn in and return from the land of Egypt ?

The solutions which have been given of this difficulty
are manifold. Dr. Lindsay Alexander supposes that the
passage is not a citation from the Old Testament, but one
of the traditions of the elders handed down among the Jews,
namely, that the Messiah should sojourn in Egypt.^ Others
think that it is used by way of illustration, being a pro-
verbial expression to denote deliverance from any impending
danger.* And others suppose that the words are spoken by
way of accommodation : that as Israel was brought out of
Egypt, so was the Messiah.^ But it seems more correct to
regard it as a secondary or typical prophecy.'' Israel was a
type of Christ : he is called God's son, because the Messiah,
God's true Son, was to spring from him. In God's dealings

^ II AjyvTTrov ^iziKcthiaa, rot. riKvot alrw.

2 v/.etKirjtx.^ did I call, or I called.

^ Connexion of the Old and New Testaments, p. 48G.

■* Chandler's Defence of Christianity.

^ Hill's Divinitii Lectures, vol. i. p. 177.

" Matthew was a strict Hebrew, deeply imbued with Jewish notions,
and saw in the incidents of Jewish history tyi)es and foreshadowings of
the Gospel.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 153

with Israel there is a typical reference to Christ : the Old
Testament is but a prediction of the New : ^ Christ is the
Alpha and Omega of revelation. As all the sacrifices under
the law were but types and emblems of the great sacrifice of
Christ for sin, as the Levitical ritual prefigured the gospel
dispensation, so the dealings of God with Israel had a spiritual
reference, and were fulfilled in Christ. There are what have
been termed secondary prophecies : predictions which are
capable of a twofold application, which receive a primary
but partial fulfilment in some person or event in Jewish
history, and a secondary and more complete fulfilment in the
Messiah : prophecies which, as Lord Bacon says, " are not
fulfilled punctually at once, but have springing and germinat-
ing accomplishment." ^ Of course this infusion of a spiritual
meaning into the Old Testament quotations must be made
with the greatest caution ; and perhaps it is only justifiable
when such a meaning is given by the inspired writers them-
selves.

II. Another quotation, which has given rise to much
dispute, is from a prophecy of Jeremiah, which is said to
have received its fulfilment in the slaughter of the infants
of Bethlehem : Tore eifXripdiOr} to prjdev Sia 'lepe/nlov rov
'7rpo(])7]Tov XeyovTO^' (f)cov7] ev 'Papbd '^KOvaOr], K\av6/jbo<; Kol
oSvpfMO^ 7roA,u9" 'Paj(7]\ KKalovaa to, reKva avTrj<;, kol ovk
rjOeXev irapaKkrjOrjvaL, on ovk elalv. " Then was fulfilled
that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, A
voice was heard in Eamah, weeping and great mourning,
Eachel weepmg for her children : and she would not be
comforted, because they are not" (Matt. ii. 17, 18).

This quotation, taken from Jer. xxxi. 15, differs from the
Hebrew and the Septuagint ; but the variations are of no
importance. It is impossible to say from which of the two
sources it has been taken. In all probability the words are
quoted from memory ; for there is no reason to assert, with
certain critics, that they are taken from some other translation.

This is also one of those prophecies which admit of a

1 " In the Old Testament, tlie New Testament lies concealed ; in the
New, the Old lies revealed." Augustine.

2 Bacon's Advancement of Learnimj.

154 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

twofold application : a primary application to the event
which occurred at the time when it was uttered, and a
secondary application to the Messicih. In its primary sense
it is not a prediction, but a historical statement. It has
been referred to two events in the history of Israel. Some
suppose that the reference is to the captivity of Israel by
Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, when the Israelite captives
were assembled at Eamah, where a number were put to death,
and the rest led captive to Nineveh. But there is no
mention of this fact in history. Others, with more prob-
ability, refer it to the assembling of the Jewish captives by
Nebuzaradan, the general of Nebuchadnezzar, at Eamah, from
which they were led bound in chains to Babylon (Jer. xl. 1).
It refers to the lamentation which was then made on account
of the destruction and captivity of the nation. Eachel is
by a bold personification represented as rising from her
tomb,^ deploring with bitter wailing the great calamity
which had befallen her offspring.

But whilst the words may have a primary application to
the deportation of the Jewish captives from Eamah to
Babylon (Jer. xl. 1), it received, according to the evangelist,
a secondary application in the slaughter by Herod of the
infants at Bethlehem. In its first application it is a
historical statement ; in its secondary application it is a
prediction which has received its fulfilment. There are,
undoubtedly, difficulties connected with this view. Bethlehem
was a town of Judeea, and the Jews were the direct offspring
of Leah, not of Eachel ; on the other hand, the Benjamites,
who were her descendants, were identified and bound up
with the Jews so as to become one nation, and thus the
nation, as a whole, might well be considered as the descend-
ants of Eachel ; and a certain allowance must be made for
a bold poetical personification. Nor was Eamah the same as
Bethlehem, but a village a short distance from it ; ^ but the
slaughter of the infants might have extended to it, as we
read that Herod slew all the children in Bethlehem, and
in all the borders thereof (Matt. ii. 16).

' Rachel was buried at Betlilulieiu, Gen. xxxv. 19.
2 Only about a mile distant.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 155

The question which here meets us is, How can that
which refers to the captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar
be applied to the massacre of the children of Bethlehem ?
It has been shown that the Jews refer the prophecy to a
much later period than the Babylonish captivity, and apply it
to the disasters which befell their country under Vespasian
and Hadrian.^ Josephus refers the prophecies of Jeremiah,
not only to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar,
but to the similar destruction by Titus.^ The Babylonish
captivity was a striking incident in Jewish history, and made
such a deep and lasting impression on the nation, as to
be often referred to by them, and applied to other similar
calamities. In this way, according to many commentators, it
has been applied to the massacre of the children of Bethlehem.
Thus Calvin says : " The prediction of Jeremiah having been
accomplished at that time (the time when it was given),
Matthew does not mean that it foretold what Herod would
do, but that the coming of Christ occasioned a renewal of
that mourning which had been experienced many centuries
before by the tribe of Benjamin." ^ We consider this,
then, as a secondary prophecy ; and if we admit the inspira-
tion of the evangelist, we must also admit the propriety of
this application.

III. The next passage which claims attention is Matt.
ii. 23 : ottco? TrXrjpcoOf} to pr]6ev Sia rwv irpoi^rjjoiv, otc
]Sa^(opalo<; K\7]9i](7eTaL " : " that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the prophets, that He should be called a
Nazarene." ■*

The reference here is to our Lord's residence in the town
or village of Nazareth. This is said to be in accordance
with the predictions of the prophets. But these words are
to be found verbatim in no prophetical writing of the Old
Testament. Nor does the evangelist refer to any particular

1 Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. pp. 210, 211.

2 Josejjlius, Antiquities, x. 5. 1.

3 Calvin's Commentary on the Gospels, in loco.

* The Christians were at an early period called Nazarenes, as in the
address of the orator Tertullus (Acts xxiv. 5). Most probably in this
instance the name is taken from the town of Nazareth.

156 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

prophet or prophecy ; the word is in the plural {irpojy-qrwv),
as if the statement referred to the general consensus of the
prophets.

Chrysostom and Theophylact suppose that it is a lost
prophecy, either handed down by tradition, or contained in
some prophetical work which is no longer in existence.
This view has been adopted by Bengel.^ Nor is there
anything unreasonable in such a supposition. We learn
from the Old Testament that many prophetic writings have
perished : what remains may be a mere fragment of what
was written. But it is improbable that Matthew would
appeal to a lost prophecy, because in his time the canon of the
Old Testament had been fixed. Besides, the words 8ta twv
'Kpo<^r)roiv would seem to have a wider reference than to a
single prophecy.

Another hypothesis is that the reference is to the lowly
condition of the Messiah — that He was a despised person
(Isa. liii. 3). The allusion was to the suffering character
of the Messiah, in opposition to the view then prevalent
among the Jews of an exalted Messiah. The whole province
of Galilee was looked upon by the Jews in a depreciatory
light. " Search, and see : that out of Galilee ariseth no
prophet " (John vii. 52). And Nazareth was the despised
town of a despised province : it appears to have become a
proverbial expression : " Can any good thing come out of
Nazareth ? " (John i. 47). Hence it is supposed that when
it is said, " He shall be called a Nazarene," that is, an
inhabitant of Nazareth, the reference is to His despised
condition. Such is the interpretation adopted by Michaelis,
Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Home. But it does
not appear that the inhabitants of Nazareth as such were pre-
eminently despised : the above-mentioned words of Nathauael
may refer, not to the inhabitants, but to the obscurity and
smallness of the town. Nazareth was a poor town : it is
mentioned neither in the Old Testament nor by Joseplms.
Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ? Can such an
obscure town give rise to such an exalted person as the great
Messiah ?

^ Bengel's Gnomon, in loco, trans, vol. i. p. 135.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 157

A third explanation refers the term Nazarene, not to the
town of Nazareth, but to the order of the Nazarites. Thus
it was said of Samson : " The child shall be a Nazarite unto
God " (Judg. xiii. 5). In the Septuagint the words are Na^lp
Oeov, or, according to the reading of the Alexandrian manu-
script, Na^ipalov Tft) 0€a>. This is the view adopted by
Tertulliau, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hilgen-
feld, and others. Thus Calvin says : " Matthew does not
derive Nazarene from Nazareth, as if this were its strict and
proper etymology, but only makes an allusion (a play upon
the word). The word "i\T^ or Nazarite signifies holy and
devoted to God, derived from "iTJ, to separate." ^ The Nazarites
were men separated or consecrated to God. Thus, among the
Jews, Samson and Samuel were Nazarites, and so also was
John the Baptist. Those who hold this view refer this
prophecy to the consecration of the Messiah. But our Lord
was not a Nazarite in the strict sense of the term. He did
not take upon Himself any Nazarite vows : His character and
conduct were in this respect a contrast to the Nazarite John
the Baptist. He was not an ascetic : " the Son of Man came
eating and drinking" (Matt. xi. 19). He did not, like His
forerunner, withdraw into the desert, and live the life of a
recluse ; but He mingled freely in human society, and thus
could not be regarded as a true Nazarite.^

The majority of expositors see in the appellation Nazarene
an allusion to i-^J {Nezer), a Branch, the title conferred by the
prophets on the Messiah. Thus Isaiah says : " There shall
come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a Branch
(nVJ) out of his roots shall bear fruit " (Isa. xi. 1 ).^ And a
similar title is applied to the Messiah in other prophecies
(Isa. iv. 2 ; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15 ; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12), though
in these prophecies the word employed is HD^iT {Zemach). This
hypothesis is adopted by Gieseler, Bleek, De Wette, Meyer,^

^ In loco.

2 The term 'Nx^upxlos is not identical with Nazarite.

^ In the Septuagint the word is xvdog.

* Thus Meyer observes : " In Isa. xi. 1 the Messiah, as the offspring of
David, is called IVJ, shoot, with which in the representation of the evan-
gelist this designation was identified."

158 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Hengstenberg, Davidson, Schaff, and Mansel.^ According to
this view we have a direct reference to the prophecy of Isaiah.
But it is to be observed that "i^'J is only used by Isaiah, and
the references to the Branch in the other prophecies cannot be
employed, as it is an entirely different word that is used,
which has no resemblance to Nazarene.

IV. The fourth example of a doubtful quotation is still
more difficult, as it would seem that Matthew makes an
erroneous quotation, giving the name of one prophet, whilst
he quotes from another : rore eirXrjpcoOr) to prjdev Bia
^lepefiLov Tov 7rpo(f)rjTov XeyovTO^, Kal eka^ov ra TpcaKOvra
apyvpia, ttjv rifir]v tov TeTLfiijfjLevov, bv eTLjxricravTO airo viS>v
^IcrparjX' kov eScoKav avTo. et? tou aypov tov Kepafxeco^' Kava
<TvveTa^ev fiot KvpL0<; : " Then was fulfilled that which was
spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took ^ the
thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was priced, whom
certain of the children of Israel did price : and they gave
them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me " (Matt,
xxvii. 9, 10).

The first thing to attend to is the criticism of the passage.
The word 'lepe/jbtov is omitted in the cursive manuscript 33
(the Codex Colbertinus), which is considered as the most valuable
cursive manuscript extant, and in 157, a manuscript which
belonged to the ducal library in Urbino, but now lodged in
the Vatican. Za')(apiov is contained in the cursive manu-
script 22. Among the Fathers, Tatian omits 'lepefiiov.
With regard to the Versions, we must take into account the
statement of Augustine : " This ascription of the passage to
Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels,
but some of them state simply that it was spoken by the
prophet." The codices to which he refers are those of the
Old Latin : and in two important manuscripts of that Version
— the Codex Vercellensis (a) and the Codex Veronensis (b)
— the word Jeremiah is wanting. It is also omitted in the

1 Speaker's Commentary : the Gospel of Matthew, in loco. The first
part of this commentary to ch. xxvi. was by Dean Mansel ; the remainder
was by Canon Cook.

^"F.-Kctfiov may be either tlie first person singular, I took, or the third
person plural, they took.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 159

Peshito Syriac and in the Persic Version. On the other
hand, 'lepcfjuiov is the reading of all the uncial manuscripts,
of the cursive manuscripts except those above mentioned, of
all the Fathers who refer to the passage, as Origen, Jerome,
Eusebius, and of all the Versions except the Peshito and
the Persic. Thus, then, the undoubted preponderance of
authorities is in favour of the retention of 'lepefiiov. At the
same time, if conjectural emendation is at all admissible,
here would be a fit occasion for its application, and accord-
ingly Origen and Eusebius conjecture that Zaxaplov was the
original reading. But when we take into account the
multiplicity of critical authorities and their variety, conjec-
tural emendation in the criticism of the New Testament must
be regarded as wholly inadmissible.

It is generally admitted that Matthew does not quote
from the prophecy of Jeremiah, in which the words are not
found, but from Zech. xi. 12, 13, where words somewhat
similar occur. When, however, we compare the words in
Matthew's Gospel with the Hebrew and the Septuagint, we
find not only a variation from both, but such a material
difference as does not usually occur in the quotations by the
sacred writers from the Old Testament. The passage in the
Hebrew is thus translated in the Eevised Version : " And I
said unto them, If ye think good, give me my hire ; and if
not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of
silver. And the Lord said unto me. Cast it unto the potter :
the goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took
the thirty j^ieces of silver, and cast them unto the potter in the
house of the Lord." The passage in the Septuagint^ may be
thus translated : " And I will say to them : If it be good in
your eyes, give me my price, or refuse it. And they weighed
for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto
me, Put them into the furnace, and I will see whether it is

1 The passage in the Septuagint is : kxI ipu -Trpog ocvrovg' el y.ctkov
ivuTnou i/fiuv sari, S&'t£ toV fAiadov /^ov }j oc7rei7rcca6s' kkI 'iarriauv rov f<,tad6v f^ov
rpi'oocovrcc xpyvpov;. Ka< dTrs Kvpiog T^po; /as, Koc^eg xvtov; slg ro ■x^oii/ivriiptov
x,Xi oKitpof^cti ii OoKifiov laTtv ov rpoTTOV kdOKi^uaa^Yiv vTTip xiiTuv. Kot-i 'i'hoe.^ou
roi/g rpta,)covTX ocpyvpovg x.»i hifix'Aou ctvTOvg ug rov oIkov x.vpiov sig to
XUVSvr*}piou.

160 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tested, as I have been tested for their sakes. So I took the
thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the house of the
Lord, into the furnace." The words in Matthew are different
from both. Neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint is
there any mention of the field which was purchased by money.
The clause, " And they gave them for the potter's field, as the
Lord appointed me," is found in neither of these sources.
According to the Septuagint, the money is cast into the
furnace for the purpose of being tested ; according to the
Hebrew, it is given to the potter ; and according to both, it is
cast into the house of the Lord : none of which particulars
is contained in the quotation as given by Matthew. — The
explanations given of this difficult passage are very numerous.
We only mention the most plausible.

It is maintained that in the original the word Jeremiah is
omitted and that Matthew wrote simply : " That which was
spoken by the prophet." This is the explanation adopted by
Bengel, Beza, Dr. Adam Clarke, and Dr. Doddridge. We have
already considered the critical reading of the passage, and
have found that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence
is in favour of the retention of Jeremiah, and that in the case
of the New Testament conjectural emendation is inadmiss-
ible. We are consequently precluded from adopting this
explanation.

It is supposed that there is in the passage no reference to
the prophecy of Zechariah, but that it is a lost prophecy of
Jeremiah. The words, it is affirmed, are so different from
those of Zechariah, as found, whether in the Hebrew or in the
Septuagint, that they cannot be considered as a quotation
from it.^ Jerome affirms that he had seen the passage in an
apocryphal Book of Jeremiah written in Hebrew in the hands
of the Nazarenes ; ^ and hence it is inferred that it is from

^ Thus Dean Burgon says : " Matthew is charged with a bad memory,
because he ascribes to Jeremy the prophet words which are said to be
found in Zechariah. Strange that men should be heard to differ about a
plain matter of fact ! I have never been able to find these words in
Zechariah yet."

2 The words of Jerome are : Legi nuper in quodam Hebraico volumine,
quod Nazarena} sectie mihi Hebra3us obtulit, Hieremia) Apocryphum in
quo liajc ad verbum scripta reperi. Commentary on Matthew.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 161

this apocryphal book that Matthew quotes. Thus Michaelis
remarks : " As far as I am able to judge, the only mode of
solving the difficulty is to suppose that Matthew has borrowed
the quotation from some fragment of Jeremiah which is no
longer extant."^ This is, however, an improbable solution,
as the language of Jerome is indefinite, no such apocryphal
Book of Jeremiah being elsewhere mentioned, and as similar
words, though certainly not identical, are to be found in
Zechariah.^

A much more plausible solution is that the passage con-
tained in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of Zechariah
did not originally constitute a part of that prophetical book,
but was written by Jeremiah, and inserted into the pro-
phecy of Zechariah, just as the words of Agur are attached
to the Proverbs of Solomon. This hypothesis was first
suggested by Mede, and afterwards adopted with various
modifications by Bishop Kidder, Archbishop Newcome, Lowth,
Whiston, Dr. Pye Smith, and Dr. Samuel Davidson in his
Hermencutics. So also Bertholdt, Michaelis, Kosenmiiller,
Knobel, Hitzig, Ewald, and Bleek, who, although they do not
go the length of asserting that these chapters were written
by Jeremiah, yet maintain that they were not the composi-
tion of Zechariah. The references in these chapters, it is said,
relate, not to the time of Zechariah, but to the time of Jere-
miah. Thus it is predicted that the pride of Assyria shall be
brought down (Zech. x. 11), which was an accomplished fact
in the time of Zechariah, but might form the subject of
prediction in the time of Jeremiah. So also Gaza is threatened
with destruction (Zech. ix. 5), which occurred under Nebuchad-
nezzar, in the time of Jeremiah, long before the days of
Zechariah. There is also a prediction of the destruction of
Jerusalem (Zech. xi, 1), which has been referred to the time of
the Eomans under Titus, but which would hardly have been

1 Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. p. 242. Similarly M'Clellan : " Matthew
cited a prophecy spoTcen by Jeremiah, not written in his book ; and several
spoken prophecies of Jeremiah, as doubtless of other projahets, are not
recorded." M'Clellan, Neiv Testament, p. 606 ; Whitby, in loco.

2 Eusebius supposes that the Jews designedly removed the words from
the prophecy of Jeremiah. See Sanday's Bampton Lectures, p. 47.

TI

162 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

given in the time of Zechariah, when the Jews were to be
encouraged to rebuild their temple, and which is therefore
more suitable as a prediction of the destruction of the city
by Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Jeremiah. The prediction
regarding the prosperity of Tyre and its subsequent destruction
(Zech. ix. 3, 4), though it might apply to the capture of that
city by Alexander the Great, receives a better interpretation
by referring it to its prosperity and subsequent destruction by
Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Jeremiah.^ But admitting
the plausibility of this hypothesis, it cannot be the true
solution. The prophecy of Zechariah was as complete in the
time of Matthew as now : there were no divisions in it : and
Matthew could not suppose that what he quoted from that
prophecy were not the words of Zechariah, but of Jeremiah.
The division of the prophecy under different authors, whether
justifiable or not, is the result of a higher criticism unknown
in the days of the evangelist.^

It has been affirmed that this prediction is given under
the name of Jeremiah, because the prophecy of Jeremiah was
the first book of the prophets. The Old Testament received a
threefold division — the law, the prophets, and the psalms ;
and the first book of the division of the prophets is said to
have been Jeremiah. The order in the time of Matthew was
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the twelve minor prophets. The
same is still the order in the Talmud and in the manuscripts
of the French and German Jews. Thus it is supposed that
Jeremiah gave his name to the division of the prophets, just
as David gave his name to the division of the Psalms, and
Solomon to the Book of Proverbs. When, then, Matthew uses
the name Jeremiah, he does not allude to the Book of Jeremiah^
but to the volume of the prophets. " I do confidently assert,"
observes Dr. John Lightfoot, " that Matthew wrote Jeremiah
as we read it, and that it was very readily understood and

1 This hypothesis is stated with great fulness and supported by very
ingenious and plausible arguments by Bishop Kidder, Demonstration of
the Messias, vol. ii. pp. 196-217. See also Davidson's HernwneuticSy
pp. 4G3-465.

2 See a valuable note by Dr. Turpie in his Nexo Testament View of the
Old, pp. 153-157.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 163

received by his countrymen," because Jeremiah of old had the
first place among the prophets. " When, therefore, Matthew
produced a text of Zechariah under the name of Jeremiah, he
only cites the volume of the prophets under his name who
stood first among the prophets." ^ This opinion has been
adopted by Scrivener, Dr. David Brown, and Canon Cook in
the Speaker's Bible. The evidence, however, is insufficient to
prove that Jeremiah, and not Isaiah, stood at the head of the
division " the prophets."

Some maintain that the statement in St. Matthew's
Gospel is not a mistake, but a correct assertion, and that in
reality the quotation is from Jeremiah and not from Zechariah.
This is certainly a bold assertion, as only by the most forced
interpretation, and by a defiance of all the laws of exegesis,
can the passage be considered as a prophecy of Jeremiah.
The passage in Jeremiah which has been fixed upon is xxxii.
6—9, where Jeremiah is told to purchase from his uncle a field
in Anathoth. The only resemblance here is the purchase of a
field by the commandment of the Lord. This is supposed to
be implied in the words, " and they gave them for the potter's
field, as the Lord appointed me." But the resemblance is very
faint. All the other parts of the prediction, the price, the
thirty pieces of silver, the value set upon the Messiah, are
considered as parenthetic clauses. Of course, if we are thus
permitted to cut and carve the prophecy, we can make it
agree with any prediction which has a few similar words, but
we destroy its whole value as a prediction.

Somewhat similar to this last solution, or at least con-
nected with it, is the supposition that the quotation is a
conjomt prophecy from Zechariah and Jeremiah : that the
prediction concerning the particular price, namely, the thirty
pieces of silver, is taken from Zechariah ; and that the other
part of the prediction, concerning the buying of the field, is
from Jeremiah. This opinion is adopted by Eisner, Hofmann,
Lange, and Dr. Patrick Fairbairn.^ Eisner would supply a
connecting particle : " That was fulfilled which was spoken by

1 Lightfoot's Hone Hehraicce : Exercitations upon St. Matthew, vol. xi.
p. 345, Pitman's edition.

2 Fairbairn's Hermeneutic Manual, pp. 440-448.

164 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Jeremiah and the prophet," an improbable form of expression.
Still there is some plausibility in the above explanation.
There are examples of such conjunct prophecies in the New
Testament Mark i. 2, 3, although quoted as a prediction
of Isaiah, is in reality taken both from Malachi and Isaiah
(Mai. iii. 1 ; Isa. xl. 3) ; and if Matthew quoted from memory,
he might easily have included two prophecies in one. But
the reference to the purchase of the field in Anathoth, men-
tioned in Jeremiah, is too vague and remote to be regarded as
part of the prophecy.

Another hypothesis is that Jeremiah is designedly men-
tioned by the Spirit, in order to show the unity of prophecy.
No doubt the prophecy is from Zechariah ; but Jeremiah is
named because both prophets were inspired by the same Spirit,
both were penmen of the same Author. This strange solution
is advanced by Augustine : " It may have been the case," he
observes, " that when Matthew was engaged in composing his
Gospel, the word Jeremiah occurred to his mind instead of
Zechariah. Such an inaccuracy he would most undoubtedly
have corrected, had he not reflected that it was not without
a purpose that the name of one prophet had been suggested
instead of another. . . . This might fitly suggest the duty of
accepting unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given
expression to through the agency of these prophets, and of
looking upon their individual communications as those of the
whole body, and their collective communications as those of
each separately. If, then, it is the case that words spoken
by Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's,
and, on the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are
really as much Jeremiah's as they are Zechariah's, what
necessity was there for Matthew to correct his text when
he read over what he had written, and found that the one
name had occurred to him instead of the other ? " ^ It is
singular that this most improbable, we might almost say
extravagant, solution, wherein the Holy Spirit is regarded as
justifying an inaccuracy, has been adopted by Bishop Words-
worth : " By referring here, not to Zechariah, where we read
the passage, but to Jeremiah, where we do not read it, the
^ Consensus Evv. iii. 7. 30.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 165

Holy Spirit teaches us not to regard the prophets as the
authors of their prophecies, but to trace their prophecies, flowing
down through them, in different channels from age to age,
until we see them all at length springing forth from the one
living Fountain of wisdom in the Godhead itself."

Others at once admit that Matthew has committed a
mistake in attributing a prophecy of Zechariah to Jeremiah.
They do not suppose that the inspiration of the sacred writers
is inconsistent with slight errors in their writings.^ This
opinion, first suggested by Origen, has been adopted by
Calvin, Mill, Griesbach, De Wette, Meyer,^ and Alford. Thus
Calvin passes over the error with the remark : " How the
name of Jeremiah crept m, I confess that I do not know, nor
do I give myself the trouble to inquire. The passage itself
plainly shows that the name Jeremiah has been put down
by mistake instead of Zechariah ; for in Jeremiah we find
nothing of this sort, nor anything that even approaches to it." ^
And Alford observes : " The citation is not from Jeremiah,
and is probably quoted from memory, and inaccurately ; we
have similar mistakes in two places in the apology of Stephen
— Acts vii. 4, 16, and in Mark ii. 26. Various means of
evading this have been resorted to, which are not worth
recounting." ^ Such a solution certainly cuts the knot, but
must only be resorted to as a last expedient.

The mistake, for mistake we believe there is, need not
necessarily be referred to the author, but to the copyist.
Some think that the error originated in the translation of the
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew into Greek.^ This, of course,
assumes that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written
in Hebrew, which, though probable, has not been demon-
strated. If, however, there were a Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew, it is a possible solution. But it might also

1 See Wright's Bampton Lectures for 1878, p. 336, note.

2 " The passage here quoted is a very free adaptation of Zech. xi. 12, 13,
' Ispi^iov being a slip of the memory." Meyer's Commentary on Matthew,
in loco.

3 Calvin, in loco. * Alford's Greek Testament on Matt, xxvii. 9.
5 Some suppose that the mistake may have arisen from the translator

mistaking -|i (a contraction for Jeremiah) for T" (hand). Henderson, Com.
on Zech.

166 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

have arisen from the earhest copyist of Matthew's Gospel.
" It is," says Dr. Morison, " a graphical erratum. And it
would appear to have crept into the original edition of the
Gospel, the first published edition. Hence its universal
diffusion and its persistence from age to age. There is
nothing wonderful in such an occurrence. It is precisely
paralleled hy the expression ' which strain at a gnat,' instead
of ' which strain out a gnat,' in our English authorised trans-
lation of the Bible." ^ There is another example in 1 Tim.
iv. 9, where the word shamcfaccdncss is a typographical error
for shamefastness, and is so read in the Eevised Version.
The word Jeremiah being found in the earliest copies of the
Gospel would remain uncorrected, especially as it would be
considered wrong to alter the scriptural manuscripts, and as
the mistake admitted of various explanations. In some
manuscripts, and in the Peshito Syriac, as we have seen, it
was corrected. A mistake has been committed, and it is
more justifiable to ascribe it to the copyist than to the author,
or at least equally justifiable.

^ Morison's Commentary on Matthew. Note on Matt, xxvii. 9. Dr.
Morison gives a long and exhaustive list of tlie various bj-potlieses which
have been advanced, to which list we have been indebted.

THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

LiTERATUEE. — The principal commentaries and dissertations
on the Gospel of Mark are those of Petter on the Gospel of
Mark (London, 1661); Fritzsche, Evangcliiiin Marci (Leipzig,
1830); De Wette (Leipzig, 1846); Hilgenf eld, i)as J/arcws-
Evangelium nach seiner Composition, nach seiner Stellung in
der Evangelien Littcratur (Leipzig, 1880); Ewald (Gottingen,
1850); Baur, i)as Marcus- Evangelium nach seinem Ursprung
unci Cha^^alder (Tuhmgen, 1851); Olshausen (1853, English
translation, 1863); Dr. Joseph Alexander of Princeton (New
York, 1858); Alford in his Greek Testament (4th ed. London,
1859); Meyer (last ed. in 1894; 1st ed. 1860; 6th ed.
1878 ; English translation by the Kev. Ptobert Wallis, Edin-
burgh, 1880); Lange (Bielefeld, 1861; English translation
by Professor Shedd, 1866); Klostermann, Das Ifarcus-Evaii-
gelium nach seinem Quellemverthe filr die Evangelischc Gesehichte
(Gottingen, 1867); Weiss, Das Marcus-Evangelium (Berlin,
1872); Morison (1st ed. London, 1873; 3rd ed. 1881);
Volkmar, Marcus unci die Synopse der Evangelien (Ziirich,
1876); Canon Cook in the Speakers Commentary (howdLon,
1878); Maclear in Camhridge Bible for Schools (London,
1886). Also Dean Burgon, The last twelve verses of the
Gospel according to Mark (Oxford, 1871).

I. The Genuineness of the Gospel.

The genuineness of the Gospel of Mark is sufficiently
attested. It is true that no undoubted citations from it can
be produced from the writings of the apostolic Fathers,

107

168 THE GOSPEL OF MAKK.

because the resemblance between it and the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke is so close as to render it impossible to
determine from which of these Gospels the citations have
been taken. The first undoubted reference to it is found in
that famous passage, quoted by Eusebius from Papias' Ao'yLwv
KvpiaKwv i^7]y)]a€i<; (a.d. 120), to which we have formerly-
adverted.^ " This also the Presbyter said : Mark, having
become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately,
though not indeed in order, whatever he remembered of the
things said or done by Christ." ^ It is to be observed that
Papias gives this statement on the authority of the Presbyter.
Without doubt John the Presbyter is here meant, whether
he be, as some suppose, the Apostle John himself, or a
person, otherwise unknown, who was an immediate disciple
of the Lord, and whose testimony consequently carries us
back to the days of the apostles. It has indeed been
maintained by many biblical critics that Papias cannot here
refer to our canonical Mark, but to some original document
which lay at the foundation of Mark's Gospel, because his-
description does not correspond with our Gospel of Mark.
We have already referred to this objection,^ and shall after-
wards more fully discuss it.

Justin Martyr (a.d. 150) has the following direct
citation from Mark : " It is said that He changed the name
of one of the apostles to Peter ; and it is written in his
Memoirs that this occurred, as well as that He changed
the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to
Boanerges, which means the sons of thunder." ^ This title
given to the sons of Zebedee is only found in the Gospel of
Mark(iii. 17).

The Muratorian canon (a.d. 170) is mutilated at its
commencement, but it evidently contained a reference to
the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, for the fragment com-
mences with the words : " The third Gospel is that according
to Luke." '

^ See p. 19, where the original Greek Ls given.

2 Eusebiu.s, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. ^ See siqjra, pp. 66, 67.

■• Dial. c. Tryiih. eh. cvi.

^ Tertiuni Evangelii libruni .secundum Lucaai.

GENUINENESS. 1 G 9'

Irenaeus (a.d. 180) has many references to Mark, and
directly affirms that he is the author of the second Gospel :
" Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of
Peter, does thus commence his Grospel narrative : The begin-
ning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." ^ " Also
toward the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says : ' So, then,
after the Lord Jesus had spoken unto them. He was received up
into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God.' " ^ " Those
who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained
impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring
the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with the love of the
truth, may have their errors rectified." ^

Besides these quotations, there are the patristic statements
of the intimate connection which exists between the Gospel of
Mark and the preaching of Peter, made by Irenteus, Clemens
Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, and others, to which we
shall afterwards refer. There is also the testimony of the
two chief versions, the Syriac (a.d. 150) and the Old Latin
(A.D. 170).

Nor are internal evidences wanting. The attribution of
this Gospel to such a comparatively obscure author as Mark,
is in itself a presumption in its favour. If the design was to
impose it upon the Church, it would have been assigned to one
of the chief apostles, especially to Peter, whose preaching,
acccording to the Fathers, it contains, and not to one who was
not an apostle, and perhaps not even a disciple, and who,
provided he be the same as the Mark who is mentioned in the
Acts, so far from being an eminent teacher in the Church,
deserted Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey.
But especially does the Gospel contam in itself the evidences
of its genuineness. The narrative is of the most graphic
description ; little incidents are mentioned which could only
be the observation of an eye-witness.'^ There is a vivid-
ness, a freshness, and a naturalness in this Gospel which give
it the stamp of truth.

^ Adv. Hcer. iii. 10. 6. ^ jjj{^^ s j^^^^ m n. 7,

* It is not necessary to assert that Mark himself was an eye-witness,
but that the narrative contained in his Gospel was the report of an eye-
witness.

170 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

Yet notwithstanding these external and internal evidences
in favour of the Gospel of ]\'Iark, its genuineness has been
frequently disputed. The objections to it arise chiefly from
the difficulties in which the question as to the origin of the
Synoptic Gospels is involved, and not from any defect in
the evidence. The first who called in question its genuineness
appears to have been Schleierraacher, and he has been followed
by Baur, Weisse, Gfrorer, Credner,^ Schwegler, Hilgenfeld,
Ewald, Kostlin, Reuss, Schenkel, and Dr. Samuel Davidson.

The chief objection brought forward is, that the statement
of Papias is not applicable to ovir canonical Gospel of Mark.^
The genuineness of Mark's Gospel, it is asserted, rests
entirely on the testimony of Papias ; the other authorities
come too late. But the description which Papias gives of
the writing of Mark cannot apply to our canonical Gospel.
[Papias asserts that I\Iark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote
jdown accurately, but not in order {ov ra^et), whatever he
remembered of the things said or done by Christ ; and that
le followed Peter who adapted his discourses to the needs of
lis hearers, but " with no intention of giving a connected
account of our Lord's discourses " (ov^ wairep auvra^iv tmv
Kvpia/CMV iroiovfjbevo'i \6<y(ov). These words, it is maintained,
cannot refer to the Gospel of Mark, as we now possess it,
because that Gospel, so far from not being written in order
and destitute of connection, is the most orderly and con-
nected of the three Synoptic Gospels ; indeed it is on its
chronological order that harmonies of the Gospels are in
general formed.

It is to be observed that this is the mere opinion of
Papias, or of the Presbyter to whom he refers, and that on
a subject which admits of a variety of opinions ; nor are his
words to be pushed too far. There is a considerable variety
of opinion as to what Papias intends by ou Ta^et. Tholuck
supposes that he refers to the incompleteness of the Gospel, —
that Mark merely gives a collection of anecdotes without observ-
ing any definite order with regard to tlie time of the occurrence
of the incidents stated. Schenkel supposes that the words

* Einlcitung, pp. 123, 124.

2 So Sclileiermaclier, Creduer, and Weisse.

GENUINENESS. 171

indicate the occasional manner of Mark's writing; that he
did not compose his Gospel continuously at one time, but in
parts at various times. Others think that ov rd^ei refers,
not to the actions, but to the discourses of Christ, and
indicates that Mark gave no continued account of our Lord's
discourses (avvTa^c<; rcov KvptaKoiv \6<yo)v). But, appar-
ently, what he affirms is not that there was no order in the
composition of Mark's Gospel, but that the events are not
related in a chronological order. Papias asserts the accuracy
of the events which Mark relates, that " Mark wrote down
accurately every thing that he remembered," that " Mark
committed no error," but for some reason he was dissatisfied
with his arrangement. The want of chronological order is
to some extent applicable to all the three Synoptics. The
evangelists did not relate the events of the life of Christ
chronologically ; they do not profess to give a biography of
Christ ; their Gospels rather consist of memorabilia or collec-
tions of the remarkable incidents in His life. The words of
Papias are to be understood comparatively. It is disputed
with what Gospel he compares the order in Mark. Some
suppose that Matthew's Gospel, to which he afterwards
alludes, was in his view ; others, as Ewald and Bishop
Lightfoot, think that it is the order followed in the Gospel
of John ; Dr. Salmon thinks that what Papias regarded as
the right order was that of the Gospel of Luke.^

It has been maintained that there must have been
an original Gospel of Mark, of which our canonical
Gospel is a recension. Those who adopt this opinion
suppose that a collection of incidents in the life of Jesus,
based perhaps, as the Fathers testify, on the preaching of
Peter, was drawn up by Mark, one of his disciples, without
any order, and that it is to this collection that Papias
alludes. Afterwards, it is supposed, a succeeding writer
composed the second Gospel, taking this original gospel as
his basis, arranging the incidents in order, and adding to
them additional material drawn from oral tradition.

We have already referred to this hypothesis of an
original Mark,^ and shall not again recur to it. Those who
■^ Salmon's Introduction, p. 121. ^ gee supra, pp. 66, 67.

172

THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

adopt it differ widely as to its nature and extent. Ewald
and Holtzmann suppose that the original Mark was longer
than our present Gospel, containing a greater number
of the incidents and discourses of Christ than our present
Mark. Paul Ewald supposes that i. 1-3, vii. 24, viii. 26,
and xvi. 9-20 are interpolations.^ Weizsiicker, on the
contrary, considers that it was shorter, and that our present
Mark is an enlargement. In the writings of the Fathers
there is no reference to a Gospel of Mark different from that
which we now possess. " The assumption," observes Meyer,
" of an original treatise which has been lost would only have
a historical point of support in the event of the contents of the
fragment of Papias, so far as it speaks of the treatise of Mark,
not really suiting our canonical Mark. But since, on a correct
interpretation, it contains nothing with which our Mark is at
variance, and therefore affords no ground for the assertion
that it is speaking of another book ascribed to Mark, it
remains the most ancient and the most weighty historical
testimony for the originality of our second Gospel, and, at the
same time, for the high historical value of its contents." -

11. The Authou of the Gospel.

I This Gospel has been uniformly assigned by the Fathers
to Mark ; it is known in the Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament as EvwyyiXiov kuto. MdpKov. If we assume
that this Mark is the same as he who is mentioned in the
Acts of the Apostles, the following incidents in his life are
recorded. He was a Jew by birth, lieing mentioned by Paul
as among those of the circumcision (Col. iv. 10, 11), and bore
the Hebrew name of John. But, like many of his time, he
had also the Eoman name of Mark. Hence he is called
" John, whose surname was Mark " (I(odvvT]<i 6 iirLKokov-
fjLevo<i MdpKo<i, Acts xii. 12, 25, xv. 37). In the Acts he
is generally called by his Hebrew name John (Acts xiiL
5, 13) ; whilst in the Epistles and in the Fathers the Hebrew
name is dropped and the Latin name Mark retained. We

' Ewald, Paul, Evangelienfrarje, pp. 165, 170, 178-191.
2 Meyer's Commentary on Mark, vol. i. Eng. trans, p. 12.

■AUTHOE. 173

learu that his mother's name was Mary, and that she had a
house in Jerusalem, where the disciples were accustomed to
assemble (Acts xii. 12). In the Epistle to the Colossians
(iv. 10), Mark is called 6 avey\no<i Bapvd/3a, which may
either denote nephew or cousin ; in the Eevised Version it is
translated cousm. From this relationship to Barnabas it has
been arbitrarily inferred that he was a Levite. It was
probably by reason of this relationship that he was brought
in contact with Paul ; for we read that Barnabas and Saul
returned from Jerusalem, and took with them John, whose
surname was Mark (Acts xii. 25). He accompanied these
apostles on their first missionary journey as their assistant
or minister (vTrrjpeTrj^, Acts xiii. 5) ; but either because his
zeal waxed cold, or because the dangers and difficulties of the
mission alarmed him, he deserted them at Perga, and
returned to Jerusalem (Acts xiii. 13). Four years after-
wards, when Paul and Barnabas proposed to proceed on a
second missionary journey, Mark was the occasion of a
dispute between them ; Barnabas wished to take him with
them, but Paul refused on account of his previous desertion ;
and accordmgly Paul took Silas, whilst Barnabas took Mark,
and departed with him to Cyprus (Acts xv. 39). This is
the last notice which we have of Mark in the Acts of the
Apostles. But from Paul's Epistles we learn that he was
afterwards fully reconciled to Paul. He was with that
apostle during his first Ptoman imprisonment, when he wrote
the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (Col. iv, 10;
Philem. 24). He afterwards appears to have journeyed into
Asia, for during his second Eoman imprisonment Paul writes
to Timothy : " Take Mark, and bring him with thee : for he
is useful to me for the ministering" (2 Tim. iv. 11).

