GOSHEN
‘The house of
with a royal residence
temples
of
and
evidently not very far
E.,
and
on
the site, of modern Tell
I t is very ques-
tionable whether before
there were in the
eastern part of the valley any Egyptian settlements
except the fortification mentioned above at any rate,
it fully deserved the name that it came to bear in
later times-’ land
of
(this would hardly
apply to the old western district). The position
of
the
land colonised by Rameses was very advantageous.
It
possessed a healthy desert climate and was most fertile
as long as the canal to the Crocodile Lake was kept in
The extension of the canal of Ram(
to
the Ked Sea by Necho I. increased the commercial im-
portance of the district.
Quite recently, the repairing
of
the canal has trebled the population, now
this district, which forms a part of the modern province
Heroopolis-Patum thus became
an
im-
portant place
4
for the trade on the Red Sea, where
also the Romans built
a
fortified camp.
Thus we see that
and ‘land
of
were with the Egyptians hardly identical.
GOSPELS
.
T h e country of
could be
T h e
application to that (eastern) district, of
the (obsolete and rare) name
only the eighth (eastern) nome.
(vocalise
of
western
dome)
not
yet been shown on the (later) Egyptian monuments.
The Hebrew story (Nu. 33
of the Israelites marching two
d a y s (Rameses to Succoth, Succoth to Etham) through the
whole valley of
(instead of starting from its eastern
end) might suggest to some a mistake of
P, J E
placing the
country of the Israelites hetween Bubastus,
and Tell
(cp Naville). T h e probabilities, however, of such a
theory are small all sources seem to mean the same part of the
country.
Probably Heroopolis had, before the extension
of
the
canal by Necho
I.,
less importance, and the possibility
that once also the eastern district had P-sapdu as capital
and belonged to the district
is, therefore, not to be
denied.
It must he confessed that the geographical
texts upon which we have to rely date from Ptolemaic
times only. T h e division of the Arabian district may
have been different in earlier centuries.
Tradition has been exceptionally fortunate with
the name
Goshen
in particular identified Goshen with the
region
and the
of the Amalekit‘es.
The
of
Goshen to Sadir, a village N E . of
by Sa‘adia
(and Abu-sa‘id) is a s strange as the limitation to
(Old
Cairo) by Bar
Modern scholars have, on the contrary
frequently extended Goshen too widely: Ebers,
included
it the whole eastern delta between the Tanitic branch
Targ.
Jer. which made Goshen ‘the land of Pelusium’),
and the Bitter Lakes.
We can afford to neglect certain
hypotheses which date from the period before the decipherment
of
the hieroglyphics
for the situation erroneously assumed by
Brugscb, see
E
XODUS
,
13.
W.
M.
M.
GOSHEN
[BAFL];
I.
A
land mentioned in Deuteronomistic portions of Joshua
among other districts of
Canaan, Josh.
[AFL]),
[BAFL]).
It is strange to find
the name of Goshen outside the limits of Goshen roper.
Hommel
supposes that as the Israelites in Egypt multiplied, the
area allotted to them was extended, and that the strip
of country between Egypt and Judah, which still
belonged to the Pharaoh, was regarded as an integral
part
of
the land of Goshen. This is obviously
a
con-
servative hypothesis (see
E
XODUS
i., §
;
M
IZRAIM
,
The text, however, may need criticism. That
the M T sometimes misunderstands, or even fails to
observe, geographical names, is plain we have learned
so much from Assyriology.
Let
us
then suppose that
Goshen is wrongly vocalised, and should be
and
compare the name of the
town
(‘fat
soil’), the Gischala
of
Josephus.
Other solutions are
open we may at any rate presume that this old Hebrew
name had
a
Semitic origin, see
As they now stand, Josh.
and
do
the same geographical picture.
all the
Negeh and all the
land
of Goshen
and the
suggest that ‘the Goshen’ lay hetween the Negeb or southern
steppe region and the
or Lowlands. We might hold
that it took in the SW. of the hill-coimtry of Judah.
In Josh;
where we read ‘all the land of Goshen a s far as
we may ,presume that some words have dropped out after
Goshen.
Cp N
EGEB
,
4.
A town in the
SW.
of the hill-country of Judah, mentioned
with Debir, Anab, etc., Josh.
15
Probably a n echo
of
the old name of a district in the same region (see
I
)
.
Cp
Gesham.
T.
K.
C.
T h e words in
11
16,
G
o
S
’
P
E
L
s
CON
TENTS
AND ANALYTICAL.
A.- INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS T O ORIGIN.
I.
T
HE
E
ARLIEST
T
RADITION
T
HE
T
RIPLE
T
RADITION
The edition of Mk. from which
Mt.
and Lk. borrowed
Mk.
relation to Mt. and
Lk.
Jn. in relation to the Triple Tradition
8-14).
(a)
Instances from the first part of Mk.
8).
of the Resurrection
( y )
Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or Mk. and Mt.)
T h e Passover and the Lord’s Supper
( e )
T h e Passion
Conclusion and Exceptions
caused by obscurity
(5
IO
).
111.
D
OUBLE
T
RADITIONS
15-20).
Mk. and Mt. Jn. in relation to Mk. and Mt.
15).
Mk. and Lk
.
Jn. in relation to
Mk.
and Lk.
16).
Mt. and
or
Double Tradition
.
Acts
of the Lord’; (6) Words of the Lord
(iv.) Jn. in relation to ‘The Double Tradition’
A poetic description of the
new city is to be found in
t
of the canal always led immediately to a n
encroachment ofthe desert upon the narrow cultivable area.
The canal was
cubits wide (according to Strabo
ft.
according to Pliny
j o
yards according to traces near
ft. deep (according to Pliny; 16-17
Engl. ft.
according to modern traces).
The canal was repaired by
II.,
whence the name
of
the province Augustamnica from the
Canalis Trajanus.
Anastasi, 4 6.
1761
IV.
T
HE
I
NTRODUCTIONS
and
,
The effect of prophecy
Philonian Traditions
Justin and
Divergence of Mt. and Lk.
Jn. in relation to the Introductions
V.
THE
C
ONCLUSIONS
(Mt. Lk.
24-33.
(i.) The Evangelists select their evidence
24).
(ii.) T h e Period of Manifestations
25).
Discrepancies
.
27).
(v.)
view (‘proofs ’), 28.
(vi.) T h e Manifestation to the Eleven
Traces of Poetic Tradition
26).
Lk. Ignatius)
5
T h e
of
tradition
(vni.)
view (‘signs ’),
(ix.) Contrast between Jn. and the Synoptists
(5
33).
(x.)
Note on the Testimony of Paul
33
note).
VI.
S
INGLE
T
RADITIONS
34-63).
First
Gospel
34-36).
Doctrinal and other characteristics
343.
Evidence as to date
35).
Jn.
in relation to Mt’s.
Tradition
36).
The Coptic versions which simply transliterate, seem,
however to have lost all
Possibly the vocalisation of
disguised the Egyptian name to them. A woman pilgrim
of the fourth century places the ‘terra Gesse‘ 16 R. m. from
calling the capital ‘civitas Arabia.’ She believed
he
4
R. m. to the
E.
of this capital (see Naville,
meaning apparently
1762
(iii.)
(ii.)
(iii.)
(reff.
to
in Potter’s ed.
and margin of
epistle entitled
‘An ancient homily,’
in Lightfoot’s ed.
Clement.
Homilies, ed.
Schwegler.
Harmony
called Tatian’s
Diatessaron.
ed.
HE
ed.
ET.
Lightfoot, ed.
Heresies ed. Duncker.
GOSPELS
( b )
The Third
37-44).
T h e Dedication,
Linguistic characteristics
Doctrinal characteristics
39).
A manual for daily conduct
Evidence as to date
of
Ignatius,
ed. Light-
Tradition
of
Mk.
foot.
Refutation
Heresies
Lk. =Common Tradition of
Mt.
(text of Grabe books and sections of
and Lk. (whether in Synoptic
or
ET
in ‘ante-N’icene Library’).
Lightf.
Lightfoot,
Bib.
Essays.
contra
Lightf.
Lightfoot,
Essays on
Huet, Kouen, 1668).
Religion.
Philo (Mangey’s vol. and page).
(ed.
Amsterdam,
Pseudo-Peter Gospel of Peter.
ref. to
and page).
Schottg.
2
vols.
to
Mk.
Codex (see T
EXT
), called
16
Sinaiticus.
=the Common Tradition
of
Tryph. Justin’s (ed. Otto).
Mk. and Lk. where
differs from
Westc
Westcott’s
on
John.
and Mt. where it differs from Lk.
Double Tradition).
Mt.
The
Gospel
45-63).
Hypotheses of authorship
[a]
Names,
46,
numbers, 47, and
quotations
on
B.
- EXTERNAL EVI
I.
S
TATEMENTS
64-82)
T h e Third Gospel
64).
P a
65-74).
His Exposition
65
a).
His account of Mk. and Mt.
65 b).
The system of Eusebius
66).
T h e silence of Papias on Lk. and Jn.
67).
(e) T h e date of his Exposition
68-73).
.
(I)
Was
Papias a hearer of
?
and
and
Jn. the
Papias’
His list
of the Apostles
(6) His relation to Polycarp.
Summary of the
74).
( a ) His titles of the Gospels
(6) Indications of Lk. as a recent Gospel
76).
T h e origin of Justin’s view of the Memoirs
77).
Justin Martyr
75-77).
The Muratorian
78).
79).
(yi.)
Clement of Alexandria
(vii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Mk. and Mt.
81).
(viii.) Summary of the Evidence a s to Lk.
and
Jn.
11.
Q
UOTATIONS
Paul
83).
(ii.) ames
84).
quoted from the Gospels
T h e Oxyrhynchus fragment
86).
GOSPELS
Structure
52-63).
T h e Gospel as a whole
52).
T h e Details.
The Prologue
53).
The Bridegroom
(a)
Galilee,
Jerusalem,
Samaria
(3
T h e Bread
of
Life
55).
The Light
(6)
The Raising of the Dead
58).
(7)
The Raising of Lazarus
59).
(8)
The Preparation for the Sacrifice
60).
The ‘Deuteronomy’
57).
(
I
O
)
The Passion
DENCE AS
TO
ORIGIN.
Structure
52-63).
T h e
as a whole
52).
I
T h e Details.
The Prologue
53).
The Bridegroom
Galilee,
Jerusalem,
Samaria
T h e Bread
of
Life
55).
The Light
56).
T h e Life
57).
The Raising of the Dead
58).
The Raising of Lazarus
59).
The Preparation for the Sacrifice
The ‘Deuteronomy’
The Passion
Clement of Rome
87).
T h e Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
T h e Epistle of Barnabas
The Great Apophasis
(
I
Alleged Synoptic Quotations
89).
Anticipations
Jn.
go).
(ix. Ignatius
e Shepherd of
96).
The hpistle
to
Diognetus
95).
T h
97).
Marcion
Valentinus
99).
Summary of the Evidence before Justin
(xviii.) Justin Martyr
I
(
I
)
Minor apparent Johannine quotations
‘Except ye be begotten again’
(3)
Other alleged quotations
(4)
Abstentions from quotation
Inconsistencies with Jn.
103).
Summary of the evidence about Justin
...
Traces of Jn. as a recent ‘interpretation’
T h e Diatessaron
B.-HISTORICAL AND SYNTHETICAL.
A.-SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.
I.
IN THE
In general
I n Lk.
IO
I n Mt.
I n
Mk.
Conclusion
T
HE
S
YNOPTIC
P
ROBLEM
.
Tradition theory
Dependence theory
116).
Original gospel
Original Mk.
Logia
(5
Two-source theory
Extent of logia
Special Lk. source
123).
Smaller sources
124).
Theories of combination
Review
of
classes of theory
Use of Mt. by Lk.
Sources
of
the sources
Critical inferences
Semitic basis
130).
T
RUSTWORTHINESS OF
Fundamental principles
Chronological statements
Order
of
narratives
I
3).
Occasion of Words
Places and persons
Later conditions
Miracle stories
Resurrection of Jesus
138).
Absolute
( a ) About Jesus generally
(b)
About Jesus’ miracles
140).
Inference regarding the ‘signs
Metaphors misinterpreted
142).
Influence of O T
Miraculous
Conclusion a s to words of Jesus
A
UTHORSHIP
AND
D
ATE
OF
A N D
THEIR SOURCES.
Titles of gospels
146).
Statements of Fathers
Author of
gospel
148).
Author of
gospel and the logia
Date of logia
Date of
gospel
of
gospel
(5
author and date of 3rd
Conclusion
Gospel of Hebrews ($155).
Other extra-canonical gospels
B.-FOURTH
GOSPEL.
See
JOHN
abbreviations used in this article.
GOSPELS
[The aim of the
article
to set forth with
sufficient fulness the facts that have to be taken into
account in formulating
a
theory of the genesis of the
gospels, to record and
some of the more
portant theories that have been proposed, and to
cate if possible the present position of the question and
the apparent trend of thought.
Its two parts, as will appear from the prefixed tabular
exhibit of their contents, are partly independent, partly
complementary.
Roughly it may be said that the first
GOSPELS
is relatively full in its account
of
the
of the gospels as a basis for considering their mutual
relations, and in its survey of the external evidence as
The second
mainly at
giving
ordered account of the various questions bear-
ing on (especially) the internal evidence that have
raised
by
scholars
in
the long course of the development
of gospel criticism, and at attempting to find at least a
provisional answer.]
. to origin.
A .
INTERNAL EVIDENCE
AS
T O ORIGIN.
I.
T
HE
E
ARLIEST
T
RADITION
.
Roughly it may be said that, of the Synoptists, Mk.
exhibits the Acts
shorter Words of the Lord Mt.
a combination of the Acts with Discourses
of the Lord, the latter often grouped
together, as in the Sermon
on
the Mount
Lk. a second
of
Acts with Discourses,
which an attempt
is
made to arrange the Words and
Discourses chronologically, assigning to each the circum-
stances that occasioned it.
A
comparison shows that Mt.
and
where Mk. is silent, often agreewith one another.
This doubly-attested account-for the most part con-
fined to Discourses, where the agreement is sometimes
verbatim-may be conveniently called
Double
Tradition.’ Where Mk. steps in, the agreement between
Mt. and Lk. is less close and a study of what may be
called the Triple Tradition,’
the matter common
to Mk., Mt., and Lk., shows that here
and
as
a rule, contain nothing of importance in common. which
is
not
found
i n
our
( o r
rather in a n ancient
edition
of
containing
a
f e w
for
[see below,
This leads to the
conclusion that, in the Triple Tradition, Mt. and Lk.
borrowed (independent&
of
each
other)
either
our
(more
f r o m some document
2
embedded
in
Any other hypothesis requires only to he stated in order to
untenable.
For example
:
(
I
)
that Mt. and Lk. should
agree
accident, would be contrary to all literary experience ;
if
and Lk. borrowed from a common document contain-
ing Mk or (3) differing in important respects from Mk or
Lk.
from
or Mt. from Lk
and
would contain
not
in
( 5 )
if Mk. borrowed from Mt. and from Lk., he must have
his narrative
so
to insert
almost
and
word
common
to
and
in the
passage
before
him-a
hard task, even for a literary forger of these days, and an im-
possibility for such a writer a s Mk.
The Fourth Gospel
called Jn.) does
the Synoptic‘
‘repentance,
faith,,
baptism,‘
‘rebuke,’
‘sinners,
2.
John.
‘disease
‘possessed with a devil,‘
cast
devils
‘unclean
‘leper
‘leaven,’
’enemy,’ ‘hypocrisy,
‘adultery,’
wbe
‘rich,’
‘riches,’ ‘mighty work
Instead of
Jn. uses ‘have faith
‘Faith,’ in Jn. is ‘abiding
Christ.’ The Synoptists say that prayer will he
if we
have faith : Jn. says (15
If
y e
in
and
my words
you,
ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto
you.
Except in narrating the Crucifixion, Jn. never mentions
cross’ or ‘crucify,’ but he represents Jesus as predicting
being ‘uplifted’ or ‘glorified.’
rarely occurs but the necessity of
the kingdom of
God as little children’ is expressed by him in the necessity
(verbally different, hut spiritually the same) of being ‘born from
above.‘
Since the author
of
the Fourth Gospel must have
For the meaning of the emphasised ‘the
’
see helow
T h e hypothesis of an Oral Tradition, a’s the
sole
of
t h e similarities in the Synoptists, is contrary both to external
and to internal evidence.
3
‘The kingdom of God or
‘of
heaven,’ occurs in Jn. twice,
in the Synoptists more
times.
In Jn. the Synoptic ‘child
known.
(Eus.
the substance
of
the
it is
antecedently probable that, where the Synoptists differ,
if
favours one, he does
so
deliberately.
Inde-
pendently, therefore, of its intrinsic value,
is im-
portant as being, in effect, the
commentary
on
the
Synoptists.
11.
T
HE
T
RIPLE
Here we have to consider : (i.) The edition
of
Mk.
from which Mt. and Lk. borrowed;
(ii.)
Mk. in relation to Mt. and Lk.
Jn. in relation
to
and
Lk.
The
Edition
of
from
which
and
borrowed
differs from
Mk.
itself merely in a few points
indicating a tendency to correct
style.
The most frequent changes are (a)
to
substitute
for
and to insert pronouns,
for the sake of clearness. But
is often apparent
(6) a tendency
to
substitute more definite, or
classical or appropriate words. For example,
are substituted for the single
(Mk.
2
applied to wine and wine-skins),
(or some other
for the barbaric (Mk. 2 4
for (MU.
for the unheard of
(Mk. 2
is
by the
following; bracketed additions : Mk. 4
mystery
of God; (3
[his brother]; (44)
In Mk.
for ‘them Mt. and Lk.
heart.’
(c)
there is’condensation
4
IO]
or an
unusual word
[of a plant] is changed to
a
more
one
;
or a less reverential phrase
2 7 )
to
a more reverential one
In
altered into
or
possihly because
means in
(four or five times)
This follows from the generally admitted fact that versions
of the Three Synoptic Gospels were welt known in the Church
long before the publication of the Fourth (see helow, ‘External
Evidence’). An interesting testimony to the authority of our
Four Canonical Gospels, and also to the later date of the Fourth
comes from ‘the Jew’ of Celsus, who says that (Orig.
2
certain believers, ‘as though roused from intoxication to
control (or to self-judgment,
sir
alter the character of
the Gospel from
its first
in
four-
fold
and
fashion
and
it
that they might have wherewith to
gainsay refutations
Celsus apparently
that there was first an original
Gospel, of such a kind as to render it possihle for enemies to
make a charge of ‘intoxication (perhaps being in Hebrew and
characterised by eastern metaphor and hyperbole), then, that
there were three versions of this Gospel, then four, thus making
an
interval between the first three and the fourth, which he, does
not make between any of the first three.
ap ears to refer to still later apocryphal Gospels.
seemed more appropriate for history. At
all events Lk.
never
(without
etc.)
Jesus.
The only apparent instance is Lk.
unto them Peace he unto yon.
This is expunged
dorf, and
in double brackets by
W H .
Alford condemns
Tischendorf on the ground that
authority is weak.’
internal
evidence
is strong.
3
The deviations of
Mt.
and Lk. from Mk. are printed in
distinct characters in
Mr. Rushbrooke’s
which is
indispensable for the critical study
of
this question.
It
follows
the order of Mk.
The word ‘manifold
1766
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
‘the cleft
of a rock.’
Once at least our Mk. (9
:
dvahov
to have
traditio;, Mt. and Lk.
the older
:
there
is
order,
is
on
the
Mount, indicating that both Mt.
and Lk. derive the saying, not from
but from a different
source,
which come the portion: common to Mt. and Lk.
above called The Double Tradition.
An examination of the deviations from Mk. common
to
Mt. and Lk. in the Triple Tradition confirms the
view that Mt. did not borrow from
L k . ,
nor
L k .
from
Mt.
Had either borrowed from the other, they would
have agreed, at least occasionally, against Mk. in more
important details.
(ii.)
in relation
t o
and
is
a
remark-
able fact that-whereas the later Evangelists, and other
writers such as Barnabas and Justin,
appeal largely to detailed fulfilments of
prophecy-Mk. quotes
no
prophecies in
his own
and gives no miraculous
incidents peculiar to himself except (Mk.
an ancient
and semi-poetical tradition of the healing of the blind.
H e makes
no
mention of Christ’s birth or childhood,
a n d gives no account of the
Occasionally Mk. repeats
the
same thing in the formofquestion
and answer.
may sometimes he a mere peculiarity of style
e.g
2
3
:
but in many cases (1
32
42 3
[compared
3
4
5
12 44
etc ) he seems
t o
have had before him two
versions of one saying
in his ‘anxiety to omit
to
have inserted hoth.
in connection with un-
clean spirits see
44 37-12
for others, relating
to the
of people round Jesus, the publicity of his
work and his desire for solitude, see
2
3
etc. (some paralleled in Lk.,
not so fully or
gra
Mk. abounds with details as to the manner
and gestures of Jesus (see 3
31-37
I n some
these, Aramaic words are given a s his very utterances,
5 41
14
36.
Sometimes Mk. gives names mentioned by no other
writer (cp 3
8
10 46).
I n some circumstances,
elaboration
of
portant detail (and especially the introduction of names),
instances of which abonnd in the Apocryphal Gospels,
would
indicate
a
late writer. But Mk. often emphasises
and elaborates points omitted, or subordinated, by the
other Evangelists, and likely to be omitted in later times,
as
not being interesting or edifying.
For example Lk. and Jn. subordinate facts relating to the
ersonal
influence and execution of John the
Now Acts
3
that several years after Christ’s
death ‘the baptism of John’ was actually overshadowing the
baptism of Christ among certain Christians. This being the
case, it was natural for the later Evangelists to
references
t o
the Baptist. Lk., it is true, describes
birth
in detail: but the effect is to show that the son of Zachariah was
destined from the womb to be nothing hut a forerunner of the
Messiah. Jn. effects the same
in a different way, by
recording the Baptist’s confessions of Christ’s preexistence and
sacrificial mission. I t is characteristic of
early date as
well
as
of his simplicity and freedom from controversial
that, whether aware or not of this danger of rivalry, he set down:
just as he may have heard them, traditions
the Baptist
that must have interested the Galilean Church far more than
Churches of the Gentiles.
Another sign
of
early composition
is
the rudeness of
Greek.
Mk. uses many words
by
6.
Rude
Phrynichus,
(5
23)
a s the
Constitutions improves the had
(Taylor’s
so Lk. always (and sometimes
Mt.) corrects these
Such words (which stand on
quite a different footing
Greek, such as we find in
(1025)
Almost the only addition of importance in this ‘corrected
edition of Mk.’ is
‘Who
it
thee?’ added to explain the obscure Mk. 1465 ‘Prophesy.
T h e parenthesis in Mk. 1 is the only exception. This was
probably an insertion in the original Gospel (see
5
8).
3
For proof that
Gospel terminates a t
168,
see
WH
on Mk. 16
which is there pronounced to he ‘a narrative
of Christ’s appearances after the Resurrection,’ found by ‘ a
scribe or editor ‘in some secondary record then surviving from
a
preceding
‘its authorship and its precise date
must remain unknown
;
it is, however apparently older than the
time when the Canonical Gospels
received for
though it has points of contact with them all, it contains
attempt
harmonise their various representations of the course
of events.
Papias, quoted
Eus. (3 39)
:
‘For he (Mk.) took great
care about one matter,
io
omit
nothing
o
f
what
he
heard.’
Introduction) might naturally
their place in the
dialect of the slaves and freedmen who formed the first congrega-
tions of the Church in Rome
;
but in the more prosperous days
of the Church they would be corrected.
Again,
a
very early Evangelist, not having much
experience of other written Gospels, and not knowing
exactly what
most edify
Church, might naturallv
stress on
vivid expressions and striking words, or reproduce
anacolutha, which, though not objectionable in discourse,
are unsuitable for written composition.
