THE GOSPELS
[Sidenote: Their Name.]
The modern English word "Gospel" is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word
_Godspell_, which means "God story," the story about the life of God in
human flesh. It does not, therefore, exactly correspond with the Greek
name _euaggelion_, which means "good tidings." In the earliest times
the Greek name meant the good tidings proclaimed by our Lord about the
Kingdom of God which He had come to establish. And, as our Lord
Himself rules over this kingdom, the tidings about the kingdom included
tidings about Himself. So Christ Himself says, "for My sake and the
gospel's" (Mark viii. 35). After the Ascension of our Lord and the
disappearance of His visible presence, the _euaggelion_ came to mean
the good tidings about Christ, rather than the good tidings brought by
Christ (see 1 Cor. ix. 14 and 2 Cor. iv. 4). So St. Paul generally
means by _euaggelion_ the good news, coming from God, of salvation
freely given to man through Christ. When he speaks of "My gospel"
(Rom. ii. 16), he means "my explanation of the gospel;" and when he
says, "I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision"
(Gal. ii. 7), he means that he had been appointed by God to preach the
good tidings to the Gentiles, with special emphasis on the points most
necessary for their instruction.
The word _euaggellon_, in the sense of a written gospel, is first found
in the ancient Christian manual called the _Didaché_, or _Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles_, in ch. xv.: "Reprove one {10} another, not in
anger but in peace, as ye have it in the gospel." This book was
probably composed about A.D. 100. The word seems to have been still
more definitely applied to a written account of the life of Christ in
the time of the great heretic Marcion, A.D. 140. The plural word
_euaggelia_, signifying the Four Gospels, is first found in a writing
of Justin Martyr,[1] about A.D. 152. It is important to notice that he
also calls them "Memoirs of the Apostles," and that he refers to them
collectively as "the Gospel," inasmuch as they were, in reference to
their distinctive value as records of Christ, one book.
[Sidenote: Their Genuineness.]
The first three Gospels do not contain the name of the writers in any
connection which can be used to prove conclusively that they were
written by the men whose names they bear. On the other hand, the
fourth Gospel in a concluding passage (John xxi. 24) contains an
obvious claim to have been written by that intimate friend of Jesus to
whom the Church has always attributed it. But the titles, "according
to Matthew," "according to Mark," "according to Luke," rest on
excellent authority. And they imply that each book contains the good
news brought by Christ and recorded in the teaching of the evangelist
specified. These titles must, _at the very least_, signify that the
Christians who first gave these titles to these books, meant that each
Gospel was connected with one particular person who lived in the
apostolic age, and that it contained nothing contrary to what that
person taught. The titles, taken by themselves, are therefore
compatible with the theory that the first three Gospels were perhaps
written by friends or disciples of the men whose names they bear. But
we shall afterwards see that there is overwhelming evidence to show
that the connection between each book and the specified person is much
closer than that theory would suggest.
Speaking of the four Gospels generally, we may first observe that it is
impossible to place any one of them as late as A.D. 100, {11} and that
the first three Gospels must have been written long before that date.
This is shown by the internal evidence, of which proof will be given in
detail in the chapters dealing with the separate Gospels. The external
evidence of the use of all the four Gospels by Christians, and to some
extent by non-Christians, supports the internal evidence. Let us begin
by noting facts which are part of undoubted history, and then work back
to facts of earlier date. It is now undisputed that between the years
170 and 200 after Christ our four Gospels were known and regarded as
genuine products of the apostolic age. St. Irenaeus, who became Bishop
of Lyons in France in A.D. 177, and was the pupil of Polycarp, who had
actually been a disciple of St. John, uses and quotes the four Gospels.
He shows that various semi-Christian sects appeal severally to one of
the four Gospels as supporting their peculiar views, but that the
Christian Church accepts all four. He lays great stress on the fact
that the teaching of the Church has always been the same, and he was
personally acquainted with the state of Christianity in Asia Minor,
Rome, and France. His evidence must therefore be considered as
carrying great weight. Equally important is the evidence of Tatian.
This remarkable Syrian wrote a harmony of the Gospels near A.D. 160.
Allusions to this harmony, called the _Diatessaron_, were known to
exist in several ancient writers, but until recently it was strenuously
maintained by sceptical writers that there was not sufficient evidence
to prove that the Diatessaron was composed of our present Gospels. It
was suggested that it might have been drawn from other Gospels more or
less resembling those which we now possess. This idea has now been
dispelled. A great Syrian father, Ephraim, who died in 373, wrote a
commentary on the Diatessaron. This was preserved in an Armenian
translation which was made known to the world in 1876. The discovery
proved that the Diatessaron had been drawn from our four Gospels. In
1886 an Arabic version of the Diatessaron itself was found, and it {12}
proved conclusively that Tatian's Diatessaron was simply a combination
of our four canonical Gospels. About the same date as Tatian, a famous
Gnostic writer named Heracleon wrote commentaries on Luke and John, and
it can also be shown that he was acquainted with Matt. There can
therefore be no doubt that all our four Gospels were well known by A.D.
170.