Such is the scriptural account of the connection between
Mark, the relation of Barnabas, and Paul. But there is also
mention of a Mark in the First Epistle of Peter written from
Babylon, or, as some thmk, from Eome. There we read :
" She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth
you; and so doth Mark my son" (1 Pet. v. 13). Some
(Bengel, Neander, Credner, Tholuck, Dean Stanley) suppose
that, when Peter calls Mark his son (o vi6<i fxov), he does not

174 THE GOSPEL OF MAKK.

allude to a spiritual, but to a natural relationship. Thus
Dean Stanley observes : " It is difficult to resist the con-
clusion that r] avv€K\eKT7] is the wife of Peter ; and if so,
o vl6<i fMov is not metaphorically (in which case reKvov would
be the natural word, as in 1 Tim. i. 2), but literally, his son." ^
But such an opinion is unfounded. There is no reason why
Peter and Paul should not employ different words to express
a spiritual relationship, Peter calls Mark his son, because
he was converted by him ; he was his spiritual father.

We have said that these incidents refer to Mark, the
evangelist, on the assumption that he is the same person as
is mentioned in the Acts and in the Pauline Epistles. Some,
however, suppose that there are two Marks ; one mentioned
in the Acts, who was the companion of Paul, and another
mentioned in the First Epistle of Peter, who was the
companion of Peter. This opinion has been adopted by
Grotius,- Schleiermacher, Cornelius a Lapide, Cave,^ Greswell,^
Baring-Gould,^ and Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen. There is
nothing unreasonable in this supposition, nor is it contra-
dicted by any of the statements of the Fathers of the first
three centuries. The reasons for it are that Mark is in
Scripture, with the exception of 1 Pet. v. 13, uniformly
represented as the associate of Paul and Barnabas ; and there
is no allusion to any connection between him and the Apostle
Peter. He was with Paul at Eome (Col. iv. 10 ; Philem. 24 ;
2 Tim. iv. 11), and could hardly approximately about the
same time have been with Peter at Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13).
Besides, Mark or Marcus was a very common name, borne by
many illustrious Ptomans, as Marcus Tullius Cicero, Mark
Antony, and the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Hence it has
been inferred that there must have been two Marks, and that
it was not Mark the relation of Barnabas, but another Mark,
the companion and interpreter of Peter, who was the author
of the Gospel.

1 Stanley's Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic A(je, p. 91, note.

2 Grotius, Proosmium in Marcum.

3 Cave's Lives of the Apostles, p 439.

* Greswell's Dissertations, vol. i. p. 71.

' Baring-Gould's Lives of the Saints, April 25.

AUTHOK. 175

On the other hand, it has been mamtained that this
supposition is unnecessary, and that Mark might be the
companion both of Paul and Peter. After Mark had
separated from Paul at the commencement of his first
missionary journey and returned to Jerusalem, he might have
attached himself to Peter in that city ; and after he had left
Barnabas in Cyprus, he might have been with Peter in the
interval between that and Paul's imprisonment at Eome.
Besides, a connection between Peter and Mark is hinted at in
the Acts : it was to Mark's house that Peter betook himself
after his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts xii. 12).
" To suppose two Marks," says Dr. John Lightfoot, " one
with Peter and another with Paul, is to breed confusion
where there needeth not, and to conceive that for which
Scripture hath not only no ground, but is plain enough to the
contrary. It is easily seen how John Mark came into
familiarity both with Paul and Peter ; and other Mark we
can find none in the New Testament, unless of our own
invention." ^ There is much, however, in favour of the theory
that there were two Marks, a supposition which would remove
several difficulties which arise from the long continued con-
nection of Mark with Paul, rendering a connection with Peter
improbable.

It has been supposed that Mark was the young man
mentioned in his Gospel who followed Christ after all the
disciples had fled, when He was led from Gethsemane to the]
palace of Caiaphas (Mark xiv. 52). It is narrated by the
evangelist as a personal incident in a most graphic manner.
Disturbed in his sleep by the tumult, and not taking time to
put on his clothes, he threw a linen sheet over him, and
rushed into the street to see what was the cause of the
tumult: the soldiers seized him, and he left the linen cloth
in their hands, and fled naked. '^ The objection to this is,
that according to the statement of Papias, Mark was not one
of Christ's disciples : " he neither heard the Lord nor
followed Him " ; so that if Mark himself is the person

1 Lightfoot's Worls, vol. iii. p. 323, edition by Pitman.

2 See Greswell's Dissertations ufon a Harmony of the Gospels, vol. i,
p. 82, edition 1830.

176 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

alluded to in his Gospel, we must suppose that Papias was
mistaken. The Mark mentioned in the Acts was at least
at a very early period a disciple of Christ. Others go the
length of supposing that it was in Mark's house that our
I Lord and His disciples met to celebrate the last Passover :
that, being a disciple, and having a house in Jerusalem, he
gave it up for the use of our Lord.^ This, however, is a
mere conjecture which rests on a very slender foundation.

There are several notices of Mark in ecclesiastical history.
According to Epiphanius, he was one of Christ's seventy
disciples, and one of those who left Christ on account of His
words : " Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have
no life in you" (John vi. 66), but was afterwards reclaimed,
and, as it were, reconverted by Peter, whose spiritual son he
.became.^ He is uniformly known by the Fathers as the
[interpreter of Peter. He is represented as the founder of
the Egyptian Church. Eusebius informs us that "Mark was
the first who was sent to Egypt, and that he preached the
Obspel which he had written, and established churches in
Alexandria.^ The multitude of believers that were collected
there, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive
asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to
describe their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments,
and their whole manner of life."* The allusion is to the
Therapeutffi whom Philo describes ; but they were not
Christians, and hence this statement of Eusebius must be
(Considered as legendary ; ^ though it may be assumed that
Mark converted numl^ers in Alexandria, and that his preach-
ing was of an ascetic character. Jerome tells us that Mark
■died a natural death in the eighth year of Nero, and that he
•was buried at Alexandria.^ Nicephorus, on the other hand,

1 Farrar's Messages of the Boolcs, p. 55, note 4.

^ Epiphanius, Hcer. li. 6.

3 That Mark founded the Church of Alexandria is also asserted by
Epiphanius, Hcer. li. 6 ; Jerome, De vir. illustr. 8 ; and Nicejihorus, H. E.
ii. 42.

* Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 16.

* The Therapeutae were a Jewish sect. Eusebius probably confounds
them with the Christian monks.

^ De vir. illustr. ch. viii.

SOUECES. 177

informs us that he suffered martyrdom, being cruelly put to
death by an Alexandrian mob.^ His remains were believed to
have been removed to Venice, of which city he was regarded
as the patron saint, and where one of the most magnificent
churches in the world has been erected to his memory.

III. The Sources of Mark's Gospel.

The inquiry into the sources from which Mark derived
the materials for his Gospel is one of much difficulty. These
sources were not, as is maintained by Griesbach and Bleek,
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This point we have
in the previous part of this Introduction fully discussed.^
Mark was not a compiler from previous Gospels. His own
Gospel is original and independent, and in all probability
was written and published before the other two.

On the other hand, it is the uniform testimony of the I
Fathers that Mark was intimately associated with Peter as
his interpreter. This is a tradition which is both general
and undisputed. It is first mentioned by Papias in the
passage so often referred to ; there Mark is called €p/ji,7]vevTr]<i
nirpou. Irenseus says : " Mark, the disciple and interpreter
of Peter (MdpKo^ 6 fMadrjrrjii koI epixrjvevrr]'; lUrpov), trans-
mitted to us in writing these things which Peter had
preached."^ Clemens Alexandrinus, according to Eusebius,
says : " The Gospel according to Mark, had this occasion :
As Peter had preached the word publicly at Eome, and ^
declared the gospel by the Spirit, many that were present
requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time,
and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And
having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had
requested it. When Peter learned this, he neither directly
forbade nor encouraged it." ^ TertuUian writes : " The Gospel
which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's, whose
interpreter Mark was." ^ Origen, quoted by Eusebius, says :

1 Nicepliorus, Hist. Eccl. ii. 43.

2 See sufra, pp. 46-48.

® Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 1. 1 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8.

•* Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. ^ TertuUian, Adv. Marcion. iv. 5.

178 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

" The second Gospel is that according to Mark, who wrote
it according to the instructions of Peter." ^ Eusebius writes
at length concerning the Gospel of Mark, " So greatly did
the splendour of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers,
that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, or with
the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but they be-
sought Mark — a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel
is extant — that he would leave them a written monument
i of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to
them. Nor did they cease until they prevailed upon him ;
and such was the occasion of the written Gospel which bears
the name of Mark."^ And to the same effect Jerome
observes : " Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, at
the desire of the brethren at Eome, wrote a short Gospel,
according to what he had heard related by Peter." ^
[ From these testimonies it must be admitted that the
preaching of Peter had some influence in the formation of
the Gospel of Mark. It has been affirmed that traces of this
influence and of this connection between Mark and Peter
are to be discerned in the Gospel itself.* There is frequent
mention of Peter in places where he is not alluded to in the
other Gospels, as if it were the writer's desire to record facts
concerning him of which he had been personally informed.
Thus we are told that Smion and those that were with him
followed Jesus after the miracles at Capernaum (i. 16);
that it was Peter who drew the attention of our Lord to the
withering of the fig tree (xi. 13) ; that Peter, along with John,
James, and Andrew, asked our Lord concerning the sign that
should precede the destruction of Jerusalem (xiii. 3) ; and that
the angel who announced the resurrection of Christ to the
women, specified Peter as the person to whom the announce-
ment should be made: "Tell His disciples and Peter" (xvi. 7).
But, on the other hand, there are also numerous instances
where Peter is omitted in the Gospel of Mark, while men-

1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25. - Ibid. ii. 15.

^ Jerome, De vir. illustr. ch. viii.

* See Dods' Introduction to the N.T. pp. 2G-28 ; Klosterraaun's Marcus-
evangelium; Guericke, Isa{/ogik,i^. 161 ; Macl ear's S(. MarA:, p. 14 ff.; David-
son's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. j)]). 145-147.

SOURCES. 179

tioned in the other Gospels. Thus in Matt. xv. 15, Peter is]
represented as asking the explanation of a certain parablej
whereas Mark has simply " the disciples." The blessing pro-
nounced on Peter (Matt. xvi. 16—18), Peter walking on the
sea (Matt. xiv. 28, 29), and his capture of the fish in which
was found the Eoman coin (Matt. xvii. 24—27), are omitted
by Mark. His mission along with John (Luke xxii. 8) to pre-
pare the Passover, and the fact that he accompanied John to
the sepulchre (John xx. 2), are not mentioned. It has
indeed been suggested that these omissions may be accounted
for by the humility of Peter, and from his reluctance to
allude to anything that might redound to his praise ; but,
not to mention that it is difficult to see how this could
affect the narrative of Mark, there are several instances
of omission to which this remark cannot apply. Upon
the whole, we do not think that the connection between
Mark and Peter can be discovered by any traces in the
Gospel itself.

Different meanings have been attached to the expression
" interpreter of Peter " (ep^irjvevTr]^; IleTpov ; Latin, interprcs)
given by Papias and Irenseus to Mark. Some think that the
word is to be taken in the sense of translator ; that Mark trans-
lated into Greek (Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Schleiermacher) or into!
Latin (Bleek) what Peter preached in Aramaic ; or that!
Mark translated into Greek Peter's Aramaic Gospel (Smith
of Jordanhill). But there is no reason to suppose that
Peter was ignorant of Greek, as it was one of the languages of
Galilee, and his Epistles prove his acquaintance with it ; and
Latin was not required even in Eome, as Greek was the
usual language of the Eoman converts ; nor is there the
slightest trace of an Aramaic original of Peter's Gospel.
Others — Meyer, Tholuck, Klostermann after Jerome — take
the word in the sense of amanuensis or secretary, and supA
pose that Mark wrote down the oral teaching of Peter. \
Thus Jerome observes that as Paul employed Titus for ■
his interpreter, so Peter employed Mark, whose Gospel
was composed by the apostle dictating and the evangelist
writmg.^ But the probability is that Mark is called " the
^ Epist. ad Hedibeam, ii.

180 THE GOSPEL OF MAKE.

interpreter of Peter," because his Gospel contains the sub-
stance of Peter's preaching, and thus interpreted that preach-
ing to the Church. The tradition is so early and universal,
that we must allow some connection between the Gospel of
Mark and the preaching of Peter, yet not to the extent of
supposing either that Mark wrote his Gospel to the dictation
of Peter (Origen, Jerome), or that it contains a mere literal
repetition of Peter's preaching.

In accordance with these testimonies of the Fathers,
we infer that one of the sources of Mark's Gospel was the
preaching of Peter, though how far the Petrine element
entered into it we cannot determine. Mark, as the companion
and interpreter of that apostle, collected notes of his preach-
ing, and by their aid constructed his Gospel. Two of the
Fathers of the early Church, Justin and Tertullian, appear
actually to have regarded it as the Gospel of Peter. Justin
Martyr, in a passage already^ quoted, says that Christ changed
the name of one of His apostles to Peter ; and it is written in
his Memoirs (e^* T049 d'jrofMVTjfj.ovev/j.aatv aurov) that He changed
the names of other two apostles to Boanerges.^ The question
is, What are the Memoirs to which Justin alludes ? It has
been affirmed that the most natural interpretation is to refer
the pronoun (avrov) to Peter, the immediate antecedent.
Lardner and De Wette refer it to Christ ; His Memoir's, that
is, the Memoirs concerning Christ. But to this it is answered
that Justin always uses the genitive of authorship — the
Memoirs of the apostles, so that the phrase would denote
Peter's Memoirs. But although the meaning of these words
may be doubtful, yet Tertullian expressly calls Mark's Gospel
the Gospel of Peter : " The Gospel which Mark published
may be affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was." ^

But besides the oral teaching of Peter, the general oral
tradition of the Church formed another source of the Gospel
of Mark. An oral Gospel for the instruction of catechumens
would be formed at an early period, and, as we have had
already occasion to observe, would enter largely into the

^ Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryiih. cli. cvi. Otto, au editor of Justin,
thinks that iov a-vrov we ought to read avruv.
2 Adv. Marcion. iv. 5.

DESIGN. 181

formation of the Synoptic Gospels. Besides, we must also
remember that Mark was a native of Jerusalem and an early
convert to Christianity ; and, consequently, would have ample
opportunities for collecting particulars concerning the life of
Christ by his intercourse with those who were the personal
followers of Christ and the hearers of His discourses.

IV. The Design of the Gospel.

Clemens Alexandrinus gives an account of the occasion on
which Mark's Gospel .was composed. He tells us that the
disciples requested Mark to write down the sayings of Peter,
and not to leave them to the uncertainty of tradition ; and
that this was done with Peter's knowledge and concurrence.^
We cannot tell what truth there is in this statement : in all
probability there is much that is legendary about it, and it
contradicts other statements of the Fathers. This Gospel was
doubtless written for the purpose of giving a connected view
of the life of Christ and of gathering together those evangelical
fragments, whether oral or written, which were dispersed
throughout the churches. Christ is represented in this Gospel
as the active agent, the worker of miracles : as at once the
Son of God and the Son of Man ; revealing Himself as God by
His mighty words, and as Man by His human personality and
human feelings : it is " The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God" (Mark i. 1). Peter's statement of the testimony of the
apostles : how ""God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Ghost and with power ; who went about doing good, and
healing all that were oppressed of the devil : for God was
with Him" (Acts x. 38), has well been described as the
programme of this Gospel. "Whilst Matthew records the
discourses of Jesus, Mark dwells chiefly on His actions.

It is probable, from various indications, that this Gospel

was written, not like that of Matthew, for Jewish, but, like

that of Luke, for Gentile Christians. There are in it several

I Latin words and expressions. Of these Credner specifies

Srjvdpiov, denarius, vi. 37, xiv. 5 ; Kevrvpicov, centurio, xv. 39,

1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. A similar statement is made by Eusebius
himself, Hist. Eccl. ii. 15.

182 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

44, 45 ; K7]vao<;, census, xii. 14 ; Kohpdvrr)<i, quadrans, xii. 42 ;
Kpd^l3aTo<i, grabatus, ii. 4, 9, 11, 12, vi. 55 ; Xeyccop, legio,
V. 9, 15; ^earrj'i, sextarius, vii. 4, 8; irpatroopLov, pra^torium,
XV. 16 ; (TTreKovXaTcop, speculator, vi. 27 ; <f)payeW6(o, flagello,-
XV. 1 5 ; Tft) o)(\a) TO Uavov iroujaai,, populo satisfacere, xv. 1 5 ;
ia-'xarw'i e^€tv, in extremis esse, v. 23.^ The use of these
Latin words and phrases will be best accounted for, if the
ordinary supposition is correct, that Mark wrote chiefly for the
Ilomaus.

So also translations are attached to Aramaic words and
expressions for the information of Gentile readers who were
ignorant of that language. Thus our Lord called James and
John, " Boanerges, that is, the sons of thunder" (iii. 17). In
raising the daughter of Jairus, our Lord said to her, " Talitha
cumi ; which is, being interpreted. Damsel, I say unto thee,
Arise" (v. 41). The pharisaical Jews excused their want of
filial allection by offering gifts to God, saying, " It is Corban,
that is, given to God" (vii. 11). When Jesus took the
blind man aside privately, "He said unto him, Ephphatha, that
is, Be opened" (vii. 34). The name of the blind man who was
cured at Jericho was Bartimaeus, the son of Timoeus (x. 46).
In Gethsemane our Lord used the word Abba, that is. Father
(xiv. 36). The place where He was crucified was called
" Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull "
(xv. 22). And on the cross our Lord exclaimed, " Eloi, Eloi,
lama sabachthani ? which, being interpreted, is. My God, My
God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (xv. 34).

Jewish customs and usages are often explained, as if for
the information of Gentile readers. Thus we are informed that
the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands,
eat not, holding the tradition of the elders (vii. 3) ; that the
disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast (ii. 18);
that the Sadducees say, there is no resurrection (xii 18) ; that
on the first day of unleavened bread, the Passover was killed
(xiv. 12); that at the Passover the Eomans were accustomed
to release to the Jews a prisoner, whomsoever they desired
(xv. 6) ; that the preparation was the day before the Sabbath
(xv. 42). So also localities which would be well known to
^ Credner's Einleitung, p. 104.

LANGUAGE. 183

Jewish, but not to Gentile readers, are explained. The Jordan
is called the river of Jordan (i. 5) ; the Mount of Olives is
over against the temple (xiii. 3). The Jewish law is nowhere
alluded to ; indeed the word v6fio<;, of such frequent occurrence
in the New Testament, does not occur.

V. Language of the Gospel,

Baronius, Bellarmine, and other Catholic writers suppose
that the Gospel of Mark was written in Latin. The reason
assigned for this opinion is that the readers of this Gospel were
Eomans or Latin Christians. It is also supported by the two
Syriac versions, the Peshito and the Philoxenian. Thus a
note appended to the Peshito says : " This is the end of the
holy Gospel preached by Mark, who preached in Ptoman at
Eome." And Scholtz mentions four Greek manuscripts in
which it is asserted that the Gospel was written in Latin.^
But such an opinion is undoubtedly incorrect ; the Greek
and Latin Fathers unanimously testify that the Gospel was
originally written in Greek.

The style and diction of Mark is graphic and vivid.
There is a preference for the present to the historical tense ;
events are represented as happening before our eyes, impart-
ing a vividness to the description. Thus : " There comes to
Him a leper, beseeching Him " (i. 40). " They come to Him,
bringing one sick of the palsy, borne of four " (ii. 3). " And
straightway, while he was yet speaking, comes Judas, one of
the Twelve" (xiv. 43). In the narrative evOeco^ or ev6v<i
frequently occurs as the particle of transition, imparting a
lively character to the narrative ; it occurs thirty-nine times,
and is in the Authorised Version variously translated by
the words straightway, immediately, forthwith. There are
numerous references to persons, which impart a graphic
character to the narrative ; thus : " The Pharisees took counsel
with the Herodians " (iii. 6) ; " Judas, which betrayed him "
(iv. 11) ; Simon, "the father of Alexander and Eufus" (xv. 21).
There are minute descriptions of localities : " He began to teach
by the seaside " (iv. 1 ) ; "He was in the stern asleep on the

184

THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

cushion " (iv. 38) : " they find a colt tied at the door without,
in the open street " (xi. 4) ; " He commanded them to sit
down by companies upon the green grass" (vi. 39). There
are precise statements of periods of time : " at even, when the
sun did set" (i. 32); "in the morning, a great while before
day" (I 35); "on that day, when even was come. He said
unto them. Let us go over to the other side" (iv. 35).
There is a large use of diminutives, as Tralhtov, Ovydrpiov,
Kopdaiov, Kvvdpia, ooTapiov. Numerous repetitions are made
to add force to the narrative ; as the accumulation of negatives,
fi7)h€v\ fxrjBh (i. 44), ovKeTL ouBeU (vii. 12); the addition of
similar expressions, as when it is said : " And vfiih many,
parables spake He unto them : and without a parable spake He
not unto them" (iv. 33, 34). There is also a large number
^of words which are peculiar to this Gospel.^

There are nineteen quotations from the Old Testament in
Mark's Gospel, but these are all common to Matthew and
Luke, often agreeing verbally. All these quotations are
given in reporting our Lord's discourses ; there is only one
(i. 2, 3) which Mark gives as from himself.
The following is the list of them : —

:n^.t.

O.T.

Mark i. 2 .

Mai. iii. 1.

>j

i. 3 .

Isa. xl. 3.

>>

iv. 12

Isa. vi. 9.

j>

vii. 6, 7 .

Isa. xxix. 13.

)j

vii. 10

Ex. XX. 12, xxi. 17.

jj

X. 6 .

Gen. i. 27.

5>

X. 7, 8

Gen. ii. 24.

5J

X. 19 .

Ex. XX. 12-15.

J3

xi. 9

Ps. cxviii. 25, 21.

>>

xi. 17

Isa. Ivi. 7 ; Jer. vii. 1 1

5>

xii. 10, 11 .

Ps. cxviii. 22, 23.

J>

xii. 19

Deut. XXV. 5.

51

xii. 26

Ex. iii. 6.

^ See Credner's Einleitung in das N.T. 102-105 ; Davidson's Introduc-
tion to the N.T. vol. i. pp. 150-152 ; and his Introdndion to the Study of the
N.T. vol. ii. 3rd ed. pp. 521-523 ; Guericke's N.T. Iswjogik, pp. 162, 163 ;
and Schaflfs History of the Church, vol. ii. pp. G37-639.

LANGUAGE.

N.T.

O.T.

Mark xii. 29,

30 .

Deut. vi. 4.

„ xii. 31

Lev. xix. 18

„ xii. 36

Ps. ex. 1.

„ xiii, 14

Dan. ix. 27.

„ xiv. 27

Zech. xiii. 7

,, XV. 34

Ps. xxii. 1.

185

One peculiar feature of the Gospel of Mark is its brevity. \
It is of much smaller compass than the other Gospels ; there
is little that is peculiar to it — only one p arable and two
miracles . Most of the discourses which are in the other
Gospels are omitted. And yet this brevity consists rather in
the omission of particulars than in condensation. What is
common to the other two is often expanded by Mark by the
addition of minute particulars.

The chief characteristic of this Gospel is its vividness.
The narrative is picturesque, so as to secure for the evangelist
the name of a " word-painter." The transactions are de-
scribed as if we saw them with our own eyes ; minute touches
lighten up the whole subject. One scene may be selected for
illustration. If we compare the account of the cure of the
demoniac lad, when our Lord descended from the mount of
transfiguration (ix. 14-29), with the narratives in the other
two Gospels (Matt. xvii. 14-21 ; Luke ix. 37-48), the graphic
nature of Mark's description will at once be seen.-^ Mark
alone tells us that when our Lord came down from the mount.
He saw a great crowd about the disciples, and the scribes
disputing with them. And when all the people beheld Him
they were greatly amazed, probably because some vestiges of
His glory were still seen on His countenance, and running to
Him they saluted Him. Mark alone tells us that when they
brought the lad to Jesus the spirit tare him grievously, and he
fell to the ground, and wallowed, foaming. He alone gives us,
in a most graphic manner, the conversation between the father
of the lad and our Lord. " And He asked his father. How
long time is it since this hath come unto him ? And he said,
From a child. And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire

1 This is well exhibited in Eushbrooke's Sijnofticon, p. 60 ; also Abbott
and Rushbrooke's Common Tradition of the Gospels, j)p. 70-72.

18G THE GOSPEL OF MAKK.

and into the waters to destroy him ; but if Thou canst do
anything, have compassion on us, and help us. And Jesus
said unto him. If thou canst, all things are possible to him
that believeth. Straightway the father of the child cried out,
and said, I believe ; help Thou mine unbelief." Then we are
told the crowd came rushing together ; and when Jesus com-
manded the unclean spirit to come out of the lad, the spirit
cried and rent him sore, and the lad fell into such a death-like
faint that the greater part of the crowd said he was dead.
But Jesus came and took him by the hand and raised him up.
The whole scene is graphically described, as by the hand of a
painter ^ — the epileptic fit that seized the boy, the crowd
rushing together, the agony and earnestness of the father, and
the dignity and majesty of Christ, are all vividly portrayed
before us.

1 Mark, more than the otlier evangelists, represents Jesus
I as He actually lived and walked on this earth. There is a
peculiarly realistic character about this Gospel ; Jesus Christ,
the Son of Man and the Son of God, is evidently set forth
before us. His feelings are disclosed : how He grieved for
the hardness of men's hearts (ui. 5); how, looking up to
heaven, He sighed (vii. 34); how He loved the rich young
man who came asking what he should do to inherit eternal life
(x, 21); how He was. moved with indignation with His dis-
ciples when they sought to prohibit little children to be brought
to Him (x. 14) ; how He was moved with compassion for the
people who followed Him (vi. 34); and how He marvelled at
the unbelief of His hearers (vi. G). So also His actions and
gestures are described : He turned about and looked on His
disciples when He administered the severe rebuke to Peter
(viii. 33); He took up tlie little child in His arms (ix. 3G);
He put His Ihigers into the ears of the deaf-mute, and did spit
and touched his tongue (vii. 33); when the woman with the
issue of blood touched His garment. He looked round to see
who had done it (v. 32); He fell asleep from fatigue in the
stern of the boat (iv. 38). Tlio very words which He spoke
in Aramaic are given. We almost hear the accents of His

^ Raphael's great i)icture of the Transtiguration is chiefiy taken from
the description in Mark.

INTEGRITY. 187

voice. All is brought vividly before us ; the scenes are
photographed, so that we see them. Jesus is followed by the
multitudes of Galilee ; He can find no place for retirement ;
there is no room even about the door of the house where He
was ; the multitude come together, so that they cannot so
much as eat bread (iii. 20, 21).^

The Gospel of Mark is, as we have seen, no abbreviation
of Matthew and Luke. In neither of these Gospels is Jesus
so vividly displayed before us. He is in this Gospel seen
to be in all points tempted like as we are, with the notable
exception of being without sin ; He is actuated by human
feelings ; He is subject to human wants ; He is a great Per-
sonality whom we see and know. " I regard," observes Dean
Alford, " the existence of the Gospel of Mark as a gracious and
valuable proof of the accommodation by the Divine Spirit of
the records of the life of our Lord to the future necessities of
the Church. While it contains little matter of fact which is
not related in Matthew and Luke, and thus, generally speak-
ing, forms only a confirmation of their more complete histories,
it is so far from being a barren duplicate of that part of them
which is contained in it, that it comes home to every reader
with all the freshness of an individual mind, full of the Holy
Ghost, intently fixed on the great object of the Christian's
love and worship, reverently and affectionately following and
recording His positions, and looks, and gestures, and giving us
the very echo of the tones with which He spoke." ^

VI. Integrity of the Gospel.

In considering the integrity of Mark's Gospel, we come to
the important discussion on the genuineness of its last twelve
verses.^ Some of the most distinguished critics suppose that
Mark ended his Gospel at the close of the eighth verse of the

1 See Maclear on the Gosioel of Mark, pp. 16-20 : Cambridge Bible for
Schools.

^ Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 39, Prolegomena, last ed.

^ This subject is discussed at considerable length by Dean Burgon in
his able monograph, The last twelve verses of St. Mark ; by Dr. Hort in The
New Testament in the Original Greek by Westcott and Hort, Notes on
Select Headings, vol. ii. pp. 28-51 ; by Scrivener in his Introduction to the

188 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

sixteenth chapter with the words, ij>o^ovvTo yap, " for they
were afraid," and that what follows (Mark xvi. 9-20) was an
addition by some other writer. This is the view taken in
the Eevised Version : a space is put between the eighth verse
and the rest of the chapter, along with the footnote : " The
two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit
from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a dif-
ferent ending to the Gospel." The first critic who called in
question the genuineness of these verses was Griesbach, and he
has been followed in recent times by several distinguished
critics. Tischendorf, who has been justly called " the first
biblical critic in Europe," says " that these verses were not
written by Mark is proved by sufficient argument."^ Dr.
Tregelles says : " The Book of Mark himself extends no farther
than e(j)o^ovvro yap, xvi. 8." " I look on this section (xvi.
I 9—20) as an authentic a nonymous additio n to what Mark
j himself wrote down from tlienarrative of St. Peter,-and that it
jought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel as
ithe last chapter of Deuteronomy, unknown as the writer is, is
received as the right and proper conclusion of the books of
Moses." ^ Dean Alford gives the following as the result of his
examination of the passage : " The inference seems to me to be
that it (Mark xvi. 9-20) is an authentic fragment, placed as
a completion of the Gospel in very early times, by whom
written must, of course, remain wholly uncertain ; but coming
to us with very weighty sanction, and having strong claims
on our reception and reverence." ^ Meyer expresses his view
of the subject in the following terms : " The entire section,
from vers. 9-20, is a non-genuine conclusion of the Gospel,
not composed by Mark." "^ Its genuineness is also denied by
Bishoj) Westcott : " The original text, from whatever cause
it may have happened, terminated abruptly after the account
of the angelic vision. The history of the revelations of the

Criticism of the New Testament, pji. 429-432, 1st ed.; vol. ii. pp. 337-444,
4tli ed. ; and by Tregelles on the Printed Text of the New Tcstxnnent, pp.
246-261.

^ Hicc nou a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis, in loco.

^ Tregelles, Printed Text of the Greek Testament, pji. 258, 259.

3 Alford's Greek Testament on Mark xvi. 9-20, last ed. vol. i. p. 438.

■• Meyer's Commentary on Mark, critical notes on vv. 9-20.

INTEGRITY. 189

Lord Himseli' was added at another time, and probably by
another hand." ^

Opposed to the views of these distinguished critics are
the opinions of other critics of great eminence. Lachmann
inserts the passage in his critical Kcio Testament, with the
remark that from avaara^ to the end is found in A, C, D,
Irenaeus, bnt omitted in B, Eusebius.^ Scrivener, perhaps
our greatest biblical critic in recent times, with the possible
exceptions of Bishop Lightfoot and Dr. Hort, says : " We
engage to defend the authenticity of this 'long~and important
paragraph without the slightest misgiving." ^ And Dean Bur-
gon has written an elaborate work in defence of the passage,
in which he gives at great length the external and internal
evidences for and against these verses, and claims to have
demonstrated their genuineness : " It shall be my endeavour
to show, not only that there really is no reason whatever for
calling in question the genuineness of this portion of Holy
Writ, but also that there exist sufficient reasons for feelmo-
confident that it must be genuine." *

1. The external evidence against and for the genuineness
of Mark xvi. 9-20.

■ \ External evidence against its genuineness. The paragraph
is omitted in the two oldest manuscripts, the Vatican (B) and
the Sinaitic (x). In both, after the words ij)oj3ovvro <yap, comes

1 Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 309, 1st eel. The
passage is also rejected by Westcott and Hort in their critical edition of
the Greek New Testament. " Its authorship and its precise date nuist remain
unknown," vol. ii. Notes on Select Readings, p. 81. The passage is also
rejected by Archbishop Thomson, Smithes Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii,
p. 239, and by Bishop Lightfoot.

2 Lachmann's Novum Tcstam-entum, vol. i. p. 314.

^ Scrivener's Introduction to the Study of the N.T. p. 429, 1st ed. The
same remark is repeated in his 3rd edition, j?. 583 ; and in the 4th edition,
published after his decease (1894), vol. i. ]). 337.

* Burgon, The last verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 1. This
is an admirably reasoned work, a masterpiece in biblical criticism. Dr.
Scrivener remarks : " Dr. Burgon's brilliant monograph has thrown a
stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book
misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a
cause which is very precious to him." Introduction to Biblical Criticism of
the N.T. vol. ii. p. 337, 4th edition.

190 THE GOSPEL OF MAKK.

the subscription. There is, however, some reason to doubt
whether these manuscripts should be considered as inde-
pendent testimonies, or whether they should not rather be
regarded as one witness, being, not indeed copies of the same
manuscript, but of two manuscripts closely related to each
other, as there is a general agreement in their readings.
This is especially the case if there is any truth in the state-
ment of Tischendorf, that the same scribe who wrote the
Codex Vaticanus also transcribed certain pages of the Codex
Sinaiticus. The six pages of Codex N, which Tischendorf
selects as proofs of this statement, are from ^Mark xvi. 2 to Luke
i. 56, and consequently contain the very portion of Mark's
Gospel which includes these verses. So that, if this state-
ment is correct, it follows that in these pages at least we
have the testunony only of one witness, namely, the Vatican
manuscript.-^ This is certanily a witness of great importance,
being the oldest extant Greek manuscript of the New Testa-
ment. But even this testimony of B is somewhat weakened
by the fact that not only is the remainder of the column,
where the words e(po^ovvro 'yap occur, left blank, but the next
column is also vacant, and as has been remarked, " it is the
only vacant column in the whole manuscript ; a blank space
abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses" which
are omitted.^ The only reason that can be assigned for this
vacancy is that the scribe of the Vatican had before him a
manuscript which contained the verses in dispute, but which
he, for some reason, left out.

The uncial manuscript L, or Codex Regius Parisiensis No.
62, belonging, according to Tischendorf, to the eighth century,
has the following conclusion after the words i^o^omno yap :
" Something to this effect is met with : All that was com-
manded them they immediately rehearsed to Peter and the
rest. And after these things from the East even to the West
did Jesus Himself send forth by their means the holy and
incorruptible message of eternal salvation. But this also

1 Scrivener's Introduction, 4tli cd. vol. ii. p. 337, note. " At least," he
observes, " in these leaves, Cod. «, B make but one witness, not two."
See also Speaker's Commentary, New Testament, vol. i. p. 391.

2 Burgon's Last twelve verses of St. Mark, p. 87.

INTEGRITY. 191

is met with after the words, ' For they were afraid,' Now
when he was risen early,' " etc.; then follow the words,
vv. 9-20 as found in the textus receptus} Thus there are
attached to this manuscript two conclusions, one undoubtedly
spurious, the other that which is usually attached to the
Greek text.^

Among the cursive manuscripts. Codex 22 concludes
with the words e^o^ovvro <yap, and then adds in red ink :
" In some copies the Gospel is completed at this part, but
in many these are also current"; then follow vv. 9—20.^
In Codices 2 and 3 we read after ecpo^ovvTo <yap : " From
here to the end forms no part of the text in some copies.
But in the ancient copies it all forms part of the text."* It
has been affirmed by Birch that two cursive manuscripts, 137
and 138, have the passage marked by an asterisk, as denoting
a suspicion of its genuineness ; but this point has been
carefully examined by Dean Burgon, and the result of his
examination is that Codex 137 has a simple cross referring
to an annotation, and that Codex 138 has neither cross nor
asterisk.^

There is hardly any evidence from the versions against
the genuineness of this passage. The Codex k, or Codex
Bobbiensis of the Old Latin version, now in the National
Library, of Turin, wants the usual conclusion of Mark's
Gospel, and in its place inserts a Latin translation of the
spurious ending found in Codex L already given. The verses
are omitted in some Old Armenian codices, and one of them
in a space between vv. 8 and 9 has the remarkable reading,
" Of Ariston, presbyter," as if Ariston were the writer of the
verses which follow. To this remarkable reading we shall
afterwards advert. The verses are also omitted in the Sinaitic

1 Burgon, pp. 123, 124; Tregelles, Printed Text of the Greek Text, p. 254.

2 This manuscript is supposed to have been one of those used by
Stephens (n) in the formation of his Greek Testament. It bears a close
resemblance to the Vatican and to the citations of Origen. Scrivener
observes : " It is but carelessly written, and abounds with errors of the
ignorant scribe, who was more probably an Egyptian than a native Greek."
Yol. i. p. 138.

3 Alford's Greeh Testament on Mark xvi. 9. •* Burgon, p. 118.
5 Burgon, pp. 116, 117.

192 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

palimpsest of the Syrian version of the Gospels recently dis-
covered (1892, 1893) by Mrs. Lewis.

Eusebius, in the fourth century, on whose words great
stress has .been put by those opposed to the insertion of
this passage, was the first to cast doubts on its genuineness.
His words are contained in the fragment of a lost work
found in the Vatican Library, and published by Cardinal
Mai in 1825.^ They are a reply to a certain Marmus
who asked how the statement contained in Mark xvi. 9,
that Jesus rose early the first day of the week, could be
reconciled with the statement in Matthew's Gospel, that
He rose on the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week.^ To this question Eusebius
replies : " Two answers might be given. He who denied
the whole passage might say that it is not found in all
the copies {eciroi av fir) iv airacnv avrtjv (f)€pecrdat to??
dvTLypd(f)o(,<i) of Mark's Gospel, the accurate copies ending
with the words of the young man who appeared to the
women, ' Fear not ye ! Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth ' ... to
which the evangelist adds : ' And when they heard it they tied,
and said nothing to any man ; for they were afraid.' These
words in almost all the copies of Mark's Gospel form the
end. What follows which is met with in some but not in
all the copies may be regarded as superfluous ; especially if
they should prove to contradict the statements of the other
evangelists. This one might say for evading and getting
rid of a superfluous discussion. But another, not daring
to reject anything which is met with in the text of the
Gospels, might say, Here are two readings, and both are to
be received ; inasmuch as by the faithful this reading is not
held to be genuine rather than that." Although the language
is somewhat ambiguous, yet it may be admitted that Eusebius
here asserts that these concluding verses were omitted in
almost all the copies of Mark's Gospel with which he was
conversant. This, however, must be regarded as a rhetorical

1 Questioiies ad Marinum, puLlislied in Cardinal ]\Iai's Nova Patrtim
Bibliotheca, vol. iv. pp. 255-257.

2 The whole passage is given in Burgon's Last twelve verses of St.
Mark, pp. 265, 2GG, App. B.

INTEGKITY. 193

exaggeration, for only a very few manuscripts have come
down to us which want these words. Eusebius then here
either uses rhetorical language, or perhaps does not express his
own opinion, but puts the words into the mouth of the
person who answers the question : " One may say " {ravra
jxev ovv ecTTot) : " This is what a person may say for getting
rid of the whole question." The testimony of Jerome is
given in his Ejjisth to Hedibia} but it is only a repe-
tition of the statement of Eusebius ; the same ditficulty
is proposed, and the same solution is given. Similarly
Hesychius, bishop of Jerusalem (a.d, 400), refers to the same
difficulty, and gives the same answer : he says : " The more
accurate copies of Mark's Gospel end with ' For they were
afraid ' ; but in some it is added, ' But when He was risen
again,' etc. But this appears to contradict what has been
before asserted in Matthew." ^ It is also maintained that
there is no reference to this passage in the writings of the
early Fathers, whether Latin, as Tertullian and Cyprian, or
Greek, as Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, in their dis-
cussion on subjects where they would naturally refer to it.
But this argumentum e silentio is very precarious,
^1 External evidence in favour of its genuineness. With the
( exception of x and B, the words are contained in all the
) other uncial manuscripts of this Gospel.^ They are found in
the Alexandrian manuscript (A), in the Codex Ephrrem
(C), in the Codex Bezse (D), and in the other thirteen uncial
manuscripts.^ Almost all the cursive manuscripts of this
Gospel, of which there are six hundred, contain the words
in question, except, of course, those which are defective.

The versions are virtually unanimous in their testimony
in favour ofthe retention of the passage. It is found in all
the manuscripts of the Old Latin with the exception of the

1 Ep. 120 ad Hedibiam.

2 See Burgon, pp. 57-59 ; M'Clellan's New Testament, vol. i. p. 682.

^ " With the exception of the two uncial manuscripts which have just
been named," says Dean Burgon, " there is not one codex in existence,
uncial or cursive, (and we are acquainted with at least eighteen other
uncial and about six hundred cursive copies of this Gospel,) which leaves
out the last twelve verses of St. Mark," p. 71.