Many such words are inserted
Mk. and avoided
Mt. or
Lk. or by
(13s)
For irregular constructions
12
(altered
5
Note also the
change
of construction from
to the infinitive in 315, as compared with
3 1 4
and the use
of
to ask a question (2x6
The
of Mk. are
known; see 627 7 4
39.
Those
in 1214
and
in
Mk. shares with
Less noticed but more noteworthy, are the uses of rare, poetic,
or prophetic’ words
(7
32
8
23
which may indicate a Christian
or hymn
the basis
Mk. also
contains stumbling-blocks
in
the way
of
weak believers, omitted in later Gospels,
and not likely
to
have been tolerated,
except in
a
Gospel of extreme antiquity.
example
‘ H e
was
not
to do there any
work
.
34)
all
sick are brought to Jesus, hut he heals
only
whereas Mt. (816) says that he healed all, and Lk.
that
he
healed each one
;
his mother
and brethren attempt to lay hands on him, on the ground that
he was insane.
a n ambitious petition is imputed to
James and Johh, instead of (as Mt.)
t o
their mother;
Pilate ‘marvels’
at
the speedy death of Jesus which might
have been used to support the view (still maintained by a few
modern critics) that Jesus had not really died Mk. omits (6 7)
the statement that Jesus gave power (as Mt.
Lk. 91) to his
apostles to heal
he
enumerates the different
stages
which Jesus effected a cure, and describes the cure
as a t first, only partial
the fig-tree, instead of being
up ‘immediately’ (as Mt. 2119
is
not
observed to he withered till after the interval of a day.
(iii.)
in
the
Instances from the first part of
following
comparisons will elucidate
relation
( I t will be found
that Jn. generally supports a combination
.
of
Mk.
and Mt., and often Mk. alone,
to the Triple Tradition.
against Lk. the exceptions being in those
passages which describe the relation of John the Baptist
There Jn. goes beyond Lk.
Mk. 1
‘As it is written in Isaiah,
If these prophecies,
wrongly assigned to Isaiah are not a n early interpolation, they
are the only ones quoted
the
Evangelist
Mt. and
Lk. assign one of these prophecies
assigns
to
the
Baptist, so a s to
the willing subordination of the
latter I am [but] the voice’).
Mk.
mentions no suspicion among the Jews that the
Baptist might be the Messiah. Lk. mentions
a silent
‘questioning‘ (that does not elicit a direct denial).
adds a
question (1
art thou?’ followed
a
I
not
Mk.17:
me.’
Rejected by
Lk.
(possibly a s being
liable to an interpretation derogatory to Jesus), but. thrice
repeated by
Jn.
27
such a context a s to
to
Christ’s
precedence
Mk.18: ‘shall baptize you
with
f h e
Holy
Spirit,’
omitting
is added by, Mt. and Lk. Jn. goes with
Mk.
133)
:
Mk 1 mentions ‘Jordan in connection with the baptism of
Jesus:
k. does
not
(though he does afterwards in his preface
to the Temptation).
Jn. (1
does,
with details of the place.
(Note that Lk. never mentions the Synoptic ‘beyond
He it is that
with
the
Holy
Spirit.’
I t
is
beside the mark to reply that these words are used,
occasionally, by classical prose writers. T h e point is, that
occurs in N T
only
a n d
a
account
healing in
2034,
occurs
i n N T
ninety times!
In the canonical books of OT,
occurs only
in Proverbs.
occurs only here in NT, and only twice
(apart from a leper’s
scab in OT, and there in poetical
passages.
(practically non-occurrent in Greek litera-
ture, see Thayer) is found nowhere in the Bible, except in
of
Is.
356,
and in
account of the man who had (Mk. 732)
impediment in his speech.’
I t
omitted also in 3
(where
D and Ss.
add it).
The
of
and Lk. to Mk. will be found
by
Synopticon.
I t may
sumed that in this section, Mt. agrees with
except
where
indicated.
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
has it thrice.) Lk.
describing the descent of the
Spirit adds in a bodily shape.‘ Jn. implies that the descent
was
a
sign to the Baptist alone and States
that
abode on Jesus.
Thus he
‘bodily
shape,’-at all events in the ordinary sense.
Lk.
alone (1 36)
had stated that the Baptist was connected with Jesus through
family ties;
represents the Baptist a s saying
‘And
I
knew
not.
Mk.
1
(possibly also
leaves room for
interval after
the Temptation, in which the reader may place Christ’s early
teaching in Jerusalem before ‘John was betrayed.
Lk. 414,
omitting the mention of John, appears to leave m o interval. Jn.
repeatedly says, or imphes, that the early teaching
took place
(324
4
I
3)
was
imprisoned.
I
have not come
to,
call the righteous, but the
sinful.
Lk. adds ‘to
Jn.
the
word
repentance.’
puts
into the mouths of Christ’s household or friends
the words
‘ H e is
beside
and Lk.
seem to transfer this to the multitudes.
They render it ‘were
astonished
or
Jn. goes
with
in mentioning a charge of ‘madness’
and
connecting it with the charge of possession
hath a
devil and is
mad’).
the charee of the
Pharisees,
( a )
in thd form
(3
a n unclean spirit while adding
a milder
(322):
In the prince of
h e casteth out the (devils.
and
reject (a) and adopt
defining ‘prince’ by
‘Beelzebnl.
aoes with
‘ H e
hath
a devil.’
Mk.
parable of
seed that springeth up
sower
‘
knoweth not how
is
omitted by
and Lk.
the essence of this in
of the
from the Spirit,
as
to which, we (38)
not
whence
and
apparently modelled
on Eccles.
:
‘ A s
what
is
way
wind
the
in
of
her
with
child,
even so thou knowest not the work of God
all.
I n the morning
sow
thy
seed
and in the evening withhold
not thine hand
:
for thou
not which shall prosper, this
or that.’
Mk. 6
:
‘ A prophet
in
his own country.’ Lk. alone connects
this proverb with a visit
Nazareth,
in which the Nazarenes
try to
Jn.
it
with
a visit in which the Galileans
Jesus. Cp
N
A
Z
A
RE
TH
.
Here Lk., alone of the evangelists, represents
Jesus a s
‘praying
and he does the
four other passages where
and
omit
it.
Jn.
never
uses the word
throughout his Gospel.
Predictions of the
to these
Mk.
and
Lk.
give
us
a
choice between two difficulties.
( a )
9
(comp. also 9
says, that the disciples ques-
tioned among themselves
was the meaning of rising from
the dead
Yet what could he clearer? I n
predicting
Lk.
predictions of death and
Resurrection.
with fulness
detail,
which
the Gospel
proceeds;
and the last prediction of death
a statement that
45)
‘it was
as
it
were
veiled
them.
so
whereas Mk.
(and Mt.) contains the
I
have been
raised up,
I
will g o before you t o
Lk. omits this; and
subsequently, where Mk. (16
7)
and
repeat or refer to this
promise, Lk. alters the words
to
into
he
in
Galilee.’
relation to ( a ) and
(6)
is
as
follows in (a’)
and
(a’)
Jn.
makes it obvious why the disciples conld not
understand Christ’s predictions.
Take the following
19)
‘Destroy this temple and
in three
days I will
raise
it
up
; (3
Son ’of man must
be
up
(1223)
‘ T h e hour is come that the
Son of man should be
.
(13
Now
hath
the Son of
man
God hath
been
in
him, and Gqd
him in himself and
him.
Who was to conjecture that, when Jesus spoke of
being
‘
from the earth,’ he said this (12
signifying
by what death he was
to die’? or that
8 27-29.
‘Call,’ used by
41
times
26, Mk. only 4, is used
by Jn. only twice.
Righteous
in Mt. and
Lk. (but only twice in
to describe
who observes the
law’-is used but thrice in Jn. and then in the higher Platonic
sense
0
righteous
and see 5 724).
times in Lk., only
times in hft. and
Mk.
together, occurs
only
4
in Jn., and
except
in
the
of
Jn. differs in expression from Mk. and
; but
he differs f a r
Similarly,
the
‘Raise
cleave the tree,
mainly referring to the Baptist’;
doctrine about
stones a s children to Abraham. and
about cutting down
barren tree of Jewish formalism-may
possibly have had in his mind Eccles.
The aorist cannot be exactly expressed in English
:
hath
been’ is nearer to the meaning than
‘
was.’
‘Signifying
representingunderafigure
or
n o
one
the time).
In 21
the cross is ‘signified’
more clearly by the ‘stretching out of the ‘hands
but no
meant ‘glorifying’ the Father, and hence the Son, by
the supreme sacrifice on the Cross? No
one
can
that these
were what Jesus calls dark sayings
the
disciples contradicted him : (16
Behold at
speakest thou clearly and utterest no dark saying.
But they
were wrong.
Jn. seems to say, therefore, not that Christ’s teaching,
thoughclear, was ‘concealed’
(Lk.
from the disciples
supernaturally, but rather that it was
beyond
till the Spirit was given.
Imbued with the
popular belief that resurrection must imply resurrection
in
a
fleshly form, visible to friends and enemies
how could they a t present apprehend a spiritual
tion, wherein the risen Christ must be shaped forth
by
the Spirit, and brought forth after sorrow like that of
‘the woman when she is
in
travail?’
Mk.
and
Mt. seem
to
have read
i n t o
utterances
of
Jesus
from
f a c t s
o r
Towards these,
Lk.
and Jn.
different
attitudes
starting a t first in accord with the
Tradition,
gradually drops more and more of the definite
; and
a t last, when confronted with the words, After
I
am raised,
I
will
go before you into Galilee,’ omits the promise altogether.
Jn., on the contrary, recognises that the predictions of Christ
were of a general nature, though expressed in Scriptural types.
Lk. differ also in their attitudes towards Scripture a s
‘proving’ the Resurrection.
Lk.
represents the
two
travellers
a s
to the risen Saviour, till he
‘interpreted t o
the
Scriptures the things concerning himself.’ Jn.
expressly says that the belief of the beloved disciple
precede4
the knowledge of the Scriptures:
‘And he
saw
and
believed
;
for not
even
y e t
did they
the Scripture, how
that he must needs rise from the dead.
In the light of
returning to
statement that
disciples discussed together ‘what
the
the
dead
might mean,’ we have only to suhstitute ‘this’ for ‘the,’ and i t
becomes intelligible. Every one knew what ‘rising from the
dead’ meant. But they did not know the meaning of
this
kind
of rising from the dead
what
Christ
said
about his
(6’)
T h e promise
and Mt.), ‘ I will
go
before you to
occurs in close connection with
Peter’s profession that he will not desert Jesus. Jn. has,
in the same connection
I
go to prepare
for you.’
This leads us to
elsewhere for a confusion between
‘Galilee’ and ‘place.
Comparing
with Lk. 437,
we
find that Lk. has, instead of ‘The whole
of
Galilee,’
the words every place of the
(so
also in Lk.
stands where we should expect
so Chajes [Markus-studies,
who also independently offers
the
same theory [double meaning of
to account for Lk. 4 37).
In
Mk. 3 7, Lk.
‘Galilee.’
The question, then, arises,
whether, the original, may have been some word signifying
‘region,
or ‘place
which (
I
)
interpreted to
mean
‘Galilee,’
Jn. ‘the
place
(of my Father)’ or ‘the
(holy)
while (3) Lk. found the tradition so obscure
that h e omitted it altogether. Now the word
a longer
form of
(‘Galilee’), is used to mean (Josh. 22
‘region.’
Again, Mt.
‘to Galilee to the
where he
for them,’ suggests two
‘Galilee,’
‘appointed
Lastly, hesidrs many passages
Ign.
Barn. 19
I
;
5 ,
and also
where
word
is used, with
a n attribute, to mean ‘place
the next world),’
978,
uses the word absolutely of
leads to the inference [which
is highly
probable a s regards
and which further knowledge
might render equally probable as regards ‘place’] that an expres-
sion, misunderstood
and
a s meaning
and
omitted by Lk. because he could not understand it a t all, was
understood by
to
mean [my Father’s
‘Paradise.’
In any case we have here a tradition of Mk. and
rejected
by Lk.,
Jn.
such a way as to throw light
on
the different views taken by Lk. and Jn. of Christ’s sayings
about his resurrection.
one is said to have understood the ‘stretching out,’ and the
context almost compels us to suppose that it was not understood.
In
I
Sam.
where
of
have a corrupt reproduc-
tion of
Sym. has
‘appointed
place.’
Also
compare Mt.
‘ G o tell my brethren to
depart to
Galilee,’
with Jn. 20 17,
to my brethren and say
unto them I
ascend
Does
not this indicate
that what
understood a s meaning ‘Galilee’ or ‘appointed
mountain
understood a s meaning ‘heaven’? This points
to
some
of being expressed by ‘the place,’
‘the holy place,’
(place) of the Father,’ ‘the
‘the
Holy Mountain.
Paradise.
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or
caused
by obscurity, appear to be corrected,
or
omissions supplied, by
in
the followine instances
Mk. (11 7
and Mt. say that Jesus
‘ s a t on the ass’.
Lk. first
with
and then substituted
for the latter the
‘they put him thereon.’
Jn. (12
goes with Mk. T h e Synoptists all mention
‘garments,’
on the ass and strewn in the road. But Mk.
and Mt. mention also the ‘strewing’ of branches (Mt.
however, calling them
a word that mostly
means
litter,’ or ‘grass
straw used
for
or
for
of
mattress.
This Lk. omits.
inserts
(without mentioning ‘garments
but in a
context:
‘They took (in their hands)
the
of
the palm trees
and went
forth to meet
Whether Jn. or Mk. was right
or whether both were right
is not now the question.
tradition of Mk. possibly as being difficult, Jn. modifies it, or
substitutes a kindred one.
T h e
is that where Lk. omits
(143-9) account of the anointing of Jesus by a woman
is either omitted by Lk.
or placed much earlier and
greatly modified the woman being called
sinner,’ and the
host being
as ‘Simon a ‘Pharisee.’
Mk. and Mt.,
however, call him ‘Simon the
and Jn. (12
suggests
that the house belonged to
and his sisters.
I t is
not impossible that the difference may be caused by some clerical
error. Chajes,
accounts for ‘Simon the leper’ by
aconfusion between
‘the
the leper.’ May there have
further confusion between
and
‘Lazarus’? Jn. apparently guards the reader
against supposing the woman to he a sinner, by telling
us (11
that it
Mary, the sister of
The Passover and the Lord’s Supper.-The
Synoptists and especially Lk seem to represent the Cruci-
fixion as
after.
occurrine before. the Paschal
-meal.‘
are
of
in
Lk. between the Day of
Preparation and
I t was one thing to
(Mk. 14
and Mt.)
‘prepare to
eat
the Pass-
over,’ and another to (Lk. 228)
‘prepare the
that we
may eat it,’ which Lk. substitutes for the former. Also Mk.
14
(which Mt. adjusts to a different context,
and
omits) indicates that
original tradition
have
agreed with
view: for no one would have been abroad a t
or after sunset when the Passovermealwas to be eaten.
Mk.
Mt. ’in parts unquestionably sanction
view. they
do
not express it so decidedly a s Lk., and they contain slight
traces of a n older tradition indicating that the Last Supper
was on the Day of Preparation.
I
.
Mk. 14
One of you shall betray me, he that
with
was perhaps a shock to some believers, a s
indicating that
partook of the bread. Mt.
the
words, retaining
more general phrase,
while
they were eating.’
Lk. omits ‘eating,’ having simply, ‘ t h e
hand of him that is to betray me is with me on the table.’ Jn.
(13
quotes
‘ H e
eateth my bread
.
.
.
,’and
mentions
as
the
from
the D a y of
hands.
Mk.
(and Mt.)
H e that dippeth his hand in the dish
with m e ’ will be the
is omitted by Lk. Jn. com-
bines a modification of this with the foregoing; Jesus
dips the sop’ and gives it to Judas.
3.
Lk. differs from Mk.
Mt. in
mentioning the
meal (apparently) as
the Passover
mentioning
a
‘cup’ which
17)
‘received’
meal, and
bade the disciples ‘distribute to one another
inserting the
words
D o this a s a memorial of me
(4) mentioning
a second cup, that was
‘after sup
(5)
speaking of
the
a s
new covenant.
I n
all
these points
in
of the
in
on
with
her
would
is what
Lk. amplifies and dignifies while Jn. appears to subordinate,
the circumstances of the
Supper. What Jn. had to
say
about the feeding on the flesh and blood of the Saviour, he
earlier, in
synagogue at Capernaum. There Jesus
insists, (663)
words
that I have spoken
to
are
spirit and are life
’
and,
profiteth nothing.’ Now he
reiterates this
(13
‘ye are clean
but
not
This, when compared with (15 3), ‘ye are clean
of
the word that (have spoken untoyou,’ indicates that
participating in the bread and wine and washing of
was
useless except so far
as
it went with spiritual participation in
‘the
himself.
A climax of warning is attained by
making Judas receive the devil when he receives the bread
dipped in wine by the hand of Jesus.
avoids the ambiguous Synoptic word ‘covenant’
or ‘testament
and makes it clear,
the final discourse, that he regards the Spirit as a
(or
that implies nothing of the nature of a bargain or
compact.
5.
Mk.
14
27
(and Mt.; but Lk.
‘All
y e shall be caused to
stumble; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and
sheep shall be scattered abroad,’ was likely to cause a ‘scandal
-
as
though God could ‘smite’ his son. This may be seen
from Barnabas, who gives the prophecy thus
:
(5
hen
they
the Jews] shall
own shepherd, then shall
perish the sheep of the flock. Jn. while retaining Christ’s
prediction that the disciples
be
‘scattered
effectively destroys the ‘scandal’ by adding that, even wheh
abandoned by them he would not be abandoned
the Father
‘And yet
I
alone, because the Father
with
me.’
The Passion.-The facts seem to be as follows :-
I
.
and Mt. place the words, ‘Arise
let us go’ a t
Lk. omits all that
between ( a )
Mk. 14 38
Watch and pray.
. .
temptation,’
and
(6) Mk.
‘Arise, let us go,’ having
merely (2246)
‘Stand
and pray
.
.
.
temptation.’
Now ‘to stand
‘nothing else than to pray’
2
But
might also mean ‘watch cp Neh. 73. Lk. may have considered
(6) a duplicate of
(a),
the meaning to he ‘stand fast and
pray.‘ Jn. places the words ‘Arise, let us go,’ at the moment
when Jesus feels the approach, not of
hut of
Lk. omits
all)
mention of the ‘binding’ of Jesus.
early Christian writers
regarded it as a symbolical
act, being performed in the case of the intended sacrifice of
Isaac, the prototype of Christ (Gen. 22
Jn. inserts it (18
a s does Mk. 15
I
(and Mt.).
3.
Lk. speaks of
52)
‘generals
(UT
of the temple.’
Jn.
says (18
‘The
and
officers of the
Lk. has loosely (3
Annas
Caiaphas a s ‘high priests
that
Caiaphas was high priest, and Annas his
father-in-law.
the arrival of Judas.
the
world
who
4. According to Mk. 14
false witnesses asserted that
Jesus had declared that
destroy the temple.
Mt. alters ‘would’ into was
and implies that, though
what had been previously testified was false
this
may have been
Lk. omits the whole.
I n his
the destruction of
the temple by the Romans was accepted by Christians as a
divine retaliation. which
he reearded as inflicted bv
Jesus himself, so’thaf he
wish
avoid saying that
testimony was ‘false.
says in effect, ‘Some words about
destroying “the temple
had been uttered by Jesus
but
they referred to “the temple of his body.” And
the
were
the-“destroyers.”’
Mk. 15
6
(and Mt.) says that it was the custom to
release a malefactor a t the feast.
Lk. omits this.
Jn. not
inserts it,
adds that Pilate himself
the
Jews of it.
6.
(and Mt.)
the (purple or scarlet)
‘robe and the ‘crown of thorns.
Lk. omits these striking
what reason, it
is
difficult to
Jn. inserts
both of them.
7.
Mk 1465 alone of the Synoptists mentions ‘blows with
the flat ‘hand”
; in
in
Is.
506).
Jn. also
mentions
3 (and
Conclusion and Exceptions.-The instances above
enumerated might be largely supplemented.
The
conclusion from them is that-setting
aside
(
I
)
descriptions of possession,
and other subjects excluded from the Johannine
allusions to John the Baptist,
( 3 )
a
few
passages where Jn., accepting
development,
Mt.13
17
Lk. 17
Also (3) and
and (5) may be interpola-
tions (but more probably early additions, made in a later edition
of the work)
I
Cor.
or (more probably) from
tradition.
D and
destroy this possibility by reading ‘two
witnesses.’
Barnabas ( 7 ) connects them with the scapegoat.
Possibly
this connection may have seemed to Lk. objectionable.
The miracle (Mk. 11
Mt. 21
of the Withered Fig Tree
may come under this head.
It
has a close resemblance to
(136) parable of the Fig Tree.
Cp
F
IG
.
GOSPELS
carries it a stage further,
ever agrees
with
as
whilst
he
very
steps
in
to
support,
or
explain
by
modifying, some obscure
harsh
statement
omitted
by Lk.
Two important exceptions demand mention :-
(a)
Mk.1525, ‘ I t was the
third
hour and they crucified
him,’ is omitted by Mt. and Lk and con-
14.
Exceptions.
tradicted indirectly
Jn. 19
‘ I t was
about the
hour’ (when Pilate pro.
nounced sentence).
Mk. may have confused
(‘sixth’)
(‘third’).
may be due to a similar confusion.] Or the sentence may be out
of place and should come later, describing the death of Jesus
a s occurring when
was the
lime
when
they crucified
How easily confusion might spring up,
may be seen from the Acts of John
‘when he was hanged
on
the bush of the cross i n the s i x t h
of the day
was over all the land.
First,
‘sixth
might be mistaken for
‘from the’ (or vice versa); then
a numeral would have to
Or
might be
repeated (or dropped) before
In Mk. 15
33,
D,
which
elsewhere gives
in
full, has an unusual symbol
Lk., and
t o be in error, and that Jn. corrected by
what Mt.
and Lk. corrected by omission.
(6)
Mk. 14 30, Before the cock crow
twice
thrice thou shalt
deny
is given by Mt. and Lk. with
omission of
‘twice.
This is remarkable because
‘
twice
enhances the
miraculousness of the predidtion.
May not Mk. be based on
a
Semitic original, which gave the saying thus, Before the cock
crow, twice and thrice’ (=repeatedly, see Job 3329
(1338) accepts
modification of Mt., but with
tion-‘the cock shall not crow, until such time a s thou deny
me thrice
Here Jn. accepts, but‘ improves on, the Synoptic correction of
Mk.,
though perhaps literally correct, does not represent
the spirit of what Jesus said.
[In
I
637
the impossible
thirty
The conclusion is that Mk. seemed to Mt.
111.
D
OUBLE
T
R
A
DI
T
I
O
N
S
.
T h e Double Traditions include what is common to
) Mk.
and Mt.,
)
Mk. and
)
Mt. and Lk. . The last
of
these is so much
fuller than
or
that it may be con-
veniently called
‘
Double Tradition.’
(i.)
and
;
in
to
and
Much of this has been incidentally discussed above,
under the head of the Triple Tradition : and what has
been said there will explain why
Lk.
and Jn. omit Mk.
and
(accounts of the Baptist),
913
(‘Elias
is
come already’),
He calleth for
omission of a long and continuous section of Mk.
(a),
Christ’s walking on the Sea,
the doctrine about
‘
things that defile,’ and
about
‘ t h e children’s crumbs,’
(d),
the feeding of the Four
‘Thousand, ( e ) , acomparison between this and the feeding
of the Five Thousand, and
the dialogue (see 39 n.
)
following the doctrine
of
leaven - may indicate
that
Lk.
knew this section as existing in a separate
tradition, which, for some reason, he did not wish
t o include in his Gospel.