Between A.D. 130 and 170 our Gospels were also in use. The most
important evidence is furnished by Justin Martyr, who was born near
Samaria, and lectured in Rome about A.D. 152. He says "the apostles
handed down in the Memoirs made by them, which are called Gospels;" he
shows that these Memoirs were used in Christian worship, and he says
that "they were compiled by Christ's apostles and those who companied
with them." This exactly agrees with the fact that the first and the
fourth of our Gospels are attributed by the tradition of the Church to
apostles, while the second and the third are attributed to companions
of the apostles. The quotations which Justin makes show that these
Memoirs were our four Gospels. It has been thought that Justin perhaps
used some apocryphal Gospel in addition to our Gospels, but there is no
sufficient proof of this. We may explain that he uses the term
"Memoirs" in order to make himself intelligible to non-Christian
readers who would not understand the word "Gospel."
The _Shepherd_ of Hermas, which was written at Rome, probably about
A.D. 140, but perhaps earlier, uses expressions which imply an
acquaintance with all our Gospels, though none of them are directly
quoted. Moreover, the _Shepherd_, in depicting the Christian Church as
seated on a bench with four feet, probably refers to the four Gospels.
This would be in agreement with the allegorical style of the book, and
it gains support from the language of Origen and Irenaeus.
The testimony rendered to the authenticity of the Gospels by the
heretics who flourished between A.D. 130 and 170 is of importance. At
the beginning of this period, Basilides, the {13} great Gnostic of
Alexandria, who tried to replace Christianity by a semi-Christian
Pantheism, appears to have used Matt., Luke, and John. The fact that
they contain nothing which really supports his peculiar tenets, forms
an argument which shows that the genuineness of these documents was
then too well established for it to be worth his while to dispute it.
Marcion, whose teaching was half Gnostic and half Catholic, endeavoured
to revive what he imagined to be the Christianity of St. Paul, whom he
regarded as the only true apostle. He believed that Judaism was the
work of an inferior god, and he therefore rejected the whole of the Old
Testament, and retained only the Gospel written by St. Luke, the friend
of St. Paul, and ten of St. Paul's Epistles. Modern writers have
sometimes urged that Marcion's list of New Testament books proves that
all other parts of the New Testament were regarded as doubtful about
A.D. 140. But it is quite evident that Marcion, unlike those Gnostics
who adapted uncongenial books to their own systems by means of
allegorical explanations, cut out the books and verses which would not
correspond with his own dogma. In spite of his pretended fidelity to
St. Paul, he mutilated not only St. Luke's Gospel, but even the Epistle
to the Galatians. So whereas it is certain that he used our Luke,
there is no indication to show that he did not admit that the other
Gospels were really the work of the writers whose names they bear.
In the period between A.D. 98, when the death of St. John probably took
place, and A.D. 130, we find several signs of acquaintance with the
Gospels. About A.D. 130, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, wrote a book
called _Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord_. It may be regarded as
almost certain that the word "Oracles" signifies written Gospels, just
as in the New Testament the word signifies the written documents of the
Old Testament. He mentions Gospels written by St. Matthew and St.
Mark, and we know from Eusebius that he made use of 1 John. It is
deeply to be regretted that we only have {14} a few remaining fragments
of the writings of this early bishop, who was acquainted with men who
knew our Lord's disciples. In the letters of St. Ignatius, the
martyred Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 110, we find signs of acquaintance
with Matt. and John. The Epistle written by St. Polycarp to the
Philippians soon after the death of St. Ignatius contains quotations
from Matt. and Luke, and the quotations in it from 1 John almost
certainly imply the authenticity of St. John's Gospel, as it is
impossible to attribute the Epistles to any writer except the writer of
the Gospel. The _Didaché_, about A.D. 100, shows acquaintance with
Matt. and Luke, and contains early Eucharistic prayers of which the
language closely resembles the language of St. John. The Epistle of
Barnabas, probably about A.D. 98, contains what is probably the oldest
remaining quotation from a book of the New Testament. It says, "It is
written, Many called, but few chosen," which appears to be a quotation
from Matt. xxii. 14. The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome, written to
the Christians of Corinth about A.D. 95, is full of the phraseology of
St. Paul's Epistles, but contains nothing that can be called a direct
quotation from our Gospels. But it does contain what are possibly
traces of the first three Gospels, though these passages are perhaps
quoted from an oral Gospel employed in the instruction of catechumens.
We must conclude that, considering what a large amount of early
Christian literature has perished, the external evidence for the
authenticity of our Gospels is remarkably strong. They are genuine
writings of the apostolic age, and were received by men whose lifetime
overlapped the lifetime of some of the apostles. In the early
Christian literature which remains, there is much which lends support
to the authenticity of the Gospels, and nothing which injures a belief
in that authenticity. And there are strong reasons for thinking that
in the early Christian literature which has perished, there was much
which would have made a belief in their authenticity quite inevitable.
It would be an aid to modern study if we could be certain {15} when and
where the four Gospels were put together in one canon. In the 4th and
5th centuries it was believed by some Christians that the collection
had been made at Ephesus by St. John himself, and that he had prefixed
the names of the writers to the Gospels when he published his own
Gospel. It is at present impossible to discover how far this supposed
fact is legendary or not, but modern criticism has done something to
corroborate the idea that the Gospels were really collected first in
Asia Minor, and if St. John did not make the collection himself, it was
probably made by his disciples soon after his death.
[Sidenote: Their Diversity.]