* Namely, E F« G H K M S U V X T A n.

13

194 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

Codex Bobbiensis (k) already mentioned. It is inserted by
|) Jerome in the Vulgate, thus proving that that Father did not,
as some suppose, seriously call in question its genuineness.
It is contained in all the Syriac versions — the Peshito, the
Philoxenian Syriac,and the Cureton Syriac, one of the fragments
of which contains the last four verses, with the exception of the
Syriac manuscript of the Gospels recently found at Mount Sinai.
It is contained in the Armenian version, except in some codices,
and in the two Egyptian versions. In short, it is not affirming
too much to say that the evidence of the versions is practically
unanimous in favour of this section of the Gospel of Mark.
I The positive testimonies of the Fathers until Eusebius are

' all in favour of the genuineness of the section. It is a short
passage, and consequently is not often referred to. Justin
Martyr (a.d. 150) in his first Apology apparently cites Mark
xvi. 20 : " That which he (David) says, ' He shall send to thee
the rod of power out of Jerusalem,' is predictive of the
mighty Word which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem,
preached everywhere." ^ On this, however, we do not lay
much stress ; for although there is a striking resemblance
between these words and the conclusion of Mark's Gospel,
there may be some doubt whether Justin actually quotes
from it. Much more important is the testimony of Tatian
(a.d. 160). The passage is undoubtedly contained in the
Diatessaron, as is proved from the Arabic manuscript from
Egypt recently brought to light and now translated.^ This
demonstrates that the words formed part of Mark's Gospel
toward the middle of the second century. So far as we can
ascertain, this important testimony of Tatian was unknown to
Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Meyer, and Westcott
and Hort, when they arrived at their opinion unfavourable to
the genuineness of this passage ; and if so, this fact must to
some extent invalidate their conclusion.^ Irenanis (a.d. 180)

^ Apol. i. c. 45 : l^i'hSiuTig ■Ka.'jra.yfiv iKvjpv^xv ; compare with this the
concluding words of Mark's GosiJel : iKuvot "hs l^i'hSovTi; ix-vipv^xv vuvtoixov.

2 Tatian'.s Diatessaron, translated from the Araliic version by the Rev.
J. Hamlyn Hilh T. & T. Clark, Edinl)urgh, 1894.

^ Tatian's Diatessaron is not referred to by these distinguished liil)lical
critics.

INTEGKITY, 195

has a distinct quotation from Mark xvi. 19 : " Toward the
conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says : So then, after the Lord
Jesus had spoken to them. He was received up into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God." ^ So also Hippolytus,
a contemporary of Irenaeus (a.d 200), quotes vv. 17 and 18
in a fragment of a work concerning spiritual gifts : " Jesus
said to them all collectively concerning the gifts given from
Him by the Spirit : These signs shall follow them that
beheve : In My name shall they cast out demons ; they shall
speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if
they drink any deadly thing, it shall in nowise hurt them ;
they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." ^
And in his treatise against Noetus there is also an apparent
reference to this section in Mark's Gospel. " Christ is taken
up to heaven, and is set down at the right hand of the
Father" (Mark xvi. 19).^ The passage is also twice cited
in the Apostolic Constitutions, written in the fourth century :
" For the Lord says, He that believeth, and is baptized, shall
be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned " (Mark
xvi. 16).^ " With good reason did He say to all of us together,
when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were
given from Him by the Spirit : Now these signs shall follow
them that have believed in My name ; they shall cast out
devils, they shall speak with new tongues," etc. (Mark xvi.
17).^ The passage is quoted or referred to by Cyril of
Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and
subsequent Fathers.

f( 2. The internal evidence against and for the genuineness of
Mark xvi. 9-20.

The objectors to the genuineness of this passage generally
place the great force of their argument on the internal
evidence. Many of them admit that the external evidence is
rather favourable than otherwise, but assert that the internal

^ Irensiis, Adv. Hctr. iii. 10. 6 : In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus :
Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in ccelos,
et sedet ad dexteram Dei. Mark xvi. 19.

2 Hippolytus (xHjOi ■^xptrjf^H.rav), Op]). 545.

^ Gontra Hcer. Noeti, c. 18.

■* Apost. Const, vi. 15. ^ Ibid. viii. 1.

196 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

evidence is preponderantly unfavourable. " The internal
evidence," observes Dean Alford," is, I think, very weighty
against Mark's being the author. No less than twenty-one
words and expressions occur in it, and some of them several
times, which are never used elsewhere by Mark, whose
adherence to his own peculiar phrases is remarkable." ^ The
style, it is affirmed, is very different from that of Mark.
Instead of those graphic touches which impart a vividness to
Mark's narrative, and represent the scenes described before the
mind's eye, we have a dry summary of events. The particle
of transition, eu^ew?, forthwith, so constantly used by Mark,
and which imparts life to the narrative, is wanting. The
phraseology also is not that of Mark. Thus, for example, the
first day of the week is called irpcoTr] aa^^drov instead of iiia,
rSiv aa^^drwv (Mark xvi. 2). Mary Magdalene is introduced
as " she out of whom He had cast seven devils," although
mentioned a few verses before (ver. 1). Jesus is twice called
6 KvpLo<i (vv. 19, 20), a title which is not elsewhere found in
Mark's Gospel. And the following words and phrases, given by
Tregelles, are not found elsewhere in this Gospel : iropevofiat.
(thrice), Oedofxai (twice), dirlcneai (twice), erepo^, TrapaKokov-
Oeu), jBXdiTTU), iiraicoXovdeco, avvepyico, fie^aLoco, 'Kavra-)(0Vf
fjieTo. ravra, iv tu) ovofiaTLr

These points are apparently unfavourable ; but when
closely examined they are not so adverse as they at first
appear. The style is not wholly different from that of Mark.
The passage is certainly a category of particulars, but still
it is not wanting in traces of Mark's graphic style. For
example, when Mary came to the apostles to announce the
appearance of the Lord to her, there is the graphic touch that
she found tliem utterly cast down : " She went and told them
that had been with Him, as they mourned and wept " (xvi. 10).
So also the unbelief of the disciples at the repeated news of
the resurrection of their Lord is recorded only here (xvi.
13). It is true that the favourite transitional particle eu^e'w?

^ Alford's Greek Testament, in loco.

2 Tregelles, Printed Text of the Greek Testament, 257. See also Farrar's
Messages of tlie Books, p. 67 if. ; Norton, Genuineness of t/ie Gos2}els, vol. i.
p. 219.

INTEGRITY. 197

does not occur, but it is also wanting in the twelfth and
thirteenth chapters. The expression Trpcorrj aa/S/Sdrov instead
of fila TMv aa^^aTOiv is only another expression used by
the author for the sake of variety. The mention of Mary
Magdalene as she out of whom Jesus had cast seven devils,
is designed to show the wonderful love and condescen-
sion of Christ in appearing first to her. The objection that
the title o Kvpio<; is foreign to the diction of Mark/ is of
no force ; as in like manner 'I??croi}? Xpicno^ oi^ly appears
once in his Gospel (Mark i. 1). And although it is true that
. the phraseology of the section is somewhat different from that
of Mark, yet there occur in it expressions which are often
found in his Gospel, but rarely in the other Gospels, and
which may be considered as words and phrases peculiar to
Mark, as KTicra, irpwt, Krjpvcraecv ro evayyeXiov, etc. The
rare word aKXrjpoKapSla (ver. 14) occurs again in Mark's
Gospel (x. 5), but is only found once again in the New
Testament (Matt. xix. 8).

I, The extreme improbability of the Gospel having such an
i abrupt conclusion, if the closing words are omitted, is a
-strong internal evidence in favour of the genuineness of the
section. If the passage is not genume, the Gospel terminates
at the eighth verse with the words icfyo^ovvro jdp. There is
no mention of the appearance of Christ to His disciples or to
the women, no intimation of the astonishing events which
followed, no record of the resurrection. Even those who call
,in question the genuineness of the passage do not suppose
that this was the close of the Gospel, but admit that there
must have been a conclusion, either actual, which has been
lost, or intended, which Mark was prevented writing. " That
Mark," says Griesbach, " should have intentionally ended his
Gospel with the words ej>o^ovvTo yap, ought to seem incredible
to all." 2 " It would be," says Michaelis, " a wonderful con-
clusion of a book." 2 " Few Greek scholars," observes Dr.
> Abbott, " will be induced to believe that the author of the
j Second Gospel deliberately chose to end a book on the good

^ In ver. 19 the true reading is 6 Kvpio; 'Imovg.

2 Com. Grit. p. 199.

3 Michaelis, Einleikmg, p. 1060 ; Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 210.

198 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

news of Christ with the words ej)o^ovvTo yap. From a
literary point of view the yap, and from a moral point of
view the ecjio^ovvTo, make it almost incredible that these
words represent a deliberate termination assigned by an
author to a composition of his own." ^ And even Dr. Hort
says : " It is incredible that the evangelist deliberately con-
cluded either a paragraph with €(f)o/3ovvTo yap, or the Gospel
with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narra-
tive hanging in the air." ^

If, then, the Gospel once had a conclusion, actual or
intended, we are entitled to ask the objectors to this passage.
What has become of it ? Two answers have been given to
this question. The one, favoured by Norton,^ is that Mark
was prevented finishing his Gospel ; either because Peter, to
whom he was indebted for his information, perished at this
Itime in the persecution by Nero (Michaelis), or because Mark
|mmself died (Davidson). Both of these are merely gratuitous
suppositions. Mark was not so entirely dependent on Peter
that he could not finish his Gospel without his aid ; and it
would be most extraordinary that he himself should die at
the very time when he was about to finish his Gospel. The
.other supposition, favoured by Griesbach and adopted by
Alford,'* is that the last leaf was torn away.^ This is certainly
a strange hypothesis, the resorting to which can only be
accounted for by the impossibility of otherwise explaining the
fact of such an abrupt conclusion. The Gospel, when written,
would be committed to the custody of some particular Church,
and by them it would be most carefully preserved. Surely
the supposition is far more reasonable, that the present con-
clusion of Mark's Gospel is genuine, and was written by the
evangelist himself.

^ Encydojxedia Britannica, article "The Gospels," vol. x. p. 801.

2 Westcott and Hurt's Greek Testament, vol. ii. notes, p. 46.

3 Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 221.

* " The most prolmble supposition is that the last leaf of the original
Gospel was torn away." — Alford.

" " Two contingencies," observes Dr. Hort, " have to be taken into
account — either the Gospel may never have been finished, or it may have
lo.st its last leaf l)efore it was multiplied by transcription." Westcott and
UorVa N.T. Notes, I). 41.

INTEGRITY. 199

This may be the most appropriate place for adverting to
a most ingenious hypothesis recently advanced by Mr. Cony-
beare in the The Expositor, and which has received the
support of such distinguished critics as Zahn and Eesch.^ In
an Armenian manuscript found in the patriarchal library of
E(fmiadzin, at the foot of Mount Ararat, written about 986,
which Mr. Conybeare collated, he found the Gospel of Mark
copied out as far as " For they were afraid " (ver. 8), and
between vv. 8 and 9 the words Ariston Eritzon, equivalent
to ^AplaTwvoq Tvpea^uTepov. The last twelve verses then
follow, written in the same hand. From this he inferred
' that it is here affirmed that these last verses were written,
tnot by Mark, but by the Presbyter Ariston. Eesch and
'Sanday suppose that by Ariston is here meant Ariston of
Pella, otherwise known to us, who lived about a.d. 140-150 ;
but Conybeare and Zahn think that this is too late to permit
of the passage being so generally inserted in the manuscripts
and quoted by Tatian and Irenseus. Mr. Conybeare there-
fore supposes that the person meant is Aristion, the name
being wrongly spelt, one of the disciples of the Lord, from
whom Papias, according to Eusebius,^ derived his traditions.
According to Conybeare, the same mistake in spelling occurs
in the Armenian version of Eusebius, where the name
Ariston occurs for Aristion. Hence it has been inferred
that the last verses of Mark's Gospel were taken from the
lost work of Papias, and ultimately from the oral tradition
of Aristion. It has been supposed that some one, wishing
to attach a befitting conclusion to the Gospel, incorporated
an extract from the work of Papias containing a tradition of
the presbyter Aristion. This hypothesis is most ingenious,
and fully accounts for all the anomalies of the passage ; and
is also in accordance with the opinion of those critics who
assert that it is some ancient fragment inserted for the
completion of the Gospel (Alford, Hort, Tregelles, Bishop
Lightfoot, Archbishop Thomson, etc.). It can, however,
hardly be adopted. It occurs only in an obscure Armenian

1 Expositor for October 1893, pp. 241-254 ; and for September 1894,
pp. 219-232.

2 Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.

200 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

manuscript of no authority, and is destitute of all other
confirmation.

Such, then, is the evidence for and against the genuine-
ness of Mark xvi. 9—20. The external evidence is strongly
in its favour. The whole external evidence against the passage
amounts to its omission in the Vatican manuscript, to state-
ments annexed to the conclusion of the Gospel in Codex L and
in three unimportant cursive MSS., and to an exaggerated
assertion of Eusebius, which has been followed by Jerome and
Hesychius. The Sinaitic manuscript n is considered as the
same testimony as the Vatican : or if this be called in ques-
tion, then there are only three uncial manuscripts (n B L ^)
against the passage. On the other hand, with these excep-
tions, all the Greek manuscripts, both uncial and cursive, all
the Fathers who refer to the passage, and all the versions
except the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac, are in its
favour. It may be that the internal evidence is against its
retention, though this is a matter of opinion which may be
and has been questioned. But in all critical questions, unless
there are decided reasons to the contrary, which in this case
do not exist, the internal evidence must yield to the external.
With regard to the external evidence, we have facts to go
upon, whereas the internal evidence is almost purely sub-
jective. As Dr. Hort himself observes in his elaborate
examination of this passage : " We do not think it necessary
to examme in detail the intrinsic evidence supposed to be
furnished by comparison of the vocabulary and style of
vv. 9—20 with the unquestioned parts of the Gospel. Much
of what has been urged on both sides is, in our judgment,
trivial and intangible." ^ The internal evidence against it is
certainly not so strong or so clear as to counterbalance the
external evidence for it. We therefore feel constrained to come
to the conclusion that Mark xvi. 9-20 is a genuine portion
of the Gospel. We are perfectly aware that in arriving at
this conclusion we may be accused of undue confidence in
opposing the views of critics of such pre-eminence as Tischeu-
dorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, who, in their critical

^ Even in L the i)a.ssage is inserted as an alternative reading.
2 The Greek New Testament Notes, p. 48.

INTEGRITY. 201

editions of the New Testament, all reject this passage. But
they had not the data which we now possess in the important
testimony of Tatian, and the authority of these great names
does not destroy our private judgment, or cause us to relin-
quish our convictions ; nor are we unsupported in this
conclusion by other eminent critics, such as Scrivener ^ and
Burgon.

The opinions of biblical critics are much divided, although
we at once admit that the preponderance of authority,
though not so great as is generally supposed, is unfavourable
to the genuineness of this passage. Wetstein, Storr, Mill,
Grotius, Bengel, Scholz, Kuinoel,^ De Wette, Hug, Bleek,^
Guericke, Schleiermacher, Principal Campbell of Aberdeen,*
Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, Keil, Stier, Lange, Scrivener, Burgon,
Bishop Wordsworth, Dean Bickersteth, Canon Cook,^
M'Clellan, Edersheim, Salmon,^ Morison, Wace, and Bishop
Ellicott declare in favour of its genuineness. Whereas
Michaelis, Griesbach, Credner, Wieseler, Ewald, Norton,'^
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Meyer, Alford, Westcott and Hort,
Klostermann, Bishop Lightfoot,^ Archbishop Thomson,^
Davidson, Warfield, Farrar, Abbott, Zahn, Kesch, and Holtz-
maun decide against its genuineness.

^ Scrivener thus states the result at which he arrives : " All oiDposi-
tion to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegation
of Eusebius and the testimony of X B. Let us accord to these the weight
which is their due ; but against their verdict we can ajjpeal to a vast
body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the
second century ; to nearly all the versions ; and to all extant manuscripts
excepting two, of which one is doubtful." Introduction to the Criticism of
the N.T. vol. ii. p. 344, 4th edition.

^ Kuinoel, Novi Testmnenti Lihri Historici, in loco.

3 Bleek, Introduction to N.T. vol. i. p. 312, Eng. trans.

^ Campbell, On the Gospels, vol. iii. p. 178.

^ Cook's Revised Version of the first three Gospels, pp. 120-125.

G Salmon's Introduction to the N.T. pp. 190-193, 1st ed. 1885.

'' Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 217 ff.

8 Lightfoot ascribes it to " that knot of early disciples who gathered
about St. John." Revision of the N. T. p. 28.

^ He says : " It is probable that this section is from a different hand,
but was annexed to the Gospels soon after the time of the apostles."
Smith's Bible Dictionary, vol. ii. p. 239.

202 THE GOSPEL OF MAEK.

VII. Time and Place of Weiting.

The date of this Gospel is a point of great dubiety, on
which the most contradictory opinions prevail ; indeed, it is
a point on which we have not data sufficient to warrant any
definite or even proximate decision. There are conflicting
testimonies with regard to it, and it is interwoven with other
questions, as, for example, with the synoptic problem on
the sources of the Synoptics. Whilst external evidence is
defective, there are in the Gospel itself few indications of
time.

The opinions of the Fathers are here not in agreement.
Some assert that Mark wrote his Gospel after, and others
before, the death of Peter. Irenaeus, in a passage already
quoted, asserts that it was written after the death of Peter
and Paul. " Matthew published his Gospel among the
Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were
preaching and laying the foundations of the Church at Eome.
After their departure {^lera r-qv tovtcov e^oZov) Mark, the dis-
ciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing
those things which Peter had preached."-^ Some, as Mill,
Kuinoel, and others, suppose that by e^oBov is meant departure,
as is the evident meaumg of the word in Heb. xi. 22 — after
the departure of Peter and Paul from Eome ; but such a
statement would be useless and insignificant. Others, as
Hug, Credner, Guericke, and Ebrard, interpret tlie expres-
sion as denoting death — after the decease of Peter and Paul,
that is, after a.d. 64^ the year of the persecution by Nero, when
it is supposed that these two apostles were put to death ; and
this seems to be the usual scriptural meaning of the word,^
and is an important statement. Some connect with this
statement the words of Peter in his Second Epistle : " I will
endeavour that ye may be able after my decease (the same word
e^oBov) to have these things always in remembrance " (2 Pet. i.
,15). " Here," observes Professor Warfield, "is a promise by
I iPeter that he will see to it that his readers shall be in a position
1 ^fter his death to have his teaching always in remembrance ;

^ Irenseus, Adv. Hwr. iii. 1.1; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v, 8.
2 Luke X. 21 : 2 Pet. i. 15.

DATE. 203

and in this he has special reference to the facts of the hfe of
Christ, witnessed by him, as is proved by the purpose which
he expresses for so arranging, namely, that they may know
that they have not followed cunningly devised fables, but
facts autoptically witnessed. Surely this seems to promise a
Gospel." ^ The truth of this statement of Irenseus is,
however, extremely doubtful. It is uncertain that Peter and
Paul were together in Eome : they certainly did not lay
the foundation of the Church of Eome ; that Church was
founded years before their arrival, as is evident from the
fact that Paul at an earlier period wrote an Epistle to the
Eomans, and that on his arrival at Eome he found a Christian
Church already existing. The implied coincidence of the
time of their martyrdom is legendary.

This statement of Irenseus is counterbalanced by that of
Clemens Alexandrinus, who informs us that Mark published
his Gospel, not after the death of Peter, but in his lifetime,
and with his knowledge and approval. Thus in a passage '
quoted by Eusebius, Clement says : " As Peter had preached
the word publicly at Eome, and declared the Gospel by the
Spirit, many that were present requested that Mark, who had
followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings,
should write them out. And having composed the Gospel, he
gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned
this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it." ^ The
same opinion was adopted by Eusebius and Jerome. Jerome i
speaks as if Peter had actually dictated the Gospel to Mark, j

These testimonies contradict each other ; Irenseus assert- 1
ing that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter, and
Clemens Alexandrinus that it was written before that event. /
All critics, except those belonging to the Tlibingen school, agree
that this Gospel was written before the destruction of Jeru-
salem, that is, before A.D. 70. There is no reference in it to that
event : on the contrary, there are in the prediction of our Lord
indications that it had not yet occurred (Mark xiii. 13, 24,
30, 33). The catastrophe was impending, but had not taken
place. There were the symptoms of the coming storm, but it

1 Quoted in Kerr's Introduction to N. T. Study, p. 37.

2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 14.

204 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

had not burst upon the land. So, also, there is an intimation
that this Gospel was written after the dispersion of the apostles
and after the diffusion of Christianity beyond Jerusalem, that
is, after a.d. 44. " And they (the disciples) went forth, and
preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and
confirming the word by the signs that followed " (xvi. 20).
1 Thus, then, between these two limits, A.D. 44 and a.d. 70,
1 the composition of this Gospel is to be placed.

If Mark's Gospel is the earliest, constituting one of the
chief sources of the other two, for which opinion there are
plausible reasons, then it must have been written before
A.D. 55, the date which we found most probable to ascribe
to the Gospel of Matthew. But, if Mark's Gospel is
not the earliest, if, as many critics suppose, the Gospel of
Matthew preceded it, then a later date must be adopted.
Several objections have been made to the earlier date. If,
it has been said, the Gospel of Mark was written before
Paul's first Eoman imprisonment (a.d. 63), Paul in his Epistle
to the Colossians, written at that time, would have mentioned
Mark by a much higher designation than merely as the
cousin of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10); he would have alluded to
him as the author of the Gospel. But this is a mere con-
jectural statement ; it proceeds on the doubtful supposition
that Mark, the disciple of Peter, the author of the Gospel,
was the same as Mark the companion of Paul and the
cousin of Barnabas : and, besides, the argumentum e sikntio is
always precarious. It is also affirmed that this early date
contradicts the testunonies of Irenreus and Clemens Alex-
andrinus ; but we have seen that their testimonies are
.conflicting, and cannot be relied upon for fixing a precise
date for the writing of Mark.

Accordingly, no arguments can be drawn from the
statements of the Fathers with regard to the date of the
Gospel of Mark ; and the indications of time in the Gospel
itself are slight and ambiguous. The opinions of critics are
very diverse, varying from a.d. 40 to A.D. 170. The Paschal
Chronicle and Hosychius fix on A.D. 40 ; Eusebius in his
Chronicon gives the third year of the reign of Claudius,
A.D. 43 ; Birks fixes on a.d. 48 ; Schenkel, on A.D. 45-58 ;

DATE. 205

Hitzig, on a.d. 55-57; Lardner, on a.d. 64; Guericke, on
A.D. 67 or 68; Alford, " after the dispersion or even the
death of the apostles, and before the destruction of Jerusalem
by the Eoman armies under Titus, in the year a.d. 70."
The critics belonging to the Tiibingen school generally
place the composition of the Gospel after the destruction of
Jerusalem ; Hilgenfeld, about a.d. 8 1 ; Kostlin, about a.d. 110;
Keim, about a.d. 115-120 ; Davidson, in the last edition of
his Introduction, about A.D. 120 ; and Baur himself, about
A.D. 130-170.

The place of composition has been as much disputed as
the time. The most common opinion is that this was Rpme .
This is the uniform assertion of the Fathers — Irenaus,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius.
It is stated in the subscription to several cursive manuscripts.
In the Peshito there is the following subscription : " Here
ends the holy Gospel, the announcement of Mark, which he
spoke and preached at Eome in the Eoman language." The
same opinion is adopted by most recent critics. The fact
that the Gospel was written for Gentile readers, and the
Latinisms which are found in it, are favourable to this
supposition. An argument has been drawn from Eom. xvi. 13,
where it is written : " Salute Eufus, the chosen in the Lord."
In the Gospel, Simon the Cyrenian, who carried the cross of
Jesus, is called the father of Alexander and Eufus
(Mark xv. 21). Now, if this Eufus who, being thus saluted
in the Epistle to the Eomans, was evidently an important
member of the Church of Eome, was the son of Simon the
Cyrenian, it was natural that Mark, when writing his Gospel
at Eome, should allude to him. To this supposition there
is, however, a formidable objection. If Mark wrote his
Gospel at Eome and for the Eomans, there was not sufficient
time for its transmission to Palestine, in order to its being used
by Matthew at such an early period as A.D. 55.^

Other places have been fixed on. Chrysostom mentions
a tradition which fixes on Alexandria as the place of com-
position. " Mark is said (Xeyerai) to have composed his
Gospel in Egypt at the solicitation of his friends there." ^

1 See sufra, p. 140. ^ Clirysostom, Horn, in Matt. i.

206 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

This statement is also found in some cursive manuscripts to
which the subscription i'ypd(f)r} iv AlyvirTO) is attached.
Some (Simon, Lardner, Eiclihorn, Michaelis) suppose a double
place of composition : that the Gospel was written partly in
Eome and partly in Alexandria, Jerome says that Mark,
taking the Gospel with him which he had composed, went
into Egypt.^ Michaelis supposes that Mark wrote his Gospel
at Rome, but finished it at Alexandria, which accounts for
the difference which exists between Mark xvi. 9—20 and
the rest of the Gospel.^ There is no ground for this
supposition : it is mentioned by none of the Alexandrian
Fathers.

Storr^ conjectures Antioch to be the place of com-
position, because Mark was residing there, near the seat
of apostolic tradition, and in contact with the GentUe
converts. The Church of Antioch was also visited by Peter
(Gal, ii. 11), whose companion and interpreter Mark was.
Storr also enforces his argument by the combination of
Acts xi. 19, 20 and Mark xv. 21. In the Acts we learn
that men of Gyrene came to Antioch : in the Gospel we
are told that Simon, the father of Alexander and Eufus,
who bore the cross, was a Cyrenian. He thinks it probable
that Alexander and Eufus were among the men of Gyrene
who came to Antioch.

More plausible is the supposition of Birks, that Ctesarea
was the place of writing. " The second Gospel," he observes,
" was written by John Mark about the year 48, and probably
at Csesarea, with a reference not only to Jewish believers,
but to Gentile Eoman converts, who would have multi})lied
there in seven or eight years from the conversion of
Cornelius."* This wovild afford Matthew easy access to
the Gospel of Mark, and that at an early period. IMark's
connection with Peter may have been, not in Eome, but in
Palestine.

^ Assumpto ita<iue Evangelic quod ipse coiifecerat perrexit ^Egj^tum.

'^ Marsh'.s Mirhdelis, vol. iv. p. 210.

^ Ueber den Zicerk der evawjelischen Geschichte, y. 278 ff.

■* Hor(t evamjeliac, p. 238.

CONTENTS. 207

VIII. Contents of the Gospel.

This Gospel may be conveniently divided into three
parts.

1. The preparation for the ministry, i. 1—13, containmg
the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, and
the temptation in the wilderness.

2. The ministry in Galilee, i. 14— x. 42, forming the
main part of the ministry, containing the call of the
apostles, an account of the miracles of Christ, a series of
parables, the mission of the apostles, the death of the
Baptist, the twofold miraculous feeding of the multitude,
the confession by the disciples of the Messiahship of Jesus,
the Transfiguration, a minute account of the cure of the
demoniac boy, the blessing pronounced on little children, the
rich young ruler, the cure of blind Bartimseus.

3. The close of the ministry at Jerusalem, xi. 1— xvi. 20,
containing the triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, the
retirement to Bethany, the parable of the wicked husband-
men, the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, the
partaking of the Passover and the institution of the Lord's
Supper, the agony at Gethsemane, the double trial before
Caiaphas and Pilate, the crucifixion, the burial, the women
at the sepulchre, the resurrection.

There is little that is peculiar to Mark, but there are
many additions to the narrative. Many of these we have
already noted when considering its vividness and its graphic
touches.^ It is from Mark that we learn that Jesus Himself
was a carpenter ; that those who were cured, although told
to tell the miracles to none, yet blazed them abroad ; that
the reason why His friends wished to lay hold of Him was
because they thought that He was beside Himself ; that
Jesus was repeatedly moved with indignation at the perversity
of His hearers ; and that it was Peter, James, John, and
Andrew who asked him about the destruction of Jerusalem.

No fewer than eighteen miracles are narrated in Mark's
Gospel. It is the record, not so much of the discourses of
Jesus, as of His mighty works. The miracles recorded are,
1 See supra, p. 185.

208 THE GOSPEL OF MARK.

the cure of the man with an unclean sphit in the synagogue
of Capernaum, i. 23—28 ; the cure of Simon's wife's mother,
i. 30, 31 ; the cleansing of the leper, i. 40—45 ; the healing
of the paralytic man, ii. 1—12; the cure of the man with
the withered hand, iii. 1-5 ; the stilling of the storm,
iv. 35—41 ; the cure of the Gadarene demoniac, v. 1-20 ;
the healing of the woman with the issue of blood, v. 25-34;
the raising of the daughter of Jairus, v. 35—43 ; the feeding
of the five thousand, vi. 30—44; the walking on the lake,
vi. 45—52; the cure of the daughter of the Syrophenician
woman, vii. 24-30; the healing of the deaf mute, recorded
only by Mark, vii. 31—37 ; the feeding of the four thousand,
viii. 1—9 ; the gradual cure of the blind man at Bethsaida,
recorded only by Mark, viii. 22—26 ; the cure of the epileptic
boy, ix. 17-29; the cure of blind Bartimseus, x. 46—52;
and the withering of the fig tree, xi. 12—14.

On the other hand, only four parables are recorded by
Mark : the Sower, iv. 3—8 ; the Seed growing gradually,
peculiar to Mark, iv. 26-29 ; the Mustard Seed, iv. 30-32;
and the Vineyard and the Husbandmen, xii. 1—11.

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

LiTERATUKE. — The principal commentaries and dissertations
on the Gospel of Luke are those of Schleiermacher, Ueher
die Scliriften des Lukas kritischer Versuch (Berlin, 1817),
translated by Bishop Thirlwall, with a valuable introduction
(London, 1825) ; Olshausen (1837, English translation, 1863) ;
De Wette (3rd ed. Leipsic, 1846); TroUope, Commentary on
St Luke's Gospel (London, 1847); Ewald (Gottingen, 1850);
Meyer (1st ed. Gottingen, 1860, 6th ed. by Weiss, 1878,
translated by the Eev. Eobert Wallis, Edinburgh, 1880);
Grimm, Die Einheit des Liikasevangelium (Eegensburg, 1863) ;
Oosterzee in Lange's Bilelwerk (3rd ed. Bielefeld, 1877),
translated by Dr. Schaff (New York, 1866); Van Doren,
Suggestive Commentary on St. Luke (London, 1868); Godet
(Neuchatel, 1871, translated Edinburgh, 1875); Bishop
Jones in the Speakers Commentary (London, 1875); Alford
in his Greek Testament, last edition (London, 1894); Dean
Plumptre in Bishop Ellicott's Commentary (1879); Farrar on
Luke in the Cambridge Bible for Schools (London, 1882); Eiddle
in International Commentary (New York, 1882) ; Dean Spence
in Pulpit Commentary (London, 1889); Dr. Colin Campbell,
Critical Studies in St. Luke's Gospel (Edinburgh, 1890).

I. Genuineness of the Gospel.

The genuineness of the Gospel of Luke is sufficiently

attested. It is true that we cannot here appeal to the

Apostolic Fathers, as this Gospel was the latest written of the

Synoptic Gospels, and as it is difficult to determine whether

14

210 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

the citations adduced are taken from it or from the Gospel of
Matthew.^ It has been affirmed that the Gospel of Luke is
quoted by Paul in liis First Epistle to Timothy : " For the
scripture saith (\eyet 7) ypacj)')]), Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
when he treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy
of his liire" (1 Tim. v. 18). The last clause of the verse is
only to be found in Luke's Gospel, where the very same
words occur : a^co^ 6 ipyaTr]^ tov fiiadov avTov (Luke x. 7).
There is nothing incredible in this supposition, considering the
close connection between Lvike and Paul, and the probability
that the Gospel of Luke was written before the First Epistle
to Timothy ; but we hardly think that this Gospel at so early
a period would be considered as scripture (rj ypa(f)i]). Marcion,
(a.d. 140) is perhaps the earliest witness to the Gospel of
Luke. Marcion's Gospel, as we shall afterwards see, was
merely a mutilated form of Luke's, and he was living when
Justin Martyr wrote his Apologies. " There is," says Justin,
" Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive,
and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater
than the Creator." ^ Allowmg time for the diffusion of his
opinions, the Gospel of Marcion cannot be placed later than
ten years before the time of Jjastin. The distinct references of
Justin Martyr himself (a.d. 150) to the Gospel of Luke are
very numerous. He does not indeed mention the name of
Luke, but his citations from the Gospel are unmistakable.
The following are the principal quotations : " The Virgin
Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced
the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would
come upon her." ^ " On the occasion of the first census which
was taken in Judtea under Cyrenius, Joseph went up from
Nazareth, where he dwelt, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged,
to be enrolled ; for his family was of the tribe of Judah,
which then inhabited that region." ^ " Jesus said to His
disciples, I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and

^ In Cliarteris' Canojiicity, testimonies are given from Barnabas, Ep.
xiv. 1 ; Clement of Rome, 1 Ep. xiii. 2, xlvi. 8, lix. 3 ; Hernias, Maud. v.
2. 7 ; tliese, however, cannot be depended on.

2 Justin, Apol. i. 26. ^ Dialog, c. I'njpho, ch. c.

•* Ibid. cli. Ixxviii.

GENUINENESS. 211

scorpions, and on all the might of the enemy " (Luke x.
19).^ " In the Memoirs, which were composed by His apostles
and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat
fell down like drops of blood while He prayed, saying, If
it be possible, let this cup pass " (Luke xxii. 42).^ " When
Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross. He said, ' Father,
into Thy hands I commend My spirit,' as I have learned from
the Memoirs" (Luke xxiii. 46).^ Tatian (a.d, 160) included
Luke's Gospel in his Diatessaron, a complete copy of which
has recently been discovered. In the Muratorian canon
(a.d, 170) the Gospel of Luke is thus mentioned: "The third
Gospel is according to Luke. Luke, a physician, whom Paul
after the ascension of Christ had chosen as a companion of his
journey, wrote this in his own name and according to his own
judgment ; yet he had not himself seen the Lord in the flesh.
Carrying his narrative as far back as he could obtain informa-
tion, he began from the birth of John." ^ In the Epistle of
the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (a.d. 177) there is a
reference to Luke's Gospel. " His (Vettius Epagathus) was
so consistent a life, that although young he had obtained a
reputation equal to that of the elder Zacharias, for he walked
in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blame-
less " (Luke i. 6).^ Celsus, who is generally supposed to have
lived about a.d. 178, refers to Luke's Gospel, when he adverts
to the genealogy of Christ being traced up to Adam.*^ The
first Father who mentions Luke as the author of the third
Gospel is Irenseus (a.d. 180). " Luke, the follower and the
disciple of the apostles, referring to Zacharias and Elizabeth,
from whom, according to promise, John was born, says : ' And
they were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.' " '^ And
again, " Now, if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not
know the truth, he will manifestly reject that Gospel of
which he claims to be a disciple." ^ Irenteus quotes the
fGospel of Luke about eigh ty ti mes. It is needless to pursue

^ Dialog, c. Trypho, cli. Ixxvi. ^ Ibid. ch. ciii.

^ Ibid. ch. cv. ■* Tregelles, Codex Muratorius.

^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 1. ^ Origen, Contra Celsum, ii. 32.

'' Irenseus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 10. 1. ^ Ibid. iii. 14. 3.

(^

212 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

the subject further, for after this there is no doubt or question
about Luke's authorship of the third Gospel.^

Another distinct line of argument is drawn from the
relation of the third Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles.
These writings profess to have the same author. In the Acts
the writer alludes to his former treatise. Both works are
addressed or dedicated to a certain Theophilus (Acts i. 1 ;
Luke i. 3). This identity of authorship was never called in
question by the early Church, and in modern times has been
admitted by scholars of all shades of opinion. Dr. Davidson
mentions no less than fort y-seven terms which occur in both
works, but nowhere else in~~tKe Kew Testament.^ De Wette
observes : " It is certain that the writer of the Acts is the
author of the third Gospel, and his peculiarity of style remams
the same in both works, and in the Acts of the Apostles from
the begmning to the end." ^ And so also Zeller remarks :
"The identity of the author of the two writings is raised to
such a height of probability that we have every reason to
consider it as historically proved."^ Admitting this identity
of authorship, it follows that the whole series of testimonies in
favour of the Acts can also be adduced in favour of the
genuineness of the third Gospel, Now the testimonies for
the Acts are strong and numerous. It is quoted or referred
to by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians,'' in the
Epistle to the Churches of Lyons and Vienne,^ by Irenreus,^
Clemens Alexandrinus,^ Tertullian,^ Origen,^° and subsequent
Fathers. Eusebius places both the Gospel of Luke and the
Acts among those books which are universally acknowledged.^*

^ Luke's Gospel is also frequently quoted in tlie Clementine Homilies
(A.D. 160-170).

2 Davidson's Introduction to the N.T. vol. ii. 8. See also Davidson's
Introduction to the Study of the N.T. vol. ii. p. 151, 3rd ed., and Zeller's
Apostelgeschichte, pp. 414-425.

^ De Wette's Ajwstelgeschichtc, p. 10.

* Zeller's.(4ds of the Apostles, translation, vol. ii. 213 ; Apostelgeschichtey,
p. 442.

* Ep. ad Philipp. cli. i. "^ Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. v. 1
' Adv. Hcer. iii. 14. 1. * Stromata, v. 12.

' De Jejuniis, ch. x. ^'^ Eusebius, HiM. Eccl. vi. 25.

11 Ibid. iii. 4.

GENUINENESS. 213

Olshausen has good reason for the assertion : " In the primitive
Church there was no opposition either to Luke's Gospel or to
the Acts of the Apostles." ^

In recent times the Gospel of Luke has been more or
less disputed, especially by Eichhorn, who supposed it to be
an enlargement of the Gospel of Marcion ; by those critics
belonging to the early Tubingen school who placed the time
of its composition about the middle of the second century ;
and by many of those theologians who have adopted the
so-called twofold documentary hypothesis concerning the
origin of the Synoptic Gospels. There have also been special
objections adduced against the genuineness of this Gospel, as,
for example, the apparently mythical account of the birth of
Christ and its supposed discrepancy with the account given
by Matthew, a subject which has already been discussed ; ^
the apparent contradiction between the genealogies of Christ
given by Matthew and Luke, which is reserved for a separate
dissertation ; and the supposed erroneous historical statement
concerning the enrolment made by Cyrenius, governor of
Syria (Luke ii. 1), which will be considered when we treat
of the chronology of the Gospels.

The chief, or at least the most noteworthy, objection
brought against the genuineness of Luke's Gospel is its
relation to the Gospel of Marcion, of which several critics
consider that it is merely an amplification. On account of
its importance and the interest connected with it, we shall
examine this subject in detail.^

Marcion, one of the most notorious, and in several
^ Olshausen, On the Gospel and the Ads, vol. i. p. xli.

2 See supra, pp. 135 ft".

3 The chief works on the relation of Marcion's Gospel to that of Luke,
are Hahn's Evangelium Marcion, contained in the Codex Apocryphus N. T,
of Thilo, pp. 401-486 (Leipsic, 1833) ; Ritschl's Das Evangelium Marcions
und das hanonische Evangelium Lukas (Tubingen,' 1846) ; Volkmar, Das
Evangelium Marcions (Leipsic, 1852) ; Ronsch, Das Neue Testamentum
Tertullian, 1871 ; Baring Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels, pp. 235-277
(London, 1874) ; Hill's Marcion's Gospel (Guernsey, 1893). The subject
is also more or less discussed in Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i.
pp. 138-154 ; in an elaborate article on Marcion, by Professor Salmon, in
Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography ; in Professor Sanday's Gospels
of the Second Century ; in an article on Gnosis in Herzog's Real-Encyclopddie,

214 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

respects one of the most interesting of the early heretics,
was a contemporary of Justin Martyr, and wrote about
A.D. 140. He was a native of Sinope, in the province of
Pontus, of which town his father was bishop. A Christian
by birth, he received a thorough Christian education, as is
proved by his writings. Perplexed with the existence of
evil under the government of a good and holy God of infinite
power and wisdom, he fell into heresy, and became a disciple
of the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo, whose system he developed.
" Cerdo," says Irenseus, " taught that the God proclaimed by
the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ. The former was known, the latter unknown ;
the one was righteous, the other benevolent. Marcion of
Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine." ^ About
A.D. 140 he followed Cerdo to Home, where he was excom-
municated on account of his erroneous opinions, and in con-
sequence formed a sect of his own. Irenseus informs us
that he met with Polycarp at Eome, and, wishing to procure
the recognition of that Father, asked him. Dost thou know
me ? to whom Polycarp replied, I recognise thee as the
firstborn of Satan.^ There does not appear to have been
anything immoral in his teaching, nor, so far as appears, in
his conduct.^ Unlike many of the early heretics, his doctrine
was moral ; he even carried asceticism to an imwarrantable
extent, not only inculcating abstinence from the use of wine and
animal food, except fish, but forbidding his disciples to marry.
In the early centuries Marcionism was diffused throughout the
Christian Church by reason of its plausibility and the high
morality and self-denial which it inculcated. There was a
regular Church formed, with its bishops and presbyters.
Epiphanius tells us that besides Eome, where it was at first
promulgated, it spread into Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria,
Cyprus, and Persia. It gradually disappeared in the fourth
century, owing to the rise and growth of Manichoeanism, a

2nd ed. vol. v. pp. 231-236, hy Jacobi ; and in Ilarnack's Quellenkritik
ties Gnosticismus.