Most
of
it may be said
t o belong to ‘the Doctrine of Bread,’ as taught
in Galilee. Jn. also devotes
a
section of his Gospel to
.a
doctrine of Bread (but of quite a different kind from
concentrating attention on Christ as the Bread.
Lk. also omits (Mk.
the cutting off of hand and
foot,’ and (Mk.
the discussion of the enactments
of Moses concerning divorce-the former, perhaps, as
being liable to literal interpretation, the latter, as being
of date.
The ambitious petition (Mk.
the sons
of
Zebedee, Christ’s rebuke (Mk.
of
Peter as Satan, and the quotation
(Mk.
‘ I will
smite the shepherd,’
L k .
may have omitted,
as
not
tending to edification. I n
the
discourse on ‘ t h e last
day’
L k .
omits a great deal that prevents attention
from being concentrated on the destruction of Jerusalem
as exactly
the predictions
of
Christ; but
especially he omits (Mk.
‘of this hour the Son
knoweth not.’
Attempts have been made, but
in
vain (see
Classical
Review,
T h e parallel
in Mt. can be ascertained by refer-
For the Withering
of
the Fig-Tree (Mk.
11
see 13
n.
18
to prove that
‘sixth hour’ meant 6
A.M.
ence to
GOSPELS
It must be added that,
in this Double Tradition
and (to
a
less extent) in those parts of the Triple
Tradition where
Lk.
makes omissions, Mk. and Mt.
generally agree more closely than where
Lk.
intervenes.
T h e phenomena point to
a
common document occasion-
ally used by
Mk.
and Mt., and, where thus used,
avoided by
Lk.
and also by
T h e Walking on the
Water
is
an exception to
general omission. The
Anointing of Jesus (since
Lk.
has
a
version of it) has
been treated above as part of the Triple Tradition.’
and
in
relation
to
and
is very brief.
The larger portion of it relates
to exorcism,
M k .
(and note
the close agreement between Mk. and
Lk. as to the exorcism of the Legion,’ a name omitted
by Mt. in his account of it). There are also accounts
of Jesus (Mk.
45)
retiring to solitude, and of
people flocking to him from (38) Tyre and Sidon.
A
section of some length attacks the Pharisees, as
(Mk.
12
38-40)
devourers of widows’ houses,’ and prepares the
(Mk.
236) way for
the story of
the widow’s mite.
In the later portions of the Gospel,
Lk. deviates from
Mk.
(as Mt. approximates to
M k . ) ,
returning to similarity in the Preparation for the Pass-
over (Mk.
14
12-16),
but from this point deviating more
and more.
insertion of what may be called the
section,’ is consistent with the prominence given by him
to women and to poverty (see below, 39).
and
or,
The
Double Tradition’
( a )
the Acts of the Lord, ( b ) the Words of
Acts
of
the Lord are con-
fined to
the details of the Tempta-
tion and
the healing of the Centurion’s servant.
gives no detailed account of a Temptation, hut just
it adding (1 13) ‘and the angels were ministering
apparentlyduring the Temptation ; Mt.
says that after the departure of the devil
‘
angels
and
to
unto him
;
Lk.
mentions no ‘angels.’
omits
all
temptation of Jesus,
suggests (1
that ‘angels were always ascending and descend-
ing
on the Son of man,’ and that, in course of time, the eyes of
the disciples would be opened todiscern them.
As regards the healing, some assert that Jn.
does
not refer to the event described by
But if so it can hardly be denied that he,
their
it
in inserting in his Gospel another
case of healing, resembling the former in being performed (
I
)
a t
a distance,
on the child (apparently) of a foreigner, and (3)
near Capernaum.
and Lk. differ irreconcileably.3 Jn.,
Space hardly admits mention of the possiblereasons for
several omissions. Some of these passages
the practical
abrogation of the Levitical Law of meats in Mk.
have seemed to him to point to a later period, such a s that
in
Actslog-16, where Christ abrogated the Law by a special
utterance to Peter. Again in the Doctrine of Bread, while
(Mk.
7
crumbs and
8
leaven are used spiritually
loaves’ and (Mk. 8
‘one loaf’ are used literally and
mixture of the literal and metaphorical may have perplexed Lk
especially if he interpreted the miracle of the Fig-Tree
phorically, and was in doubt a s to the literal or metaphorical
meaning of the Walking on the Water. Some passages he may
also have omitted a5 du licates,
the Feeding of the Four
lhousand.
As regards ‘leaven,’
insertion
‘which is
hypocrisy’), if authentic, is fatal to the authenticityof Mk.
Perhaps the original was simply Beware of leaven,’ and the ex-
planation,
the
was
‘
Beware of
,the leaven of
hypocrisy.
T h e rest was
evangelistic teaching
How
Jesus mean real leaven and
real bread when he could feed his flock with the leaven of heaven
a t his pleasure?’) inserted first as a parenthesis (perhaps about
the
Son
of man or the Son of God), and then transferred to the
text in the first person. The variation of Mt.
ftom Mk.
suggests that the words were not Christ’s.
Jn.
thenarrative of Jesus walking on the Sea but adds
expressions (6
borrowed from Ps.
‘go
to
the
sea and
where they would
which increase
the symbolism of a story describing the helplessness of the
Twelve, when, for a short time, they had left their master. Jn.
omits the statement
(Mk.
and
Mt.)
that Jesus constrained the
disciples to leave him.
The passages referred to in this section will be found in
Rushhrooke’s
Synopticon,
arranged in
order.
D
and
omit Lk.
7
‘Wherefore
neither
thought
I
myself worthy
to
come unto thee,’ thus harmonising Lk. with
Mt.,
who says that the
man did
come to Jesus.
.
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
while correcting both Evangelists in some respects, and especially
in tacitly (448) denying that Jesus ‘marvelled,’ corrects Lk.
more particularly by stating (
I
) that the man came to Jesus
that Jesus
a
word, or promise of healing (3)
the child was healed in t h a t hour,’ and
by
it clear
that the patient was not a servant but a
In the first tbree
points,
Jn. agrees with Mt. in the fourth, he interprets Mt.
in
all,
he differs from Lk.
T h e Words of the Lord are differently arranged
by Mt. and Lk.
Mt. groups sayings according to
their subject matter.
Lk. avows in
his preface
( 1 3 )
an intention to write
in (chronological) order,’ and he often supplies for a
saying a framework indicating the causes and circum-
stances
called it forth. Sometimes, however, he is
manifestly wrong in his chronological arrangement,
,
whenheplaces Christ’s mourning over Jerusalem
(1334 35)
early, and in Galilee, whereas Mt.
(2337-39)
places it in
the Temple at the close of Christ’s
I t was
perhaps on the principle of grouping that Mt. added
to
the shorter version of the Lord’s Prayer the words,
thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth,’ as having
been in part used by Jesus on another occasion (Mt.
other addition, Deliver
us
from the evil
one,’ is not indeed recorded as having been used by
Jesus elsewhere,
it resembles the prayer of Jesus for
his disciples in Jn.
:
keep them
from the
one’
(and cp
Tim.
On
changes, see
L
ORD
’
S
P
RAYER
they adapt the prayer for daily
and indicate that Lk. follows a later version of the
prayer in
his
alterations, but an earlier version in his
omissions.4
exactly
in the Double Tradition
are for the most part of a prophetic or historical char-
acter. Some describe the relations between John the
Baptist and Christ another calls down woe on
another, in language that reminds
of the thoughts,
though not of the words of
thanks God for revealing
t o
babes what He has hidden from the wise and
prudent another pours forth lamentations over doomed
Jerusalem.
Others, such
as,
‘But know this, that if
the goodman,’
and ‘ W h o then is the faithful and
just steward,’ etc., appear to have an ecclesiastical
rather than an individual reference, at all events in their
primary application.
All
these passages were especially
fitted for reading in the services of the Church, and
consequently more likely to have been
soon
committed
to
writing. On the other hand, those sayings which
have most gone home to men’s hearts and have been
most on their lips,
as
being of individual application,
seem to have been
so
early modified by oral tradition
as
to deviate from exact agreement.
Such are, ‘ T h e
mote and the beam
Ask and it shall be given unto
you
Take no thought for the morrow
Fear not
them that kill the body’
‘Whosoever shall confess,’
etc.
He that loveth father or mother more than me,’
etc.
and note, above all, the differences in the Lord’s
Prayer.
As
Lk. approaches the later period of Christ’s
work, he deviates more and more both from Mt. and
Mt. 86 mentions
which may mean ‘child,’ but more
often means servant’ in such a phrase as
etc. See (RV) Mt.
‘my servant’; Acts3
his
(marg. or Child ’).
has repeatedly
47
50)
‘son,’
but finally recurs to Mt. s
word (4
child
liveth (the only instance in which
uses
The reason for
transposition
is
probably to be
in
the last words of the passage, ‘Ye shall not see me, until ye
shall say,
is
t h a t cometh
in the name of the Lord,’
words uttered by the crowd (Lk.
38) welcoming Jesus on his
entrance
into
Lk. probably assumed that the
prediction referred to
utterance, and must, there-
fore, have been made sometime before
before the entrance
into Jerusalem.
3
Cp
I
RV:
‘As may be the will in heaven,
so
The Lord‘s Prayer
(Mt.
69-13
Lk.
112-4).
mentions
(7
‘
servant.
shall he do.’
Cp Lk.
9 23
:
‘If
any one wishes to
come
after
me,
.
.
.
let him take up his cross
daily,’ where Lk. substitutes
the present
for
and
and inserts ‘daily.
in order to adapt the precept to the inculcation of
of
a
from
perhaps because there was a
as well
as
a Galilean tradition of the life of Jesus, and
towards
the close of his history, depended mainly
on
the former.
owing to their length and number
(and perhaps their frequent repetition in varied shapes
by Jesus himself, and by the apostles after
the resurrection), would naturally contain
more variations than are found in the
shorter Words of the Lord.
T h e parable of the Sower,
coming first in order, and having appended to it a
short discourse
of
Jesus (Mk.
that might
seem intended to explain the motive of the parabolic
might naturally find
a
place in the Triple
Tradition.
But this privilege was accorded to no other
parable except that
of
the Vineyard, which partakes
of
the natwe of prophecy.
.
T h e longer discourses of the Double Tradition show traces
o f
a Greek document, often in rhythmical and almost poetic style.
Changes of words such as
for
for
for
for
for
may indicate merely an attempt to render
more exactly a word in the original; but such substitutions as
(Lk.
Spirit’ for (Mt.
‘good
indicate doctrinal pur-
pose. The original of Lk.
13
was perhaps
(as
‘thyspiritis
good,’
R T ]
Lk. appears to have the older
version when he retains (L 1426)
‘hate
his father,’
Mt.
‘love more than
Other variations indicate a corruption or various interpretation
of a Greek original
of course, precluding a still earlier
Mt.
probably
in
text
which he read as
e.,
‘for
two farthings,’ and then he added (‘five before
to complete the sense. Perhaps a desire to make straightforward
sense as well
as
some variation in the
MS.,
may have led Lk. to
substitute
for
in
Mt.
Lk.
This last passage exhibits Lk. as apparently misunderstanding
a
tradition more correctly given by Mt.
I n Mt. it is part of a
late and public denunciation of the Pharisees in Jerusalem in
Lk. it is an early utterance, and in the house of a Pharisee
Christ’s host.
Probably the use of the singular
‘Thou blind Pharisee’), together with the metaphor of the ‘cup
and platter,’ caused Lk. to infer that the speech was delivered
to a Pharisee, in whose house Jesus was dining. The use
of (Lk. 11 39)
(see below,
38) makes it Probable
that
is a late tradition. Other instances of Lk. s altera-
tions are his change of the original and
into the Christian (Lk. 11 49)
Lk. also omits the difficult
I n
Mt.
2334, Jesus
is
represented as saying ‘Wherefore behold
send unto you prophets
. .
.
and
of
them
ye slay
etc.
.
Lk. 1149, ‘Wherefore also
the
Wisdom
God said,
I
unto
them rophets
.
. .
and some
of
them shall they slay etc., omitting ‘crucify.’
Here Lk. seems
to have
in some respects, the original tradition
whereas
Mt.
interpreting the Wisdom of God (cp
I
Cor.
‘Christ the
of
God
to mean Jesus,
it
Also Mt. retains a n a
tradition
which made ‘Zachariah’
of Barachiah
;
Lk. omits the
error.
I n the ‘parables of
the Wedding
Feast, the Talents, and the Hundred Sheep-it may be
said that Mt. lays more stress on the exclusion of those
who might have been expected to be fit, Lk. on the
inclusion of those who might have been expected to b e
unfit.
Thus in the Wedding Feast, Lk. adds
the invitation
of
the maimed,’ etc. Mt. adds
the rejection
Cp P
ARABLES
.
Mk.
(also
Mt. and. Lk.) ‘he will destroy
husband-
men’-{.e., the Jewish nation. The parable of the Sower may
also
be said to predict the history of the Church, its successes
and failures.
‘Hebrew ‘when used in the present article concerning the
original
of the Gospels, means
‘
Hebrew or Aramaic,’
leaving that question open. But see Clue, A. and C. Black,
4
Other instances are
‘over many
things,’ which might easily be corrupted into
‘over
ten cities’ (see Lk.
and comp. Mk.
perhaps
written
parallel to Lk. 839
Also, in the Mission
of the Seventy (Lk.
.
. .
is
almost certainly (Abbott and Rushbrooke’s Common Tradition
of
xxxvii.) a confusion of two details in the
Mission of the Twelve (
I
)
Take nothing for the journey,’
(Mt.
‘Salute the house.
The corruption of a Greek
original is perhaps sufficient to explain this ; but it is more easily
explicable
on the hypothesis of a Greek Tradition corrected b y
reference to a Hebrew original.
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
of
a guest who has no wedding garment and,
in
Talents
the casting out of the
servant.
In Mt.
22
13 47
the inclusion of
prepares for an ultimate ex-
clusion. T h e conclusion of the Hundred Sheep is, in
18
I t is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these
little ones should perish’; in Lk.157, ‘There shall be joy in
heaven over one sinner that repenteth.’ The Single Traditions
of
Mt.
and Lk., when examined, will he found severally
to
reveal the same tendency to dwell on exclusion and inclusion ;
and this will confirm the inference, in itself prohahle, that the
hand of each Evangelist is apparent
thevarying characteristics
of the parables of the Double Tradition.
in
to
The
The discourses in Jn. have almost for their sole subject
the Father as revealed through the Son,
lie outside the province of the precepts,
parables, and discourses of the Double
Tradition.
I n the Synoptists, Jesus is
a
teacher of truth in
Truth itself.
The word
used by Mk.) is employed
Mt. and
Lk. (Mt.
Lk. 816 11 33-36) to signify the light given
the teachers of the Gospel, or else the conscience. The Disciples
themselves are called
Mt.
‘the light of the world.’
introduces Christ a s saying (8
I
am the Light of the World.
Again
Mt.
7
13
and Lk. 13 24 declare that the ‘gate’ is narrow
;
Jn.
that it is n o t objectively narrow, but only to those
who make it so being no other than
Christ himself,
‘go in
out,’
and ‘shall find
pasture.
Mt.
23
speaks of sinners a s being excluded
(breaking the
Moses) Lk.
substitutes
the law of justice):
not in his Gospel
in his Epistle
(I
Jn. 34, cp with
appears to refer to some controversy
about these words when h e pronounces that
is
in the true sense, and that all
is
Though Jn. never mentions
but always
asking or
requesting,’ he nevertheless introduces
Jesus as uttering, in his last words
a
kind of
parallel to the L o r d s Prayer, of such
a
nature as to
imply that
what
the disciples
were
to
pray
to
God
as
future,
Jesus thanked
God
as past.
I t is true that prayer and praise are combined, and the words
are
wholly different
:
for example
‘the hour is come’ has
no
counterpart in the Lord’s prayer.
hour of glorifying the Father
Son,’ that is
say ‘the hour of doing his will and establishing
his kingdom
.
in essence,
hour is come’ means
‘ T h y
is
come.’
So,
too
(6)
‘I
manifested thy name to the
whom thou hast given me
means, in effect ‘ T h y name hath been hallowed.’ (c) T h e
prayer that, as
Son has glorified the Father
on earth, so the
Father mayglorify the
in heaven (17
j
with the
glory which h e ‘had before the world was,’ means,‘ in effect
‘ T h y will
heen done on earth; so may it now be done
heaven
a s it was from the heginning.’
Also, remembering
‘the words’ of God are the
of man, we find in
(‘the words
thou
me
Z
them’) a n equivalent
to
I have
given
day
day their
bread.’ (e)
The
declaration
that he has kept all except the son of
perdition ‘in the name’ given him
the Father seems to
mean
‘ I
have prevented them hitherto from being led into
temptation.’
If)
Last comes the one prayer not yet
(17
I
‘keep them
the
which
seems to allude to the clause in
version ‘Deliver us from
evil one
Possibly there is also an allusion to
Mt.
Lk.
have not come to bring peace
(not
as
though denying the
of Mt. and Lk., hut a s though supplementing what,
itself,
would he a superficial statement), in Jn.
‘Peace I leave with
you,
I
give nnto
These things
I
have
spoken
. . .
that in me ye
may
agreement with Lk. 1426
. . .
his own
(or
life),’ against Mt. 10 37 loveth more
me (omitting soul ’)
Jn.
‘he that
his soul in this world,’ indicate;
that Lk. has preserved the older tradition. But
addition shows his sense of the obscurity of Lk., who did not
make it clear that ‘father’ ‘mother’ and ‘soul’ are to he
‘hated only so
they
‘in
this
of temptation.
More conjectural must he the theory of an allusion to the
Douhle Tradition in
used of Jesus
the
Cross. I t is commonly rendered ‘hawing’ his head, hut
no
authority is alleged for
The expression is not found
T h e relation
of
Jn. to the Double Tradition of the Acts of
the Lord has been considered above
17.
This section deals
with his relation to the Double
of the
Words
of the
Lord.
Comp.
79
:
3
Even in this last clause
implies partial fulfilment already:
Thev
have
been
delivered:
now let them
he
in a state of
But
(a)
‘the hour in
Jn.
deliverance.’
When Lk. means
he
uses
cis
And the word ‘bow’ is
so
common in the
in the LXX, and occurs in N T only in
8
Lk.
9
The
Son
of man hath
where to rest
his
head.
But there is pathos and
power
the thought that the one place on earth where the
of man ‘rested his head’ was the Cross and the one moment
was when he had accomplished the
will.
IV. I
NTRODUCTIONS
(Mt. and
).
(i.)
in these is very manifest.
T h e agreement of Mt. and Lk. in the introductions
describing the birth and childhood of
Jesus consists in little more than fragments
from Is.
which, in the Hebrew, is,
A
young woman shall conceive and hear
a
(or,
the) son and
his name Immanuel,’
but in
The virgin
shall be with child and
bring forth
a
son, and thou
the husband)
his name Immanuel.’
This was regarded as having
been fulfilled, not by the birth of Isaiah‘s son recorded
in Is.
(but cp
but by the birth of the
Messiah. In the earliest days of the Jewish Church of
Christ, the Messiah would naturally be described in
hymns and poetic imagery as the Son of the Virgin the
Daughter of Sion.
I n Rev.
the Man Child
is
born of a woman clothed with the sun,’ who evidently
represents the spiritual Israel.
Eusebius
v.
1 4 5 )
quotes a very early letter from the church of Lyons.
where the ‘Virgin Mother’ means
the Church,’ and
other instances are
)
Traditions
about every
would tend in the same direction
:
(i. 131) ‘ t h e Lord
begat Isaac’ Isaac
215)
‘is to be thought not the
result of generation but the shaping
of the
unbegotten.’ The real husband of Leah is (i.
the
Unnoticed
(6
though Jacob is the father
of her children.
is found by Moses (i.
‘pregnant, (but) by no mortal.’ Tamar is (i. 598-9)
‘pregnant through divine seed.’
is (i.
born of a human mother’ who became pregnant after-
receiving divine seed.’ Concerning the birth of Isaac,
Philo says (i. 148)
:
I t is most fitting that God should
converse, in a manner opposite to that of man, with a
nature wonderful and unpolluted and pure.’
If
such
language as this could be used by educated Jewish
writers about the parentage of those who were merely
inspired
G o d s Word, how much more would even
stronger language be used about the origin of one who
was regarded as
w i t h
the Word, or
the
Word
Justin
a n d
confirm the view that pro-
phecy has contributed to shape the belief
a miraculous
conception. Justin admits that some did not accept it,
but bases his dissent from them on
(Tryph.
48) the.
proclamations made by the
prophets
and taught
by him
Christ).’
says that the Ebionites
declared Jesus to have been the son of Joseph
21
I
)
following
those who interpreted
virgin in Is.
7
14
as young woman
Pro-
phecy will also explain the divergence between Mt. and
Lk.
Some, following the Hebrew, might say that the
divine message came to
the mother of the Lord,
others (following
might assert that the message
came
Mary’s husband.
Lk. has taken the
former course, Mt. (though inconsistently) the latter.
Prophecy also explains
and
attitude toward
that the
of
to
represent it throughout
and N T makes it improbable that it would represent ‘bowing’
here.
Thus. when
The name
is sometimes
Ahercius
(
A
.D.
writes that
grasped
the Fish’ (the
meaning Christ), Lightfoot (Ign.
481)
hesitates between the Virgin Mary’ and ‘the Church,’
hut
apparently inclines to the latter.
Marcion is accused
Epiphanius of ‘seducing a virgin’ and being consequently ex-
communicated. But (
I
)
neither Tertullian (an earlier hut not
less
enemy of Marcion) nor the still earlier Irenaeus,
makes mention of any such charge.
Hegesippns
(Eus.
iii. 32 7)
says that ‘the Church remained a
and
till the days of Symeon hisho of Jerusalem, when
heresies
Marcion must
acquitted
:
cp
ad
E b a
(the Church)
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
the
Messianic name Immanuel.’ Jesus was
not
(any
more than Isaiah‘s son) called by this name, and Lk.
omits all reference to it.
Mt. (or the author of
though he represents Joseph as receiving
the Annunciation, representspeopk
as
to give Jesus this name, and alters the prophecy ac-
cordingly (Mt.
Thou shalt call his name
Jesus
. . .
that it might be fulfilled
.
,
.
They
his name Immanuel.’
Divergence
of
the rest, Mt.
a n d Lk. altogether diverge. Both the
of
(according to all
trace his descent through
Joseph, not through
and there
pretation)
survive even ndw traces of
a
between them and
the Gospels in which they are
T h e
Genealogies (for
account and analysis of which see
G
ENEALOGIES
appear to have denied, the Gospels
certainly affirm,
a
Miraculous Conception.
Mt.
in its
text. has ’I.
But
Ss.
has
J.
Joseph; Joseph to whom was
Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, whd is called the
is
also retained
a,
6,
Bohb. and
S.
Germanensis
though they make Mary the
This indicates
the original had simply (a)
‘James begat Joseph, and Joseph
hegat Jesus.’ Then, when the belief in the Miraculous Con-
ception arose, various corrections were made such as
(6)
‘
to
whom was espoused or betrothed Mary
or ‘the
husband of Mary,’
indicate
the ‘begetting’
to
he
taken in a putative sense, or to refer the reader to what followed
a s
a
corrective of the formal genealogical statement. Then (c)
‘Mary’ was repeated as the subject of a new clause in
genealogy, hut with the repetition of the now misplaced
‘
hegat.’
Then
some altered ‘begat’ into ‘brought forth, others
into
whom was begotten.’
Lk.
323
has
But
has, ‘And
Jesus, when he was about thirty years old as he was called the
son
Joseph son of Heli etc.;
is not a complete
sentence.
D
etc.. and iust before. has
:
5)
read
(for
and interpret it as
to baptism.’
D
interpreted
that Jesus
a t the beginning of his thirtieth year, was (really), as he
supposed to be the son of Joseph hut that in the moment of
baptism, he
again
the
Spirit.
will
have the same meaning if we insert
‘
was’ as the
verb,
’Jesus
.
