THE PETRINE TRADITION. EVANGELIC STORY
Of the extent to which the early church could do without narrative of
Jesus' earthly ministry we have extraordinary evidences in the
literature of Pauline Christianity on the one side and of Jewish
Christianity on the other. For Paul himself, as we know, the real story
of Jesus was a transcendental drama of the Incarnation, Redemption, and
Exaltation. It is probable that when at last "three years" after his
conversion he went up to Jerusalem "to get acquainted with Peter," the
story he was interested to hear had even then more to do with that
common apostolic witness of the resurrection appearances reproduced in
1st Cor. xv. 3-11, than with the sayings and doings of the ministry. As
to this Paul preserves, as we have seen, an almost unbroken silence. And
that which did not interest Paul, naturally did not interest his
churches.
On the other hand those who could have perpetuated a full and authentic
account of the ministry were almost incredibly slow to undertake the
task; partly, no doubt, because of their vivid expectation of the
immediate end of the world, but largely also because to their mind the
data most in need of preservation were the 'life-giving words.' The
impression of Jesus' character, his person and authority was not, as
they regarded it, a thing to be gained from the historical outline of
his career. It was established by the fact of the Resurrection, by the
predictions of the prophets, which found fulfilment in the circumstances
of Jesus' birth, particular incidents here and there in his career and
fate, but most of all in his resurrection and the gifts of the Spirit
which argued his present session at the right hand of God. Once this
authority of Jesus was established the believer had only to observe his
commandments as handed down by the apostles, elders and witnesses.
On all sides there was an indifference to such historical inquiry as the
modern man would think natural and inevitable, an indifference that must
remain altogether inexplicable to us unless we realize that until at
least the time of the fourth evangelist the main proofs of messiahship
were not looked for in Jesus' earthly career. His Christhood was thought
of as something in the future, not yet realized. Even his resurrection
and manifestation in glory "at the right hand of God," which is to both
Paul (Rom. i. 4) and his predecessors (Acts ii. 32-36) the assurance
that "God hath made him both Lord and Christ," is not yet the beginning
of his specific messianic programme. Potentially this has begun, because
Jesus has already been seated on the 'throne of glory,' "from henceforth
expecting until his enemies be made the footstool of his feet."
Practically it is not yet. The Christ is still a Christ that is to be.
His messianic rule is delayed until the subjugation of the "enemies";
and this subjugation in turn is delayed by "the long suffering of God,
who willeth not that any should perish, but that all men should come to
repentance." Meantime a special "outpouring of the Spirit" is given in
'tongues,' 'prophecies,' 'miracle working,' and the like, in fulfilment
of scriptural promise, as a kind of coronation largess to all loyal
subjects. This outpouring of the Spirit, then, is the great proof and
assurance that the Heir has really ascended the 'throne of glory' in
spite of the continuance of "all things as they were from the foundation
of the world." These 'gifts' are "firstfruits of the Spirit," pledges of
the ultimate inheritance, proofs both to believers and unbelievers of
the complete Inheritance soon to be received. But the gifts have also a
practical aspect. They are all endowments for _service_. The Great
Repentance in Israel and among the Gentiles is not to be brought about
without the co-operation of believers. The question which at once arises
when the manifestation of the risen Christ is granted, "Lord, dost thou
at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" is therefore answered by
the assurance that the time is in God's hand alone, but that the 'gifts
of the Spirit,' soon to be imparted, are intended to enable believers to
do their part, at home and abroad, toward effecting the Great Repentance
(Acts i. 6-8).[20]
Footnote 20: The parallel in Mark xvi. 14-18 is very instructive,
but needs the recently discovered connection between verses 14 and
15 to complete the sense: "And they excused themselves (for their
unbelief) saying, This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under the
dominion of Satan, who by means of the unclean spirits prevents the
truth and power of God from being apprehended. On this account
reveal thy righteousness (_i. e._ justice, in the sense of Isa. lvi,
1 _b_) even now. And Christ replied to them, The limit of years of
Satan's power is (already) fulfilled, but other terrible things are
at hand; moreover I was delivered up to death on behalf of sinners
in order that they might return unto the truth and sin no more, that
they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory which is in
heaven." Then follows the mission into all the world and endowment
with the gifts.