If we compare the four Gospels together, it is as plain as daylight
that there is a marked difference between the first three Gospels on
the one hand and the fourth Gospel on the other hand. The first three
Gospels are usually called the _Synoptic Gospels_, because they give us
one _synopsis_ or common view of our Lord's work. To a great extent
they record the same events and the same discourses, and in many
passages they express themselves in almost identical words. The
account which they give of our Lord's work is mostly confined to His
ministry in Galilee, the birthplace of our religion, and it includes
only one visit to Jerusalem. But St. John's Gospel differs widely in
language from the other Gospels, and also gives an account of no less
than five visits to Jerusalem, and chiefly describes the scenes
connected with our Lord's ministry in Judaea. Whereas our first three
Gospels can be appropriately printed in three parallel columns, the
greater part of St. John's Gospel cannot be appropriately placed by the
side of the other three. Another most important difference is that St.
John's Gospel is marked by a tone and teaching which are seldom to be
found in the Synoptic Gospels. The difference was well expressed by
Clement of Alexandria, who calls the Synoptic Gospels _bodily_ and St.
John's Gospel _spiritual_; and by Theodore of Mopsuestia, who says that
St. John declared that "doubtless it was not right to omit {16} the
facts told with regard to the sojourn of Christ in the flesh, but
neither was it right to omit the words relating to His Divinity." For
the Synoptic Gospels relate the outward events connected with our
Lord's ministry, while St. John records the discourses and works which
reveal our Lord's heavenly origin and divine authority. Again, the
Synoptic Gospels report Christ's addresses to simple Galilean people,
addresses consisting largely of _parables_; while St. John reports
discourses, frequently expressed in the language of _allegory_, and
uttered to the Jews of Jerusalem or to His own intimate disciples.
[Sidenote: The Synoptic problem.]
The Synoptic problem consists in the difficulties raised by the fact
that the Synoptic Gospels show both a remarkable similarity and a
remarkable dissimilarity. It is just because the similarity is often
so astonishing that we find it all the more difficult to explain the
dissimilarity when it exists. A study of the Synoptic problem is
valuable for the Christian student, inasmuch as it directs our
attention to the sources employed by the evangelists, and thus leads us
nearer to the actual events connected with the rise of Christianity.
The RESEMBLANCES between the Synoptic Gospels may be observed in the
following points:--
(a) _A common plan._--The general view of the course of events is
almost identical. St. Matthew and St. Luke give separate accounts of
the infancy of our Lord, but they then join with St. Mark in their
account of St. John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Christ,
and the beginning of His ministry. Later all three direct their
attention mainly to Christ's work in Galilee, while St. John describes
much that took place in Judaea and Samaria. They pass rapidly over
some considerable space of time until they come to the last week of His
life, where all three give a detailed account.
(b) _A common selection of facts._--By far the larger number of both
events and discourses are found in all three Gospels. If anything is
recorded in Mark it is generally to be found in {17} Matt. and Luke,
and almost always in either Matt. or Luke. If the whole number of
incidents in the Synoptic Gospels be reckoned as eighty-eight, the
distribution of the incidents shared by at least two Gospels is as
follows:--
In all three Gospels . . . . . . . 42
In Mark and Matt. . . . . . . . . 12
In Mark and Luke . . . . . . . . . 5
In Matt. and Luke . . . . . . . . 12
If we add the above together, we realize that seventy-one incidents out
of a total of eighty-eight are to be found in more than one Gospel. Of
the remaining seventeen incidents, three are peculiar to Mark, five to
Matt., and nine to Luke.
(c) _Similar groups of incidents._--Not only is there a common
selection of facts, but detached events which happened at different
times are sometimes grouped together in the same way in all of the
Synoptic Gospels or in two of the three. Thus in all three we find
together the cure of the paralytic, the call of Levi, and the question
of fasting (Matt. ix. 1-17; Mark ii. 1-22; Luke v. 17-39); so also the
plucking of the ears of corn and the cure of the withered hand--events
separated by at least a week (Matt. xii. 1-21; Mark ii. 23-iii. 6; Luke
vi. 1-11). Thus also the death of John the Baptist is introduced both
in Matt. xiv. 3 and in Mark vi. 17 to explain the fear felt by Herod
Antipas that he had risen from the dead. In fact, when a parallel
passage is found in all three Synoptic Gospels, it is never immediately
followed in _both_ Matt. and Luke by a whole separate incident which is
not in Mark.[2] There is a general tendency in Matt. and Luke to
narrate the same facts as Mark in the order of Mark. And therefore it
is difficult to think that the original basis of the Synoptic Gospels,
whether written or unwritten, did not coincide closely with Mark in the
order of events.
{18}
(d) _Similarity of language._--The Synoptic Gospels often agree
verbally. And this agreement is not merely found in the reports of the
sayings of our Lord, but even in the narrative of events. It extends
even to rare Greek words and phrases. The clauses are often remarkably
similar. Sometimes quotations from the Old Testament are found in two
or three Gospels with the same variations from the original. Matt.
iii. 3, Mark i. 3, and Luke iii. 4 have the same quotation from Isa.
xl. 3, in which they agree in every word, although at the end they
depart in the same way from both the Hebrew and the Greek version of
the Old Testament, for they put "His paths" instead of "the paths of
our God." Another interesting instance is to be found in Matt. xxvi.
