A Short Introduction the Gospels - Forgotten Books

A Short Introduction

the Gospels

By

ERNEST DEW ITT BU RTON

PROFESSOR 01?

NEw TESTAMENT xNTERPRETATmN IN

THE U NIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

MANUEJ

COPYRIGHT 1904 BYE . D . BURTON

Publ i shed J une 1904Second Imp ression J u ly 1906Th ird Imp ression J ul y 1910

PREFACE

THE chief purpose of this l ittle volume i s to place

before the student of the gospel s those facts concerning

the purpose and point of view of each of them which are

most necessary for an intel l igent reading and study of

them . A book of narrative character, containing a record

of facts, has a value independent of the point of view and

purpose of the author . Yet few books are so wholly

obj ective in character, so devoted to the simple reporting

of facts, so devoid of al l aim to use these facts to achieve a

result,that an insight into the mind of the writer does

not contribute to an intel l igent reading of them . To us

today the highest value of the gospels i s in the testimony

they bring us concerning the deeds, words, and character

of the Lord Jesus . Yet it i s by no means idle curios ity

that impel s us to di scover al l that we can concern ing the

specific aim with which the several evangel ists wrote.

Not only is the discovery of the s ituation out of which

each gospel arose, and of the end which the writer of each

sought to accompl ish,a contribution to the inner history

of the early church,precisely as a knowledge of s imilar

facts concerning an epistle of Paul constitutes such a con

tribution, but the discovery of the angle of vision from

which,and the medium through which, the writer looked

at Jesus, assists us to interpret each of the several representations of Jesus, and so to relate these one to another

that from them all there may emerge the true historic

figure of Jesus the Christ .

In the endeavor thus to discover the proper point of

iv PREFACE

view from which to study each gospel , i t i s the gospel

itsel f that i s our most valuable source of in formation .

A l l that tradition transmits to us concerning the ident ity

of the author and his aim in writing is sure to be seized

upon with eagerness, all the greater because of the mea

gerness of such testimony, and i s rightly scrutinized with

the most di l igent attention that it may be made to yield

al l the information that it can supply. Yet at its best tra

dition tel l s us but little, ,

and that l ittle only the record

of ancient opinion . The internal evidence of the gospel s

themselves — not the few assertions which they contain

concerning authorship and the l ike,but the constant

reflection on every page of the point of view and aim of

the evangel ist — comes to us at first hand, and, i f we are

able to interpret it correctly, yields us evidence that cannot

be impeached .

It i s to this internal evidence that spec ial attention is

di rected in the following pages . O f the subj ects heretreated, that which i s most necessary and useful for the

interpretation of the several gospels i s a knowledge of

the purpose, point o f view, and plan of the gospel . These

matters are central in the present treatment . As sub

sidiary to the search for them, the evidence afforded in

the gospel s themselves concerning the writer and the

readers for whom he wrote i s examined . The brief

quotations o f ancient tradition respecting the authorship

of the books fil l in the present treatment the place of least

importance,serving only to suggest the relation of the

external evidence to that internal evidence which is here

the almost exclusive subj ect o f study . The ful l presenta

tion , scrutiny, and weighing of the external testimony l ie

quite beyond the scope of this book, the specific purpose of

PREFACE

which is to throw upon the gospels the l ight concerning

thei r origin and purpose which emanates from these

gospels themselves

The chapter on The Relation of the Synoptic Gos

pels to One Another i s of a somewhat different characterfrom the others . It i s intended to be no more than an

introduction to the subj ect with which it deal s. To have

presented the evidence on this subj ect with even that

degree of fulness and detai l with which the ch ief topics

of the other chapters have been presented would have

expanded the book beyond the moderate l imits within

which it was des ired to keep it, and would have made it

les s adapted to the use which it i s intended to serve, viz . ,as an introduction to the gospel s for the use of students

in college or in the first year of a theological course . It

i s the hope of the author at a later time to deal more

adequately with this important subj ect .

O f the several chapters contained in this volume al lexcept the fourth were original ly publi shed in the Biblical

World for 1 898, 1 899 , and 1900 . They were subse

quently reprinted in pamphlet form under the title The

Purpose and P lan of the Four Gospels . They are nowagain reprinted

,having undergone considerable revi sion,

but without material change of plan or content .

E RNEST D . BU RTON .

CHI CAGO, Apri l , 1 904.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I . TH E GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

M ATTHEW

CHAPTER II . TH E GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

M ARK

CHAPTER III . TH E GOSPEL ACCORDING To

LU KE

CHAPTER IV . TH E RELATION OF TH E SYN

OPTIC GOSPELS TO ONE

ANOTHER

CHAPTER V . TH E GOSPEL ACCORDING To

J OHN

PAGE

CHAPTER I

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO M ATTHEW

I . TH E AU THOR

TH E first gospel does not itsel f name its author. The

title as it stands in extant manuscripts and in modern

editions comes, not from the hand of the author, but from

some later scribe. Nor i s the writer’s name,as trans

m itted by tradition, our first concern . What we seek first

and chiefly is not his name or identity,but his character

istics and point o f view and for these the gospel itsel f i s

our best, indeed almost our only, source of information .

To this,accordingly , we turn .

1 . H is nationality as it appears in the book itself.

Several classes of facts bear convergent testimony indicat

ing that the writer of the gospel i s a Palestinian Jew .

a ) Thus he shows himsel f famil iar with the geography of Palestine. See, for example, 2 : I , Bethlehem of

Judea, distinguished from Bethlehem in the tribe of

Zebulun “ a city cal led Nazaret a phrase which

at first suggests that the place i s unfamil iar to the writer

and his readers , but is probably intended to cal l attention

to the name and its relation to the reference about to be

made to the O ld Testament ;“ the wi lderness of

Judea 13 5 , the circuit of the Jordan ( cf. Gen . 1 3 I o)

Galilee and the Jordan ; 1 3 , Nazareth andCapernaum

,and the relation of these to the ancient tribal

boundaries ; 4 23-25 , Gali lee and the lands adj acent ;

1 Some have found in th i s expression an inaccurate use of terms,perhaps betraying ignorance of the region . In Judg. I 1 6 the w ilder

2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO M ATTHEW

8 : 5 , 23 , 28, the country of the Gadarenes2 placed on the

ness of Judah is spoken O f as being in the south of Arad. Arad i slocated by ROB IN SON (B ibl ical Researches, Vo l . I I , p . 1 0 1 ; cf. SM ITH ,

D ictionary of the B ible) about sixteen mi les south Of Hebron . But inJ osh . f. J udah ’s territory i s said to inc lude “ in the w i ldernessBeth-arabah , M iddin, and S ecacah . Now Beth-arabah is also mentionedas belonging to Benj amin ( J osh . 1 8 : wh ich ind icates that the borderbetween J udah and Benj amin ran through i t . The exact site of Betharabah is unknown , but the location Of the border l ine is approx imatelyshown by being defined in J osh . 1 8 : 1 9 as drawn from the head O f theDead S ea,and as passing through Beth-hoglah , a town wh ich i s in theJordan valley, about two miles north of the sea. Th is ind icates thatthe w ilderness of J udah extended as far north as the head Of the DeadSea , or a l ittle farther. But the reg ion north O f th i s was also desert( see J OSEPHUS , J ewi sh War

,I II , 1 0, 7 , fin cf. IV, 8, 2 ; cf. also

M ark 5 , wh ich ind icates that the J ordan ran through the w i lderness ) , and when the boundary between J udah and Benj amin was nolonger marked, and the territory O f both tribes included in J udea, aswas the case in New Tes tament times, i t i s very probable that the termw ilderness of Judea would cover both the desolate region west of theDead S ea and so much Of the ba rren region north O f the sea as layw ith in J udea. It must be Observed that M atthew does not necessarilyinclude any portion of the J ordan val ley in the w ilderness of J udea

(cf. 3 : 1 , 5 , H is language would be consistent w ith an intention torepresent John’s preach ing as beginning in the w ilderness of J udea, andas being transferred to the J ordan val ley when he began to baptize( cf. again M ark 5 , wh i ch uses the term w ilderness w ithout theadd ition O f J udea) . But i t i s, perhaps, more probable that he intendedthe term “ w i lderness of Judea to cover both reg ions .

The phenomena presented by M att . 8 : 28 and the parallel passages ,M ark 5 : I Luke 8 : 26, have not been explained in a whol ly satisfactoryway. In each of the gospels there is manuscript authority for al l threeread ings — Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes. The Revisers followWestcott and Hort in adopting Gadarenes in M atthew , Gerasenes inM ark ,

and Gerasenes (marg. Gergesenes, w ith Ti schendorf) in Luk e. Thecond itions of the narrative are fulfilled on the eastern shore, near a towncalled Khersa or Gersa , s ituated on the left bank of the Wady S emakh

the ancient name O f th i s town may have been Gergesa ( ORIGEN , apparently referring to th is s ite, g ives Gergesa as the name ; cf. Opera, ed .

DE LA RUE, IV, 1 40, Cam . in J oh ., 1 28 ; quoted by T I SCHENDORF , M att.

THE AU THOR

opposite side of the Sea of Gal i lee from Capernaum ;Gennesaret on the Sea of Gal i lee ; Tyre

and S idon ; I 5 39, Magadan, though this cannot be cer

tainly identified today ; Caesarea Phil ippi,and the high mountain in that vicinity ; Judea

beyond Jordan ; Jericho ; Bethphage ( notcertainly identified ) , and the Mount of O l ives ( cf. 24 : 3 )near Jerusalem ; Bethany. It must be

remembered,of course, that these references may be in

part derived from a documentary source employed by the

writer — many of them are found al so in Mark — and

that al l of them are possible to one who was not himsel f a

8 : or possibly Gerasa ( the frequency O f the name Jerash todayCONDER in S M ITH , D ictionary of the B i ble, rev. Eng. cd .

, I , 1 1 62 — suggests that Gerasa was a common name in ancient times ) . It i s doubtlessto th is place that the names Gerasenes and Gergesenes refer ; the formercan in any case scarcely refer to the wel l-known Gerasa, th irty-five mi lesd istant from the lake. The read ing Gada renes, i t should be Observed,does ‘

not invo lve the statement that the event took p lace at Gadara,wh ich , lying s ix miles from the lake and south of the Jarmuk , i s animpossible s ite, but in the country of the Gadarenes, i . e. , in the d istrictattached to Gadara. Th i s d istrict, cal led Gadaritis by J osephus ( J ew ishWar, I II , 1 0, 1 0 ; cf. I II , 3 , I ) , is proved by co ins to have extendedto the S ea O f Gal i lee ( S CHURER, J ewish People, Div. I I , Vol . I , p .but does not seem to have included the s ite of Khersa, s ince H ippos w i thi ts d istrict l ies between (Pa lestine E x ploration Fund Quarterly S tatement,

1 887, pp. 36 ff . SM ITH , Historical Geography, p . I f, therefore, M at

thew wrote Gadare’nes, it must have been either w ith the intention O fassigning the event to the southeastern shore Of the sea, where however,there i s said to be no s ite fulfill ing the cond itions (W ILSON In SM ITH ,

D i ctionary of the B i ble, rev. Eng. cd .,I , or as a loose and general

designation O f the country a long the southern hal f of the eastern shore,although the particula r s ite belonged to the d istrict Of H ippos or to

Gaulanitis, rather than to Gadaritis. In either case the read ing Gadarenes, wh ile i t may ind icate ignorance O f the exact location O f theevent, shows at least general acquaintance w ith the geography O f theregion adj acent to the S ea O f Gal ilee .

4. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

Palestinian ; yet as part of a cumulative argument they

are not without value.

b) The author i s famil iar with Jewish history, cus

toms, and classes o f people, and with Jewish ideas. Thus

in 1 : 18 f. he shows his acquaintance with the fact that

betrothal could be annul led only by divorce ; with

the position of the scribes, as those to whom a question

about the doctrine of the Messiah would be referred ; 2 1,

with the reign of Herod the Great ; with the fact

that Archelaus succeeded him in Judea,but not in Gal il ee

,

and with the reputation of Archelaus for cruelty ; 3 14 : I ,

with the title o f Herod Antipas, tetrarch 4 of Gali lee ;26 : 3 , 57, with the name of the high-priest ; with

the existence and character of the Sanhedrin ; 1 1 ,

1 3 , with the relation of the Jewish to the Roman author

ities,and with the name of the Roman procurator. Here

also, though no single item of the evide nce i s deci s ive,the whole i s not without significance.

c ) The writer i s fami l iar with the O ld Testament,and bel ieves in it as a book Containing divinely givenprophecies . The first section of the book, w ith its title

characteriz ing Christ as son of David and son of Abra

3 There is a noticeable d ifference between M atthew ’s references to thepol itical s ituation in Palestine and Luke’s . Luk e speak s w i th the air Ofpainstak ing investigation ; M atthew , w ith that of easy fami l iarity, al lthe more noteworthy that the frequent and somewhat compl icated succession Of rulers would have made error easy .

‘ M ark i s less exact,s ince Herod was not, strictly speak ing,

In i t has been alleged, M atthew wrongly designates thebrother of Herod whose w i fe he had married as Ph i l ip, whereas Ph il ipwas really the husband of S alome ; but i t i s by no means certa in thatthere is an error here. Cf. M ark and commentaries on bothpassa ges . See also chap . i i, p . 28, n. 4 .

THE AUTHOR 5

ham and the genealogical table, taken in part from the

O ld Testament, and designed tO '

prove that Jesus was

descended from David and Abraham, as in accordance

with prophecy the Messiah must be, Show both a famil iar

ity with the O ld Testament and a thoroughly Jewish wayof looking at it . The structure of thi s table itsel f points

in the same direction , showing that it i s, to the writer, a

matter of interest, i f not also of argument, that the gen

erations from Abraham to Moses are (by virtue of sl ightomissions and double counting) divisible into three

groups o f fourteen ( twice seven ) generations, a factwhich suggests that the Messiah appeared at an appro

priate time, at the end of three periods the culmination

of each of the two preceding of which had been marked

by a great event of Jewish history . Throughout the gos

pel , but espec ially in the early and later parts, he ca l l s

attention to passages of the O ld Testament which heinterprets as finding thei r fulfilment in events of Jesus ’

l i fe f. ; 1 7 f.,23 ;

-1 6 ; 1 2

1 7-2 1 ; 2 1 : 4 f. ; These eleven passages

,

most of.them introduced by the formula,“ that it might

be fulfil led which was spoken through the prophet,”

sometimes with the insertion of the phrase by the Lord,are a marked feature of th is gospel . Th ey are a special

contribution of this evangel ist,having no paral lel passages

in Mark or Luke .5 Nor, with the exception of Mark I : 2

and Luke 3 z4 li ., parallel

‘

to Matt . are there any

similar passages in the other synoptic gospel s . They

Show in the clearest way the author’s spec ia l interest in

lsNor in John, save that f. i s paral leled in John f., andpartia lly in J ohn M att. has a partial parallel in

Luke I 79 .

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and in

thei r fulfilment in Jesus . The conception of the O ldTestament and the method of interpreting it which they

reveal, though not impossible to a gentile Christian as an

acquisition from others,were certainly developed on

Jewish soi l . That we have, in th i s particular case, to dowith a mind itsel f Jewish i s placed almost beyond doubt

by the fact that, though the quotations from the O ldTestament which are common to our first three gospels

,

nearly all o f which occur in the words of Jesus, Show a

predominant influence of the Greek version of the O ldTestament, thi s group of eleven pecul iar to the first evan

gelist clearly shows a predominant influence of the origi

nal Hebrew . And this i s the more significant in view of

the fact that in the one instance in which the three syn

optists unite in quoting a passage and speak of its fulfil

ment (Matt . Mark 1 : 2 ; Luke 3 : 4 ff.,referring

Isa . 40 : 3 to John the Baptist ) they agree in a form of

the passage which clearly shows the influence of the

Septuagint .

d ) In various other ways the writer betrays his Jew

i sh feel ing and point of view . He employs descriptive

names derived from the Ol d Testament which would beunnatural in the mouth of any but a Jew, and which are,in fact

,found nowhere else in the New Testament, except

for one phrase which occurs also in the book o f Revela

tion . Thus in 2 1,land of Israel ; holy

city ( cf. Rev . city of the great king ;lost sheep of the house of Israel . He speaks of the

hal f-Shekel tax which every adult male Jew paid annually

for the support of the temple (cf. Exod .

s imply by the name o f the coin that paid it, the two

THE AUTHOR 7

drachma piece,following in thi s a usage probably common

among the Jews .6 H i s tone in speaking of genti les

32 ; i s decidedly Jewish , the name

genti le being evidently with him not simply a designation of national ity, but a characterization nearly equiva

lent to our modern term “ heathen .

”He i s particularly

interested in those teachings of Jesus which are of spec ial

significance to the Jew and the Jewish Chri stian . Thus

it i s in thi s gospel only that we have Jesus’ word con

cerning the permanence of the law ( 5 : 1 7-19 ) the

sermon on the mount as given here preserves the com

parison of Jesus’ teaching with that of the Pharisees, and,indi rectly, with that o f the O ld Testament ( chaps . 5an element wholly absent from the similar discourse in

Luke —49 ) this gospel alone tel l s us that the

personal mission of Jesus, and the work of his apostles on

thei r first separate mission tour, were l imited to the Jews

it gives,

special emphasi s to Jesus ’

denunciation of the Pharisees ( 1 5 1 3 f. ; 2 1 : 28-32 ; chap.

and i s our only authority for the most striking of his

sayings concerning the impending doom of the nation

12 ; are found only in Matthew ;cf.

,also

,1 2 38

-

4 5 ; 23 : 35 , 36 ; of which there are

parallel s in Mark or Luke,and pecul iar to Mat

thew ) . Here are elements which seem at first sight con

tradictory, but they all bespeak an author especially

concerned with the relations of the gospel to Judaism .

“Concerning the variation in the amount of the tax, see Exod .

Neh . concerning the ratio of the Shekel and drachma,and the co ins in use in New Testament times, see MADDEN, Coins ofthe J ews, pp. 290 f., 294 ; BENZINGER, Hebrii ische Archaologie, p . 1 93 ;

S CHURER, J ew ish People, Div. I I , Vol . I , pp . 38-40, 2 5 0 f. ; 3d German

cd ., Vol . II , pp . 5 2-5 5 , 2 5 8 f J OSEPHUS, Antiq.,

i i i, 8, 2 ; xvi i i, 9 , 1 .

8 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

2 . The author’

s rel igions position. Evident as it i s

that our evangel ist i s a Jew by nationality and education,

i t i s sti l l more clear that he is a Christian — a Jew who,

holding the messianic hope of hi s people and bel ieving

that there are messianic prophecies in the O ld Testament,

finds that hope realized and those prophecies fulfilled in

Jesus . Passages need hardly be cited . The first l ine of

the gospel shows the author’s pos ition, and it appears

throughout the book . The question whether he was also

a Judaizing Christian , bel ieving in the permanent author

i ty of the statute law of the O ld Testament for bothJewish and gentile Christian

,or perhaps for the Jewish

Christian but not for his genti le brother,can be answered

only on the basi s of a study of the purpose of the book.

( See

3 . The testimony of trad ition concerning the author

ship of the book . This comes to us in

a ) The titl e which the gospel bears in ancient manuscripts . This i s uni formly Kam M adflcu ov

,

“ According

to Matthew,

”Evaweh ov m m M a99a tov

, Gospel accord

ing to Matthew,

” or equivalent phrase.7

”The earl iest form of the title of the first gospel by wh ich i t i snamed in any extant work i s es Ka ra. M a00a i

‘

ov eba ‘

y'

yéh tov, The Gospelaccord ing to M atthew.

”SO in I renaeus (Poss in. Cat. Patr. in M att

i i i , 1 1 , 8 ; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am . ed Vol . I , p . 5 73 ) and in E U S EBI U S , H .E .,

v, 1 0. In the Oldest Greek manuscripts the title is simply

k ar t). M aoea i‘

ov. Westcott and Hort and others th ink that the wordebayyéh ov as the common title Of the whole group of fourbooks must be presupposed i n order to account for th is form O f title,though i t does not, in fact, appea r in any manuscript . I f th is i s correct,the titl e of the several gospels was in effect et’za'y‘yéluov KaraM adOa

'

iov,

cfiaw éx i ov « are M dpx ov—

“Gospel accord ing to M atthew,

" “Gospe l

accord ing to M ark , etc. Later manuscripts prefixed a title after th i sform to each O f the gospels separately . The form 7 6 a re). M a00a i

‘

ov

1!“w ebaw éh ov i s found only in late manuscripts.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 0 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

11 . THE READERS FOR WHOM TH E BOOK WAS PRIMARILYINTENDED

Much of the evidence bearing upon this question i s

derived from the same passages which have already been

cited to Show the national ity of the writer.I . Not much stress can be laid on the writer’s apparent

assumption that his readers are famil iar with Palestinian

geography. The other gospels, which on other grounds

are shown to have been written special ly for gentiles,

apparently make the same assumption ; or rather, perhaps,are equally unconcerned that their readers should under

stand thei r geographical references . There are even

some passages in Matthew which seem to assume that his

readers were not acquainted with the smaller Palestin ian

towns . In indeed,the phrase a city called Naza

reth is probably used simply to call attention to the name

in anticipation of the next sentence, and in 4 : 1 3 a S imi lar

motive leads to the mention of the location of Capernaum ;but the placing of the heal ing of the demoniacs in the

country of the Gadarenes, i f thi s be the correct reading,seems to imply that he could not assume that his readers

would be acquainted with the l ittle town Khersa, and ,therefore

,located the event more generally in the country

of the Gadarenes, or else that he himsel f was unacquainted

with the smaller place ( cf. note Beyond this the

geographical evidence is purely negative.

2 . Though a general acquaintance with Jewish cus

toms and institutions on the part of the reader i s assumed

in al l o f the gospels, and hence does not of itsel f point to

Jewish readers,yet the extent of this in the first gospel i s

worthy of notice. Compare, for example, Matthew’s

references to the Jewish rulers 22 ; with

THE READERS I I

Luke’s (2 : 1 , 2 ; or hi s unexpla ined mention of

the Jewish custom of ceremonial Cleansing with

Mark’s detailed explanation The seeming

exception in 27 : I 5 i s not properly such . The custom of

releasing a prisoner at the passover season , not otherwise

known to us,was probably not of Jewish but of Roman

origin,and since the government of Judea had changed

several times in the generation or more between the death

of Jesus and the writing of the gospel , i t i s probable that

the custom had so long ago ceased that even to Jews it

was a matter o f unfami l iar history .

3 . The number of argumentative quotations from the

O ld Testament introduced by the writer, and the almosttotal absence of such quotations from Mark and Luke

John has more than Mark and Luke,but fewer than

Matthew — suggest also Jewish readers . It i s certainly

not decisive evidence, since arguments from Scripture

early became the common property of Christians,both

Jewish and gentil e. The extent and prominence of the

Scripture argument count for something, but the decisive

word must be said on the basi s o f the nature of the argu

ment which thi s gospel founds on its quotations . ( See

4 . The use of Jewish descriptive titles ( see the passages cited under 1

,1, d ) , the reporting of the words of

Jesus which emphasized his miss ion to the Jews ( I o 5 , 6 ;

1 5 and of other teachings which would be of special

interest to Jews 6 ; -22

al l pecul iar to this gospel ) , and the fact that the great

discourses o f Jesus, notably the sermon on the mount

( chaps . 5 are reported in a form adapting them to

interest the Jewish mind especially,are of more deci s ive

1 2 THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO MATTHEW

S ignificance, and all indicate that the writer has in mind

mainly Jewish readers . Sti l l more significant, though

here also the ful l significance wil l appear only in relation

to the purpose of the book, are the passages referred to

above which foreshadow the downfal l of Judaism (8 : 1 1 ,I 2 ;

-

45 ;— 14 ; 36 ;

The use of the term gentiles as a designation

of rel igion rather than of national ity ( 5 : 47, etc . ) suggests

the same thing, but is shown by 1 Cor .

to be possible in a writing addressed directly to

gentile Christians ; its occurrence, therefore, tends only to

indicate that the book was not intended for non-Christian

gentiles . The use of the term “ Jews in the

way so common in the fourth gospel i s not only a mark of

the Christ ian point o f view of the Jewish writer,but tends

in some degree to indicate that he wrote for those who,

though J ews in national i ty, now distinguished themselves

from the rest o f the nation by thei r Christianity .

I I I . TH E PU RPOSE WITH WH ICH TH E EVANGELIST WROTE

A l ike the material and the general structure of the

book suggest that we have to do here with a work which

i s in a sense historical or biographical . The material i s

mainly narrative in form , consisting o f reports of deeds

done and discourses uttered on certain occasions,not of

discussion or formal argument by the writer of the book .

It i s a history,however

,which gathers around the person

of Jesus ; only such events and persons as stand in imme

diate relation to him are spoken of,and these only in so

far as they are related to him . The book fall s into six

main parts ( cf. the analysi s at the end of this chapter ) ,representing periods of the l i fe o f Jesus which are

THE PURPOSE OF THE WRITER 1 3

arranged in chronological order,from his birth to his

resurrection .