For a church which felt itself endowed with living and present evidences
of the messianic power of Jesus it was naturally only a second thought
(and not a very early one at that) to look back for proof to occurrences
in Jesus' life in Galilee, however notable his career as "a prophet
mighty in deed and word before God and all the people." The _present_
gifts of his power would be (at least in demonstrative effect) "greater
works than these." With those who had the resurrection testimony of 1st
Cor. xv. 3-11, and even the recurrent experience of "visions and
revelations of the Lord," anticipatory revelations of his messiahship,
utterances, like that to Peter at Caesarea Philippi, wherein Jesus only
predicted the great work to be divinely accomplished through him,
whether by life or death, in going up to Jerusalem, intimations which
had been disregarded or disbelieved at the time, could not rank with
present knowledge, experience and insight. They would be recalled merely
as confirmatory foregleams of "the true light that now shineth," as the
two who had received the manifestation at Emmaus exclaim, "Did not our
heart burn within us while he talked to us in the way?"
We could not indeed psychologically account for the development of the
resurrection faith after the crucifixion, if before it Jesus' life and
utterances had not been such as to make his manifestation in glory seem
to the disciples just what they _ought_ to have expected. But,
conversely, nothing is more certain than the fact that they _did not_
expect it; and that when the belief had become established by other
means, the attitude toward the "sayings and doings" maintained by those
who had them to relate--as we know, the most successful missionary of
all felt it no handicap to be entirely without them--was one of looking
back into an obscure past for things whose pregnant significance became
appreciable only in the light of present knowledge. "These things
understood not his disciples at the first, but when Jesus was glorified,
then remembered they that these things had been written of him, and that
they had done these things unto him."
We are fortunate in having even one example of the "consecutive
narratives" (_diegeses_) referred to in Luke i. 1. Our Mark is a gospel
written purely and simply from this point of view, aiming only to show
how the earthly career of Jesus gave evidence that this was the Son of
God, predestined to exaltation to the right hand of power, with little
attempt, if any, to bring in the precepts of the New Law. We should
realize, however, that this is already a beginning in the process soon
to become controlling, a process of carrying back into the earthly life
of Jesus in Galilee of first this trait, then that, then all the
attributes of the glorified Lord.
Ancient and reliable tradition informs us that this first endeavour to
tell the story of "Jesus Christ the Son of God" was composed at Rome by
John Mark, a former companion of both Peter and Paul, from data drawn
from the anecdotes casually employed by Peter in his preaching. There is
much to confirm this in the structure, the style, and the doctrinal
object and standpoint of the Gospel.
To begin with, the date of composition cannot be far from 75. Mark is
not only presupposed by both Matthew and Luke, but in their time had
already acquired an extraordinary predominance. To judge by what
remains to us of similar products, Mark in its own field might almost be
said to reign supreme and reign alone. Such almost exclusive supremacy
could not have been attained, even by a writing commonly understood to
represent the preaching of Peter, short of a decade or more of years. On
the other hand we have the reluctant testimony of antiquity, anxious to
claim as much as possible of apostolic authority for the record, but
unwilling to commit Peter to apparent contradictions of Matthew, that it
was written after Peter's death (64-5).[21] Internal evidence would in
fact bring down the date of the work in its present form a full decade
thereafter. It is true that there are many structural evidences of more
than one form of the narrative, and that the apocalyptic chapter (ch.
xiii.), which furnishes most of the evidence of date, may well belong
among the later supplements. But in the judgment of most critics this
'eschatological discourse' (almost the only connected discourse of the
Gospel) is clearly framed in real retrospect upon the overthrow of
Jerusalem and the temple, and the attendant tribulation on "those that
are in Judaea." The writer applies a general saying of Jesus known to us
from other sources about destroying and rebuilding the temple
specifically to the demolition effected by Titus (70). He warns his
readers in the same connection that "the end" is not to follow
immediately upon the great Judaean war, but only when the powers of evil
in the heavenly places, powers inhabiting sun, moon and stars, are
shaken (xiii. 21-27). The Pauline doctrine of 2nd Thess. ii. 1-12 is
adopted, but with careful avoidance of the prediction that the "man of
sin" is to appear "in the temple of God." Paul's "man of sin" is now
identified with Daniel's "abomination that maketh desolate" (Dan. xii.
11), which therefore is spoken of as "he" (masculine). "His" appearance
will prelude the great Judaean tribulation; but his standing place is
ill-defined. It is only "where he ought not." Matthew (following his
usual practice) returns more nearly to the language of Daniel. With him
the "Abomination" is again an object standing "in _a_ holy place." But
Matthew is already applying the prophecy to another tribulation still to
come. He does not see that Mark refers to the sack of Jerusalem on which
he himself looks back in his addition to the parable of the Supper
(Matt. xxii. 6 f.; _cf._ Luke xiv. 15-24), but takes Mark xiii. 14-23
as Jesus' prediction of a great final tribulation _still to come_.
Footnote 21: So Irenaeus (186) and (by implication) Papias. Clement
of Alexandria (210) meets the difficulty by alleging that Peter was
still alive, but gave no aid to the writer.