47, Mark xiv. 43, and Luke xxii. 47, where all three evangelists,
apparently without any necessity, explain that Judas was one of the
twelve. Again in Matt. xxiv. 15, 16, and Mark xiii. 14, we have the
note or parenthesis "let him that readeth understand," which one
evangelist seems to have copied from the other.
The DIFFERENCES between the Synoptic Gospels may be observed in the
following facts:--
(a) _Facts peculiar to one or two Gospels._--There is a wide difference
between the account of the birth and infancy of our Lord given in Matt.
and that given in Luke. In Matt. we have recorded an angelic
communication to St. Joseph concerning the future birth of Jesus. In
Luke, an earlier and fuller annunciation to St. Mary is recorded. In
Matt. the story of the infancy is centred at Bethlehem, in Luke at
Nazareth. The accounts given of the appearances of our Lord after the
Resurrection record different events. In Matt. and Mark Galilee is the
scene of His appearances, in Luke the scene is laid in Jerusalem and
its neighbourhood. There is not the least reason for regarding these
accounts as contradictory, but there is reason for inquiring why the
different writers selected different appearances.
{19}
(b) _Different accounts of the same facts._--The three distinct
incidents of the temptation of our Lord are recorded in a different
order in Matt. and Luke, and the temptation is recorded without these
incidents in Mark. St. Luke's version of the Beatitudes is reduced in
number, and is followed by corresponding denunciations. In Mark x. 46
and Matt. x. 29 we have the cure of Bartimaeus on the departure from
Jericho, in Luke xviii. 35, xix. 1 at the entrance of the city. In
Matt. viii. 28 there are two demoniacs, while in Mark v. 2 and Luke
viii. 27, which seem to narrate the same event, only one demoniac is
mentioned. All the Synoptic Gospels give slightly different accounts
of the inscription on the cross, and the words spoken by the centurion
at the death of Jesus vary in Luke from the words in Matt. and Mark.
(c) Differences in the order of words and sentences.--Although Matt.
and Luke do not combine against Mark in narrating a whole incident in
an order different from Mark, it is important to notice that there are
some cases in which Matt. and Mark agree against Luke, or Mark and Luke
agree against Matt. And we must not omit a significant instance where
Matt. and Luke agree against Mark in the order of _part_ of an
incident. In Matt. iii. 11, 12 and Luke iii. 16, "I indeed baptize you
with water," etc., comes _before_, in Mark i. 7, 8 it comes _after_,
the description of Jesus as "He that is mightier than I." No doubt one
author who copies another may often omit something stated by the first
author. But, surely, he is not very likely to invert the order of the
materials before him, especially when no obvious purpose can be served
by such an inversion. Another instance of inversion is this: in Mark
ix. 12, 13 the rejection of the Son of Man is mentioned by our Lord
_between_ two statements of His about Ehas, in Matt. xvii. 12 it is
mentioned _after_ both statements. Such inversions would naturally
take place in the case of oral transmission of the sacred story, but
they would be less likely in the case of one writer copying another.
{20}
(d) _Verbal differences._--Striking verbal differences occur even when
the general resemblance is most close. In Matt. ix. 1-17, Mark ii.
1-22, Luke v. 17-39, there are verbal changes even where the sentences
closely coincide. Other instances might be quoted. All three
evangelists have a style of their own, and show a marked preference for
particular idioms and words. In narrating the sayings of our Lord,
they narrate them with some verbal differences, and in the case of the
history of His ministry, they narrate it with numerous verbal
differences. It is therefore evident that St. Matthew and St. Luke, if
they used St. Mark's work, felt themselves at liberty to deal with it
very freely.
The above brief account of the chief resemblances and differences
between the first three Gospels is an attempt to give a fair though
condensed statement of certain facts which appeal with different force
to different minds. "How came these Gospels to be so alike and yet so
different?" This is the "Synoptic problem," and great divergence of
opinion exists as to the solution.
[Sidenote: Possible solutions.]
The most important views propounded to solve the problem are--
(1) Both St. Matthew and St. Luke copied the Gospel of St. Mark, while
not omitting to make use of other documents. In the case of St. Luke,
his acquaintance with earlier written stories about our Lord is
rendered indisputable by his own statement. Sometimes it has been
thought that St. Luke made use of the Gospel according to St. Matthew
as well as the Gospel according to St. Mark. This theory is most
appropriately called the _theory of the mutual dependence of the
documents_.
(2) The three Synoptic Gospels put down in writing different, but
closely similar forms of an oral tradition concerning the teaching of
our Lord. It is thought that the statements made by the apostles about
Christ were repeated by them and occasionally added to, and treasured
up in faithful memories. {21} The idea of a _literary_ connection
between the Gospels is dismissed, and it is held that the methods of
teaching employed among the Jews, and the probable existence of a
school of trained catechists, will account sufficiently for the fixed
form of the tradition. According to this hypothesis the differences
between the Synoptic Gospels are to be explained by the necessity of
teaching different aspects of the truth among different classes of
inquirers, and by the fluctuating memories of the teachers. This
theory is known as the _oral theory_.[3]
(3) The three Synoptic Gospels are based upon one original Gospel
written in the Aramaic language. A large number of verbal variations
can thus be accounted for. They might have sprung from different
renderings of the same Aramaic original, and various passages derived
from oral tradition might have been added to the original Gospel when
it was translated. It has been held by some that there was at least an
Aramaic document behind Mark, if there was not an Aramaic original
employed by all the Synoptics. The different forms of this hypothesis
can be described as the _theory of an Aramaic original_.