Yet before it i s decided that, because the material is

of a biographical character and the main structure chrono

logical,therefore the end of the writer i s attained when

he has given an hi storical ly correct representation of the

l i fe of Jesus,or even

,perhaps

,when he has told such facts

about the l i fe of Jesus as are known to him , certain other

considerations must be taken into account . It must be

remembered that it was in accordance with the l iterary

method of the first Christian century and of the adj acent

periods to employ historical material for argumentative

purposes,and that, too, without casting the material into

the form of an argument , or even stating anywhere in the

course of the narrative what the fact s were intended to

prove . It was assumed that the reader or hearer would

be shrewd enough to discover th is for himsel f and this

assumption was apparently amply j ustified .

This use of h istorical material for argumentative pur

poses,this clothing oi argument in narrative form

,finds

several clear i l lustrations in the New Testament . In the

discourse o f Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth,as

related in Luke 4 : 1 6-

30,Jesus repl ies to the thought

of the Nazarenes, which they have not even openly

expressed, by relating two events from O l d Testamenth istory ; he does not state what these events prove, and

modern interpreters are somewhat puzz led to tell pre

cisely what he intended to prove by them . But there is no

doubt that he intenderl that they should teach something

not directly expressed in them , and that the Nazarene con

gregation so understood him . The speeches in the book

of Acts are almost all o f them of the same character,


from the speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost down to

the later speeches of Paul . The two best i l lustrations are

furnished by the speech of Stephen before the counci l,

which i s very evidently of argumentative purpose, yet

which leaves the purpose so entirely unstated that most

readers today probably entirely fail to perceive it,and

the speech of Paul at P i sidian Antioch,which has the

same characteristics, only les s strongly marked . The

fourth gospel furnishes an i l lustration of a book almost

wholly made up of narrative material ( including in thatterm conversations and discourses assigned to certain

occasions ) , yet explicitly stated by the writer to have beenwritten with the purpose that the readers might bel i eve a

certain doctrinal proposition , this again for the purpose

of prod ucing a certain moral result ( 20 : 30, The

book of Acts also, though the writer has not stated a defi

nite argumentative purpose, i s almost universal ly admitted

to have been written for such a purpose ; precisely what

the purpose was interpreters sti l l dispute .

In view of thi s well-establ ished l iterary custom, of

which there are abundant examples in the New Testamentl iterature itsel f

,it i s only natural to ask whether our

gospel also gives evidence of such a purpose on the part

of its writer. Such evidence does, in fact, appear the

moment we ca rry our study of the structure of the book

beyond a divi sion into its six main parts . The first main

divi sion,though including only material perta ining to the

ancestry,birth

,and infancy of Jesus

,yet makes an eviden

tial use o f every event which it relates, pointing out how

in each of the narrated facts O ld Testament prophecy wasfulfilled in Jesus . The Gal i lean ministry i s scarcely less

evidently constructed on a plan which i s morelogical than


chronological,the whole constituting an exposition of the

nature of the kingdom of heaven, the way in which it must

be received, and the way in which the Jews did actually

receive it,foreshadowing thei r rej ection of the Messiah,

and thei r own consequent downfall ( cf. the analysi s

under V ) . The passion week though the material is,with a few s ignificant exceptions, apparently arranged on

a chronological plan,i s yet so treated as to present the

evidence for the fact that Christ and his kingdom were

expl icitly and clearly presented to the Jews for their

acceptance,with warning of the consequences to them of

rej ection,and that in the face o f such presentation and

such warning they definitely rej ected Christ and the

kingdom .

But i f the book has an argumentative purpose, which

i s either the dominant one or one which i s co-ordinate

with a more distinctly historical aim,preci sely what is i t

that the author conceives his narrative to prove,and o f

which he wishes to convince hi s readers ? The answer

must be gained by observing on what the writer lays

emphasis . Notice,then, what the passages al ready cited

have in part shown , the characteristic ideas of this gospel .

The writer believes in the O ld Testament,and holds that

it s mess ianic prophecies are fulfil led in Jesus ( 1 : 23 , etc . )Jesus himsel f held to the divine and permanent authority

of the'

Old Testament ethical teaching ( 5 1 7 ff. ; 1 5 3 ff. ,

etc. ) though indirectly critici s ing the statutory legislation

or affirming its temporary character ( 5 : 2 1 -48 passini ;

9 : 14-1 7 ;

—20 ; he addressed himsel f to the

Jews,announced the near approach of the kingdom of

heaven, adapted his instruction to thei r point of view

( see, al l the discourses ) l imited his own personal mi ss ion


to them ( 1 5 and instructed his disciples when he

sent them out to do the same ( 1 0 5 , 6 ) when, despite thefact that multitudes fol lowed him and true disciples were

won, it became evident that the leaders of the people

would rej ect him , he warned them of the danger of such

rej ection 1 2 ;-4 5 ; cf. the words of John

the Baptist, 3 and as opposition grew and approached

its culmination in the determination to put him to death,

he scathingly rebuked the Pharisees,under whose influ

ence the nation was rej ecting its Messiah ( chap . 23 , espe

cially vs . announced with increasing distinctness the

direful resul ts o f such rej ection to the nation and to Juda

ism itsel f, even definitely declaring the rej ection of the

nation by God ( see 2 1 33-46 ; - 14 ; but especial ly

43 ; 38 ; and finally, when

the rej ection which he had foreseen had come to pass,and

had been succeeded by his death and triumphant resurrec

tion,he commiss ioned his disciples, no longer to go to the

lost sheep of the house of Israel only, but to make disciples

o f al l nations

These are characteristics which are not common to al l

our gospels ; they are, in large part , pecul iar to Matthew.

And they reveal as the motive of this argument in narra

tive form the purpose to prove that Jesus i s the true Mes

s iah of the Jews ; that he announced and founded the

kingdom of God, expounding its true nature, and setting

forth its relation to the Old Testament rel igion ; that hecame

,first of all

,to the Jewish nation ; that, when they

Showed signs of a disposition not to receive h is message,he warned them that the consequence o f such rej ection

would be that the kingdom would be taken from them ;that, in fact, they did in the face of all thi s warning and


time, have, by the Jews’ rej ection of the Messiah

,been

broken down,this i s evidently a l ine of thought which

would be addressed to a Christian , ei ther to persuade him

to abandon his narrow Judaistic type of Christianity,or

to dissuade him from turning back from Christianity to

Judaism itsel f . Were the book less careful to recognize

the legitimacy o f the O ld Testament, and the primarymission of Jesus to the Jews, and, in general , to adapt its

argument to the Jewish point o f view, its contention for a

universal Christianity might seem to point to gentile

Christians as the readers whom the writer had in mind .

But faced, as i t constantly i s, to the thought of the Jew,

such a destination for the book i s excluded .

But while intended for Jewish Christian readers the“

book is emphatical ly not of a J udaistic cast. It i s even

more di rectly opposed to the Judaizing type of Christian

ity than most of the writings of Paul which deal with that

question. The apostl e to the gentil es confined himsel f for

the most part to defending the right of the genti les to

believe in Jesus and enter into al l the privi leges of Chris

tians without becoming subj ect to the law . O f course, thelogi c o f thi s position involved a l ike freedom ultimately

for the Jew,and Paul could, on occasion, insist upon this

(Gal . 2 : 1 5-1 9 ; Eph . yet always for the sake

of the gentil e, whose interests he, as the apostle o f the

gentiles,was concerned to defend . But this gospel ,

addressed to Jewish Christians, shows from the teach ing

and conduct o f Jesus that for the Jew also the old

régime has ended ; the nation that rej ected the Messiah

i s itsel f rej ected ; its temple, the center o f ritual and wor

ship,i s overthrown ; its house i s left unto it desolate ; the

kingdom of God is taken from it and given unto a nation

MINOR PROBLEMS 1 9

bringing forth the fruits thereof. The O l d Testamentfoundation of the kingdom is not for a moment repudi

ated, but, on the basis of the teach ing of the O ld Testament and of the words of Jesus the Chri st, the Chri stian

church,drawn from al l nations and having no special

relation to the temple or Judaism, i s shown to be the

inheritor of the kingdom .

In the light o f this purpose o f the book, its unity i s

clearly evident . From the assertion in its first verse that

J esus is the Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,

to the comm i ssion which in its closing paragraph thi s

Christ, now risen from the dead, gives to his apostles to

make disciples of all nations,one thought dominates it .

This i s no patchwork put together by several hands work

ing with different conceptions,or by one editor whose

only thought was to include al l the evangel ic material

that he possessed . The writer may have employed as

sources o f h i s book other gospel writings ; the resemblance

of some of the material to that which i s contained in the

other gospels seems to Show that he had such sources ;but, whether so or not, he has wrought al l h i s material

into a real book, with a definite course of thought and a

clearly defined aim .

Nor can i t be doubted that the writer had before hima definite situation, a practical problem to solve, not a

merely theoretical proposition to prove. He is a man of

thought, even of a reflective turn of mind ; but his book

i s far from being a mere meditative study . Though so

different in form and style,i t reminds us by its purpose of

the epistle to the Hebrews, which was written to those

who,having received the knowledge of the truth

,were in

danger of drawing back and of not holding fast the con

20 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO M ATTHEW

fession of thei r faith (Heb . There is much

to suggest that our evangel ist wrote,not indeed forthe

same persons, but for those who were subj ect to a similar

danger . Was it, perhaps, for those who, having ti l l now

held fast to Judaism,only adding to it faith in Jesus as

the Mess iah, but now seeing the near approach of the

destruction o f Jerusalem or possibly,having already

witnessed it,were in danger of surrendering thei r Chris

tianity under the influence of the blow which had fall en

upon Judaism, and of the argument that he was surely not

the Messiah who could not avert such disaster from his

own people ? To save them from this danger it would be

needful to separate Judaism and Chri stianity in thei r

minds ; while confirming thei r faith in Jesus as the Christ

of prophecy, to show them that he had himsel f announced

precisely that which was now happening,and had in

anticipation of it founded a Christianity which was at the

same time the legitimate successor of the O ld Testamentreligion and free from its national restrictions . But

whether it was the destruction o f Jerusalem,impending or

already past,which furnished the immediate occasion for

the book or not,i t seems impossible to doubt that it was

written primari ly to convince Jewish Christians that the

rel igion of Jesus was not merely the Judai sm of the

temple,p lus a bel ief in Jesus as the Messiah , but a world

rel igion,freed from all bounds and restrictions that were

local and national . It carries the doctrine of the apostle

Paul to the conclusion which Paul saw to be involved in

it,but to which he was not wont himsel f to press it.

THE PLAN OF THE GOSPEL 2 1

V. TH E PLAN OF TH E GOSPEL

The following is an attempt to exhibit the plan of the

book as it lay in the writer’s mind

ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL OF M ATTHEW

I . THE BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS . The advent o fthe Mess iah in acco rdance with prophecy . chaps . 1 , 2

I . The genea logy o f Jesus, showing his Abrahamicand Davidic descent . 1 : 1 -17

2 . The annunc iatio n to Joseph, and the birth o fJesus from the virgin, as prophesied .

-25

3 . The vis it o f the magi , giving o ccasion to thetest imony o f the Jewish s cribes that Bethlehemwas the prophesied bi rthp lace o f the Mess iah .

4 . The fl ight into Egypt, fu lfi l l ing prophecy .

5 . The murder o f the chi ldren o f Bethlehem, fulfi l l ing prophecy . 2 : 16-18

6. The return from Egypt and removal to Nazareth, fulfil l ing prophecy . 2 : 19

-23

II . PREPARAT ION FOR THE PUBLIC WORK OF JESUS .Events preparato ry to the founding o f the kingdom . 3 : 1— 4 : 1 1

I . The preparato ry ministry o f John the Bapti st, i nacco rdance with prophecy . 3 : 1

-12

2 . The baptism o f Jesus, accompan ied by thedescent o f the Sp i rit and the vo ice from heaven . 3 : 1 3

-17

3 . The temptat io n in the wilderness , sett l ing theprincip les o n which his work was to be done . 4 : 1

-1 1

III . TH E M IN I STRY IN GALILEE. The kingdom foundedand its fundamenta l princip l es set fo rth .

I . The beginning o f Jesus’ work in Gal i lee .

a ) The removal to Capernaum and the beginn ing o f preaching.

b) The ca l l o f th e four to evangel istic work .

c) Jesus’ early work in Gal i lee ; his W idespread

4 : 23—25


2 . The sermon on the mount ;‘I the ethica l prin

ciples o f the kingdom . chaps . 5 —73 . A group o f events , each o f which either i l lustrates o r attests the autho rity which in the

s ermon he has assumed.

a ) A l eper c l eansed.

b ) The centurion’s s ervant healed.

c) Peter’s wife’s mother hea led.

d ) Answers to disc ip les about fo l low ing him .

e) The sti l l ing o f the tempest .f) The Gadarene demoniacs .g ) A paralytic healed and h is s ins fo rgiven .

’

h ) The cal l o f Matthew .

i ) Answer concern ing fasting.

j) A ruler’s daughter raised, and a womanhealed . 9 : 18-26

k ) Two bl ind men and a dumb demoniachealed. 9 327

-34

4 . Discours e to the twelve apost les on sendingthem out ; the p roc lamation o f the kingdom . 9 : 35— 10 : 42

5 . Events showing the attitude o f various personstoward the gospel, and teaching concerning theSp ir it in which the go spel must be received . chaps . 1 1 , 120 ) Jesus

’ answer to the message from John theBapti st . 1 1 1-6

b ) The capt io us sp i r it of the Jews condemnedby Jesus . 1 1 : 7-19

c) Wo es against the c it ies which had not t epented at the p reach ing o f Jesus . 1 1 20—24

d ) The thanksgiving o f Jesus that the go speli s p la in to the s imp l e-minded, and his invitation to the heavy-laden . 1 1 25

-30

1‘It i s worthy of notice that each a lternate section O f th i s Part I II( see 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 ) i s a d iscourse of J esus : al l of these d iscourses treat ofthe k ingdom of heaven, and together constitute an exposition of thek ingdom in its various phases .

° N0te here the relation impl ied between power and authori ty.

THE PLAN OF THE GOSPEL 23

e) P l ucking grain on the sabbath ; the bigotryo f the Pharisees rebuked . 12 : 1 -8

f) Heal ing o f the withered hand on the sabbath ; bigotry i ss uing in murderous purpo se . —14

g ) Jesus heals many ; the gentlenes s o f hi sminist ry.

-21

h ) Jesus heals a bl ind and dumb demoniac ; thePharis ees charge him with co l l us io n withSatan, and Jesus warns them o f the dangero f blasphemy against the Ho ly Sp i rit .

i ) The Pharisees seek a S ign ; Jesus’ answer.j) The man from whom the unc l ean sp i rit hasgone out ; a parable o f the Jewish nation .

k ) The rea l basi s o f relationship to Christ .6. Discourse o f parables, chiefly concerning thegrowth o f the kingdom . 13 : 1

-52

7. The events o f the latter part of the Gal i leanministry, i l l ustrating espec ia l ly the increas ingunbel ief and oppo sit ion o f the Pharisees, and theinstructio n o f the discip l es , part icu larly from

1 °on, i n preparation fo r his death . 13 : 53— 17 : 27

1° Chap. marks an epoch wh ich is in a sense more importantthan that ind icated at 1 9 : I , and there is certainly someth ing to be saidfor the view that the author meant to mark here the beginning of a newd ivis ion of h is book and of a new period of the work of Jesus, characteri z ed by the preparation of h is d isciples for h i s death , as the ministry upto th is time had been mainly devoted to the proc lamation of the k ingdomto the people ( cf. 4 : 1 7, and notice the simi la rity of the phrase to thatused in Yet, on the who le, i t seems probable that the greatd ivis ions of the book are made on the basis o f ex ternal characteristics,mainly geograph ical . The periods thus made are marked in general byd i stinctive internal characteristics also . In the case O f the close O f theGal i lean ministry, however, the change in internal characteristics antedates somewhat the change of place. At the time denoted by itis a lready c lear that he must d ie at the hands of the J ews, and in J erusalem ; and , moreover, that the minds of h is d i sc iples must be preparedfor th is event. From th i s time on,the evangel ist ind icates, th is preparation fills a prominent place in Jesus ’ work , and h is face i s in a

24 THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO MATTHEW

a ) The unbelief o f the Naz arenes. 1 3 : 53-58

b) The death o f John the Bapti st at the handsof Herod .

c ) The feeding o f the five thousand.

d ) Jesus walking on the water, and Peter’s att empt to do so .

-36

e) Eating with unwashen hands ; the Pharisees’ critic ism, and Jesus

’ answer.

f) The faith o f a Canaanitish woman .

g ) A multitude healed by the sea o f Gal i lee .h ) The feeding o f the four thousand .

i ) Pharis ees and S adducees demand a S ign ;Jesus’ answer . -

4

j) The leaven o f the Pharisees and S adduceesJesus’ warn ing and the s lownes s o f the disc ip les to understand .

k ) Peter’s confess io n o f Jesus as the Messiah .

1) Jesus begins to instruct hi s disc ip l es concerning his death and resurrect i on . 16 : 21 -28

m) The transfiguration, wherein Jesus i s declared to be the Son o f God .

n) The ep i leptic boy healed .

0 ) Jesus again fo retel ls h is death .

19) The payment o f the temp l e tax and Jesus’instruct io n o f Peter concerning relation tothe temp l e wo rship . 1 7 24-27

8. D iscours e on ambition, humil ity, and forgiveness ; the personal relat ions o f the c itizens o fthe kingdom to one another. chap . 18

IV . JOURNEY THROUGH PEREA To JERUSALEM . Jesuscontinues the instruct ion o f his discip les, espec ia l lyi n the latter pa rt

,concerning his death . chaps . 19, 20

1 . The departure from Gal i lee. 19 : I , 2

2 . Answer to questions concerning divorce . 19 : 3-12

sense toward J erusalem,where he i s to d i e. The change in the character

of h is teach ing and the change O f place both result from the samecause ; yet i t is not unnatural that the former should precede the latterby a brief interval.


(1) Jesus’

question concerning the Christ .e) Jesus

’ great di scourse against the Pharisees .4 Prophetic discourse to the discip l es concern ingthe end o f the natio n and the end o f the age . chaps . 24, 25

5 . Preparatio n fo r the death o f Jesus . 26 : 1 -46

a ) By his enemies ; the p lo t to put him to

death .

b) By his fr iends ; the ano inting.

c ) By Judas ; the bargain to betray him .

d ) By Jesus himself.

( 1 ) The last supper.( 2) The warn ing to the discip l es .( 3 ) The prayer and the agony.

6 . The consummation o f the rej ection o f Jesus bythe Jews . 26 : 47— 27 : 66

a ) The arrest . 26 : 47-56

b) The trial . 26 : 57— 27 : 3 1

c) The crucifix ion and the death . 27 : 32-56

d ) The buria l . 27 : 57-6 1

e) The watch at the tomb .

THE APPEARANCES OF JESUS AFTER THE RE SU RRECTION. The triumph o f the Mess iah over his enemies and the commiss ion o f th e discip les to win al lnations to h im .

1 . The appearance on the res urrect io n mo rn ing .

2. The repo rt o f the watch ; attempt o f the Jewsto suppress the evidence .

3

28 : 1 1-15

3 . The appearance in Gal i lee ; the commiss ion o fthe disc ip l es . 28 16—20

CHAPTER I I

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO M ARK

I . TH E AU THOR

THE second gospel , l ike the first,contains in itsel f no

statement of its authorship . Reserving for brief mention

at a later point the testimony of ancient tradition to the

name and identity of the author, we consider first the evi

dence which the book itsel f furnishes concerning the char

acteristics and point o f view of its writer .

1 . H is nationality as i t appears in the book itself.

C lear indications of the national ity of the author are

rare and hardly decisive. H i s references to Jewi sh

affairs and to Palestinian local ities imply a fami l iarity

with both such as would be most natural in the case of a

Palestinian Jew,but would not be imposs ible to a genti le

,

especial ly a Christian genti le who had l ived in Palestine,

or even to one who had obtained hi s knowledge of these

things,along with hi s knowledge of the l i fe of Jesus

,from

one who had been a resident of Palestine . In other words,

the evidence suggests a Palestinian author or a Palestinian

source of the narrative .

Thus the book speaks of Judea, Jerusalem , and the

wilderness that was in that vicinity ( 1 : 4 , 5 , 1 2

of the river Jordan of Jericho

of Bethany 1 2 ) and the Mount of

O l ives of Gal i lee 14 ,28, 39 ;

and the Sea of Gal il ee

35—

4 1 ; 2 1 ; 47 ff. ; of the cities of27

28 THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO MARK

Gali lee,Nazareth ( 1 : 9 ; cf. 1 : 24 and Capernaum

implying in the connection that

it was on or near the Sea of Gal i lee (with 1 : 2 1 cf. 1 I 6,

and with 2 : 1 cf. 2 : but adding no description of its

location (cf. Matt . and Dalmanutha ;1 of the

tract o f Gennesaret (6 and of the regions adj acent

to Judea and Gal i lee 8 ; 20 ; 3 1 ;

1 0 : The author makes occasional incidental

reference to the pol itical status and rulers o f Judea and

Galilee (6 : 6 : ff.

5) . He refers somewhat

frequently to the parties and classes of people among the

Jews, as also to Jewish customs and usages, usual ly with

out comment or explanation 44 ; I 8 24 ;

22 ; 35 ; 1 5 , 3 1 ; 1 0 : 2 ff. , 33 ;

27 ; 1 2 : 1 3 ff.,I 8, 28, 38

-

40 ; 1 3 ; 1 ; 1 2 ff. , 53

1 The location of Dalmanutha has never been sa tis factorily determined . S ee HENDERSON in HAST INGS

,D ictionary of the B ible.

2 Cf. chap . i, p. 2, n . 2 .

8 The designation of Herod Antipas as k ing i s inaccurate, butfollows perhaps the popular manner of speech .

‘Accord ing to J OSEPHUS, Antiqu ities, xvii i, 5 , 4 , Herod ias was thew i fe, not of Ph il ip , tetrarch of the northeastern provinces, but of h i shalf-brother Herod, who l ived and d ied a private person. M ark ’s statement must be expla ined e ither by supposing that th is Herod was al soknown as Ph il ip ( he was the son of a d ifferent mother from Ph i l ip thetetrarch ) or by attributing i t to a confusion between Herod the husbandof Herod ias and h is brother Ph il ip, husband of her daughter, Salome,who i s also referred to in th is passage. S ee HEADLAM in HASTINGS ,Dictionary of the B ible, art. Herod,” Vol . I , pp . 3 5 9a, 360b.

I‘Concerning th i s statement of P ilate’s custom, see chap . i , p. 8 ;but Observe also that M ark ’s language even less than M atthew ’s intimatesthat th i s was a general custom of the procurators of J udea .

In th i s passage vss . 3 , 4 contain an explanation of J ew ish custom,

implying,however, not so much a non-J ew ish writer as non-J ew ish

readers . S ee also and

THE AUTHOR 29

ff. ; I O,1 1 , 3 1 , 42 , 43 . In four passages he uses

Aramaic words,in each case explain ing them

34 ; cf. where,though the word i s

not Aramaic,but a Greek word used in a technical Jewish

sense,he explains its meaning ) . To these pos itive evi

dences may be added the negative fact of the almost total

absence of quotations from the O ld Testament scriptures,

7

which suggests either that the writer was not a Jew or

that he was writ ing specially for non-Jewish readers .2 . The author

's relation to the events It has fre

quently been pointed out that the narrative of this gospel

abounds in detai ls of time,place

,and circumstances

,and

the feel ings and manner of Jesus and the other persons of

the narrative 20, 4 1 ; 9, 1 9

-2 1 ;-

4 1 ;

5 3-

5 , Th ese detai ls, though sometimes explained

as the work of the writer’s fancy, are more j ustly regarded

as indicating that the writer was an eyewitness of the

events or drew his material from those who were such .

3 . H is religious posi tion. That the writer, whatever

hi s national ity,was a Christian is evident from his first

phrase,The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ

,the

Son of God,

” and is confirmed by the tone of the whole

book . C itation of particular passages i s unnecessary.

But none of thi s evidence suffices to locate the author

definitely. We may, then, properly inquire whether there

i s any outside evidence that wil l lead us to some more

definite conclusion . This brings us to7 The only quotation in th i s gospel made by the evangel ist h imsel f

is that in 3 ; the words in the A. V. 1 5 : 28 do not belong to thetrue text

,and all the other quotations of S cripture language occur in h i s

report of the language of others , usua lly of J esus . O f these a l ist O ftwenty-three

,besides forty-four briefer references to the O ld Testament,

is given in SWETE, Gospel according to S t. M ark

,pp . lxx E .