.
.
as he was called, the son of Joseph.’
The
throw light
on almost forgotten Jewish charges
against Jesus that may have influenced some Evangelists
inducing them to lay stress on the fact that Jesus was
‘the son of Joseph,’
or a t all events that Mary, at the time of
the birth of her first-born, was
‘
espoused to
I t is highly probahle,
on grounds of style, that
author
of
the Introduction is not the author of the whole of
Gospel.
D
rewrites the earliest part
of
genealogy, partially
conforming it to
3
This is all the more important if the tradition recorded by
is correctly interpreted to mean that
of the Gospels which consist
the genealogies were written
first (see below
4
Codex a
sim. Bobb.) has
J.
Joseph cui
desponsata Virgo Maria
Jesum’
6 has Joseph,’ cui
desponsata erat V.M., V. autem
Jesum.’ Later,
and Bohh.
(a
is missing) use
and ‘peperit’ of
Mary, showing that ‘genuit’ is not an error here, hut is a
retention of the old true reading, inconsistent with the altera-
tions adopted. Codex
(D
is missing) alters ‘genuit’ into
‘peperit,‘ but in other respects agrees with a.
Corh. and
Brix. agree with the Greek text. The Vat.
of
the
gives Mt. 1
16
thus
:
‘Jacob hegat Joseph, the husband of Mary,
who of her hegat Jesus, the Messiah.
See the English
tion by Hogg (Ante-Nicene Christian Library
add. vol.
1897,
p. 45,
n.
6), who points
the
confusion
between ‘who of her begat,’ and ‘from whom was begotten,’
in
from Syriac to Arabic.
however,
‘This day Ihave
thee,’
hut)
‘Thou art my
Son
and my beloved.
But
this may have been
as
equivalent to
‘ I
have begotten
thee to-day as my
Son.
Codex
has ‘quod
et
dicehatur esse filius
.
follows
D.
I n
Acta
P.
(A
and B) 2
the ‘elders
of
the Jews’
say
to
Jesus ‘Thou art born of
(B
‘of sin
to
which
other’pious Jews reply
(A), ‘we
h a t Joseph espoused
(or betrothed
Mary, and that he is not born of
fornication
(B) ‘we know that Joseph received Mary his
mother in
the
way
of which another
version is
‘His
mother Mary was given to Joseph
As
regards the childhood of Jesus, Mt. looks on
Bethlehem
(21)
as the predicted home of Joseph and
Mary, and mentions their going to Nazareth as a thing
unexpected and
(223)
a
fulfilment
of
prophecy.
H e
also mentions (as fulfilments of prophecy) a flight into,
and return from, Egypt, and a massacre
in
Bethlehem.
Neither of these is mentioned by Lk., and the latter
is
not mentioned by any
But a typical meaning
is also obvious in both
narratives ; Jesus is the vine
of
Israel
He is the
of
Moses, who was saved from the slaughter of the children
under Pharaoh.
Lk. treads the safer ground of private
and personal narrative, except
so
far as he has given
trouble to apologists by his statement about an enrol-
ment that took place under Quirinius, which was the
cause why Joseph and Mary left their home in Nazareth
in order to be enrolled at Bethlehem, the home of their
Instead of prophetic there is contemporary
and typical testimony :-Anna, the prophetess of
representing the extreme north; the aged Simeon
representing the extreme south
and Elizabeth
Zachariah, of the tribe of
As
regards the Baptist, while omitting some points
that liken him to Elijah, Lk. inserts details showing
that, from the first, John was foreordained to go before
the Messiah, not really
as
Elijah, but
(1
17)
i n
the spirit
of Elijah.’
( v . )
in
t o the Introductions
is
apparently,
but not really,
I n his own person he
no mention of Nazareth or Bethlehem.
He
takes us back to the cradle (Jn.
1
I
)
in the
beginning,’ as though heaven were the only
true Bethlehem (House of [the] Bread [of life]).’ T h e
fervent, faith of the first disciples defies past prophecies
about Bethlehem, and present objections as to Nazareth
and Joseph, by admitting the apparent historical fact
to
fact, and yet believing
(1
45
)
: W e have found
him
of.
whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write,
the
son
the
m a n
When the objection
is
urged against
(1
46)
Nazareth,’
faith
in
the personality of Jesus overwhelms the objector
with the mystical reply
(1
‘Come and
I n Mt.
brought out of Egypt.’
not
actual
to
first of these three version;
defends Jesus against the Jewish charge hut surrenders the
Miraculous Conception. The second is ’obscure.
The third
sacrifices the defence,
but
retains the miracle.
Some attempt to explain the omission by other omissions
of
the crimes of kings by
but
Josephusdwells on
the history of Herod and his family in order to show
(Ant.
xviii. 5 3)
Quirinius was governor of Syria,
A.D.
6,
fen
years
this
time.
The most plausible explanation suggested is
perhaps, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria;
there is no direct, and scarcely any indirect, evidence to justify
the belief. There is also no proof that Mary’s presence was
ohligatory.
That
Lk.
invented such an ‘enrolment’ is im-
possible; hut that he antedated it is highly probable. Making
(or
a
compilation toward
close of the
century,
he might naturally consider that the ‘enrolment’ supplied an
answer to the difficult question ‘How came the parents
of
Jesus to Bethlehem at the time of
birth?’ See
also
For the meaning of this Rabbinical formula, see
and
nd
and Wetst. (on Jn. 140) who quotes
other
Rev.
I t introduces the
tion
a mystery.
Ndte also
a
similar contrast
personal belief and
unbelief in
40
. . .
when they heard these words said This is
. .
the prophet
.
. .
hut some said, What d o 6
come
out
not the Scripture
that
Christ cometh
seed
o j
David
and
And compare the sub-
ordinate
‘
officers
’ (7
46,
‘
Never man so spake ’) with
‘
the chief
priests and Pharisees’ (7 52, ‘Out
ariseth
no
prophet ’).
Westcott says on Jn. 742, ‘There is a tragic irony in the fact
that the
which the objectors
assumed to he
unsatisfied
birth in Bethlehem
was
actually satisfied.:
But are
to, believe that Jesus
that the ‘condition
was ‘satisfied
and yet left the
in their ignor-
ance, so as
keep back from them the fulfilment of God’s
word, making himself responsible for the ‘tragic’ consequences?
And in the face of such
an objection, publicly and
made,
is
it credible that a conspiracy of silence
have
been maintained
Christ’s relations, friends, and neighbours
This, a t
all
events, cannot be disputed, that
Jn.
represents the
1780
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
i t
is
the fulfilment of prophecy in Lk. it is the testimony
of visions and voices pointing to John as the messenger
of
the Messiah, and to the Messiah himself; in
it
is
(1
the glory as of the only begotten
Father
-that constitutes the true testimony to Christ.
V. T
HE
C
ONCLUSIONS
.
T h e conclusions (Mt. Lk. and
in
effect treat of Christ’s resurrection.
This the genuine Mk. does not
describe, breaking off abruptly a t
(16
E),
for they were afraid.
The
their evidence.
-
Mt.
mentions two appearances.
In the first, Christ
appears to women who ‘held his feet’
in the
second, to the Eleven
but it is added that ‘some
doubted.’
I n Lk. Christ never appears to women.
Indeed, Lk. almost excludes such a n appearance by
speaking of
(2423) ‘ a
vision of
which the
women are reported to have seen, without any mention
of Christ’s appearing to them.
I n this omission he
resembles Paul, who enumerates several appearances
to men but none to women.’
in giving
a
list of
the ‘appearances’
which he had laid stress,
an
apostle might write
in
a
letter to his own converts.
But Lk. writes as a historian, giving Theophilus evi-
dence that he might know ‘ t h e exact truth.’ Him,
therefore, we might reasonably expect not to omit any
important testimony, known to him, concerning Christ’s
resurrection.
His omission, in itself, disposes of the
theory that the differences of Lk. from Mt. arise from
mere haste or carelessness of observation, like those
with which we are familiar in
a
court of justice.
Like
a
glacier-worn rock, Lk. exhibits the signs of attempts
to
smooth away points of objection.
Not, of course,
that he invents.
But while adopting old traditions, he
accepts adaptations suggested in the course of new con-
troversies.
H e shows a desire to prove, improve,
edify, reconcile, select-motives natural, but not adapted
to
elicit the exact truth.’
)
The
Period
of
for the
coolest and most judicial historian, the difficulty
of
reconciling and selectingmust have been
very great.
though he mentions
only three manifestations, implies
(2030)
that there were many more.
Not
improbably the period of appearances a n d voices was
much longer than is commonly supposed.
Mt. tells
us,
concerning the only manifestation that he records
as
made to the Eleven, that
(28
17)
‘some doubted,’ while
disciples as believing in a ‘Jesus of
Nazareth
whilst the un-
believing Pharisees demand a ‘Jesus of
For
the evidence of spuriousness (lately increased by the
discovery of the
Codex of the Syriac Gospels) see
WH
2
(notes), pp.
Cp
Acta Pilati
(7)
(A and
B), ‘We have, a law that a
woman is not to come forward to give evidence.
Doubtless
such an objection was often
by Christians from
adversaries.
3
The only evidence is
where D reads, in different order,
without
In
Hebrew ‘days’ sometimes means ‘some,
or
several, days,’ as in
Cen.
404,
They continued [for some]
days
in
ward.’
By corruption, or tradition, M
‘forty’) might easily be
added to
(or
before
or
after it and the
number would suit OT traditions about Israel, Mbses and
Elijah. The Valentinians supposed Christ to have
with his disciples eighteen months:
Sophia
ch.
1
mentions eleven years. Lk. indicates that the
to
remain (Acts
in
Jerusalem till the descent of the Spirit,
two or three days. Apollonius indicates (Eus. v.
18
tradition a period of twelve years
:
(764) says
In
the Lord says to the disciples
the
Resurrection, I have
twelve disciples,
judging you
worthy of me
. . .
that those who disbelieve may hear and
testify, not being able
to
say in excuse
We did not hear
but, just before,
(762)
‘Peter says
the Lord said to the
apostles.
.
.
.
After
forth to the world, lest
any should say, We did not hear. Perhaps there was a con-
fusion between
‘
twelve
years
’
and
‘
twelve (really eleven)
See
for the evidence that Barnabas and
Jn.
disagreed with Lk. as to the day
of
the Ascension.
1781
others ‘worshipped.’ If other manifestations were
of
the same kind, different observers might record them
differently.
To
testify to the resurrection was the
special duty of
an
apostle, and such testimony was
oral.
The two earliest Gospels (even if we include
as
genuine) contain very much less about
the resurrection than the two latest.
When at last
the apostles passed away, and it became needful to
write something about Christ’s rising from the dead,
and to add it to the already existing manuals of his
teaching, the writers might find themselves forced to
choose a few typical instances that seemed to them
most ‘according to the Scriptures,’ and best adapted
for edifying the Church. At first, they might be
tent (as Paul was) with bare enumerations but, when
the time came to fill in details, the narrators might
supply them, partly from prose traditions, partly from
the most ancient and popular of those hymns, which,
as
Pliny testifies, they sang to Christ
as
to a god, on the
day on which they celebrated his resurrection, partly
from the Scriptures on which the earliest witnesses for
Christ’s resurrection lay
so
emphatic a stress.
)
of
poetic tradition.
the more ancient
traditions of Mk. and Mt., some details appear to arise
from hymnal
Later accounts
indicate
an
intention to convey either
(as
Lk.) ‘proofs’ of
a
historical fact, or
(as
Jn.
)
signs indicative of the real though spiritual
converse held with the disciples
by
the risen Saviour.
(iv.
)
account appears to have
been (in parts at all events) the earliest.
The testimony
of
the soldiers to the Resurrection (where
note the words
(2815)
to this day’) was
dropped in subsequent gospels, perhaps
owing to the unlikelihood that Roman soldiers would
risk their lives by
a
falsehood such
as
Mt.
Henceforth
was (Mk., Lk.,
no
the stone
was
not
‘sealed
.
there was
no
earthquake an angel
did not descend
heaven
;
the women came,
not
‘to
look
at
the
they had carefully ‘looked at’ it before (Mk.
It
is impossible here to do more than indicate one
or
two
The earthouake. which
Mt.
alone
might
traces of this.
naturally spring from
‘God is
a
shout and ‘The earth melted
was shaken
’).
of the resurrection
‘
mhny bodies of the
saints’-a miracle if authentic more startling than the Raising
of Lazarus, but
by the
Evangelists-was probably
derived from some hymn describing how Christ went down
to
Hades and brought np to light the saints detained there.
Mk.
says that the women came to the sepulchre
when
‘the
sun had
inconsistently with his
own
‘very early
‘deep dawn and
‘dark.’
becomes
if
tradition
variously influenced by hymns describing how
‘the sun (of righteousness) had risen,’ or by the
prophecy (Ps. 465) God shall help her and that at the dawn
of the morning.’ It is difficult for us’to realise the probable
extent and influence of metaphor in the earliest traditions of
the Christian Church,.. The
of Behnesa
the
stone, cleave the tree,
taken by many in a
sense. But
it probably means, Raise up stones to he
of Abraham
cut down and cleave the tree of
Christ never
first Christian generation might be
so
misunderstood as to affect
the historical traditions of the second.
Later writers modify
account
so
as to soften some of
its improbabilities. Pseudo-Peter makes the soldiers tell the
whole truth to Pilate, who (at the instance of the Jews) enjoins
silence. In some MSS of
Acta Pilati
(A) the soldiers try to
deny
truth, but are supernaturally forced to affirm it. The
retention of
story, with modifications, in apocryphal books
of the second century that delighted in the icturesque, does not
prove a late origin. Some have thought
tradition is
proved to be late by the excess of ‘prophetic gnosis’ in it.
But that alone is not a sure criterion. The difficulties
pre-
sented
of the ‘dead bodies of
arising,’
and of the women grasping the feet of Jesus and
bald statement that ‘some doubted,’ all suggest
origin.
The use of ‘prophetic gnosis’ depends in large measure not on
the date but on the personal characteristics of the writer. For
there is more
in
Mt. than
in
Jn. But
of
In course
of
tics and enemies detected and exposed
blocks,
subsequent evangelists adopted traditions that
sprang up to remove or diminish them.
is
a
sign of
an
date.
1782
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
Lk.
hut to ‘bring
the purpose of em-
balming the body. But when did the women buy them? When
the Sabbath was
‘quite passed
says Mk. (16
I
).
Not so, says Lk.
they bought them first, and
then
‘rested on the Sabbath.
Again what was the use of the
the ‘great
the way? Mk.
no
reply.
Lk.
the objection
not asserting that the
stone was ‘great.
to a ‘very
stone,’ replies, ‘the women determined, if they
could not enter, to
spices outside
door.’
says
in effect ‘ T h e women brought no spices.
body had
received ’this
already from Nicodemus.
From
point, inconipatihilities constitute almost the whole narrative.
T h e women
(I)
came to the tomb (Mk.
[a]
Mt., Lk., Jn.)
before dawn or
while
it
was yet dark, yet (Mk.
sunrise;
yet
they
Eleven
(3) they (Mk., Mt.), were
to hid the Eleven g o
to
Galilee,’ yet (Lk.) they were merely
to remind the Eleven of what Jesus had said
Galilee or
they (or rather Mary) brought
no
message a t all hom
angels, but
message from Jesus that he was on
the point of ‘ascending
.
(4)
they (Lk., and perhaps
entered the tomb, yet
proh. Mt.) they did
not
enter it (5)
the angel was (Mk., Mt.)
yet (Lk.
two; (6) the angel
(or angels) (Mt.)
the women
they sought
Do not
fear, for
I
know that ye seek
Jesus, and yet
blamed them for so doing (Lk. 24 5
:
‘ W h y seek ye the living among the
(7)
The Eleven
(Mk Mt.) were to g o
t o
to see Jesus, yet (Lk.,
Jn.)
him in Jerusalem and were (Acts)
not t o depart
(apparently
having left it since the resur-
rection) (8) Peter (Lk. 24
looked into the tomb and
then went home without entering, yet
Peter
entered the
tomb
;
Mary
was
not
to touch Jesus because he had
not yet ascended, yet (Mt.) the women held
f a s t his
f e e t
though he had not yet ascended;
(
IO
)
when the two disciples
from Emmaus reported that the Lord had appeared to them
the Eleven
16
13)
did not
believe,
yet (Lk.)
replied
‘the Lord
is
the Lord (Mt. Jn.)
appeared to the disciples in Galilee yet (so far as we can judge
from Lk. and Acts)
no
in Galilee could have
occurred.
(v.
)
(’proofs’).-Lk. concentrates himself
on
the accumulation of
‘proofs,’ by
(
I
)
rigidly defining the time when Jesus
ascended and left his disciples,
re-
p
r
oo
f
s’
presenting Jesus as appearing merely
in
the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, so as to omit
all
appearances in Galilee where some doubted,’
(3)
giving
the impression that the women saw nothing but
‘a
vision of angels,’
(4)
recording no apparition that
was not attested by at least ‘two [male] witnesses,’
(5)
introducing Jesus as eating
5
in the presence of his
disciples.
Yet even
Lk.
shows loopholes for detecting possihle misunder-
standing of metaphor. Compare, for example,
narrative of
the Lord’s drawing
and conversing with the two disciples
on
their way to Emmaus, with the Martyrdom
‘the Lord
was
standing near and conversing with
I n the latter the ‘standing
near‘ is spiritual; and so may have been
the
‘drawing near and the ‘conversing,’ in the
The
that
Lk. in his attempt to ascertain the
facts may be illustrated by the probable explanation of his
omission of the appearance of Christ to Peter. I n reality, Peter
was probably one of the two disciples journeying to Emmaus, as
is
repeatedly assumed by Origen. But
tradition confused
the story,
t o
the
the words
uttered
two
Lk.
should have run (as in
D),
the travellers ‘found the Eleven and those with them, and said
B
favours the supposition that they did
not
enter. This is not inconsistent with
which some-
times means ‘depart,’ nor with Mk.168,
which may
that they ‘fled’
(not
‘out of’) the tomb.
‘Ye’is emphatic. The
soldiers might well be afraid, but
the women were not to he afraid.
3
This is still mort obvious in
Pseudo-Peter, ‘ B u t
not
stoop and look.
probably not a part of the original
Lk.,
this insertion
represents a very early tradition, and perhaps formed a part of
a
later edition of the Gospel. I t can hardly he a condensation
(and cp. Philo on Gen. 188) for the estab-
lished belief that an angel or spirit might live familiarly with
men for a long period
could not eat.
‘their
were
may be a
metaphor meaning that ‘their eyes were opened to discern
Christ in
Scriptures’ (cp. Lk.
Acts 16
14
where it
used of opening the
mind or heart)
their
the Lord‘s presence
a t the breaking of
reminds the reader of the implied precept to resort to ‘violence
in
prayer
(Lk.
16
16,
and
cp.
Pseudo-Peter, who has committed himself’
(lit.
not
‘ t h e Lord
is risen indeed
hath appeared to
This is consistent with
App who says of the two travellers ‘they went away and
it
the rest
to the Eleven),
they
them.
(vi.)
The
to the
(Mk.
Ignatius), occurring
i n M k .
but in Lk. while the two
travellers are telling their tale, is described
by the latter as follows
: ‘See my hands and
my feet that
is
I
myself: handle me and see
for
a spirit hath not flesh
and bones as ye see me having.
[And when he had
said this, he shewed them his hands and his
And while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered,
he said unto them : Have ye anything to eat here
And they gave him
a
piece of a broiled fish [and a
honeycomb.] And he took it and did eat before them.’
Cp Ignatius,
3 :
For I know and believe that
he was
in
the flesh even after the resurrection; and
when he came to Peter and his company
he said to them: “ T a k e
handle
me
and see that
I
am
not
a
bodiless demon.” And straightway they touched
him and believed,
being mixed with
his
and
his
Spirit
(or,
For this cause
also they despised death, and were found superior to
death.
And after his resurrection he ate with them
and drank with them-as being in the flesh
although spiritually united with the Father.’ The word
(as in Mk.
Mt.
is.
grammatically,
as
well as traditionally, adapted to
express a Eucharistic
and the words, mixed
is confused ‘They found the Eleven gathered together
and them that
with them.
they
. . .
saying,
Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared
unto Simon.
they also told them what
had happened
in the way.
. .
.
I n direct speech
two travellers would
say,
‘The Lord
appeared nnto
us. In
speech,
this would become the Lordappeared unto them.
The next
stage of the
would define ‘them’ a s ‘Simon and a
companion.’ Lastly, Simon, as being the more important, would
be alone mentioned.
W H regard the bracketed words as a n
‘at
a
period when forms of the oral Gospel were still current.
‘See
is proh. the rendering of
here (so
Lightf.),
in the corresponding passage in Lk. it means.
‘see
4
MSS are
in
favour of
N o instance has been
of the
of
in
the
sense of the middle,
There are several signs of
variations as to this tradition
both in Ignatius and in Lk. The words ‘and see that I am not
a bodiless demon’ dislocate the sentence, which begins with an
appeal to touch, not to sight. W e know from Origen (see
Lightf.
adloc.) that these words were in the Preaching
which he rejected, and we have reason to believe that they were
not in
the
the
as known t o him and
Lightf. suggests that they were added in the recension of that
Gospel known to Jerome.
Cancelling them, we should have, a s
the original, in
Gospel of
the
‘Take me; and
they straightway handled him and believed.
As regards Lk.,
Irenreus
14
when quoting passages from Lk. accepted
by Marcion and Valentinus, omits this passage though Tertullian
inserts it as part of Marcion’s Gospel.
con-
sidered that Marcion was quoting it from some apocryphal
(though Tertullian does not say so, hut merely accuses
Marcion of perverting the passage). Irenreus himself nowhere
quotes this passage, hut alludes to the assumption about
‘spirits’ expressed in it, in
‘For
Spirit.
hath neither hones nor flesh.
Tertullian
Marcion
4 4 3 ,
De
Christi 5 )
the words twice,
omitting the
t o
and
omitting
Even in
( a ) ,
the context shows that he is not quoting a mutilated text of
Marcion’s;
(6) makes it certain
that
the
omission
is
own. H e quotes thus,
(a)
my hands and
feet that it is
I
myself,’
(6)
that it is
I
and in
cases
adds ‘for a spirit hath not bones as ye see me having.
In the
of
(6) he asserts
a
spirit
has
but has not
‘bones ‘ h a n k , ’ and ‘feet.
Marcion (according to Tertullian)
interpreted the passage thus (Marcion 4 43) A
hath not
hones, as,’
and so, ‘ y e see me having
bones]
and he
remarks that Marcion might as well have cancelled the passage
a s interpret it thus.
[In (6) Clark has, by error, ‘hath
and hones’ instead of ‘hath not bones.’]
A fragment
of
Hippolytus from Theodoret
Clark,
has
: For
H e having risen
.
.
.
when His disciples were
douht, called
to Him and said, “Reach hither; handle
and see
:
for a Spirit hath not hones and flesh, as ye see me have.”’
D
(differing from
has
(Lk. 2 4 3 9 )
And he hath appeared.
take hold of.
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
with his flesh and spirit
(or
blood),’ implying
a
close
union such
as binds
each member of the Church to Christ
in
the one
Body
or
one Bread, may very well be a part
of
the tradition (or of some comment on it) from which
is quoting.
If
so,
the original (though not the
Ignatian) meaning may be correctly expressed by the
Armenian paraphrastic version,
they believed, who
(or, and they) were participators of the Eucharist (lit.
communicated), and who (?) feasted before on his body
and blood.’
In other words, the disciples not only
received
a
vision and an utterance of the Lord, but
also were made one with the body and spirit (or
of
Christ
and
were
raised
the f e a r
of
by
the Eucharist and therein handling
his
These facts, being literalised in later narratives,
may have given rise to the statements, made
in
good
faith, that they had handled’ Christ’s body,’ or that
Christ had given them his body’ to handle.’