1 Irena3us, Adv. Hcer. i. 27. 1. ^ Ibid. iii. 3. 4.

3 The charge of youthful incontinence brought against him is not con-
finned by Irenjeus or Tertullian.

GENUINENESS. 215

system which it closely resembled, and on account of the
repressive measures of Constantine and his successors.

Marcion is generally reckoned among the earliest of the
Gnostic heretics. And certainly many of his doctrines, such
as the difference between the supreme God and the Creator,
and the docetic nature of Christ, are tenets of Gnosticism.
But in his system he does not recognise the Gnostic aeons,
as the connecting links between the supreme God and the
world ; nor is there any mixture of heathen philosophy and
Oriental speculation, as is the case with all other Gnostic
systems.'^ He contemplated religion from a Christian stand-
point. He asserted that the evil which was in the world
could not possibly have arisen under the government of a
good God ; and that consequently there was a difference
between God the Creator of the world, the Demiurge
(Srjfxiovpjo^) of the Gnostics, and the supreme God. In
short, he taught that there were two Gods. The Creator
was an inferior being to the God of the Gospel, but not, as
some of the Gnostics taught, an evil principle. His inferi-
ority consisted in defect ; He was limited in power and
knowledge, and even goodness.^ Hence there was a certain
difference, often amounting to antagonism, between the Old
Testament and the New. The God of the Old Testament
was the Creator, whilst the God of the New Testament was
the supreme God ; the God of the Old Testament was the
God of justice, the God of the New Testament was the God
of love.^ The law was opposed to the Gospel ; the prophets

1 As Mansel observes: " Marcion is the least Gnostic of all the Gnostics."
The Gnostic Heresies, p. 218. " Marcion," says Harnack, " put all emphasis
on faith, not on Gnosis." History of Dogma, vol. i. p. 266.

2 For these tenets of Marcion, see the account of Marcion and his doc-
trines in Mansel's Gnostic Heresy, lect. xiii. ; Salmon's article on Marcion
in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography. " Marcion," says Irenseus,
" advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as
God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils,
to delight in war, to be infirm of purjjose, and even to be contrary to
Himself." Adv. Hcer. i. 27. 2.

^ Thus he observes : " ' Thou shall love thy neighbour and hate thine
enemy,' was the command of the just God; 'Love thine enemies,' was
the law of the good God. ' An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'
was the retributive law of the just God ; ' If any smite thee on the right

216 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

of the Old Testament were not the inspired servants of the
supreme God, but the servants of the Demiurge. The
supreme God was unknown until Christ revealed Him : " No
man has known the Father but the Son, and he to whom
the Son will reveal Him." And as there were two Gods, so,
according to Marcion, there were two Messiahs — the Messiah
of the prophets and the Messiah of the New Testament.
The Jewish Messiah was to be a victorious King ; the Chris-
tian Messiah was to be a suffering Saviour. The one was to
rule the nations with a rod of iron, the other was to die as a
sacrifice for sin. The one was to be the Deliverer of Israel,
the other was to be the Saviour of the world. Jesus came
not to fulfil, but to abolish the law and the prophets and the
works of the Creator of the world.^ In conformity with
these views and his opposition to the Jewish religion,
Marcion considered Paul, on account of his conflict with the
Judaising Christians, as the only true apostle. Hence he
accepted only ten Epistles of Paul, and rejected all the other
books of the New Testament, with the exception of the Gospel
of Luke, as infected with Judaism. Such a system, at once
compact and consistent, was violently opposed by the early
Fathers. Justm Martyr and Irenseus both wrote against it ;
but the chief opponents of Marcion were Tertullian ^ and
Epiphanius.

But it is the Gospel of Marcion that we have especially
to consider, and its relation to the Gospel of Luke. Besides
a work termed avTideaet^;, containing a series of antitheses
between the Old Testament, the revelation of the Creator or
the God of justice, and the New Testament, the revelation
of the supreme God or the God of love, Marcion wrote a
gospel. It is no longer extant, but we have numerous

cheek, turn to liini the other also,' was the command of the good
God."

1 So Irenaius asserts that Marcion taught that " Jesus was manifested
in the form of a man to tliose who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets
and the law and all the work of that God who made the world." — Adv.
Hcer. i. 27. 2.

2 Tertullian wrote a special work against Marcion, in which he employs
all his vehemence and eloquence. In this he is followed by Epiphanius,
who, however, wrote independently of Tertullian.

GENUINENESS. 217

extracts from it in the writings of Tertullian and Epiphanius.
From these extracts it appears that it bears a very close
resemblance to our canonical Gospel of Luke. Marcion entitled
it " the Gospel of the Lord " {To evayiyeXcov rov Kvpcov), being,
as he supposed, the true Gospel of Christ — the Gospel of
the God of love. It commences with the words : " In the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Csesar, Pontius Pilate
being governor of Judaea, Jesus ^ came down to Capernaum, a
city of Galilee, and was teaching on the Sabbath day ; and
they were astonished at His doctrine, for His word was with
authority" (comp. Luke iii. 1, iv. 31, 32). In this Gospel
Jesus suddenly appears in the world.^ There is no mention
of His birth, for this is opposed to the Docetic views of
Marcion ; nor of His baptism, as the Baptist was regarded as
a prophet of the Old Testament. The Gospel of Luke is
strictly followed throughout ; and, in general, the same order
is preserved. There are no statements of incidents or dis-
courses which are not found in Luke's Gospel ; there are
indeed numerous omissions, but two-thirds of Luke's Gospel
are preserved, though in an altered form. The omissions are
generally accounted for by Marcion's peculiar views ; all those
passages being omitted which would seem to recognise the
divine origin of the Jewish religion.^ Sometimes, however,
no reason can be assigned for the omission, as, for example, in
the case of the parable of the Prodigal Son, which one would
think to be rather in favour of Marcion's conception of the
God of the New Testament as the God of love. There are
also numerous verbal alterations, most of which can be
explained by Marcion's peculiar views.^ Several attempts
have been made at the reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel

^ For Jesus, Halin and Westcott read God, namely, the good God, as
distinguished from the Creator.

2 Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. iv. 7.

^ The omissions of Marcion are the following : Luke i., ii., iii.,
iv. 1-15, xiii. 1-9, xiii. 29-35, xv. 11-32, xviii. 31-34, xix. 29-48,
XX. 9-18, xxii. 35-38, xxii. 49-51, xxiv. 48-53.

* There is in Marcion's Gospel a curious alteration in the Lord's
Prayer. Marcion has, " Father, may Thy Holy Spirit come upon us,"
instead of, " Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name."
Baring-Gould's Lost and Hostile Gosijels, p. 252. Hill's Marcion^s Gospel,

218 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

from the numerous quotations given from it by Tertullian and
Epiphanius, and from their remarks, as both these Fathers
criticise that Gospel passage by passage.^ In this manner
we can ascertain with tolerable certainty what passages of
Luke's Gospel are omitted and what are retained, as well as in
what parts the Gospel of Marcion differs from our third Gospel.
The question arises. What is the relation between the
Gospel of Marcion and our canonical Gospel of Luke ? Is
Marcion's Gospel merely a mutilation of Luke's, made witli
the purpose of making it correspond with his heretical views ?
Or, Is the Gospel of Marcion the prior or original Gospel, of
which our third Gospel is an expansion and recension ? Is it
the first edition, so to speak, of Luke's Gospel ? On this
point the Fathers are unanimous ; they with one voice accuse
Marcion of mutilating the Gospel of Luke. Thus Irenaeus
says : " Marcion mutilates the Gospel which is according to
Luke, removing from it all that is written respecting the
generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the
teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most
clearly confessing that the Maker of the universe is His
Father." ^ And Tertullian observes : " It is certain that
Marcion has erased everything that was contrary to his own
opinion and in favour of the Creator, as if it had been inter-
polated, whilst anything that agreed with his own opinion he
has retained." ^ Some modern critics have, however, impugned
these statements, and asserted that they proceeded from pre-
judice ; and that Marcion's Gospel is an original work, and
the chief source from which our Gospel of Luke was composed.
The first who adopted this view was Semler, and he has been
followed by Eichhorn and his school, as this opinion was
favourable to their hypothesis of original documents. After-
wards this opinion was at one time maintained by Baur,*

p. 25. Halm, however, gives the words as they are found in our Gospel.
See Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. iv. 2G.

^ This was done by Hahn, Evanyelium Marcionis ex midoritate veterum
monumcntorum ; inserted in Thilo's Codex Apocnjphiis Novi Testamentiy
pp. 401-486. Hill's Marcionis Gospel is an English translation of the
work of Hahn with some variations.

2 Adv. Hcer. i. 27. 2. ^ Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. iv. 6.

* Marcusevaityelium, pp. 191 11'.

GENUINENESS. 219

Kitschl/ Schwegler,^ and other critics belonging to the early
Tubingen school.^ But, on the other hand, strange to say,
the strongest advocate in favour of the patristic opinion, that
Marcion's Gospel was a mutilation of Luke's, was Volkmar,*
one of the most pronounced disciples of the Tubingen school 5
and he so convincingly vindicated this view, that most of his
opponents were gained over and retracted their opinions.
Thus Eitschl says : " The hypothesis propounded by me, that
Marcion did not alter the Gospel of Luke, but that his Gospel
is a step towards the canonical Luke, I regard as refuted by
Volkmar and Hilgenfeld." ^ So also Zeller, belonging to the
Tiibingen school, observes : " We may admit as proved and
generally accepted, not only that Marcion made use of an
older Gospel, but further, that he recomposed, modified, and
often abridged it, and that this older Gospel was essentially
none other than that of Luke." ^ Professor Sanday, by a
minute critical examination, has proved that the passages
omitted by Marcion are written by the same author as those
which are retained.'^ In consequence of this examination the
author of Supernatural Religion also acknowledged that he
was in error in holding that Marcion's Gospel was the
original.^ The only theologian, so far as we are aware, who
still maintains the paradoxical opmion of the priority of
Marcion's Gospel is Baring-Gould. " The Gospel of our Lord,"
he observes, " if not the original Luke Gospel, — and this is
probable, — was the basis of Luke's compilation. But that it
was Luke's first edition of his Gospel, drawn up when St. Paul
was actively engaged in founding the Asiatic Churches, is the
view I am disposed to take of it. . . . All these facts point to

^ Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des
Lucas.

2 Nachaposfol. Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 260.

3 See Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. pp. 143, 144, notes; and
Meyer's Commentary on Luke, vol. i. p. 264, Eemark 2, Englisli transla-
tion.

* Das Evangelium Marcions.

^ Theolog. Jahrbuch, 1851, pp. 528 f., quoted by Meyer.

^ Zeller's Apostelgeschichte, pp. 11-26 : translation, vol. i. pp. 99 ff.

'' Sanday's Gospels of the Second Century, pp. 204-237, and pi"». 362-372.

® Salmon's Introduction to the N. T. p. 245.

I

220 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

Marcion's Gospel as the original Luke, not, however, quite as
it came to Marcion, but edited by the heretic."^

It may now be considered as demonstrated that the Gospel
of Marcion is a mutilation of the Gospel of Luke. He first
formed his own opinions on the opposition between the Old
and New Testaments, — the difference between the God of
creation and the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, —
the antithesis between Judaism and Christianity, and selected
the Gospel of Luke as the Gospel which appeared to him
best suited for his purpose, and by omissions and alterations
adapted it to his opinions. As Bleek observes : " He excludes
all passages in which the Gospel history is brought into
harmony with the Old Testament revelation, in which the
New Testament is represented as the fulfilment of the Old
Testament prophecies, in which Christ is described as spring-
ing from the Jewish nation and of human parentage and
partaker of human weaknesses, in which Christ describes God,
after the manner of the Old Testament, as an avenging Judge." ^
The following alterations will illustrate the method on which
Marcion proceeded. The words, " When ye see Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God "
(xiii. 28), are changed into, "When you shall see all the
righteous (jravTa^; tov<; Sifcalov^) in the kingdom of God."
The declaration of our Lord, " It is easier for heaven and
earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail "
(xvi. 17), is altered into, " It is easier for heaven and earth to
pass away, even as the law and the prophets have passed away,
than for one tittle of My words to fail." And the address of
our Lord to the disciples going to Emmaus, " foolish men,
and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have
spoken" (xxiv. 25), is transformed into, "0 foolish men, and
slow of heart to believe in all that He spoke to you." ^

Another objection brought against the Gospel of Luke
is its alleged Ebionite tendency.* It is asserted that this

^ Lost and Hostile Gospels, pp. 275, 27G.

2 Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. p. 149. See also Sanday,
Gospels of the Second Century, p. 219.

3 See Hill's Mairion's Gospel. Halin's Evamjclium Marcionh.

* See Dr. Colin CaiupbeU's Critical Studies in St. Luke ; also Renan'a

AUTHOR. 221

Gospel, or at least a considerable portion of it, is the work
of an Ebionite. By this is not meant, as the term Ebionite
usually denotes,^ the maintenance of a Jewish form of
Christianity, the direct opposite of Marcionism, which is
certainly not taught in Luke's Gospel, but the exaltation of
poverty and the denunciation of riches. The reasons for
this opinion are, that throughout this Gospel poverty
is praised, whilst riches are denounced. Thus in the
beatitudes the words are : " Blessed are ye poor : for yours
is the kingdom of God" (vi. 20), without the restriction
found in Matthew's Gospel : " Blessed are the poor in spirit."
A woe is pronounced upon the rich : " Woe unto you that
are rich : for ye have received your consolation " (vi. 24) ;
in the parable of the Eich Man and Lazarus, the rich man
is condemned apparently on account of his riches, and
Lazarus is saved apparently on account of his poverty and
wretchedness ; the rich young ruler is told that in order
to inherit eternal life he must sell all that he has and
give it to the poor ; and the widow woman is commended
for casting in her mite into the treasury. Now it is true
that this Gospel may, in a peculiar sense, be styled " the
Gospel of the poor " : its consolations are peculiarly addressed
to them. But the passages adduced are too few to
warrant the conclusion that the Gospel of Luke was com-
posed with a special tendency to exalt poverty and to
promote asceticism. Zacchseus, the rich publican, is com-
mended : of him it is said that salvation has come into his house.

II. The Authoe of the Gospel.

In the Greek manuscripts this Gospel is entitled,
evayyeXiov Kara Aovkclv or simply Kara Aovkclv. The(
earliest Fathers who quote this Gospel do not assign it tcJ
any particular person. The first assertion of the authorship

Introduction to the Vie de Jesus, and Davidson's Introduction to the N.T.
3rd ed. vol. i. pp. 404 ff.

1 The Ebionites were a Jewish Christian sect who seceded from the
Church about the middle of the second century. They considered the
Jewish law still binding, and held low views of the nature of Christ.

222 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

of Luke which we meet with, is in the Muratorian canon and
in the writings of Irenteus.

The name Lucas is a contraction of Lucanus, as Silas is
of Silvanus. Luke is not to be confounded with Lucius, one
of the teachers in the Church of Antioch (Acts xiii, 1), nor
with Lucius, mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans
(Rom. xvi. 21), as the names are entirely different. He is
thrice mentioned by Paul in his Epistles (Col. iv. 14;
Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11). Some suppose that he is also
alluded to in 2 Cor. viii. 18, where Paul says: "We have
sent together with him (Titus) the brother whose praise in
the Gospel is spread through all the Churches ; and not only
so, but who was also appointed by the Churches to travel
with us in the matter of this grace " : not because there is
any allusion in the words, " whose praise is in the Gospel,"
to the Gospel of Luke, but because Luke was one of the
deputies of the Churches who went with Paul to Jerusalem ;
and he might have been sent along with Titus to take
charge of the contribution of the Church of Corinth. We
are ignorant of the birthplace of Luke. Eusebius, Jerome,
and Nicephorus inform us that this was Antioch ; ^ but this
may have arisen from confounding him with Lucius of
Gyrene (Acts xiii. 1); others fix on Troas, because there he
first joined the apostle ; and others, as Greswell, conjecture
that he was an inhabitant of Philippi, because, according to
the narrative of the Acts, he appears to have resided there for
several years. From a statement made by Paul (comp. Col. iv.
1 1 with ver. 1 4), he appears to have been a Gentile by birth.
The purity of his Greek, and the comparative absence of
Hebraisms, are in favour of his Gentile origin, though these
may be accounted for on the supposition that he was a
Hellenistic Jew. It is doubtful whether he was a proselyte
to Judaism before his conversion to Christianity, as Jerome
asserts, and as his acquaintance with Jewish rites and
ordinances would seem to imply. Paul calls him " Luke, the
beloved physician " (Col. iv. 1 4) ; and some think that there
are proofs of his medical knowledge to be found in his
writings from the precise and exact manner in which he
^ Eiisel)ius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 4.

AUTHOE, 223

speaks of diseases and miracles of healing : i as that Peter's
mother-in-law was afflicted with a great fever {irvpeTw
fieydXa), Elymas was struck with blindness (d'^\v<i), a
technical term (Acts xiii. 11), and the father of Publius lay-
sick of fevers and dysentery (Trf/oerot? kuI hvaevTeplw, Acts
xxviii. 8) ; but the argument from these and similar ex-
pressions is overdrawn. Grotius supposes that Luke was
originally a slave, because the most eminent physicians
mentioned in Roman history were of this class : ^ but there
is no ground for this supposition, as among the Greeks the
medical profession was highly esteemed and i)ractised by
men of liberal education.

We learn from the Acts that Luke was the companion
of Paul. The author of the Acts joined Paul on his missionary
journeys at Troas, when the style of narrative changes from
the indirect to the direct form : instead of the third, the
first person pronoun is employed (Acts xvi. 10). He
passed with the apostle into Macedonia, and was with him
at Philippi (Acts xvi. 11, 13). Here he appears to have
remained behind, for the narrative again changes from the
first to the third person ; and it is not until Paul's return,
seven years after, to Philippi that the direct form is resumed
(Acts XX. 6). Hence it is with some probability assumed
that Luke remained at Philippi. He was doubtless one of
the messengers of the Churches who accompanied the apostle
on his last momentous journey to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 1,
15, 17). Probably he remained with Paul during his
imprisonment of two years at Ctesarea, for he sailed with
him from that city to Eome (Acts xxvii. 1—3, xxviii. 16).
He was with the apostle during his first Eoman imprison-
ment, when Paul wrote the Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon (Col. iv. 11; Philem. 24), and was also with
him during his second Eoman imprisonment, remaining with
him to the close of his life (2 Tim. iv. 11). "He was,"
says Irenseus, " always attached to and inseparable from Paul."^

^ Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke.

2 As Antestius the physician of Jiiiius Caesar, and Antoninus Musa
the physician of Augustus.

3 Adv. Hkt. ill. 14. 1,

224 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

We have few notices of Luke in the patristic writings
and in the early ecclesiastical histories, and all of them are of
a legendary character, Epiphanius informs us that he was
one of the seventy disciples, probably because it is only in
the Gospel of Luke that the mission of the seventy is
recorded ; but this statement is refuted by Luke himself,
who in the preface to his Gospel evidently implies that he
was not one of our Lord's immediate followers (Luke i. 1-3).
For the same reason the plausible assertion of Theophylact,
that he was one of the disciples going to Emmaus to whom
Jesus after His resurrection revealed Himself, is to be rejected.
The tradition that he was a painter rests on the authority of
Nicephorus of the fourteenth century, and is entitled to no
credit.^ It seems to have arisen from a rude picture of the
Virgin being found in the Catacombs with the inscription that
it was one of the seven painted by Luca. According to
Epiphanius, he preached the gospel in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy,
and Macedonia. According to Jerome, he died a natural
death in the eighty -fourth year of his age. Gregory Nazianzen
reckons him among the martyrs ; and according to Nicephorus
he returned to Greece, where he suffered martyrdom by being
hanged on an olive tree in the eightieth year of his age.
His remains were removed to Constantinople by the order of
Constantine.^

As, according to the Fathers, there was a close connec-
tion between the Apostle Peter and the evangelist Mark,
so they held that there was a similar connection between
Paul and Luke. The Gospel of Luke was regarded by them
in a certain sense as the Gospel of Paul. Thus Ireuceus
observes : " Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel preached by him." ^ Tertullian says : " Men
usually ascribe Luke's form of the Gospel to Paul."* And
Origen writes : " Among the four Gospels which are the only
indisputable ones in the Church of God, I have learned by

^ Nicephorus, Ifist. Eccl. iii. 4.

2 See Bariiig-Ouuld's Lives of the Saints, October 18 ; Winer's Biblisches
EealwiJrterbuch ; Cave's Lives of the Apostles.

3 Irenoeus, Adv. Hccr. iii. 1. 1.

"• Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. iv. 5.

SOUKCES. 225

tradition . . . that the third was written by Luke, the
Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile
converts." ^ The Gospel of Luke was not, however, so
closely dependent on Paul as that of Mark was on Peter.
Paul was not himself a follower of Christ when He was in
this world, and although he may have materially assisted
Luke in the composition of his Gospel by suggestions and by
information imparted, yet the evangelist must have derived
his facts from other sources, and must have been in direct
communication with those who were the immediate followers
of the Lord. There is undoubtedly a closer connection
with the Pauline phase of doctrine in this Gospel than
in the other Gospels. The account of the institution of the
Lord's Supper, as given by Luke, bears a close resemblance
to that given by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians
(compare Luke xxii. 19, 20 with 1 Cor. xi. 23-25). The
Fathers in general supposed that when Paul speaks of " his
Gospel" (Eom. ii. 16, xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8), he means the
Gospel of Luke, composed as they imagined under his superin-
tendence. Thus Eusebius says : " They say (^aai) that Paul
meant to refer to Luke's Gospel whenever, as if speaking of
some Gospel of his own, he used the words ' according to my
Gospel.' " ^ And the same remark is made by Jerome :
" Some suppose that whenever Paul in his Epistles makes
use of the expression ' according to my Gospel,' he means
Luke's writing." ^ All this is mere supposition, as these
Fathers themselves seem to imply, and is unsupported by
any evidence.

III. Sources of Luke's Gospel.

On this point we have some solid ground to go. In
his preface, Luke gives us information of the sources from
which he derived his Gospel : " Forasmuch as many have
taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those
matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they
delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-^'f

1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25. 2 jbid. iii. 4.

^ Jerome, De vir. illustr. cli. vii.

IS

226 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me
also, having traced the course of all things accurately from
the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent
Theophilus ; that thou mightest know the certainty con-
cerning the things wherein thou wast instructed " (Luke
i. 1—4). From these words it is evident that the evangelist
affirms that he himself was not an eye- and ear-witness of
the works and discourses of the Lord, for he evidently dis-
tinguishes himself from those who were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word. At the same time, he asserts that he
was fully qualified to write an account of the actions of Christ ;
that he possessed sufficient knowledge ; that he had traced
the course of all things accurately (a/cpi;Sw?) from the begin-
nmg. He mentions two sources of information which he pos-
sessed. The first w as the oral information which he received
from his intercourse with those who had been with Christ — the
apostles and disciples of the Lord. This he would carefully
ascertain, and under the guidance of the Spirit of God commit
to writing. And the second source of information was the
narratives of those who were the followers of Christ, many of
i which had been committed to writing; there were not only oral
traditions, but written documents, to which he could refer.

The first source of Luke's information was oral tradition.
Here Luke had peculiar advantages. He appears to have
been for a considerable period resident in Judiea, in all
probability during Paul's two years' imprisonment at C;vsarea.
He would thus come into direct contact with many wlio had
been the actual followers of Christ ; most probably with
some of the apostles, and certainly with James the Lord's
brother, the so-called bishop of Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 18), and
with Philip the evangelist, whom he met at Cuesarea (Acts
xxi. 8). He had also the advantage of the information
which Paul could impart to him, for that apostle must have
had frequent communication with the original apostles.
The account whicli Luke gives of the birth of John the
Baptist, of the visit of the angel to the Virgin, and of the
circumstances attending the birth of the Lord and His
presentation in the temple, might have been obtained by
him, either from Mary herself, or from James and the other

SOURCES. 227

brethren of our Lord. As he himself tells us, he used the
greatest diligence in the collection of the facts and sayings of
our Lord.

The other source of information consisted of written
documents, These, he asserts, were numerous. " Many
(ttoWol) have taken in hand to draw up a narrative." We
have already had occasion to remark that such evangelical
fragments would be abundant in the early Church. Of these
Luke would make a careful selection, guided in doing so by
a higher wisdom than his own. As we have already stated,
he might have had access to a narrative, either oral or
written, which does not appear to have been used by the
other two evangelists, the so-called Persean section (Luke ix.
51-xviii. 41).^ These documents Luke would not employ
slavishly, but freely, working them into his narrative. Accord-
ing to Schle iermacher : " Luke is from the beginning to end
no more than a compiler and arranger of documents which
he found in existence, and which he allows to pass unaltered
through his hands." " His great merit consists in this, that
he has admitted scarcely any pieces but what are peculiarly
genuine and good." ^ But this is a most erroneous view of
the formation of the Gospel of Luke, and is refuted by the
uniformity of style and diction which pervades the whole book,
as well as the Acts of the Apostles, proving the unity of author-
ship, and the freedom w^ith which the author used his materials.

It is, however, a very difficult question to determine how / i
far the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are to be classed /
among the documentary sources of Luke's Gospel. We have
already discussed the subject when considering the sources
of the Synoptic Gospels,^ and found it one of extreme diffi-
culty, hardly admitting of a satisfactory solution. There
is nothing incredible in the supposition that Luke made use
of these Gospels, as we consider that they were previously
written. But we found that there were reasons for calling

1 See swpra, pp. 34, 35.

2 Schleiermaclier's Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke, translated
by Tliirlwall, pp. 313, 314. See also Kenan's Life of Jesus, ]). xlviii,
English translation.

^ See supra, pp. 48, 49.

228 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

in questiou his use of Matthew's Gospel, especially on account
of the differences in the genealogies and in the narrations of
the bu'th of Christ and of His resurrection in the two
Gospels ; and we are disposed to infer that Luke had not
access to Matthew's Gospel. But it is otherwise with the
Gospel of Mark. Considering the similarity of the incidents
recorded and of the chronological order of the narrative, and
the frequent identity of expression, the probability, amounting
however by no means to certainty, is that the narrative of
Luke is to a certain extent dependent on the Gospel of
Mark.^ There is nothing in the preface of Luke to forbid
this ; there is no condemnation in it, as some think, of the
previous narratives that were undertaken. At the same
time, it must be admitted that there are portions of Mark's
Gospel wanting in Luke which we would not expect to have
been omitted had Luke that Gospel before him ; not only
those few parts that are peculiar to Mark, but other portions
which are inserted in Matthew's Gospel, but wanting in
Luke. All these reasons for and against must leave the
question under considerable uncertainty.

IV. Design of the Gospel.

Both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts are addressed to
a certain Theophilus (Luke i. 3 ; Acts i. 1). The epithet
Kparta-To<i, most nolle, preiixed in the Gospel to his name,
seems to intimate that he was a person of rank, as this is
an epithet which generally refers, not to character, but to
station. It is the same epithet which is given by Claudius
Lysias and Tertullus to Felix (Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3), and
by Paul to Festus (Acts xxvi. 25). Theophilus was evidently
a Christian, as it is stated that he had been a catechumen,
fully instructed (KaTTjxv^Vi) in the religion of Christ. Some
of the Fathers (Origen, Ambrose, Epiphanius) suppose that

1 Meyer observes : " One of his (Luke's) pruicipal dociiinentary sources
was the Gospel of Mark. Assuming this, as in view of the priority of
Mark among the three Synoptics it must of necessity be assumed, it may
be matter of doubt whether Matthew also in his present form was made
use of by him or not." On Luke, vol. i. j). 2G1.

DESIGN. 229

the word is not a proper name, but an appellative, denoting
a lover of God, and applicable to every Christian reader ; but
its occurrence in two historical works refutes this opinion.
Others (Michaelis,^ Theodore Hase), wishing to identify him
with some historical character, suppose that he may have
been the same as Theophilus, the son of Annas, the high
priest, who was deposed by King Agrippa,^ and that the
third Gospel and the Acts were apologies for Christianity, —
an extravagant opinion, at variance with the dedication of
the Gospel, which implies that Theophilus was a Christian.
Some think that he was a native of Alexandria, and others a
native of Italy ; in all probability he was a Greek Christian
of some position and influence.
[; The immediate design of the Gospel was, according to the

[preface, that Theophilus might know the certainty of those
things wherein he was instructed. But this address to
Theophilus must be considered rather as a dedication of the
work than a statement of its nature and contents. The i
ijGospel was written for the purpose of giving an authoritative)
//account of the ministry of Jesus for the instruction oil,
I Christians, and especially of Gentile Christians. "Luke,'''
' says Origen, " composed his Gospel for Gentile converts."
This statement is seen to be correct from an examination of
its contents. There are explanations of Jewish customs and
localities which would have been unnecessary for Jews, but
necessary for those who were ignorant of the religious
customs of the Jews and of the geography of the Holy Land.
Thus we are informed that the Feast of Unleavened Bread is
called the Passover; that Nazareth and Capernaum are
cities of Galilee ; that the country of the Gadarenes lies over
against Galilee ; that Arimathea is a city of the Jews ; and
that the village of Emmaus is about threescore furlongs
from Jerusalem.^ In his genealogy Luke traces the descent
of Jesus not only to Abraham, at which point Matthew stops,
but to Adam, the father of the human race. There are
numerous references to the Gentiles and the uon- Jewish

1 Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 239, 2nd ed.

2 Josephus, A7it. xviii. 5. 3, xix. 6. 2.

^ Davidsou's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. p. 186.

230 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

races ; Christ was to be a light for revelation to the Gentiles
(Luke ii. 32); it was a Samaritan who is represented as
having had compassion on tlie man wlio fell among thieves ;
and the leper, who only among those who were cleansed
returned to express his gratitude, was a Samaritan. As the
Gospel of Matthew was addressed chiefly to Jewish readers,
so the Gospel of Luke was addressed chiefly to Gentile
readers. The one may be called the Gospel of the circum-
cision, and the other the Gospel of the uncircumcision.

V. The Language of the Gospel.

The Greek of Luke, both in his Gospel and in the Acts
of the Apostles, is comparatively pure. The evangelist has
great mastery of the language, and is very copious in his
use of words. It has often been remarked that the purity
of the preface approaches classical Greek ; and in the nar-
rative itself, when he writes with freedom and independence,
the style and diction are generally pure and correct. The
'ebraisms are chiefly restricted to those passages where it would

,ppear that the author uses oral tradition, or has recourse to
•itten documents. Thus the first two chapters of the Gospel

-re full of Hebraic expressions. So also the second part of
the Acts of the Apostles is purer than the first, because Luke
there wrote from his own observation, and was less dependent
on the writings of others.

There is a remarkable individuality in the style and
diction of Luke. This has been carefully examined by several
writers, especially by Credner and Dr. Samuel Davidson.
Credner mentions sixty-five linguistic peculiarities in the
writings of Luke, including both the Acts and the Gospel,
whilst Dr. Davidson increases the number to 123.^ The
following are the most remarkable of these peculiarities
mentioned by these critics. The frequent use of Kaphia,
answering to the Hebrew use of 3? ; oIko<; in the sense of
household or family ; vofitKoi is used six times for the
customary ypafifji.aTei<; as being more familiar to the Greeks ;

' Crcflncr's Fjinlntumj in das N.T. p. 130 ff. ; Davidson's Introduction
to the Stiidy of the N.T. vol. i. pp. 438-447, 3rd ed.

CHARACTEEISTICS, 231

for the same reason eVto-TaT?^? is used six times instead
of the Hebrew pa^/Bl ; the Sea of Galilee is called Xi^vq
instead of QcCkaada, as in the other Gospels ; the preposition
avv is used in preference to /u-era, employed by Matthew and
Mark ; Jerusalem is commonly written 'lepovaaXij/j, instead
of 'lepovcroXv^a, as in the other Gospels, except Matt, xxiii. 37 ;
ivcoTTiov, leforc, occurs twenty times in Luke's Gospel, but never
in Matthew or Mark ; euayyeXl^o/nat often occurs, but is only
once used by Matthew, and never by Mark or John ; x^^P'''^ ^^
frequently used by Luke, but never by Matthew or Mark ;
when speaking of Christ, Luke often calls Him 6 Kvpio^;
(vii. 13, 31, x. 1, xi. 39, xxii. 61), — a title which is not used
by Matthew, and only twice by Mark in the disputed verses
at the close of his Gospel (Mark xvi. 19, 20). A long list of
words, extending over three and a half pages, is given by
Dr. Davidson, used only by Luke among the Synoptists.-^ Dr.
Schaff observes : " The vocabulary of Luke considerably
exceeds that of the other evangelists ; he has about 180
terms which occur in his Gospel alone, and nowhere else in
the New Testament; while Matthew has only about 70,
Mark 44, and John 50 peculiar words. Luke's Gospel has
55, and the Acts 135 aira^ Xeyo/xeva, and among them many
verbal compounds and rare technical terms." ^ All this shows
the command which Luke had of the Greek language ; thus
confirming the opinion, that of all the writers of the New
Testament he alone was not a Hebrew or Hellenistic Jew,
but a Greek by birth.

VI. The Characteristics of the Gospel.

Luke's Gospel has many peculiar characteristics. Among
these may be mentioned its completeness. It begins with the
birth of Christ, or rather with the Annunciation, follows Him
through all the stages of life, and terminates with His
Ascension. Luke alone gives us the account of the Annuncia-
tion, and narrates the birth of our Lord at Bethlehem

1 Dr. Davidson's Introduction to the Stuchj of the N.T. 3rd ed. vol. i,
pp. 447-453.

- Scliaff s History of the Cliurch, vol. ii. p. 665.

232 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

differeutly in several respects from the narrative of Matthew.
He alone tells us of the announcement of the birth of Christ
to the shepherds ; and he alone informs us of the presenta-
tion of the child Jesus in the temple. Whilst the other
evangelists pass over in silence the thirty years of our
Lord's life before the commencement of His public ministry,
Luke relates an incident of His boyhood, when, at the age of
twelve. He accompanied Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem, and
was found among the doctors, hearing them and asking them
questions (ii. 42). He alone adverts to the development of
our Lord's youthful years, saying that He increased in wisdom
and in stature (ii. 52). Whilst, like the other evangelists,
he gives an account of our Lord's ministry in Galilee, and of
His sufferings, death, and resurrection, Luke closes his Gospel
with the account of the ascension (xxiv. 50).^ And in the
mention of the promise of the Father, for which the apostles
were commanded to wait at Jerusalem (xxiv. 49), Luke
unites his Gospel with the fulfilment of that promise as
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

Another striking and more marked feature in Luke's
Gospel is its universality : it is emphatically the Gospel of
universal salvation, the Gospel of the Gentiles. It is not
restricted to the Jews ; there is a largeness, a fulness, and a
breadth about this Gospel which are not so discernible in the
other Gospels. The incorporation of the Gentiles into the
Church of Christ is in a manner anticipated. There are
many intimations that the wall of separation between Jews
and Gentiles was to be broken down, and that the peculiar
privileges of the Jews, as the people of God, were to be done
away with ; that the Gospel of Christ was to be a universal
religion, and was to embrace the whole world ; that in the
language of St. Paul, God was the God of the Gentiles, and
not of the Jews only (Eom. iii. 29, ix. 24). The angels who
proclaimed tlie l)irth of the Lord to the shepherds on the
plains of Bethlehem announced goodwill to men (ii. 1 4) ;
the aged Simeon, in his song of thanksgiving, greeted the
infant Saviour as a light for revelation to the Gentiles, as

^ Matthew has no reference to the ascension ; j\rark alhulos to it in the
disputed passage at the close of his Gospel.

CHARACTERISTICS. 233

well as for the glory of the people of Israel (ii. 32). To the
prediction of Isaiah announcing the preaching of the Baptist,
the words are added : " And all flesh shall see the salvation of
God " (iii. 6)} Whilst the other evangelists record the
mission of the Twelve, as representing the nation of Israel,
Luke alone relates the mission of the seventy disciples as
representing the nations of the world (x. 1).^ The distinction
between the Jews and the Samaritans is abolished : no
preference is given to the former ; the disciples are rebuked
for wishing to call down fire from heaven to destroy the
inhospitable Samaritans (ix. 54); in the parable of the
wounded Traveller, whilst the priest and the Levite pass by
on the other side, it is a Samaritan who is represented as
having compassion on him (x. 33); of the ten lepers who
were cleansed, the only one who returned to give thanks was
a Samaritan (xvii. 16). Our Lord Himself affirms, that
" the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which
was lost" (xix. 10). And His commission to His disciples
was, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (xxiv. 47). The
same universality is indeed exhibited in all the Gospels, but
in the Gospel of Luke it is more fully and more frequently
mentioned.^ Luke's Gospel is the gospel of free salvation :
the freedom of the grace of God is here proclaimed; there
are no restrictions ; salvation is a matter, not of works
bestowed as a reward, but of grace bestowed on the penitent :
the Pauline doctrine of free justification is foreshadowed ;
Zacchseus, the publican, was accepted by the Lord ; the
woman that was a sinner was graciously pardoned on her
repentance ; and the penitent thief received the promise of
admission into paradise.

The Gospel of Luke is pre-eminently the Gospel of the

1 This addition to the prophecy in Isa. xL 3, 4, is taken from
Isa. Hi. 10.

^ Seventy was, by the Jews, supposed to Ije the number of the nations
of the world.

^ Those statements in St. Matthew's Gospel, where the Twelve are
forbidden to go to the Gentiles, but to restrict themselves to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. x. 5, xv. 24), are omitted in Luke's
Gospel.

234 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

humanity o f Christ, exhibiting His human tenderness and love.
Whilst Matthew proclaims Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews,
and Mark as the Son of God, the worker of miracles, Luke
dwells specially on His manhood, as the Son of Man and the
Saviour of the world.^ The manhood of Christ is described in
its growth and in its limitations ; the doctrine of the kenosis,
that our Lord emptied Himself (iavrov eKevwa-e, Phil. ii. 7),^ is
here distinctly taught. We are told that Jesus grew up as
one of the children of men ; He passed from infancy to youth,
and from youth to manhood ; there was a development of His
human nature ; He not only grew and waxed strong physically,
but also mentally ; He grew in wisdom, and in favour both
with God and man (ii. 40, 52). Luke dwells upon the
tender human sensibilities of His nature. He alone mentions
the tears which in the hour of His triumph He shed over
Jerusalem. He alone gives the account of His bloody sweat
in Gethsemane, when an angel had to be sent from heaven to
strengthen His human nature to endure the agony. In
neither of the other two Synoptists have we such an insight
into the tenderness and love of Christ ; we see into His heart, a
human heart which beats with love : in this respect the Gospel
of Luke resembles that of John. The love, and tenderness,
and mercy of our Saviour are disclosed to us. " He came to
heal the broken-hearted." Most of the parables peculiar to
Luke, as the Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, the Good
Samaritan, exhibit the mercy and love of our God. God is
represented as our Father, who rejoices in the recovery of His
lost children, in the restoration of the erring, and in the
deliverance of the wretched from their miseries. It is Luke
alone who tells us of the penitent woman who lay at our
Saviour's feet and bathed them with her tears, and who was so
tenderly received by Him. It is Luke alone who relates the
gracious reception of Zacchaius, who was looked down upon by
his countrymen as an outcast and a sinner. And it is Luke

1 " Das Evangelium des Menschensohnes, der Humanitat Christi, der
Verkliirung aller Hiuiianitat," Lange.

^ The doctrine of tlie kenosis is a great iiiystery, wliicli has not as yet
received sufficient consideration. On it we are not called upon to enter ;
it belongs to the spliere of dogTuatics.

CHARACTERISTICS. 235

alone who mentions our Lord's prayer on the cross for the
forgiveness of His enemies, and His gracious reply to the
request of the dying thief : " To-day shalt thou be with me
in paradise." In this Gospel especially we are taught in the
language of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that
" we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the
feeling of our infirmities ; but one that hath been in all points
tempted like as we are, yet without sin " (Heb. iv. 15). Jesus
Himself is the Good Samaritan, the Shepherd who leaves the
ninety and nine, and goes into the wilderness to seek the
sheep that was lost.