Mark's crudities of language and style, his frequent latinisms, his
explanation to his readers (almost contemptuously exaggerated) of Jewish
purifications and distinctions of meats (vii. 3 f.), presupposition
of the Roman form of divorce (x. 12), explanation in Roman money of the
value of the (Greek and Oriental) "mite" (_lepton_), are well-known
confirmations of the tradition of the writing's place of origin. But
these are superficial characteristics. More important for us to note is
the fundamental conception of what constitutes "the gospel," and the
writer's attitude on questions of the relation of Jew and Gentile and
the authority of the apostles and kindred of the Lord.
The most striking characteristic of Mark is that it aims to present the
gospel _about_ Jesus, and is relatively indifferent to the gospel _of_
Jesus. Had the writer conceived his task after the manner of a Matthew
there is little doubt that he could have compiled catechetic discourses
of Jesus like the Sermon on the Mount or the discourse on prayer of Luke
xi. 1-13. The fact that he disregards such records of Jesus' ethical and
religious instruction does not mean that he (tacitly) refers his readers
to the Matthaean Precepts, or similar compilations, to supplement his own
deficiencies. It means a different, more Pauline, conception of what
"the gospel" is. Mark conceives its primary element to be attachment to
the _person_ of Jesus, and has already gone far toward obliterating the
primitive distinction between a Jesus whose earthly career had been "in
great humility," and the glorified Son of God. The earthly Jesus is
still, it is true, only a man endowed with the Spirit of Adoption. But
he is so completely "in" the Spirit, and so fully endowed with it, as
almost to assume the Greek figure of a demi-god treading the earth
incognito. No wonder this Gospel became the favourite of the
Adoptionists and Doketists.
Mark does not leave his reader in the dark as to what a man must do to
inherit eternal life. The requirement does not appear until after Jesus
has taken up with the twelve the road to Calvary, because it is
distinctly _not_ a keeping of commandments, new or old. It is an
adoption of "the mind that was in Christ, who humbled himself and became
obedient unto death." In Matthew's 'improved' version of Jesus' answer
to the rich applicant for eternal life, the suppliant is told he may
obtain it by obeying the commandments, with supererogatory merit ("if
thou wouldest be perfect"), if he follows Jesus' example of
self-abnegating service. In the form and context from which Matthew
borrows (Mark x. 13-45) there is no trace of this legalism, and the
whole idea of supererogatory merit, or higher reward, is strenuously,
almost indignantly, repudiated. No man can receive the kingdom at all
who does not receive it "as a little child." Every man must be prepared
to make every sacrifice, even if he has kept all the commandments from
his youth up. Peter and the disciples who have "left all and followed"
are in respect to reward on the same level as others. Peter's plea for
the twelve is answered, "There is no man that hath left" earthly
possessions for Christ's sake that is not amply compensated even here.
He must expect persecution now, but will receive eternal life hereafter.
Only "many that are first shall be last, and last first." Even the
martyr-apostles James and John will have no superior rights in the
Kingdom.
Such passages as the above not only reveal why Mark's gospel shows
comparative disregard of the Precepts, but also displays an attitude
toward the growing claims of apostolic authority and neo-legalism which
in contrast with Matthew and Luke is altogether refreshing. The kindred
of the Lord appear but twice (iii. 20 f., 31-35 and vi. 1-6), both
times in a wholly unfavourable light. John appears but once, and that to
receive a rebuke for intolerance. James and John appear only to be
rebuked for selfish ambition. Peter seldom otherwise than for rebuke.
All the disciples show constantly the blindness and "hardness of heart"
which is explicitly said to characterize their nation (vi. 52; vii. 18;
viii. 12, 14-21). Their self-seeking and unfaithfulness is the foil to
Jesus' self-denial and faithfulness (viii. 33; ix. 6, 18 f., 29; x.
24, 28, 32, 37, 41; xiv. 27-31, 37-41, 50, 66-72). That which in Matthew
(xvi. 16-19) has become a special divine revelation to Peter of the
messiahship, marking the foundation of the church, is in the earlier
Markan form (Mark viii. 27-33) not a revelation of the messiahship at
all. Peter's answer, "Thou are the Christ," is common knowledge. The
twelve are not supposed to be more ignorant than the demons! There is,
however, a caustic rebuke of Peter for his carnal, Jewish idea of the
implications of Christhood. A revelation of its significance almost
Doketic in character is indeed granted just after to "Peter, James and
John"; but they remain without appreciation or understanding of the
'vision,' though it exhibits Jesus in his heavenly glory in company with
the translated heroes of the Old Testament. The revelation still
remains, therefore, a sealed book until "after the resurrection."