30 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

4 . The testimony of tradition concerning the author

ship of the book . This i s conveyed to us in two ways .

a ) The ancient manuscripts of thi s gospel uni formlybear the title K a ra M ap/cop , According to Mark

,

” orEva f

y'yeM ov Ka ra. M ap/coy , Gospel according to Mark, or

its equivalent .8

b) Ancient writers, from Papias on, speak of a gospel

o f Mark, but almost as constantly represent the apostle

Peter as the chief source of hi s information . Though the

earl iest of these writers do not by description or quotation

definitely identi fy the book to which they refer with our

present Second gospel,yet the testimonies constitute a

continuous series down to the latter part of the second

century,when abundant quotations identi fy it beyond al l

question . The following are some of the most ancient of

these testimonies :

And the presbyter a lso said this : Mark, having become theinterpreter o f Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, not,however

,reco rding in order the things that were said o r done by the

Christ . Fo r neither d id he hea r the Lo rd, nor did he fo l low him ;but afterward

,as I said, [he fo l lowed] Peter, who adapted his teach

ing to the need o f the occas ion, but not as i f he were making a systematic arrangement o f the words o f the Lo rd . SO that Mark did noterr at a l l in writing some things as he remembered them . For hewas carefu l fo r one thing

,not to pass over any o f the things that he

had heard o r to state anything falsely in them . ( EUSEBIUS, H . E .,

i i i, 39, quoted from PAPIAs. )Matthew indeed publ ished a written gospel als o among the

Hebrews in thei r ow n dial ect, while P eter and Pau l i n Rome werepreaching the go spel and founding a church . But after the departureo f thes e

,Mark the discipl e and interpreter o f Peter, he als o having

written the things preached by Peter, transmitted them to us . (E U SEBIU S , H . E .

,v, 8, quoted from TRENE U S . )

See chap . i , p . 8, n . 7 .

THE AUTHOR 3 1

So greatly, however, did the l ight o f p iety enl ighten the mindso f Peter’s hearers that i t w as no t sufli cient to hear but once, o r toreceive the unwritten teaching o f the divine preaching, but with al lmanner o f entreaties they impo rtuned Mark, whose gospel we have,and who was a fo l low er o f Peter, that he sho uld leave them in writing a memoria l o f the teaching which had been oral ly communicatedt o them . No r did they cease thei r so l ic itations unti l they had prevailed with the man , and thus became the cause o f that wr i t ing whichis cal led the gospel acco rding to Mark. They say a lso that theapostl e [Peter] , having learned what had been done, the Sp ir it havingrevea led it to h im, was p l eased with the zea l o f the men and autho riz ed the work fo r use by the churches . This is stated by Cl ement inthe s ixth book o f his Institut ions , and is co rroborated by Pap ias,bishop o f Hierapo l is . ( EUSEBIUS, H . E ., i i ,

Pau l therefo re had Titus as his interpreter, as a lso th e blessedPeter had Mark, whose gospel was composed Peter narrating and he[Mark] writing. ( JEROME, Ep isto la Cx x , ad H

Despite the inconsistencies of these statements with

one another as to the extent and character of Peter’s

influence on the gospel , i t i s entirely evident that the early

church both attributed thi s gospel to Mark and bel ieved

that he was in some way indebted for his facts,in part at

least, to the apostle Peter . The Mark referred to in the

tradit ion is undoubtedly the John Mark spoken of in the

New Testament in Acts 25 ; 1 3 ; 39 ;

Ph i lem . 24 ; 1 Pet . 2 Tim .

From these passages it appears that Mark was a contem

porary of Jesus, but probably only to a l imited extent an

eyewitness of the events of Jesus ’ l i fe .

These th ree factors o f the evidence — the internal

evidence of the book,the testimony of tradition, and the

statements of the New Testament concerning Mark — are

sel f-consistent,and

,though not amounting to a demon

For other testimonies of antiqu ity see CHARTERIS, Canonici ty.

32 THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO MARK

stration,certainly afford reasonable ground for the con

clusion that we have in the second gospel a work of John

Mark,at different times a companion of Peter and of

Paul ; a work based in considerable part on the discourses

o f the apostle Peter to which Mark had l istened,and in

which Peter had related many things concerning the l i fe

of Jesus . It is presumably to Peter that the narrative i s

indebted for most o f those detai ls that suggest an eye

witness . What other sources Mark may have had it i s

impossible now to determine .1 0

I I . TH E READERS FOR WHOM TH E BOOK WAS INTENDEDReference has already been made to the internal indi

cations that the second gospel was intended,not for

Jewish readers,but for genti les . The almost total absence

of quotations from or references to the O ld Testament inthe words of the evangelist h imsel f, the absence of any

special adaptation of the narrative or of the teachings of

Jesus to the Jewish need or point of view , such as is so

conspicuous in the first gospel , together with the occa

sional explanation of Jewish customs and modes of

thought 3 ; and of Aramaic words or

Jewish technical terms 34 ;

al l suggest that the author has in mind that his1° The view of BADHAM , S t. M ark

’

s Indebtedness to S t. M atthew,

that the picturesque detai ls of M ark ’s gospel a re embel l ishments addedby the evangel ist to narratives taken from an O lder source, and that O fWENDT

,Lehre J esu, Part I , pp. 9-44 , especial ly pp . 1 0, 36, 4 1 , 4 3 , that

the sources of M ark to the number of eight can be d iscovered by l iteraryanalysis

,both seem to me whol ly improbable.

“Zara vas in 1 : 1 3 , Beefefloah in 3 : 22,

’

Pafiflovvel in are leftw i thout explanation

,the first two probably as being proper names wh ich

requ ired no explanation, the latter perhaps as a word suffi ciently known,even among non-Jew ish Christians, not to require explanation. '

Afifid


the title of the book, Jesus i s characterized as the Chri st,the Son of God,1 2 and in the first event in which Jesus

himsel f appears he heard the voice from heaven saying to

him :“ Thou art my beloved son ; in thee I am well

pleased . This natural ly raises the question whether the

first l ine o f the gospel does not express the proposition

which it i s the purpose of the author in the rest o f the

book to prove. But does the book, as a whole, j usti fy an

affirmative answer to thi s question ? Certainly the book

i s not in form an argument framed to support this propos i

tion . Nor i s it true that in the narrative Jesus i s represented as affirming this proposition at the outset, and then

devoting h is ministry to the advancing of evidence to

sustain it . But neither of these facts quite answers the

question of the author’s purpose. It i s necessary to di s

tinguish between the purpose which the writer aimed to

accompli sh and the form in which he presented his

material,as well as between the proposition which the

writer puts in the forefront o f hi s book and that which

Jesus put in the forefront of hi s ministry. What proposi

tion the writer aimed to prove, or what impression he

aimed to make, or what result he desired to accomplish ,can be answered only by a careful study of the contents

and structure of the book, and to this we must turn .

12 The words Son of God (vlofi 0608) are lack ing in a very fewancient authorities . Westcott a‘nd Hort place them in the margin,expressing the opinion that neither read ing can be safely rej ected. The

strong evidence in their favor,and the early recognition of Jesus as Son

of God in the “narrative, seem to j usti fy the treatment of th is characteriz ation as reflecting the author’s conception of J esus . SWETE, The Gospelaccording to S t. M ark , pp . 1x , I , expresses the opinion that th e wholeof th i s verse is probably due to a later hand. But th is is a conj ecturefor wh ich there is no external evidence.


A fter abrief account of the ministry of John the Bap

tist, and an equal ly condensed narrative of the baptismand temptation of Jesus

,the narrative passes at once into

his Gal ilean ministry . This ministry begins with the

announcement of the approach of the kingdom and a

command to the people to repent . Jesus teaches the

people, heals the sick, casts out demons, forgives s in,gathers disciples, makes for himsel f enemies . Yet, so

far as the record shows, he gave no name to his office,and claimed for himsel f no title but “ Son of man,

”1 3

accepted none but S i r or Master .

The effect of this evangel istic and healing work of

Jesus was twofold . On the one hand, multitudes followedhim, chiefly to be healed ; a few disciples attached them

selves to him , and from these he selected, after a time, the

Twelve whom he instructed and sent out to do the same

kind of work that he himsel f was doing. From theseTwelve he called forth at length on the j ourney to Caesarea

Phi lippi what was apparently their first expl icit and intel1 3 Into the much-d isputed question what the term Son of man

meant, as used by J esus o f h imsel f, there is not space to enter here. It

i t perhaps sufficient to observe that in view of the reticence concerningh is mess iahsh ip wh ich , accord ing to th is gospel , J esus observed a lmostto the end of h is ministry, i t i s imposs ible to suppose that the evangel istregarded the term Son of man,” by wh ich J esus is said publ icly andalmost from the beginning of h i s ministry to have designated h imself

,

as a recognized equ ivalent of M ess iah . That the poss ib il ity that hewas the M ess iah wa s early d iscussed among the people ( cf. the statementof Luk e 3 : 1 5 concerning J ohn the Baptist, and the titles w ith wh ich ,accord ing to al l the synoptists, the demoniacs addressed J esus, M ark

etc .) i s not intrins ical ly improbable . But th i s does not implythat J esus had declared h imself to be the M essiah , and i t i s worthy Ofnote that those who address h im as M essiah never emp loy the termSon of man .

”


ligent acknowledgment of hi s messiahship .

1 4 Then,for

bidding his disciples to speak to others o f h im as the

Messiah , he went on to instruct them further concerning

his mission, tell ing them,what was entirely out of char

acter with their conception of the Messiah,that he must

suffer and die, rej ected by his nation, and that they, as hi s

disciples , must be ready, with l ike devotion to the interests

o f their fel low-men,to suffer a l ike fate. From this time

on he continued hi s instruction of the disciples,partly in

spec ific preparation of them for his death , partly in the

way of more general instruction concerning the things of

the kingdom .

On the other hand, Jesus met with opposition . H i s

own fami ly thought him beside himsel f ; his fellow

townsmen had l ittle faith in him ; the scribes and Phari

sees opposed him, at first not pronouncedly, but with

increasing bitterness . This contrariety of result was in

accordance with Jesus’ own teaching that the sowing of

the seed of the kingdom would be followed, not by uni

form harvests of good, but by diverse results and division

of households . H i s assumption of authority in the temple,1‘Th i s does not imply that the d iscip les had not from the first sus

pected , or even bel ieved, that J esus was the Chri st ; still less that J esushad not from th e first known h imself to be the M essiah . The representation of th is gospel is rather that J esus d id not thrust h is messianic claiminto the foreground ; d id not make recognition of i t a test and cond itionO f d isciplesh ip ; d id not, so to speak , conduct h i s campaign on the basisof i t ; but, on the contrary, kept i t in the background, both w ith h isd isciples and w i th the people at large, unti l each had had the opportunityto gain from J esus’ own conduct and character a conception of messiahsh ip somewhat ak in to h is own . He d id not define h imsel f by the termM essiah ,” but he defined M essiah by h imsel f. Thus th is termrepresented for the d isciples , as they grew in knowledge of their M aster,an ever-changing and enlarging conception.

THE PURPOSE OF THE WRITER 37

following close upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem,

in which he had for the first time encouraged and planned

the publ ic declaration of h im as the Messiah,fanned into

flame the opposition of h i s enemies . The Pharisees, who

were hi s earl iest opponents, j oined now by the Sadducees

and chief priests,determined upon his death . H i s trial

gave occasion to a distinct avowal on hi s part that he was

the Christ,the Son of God, and it was for thi s that he was

condemned to death by the Jewish authorities.

H is death,in which the opposition to him culminates,

was speedily followed by his resurrection,1 5 veri fying his

prediction and vindicating his claims .

Thus the book gives a picture of the publi c career o f

Jesus which , taken as a whole, has a clearly defined char

acter and great verisimil itude . Possessing,from the

moment of his baptism,the first event in which he appears

in the gospel, a clear definition of his own mission, he

moves steadi ly on in the work of proclaiming the kingdom1° M ark ’s story of the resurrection is incomplete in the gospel as we

have it. Chap . i s the end of that wh ich we have reason to bel ievecame from the hand of M ark . Yet i t ca nnot be that th i s is al l that hewrote. He certainly d id not intend to close h i s gospel w ith the words,“They were afraid,” and w ith 'no account at al l of an appearance of

J esus after h is resurrection . But the remainder of what he wrote, or

intended to write, has in some way fa iled of transmission to us.Instead of i t we have in vss . 9-20 a narrative of the appearance of Jesusafter h i s resurrection

,from another band

,and based , perhaps, on the

accounts of the other gospels . For fuller d iscuss ion of the genu inenessand authorsh ip of th i s passage see WESTCOTT AND HORT, Greek Testa

m ent, I I , Append ix, pp . 28— 5 1 ; BURGON , The Last Twelve Verses of S t.

M ark ; SALMON, Introduction to the New Testament, pp . 1 44

-5 1 ;

GOULD, Commentary on M ark , pp . 301-4 ; CONYBEARE , in E x posi tor, IV ,

vii i,p . 24 1 ; IV,

x,p. 2 1 9 ; V,

i i,p. 40 1 ; ZAHN , Gesch ich te des neu

testamentl ichen K anons, Vol . I I , pp . 9 1 0 ff. ; ROHRBACH , Der S chluss

des M arkusevangeliums.

38 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO M ARK

and reveal ing himsel f to men who, in the nature of the

case,could receive that revelation only l ittle by l ittle. Not

by argument, not chiefly by assert ion, but by his l i fe he

reveals himsel f and his conception of the kingdom and the

Messiah . Winning,by this revelation

,both followers and

foes,he teaches h is disciples, as they are able to receive it,

what his work and fate are to be, and what theirs, too,must be, and moves on, with clear foresight both of death

and of triumph over death,to the culmination of his sel f

revelation in crucifixion and resurrection .

It i s thus with Jesus in his publ ic career that th i s book

has to do . There i s no story of the infancy . There is no

genea logical table l inking Jesus with the past and proving

his Abrahamic and Davidic descent . The background of

the l i fe i s Palestinian and Jewish, as it must have been to

be true to the facts, but there i s no emphasis upon the

relations of Jesus to Judaism or the O ld Testament . Quotations of Jesus from the O ld Testament are reported, butthe evangeli st’s own use of it i s l imited to hi s first sen

tence. The distinctly Jewish point of view, so Clearly

mani fest in Matthew . for example, i s whol ly lacking. It

i s not Jesus in relation to the past, or the prophecies o f the

Messiah but Jesus as he appeared to his contemporaries ,a figure in, and a factor of, the history of his own times,that this gospel presents to us . The narrative i s confined

wholly to the most active period of Jesus’ l i fe,chiefly to

the busy Gali lean ministry and the sti l l more crowded

passion week. It i s rapid,condensed, abrupt . It reminds

one of the words of Peter : “ Jesus of Nazareth,a man

approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders

and signs which God did by him in the midst of you ”

(Acts and “ Jesus of Nazareth, how that God

THE PURPOSE OF THE WRITER 39

anointed him with Holy Spirit and power, who went

about doing good,and healing all that were oppressed of

the devi l ; for God was with him (Acts I O

Such a presentation of Jesus has al l the value of an

argument, with l ittl e of it s form,and possibly with no

conscious argumentative aim . The structure of the book

seems almost wholly unaffected by a purpose of the writer

to convince hi s readers of any defined proposition . Not

only is there lacking,as also in Matthew

,the strictly argu

mentative structure, but there i s little indication even of

the arrangement of material in a certain order to facil itate

the production of a certain impression ( cf. 11 . 16, p .

E ven in respect to the plan and method of Jesus,of which

the book gives so distinct an impression , i t does not appear

that the book was written to prove that such was Jesus ’

method ,but rather that it was written as i t was because

such was,in fact, the career of Jesus . This element i s in

the book,we are constra ined to bel ieve

,because it was in

the l i fe. The writer tell s the story of the l i fe of Jesus as

he knows it, natural ly emphasizing the things which have

impressed him . Because it has impressed him it wil l im

press other men of l ike minds, and because of this fact it

possesses argumentative value . But the argument i s latent

rather than expl icit . There are men today to whom

closely wrought argument , presenting a proposition and

sustaining it by a series o f reasons, means l ittle, but to

whom deeds of power — sti l l more, a career of power

mean much . Such men are impres sionable rather than

reflective, emotional rather than logical . Such a man the

New Testament leads us to beli eve Peter was, and there

is not lacking a suggestion that John Mark was a man

of the same character . Such a man,at any rate, we judge


the writer of this gospel to have been, and to such men

especial ly would it appeal . It i s adapted to lead them to

share the author’s conviction,announced in his first l ine,

that Jesus was the Christ,the Son of God ; or, i f they

al ready hold i t, to hold it more firmly and intell igently .

The book makes its appeal to the reader as it records that

Jesus made his appeal to his contemporaries, not by argu

ment adduced to prove hi s messiahship,but by the s imple

presentation of the l i fe itsel f, leaving this l i fe to make its

own impression . As Jesus, believing from the beginning

in his own messiahship and divine sonship,convinced his

fol lowers of it,not by affirmation or by argument, but by

l iving,so the evangel i st

,holding at the outset to the

messiahship of Jesus,depends

,not on formulated argu

ment,but on the story of the l i fe to carry this conviction

to his readers . The book differs in thi s respect from the

l i fe only in the incidental announcement of its thesis in its

first l ine.

Is such a book intended to convince unbeli evers or to

instruct those who already bel ieve ? Certainly it could be

used for ei ther purpose. But the absence of anything l ike

a controversial tone, the S imple straightforwardness of

the story, without comment or even arrangement for

argumentative purposes, leads us to think of it as a book

written for Chri stians rather than for unbel ievers,and

chiefly for instruction rather than for conviction . That it

was intended, as it has been maintained in chap . i , that

Matthew was,to play a part in the controversies of the

apostol ic age of which we learn from Acts and the ep i stles,there is no evidence . The writer is certainly not a Juda

istic Christian, but neither does he show any distinctly

anti-Judaistic interest . He writes in an atmosphere, or


tions of events to one another — the causal dependence of

later events upon earl ier ones — constrains us to bel ieve

that not only i s the succession of the several periods of the

record that also of the l i fe,but that within these periods

the order i s in the main, that of the events themselves .

ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL

I . INTRODUCTION : PRE PARAT ION FOR THE PUBLIC WORK

OF JESUS .1 . P rea ching o f John the Bapt ist.2 . Bapt ism o f Jesus .3 . Temptation in the wildernes s .

II . THE GALILEAN M IN I STRY.

1 . The work begun and favorably received.

0) Jesus begins preaching in Gal ilee .b ) Cal l o f the four fishermen .

c ) A sabbath in Capernaum .

d ) A preaching tour in Ga l i lee .2. The oppo sitio n o f the scribes and Phariseesc ited and rap idly developed .

a ) A paralyt ic healed and his s ins fo rgiven .

b) Cal l o f Levi, and the feast in his house .c) Jes us

’ answer to a quest ion concern ing fasting .

d ) P l ucking grain on the sabbath .

e) A withered hand healed on the sabbath .

3 . The beginnings o f the separation betw een thefo l lowers o f Christ and th e rest o f the community the o rgan ization o f th e band o f twelve

persona l attendants and helpers .a ) The widespread fame o f Jesus .b ) The choos ing o f the Twelve.c) Concern ing eternal s in .

d ) Natural and sp i ritual kinsmen .

4 . The parables o f th e kingdom’s growth, i n whichis a ls o i l lustrated its separat ing power. 4 : 1

-34

THE PLAN OF THE BOOK

5 . S undry mani festat ions o f his power, which meet

8.

with varied recept ion,some bel ieving, some un

bel ieving, s om e s low to bel ieve .a ) S ti l l ing o f the tempest .b) The Gerasene demoniac .

c) J airus’

s daughter raised to l i fe.

d ) The rej ecti on at Nazareth .

The s ending o ut o f the Twelve to engage inwork l ike that o f Jesus himsel f .The continuance o f Jesus’ work in Gal i lee, withthe reappearance o f the same features ; he hea lsand feeds the mult itudes ; his disc ip l es ares lowof understanding ; the multitudes fo l low him :

the Pharis ees oppo se him .

a ) The feeding o f the five tho usand.

b) Jesus walking on the sea .

c) Many healed in Gal i lee .d ) On eating with unwashen hands .A withdrawa l from Ga l i lee into genti le territory,and the ready fa ith which Jesus finds there.a ) The Syrophoenic ian woman’s daughter .b ) The deaf and dumb man healed.

9 . Further experiences in Gal i lee in which the same

I O.

features as befo re appea r .a) The feeding o f the four thousand .

b) Pharisees demanding a S ign from heaven .

c) A blind man healed near Bethsaida .

A s econd withdrawal from Gali lee : tour to

Caesarea Phi l ipp i and return to the sea . Jesusdraws out from Peter the confess ion o f him asthe Christ, and begins to teach his disc ip les concern ing h is own sufferings, and the conditions o fdiscip l esh ip to him .

a ) Peter’s confes sion o f Jesus’ messiahship .

b) Jesus’ prediction o f his own death and resur

rection .

c) The transfiguration.

4-3

IV .

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

d ) The demoniac boy healed .

e) Jesus again fo retel l s his death and resurrec

t ion .

f) The ambiti on and j ealousy o f the disc ip l esrep roved .

TH E JOURNEY FROM GALILEE TO JUDEA, and instruct ions on the way ; on near ing Jerusa lem Jesus ispubl ic ly sa luted as s on o f David .

I . Departure from Ga li lee into Perea .2 . Concerning divorce .3 . Bless ing l itt le chi ldren .

4 . The rich young rul er.5 . Announcement o f h is cruc ifixion .

6. Ambitio n o f James and John reproved .

7 . The bl ind man near Jericho healed.

THE M IN I STRY IN JERUSALEM : Jesus causes himself to be announced as Mess iah ; comes into confl ict with th e l eaders o f the peop l e ; predicts the

9 : 14-29

9 i 150-32

9 3 335 0

downfal l o f the Jewish temp le and cap ita l . Chaps . 1 1-131 . The triumphal entry ; Jesus is sa luted as Mess iah .

The cursing o f the fig tree .The c leans ing o f the temp l e .Comment on the withered fig tree.Confl ict w ith the Jewish leaders .a ) Christ

’s authority chal lenged .

b) The parabl e o f the vineyard .

c) Three questions by the Jewish rulers .d ) Jesus

’

quest io n concerning David’s son .

e) Warning against the scribes .6. The widow ’s two mites .

7. The p rophetic discourse concerning the downfa l l of th e temp l e and c ity.

91

V. TH E PASSION H I STORY .

1 . The p l o t o f the Jews .2. The ano inting in the house o f S imon th e l eper .3 . The bargain o f Judas with the Jewish leaders .

THE PLAN OF THE BOOK

4. The last pass over o f Jesus and hi s disc ip l es .5 . Predict io n o f Peter’s denial .6. The agony in Gethsemane .7 . The betrayal and arrest .8. The tria l befo re the Jewish autho rities .

9 . The den ials o f Peter .10. The trial befo re P i late.1 1 . The cruc ifixion and the death o f Jesus .12. The buria l .

VI . THE RESURRECT ION or JESUS, attested by the emptytomb and the wo rd o f the young man .

Appendix : S ummary o f the appearances o f Jesus .

4 5

CHAPTER I II

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE

I . TH E AU THOR’

S PREFACE

IN dealing with the gospel of Luke we have an

advantage,which we do not possess in the case of either

Matthew or Mark, that the author opens h is book with a

preface which is rich in information concerning the l iter

ary and historical situation out of which the book arose

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a na rrativeconcern ing tho se matters which have been fu lfi l led among us, evena s they del ivered them unto u s which from the beginning were eyewitness es and ministers o f the word, i t seemed good to me also,having traced the course o f al l things accurately from the first

,to

write unto thee in o rder, most excel lent Theophi lus, that thou mightest know the certainty concern ing the things wherein thou wastinstructed .

Postponing to a later chapter the ful ler discussion of

the significance of the preface in its bearing upon the

general problem of the origin of our gospel s, we may

notice here its clear indication that thi s gospel w as by no

means the earl iest attempt to publ ish a narrative of the

l i fe of Jesus . When the author wrote,not only was that

l i fe the subj ect of instruction in the church ( vs. but

many persons had already undertaken to compose a narra

tive of its events (vs . The author of thi s gospel , whil e

recogniz ing the value of these efforts , conceives also that

they leave something sti l l to be desired,and writes, after

careful investigation, that the reader, al ready instructed

in the facts of the l i fe of Jesus , may have certain knowl

edge of these things wherein he had received instruction .

46

THE AUTHOR 47

It i s evident, not only that the statements of this pref

ace have a direct bearing upon the question for whom

and with what purpose the gospel was written, but that

its distinct intimation that the author possessed, and per

haps used,older gospel writings must be taken into

account in interpreting the indications of the gospel itsel f

as to who the author was . We must be prepared to con

sider whether there are diverse indications o f authorship,

and to determine, as far as we may, whether any givenfeature of the narrative i s traceable to the final author who

wrote the preface,or to those earl ier authors of whose

writings he made use . Yet first o f al l we must examine

the gospel as it stands for the evidence which it yields

respecting its author,intended readers

,and purpose .

I I . THE AU THOR

1 . H is nationa lity as it appears in the gospel itself.

There are numerous references in all parts of the gospel to

Palestinian local ities 26, 39 ; 39 , 4 1 ; 3 ;

1 7°

29 , 37, 4 1 ;-

7 ; One or twoof the local ities referred to cannot be certainly ider

'

Itified,1

but in every case in which the location of the place is

known the reference of the gospel to i t corresponds to its

local ity,and in some cases the correspondence of the nar

ratives to the local conditions i s somewhat striking.

2

1 On Bethphage, and Emmaus, see the B ible d ictionaries. On the country of the Gerasenes , see chap . i

,p. 2

,n . 2 .

2On 4 : 3 1 , down to Capernaum,

” observe that Nazareth i sfeet above sea-level , wh ile Capernaum is on the shore of the S ea of

Gal ilee, whch is 682 feet below sea-level . On the route of the triumphalentry as described by Luke in 4 1 ( these detai ls are pecul iar toh im) see STANLEY, S ina i and Palestine, pp . 1 86-90.