It is now generally believed that the three evangelists did not employ
one original Aramaic Gospel. The agreement between the Greek words of
the Synoptic Gospels is too close to be explained by the use of an
Aramaic original. The real controversy, therefore, lies between the
scholars who support theory (1) or theory (2).
[Sidenote: Probable conclusions.]
On the whole, it appears that a general agreement is being arrived at.
It is becoming evident that the theory of the mutual dependence of the
documents and the oral theory are _both_ partly true, and that neither
of them can be held in an extreme form. In the first place, the
resemblances between the first three Gospels make it extremely probable
that St. Matthew and St. Luke {22} employed the work of St. Mark. In
England, Germany, and France the opinion of scholars seems steadily
tending towards this conclusion. The chief reasons for it are
undoubtedly that (i.) the order of facts in Mark is the _normal order_
of the whole narrative of the Synoptists, and (ii.) in the main, the
language of Mark explains the verbal agreements between Matt. and Luke.
Therefore among the probable conclusions with regard to the Synoptic
problem we must reckon the fact that _Mark is earlier than Matt. and
Luke, and was employed in the composition of them both_. This is the
first important conclusion.
But we must also allow room for the influence of oral tradition.
We have already noticed many differences between the Synoptists, all of
which more or less suggest that the Gospels are largely based on oral
tradition. We may now mention a few other facts which point in the
same direction. There are cases in which Matt. or Luke has a more
decided appearance of originality than Mark. These cases include
words, phrases, and even sections. For instance, Matt. employs several
times the phrase "the Father who is in heaven," a phrase which our Lord
must certainly have used, but which in Mark only occurs once (xi. 25).
Mark i. 40-45, ii. 1-12, iii. 1-6, x. 35, appear less original than the
parallel passages in the other Synoptic Gospels. Moreover, there are
statements in Matt. of a striking kind, which are not at all likely to
have been invented, but which are entirely absent from Mark. We may
notice the texts, "Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not
into any city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel" (Matt. x. 5, 6); and again, "I was not sent but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. xv. 24). In both cases
the context has a parallel in Mark, but the verses in question do not
occur in those parallels.
Also there are certain passages to be found in Mark which are in
neither Luke nor Matt. If we believe that the Gospels {23} are largely
based on oral tradition, it is easy to account for the absence of a
passage in one or two of the three Synoptic Gospels. An incident which
was remembered in one place might be forgotten in another. But if we
exclude the influence of oral tradition, there are only two solutions
of the problem raised by these passages. Either (a) St. Matthew and
St. Luke were ignorant of them, because they were added to Mark later
than the date when they used Mark; or (b) they knew them and omitted
them. In other words, we have to ask, Did they use an original form of
the second Gospel, a form to which German scholars apply the name
_Ur-Marcus_ and French scholars apply the name _Proto-Marc_, or did
they omit passages in Mark which suggested difficulties or appeared
unnecessary? The main argument against the existence of a Proto-Mark
is that neither Papias nor any known Father of the Church preserves the
least recollection of it. It has simply been invented to account for
the difficulties of the Synoptic problem. If, on the other hand, St.
Matthew and St. Luke deliberately abbreviated or altered the narrative
of St. Mark, we must naturally inquire why they did so. The authors
who maintain that they did alter the material which lay before them,
account for some of the changes as having been made from a mere desire
to abbreviate, or to remove a few verses which might prove "hard
sayings" to Jewish or Gentile Christians respectively. Some think that
other passages in Mark were emitted because St. Matthew and St. Luke
considered them to be derogatory to our Lord's power or the character
of His apostles. For instance, St. Matthew omits the rebuke
administered to the apostles in Mark viii. 17, 18, and he does not
mention our Lord's use of spittle as a means of healing. He also in
ch. xiii. 55 represents the Jews as calling our Lord "the carpenter's
son," whereas in Mark vi. 3 they call Him "the carpenter."
This latter line of argument is often hazardous and occasionally
profane. And in special reference to the points just {24} described,
we may remark that St. Matthew in ch. xiv. 28-33 does not hesitate to
record the weakness of even St. Peter's faith; and that St. John,
although he gives the greatest prominence to the majesty of our Lord,
does in ch. ix. 6 record His use of spittle in healing. And if St.
Matthew thought it irreverent to record the fact that the Jews called
Jesus "the carpenter," he might have naturally shrunk far more from
saying, as he does, that they named Him "the carpenter's son," a title
which might seem to imply an ignoring of His miraculous birth.
It seems, therefore, that we must be content to acknowledge that we
cannot always determine the reasons which influenced St. Matthew and
St. Luke, but we can say that in some cases they were probably
influenced by the mere desire to abbreviate, and that they were also
influenced by the forms which the oral teaching of the Gospel had
assumed. We may also regard it as almost certain that St. Luke
sometimes altered words in St. Mark's narrative simply because he
preferred a more elegant and less homely form of Greek. The textual
criticism of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament also points to
the fact that for a few generations, when reminiscences of our Lord and
His apostles were still handed down, writers occasionally tried to make
room for these reminiscences when they copied the books of the New
Testament. A famous instance of this is John vii. 53-viii. 11, which
was almost certainly not written by St. John, and is almost certainly a
genuine story which the apostle knew, and which Christians afterwards
inserted in his Gospel. We believe, then, that _all the Synoptic
Gospels are influenced by oral tradition_. This is the second
important conclusion.