This exaggeration of the disciples' obtuseness is partly due, no doubt,
to apologetic motives. The evangelist has to meet the objection, If
Jesus was really the extraordinary, superhuman being represented, and
was openly proclaimed such by the evil spirits, why was nothing heard of
his claims until after the crucifixion and alleged resurrection? His
carrying back into the Galilean ministry of the glorified Being of
Paul's redemption doctrine compels him to represent the twelve as
sharing the dullness of the people who "having eyes see not, and having
ears hear not." But with all allowance for this, the Roman Gospel shows
small consideration for the apostles and kindred of the Lord.
It shows quite as little for Jewish prerogative and Jewish law. Jesus
speaks in parables because to those "without" his preaching is to be
intentionally a 'veiled' gospel (iv. 1-34). The Inheritance will be
taken away from them and given to others (xii. 1-12). Priests and people
together were guilty of the rejection and murder of Jesus (xv. 11-15,
29-32). Forgiveness of sins is offered by Jesus on his own authority in
defiance of the scribes. Their exclusion of the publicans and sinners he
disregards, proclaims abolition of their fasts, and holds their
sabbath-keeping up to scorn (ii. 1--iii. 6). On the question of
distinctions of meats his position is the most radical possible. The
Jewish ceremonial is a "vain worship," mere "commandments of men."
Defilement cannot be contracted by what "goes into a man." Jesus' saying
about inward purity was not aimed at the mere 'hedge of the Law' (Matt.
xv. 13), nor the mere matter of ablutions (Matt. xv. 20), but was
intended to "make all meats clean" (vii. 1-23). Moses' law in some of
its enactments does not represent the real divine will, but a human
accommodation to human weakness (x. 2-9). Obedience to its highest code
does not ensure eternal life (x. 19-21). The single law of love is "much
more than all whole burnt offering and sacrifices" (xii. 28-34). When
_all_ the references to Judaism, its Law, its institutions, and its
prerogative, are of this character, when Jesus _always_ appears in
radical opposition to the Law and its exponents (xii. 38-40; xiii. 1
f.), _never_ as their supporter in any degree, the evangelist comes
near to making it too hard for us to believe that he really was of
Jewish birth.
On the other hand we cannot doubt the statement that he derives his
anecdotes, however indirectly, from the preaching of Peter. The prologue
(i. 1-13), indeed, makes no pretence of reporting the testimony of any
witness, but acquaints the reader with the true nature of Jesus as "the
Christ, the Son of God" by means of a mystical account of his baptism
and endowment with the Spirit of Adoption, probably resting upon that
document of Q, which we have distinguished from the Precepts. But the
ensuing story of the ministry opens at the home of Peter in Capernaum,
and continues more or less connected therewith in spite of interjected
groups of anecdotes whose connection is not chronological but topical,
such as ii. 1--iii. 6; iii. 22-30; iv. 1-34. It reaches its climax where
Jesus at Caesarea Philippi takes Peter into his confidence. Here again
the mystical Revelation or Transfiguration vision (ix. 2-10) interrupts
the connection, and shows its foreign derivation by the transcendental
sense in which it interprets the person of Jesus. Certain features
suggest its having been taken from the same source as the prologue (i.
1-13).
The story issues in the tragedy at Jerusalem, where, as before, Peter's
figure, however unfavourable the contrast in which it is set to that of
Jesus, is still the salient one. The outline in general is identical
with that so briefly sketched in Acts x. 38-42--_except_ that the
absolutely essential point, the one thing which no gospel narrative can
possibly have lacked, the resurrection manifestation to the disciples,
and the commission to preach the gospel, is absolutely lacking!
That Mark's gospel once contained such a conclusion is almost a
certainty. Imagine a gospel narrative without a report of the
manifestation of the risen Lord to his disciples! Imagine a church--and
that the church at _Rome_--giving out as the first, the authentic,
original, and (in intention) the only account of the origin of the
Christian faith (Mark i. 1), a narrative which _ended_ with the apostles
scattered in cowardly desertion, and Peter the most conspicuous, most
remorseful renegade of them all! He who writes in Peter's name from Rome
but shortly after, affectionately naming Mark "my son," must have had
indeed a forgiving spirit. But traces of the real sequel have not all
disappeared. Many outside allusions still remain to the turning again of
Peter and stablishing of his brethren in the resurrection faith. The
earliest is Paul's (1st Cor. xv. 5). The present Mark itself implies
that it once had such an ending; for Jesus promises to rally his flock
in Galilee after he is raised up (xiv. 28), and the women at the
sepulchre are bidden to remind the disciples of the promise, though
they fail to deliver their message. Indeed the whole Gospel looks
forward to it. To this end "the mystery of the kingdom" is given to the
chosen twelve (iii. 13 f., 31-35; iv. 10-12); for this they are
forewarned (though vainly) of the catastrophe (viii. 34--ix. 1, 30-32;
x. 32-34; xiv. 27-31). In fact the promise of a baptism of the Spirit
(i. 8) probably implies that the original sequel related not only the
appearance to Peter and (later) to the rest with the charge to preach,
but also their endowment with the gifts, perhaps as in John xx. 19-23.