48 THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO LUKE

Observe also the reference to cl imate in ff. To

these may be added occasional references to the different

elements of the population of the country and to thei r

relations to one another

A cons iderable number of the geographical references

occur in passages which have closely parallel narratives in

Matthew or Mark,suggesting the possibi l ity that the

author ’s geographical knowledge i s second-hand . Yet in

some of these cases Luke contains a definition of locality

not found in the other gospel s (4 : 3 1 or an alter

native name ( 5 : and there are a number o f correctly

used geographical terms in passages o f which there are no

paral lels in the other gospels 26, 39 ; 2 : 4 , 39 , 4 1 ,

including one which seems very clearly of an edi

torial character from the pen of the final author

Taken altogether,the evidence suggests at least such a

general knowledge of the country as enabled the author

intel ligently to use and edit his sources .

The gospel frequently speaks, and always, so far as we

are able to test it,correctly, of Jewish history, parties,

institutions,usages

,

3 and current opinions . Thus the

priests and the temple are spoken of in I 5 , 8-1 1

,2 1 -23 ;

( cf.

-47 ;

1 9 ; 5 ; 52 , 54 , 66 ; the Phari

sees,thei r usages

,opinions

,and characteristics, in

2 1 , 30, 33 ; 7 ; 36 ff . ;-44 ;

3 ; 1 1 ; scribes or

lawyers, in -

54 ;

1 9 , 46 ; 66 ; the Sadducees, in the

Sanhedrin,in 66 ;

a Concerning a possible exception to th is statement in -24, seeAppended Note I II , p . 74 .

50 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE

not reported in the other gospels . But outside the first

two chapters and the genealogical table there is but one

expl icit quotation (Luke ff. ) by the evangel ist, and

this i s paral lel to the one passage in which the second

gospel quotes the O ld Testament . There i s also one passage ( 23 : 34 ) in which Ol d Testament language i s usedin a narrative passage without reference to its O ld Testament origin ; this passage l ikewise being paral lel to one in

Mark and Matth ew .

4 The quotations as a whole Show the

influence of the Septuagint, and no clear evidence that the

author of the gospel knew Hebrew .

5

References to the pol itical s ituation in Palestine are

expl icit and important . Incidental references occur in

20 ; ( P) ; 20 :

22-24 ; 23 : 1-24 passim, 52 . In all these cases — some of

them paralleled in the other gospels,others pecul iar to

Luke — the references are true to the situation as we

know it from other sources . There are also two passages

pecul iar to Luke wh ich are evidently careful editorial

notes : 2 : 1 -3 ; 3 : 1 , 2 . The latter o f these is an entirely

correct statement of the pol itical s ituation in Judea in

the fifteenth year of Tiberius ; but there i s some d ifficulty in combining into a consistent chronology the state

ment that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fif

teenth year of Tiberius and the data yielded respectively

by Luke 2 : 1 -3 and 3 The expression in the high‘ To th i s there should perhaps be added three passages in wh ich

Westcott and Hort recognize the use of O ld Testament language ( 23 : 3 5 ,3 6 , but the resemblance to the O ld Testament is so sl ight andinc idental

,extend ing in two cases to a single word only, that they afford

l ittle evidence .5 See PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, p . xxxv.

See Appended Note I , p. 67 .

THE AUTHOR 5 1

priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas ( érrl c’

s i epe’

ws”Am/a

na l. Ka i a'cpa — observe the use of the s ingular ) , reflects

not very di stinctly, yet not incorrectly, the peculiar S itua

tion of the time in respect to the offi ce of high priest .7

The other passage,2 1 -3 , creates more difficulty, and has

given rise to prolonged discussion . O f the many solutionsthat have been proposed none is altogether sati sfactory

,

in the sense of furnishing conclusive evidence that Luke’s

statement i s wholly accurate ; yet its erroneousness i s not

proved, and it i s at least possible that it i s itsel f an impor

tant datum for the determination of the facts respecting

enrolments in the Roman empire.8 In any case,i t remains

that these two passages show an interest of the evangel ist

in the relations o f the l i fe o f Jesus to the affairs o f the

Roman empire at large, such as appears in none of the

other gospels, and indicate a writer who had sought by

investigation of the facts to connect the events he was

narrating with the history of the land and the empire,

rather than one who with easy famil iarity with the facts

mentioned them incidentally without effort or specialintention .

References to social l i fe,everyday occupations

,and

articles of common use are very frequent,so much so as

to constitute a characteristic o f this gospel as compared

with the other gospels . Thus the house i s spoken of in

varioushousehold utens ils are mentioned in 1 : 63 5 : 1 8 ; 8 : 1 6 ;1 1 clothing,

in f. ;

the meals o f the day,in 7, 8 ; 20

7 S ee chap . v,p . 99 , n . 2 ; LIGHTFOOT, B ibl ical E ssays, p . 1 63 PLUM

MER, ad loc.

8 See Appended Note II , p . 68.

5 2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE

46 ; articles of food, in 1 1, 1 2 ; 1 3

2 1 ; 42 ; beverages , in

oi l and ointment,in

38, 46 feasts and S imi lar social customs,in -

46 ;-1 0 ; 1 5 : 22

-25 ; funeral customs, in 14 ; 8 : 52 ;exigencies o f travel

,in -

5 ;—6

,I o, 1 1

, 34, 3 5 ;1 1 5

-7. Men of various occupations are mentioned : shep

herds, in 2 : 8 ; swineherds,in

plowmen, in 1 7 7 ; fishermen, in 5 : 2-1 I corngrinders, in

Spinning, in cf. al so ser

vants and thei r dut i es m If , 42 ff. ; 1 3 6 Most

of these references have l ittle or no evidential value in

respect to the question of authorship,yet

,taken together

,

they show a notable conformity to the conditions of l i fe in

Palestine.

The Greek of the gospel is of three somewhat distinct

types . The preface i s in excellent idiomatic Greek,with

no suggestion of Hebraisti c influence. The infancy sec

t ion is very di stinctly and strongly Hebraistic in character.

The remainder of the gospel i s less markedly Hebraic,resembling in general the gospels of Mark and Matthew,

yet having some pecul iarities of its own .

1 0

3 See Article by S HAILER M ATHEWS , in B i blical World, June, 1 89 5 ,

pp. 4 5 0 ff., of wh ich free use has been made in th is l ist.10 E spec ial ly noteworthy are the use of the optative w ith dv l( a

class ical id iom found in the New Testament only in Luke and Acts ) ,the frequent employment of i n w ith the infinitive (a construction verycommon in the S eptuagint, and found in al l parts of Luk e except thepreface, and occurring six times as often as in M atthew and . M arktogether) , the frequent occurrence of éyévero 66 and x a l e‘yém o ( aboutfour times as often as in M atthew and M ark together) , and preva il inglyw ith the Hebraistic construction fol low ing ( ind icative alone, or m l w i than ind i cative ; in Acts, on the other hand, usually w ith the infinitive

THE AUTHOR 5 3

A l l these facts, considered together, point to the con

elus i on that the author certainly employed Jewish sources,

and was famil iar with Jewish affairs,but may

.not have

been himsel f a Jew . The story of the infancy i s of a

strongly Jewish cast ; the sources of the remainder of

the book are quite s imi lar in this respect to the gospel o f

Mark,and are presumably of Jewish origin , though not so

pronouncedly Jewish in character as the infancy story or

as the gospel o f Matthew . The references to affairs of the

Roman empire, and the extension of the genealogical

table, are suggestive of a man who was not a Jew,or who

was at least somewhat decidedly cosmopol itan in his feel

ing . He shows too much sympathy with the Jewish point

of view to have been a genti le who repudiated the O ldTestament rel igion , and too broad an outlook to have been

a Jew who held a narrow Jewish view of the world and

God’

s relation to it . He might be a J ew of cosmopol itan

feel ing, or a gentile proselyte to Judaism .

2 . H is religious position— Of thi s there is no room

for doubt . Like the writers of the other gospels,the third

evangel i st i s a Chri stian in hi s bel ief. The subj ect o f hi s

book i s Jesus Chri st,the Son of God ; and the things

which have been fulfil led among us,

” and concerning

which he desires hi s readers to know the certainty,

” are

the deeds and teachings of Jesus . As respects the par

ticular type of Christianity which he represented, i t i s

evident that his sympath ies would be with the Pauline

rather than with the Judaistic party . E vidence of this

fol low ing) . See J .H

. M OULTON , E x posi tor, J anuary , 1 904 , p. 74 . Thusthe pecul iarities of Luk e’s style are in part Hebraistic , in part d istinctlynon-Hebraistic. See a detai led d iscussion of Luke’s style in PLUMMER’SCommentary, pp . l i if . and 4 5 . HAWK IN S, Horae Synopti cae, pp . 1 40

-6 1 .


wil l appear in connection with the consideration of the

purpose of the book.

3 . E v idence concerning the identity of the author

from outside the gospel— This i s of three kinds

a ) That which is derived from the book of Acts,combined with the evident relation of the gospel and the

Acts . That these two books are from the same author i s

so evident that it has been affirmed by critics of every

school,and very rarely questioned .

1 1 To determine the

authorship of Acts would then be to determine that of the

third gospel . The former problem, however, i s scarcely

less diffi cult than the latter In certain portions of Acts,

known as the “we-sections -

40 ; — 2 1 : 1 8 ;— 28 : 1 6 or the narrative i s told in the first

person,implying that it i s from the pen of an eyewitness

of the events . That this impl ication i s in accordance with

the facts, and that the author of these sections was in fact

a companion of the apostle Paul on some of hi s missionary

j ourneys, i s one of the as sured results of historical eriti

cism . It i s natural to suppose that the author of these

we-sections i s at the same time the author of the whole

book, the absence of the first-person pronoun in the other

portions o f it reflecting the fact that he i s here,in part at

least,relating what he had learned from others . There

i s,moreover

,considerable evidence for this opinion in the

prevalence throughout the book of certain peculiarities of

style,as wel l as in the very fact o f the retention of the

11 S ee, for example, PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke,p . xi ; HEAD

LAM , art . Acts ” in HAST INGS , D ictionary of the B i ble, Vol . I , p . 29 ;

S CHM IEDEL,art. Acts in E ncyclope dia B i blica, Vol . I , p . 48 ; STAN

TON , in E x pos i tor, M ay, 1 89 3 , pp. 3 36—

5 3 ; FRIEDRI CH ,D as Lukasevange

l ium und d ie Apostelgeschi chte Werke dessel ben Verfassers, Hal le, 1 890.

THE AUTHOR 5 5

we in these sections themselves . Yet there i s by no

means the same agreement on th is point as on the autoptic

character of the we-sections, and a certain conclusion con

cerning the authorship of the gospel can be drawn from

the relation of it to Acts only when the Acts problem itsel f

i s definitely settled .

1 2

b ) The ancient manuscripts of the gospel uni formly

bear the title K a ra o leou,“ According to Luke,

” or

Eva fy'yel tov Ica

'ra o /caV

,

“ Gospel according to Luke, or

its equivalent .1 3

c) From the earl iest times at which anc ient writersmention any author of our gospel they ascribe it to Luke.

The following are some of these testimonies

For in the memo irs which I say were compo sed by his apostlesand thos e who fo l lowed them,

i t i s written that his sweat fel l down

like drops o f blo od,while he was praying and saying, Let this cup,

i f i t be poss ible, pass from me .”1“

( JUST IN M ARTYR, D ia logue withTrypho, chap .

12 PLUMMER,Commentary on Luke, p . xii, says, It i s perhaps no

exaggeration to say that noth ing in b ibl ical critic ism is more certain thanth is statement

,

” viz . , that the author of Acts (not s imply of the we

sections was a companion of Paul . W i th th is statement agree alsoL IGHTFOOT

,art . Acts in SM ITH , D ictionary of the B ible, 2d Eng . ed.

HEADLAM , art. Acts in HAST INGS , D ictionary of the B i ble ; RAM SAY,BLAss , and many others . On the other hand, M CGI FFE R’

I‘

, Apostoli c Age,

pp. 23 7 f., 4 33 f S CHM IEDEL, art. Acts in E ncyclope dia B i bli ca,Vo l . I ; WENDT , K o-mmentar uber d ie Apostelgeschi ch te, 8th cd ., andJ ULI CH ER, E inlei tung in das Neue Tes tament, p . 268 , d is tingu ish betweenthe author of the we-sections and the author of the book .

1 3 See chap . i , p . 8, n . 7 .

Cf. Luk e The mention O f the blood-l ike sweat beingfound in Luke only of our gospels

,the statement of J ustin is natural ly

understood as ascrib ing the gospe l to an apostle or one of the com

panions of the apostles .


Irenaeus, naming the four gospels in the order in

which they stand in modern versions,says

Luke also , the compan io n o f Paul , recorded in a bo ok the gospelpreached by him . (Adv . Haer.,

i i i,

Thirdly, the gospel-book acco rding to Luke . Luke the physician,a fter the ascension o f Christ, when Pau l had taken h im as it wereas a fo l lower zealo us o f the righ t, wrote i t i n his own name, as isbel ieved . The Lo rd, nevertheles s, he had not h imsel f seen in theflesh, and acco rdingly, go ing back as far as he cou ld obtain info rmation, he began his narrat ive with the birth o f John . (The M uratorian

Fragment. )

These testimonies,dating from the middle and end of

the second century — the Muratorian fragment is perhaps

from the beginning of the third century — show what

was believed in the church at the earl iest period from

which we have definite testimony. There i s nothing in

the gospel itsel f to contradict this bel ie f,except as con

cerns the statement of Irenaeus with reference to the rela

tion of Paul to thi s gospel . That Paul exerted some

influence upon the mind of the evangel i st, and even upon

the gospel itsel f,need not be questioned,

1 5 but that Luke

drew his material to any considerable extent from Paul

i s excluded alike by Luke’s own preface, in which he

names as the source of h is information “ those who from

the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the

word ”— a phrase which would not include Paul — and

the internal evidence of the relation of the gospels to one

another.1“Could the common text of Luke 22 : 1 9-2 1 be accepted as genu ine,

th i s would be an almost indub i table instance of dependence either of

Luke upon Paul“( I Cor . -25 ) or of Paul upon Luke. But on th is

passage see WEST COTT AND HORT, New Testament in Greek, Vol . I I,App ! pp. 63 f.

5 8 THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO LUKE

the representative o f the class for whom especially the

book was written . It i s not probable either that the book

was intended solely for hi s private reading,or that the

other persons whom the author had im'

mind belonged to

a distinctly different class from Theophilus . The only

question, then , i s whether the Chri st ians for whom Luke

wrote were predominantly Jews or gentiles . The name

Theophilus, though suggesting gentile readers, would not

be decisive, S ince so many Hebrews bore Greek names .

But the content of the gospel l eaves no room for doubt

that the author has gentile readers specially in mind .

There i s a notable absence of Hebrew words,such as

occur in Mark accompanied by an explanation,and in

Matthew without explanation . There are a few geo

graphical notes which suggest that the readers were not

Palestinians In a number of

instances thi s gospel employs terms wh ich would be intel

l igible to gentiles in place of Jewish terms used in paral lel

or s imilar passages in the other synoptic gospel s.” The

sermon of J esus in 6 2o-49 conspicuously lacks that refer

ence to the needs and point o f view of the Jews which i s

so distinctly marked in the paral lel di scourse in Matt ,

chaps . 5 , 6, 7. There are,as already noted (p . but

two references by the evangeli st ( as distinguished from

Jesus and others whose words he records ) to the fulfil

See, e. g .,

“ through the ti les, in place of express ions inM atthew and M ark wh ich suggest a thatch roof ; ém aro

’

trns 8 : 24 (M arkatadamm ,

M atthew Raptor) ; 5 : 5 ; 9 : 33 , 49 ; 1 7 : 1 3 puppet never occursin Luke ; amass instead of durjv wh ich Luk euses

,but much less frequently than M atthew ; voui x bs

46, 5 2 ; instead of ypauaarezl s, wh ich M atthew and M arkusually employ. ( See also MATHEWS , in B iblical World , M ay, 1 89 5 , pp.

340 f. ; PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, p . xxxiv. )

PURPOSE AND POINT OF VIEW 59

ment of O ld Testament Scripture, and both of these giveevidence of being derived from the sources of the gospel .This author alone of the evangelists makes mention of the

Roman emperor in whose reign the events recorded took

place and more expl icitly than the others defines

the political status o f Palestine at the t ime . The famil iar

ity with Jewish affairs which he assumes on the part of his

readers, especial ly in chaps . 1 , 2, at first s ight suggests

Jewish readers, but i s in reality sufficiently explained by

the fact that he wrote for Christ ians who had already

heard the story of Jesus ’ l i fe by Word of mouth ( 1It must

,moreover

,be remembered

,as the epistles of Paul

already Clearly Show, that even genti le Christians early

acquired a knowledge of the O ld Testament.

IV. TH E PU RPOSE AND POINT OF VIEW OF TH E GOSPEL

In this matter, as in respect to the readers, we have the

great advantage of possessing a statement from the author

himsel f. He wrote,he says , after careful investigation,

in order that hi s reader might know the certainty con

cerning the things wherein he had been instructed, i . e.,

that he might have accurate knowledge concerning the

events of Jesus’ l i fe. We are prepared, therefore, not to

find any such definite argumentative aim as characterizes

the gospel o f Matthew,but, on the other hand, to discover

a somewhat more definite and conscious historical purpose

than appears in Mark. Nor a re these expectations disappointed in the book . Though written chiefly for gen

tiles,there is as l ittle evidence of intention to enter into

the controversies of the apostol ic age with reference to the

relations of Jews and genti les in the kingdom as appears

in Mark. Both John and Jesus are intimately associated


with the temple in their birth,and the first event in which

Jesus is recorded as taking active part occurs also in the

temple. That Jesus was opposed by the Pharisees appears

as clearly as in the other synoptic gospels,and there are

not a few passages in which Jesus sharply reproves them .

But most of the passages which in the gospel of Matthew

emphasize the special opportunity of the Jews, and distinctly set forth the rej ection of the kingdom by the Jews,and of the nation by Jesus

,are absent from Luke . Inti

mations of the universal scope of the gospel occur,some

of them pecul iar to this gospel f. ;-27 ;

9 : but, on the other hand, some which are found in

the other gospels ( e. g .,Matt . 1 5 : 22-28 ; Mark 5

-30 ;

Matt . 8 : I I ) are lacking in Luke. The book is consider

ably longer than Mark, and shows more indications o f

conscious l iterary construction than appear in Mark. But

of the influence of an argumentative aim on the structure

it i s impossible to discover any trace . The author seem s

to have aimed at an orderly account of the l i fe of Jesus, as

complete as hi s sources enabled him to make it without

duplication of material or the use of matter which he

regarded as untrustworthy .

Yet the book is not,after all

,devoid of a color and

character of its own . While the material i s in large part

the same that i s found in Matthew and Mark, and while it

presents Jesus from much the same point of view as the

other synoptists,especially as compared with the fourth

gospel,yet the portrait i s not identical with theirs . Luke

’

s

picture of Jesus is in a sense less provincial , more’

cosmo

pol itan,than that of Matthew or that of Mark . While

Mark’s attention i s absorbed with the maj estic figure of

Jesus in h is publ ic career, teaching, working, suffering,

PURPOSE AND POINT OF VIEW 6 1

dying,rising again ; while Matthew sees in him the

promised Messiah,fulfil l ing O ld Testament prophecy and

hi s own prediction that,i f hi s own nation rej ected him

,

the kingdom of God should be taken from them and given

to the nations, this gospel presents him to us in his inti

mate, and yet his universal, relationship to men, the

mediator between the one God and al l men . D ivine in

origin, yet born into a human family, and subj ect to the

ordinances of the law under which he was born and to

parental authority,he i s by hi s genealogy ( traced back,

not, as in Matthew,to David and Abraham,

but to Adam ,

son of God ) set forth as a member of the universal human

family,itsel f the offspring of God . A man who by con

stant prayer took hold on God,whi le he devoted his l i fe

to helping and saving the lost,he i s at the same time the

friend of the publ ican and the sinner,and the expression

of God ’s love for a lost world ( see especially chap .

But thi s conception of the mission of Jesus is natural ly

accompanied by an emphasis upon the intimacy and uni

versality of men’s relations to one another. The parables

that teach the duties o f men to one another, intimate not

indistinctly that these obl igations are not l imited by social

or national l ines ff. ; -37 ; 1 6 : 1 9 It i s

not so much, however, the barrier between Jew and gen

ti le against which the teaching of Jesus reported in this

gospel i s directed,as that which pride had set up between

Pharisee and publ ican,rich and poor, man and woman,

Jew and Samaritan . And of these various barriers separ

ating men into classes it i s the one between rich and poor

which more frequently perhaps than any other is inveighed

against in this gospel . The facts o f Jesus ’ l i fe which

associate him with the poor,and his teachings which


express sympathy with the poor or point out the danger

of riches, are represented, not in this gospel alone, but in

this more than in any of the others . 1 8

Thus, i f we are to point out anything which i s dis

tinctive of the point of view of thi s gospel as compared

with the other synoptic gospel s,i t wi l l be the emphasis

upon the two conceptions o f universal ity and relationship,

appl ied both as between Christ, as representative of God’s

attitude, and men, and between man and man . Jesus, as

thi s gospel presents him to us,reveal s to us the compas

sion of God for al l,and teaches that men ought in humility

and love to seek out and help al l the needy and the lost,ignoring all the artificial barriers which pride and selfish

ness have set up .

Yet it i s not less necessary to remember that our gos

pels,especial ly the synoptic gospels

,resemble one another

in purpose,as in scope and content

,by more than they

differ the one from the other. Like Matthew and Mark,Luke wrote for the edification of the church , and used the

material s which he possessed . With less defini te argu

mentative purpose, and probably with less selection and

exclusion of material at his hand than Matthew,the dis

tinctive character o f hi s book may be due quite as much

to the character of h is sources , or to unconscious selection ,as to definite intention . The only conscious purpose

which we can with confidence attribute to the evangelist i s

that which he has himsel f expressed in his preface, viz . ,

on the basis of trustworthy sources and careful investiga

18 See, e. g .,2 : 7, 1 6, 24 ; 2 1 , 24 , 25 ; 8 : 3 ; 1 2 : 1 3

-34

-1 4 ; 1 5 , 1 9-3 1 ;

-30 ; cf. M ATHEWS , S ocia l

Teach ing of J esus, pp . 1 4 1 f. ; PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke,p . xxv,

especially as against an overemphasis on th is element of the th ird gospel.

PLAN OF THE GOSPEL 63

tion to give an orderly and historically true narrative ofthe events connected with the l i fe o f Jesus .

V. TH E PLAN OF TH E GOSPEL

The book is s imple in structure,fol lowing the main

outl ines which appear also in Mark,but prefix ing the sec

tions on the infancy and youth, and greatly enlarging the

narrative of the j ourney to Jerusalem . The fol lowing

analysi s i s an attempt to exhibit the author’s plan ; but

l ittle significance,however, can be attached to the divi

sions of the Gal i lean ministry :

ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL OF LU KEI . PREFACE. 1 : 1 -4

II . BIRTH , CH ILDHOOD, AND YOUTH OF JOHN THE BAP

T I ST AND OF JESUS .1 . The bi rth o f John the Baptis t pro’mised .

2. Annunciat ion o f the birth o f Jesus .

3 . Mary’s vis it to E l i zabeth .

Bi rth and youth o f John .

The bi rth o f Jesus .The angels and the shepherds .The c i rcumc is ion o f Jesus .The p resentation in the temp l e.

9 . Childho od and youth o f Jesus in Nazareth .

III . PRE PARATION FOR CHRI ST’S PUBLIC WORK .

1 . The early min istry o f John the Bapt ist .2 . The baptism o f Jesus .

3 . Genea logy o f Jesus .4 . The temptation o f Jesus in the wi lderness .

-P

IV . THE GALILEAN M IN I STRY .

1 . Early events at Nazareth and Capernaum .

(1 ) Beginning o f the minist ry in Gal i lee .b ) The rej ecti on at Nazareth .

c) A sabbath at Capernaum .

d ) Leaves Capernaum and preaches in Gal i lee .


2 . From the cal l o f the Four to the choos ing o fthe Tw e lve .a ) Ca l l o f the Four .b) A l eper healed .

c ) A para lytic healed .

d ) The cal l o f Levi and the feast in his house .e) Questio n about fasting .

f) P lucking grain 011 the sabbath .

g ) A withered hand healed on the sabbath .

From the choo sing o f the Twelve to the s ending o f them out .a ) Choos ing o f the Twelve .b ) S ermon on the Mountain .

c ) The centurion’s s ervant healed .

d ) W idow’s so n at Nain .

e) Message from John the Baptist .f) Jesus ano inted in the hous e o f S imon thePharisee .

g ) Tour in Gali lee continued .

h ) Teaching in parables .i ) Natura l and sp iritua l kinsmen .

j) S t i l l ing o f the tempest .k ) The Gerasene demoniac .

l ) The daughter o f Jai rus rais ed to l i fe .

From the sending out o f the Twelve to thedeparture from Gal i lee .0 ) S ending out o f the Twelve .

b) Feeding o f the five thousand .

c) Peter’s confess io n and Christ’s predictiono f his death and resurrectio n .

d ) The transfiguration.

e) The demoniac boy .

f) Jesus again predicts h is death and resurrect ion .

g ) The ambition and j ealousy o f the discip l esreproved .