Thirdly, it seems that _Matt. and Luke, and perhaps Mark, made use of
written collections of Logia, or sayings of our Lord_. Evidence of one
such collection comes to us on the high authority of Papias. He says--
Matthew then composed the Logia in the Hebrew tongue, and every one
interpreted them as he was able.
{25}
An equally important statement which Papias makes with regard to the
composition of Mark, is made on the authority of John the Presbyter who
had been a personal follower of the Lord and was an elder contemporary
of Papias. It is at least possible that Papias derived his information
about Matt. from the same authority. It is almost inconceivable that
between the time of Papias and that of Irenaeus, whose life probably
overlapped that of Papias, the name of Matthew became wrongly affixed
to our first Gospel. We may therefore regard it as certain that in our
first Gospel is contained the book of sayings, which St. Matthew
himself wrote. In our third Gospel we find that St. Luke has inserted
much information with regard to our Lord's teaching which is apparently
derived from a version of the Logia. The order of the sayings is more
original in Luke than in Matt. The reason for this assertion is the
following:--
The two evangelists arrange the sayings of our Lord differently. In
more than two-thirds of the instances in which they seem to employ some
collection of _Logia_, they place their materials in a different
setting. It has often been remarked that St. Matthew places the
discourses of our Lord together in large blocks, while St. Luke records
them separately, and in many cases records the circumstances which led
up to them. Instances of this are--The Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 9-13
and Luke xi. 1-4); the treasure and the heart (Matt. vi. 19-21 and Luke
xii. 33, 34); God and Mammon (Matt. vi. 24 and Luke xvi. 13). It would
therefore seem plain that either one evangelist or the other altered
the places of these discourses. Examination makes it equally plain
that the alteration was made in Matt. Much of Matt. is arranged in
numerical forms, and this is especially true of those passages which
are not derived from Mark. The numbers 5, 10, and 7 are used as helps
to memory. Thus in Matt. we find _five_ chapters (called by the Jews
"Pereqs") of the sayings of our Lord, ending respectively at vii. 28;
xi. 1; xiii. 53, xix. 1; xxvi. 1. The {26} number five was a favourite
number with the Jews in such cases; thus we have five books of the
Pentateuch, five books of the Psalms, the five _Megilloth_ or festival
volumes, and the five parts of the _Pirqe Aboth_. In chs. viii. and
ix. we have a collection of _ten_ miracles, in spite of the fact that
three of these miracles are placed elsewhere by St. Mark and St. Luke.
The petitions of the Lord's Prayer are arranged as seven, there are
_seven_ parables in ch. xiii., _seven_ woes in ch. xxiii., and the
genealogy of our Lord is arranged in three _fourteens_. As these
numerical arrangements are specially characteristic of Matt., and
certainly appear to be caused by a desire to aid oral repetition, we
are led to the conclusion that the Logia are to be found in a less
artificial and therefore earlier form in Luke. We are also led once
more to the conclusion that though we cannot say that the whole of
Matt. owes its form to oral teaching, yet many sections of it are
moulded by oral teaching.
It must lastly be noted that although the collection of Logia employed
in Luke contained much material which is also found in Matt., the
parallel passages vary considerably in style and language. Examination
of these passages seldom enables us to prove what expressions were
specially characteristic of the Logia. But we can assert with a fair
amount of confidence that the version, or versions, of the Logia so
employed, had a simple and Hebraic style; and that whereas Luke has
kept the order of the Logia better than Matt., the latter preserves the
style more faithfully.
In addition to Mark and collections of the Logia, St. Matthew and St.
Luke employed other sources now unknown to us. The narratives of the
infancy and the Resurrection are independent, and are so different that
they point both to the fact that the two evangelists were here
employing different sources, and that each was unacquainted with the
Gospel written by the other. Also, St. Luke's account of our Lord's
ministry in Peraea and elsewhere, contained in ix. 51-xix. 28, is
peculiar to his Gospel.
[Sidenote: The relation of St. John's Gospel to the Synoptic Gospels.]
The difference between the theological tone of St. John's Gospel and
that which we find in the Synoptists is mentioned {27} in our account
of the separate Gospels. Besides this difference of tone, there is a
decided difference in the march of the events which are recorded and
some difference in the narrative of passages which are parallel. The
first rough impression which we gather from the Synoptists is that our
Lord did not visit Jerusalem until shortly before the Crucifixion.
Matthew and Mark refer to one Passover only for which Jesus comes to
Jerusalem. The scene of His ministry is Galilee. On the other hand,
the centre of interest in John is not Galilee, but Jerusalem and
Judaea. But a minute examination proves that the narrative of St. John
fits that of the Synoptists in a remarkable manner. In the first
place, the Synoptists give us hints of our Lord's earlier visits to
Judaea and Jerusalem. In Luke iv. 44 (see margin R.V.) we find Him
preaching in the synagogues of Judaea (cf. Acts x. 37). In Luke v. 17
the presence in Galilee of Pharisees from _Jerusalem_ is a testimony to
the impression which Christ had produced in the holy city. Both Matt.