What we now have is only a substitute for this original sequel, a
substitute so ill-fitting as to have provoked repeated attempts at
improvement.
From xvi. 8 onwards, as is well known, the oldest textual authorities
have simply a blank. Later authorities give a shorter or longer
substitute for the missing Manifestation and Charge to the twelve. The
shorter follows Matthew, the longer follows Luke, with traces of
acquaintance with John. Fanciful theories to explain these textual
phenomena, such as accidental mutilation of the only copy, are
improbable, and do not explain. If conjecture be permissible it is more
likely that the original work was in two parts, after the manner of
Luke-Acts, the 'former treatise' ending with the centurion's testimony,
"Truly this man was a Son of God" (xv. 39). The second part continued
the narrative in the form of a Preaching of Peter, perhaps ending with
his coming to Rome; for the ancient literature of the church had several
narratives of this type. Its disappearance will have been due to the
superseding (perhaps the embodiment) of it by the work of Luke. When the
primitive Markan 'former treatise' was adapted for separate use as a
gospel it was quite natural that it should be supplemented (we can
hardly say "completed") by the addition of the story of the Empty
Sepulchre (xv. 40--xvi. 8), though this narrative is quite unknown to
the primitive resurrection preaching (_cf._ 1st Cor. xv. 3-11), and one
in which every character save Pilate is a complete stranger to the body
of the work. The subsequent further additions of the so-called "longer"
and "shorter" endings belong to the history of transcription after A.D.
140.
It will be apparent from the above that the Gospel of Mark is no
exception to the rule that church-writings of this type inevitably
undergo recasting and supplementation until the advancing process of
canonization at last fixes their text with unalterable rigidity. Whether
we recognize "sources," or earlier "forms," or only earlier "editions"
of Mark, it is certain that appendices could still be attached long
after the appearance of Luke, and probable that in the early period of
its purely local currency at Rome the fund of Petrine anecdote had
received more than one adaptation of form before it was carried to
Syria and embodied substantially as we now have it in the composite
gospels of Matthew and Luke. The omission by Luke of Mark vi. 45--viii.
26 is intentional,[22] and cannot be used to prove the existence of a
shorter form; and the same is probably true of the omission of Mark ix.
38-40 by Matthew. Mark xii. 41-44, however, is probably an addition
later than Matthew's time. Neither Matthew nor Luke had a text extending
beyond xvi. 8. But signs of acquaintance with the original sequel appear
in the appendix to John (John xxi.) and in the late and composite
_Gospel of Peter_ (_c._ 140). According to the latter the twelve
remained in Jerusalem scattered and in hiding for the remaining six days
of the feast. At its close they departed, mourning and grieving, each
man to his own home. Peter and a few others, including "Levi the son of
Alpheus," resumed their fishing "on the sea." ... The fragment breaks
off at this point. The story may be conjecturally completed from 1st
Cor. xv. 5-8, with comparison of John xxi. 1-13; Luke v. 4-8; xxii. 31
f.; xxiv. 34, 36-43.
Footnote 22: See below.
As we look back upon the undertaking of this humble author, named only
by tradition, one among the catechists of the great church of Paul and
Peter, writing but a few years after their death, but a few years before
1st Peter and Hebrews, one is struck by the grandeur of his aim. It is
true he was not wholly without predecessors in the field. The work
which afforded him at least the substance of his prologue, and in all
probability other considerable sections of his book, had already aimed
in a more mystical way to connect the Pauline doctrine of Christ as the
Wisdom of God with the mighty works and teachings of Jesus. Duplication
of a considerable part of Mark's story (vii. 31--viii. 26 repeats with
some variation vi. 30--vii. 30) shows that his work was one of
combination as well as creation. But outline, proportion and onward
march of the story show not only skill and care, but large-minded and
consistent adherence to the fundamental plan to tell the origin of the
Christian faith (Mark i. 1).