9 3435-45

9 : 46-50

66

S"

I O.

I I .

12.

13 .

14.

1 5 .

THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO LUKE

Commendation o f the widow ’s gi ft .Disco urs e concerning the destructi on o f Jerusa lem .

The p lo t o f the Jews and the treachery o fJudasThe last supper .Discourse to the discip l es .The agony in Gethsemane.The arrest .Peter’s denial s .The tria l — Jesus befo re the Jewish autho rit ies .The tria l befo re P i late .The cruc ifixion and death .

The burial .

VII . FROM THE RESURRE CT ION To THE A SCEN S ION .

I .

2.

The empty tomb .

The appearance to the two on the road toEmmaus .The appearance to the e leven at Jerusalem .

The ascens ion .

APPENDED NOTE I

TH E FIFTEENTH YEAR OF TIBERIU S

In Luke we are to ld that John the Bapt ist began his ministry in the fifteenth year o f Tiberius . In 3 : 23 the evangel i st speakso f Jesus as being about thi rty years o ld . The latter statement probably refers to the time when Jesus began his publ ic ministry

,and this

event, i t is evidently impl ied, occurred not many months after thebeginn ing o f John the Bapt i st’s min istry al ready dated as in thefi fteenth year o f Tiberius . Reckon ing the reign o f Tiberius

,in the

usua l way, from the death o f Augustus in August o f 767 A. U . C.

14 A . D . , his fifteenth year wou ld begin in S eptember, 27, January,28, Apri l, 28, o r August, 28, acco rding to the method o f reckoningwhich Luke emp l oyed ( see RAM SAY, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?

p . and the beginn ing o f the min istry o f John would fal l in theyear 28, poss ibly at the end o f 27 . If some months later, say i n themiddle o f th e year 28, Jesus began to teach, being then about thirtyyears o f age, his bi rth would fa l l about 3 B . C . From Matt , chap . 2,

on the o ther hand,we

,

l earn that the bi rth o f Jesus p receded thedeath o f Herod ( cf. also Luke 1 : and s ince Herod died in March

,

4 B . C .,the birth o f Jesus wou ld on this basis fa l l in 5 B . C., o r, at

the latest,i n the beginn ing o f 4 B. C . The gap between thi s resu l t

and that reached on the bas is o f Luke 3 : 1 and 3 : 23 may be bridgedover i f about th i rty years in 3 : 23 may in fact cover thirty-one o rthi rty-tw o years , and s o 4 o r 5 B. C . be substituted fo r 3 B. C . But

Luke himsel f furn ishes a most serious difficulty by his s tatement in2 : 3 , which seems to ass ign the bi rth o f Jesus to a year not later than7 B. C . See the next note . The gap o f fo ur years o r mo re thuscreated betw een the prima facie resu lt from and and thatderived from is rather long to be covered by about ” o f 3 : 23 .

In view o f this difficulty, appea l has been made to the pos s ibi l ityo f a different reckoning o f the years o f Tiberius . About the end o f

764 A. U . C .= 1 1 A . D . Tiberius began , by decree o f the senate, to

exercis e in the p rovinces authority equa l to that o f the empero r .(VELLEIU S PATERCU L U S , II, 121 , Et [cum] s enatus pOpulusque

67


Romanus, postu lante patre, ut aequurn ei j us in omnibus prov incusex ercitibusque esset decreto comp l exus esset It has beensuggested that Luke, writing in the provinces where Tiberius ex ercised thi s authority, might have reckoned his y ears from the beginning o f its exerci s e in 1 1 o r 1 2 A . D . No conc lus ive p roo f o f sucha reckoning has been brought forward ; fo r the co in o f Antioch onwhich W iesel er rel ied is no t now regarded as genuine, and otherco ins o f Antioch reckon the years o f Tiberius from the death o fAugustus . But i t i s known that there was cons iderable variety i n themethods o f reckoning th e years o f the emperors , and it s eems atl east poss ibl e that Luke reckoned the years o f Tiberius from 1 1 o r 12i nstead o f 14 A. D . This is a l l the mo re poss ibl e in view o f the fact,to which Ramsay cal l s attention, that the years o f Titus , in o r so onafter whos e reign Luke p robably wrote

,were in fact reckoned from

his co regency with Vespasian . According to his reckoning, thefi fteenth year o f Tiberiu s would begin in 25 A. D . If, then, i n 25 or26 John began to preach, and i f Jesus began his work a few monthsl ater, being then abou t th i rty years o ld, he was born about 6-4 B. C .

,

a resu lt in enti re ha rmony with the data given by Matthew . Fo r itsrelat io n to Luke 2 : 3 compare the next note .WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp .

171 -73 ; WIESELER, Beitrc’

ige z ur Wiirdigung der Evangelien, pp .

1 90 if . WOOLSEY, Bibliotheca S acra, Apri l, 1870, pp . 332-36 ;

ANDREWS , Life of Our Lord, pp . 22-29 ; TURNER, in HASTINGS, D ictionary of the B ible , Vol . I , p . 405 ; PLUMMER, Commentary on

Luke, p . 82 ; RAM SAY, Was Chris t Born at Bethlehem? pp . 199 ff. ;

VON SODEN, i n Encyclope dia Biblica, Vo l . I , co l . 804.

APPENDED NOTE I I

TH E ENROLM ENT IN TH E GOVERNORSHIP OF QU IRIN IU S

The ques t ions concern ing the statement in Luke 2 : 1 -5 are five1 . Did Augustus o rder a census o f the emp ire ? The probabi l it ies

respecting the co rrectness o f the statement o f Luke to th is effect havebeen s et in an entirely new light by the evidence o f papyri recentlydiscovered in Egypt . From these it i s entirely c l ea r that from 8 B . C.

to 202 A . D . th e Roman census, usual ly at least disconnected from thel is ting o f property fo r taxation, was taken in Egyp t at intervals o f

APPENDED NOTES 69

fo urteen years . The fourteen-year cyc l e can be traced back to thecensus o f 9—8 B C.

,and the evidence renders it p robable that, though

th ere were census enro lments in a much earlier t ime, the fou rt eenyear cyc l e o rigi nated with Augustus . Luke’s statement that thecensus covered the who le wo rld

,that is

,the Roman emp i re, i s not

direct ly establ ished by the papyri,but neither is i t disproved by them .

Augus tus i s known to have instituted a valuatio n o f p ropertyth roughout the provinces, but o f a general census we have no directevidence o ther than the statement o f Luke . Wh ether this census wasin Palest ine accompanied by a l isting o f p roperty fo r taxation, o r was,l ike thos e in Egypt

,separated from such l isting, i s a ls o a matter not

made c l ea r by the evidence . See KE NYON, Classical Review,1895 ,

p . 1 10 ; RAM SAY, Was Christ Born at Beth lehem? chaps . vi i, vii i ;but espec ia l ly GRENFELL AND HUNT, Ox yrhynchus Papyri, Part I(London , pp . 207

-14 .

2. Wou ld the kingdom o f Herod have been inc luded in such ano rder, suppos ing it to have been i ssued ? There are severa l reasonsto bel ieve that th is wou ld have been the case. The kingdom o fHerod was by no means an independent state, but differed from aRoman p rovince mo re in name and appearance than in fact . Herodbelonged to the large c l as s o f reges soci i. He received his authorityby the consent o f the Romans ( Jos ., Antiq. ,

xiv, 1 3, 1 ; xiv, 14,

Hi s transmiss ion o f it t o h is s ons and the ir retentio n o f it were subj cet t o the approva l o f the empero r ( Jos .

,Antiq., xvii , 8, 1 ; xvii, 1 1 ,

4 ; xvi i, 1 3 , 2 ; xvi ii, 7, He pa id tribute to Rome (APPIAN,

De bell . civ i l , v, 75 ) and his s on s, i f they did not th emselves paytr ibute, were at leas t obl iged to defer to Rome in the matter o f thetaxes which they co l lected ( Jos., Antiq., xvi i, 1 1 , 4 ; cf. also x ix , 8, 2 ;xv

, 4, 4 ; APPIAN, De reb. Syr. , A Roman legion guarded Jerusal em in the beginning o f Herod’s reign ( Jos ., Antiq.

,xv, 3 ,

Herod was not al lowed to make war without the consent o f theemperor o r o f hi s representat ives Jos ., Antiq. , xvi , 9 , 3 ; xvi, 10,He cou ld not execute hi s own sentence o f death against h is s onswithout the consent o f the empero r ( Jos ., Antiq., xvi, 1 1 , 1 ; xvi i, 5 ,H is s ubj ects were required to take the o ath o f al legiance to

Rome, and fo r refusing to do so s i x thousand Phari sees were fined

( Jos., Antiq. ,xvi i, 2, 4 ; cf. xvii i, 5 , The statement o f Marquardt

(Rb‘

mische S taatsverwaltung, Vo l . I , p . 408 ) that“ Herod i s t o be


l o oked upon as a p rocurato r with the title o f king seems to bestrict ly co rrect .

It has been fu rther po inted o ut and urged by Ramsay,as an

additiona l reason fo r suppos ing that Herod’s kingdom would beinc luded in a genera l p lan o f enro lment o f the emp ire

,that in the

latter part o f hi s l i fe Herod fel l into dis favo r with Augustus ( Jos.,

Antiq. , xvi, 9, But Jo sephus a lso relates that Hero d was afterno long t ime resto red to favo r with Augustu s (Antiq.,

xvi, 10, 9,

and 1 1 , U n les s, therefore, th i s restorat io n was but partia l, o r theo rder o f enro lment was given whi le Herod was in disfavo r, it wouldseem to have no spec ia l relat io n to the census . The more general facts,however, go far toward removing any improbabi l ity i n the assertiono f Luke that the en ro lment inc luded Judea . It i s not n ecessary tosuppose that the census was carried out s imultaneous ly i n al l part so f the emp i re, o r that in pract ice i t covered abso lutely every part o f it .

3 . Wou ld such a censu s have been conducted as Luke impliesthat the one o f which he speaks was conducted

,each family going t o

it s ancestra l c ity ? What interest had the Roman autho rities inJewish tribal l in es and family connections ? If the census was conducted by imperia l officers

,i t p robably would not have been made

a fter th is fashio n . The census o f 6 o r 7 A. D . (Acts wasconducted by Roman offi cers in Roman fashio n, and caused greatdisturbance ( Jos. , Antiq.,

xvii i,1, But i f th e enumeratio n was

made by Herod at the request o r command o f Augustus , i t might be,p robably wou ld be

,confo rmed as nearly as po ss ible to Jewish ideas

( cf. RAM SAY, pp . 185 f.,and SCHU RER, Geschichte des jitd ischen

Volkes, 3d cd . , Vol . I , pp . 396 Luke does not say that theenumeration w as made by the governor o f Syria ; he merely dates i tby the term o f offi ce o f Quirinius.

But i t i s al s o po ss ible, as sugges ted by GRENFELL AND HUNT( op. cit., p . that “ his own c ity ” in Luke 2 : 3 means, not hisancestra l c ity

,but the c ity o f his perm anent res idence . In thi s case

the impl ication o f the statement wou ld be that Beth l ehem was thereal home o f the family, and that, whatever the occasion o r l engtho f the stay in Nazareth, i t was the intention o f Joseph and Mary tomake Bethlehem their future home . This wou ld, o f course, correspond with th e imp l i catio n o f Matthew’s narrat ive (Matt . 2 : 22,and the statement o f fact i n Luke 2 : 3 may wel l be correct, even i f the

APPENDED NOTES 7 :

reason assigned for the j ourney in Luke reflects a m isapprehens ion on his part, o r refers to the ground o f Joseph

’s preference fo rtaking up o r resuming res idence in Beth l ehem rather than to arequirement imposed by the ru les o f th e census .

4 . Can the census referred to by Luke and s uppo rted by theevidence o f Egypt ian papyri have fa l len in the year o f Jesus’ bi rth asestabl ished by other evidence ? The only census year that can beconsidered is that which, i n acco rdance with the fourteen-year cyc le,fel l in 9—8 B . C . The nex t succeed ing census, 6-7 A . D . ( referred toin Acts and Jos ., Antiq., xvii i, 1

,I ) , i s o ut o f the question,

being who l ly i rreconci lable with the o ther data ( s ee th e p recedingnote ) . But i s the census o f 9—8 B. C . a po ss ibi l ity ? The other data,as shown in the p receding note

,p lace the date o f the bi rth o f Jesus

somewhere between 6 and 3 B. C . Can the gap between thi s resultand 9-8 B . C. be bridged ? Ramsay has endeavored to Show that acensus o rdered fo r 9 —8 B . C . might, not imp robably, be actua l ly takenin the year 6 B. C. (Was Christ Born atBethlehem?pp . 130 ff.,

1 74 ff ) .

The evidence to which he appeal s do es,indeed

,Show that the returns

made by the househo lders to the omcer conduct ing the enumerationwere s ometimes received by the ofli cers in a year fo l lowing that towh ich they referred, th i s latter being the census year proper . He hasa lso c ited an examp l e o f delay in a s imi lar matter in the province o fGa latia during the years 6-3 B . C .

, in wh ich an interval o f about twoyears elaps ed between the decree that the inhabitants o f Paphlagon iashou ld take the oath o f a l legiance to Augustus ( in consequence o f theinco rporat io n o f thei r country in the p rovince “ o f Galatia fo l l owingthe death o f the king o f Paphlagon ia ) and the act'ua l administrat io no f th e o ath (E x pos itor, 1901 , Vo l . IV ,

pp . 32 1 Gren fel l andHunt, however, cal l attention to the fact that the instances o f ayear’s interval between the date to which the retu rns referred and thep resentat ion o f them to the officers pertain to a later period

,and that

the indication s do not favo r the suppos itio n that such an interva l wasusua l as early as the end o f th e first century B . C. And they quest io nwhether

,with al l reasonable a l low ance for delay in th e taking o f the

census,from whatever caus e, i t can be suppos ed to have taken p lace

later than 7 B . C . Betw een this resu l t and M atthew’s statementthat Jesus was bo rn befo re Herod died there i s, o f course, no confl ict. W ith Luke’s own statements in and this resu lt can


be har mon ized on ly by suppos ing that when Jesus was, as Luke says,about thi rty years o ld,” he was in fact th i rty-two , o r, i f the years o f

T iberius were reckoned from the death o f Augustus, thi rty-fo ur. Ofthes e suppos ition s the fo rmer, a t least, i s no t imp robable.

5 . But i f th e census referred to by L uke i s that o f 9—8 B. C ., andi f th is census was actual ly taken in 7 B . C .

, can Quirinius have beengoverno r o f Syria at that t ime ? The only governo rship o f Quiriniusover Syria o f wh ich we have direct evidence, outs ide th i s statemento f Luke, i s that which began in 6 A. D . ( Jos . , Antiq.,

xvii i , 2,But that he was governo r o f S yria also at some previous t ime

,and as

such conquered the Homonadenses, i s establi shed by indirect evidencewhich is accepted as convinc ing by the best h i sto rians (M OMM SEN ,

Res Gestae divi Augusti, pp . 172 ff. ; ZU M PT, Das Geburtsjahr Christi,pp . 43

-62 ; SCHU RER, J ew ish P eople, Div . I , Vol . I , pp . 35 1-56 ; 3d

German cd . ,Vo l . I , pp . 322

-24 RAM SAY, Was Christ Born at Bethle

hem? chap . x i, and oth er autho rities there given ) .

Respecting the date o f th is earl ier governorship there i s difference o f op in ion . Mommsen, Zumpt, S chii rer, and others p lace it in3-2 B. C . In thi s case i t would have begun a fter Herod’s death(March, 4 B . Zahn , o n the bas is o f a criticism and amendmento f the statements o f Josephus, ho lds that Quirinius was governo r o fSyria but once, viz . , i n 4—3 B. C . ( see ZAHN, i n Neue kirchliche Zeit

schrift, 1893, pp . 633-54, and critic i sm o f Zahn’s view in S CHU RER,Geschichte des jii dischen Volkes, 3d ed ., Vo l . I , pp . 541 In th i scase the governo rship o f Quirinius wou ld co in cide in pa rt with thereign o f Herod . But, aside from the fact o f the doubt fu l character o fZahn’s argument

,which has not gained the assent o f other scho lars

,

i t i s t o be observed that Luke does not say that the events which hereco rds to ok p lace whi l e Quirinius w as governo r o f S yria , but thatthey occurred in the co urse o f an enro lment,

i

which enro lment wasenro lment first, o r the first held when Quirinius was governo r . Hes eems dist inct ly to have in mind the wel l-known enro lment underQuirinius (Acts and to date th is as a previous one — or thefirst o f a se ries ; cf. the evidence in 1 above that the census o f9-8 B. C . was the first o f the series establ ished on a fou rteen-yearcycl e — also occurring whil e Quirinius was governo r . The condit ion so f his statement are met i f the enro lment was begun by Herod duringthe governorship o f a predecesso r o f Quirinius and comp l eted in the


in th e s econd governorship o f Quirinius ; and, final ly, that the namesQuirinius and S aturninus are at least s l ightly a l ike . Is i t no t po ss ibl e that, assoc iating the two governorship s o f Quirinius and thetwo enro lments, one o f them under Quirinius, he may have fa lleninto th e erro r o f tw o enro lments, each in a governorship o fQuirinius ? If so, the mistake is i n the name o f Quirinius, not inth e fact o r date o f the enro lment . (Cf. GRENFELL AND HUNT, op.

cit. )It must be evident that confident dec is ion o f the question here

raised wou ld be rash . Important new data have come to l ight with inthe last fo ur o r five yea rs . S ti l l other facts may yet be discoveredand may s et the who le matter in sti l l c learer l ight . At p res ent i t isn ecessa ry to rest in the conc l us io n that, while th e chrono logica ls tatements o f Luke are in th e main confirmed by archaeo logica l evidence

,i t must rema in somewhat uncertain from what event he

reckoned the years of Tiberius, how wide a margin i s covered by theword about in 3 23, and whether he o r Tertul l ian i s right i n thename o f the governo r in whos e term o f office the fi rst en ro lmentunder Augustus to ok p lace in Palestine . The date o f the birth o fJesus must apparently be provis ional ly assigned to 7 B. C.

See, i n additio n to the writers and passages c ited above, ZU M PT,Dos Geburtsjahr Christi, pp . 20—224 ; WIESELER, Chronological S ynopsis, pp . 7 1 - 1 17, 143

-50 ; ANDREWS , Life of Our Lord, pp . 71 -82 ;

WOOLSEY,i n New Englander, October, 1869 , and B ibliotheca S acra,

Apri l, 1870 ; SCHU RER, H istory of J ew ish P eople, Div . I , Vol . II , pp .

105 -43 , 3d Ge rman ed .,Vol . I , pp . 508-43 ; PLUMMER, Commentary on

Luke; SANDAY i n HASTINGS , Dictionary of the Bible, Vol . II , pp . 645 f.

APPENDED NOTE I II

REFERENCES TO TH E OLD TESTAM ENT LAW IN LU K E 2 222-24

The p robl em suggested by this passage can be best p resented byan analys is o f it into fo ur parts, as fo l lows22 And when the days of their The purification of the moth erpurification a ccord ing to the law ( and ch ild) forty days after theof M oses were fulfi lled, b i rth (Lev.

they brought h im up to J erusalem,Not requi red in the O ld Testa

to present h im to the Lord ment.

APPENDED NOTES 7 ;

23 ( as it i s written in the lawof the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shal l be cal led ho lyto the Lord) ,24 and to offer a sacrifice ac

cord ing to that wh ich is said inthe law of the Lord

,a pair of

turtledoves, or two young pigeons .

Devotion of the first-born to J ehovah , cal l ing for redemption bymoney payment, th i rty days afterb irth (Exod .

The sacrifice for the purifica

tion of the mother, forty daysafter the b irth of the ch i ld (Lev.

It wil l be seen that vss . 22a and 24 refer to the ceremony o fpurificati on . Now

,according to the law, this pertained to the mother.

Vss . 22b, 23 , on the o ther hand, i nterrupt ing the reference to purificat ion , re fer to a presentatio n o f the chi ld to the Lo rd in Jerusalem .

Each portio n o f the passage has it s diffi cult ies, and the relat io n o fthe two gives rise to further questions .

1 . The word “ thei r, in vs . 22 i s in apparent confl ictwith the law, which speaks only o f the purification o f th e mother .

2 . The bringing o f the ch i l d to Jerusal em mentioned in 22b wasnot requ ired by the law o r any known usage ; neither the redempt iono f the ch i l d no r the sacrifice fo r the purification of the motherrequired the presence o f eith er mother o r chi ld in the temp l e .

3 . There i s no mention in the Old Testament o f a ceremony o fpresentation o f the child to the Lo rd . What the l aw requires is thedevotio n o f the chi ld to the Lo rd, and the redempt io n o f him by thepaym ent o f five Shekels . The quotatio n in vs . 23 o f a po rt ion o f th elaw respecting redempt ion , j o in ed by “ as i t i s written ” to vs . 22

,

seems to imp l y that vs . 22b referred, i n the writer’s mind, to redemp

t ion . Apparently,therefo re, the writer has e ither converted redemp

t i on into p resentat ion, or has introduced a ceremony o f p resentatio n,

and has referred to i t a passage which in the Old Testament refers tothe devotio n o f the child to the Lo rd that in it s turn necess itated theredemption o f it .

4 . The ceremony o f purificatio n took place fo rty days a fter thebi rth o f the child . Redempti on to ok p lace “ from a month O ld

”

(Numb .

For the p lu ra l thei r o f vs . 22 there i s no direct bas is i n theOld Testament law . Yet i t may ( a ) reflect th e thought o f the firstcentury respecting the meaning o f the ceremony. I f it refers to

a t’

m'

bv,


the mother and chi ld, the bas is fo r the inclus io n o f the chi ld with themother may have been fu rn ish ed in the imp li catio n o f c i rcumcis ionthat the Ch i ld was unc lean at bi rth, o r in the necessa ry contact o f anurs ing Ch i ld with its mother ; and becaus e o f one o r both o f thes ethe thought may have aris en that the chil d shared in the unc leannes so f the moth er unti l her purification , and that the ceremony o f purificat io n pertained to them both . Purely grammatica l cons iderationswould suggest that the wo rd thei r refers to the father and mother,s ince it i s to them that the p lura l subj ect o f the verb o f the sentencerefers . No r it i s entirely improbable that, from cons iderat ions s imila rto thos e which pe rtain to the chi ld

,the notio n shou ld have arisen that

the father shared w ith the mother in the unc leanness,and in the

ceremony o f purification . It i s even in favo r o f thi s that the languageo f vs . 24, though agreeing in substance with Lev. which refersto th e sacrifice to be offered by a woman after chi ld-birth, agreesverbal ly and exactly, not with the Greek vers io n o f this passage, butwith that o f Lev . 5 : 1 1 , wh ich relates to the offering to be made by aman who by contact ( among po ss ibl e causes ) may have becomeuncl ean . Yet, on th e whole, the reference o f the pronoun is mo rep robably to the mother and chi ld . The suggestion o f E dersheim thatit refers to th e Jews in general s eems whol ly improbable . ( b) A

different exp lanation i s suggested by the genera l Hebraistic charactero f the first two chapters o f Luke, wh i ch, qu ite as ide from thes e versesi n particu la r

,renders it p robable that Luke is here trans lating from

a Hebrew o r Aramaic o riginal . In that case, especia l ly i f the o rigi na lwas in Hebrew, the word

“ thei r ” may have arisen from a misreading of th e possessive s uffix in the o riginal . This exp lanationwou ld invo lve the conclus ion that the evangel ist was unfamil iar withthe detai l s o f the Jew i sh law, hence was doubtless a genti l e - an

in ference not in itsel f improbable .Of the vis it to Jerusa lem and the presentat ion o f the chi ld to

the Lord in the temp l e there are l ikew is e two poss ible exp lanations .( a ) Though it was not requ i red by law that either the mother o r theChi ld shou l d go to Jerusalem in connect io n either with the redempt iono f the child o r with the purification o f the mother, and though it i svery unl ikely that it was customary fo r mothers a l l over Pa lest ine tomake such a j ourney, yet it i s by no means improbable that, whenprox imity to Jeru salem made it easy, the mother would go in person

APPENDED NOTES 77

with her chi ld at the time o f one o r both o f these ceremonies . And

i t i s perhaps especia l ly l ikely that the parents o f Jesus would beimpel l ed thus to go to Jerusalem by thei r exceptional feel ing aboutthe ch i ld Jesus . It i s to be Observed that th e narrat ive does notsay that the j ourney was required by l aw o r custom,

but on ly statesthe fact that it was made . There is, therefo re, in any case no contradiction between Luke’s statement and the law . The case is muchthe same respecting presentation of the Chi ld to the Lo rd . Of aceremony o f p res entat ion we know nothing express ly from the law o rfrom Jewish custom . But that such an act was s ometimes vo luntari lyperfo rmed, in this case perhaps exceptio na l ly, as an outward express ion o f the devotio n o f the chi ld to the Lo rd, which devotio n the lawrequired, i s by no means imp robable . Indeed, i f it be true, a sE dersheim s tates (L ife of J esus, Vo l . I , p . 194, apparently supportedby the Mishna , Bechoroth, vi i, 1 cf. vi, that on ly a chi ld withoutblemish cou ld be redeemed, i t would seem almos t a matter o f necessity that the chi ld should be taken before the pries t, and so natural ly,in the case o f a l l thos e l iving near to Jerusalem, to the t emp l e .S uch a p resentat ion cou ld hard ly have fo l lowed the paym ent o f theredempt io n pri ce

,but must have preceded o r accompanied it . Cf.

vs . 27. ( b ) The express io n “ to p resent him to the Lord may bethe evangel ist’s interpretat ion o f Exod . 13 : 12,

“ thou shalt s et apartto the Lord ” (Hebrew, 1715 337”“ thou shal t cause to pas s over ;Greek, tyrants,

“ thou shalt consecrate ” o r o f the wo rds whichstood in his Hebrew source at this po int . In the fo rmer cas e w eshould suppose that the evangel ist added to present him to theLord, and the quotatio n o f vs . 23, as his own exp lanatio n o f thevis it t o Jerusa lem, the s ource having contained on ly vs s . 22a and 24 ;i n the latter cas e the who le matter sto od in his Hebrew source

,the

Greek expres sion being Luke’s trans lation o f i t .Respecting the apparent discrepancy betw een redempt io n thi rty

days , and purification fo rty days, after the bi rth,

o f the Chi ld,both

spoken o f as o ccurring on the same vis it to Je rusalem,it i s to be

observed that, although the law o f Numb . 16 : 18 nam es a month afterthe bi rth o f the chi ld as the approx imate t ime at which the redempti on price was due ( on the fo rce o f the p repo sit ion 173 in such a cases ee BROWN, DRIVER, and BRIGGS, Hebrew Lex icon, s . v .