In this Gospel 2'>'i^ominence is given to women. It has not
inappropriately been termed the " Gospel of womanhood." It
opens with the mention of Elizabeth the mother of the Baptist,
who with her husband Zacharias walked in all the command-
ments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (i. 6). Luke
alone adverts to the pious character of the blessed Virgin, and
records her song of thanksgiving. He alone mentions Anna,
the aged widow of fourscore and four years, who departed not
from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers
night and day (ii. 36). He, with John, mentions the sisters
of Bethany ; Martha, careful and troubled about many things,
and Mary, sitting at the Saviour's feet and listening to His
words (x. 38—41). He alone tells us of the widow of Nain,
and of the compassion of the Lord (vii. 11). It is in this
Gospel that we read of the penitent woman, who anointed
our Lord's feet, and bathed them with her tears (vii. 36—39).
It is from Luke that we learn that many pious women
followed our Lord in His missionary journeys through Galilee,
ministering to Him of their substance (vii. 1—3), and accom-
panied Him on His last journey to Jerusalem, and who, when
all His male disciples forsook Him and fled, remained faithful
to the last (xxiii. 49). It is Luke who records our Lord's
address to the women who followed Him to the cross bewail-
ing and lamenting Him : " Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not
for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children"
(xxiii. 28).

There are in the Gospel of Luke numerous striking and
instructive contrasts; lights and shadows are mingled

236 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

throughout the narrative. Thus, for example, the doubting
Zacharias the father of the Baptist, and the humble and
confiding Mary the mother of our Lord ; the anxious and
busy Martha, and the humble and devout Mary; the proud
and self-righteous Pharisee, and the abased and penitent
puljlican ; the rich man clothed in purple and fine linen, and
faring sumptuously every day, and the beggar Lazarus, full of
sores, and fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's
table ; the priest and the Levite who passed by, and the
Samaritan who had compassion on the wounded traveller ; the
ungrateful nine lepers, and the tenth, a Samaritan, who alone
returned to render thanks ; the elder son, who never left his
father's house, and the younger son, who turned prodigal, and
was restored to his father's love and confidence ; Simon the
self-righteous Pharisee who loved little, and gave the Lord no
water to wash His feet, and the woman who was a sinner, who
loved much and washed His feet with her tears ; the penitent
thief on the right hand, and the impenitent thief on the left.

It is from Luke's Gospel that those ^iriiuaLso^ms are
taken which have been used in all ages in the worship of
the Christian Church ; as the Ave Maria, the song of the
Annunciation (i. 28—31); the Magnificat, the song of Mary
(i. 47-50); the Benedictus, the song of Zacharias (i. 68—79);
the Gloria in Excelsis, the song of the Angels (ii. 14) ; and
Nunc Dimittis, the song of Simeon (ii. 29-32). All these
spiritual songs are contained in the first two chapters of
Luke's Gospel ; indeed, it is only in this Gospel and in the
Apocalypse that spiritual songs are to be found. They are
all Hebraic in their sentiment and diction, and have been
rendered into Hebrew without any loss of their beauty. We
have in the Gospel of Luke the last of the Hebrew Psalms and
the first of the Christian hymns.

Such are the characteristics of the Gospel of Luke. It
is, as Dean Farrar remarks, " the Gospel of the Greek and
of the future ; of catholicity of mind ; the Gospel of hymns
and of prayers ; the Gospel of the Saviour ; the Gospel of the
universality and gratuitousness of salvation ; the Gospel of
holy toleration ; the Gospel of those whom the religious world
regards as heretics ; the Gospel of the publican, and the

INTEGRITY. 237

outcast, and the humble poor, and the weeping Magdalene, and
the crucified malefactor ; the Gospel of the lost piece of money
and the lost sheep ; the Gospel of the good Samaritan and of
the prodigal son ; the Gospel of the saintly life, of pity, of
forgiveness obtained by faith, of pardon for all the world ; the
Gospel of grace and of the glad tidings of free salvation ; the
Gospel of Him who was, as we all are, the son of Adam, and
who died that we all might be the sons of God." ^

VII. The Integeity of the Gospel.

As the first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew,
especially the account of the birth and infancy of Christ,
have been disputed ; so, in like manner, the narrative of the
miraculous conception and of the infancy of Christ in the
Gospel of Luke (i. 5— ii. 52) has been called in question.
The first who cast doubts on this passage was Evanson,
toward the close of last century (1792), in his Dissonance of
the four generally received Evangclistsr- In this he was followed
by Eichhorn ^ and Baur.* On the other hand, the genuine-
ness of the passage has been defended by such rationalistic
critics as Ammon, Paulus, Credner, Kuinoel, Volkmar, and
Kostlin. The chief objections were its omission in the Gospel
of Marcion, and its supposed irreconcilability with the nar-
rative of the birth and infancy of Christ as given by Matthew.
These objections are of no force. The genuineness of the
passage is demonstrated beyond dispute by its presence in all
the Greek manuscripts and in all versions of the New Testa-
ment, and by the repeated references to it in the writings of
the early Fathers. It is true that the section was wanting
in Marcion's Gospel ; but, as we have seen, Marcion mutilated
and abbreviated the Gospel of Luke to suit his own pre-
conceived dogmatic opinions. We have already discussed the
differences between the accounts of the infancy given by

^ Farrar's Messages of the Books, p. 86.

2 This work was answered by Priestley, Letters to a Young Man, 1793,
and by the Rev. Thomas Falconer in the Bampton Lectures for 1811.
^ Einleitung in das N.T. vol. i. p. 630.
* Baur's Markusevangelium, p. 218.

238 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

Matthew and Luke, and shown that these differences are
capable of reconciliation, and do not amount to a discrepancy
in the accounts themselves.^ As already remarked, Luke
might have obtained his information, either from Mary
herself, whom it is not improbable he may have met in
Jerusalem, or from James the Lord's brother, whom he
certainly did meet (Acts xxi. 18), or from the other brethren
of the Lord.

An important difference in reading is found in the Gloria
in Excelsis (Luke ii. 14): ho^a ev vy^la-roi^ dea>, koI iirl yrj'i
elpt'jvr}, iv avdpcoTToi^ auhoKLa {evhoKia^)r The difference
arises from the addition of one letter — €vBoKia<; instead of
evhoKia. The Revised Version adopts the reading €v8oKia<;,
and translates : " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace among men in whom He is well pleased " ; with the
footnote : " Many ancient authorities read ' Peace, good
pleasure among men ' ; and instead of ' Men in whom He is
well pleased,' a footnote gives the alternative rendering,
' Men of good pleasure.' "

The reading euSo/cia9 of the Revised Version is supported
by the principal ancient manuscripts x A B D : C (the Codex
Ephrffim) is defective. The combined testimony of such
valuable and independent manuscripts as the Vatican and
the Alexandrian is very strong. Among the versions the old
Latin and the Vulgate also have this reading ; the Vulgate
renders the clause in hominihus bonce voluntatis. The Latin
Fathers adopt the reading of their own version ; whilst
among the Greek Fathers, Origen alone is favourable, although
he also uses evhoKia.

On the other hand, the rest of the uncials and all the
cursives are in favour of evSoKia, tlic reading of the Authorised
Version ; such also is the reading of the Syriac, Armenian,
and Ethiopic versions ; the Greek Fathers may be considered
as unanimous in their testimony ; even Origen, in his work
against Celsus, adopts this reading : " At the birth of
Jesus a multitude of the heavenly host praised God, saying :

^ See supra, pp. 115 fF.

2 This hardly belongs to the discussion on the integrity of the Gospel,
but is here given on account of tlic interest attaclied to this reading.

INTEGRITY. 239

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill
towards men." ^

But whilst the external evidence, owing to the combined
testimony of the most important of the uncial manuscripts,
is in favour of the reading euSo/cta?, the internal evidence is
in favour of evSoKta. The expression eV av6poo7roi<; evhoKia^
is certainly the more difficult reading, and this is so far in its
favour ; yet it is very obscure, and so difficult of translation,
that a reasonable sense can hardly be made out of it ; literally
rendered it is " among men of good pleasure." The Eevisers
render it " among men in whom He is well pleased " ; others,
" to the men of goodwill, " ; others " to men who are the
object of goodwill " ; and others, " peace on earth to those
who will have it." Origen, in those places where he adopts
the reading euSo/c/a?, unites the word with elprjvq, and renders
the whole passage : " Glory to God in the highest, and on
earth the peace of good pleasure to men," — a meaning which,
Dr. Hort says, " would deserve serious attention, if no better
interpretation were available." ^ In short, as Scrivener
observes of these and such like interpretations, they " can
be arrived at only through some process which would make
any phrase bear almost any meaning which the translator
might like to put upon it." ^ Such a reading also narrows
the expression " goodwill " to a certain class of men, instead
of making it embrace the whole human race, as is natur-
ally suggested by the preceding words, " on earth peace."
On the other hand, the reading evSoKia gives a plam and
intelligible sense — goodwill to men : the goodwill being the
goodwill of God — His mercy and good pleasure. This also
better preserves the parallelism of the passage, divided into
three sentences : " Glory to God in the highest ; on earth
peace ; goodwill toward men." According to the other
rendering, the parallelism consists of only two members :
" Glory to God in the highest ; on earth peace to men of
goodwill." Others render it : " Glory to God in the highest
and on earth ; peace to men of goodwill."

1 Contra Celsum, i. 60.

^ Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Select Readings, vol. ii.p. 56.

" Scrivener's Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. 4tli ed. p. 347.

240 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

The rendering euSo/tta? is adopted by the principal biblical
critics — Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Meyer,
Westcott and Hort; whilst Scrivener, Biirgon, and Cook
give the preference to evSoKia.

Another important passage where there is a remarkable
difference in the reading, is Luke's version of the Lord's
Prayer (xi. 2-4). In many authorities the prayer is given
in an abbreviated form, and this is the reading adopted in the
Eevised Version : " Father, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy
kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread. And
forgive us our sins ; for we ourselves also forgive everyone
that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation."
The reading of the Authorised Version is relegated to the
footnotes.

The reading here adopted by the Eevisers is that of the
Vatican and the Sinaitic ; ^ whilst the Alexandrian has the
reading of the Authorised Version. The other manuscripts
vary ; some agree with the Vatican and others with the
Alexandrian ; and some, omitting one or two clauses, give the
prayer in a partially abbreviated form. The same is the
case with the different versions ; for example, the Vulgate
omits the words : " And deliver us from evil." It is argued
that the internal evidence is in favour of the abbreviated
form, because transcribers would be induced to supply the
omitted petitions from the Gospel of Matthew. At the same
time, in this form the prayer certainly appears to want com-
pleteness. The occasions when the prayer was delivered
were, according to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, very
different. In Matthew it occupies part of the Sermon on
the Mount, and stands in close connection with what
precedes, being attached to our Lord's injunction against
hypocrisy in our prayers ; whilst in Luke it is given in
answer to the ret^uest of the disciples : " Lord, teach us to

1 The following is the reading of the Vatican : llccrsp, otytuaHrc-' ro
ouofiot aoV i'hdiTa 7i (iocai'Kiix aoV rov oiprov i)fiuti t(t<j iTnoi/aiov oihov ijfciv to
x.x^ ilf^ipxv' Kxl oi(Pii iifilv TflSf uf^xprixs ijfiuv, x.xi yxp xvtoI <i.(pioi/,iv vxvrl
oCpithovTi iifiti/' Kctl fivi il<jiviyx.yji iif^A; si; 'TrupxGf^ov. With this the Sinaitic
agrees, except tliat it has the clause : "Thy will be done as in heaven, so
on earth."

INTEGRITY. 241

pray, even as John also taught his disciples." There is no
improbability in supposing that our Lord delivered this
prayer to His disciples on two different occasions.

Perhaps a still more important passage is the incident
of the bloody sweat in Gethsemane, omitted by the other
evangelists and given only by Luke : " And there appeared
unto Him an angel from heaven, strengthening Him. And,
being in an agony. He prayed more earnestly : and His sweat
became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the
ground " (xxii. 43, 44). We shall consider the evidence
against and for its genuineness.

Ij 1. Evidence against the genuineness of the passage. — These
verses are omitted in the two important manuscripts, the
Alexandrian (A) and the Vatican (B), manuscripts not only
among the oldest extant, but wholly independent of each other ;
in two other important uncial manuscripts (E T), and in three
cursive manuscripts (13,124,561); whilst the important manu-
script, the Codex Ephraem (C), is here defective. They are
marked with an asterisk in four uncial and six cursive manu-
scripts, implying a doubt as to their genuineness. They are
omitted in the important Codex Brixianus (f) of the Old Latin
and in some of the codices of the Sahidic and Armenian versions,
and in the lately discovered Sinaitic Syrian version. There
is no reference to the words in the writings of Clemens Alex-
andrinus and Origen, although these Fathers would naturally
have quoted them in their controversies against Docetism.
Hilary states : " In very many Greek and Latin copies,^
nothing was written either about the appearance of an
angel or the bloody sweat." And the same remark is made
by Jerome.

2. Evidence Jor the genuineness of the passage. — One great
argument in favour of these words is that they are con-
tained m the Codex Sinaiticus (x), thus differing in this
reading from the Codex Vaticanus, with which it in general
agrees. They are also found in the celebrated Codex Bezse
(D) of the fifth century, and in ten other important uncial
manuscripts, and in almost all the cursive manuscripts.
The Versions are almost unanimously in favour of their
^ In Greecis et iu Latinis codicibus complurimis.
i6

242 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

genuineness. They are found in the Old Latin, with the
exception of the Codex Brixianus (f) ; in the three Syriac
versions, the Curetonian, the Peshito, and the Philoxenian ;
in the Vulgate and the Ethiopia and Armenian versions.
But the chief argument in favour of their genuineness is
that they are recognised in the writings of the early Fathers,
Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, thus
refers to the passage : " In the Memoii^s which I have said
were drawn up by^ His apostles and those who followed them,
it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood
while He was praying and saying, If it is possible let this
cup pass." ^ Tatian incorporates it in his Diatessaron.
Iren?eus states that Jesus sweat great drops of blood, and
declared that His soul was exceedingly sorrowful.^ And
Hippolytus, referring to the humanity of Christ, in opposi-
tion to Noetus, says : " Though God, He does not refuse the
conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and
toils and thirsts in weariness, and flies in fear, and prays in
trouble. He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on
a pillow; He who (for our salvation) came into the world,
begs off from the cup of suffering ; and in an agony He
sweats blood and is strengthened by an angel, who Himself
strengthens those who believe on Him." ^ The passage is
also quoted by Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Ephraem
Syrus, Chrysostom, Augustine, and subsequent Fathers. It
is also said to be found in Marcion's Gospel. Epiphanius
accounts for its omission from some manuscripts by the
indiscreet zeal of the orthodox, who omitted it because they
thought that it might be perverted by heretics, and used by
them in arguing against the divinity of our Lord : " orthodox
persons removed it through fear, not understanding its bear-
ing and its great force." But tliere does not appear to be
any ground for this statement.

The passage has also been objected to on internal
grounds. Thus Norton observes that the agony of Christ
is represented as existing after the angel had been sent to
strengthen Him; that we have no authority for beheving

1 Justin, Dialog, cum Tryj^ho, ch. ciii. ^ ^4 (/.,,_ jf^f^r. iii. 22. 2.

3 Hippolytus, Adv. Hccr. Noeti, ch. xviii.

INTEGEITY. 243

that the bloody sweat described was ever produced by mere
distress of mind ; and that as the disciples were asleep, it
does not appear how anyone could have witnessed or become
acquainted with the events related. He supposes that the
passage was first written in the margin of some very early
manuscript, and subsequently, through the mistake of tran-
scribers, taken into the text of other copies.^ To the above
objection it has been replied that the angel was sent, not to
remove the agony, but to strengthen our Lord to endure it ;
and although it is said that the disciples were asleep, yet
they were not so profoundly asleep but that they heard our
Lord praying that the cup might pass from Him, and might
have seen the bloody sweat, or the marks of it might have
been apparent after its termination. The question is entirely
one of external authority, and cannot be decided by subjective
impressions.

With regard to the nature of the bloody sweat, it is not
said that our Lord actually sweat great drops of blood, but
that His perspiration fell from Him as it were great drops
of blood, bearing a resemblance to them (6 I8pcb<; avrov wael
dp6[x^oi aifjuaroii). The word Opofx^o^ is strikingly descriptive ;
it denotes, not simply a drop, but a great drop, such as a
clot of blood. Probably Meyer gives the correct interpreta-
tion : " The sweat of Jesus was indeed no mass of blood
(opposed to which is uxrel), but a profusion of bloody sweat,
which was mingled with portions of blood, and as it flowed
down appeared as clots of blood trickling down to the
ground." ^ It is not correct to say, with Norton, that we
have no authority for believing that a bloody sweat was
ever produced by mere distress of mind. Instances of a
bloody sweat, produced under circumstances of terror, have
been recorded (Aristotle's Hist.Anim. iii. 19). "An interest-
ing example," observes Alford, " of a sweat of blood under
circumstances of strong terror, accompanied by loss of
speech, is cited in the Medical Gazette for December 1848."^

Such are the arguments against and for the genuineness
of the passage containing the account of " the agony and

1 Norton, Tlie Genuineness of the Gospels, pp. 228, 229.

^ Commentary on Luke, in loco. ^ Alford's Greek Testament, in loco.

244 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

bloody sweat." It is difficult to balance these arguments,
and to come to a correct decision. The evidence from the
Greek manuscripts appears to be rather at variance with the
idea of its genuineness, especially when we consider that
the combined testimony of the Alexandrian and Vatican
manuscripts is unfavourable, though the force of this is to
a considerable extent weakened by the passages being found
in the Codex Sinaiticus. Its insertion in the Codex Bezte
is not conclusive, as it might be accounted for from the
nature of that manuscript, which contains many unauthorised
additions. But, on the other hand, this adverse testimony
is counterbalanced by the distinct recognition of the passage
by such early Fathers as Justin, Tatian, Irenjeus, and
Hippolytus. We judge then that the preponderance of
evidence is in favour of the retention of the passage ; still
we cannot venture to say with Canon Cook, in words which
are quoted with approval by Scrivener : " Supporting the
whole passage we have an array of authorities which, whether
we regard their antiquity or their character for sound judg-
ment, veracity, and accuracy, are scarcely paralleled on any
occasion." ^

The most eminent biblical critics are mostly in favour
of the genuineness of the passage. It is accepted by
Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, Meyer, and Scrivener ; it is
enclosed within brackets by Lachmann ; whilst Westcott and
Hort express their doubts by placing it within double
brackets. The Kevised Version inserts it in the text without
any mark, but adds the footnote : " Many ancient authorities
omit vv. 43, 44."

VIII. Time and Place of Wilting.

The time when this Gospel was written has been much
disputed. Dates ranging from a.d. 58 to a.d. 130 have been
assigned to it. Baur fixed on a.d. 130, a date now universally
relinquished ; Dr. Davidson, in his last edition of his Intro-
duction to the Stiuhj of the New Testament, fixed on a.d. 110 ;

1 Cook's Revised Versioi of the first three Gosjwls, yi. 103; Scrivener's
Criticism of the New Testament, 4tli etl. vol. ii. p. 356.

DATE. 245

Pfleiderer, on A.D. 100-120; Hilgenfeld, on a.d. 100-110;
Volkmar, on a.d. 100 ; Keim and Abbott, on a.d. 80 ; Cred-
ner, De Wette, Bleek, Meyer, Holtzmann, Eeuss, and Professor
Sanday, after the destruction of Jerusalem ; Michaelis, Lardner,
Home, Guericke, Ebrard, and Godet, on a.d. 03 or 64.
Dr. Davidson, in his earlier Introduction to the Neiu Testament,
on a.d. 61 ; Alford, Archbishop Thomson, and Schaff, on
A.D. 58-60.

Very little light is thrown on this subject from the
writings of the early Fathers : their statements are at
variance. But, on the other hand, an argument may be
based on the probable date of the Acts of the Apostles.
The Gospel of Luke is undoubtedly " the former treatise "
to which the author of the Acts in his preface alludes :
" The former treatise I made, Theophilus, concerning all
that Jesus began both to do and to teach." The Gospel,
then, must have been written before the Acts. Now, the
date of the Acts may, with much probability, be ascertained.
The history is carried on until the close of Paul's two years'
imprisonment at Eome (a.d. 63), ending with the words:
" And he abode two whole years in his own hired house "
(Acts xxviii. 30). The most probable reason why Luke thus
closes his history is, that he then completed it ; otherwise
the work would end most abruptly, without any statement
of what happened after the termination of the two years.
Nor is there any presumption against this opinion. Now,
admitting this, we infer that the Gospel was composed before
A.D. 63. In all probability, as already observed, Luke was
with Paul during his two years' imprisonment in Ctesarea
(a.d. 58—60). Here he had ample opportunities for collecting
the materials for his history : he met with those who had
been the followers of the Lord ; he could make a collection
of the written Gospel fragments which were dispersed
throughout the Churches ; he could visit these parts of
Galilee where our Lord's mmistry was chiefly spent ; he
could go up frequently to Jerusalem ; he would have ample
time at his disposal ; and he had free access to Paul, who,
although a prisoner, was not kept in strict confinement, for
we are informed that Felix Rave order to the centurion that

246 THE GOSl'EL OF LUKE.

he should have indulgence, and that none of his friends
should be forbidden to minister to him (Acts xxiv. 23).
From all this we consider that the Gospel of Luke was
written about a.d. 60, toward the conclusion of Paul's
imprisonment at Ctesarea.

It has been objected to this early date that there are,
in the Gospel itself, statements which show that it must
have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70).^
In the Gospel of Matthew, it is affirmed, the destruction of
Jerusalem is closely connected with the end of the world.
" Immediately after the tribulation of those days " shall the
final catastrophe take place (Matt. xxiv. 29); whereas, in
the Gospel of Luke, a long period is interposed, termed " the
times of the Gentiles " : " Jerusalem shall be trodden down
of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled "
(Luke xxi. 24) ; and it is stated that the end is not
immediately (Luke xxi. 9). In Luke's Gospel the author
takes a retrospect of the circumstances of the siege. " The
days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up
a bank about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee
in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy
children within thee ; and they shall not leave in thee one
stone upon another, because thou knewest not the time of
thy visitation " (Luke xix. 43, 44). But we cannot see the
force of this objection. The slight variations in the accounts
of our Lord's predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem in
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are needlessly stramed.
In Matthew, as in Luke, there is an interval between the
destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world ; the
Gospel must first be diffused throughout the earth. " This
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world
for a testimony unto all nations ; and then shall the end
come " (Matt. xxiv. 14). In Matthew the encompassing of
Jerusalem with armies is as distinctly foretold as in Luke :
the abomination of desolation was to be seen standing in the
holy place (Matt. xxiv. 15). And in both Matthew and
Luke the statement is made, that this generation shall not

' Tliis opinion was held l)y Meyer, De Wette, Creilner, Bleek, and
Dr. Davidson.

CONTENTS. 247

pass away until all these things be accomplished (Matt,
xxiv. 34; Luke xxi. 32). To suppose that Luke changed
the prophecy of our Lord by inserting words which intimated
that the prediction was fulfilled, and thus converted it into
a vaficinium 2'^ost eventum, is inconsistent with the honesty
of the historian, and at variance with the supernatural
foresight of our Lord.

If, then, the date of the Gospel was a.d. 60, or thereby,
the place of writing was Ctesarea, an opinion adopted by
Michaelis, Kuinoel, Schott, Thiersch, and others. Other
places have been assigned. The title in the Peshito
version is : " The Gospel of Luke the evangelist, which he
published and preached in Greek in Alexandria the Great."
Jerome fixes on Achgea and Bceotia ; Godet on Greece ; Hug,
Ewald, Zeller, Keim, and Holtzmann on Eome.

IX. The Contents of the Gospel.

The general divisions of the Gospel are the Introduction,
i. 1-4.

1. Narrative of the birth and childhood of the Baptist
and of Jesus, i. 5-ii. 53.

2. Preparation for the ministry, iii., iv. 13.

3. Our Lord's ministry in Galilee, iv. 14-ix. 50.

4. Our Lord's ministry in Per?ea and its neighbourhood,
ix. 51— xviii. 14.

5. The journey to Jerusalem, xviii. 15— xix. 48.

6. The closing scenes and death, xx.— xxiii. 49.

7. The burial, resurrection, and ascension, xxiii. 50—
xxiv.

The Gospel of Luke is rich in most important additions.
We have already, in a former part of this Introduction,
enumerated the incidents and discourses which are peculiar
to it ; ^ still we may recapitulate the most striking and
remarkable : the annunciation and the song of the Virgin ;
the birth of John the Baptist and the prophecy of his
father Zacharias ; the angel's message to the shepherds ; the
presentation in the temple and the song of Simeon ; the
^ See supra, p. 33 f.

248 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

raising of the widow's son at Nain ; the anointing of our
Lord by the woman who was a sinner ; the memorable and
striking parables of the Good Samaritan, the Unjust Steward,
the Prodigal Son and the Eich Man and Lazarus, our Lord's
reception of Martha and Mary, our Lord's examination before
Herod, and His appearance after the resurrection to the
disciples going to Emmaus. All these passages enhance the
value of the Gospel of Luke.

There are twelve important parables peculiar to Luke —

1. The Two Debtors, vii. 41-43.

2. The Good Samaritan, x. 25-37.

.3. The Eich Man who boasted of his goods, xii. 13—21.

4. The Barren Fig Tree, xiii. 1-9.

5. The Marriage Feast, xiv. 7-24.

6. The Lost Piece of Money, xv. 8-10.

7. The Prodigal Son, xv. 11-32.

8. The Unjust Steward, xvi. 1-13.

9. The Eich Man and Lazarus, xvi. 19-31.

10. The Unjust Judge and the Importunate Widow,
xviii. 1—8.

11. Tlie Pharisee and the Publican, xviii. 9-14.

12. The Ten Pounds, xix. 12-27.
There are six miracles peculiar to Luke —

1. The miraculous draught of fishes, v. 1-11.

2. The raising of the widow's son at Nain, vii. 11-17.

3. The cure of the woman with the spirit of infirmity,
xiii. 11-17.

4. The cure of the dropsical man on the Sabbath,
xiv. 1-6.

5. The cleansing of the ten lepers, xvii. 11-19.

6. The heahng of Malchus, xxii. 50, 51.

DISSERTATION I.

THE GENEALOGIES.

Literature. — This subject has been often discussed in separ-
ate monographs, as well as in works on the Life of Christ,
and in commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
The most important discussions are Hottinger, Dissertationes
cliim de genealogia Christi ; Benham's Reflections on the Genealogy
of our Lord ; Yardley, The Genealogy of Jesus Christ (London,
1739); Lord A. Hervey (Bishop of Bath), The Genealogies of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Cambridge, 1853), and
his article on Genealogy in Smith's Biblical Dictionary ;
Ebrard's Gosjxl History, pp. 149-163 (Edinburgh, 1863);
Mill's Vindication of the Genealogies ; a valuable article on
Genealogy, by the Eev. Peter Holmes, in Kitto's Cyclopcedia
of Biblical Literature, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh, 1869); Wieseler's
Beitrdge zur Wurdigung dcr Evangclien, 1869 ; Andrews, Life
of our Lord, pp. 56—70, new edition (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1893), where the subject is well stated; Greswell's
Dissertations on the Harmony of the Gos^jcls ; Dissertation ii.
On the two genealogies, vol. ii. pp. 111—118 ; also the com-
mentaries of Meyer on Matthew and Luke ; Farrar on Luke
in the Cambridge Bible for Schools ; Godet on Luke (transla-
tion, Edinburgh, 1875) ; Morison on Matthew (London, 1883);
Mansel on Matthew in S'peakers Commentary ; and Schaff's
Popidar Commentary on the Nexu Testament.

The reconciliation of the genealogies given in Matt. i. 1—17
and Luke iii. 23-38 is a matter of considerable difficulty.
Both profess to be the genealogies of our Lord ; that of Matthew
is introduced by the words : " The book of the generation of

249

250 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

Jesus Christ " ; whilst in the Gospel of Luke the introductory
words are : " Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about
thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph" ;
but they are almost entirely different, being written from
different points of view. In Matthew the genealogy com-
mences with Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation,
probably because his Gospel was written mainly for Hebrew
Christians ; whilst in Luke it closes with Adam, the father of
the human race, probably because his Gospel was written for
Christians generally, whether Jews or Gentiles. The gene-
alogy of Matthew descends from Abraham to Joseph, the
husband of Mary, by tracing the line of descent from father
to son ; whilst that of Luke ascends from Joseph to Adam,
by tracing the line of ascent from son to father. Matthew
uses the word begat (iyevvrjo-e), wliilst Luke uses the article
Tov, the genitive of relationship, translated in our version the
son of. From Abraham to David the evangelists give the same
genealogical series ; but after David they diverge. Matthew
gives the royal lineage in the line of Solomon to the captivity,
whilst Luke gives the genealogy in the line of Nathan,
another of the sons of David. The genealogies meet in the
middle in the persons of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matt,
i. 12; Luke iii. 27), but again immediately diverge, until
they converge in Joseph, the husband of Mary.

Various opinions have been formed of these genealogies
with reference to their diversities and apparent contradictions.
Dean Alford supposes that a solution of the ditftculties is
impossible from want of sufficient data. " It is," he observes,
" quite beside the purpose of the present commentary to
attempt to reconcile the two. It has never yet been accom-
plished ; and every endeavour to do it has violated either
ingenuousness or common sense." ^ On the other hand. Pro-
fessor Norton and others affirm that the genealogies, and more
particularly that given by Matthew, are interpolations. The
first two chapters of IMatthew's Gospel, observes Professor
Norton, " may have been an ancient document, written in
Hebrew, originally a separate work, but which, on account of
its small size and the connection of its subject, was transcribed
^ Alford 's Greek Testavieiit, ji. 473, lust edition.

THE GENEALOGIES. 251

into manuscripts of tlie Hebrew original of Matthew." ^ The
external evidences for the exclusion of the genealogies are weak,
amounting only to this, that they are omitted in the Gospel
of Marcion and in the Diatessaron of Tatian ; ^ whilst they
are contained in all Greek manuscripts and versions. But the
internal evidence is rather in favour of their exclusion. They
may be omitted without any interruption in the narrative.
Thus the Gospel of Matthew would commence with the
words : " Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise "
(Matt. i. 18); whilst in Luke the temptation of Christ would
be directly connected, as in the other Gospels, with His
baptism and the descent of the Holy Ghost (Luke iii. 22,
iv. 1). Besides, the apparent or real inaccuracies in the
genealogy as given by Matthew, to which w^e shall afterwards
advert, are presumptions unfavourable to its genuineness.
Still the external evidence in favour of them is so strong
that, by the critical rules which must govern our judgment,
their insertion, as forming an original part of the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke, must be admitted.

This may be the place to advert to the important recent
discovery by Mrs. Lewis, in the monastery of Mount Sinai, of
a Syrian manuscript of the four Gospels. Chiefly by her
learning and indefatigable labour this Syrian version has been
transcribed and published along with a translation.^ The manu-
script is a palimpsest, the lives of female saints being written
over it. Mrs. Lewis twice visited the monastery of Mount Sinai
in 1892 and 1893, and, assisted by several eminent English
scholars, was enabled to obtain a transcription of the manu-
script. It is affirmed to be probably a variant copy of the
Curetonian Syriac, fragments of which were brought to this
country by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842,"^ and which is now

1 Norton, The Genuineness of the Gosjjels, vol. i. p. 204.

2 The omission of the genealogies in the Gospel of Marcion is of no
importance, as Marcion mutilated the Gospel of Luke ; hut it must he
admitted that the omission in Tatian's Diatessaron is of some weight, but
it is unsupported.

3 The Four Gosiyels in Syriac. Transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest.
Cambridge, 1894 : Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the
Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis. London, 1894.

* It was not published until 1858, under the title, "Eemains of a very

252 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE,

generally admitted to be the oldest Syriac version, of which
the Peshito is only a recension, bearing the same relation to
it as the Vulgate does to the old Latin.^ If this is the case,
this newly discovered manuscript must be regarded as of
great importance, as supplying most of the lacuuie in the
Curetonian version,- and nearly completing it. The recently
discovered manuscript is of uncertain date. It agrees
generally witli the oldest uncials, the Vatican, and the
Sinaitic ; as, for example, it wants, the concluding verses of
Mark's Gospel and the account of the bloody sweat in
Luke,

It has been suggested that this Syriac manuscript has
an important bearing on the question of the genealogies,
especially in regard to the genealogy in Matthew.^ In its
record of the birth of Christ the new manuscript is Ebionite
and heretical. Whilst it testifies to the supernatural nature
of His birth in the same terms as in Matt. i. 18 and 23 of
the received text, at the same time it inconsistently asserts
that He was the son of Joseph. Thus ver, 1 6 is : " Joseph,
to wiiom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begat Jesus, who is
called the Christ"; ver. 21 is: "And she shall bear to thee
a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus"; and in ver. 24
it is said : " When Joseph arose from his sleep he did as the
angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife : and
she bore to him a son, and he called His name Jesus."

The genealogy in Luke is imperfect in the new manu-
script, and it is difficult to say how far it agrees with or
differs from tlie genealogy in the received text.

ancient recension of tlie Four Gospels in Syriac, hitlierto unknown in
Europe, discovered, edited, and translated hy William Cureton, D.D.,
Canon of Westminster. London, 1858."

^ So Ewald, Bleek, Alford, Tregelles, Hort. Scrivener, however, takes
an opposite view (Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T. vol, ii, p. 16 ff.).

2 The fragments of the Curetonian Syriac brought to England by
Archde<icon Tattam contained Matt, i.-viii. 22, x. 32-.\xiii. 25 ; ]\Iark xvi,
17-20; Luke ii. 48-iii. 16, vii. 33-xvi. 12, xvii. 1-xxiv. 44 ; Joliu i. 1-42,
iii. 5-viii. 19, xiv. 10-12, 15-19, 21-23, 26-29.

^ See a series of letters in the Acadeunj from November 1894 to March
1895 ; and aii import;int article on the subject by Archdeacon, now Dean,
Farrar in the Expositor for January 1895,

THE GENEALOGIES. 253

The importance of the manuscript on this point has, we
consider, been greatly overestimated. There is no ground for
suggesting that the genealogy in the new manuscript can be
substituted for that contained in Matthew's Gospel.^ Its
peculiar Ebionite readings stand alone, and are supported
by no manuscript nor version. Even the Curetonian Syriac
is adverse, as it contains the received readings. The only
manuscript which appears to favour them is the Latin Codex
Bobbiensis ; but even it only to the extent of omitting the
words : " And knew her not till she brought forth her son."
Against this overwhelming mass of evidence it is impossible
to defend the peculiar readings found in this manuscript ;
they never could have formed a part of the original text.
The genealogy of Matthew may have been a separate docu-
ment incorporated into this Gospel, but it could not in its
original form have contained the readings found in the
Sinaitic Syriac version.

The divergences in the genealogies may be seen from the
following table : —

I. Adam to Abraham.
Not given in Matthew. Luke iii. 34-38.

II. Abraham to David.
Same in botli Gospels — Matt. i. 1-6 ; Luke iii. 32-34.

in.

DAT

-m

TO

Jesus Christ.

Matt.

I. 7-

■16.

Luke iii. 23-31.

Solomon by

tlie wife of Uriah.

Nathan.

Eehohoam.

Mattatha.

Abijali.

Menna.

Asa.

Melea.

Jehosliaphat,

Eliakim.

Joram.

Jonam.

1 The Rev. Mr. Charles, in one of his letters to the Academy (Dec. 1,
1894), expresses his opinion that the new manuscript furnishes the key
to the problem raised by the variations in the two genealogies. If we
understand him aright, he seems to think that the genealogy of Matthew
as given in the new manuscript was the form of the original document,
and that at a very early period it was altered in the interests of orthodoxy
and attached to our canonical Gospel.

254

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

Matt. i. 7-16.

Luke hi. 23-31

Uzziah.

Joseph.

Jotham.

Judas.

Ahaz.

Svmeon.

Hezekiah.

Levi.

Manasseh.

Matthat.

Anion.

Jorim.

Josiah

Eliezer.

Jechoniah an

d his brethren.

Jesus.

Er.

Elmadam.

Cosam.

Addi.

Melchi.

Xeri.

Shealtiel.

Shealtiel.

Zerubl)abel.

Zerubbabel.

Abiud.

Rhesa.

Eliakim.

Joanan.

Azor.

Joda.

Sadoc.

Josech.

Achim.

Semein.

Eliud.

Mattatliias.

Eleazar.

.Alaath.

Matthan.

Xaggai.

Jacob.

Esli.

Joseph the husband of Mary.

Xalium.

Jesus, who is

called Christ.

Amos.

Mattatliias.

Joseph.

Jannai.

Melchi.

Levi.

SLitthat.

Heli.

Joseph.

Jesus.

Before attempting the reconciliation of the genealogies, it
may be advisable to consider some peculiarities and apparent
mistakes or discrepancies in the genealogy given by Matthew.

The genealogy from Salmon to David is given as Salmon,
Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David (Matt. i. 5), and the lineage is the
same in Luke's genealogy (Luke iii. 32). Thus there are
only four generations, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David, between

THE GENEALOGIES. 255

Salmon and David. Nahshon, the father of Sahnon, is
mentioned as the prince of the tribe of Judah in the time of
Moses (JSTimi. i. 7, vii. 17); and, accordingly, Salmon, the
husband of Eahab, must have been a contemporary of Joshua.
But the interval between Salmon and David, filled up by
these four generations, according to the calculations made
from the Book of Judges, must have been 400 or 450
years. This period is also given by St. Paul in his speech
in Pisidian Antioch : " And when He had destroyed seven
nations in the land of Canaan, He gave them their land for
an inheritance for about 450 years" (Acts xiii. 19). It
also corresponds with the chronology of Josephus. Either
the period assigned is too long, or several names must have
been omitted. The probability is that the number 450 was
assumed by the Jews by adding together the years of the
judges and of the servitudes as mentioned in the Book of
Judges ; ^ whereas it is probable that several of the judges
were contemporaneous.^ The community of Israel appears
at that time to have been divided into three confederacies :
Judah and the south, Ephraim and the north, and the land of
Gilead beyond Jordan. The enumeration of four generations
given by Matthew is corroborated not only by Luke, but also
by the Book of Euth (Ptuth iv. 20, 21) and by the first Book
of Chronicles (1 Chron. ii. 11, 12).^

In Matthew's genealogy three kings are omitted. It is
stated that Joram begat Uzziah (Matt. i. 8) ; whereas the
genealogy ought to have been Joram begat Ahaziah, and

1 Hervey, On the Genealogies, pj). 220, 221, 252. The years of the
judges from Othniel to Eli are 339, and of the servitudes 111 : in all 450.
See Biscoe, Ow the Acts, p. 605.

2 This subject is very elaborately discussed by Bishop Hervey in
ch. ix. on the discordance between the genealogy from Salmon to David,
and the received chronology of the corresponding period, pp. 204-276.
He supposes that Ehud, Gideon, and Jephthah were contemporary, and
that the era of the judges, instead of lasting 450 years, extended only
to four generations. This abbreviation of the time corresponds with the
records of Egyptian history.

3 Another solution is that in the genealogy from Salmon to David
some names are omitted ; and others think that Rahab, the mother
of Boaz, was a different person from the Rahab mentioned in the Book of
Joshua.

256 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

Ahaziah begat Joash, and Joash begat Amaziah, and Amaziah
begat Uzziah. Thus three kings are omitted, namely,
Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. The most plausible explana-
tion of this omission is that it arose from a mistake of the
transcriber. The first name omitted is Ahaziah, in Greek
'0;\^o^/ai', which is identical in the last three syllables with
'O^lav, the next name mentioned ; and it is supposed that the
transcriber, his eye catching the conclusion of the word,
overlooked the first syllable, 'O^, and the intervening names,
and so wrote ^O^lav as following Joram.^ But the authority
of all manuscripts is against this supposition, except perhaps
the Codex Bezffi. In that codex the first chapter of Matthew,
containing the genealogy, is wanting ; but the genealogical
list of Matthew from David to Joseph is incorporated in the
third chapter of Luke with the names of the three omitted
kings inserted. The omission of these names does not, of
course, affect the validity of the genealogy : it is not necessary
that all the links should be named.

Another king is omitted, namely, Jehoiakim. It is said:
" Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the
carrying away to Babylon. And after the carrying away to
Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel " (Matt. i. 11, 12);
whereas in reality Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim, and
Jehoiakim the father of Jechoniah or Jehoiachin. Bishop
Hervey supposes that the reading in Matthew originally was :
'j£0cr/a.9 Be iyevvrjae rbv ^IcoaKelfj, koI tov<; aSeXcfiOv^ avrov.
'Jcoa/cel/i Se iyei'Vijcre tov 'loya'^el/j, eVt t?}? /ji,€ToiKecria<;
Bal3vX(ouo<;. Mera Se Ti]v fieroLKealav Ba^v\o)vo<; ^Icoa-^elfi
iyivv-qcre tov l!aXadu]X. According to him, the mistake
arose from the similarity of names, the transcriber having
written ')(^ in the first name instead of Kr This reading is
supported by the Codex Bezfe, by two uncial manuscripts of
the tenth century, ]\I U, by thu'ty cursive manuscripts, by

' Tin; insertion of tlic names of these three kings would render the
nunilier fourteen in the second division of names erroneous; and hence
the common ojtiuion is that of Jerome, that the omission was for the sake
of obtaining the numlier foiuleeu in the threefold chvssification of the
genealogies.