)
The historical estimate
of
Tradition
must
be lowered,
(
I
)
by evidence of his other errors and
misunderstandings given above,
by the variations in the corresponding
tradition quoted by Ignatius and
’Tertullian,
( 3 )
by the fact that,
A
.D.
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (of which city Luke
[Eus.
3 4
is said to have been a native), wishing to attest
the reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quotes
from an unknown authority
a
passage that omits all
mention of
eating,’ and neither here nor elsewhere
to the testimony of
This certainly leads to
the inference that
Lk.
had not, in the mind of
that preponderant authority which
a
canonical
or even authoritative Gospel might be expected to
have.’
evidence must not be disniissed without a reference
Acts 14,
which really meant
with,
h u t
was probably interpreted by Lk. (as
patristic com-
mentators
Clement,
to
and
15
‘Nottoallthepeople, but towitnesses
to those foreordained
God, namely ourselves, who
.ate and
drank with
after the resurrection from the dead.’
This, when combined with Acts 1 4
and Lk. 13
26
(‘we
have eaten and drunk in thy presence
;
not in parallel Mt.
indicates a consistent interpretation of sucha nature as (possibly)
to convert metaphorical accounts of spiritual
and
revelation into literal accounts of historical ‘proofs.
I n
proof’ is entirely
subordinated to ‘signs’-i.
e.,
spiritual symbolisms. T h e
first manifestation of
Jesus
is to
a
woman,
who
(20
16)
does not recognise him till called
y name. T h e Ascension is mentioned
as
-impending and
as
(apparently) preliminary to being
(20
17)
‘
touched.’ In the second manifestation, Jesus
conveys to the disciples‘ the Holy Spirit which
(739)
n o t
be
the Ascension- a
fact
indicating that,
in
the interval between the two, Jesus
had ascended.
In a third
the second
to
he offers himself to the ‘handling’ of the
incredulous Thomas, and pronounces a blessing on
those who have not seen yet have believed.
In
a
fourth,
‘the third’
‘ t h e
he
is in
Galilee,
directing the seven fishermen in their task of catching
(viii.)
(signs).
‘signs.’
Codex a has Handle me
(reading
for
in what precedes). In
the passage, which has been
scraped with a
thus, ‘Behold, see my hands
and my feet,
and
see that it is
I
; for a spirit
. . .
flesh and hones.
.
. a s .
.
.see m e .
. .
When.
.
.
n o t .
. .
were. Again he said unto them ‘Have ye here anything to
e a t
Codices a
6
d
and Brix.
me after ‘handle.
The emphasis laid on ‘bones’ may have arisen from a n
allusion to
Is. 6614
‘Your hones shall spring up.’
‘Blood’ was omitted, perhaps in accordance with a sense that
it could not appeal either to sight or to touch. (Justin
761
indicates something specially non-human about the blood of
Christ.)
Apologists usually depreciate what they call
mere
argument from silence’; but it has weight varying with cir-
cumstances. Here it
The evidence is almosf
a s strong as if Ignatius said expressly,
I
did not know
or else, ‘ I knew Lk., hut did not believe
to he so authori-
tative as the tradition from which
I
quoted.
the one hundred
and
fifty-three fish in the
of the
Church, and feeding them with the One Bread and the
One
before they go forth to preach the Gospel to
the world.
Then, without definite demarcation of the
period of manifestations and voices, the Gospel ends.
In all this, the difference between Jn. and Lk. is obvious.
Take, for example, the first manifestation
to
the disciples.,
terrified
and affrighted ;
they have received the message
between
from Mary in which Jesus calls them his
signs
‘brethren,’ and when Jesus
in the midst
of
they
a s soon as they see
‘the hands and the
They do not (as in
Lk.) suppose Jesus to be a ‘spirit’ (or, as
D,
‘phantasm’);
they require no appeal to sight or touch
;
nor does Jesus eat in
their presence. The
of the first manifestation in
is
apparently not to prove the Resurrection hut to convey the
to the disciples. There is no explanation of prophecy’
the Spirit
is
conveyed at once, not promised a s a future
T h e appeal to touch comes afterwards.
T h e incredulity of
Thomas (absent on the first occasion) makes Jesus reproachfully
suggest on a second occasion that the incredulous disciple may
touch the wounds in his hands and side
;
hut
it is not indicated
that Thomas does this. The words that follow suggest that it
was
not
done: (2029) ‘Because thou hast
thou hast
believed’
:
(it is not said, Because thou hast
touched’).!
T h e same spiritual (as distinct from
logical)
purpose pervaded
sign of the ‘seven’-who, if
proof’ and not
a
‘sign’ had been intended, should
have been
the Eleven.’
There is indeed some
similarity between the words of Jesus
in
Jn. 215 :
Children, have ye any meat? and those in
Lk.
:
‘ H a v e ye here anything to e a t ? ‘
how great
a
difference in reality! I n the latter case the Messiah
deigns to take food from the disciples in order to meet
their (Lk.
‘reasonings’
;
in the former, the
Saviour gives himself to the ‘children’ to strengthen
them for the work of the Gospel.
(ix.
)
Contrast
the
Jn., the disciples are
not
(Lk. 24
37)
For the symbolism of this
helow, 47.
This ‘standing in the
however, is from prophetic
see Ps. 22
quoted
Heb. 2
and by Justin
106)
:
also cp
24
36.
3
Not,
a s Lk., ‘the hands and the
I n Jn., as in
Pseudo-Peter. the feet are avvarentlv reearded a s hound. not
.
nailed to
4
Jn., the first manifestation to the disciples seems to
include a new and spiritual Genesis or Creation of
The
Genesis (2
7)
described how God
‘breathed
into the face (of man)
the
of
and man became
riving
soul.’
The rarity of
which occurs
in N T
i n
Jn.
2022,
suffices to make the reference to Gen.
2
7
certain.
Philo also frequently quotes Gen. 2 7 (with
to
contrast
the
‘first‘ man with the
‘second’man.
Not improbably Jn. also has in mind that Ignatian tradition
which ,described the apostles as ‘mixed with his flesh and his
analysis of all the passages where Ignatius
combines flesh and spirit’ and ‘flesh and blood’ makes it
probable that ‘spirit’ (not ‘blood’) is the correct reading.
At
the same time, if
both
traditions were prevalent,
first
manifestation to the disciples would express the ‘being mixed
with his
spirit,’
and the second (that to Thomas) the ‘being
mixed with his
In any case, Jn. takes this historically sacred word, tradition.
ally associated with the creation of man, and represents it a s
in
in which the Logos
Divine image
into’ him that Spirit of himself
(as
I
Cor.
not
‘living
hut
life-giving
so as to
enahle the disciples to
transmit life to others.
I t is interesting to note here (in the light of Mk.
116-20)
the
between
and
Draught of Fish, which
Lk. connects with the calling of Peter to be a Fisher of
Men, but Jn. with a n imparting of the One Fish and the
?ne Bread to the ‘seven’ disciples-apparently a s a preparation
or their apostolic work. I t will he found that Lk. differs from
Mk. and
in seven
the boats are ‘standing’
he lake;
there are two
(the Jewish and Gentile
not one;
all (Peter included) have given u p
ishing in despair ;
Jesus enters one of the vessels
;
the
are ‘rent asunder’; (6) Peter fears and
Jesus depart
7)
Jesus does not expressly
any of the fishers ‘follow’ him.
differs from Lk.
these
details:
(
I
)
I t is Jesus
(not
the
who is standing
the sea ;
there is
one vessel
Peter has not given up fishing ; (4) Jesus does not enter the
; (5)
io
spite of the multitude of the fishes (21
‘the net
rent’ ; (6) Peter leapt into the sea and hastened toward
lesus;
Peter
is
hidden, after the Sacramental Feast,
to
feed Christ’s sheep, hut also to ‘follow’ him.
GOSPELS
is a
curious contrast between the personal and
as
it
were private nature of Christ’s last
utterances in Jn. and the public or
ecclesiastical utterances recorded by
Lk., Mk.
and the last verses of Mt.
I n
Hither, break your fast,’
thou m e ?
Feed my sheep,’ If I will that he tarry till
I
come,
what
is
that to thee?’ In the Synoptists, either
App.
)
the injunction to preach the Gospel, the prediction
of condemnation for those who will not believe and be
baptized, and the promise of signs such as the casting
out of devils,’ tongues,’ lifting up serpents,” drinking
poison, etc., and healing the sick or else
(Mt.)
bap-
tizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things as
many as
I
commanded you,’ and
a
farewell in Galilee,
with an assertion that Jesus possesses all power, and
a
promise that he will be always present with the
disciples; or, lastly (Lk.), an ’opening’ of the dis-
ciples’
to understand the Scriptures, and a long
statement that the Scriptures must needs have been
thus fulfilled, and that there must be the preaching
of
repentance in his name with a view to the remission
of sins to all the nations-beginning from Jerusalem,’
and then
a
promise, and
a
warning that they must
remain in the city till the promise is fulfilled :-concern-
ing all which utterances we are warned by our knowledge
of the various accounts of Christ’s revelations to Paul
that we must accept none of them as necessarily repre-
senting the actual words of Christ himself, though (in
various degrees, and subject to various qualifications)
they may be regarded as revelations to the Early Church,
conveyed, during the period of manifestations, to this
or that disciple, in the same way in which the vision
and the voice were conveyed
to
Paul at his conver-
sion.
the gift of
‘
tongues ‘-as we infer from Paul‘s Epistles-was a
phenomenon remarkable, hut not supernatural
( 3 )
the ‘taking
or,
more probably, destroying
of serpents was
probably a
of the promise in Lk. 10
that the
disciples should ‘trample upon serpents and scorpions and
all
the Dower of the enemv.’
‘The text is
3
The
in any full discussion of the
Re-
surrection,
would
come first and claim a detailed consideration.
Here we can onlv observe on
I
Cor. 15
that
the
earliest traditions communicated to
a
doctrine
(probably oral,
on the
of
in
this tradition ‘accordance with the Scriptures’ played
part (3)
manifestations of Christ were described
the
word ‘appeared
a
word regularly denoting visions [the
instance in
is used in N T of the appearance of a
body is Acts
7
; (4)
places first
appearance
to Cephas, and last hut one an appearance to James, neither
of which is recorded in our canonical Gospels (5) he excludes
all appearances to women; (6) he places the appearance of
Christ to himself on the same footing as those witnessed by the
apostles:
(7)
he speaks of the risen body as ‘a spiritual body’
(on which, note that
says that every spirit
has a ‘body,’ and that demons are called ‘bodiless’
in
comparison with
the
spirits that are destined
t o
saved) and
as being (8) the same in kind, for Christ as’ for the
after
as
should infer
not
T h e latest of Paul’s speeches on
vision repeats,
as
from
It then continues
rg)
. . .
I
was not disobedient unto
the heaven@
vision.’ But Paul’s earlier speech (22) assigns to Jesus merely
a
portion
this
discourse, while another portion (mentioning
‘ a
witness’ and ‘sins’) occurs (22
15
in the report of
a speech
Ananias
t o
Saul,
and another (mentioning ‘ t h e Gentiles’)
is uttered by Jesus indeed, but
(22
when the
was
in a ‘trance. On the other hand, in
the earliest account of the vision, the mention of Saul’s mission
to
Gentiles’ is made
Jesus
(915)
not
to
t o
dnanias; and Jesus is represented as saying to Saul no more
a
long discourse (Acts26
14-18).
~-
than occurs in
These facts lead to the following general conclusions
:- (a)
Words recorded as
uttered
have
heard in
the
‘vision.’
Words
as
in
a
‘vision’ ncay have
heard in
the
course
a
(c)
The
occasion
utterance may
a
even
more occasions.
the
words
6ut
a n
inspired
speaker.
trance.
GOSPELS
VI.
S
I
N
G
LE
T
RAD
I
TI
ON
S
.
T
HE
F
IR
S
T
-That Mt. was
intended for
readers is suggested by the stress laid
on prophecy; the tracing of genealogy
back to Abraham
as in Lk.. to
A d a m ; cp
the Sermon on the
Mount corresponding
to
the Law given on Mount
Sinai ; the contrast between what had been said of old
time’ and what the new Lawgiver prescribed the word
lawlessness (altered
Lk.
to
‘
iniquity
’),
used
by Mt. alone, and the strong condemnation of him
who (Mt.
5
breaks, or tenches others
to
break, o n e
of
the least of the commandments.’
parables point less to the inclusion
of the Gentiles than
to the exclusion of unworthy Jews. H e alone has the saying
(22 14) : ‘Many are called but few chosen.
H e seems to move
amid a race of backsliders, among dogs and swine unworthy of
the pearls of truth, aniong the tares sown by the enemy among
fishermen who must cast hack again many of the fish caught i n
the net of the Gospel. ‘The
way’ is mentioned
him
alone and the multitude of those that go thereby, and the guest
the wedding garment, and the foolish virgins, and the
goats and those who even ‘cast out devils’ in
name of the
Lord’and yet are rejected by him because they ‘work lawless-.
ness.’ H e alone introduces into the Lord’s Prayer the
Deliver us from the evil (one).’ Elsewhere he alone gives as a
reason for not being distracted, ‘sufficient for the day is the.
evil thereof.’ The wavering or retrogression of many Jewish
converts when the breach between Jews and Gentiles widened,
about the time of the siege of Jerusalem, may well explain t h e
emphasis laid by Mt. on backsliding
and the Condemnation
of
might refer to
Jews who considered
that the new law set them free from all restraint, and who,
casting aside every vestige of nationality, wished
to
cast aside
morality a s well. Yet Mt. prefers (12 33) even open and con-
sistent wickedness to the sin of the
‘
hypocrites’ whom his Gospel
continually denounced (the word occurs
Mt.
times, in Mk.
I
,
in Lk.
in Jn.
and h e dwells more than the rest on t h e
blessings
of
the meek, the merciful, and the little ones
angels behold the face of the Father.
Besides the fulfilments of prophecy
or
type mentioned
his Introduction, Mt. sees several others not
in
the Triple Tradition.
Some of these
that relating to the (212-5)
and the
colt (27
‘the
the ‘three days and three
in the belly of the
as
representing the time o f
Christ’s remaining in the tomb and the (2335) apparently in-
accurate reference to
the son of Barachiah, contain
such obvious difficulties
may he regarded as evidences
of early, not of late
and the same applies to
He shall be called a
which
is
found in no existing
book of prophecy. See
N
A
Z
A
R
E
TH
.
Apart from his account of the Resurrection, few new miracles
are introduced
Mt. Two of these consist of acts of healing.
Two are connected with Peter
(I)
Mt.
the
on
the water
Mt.
the
in the fish‘s mouth.
As
these, the’omission of
former
Mk. and Jn., who record
what precedes and follows, points to the conclusion that it is a
poetic symbolism of Peter’s lapse and restoration. Ametaphorical
explanation probably applies also to the
also
o f
the
Sociefv
o f
(‘97)
as to
character
or
by Lk.), the
seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer
(where Lk. probably retains the original and shorter form), t h a
seven parables in Mt.
the genealogy compressed into
a triad
and other humerical groupings that show Jewish
influence.
An authoritative and widely circulated Gospel stands in this
respect on quite a different footing from a n apocryphal and non-
authoritative book.
The former would be attacked
con-
troversialists, and any
contained in it would he
exposed.
Christians could not cancel the difficult passages
without giving up the authority of the book. Consequently
the difficult passages would remain in that Gospel, but would be
quietly dropped by subsequent evangelists. Hence,
as
canonical Gospels, the presence of difficulties is a mark of
early date. But this criterion does not apply to comparatively
obscure works not so liable
to
attack.
3
See an extraordinary comment in Ephraem
161)
‘So
when Simon
. . .
took his net and
to cast it into the sea,
they also
went
(cp Jn. 21
I
go a-fishing. T h e y
say unto him, We also
come with
thee
’). Also cp Philo (1 499)
on ‘the holy didrachm,’ and
where he says
that ‘the fish‘ hints a t
food, and that
stater might admit ‘other solutions not unknown
implies a tradition of symbolism on this incident.
For other traces of Philonian symbolism in the Synoptic Gospels,
cp Mt. 13 33 and Lk. 13 on the ‘leaven‘ which a woman
‘hid
in
of
with
1788
GOSPELS
)
to
Mt. recorded the pre-
diction that the apostles
would not accomplish
the cities of Israel’ until the Son of man
had come,’ must he
not
have assumed
that, in some sense, he
had
‘come’
If so,
this
will explain the difficult expression in
2 6 6 4 ,
‘ y e shall
or
see the
Son
of man,
It would seem that,
as
Jn. saw at least
a
primary
fulfilment of Zech.
(‘They shall look on him whom
they pierced’) in the moment when the spectators of
the Cross gazed
on
the pierced side of Jesus,
so
Mt.
regarded the coming of Christ with power
as
com-
mencing from the time of the sacrifice on the Cross,
or of the Resurrection.
But,
whatever he the inter-
pretation, the difficulty of this and some other passages
leads to the belief that Mt. has in some cases preserved
the earliest tradition.
Other passages point to a very
much later
,
the name of the Field of Blood
borne
( 2 7 8 )
to this day,’ the charge of stealing Christ’s
body repeated
( 2 8 1 5 )
to this day,’ and the mention of
the Jews
in
the same passage as an alien race also
the recognition of
‘the false prophets ‘ a s a definite
class to
be avoided, and of
(1817)
the church’ as the
arbiter
in
quarrels. Perhaps,
viewed in the light
of the
the precepts
(5
24)
to be reconciled with
a brother before bringing one’s gift to the altar,’ and
( 7
6 )
to avoid casting pearls before swine, indicate a time
the Eucharist had
so
long been celebrated in the
Church as materially to influence the general traditions
of the doctrine of Christ.
)
i n
i o
often agrees with, but intensifies, the doctrine of
depreciation
the teachers of old time is more
strongly expressed in
‘thieves and robbers’;
(1130)
‘easy yoke’ is less strong than Jn.
which implies that Christ’s service
shall deliver from every yoke ; Mt.
priests profane the Sabbath’ is not so
clear a s
‘on the Sabbath y e
a
man
.
and
23 33)
offspring of vipers and ‘serpents (Satan
being ‘the
is less forcible than
844)
‘ye are of
your father the
alone of the Synoptists, describes
the Pharisees as (15
mentions (1513) the ‘rooting
u p of Pharisaism, and
the rewarding of men according
to
their works and similar thoughts will he found
i n Jn.
In a very few cases does Jn. appear to be tacitly
correcting
Single .Tradition.
Perhaps
doctrine
‘little children’ and the stress laid by him on
appeared to Jn. liable to be perverted into a confession that
Christianity was a religion of weakness and
At all
events, though he alone of the Evangelists supports Mt. 21 5 in
quoting Zech. 9 9 ‘Behold thy king cometh,’ he omits ‘meek
on which the Rabbis (Schottg. 2
etc.) laid
emphasis
;
and, whereas
Mt.
immediately afterwards
describes the testimony to Jesus as that of ‘babes and children
Jn.
states that ‘even of
rulers many believed
him.’ I n a f e w otherpassages (Mt.
Mt. 26
52
18
though partly correcting
to
be
rather
him against omissions or statements of Mk.
and Lk.
( b )
T
HE
T
HIRD
T h e Dedication
of
dedication
shows
36.
that we have passed into
a
new’literary
T h e Muratorian fragment
calls attention to the fact that the
province.
author writes in his own name,’ a novelty among evan-
gelists. H e
also
dedicates his work to some one who,
if not an imaginary
would appear to be
Philo
on
‘the three measures
of the soul that
are to be ‘kneaded’ like cakes
the sacred
doctrine must he hidden
(
K
E
K
After the destruction of
the Temple Vespasian
Jews in
all
parts of the Empire
to
pay the
to the Roman Treasury. Among Christian
there mav have arisen the
whether thev.
longer
were liable to
it.
Mk.
‘immediately,’ Lk.
substitutes ‘shall
16
till they see the Son
be’ for ‘ye shall see.’ Cp also
Mt.
in his kingdom,’ Mk.
I
‘the
of
God
having.
come,’
Lk. 9 27 the-kingdom of God.’
Cp
I
Cor,
‘be
not
in mind: how-
beit in malice be ye babes, but in
be men’ (see also
I
Cor.
I
13
I
).
3
There may have been, however, controversial reasons for
omitting that epithet.
not
a nom de
Cp Lightf.
BE
,197
‘Theophilus, if a real person and
itself, is not a n unlikely
1789
GOSPELS
a
patron,
a
man of rank.
T h e apostles-the
( 1
eye-
witnesses and ministers of the word ’-appear to have
delivered their testimony by oral tradition
and to have passed away.
T o supply their places
(1
I
)
‘many had
‘
attempted to draw up a formal narrative
concerning the matters fully
established
in
the Church. These writers had clearly
not been eye-witnesses, nor were they, in
judgment,
so
successful
as
to make unnecessary any further
attempts.
Apparently they had failed in the three
points in which he hopes to excel : they had not
( I )
traced everything up to its source
and this
( 2 )
accurately
and
( 3 )
they had not written ‘ i n order
All this affords an interesting parallel to the description of the
of the Mishna by R. Judah
(Hor.
Hebr.
When he saw the captivity was (sic) prolonged and the scholars
tohecomefaint-hearted, and
and the cabala
to
fail, and the oral law t o be much diminished-he gathered and
together
all
the decrees, statutes, and sayings of the
wise men.
For
captivity was prolonged,’ substitute
Lord delayed his coming,’ for sayings of wise men’ substitute
‘traditions
and ‘narratives
some of
which were probably based on the Psalms of Israel and the
hymns of the first generation of Christians-and we have the
same phenomena introducing themselves. Catechumens were
disturbed
the diversity of traditions
;
catechists and evangel-
ists themselves found it hard to distinguish the genuine from,
the spurious; it was time to ‘gather and scrape up together
the traditions-especially those upon the Resurrection and the
Incarnation and to do this with such exactness
that
the
might know the certainty
about
points of Christian faith.
Linguistic characteristics.-As
a
corrector,
in
the Triple Tradition, Lk. has been shown above to b e
a
linguistic purist, and his insertions
often indicate a love of sonorous and
compound words
But
in
his Introduction,
describing the days before the Nativity (as also
when describing the first days of the church in Acts),
the narrative takes an archaic
Hebraic
The vocahularyof Lk. is largely borrowed from the L X X , and
in
particular from the
(in the sense of ‘belonging’)
the use of
for God,
and
Cp
story of the
rich fool (1219) with Ecclus.
Lk.187 (‘Though he bear
long with them
. . .
)
22
;
Lk. 142
(‘Blessed art thou among women’) with Judith
Often
there is
an allusive use of L X X words. Cp Lk.
(about
Joseph of
who had not
t o ’ the decision
of the Pharisees) with
23
I
‘Thou shalt not
the unjust
with
Ps.
888
‘Thou hast
mine
far from me’
.
and Lk.
20
with
Job
19
31
; also Lk. 1 7
with Gen. 1811
It
difficult to
decide whether those portions of Lk. which approach the L X X in
name for
a
Jew.
And the omission of
K
Acts
might he explained on the ground that
thinks it i n
bad taste to be-noble a young catechumen too much
as
Dion. Halic.
5
begins and. ends
a
treatise with
but intersperses
and
T o use the term
characteristic of ‘the obsequious man’ in Theophr.
5,
‘after a
’).
certainly cannot refer to
qualities alone.
This is proved (
I
)
hy
use of the vocative in Acts243 2625
(and cp 2326);
Jos.
Ant. iv. 2 8 (in the
latter, vocatively), where it is applied to ‘young men of distinc-
tion or
cp Lucian
. . .