Confirmation of the belief and practice of the church--it is for this
that Mark reports all he can learn of the years of obscurity in Galilee
followed by the tragedy in Jerusalem. Not only belief in Jesus as the
Son of God will be justified by the story, but the founding,
institutions, and ritual of the existing church. He manifestly adapts it
to show not only the superhuman powers and attributes of the chosen Son
of God, but the germ and type of all the church's institutions. Its
baptism of repentance and accompanying gift of the Spirit of Adoption
only repeats the experience of Jesus at the baptism of John. Endowment
with the word of wisdom and the word of power is but the counterpart of
Jesus' divine equipment with "the power of the Spirit" when he taught
and healed in Galilee. The Sending of the Twelve sets the standard for
the church's evangelists and missionaries, just as the Breaking of the
Bread in Galilee gives the model for its fraternal banquet. So for the
Judaean ministry as well. The path of martyrdom is that which all must
follow, its Passover Supper of the Lord and Vigil in Gethsemane are
models for the church's annual observance, its Passover of the Lord, its
Vigil, its Resurrection feast. The grouping of the anecdotes is not all
of Mark's doing, for we can still see in many cases how they have grown
up around the church observances, to explain and justify the rites,
rather than to form part of an outlined career. But taking the work as a
whole, and considering how far beyond that of any other church was the
opportunity at Rome, where Paul had transmitted the lofty conception of
the Son of God, and Peter the concrete tradition of his earthly life, we
cannot wonder that Mark's outline so soon became the standard account of
Jesus' earthly ministry, and ultimately the only one.
But little space remains in which to trace the developments of gospel
story in other fields. Southern Syria and Egypt soon found it needful,
as we have seen, to adopt the work of Mark, but independently and as a
framework for the Matthaean Precepts. It cannot have been long after that
Antioch and Northern Syria followed suit. For Luke, though acquainted
with the work of 'many' predecessors gives no sure evidence of
acquaintance with Matthew. When we find such unsoftened contradictions
as those displayed between these two Greek gospels in their opening and
closing chapters, and observe, moreover, that while both indulge in
hundreds of corrections and improvements upon Mark, these are rarely
coincident and never make the assumption of interdependence necessary,
it is hard to resist the conclusion that neither evangelist was directly
acquainted with the other's work. Now no other gospel compares with
Matthew in the rapidity and extent of its circulation, while Luke
declares himself a diligent inquirer. He could not ignore the claims of
apostolic authority to which this early and wide acceptance of Matthew
were mainly due. The inference is reasonable that Luke's date was but
little later than that of Matthew. If the probability of his employment
of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus could be raised to a certainty this
would suffice to date the Gospel and Book of Acts not earlier than 96.
Internal and external evidence, as judged by most scholars, converge on
a date approximating 100.
The North-Syrian derivation of Luke-Acts is less firmly established in
tradition than the Roman origin of Mark and the South-Syrian of Matthew.
Ancient tradition can point to nothing weightier than the statement of
Eusebius, drawn we know not whence, but independently made in the
argumenta (prefixed descriptions) of several Vulgate manuscripts that
Luke was of Antiochian birth. However, internal evidence supplies
corroboration in rather unusual degree. If the reading of some texts in
Acts xi. 28, "And as we were assembled," could be accepted, this alone
would be almost conclusive corroboration. But dubious as it is, it
furnishes support. For if an alteration of the original, it is at any
rate extremely early (_c._ 150?) and aimed to support the belief in
question.[23] Moreover the whole attitude of Luke-Acts in respect to
apostolic authority, settlement of the great question of the terms of
fellowship between Jew and Gentile, and description of the founding of
the Pauline churches, is such as to make its origin anywhere between the
Taurus range and the Adriatic most improbable; while if we place it in
Rome we shall have an insoluble problem in the relation of its extreme
emphasis on apostolic authority, and quasi-deification of Peter, to the
stalwart independence of Mark. Conversely there are many individual
traits which suggest Antioch as the place of origin. Next to Jerusalem,
the never-to-be-forgotten church of "the apostles and elders," Antioch
is the mother church of Christendom. There the name "Christian" had its
origin. There the work of converting the Gentiles was begun. The Greek
churches of Cyprus and Asia Minor are regarded as dependencies of
Antioch. Even those of the Greek peninsula are linked as well as may be
to Antioch and Jerusalem, with suppression of the story of the schism.
Antioch, not the Pauline Greek churches, is the benefactress of "the
poor saints in Jerusalem," and at the instance of Antioch, by appeal to
"the apostles and elders," the "decrees" are obtained which permanently
settle the troublesome question of the obligation of maintaining
ceremonial cleanness which still rests upon "the Jews which are among
the Gentiles." As we have seen, the settlement is as far from that of
Mark and the Pauline churches on the one side, as from the thoroughgoing
legalism of Jerusalem on the other. As late as the Pastoral Epistles
abstinence from "meats which God created to be received with
thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth" is to the Pauline
churches a "doctrine of devils and seducing spirits" taught "through the
hypocrisy of men that speak lies." Distinctions of meats belong to
Jewish superstition, because "every creature of God is good and nothing
is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving" (1st Tim. iv.