(xxiii. 37) and Luke (xiii. 34) record the lament of our Lord, "O
_Jerusalem_, . . . how _often_ would I," etc. So from John iv. 3, 43
we learn of our Lord returning to _Galilee_ after His first visit to
Jerusalem. This second journey into Galilee recorded by St. John
brings us to a point corresponding with the early days of the ministry
in Galilee described by the Synoptists. In John vi.-vii. 9 we have
narratives connected with _Galilee_, and this section belongs to an
interval of time between the approach of Passover in March A.D. 28 and
the feast of Tabernacles in September A.D. 28. Of this period the
Synoptists give a much fuller account.
The question of the length of our Lord's ministry is thus intimately
connected with that of the scene of His ministry. St. John marks the
length of our Lord's ministry, not by ordinary chronology, but by the
mention of various Jewish feasts. The dates of these feasts show that
His ministry lasted two years and a half. The absence of dates in the
Synoptists {28} has led to the opinion that they represent our Lord's
ministry as only extending over one year. This opinion may be
summarily dismissed. The mention of ripe corn in Mark ii. 23, and
green grass in vi. 39, implies two spring-times before the last
Passover. It is impossible to compress the teaching which the Synoptic
Gospels relate into the period of one year, and they show a hostility
towards Christ on the part of the ruling classes in Jerusalem which
could not have sufficiently fermented in the space of a few months. We
may also notice that there is a close agreement between the Synoptists
and St. John with regard to the points on which the conflict between
Christ and the Jews turned (cf. Matt. xvi. 1-4, Mark viii. 11-13, Luke
xi. 16, 29-32, with John ii. 18). The Jews specially charged Him with
being possessed by a devil (cf. Matt. xii. 24, Mark iii. 22, Luke xi.
15, with John viii. 48 and x. 19), and also with breaking the sabbath
(cf. Matt. xii. 9, Mark iii. 1, Luke vi. 6, xiii. 10, with John v. 10,
vii. 22, ix. 14).
The dates of two important incidents have been the subjects of much
discussion. A cleansing of the temple by our Lord is related by the
Synoptists at the close of our Lord's ministry (Mark xi. 15). John ii.
14 places a cleansing of the temple at the very beginning of our Lord's
ministry. If we have to choose between one record and the other, we
should perhaps be inclined to say that the narrative in John is the
more probable. But there is no good reason for making such a choice.
No one who is at all familiar with the history of the abuses which took
place in some mediaeval churches would find a difficulty in believing
that the temple needed a second cleansing by our Lord. The first
cleansing is the natural outcome of His righteous indignation in
beholding for the first time the holiest place in the world given up to
common traffic, the second cleansing is appropriate in Him who had then
openly proclaimed His divine authority and Messiahship.
The day of our Lord's death is a date about which there is an apparent
discrepancy between the Synoptists and St. John. {29} The discrepancy
has been elevated into momentous importance by the sceptics of the last
sixty years, and has been employed as one of the most formidable
arguments against the authenticity of St. John's Gospel. The argument
employed by these critics is as follows:--(1) The Synoptic Gospels
contain the original apostolic tradition, and they agree in stating
that Jesus celebrated the ordinary Jewish passover on the evening
between the 14th and 15th of the month Nisan; they therefore represent
the crucifixion as taking place on the 15th, after the passover had
been eaten. (2) The fourth Gospel places the Last Supper on the
evening between the 13th and the 14th of Nisan. It therefore
represents the crucifixion as taking place on the 14th, and tacitly
denies that Christ ate the usual Jewish passover. (3) The Churches of
the province of Asia, which were founded by St. John, were accustomed
in the 2nd century to keep their passover on the 14th of Nisan, and
declared that they derived their custom from St. John. They
consequently believed that Christ died on the 15th, and that He ate the
usual Jewish Passover. (4) Therefore the fourth Gospel was not written
by St. John, but by a forger who wished to emphasize the break between
Judaism and Christianity.
This argument can be turned with fatal force against the critics who
made it. It is no doubt true that St. John by numerous indications
(xiii. 1; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31) implies that the Last Supper was
eaten the day before the usual passover, and that Christ died on Nisan
14. But the usage of the Christians of the Asiatic Churches in the 2nd
century absolutely corroborates these indications. These Churches when
they celebrated the passover were not celebrating the anniversary of
the Last Supper, but the anniversary of the death of Christ, the true
Paschal Lamb. By doing this on Nisan 14, they showed that they
believed that Christ died on that day, and there is particularly strong
evidence of a belief among the early Christians that our Lord did die
on Nisan 14. Moreover, although the account of the Synoptists is not
free from {30} ambiguity, it bears many testimonies to St. John's
chronology. They record as happening on the day of Christ's death
several actions which the Jewish law did not permit on a feast day such
as Nisan 15, and which must presumably have taken place on Nisan 14.