, 2, b ) , yet in


usage a certain l eeway was a l lowed. This seems to be c l early indicated i n the Mishna, Bechorath, vi i i, 6 ( cf. also vi i i, in which it i sprescribed that “ i f a first-bo rn son dies with in thi rty days

,the

pri est must return the money which has been paid fo r hi s redempt ion ,i f i t has a lready been received ; but i f the s on dies after th i rty days,the father must s ti l l pay the money to the priest

,i f h e has not a lready

given it . I f the father dies ins ide o f th irty days the son restsunder the p resumptio n that the redempt ion pri ce has not been paid

,

un les s he i s able to p roduce p roo f o f it s payment . I f the father diesafter thirty days, the presumpt ion i s that the redemptio n p rice hasbeen paid, unl ess the contra ry can be proved .

” From this passageit appears that, though the redemptio n price was p roperly payable atthe end o f a month , i t might be paid even ea rl ier o r later ; and th isrenders i t p robable that, especial ly i f the parents intended to go to thetemple at the t ime of the ceremony o f the purification , they wouldthus delay a few days the payment o f the redemption p rice . Indeed,in a count ry Where travel and transpo rtat io n o f money were l ess ea sythan in modern times, some leeway would be ahnost a matter o fnecess ity. For other and extreme instances o f delay in the ceremonies appo inted fo r a defin ite t ime, s ee Bechoroth, vii i, 5 , andKherithoth, i, 7.

Against the suppositio n that the who le passage is s imp ly thework o f one who knew neither the facts nor Jew ish law and custom,

and in favo r o f an exp lanatio n that finds, either in the passage as itstands

,o r in the o riginal o f which it is a trans lation , an account

cons istent with the law o r the usage o f the first centu ry, there aretw o cons iderations which are at l east o f some weight : ( a ) It isprobabl e that a writer who knew neither the facts no r Jewish usage,but who had access

,as this writer evidently had, to the Old Testa

ment scriptures w ould have made his references to these moreexact

,i f not even verba l ly s o . The very departures from the letter

o f the law imp ly that beh ind this narrative there l ies someth ingbes ides the bare prescript ion s o f the law and the imaginati on o f thewriter . ( b) The quotatio n o f Lev . in vs . 24 do es not bear the

m arks o f having been introduced by an invento r who was unfamil iarwith Jew i sh law and custom . S uch a writer, adding a spec ific statement o f what sacrifice was offered, could hardly have done s o exceptto emphas ize the fact that the offering was that which the law per

APPENDED NOTES 79

m itted to the poo r, and in that case would s urely not have fai led toca l l atention to th is by some comment . This sentence must thenreflect either acquaintance with the facts or famil ia rity with J ewishusage

,i f no t also an assumpti o n o f such famil iarity on the part of

hi s readers . In either case i t i s no t the i nventio n o f one unfamilia rwith Jewish usage. But vs . 22

, a s far as the word“ Jerusalem

,

”

must come from the same hand as 24 ( i . e., cannot be the addit io n o fa later hand ) , and

“ their must in that case be either an error oftrans lat io n o r reflect co rrect ly the thought o f that t ime. But i fvss . 22a and 24 are, at l east in thei r o rigina l fo rm , from the hand,not o f an igno rant invento r, but o f one who knew either the facts o rJewish usage o r both, it i s improbable that vss . z ab, 23 are an inter

polation o f one who therein betrays his igno rance . For it is improbable that one igno rant enough to ins ert their ” i n vs . 22 incorrectly( as i s the case on the suppos iti o n that the erro rs of the passage aredue to one who trans lated the Hebrew o riginal and inserted vss . 22b,23 ) would feel any occasion to add a p resentat io n ceremony to thatof purificatio n narrated in this document . And i f “ thei r ” i s no t anerro r o f trans lat ion, but a co rrect reflect io n Of custom or thought nototherw is e known to us

,then it i s gratu itous to assume that the

reflection s in vss . 22b, 23 o f custom l ikewise unknown to us, but notcontradicto ry to the law, are the inventio n o f ignorance .

Apparent ly, therefore, p robabi l ity l i es between the pos s ibi l it iesthat their 11 6 e in vs . 22 and “

to p resent ” napaa’

r ijaat in vs . 23are erro rs o f trans lation, and, on the other hand, that the wholeaccount as it stands co rrectly reflects the Jewish usage and thoughtof the first centu ry, to whose divergenci es from the letter o f the law,

not otherw ise known to us, we have testimony in this passage.

CHAPTER IVTHE RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO ONE

ANOTHER

IN the previous chapters the first three gospels have

been separately examined, with only brief and incidental

reference to thei r relation to one another. But no atten

tive reader of these gospels can have fai led to observe that

they are in many respects al ike,and even a cursory com

parison of them on the one side,with one another and

,on

theother, with the fourth gospel wil l serve to set this fact

of the mutual resemblance of the first three gospels in

clearer l ight. The fact i s by no means a modern dis

covery. Tatian ’s treatment of the several gospels in the

construction o f hi s D iatessaron in the latter part of the

second century, shows clearly that he had observed the

practical equivalence o f many of the narratives in the

several gospel s ; and Augustine, at the begi nning of the

fifth century, proposed a theory to account for a part of

the facts .

In modern times,the fact that the first three gospel s

present to so large a degree the same view of the facts o f

the l i fe of Jesus has l ed to the common appl ication to

them of the title the Synopti c Gospels,” and the problem

of discovering how this resemblance came about, which

soon resolves itsel f into the problem how these gospels

arose, i s cal led the Synoptic Problem .

”

I . THE ELEMENTS OF TH E SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

The chief elements of the problem are five

I . The sim i larity of these gospels to one another.

(a) They are al l built upon the same general historical80

82 RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

M ATT . 1 2 : 1 -8

Beho ld, thy disc ip lesdo th at wh ich it i snot lawful to do uponthe sabbath . But hesaid unto them, Haveye not read what David did, when he wasa n h u n g r e d, a n dthey that were withhim ; how he enteredinto the house o fGod, and did eat theshewbread, which itwas not lawful forhim to eat, neitherfo r them that werewith him, but onlyfo r the p riests ? Orhave ye not read inthe law, how that onthe s abbath day thepriests i n th e temp l epro fane the s abbatha n d a r e guiltless ?

But I say unto you,that one greater thanthe temp l e i s here .

But i f ye had knownwhat this meaneth , Idesire mercy, and n otsacrifice, ye wou l d nothave condemned theguiltless .

And he And he saidsaid unto them,

The unto them,

sabbath w as made forman , and not man fo r

M ARK 2 : 23-28

why do they on the

s a b b a t h d a y t h atwh ich is not lawful ?And he said untothem, Did ye neverread what David did,when he had need.and was an hungred,he, and they that werewith him ? How heentered into the houseo f God when Abiatharwas high p riest, anddid eat the shewbread, which it is notlawfu l to eat save fo rthe priests

,and gave

a ls o to them that werewith him ?

LU KE 6 : 1 -5

which it is no t lawfu lto do o n the sabbathday ? And Jesus an

swering them said,Have ye not read eventhis, what David did,when he was an hun

gred, he, and theythat were with him ;how he entered intothe house o f God

,

and did take and eat

the shewbread, andgave also to them thatwere with him ; Whichit is not lawful to eatsave fo r the p ri estsa lone ?

ELEM ENTS O F THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 83

M ATT . 12 1 -8

the Son o flo rd o f the sabbath . bath.

M ATT . 4 : 18 22

And walking by the sea o f

Ga l i lee, he saw two brethren,S imon who is called Peter, andAndrew his broth er, cast ing anet into the sea ; fo r they werefishers . And he saith unto them,

Come ye a fter me, and I wil lmake you fishers o f men . And

they straightway left the n ets ,and fo l lowed him . And go ingon from thence he saw oth er twobrethren

,James the son o f Zebe

dee, and John his brother, i n the

boat with Zebedee th eir father,mending thei r nets ; and he cal ledthem . And they straightway l eftthe boat and thei r father, andfo l lowed h im .

M ATT . 3 7-10

But when he saw many of thePharis ees and S adducees comingto his bapti sm

,he sa id unto them,

Ye offspring o f vipers, whowarned you to flee from thewrath to come ? Bring fo rthth erefo re fru it w orthy o f repentance : and think not to saywithin yourselves , We haveAbraham to our father : fo r I s ayunto you

,that God i s able o f

M ARK 2 23-28

the sabbath :For the Son o f man is

man is lo rd even o f the sab

LUK E 6 : 1 -5s o that

The Son o f man i sl o rd o f the sabbath .

M ARK 1 16-20

And pass ing along by the sea

o f Gal i lee, he saw S imon andAndrew the brother o f S imoncasting a net in the sea : fo r theywere fishers . And Jesus saidunto them

, Come ye after me,and I wi ll make yo u to becomefishers o f men . And straightwaythey left the nets , and fo l lowedh im . And going on a l itt le further

,he saw James the son o f

Zebedee,and John his bro ther,

who also were i n the boat mending the nets . And straightwayhe cal led them and they leftthei r father Zebedee in the boatwith the h ired servants, and wentafter him .

LUKE -9

He said therefo re to the multitudes that went out to be baptiz ed o f him,

Ye Offspring o f vipers, who

warned yo u to flee from thewrath to come ? Bring forththerefo re fru it s wo rthy o f t e

pentance, and begin not to saywith in yourselves , We haveAbraham to ou r father : fo r I sayunto you, that God i s able o f


M ATT .

— 10

thes e sto nes to rais e up chi ldrenunto Abraham . And even nowis the ax e laid unto the root ofthe trees : every tree therefo rethat bringeth not forth goodfru it is hewn down, and cast intothe fire.

M ARK -28

And they go into Capernaum ;and straightway o n th e Sabbathday he entered into the synagogue and taught . And theywere astonished at his teaching :fo r he taught them as havingautho rity, and not as the scribes .And s traightway there was intheir synagogue a man with anunc lean sp i r it ; and he cried o ut,saying, What have we to do withthee, tho u Jesus of Nazareth ?

a rt tho u come to destroy us ?I know thee who thou art, theHo ly One o f God . And Jesu srebuked him, saying, Ho ld thypeace, and come out o f him .

And the unc l ean sp irit, t earinghim and cry ing with a lo ud voice,came out Of him . And they wereal l amazed

,insomuch that they

questioned among themselves ,saying, What is this ? a newteaching ! with autho rity he commandeth even the unclean Spirits,and they obey him . And the t epo rt of him went out straightwayeverywhere into al l the region OfGal il ee round about.

LUKE 4 : 3 1 -37And he came down to Caper

naum, a c i ty o f Ga l i lee . And

he was teaching them on the sabbath day : and th ey were asto nished at his teach ing ; for hiswo rd was with autho rity. And

i n the synagogue there was aman, which had a sp i rit o f anunc l ean devi l ; and he cried outwith a loud vo ice, Ah ! whathave we to do with thee

,thou

Jesus o f Nazareth ? a rt tho ucome to destroy us ? I

. know

thee who tho u art, the Ho ly Oneo f God . And Jesus rebuked him,

saying, Ho ld thy peace, and comeout of him . And when the devi lh ad thrown him down in themidst, he came o ut o f him, having done h im no hurt . And

amazement came upon al l, andthey spake together, one with another, saying, What i s this word ?fo r with autho rity and powerhe commandeth the uncl eansp i rits

,and they come out . And

there went forth a rumour concern ing him into every p lace o fthe regio n round about.

LUKE 3 : 7-9these s tones to raise up chi ldrenunto Abraham. And even nowis the axe a lso laid unto the rootof the trees : every tree therefo rethat bringeth not fo rth goodfruit i s hewn down, and cast intothe fire.

ELEMENTS OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 85

It wi ll be observed that in the first instance the resem

blance of all three i s shown ; in the second, that of Mat

thew and Mark ; in the third, that of Matthew and Luke ;and in the fourth, that o f Mark and Luke.

Such verbal similarity as i s indicated above extends

also to the quotations from the O ld Testament, evenwhere the quotation departs both from the Hebrew and

the Septuagint version . I llustration of thi s may be seen in

Matt. compared with Mark and Luke and

in Matt . 1 1 1 0 compared with Mark 1 : 2 and Luke

The differences between these gospels .— (a )Despite

the marked resemblances enumerated above,each gospel

has its own distinct motive,as has been pointed out in the

preceding chapters . ( b) Events recorded by two or al lthree of the gospels are treated differently in the several

gospel s in accordance with the specific purpose of each .

Thus the heal ing of the paralytic stands in Mark (2

1 -1 2 ) as one of a series of events i llustrating the growing

hostil ity o f the scribes and Pharisees to Jesus . In Mat

thew (9 : 1 -8 ) it i s recorded in nearly the same words , but

i s one of a series of events which either i llustrate or attest

the authority which Jesus has assumed in the sermon on

the mount,to which the whole group is appended . This

part icular incident seems clearly intended to serve as an

instance of a deed of power attesting the authority of a

word,and the evangel ist adds the comment,

“ when the

multitudes saw it,they were afraid

,and glorified God

which had given such authority to men .

”( c) In a few

cases there are wholly independent accounts o f what is

evidently the same event . Thus of the cal l o f the fo-ur

fishermen,Matthew and Mark have practical ly the same

account (Matt . 4 : 18-22 ; Mark 1 1 6 but Luke quite


a different one (Luke 5 : 1 (d ) E ach evangel i st

narrates some events not recorded by the others,and omits

some recorded by the others . Thus Luk e has in 9 : 5 11 8 34 , constituting nearly one-third of his gospel , a series

of events and di scourses for which there i s no parallel at

the corresponding place in the other gospels,and most o f

which do not appear in the other gospels at al l . To the

story of the publ ic ministry of Jesus, which Mark also

records, Matthew and Luke each prefix a story of the

birth and infancy of Jesus,yet not at all the same story .

3 . The preface ofLuke. This as already pointed out

in chap . i i i,furnishes most important data for determining

in general how written gospels arose,and in particular

what material , both oral and written, was in existence

when Luk e was written . It demands careful attention, as

unquestionably the oldest and most valuable testimony on

these points that we have received from antiquity . It

reads as fol lows :

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrativeconcerning those matters which have been fulfil l ed among us, even asthey del ivered them unto us

,wh ich from the beginn ing were eye

witnesses and ministers o f the wo rd, i t seemed good to me also,having traced the course o f a l l things accurately from the first, towrite unto thee in o rder

,most excel lent Theophi lus ; th at thou might

est know the certainty concern ing the things Wherein thou wastinstructed .

From this statement we are enabled to glean the following facts of interest and significance (a ) When the

evangel i st wrote there were already in existence several

narratives of the l i fe o f Jesus, more or less complete. ( b)These narratives were based

,at least in the intention of

thei r writers,on the oral narratives of the l i fe of Jesus

which proceeded from the personal compan i ons of Jesus,

ELEM ENTS OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 87

men who had witnessed the events from the beginning,

and from the beginning had been ministers of the word,

servants of the gospel . It i s suggested at least that there

was a somewhat definite body of such oral narrative . ( c )In its scope thi s oral gospel was coincident with the publ ic

l i fe o f Jesus . “ They who from the beginning were eye

witnesses and ministers of the word ” are one class,not

two ; this phrase cannot mean,“ those who from the

beginning were eyewitnesses and “ those who were min

isters of the word . From the beginning must thereforemean from the beginning of Jesus ’ ministry

,not o f h is

l i fe,and the impl ication i s that that which these trans

m itted was that which they knew .

1(d ) These previous

gospels nevertheless left something to be desi red in respect

o f completeness or accuracy ; our author recognizes a need

for a book different from those of his predecessors . ( e)Our evangel i st does not himsel f belong to the ci rcle o f eyewitnesses

,but to those to whom the eyewitnesses trans

m itted their testimony (vs. ( f) Yet neither i s he far1 Incidentally, therefore, th is preface reflects the same conception of

the l imits of the gospel narrative that appears in M ark and i s expressedin Acts 22

,

“ O f the men therefore wh ich have companied w ithus al l the time that the Lord J esus went in and went out among us ,beginning from the baptism of J ohn, unto the day that he was receivedup from us

, of these must one become a w itness w ith us o f h is resurrection.

”Th is agreement w ith M ark and Acts in reference to the

l imits of the gospel story is al l the more interesting that it occurs in abook wh ich includes a narrative of the b irth and its associated events .The phrase from the first in vs . 3 seems to go back of what the evangel ist here cal ls the beginning, to the source of the stream of events, soto speak ,

in the facts that led up to the ministry of J esus . I t i s, in anycase

,notable that by h is inclus ion of a narrative of events preced ing

the publ i c ministry of J esus, the evangel ist exceeds the l imits wh i ch heimpl ies to have been those of that trad ition and those written work swh ich preceded h is .


removed from them ; though others have preceded him in

writing, he classes himsel f with those to whom the testi

mony of the eyewitnesses was del ivered,and even asso

ciates himsel f under the pronoun us vs . I ) with those

am ong whom the events o f Jesus ’ l i fe occurred,thus inti

mating that these events fel l within his own time . (g )He had access

,therefore

,not only to these other writings,

but to that l iving oral testimony from which these other

writers drew . (h ) He had made painstaking investigation

respecting the material o f his narrative, having searched

al l things out from the beginning. ( i ) He had in view

in writing,not those to whom the history of Jesus was

unknown,but those who had already been taught orally .

Observe the significant testimony thus indirectly bornethat it was the habit of the church

,even at this early day,

to teach the l i fe o f Christ, and the clear indication that this

gospel at least was not for unbel ievers, but for bel ievers .

(j) H i s obj ect in writing i s to furnish h is reader an

enti rely trustworthy record of the l i fe of Jesus , an his

torical basis o f faith .

4 . S tatements of early Chris tian writers concerning

the authorship of the several gospels . These reflect the

opinions held by Christians in the early part of the second

century . Some of the most important of these statements

have already been quoted in the preceding chapters . O fspecial significance for the problem with which thi s chap

ter deals are the statements o f Papias concerning Matthew

and Mark, transmitted by E usebius .

But now we must add to the words o f his which we have alreadyquoted th e tradition wh ich he [Pap ias ] gives in regard to Markth e autho r o f the gospel . It i s i n the fo l low ing wo rds : This al sothe p resbyter said : Mark, having become the interpreter o f Peter,


transmitted for a considerable period in oral form before

being put into writing. The Targums — i . e.,para

phrases of the Ol d Testament books in the vernacularexisted orally for a century or more before assuming

definite written form . The “ tradition of the elders was

in the time of Jesus already somewhat definitely fixed,but

it was not ti l l the second century that i t was put into fixed

written form . The epistles of Paul and the preface of

Luke’s gospel bear witness that the story o f the l i fe o f

Jesus was told by word o f mouth and made the subject of

instruction before the rise of written gospels , at least o f

any written gospels of which we have definite knowledge.

b) The construction of a book by the piecing together

o f other books already written and publ ished was a com

mon practice o f that day. The book of E noch , as we pos

sess it in the E thiopic text, i s composed of smaller books

by different authors, and of different dates, perhaps: three

in number . The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles contains

imbedded in it the Two Ways,” which appears in a

similar form in the ecclesiastical canons and in an inde

pendent Latin translation . But the most instructive

example in its bearing upon the problem of the rise of our

gospels i s the D iatessaron of Tatian, prepared by an

Assyrian Christian about 1 75 A . D . From our four gospels

,substantial ly as we now have them , Tatian with scis

sors and paste constructed a new gospel , to which either

he or others after him gave the name Dia tessaron, com

posed of four.” This composite gospel came into common

use in the churches of Syria, and largely displaced the

separate gospels,t i ll Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, in

the fifth century, rem oved them from some two hundred

churches,putting in their place the separate gospels .

SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM 9 1

The inference from these facts i s, of course, neither

that the gospels were necessari ly the product of oral tra

dition,nor that they were certainly produced from older

written gospels,but that both the reduction to writing of

matter for a time transmitted orally,and the employment

of written works in the composition of new books being

common phenomena of that time, neither i s to be denied

as a priori impossible in the case of the gospels, and either

i s to be readi ly admitted, i f suitabl e evidence of it appears .

I I . THEORIES PROPOSED FOR TH E SOLU TION OF TH E

PROBLEM

As long ago as Augustine,as already mentioned

,the

resemblances of the gospels were noticed, and the sug

gestion was put forth by him that Mark had condensed his

narrative from Matthew . Jerome discussed the question

o f the relation between the original Hebrew Matthew and

the Greek Matthew then and now current in the church .

Serious and thorough investigation of the whole problem,

however, dates from the latter part of the eighteenth cen

tury,s ince which time many theories have been proposed .

To set forth these theories in detai l l ies beyond the scope

of this short introduction to the gospels . It wi l l, however,be useful to indicate in broad outl ine the classes of theories

which have been proposed .

1 . The theory of a common document from which all

three of our synoptic gospels drew was proposed by

E ichhorn in 1 794 , and for a time commended itsel f to

many scholars . But to account for the differences of the

gospel s as wel l as the resemblances , i t was necessary to

suppose that thi s document existed in several recensions .

O f these E ichhorn made four, which number Bishop


Marsh found it necessary to raise to eight . And when it

was pointed out that even this large number of documents,

for none of which there was definite obj ective evidence,

fai l ed ful ly to account for the facts,the theory broke down

under its own weight and complexity,and today probably

has no advocates .

2 . The theory of an oral gospel regards the oral teach

ing and preaching of the apostles and early missionaries

and catechists as the direct source of our synoptic gospel s .

This teaching,it i s held

,naturally assumed

,while the

apostles were sti l l l iving, a somewhat fixed and definite

form,or perhaps several such forms resembl ing one

another, yet having.

each its own pecul iarities . The differ

ences between the several synoptic gospels are due to the

flexible character o f this l iving oral tradition,or to the

variant forms which it assumed ; the resemblances to its

fixed element . Gieseler gave definite form to this view

in hi s work, E ntstehung der E vangelien,

18 1 8 , and it sti l l

has zealous defenders . Like the tradition in which it finds

the source of our gospel s,i t i s very flexible and has taken

on many variant forms . Thus E dwin A . Abbott, making

the oral gospel to contain only what is strictly common to

al l three synoptists,reduced it to l ittl e more than a series

of detached and fragmentary notes . 3 Arthur Wright, on

the other hand,making large use of the intimations that

there existed in the early church a class of catechetical“evangel i sts

,constructs several cycles of tradition out of

which by vari ed combination he supposes our gospel s to

have arisen .

4

See ABBOTT, The Common Trad ition .

‘ S ee WRIGHT, Composi tion of the Gospels and S ynopsis of the

Gospels in Greek .


Bernhard Weiss holds a similar view,differing most

conspicuously in holding that Luke used , not our present

Matthew ,but a Greek translation of the original Matthew .

Holtzmann , Bruce, Wendt, and others while recogniz

ing the use both of Mark and of the original Matthew by

the first and third evangel i sts,regard Mark itsel f as an

independent work . According to this view,there l i e at

the basis of our gospels two original and independent

documents,the original Matthew and Mark

,the latter

identical,or nearly so

,with our present second gospel .

Thi s i s known as the two-document th‘

eory.

Wernle finds the two chief sources o f our Matthew

and Luke in the gospel of Mark and a collection of dis

courses,but supposes that each of them had besides these

two another source or sources, that o f Matthew consisting

of discourse material only,that o f Luke containing both

narrative and discourse material .

It i s beyond the scope of thi s brief chapter to under

take a full exposition either of the principles by which the

solution of the problem must be reached, or of the facts

which an atte ntive study of the gospels discovers, or of the

conclusions to which an interpretation of these facts lead .

It must suffice to state a l ittle more ful ly than has been

do-ne under the E lements of the Problem some of the

more important facts,and to indicate very briefly the

l imits within which the solution probably l ies .