(3)
Dion. Halic. seems (as quoted
dis-
tinguish between
and
(4)
I t seems highly
robahle that the author of the first part of the Epistle to
has Lk. in view when writing
I
)
where
‘
Diognetus represents not a Christian,
a n inquirer, and is probably a fictitious name. I f so, this
tends to show that he regarded
Theophilus’ as represent-
ing a typical catechumen,
just
as
his own
‘
Diognetus’ repre-
sented a typical inquirer.
On
the whole, the impression left hy
the use of the name is that it is typical of one who might be
addressed
Philo
a
treatise on the Creation (1
I
)
‘for the sake
of
the
God-beloved
(roil
And does not
(Acts 1
I
)
sound
like an echo of Philo 2 444 b
.
. .
?
Tatian speaks of
‘interpretations
(of
Scripture) which being published in writing make those who
give heed to them
God
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
rhythm and vocabulary are translations from Hebrew documents,
or
imitations, conscious or unconscious of the books of
LXX.
But the use of
‘the
the raising of the
widow’s son a t Nain, (10
I
)
the appointment of the Seventy,
(11
39) the rebuke of the Pharisees,
the preface to the
parable of the faithful and just steward, (1315) the healing of
the daughter of Abraham bound by Satan
the parable
of the sycamore tree (156) the parable of
unjust judge (19
8)
the story of
Christ’s looking on
the verse (243) where it is said that ‘they found not the body of
the Lord Jesus’-confirms the theory (which is
also supported
by internal evidence) that these passages in Lk. are translations.
Another test-word is
Lk. uses
about
twenty-six times,
only three times
T h e latter form is sometimes used geographically by writers
who use the former rhetorically or historically;
it is
ahle that in 2
and 41 the two forms should be used apparently
in the same sense,
and
:
T
O
-
. .
.
Cp
)
Doctrinal
doctrine is touched in the song of Zacharias over the
Baptist, and struck more clearly in the
song of Simeon over the child Jesus ;
proclaiming, in the first case, redemption for
(1
‘God‘s people,’ in the second, for
the
a light for revelation of
implied
rejection of the Jews in favour
of
the
Gentiles a t the outset of Christ’s public life in Nazareth is a
chronological error; but it indicates the tendency of the Gospel.
(Mt.632) ‘the Gentiles’ are condemned as seeking
pleasures, Lk. is careful
(1230) ‘the Gentiles
those who are spiritually Gentiles; and
‘seventy’
are emblematic of the Gospel to the nations.’ Mk.
makes no mention of the Samaritans. Mt. has merely
‘Go not into any city of the
;
but in Lk. the sons
of Zehedee are rebuked for desiring to call down fire on a
Samaritan village
;
a
just
Samaritan shames both priest and
Levite; and a grateful Samaritan puts nine Jewish lepers to the
blush.
As
for the law, it is valid as long as Jesus is a child or
( 2 5 1 )
‘subject to’ his parents; but as soon as he has been
baptized, it is regarded a s
superseded because
fulfilled.
I t couples
blessings with (Lk.
6
24-26)
‘
woes.
It proclaims
a
conflict pending-between God and Satan, forgiveness
and sin, self-renunciation and worldliness-which
is
to
culminate in the triumph of mercy imparting to the
Gentiles (2447)
a
message of ‘repentance and remission
of sins.’
When Satan departs from Jesus it is only (413) ‘for a time’;
Satan binds a daughter of
is beheld by Jesus ‘fallen
from heaven,’ enters into Judas, and
the Twelve that
he may ‘sift’ them. There is a sharp demarcation between
rich and poor. I t is ‘the, poor,’ not (as Mt. 53) ‘the poor
in
spirit,’
that are ‘blessed.
I n
Lk., Christ pronounces a woe
upon them that are rich, rebukes the ‘cumbered’ Martha,
exhorts the rich to entertain the poor and dooms the rich fool
t o a sudden
while Dives is ’consigned to unalterable
torment.
But above all Lk. contrasts ‘repentance’ with
I f
is contrasted with Dives, the grateful
amaritan with the ungrateful Jewish lepers the merciful
Samaritan with the heartless priest and Levite,
the trivial
anxieties of Martha with the simple devotion of Mary, much
more does the publican find his foil in the Pharisee
prays
by his side
;
the woman ‘which was a sinner’ and loved much
in Simon the churlish host
loved little; the prodigal
younger son in the envious elder son; and the penitent thief on
the right in the impenitent thief on the left. All these stories,
as well as that of
and the lost piece of silver, must
have appealed with great force to many who applied to them-
selves the words of Epbes. 2
I
:
‘And you did
when
y e were dead through your trespasses and sins
;
they magnify
power of forgiveness-contrasting the instantaneous and
complete victories of faith (for the most part ‘without works’)
with
inferior results
of a long life of ordinary and prudent
respectability.
)
A
conduct.-The insertion
of
T h e Gospel
of
the Hebrew always uses the form
never b
Another test-phrase is
SEI, frequent in Genesis and the
early part of Exodus but rare or non-existent in later books.
I t does not occur in
Mk. or Mt. I n Jn. it occurs only ( a ) in
the interpolated811 the woman taken in adultery’
(6) in126
[where D transpose; SEI and
omits
( ‘ h o w Judas
did not care’), the
probably being simply ‘ N o t
that Judas
in2123
where
sup-
ported by
and is perhaps genuine, meaning
‘
however.’
In Lk. (as also in Acts) it is frequent, mostly in his Single
Tradition, but sometimes in the Double or Triple when
he
words
his
I n
view of
these facts, Mt. 1247, bracketed by Tischendorf and placed by
W H in marg., should be rejected
as
an interpolation.
Gospel is abundant in contrasts.
‘ d a y by day,’ both in the Lord‘s Prayer and in the
precept to take
up
the cross,’ indicates
a
purpose
the writer to produce a
practical Gospel.
seems to see, as the
obstacles
to the Faith, not hypocrisies nor Jewish backsliding,
but the temptations of wealth and social position acticg
upon half-hearted converts
and his sayings abcut
building the tower,’ ‘putting the hand to the plough,’
renouncing all one’s possessions,’ and hating
and mother, are pathetic indications of what must have
been going on in the divided household of many a
young Theophilus.’
T h e important part played
by ‘devout women’ in Acts prepares the reader for
finding prominence assigned to them here.
Lk. alone
gives us the songs of Mary and of Elisabeth, and the
testimony of Anna.
The mother of the Lord (not
Joseph) ponders in her heart the words of her Son, and
her sufferings are made
( 2
35)
the subject of prophecy;
alone mentions the domestic anxieties of Martha
and the devoted faith of her sister, the cure of the
afflicted daughter of Abraham,’ the woman who
invoked a blessing upon the womb that bare Jesus, the
story
of
her who loved much,’ and the parable of the
woman rejoicing over the lost piece of silver.
Lot’s
wife is mentioned by him alone nor do we find in any
other Gospel the utterance of Jesus to the daughters of
Jerusalem.’ Mk. and Mt.
with Lk.
in
pro-
nouncing
a
blessing on the man who gives up father
or
mother or lands or houses for Christ’s sake; bnt Lk.
alone adds
‘
wife.
Strangely incongruous with these sayings and with the great
body of Synoptic doctrine, are the parables of the unjust steward
the unjust judge, and the friend persuaded by importunity:
T h e moral of t h e y appears to be ‘Copy the world, only
a n
unworldly fashion. Yet the thought
and the language
make it difficult to believe that
uttered’ these parables
their present shape
;
and the last two (as they stand) seem at
variance with his
to
remember that the Father
knoweth what things we need before we ask for them. Every-
thing points to the conclusion that we have here and probably
elsewhere in Lk., discourses, based indeed on Christ’s doctrine
hut not containing his words or modelled after his methods and
style. Else, why in the parable of the Shepherd,
do
we find the
dramatic
Lk.
it is
in Mt.
and
do
introduce
in the
case of the rich fool, the prodigal son, the unjust steward, the
unjust judge?
Evidence
as
t o
more clearly than
describes the fall of Jerusalem as the result
of a siege and capture.
H e also more
definitely
a
term for all troubles.
Lk. alone has the exhortation to
(2128)
‘look
up.’
Omitting the remarkable saying of Mk. and Mt. that
the Son himself knoweth not ‘ t h e hour,’ he declares
that the trampling down of Jerusalem will be only till
the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.’ Then will come
a
time of
‘
distress ’-not, however, now for Israel, but
for the Gentiles-and amidst convulsions of nature the
Son
of man will come.
I n the hope of this coming,
the disciples are to lift
up
their heads, remembering
that, although some of them will be slain,’ not a hair
of their heads will be injured.
The comparatively
cheerful discourse
on
the Coming, combined with the
joyful and triumphant tone of the Introduction, accords
with the general tenor of Lk. when compared with Mt.,
and indicates as the author a Christian Gentile to whom
(as to Barnabas) the fall of Jerusalem was an accepted
and not unwelcome fact.
Writing with recollection,
but not under the present pressure, of persecution,
when the Church was making rapid progress in the
conversion, not only of the slaves, the poor, and the
‘devout women,’ but also of the higher and more
educated classes in the Roman Empire, the Evangelist
seems to be looking forward to the moment when the
times
of
the Gentiles would be fulfilled,’ and the Son
of man would suddenly come.’ Such a date might be
reasonably
at the close of Vespasiau’s or the
beginning of Nerva’s
See
Acts 25
And he (Paul)
two
years [in Rome]’)
suggests, a t first sight, that Acts-and,
a
(Acts 1
I
)
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
,
(v.
)
Narratives
peculiar to
apart
from the Introduction and the Conclusion, are :
(
I
)
the
miraculous draught of fishes
the raising
of the widow’s
son
(3)
the healing
of the woman bound’ by Satan;
(4)
the
cure of the dropsical m a n ;
(5)
the appearance of the
angel strengthening Jesus, and
(6)
the healing of the
severed
As regards
its omission
all the other Evangelists is, in
itself, almost fatal to its authenticity, and it is probably t o be
explained as the result of a literary misunderstanding,
was probably some tradition
or
obscure, and
omitted by
Jesus said
( a ) ‘let it
the
sword)
be
re-
stored
t o
its place.
This was misunderstood by Lk. as meaning
(6) ‘let it
the
ear) be restored.’ He therefore substituted
(6) for
and amplified his narrative in such words as to leave
no
(vi.
)
are led to the
conclusion that, although
Lk.
attempted to write
accurately’ and in order,’ yet he
could not always succeed.
When
decidingbetweenan earlier and a later
date, between this and that place or occasion, between
metaphor and literalism, between what Jesus himself
said and what he said through his disciples, he had
be guided by evidence which sometimes led him right,
but not always.
I n regarding the story of the fig-tree as a metaphor and the
promise about treading on scorpions as a spiritual
and
the home of the infant Jesus a t Nazareth, not a t
Bet lehem, he was probably right. T h e Feeding of the Four
Thousand he may have rightly rejected a s a duplicate of the
tradition about the Five Thousand. But be himself seems to
give in his Mission of the Seventy a duplicate of
Mission of
the
His two-fold description of Jesus a s mourning
Jerusalem
in Galilee and once
near the
city itself,
an error of a n
character (like his
inference from the expressions ‘cnp’and ‘platter,’ that a certain
discourse of Jesus was uttered a t the table of a
Again, Mk. and Mt. show traces of duplicate traditions concern-
ing the insults offered to Jesus in the Passion; and these
(combined with the Psalmists predictions about
‘ T h e
of the earth’) may have led Lk. to adopt a tradition-not
by the other Evangelists-that Herod joined with
Pilate to
the journey to Emmaus and the
Manifestation to the Eleven, it has been shown
that he
seems to take metaphor for literal statement. Some textual
ambiguity may have induced him to believe that the Nazarenes,,
instead of (as Mk. and Mt.) ‘being caused to stumble in Jesus
tried to ‘cause Jesus to
(down a precipice) and that
words uttered to the woman a t the
‘were not ‘ L e t
her alone,’ but H e r sins are forgiven
Lk.
absolute omission of some genuine and valuable
traditions-especially in connection with Christ’s ap-
pearing to women after the Resurrection and with
Christ’s promise to go to Galilee ‘-though it may be
in part extenuated on the ground of the need of selection,
and in part almost justified on the ground of the obscurity
the original, nevertheless seriously diminishes the
‘the former treatise,‘
completed during the apostle’s
life. But although Acts may incorporate documents written while
Paul was living and left unaltered by the compiler, the compila-
tion may have been made many years after the apostle’s death.
Of
these
(3)
and (4)
no special mention
;
(
I
) must be
classed
32
and
47)
with
draught of
fishes, which is
symbolical
will be discussed with the Raising of Lazarus
(see below,
58).
to
( 5 )
(described by
W H as not a part
of
gospel, but as one of
precious among the
remains of’ a n ‘evangelical tradition
locally current
the Canonical Gospels,’ and as being ’rescued from oblivion by
the scribes of the second century’) see
5
6 2
(4).
The same word
means ‘restore’
a
sword in
Jer. 29
47)
6,
and a
in Lk.
610.
The solution is
unconsciously suggested by Ephrem
:
‘
Justitiam
in
. . .
Aurem in
accounts of the two Missions
( a )
with
account of the single
it will
be
that
is almost entirely made
up
of that portion of
Mt. which does not occur in
(a).
between a verb and its causal form produces
manyvariations in the L X X (Gen.
32
Jer. 15
and probably explains many Synopticvariations; cp Mk. 2
Mt.
(Mt.
with Lk. 534
. .
.
Mk.
Lk.
Mk.
1 1 7
Lk.
A great
many instances occur in Theodotion’s and the
LXX
version
of.
Daniel
16,
4
See above
See above,
IO
value
of
his work.
Every page of it shows signs
of
pains, literary labour, and good taste.
It is by far the
most beautiful, picturesque, and pathetic of all the
Gospels, and probably the best adapted for making
converts, especially among those who have to do
the life of the household.
But, if bald bare facts are in
question, it is probably the least’ authoritative of the
Four.
often intervenes to
facts mentioned by
and omitted by
Lk.
But, as regards facts
mentioned by Lk. alone, Jn. is either silent or gives
so
version of them (as in the case of the Draught
of Fishes) that many would fail to recognise an intention
to describe the same event. On this point, see the next
section.
(vii.
)
in
is
only
where
Lk.
alters, or omits, some Synoptic
Tradition, or where he attempts to
describe the phenomena that followed
the Resurrection, that Jn. (as a rule)
steps in to correct
Lk.
The Fourth Gospel lies outside
that large and
province, peculiar to the Third,
which deals with the welcome of repentant sinners and
some
of
the words most in use with
faith,’ rich,’ riches,’ divorce,’ publican,’ and (in
the words of Jesus)
sinner ‘-are altogether absent
from Jn.
n.
may be thought tacitly to contradict the Single Tradition of
a s to which Lk. encourages something approaching to
while Jn. so far discourages
that he’avoids the
very use of the word, preferring ‘ask’ or
every-
where implies that the essential thing is, not that the petitioner
should be importunate, but that he should be ‘in Christ,’ in
which case his petition
be granted.
Lk. aims a t chronological order.
while giving a new
chronology,
his history
to
symbolical and
spiritual principles. Lk. often removes from the old Tradition
such words a s Atticists might condemn Jn. seems sometimes
to prefer
and always uses a vocabulary simple even to
monotony, Lk. writes what
have delivered,’
Jn. (not here dissenting, but indicating superiority) writes in
the name of eye-witnesses
114) that which we
have
So
far,
Jii.
may be said to differ, without correcting
;
but on
one or two points of
Single Tradition he seems to write
For
mentions
Annas and
Perhaps the only important point of doctrine in which
of the
mentions Martha and Mary together.
Mary, he says
w a s
a t Christ’s feet; Martha was
‘troubled’
Lk.
‘about much serving.
Jn.
does not contradict this. but he presents us with a different
aspect of Martha. Mar;,
he says, was sitting a t home with the
Martha went to meet Jesus, and made a confession
of
faith ’in him, and induced Mary to come forth also to meet
him.
I n two or three instances, Jn. represents a s a n
act
what Lk.
represents a s a
word.
Lk. 22
27
( ‘ I
am in the
of
you a s ,he that
IS
to Jn.
where Jesus
‘serves ;
Lk.
(‘I
have
for thee’) seems parallel
to the prayer to the Father in
(‘keep them from
evil
Perhaps we may add
(‘I
commend my
spirit’) and Jn. 1930 (‘he delivered np
his spirit ’).
T
H
E
J
OHANNINE
G
OS
PEL
.
-The
has
been the subject of various
hypotheses
The internal evidence for,
these (apart from direct statements) is
of authorship.
derivable from (ii. ) names, allusions, etc.
style
)
structure.
(i.
)
Gospel states that
( 2 1
the disciple whom
loved is the witness
and
of ‘these things,’ adding ‘ a n d we know
that his witness is true.’
A
comparison of several
other passages leads (by a process of elimination) to the
inference that the author-writing perhaps with some
co-operation or attestation of others-was John the son
of Zebedee.
But the belief that the apostle originated
the Gospel is compatible with a conviction that he did
not
or write it in its
(as used in Mk.
The text is uncertain. There may have been ,originally a
distinction between
and ‘the writer
has
simply hath been written,’ and
1 9 3 5
simply ‘hath
1794
GOSPELS
For example the teaching of the aged apostle may have been
taken u p
disciple or ‘interpreter,’ and may have been
ultimately published by the latter, as Peter’s is said to have
been recorded and, circulated
Mark (see below,
65)
Peter’s ‘interpreter.
If, a s
says John the
wrote the Apocalypse about
A
.D.
the’difference of style
between that and the Gospel would necessitate a very
interval to admit even a possibility that he wrote the latter5
Suppose the apostle t o have been ninety, or, say, only
five, when he wrote the Apoc., and concede a n interval of only
years to allow him to learn a new kind of Greek, change his
vocabulary, and adopt a new style, new thoughts, and a new
tone, yet this brings us to 106
and the apostle to the age of
a
hundred or ninety-five. Is it probable that one so aged could
retain powers of memory and expression sufficient for the mental
construction, or even the literary expression, of
a
work in which
as
will he shown, every word is weighed and every
adapted to a spiritual purpose? T h e improbability is increased
by the tradition (reported
Jerome) that towards the close of
his life the venerable apostle bad to he carried into the midst of
the congregation and could do no more
repeat over and
over again the injunction
one another.
I f this was so, John’s Gospel would nevertheless continue to
be preached, probably by one or more of his elders,’ preaching
in his name, say from
A.D.
98
to
A.D.
or
A.D.
Then it
becomes easy to understand how the individuality of a n
‘interpreter’ may have combined with the force of new
cumstances-attacks from philosophers without conflicts with
incipient Docetism within-to mould the oral Johannine Gospel
into its present shape, first without a n appendix, and then, when
the nominal author had passed away (say
A.D.
with the
additional chapter that,
effect, alludes (21 23) to his death.
Who this
or ‘interpreter’may have been we cannot now
For the present it must suffice to point out that, a s
the Muratorian Fragment enrolls among the canonical books
the Wisdom of
though admitting it to have been
written not by Solomon but by Solomon’s friends ‘in his honour,’
so a
and ‘interpreter’ of John, committing to writing a
Johannine Gospel, might deem it a merit to ignore his own part
in the composition, and to
it a s a whole to his master
and teacher. The alternative was to d o as Lk. had done : to
use
I
and me in the preface, and to explain that the writer
received his doctrine from the aoostle. That. however. was a n
from the
in
novel precedent
even stimulate the Johannine
‘interpreter’ to merge his own authorship in that of the apostle
or, rather, in that of ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ and
h e perhaps regards a s a pattern and type of true discipleship.
Some of these points will be more fitly discussed
under External Evidence. What has been said above
is
intended to guard
reader against assumptions
fatal to unprejudiced criticism.
For example it is commonly assumed (
I
) that the author
must be a n
or a forger
that if he knows some
things
not known to the Synoptists he must know
everything
known to a n apostle
must
a n apostle; (3) that the
minute details with which the narrative abounds are signs of a n
eye-witness with a taste for the picturesque, and
ear-witness
with a keen sense of the
On the contrary, (
I
) if the
writer is a disciple regarding himself as the pen of a teacher, he
not to he regarded as a forger
if the writer received from
John the apostle some things not known to the Synoptists, it
does not follow that he received everything, still less that he
must himself be a n apostle
;
(3)
if, among a vast store of details
of name
number (such a s might naturally drop from the lips
of a very old man in oral accounts of reminiscences) he selected
those which lent themselves to a symbolical meaning, it does
not follow that he was a n eye-witness or ear-witness; and it
may even be that he would have regarded picturesqueness as
an impertinence approximating to profanity in one who was
attempting to write a Gospel that should be a New Testament
Scripture’
)
Evidence from
Names,
-Here we consider
(a)
Numbers,
Names
The Apocalypse contains much internal evidence
the
reference to cheap wine and dear corn in Rev.
for placing a t
least part of the work in the reign of Domitian. The ancient
external evidence for the Domitian date is singularly strong. Cp
A
POCALYPSE
.
JOHN
S O N
....
If it was John the Elder-a
as Eusebius
396) tells
was confused
with the
imputation of the Gospel to John the
apostle might he more easily explained.
3
Some critics actually extend this last inference to the
dialogue with the Samaritan woman a t which
no
was
present !
4
In order to appreciate what follows the reader
re-
member (
I
) that every name number,
and even syllable
in Scripture was generally
in Rabbinical tradition to
have some
significance
that this significance or
symbolism was reduced to a system
the Alexandrian Jews
(see Siegfried and Drummond on
Philo);
(3)
that
(as will
he shown in foot-notes to this section) was familiar with the
Philonian teaching.
of
places in Tn. divide themselves into two classes
:
first, the well known second, the ob-
Concerning the
former. Tn. mav be shown to
write
*&
scure and contested.
mostly from biblical, or literary, not from local, know-
ledge. T h e latter he mentions only when they are
adapted for symbolism.
For example
:
(
I
) that
‘spake in the Treasury ’is an
error (so far a s we know)
from a supposition that what
held in the days of Nehemiah
and cp Neh.
held
also in the time of Christ
that the temple was
‘forty and six years’ was a false
from
I
about
the second temple.
That Jesus
I
)
crossed the Kidron may
very well have happened; but the fact appears t o he introduced
a s a parallel to David who similarly
S.
crossed the
Kidron
mourning to
in triumph. (3)
mention of
the cornfields of Sychar, or Shechem, far from implying an eye-
witness, might have been made by any reader of Philo
familiar with Gen. 4915. (4) Dialogues between a Samaritan
and a Jew about ‘this mountain’
as compared with
Mount Sion, existed among the Talmudists, and
was the
custom to place the scene a t the foot of the former near
S
YCHAR
appears to have been an opprobrious name for
Shechem
54
it adapted itself to the dialogue on ‘ t h e
living water.
the alleged familiarity with Capernaum
and its ‘sea,’ it reduces itself to this, that the writer knew
Capernaum to he on the sea-shore, so that people would ‘ g o
down’ to it, and knew that the sea was large enough to allow
men to row-under stress of weather and not necessarily in
a
straight direction-for
(6 19) twenty-five or thirty furlongs.’
Passing to ‘obscure and
places we find (6) in (323)
near to
[the var.
cited]
near to
Peace’),
a reference to the Baptist’s urification by
water a s a preparation for the higher purification
king of Salem (or
Christ. Cp
As for
(7)
the corrupt passage4 relating to Bethesda, Bethzatha, or
saida, the most probable supposition is that Jn. wished to
describe some place of bathing or purification in Jerusalem
that the
themselves (Wetst.
ad
called a
place by the Greek-derived name
sheep-pool
and
that a kindred name appeared to he applied to a pool in Jeru-
salem
Lastly (8) the pool of Siloam, and its
spiritual interpretation-which
introduces in the healing of
man horn blind, the type of the converted Gentile
would he known to every reader of Is.
86.