1-5). Mark, as we have seen, takes precisely this standpoint. He is
equally radical in condemning distinctions of meats as essentially "vain
worship," and a "commandment of men" (Mark vii. 1-23). In truth if we
distinguish one of Luke's _sources_ from Luke himself we shall find
exactly this doctrine taught to Peter himself by special divine
revelation in Acts x. 10-16; xi. 3-10. Only, as we have already seen (p.
59, note), this is not the application made by the Book of Acts, as it
now stands, of the material. To 'Luke' nothing could be more repugnant
than the idea of an apostle forsaking the religion of his fathers, of
which circumcision and "the customs" are an essential part. His
cancellation, in the story of Peter's revelation and the Apostle's
subsequent defence of it before the church in Jerusalem, of one of its
essential factors, viz. the right to _eat_ with Gentiles, regardless of
man-made distinctions of meats ("what _God_ hath cleansed make not
_thou_ common") is quite as significant as his restriction of even
Paul's activity to Greek-speaking _Jews_, until "the Spirit" has
expressly directed the church in Antioch, immediately after the
persecution of Agrippa I, to proceed with the propaganda. Both
alterations of the earlier form of the story are in line with a
multitude of minor indications, and furnish us, in combination with
them, the real keynote of the narrative. In Luke-Acts more clearly than
in any of the gospels the writer assumes the distinctive function of the
_historian_. He, too, would relate, like Mark, the origin of the
Christian faith, and that "from the very first." He even deduces the
pedigree of Jesus from "Adam, which was the son of God." But the object
is far more to prove the pedigree of the faith than the pedigree of
Jesus. Christianity is to be defended against the charge of being a
_nova superstitio_, a _religio illicita_. On the contrary it is the one
true and revealed religion, the perfect flower and consummation of
Judaism. Yet it is not, like Judaism, particularistic and national, but
universal; for while God at first made that nation the special
repository of his truth, it was his "determinate foreknowledge and
counsel" that they should reject and crucify their Messiah, making it
possible to "proclaim this salvation unto the Gentiles." The one thing
Luke is so anxiously concerned to prove that he wearies the reader with
constant reiteration of it, proclaims it, argues it, in season and out
of season, with his sources, against his sources, with the facts,
against the facts, is that this faith was never, never, offered to the
Gentiles except by express direction of God and after the Jews had
demonstrated to the last extremity of stiff-necked opposition that they
would have none of it. Christianity, then, and not Judaism, is the true
primitive and revealed religion, the heir of all the divine promises.
Footnote 23: Note, also, how in Acts vi. 5 the list of
deacon-evangelists concludes "and Nicholas _a proselyte of
Antioch_."
We can see now why Luke finds it impossible to adopt Mark's story of a
missionary journey of Jesus in "the coasts of Tyre and Sidon" and will
not even mention the name of Caesarea Philippi. His method in omitting
Mark vi. 45--viii. 26 is more radical than Matthew's, but his motive is
similar. The central theme of this portion of Mark appears in the
chapter (ch. vii.) recording Jesus' repudiation of the Jewish
distinctions of clean and unclean as "precepts of men," and departing to
heal and preach in phoenecia and Decapolis. This is the theme of Luke's
second treatise; and, as we have seen, his solution of the problem is
radically different. If he cannot admit that even Paul disregarded "the
customs" or Peter preached to Gentiles until after express and
reiterated direction of "the Spirit," we surely ought not to expect him
to admit the statement that Jesus repudiated the distinctions of
Mosaism, declared "all meats clean," and departing into the coasts of
Tyre and Sidon first healed the daughter of "a Gentile" and afterward
continued his journey "through Sidon" and "the regions of Decapolis,"
repeating the symbolic miracles of opening deaf ears and blind eyes, and
feeding with loaves and fishes. Even if this supposed ministry of Jesus
among the Gentiles stood on a much stronger foundation of historical
probability than is unfortunately the case (_cf._ Rom. xv. 8), it could
not logically be admitted to the work of Luke without an abandonment of
one of his firmest convictions and a rewriting of both his treatises.
Luke was probably not the first to divide his work into a "former
treatise" covering "both" the sayings and doings of Jesus "until the
time that he was taken up," and a second devoted to the work of the
apostles after they had received the charge to proclaim the gospel "to
the uttermost parts of the earth." "Many," as he tells us, had already
undertaken to "draw up narratives" (_diegeses_) of this kind, of which
the one Luke himself has chiefly employed, had originally, as we
concluded, a sequel like his own Book of Acts. There are even features
of the Petrine source of Acts which particularly connect it with Roman
doctrine (_e. g._ Acts x. 10-15; _cf._ Rom. xiv. 14 and Mark vii. 18
f.) and even with the person of Mark (Acts xii. 12). Its balance
between Peter and Paul and its close with the establishment of
Christianity at Rome, are also suggestive that the greater part of
Luke's second treatise came _ultimately_ from the same source as his
first. But the division of the work into two parts: (1) the gospel among
the Jews; (2) the gospel among the Gentiles, would have followed,
independently of any such precedent, from the whole purpose and
structure of the work. Christianity is to be proved in the light of its
origin, and in spite of the hostility of the Jews among whom it arose,
and whose sacred writings it adopts, to be the original, true, revealed
religion. To prove this it must be shown that the rejection and
crucifixion of Jesus by his own people as a result of his earthly
ministry was due not to his own failure to meet the ideal of the
Scriptures in question, but to _their_ perversity and wilful blindness.