The Synoptists make the Sanhedrim say that they will not arrest Jesus
"on the feast day," the guards and St. Peter carry arms, the trial is
held, Simon the Cyrenian comes from work, Joseph of Arimathaea buys a
linen cloth, the holy women prepare spices, all of which works would
have been forbidden on Nisan 15. Finally, the day is itself called the
"preparation," a name which would not be given to Nisan 15. The
conclusion is irresistible. It is that our Lord died on Nisan 14, that
St. John is correct, and that the Synoptists in most of the passages
concerned corroborate St. John. The only real difficulty is raised by
Mark xiv. 12 (cf. Matt. xxvi. 17; Luke xxii. 7), which seems to imply
that the Paschal lamb was sacrificed on the day before Christ died. If
so, this verse implies that Christ died on Nisan 15. But we must
observe that not one of the Synoptists says that the disciples ate a
lamb at the Last Supper, and also that, for all ceremonial purposes,
the day for killing the lamb began on the evening of Nisan 13. It is
therefore doubtful whether there is even as much as one verbal
contradiction on this point between the Synoptists and St. John.
The omission of events which are of importance in the Synoptic Gospels
is a striking feature in St. John's Gospel. But these instances of
omission can be more reasonably explained by the hypothesis that the
author was content to omit facts with which the Christians around him
were well acquainted, than by the hypothesis that he was a
spiritualistic writer of the 2nd century who wished to make his Gospel
fit some fanciful theory of his own. In fact, the latter hypothesis
has proved a signal failure. The critics who say that the writer
omitted the story of our Lord's painful temptation as incompatible with
the majesty of the Divine Word, may be asked {31} why the writer gives
no fuller account of the glorious transfiguration than the hint in i.
14. Those who say that sentimental superstition induced the writer to
omit the agony the garden, may be asked why the writer records the
weariness of Christ at Samaria and His tears at the grave, of Lazarus.
There are gaps in the evangelist's narrative, but we cannot argue that
the Gospel is therefore a forgery. The evangelist is acquainted with
the Ascension (vi. 62), though he does not record it; and he knows that
Nazareth was the early home of Christ (i. 46), though he does not
narrate the story of the sacred infancy. The Gospel of St. John is
none the less genuine for being of the nature of a treatise, intended
to bring certain aspects of the life of our Lord to bear upon the
intellectual life of Ephesus. Much has been made of the fact that he
says nothing of the institution of the Eucharist. Nor does he record
the command of Jesus to baptize. Are we to suppose that a writer who
has told us how "the Word was made flesh" so shrank from believing
material things to be connected with a spiritual efficacy that he
rejected the sacraments? Is it not more probable that among people who
were perfectly familiar with both Baptism and the Eucharist he
preferred to tell what Christ had said about being born again (iii.),
and about the assimilation of His life by the believer (vi.)? This
seems to us more reasonable. The fourth Gospel, though it has a
character and purpose of its own, and might even have been written if
there had been no other Gospel, yet was intended to supplement either
the Synoptic Gospels or else a body of teaching corresponding with that
contained in those Gospels.
The facts which St. John records in common with the Synoptists before
the Last Supper, the Passion, and the Resurrection are--the Baptism of
John (i. 26), the Feeding of the 5000 (vi. 10), the Walking on the Sea
(vi. 19), the Anointing at Bethany, with the action of Judas (xii. 1),
the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (xii. 12). Even in connection with
these incidents St. John gives his additional details, and {32}
therefore the character of his work is here, as elsewhere, both
independent and supplemental.
It remains to ask whether any words used by St. John seem to show that
he borrowed expressions from the Synoptic Gospels.
The following passages may be noticed: John v. 8 f. (Mark ii. 11 f.),
vi. 7, 10, 19 f. (Mark vi. 37, 40, 49 f.), xii. 3, 5, 7 f. (Mark xiv.
3-6), xiii. 21 (Mark xiv. 18), xviii. 18, 17 (Mark xiv. 54, 69), xviii.
22 (Mark xiv. 65). For the quotation from Zechariah in xii. 15, cf.
Matt. xxi. 5. The words of our Lord in John xv. 18-xvi. 2 have been
compared with those in Matt. x. 17-22. Sometimes John has more points
of contact with Luke than with the other Synoptists; _e.g._ there is
the journey of Christ to Galilee before the death of John the Baptist,
the fact that the scourging of Christ by Pilate was intended to
restrain the Jews from demanding His death, and the visit of St. Peter
to the sepulchre. It has been thought that John xii. 3 is based upon
Luke vii. 38. The anointing of our Lord's _feet_ in both is certainly
remarkable. Sometimes John agrees with Matt. and Mark and not Luke, as
in recording the binding of Jesus, the crown of thorns, the purple
robe, and the custom of releasing a malefactor at the feast. Such
coincidences between John and the Synoptic Gospels are so slight and
disconnected that it seems doubtful whether the former uses any
material drawn from the latter. Nevertheless, the story contained in
the Synoptic Gospels, though not quoted, is presupposed. A good
instance is in John vi. 5, where St. John does not stop to explain that
the hour was late and the people therefore hungry.
[1] _Apol._ i. 66.
[2] The longest instance of a passage in Matt. and Luke being parallel
in these Gospels and without a parallel in Mark is the short passage,
Matt. iii. 7-10, Luke iii. 7-9.
[3] This theory was first clearly expounded in 1818 by Gieseler, a
celebrated German Protestant Church historian. It has been more
popular in England than in Germany.
{33}