2 Hervey, Genealogies, p. 73.

THE GENEALOGIES. 257

several Syriac manuscripts, and by Irenaeus, who says:
" Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jechoniah, as
also Matthew sets forth in his pedigree." ^ It is inserted by
Henry Stephens in his editions of the Greek Testament, pub-
lished in 1576 and 1584. And in a marginal note in the
Authorised Version it is said : " Some read Josias begat Jakim,
and Jakim begat Jechonias." But such a reading cannot be
admitted, on account of the preponderating weight of
contrary testimony. Dr. Morison supposes that the Jechoniah
in ver. 11 is different from the Jechoniah in ver. 12, and
that the name was common to both father and son. In
ver. 11 by Jechoniah is meant Jechoniah i. or Jehoiakim the
son of Josiah, and in ver. 12 by Jechoniah is meant Jechoniah
II. or Jehoiachin the son of Jehoiakim.^

There is also a difficulty in the classification of Matthew's
genealogies. " So all the generations, from Abraham unto
David, are fourteen generations ; and from David, unto the
carrying away to Babylon, are fourteen generations ; and from
the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ, are fourteen
generations " (Matt. i. 17). The genealogy is arranged in
three divisions, each containing fourteen generations. The
first division, from Abraham to David, is the same as the list
given by Luke, and contains exactly fourteen generations.
The second division, from Solomon to the Babylonish captivity,
also contains fourteen names ; but if the four kings omitted
were included, the number would be eighteen. In the third
division, from the Babylonish captivity to Christ, Jechoniah
must be again included to complete the number.^ The
periods are of very unequal length. The first series, from
Abraham to David, includes a period of upwards of 900
years ; the second series, from Solomon to the Captivity,
including the reign of the four kings omitted, is 416 years;
and the third series, from the Captivity to Christ, is 617

1 Adv. Hcer. iii. 21. 9.

2 Morison's Commentary on Matthew, on Matt. i. 11.

^ On the arrangement of the names in these three divisions, and the
necessity of inchiding Jechoniah both in the second and third divisions,
see Meyer on Matthew, vol. i. pp. 58, 59. If Jechoniah be reckoned only
once, we have only thirteen generations in the last series.

17

258 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

years. It is also to be observed that supposing Shealtiel and
Zerubbabel to be the same persons in both genealogies, the
number of generations given in Matthew differs from that
given in Luke. In Matthew the number from Solomon to
Shealtiel is fourteen, or, including the omitted kings, eighteen ;
the number given by Luke is twenty, which, however, is not
a iireat variation. But the number of s^enerations from
Shealtiel to Christ in Matthew is fourteen, whereas in Luke
it is twenty-two, which can only be explained on the supposi-
tion that several names have been omitted by Matthew ; or
that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are not the same persons m the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

In Luke's genealogy there is only one peculiarity which
requires to be noticed. The first portion, from Adam to
Abraham, not given by Matthew, is the same as the genealogy
given in Genesis, with the exception that Cainan is
mentioned as intervening between Shelah and Arphaxad
(Luke iii. 36). No such name occurs in the Hebrew or in
the Samaritan Pentateuch ; but it is found in the Septuagint,
and as Luke wrote in Greek, his genealogical list was,
doubtless, taken from that version. Of course, the Cainan
here mentioned as the son of Arphaxad is different from the
Cainan who is mentioned in the subsequent verse (Luke iii.
37) as the son of Enos, and whose name occurs in the Mosaic
chronology (Gen. v. 9, 10).

In comparing the genealogies, a great difficulty arises
from the fact that after they had branched off for at least
eighteen generations, the one in the line of Solomon and the
other in the line of Nathan, they meet again, after the lapse
of four centuries, in the persons of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel
(Matt. i. 12, 13; Luke iii. 27). It is generally taken for
granted that these persons are identical in both genealogies,
and are the same as those mentioned in the later books of
the Old Testament. This junction of the genealogies is
generally accounted for on the supposition that the royal
line of Solomon became extinct in Jehoiachin at the
Babylonish captivity,^ and that Shealtiel, the son of Neri

^ Mansel supposes tliat it became extinct iu the time of Ahaz, and
that Ilezekiah, the next in succession, was adopted as his heir. The

THE GENEALOGIES. 259

was the next in succession in the regal hne. It is asserted
that, according to the prediction or statement of Jeremiah,
Jehoiachin should be childless : " Thus saith the Lord,
Write ye this man (Coniah, that is, Jehoiachin) childless, a
man that shall not prosper in his days : for no man of his
seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David "
(Jer. xxii. 30). But these words do not absolutely affirm
that Jehoiachin should have no children, but merely that no
descendant of his should sit on the throne of David. Several
sons of Jehoiachin are mentioned in the Book of Chronicles,
and among them Shealtiel, or, as he is otherwise named,
Salathiel (1 Chron. iii. 17, 18); so that the statement that
Jechoniah begat Shealtiel is corroborated by the Old Testa-
ment. Zerubbabel is called the son of Shealtiel, and this is
also stated m the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the
prophecies of Haggai (Ezra iii. 2, 8 ; Neh. xii. 1 ; Hag. i. 1,
12, 14, ii. 2): whereas in the Book of Chronicles he is called
the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel (1 Chron. iii. 19),
which may be accounted for on the supposition that, as his
nephew, he became his heir and successor in the royal line.
The names of seven sons and two grandsons of Zerubbabel
are given in the Book of Chronicles (1 Chron. iii. 19, 20), but
among them occurs neither Abiud, the son of Zerubbabel,
according to Matthew (Matt. i. 13), nor Ehesa, his son, accord-
ing to Luke (Luke iii. 27). But the question arises. Are
we justified in assuming that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel
in Matthew are the same persons as those mentioned in
Luke ? In Matthew they occur as members of the royal
line of Solomon ; in Luke, as members of the unknown
line of Nathan, The Zerubbabel of Matthew is undoubtedly
the governor of the Jews, the grandson of Jehoiachin
mentioned in the later books of the Old Testament. Their
position in the genealogical line favours their identity ; as

reason for this is that Ahaz died at the age of thirty-six, so that unless
there be some error in the numbers, Ahaz was but eleven years older
than Hezekiah. Speaker's Commentary on Matthew, vol. i. p. 4. Calvin
goes further, and supposes that the Solomonic line became extinct on the
death of Ahaziah ; and that Joash is only called the son of Ahaziah
because he was his nearest relation, and the direct heir to the crown.

260 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

according to Matthew there are eighteen generations between
Solomon and Shealtiel, and according to Luke twenty genera-
tions between Nathan and Shealtiel. But apart from this,
and tlie coincidence that Shealtiel was the father of Zerub-
babel, there is no reason to suppose that they are the same
persons. It is altogether improbable that after eighteen
generations and the lapse of four centuries the genealogies
should meet in the same persons, and again immediately
branch off. May it not be that we have here two entirely
different persons : the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, the de-
scendants of Solomon, in Matthew, being those mentioned
in the later books of the Old Testament ; and the Shealtiel
and Zerubbabel, the descendants of Nathan, in Luke, being
otherwise unknown persons ? This is the view adopted by
Wieseler and Bleek as the most probable solution of the
difficulty. The occurrence of these persons in both lists, the
one the father and the other the son, and their nearly
identical position in the genealogies, are certainly serious
objections to this view ; but whatever view we adopt there is
a difficulty, and perhaps the conjecture that these names stand
for different persons is after all the most probable solution.

Three theories of reconciliation have been advanced to
bring these genealogies into accord : the theory of a levirate
marriage, the theory that both Matthew and Luke give the
genealogy of Joseph, and the theory that whilst Matthew
gives the genealogy of Joseph, Luke gives the genealogy of
Mary. The first and second theories may be combined.

The hypothesis of a levirate marriage proceeds on the
assumption that Jacob was the father of Joseph by a levirate
marriage, and that Heli was his real father ; or, conversely,
that Jacob was Joseph's real father, and Heli his putative or
legal father. According to the Mosaic law, it was enjoined
that if one of two brothers died having no children, his
brother should take his wife, and the firstborn should succeed
to the deceased brother (Deut. xxv. 5, 6). It is supposed
that such a case occurred here. Jacob and Heli were
brothers, and tlie one married the widow of the other ;
Matthew gives tlic genealogy of Jacob, tlie legal father of
Joseph, and Luke that of Heli, his real father ; or conversely.

. THE GENEALOGIES. 261

This was the early solution advanced by Julius Africanus,
about the middle of the third century, as recorded by
Eusebius.^ The following is the statement of Eusebius,
given in a somewhat abbreviated form : Matthew and Luke
in their Gospels have given the genealogy of Christ differ-
ently, and many suppose that they are at variance. We
subjoin the account of the matter which is given by Julius
Africanus in his Epistle to Aristides, in which he discusses
the harmony of the Gospel genealogies. After refuting the
opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the follow-
ing account which he had received from tradition. The
names of the generations were reckoned in Israel, either,
according to nature, by the succession of legitimate offspring,
or, according to law, whenever another raised up a child in
the name of a brother dying childless. Some are inserted in
the genealogical table who succeeded each other by natural
descent of father and son, and some who were born of others:
both the real and the reputed fathers are here mentioned.
Thus neither of the Gospels has made a false statement, for
the one reckons by nature and the other by law. So that
both accounts are strictly true, and come down to Joseph
with considerable intricacy indeed, but quite accurately.
If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon,
the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat
Jacob the father of Joseph ; but if, with Luke, we reckon
them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the
third from the end is Melchi,^ whose son Heli was the father
of Joseph. It must be shown how each is recorded to be
the father of Joseph, both Jacob who derived his descent from
Solomon, and Heli who derived his from Nathan. Jacob and
Heli were brothers, and their fathers, Matthan and Melchi,
although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers
of Joseph. Matthan and Melchi, having married in succession
the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers.
By Estha, for this was the woman's name according to

1 Hist. Eccl. i. 7.

^ In our text of Luke's Gospel Mattliat and Levi intervene between
MelcH and Heli (Luke iii. 24). Probably the text wliicli Julius
Africanus followed omitted these names.

262 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE,

tradition/ jMatthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat
Jacob ; and when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his
descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another
family, married her, and begat Heli. Thus we shall find the
two, Jacob and Heli, although belonging to different families,
were yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one,
Jacob, when his brother Heli had died childless, took the
latter's wife, and begat by her a son, Joseph, his own son by
nature. Wherefore also it is written Jacob begat Joseph
(Matt. i. 16). But according to law he was the son of Heli.
Accordingly Luke says : " Who was the son, as was supposed,
of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Melchi " (Luke iii.
23, 24); for he could not more clearly express the genera-
tions according to law.

According to this explanation the genealogy would be —

Solomon Nathan

I 1

Mattlian = Estha = Melchi

I I

Jacob Hell

Joseph by a levirate Joseph by legal
marriage with the succession,

widow of Heli.2

Matthew gives the genealogy of Jacob, and Luke that of
Heli.

This theory is intricate, and bears the aspect of a
hypothesis framed to remove a difficulty. Besides, the son
of a levirate marriage w^as always called the son of his real
father, and not of his legal father. Thus, for example, Obed
is called the son of Boaz, and not the son of Mahlon, whose
widow he married as being next of kin. The levirate
custom or law of marriage appears to have been concerned
with tlio peculiar law of heritage among the Jews. This
liypothesis may remove tlie difliculty arising from two distinct
genealogical lines ; but as both of these are connected with

^ We know nothing more of Estha : the name was probal>ly handed
down by tradititm from the gi-andsons of Jude, the brotlier of the Lord,
mentioned in this passjige by Julius Africanus.

- See Farrar On Luke, p. 372.

THE GENEALOGIES. 263

the descent of Joseph, the one his legal and the other his
real descent, they cannot properly be considered as genealogies
of Jesus, who was only supposed to be the son of Joseph ;
an objection which we shall more fully consider.

The second hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke
give the genealogy of Joseph, neither of them giving the
genealogy of Mary. This hypothesis has been adopted with
some variations by Calvin, Grotius, Hug, Winer, Bleek,
De Wette, Meyer, Bishop Hervey, Dr. Morison, Mansel,^
Dr. Samuel Davidson, Alford, Bishop Wordsworth, Carr,^
Bishop Ellicott,^ M'Clellan, Farrar,* and Geikie. According
to this hypothesis, Matthew gives the royal line of succession
from Solomon to Joseph, whilst Luke gives the natural or
lineal line from Nathan to Joseph. Their conjunction in
Shealtiel and Zerubbabel is generally explained on the
supposition that the royal line failed in the person of
Jehoiachin, as he, according to the prediction of Jeremiah,
had no children, and that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, descend-
ants from Nathan, succeeded as the heirs of Solomon. This
may account for the difference of names from David to Zerub-
babel, but does not account for the difference of names
between Zerubbabel and Joseph.^

The great, and to us insuperable, objection to this theory

^ Speaker's Commentary.

^ Commentary on Matthew: Cambridge Bible for Schools j p. 29.

^ Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord, 3rd ed. j). 96, note.

* Farrar On Luke, Excursus ii. : " The Double Genealogies of Christ
as the Son of David," pp. 369-375.

^ Attempts have been made to prove that several of the names that
occur after Zerubbabel are merely variations of the same name. Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, according to Luke (iii. 26), is supposed not to be a
proper name, but an appellative signifying a head or chief, ajiplied to
Zerubbabel as the prince of the Captivity. Abiud ('A/3/oi/S) in Matt. i. 13,
and Joanna (^lui/va) in Luke iii. 27, both reckoned as the sons of
Zerubl;)abel, are regarded as the same name. After this it is supposed
that the lines again diverge from Abiud and Joanna ; Matthew gives the
elder branch from Eliakim, probably the eldest son of Abiud, and Luke
from Joda a younger branch. It is further supposed that the genealogies
meet again in Matthan, who on the failure of Eliakim's line became the
head of the house of David. See Hervey's Genealogies, j^i?. 115 ff. and
p. 343.

264 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

is that neither of the genealogies gives that of Jesus. Jesus
was, according to both Matthew and Luke, by reason of His
miraculous birth, only the supposed son of Joseph and the
real son of Mary.^ We have then according to this theory,
so far as the genealogies are concerned, no proof that Jesus
was the son of David. The Davidic descent of Jesus is
repeatedly affirmed in Scripture. The title which the Jews
appHed to the Messiah, " The son of David," and the pre-
dictions of the prophets, tliat " a Branch should arise from
the root of David," all imply His Davidic descent ; but unless
Mary were descended from David, this could not be the case.
Peter, in his discourse on the Day of Pentecost, affirms that
of the fruit of the loins of David, according to the tlesh, God
would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne (Acts ii. 30).
Paul, in his discourse in Pisidian Antioch, makes the same
declaration, that of the seed of David, God, according to His
promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus (Acts xiii. 23).
In his Epistles he twice affirms the Davidic descent of Jesus:
" Jesus Christ our Lord was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh " (Rom. i. 3). " Jesus Christ, of the
seed of David, was raised from the dead " (2 Tim. ii. 8).
And in the Apocalypse our Lord is called " the root and the
offspring of David " (Rev. xxii. 6). But no conclusion of this
nature can be drawn from the Davidic descent of Joseph,
and consequently the genealogies, if they refer to Joseph
only, do not prove that our Lord was descended from David.
They are divested of their importance and interest. The
Davidic descent of Mary is asserted by the Fathers, as Justin
Martyr {Dial. c. Tryph. xlv.), Irenieus {Adv. Hccr. iii. 21. 5),
Tertullian, and others. As Meyer says : " The Davidic
descent of Jesus is established as certain by the predictions
of the prophets, which, in reference to so essential a mark of
the Messiah, could not remain without fulfilment, as well as
by the unanimous testimony of the New Testament." ^

This objection is thus met by Bishop Hervey : " If the

' Matt. i. 18 ; Lukt- iii. 35.

^ Meyer's Commentary on Matthew, vol. i. p. 61. At the same time,
Meyer asserts that there is no evidence of tliis from the genealogies, as
according to him the genealogy in Luke is not that of Mary.

THE GENEALOGIES. 265

Matthan of Matthew is the same individual as the Matthat of
Luke, it follows that Jacob and Heli were brothers. And if
Mary were the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph the son of
Heli, Joseph and Mary would be first cousins, grandchildren
of the same grandfather Matthat. And if Jacob had no son,
but only daughters, and his male heir and successor, as head
of the tribe of Judah, were Joseph the son of his brother Heli,
we are quite sure, from the constant practice of the Jews, that
Joseph would marry Mary ; just as the five daughters of
Zelophehad married their five cousins."^ But such an
answer to the objection cannot be maintained ; it is founded
not on one, but on four suppositions, not one of which can be
proved.

The third hypothesis is, that whilst Matthew gives the
genealogy of Joseph, Luke gives that of Mary. This theory
has been adopted by Luther, Dr. John Lightfoot, Hottinger,
Bengel,^ Kidder, Kuinoel, Michaelis, Yardley, M'Kuight, Gres-
well,^ Lange,* Auberlen, Wieseler, Ebrard,^ Holmes,^ Olshausen,'^
Smith of Jordanhill, Dean Spence, Andrews,^ Plumptre, Schaff,^
Godet,^*^ and Weiss.^^ According to this theory, Jesus is by the
genealogy of Matthew shown to be the legal heir of David's
throne, whilst by the genealogy of Luke He is shown to be
the seed of David according to the flesh, by His being the son
of Mary. The genealogy of Matthew is the genealogy of
Joseph, whilst the genealogy of Luke is that of Heli. Mary's
name is omitted in the genealogy, because it was not the
custom of the Jews to mention women in their genealogical
tables. That in one of the genealogies the descent of Mary is

^ Hervey's Genealogies, pp. 56, 57.

^ Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament on Matt. i. 16.

^ Greswell's Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 103.

* Lange's Life of Christ, vol. i. p. 380, translation.
^ Ebrard's Gospel History, p. 159.

'• Kitto's Cyclopedia, article, " Genealogy."
'' Olshausen, On the Gospels, vol. i. p. 39.

* Andrews' Life of Christ, p. 56.

® Schaff on " Matthew " in the Popular Commentary on the New Testa-
ment.

1" Godet's Commentary on Luke, vol. i. p. 201, translation.
^1 Weiss' Life of Jesus, vol. i. p. 220, translation.

266 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

given, is affirmed by Clemens Alexandrinus, although he fixes,
as we think erroneously, on that given by Matthew. " In the
Gospel according to Matthew the genealogy which is begun
with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of our
Lord." ^ And it is a curious circumstance that in the
Talnnid, Mary the mother of Jesus is called the daughter of
Heli, — a statement which could only be made from Luke's
Gospel, or more probably from tradition.^

But here we are met with what appears to be a formidable
objection : that as it is distinctly stated by ]\Iatthew that
Joseph was the son of Jacob, so it is as distinctly stated by
Luke that he was the son of Heli. It is not disputed that
Joseph was the son of Jacob ; the words are cleai , " Jacob
begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,
who is called Christ " (Matt. i. 16). But that Joseph was the
son of Heli is not so distinctly stated. According to the best
attested reading, the words are : wv u/09 w? ivofxi^ero 'I(0(Ti]<f)
rov 'H\d, rendered in the Eevised Version : " Being the son
(as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli" (Luke iii. 23).
But the parenthesis may be properly extended so that the
words might be read : " Being (the son as was supposed of
Joseph) the son of Heli." According to this reading, the
meaning might be that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph,
but through His mother Mary, omitted in the genealogy as
women are, the real son or grandson of Heli. Besides, it is
to be remarked that the article rov is omitted before the
name Joseph, whilst it is to be found before all the other
names belonging to the genealogical series. From this it may
be inferred that the name Joseph belongs to the parenthetical
clause introduced by Luke ; so that the genitive rov 'HXel
depends, not on Joseph, but on wv : Jesus, as was supposetl, tlie
son of Joseph, being the son of Heli. It is not uncommon in
the Old Testament for the grandson to be called the son of

' Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, i. 21. See also Justin, Dial, cum
Trypho. ch. cxx.

2 Chagig. 77. 4. Uodet On Luke, vol. i. j). 202. "From wlience," he
asks, " have Jewish schohirs derived this information ? If from the text of
Luke, this proves that they understood it as we (h) : if they received it
from tradition, it confirms the truth of the genealogical document Luke
made u.se of."

THE GENEALOGIES. 267

his grandfather. Thus, if this explanation be adopted, the
genealogy given by Luke is not that of Joseph, but of Heli the
grandfather of Jesus.-^

We conclude that this is the true solution of the problem
— the reconciliation of the genealogies of our Lord as given by
Matthew and Luke. We have not here the genealogy of the
same person, for if this were the case, the difference in the
names, so far as we can see, would be irreconcilable, except by
a series of improbable suppositions ; whereas if they are the
genealogies of different persons, then the difference in the
names is not only accountable but necessary.^ And, also,
whereas on the hypothesis that both genealogies refer to
Joseph, there is no evidence that Jesus was descended from
David ; on the other hypothesis that one of the genealogies
refers to Mary, it is proved that Jesus was of the seed of
David according to the flesh.

But it has been objected to the whole subject, that it is
very improbable that there should exist such long genealogical
registers, especially of persons such as Joseph and Mary, who,
according to the Gospels, were of humble origin, and that both
of them could trace their descent from David. But this
objection is met by the fact of the scrupulous carefulness of
the Jews with regard to their genealogies. We have abundant
evidence of this in the First Book of Chronicles and in the
Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Josephus frequently refers to
the public tables. In the account of his life, after giving his
own priestly descent, he says : " Thus have I set down the
genealogy of my family as I have found it described in the

1 See Godet, Commentary on Luke, a^oI. i. p. 199. He draws the
following conclusions from the omission of toS : 1. That this name
(Joseph) belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke. 2. That the
genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli.
3. And consequently that this piece was not originally the genealogy of
Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli. Since the above was written, we have
found the same theory proposed by Professor Roberts of St. Andrews in
an article in the Thinker, January 1895.

2 According to this view, the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew, the
first the son and the second the grandson of Jehoiachin, were the well-known
persons in the Old Testament, whilst the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of
Luke are two unknown persons.

268 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

public tables." And he informs us that from all countries
in which their priests are scattered abroad, they send to
Jerusalem the names of their parents, attested by witnesses.^
The famous Eabbi Hillel, a contemporary of our Lord,
succeeded in proving by means of genealogical tables that,
although a poor man, he was a descendant of David. Eabbi
Levi says : Tliere was found a book of genealogies at Jerusalem
in which it was written that Hillel was of the family of
David.2 Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel,
could trace her descent from the tribe of Asher (Luke ii. 3) ;
Paul asserted that he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin
(llom. xi. 1; Acts xiii. 21); and the grandsons of Jude, the
brother of our Lord, had to appear before Douiitian, because
they were the descendants of David.^ Of all the registers, we
may be certain that the royal register of David, from whom
the Messiah was to proceed, would be kept with the most
scrupulous care. These public registers would be destroyed
at the destruction of Jerusalem.

From the annotations found interspersed in the genea-
logical list given by Matthew, as well as from its omissions,
we think it not improbable that he constructed his own
genealogy without having recourse to the public registers.
On the otlier hand, Luke has none of these notes and
omissions, so that it is not improbable that he extracted his
genealogy from the public registers, being the genealogical
table of Heli, the father of Mary, and incorporated it into his
narrative with the explanatory clause, " being the son, as was
supposed, of Joseph."

^ Vita, § 1 ; Contra Ajnon. i. 7.

2 Lightfoot's Works, vol. iii. p. 41, Pitman's edition.

^ Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. iii. 19.

DISSERTATION II.

THE CENSUS OF QUIEINIUS.

Luke ii. 1, 2.

LiTEKATUEE. — The literature on this subject is extensive, as it
is discussed in all commentaries on Luke's Gospel. We give
a list of the most important works arranged al})habetically :
Andrews, Life of Christ, pp. 1 ff. ; Bleek's Synoptische En-
Marung, vol. i. pp. 6 6 ff. ; Caspari's Introduction to the Life of
Christ, trans, pp. 34—38 ; Davidson's Introduction to the
Study of the New Testament, 3rd ed. vol. i. pp. 451—456 ;
Ebrard's Gospel History, pp. 1 3 6 ff ; Ewald's Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, vol. v. pp. 132 ff. ; trans, vol. vi. pp. 152-157 ;
Farrar's Life of Christ, vol. ii. Appendix ; Date of Christ's
Birth, pp. 149—152; Gerlach, -Dt'e romischen Statthalter in
Syria und Judcea, pp. 22-42 ; Godet's Commentary on Luke's
Oosjjcl, trans, vol. i. pp. 119—128 ; Greswell's Dissertations on
the Gospels, vol. i. Dissertation xii. pp. 443-525 ; Huschke,
Ueber den zu der Gehurt Jesu Christi gehalten Census, a work
which has not been accessible to me ; Lewin's Fasti Sacri ;
Meyer's Commentary on Luke ; Mommsen's Provinces of the
Roman Empire ; Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of
Christ; Sieffert's article, " Schatzung," in Herzog's Rcal-Ency-
clopddie, 2nd ed. ; Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article,
" Cyrenius " ; Steinmeyer, Die Geschichte der Gehurt des Jesus ;
Wieseler's Chronologische Synopse, pp. 73 ff. ; trans, by the
Eev. P. A^enables, pp. 45—135 ; Winer's Peahuorterhuch,
articles, " Quirinus " and " Schatzung " ; and Zumpt, Das
Geburtsjahr Christi.

The statement of Luke concerning the census of Quirinius,

269

270 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

as given in the textus receptus, is as follows : 'Eyevero 8e iv
Toi^ rjfx,epai<; iKelvaL<i, e^rjXde Boyfia irapa Kaiaapo<i Avyovarov,
aTToypdcpeadai, Tracrav rijv olKOVfxevrjv' avirj 1) d7roypa(f)j} Trpcorrj
eyevero riyefj.ovevovro<i Tf]<i Xvpia<i KvprjVLov (Luke ii. 1, 2).
These words are translated according to the Authorised
Version : " And it came to pass in those days, that there
went out a decree from Cicsar Augustus that all the world
should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when
Cyrenius was governor of Syria ") ; and, according to the
Eeviscd Version : " Now it came to pass in those days, there
went out a decree from Csesar Augustus, that all the world
should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment made
when Quirinius was governor of Syria." This decree of
Ctesar Augustus was issued in those days {iv rah rj/xepat,^
iK6tvaL<;), that is, at or about the time of our Lord's birth.
Udaav rrjv oiKovfievrjv (that all the world) is not to be
restricted to the land of Judrea or Palestine (Kuinoel,
Olshausen), but denotes the Eoman Empire ; for such is the
usual import of the expression, and is evidently its meaning
here, as the decree was issued by Ciesar Augustus.
^A7roypd(f)ecr6ai does not signify " to be taxed," as in the
Authorised Version, but " to be enrolled," as in the Eevised
Version. A census was to be made, probably to ascertain
the population and resources of the empire, and, perhaps,
with a view to future taxation ; but it does not necessarily
infer that such a taxation should follow immediately. So,
also, dTToypacf))'] does not denote taxation, but enrolment.
The article r) before diroypacprj is omitted in our best
manuscripts, s B D, and is rejected by Lachmann, Tischen-
dorf, and Westcott and Hort, but retained by Alford and
Meyer. The Eevisers have omitted it without any marginal
note. Its omission causes a slight change in the translation.
If this reading bo adopted, ainr] is the subject of iyevero, and
d7roypa(f)r) irpoiTq the predicate, so that the words nnist be
rendered as in the Eevised Version : " This was the first
enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

The reality of this census of the Eoman Empire has been
questioned on the ground that there is no historical evidence,
either from Josephus or from the Eoman historians, tliat

THE CENSUS OF QUIKINIUS. 271

such a census was taken at this period. But this is a
mistake. Various statistical accounts were drawn up.
Julius Caesar, we are informed, had undertaken, with a view
to an exact system of taxation, a great statistical work,
containing a survey of the Eoman Empire {descriptio orMs).
This work was continued by Augustus, and is said to have
occupied thirty-two years. Augustus, with that wisdom for
which he was so distinguished, sought to consolidate his
vast empire, and for this purpose several censuses were taken
during his reign. Of these three are specially mentioned.
Thus Suetonius says : " Augustus thrice took a census of the
people, the first and the third time with a colleague, and the
second by himself." ^ This statement is confirmed by the
Ancyran monument,^ containing a record of the actions of
Augustus. On it we are informed that these three censuses
were held u.c. 726, 746, and 767, corresponding with B.C.
28, 8, and a.d. 13.^ It may be that no special census is
mentioned about the year of our Lord's birth, yet there is
nothing against the supposition that such a census may then
have been made, or that one of the censuses above men-
tioned may then have been carried into effect. Indeed, the
second of these, which occurred in B.C. 8, according to many
biblical scholars, was made in the very year in which our
Lord was born. It has, indeed, been affirmed that these
censuses were made only of Eoman citizens ; but we learn
from Tacitus that they included also the allies and depend-
encies of Eome. We are informed by him that after the
death of Augustus, Tiberius ordered the imperial register to

^ Suetonius, Augustus, xxvii.

2 The Monume7itum Ancyranum is an inscrijation in Greek and Latin
on the walls of a temple erected in honour of Augustus at Ancyra
the modern Angora. It contains an account of the principal events
in the life of that emperor ; a great part of the inscription is still
legible.

^ Much complication arises from the different methods of chronology ;
the one dated from the founding of Rome A.u.c, and the other our
ordinarily received Christian era. The Eoman era corresponding with
the Christian era was a.u.c. 754. The conversion of a date B.C. or a.d
into a date a.u.c. is therefore effected by subtracting the date B.C. and by
adding the date a.d. to the number 754. Thus the date of the death of
Herod the Great is A.u.c. 750, that is, B.C. 4.

272 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

be produced and read. It contained a summary of the
resources of the State, the number of Eomans and auxiliaries
in tlie armies, the extent of the navy, kingdoms, provinces,
tributes, customs, the public expenditure and largesses. The
register was all written by the hand of Augustus.^

It has been further objected that in a general census
of the Eoman Empire, the kingdom of Juda-a would be
excluded, because at this time it formed no part of the
empire, but was governed by a king of its own, and it was
not until it had lost its independence l;)y the dethronement of
Archelaus, the son and successor of Herod the Great, that a
census of the population with a view to taxation was made.
But there is no reason to suppose that these confederate
kingdoms were excluded from the census which was taken
of the Eoman Empire. The reges socii of the Eomans were
merely nominal rulers : they not only owned the suzerainty
of Eome, but they were appointed and dethroned at the
pleasure of the Eoman senate and the emperor : there was no
great difference between their power and that of the Eoman
proconsuls. The independence of Judiea was at this time
only nominal : the Jews had to take an oath of allegiance to
Augustus as well as to their own king.^ Herod could do
nothing without the permission of Caesar. These subordinate
kings certainly taxed their own people : and in this instance
the enrolment mentioned in Luke's Gospel, although enjoined
by the emperor, was carried out, not according to Eoman, but
according to Jewish procedure ; besides, it must be remem-
bered that it was not an assessment, but merely a census.

The exact year of our Lord's birth is still a matter of
doubt, and different dates have been assigned to it. Our
received chronology is not older than the sixth century, and
was first introduced into the Christian Church by Dionysius,
surnamed Exiguus, a monk who lived in tlie reign of
Justinian, and hence it is called the Dionysian era. It is
now acknowledged l)y almost all critics and chronologists to
be erroneous ; and it is considered that the date of our Lord's
birth was several years earlier than is represented in our
connnon chronology. There is no doubt whatever that
' Tacitus, Ann. i. 11. - Josfplms, Ant. .wii. 2. 4.

THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS. 273

Herod the Great was alive when our Lord was born. This is
affirmed both by Matthew and Luke. According to Matthew,
Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod
the king (Matt. ii. 1); and, according to Luke, it was in the
days of Herod the king of Judaea (Luke i. 5) that the angel
of the Lord appeared to Zacharias, the father of the Baptist.
Now the date of Herod's death can be ascertained from the
history of Josephus with great exactness. " Herod," he says,
" died the fifth day after he had caused Antipater (his son) to
be slain, having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be
slain, thirty-four years ; and since he had been declared king
by the Eomans, thirty-seven years." ^ Almost all chronolo-
gists have fixed upon B.C. 4, or A.U.C. 750, as the date of Herod's
death.2 There is also evidence that our Lord was born some
time before that event, because time must be allowed for the
presentation in the temple, the visit of the wise men, and
the flight into Egypt ; and yet it is evident that no great
amount of time could have elapsed (Matt. ii. 19), perhaps one
or two years. Eusebius says that it was in the forty-second
year of the reign of Augustus, and the twenty-eighth year
after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Antony and
Cleopatra, that our Lord was born in Bethlehem of Judaea : ^
giving the approximate date of B.C. 3. The following are the
opinions of some of the leading critics and chronologists :
Zumpt fixes on B.C. 8 ; Alford and Ebrard, on B.C. 7 ;
Kepler and Lardner, on B.C. 6 ; Usher, on B.C. 5 ; Bengel,
Wieseler, Greswell, and EUicott, on B.C. 4. Probably the
most correct date is B.C. 5, a year before the death of
Herod.

The enrolment is said to have been made when Quirinius
was governor of Syria. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, or as his
name is elsewhere written, Quirinus,* was a distinguished
Roman officer. He was entrusted with many important com-

^ Joseph. Ant. xvii. 8. 1.

2 So Weiseler, Winer, Meyer, Schiirer, Zumpt.

^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. i. 5.

* In Tacitus and Suetonius the name is written Quirinus ; in Strabo
and Josephus, Quirinius. Quirinius is the Greek form of the Roman name.
In the Vatican manuscript it is Quireinus (Kvpiivov) ; in the Alexandrian,
Quirunius (Knpvviov) ; and in the Sinaitic, Quirenius (Kvpnu'tov).
i8

274 GOSPEL OF LUKE.

missions, and was in great favour both with Augustus and with
Tiberius. He was consul, B.C. 12, along with Valerius Messala
Barbatus. Our information concerning him is chiefly derived
from the account given by Tacitus. " About this time Tiberius
desired of the senate that the decease of Sulpicius Quirinus
might be celebrated by a public funeral. Quirmus was born
at Lanuvium, a municipal town, and nowise related to the
ancient patrician family of the Sulpicii ; but being a brave
soldier was for his active services rewarded with the consul-
ship under Augustus, and soon after with a triumph for
driving the Homonadensians out of their strongholds in Cilicia.
When the young Caius Caesar (the grandson of Augustus) was
sent to settle the affair's of Armenia, Quirinus was appointed
his tutor, and at the same time paid court to Tiberius,
then in his retirement at Rhodes. The emperor represented
this to the senate ; he extolled the kind offices of Quirinus,
and branded Marcus Lollius as the author of the perverse
behaviour of Caius Caesar to himself, and of all the jarring
between them. But the memory of Quirinus was not agree-
able to the rest of the senate by reason of the danger to
which he exposed Lepida,^ as I have before related, and his
sordid meanness and overbearing conduct in the latter part of
his life." -

But a formidable objection to the statement regarding
the census occurs, amounting to an apparent contradiction.
According to Luke, Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the
census or enrolment was made by him at or about the time of
our Lord's birth (Luke ii. 1). But Josephus informs us that
Quirinius did not receive the appointment of governor of
Syria until ten years after, when Archelaus, the son of Herod,
was deposed, and Judiua was annexed to the cmi)ire and
incorporated with the province of Syria. Quirinius was then
sent into Syria to settle the annexation of Judaea, and to take
a census of the population with a view to taxation ; which
census gave rise to that memorable outbreak of tlie Jews
headed ))y Judas of Galilee. " Ai'chelaus' country," says

^ For the coiulucL of (^uiriiiius toward IiIh wifi' Li-pida, see Tacitus,
Ann. iii. 22.

' Tacitus, Ami. iii. 48.

THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS. 275

Josephus, " was annexed to the province of Syria ; and
Quirinius, who had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take
account of the effects of the people." ^ And again : " Quirinius
came himself into Judwa, which was now added to the pro-
vince of Syria, to take an account of their substance and to
dispose of the money of Archelaus." ^ Besides, accordmg to
Josephus, it was not Quirinius who was governor of Syria at
the time of the death of Herod the Great, which occurred
shortly after the birth of Christ, but Varus, afterwards
notorious in Eoman history for his defeat and the destruction
of his legions by the Germans. He informs us that Varus,
the governor of Syria, came to Jerusalem, and presided at the
trial of Antipater, the son of Herod, who was put to death
by his father five days before his own death.^ Varus con-
tinued for some time longer, for he quelled the disturbances
which arose after the death of Herod.

There is thus an apparent discrepancy in these accounts.
Luke states that Quirinius was governor of Syria about the
time of our Lord's birth ; and Josephus, that this was not
until ten years later, and that it was then that he made the
census. Some suppose that Luke has committed an error in
stating that the census of Quirinius occurred ten years before
it actually happened. But it is very improbable that such a
mistake should be committed by a historian whose extreme
accuracy has, in other points, been testified to and verified.
Luke was well acquainted with the census of Quirinius which
gave rise to the revolt of Judas of Galilee, and alludes to it in
his Acts of the Apostles : " After this man rose up Judas of
Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and drew away some
of the people after him" (Acts v. 37).

When we turn to the statements of the Fathers we have
apparently two different accounts. Justin Martyr agrees with
Luke that the census was made by Quirinius about the time
of our Lord's birth. He makes three allusions to it. In his
first Apology he says : " There is a village in the land of the
Jews five and thirty stadia from Jerusalem, m which Jesus
Christ was born, as you can ascertain from the registers of

^ Josephus, Ant. xvii. 13. 5. ^ Ibid, xviii. 1. 1.

8 Ibid. xvii. 5. 2.

276 GOSPEL OF LUKE.

the enrolment under Quii-inius, the first procurator in Judaea."
" Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under
Quirinius." And in his Dialogue loith Tryplio he says : " On
the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judaea
under Quirinius, Joseph went from Nazareth, where he lived, to
Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled." ^ Justin
here corroborates the statement of Luke, that the census was
made under Quirinius ; and for the truth of this he appeals
to the public registers. The same statement is made by
Eusebius : " Christ was born the same year when the first
census was taken, and Quirinius was governor of Syria." -

TertuUian, on the other hand, affirms that when the
census mentioned in Luke's Gospel was taken, Sentius
Saturninus was governor of Syria. " It is certain," he
observes, " that at this very time (when our Lord was born)
a census had been taken in Judoea by Sentius Saturninus,
which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family
and descent of Christ." ^ Caius Sentius Saturninus filled the
office of governor of Syria, B.C. 10-6, and was succeeded by
Quintilius Varus, B.C. 6—4. It is too liastily supposed that
Tertullian here commits a historical blunder. Many critics
affirm that our Lord was born when Saturninus was governor
of Syria. This, however, is not asserted by Tertullian : he
merely affirms that under the government of Saturninus a
census was taken in Juda-a ; and there is nothing improbable
in the supposition that sucli a census was appointed or
commenced during the last year of the proconsulship of
Saturninus, B.C. 6, and was continued and completed by his
successor Varus, perhaps with the assistance of Quirinius.

Still the difficulty confronts us that whilst, according to
Luke, the census was taken at the birth of Christ, when
Quirinius was governor of Syria ; according to Josephus it
was not made until ten years later, when at tliat time
Quirinius was appointed governor. Several attempts luive
been made to solve tlie difficulty, either by giving different
interpretations to the words of the evangelist, or by an

' Justin Martyr, Ajiol. i. cli. xxxiv. and ili. xlvi. ; Dial. c. Tnjph.
ch. Ixxviii.

- Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. i. 5. ^ Adv. Marcion. iv. 19.

THE CENSUS OF QUIKINIUS. 277

examination into the historical circumstances of the
times.

Some attempt the solution of the difficulty by conjectural
readings and emendations. Beza, Olshausen, and Kuinoel call
in question the integrity of the text. They suppose it to be
a gloss by some ignorant transcriber; perhaps a margmal
note which found its way into the text. Others have recourse
to conjectures ; for example, that instead of Kvprjviov the
original reading was KvvrCkiov, referring to Quintilius Varus,
or Xarovpvivov, referring to Sentius Saturninus. Michaelis
proposes to read irpo tt]^ r)j€/j,ov6vovro<; k.t.X. : the first
enrolment which took place before Quirinius was governor of
Syria. All these and similar suppositions must be rejected
as at variance with critical authorities.