Numbers-If the man at Bethesda represents
sinful Israel, his 38 years of waiting might correspond to the 38
years that elapsed before Israel
2
‘went
over the Brook
The
fish, according
to Philonian principles,‘? would mean (as explained
Augustine) the Church as evolved from the
Law and the Spirit. The 6 water-pots ‘containing or 3 firkins
apiece’ (after the Jews’ manner of purifying) represent the
inferior dispensation of the
the Law-preparing
Further, how little security there is that names would he
accurately preserved in passing from Hebrew to Greek (not to
speak of the gulf dividing a n oral tradition from Gospels written
say,
may be seen
comparing two books of
in the circumstances most favourahle to accuracy,
where
60th
same
which
errors
might
corrected.
Cp
( a )
Ch.
with
(6)
I
Esd.
:
(a)
(6)
u.8
: (a)
(6)
15.
Similar discrepanciesahound in
I
Esd.
Esd.
I t was
that variations in obscure Gospel names should
abound a t the beginning of the second century, leaving it open
to the writer to choose that form which seemed most suitable.
Neh.
might give the impression that ‘the children of
Israel when bringing their offerings into ‘the Chambers,’ were
to enter the treasure-house.
Mk.
against
the Treasury’) is correct, and so is Josephns
v.
But no unofficial person was,
Christ’s time, allowed
in
the Treasury.‘
See the
of Eusehius
built his part of the
tempie ‘in eight years.’
on
The RV rendering
the sheep (gate)’
unsupported by
any instance of a similar ellipse in Greek literature, and
in-
directly condemned
and Jerome.
5
See
the
of
for
of the king.
in Philo
represent the irrational
passions. The sick man
Jn. typifies sinful
5 1 4
sin no more’) waiting for the intermittent purification of the
Law (typified by the intermittent pool).
’
does
not
the whob
of
the
except
in
these
7
The
(the ten commandments):
Spirit (Rev. 1 4
31
According to Philo (1
the fulfilment of any
potentiality, say 3,
the fulfilment of
4
is
The fulfilment of
is
.
.
absurd of course to
of
Philonian interpretation, and not thought absurd
by Augustine.
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
the way for the perfect dispensation of the
the
Gospell-of which the wedding feast a t Cana is a type. Peter
swims over
a
number that represents (Philo
on
repentance.
The ‘five porches’ in Bethesda
represent the five senses of unredeemed
the
unregenerate passions-and so the ‘five husbands’ of the Woman
of Samaria represent what Philo calls ’the five seducers,’ who
lead the soul from its union with God.
Quotations.-Quotations from
O T
(rare
in
the
Gospel, and non-existent in the Epistle) are condensed
and adapted’to the context. Almost all
differ both from the Hebrew and from the
For the
most part, Jn. quotes the
OT as
illustrating funda-
mental tendencies or pointing to
T h e words (1034)
‘ I
said ye are gods’ are taken to indicate
that all men who have received the Word of God’ are in some
sense divine. (8 17) ‘The testimony of two men is true’ means
that in the spiritual world, as in the material, experience is the
test of truth
;
so
that he who can produce the results he aims at
is proved to he-so far as the province of the action extends-in
the region of truth having the testimony of
‘ t w o ’
(himself and
God, or himself ahd Nature). From first to last this Gospel
ahounds in allusions to the
O T
and is permeated with Jewish
tradition, but the
seems to have shared in the growing
dissatisfaction felt
Jews with the L X X a t the beginning of
the second century, and to have been largely influenced by
Christian traditions of free quotation.4
)
Fourth Gospel
in iteration
-sometimes ( a ) double, sometimes
triple, sometimes
LXX,
even where these agree.
of the same
expressed
positively and negatively-quite different
from anything-in the Synoptists.
(1
H e confessed, and
denied not,
(a)
confessed
;
that doeth ill
.
.
.
cometh not to
.
hut he that doeth the truth
(y)
cometh to the
;
(10
7 9)
‘
I
am the door of the sheep.
. .
I
a m
( a )
the door.
(a)
I n
the Baptist’s testimony, and a t the heginning of the Gospel, the
iteration (with or without slight variation) is often
1
33
‘
I
knew him not (twice), and
3
4
35 48
etc.
But not infrequently-with the aid ofquestionandanswer,
or other slight variations which have a meaning
break-
ing the sense of monotody-the effect of a threefold iteration is
produced, as when Jesus is predicting his Resurrection
where the words
little while and ye shall see me,’ are
repeated thrice, and ‘a
little while’ seven times.
So the words
of Mk. and
‘(cometh)
me’-rejected
converted by Jn. (1
into a triple testimony from the
Baptist to the pre-existence of Christ.
Westcott rightly calls attention to the triple repetition of
‘these things’ in 12
where the allusion is to a n unconscious
fulfilment of prophecy;
in fact the Gospel ahounds with such
instances
8 5 5
15-18
16
13-16
and some-
times the repetition refers not to words hut t o acts. Thrice did
171)
raise his eyes
to
heaven, and always a s a prelude to some
sublime
of act or utterance. T h e writer implies that
lesus manifested himself to the
after the Resurrection
many signs ; but he selects
and, of the last, he says
(21
I
This is now the third time
. .
.
Numerical groupings, in threes, fives, sevens, etc., are frequent
For this mention of
6,
connection with
and 3, cp Philo
2
:
6 .
. .
composed of
having the odd
as
male, and the even a s female, whence originate those things
which are according to the fixed laws of nature.
. .
What the
number
that the number
7
exhibited in full
perfection.
The
occurs again (67) in the old tradition
derived from Mk. 6 37 : ‘two hundred
of bread.’
This is a good instance to show how Jn. may (as often elsewhere)
have retained a n old tradition t h a t adapted
t o
spiritual
interpretation, as if to say, ‘ N o t all the repentance in the world
could suffice to
bread to feed, the Church; it must be
received as the free
of God.
On the other hand in
mentioning (125) ‘three hundred pence’ (see Philo on Gen.
Judas Iscariot
(like Caiaphas, 11
testifies to
the comnleteness of
the
of sweet
which
(as
300
does
harmonybetween
man, or the symmetrical body of Humanity, so that it is here
appropriate to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, and the consequent
unity of the Church in his body.
appears a t first
to resemble
quotations
being an instance of minute and exact fulfilment. But the
‘vesture’ is the Church, which is not to he
and there is
also a reference to the Logos, which keeps the Church together
(Phil. 1562) ‘Nor shall he rend his
(Lev. 21
IO
), for
of the spiritual Universe ,
. .
keeps all its parts in
union.
Perhaps also he did not know Hehrew enough to render
the
OT
with that exact accuracy which was attempted soon
after his days in the version
of
That a writer might be
familiar with Hehrew traditionhut not with the Hebrew language,
is proved by the example of Philo.
1797
in the Talmudists ; and something similar has been indicated
34 n.) as present in Mt. But in
we find
60.
Jn.
repetition rather than grouping. Now Jn. differs
from the Synoptists (and shows some resemblance
to
the Apocalypse) in being from
to last a
whether from the Evangelist, or the Baptist, or the
Son, or the Father
and it expressly distinguishes between
(3
‘earthly things” and ‘heavenly things,’ to both of which
Christ ‘hears witness.’ Hence we are led to ask whether
twofold iteration may not he a kind of verbal image of the
principle that ‘The testimony of
two
men is true’ (referring to
the earthly witness of the Son attested
the co-operation
of
the Father). Again, the occurrence of threefold iteration in
references to the Resurrection and other mysteries, recalls the
mention (in the Epistle) of the Three that bear witness
earth
(
I
Jn. 5
‘the Spirit pnd the Water, and the Blood,’
three ‘make up the
Here the witness though
earth,’ yet testifies to a ‘heavenly’ mystery,
to the
essence and redeeming powers of Christ. Thus once more, we
are led to ask whether this juxtaposition of
and three-
fold iteration may be neither accident nor tautological blemish,
hut the result, partly of a style formed in the schools of Jewish
thought, partly of a deliberate purpose to direct the spiritual
reader to
between the things of earth and those of
heaven. And the question is almost changed into an affirmative
inference, when we find Philo commenting on the distinction
between the Lord’s
‘once’ or ‘twice, and
declaring-in allusion to Dent. 19
(
t w o
witnesses or three’)
-that (1
holy matter is proved
three
Probably, also, the combination of positive and negative was
based on principles of
I t may be objected that such
a
style would be highly
artificial, whereas
style is simplicity itself.
Rut,
in the first place,
might seem
artificial for
us
might be
a
second
nature for those bred amid Jewish and
Alexandrian traditions of the interpretation of the
OT
and, in the second, though
words
are as simple a s
those
of
Tennysop’s
M e m o r i a m ,
his
is not
simple.
There are more ambiguities
Jn. than in
all the rest of t h e
Gospels put together so that sometimes it might almost seem
as
if h e intended to
his readers to choose between several
meanings, or even to decide according to their impres-
sions, whether the Evangelist or ’some other is speaking.
Moreover he abounds in
variations-impossible to render
in English, and wholly wanting in the Synoptists-hetween
Greek words such as
:
(21 15
and
Simon,
. .
.
Cp
1 8 4
for a quaint illustration of the ‘twice
and ‘thrice’
‘twice’ apparently denoting earthly confirm;
and
‘thrice’ the ‘holy matter’). Siegfried (p. 168)
gives as a Philonian rule, that ‘Scripture points to a deeper
meaning by doubling
and adds that this is a
principle of
It might he a mere accident that
rejects the Synoptic ‘(Jesus) answering said and always prefers
‘answered and said.’
But
note that in the Synoptists! Christ
always says ‘Verily’; in Jn.,
Verily.
Both
can hardly be right
;
for who can believe that Christ used
sometimes one, sometimes the other, and that the Synoptists
a
mere accidental coincidence, rejected all the sayings that
contained the latter, whilst Jn. rejected all that contained the
former’? Yet, if
added the second ‘verily’without additional
meaning, he was guilty of tautology, which Philo calls (1 529)
the vilest kind of ‘macrology
denying its existence in the
OT.
Moderns
may think this a trifle hut the question is, not what they think
what was thought
a Jew
A.D.
T o him, no word
‘
Scripture could be trifling.
This distinction between the heavenly and the earthly, repre-
sented by threefold and twofold rhythms, is perceptible at the
very outset (1
where the three clauses about the Logos,
followed by their summary in one clause-suggesting the
‘heavenly’ Witnesses, who are One-are followed
the
account of the ‘man, named John,’ of whom it is
twice said
that he (1
to
hear witness of the light.’
On the Positive and Negative, see the Canon of Sohar, a
treatise of suspicious origin
containing very ancient elements
laws of the Torah
. .
.
resolve
themselves into the mysteries of the masculine and the feminine
principle (positive and negative). Only when
parts
meet
together does the higher unity arise.’ As regards what may be
called the
of the Twofold witness, see
(on Ex. 31
16):
It
(the Sabbath)
twice
because of
the Shechinah
and below,’
in Johannine language.
attest it in the name of the Son and of the Father : and see the
comment on Gen. 5
I
:
‘Behold
Adams are named
in this section : one is the mystical
the other is the
mystical terrestrial’
So
Philo (on Ex.
14) speaks of ‘duo
divina’ or
rationes.
The first chapter alone suffices to prove this
50).
Especially difficult is it to decide whether his
are
used affirmatively, interrogatively, or imperatively (5 39 1 2
I
15 18
27
16
20 29)
and his
may often mean that or
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
thou me?’ followed by ‘Simon ,
.
.
art thou
? and
and
Thou
knowest
that am thy friend
followed by Thou
all things thou
that
I
am thy
Similar distinctions are drawn between the
meanings of
and
between
a n d
and between the aorist and present and
All
are natural in an
familiar with
philosophy and
so
long habituated to Greek as to
be able
t o
play on its words and
t o
the
its minute
differences of grammatical expression.
(iv.
)
-(
a )
as a
Fourth Gospel (Westc.
on
‘begins and closes
with a sacred week.’ The (week’ has
to
be deduced from a careful reading of
the context. But this is a characteristic
of the Gospel, distinguishing it from the
Apocalypse.
In
the latter, symbolism is on the sur-
face
:
in the former,. latent. The word
‘
seven
’
occurs
about .fifty-five times in the Apocalypse
‘seven
spirits,’ stars,’ angels,’ vials,’ etc.
)
in the Gospel
never.
None the less, as might be expected in a work
that opens with the words ‘ i n the beginning,’
so
as to
suggest a parallel with the seven days of Creation and
Rest, the thought of
perfect ‘seven’ pervades all
Jn.
highest revelations of the divine
There is a sevenfold
witness (West.
of (
I
)
the Father,
the
the
works, (4) Scripture, (5) the Forerunner, (6) the Spirit, (7) the
Disciples.
I n
the final discourse-a Deuteronomy in which
Jesus reviews his ‘testimony,’ the clause
(which occurs nowhere else in the Gospels) is repeated seven
is the noun ‘love (which the Epistle mentions as
the very Name of
Lastly the sacred words, I AM
used (8 58) absolutely to represent
eternal being of the
are combined with seven predicates to represent seven revela-
tions
:
(
I
)
the Bread,
the Light ’(3) the Door, (4) the Good
Shepherd,
( 5 )
the
Resurrection
the Life, (6) the Way, the
Truth, and the Life,
and (7) the true Vine.
(6)
The
T h e Prologue
is
based
on
ancient traditions, describing Wisdom as having taken
part with God from the beginning in the
creation, and predicting the accomplish-
ment of God’s
‘
truth and grace,’ and the
‘
tabernacling
’
of
his glory among
traditions Jn. con-
centrates
on
Christ.
Only, instead of calling
Wisdom, he prefers the
more commonly
used in the
OT.
T h e Synoptists begin their Gospels b y saying in effect (Mk.)
‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
. . .
was John7
or
by tracing the descent of Jesus to (Mt.)
or
Adam. Jn. goes farther hack, saying that
the Word
‘ w a s
in the beginning, and
.
,
.
was God and
that the ‘man’ John merely (Westc. on Jn.
1 6 )
‘arose,
into
existence
H e then turns to nature
history.
‘What has been
the Word,’ h e says, ‘was
Life,
38
:
‘that ye may know and
grow in knowledge.’
A
difference
kept between
and
There are indications that Jn., in writing his Gospel
t h e New Genesis or regeneration of man had in view the
Great Announcement of Simon Magus,
(see below,
allegorising the Pentateuch, discerned in the five books a refer-
ence to the five senses and in the whole a description of the
second creation. If
is
t o
the point to remember that the
Talmudists
363)
found a mystical meaning in the
sevenfold repetition of ‘the
the Shechinah-in the
There are seven miracles or ‘signs.’
Pentateuch.
Owing to the variation of MSS, it is impossible
t o
speak
with certainty as to the repetition of
as
the
subject,
repre-
senting the divine Creator. There is fair evidence, however,
for its sevenfold repetition, and still better for that of
in the
words of Jesus,
the divine unity.
Job
The latter declares that God
alone ‘hath seen and declared
wisdom.
Mic.
Ps. 85
9-11.
Thus h e leaves it an open question-to be answered
what
follows concerning the person of Christ-as to the
nature of the
Word. ‘Wisdom’ would have closed the question by giving it
a
too
narrow answer. Note that Jn., alone of the Evangelists,
uses the word
though it is found (four times)
in
the Apocalypse. H e regards God as a Spirit, permeating,
attracting, and harmonising all that
is,
and especially
all
that
is in the sphere of righteousness.
To
call such a
‘Wisdom’ would be bathos.
7
W H
ii., on Mk. 1
I
,
say that ‘several fathers’
connected the words thus, and this is
far the least harsh con.
nection, whether the parenthesis (1
be considered genuine
or
not.
In the Epistle he prefers ‘Love.
and the Life was
the Light of
Alluding
to
the
name bv which the
called the Messiah
Comer
tells us
the Light bas
ginning
‘coming’ t o the world, but that at last, as the
Psalmist had predicted, the Word ‘tabernacled
men,
and they beheld his ‘glory.’ But what ‘glory’? Not t h a t of
material splendour hut that of ‘grace and
These words
introduce a
with the
The
Logos wbo
has given light and life to men has also given ‘grace’and ‘truth’
t o
Israel; (1
‘The Law was given through Moses,
(thereof) and the
(thereof) were through Jesus
See
T
R
U
TH
.
Having prepared
us
by a parenthesis (1 14, ‘the glory as of
an
only-begotten’)
to
conceive of an ‘only-begotten,’ and of a
‘glory’ in the unity of divine love, exceeding all Hebraic notions
of the splendour of prophetic signs or visions and all Hellenic
notions of wisdom, he now concludes by
that it is not
(as Job had said) God who has ‘declared Wisdom, it is
the Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father who has ‘declared
God.
Bridegroom. - This section contains the
Doctrine of Water :
the Water of the Law super-
seded
by
the Wine of the Gospel ;
the Water of Purification from
above’
the Water of Life that
quenches the
soul‘s
thirst.
three scenes of these sub-
sections
severally Galilee, Jerusalem, and Samaria.
Galilee.
After a period of
2 r j six
days comes the wedding-feast at Cana where Jesus the un-
acknowledged Bridegroom of the
after
first
justice
t o
the ‘purification of the Jews,’
his ministers draw forth
from the well the water which the Governor of the Feast pro-
nounces the best
Jerusalem. T h e next act
of
the Bridegroom
For
the connection, cp
36
thee is the fountain
Also note the distinction
of
life: in thv
shall we see
which
been
is
in the Logos
and that which ‘came into being
the Logos:
T h e former is permanent, the latter transient. This distinction
is
lost
the punctuation of the
‘was not anything made
that was made?
Ps.
after mentioning ‘glory,’ ‘tabernacle,’ ‘mercy’
or ‘grace,’ a n d ‘ truth goes on to personify these virtues and
to
describe Truth as
up’ from the earth, and Righteous-
ness as
from heaven. This enables us to under-
stand the spiritual meaning of
of God
ascending and descending on the
of man.’ They are ‘grace
and truth,’ ‘peace and righteousness,’ looking down from heaven
and rising
from earth. Thus was fnlfilled the
im-
plied in (Gen. 28
the vision of Bethel when Jacob rested
the stone which was afterwards ‘anointed
the type
(Just.
86)
of, Christ.
(for
should he read with the Valentinians
cp Orig.
668,
where the context necessitates
though the text
has been conformed
t o T.R.
Light, corresponds to ‘truth,’ as every Jew would feel who
thought of the high priest’s Urim and Thuminim (‘light’
truth
’),
and of Ps. 43 3
out thy
light and thy
truth.
the life of man: says the Psalmist
is in God’s
‘favour
more often
Hence what from the
point of view of nature may be called ‘light
will be
from the point of view
the Law, ‘truth, and favour, or
5 6
‘the prophets
having
grace from
Christ.
the curious expression (1
16)
‘grace for grace’
apparently ‘grace following grace,’
one ‘grace’ or
‘favour,’ after another-cp
1 3 4 2 ,
‘constantly bestowing
his graces one after another
(possibly
based
on some Jewish tradition
the
of
in connection with
‘the head stone,
Orieen takes
to
mean
hut it
mean
‘jealous’ or
a
applied
only to
as
the husband of Israel. The
‘zeal’ or
‘jealousy’ suits the context, and
also (2
‘The
zeal of thine
house etc.
‘
the
well not from the vessels.’
So
Westc.
ad
7
Philo, 1
296
:
‘
that hath received from God, directly (or
indirectly, through an
draughts of wine
will
not drink out of a cistern.
See also his
on
Gen. 16 7,
and his description of the
as
‘intoxicated
with the wine of the divine love of God. Add
also
(1 103)
bringing forth bread and
wine
instead of
water,’ and (1 683) the truly great High Priest, the
Cupbearer of God, who, having received the draughts of grace,
gives them in turn, pouring forth the libation in its fulness,
namely himself.’
For the
vessels and the ‘two or
three firkins ‘see above
47.
According to Westcott‘s new,
adopted
the
in
vessels ‘remained water,’ but
the water
drawn from the
became wine
; so
that the filling of the vessels was a purely emblematic act.
This fact, the context, the structure of the Gospel, and the
traditions. of Philo, combine to indicate that the whole
of
the
narrative is spiritual and emblematic.
1800
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
is
to
a t t e m p t to win back a n d purify
the
unfaithful
d a u g h t e r
of
Jerusalem, typified
by
t h e temple.
The
Synoptists, f r o m
the
h u m a n standpoint, describe t h e
temple
as a
d e n
of
robbers
2 1 6 ,
as a
of
merchandise
Herein Jn.
to
be following the prophets, who called
Tyre (Ez. 27 3
Is. 23 17) a place of merchandise
of
the
as the
in the latter passage expresses
it, she ‘played the
of the priestly monopolists in the temple appeared a kind of
‘idolatry’ (cp.
Col.
3
unfaithfulness to the Bridegroom
-and he represents Jesus as devoured by ‘jealousy
for
of
for the true Church (his bride and his
body)-and as predicting that, even
men might destroy
it, it should be raised up in ‘three days.
Closely connected with this attempt to purify Jerusalem
‘the harlot,’ comes the mention of a
birth
by ‘water and the
It is introduced as a doctrine of
‘earthly
as a rudimentary one-and ininculcating it
Jn.
to he
baptism with water,
on
baptism with the Spirit also.
The
purification, which
requires ‘blood’
(I
Jn.
‘the Spirit and the water and the
blood’) is yet to come; but it is faintly suggested by
‘hour,’ and (3 14) ‘the (brazen)
(y)
Samaria.
F r o m unfaithful Jerusalem
the
Bridegroom passes
to
unfaithful
(the
w o m a n
with t h e five h u s b a n d s
’).
S h e , too, like t h e H o u s e
of
J a c o b of old (Jer.
h a d played t h e harlot ‘ w i t h
many
husbands,’ a n d h a d g o n e t o t h e waters
of
to
slake
her
thirst, h a v i n g forsaken
the
L o r d ,
‘the
fountain of living waters.‘
I n Philo the
‘well and the fountain represent different stages of
ledge. The well of Agar represents a lower stage than that of
Rebecca; Rebecca
supplies the camels from the
‘well,’ but the servant
the ‘fountain,’ because the .latter is
(1
the holy word.
The highest and best well of all is the
Father of all, the Fountain of life
In
Jn. we find a place called
or
ably
opprobrious name for Shechem (see
alluding
to
(Is.
28
‘the drunkenness of Ephraim,’
in any case
suited to the moral of the
It is (45) ‘near the place
that
to
Joseph
his
son.
This is explained by Philo.
Shechem (‘shoulder’) has two meanings; in connection
Gen.
‘a
certain athlete’ becomes a ‘husbandman,
it indicates labour
but when it is mentioned as given
it means (1
‘the bodily things which
of the senses; .Jesus (Jn.
‘wearied of his journey, sat
Philo
says that Moses
‘sat a t the
a cowardly retreat, but ‘like an athlete recover.
ing breath’ for a new attack-an ‘interesting parallel to the
position of Jesus before his attack on Samaritan unbelief. I t
was (46) ‘about the sixth hour
hour described by Philo
(on
as
fittest for the revelation of divine truth.
The woman of Samaria, coming to draw water from Jacob’s
well, received the
from Jesus (418) ‘Thou hast had
five
and he whom thou now
is not thy
Philo says (on Gen.36) that woman is symbolically
the sense (sensus),’ and (1 131) There are two husbands of
senses one lawful, one
a
seducer’ ;
but he proceeds
that
‘the
acts through
senses;
he also (1
563)
con-
nects ‘having
with
‘having many gods,’ and speaks of
609)
those
‘
enamoured of
many gods,’ who know not the one Husband, namely
Cp the introductory words in
same passage of
‘Thus
the
thy God unto Jerusalem.
.
.
neither
thou washed in
to cleanse thee; thou
not
‘Salt’is
symbol of the Spirit.
speaks
of
‘salting’
with ‘fire.
,
See Philo,
on ‘the brazen serpent’ (the enemy of the
that came to Eve); it is (ib.
‘the strongest
virtue.