I I I . FACTS RESPECTING TH E RELATION OF TH E GOSPELS

TO ONE ANOTHER

1 . In material common to al l three gospels Mark’s

gospel resembles each of the others, both in order of

events and in content of sections, much more closely than

RELATION OF GOSPELS TO ONE ANOTHER 9 5

these two resemble each other . Indeed,there are no

instances of Matthew and Luke agreeing in order against

Mark, and thei r agreements against Mark in content

o f sections common to all three are confined to an occa

sional brief phrase and the occas ional common omission

of material found in Mark . This indicates that Mark

is in some sense the middle term between Matthew and

Luke, but does not determine in prec i sely what sense it i s

such .

2 . Matthew and Luke have in common a considerable

amount of material not found in Mark . The verbal

resemblance of th is material in the two gospels i s often

very close ; but in its location there i s scarcely any agree

ment between them . This marked difference between the

treatment of the material which both share with Mark and

that which they share with one another but not with Mark,

must evidently be taken into account in explaining thei r

method o f procedure.

3 . Matthew has a considerable amount of discourse

material peculiar to himsel f. This material i s mainly con

tained in long discourses in which , with the exception of

the sermon on the mount, the narrative introduction and

the beginning o f the discourse are found in Mark . Mat

thew has no narratives pecul iar to h imsel f, except in the

infancy sections,and the story of the guards at the sepul

Cher of Jesus

4 . Luke has a number of narratives and a co-nsider

able amount of discourse material pecul iar to himsel f.

The great Perean section 1 9 : 1

practically made up of di scourses with brief narrative

“To these should perhaps be added 9 : 27-3 1 , a var iant account of20 : 29

-34 , as 9 : 32-34 i s clearly a dupl icate of 1 2 : 22-24 .


introduction s, has no paral lel at thi s po int in either of the

other gospels . O f the discourse material proper, a part i specul iar to Luke, a part i s found also in Matthew differ

ently located, the two elements being closely interwoven .

5 . The resemblances o f parallel passages in the gos

pels, espec ially in di scourse material , are often very close ;closer, e. g .

,than i s usual in quotations o f the New Testa

ment from the O ld Testament . These latter were made,

of course, from a written source, but usually, no doubt,from memory. The relation of the synoptic gospel s to

one another and to the sources which , as we must in view

of their resemblances infer, lay behind them ,closely

resemble those which are discovered between Tatian and

his sources ; these latter being our four gospels, which he

possessed in substantial ly thei r present form . While

Tatian’s resemblance to h is sources perhaps exceeds that

of the gospel s in some respects, for which there are spec ial

reasons,in other respects he has used his sources with

greater freedom than the evangel ists have apparently

allowed themselves in reference to theirs .6

IV. GENERAL CONCLU SIONS

While the above statement of facts i s very far from

complete,it i s perhaps sufficient to prepare the way for a

tentative statement of conclusions for which a high degree

of probabil ity may be claimed .

1 . The gospels are not independent documents,but

have some l iterary relationship .

2 . That relationship i s documentary, i . e.,due not

solely to the use of a common tradition, but mediated in

part by written gospel s .See HOBSON , The Synoptic Problem in the Light of Tatian

’

s B iates

saron (Ch icago ,


somewhat,as Luke’s preface indicates

,the scope of thi s

tradition and of the documents based directly on i t.

A l ike the compari son of our gospels and the testimony of

Luke’s preface indicate that for the infancy narratives,

and probably for some other portions of the gospels,minor sources additional to those named above must be

supposed .

8 . There i s nothing in the facts respecting the relation

of the gospels to one another to disprove the earl iest state

ments o f tradition respecting the authorship of these gos

pels . But the statement of Papias respecting the Logia of

Matthew must be supposed to refer,not to our present

first gospel ," but to one of its sources .

CHAPTER V

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

I . TH E AU THOR

1 . H is nationa lity as i t appears in the book itself.

Ou thi s point several classes o f facts bear convergent

testimony .

a ) The author i s fami l iar with Jewish history, cus

toms and ideas . Thus he speaks of the law as given by

Moses ( 1 1 7) of the piece of ground which Jacob gave

to Joseph (4 : 5 , 6 ; cf. Gen . of the priests and

Levites in Jerusalem ( 1 19 ) of Caiaphas as high-priest

that year,reflecting the frequent changes in the h igh

priestly offi ce made by the Roman and Herodian authori

t ies 5 1 ; He i s famil iar with the1 The S eptuagint reads in Gen. éyrb a.! 5 4.d O

'Ol. a lmaa.

I give thee Shechem ” ( for th i s form of the name see J osh .

and J os ., Antiq.,iv, 8, wh ich probably represents J ew ish trad ition.

The statement of the evangel ist i s part icularly significant as ind icatingan a cquaintance both w ith the region spoken of and w ith the passage orthe trad i tion based on i t.

2These statements are, indeed, alleged to betray ignorance on thewriter’s part

,imp lying that the h igh-priest was appointed annual ly. But

i t is to be observed ( a) that in 1 8 : 1 3-24 the writer shows h imsel f wel lacquainted w ith the relations of Annas and Caiaphas, and gives toAnnas the title of h igh—priest in immed iate connection w ith h is mentionof Caiaphas as h igh-priest that year ; ( b) that the Offi ce of h igh-priestwas

,accord ing to J ew ish law, one of l ife-tenure, but that the Roman

and Herod ian authorities made frequent changes for their own ends ;there were three h igh-priests between Annas and Caiaphas ; ( c ) thatfrom the J ew ish point of view an ex-h igh-priest stil l l iving, at least theo ldest l iving h igh-priest, would be most legit imately entitled to thename, wh ile, of course, the de facto cond ition wou ld necessarily be recog

1 00 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

Jewish cycle o f feasts 37-cf.

Lev. 36 ; 2 M ace. Jos., Antiq.,III

,1 0, 4

with the t ime at which theyoccurred 1 0 ; with the custom of attend

ing them in Jerusalem -1 3 ) with the habit of theGal i leans in particular cf. Luke and abund

ant outside evidence ; 1 1 : 5 5 ) and with the practice ofsel l ing in the temple at the feast time -1 6 ; cf.

E dersheim ,L ife of J esus, Vol . I , p . He represents

correctly the Jewish usage and feel ing respecting the

sabbath and the “ preparation ” ff. ; 42 ;

cf. He i s acquainted with the marriage customs

of the Jews ff. ; cf. with the Jewish ideas

about defilement and the custom of purification

cf. Mark and with theni z ed also ; ( d ) that these facts actua lly led to the designation of twod ifferent men as h igh-priest at th e same time, as, e. g ., in Lukewhere Annas and Caiaphas are said to have been h igh-priests at a certa in time ( cf. Acts where Anna s is cal led h igh-priest) , and inJ os .

, Antiq.,xx, 8 , 8 ; xx, 8, I I ; xx, 9 , I and 2, especial ly the last

passage,where Ananus and J esus are both called h igh—priests in the

same sentence ; see also S CHURER, H istory of the J ew ish People, Div. I I,Vo l . I , pp . 202-6 , espec ial ly the passages cited by h im on p . 203 ;

also 3d German ed ition, Vo l . I I , pp . 22 1 -24 ; J OSEPHUS , J ew ish War,

I I , 1 2 , 6 ; IV , 3 , 7 , 9 ; IV , 4 , 3 ; Vi t., 38 ; ( e) that the evangel ist, whoevidently knows the personal rela tions of Annas and Ca iaphas, and,w ith an unstud ied carelessness to explain the apparent contrad iction,represents two men as h igh—priest at the same time, yet who in th isfo llows usage i llustrated also in Luk e and J osephus, can hardly havebeen so ignorant of the situation a s to suppose that Caiaphas held offi cefor one year only ( he was , in fact, h igh-priest for a number of years,though h i s three predecessors must each have been in office a very shorttime) , or that the h igh-priestly offi ce was an annual one ; ( f) thataccord ingly “ that year i s proba bly to be understood, not of the yearof Ca iaphas

’

s h igh-priesthood , but that year — that dread ful year ( inthe h igh-priesthood of Caiaphas) in wh ich Jesus d ied . [(Cf. B . WEI SS ,ad loc.)

102 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

to the unlawfulness of thei r putting a man to

death , in precise accordance with the statement of the Tal

mud ( J er. S anh . ,i,1,fol . 1 8a ; vi i , 2 ,

fol . 24b) that the

Jews lost the power to enforce sentence of death forty

yea rs before the destruction of Jerusalem, viz ., about 30

A . D . The language of N icodemus in 7 : 5 1 i s in accord

is reckoned strictly accord ing to the above-mentioned J ew ish method,even the two week s from Ni san I to Nisan 1 5 being counted a s a year,the time of the utterance would be the passover, Nisan 1 5 , of the year779 A. U . C., wh ich is 26 A. D . If, however, it be supposed that sobrief a period as two week s would be ignored in reckoning, then theutterance would date from the passover of 780 A. U . C.

, wh ich i s 2 7

A. D . The same result i s reached i f i t be supposed that J osephus usedthe Roman reckoning from J anuary to J anua ry ( cf. LEW IN , Chronologyof the New Testament, pp . 22

The calculation of WIESELER, Chronology of the Four Gospels, p .

1 65 , by wh i ch he reaches the year 78 1 ( and in wh ich he is fol lowed byS CHURER, Div. I , Vol . I , p . 4 1 0, n. 1 2 ; 3d German cd ., Vol . I , p. 369 ,n. i s d irectly contrary to h is own statement of the Jew ish methodof reckoning, and the examples wh ich he h imself c ites on pp . 5 1 -5 6 .

The only way of reach ing a later date is tha t adopted by Lew in,who

,comparing (probopxhfinb vabs ofrros of J ohn 2 : 20 w ith «proboandnas

6 nabs of J o s ., Antiq., xv, 1 1, 3 , infers that the evangel ist i s speak ing of

the bu i ld ing of the sanctuary exclusive of the foundations, wh ich J osephus has mentioned previously. But i t is improbable that one Speak ingafter the lapse of nearly fifty years would make such a d iscrimination .

That th e fo rty-six years refer to the period wh ich at the time of

speak ing had elapsed s ince the beginning of the rebu i ld ing of the temple,i s evident from the fact that the temple was, on the one hand, practicallycompleted w ith in nine and a hal f. years (J os ., Antiq ., xv, 1 1

, 5 , and,

on the other hand , not wholly completed unti l a short time before itsdestruction by the Romans in the war of 66-70 ( J os ., Antiq., xx, 9 ,Now,

the mention of th is precise period, not a round number, can beaccounted for only on the supposition that the author possessed veryaccurate sources of information as to the words of J esus on th is occas ion

, or else that he had a very definite theory as to the chronology of

Jesus ’ l i fe,and also an accurate knowledge of J ew ish h isto ry. In either

case the author — i . e ., the author of th is section, and presumably, unti lthere i s evidence to d istingu ish them, the author of the book — was in

THE AUTHOR 1 03

ance with Jewish law (Deut . 1 : 1 6 ; and that o f

P i late in i s in harmony with the statement of the

Jewish author of Matt . on which , however, i t may

of course be based .

‘ In 3 14 Jesus speaks of Moses l i fting

up the serpent in the wi lderness ; in the Jews refer

to the manna with which the chi ldren of Israel were fed ; 4

in the Jews refer to Bethlehem as the vi llage where

David was . In the matters of Jewish usage and feel ing,

the language o f John in 3 : 29 i s true to the marriage customs oi Judea

,

5 that o f the Samaritan woman in to

the Samaritan ideas about place of worsh ip,as are those

o f the Jews in to the Jewish feel ing toward .the

Samaritans. In Jesus refers to the practice of ci r

cumcising a chi ld even on a sabbath .

In 1 : 29 John the Baptist points out Jesus as the Lamb

of God that taketh away the s in of the world,an evident

al l probab i l ity a Jew . These facts must also be taken into account indec id ing whether the cleansing of the temple narrated in th i s section isidentical w ith that related by the synoptists , and i f so, whether i t i swrongly placed by the fourth evangel ist. Prima facie, at least, they mak eagainst the latter supposition , since the year 27 A. D ., wh ich they yieldfor the events recorded by J ohn, antedates by three years that of thepassion h i story . Cf. n. 26, p . 1 1 9 .

‘ The references in th is connection to O ld Testament h isto ry arepart icularly significant. The feed ing of the five thousand, remind ingthe people of M oses ’s feed ing O f the ch i ldren of I srae l and h is promisethat a prophet l ik e unto h imsel f should the Lord God raise up untothem (vs . 1 4 ; cf. Deut. and the demand of the people for acontinuous feed ing wh ich should show J esus to be the prophet l ikeM oses (vss . 30,

together w ith the whol ly unstud ied reference tothese th ings

,can hardly be accounted for save as either a very accurate

report of the actual event or as coming from one who was thoroughlyfami l iar w ith the J ew ish scriptures and the J ew ish Way of interpretingthem.

5 Cf. EDERSH E I M , S ocial Life, p . 1 5 2.


echo of Isa .,chap . 53 . In 4 5 , 49 ; 4 1 , 42 ;

there are repeated reflections of the cur

rent Jewish conceptions of the Messiah . In 25 ;—

43 appear similar echoes of Jewish ideas

about E l i j ah and “ the prophet ; in of the Jewish

feel ing about a rabbi talking with a woman ; in 29 ,

42 , of the Samaritan expectation of the Messiah ; 6 in 8

33 , 37, of the Jewish conception of the value of Abra

hamic descent ; in o f the Pharisees’ claim to be

Moses ’s disciples ( cf. Matt . in 52 , of the

prej udice o f the Judeans against the Gal il eans ; in

of the conter‘

npt of the Pharisees for the common people,the Am-haaretz ; and in of the general Jewish feel

Ing about the cause of mis fortunes .

b) The author i s acquainted with the O ld Testament,not only reporting the use of it

,or reference to it

,by Jesus

and others 29 , 4 5 , 5 1 ; 49 ; 22, 38 ;

f. ; but,l ike the

first evangel i st,freque ntly quoting or referring to it

h imsel f and pointing out the fulfilment of its pro-ph ecresin the li fe of Jesus 22 ; 38

-

4 1 ; 28,

36 , 37 ; These quotations,moreover

,and the

remarks by which he accompanies them,show clearly that

he bel ieves in the authority of the O ld Testament and itsd ivinely given prophecies . He evidently holds with Jesus

that, as compared with genti les or Samaritans, the Jews

know the true way of salvationCf. LIGHTFOOT , B ibl ica l E ssays, p . 1 5 4 ; COWLEY, in the E x pos i tor,

M arch,1 89 5 .

7 It i s impossible to say w ith certainty precisely how many of thesequotations are intended to be attributed to others, and for how manythe writer mak es h imself responsible . Qui te l ikely some of th is l istshould be p laced in the next one. Both groups ind icate the author ’sattitude toward the O ld Testament.

106 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

and Peter apparently a more accurate statement

than the implication of the synoptists that they came

from Capernaum ; se’

e Mark 1 : 2 1 , 29 ) of Cana of Gal i

lee and its relation to Capernaum 1 2 ; 47 ;

Capernaum lies about feet lower than Cana ) ; of

ZEnon near to Sal im 1 0 o f Sychar,and Jacob ’s

Well, the former of which modern exploration has identified with ’

Askar, hal f a mile across the val ley from the

unquestionably identified Jacob ’s Well ; of the Pool of

Bethesda in Jerusalem,with its five porches con

cerning which,again

,most interesting discoveries have

been made in recent times ; 1 1 of the Sea of Gal il ee (6 :

and the location of Capernaum and Tiberias in relation

to it (6 : 1 7, 24 , 25 ) of the treasury in the temple

cf. E dersheim ,Temple

,pp . 26, of the Pool of

S i loam easi ly identified today with ’

A in S i lwan,1 2

southea st of Jerusalem , but within the l imits of the wal l

betrays ignorance. But, surely, in view of h is evident d iscrimination of

the two p laces, and of the recently d iscovered and probable evidence thatthere was a Bethany beyond J ordan, such an obj ection i s feeble, i f notsel f-refuting. S ee CONDER, art. Bethabara ” in HAST INGS ’S D ictionaryof the B ible, Vo l . I , p . 76 ; SM ITH , H istori cal Geography, p . 496 , n. I .

10 On the identification of th is p lace see W . A. STEVEN S , in J ournalof B i blical Li terature, 1 883 , and HENDERSON , art .

“Aenon ” in HAS

TINGS’

S D ictionary of the B ible ; cf. art . Sal im in the E ncyclope d iaB i bl ica, Vol . IV , col . 4 248 .

11 See Pa les tine E x plora tion Fund Quarterly S ta tement, 1 888, pp.1 1 5 -34 ; 1 89 0 , pp. 1 1 8-20 ; CONDER, art . “ Bethesda ” i n HAST INGS ’SD ictionary of the B i ble, Vol . I , p. 279 .

12 S ee ROB IN SON , B i blical Researches , Vol . I I , pp . 3 3 3-42 ; Palestine

E x ploration Fund , M emoirs, vo lume on J erusalem ,pp. 34 5 ff . ; Quarterly

S tatements, 1 886, 1 897 ; LEW I S , Holy P laces of J erusalem,pp. 1 88 ff .

THE AUTHOR 1 07

recently discovered ; 1 3 of Solomon’s porch of a

city called Ephraim ( 1 1 probably the Ephron of the

Ol d Testament ( see Hastings, D ictionary of the Bible)of the brook K idron 2 ; cf. Lightfoot, Biblical

E ssays, pp . 1 7 1 ff. ) of the pretorium of the procurator

and the pavement in the pretorium

of Go-lgotha, the place of crucifixion ( 1 9 : 1 7) and of the

garden in which Jesus was buried It i s

special ly worthy of notice that several o f these references

are to places which must have been whol ly destroyed or

obscured in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A . D . , and

knowledge of which could with difficulty have been pos

sessed except by one who had l ived in Palestine and been

famil iar with Jerusalem before

b) The same thing is indicated by the writer’

s appar

ently intimate acquaintance with the events of the pro

curatorship of P il ate 1 3 , 3 1 ,

c) O f l ike significance is his fami l iarity with thoseJewish ideas and expectations which prevai led among the

Jews of the first century,but were not Shared by the Chri s

tians of the second century 40, 4 1 the

di stinction here indicated between the prophet and the

Christ was early given up by Christians, the passage in

Deut . 1 8 1 5 being referred to the Christ, as in Acts 3 22 ;

cf. Lightfoot, B iblical E ssays, p . as well as‘3 M ITCHELL

,

“The Wall of J erusalem Accord ing to th e Book of

Nehemiah ,” J ournal of B ibli ca l Li terature, 1 9 03 , pp . 85-1 63 , especially

pp . 1 5 2 ff. ; BL I SS,Palestine E x plora tion Fund Quarterly S tatement

,

1 895 , pp 3 05 if.

1‘Cf. on the general subj ect of the geograph ical references in th isgospel

, FURRER in Z ei tschrift fiir neutestamen tli che Wissenschaft, 1 902 ,

pp. 2 5 7-6 5 , who suggests identifications for al l the s ites named in th is

gospel,in a number o f cases d iffering from those suggested above.

1 0 8 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

with those which,though not repudiated by the Chri stians

,

were no longer held in the prec i se form in which they

prevai led among the Jews of the first century ( I : 49 ; 1 21 3 ; cf. Psalms ofS olomon,

d ) But, on the other hand, there are indications

scarcely less clea r that the author no l onger counts him

sel f with the Jews , and that he has come into contact with

a type of thought by which he would be much more likely

to be affected outside than inside Palestine . Thus he con

stantly speaks of the Jews in the third person, as i f they

were quite distinct fro-m himsel f 1 3 , 1 8 ;

10,1 5 , 1 6 ; etc ) . This is, no

doubt, in part the reflection of the fact that his position

as a Chri stian quite overshadows hi s merely national

character as a J ew . Yet,many of the Jewish Christians

who remained in Palestine continued for some time to

feel themselves as truly Jews as ever . And the constant

employment o f th i s phraseology, so much more fre

quent than in Matthew or Paul (Matt . 1 Thess .

2 : 1 4 ,implies that the author wrote at considerable

distance of place or time,or both , from his home in Pales

tine and h is l i fe in Judaism .

Positive indications of residence outside o f Palest ine

and an intimation of where hi s home was are conveyed in

the frequent use of the terms and forms of thought which

prevailed in regions affected by the J ewish-Greek phi

losophy represented to us by P'

hilo Judeus, and reflected

in the oppos ition to it in Paul ’s epistle to the Colossians .

Such words as “Word,”1 5 “ only-begotten,

” “ l i fe,”

115 The basis of th i s usage i s, of course, to be found in the O ldTestament, remotely perhaps in such passages as Gen . and mored irectly in such as Pss . 1 47 : 1 5 ; 1 48 : 5 ; Isa .

S ome writers — Westcott, Godet, Reyno lds, et a l . th ink that J ohn’s

1 10 THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO JOHN

thi s book, had been for some time in non-Jewish lands,and in an intel lectual atmosphere largely affected by the

Alexandrian or Judeo-Hellenic type of thought ; or else

point to some form of double authorship . The simpler

explanation i s,however

,of course, to be preferred, and is

apparently adequate to account for the facts we have

thus far examined . The theory of divided authorship i s

not excluded,but i t must be sustained by further evidence

before it can demand acceptance.

3 . H is religious position. That the author, though

a Jew in national ity and one who had been somewhat

affected by Judeo-Hellen ic phi losophy, was yet, above

everything else,a Christian i s so evident throughout the

book as to call for no detai led proof. The prologue ( 1

1 the writer ’s statement of his purpose in writing

and,indeed every paragraph of the gospel

( see, e. g .,

—2 1 ; 3 1-36 ; i s penetrated

with a conception of Jesus,and of the significance of hi s

l i fe and work,which i s possible only to a Christian.

4 . The relation of the author to J esus, and to the

events which he narrates, as reflected in his narrative.

We refer now not to direct assertions of such relation ,but to the indirect indications furnished in the way in

which the story i s told .

a ) The author constantly speaks as i f he were an

eyewitness of the events he narrates . The passage 1 :

1 9-

5 1 , e. g .,while in some respects parall el to the synoptic

story,adds also material ly to that story, and especi ally

such detai l s as only an eyewitness could have added truth

ful ly ( see especially 35 , 39-

42, He alone of

the evangel ists tell s us of the numerous but untrustworthy

disciples that turned to Jesus in Jerusalem

THE AU THOR 1 1 1

He alone tell s us o f Nicod emus, and setches him in few

words, but with remarkable veris imil itude . He alone

informs us that Jesus for a time baptized (by the hands

of hi s disciples, the synoptic gospels

would leave us with the impression that the baptism with

the Holy Spirit ( of which this writer also knows, I : 33 )was Jesus ’ only baptism . The story o f Jesus and the

woman of Samaria ( chap . 4 ) i s ful l o f l i fel ike touches,suggesting that it i s from the pen or l ips o f one who was

present . The account o f the events that fol lowed the

feeding o f the five thousand ( chap. so whol ly unsuggested in the synoptic narrative, while at the same time

helping to explain the withdrawal into northern Gal i lee

(Mark ff. ) which the synoptists alone relate, and

so wholly true to probabil ity in its representation of popu

lar interpretation of the O ld Testament and popular viewsof the Messiah

,i s also told with a minuteness o f detai l at

certain points that suggests again an eyewitness author.

The account of events connected with the raising of Laza

rus i s ful l o f similar detai ls,relating what the several

persons said to one another, where they stood, etc . So

also the story of the Greeks who sought Jesus relates the

precise part which the several di sciples took in the matter .

And the account of Jesus’ last interview with hi s dis

ciples ( chaps . 1 3-1 7) l ikewise tell s what Peter, Phil ip,

Thomas,and Judas said . The account of the arrest, trial ,

and crucifixion of Jesus,whil e clearly parallel , and in

part identical , with that o f the synoptists, adds many

graphic but incidental details,each of which , where it can

be tested,conforms to existing conditions, or to proba

bility ( see, e. g . ,2 , I O,

1 5 ff ,26, 29

-38 ;

-1 6,


2o,23 , The representation of the book respecting

repeated visits of Jesus to Jerusalem is different fro-m that

of the synoptists,but corresponds with probabil ity

,and

is indeed demanded, as the explanation of that which

occurred on that last vis it . 1 7

b) An eyewitness — one to whom facts of thi s char

acter were known of personal knowledge — could hardly

have been other than one of the Twelve. It i s improbable

that one outside that ci rcle would have possessed the

detai led knowledge of so many events,of several of which

the Twelve were the only witnesses . Certainly no other

could have known the thoughts of Jesus and his dis

ciples which this evangel ist records 1 7, 22 ;

27 ; etc ) . Only by assuming that the gospelcontains a very large imaginative and fictitious element

can one avoid the conclusion that the material o f it pro

ceeded from an eyewitness, presumably one of the twelve

apostles . But the hypothes i s of such an element of fiction

i s rendered improbable by the histori c accuracy of the

gospel in matters in which it i s possible to put its accuracy

to the test .

c ) The gospel, as we possess it, contains direct asser

tions that the author of the narrative, or at least of certain

portions of i t,was an eyewitness of the events narrated

O f these passages, however,the last

‘

i s clearly not a statement of the author,and

belongs therefore to external testimonies ( see p .

m S ee the evidence that th i s author is an eyew itness much morefully stated by WATK IN S in SM ITH , D i ctionary of the B ible, revisedEng . ed Vol . I , pp . 1 75 3 f. , where, however, some th ings are c itedwh ich are rather evidences of an ed itor’s hand .