Some critics, putting stress on avrr), suppose that the paren-
thetic clause, "and this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was
governor of Syria," ^ was added for the purpose of drawing a
distinction between this enrolment and the census made ten
years afterwards by Quirinius : this enrolment was the prelude of
that more celebrated enrolment made by Quirinius when actual
taxation took place. This view of the matter was suggested
by Ebrard. " When," he observes, " Luke speaks of a census
which was taken at the time of Christ's birth, he must have
made a distinction between this and the later census of Quirinius,
which he calls in Acts v. 37, 17 airo'ypa^r), the census Kai*
e^oxnv." ^ Calvin appears to have adopted a similar view :
" The words of Luke," he observes, " bear this sense, that about
the time of our Lord's birth an edict came out to have the
people registered, but that the registration could not take
place till after a change of the kingdom, when Judsea had been
annexed to another province. This clause is accordingly added
by way of correction : This first registration was made when
Quirinius was governor of Syria ; that is, it was then first carried
into effect." ^ But such a view necessitates a different mean-
ing to the verb airo'ypdi^eaOai. and the noun airofypat^rj : in
the one case the word signifies to be enrolled ; in the other,
actual taxation. Besides, according to Luke, the decree was

1 Authorised Version. ^ Ebrard's Gospel History, p. 141.

^ Calvin on Luke ii. 2.

278 GOSPEL OF LUKE.

not only issued, but actually carried into effect, as is evident
from the journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to
Bethlehem in order that their names might be registered in
the public census.

Other critics, putthig stress on the word irpcort], "the
llrst eiu'olment," suppose that it stands for the comparative
nrpoTepa, and that the words i)'yep.ovevovTo<i t?}? ^vpia<;
Kvprjvlov are dependent upon it, being governed by it in
the genitive. They translate the passage : " This enrolment
was made before Quirinius was governor of Syria." Thus the
enrolment in the text is distinguished from that subsequently
made by Quirinius. This view has been adopted by Tholuck,
Ewald, Wieseler,^ Greswell,^ and Dr. Samuel Davidson ^ in his
first Introduction to the New Testament. In support of this
view it is affirmed that the superlative 7rp(OTo<; is frequently
used for the comparative irporepo^; in the sense of before. As
when the Baptist says : " This is He of whom I said, He that
Cometh after me is become before me : for He was before
me" {oTL irpoyro^ fiov rjv, John i. 15, 30); and when our
Lord says : " If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath
hated Me before it hated you" {irpSiTov vficov, John xv. 18).
But such an interpretation is here hardly admissible. It not
only assumes that the superlative irpcoTT}, first, is used in the
sense of the comparative irporipa, hcfore ; but it causes it to
govern the words rjyefjbovevovro'i t^9 Xvpla'^ KvprjvLov, which
are naturally to be taken as a genitive absolute. This has
been regarded as inadmissible by all our distinguished gram-
marians. Thus Winer says : " If such were Luke's meaning,
his language would be not only ambiguous, but also awkward
if not ungrammatical. Huschke has not succeeded in finding
an example which is really parallel : he merely illustrates the
very familiar construction of Trpwro? with tlie genitive of
a noun." **

Other critics fix on the word i'yevero, and give it the

^ Wieseler, Synopsis of the Gospels, pp. 101 ff.
2 Greswell's Dissertation, vol. ii. p. 523.
•■» Davidson's Introduction to the N.T. 1st wl. p. 213.
■* AVinor's Grammar of the N.T. Greek, tran.slati'tl liy Dr. Moulton,
p. 30G. So also Buttinauu's Grammar of N.T. Greek, p. 84.

THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS. 279

sense of vms done or completed : " This enrolment was com-
pleted, as the first enrolment, when Quirinius was governor
of Syria." According to this view the evangelist distinguishes
between the enrolment begun at the birth of Christ and the
enrolment completed under Quirinius. This opinion has been
adopted by Hofmann and Canon Cook.^ This supposes that
no less than ten years elapsed between the issuing of the
decree and its completion, which is altogether at variance
with the rapid procedure of the Eomans. Others distinguish
between the enrolment or placing on the register and the
levying of the taxation which took place under Quirinius,
an opmion to which we have previously alluded.

A more plausible explanation is that the title '^y€fjLovevovTo<i
T^9 Xvpia<i was here conferred on Quirinius because he was at
this time entrusted with an extraordinary commission in
Syria. Quirinius, as we know, was then in the East as an
officer of high distinction, and invested with powers. He
defeated the Homonadensians, a Cilician tribe, and shortly
afterwards was appointed tutor or governor to Caius Csesar,
the grandson of Augustus, probably about A.D. 1. It has
been supposed, not without some grounds, that, in consequence
of his distinguished rank and abilities, he was employed as
chief commissioner of Syria to carry into effect the census
appointed by Augustus, and was for this purpose invested
with an authority equal to that of the governor of Syria, who
was then either Sentius Saturninus or Quintilius Varus. He
might even for this purpose have been appointed joint
governor.^ This opinion has been adopted by Grotius, Beza,
Hug, Winer, Neander, and Gerlach. The great objection to
it arises from the silence of history ; but as, according to
the view here taken, the appointment was only temporary
for a definite purpose, its historical omission may easily
be accounted for. But the title ■^yefjbovevovro'i t^9 Xvpim

1 Speaker's Bible, N.T. vol. i. pp. 326-329, note : On the Census of
Cyrenius.

^ It is very doubtful if there were ever joint governors of Syria.
Josephus indeed speaks of Saturninus and Volumnius as governors of
Syria, Ant. xvi. 9. 1. But Volumnius, of whom elsewhere we know
nothing, may have acted only as legate to Saturninus.

280 GOSPEL OF LUKE.

can only denote " the governor of Syria " : if merely an
extraordinary commissioner, a different title would have been
employed.

Another possible solution is that Quirinius is here called
governor of Syria, Ijccause this was the name by wliich he
was best known wlien Luke wrote his Gospel ; although
at the time when he made this early census, at the bu-th of
our Lord, he was not actually governor. When a man has
occupied with distinction an important office, he is often
spoken of by the title conferred on him in mentioning events
which happened even prior to his occupation of that office.
Thus Cato Major is known in Eoman history as Cato the
censor ; so Quirinius may have been known as Quirinius the
governor of Syria. But there is no ground for this opinion,
especially as the words are quite clear, Quirinius being
governor of Syria : ^ it is adopted by few, and need not
occupy our attention.

Hitherto the solutions of the difficulty have been drawn
chiefly from the text, and are derived from the different
meanings attached to the words aim}, irpdoTr), iyeveTO, and
rjyefiovevovTo^;. We now come to a much more important
solution of a different character, resting on different grounds,
and founded on an exact examination of the historical
circumstances of the times. A. W. Zumpt, nephew of the
celebrated grammarian of the same name, in a monograph of
great learning and research,- has undertaken to prove that
Quirinius was twice governor of Syria — first, close upon the
period usually assigned by biblical critics for the birth of our
Lord, B.C. 5 or 4 ; and a second time, ten years afterwards, when
Judffia was annexed to the province of Syria, as mentioned
by Josephus. His reasoning is most ingenious, and is con-
sidered to be convincing by many distinguished critics and
historians.

Zumpt makes a very careful inquiry into the succession
of the governors of Syria and the duration of their govern-
ments ; and he makes the discovery that there is an interval
close upon the time of our Lord's birth wliich is not accounted
for. About n.c. 10 (4^ nyeian oru) -H iG, 14}, Titius was

' Tiyi/^ouivovro; rii; "ZvptMc: Kvprii/i'ov. - Ikis Udmrtsjiihr Clii'isti.

THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS. 281

appointed governor of Syria : he was succeeded by Sentius
Saturninus, who held the office for three years, B.C. 9—6.
His successor — Quinctilius Varus — was appointed B.C. 6, and
was governor of Syria B.C. 4, the year in which Herod the
Great died. After him there is a gap, and no further
mention of the governors of Syria is made until we come
to Quirinius, a.d. 6 (Dionysian era, A.D. 10), except that
Volusius Saturninus is mentioned as governor of Syria on
a coin of Antioch about a.d. 4, The question then is. Can we
determine who was governor of Syria from B.C. 4, when Varus
departed, to a.d. 4, when Volusius Saturninus was appointed ?
Zumpt, as the result of several most ingenious investigations,
arrives at the conclusion that this was Quirinius.

The arguments which he uses in support of this conclu-
sion, if not absolutely convincing, are at least so highly
plausible, that they have obtained the assent of our most
distinguished Eoman historians. Tacitus, in his Annals,
informs us that Quirinius, shortly after his consulship,
obtained a triumph for his victory over the Homonadensians,
having driven them out of their strongholds in Cilicia.^
This war is also mentioned by Strabo. " Quirinius," he says,
" reduced them (the Homonadensians) by famine, and took
four thousand prisoners, whom he settled as inhabitants in the
neighbouring cities." ^ It occurred at the very time in ques-
tion (B.C. 4 to A.D. 1), for Tacitus informs us that it was
before Quirinius was appointed tutor or governor to Caius
Caesar (a.d. 1). The question arises. In what capacity did

^ The governors of Syria are thus given by Zumpt —
M. Titius, aliout B.C. 10.
G. Sentius Saturninus, B.C. 9-6.
P. Quinctilius Varus, B.C. 6-4.
P. Sulpicius Quirinius, B.C. 4-1 ?.
M. Lollius, B.C. 1 to A.D. 2.
C. Marcius Censorinus, a.d. 2-4.
L. Volusius Saturninus, a.d. 4-6.
P. Sulpicius Quirinivis, a.d. 6-11.
Zumjit's Das Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 71. See also Schiirer's The Jewish
People in the Time of Jesus Clirist, Div. i. vol. i. pp. 351-357.

2 Tacitus, Ann. iii. 48 : "Consulatum sub divo Augusto, mox expug-
natis per Ciliciani Homonadensium castellis insignia triumphi adeptus."
^ Strabo, xii. 6. 5.

282 GOSPEL OF LUKE.

Qiiirinius carry on this war ? It must liave been as governor
of that province to which the Homonadensians belonged, and
that province must have been a proconsular province ; for it
was only the governor of a proconsular province who could
possess an army and make war, and to whom the peace of
the province he governed was entrusted. Now, Zumpt proves
by an exhaustive process that this province could not have
been Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, or
Galatia, which were pretorian or senatorial provinces, and
possessed no army ; but must have been Cilicia, especially as
the Homonadensians had their strongholds within that country.
But at this time the province of Cilicia was reduced in size,
and its eastern half was assigned to Syria. It appears to
have had no governor of its own ; so that the conclusion at
wliich Zumpt arrives is that Quirinius, at the time of that
war with the Homonadensians, was governor of Syria. This
conclusion has been adopted by the distinguished Roman
liistorian Mommsen : " The Syrian army," he says, " carried
out the chastisement of the Homonadensians ; the governor,
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, advanced some years later into
their territory, cut off their supplies, and compelled them to
submit en 7?)«.s,sr, whereupon theywere distributed among the sur-
rounding townships, and their former territory was laid waste." ^
This view is supposed to be supported by the fragment
of a sepulchral inscription found at Tibur (Tivoli)- in 17G4,
and now placed in the Vatican Museum. The inscription
states that the person whom it commemorates was proconsul
of Asia and twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia. Althougli
the name Quirinius does not appear on it, yet it is supposed
tliat it refers to his official appointments, supposing that he
was twice governor of Syria. Of course such an opinion is
liable to great uncertainty, but it has been adopted by such
distinguished historians as Mommsen ^ and Merivale. The

' Mommsen, TVic Provinces of the Roman Empire, vol. i. p. 336, trans-
lated by Piufo.ssor Dick.son of Glas^gow University.

2 Canon Cook, in the Hpeakcr's^ Commentary, is mistaken in supposing
that this inscription was found in the Tiber.

^ lies gestce divi A^igusti, p. 121. Mommsen believes that Quirinius was
proconsul of Syria A.u.c. 751, 752, that is, b.c. 3, 2.

THE CENSUS OF QUIEINIUS. 283

inscription, indeed, proves that the person referred to was
twice governor of Syria, but there is no proof that Quirinius
was ever proconsul of Asia. As Schiirer observes : " The
theory that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria is not to
be based on the inscription ; but, on the contrary, the applica-
tion of the inscription to Quirinius is based upon the proof,
elsewhere obtamed, that he held the governorship a second
time." 1

From these investigations of Zumpt, and the discovery
made by him that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, the
first time shortly after the birth of Christ, and the second
time ten years later, the following result may be said to have
been obtained. Our Lord was born about B.C. 5, when Varus
was governor of Syria.^ The census of the empire, ordered
by a decree of Augustus, was, according to the statement of
Tertullian, commenced by Saturninus, B.C. 6, or, perhaps,
rather a year later by Varus, B.C. 5, and completed by
Quirinius, who entered upon his first government B.C. 4.
Quirinius was not appointed governor until after the death
of Herod, and consequently after the birth of Christ ; but the
census was called after him, because he carried it into effect.
Ten years after this he was a second time appointed governor
of Syria, and made a second census with a view to taxation.
This gives a satisfactory interpretation to the whole passage :
the two censuses are distinguished. Luke says : " This was
the first enrolment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria,"
implying that there was a second enrolment by Quirinius,
which occurred ten years later, during his second government.
This view of Zumpt has been accepted by the two great
Eoman historians, Mommsen and Merivale. " A remarkable
light," observes Merivale, " has recently been thrown upon
this point — the year of our Lord's birth — by the demonstration,
as it seems to be, of Augustus Zumpt, that Quirinius was first
governor of Syria from B.C. 4 to B.C. 1. Accordingly, the
enumeration begun or appointed under his predecessor Varus,
and before the death of Herod, was completed after that event

^ ScMirer, History of the People of Israel, vol. i. p. 354.
2 Ziimpt fixes on B.C. 8, when Saturninus was governor of Syria ; Init
this appears to be too early.

284

GOSPEL OF LUKE.

by Qiiiriuius. It would appear from hence that our Lord's
birth was a.u.c. 750, or 749 at the earliest," ^ that is, b.c.
4 or 5.

' Merivale's History of the Romans under the Empire, vol. iv.
p. 428, note.

LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED OR REFERRED TO.

Abbott's, Dr. Edwin, Article on the Gospels in the Encyclo-
pedia Britannica. Fourth Edition. Vol. x.
Abbott and Kushbrooke's Common Tradition of the Synoptic

Gospels. London, 1884.
Alford's Greek Testament. Vol. i. Fourth Edition. London,

1889. Last Edition, 1894.
Andrews' Life of our Lord. London, 1869. New and

Enlarged Edition. Edinburgh (T. & T. Clark), 1892.
Ante-Nicene Library. Edinburgh, 1867-1872.
Badham's Formation of the Four Gospels. London, 1892.
Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels. London, 1874.
Barnes' Canonical and Uncanonical Gospels. London, 1891.
Baur's Marcus-Evangelium. Tubingen, 1851.
Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Editio tertia. Tubingen,

1850. Translated by Fletcher. Edinburgh, 1859.
Bleek's Einleitung in das neue Testament. Translated by

Urwick. Edinburgh, 1869.
Bleek's Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien.

Leipzig, 1862.
Bruce's Kingdom of God. Edinburgh, 1889.
Bryennios' Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Translated by

Hitchcock and Brown. New York, 1884.
Burgon on the Last Twelve Verses in St. Mark's Gospel.

Oxford, 1871.
Calvin's Commentaries : The Gospels. Calvin Translation

Society.
Campbell, Principal, On the Gospels. Edinburgh, 1821.

285

286 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO,

Campbell, Dr. Colin, Critical Studies in St. Luke. Edin-
burgh, 1891.
Carpenter, The First Three Gospels. Second Edition,

London, 1890.
Carr on Matthew. Cambridge Bible for Schools. Cambridge,

1890.
Caspari's Life of Christ. Translation. Edinburgh (T. & T,

Clark), 1876,
Cave's Lives of the Apostles. Oxford, 1840.
Charteris' Canouicity. Edinburgh, 1880,
Credner's Einleitung in das neue Testament. Halle, 1836.
Davidson's Biblical Criticism: New Testament. Edinburgh,

1852.
Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament. First

Edition. London, 1849,
Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament.

London, 1868. Third Edition, 1894.
De Wette's Einleitung in das N. T, Sechste Ausgabe. Berlin,

1860,
Dods' Introduction to the New Testament. London, 1868,
Ebrard, The Gospel History. Translation. Edinburgh, 1860.
Edersheiui's Life and Times of Jesus. London, 1886.
Eichhoru's Einleitung in das N. T. Leipzig, 1804.
EUicott's Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord.

Hulsean Lectures. Third Edition. London, 1862.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Ninth Edition.
Essays and Reviews : Jowett's Essay. Eighth Edition. London,

1881.
Eusebii Historitc Ecclesiastica?. Edited by Heinichen.

Leipzig, 1827.
Ewald's, Hcinrich, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Dritte

Ausgabe. Gottingen, 1864. Translation. London,

1876-1886.
Ewald's, Paul, Hauptprobleni der Evangelienfrage, Leipzig,

1890.
Expositor. Various Articles.

Farrar on Luke, Cambridge Bible for the Schools, Cam-
bridge, 1882.
Farrar's Early Days of Christianity. London, 1882.

LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. 287

Farrar's Life of Christ. Thirteenth Edition. London.
Farrar's Messages of the Books. London, 1884.
Geikie's Life of Christ. Eleventh edition. London, 1879.
Godet's Studies on the New Testament. Edited by the Rev.

W. H. Lyttelton. Eighth Edition. London, 1888.
Godet's Commentary on St. Luke. Translation. Edinburgh,

1875.
Greswell's Dissertations. Oxford, 1830.
Greswell's Harmonia Evangelica. Third Edition. Oxford,

1840.
Griesbach's Greek Testament. Second Edition. London,

1818.
Guericke's Neutestamentliche Isagogik. Dritte Auflage.

Leipzig, 1868.
Harris, The newly-recovered Gospel of St. Peter. London,

1894.
Harris on the Diatessaron of Tatian. London, 1890.
Hase's Life of Jesus. Translation. Boston, 1860.
Hemphill, Eev. S., The Diatessaron of Tatian. London, 1888.
Hervey, Lord A., The Genealogies of our Lord. Cambridge,

1853.
Herzog's Eeal-Encyklopadie. Zweite Auflage.
Hilgenf eld's Einleitung in das neue Testament. Jena, 1875.
Holtzmann's Einleitung in das neue Testament. Freiburg,

1885.
Holtzmann's Die synoptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1863.
Holtzmann's Kommentar zum N. T. Die Synoptiker. Frei-
burg, 1889.
Home's Introduction to the Scriptures. Tenth Edition.

London, 1857. Fourteenth Edition edited by Dr.

Tregelles and Eev. John Ayre. London, 1877.
Hug's Introduction to the N. T. Translation. London, 1827.
Jolley, The Synoptic Problem. London, 1893.
Jones on the Canon. Oxford Edition, 1827.
Josephus, Works of. Translation by Whiston.
Keim's Jesus of Nazara. Translation. London, 1876— 1883.
Kerr's Introduction to the New Testament Study. New

York, 1892.
Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung. Zurich, 1842.

288 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO.

Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. Tliird Edition.
Edinburgh, 1869.

Kuinoel, Novi Testamenti Libri Historii. London, 1835.

Lachmann's Novum Testamentuni Gnuce. Berlin, 1842.

Lange's Life of Christ. Translation. Edinburgh, 1864.

Lardner's Works. Octavo Edition, 1788. Quarto Edition,
1815.

Lechler's Das apostolische Zeitalter. Zweite Auflage. Stutt-
gart, 1857. Translation of the Third Edition. Edin-
burgh, 1886.

Lewis, Mrs., The Four Gospels. Translated from the Sinaitic
Palimpsest. London, 1894.

Lightfoot's (Dr. John) Works. Edited by Pitman. London,
1825.

Lightfoot's, Bishop, Essays on Supernatural Eeligion. London,
1889.

Lightfoot's, Bishop, Apostolic Fathers : St. Clement of Rome.
London, 1890.

Lightfoot, Bishop, Ignatius and Polycarp. London, 1885.

Macknight's Harmony of the Gospels. London, 1763.

Maclear on Mark. Cambridge Bible for Schools. Cambridge,
1886.

McClellan on the Gospels. London, 1878.

Mangold's Edition of Bleek's Einleitung in das N. T. Vierte
Auflage. Berlin, 1886.

Marcion's Gospel. Translated by J. Hamlyn Hill. Guernsey,
1891.

j\Ieyer's Commentaries on Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Trans-
lation. Edinburgh (T. & T. Clark), 1877.

Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament. Edited by
Marsh. Second Edition. London, 1802.

Morison's Commentary on Matthew. Second Edition.
London, 1883.

Morison's Commentary on Mark. Third Edition. London,
1882.

Neander's Life of Christ. Bohn's Edition.

Neander's Church History. Bulm's Edition.

Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews. London,
1879.

LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. 289

Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels. London, 1847.
Olshausen on the Gospels. Translation. Edinburgh, 1863.
Pfleiderer's Philosophy and Development of Eeligion.

Gifford Lectures. Edinburgh, 1894.
Pulpit Commentary : The Gospels ; Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Eamsay's Christianity and the Eoman Empire. Second

Edition. London, 1893.
Eenan's Life of Jesus.
Eesch's Agrapha. Leipzig, 1889.
Eeuss' Geschichte der heiligen Schriften N. T. Vierte

Auflage. Braunschwieg, 1866. Translation. London,

1884.
Eoberts' Greek, the Language of Christ and His Apostles.

London, 1888.
Eoediger's Synopsis Evangeliorum. Halle, 1839.
Eow's Jesus of the Evangelists. London, 1865.
Eow's Bampton Lectures. 1877.
Eushbrooke's Synopticon. London, 1880.
Salmon's Introduction to the N. T. London, 1885. Fourth

Edition, 1889. Seventh Edition, 1894.
Sanday's Articles on the Synoptic Problem in the Expositor.

Vol. iv. Fourth Series.
Sanday's Gospels of the Second Century. London, 1876.
Schaff's Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology. Edinburgh, 1883.
Schaff's History of the Christian Church : Apostolic

Christianity. Edinburgh, 1887.
Schaff's Oldest Church Manual. 1883.
Schaff"s Popular Commentary: The Gospels. Edinburgh,

1879.
Schleiermacher on Luke's Gospel. Translation by Thirlwall.

London, 1825.
Schmid, Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Trans-
lation. Edinburgh, 1882.
Schiirer's Jewish People in the Time of Christ. Translation.

Edinburgh, 1885, 1886.
Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. First

Edition. Cambridge, 1861. Third Edition, 1883.

Fourth Edition. London, 1894.
Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography.
19

290 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO.

Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. London, 1863. Second
Edition of the First Volume, 1893.

Smith of Jordauhill, Dissertations on the Gospels. Edin-
burgh, 1883.

Speaker's Commentary : The Gospels. 1878.

Stanley's Sermons on the Apostolic Age. Third Edition.
London, 1874.

Stroud's Greek Harmony of the Four Gospels. London,
1883.

Swete's Apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Cambridge, 1893.

Tatian's Diatessaron. Translated by J. Hanilyn Hill. Edin-
burgh, 1894.

Thilo, Codex Apocryphus N. T. Leipzig, 1832.

Tholuck on the Sermon on the Mount. Translation. Edin-
burgh, 1860.

Tischendorf's Novum Testamentum GraBce. Editio Sep-
tima.

Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst ?

Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangelica. Leipzig, 1864.

Tregelles' Novum Testamentum Grace. 1857-1879.

Tregelles' Printed Text of the Greek Testament. London,
1854.

Turpie, The Old Testament in the New.^ London, 1868.

Turpie, The NeW' Testament View of the Old. London,
1872.

Volkmar's Marcus und die Synopse der Evangelien. Zurich,
1876.

Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T. Beriin, 1886. Translation.
London, 1887.

Weiss' Life of Christ. Translation. Edinburgh, 1883.

Weizsacker's Apostolisches Zeitalter. Freiburg, 1890.
Translation. London, 1894.

Wendt's Lehre Jesu. Gottingen, 1886.

Westcott on the Canon of the N. T. Second Edition.
London, 1866.

Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament.
Cambridge, 1860.

Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek. Cam-
bridge, 1881.

LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. 291

Wieseler's Chronologische Synopsis d. Evangelien. Hamburg,

1843. Translated by Venables. Cambridge, 1854.
Winer's Biblisches Worterbuch. Leipzig, 1833.
Winer's Grammar of N. T. Greek. Translated by Moulton.

Second Edition. Edinburgh, 1877.
Wriglit's Composition of the Four Gospels. London,

1890.
Zeller's Apostelgeschichte. Stuttgart, 1854. Translation,

London, 1875.
Zumpt's Das Geburtsjahr Christi. Leipzig, 1869.

INDICES.

I. TEXTS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS ILLUSTEATED
OR EXPLAINED.

i. 1-17 .

i. 8

ii. 1, 2 .

Matt

HEW.

. 249 ff

255

130-134

X. 46-52
xiv. 52 .
xvi. 9-20

ii. 15 .

151-153

ii. 16

135

i. 1-3 .

ii. 17, 18

1.53-155

ii. 1, 2 .

ii. 23 .

1.55-158

ii. 14

vi. 13 .

137

iii. 23-38

XX. 29-34

. 80, 81

iii. 23 .

xxiii. 35 .

142

iii. 36 .

xxvii. 9, 10

158-166

xi. 2-4 .

xxvii. 51-53

102

xviii 35-43 .

xxii. 43, 44 .

Mark.

Luke.

80
175

187-201

225

. 270 flf

238-241

. 249 ff

266

258

240

80

241-244

II. INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Abbott's Article on the Gospels in
Encyclopedia Britannica, 59, 197.

Abbott and Rnslibrooke, Common Ti'a-
dition of the S^'noptic Gospels, 46, 59.

Academy, the. Letters on the Sinaitic
Syriac MS., 252.

Africanus, Julius, on the Genealogies,
261.

Alexander, Dr. Lindsay, Connection of
tlio Old and New Testament, 152.

Alford, Dean, Fragmentary nature of
the Gospels, 9 ; their indo]iond('nce
of each other, 46 ; inch^pendencc of
Mattliewand Luke, 50 ; the Synoptic

202

problem, 56 ; impossibility of a har-
monyof the Synoptics, 86 ; on the star
of the wise men, 134 ; on the Gos])el
of Mark, 187 ; rejection of Mark xvi.
9-20, 188, 196; the genealogies, 250.

Ancyran monument, the, 271.

Andrews' Life of our Lord, 249, 265.

Antioch, the birtlqil.ice of Luke, 222.

Apologies of .Tustin, 17.

Apostolic Constitutions, (juoted, 195.

Arabic version of Tatian's Diatessaron,
15.

Aramaic supposed to be tlio language
of Christ, 126.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

293

Aramaic Gospel, theory of, 60.
Assemanni, Biblioth. Orient., 15.
Athanasius, Gospel symbols, 10.
Augustine, Gospel symbols, 10 ; de-

])endence of Mark on Matthew, 44 ;

Matthew wrote in Hebrew, 112.
Augustus, decree of, 270, 271.
Authenticity, sec Genuineness.
Authors of the Synoptic Gospels, 9.

Badham's Formation of the Four Gos-
pels, 37.

Bacon, Lord, on Prophecy, 153.

Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints, 224 ;
Lost and Hostile Gospels, 7, 213,
217, 219.

Barnabas, Epistle of, 94.

Barnes' Canonical and Uncanonical
Gospels, 67.

Basilides, referred to, 97.

Baur's theory of the origin of the
Gospels, 21.

Bengel's Gnomon, 156, 265.

Bertholdt's Einleitung, 58.

Beyschlag's Leben Jesu, 62.

Birk's Horte Evangelicffi, 206.

Biscoe on the Acts, 255.

Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. :
dependence of Mark on Matthew,
44 ; Mark's Gospel a compilation
from Matthew and Luke, 47 ; on
Papias' use of the term X6yia, 66 ; on
Matthew's quotations from the O.T. ,
149 ; on Marcion's Gospel, 220.

Blind Bai-timeus restored to sight at
Jericho, 80.

Bloody, the, sweat, 241-243.

Bruce's Apologetics, 83 ; Kingdom of
God, 39.

Burgon's Last twelve verses of Mark,
187 ft".

Bryennios' Didache, 91.

CiESAK, Julius, his survey of the
Roman Empire, 271.

Csesarea, the Gospel of Luke supposed
to be written from, 245.

Calvin : on Christ being called a Naza-
rene, 157 ; mistake committed in
attributing a prophecy of Zechariah
to Jeremiah, 165 ; supposes that the
line of Solomon failed in Ahaziali,
259 ; on the census of Quirinius, 277.

Campbell, Principal, referred to, 201.

Campbell, Dr. Colin, Critical Studies in
Luke's Gospel, 220.

Candour, necessity of, in interpretation,
75.

Canonical and Apocryphal Gospels, 7.

Carr on Matthew's Gospel, 101, 263.

Caspari's Life of Christ, 89, 269.

Catechetical schools, 53.

Cave's Life of the Apostles : St.

Matthew, 106 ; St. Luke, 224.
Celsus refers to the genealogies, 211.
Census of the Roman Empire, 270.
Census of Quirinus, 269-284.
Characteristics of Mark's Gospel, 185 ;

of Luke's Gospel, 231-233.
Charles, Rev. Mr., on the Sinaitic

Syriac, 253.
Charteris' Canonicity, 7, 14.
Chronological order in the Synoj)tics,

42, 87.
Ciasca, Agostino, on Tatian's Diates-

saron, 15.
Cilicia joined to the province of Syria

and under the governorship of

Quirinius, 282.
Clemens Alexandrinus : number of the

Gospels, 7 ; genuineness of the

Synoptic Gospels, 11 ; distinguishes

between Matthew and Levi, 105 ; on

the Gospel according to the Hebrews,

121 ; date of Mark's Gospel, 203.
Clemens Romanus, testimony to Mat-
thew's Gospel, 93.
Codices B and n, connection between

them, 190.
Codex Brixianus, 138, 241.
Codex Bobbiensis, 191, 253.
Codex Regius Parisiensis or uncial MS.,

L., 190.
Contents of Matthevif's Gospel, 144 ;

of Mark's, 207 ; of Luke's, 247.
Cook, Canon, Revised version of the

first three Gospels, 244.
Conybeare, Aristion the author of the

last verses of Mark, 199.
Credner's Einleitung, 4, 41, 100, 128,

181, 230.
Curetonian Syriac, 21.
Cureton on the Ignatian Epistles, 95.
Cyrenius, governor of Syria, sec

Quirinius.

Date of Matthew's Gospel, 139-144 ;
of Mark's Gospel, 202-206 ; of Luke's
Gospel, 244-247.

Date of our Lord's birth, 272.

Davidic descent of Christ, 263-267.

Davidson'sHermeneutics, 147, 149, 162.

Davidson's Introduction to the Study
of the N.T. ; on the want of graphic
description in Matthew's Gospel, 101 ;
on the repetitions in Matthew's
Gospel, 103 ; number of quotations
in Matthew's Gospel, 147 ; linguistic
peculiarities in Luke's Gospel, 230.

Design of Matthew's Gospel, 108 ; of

294

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Mark's Gospel, 181 ; of Luke's Gospel,

228.
De Wette's Einleitung, 7, 45, 99, 212.
Diatessaroii of Tatian, 14-16.
Diflache, references in it to the Gospel

of Mattliew, 91-93.
Differences between the Synoptic Gos-
pels and the Fourth CJospel, 5.
Dionysian era, on the, 272.
Discrepancies, alleged, in the Gospels,

78.
Documents employed by Luke, 227,

228.
Doddridge's Family Expositor, 86, 160.
Dods', Dr. Marcus, Introduction to

the New Testament, 99, 178.
Doxology to the Lord's prayer, 137.

Ebionites, the, 122, 123.

Ebrard's Gospel History, 64, 134, 277.

Eichhorn's Synoptic theory, 56 ; sup-
poses Luke's Gospel to be an enlarge-
ment of Marcion's Gospel, 213.

EUicott's Hulsean Lectures : on the pe-
culiarities of the Gospels, 85 ; on the
star of the wise men, 134 ; defends the
genuineness of Mark xvi. 9-20, 201.

Ephrfem, Syrus, his Commentary on
Tatian, 15.

Epiphanius asserts, that Matthew wrote
in Hebrew, 112 ; his account of
Mark, 176 ; and of Luke, 224.

Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and
Lyons, 211.

Essays and Reviews : Dr. Jowett's
essay, 73.

Eusebius' Church History, 2}('^sim.

Evanson's Dissonance of the Four Evan-
gelists, 237.

Expositor Articles : article by Wace on
'Tatian, 16 ; articles by Professor
Sanday on the Synoptic problem, 49,
64, 99 ; article by Professor Marshall
on an original Hebrew Gospel, 60 ;
article by Conybearc on Aristion, the
author of Mark xvi. 9-20, 199 ;
article by Dean Farrar on Mrs. Lewis'
Sinaitic manuscrij)t, 252.

Extra-canonical sayings of Christ, 125.

FAiuiiAiKN'.s, A. M., Christ in Modern
Tlieology, 21, 83.

Fairbairn's, Dr. Patrick, Hermeneutic
Manual, 163.

Farrar's Coninientary on Luke, 263.

Farrar supports the theory of an
oral gosj)el, 52 ; liis description of
Matthew's Gospel, 110 ; rejects
Mark xvi, 9-20, 196 ; value of
Luke's Gospel, 236.

Farrar's Life of Christ, 147.

Genealogy from Salmon to David, 254.

Genealogies, the, in Matthew and Luke,
249-268.

Genealogies among the Jews, 267.

Genuineness of the Synoptic Gospels,
10-22 ; of Matthew's Gospel, 91-
104 ; of Mark's Gospel, 167-172 ; of
Mark xvi. 9-20, 187-191 ; of Luke's
Gospel, 209-221.

Gethseniane, the agony and bloody
sweat : its authenticity, 241-244.

Gieseler's theory of an oral gospel, 51.

Gloag, Introduction to the Johannine
Writings, 5 ; Introduction to the
Pauline Epistles, 75 ; Introduction
to the Catholic Epistles, 143.

Gnosticism of Marcion, 215.

Godet's Biblical Studies, 40, 108 ;
Commentary on Luke, 50, 266, 267.

Goethe's Testimony to the Gosj)els, 22.

Gosjiels : meaning of the word gospel,
3 ; their fragmentary nature, 8 ;
symbols, 9 ; relation of the Synoptic
Gospels to each other, 22 ; points of
agreement, 23 ; sections common to
all three, 24-28 ; sections common
to Matthew and JIark, 28-30 ; sec-
tions common to Mark and Luke,
30 ; sections common to ilatthew
and Luke, 30-33 ; summary of coin-
cidences, 35 ; points of dillerence, 38.

Gospel according to the Hebrews, 120-
126.

Greek Testament, critical editions of, 72.

Gresswell's Dissertations, referred to,
80, 88, 113, 119, 174.

Griesbach's New Testament, 72 ; theory
of dependence, 44.

Guericke, Isagogik, referred to, 7, 133,
178.

IlAiiN'sEvangclium Marcion, 213, 220.

Halcomb : What tJiink ye of the
Gospels ? 88.

Harmony of the Gospels, 85-89.

Harnack's History of Dogma, 215.

Harris, J. Rendel, on the Gospel of
Peter, 14.

Hausrath's History of the New Testa-
ment Times, 76.

Hebrew Christians, Matthew's Gospel
written for, 108.

Hebrew tlie original language of
Matthew's Gospel, 110-120.

Hcgesipjpus, (juoted, 121.

Hemithiirs Diatcssaron of Tatian, 16.

Henaerson, Commentary on Zechariah,
165.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

295

Herocl the Great : his cruelties, 135 ;
year of his death, 273.

Hervey's Genealogies of Jesus Christ,
referred to, 249, 255, 260.

Herzog's Encyclopadie, article on Ta-
tian, 17.

Hesychius of Jerusalem, his evidence
on the con cUidingparagraph of Mark's
Gospel, 193.

Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, quoted, 241.

Hill's Divinity Lectures, referred to, 152.

Hill, Rev. J. Hamlyn, translation of
Tatian's Diatessaron, 16 ; Marcion's
Gospel, 217.

Hippolytus, quoted, 195, 242.

Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke,
223.

Holtzmann's Einleitung, 2, 24, 39, 55,
63, Kommentar, 22 ; his two docu-
ment hypothesis, 63.

Hort, Dr.: Critical edition of N. T., 72 ;
rejects the doxology of the Lord's
prayer, 139 ; considers Mark xvi.
9-20 not genuine, 200 ; his remarks
on Luke iv. 14, 239.

Hug's Introduction to the New Testa-
ment, 126.

Ignatius : his testimony to the Gospel
of Matthew, 95 ; alludes to the star
of Bethlehem, 131.

Insjiiration of the Synoptic Gospels, 77,
81, 82.

Integrity of Matthew's Gospel, 128-
139 ; of Mark's Gospel, 187-201 ; of
Luke's Gospel, 237-244.

Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels,
71-85.

IrenjEUS : on the number of the Gospels,
7 ; the Gospel symbols, 9-10 ; testi-
mony to the genuineness of the
Synoptic Gospels, 10 ; of Matthew's
Gospel, 96 ; mentions the visit of
the magi, 132 ; testimony to Mark's
Gospel, 169 ; to Luke's Gospel, 211 ;
mentions the bloody sweat in Geth-
semane, 242 ; asserts the Davidic
descent of Mary, 264.

James, Epistle of : apparent references
in it to the Sermon on the Mount,
91.

Jehoiakim : omitted in the genealogy
given by Matthew, 256.

Jerome : on the Gospel symbols, 10 ;
on the language in which Matthew
wrote his Gospel, 112 ; supposes that
the reference in Matthew xxvii. 9, 10
is to a lost prophecy of Jeremiah, 160 ;
on Mark as the interpreter of Peter,
178 ; attests the existence of manu-

scripts terminating Mark's Gospel at

xvi. 9, 193.
Jones' Canon of the New Testament,

97, 103.
Josephus : on the language of Judsea,

127 ; no reference in his history to
the massacre of the infants of Beth-
lehem, 135 ; on the Jewish genea-
logical tables, 267 ; the Jews had to
take an oath of allegiance to Augus-
tus, 272.

Jowett on the interpretation of Scrip-
ture, 73.

Judaea, the language of, 126.

Justin Martyr : his use of the term
Gospel, 4 ; his testimony to the
Synoptic Gospels, 17 ; to Matthew's
Gospel, 96 ; mentions the visit of
the Magi, 131 ; testimony to Mark's
Gospel, 168 ; to Luke's Gospel, 210 ;
mentions the bloody sweat in Geth-
semane, 242 ; alludes to the census
of Quirinius, 275.

KEPLERon thestar of thewiseman, 133.
Kerr's Introduction to New Testament

Study, 203.
Kidder's Dissertation on the Messiah,

162.
Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, 10, 97.
Kitto's Cyclopedia, 265.
Kuinoel, Novi Testamenti Libri His-

torici, 201.

Lachmann's Testamentum Grajcum,

72, 189.
Language of Matthew's Gospel, 110-

128 ; of Mark's Gospel, 183-187 ; of
Luke's Gospel, 230, 231.

Language of Judsea in the time of

Christ, 126.
Latin expressions in Mark's Gospel, 181.
Latin version (the old Italic), 20.
Lee, Archdeacon, Inspiration of the

Holy Scriptures, referred to, 118.
Levi, supposed to be different from

Matthew, 105.
Lewis, Mrs., the Sinaitic Palimpsest,

251.
Lightfoot, Dr. John, quoted, 162, 175,

268.
Lightfoot's Essays on Supernatural

Religion, 65 ; the Apostolic Fathers,

94.
Logia, meaning of the term as used

by Papias, 65.
Lord's prayer, the, as given in Luke's

Gospel, 240.
Luke, Gospel of: its genuineness, 209-

221 ; its relation to Marcion's Gospel,

296

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUPJECTS.

218 ; its author, 221 ; sources, 225 ;
design, 228 ; language, 230 ; cliarac-
teristics, 231 ; integrity, 237 ; date,
244 ; contents, 247.
Luke, the Evangelist : notices of, in
Scripture, 222-224 ; in Church liis-
tory, 225.

Maclear's Commentary on Mark, 1 78,
187.

M'Clellan's New Testament, 80, 134,
161, 193.

Magi, visit of the, 133.

Mansel's Commentary on Mattliew's
Gospel, 158, 263 ; Gnostic heresies,
215.

Manuscripts of the New Testament,
72, 73.

Marcion : Gospel of, 8 ; sketch of his
life, 213 ; works in relation to his
Gospel, 213 ; his views, 2ir» ; re-
lation of his Gospel to that of Luke,
218.

Mark, Gospel of: literature, 167 ; gen-
uineness, 167-172; author, 172;
sources, 177 ; design, 181 ; charac-
teristics, 185 ; integrity, 187-191 ;
date, 202-208 ; contents, 207.

Mark, the Evangelist : notices in
Scripture, 172 ; supposition of two
Marks, 174 ; supposed to be the
young man who followed Christ,
175 ; notices in ecclesiastical his-
tory, 176.

Marsli, Bishop, his theory of the
formation of the Gospels, 57.

Marsliall, Professor, on the Aramaic
Gospel, 60.

Mary, Luke gives the genealogy of,
265-267.

Massacre of the infants of Bethlehem,
135.