For the apparently abrupt transition that ensues from
serpent’ to ‘the living water,‘ see Philo,
;
one
is healed by
the
the other
is caused to drink
that most excellent draught, Wisdom, from the
which
he brought forth from his own wisdom.
The statement, that ‘(Westc.
p.
‘there can be no
question as to the individuality of the discourse with the woman
of Samaria,’ is perfectly true, if ‘individuality’ means
of
style and purpose.
It is practically certain, however, that the
dialogue did not actually occur in the exact words recorded by Jn.
For
(
I
)
no disciple (48) was present; and, even if we
that
the Evangelist received an account of the dialogue from. Jesus
himself,
both Jesus and the Woman of Samaria talk in
nine style. The
applies to the dialogue with Nicodemus.
4
‘the Nile.
Cp a tradition on Joel 3
1
: ‘ A s
the first
caused a well to spring up,
shall a second cause waters
T o Jn. the greedy ‘merchandise
T h e dialogue
place near Jacob’s well.
to
spring
What
the sixth
(Jn. 4
‘he whom thou now
hast’? Philo speaks (26) of the ‘six powers’ of turbulence,
the five senses and uttered speech,’ of which the last
prates with unbridled mouth of countless things that should not
1801
The woman (Jn. 428) ‘left her water-pot
and departed’
to carry news of the Messiah.
differs here but in such
a
way as to show that the water-pot is not a mere picturesque
detail. H e says’that Rebecca (1
did not, like Agar, need
the
leather
the body-to hold the water, but only
the
water-pot,’ which is a symbol of a heart that can
hold
draught.
view may be that, as Rebecca
needed not the
so
the woman of Samaria, .who
stage higher, needed not the
having received the
dwelling spring of living water.
The seed
of
the Gospel having been
in Sbechem, the
associations of the place are changed.
is connected no longer
with Jacob but with Jesus (or with Jacob in his higher stage, as
a type of Jesus); no longer with ‘the things of the senses,’ but
with ‘the
‘Jesus bids the disciples ‘lift up their
eyes’ to look
the fields white already’ with the results of
his husbandry. Immediately the harvest begins. The Samari-
tans come from the city. Some of them had believed,
in
Jesus
on the testimony of the woman. But Philo saps that it is
characteristic of a false god to exist only
report and con-
vention, and
the
a woman
&{,
Here it is added
‘that
the
(442)
believed ‘no longer owing
to
the
speaking
of the woman,’ but
to the
‘word
of Christ.
Jesus
returns
to
Galilee a n d
Cana. Thus
cycle
of
t h e Bridegroom e n d s i n t h e place where it began,
m a k i n g way for t h e doctrine
of Bread.
( 3 )
The
of
healing
of
t h e sick m a n
at
Bethesda o n
the
S a b b a t h , which represents t h e
heal-
i n g
of
Israel- not unaccompanied
(5
14)
warning t h a t t h e work might
be
undone-1s followed b y
a
statement
t h a t
the
S o n
does
nothing b u t
h e sees
the
F a t h e r
do.
H e n c e ,
when he
‘lifts
his
before
the
eucharistic
sign
of
the
giving
of
t h e
bread,
w e a r e
prepared
to hear
t h a t w h a t
he
gives, t h e F a t h e r
is
really
giving.
By placing the giving of Christ’s flecb and blood early in the
Gospel, and by introducing, much later, the one commandment
of love, fulfilled by Christ on the Cross, Jn gives the
of a desire to discourage materialistic
of the
:
(663)
‘The spirit it
that giveth life, the flesh profiteth
nothing; the words that
I
spoken unto you, they are
spirit and they are life.
5
( 4 )
The
L i g h t
-The
doctrine
of
Light, t h o u g h
It
t h e b r e a d f r o m heaven.
in
Prologue, a n d touched
not
by
Jesns b u t
by
t h e Evangelist)
3
is
not
definitely
set
forth b y
Jesus
till
t h e m i d d l e
of the
Gospel
(8
‘ I
am
the
light of t h e world.’
This revelation is desciibed as being followed by a more active
hostility in the enemies who now (8 37-44) seek to destroy
revealing themselves as the children of the Destroyer. The
depth of darkness
(848:
hast a devil’) draws
the
fullest light:
‘Before Abraham was, I AM’). Then,
be uttered.’ I f Jn. wrote in part with a view to contemporary
heresies, he might very well include that of
Magus, who
is said in Acts
to
have held the Samaritans at a
early period bound in
enchantments. Justin Martyr testifies
to his
in Samaria in the first half
the second century.
More probably, however, it means, primarily, religious pride and
ambition (leading to hatred of truth
moral goodness), Rev.
13
5
a mouth speaking great things,’
some
with Simon Magus.
Philo
quoted above.
4
the healing of the nobleman s son compared
with
healing of the centurion’s servant, see above
may mean either ‘king’s servant or
like,’ ‘princely.
Origen (perhaps reading
with
regards the
as representing Abraham, and the raising
of the son as representing the action of the Logos in raising up
Isaac, as if from the dead. If that is so, the three miracles
of
represent the action of the Logos
before the Law,
under the Law, 3) outside the
This ‘sign’ is wrought
at
Cana and is
54)
‘the second.
It
terminates the section
of the
and introduces that of health and food,
healing and the Bread of Life.
3
Philo
that
the
imitates the Father’s
ways
to
patterns.’
4
Jesus thrice lifts his eyes
17
I
) : when he
(
I
)
gives the Bread,
(2)
raises Lazarus,
the final sacrifice
of
praise and prayer
to
the Father.
5
Words-hut words
into
the heart-not acts,. nor
miracles, are the climax of Christ’s life among his
before the crucifixion.
washes their feet ;
but Judas, like
the rest, is washed, and Judas
is
also expressly said by Jn. (not
by the Synoptists)
to
have received ‘the sop.’
Neither act
makes them
They are ‘clean’ (15 3)
of
the
word
that he has spoken and they have received;
Judas is not
because he
has not received
1802
GOSPELS
an attempt to stone Jesus! he
‘was
hidden
and
went forth from the temple.
This and a second (12
36)
eclipse
are ‘two witnesses’ against ‘the darkness’ that will not (1 5 )
‘apprehend the light.
Next comes the healing of the Gentile world, typified
by the man who was blind from his birth.
As Naaman was sent to Jordan, so the
man is sent to
(97)
the
Pool of Siloam which represents (Is.
the
worship of the true God as distinct from the worship of
false gods (see also Is.
7
3 22
I
I
3
292).
T h e
inference that the Gentile world must
purified by Jewish waters-i.e by the Law-is obviated by the
statement-probably
supersession of the Law by
49
IO
)
Siloam means
This sign is
altogether different from the healing of the man a t Bethesda
(Israel) who is never said to believe, and who is threatened with
in case of relapse.
so that this sign includes the creation of spiritual, a s well
material, light.
T h e section terminates with
a
denunciation
of
the
abiding sin of the blind who profess to lead others
and who say we see.’
T h e Life.-The mention
of
the ‘blind leaders’
leads to the mention of the ideal Leader who knows
T h e Gentile world (9
believes
loves) all that are his, and that,
too,
3
so
that they are drawn towards him as the Good
Shepherd who does not drive, but
All the shepherds and deliverers
of the world that ‘came’
before the Logos are described as
‘thieves and
Westcott has no note here. but the second ‘hiding
in 12 36 he translates
hidden’
(not
‘hid himself’)
and declares it to be ‘the result of the want of faith’ of Christ’;
adversaries and he there refers to the present passage (8
the
Shiloh of Gen. 49
IO
;
cp
3
Cp Philo
(1
382)
on the two kinds of ignorance, of which the
second fancies that it knows what it does not know, puffed u p
‘with a false notion of its own
:
this ‘generates
I t is this proud, complacent,
‘and deliberate
and scorn ofgoodness),
is, in the Synoptists, unpardonable, and, in Jn., the sin
that ‘abideth
cannot be effaced. (For
cp Jn.
15
16 I
Cor. 13
4
T h e true Shepherd and the trne Husbandman (or Vine-
dresser) are connected by Philo
in a discourse about
the husbandry
or
of
soul.
H e distinguishes
between the
tiller of
ground (who
is
a
‘hire-
ling’) and the real husbandman (who prunes, or encourages
a s the case may require).
distinguished from the mere ‘keeper.
Poets he says
call kings the
their people,
the title is
rightly reserved for ‘the wise.
T h e difference between Philo
and
In.
is that the former makes no mention of ‘laying down
So
the ‘shepherd
life
the sheep.’
If
the text
IS
correct. ‘came
allusion to
the
or
the character of the ideal
.
Deliverer.
Of
David, as of Abraham, Jn.
would say that they (8 56) saw Christ’s
they did not
claim to be independent, but depended on the
Deliverer.
But this does not explain
lrpb
‘before me. We
expect
me,’ or ‘setting themselves above me.
A Hebrew
may have caused confusion between ‘be;
fore
time). ‘before
estimation).’ and ‘in the
of.
‘before
‘before’ (mg., ‘like’).
Or an original Gr. tradition,
(cp Mk. 1042
with
might mean ‘before me,’ or ‘above me. Cp Justin,
l r p b
Since
Christ is ‘the Truth,’
lrpb
in Justin may represent
a traditional version of the
in Jn. Many authorities
of
the words
heretics.
them as
Gospel,
or
he did not, a t the time of writing, recognise the
because they did not understand that ruling implies serving
and even dying. T h e Shepherd (10
‘layeih down his
for the sheep’
(10
‘ i n
order that it may
I n
other words, the Resurrection, or attainment of life through
death, is a law of the spiritual world a part of the Father’s will.
Thus Jn. anticipates the objection that if the Shepherd dies in
conflict with
wolf,’ the wolf is
Later, the law is restated as the law of the Harvest :
(12
24)
‘Except it (the grain) die, it abideth alone, but
if it perish it bringeth forth much fruit
meantime,
Jesus
says
( 1 0 1 8 )
that he has power to take np his
life as well as to lay it down, and these words naturally
prepare
us
for
a
‘sign’ of this particular ‘power.’
a
sign
is
afforded by the Resurrection of Lazarus.
(6)
T h e Raising of the Dead.-That marvellous cures (and
not improbably, revivifications) were wrought by the
Christians is indicated
by
the Pauline
Raising
Epistles, by indirect Talmudic testimony
dead
in
and
bv
earlv Christian traditions.
are
hdwever, of very early exaggera-
tion arising from misunderstood metaphor.
For example,
(Eus. v. 18 14) alleges
A
.D.)
that
John in Ephesns raised a dead man. How, we ask, did this
escape
writers-Papias for example
records such
a n act of Philip but not of Jbhn? T h e
is to he found
in
where the apostle,
a n Elder
about a young convert receives the answer H e is
dead.’
‘What death?’ ‘ H e
died
God.’ The
reconverts
the youth, who becomes
trophy
resurrection.
Similarly,
whereas the churches of Gaul speak of reconverted apostates a s
v. 1
45)
dead brought
by the prayers of
martyrs,
(ii.
says that, ere now, in the brotherhood,
‘owing to sore need,’ many have been raised by the prayers of
the
and this, literally; and it seems highly probable
that he has confused some metaphorical
The question
arises, how early did such
occur ?
‘
T h e
wicked,’ says a Jewish tradition
‘though living, are termed
dead.’
In
Chrisf’s commission to the Twelve, Mt.
alone has ‘raise the
dead,’ and afterwards
(11
5) ‘the dead are raised.’ Yet Mt. de-
scribes Jesus
a s revivifying no one except the daughter of
Jairus, concerning whom
Mt.
has written (9
24)
‘she is not dead
but sleepeth.’ See
It
is probable that Mt. has here
given the actual words of Jesus, or the closest approximation
to them; they were perhaps omitted by
owing to their
being first literalised and then regarded as difficult or erroneous.
Lk. a s
well a s Mk. records it is true
‘the dead are raised
but he meets the possible
dead have been raised,’
by inserting the raising of a widow’s
son
(7
immediately
before.
daughter, he might now plead that
the raising of
persons justified the plural ‘are.’
besides the suspicion attaching to the
of
this narrative
not only from Mk. but also from the parallel Mt. which closely
agrees with
story
a misunderstanding of
metaphor.
I n
Esd. 9
there is a vision of a woman
(Sion)
sorrowing for the death of her ‘only son’ (the City or Temple).
Christians would assert that Christ (Jn.
2
up the
Temple,’ or, in the language of Christian psalms and hymns
that h e
u p the only son of the sorrowing
the possible influence of symbolism combines with other
causes4 to oblige
to reject a s non-historical
account
of
the raising of the widow’s son.
‘Let the dead: says
Lord ‘bury their dead.’
See N
AIN
.
Gospel as authoritative. T h e saying has affinities to
Greek
notion that the only lawful
is that of the wise man (see
Philo 38).
(
I
)
Eusebius,
in
quoting these words of
prefixes to
them (v.
7
I
)
‘that,
he
says,’
which (though in
17
6
it introduces a statement attested bv ‘the canonical Acts of the
Apostles’) may imply, according
context, a n emphasis laid
on the subjectiveness and doubtfulness of what is alleged (see
iv.1546
the words ‘owing to sore need
a ply very well to apostasy, hut less well to literal
death (3)
32
4) implies that, whilst
healing of the sick still went on
the raising of the dead
was a thing of the past
. . .
and that though
they had lived for some time,
none
were
living
when
wrote
For the date of the
and the
letter) facilitates the theory that
mis-
understood the metaphor. When Papias records similar acts,
Eusebius by the words
39
and
appears
indicate his disbelief in them, a t least if we combine
them with the followine
‘mvthical.’ ‘not
wicked one, prince of Israel.’
9 5
dead know not anything.’
The interpretation is applied to
See a n article
on
T h e
of the Dead
the
The
1803
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
(7)
Reserving the historical question for special treat-
ment (see
it may be said here that : in spite
of Martha’s inferential statement in
1 1 3 9
the words of Jesus at the tomb
Father,
I
thank thee that thou heardest
me,’ imply that the hearing’ was already past, and the
life of Lazarus was in effect already granted to his prayers.
W e must, however, suppose that the narrative-though
possibly based on one or more of Christ’s actual
is
mainly allegorical. T h e great
negative
reason
is
the
silence of the Synoptists about Christ’s greatest miracle,
which was, according to
the chief cause of both
( a )
the applause that greeted his entry into Jerusalem,
and
(6)
the resolution of the priests to slay
The
positive reasons are
:
(I)
Jn., adopting Philonian tradi-
tions of style and expression, and writing on the lines of the OT,
might naturally subordinate the literal to the synibolical. For
Philo calls
creation of Eve from Adam’s rib (1 70)
If such was
view, he might well
think himself justified
composing a single symbolical story
that might sum up a hundred floating traditions about Christ’s
revivifying acts in such a form as to point to him as the Consoler
of Israel and the Resurrection and the Life of the world.
The
of Lazarus suggests symbolism. Another form of
it is
who is, in Philo (1
the type of a being
and
(indeed) a corpse,’ but ‘held together and
into
by the rovidence of God.’ (3)
Lk. and Jn. alone mention Martha
sister Mary. They
appear to differ in their views of the sisters; possibly they
differ as to the brother
Some early writers took
to he a real person
;
and it is easy to see that traditions
about the Lazarus of Lk. may have prepared the way for the
Lazarus of Jn. ‘Jesus it might he said raised many from the
dead. hut concerning
Lazarus by
he said (Lk.
:
If h e y believe
not Moses and the
neither will they
believe though one rise from the dead.”’ The next step would
he to say that this prediction was fulfilled
:
Lazarus
was
raised
from the dead; yet the Jews did not
(8)
The Preparation for the Sacrifice.-We pass to
the beginning
of
the week before the Passover.
The anointing of Christ (12
is
a
kind of preparation of
the
lamb for the sacrifice, and the coming of the ‘Greeks’ to the
New Temple is hailed by Jesus as a sign
60.
that
)
‘the hour’ of ‘glory’ has ar-
rived.
Voice from heaven, which the
Synoptists place a t the Baptism (where
mythical
it), and also a t the Transfiguration,
mentioned
alone
in
this
as
ratifying the act of Jesus
coffin,’
‘the dead man sat
(3)
‘he began
to
speak
Jesus ‘gave him to his mother.
Similar details are found in
K.
and
I
K.
which describe miracles of
revivification performed
and Elijah.
Those who regard the speeches in Acts as historical would
also
have to explain how Paul, in mentioning the Resurrection
omits
the raising of any dead people by Christ and
more, how Peter (10
when emphasising his acts
makes no mention of
This has never been explained. Some have suggested that
the Synoptists kept silence to screen Lazarus. But how could
they hope to ‘screen’ one who was known to all Jerusalem, not
to
speak of the multitude of pilgrims?
3 As regards the different delineations of the sisters see $ 4 4 .
I n
Lk.
Martha comes first as entertaining
appar-
ently (or certainly, see v.
1.)
her house; then Mary is men-
tioned hut
not a t all.
(11
I
)
mentions in order
Mary, Martha. I n
Mary is
the anointing
is narrated) ‘she who anointed the Lord,’ which implies knowledge
of only one anointer. But
Lk.
37)
the only woman that
anoints the Lord is ‘a sinner.
in Lk. the anointing
is
in the
of
the Pharisee ; in
in the house of
‘Lazarus.
mention (1623) of a Lazarus in connection
with the life after death
‘Abraham’s
suggests that
there is some confusion of tradition latent under these differences
and similarities in Lk. and Jn.
the name Lazarus, see
above
and cp
4
2 4
(see Grabe’s note),
De
7
and
the Fathers generally, regard the story as history.
is
placed by
8
7
in
the same category as
those who took this view, n o
distinguished the
Lazarus
of
Lk. from the. Lazarus of
5
A literal interpretation of the narrative is accompanied by
many minor difficulties, such as the question why Jesus, after
he had been informed of the
of
Lazarus, remained
beyond Jordan (116) ‘two days.
From this and from 11 17
Lightfoot infers
(BE
178)
‘ a journey which occupies
three
days,’ Westcott
(on
11
6)
‘The journey would occupy about
a
day.’
There
no solid basis for either conclusion. A full
discussion of the subject would show the mystical meaning
underlying these and other details.
Jn. takes pains to show that the Voice was not, in
popular and modern sense of the term, ‘objective.’
A
‘multitude
1805
he puts and answers negatively the
shall
I
say?
I
say] save me from’this hour?
By this act,
he virtually fulfills tde Law of Sacrifice, or the Law of the
Harvest, which he has (1224) just enunciated.
ad
‘the prince of this world is, in Jewish Tradition,
the prince of the ‘seventy’ nations of the Gentiles, there is
point in the words that follow the introduction of the
‘Greeks
:
Now is the judgment of this world, now shall
the
of
he
out
;
and
I,
if
I
he lifted up,
will draw
unto me.
But as
with this
second manifestation of light comes (1236) a second and final
eclipse
The unstable
or ‘multitude’ of the Jews is now
mentioned for the last time, quitting the stage as the devout
Gentile world enters; and its last words are (1234): ‘Who is
this Son of man?‘
T h e Deuteronomy. -The public doctrine
of
Jesus
ends when he ‘cries aloud’ for the third
time (see above,
saying that his
word will
the world and that
his word is the word of the Father.
W e are now transported to a higher sphere,
to
the
inner teaching of Christ, the revision and summary of
his doctrine, the giving of the One commandment, the
promise of the Paraclete, and the prayer to the Father.
It
is a Deuteronomy, full of mystical allusions in which a
numerical symbolism-sometimes veiled, sometimes manifest,
as
in the seven times repeated refrain ‘These things have
I
spoken
unto you’-is prevalent throughout. As Abraham (Gen. 184)
washed the feet of the Three Persons and gave them food, so
now the
Son or Messiah (Schottg. 2
repays the
to
Abraham’s
The Talmudists,
in the spirit of
the prophets, describe (Schottg. 2
the ‘mansions
habitations’ of God as coming to man and Philo speaks
of the
Divine word and Powers
249
‘making .their home in,’
and ‘sharing their
with the devout soul, and of (i. 643)
God himself as
in
souls
of the perfectly purified;
So
teaches that
Father and the
Son will
‘make
their
the heart of the
As Philo, agreeing
with the Talmudists warns us that (1 457) ‘place
does
not mean a region’filled with matter, hut God himself, the
refuge of the Universe, so
by his context, teaches us that
the
‘place
which Jesus will ‘prepare’ for his
disciples is a home in the bosom of the Father.
All these allusive iterations of ancient traditions, and
all the lines of various doctrine, converge towards
Christ in
his
threefold character of
( 1 4 6 )
‘ t h e way, the
truth, and the life.’
First, in the doctrine of the Way the disciples are taught to
ray
in
his
name-a clause
Then the
’Truth,’ or the
‘
Spirit of Truth introduced before becomes
the predominant element,
the threefold
of the
The two sections of the Way (or Son) and the
Truth (or Spirit) terminate with a prediction of victory because
the Father is with the
Son;
so
the latter has, in effect,
already (1633) ‘conquered the world.
Last comes the doctrine
of the Father himself (the Life), called
‘Father,’
‘holy Father,’ and finally
25)
‘just or
Father.
Here ‘my name’ ceases and ‘ t h y
is
Finally
-with repeated references to the Church as being
6 7
IO
,
etc.) ‘that which’or ‘those whom’ the Father hath
the Son-the Last Words terminate in an outpouring of the
Son’s
devotion to the
Father,’ wherein his ‘name’ is, in
effect revealed as ‘love
:
I
have made known unto them
thy
and will make it known, that
the
wherewith
thou
in them,
then:.
was present.
thing.
for the decline of the authority of the Bath-Kol.
heaven.’ uttered
the return of the Seventv.’
Those who heard anything
not hear the true
See
2
‘ I
beheld Satan fallen as lightning from
They heard ‘thunder’ or
angel.
Cp Lk.
14
26
15
24
(15
is obviously to be excluded).
The Paraclete or ‘friend called in to help,’ is connected by
Philo sometimes
with the Elenchos,
or Convicting
Power, sometimes (ii.
227)
with the high priest entering
God‘s presence to represent the Cosmos, but perhaps more often
with the Spirit of the ideal Cosmos (the name Logos being given
to the High Priest, see
Sometimes
227)
the Priest
appears as interceding with the Father of
Cosmos hut
calling to his aid the Son of the Father. Philo does
himself to one form of ex
The Elenchos is called
247)
Paraclete (i.
god‘s own Logos ; (i.
the ideal
Man or Man
to Truth
The ’whole of
last discourse shows Philonian
;
but (as usual), whereas Philo regards the intellect, Jn. regards
the heart- aconseauenceofthe belief of the latter in the incarnate
Logos.
5
in Jn. and
I
Jn.
2
I
,
of having the
narrow legal meaning implied in the Synoptists Mt.
Lk. 1 6
Mk. 17,
‘just’ in the Platonic sense, and is
of
the
of
God and Christ.
1806
Document Outline
- Title
- Key to Signatures in Volume II
- Maps in Volume II
- Contributors to Volume II
- Eagle - Eglath-Shelishiyah
- Eglon - Egypt
- Egypt, River of - Enos
- En-Rimmon - Essau
- Eschatology
- Esdraelon - Evil-Merodach
- Exact - Ezra-Nehemiah
- Ezra, the Greek - Flint
- Flock, Tower of the - Gaius
- Galatia - Gallery
- Galley - Geography
- Geography - Gilgal
- Giloh - Goshen
- Gospels part 1
- Gospels part 2
- Gospels part 3
- Gotholias - Hamu or Hami, names with
- Hamuel - Heath
- Heathen - Hermon
- Hermonites - Hippopotamus
- Hirah - Horonaim
- Horonite - Inn
- Inscriptions - Isle, Island
- Israel
- Issachar - Javan
- Javelin - Jeremiah (book)
- Jeremiah, Epistle of - Jerusalem
- Jerusalem - Job (book)
- Jobab - John, Son of Zebedee
- Joiada - Jotham
- Jozabad - Kedesh
- Kedeshah - Kushaiah