If it is important to prove in the former treatise that the opposition
of the controlling authorities among the Jews was due to this perversity
and jealousy, it is at least equally so to show that the lowly and
devout received him gladly. Hence the peculiar hospitality of Luke
toward material showing Jesus' acceptance of and by the humbler and the
outcast classes, the poor and lowly, women, Samaritans, publicans and
sinners. The idyllic scenes of his birth and childhood are cast among
men and women of this type of Old Testament piety, quietly "waiting for
the kingdom of God." During his career it is these who receive and hang
upon him. Even on Calvary _one_ of the thieves must join with this
throng of devout and penitent believers. Jesus' preaching begins with
his rejection by his own fellow-townsmen only because "no prophet is
accepted in his own country"; though before their attempt to slay him he
proves from Scripture how Elijah and Elisha had been sent unto the
Gentiles. His ministry ends with his demonstration to the disciples
after his resurrection from "Moses and all the prophets" how that "it
was needful that the Christ should suffer before entering his glory,"
and that after his rejection by Israel "repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem."
The second treatise shows how this purpose of God to secure the
dissemination of the true faith by the disobedience and hardening of its
first custodians was accomplished, chief stress being always laid upon
the fact that it was only when the Jews "contradicted and blasphemed"
that the apostles said, "It was necessary that the word of God should
first be spoken to you, but seeing ye put it from you, and judge
yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." There
is no interest taken in the subsequent fortunes of Jerusalem and Jewish
Christianity, nor even in the fate of Peter and James, after this
transition has been effected to Gentile soil. There is no interest taken
in the spread of Christianity as such, in Egypt, Ethiopia, Cyrenaica,
Cyprus, Mesopotamia; but only where the conflict rages over the
respective claim of Jew and Gentile to be the true heir of the promises,
_i. e._ the mission-field of Paul. At the individual centres the story
goes just far enough to relate how the gospel was offered to the Jews
and rejected, compelling withdrawal from the synagogue, and thereafter
it is told over again with slight variations at the next centre. The
book concludes with a repetition of the stereotyped scene at Rome
itself, in spite of the representation of the very source employed, that
an important church had long existed there before Paul's coming, ending
with a quotation of the classic passage from Isa. vi. 9 f. to prove
God's original purpose to harden the heart of Israel, so that his
"salvation might be sent unto the Gentiles." The very fate of Paul
himself has so little interest for Luke in comparison with this
demonstration of Christianity as the one original, revealed religion,
enclosed in Judaism as seeds are confined in the hardening seed-pod
until disseminated by its bursting, that he leaves it unmentioned, like
that of all other leaders of the church whose death was not directly
contributory to the process.
Many, and vitally important to the development of Gospel Story as we
know it, as were the sources of Luke, both by his own statement (Luke i.
1) and the internal evidences of his work, he has made analysis
extremely difficult by the skilful and elaborate stylistic embroidery
with which he has overlaid the gaps and seams. Nor is this a proper
occasion for entering the field of the higher critic. Luke-Acts
represents the completed development, not the naive beginnings of this
type of the Literature of the Church Teacher. We have seen reason to
think we may have traces of the earlier "narratives" (_diegeses_) to
which Luke refers, not only in the great Roman work of Mark, but in a
part of the Q material itself. If Antioch were the place of origin of
this early source, if here too were found those archives of missionary
activity whence came the famous Diary employed in Acts xvi.-xxviii., the
contribution of this church to Gospel Story was such as to make Antioch
the appropriate centre for the great "historical" school of
interpretation of the fourth and fifth centuries. When we consider the
dominant motive of Luke and his extraordinary exaltation of 'apostolic'
authority we seem to be breathing the very atmosphere of Ignatius the
great apostle of ecclesiasticism and apostolic order, discipline and
succession. Ignatius' hatred of Doketism, too, is not without a certain
anticipation in the opening and closing chapters of Luke's Gospel, and
perhaps in the fact that the great exsection from Mark begins with the
story of the Walking on the Sea (Mark vi. 45-52).