Matthew, Gospel of: literature, 90 ;
genuineness, 90-104 ; author, 104 ;
sources, 106; design, 108; language,
111-128 ; integrity, 129-139 ; date,
139-144 ; contents, 144.

Matthew, tlie Evangelist : notices in
Scripture, 104 ; .sui)posed to be
(iilferciit from Levi, 105 ; notices in
ecclesiastical history, 106.

Matthew and Luke's (iospels independ-
ent of each other, 50.

Messiahsliijt of Jesus, proofs of, in
Matthew's Gnsj.el, 109.

Meri vale's History of the Romans, 283.

Meyer's Commentary on Matthew, 99,
117, 129, 165, 257 ; (^innmentary on
Mark, 172 ; Commentary on Luke,
228, 243.

Michaelis' Introduction to the New
Testament by Bishop Marsh 57, 143,
155, 161, 197.

Milligan, Professor, maintains the
genuineness of the Epistle of Bar-
nabas, 94.

Mommsen's Provinces of the Roman
Emjnre, 282.

Morison's Commentary on Mattliew,
119, 166, 257.

Morison's Commentary on Mark, 201.

Muratorian canon, 14, 168, 211.

Mutual relations of the Synoptic
Gospels, 22-42.

]\lythical incidents sujjposed to be in
"Matthew's Gospel, 102.

Narhative, the threefold, 24 ; the
twofold narrative : Matthew and
Mark, 28 ; Mark and Luke, 30 ;
Matthew and Luke, 30 ; the single
narrative : Matthew, 32 ; Mark, 33 ;
Luke, 33.

Nazarenes and Ebionites distinguished,
122.

Nazaritcs, the, 157.

Neander's Life of Christ, 135.

Nicephorus, Hist. Eccl., 177, 224.

Nicholson's Gospel according to the
Hebrews, 123.

Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels :
on the early ditl'usion of the Gospels,
12 ; on the verbal agreements in the
Gospels, 36 ; supports the theory of
oral tradition, 52; su])poses that there
are mythical additions to Matthew's
Gospel, 102 ; denies the authen-
ticity of the first two chapters of
Matthew's Gospel, 129 ; considers
the visit of the magi to be legendary,
133 ; rejects Luke's account of the
bloody sweat, 242 ; considers the
genealogy given by Matthew to be
an interpolation, 250.

OiiJKCTiONs to the genuineness of
Matthew's Gosj.el, 98-104; of
Mark's Gospel, 170-172 ; of Luke's
Gospel, 213-221.

Olshauseii on the Gospels, 40, 213.

Origen distiiigiiishes between Matthew
and Levi, 105; testimony to a
Hebrew Matthew, 111 ; on the
(iospel according to the Hebrews,
122 ; connection between Luke and
Paul, 224.

Osiandor's Harmonia cvangeliorum,
85.

Palky's Evidences, 18.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

29'7

Panta3nus, his testimony to a Hebrew
Matthew, 111.

Papias, extract from, 18 ; his refer-
ences to Matthew and Mark, 62 ;
meaning of the logia of Matthew,
65 ; alhision to the Gospel of
Matthew, 96 ; Matthew composed
his works in the Hebrew language,
107, 111 ; his testimony to Mark's
Gospel, 168 ; Mark did not write in
order the things said or done by
Christ, 170.

Parables of our Lord, 82 ; those
peculiar to Luke's Gospel, 248.

Parallels between the Sermon on the
Mount and the sayings of our Lord
recorded by Luke, 39.

Paul, his relation to Luke, 224.

Peter, the Gospel of, 12, 13.

Peter, connection between him and
Mark, 177-180.

Pfleiderer's Gifford Lectures, 63.

Philippi's Commentary on the Romans,
65.

Place of composition of Matthew's
Gospel, 143 ; of Mark's Gospel, 205 ;
of Luke's Gospel, 247.

Polycarp : testimony to Matthew's Gos-
pel, 96 ; his encounter with Marcion,
214.

Pritchard, Rev. Charles, on the star of
the wise men, 133.

QuiRiNius, census of, 269-284.
Quotations from the Old Testament

in Matthew's Gospel, 140-166 ; in

Mark's Gospel, 184, 185.

Ramsay, The Church and the Roman
Empire, 95.

Resch's Agi-apha, 60, 64, 70, 124.

Reuss' History of the New Testament,
62. ^ I

Revised Version, 74.

Roberts, Greek the Language of Christ
and His Apostles, 126, 149, 151 ;
article in the Thinker on the gene-
alogy of Christ, 267.

Row, Jesus of the Evangelists, 46 ;
Bampton Lectures, 78, 81.

Rushbrooke's Synopticon, 24, 39, 86.

Salmon's Introduction to the New
Testament, referred to, 14, 24, 48,
68, 77, 171, 219.

Sanday : articles in the Expositor, 49,
64, 99 ; Bampton Lectures, 13, 62,
78, 161 ; his views on the sources
of the Synoptics, 64.

Saturninus Sentius, supposed to be

governor of Syria when Christ was
born, 276.

Sayings of Jesus, collection of, 68.

Schaft', Dr. : independence of the Gos-
pels, 46 ; sources of the Synoptic
Gospels, 52 ; two editions of Mat-
thew's Gospel, 118 ; style of Mat-
thew, 128 ; language of Luke, 231.

Schaff' s Oldest Church Manual, 91.

Schleiermacher, hypothesis of, 58 ;
critical essay on Luke's Gospel, 227.

Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New
Testament, 91.

Schiirer, Jewish People in the Time of
Christ, 76, 127, 281, 283.

Scrivener : on Matthew vi. 13, 138 ;
on Mark xvi. 9-20, 187-201 ; on
Luke ii. 14, 239 ; on Luke xxiii. 43,
44, 244.

Septuagint, use of, 149.

Serapion, on the Gospel of Peter, 12.

Sermon on the Mount, the, 29, 82-84.

Sinaitic Syrian manuscript, 251-253.

Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, re-
lation of, 189, 190.

Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 55,
64, 113.

Smith of Jordanhill, Dissertation on
the Gospels, 59.

Socrates' Church History, 106.

Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, 42-
71 ; of Matthew's Gospel, 106-108 ;
of Mark's Gospel, 177-181 ; of Luke's
Gospel, 225-228.

Speaker's Commentary, 35, 149, 190.

Spiritual discernment necessary for
interpretation, 81.

S[)iritual songs in Luke's Gospel, 236.

Stanley, Dean, Sermons on the
Apostolic Age, 174.

Star of the wise men, 133.

Straho on Quirinius, 281.

Strauss' mythical theory, 21.

Stroud's Greek harmony of the Gospels,
35, 45, 86.

Stuart, Moses, Greek the origina
language of Matthew's Gospel, 116.

Style and diction of Matthew's Gospel,
127 ; of Mark's Gospel, 183 ; of
Luke's Gospel, 230, 231.

Suetonius, quoted, 273.

Swete on the Gospel of Peter, 13.

Synoptic, meaning of the term, 5.

Synoptic Gospels : their number, 6 ;
authors, 9 ; symbols, 9, 10 ; genuine-
ness, 10-22 ; relation to each other,
22-43 ; points of agreement, 23 ;
points of difference, 38 ; sources,
42-71 ; interpretation, 71-84 ; peculi-
arities, 84.

298

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Syraic version, 20.
Syiia, governors of, 281.

Taciti's, quoted, 272, 274, 281.

Tatian's Diatessaron, 14-17 ; omits the
genealogies, 130 ; contains Mark xvi.
9-20, 194.

Teaching in the Synoptic Gospels com-
pared with the teaching in the
other books of Scripture, 83, 84.

TertuUian : genuineness of the Synoptic
Gospels, 11 ; Gospel of Mark called
the Gospel of Peter, 177, 180 ; on
Mark's Gospel, 218 ; statement con-
cerning the census of Quirinius, 276.

Theodoret, quoted, 15.

Theophilus, Luke's Gospel addressed
to, 228, 229.

Theories, Synoptic : theory of mutual
dependence, 44-81 ; of an oral
gospel, 51 - 56 ; of an original
document or documents, 56-61 ; the
two document theory, 61-66.

Theories of reconciliation of the two
genealogies : a levirate marriage,
260-263 ; both give the genealogy
of Joseph, 263-265 ; Luke gives the
genealogy of Mary, 265-267.

Thirlwall, translation of Schleier-
niacher's Luke, 58.

Tholuck's Sermon on the Mount, 40, 83.

Tischendorf's Greek Testament, 72,188.

Townson, hypothesis of a Greek and
Hebrew edition of Matthew, 118.

Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, 14 ;
Greek Testament, 72 ; Hebrew the
original language of Matthew, 113 ;
Printed Text of the New Testament,
188, 191 ; rejects Mark xvi. 9-20,
188, 196.

Turjiie, The Old Testament in the New,
146 if ; The New Testament View of
the Old, 162.

Ur-Marccs, the hypothesis of an, 66,
71, 171.

Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts,
their connection, 190; the Lord's
prayer as given in the Vatican
manuscript, 240.

Volkmar, DasEvangelium Marcion,219.

Wage's articles onTatian'sDiatessaron,

15.
Warfield, Professor, quoted, 203.
Weiss, Bernard, Einleitung, 63.
Weizsiicker's Apostolisches Zeitalter,

50, 62.
Wendt, Lehre Jesu, 64, 69,
Westcott on the Canon, 20.
Westcott's Introduction to the Study

oftheGospels,35,42, 52, 69, 113, 188.
Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament,

21, 72, 187, 198. _
Wieseler's Synopsis of the Four

Gospels, 86, 134, 137, 278.
Winer's BiblischesWorterbuch, 1 34, 269.
Winer's Grammar of N.T. Greek, 278.
Wiseman, Cardinal, 76.
Women, prominence given to, in

Luke's Gospel, 235.
Wordsworth's Greek Testament, 164.
Wright, Rev. A., Composition of the

Four Gospels, ts.
Wright's Bampton Lectures, 165,

Year of our Lord's birth, 272, 283.

Zechakiaii, the son of Barachiah,

murder of, 142.
Zahn's Tatian's Diatessaron, 16.
Zeller's Acts of the Apostles, 212, 219.
Zerubbabel in the Genealogies, 258-

260, 267.
Zumpt's investigations concerning the

governorsliip of Quirinius, 280-284.

MORRISON AND OlUll, I'llINTERS, KUISBUnOll.

T. and T. Clark' s Publications,

WORKS BY PATON J. GLOAG, P.P.

Now ready, in demy 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,

INTRODUC TION TO the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.

In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,

INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC
EPISTLES.

' Dr. Gloag, whilst courteous to men of erudition who differ from him, is firm and
fearless in his criticism, and meets the erudition of others with an equal erudition of
his own. He has displayed all the attributes of a singularly accomplished divine in
this volume, which ought to be eagerly welcomed as a solid contribution to theological
literature ; it is a work of masterly strength and uncommon merit.' — Evangelical
Magazine.

' We have here a great mass of facts and arguments relevant in the strictest sense
to the subject, presented with skill and sound judgment, and calculated to be of very
great service to the student.' — Literal'^ Churchman.

In crown 8vo, price 5s.,

EXEGETICAL STUDIES.

' Careful and valuable pieces of work.' — Spectator.

' A very interesting volume.' — Literary Churchman,

' Dr. Gloag handles his subjects very ably, displaying everywhere accurate and
extensive scholarship, and a fine appreciation of the lines of thought in those passages
with which he deals.' — Baptist.

'Candid, truth-loving, devout-minded men will be both instructed and pleased by
studies so scholarly, frank, and practical.' — Baptist Magazine.

In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,

THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES,

BEING THE BAIRD LECTURE FOB 1879.

' It has seldom fallen to our lot to read a book which we think is entitled to such
unqualified praise as the one now before us. Dr. Gloag has displayed consummate
ability.' — London Quarterly Review.

' We regard Dr. Gloag's work as a valuable contribution to theological literature. We
have not space to give the extended notice which its intrinsic excellence demands, and
must content ourselves with cordially recommending it to our readers.' — Spectator.

In demy 8vo, price 12s. ,

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE
EPISTLES.

' A work of uncommon merit. He must be a singularly accomplished divine to
whose library this book is not a welcome and valuable addition.' — Watchman.

In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s.,

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

' This commentary of Dr. Gloag's I have examined with special care. For my
purposes I have found it unsurpassed by any similar work in the English language.
It shows a thorough mastery of the material, philology, history, and literature per-
taining to this range of study, and a skill in the use of this knowledge which places it
in the first class of modern expositions.' — H. B. Eackett, D.D.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. Od.,

THE EARLIEST LIFE OF CHRIST EVER
COMPILED FROM THE FOUR GOSPELS,

Being 'THE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN'

Literally Translated from the Arabic Version, and containing the
Four Gospels ivouen into One Story.

Wiit\) m f^istaricnl antJ Critical Enttotiuction, "Notts, ant 3lppcnt3ii,

By Kev. J. HAMLYN HILL, B.D.

The Bishop ok Gloucester and Buistol writes : — ' Tliis is a work of very great
importance, and of unique interest. It has been given to the world in an admirable
form, and reflects the greatest credit on the able and conscientious Editor. The history
of the work, as told in a clear and well-written Introduction, will enable the reader to
appreciate the vast care and pains that have been bestowed on this singular recovery of
the first Harmony of the Gospels. The Notes are short, clear, and helpful ; and the
eleven Apj)endicos of a practical value, which the general reader will as fully recognise
as the scholar and critic. Mr. Hamlyn Hill has performed the difficult duty of Editor
with conspicuous success.'

' Truly an excellent piece of work, which we commend most warmly to the student
and to the general reader. The problems raised by the Diatessaron are by no means
yet exhausted, and every one who takes an interest in the question of the Gospels ought
to make himself acquainted at first hand with the material on which we have to work.
Such could not be more easily or safely studied than in Mr. Hamlyn Hill's fascinating
volume.' — Church Bells.

Just imhlished, in Two Vobime-s, 8vo, price 2ls.,

THE TEACHING OF JESUS.

By Professor HANS HINRICH WENDT, D.D., Jena.

Translated by Rev. JOHN WILSON, M.A., Montreux.

' Dr. Wendt's work is of the utmost importance for the study of the Gospels, both
with regard to the origin of them and to their doctrinal contents. It is a work of
distinguished learning, of great originality, and of profound thought. The second part
[now translated into English], which sots forth the contents of the doctrine of Jesus,
is the most important contribution yet made to biblical theologj', and the method and
results of Dr. Wendt deserve the closest attention. . , . No greater contribution to the
study of biblical theology has been made in our time. A brilliant and satisfactory
exposition of the teaching of Christ.' — Prof. J. Ivkrach, D.D., in The Expositor,

' Dr. Wendt has produced a remarkably fresh and suggestive work, deserving to be
ranked among the most important contributions to biblical theology. . . . There is
hardly a page which is not suggestive ; and, apart from the general value of its con-
clusions, there are numerous specimens of ingenious exegesis thrown out with more
or less confidence as to particular passages.' — Prof. W. P. Dickson, D.D., in The
Critical Review.

' A book that no student can afford to neglect.' — Revieio of the Churches.
In demy 9>vo, price. lO.s. Qd.,

COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE
TO THE EPHESIANS.

By Rev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A., Findhorn.

' It is an advance, and a groiit one, on anything wo yet possess. . . . The author goes
to the root, and neglects nothing that usually comes under the oye of a careful student,
. . . Besides all this, the book is a living book. One is conscious of the heart of a man
in it, as well as the brains.' — Methodist Times.

* "This is a very handsome volume which Mr. Macpherson has given us, and without
any doubt it will take the first place among the commentaries devoted to this EJpistle.
The Introduction is fuller far than wo liavo over had. It is quite in touch with the
latest literary and archroological results — results which, in this j)articidHr Epistle,
have recently conui in with unusual richness. That alone is sufficient to give this
volume the pro-eminence.' — The Expository Times.

PUBLICATIONS OF

T. &o T. O Xj J^ I^ KI,

38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LIMITED.

Adam (J., D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s.
AloLfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross. Cr. 8vo, price 5s.
Alcock (Deborah) — The Seven Churches of Asia. Is.
Alexander (Prof . W. Lindsay) — Biblical Theology. Two vols. 8 vo, 2 1 s.
Allen (Prof. A. V. G.) — Life of Jonathan Edwards. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Andrews (S, J.) — The Life of our Lord. Large post 8vo, 9s.
Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works

OF THE FaTIIEKS OF THE CuilISTIAN CllURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF

Nic^A. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s.

Augustine's Works— Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols.

8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. uett.

Balfour (E. G-., D.D.) — Central Truths and Side Issues. Crown

8vo, 3s. 6(1.

Bannemian (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Bannerman (D. D., D.D.) — The Doctrine of the Church. 8vo, 12s.
Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. 8vo, 27?.
Bayne (Peter, LL.D.) — The Frek Church of Scotland: Her

Origin, Founders, and Testimony. Post 8vo, 3s. 6d.

Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s.

■ Pastoral Theology in the New Testament. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes,

Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d.
Cheaper Edition, the jive, volumes bound in three, 24s.

Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price Gs.

Eeyschlag (W., D.D.) — New Testament Theology. Two vols.

demy Svo, 18s. nett.
Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo. Forty Volumes, lid. to

3s. each. Edited by Frof. Marcus Dods, D.D., and Alex. Whyte, D.D.

Detailed List free on application.
Bible-Class Primers. Twenty-Eight now issued in the Scries.

Edited by Prof. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Paper covers, 6d. each; free by

post, 7d. In cloth, 8d. ; free by post, 9d. Detailed List free on application.

Blaikie (Prof. W. G., D.D.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the

6tii to the 19tii Century. Post Svo, 7s. 6d.

Blake (Buchanan, B.D.) — How to Read the Prophets. Part I. —

The Pre-Exilian Minor Prophets (with Joel), 4s. Part II. — Isaiah (ch. i.-
xxxix.), 2s. 6d. Part III.— Jeremiah, 4s. Part IV.— Ezekiel, 4s. Part.V.
— Isaiah (ch. xl.-lxvi. ), and the Post-Exilian Prophets.

Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Briggs (Prof.) — Biblical Study. Fourth Edition, post Svo, 7s. 6d.

American Presbyterianism. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Messianic Prophecy. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

The Messiah of the Gospels. Post Svo, 6s. 6d.

The Messiah of the Apostles. Post Svo, 7s. 6d.

Whither"? ATheologicalQuestionfortheTimcs. Post8vo,7s.Gd.

The Bible, the Church, and the Reason. Post Svo, 6s. Q>d..

Brockelmann (Dr. C.) — A New Syrfac Lexicon. With a Pra''aco by

Professor T. Noldeke. Cro\vn 4to. 30s. nett.

T. and T. Clariis Publications.

Brown {David, D.D.) — Christ's Second Coming : "Will it be Pre-

Millcniiiiil? Seventh Edition, crown 8vo, 7.s. 6(1.

Bruce- (A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting the

•"; ' "I .Twplve Disciples under Discipline for the Aiiostlcship. 5tli Kd., 8vo, 10s. 6d.

' ' The Humiliation of Christ. 3rd Ed., 8vo, 10s. 6d.

The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the

Syiioptical Gospels. New Edition, 7s. 6d.

Bruce (A. B., D.D.)— Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively

Stated. Post 8vo, Second Edition, 10s. 6d.

St. Paul's Conception of Christianity. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Bruce ( W. S., M. A.) — The Ethics of the Old Testament. Cr. Svo, 4s.
Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. Svo, 10s. 6d.

On Comfort in Affliction. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d.

On Improvement of Affliction. Cro-svn Svo, 2s. 6d.

Buhl (Prof.)— Canon and Text of the Old Testament. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Bimgener (Felix) — Rome and theCouncil in 19™Century. Cr.8vo,5s.
Burton (Prof. E.) — Syntax of Moods and Tenses in New

Testament Greek. Post Svo, 5s. 6d. nett.
Calvin'slNSTiTUTESOFCKRisTiAN Religion. (Translation.)2vols.8vo,14s.
Calvini Institutio Chiistianse Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck.

Two vols. Svo, Subscription price, 14s.

Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) — The Kingdom of God, Biblically and

HlSTOKtCALLY CONSIDERED. SvO, lOs. 6d.

Caspar! (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc-
tion TO THE Life of Christ. Svo, 7s. 6d.
Gaspers (A.) — The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Cassel (Prof.) — Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Cave (Principal A., D.D.) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice

AND Atonement. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d.

• An Introduction to Theology. Svo, 12s.

Chapman (Principal C, LL.D.)— Pre-Organic Evolution and the

Biblical Idea of God. Crown Svo, 6s.

Christlieb (Dr.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. Svo, 10s. Gd.
Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa-
ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s.

Crippen (Rev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History

of Christian Doctrine. Svo, 9s.
Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Two vols. Svo, 21s.
Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) — The Levitical Priests. Crown Svo, 5s.

Franz Delitzsch : A Memorial Tribute. TorlmH. Cr. Svo, 3s.

Davidson (Professor) — An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. V>'ith

Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. Twelfth Edition, Svo, 7s. 6d.

A Syntax of the Heurew Language. Svo, 7s. Gd.

Deane (Wm., M.A.) — Pseudepigrapha : An Account of Certain

Apocryjthal Writings of the Jews and Early Christians. Post Svo, 7s. 6d.

Delitzsch (Prof.)— System of Biblical Psychology, Svo, 12s.;
New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; Psalms, 3 vols., 31s. 6d. ;
Proverbs, 2 vols., 21s. ; SoNo of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, 10s. 6d. ;
Isaiah, Fourtli Edition, rewritten, 2 vols., 21s. ; IIf.urews, 2 vols., 2Is.

Doedes — Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics, Cr. Svo, 3s.
Dollinger (Dr.)— Hippo lytus and Callistus. Svo, 7s. 6d.

Declarations and I/Ktters on the Vatican Decrees,

1860-1887. Authorised Transhition. Crown Svo, .Is. 6d.

Domer (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine

of the Person of Ciiulst. Five vols. Svo, £2, 12s. 6d.

Zl and T. Clark's Pudlications.

Dorner (Professor) — System or Christian Doctrine, 4 vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.

System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s.

Driver (Prof. S. E.)— An Introduction to the Literature of the

Old Testament. Fifth Edition, with Appendix, 8vo, 12s.

Deuteronomy : A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. 8vo, 1 2s.

Duff (Prof. David, D.D.)— The Early Church. 8vo, 12s.

Eadie (Professor) — Comjientaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the

EriiEsiANS, PHiLirpiANs, CoLossiANs. New and Eevised Editions, Edited
by Rev. Wm. Young, M. A. Three vols. Svo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, 18s. nett.

Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Apologetics. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.

Edgar (S. M 'C, D. D. )— The Gospel of a Risen Saviour. Post Svo, 7s. 6d.
Elliott — On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Svo, 6s.
Ernesti — Biblical Interpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s.
Ewaid (Heinrich) — Hebrew Syntax. Svo, Ss. 6d.

Revelation : Its Nature and Record. Svo, lOs, 6d.

Old and New Testament Theology. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Fairbairn (Prin.) — The Revelation of Law in Scripture, Svo, 10s. 6d.

EzEKiEL AND the Book OF his Prophecy. 4:thEd.,8vo, 10s. 6d.

Prophecy. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d.

Pastoral Theology. Crown Svo, 6s.

Forbes (Prof.) — Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
. Analytical Commentary on the Romans, 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Studies in the Book of Psalms. Svo, 7s. 6d.

The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Cr. Svo, 5s.

Frank (Prof. F. H.) — System of Christian Evidence. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Funcke (Otto) — The World of Faith and the Everyday World,

As displayed in the Footsteps of Abraham. Post Svo, 7s. 6d.

Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its relation

TO THE DOCTEINE OF THE GoSPEL AND EpISTLES OF JoHN. 8v0, lOs. 6d.

Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Gieseler(Dr.J. C.L.) — Ecclesiastical History. FourvoIs.Svo,£2,2s.
Gilford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d.
Given (Ptev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truth of Scripture in connection

WITH Eevelation, Inspikation, and THE Canon. 8vo, 6s.
Glasgow (Prof.) — Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. 8vo, lo/6.
Gloag (Paton J., D.D. ) — Commentary on the Acts. New Ed. jn-eparing.

The Messianic Prophecies. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d.

Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. Svo, 12s.

Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Exegetical Studies. Crown Svo, 5s.

Godet (Prof.) — An Introduction to the New Testament: 'The

Epistles of St. Paul.' Authorised Trandation. 8vo, 12s. 6d. nett.

Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.

Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Commentary on 1st Epistle to Corinthians. 2 vols. Svo, 21s.

Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith. Cheap Ed., 4s,

Goebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things

that are Made. Crown Svo, 6s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans-
lated, Revised, and Enlarged by JosEi'ii H. Tiiavkh, D.D. Deiiiy 4to, 36s.

Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Cre.vtion; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the
Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 5.s. 6d.

Hagenbach (Dr. K R.) — History of Doctrines. 3 vols, Svo, 31s. 6d.

History of the Reformation. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.

Halcombe (Rev. J., M.A.)— What Think Ye of the Gospels? A

Handbook of Gospel Study. 8vo, 3s. 6d.

Hall (Newman, D.D.) — The Lord's Prayer. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Gethsemane ; or, Leaves of Healing from the Garden of Grief.

Crown 8vo, 5s.

Divine Brotherhood. Crown 8vo, 4s.

Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Lihabitants,

Occupations, and Life. Third Edition, crowTi Svo, 3s. 6d.

Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Havemick (H. A, Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d.
Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)— The Tripartite Nature of Man — Spirit,

Soul, and I^ody. Fifth Edition, crown Svo, 6s.

Old AND New Theology. AConstructiveCritique. Cr. Svo, 6s.

Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted.

The Ilulseau Lectures, 1892-93. Crown Svo, Cs.

Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church.

Vol. L,toA.n. 325. Vol. IL, a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. IIL, a.d. 431 to the close
of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Vol. IV., a.d. 451 to 680. Svo, 12s. each.

Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms, 3 vols. Svo, 33s. ;

Ecclesiastes, eit., Svo, 9s. ; Ezekiel, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; The Genuixexess
OF Daniel, etc., Svo, 12s. ; History of the Kingdom of God, 2 vols. Svo,
21s. ; CiinisTOLOGY of the Old Testament, 4 vols. Svo, £2, 23. ; St.
John's Go.si'el, 2 vols. Svo, 21s.

Hill (Rev. J. Hamlyn, B.D.)— The Earliest Life of Christ

EVER CoMPiLKi) EiioM THE Foui! GosPELS : Being 'The Diatessaron of
Tatian ' Literary Translated from the Arabic Version, and containing the
Four Gospels woven into one Story. With an Historical and Critical
Introduction, Notes, and Appendix. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Hutcliison (John, D.D.) — Commkntary on Thessalonians. Svo, 9s.

Commentary on Philippians. Svo, 7s. 6d.

Our Lord's Signs in St. John's Gospel. Demy Svo, 7s. 6d.

Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 12s.

The Theory of Morals. Demy Svo, 10s. 6d.

Johnstone (Prof. R.. D.D.) — Commentary on 1st Peter, Svo, 10s. 6d.
Jones (E. E. C.) — I-^lements of Logic. Svo, 7s. 6d.

Jouffroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. Svo, 5s.

Kaftan (Prof. Julius) — The Truth of the Christian Keligion.

Authorised Translation. 2 vols. Svo, 16s. nett.

Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown Svo, 6s.

Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. IIastie, B.D. Cr. Svo, 5s.

Principles of Politics, etc. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d.

Keil (Prof.)— Pentateuch, 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. ; Joshua, Judges,

and Kith, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Samuel, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Kings, Svo, 10s. 6d.;
CiiRONicLKS, Svo, 10s. 6(1. ; EzKA, Nehk.miah, Estiieu, Svo, 10s. 6d. ;
Jeiiemiah, 2 vols. Svo, 21s.; Ezekiel, 2 vols. Svo, 21 s. ; Daniel, Svo,
lOs. 6d. ; Minor Pkophets, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; Introduction to the
Canonical Sckiitures of the Old Tf.stament, 2 vols. Svo, 2l8. ;
Handbook of Hiulical AurH.i:<)i.ooY, 2 vols. Svo, 21s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Kennedy (H. A. A., D.Sc.) — Sources of New Testament Greek.

Post 8vo, 5s.

Keymer (Eev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
Kidd (James, D.D.) — Morality and Religion. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Killen (Prof.) — The Framework of the Church. 8vo, 9s.

The Old Catholic Church. Svo, 9s.

TheIgnatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d.

Konig (Dr. F. E.)— The Religious History of Israel. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d.
Krummacher (Dr. F. W. ) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations

on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edition, crown Svo, 6s.

David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. Svo, 6s.

Autobiography. Crown Svo, 6s.

Kurtz (Prof.)— Handbook of Church History (from 1517). Svo, 7s. cd.

History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.

Ladd (Prof. G. T.) — The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture : A

Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the
Old and New Testaments. Two vols. Svo, 1600 pp., 24s.

Laidlaw (Prof.) — The Bible Doctrine of Man; or, The Anthro-
pology and Psychology of Scripture. New Edition Revised and Rearranged,
post Svo, 7s. 6d.

Lane (Laura M.) — Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown Svo, 7s. 6 J.
Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited

by Marcus Dods, D.D. 2nd Ed., in 4 vols. Svo, price 28s. nett.

Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited

by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10
vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each.
St. Matthew and St. Mark, 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.; St. Luke,

2 vols. Svo, 18s. : St. John, 2 vols. Svo, 21s.

Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.) — The Apostolic and Post- Apostolic

Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. Svo, 16s.

Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d.
Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d.
Lichtenberger (F., D.D.) — History of German Theology in the

19th Century. Svo, lis.
Lilley (J. P., M.A.) — The Lord's Supper: Its Origin, Nature, and

Use. Crown Svo, 5s.

Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. Svo, 5s.
Lotze (Hermann) — Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his

relation to the World. Third Edition, 2 vols. Svo (1450 pages), 36s. ;

Cheaper Edition, 2 vols. Svo, 24s.

Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner — The Church, Crown Svo, 5s.
Luthardt (Prof. ) — St. John the Author of theFourth Gospel. 7s. 6d.

— Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.

. History of Christian Ethics. Svo, 10s. 6d.

. Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (7 Ed^, Saving

(5 Ed.), Moral Truth.s of Christianity (4 Ed.). 3 a'oIs. cr. Svo, 6s. each.

Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Tavo vols. Svo, 21s.

The Creation and Fall. Svo, 12s.

Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.) — The Apology of the Christian

Religion. Svo, 10s. 6d.

The Revelation and the Record : Essays on Matters of

Previous Question in the Proof of Christianity. Svo, 7s. 6d.

Studies in the History of New Testament Apologetics.

Svo, 7s. 6d.

T. iiJid T. Clark' s Pitblications.

Macgicgor, (Bev, G. H. C.)— So Great Salvation. 12mo, cloth, I3.
Macphcison (Rev. Jolui, M.A.)— The 1':pistle to the Ephesians,

Coiumentary on. 8vo, 10s. 6d. ' ' '

M'Sealsh?au (E. D.)— Komans Dissected. A Critical Analysis of the

Epistle to tlie IJonian.s. Crown 8vo, 2s.

Mair (A., D.D.)— Studies in the Christian Evidences. Third

Eilition, Revised ami Enlarged, erown 8vo, 6s.

Martensen (Bishop)— Christian Dogmatics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Chkistlus^ Ethics. (General — Individual — Social.)

Tluee vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each.

Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from

the First Centuiy to tlie Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Aids to the Study of German Theology. 3rd Edition, 4s. 6d.

Mover (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentaries on the

New Testament. Twenty vols. 8vo. SuUcripllon Prke, £5, 5s. nett ;

Non-Stibscription Price, 10s. 6d. each volume.

St. Matthew, 2 vols. ; Mark and Lvke, 2 vols. ; St. John, 2 vols. ;

Acts, 2 vols. ; Roman.s, 2 vols. ; Cokintiiians, 2 vols. ; GALATiANS.one vol. ;

Ei'jiEsiANs AND Philemon, one vol. ; pHiMPriANs and Colossians, one vol. ;

Thessai.onian.s {Dr. Lilncmann), one vol. ; The Pastoral Epistles [Dr.

Blither), one vol. ; Hebrews {Dr. Lnnemann), one vol. ; St. James and St.

John's Epistles {Ihither), one vol. ; Pktek and Jude {Dr. Ilulher), one vol.
Michie (Charles, M.A.)— Bible Words and Phrases. 18mo, Is.
Millig-an (Prof. W., D.D.)— The Resurrection of the Bead.

Scoond Edition, crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.

Monrad (Dr. D. G.)— The World of Prayer. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d.
Morgan (J., D.D.)— Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d.

Exposition of the First Epistle of John. Svo, 7s. 6d.

MUIler (Dr. Julius)— The Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols. Svo, 21s.
Miu-phy (Professor)— Commentary on the Psalms. Svo, 12s.

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s.

Naville (Ernest)— The Problem of Evil. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d.

■ The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despres. Cr. Svo, 4s. 6d.

Modern Physics. CroAvn Svo, 5s.

Neander (Dr.)— Church History. Ei^ht vols.' Svo, £2, 2s. nctt.
Nicoll (W. R., LL.D.)— The Incarnate Saviour. Crown Svo, 6s.
Novalis— Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown Svo, 4s.
Oehler (Prof.)— Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Svo, 21s.
Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and

Acts. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s. Cheaper Edition, four vols, crown Svo, 24s.

Romans, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Corinthians, one vol. Svo,

Os. ; Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Oosterzee (Dr. Van)— The Year of Salvation. 2 vols. Svo, 6s. each.

— IVlosES : A Biblical Study. Crown Svo, 6s.

OreUi — Cld Testament Prophecy; Commentary on IsaiAii;

Jekkmiah ; The Twelve Minor Prophets. 4 vols. Svo, 10s. 6d. each.
Owen (Dr. John)— Works. Be.'st and only Complete Edition. Edited

by Kev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. Svo, Subscrijition price, £4, 4s.
_, . . The 'IMircw.i' nmy be had separately, in seven vols., Cl'. 'Js. nett.

Philippi (F. A.) — Commentary on the Romans. Two vols. Svo, 21s.
Piper — 1j1 VES of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. Svo, 21s.
Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip

SCHAFF, D.D. With Illnstrntions and Maps. Vol. I.— The SyxorTiCAL
^;<l.'^^EI.K. Vol. 11. — Sr. .Tohn'k Gospel, ano thk Acts ok the Apostles.
Vol. III.— Komaks to Philemon. Vol. lY. — Hkhrews to Revelation.
Ill four vols, inijierial Svo, 12s. 6d. each.

.Z". and T. Clark's Publications.

Pressens6 (Edward de) — The Redeemer: Discourses. Crown'^BVo- '6s.
Piinjer (Benihard) — History of the Christian Philosophy of

Religion from the Refokmation to Kant. 8vo, 16s.

Eabiger (Prof.) — Encyclopedia of Theology. Two vols. 8vo,21s.
Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of CiiRiSTiAN

Doctrine. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Reusch (Prof.) — Nature amd the Bible: Lectures on the Mosaic

History of Creation in Relation to Natural Science. Two vols, Svo, 21s.

Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New

Testament. 640 pp. Svo, 15s.
Eielini (Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy. New Edition. Post 8vo, 7s. ed.
Ritter (Carl) — Comparative Geography of Palestine. 4 vols. 8vo, 26s.
Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Robinson (E., D.D.) — Greek and Eng. Lexicon of the N. Test. 8vo,9s.
Rooke (Prof. T. G.) — Inspiration, and other Lectures. Svo, 7s. 6d.
Ross (C.) — Our Father's Kingdom. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d.
Rothe (Prof.) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. Svo, 4s. 6d.
Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Sartorius (Dr. E.) — Doctrine of Divine Love. Svo, 10s. Gd.
Schaff (Professor) — History of the Christian Church. (New

Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.) Six 'Divisions,' in 2 vols.

each, extra Svo.
1. Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-100, 2 vols. 21s. 2. Ante-Nicene,

A.D. 100-325, 2 vols., 21s. 3. PosT-iSTiCENE, a.d. 325-600, 2 vols., 21s.

4. Medieval, a.d. 590-1073, 2 vols., 21s. {Completion of this Period,

1073-1517, in preparation). 5. Modern, a.d. 1517-1530, 2 vols., 21s.

6. The Swiss Reformation, 2 vols., 21s.
Schleiermacher's Christmas Eve. Crown Svo, 2s.
Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Schubert (Prof. H. Von., D.D.) — The Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical

Tables. With Translation and Critical Apparatus. Svo, Is. 6d. nett.

Schultz (Hermann) — Old Testament Theology. Two vols. 1 8s. nett.
Schiirer (Prof.) — History of the Jewish People. 5 vols. Svo, 52/6.
Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.) — Principles of New Testament Quotation

EsTABLi.sHED AND APPLIED TO BiBLicAL CRITICISM. Cr. 8vo, 2nd Edit, 4s.

Sell (K., D.D.) — The Church in the Mirror of History. Cr. Svo, 3/6.
Shedd — History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols. Svo, 21s.
Sermons to the Natural Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Sermons to the Spiritual Man. Svo, 7s. 6d.

Dogmatic Theology. Three vols. ex. Svo, 12s. 6d. each.

Simon (Prof.) — The Bible; An Outgrowth of Theocratic Life. Cr.8vo,4/6.

The Redemption of Man. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Skene-Bickell — The Lord's S upper & The Passover Ritual, svo, 5s.
Smeaton (Professor) — Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 2nd Ed., Svo, 9s.
Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.) — Medieval Missions. Cr. Svo, 4s. 6d.
Smyth (Fewman, D.D.) — Christian Ethics. 3rd. Ed. Post Sv.., lOs.ed.
Stahlin (Leonh.)— Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl. Svo, 9s.

Stalker (Jas., D.D.) — Life of Christ. Large Type Ed., cr. Svo, os. 6d.

Life of St. Paul. Large Type Edition, crown Svo, 3i5. 6d.

Stanton (V. H., D.D.) — The Jewish and The Christian Messiah.

a Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) — The Miracles of our Lord. Svo, 7s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.)— The History of the Passion and Resur-
rect i ox OF OUR Lord, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo,
10s. 6d.

Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d,
Steward (Rev. G.) — Mediatorial Sovereignty. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

The Argument OF the Epistle TO THE Hebrews. 8vo, 10s.6d.

Stier (Dr. Rudolph) — On the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight

vols. 8vo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d.

The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on

THE Eplstle OF St. James. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

The Words of the Apostles Expounded. Bvo, 10s. 6d.

Stirling (Dr. J. Hutchison) — Philosophy and Theology. Post 8vo, 9s.

Darwinianism : Workmen and Work. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Tholuck (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s.
Thomson (J. E. H., B.D.) — Books avhich Influenced our Lord

AXD His Ai'OSTLES. Svo, 10s. Gd.

Thomson (Rev. E. A.)— Memorials of a Ministry. Crown Svo, 5s.
Tophel (Pastor G.) — The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Troup (Rev. G. Elmslie, M.A.)— Words to Young Christians :

Being Addresses to Young Communicants. On antique laid paper, chaste
binding, crown Svo, 4s. 6d.

Uhlhom(G.) — ChristianCharityinthe AncientChurch. Cr. 8vo,Cs.

Ullmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi-
pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

— The Sinlessness of Jesus : An Evidence for Christianity.

Fourth Edition, crown Svo, 6s.

Urwick (W., M.A.) — The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary

ui)on Isaiah Hi. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Svo, 3s.

Viaet (Professor) — Studies on Blaise Pascal. Crown Svo, 5s.
Vinet (Life and Writings of). By L. M. Lane. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d.
Walker (J., D.D.) — Theology and Theologians of Scotland.

New Edition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d.

Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of

THE Faith. Third Edition, crown Svo, 5s.

The Reign of Causality : A Vindication of the Scientific

Principle of Telic Causal Efiiciency. Crown Svo, 6s.

The New Apologetic. Crown Svo, 6s.

Weir (J. P., M.A.) — The Way : The Nature and Means of Salvation.

Ex. crown Svo, Gs. 6d.

Weiss(Prof.) — Biblical Theology or New Testament. 2 vols. Svo, 2 Is.

Life of Christ. Three vols. Svo, 31s. Cd.

Wendt (H. H., D.D.)— The Teaching of Jesus. 2 vols. Svo, 21s.

White (Rev. M.) — Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. Svo, 4s.

Williams — Select Vocabulary of Latin Etymology. Fcap. Svo, is. 6d.

Winer (Dr. G. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa-
ment Greek, regarded ns the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third
Edition, edited hyW. F. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, Svo, 15s.

The Doctrines andConfessionsofChkistendom. 8vo,i0s.6d.

Witherow(Prof.T.,D.D.)— TheFormoftheChristianTemple. Svo,io/g.
Workman (Prof. G. C.)— The Text of Jeremiah ; or, A Critical Investi-
gation of the Creek and Hebrew, etc. Post Svo, 9s.

Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblicai- Essays. Crown Svo, 5s.

Uelailed Calnlojitr J'rce on up/iliculion.

Date Due

f 12. "40

* '""■""^

I

^

BS2569 .4.G56

Introduction to the synoptic Gospels,

Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

00013

■:■<''■>.

- --^"''^-:$;

'i^'y,