1 7 See STANTON in HAST INGS ’S D ictionary of the B ible, Vol . I I , p .244a .


as to include himsel f with the eyewitnesses,even though

he himsel f was not such,20 i t i s more probable that the

writer uses it in its obvious sense,as implying that he

himsel f was of the eyewitnesses .21 The indirect evidence

of the gospel i s therefore confirmed by the direct testi

mony of the author that he had seen Jesus and had

beheld hi s glory .

With this result we might for our present purpose be

content, s ince, though the writer i s not by this evidence

personally identified, the knowledge of the author which

we most need to assist us in the interpretation of the book

is not hi s nam e, but h is historical situation, hi s relation to

J esus and to the facts that he relates . Knowing these,i t i s of less moment that we should identi fy him indi

vidually. Yet, even his name is not without its helpful

nes s in the interpretation of the book ; and, as an appendix

at least to the evidence which the book itsel f furnishes in

its di sclosures o f its author ’s characteristics, point of

view,knowledge of facts , and relation to them, i t wi l l be

wel l to consider briefly the external testimonies to hi s

personal identity.

5 . S tatements of ancient writers concerning the

authorship of the book .

— The testimony contained in

has al ready been Spoken of . I f it i s an editorial

statement,i t i s undoubtedly the earl iest testimony we

possess from another than the author himsel f . But it

does not in any case identi fy the writer any more defi

nitely than has been done by internal evidence . It affi rms

only that the writer was an eyewitness o f the event there

narrated,not who he was nor what was his name.

20Cf. the two instances of 47;/i v in Luk e 1 : I f., wh ich i s, however,

not a precisely paral lel case.21 Cf. GODET, ad loc.

THE AUTHOR 1 1 5

The first clearly external testimony is that o f

of the gospel

This is the disc ip l e who beareth witnes s o f thes e things, andwrote these th ings : and we know that his witnes s i s true .

Chap . 2 1 i s clearly an appendix to the gospel added to it

a fter i t had once been completed at the end of the twenti

eth chapter ( cf. IV,P lan of the Gospel The chap

ter as a whole i s by no means certainly of different

authorship from the rest of the gospel . But vs . 24 i s by

its very terms not a statement of the author respectinghimsel f, but the testimony of others affi rming who he is .

Though imbedded in the gospel itsel f,as we now possess

it, having been inserted when the rest of the chapter was

added, or perhaps even later, it is, strictly speaking,external testimony, not internal evidence. Who is the

author or authors o f this testimonv , or when it was added

to the gospel , cannot be definitely stated .

22 In all docu

mentary evidence,even the oldest, the gospel contains the

twenty-first chapter including this verse.

The testimony of this verse i s distinctly to the effect

that the gospel i s from the hand of an eyewitness of the

events ; that he was one of seven , five of who-m are

named and are of the Twelve (2 1 : 2 ) and, more specifi

cal ly,that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved

,who

leaned on Jesus’

bosom at the supper (2 1 : 2o, The

internal evidence of the book,and the statement of 1 9 35 ,

therefore,are confirmed and made more definite by thi s

testimony o f unknown persons inserted in the appendix

to the go'spel .

Not even yet, however, i s the writer spoken of by22 Concerning Wei z sacker

’s interesting and certainly not improbable

suggestion see p . 1 26 .


name . I f i t might be reasonably assumed that the dis

ciple repeatedly in the gospel designated otherwise than

by hi s name 4 1 ; 1 6 ; 27,

35 ; 2 1 : 20 ) i s always the sam e, then the person to whom

this testimony refers could with probabi l ity be identified .

For the testimony itsel f refers to 2 1 : 20,in which the dis

ciple that Jesus loved i s spoken of, and by implication

identifies him with the disciple spoken of in 19 35 . No-w,

one to whom these passages referred could hardly have

been other than one of the inner Ci rcle of Jesus’ disciples

James , John, Peter, Andrew ( a presumption confirmedby 4 1 ; and of these Andrew is excluded

by Peter by and James by 2 1 : 24 , coupled

with the fact o f his early dea th (Acts making it

impossible for him to have written a gospel unquestion

ably the latest of our four . But the chain of argument by

which we thus conclude that the disciple whom Jesus

loved,and to whom the witnesses o f 2 1 : 24 referred, was

John the son of Zebedee, while probably leading to a

right interpretation of thi s testimony, contains several

l inks not i rrefutably strong. For the name of the authorto whom antiquity ascribed thi s gospel we must look to

sti l l later testimony .

Definite testimony that the fourth gospel i s from the

hand of John comes to us not earl ier thanfrom the third

quarter of the second century .

23 The fol lowing are some

of the earl iest and most striking passages in which the

gospel i s ascribed to John

Whence a lso the Holy S criptures and al l those who bea r the2f’Evidence for the existence of the gospel i s much earl ier, qui te

clearly as early as 1 30 A. D. But i t is beyond the purpose of th i s bookto d iscuss the compl icated problem of the external evidence.


standing as sponsors to the readers for his trustworth iness

,and to the possibil ity that 1 9 35 i s o f the same char

acter.24 The former clearly,the latter possibly

, Show

a hand other than that of the author of the material contained in the book . The evidence furnished by the fact

o f the addition of chap . 2 1 , after the gospel was complete,will be discussed in a later paragraph .

2 . The use of the t itle,

“ the disciple whom Jesus

loved for the author of the bookpoints

,at least S l ightly, in the same direction . That asso

ciates of John in the latter part o f h is l i fe should know

from himsel f or from others that he was the special obj ect

of the Master ’s affection,and that they should cal l him

the disciple whom Jesus loved,i s not at al l improbable .

But that he, writing with his own pen or by dictation a

book whose authorship was to be no secret, Should refer

to himsel f as “ the disciple whom Jesus loved,

” i s an

improbable immod esty, strangely at variance with the

modesty which on this supposition led him never to men

tion himsel f by name.

3 . In several particulars this gospel gives a different

representation of facts connected with the l i fe o f Jesus

from that which the synoptic gospels present . Thus John

the Baptist ’s characterization of Jesus as the Lamb of

God that taketh away the S in of the world is so wholly

different from his prediction , recorded in Matthew and

Luke,of the Greater One coming to swi ft and irremedi

24 Probably not,however, in any case from the same hand. The

th ird person and the present tense in he knoweth that he saitht rue

,

” imp ly that the w itness is sti l l l iving ; wh ile the past tense in2 1 24 , that wrote these th ings,” and the use of the first person in thestatement, we know that h is w itness is true,” suggest that the w i tnessauthor is no longer l iving.

ED ITORIAL WORK IN THE GOSPEL 1 1 9

able j udgment that it cannot but lead us to inquire whether

the idea expressed by the Bapti st i s not at least sl ightly

modified in thi s expression of it . Again,the representa

tion of this gospel concerning the announcement of Jesus’

messiahship is sufficiently different from that of the syn

optic gospels to raise the question whether there has not

been in this matter some transformation of the material,

some proj ection backward into the early portion of the

ministry of what real ly belongs to the latter part,or a

substitution for one another o f terms which,when the

gospel was written, had long been looked upon as prae

tical ly synonymous,but which

,when Jesus l ived

,had not

yet become so. The difficulties at thi s point have often

been exaggerated,especial ly in respect to the confession

of Nathanael ,25 but it remains true that there are differences which demand explanation . Cf. John

with Matt . 1 6 : 1 3-18 . In minor matters , also, there i s an

occasional editorial remark which it i s difficult to account

for as coming from an apostle of Jesus . See, e. g .,

which by its position seems to imply that Judea was Jesus ’

own country,though

,indeed, this i s not the only possible

interpretation of it.

2e

2“Cf. the very useful d iscussion of th is matter by PROFESSORRHEES in the J ournal of B ibl ica l L i terature, 1 898, pp. 2 1 ff .

2e It is a tempting suggestion that the last clause of butthat they might eat the passover,” wh ich impl ies that the passover hadnot yet been eaten, whereas the synoptists clearly put the passover onthe preced ing night

,i s an ed i toria l comment from a later hand

,the d is

crepancy of wh ich w ith the chronology of the synoptic narrative is dueto the ed itor’s ignorance of the exact facts . But the evidence, wh ichapparently grows c learer w ith fuller investigation , that the J ohanninechronology of the passion week i s alone consistent w ith the testimonyof al l the gospels respecting the day of the week on wh ich J esus d iedand the evidence concerning the J ew ish calendar in the first centu ry,


4 . The style o f the gospel i s uni form throughout,

alike in narrative,discourse of Jesus , discourse of John,

and prologue or comment of the evangel ist . This style

i s, moreover, quite different from that which the synoptic

gospels attribute to Jesus or John . W'

hose style i s thi s ?

IS i t that of John the apostle,or that of the men whose

hand appears in the “ we know of 2 1 : 24 ? Or is i t, perhaps, the styl e o f Jesus himsel f which John has learned

from him ? From the gospel itsel f we could perhapshardly answer the question . But a comparison of the

book, on the one hand, with the style which the synoptic

gospel s al l but uni formly attribute to Jesus,and

,on the

other,with the first ep i stle o f John , seems to point the

way to an answer . In 1 John we have a letter which ,

tends rather to the conclusion that, whether the words but that theymight eat the passover are from author or ed itor, they are at least inharmony w ith the fa cts respecting the relation of J esus’ death to thecelebration of the J ew ish passover. S ee PRE U S CH EN in Zei tschrift fu

'

r

neutestamentl iche Wissensch aft, J anuary, 1 904 ; BRIGGs,New Light

on the Life of J esus, pp . 5 6 ff . Another d ifference between th i sgospel and the synoptists concerns the chrono logical position of thecleansing of the temple. But here also the evidence tends to sustainthe accuracy of the fourth gospel . By the express ion in J ohn“ forty and six years was th i s temple in bu ild ing,” the event therereferred to i s a ssigned to the year 26 or 2 7, barely possibly to 28 A. D.

( cf. 11 . Th is fact, comb ined w i th the increasingly c lear evidence thatJ esus was cruc ified in the year 3 0, tends to the conclusion that thecleansing narrated in th is gospel is correctly placed as i t stands, andthat, i f there was but one cleansing of the temple, it i s the synoptiststhat hav e misp laced the account. On the evidence of the year of J esus’death see PRE U S CH EN as above. The argument by wh ich TURNER in thearticle Chronology of the New Testament ” in HAST INGS ’S D ictionaryof the B ible, pp . 4 1 1 , 4 1 2 , seek s to establ ish 29 A. D . as the yea r of

J esus’ death, rests upon a misinterpretation of the evidence of theM ishna as to the method by wh ich the beginning of the J ew i sh year wasfixed in the first Christia n century .


of the synoptists respecting Jesus’ manner of speech,

that o f Jesus . From this again follow two conclusionsFi rst the apostle i s not simply in a remote sense the sourceof the facts, which the editors have whol ly worked over

into their style, but he i s in some true sense the author

of the book, the one who, as the authors of say,

wrote these things .” Second, in view of the uni formityof the style o f this book, covering the discourses of Jesus

as wel l as the rest, in view of the difference between this

style and that o f Jesus in the synoptists,and

,on the other

hand, its identity with that o f 1 John, there is no room to

doubt that John has thoroughly worked over into his own

style perhaps the style of his later years — his remem

brance of the deeds and words of Jesus . That this style

was learned from Jesus i s a theory which could hardly be

absolutely disproved,but which i s not suggested by any

convincing evidence. That the synoptic gospel s contain

a sentence or two in the style of the fourth gospel ( see

Matt . 1 1 : 27 ; Luke i s more easi ly explained on

the supposition that the synoptic gospels were to a limited

extent affected by the same influence that created the

fourth gospel than that these few words discover to us the

style of Jesus and account for that of the fourth gospel .

5 . There are numerous indications that the arrange

ment of the material of which this book is composed i s

not wholly from the hand of the author himsel f. These

any support for such a theory. The evident fact that th i s chapter wasadded to the gospel already regarded a s complete at 20 : 2 1 , and doubtlessafter the death of the author to whom ascribes th e preced ingchapters

,does

,indeed , suggest that it i s from a d ifferent hand from the

rest of the gospel . S ee further in n . 3 5 , p . 1 27 .

ED ITORIAL WORK IN THE GOSPEL 1 23

apparent displacements attracted attention long ago,

29 and

of recent years have been the subj ect of careful study.

Among the most obvious o f them is the position of 71 5

-24 . This i s mani festly connected in thought with

chap . 5 . The Jews appare ntly take up in a state

ment of Jesus in and the whole paragraph 1 5-24

unquestionably carries forward the controversy related in

chap . 5 . But as the material now stands,months of time

and an extended absence o f Jesus from Jerusalem fal l

between the two parts of this continuous conversation .

The attachment of these verses to the end of chap . 5 gives

them a far more natural and probable posit ion . Inde

pendently Of this case,

and 7 : 1 present an obvious

chronological difficulty . In Jesus goes away to the

other side of the Sea of Gal i lee, though chap . 5 leaves him

not in Gali lee at al l,but in Jerusalem . And states

that after these things Jesus walked in Gal ilee,for he

would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kil l

him ; though in chap . 6 he was already in Gal i l ee . The

transposition of chaps . 5 and 6 would give a far more

intell igible order of events . E ven the latter part of chap .

7 would read much more smoothly i f vss . 4 5-52 stood

between 36 and 37, thus making the officers return the

same day that they were sent, rather than, as it now

stands,several days later

,as wel l as yielding in other

respects a more probable order o f thought . Combining

these suggestions,we Should arrange these chapters in this

order ( after chap . 4 ,which leaves him in Gal i lee ) : 6

1 -7 1 ;-47 ;

-24 ;- 1 3 , 25

-

36. 4 5-

52. 37-

442° Some of them are spoken of in a work of the fourteenth century

LU DOL PH U S DE SA! ON IA, Vi ta Christi , referred to by J . P. NORRI S,J ournal of Ph ilology, Vo l . I I I pp . 1 07 ff.


That 7 : 53— 8 : 1 1 i s from some outside source i s gener

ally admitted, being establ ished by external testimony as

well as by internal evidence. The insertion of this pas

sage i s, of course, not editorial transposition, but scribal

interpolation .

30

The difficulti es of arrangement in chaps . 1 3-16 have

long been noticed and one of them,the interposition of

the long discourse o f chaps . 1 5 - 1 6 after the words, Arise,

let us go hence,

” in 14 3 1 , i s obvious to the most casual

reader . Others have been observed by more attentivestudents

,such as the evidence in 5

-

3 1 , especially in

27, Peace I leave with you,” that these are intended to

be the Closing words of the discourse ; and that 1 6 5 can

scarcely have been spoken after the question of 1 4 5 , but

would itsel f naturally give rise to that question . These

difficulties are greatly rel ieved by supposing chaps . 1 5 , 1 63° I f, on the basis of the c learer cases mentioned above, i t should be

establ ished that the material of the gospe l has suffered d isplacementthen it would be reasonable to interpret the less clear ind ications inchaps . 8- 1 0 as show ing that here also there has been some d isarrangement. Thus chap . 8 ( omitting vss . 1 -1 1 ) begins w ithout narrative introduction w ith the words, Again, therefore, J esus spake to them,

” as ifth is were a continuation of the d iscourse in chap . 7 . But the themeof 8 : 1 2 ff . is J esus as the Ligh t of the World, wh ich i s suggested bynoth ing in the preced ing chapter, and i s c learly rela ted to chap. 9 . The

paragraphs -2 1 and -29 also occupy a position d iffi cult toaccount for. A rearrangement of th i s material that w il l at once commend itself as the original arrangement can hardly be offered . But thefollow ing i s possible : 7 : 3 7-44 ; -5 9 , the d iscourse of J esuson the last day of the feast, d i scuss ing the question already raised in

-3 6 , whence he i s, wh ither he goes , and who he is ; 9 : 1

-4 1 ;

— 2 1 ; 8 : 1 2-20, on the theme J esus the Ligh t o f the World ; 1 0

22-29 , 1 -1 8, 3 0-42 , a chapter on the one theme J esus the good S hepherd

,and h is relation to the Father

,having the typical structure of a

J ohannine chapter, viz . , narrative introduction, d iscourse of J esus, d iscussion w i th the J ews, narrative conclus ion.


to admit that the evidence of some displacement is almost

i rresistible . But, i f so, then it fol lows that some other

hand has been at work upon the gospel than that of the

original author.

6 . But Chap . 2 1 furnishes at once a problem of itsel f

and a hint for the solution of the whole matter . This

chapter seems clearly, and is generally admitted to be, an

appendix added after the gospel was felt to be completed

in 3 1 . Now Weizs'

acker has pointed out in his

Apostolic Age (Vol . II, pp . 209 ,2 1 2 ) that the

'

motive

for this addition i s to be seen in 2 1 : 23 , viz .

,in the fact

that the death of John seemed at once to discredit both the

apostle and hi s Lord,s ince

,as was general ly supposed

,

Jesus had predicted that hi s beloved disciple should not

die,but Should survive ti l l his coming. To obviate this

discrediting of Jesus and John,this Chapter i s publ ished

,

pointing out that Jesus did not so predict . The motive

for such a publ ication would,as Weizs

'

acker says, exist

most strongly immediately after the death of John . Fromthis fact he draws a conclusion in favor of the early date

of the gospel . For our present purpose its significancel ies in the fact that this Chapter was added after the death

of John . But i f, as al ready argued, the style of this chap

ter is the style of the author of the epistle and the gospel ,not that of the editors who speak in 2 1 : 24 , then it fol lows

that thi s chapter existed before its incorporation into the

gospel . And this in turn suggests both that the apostle,while sti l l al ive

,composed chapters of a gospel

“ book

lets,

”i f you please 3 3 and that he left them in this form,

not organized into a gospel . I f now we turn back to

33 Cf. the use of the word filfikos in M att. referring to vss .

EDITORIAL WORK IN THE GOSPEL 1 27

examine the gospel itsel f,it is easy to imagine

,to say the

least, that we can discern, approximately, the l ines o f

cleavage which distinguish these booklets from one

another, somewhat as fol lows : 3 4 Book I , 1 1 -1 8 ; Book

II,

Book III, Book IV,chap.

4 ; Book V, 5 : 1-47 ; 7 : 1 5

-24 ; Book VI , chap . 6 ; Book

VII , chaps . 7, 8 (with omissions and transpositions assuggested on p . 1 23 and in n . 30 ) ; BookVII I , chaps . 9 ,

I O

(with changes suggested in n . 30 ) Book I! ,-29 ,

1 -1 8, 30

-42 ; Book ! , chap . 1 1 ; Book ! I , chap . 1 2

Book ! II, chaps . 1 3-1 7 ( as arranged above ) ; Book

! II I, chaps . 18-20 ; Book ! IV , Chap .

34 The book numbers are not intended to ind icate the orig ina l orderof the book s, s ince, accord ing to the suggestion here made, they existedorig inal ly as separate book s, not as a connected series. It i s to besupposed

,a lso, that the introductory phrases, After these th ings,” 5 : I

6 : 1 , etc ,were ed itorial notes, not parts of the original book s.

35 If i t should be made c lear by ancient examp les that such s imilarityO f style as exists between chap . 2 1 and the rest of the gospel ind icatesno more than that the writings exh ib iting i t emanated from the sanschoo l of writers, then the inference to be drawn from chap . 2 1 respecting the original form of the rest o f the gospel would certainly be lessobvious. But i f chap . 2 1 may be from a d ifferent hand from the resto f the gospel

,i t can hardly be maintained that the rest of the gospel

must certainly have been throughout from the same pen,l iteral ly from

the same writer. Instead , there i s suggested to us the poss ib il ity thatvarious writers of the same school , a l l eyew i tnesses of the events or intouch w i th such an eyew itness — a company, e . g .

, of J ohn ’s d isciplesput into writing d ifferent portions of what J ohn had reported and taughtabout J esus, and that the gospel was made up of these various writings ,completed w ith chap . 20 before the death of the apostle, and receivingthe add i tion of chap . 2 1 from the same general source a fter h i s death .

And i f w ith such a poss ib i l ity in mind we examine the structure of thegospel itsel f

,the probab il ity that i t existed originally in separate book s

w i l l seem scarcely less than on the supposition of unity of authorsh ipthroughout . But unti l it has been rendered less improbable than it nowseems that the writings even of writers of the same schoo l would resemble


I f now we attempt to combine and interpret al l this

evidence, it seems to point to the following conclusion :

The narrative of the l i fe and discourses of Jesus proceeds

from an eyewitness of the events,a personal disciple of

Jesus, in al l probabi l ity John the son of Zebedee . The

whole material has, however, been melted and recast in

the m ind of the author . Lapse of time,change of sur

roundings, contact with a new type of thought, desire to

make Jesus and his teaching intell igible to the men with

whom , now at the end of the first century,he has to deal

,

have al l operated to make the book,not merely a narrative

of the l i fe o f Jesus,but a ser ies of historical sermons

shaped to meet the needs of l iving readers . This material

left the hand of the author,moreover, not in the form of

the book which we have,but in a number of smal ler books .

In its Spirit the book is far more the work of a preacher

seeking to develop spiritual l i fe, than of an historian

seeking to produce an accurate record of past events .

The gospel as we possess it shows the hand of an editor

one another as c losely as chap . 2 1 resembles the rest of the gospel,i t i s

reasonable to ab ide by the conclus ion that substantially a ll the materia lof th e gospel i s from th e same author. That he wrote i t w i th h i s ownpen, or d ictated i t to an amanuensis need not be maintained . I t maywel l be composed mainly of uttered d i scourses, written down by hearers .The s imilarity of style impl ies only identity of authorsh ip — but of

authorsh ip,not s imply of ultimate and remote source.

PROFES SOR BACON , “The J ohannine Problem,

”H i bbert J ourna l, J anu

ary, 1 904 , p . 344 , has expressed the opinion that “

The s imi larity of

style and langu age between the append ix a nd the gospel i s not toogreat to be fully accounted for by simple imitation, plus a revision of

the gospel itsel f by the supplementing hand,” and separates the composition of th is chapter from the rest o f the gospel by a considerableinterval of time, thus apparently exclud ing the hypothesis that i t proceeds even from the same school of writers as the rest of the gospel .Th is Opinion has not yet run the gauntlet of critic ism.


writing for Christian Jews might,indeed, occasional ly

speak of “ the Jews ” as this gospel does ( cf. Matt . 28 :but a Jewish writer writing for Jews, even Christian

Jews,i s not l ikely to have fel t his and thei r distinctness

from the Jewish nation so strongly as to have used th i s

form of expression with the frequency with which it

occurs in this gospel . The explanation of Hebrew terms

when they occur 42 ;

and the manner of referring to Jewish customs and senti

ments point in the same

direction . This evidence does not exclude Jewish readers,but it certainly tends to Show that the readers were not

whol ly,or even chiefly

,Jew s . To this must be added the

statement of which by its use o f the words“ bel ieve and “ have ” in the present tense

,denoting

action in progress and most natural ly referring to the

continuance of action already in progress, impl ies that the

readers are Christians,in whom the writer desires

,not to

beget faith,but to nourish and confirm a faith that alrea dy

exists . The book seems, therefore, to have been intended

chiefly for genti le Christians .

IV . TH E PU RPOSE WITH WH ICH TH E EVANGELIST WROTE

But what did it aim to accompl ish for these Chris

tians ? The verse j ust referred to contains an explicit

statement of aim,viz . ,by the narration of facts respecting

the l i fe of Jesus to lead men (presumably already believ

ers ) to bel ieve ( i . e. ,continue to bel ieve ) that Jesus i s the

Christ,the Son of God

,to the end that thus bel ieving they

may ( continue to ) have li fe in his name.3 7 Doubtless it

37 The theory already suggested respecting the method of compositionof th is book raises the question whether 3 1 i s from the hand of

THE PURPOSE 1 3 1

would be an over-pressing of the force of the tenses in thi s

sentence to insist that the book was written solely for the

maintenance of existing faith against adversaries ; but

that th is was a part of its purpose i s certainly more than

hinted . I f, then, we turn back to the prologue, 1 : 1 -1 8,

in which we may naturally expect to discover indication

of the purpose of the book, three things attract our atten

tion . F i rst, the term Word is here employed in a

peculiar way, not paral leled in the other portions of the

gospel or in the first epistle of J ohn,3 8 and yet introduced

as i f it were famil iar to those who would read the book.

3 9

the author,being intended by h im as the conc lusion of th is particular

book ( chaps . 1 8 or from the hand of the ed itors,and intended as the

conclus ion of the who le work . I t is an Obj ection to the former suppos ition that no such conclus ion is attached to any other of the books, andthat in chaps. 1 8-20 s igns,” in the sense of the word in th is gospel, areby no means prominent ; indeed, there are none in the usual sense of theterm. It is against both th is supposition and the view that the authorwrote these words as a conc lusion of the who le series of book s, or

( setting aside the part icular theory here advocated) of the work as awho le, that the gospel i tself does not put upon the s igns qu i te theemphasis wh ich th i s verse seems to g ive them ( cf. -25 ; 3 : 1

It i s, therefore, most probable that these verses are from the ed itors,though i t may wel l be that, except in the use of the word S ign,” theyhave correctly expressed the purpose wh ich the apostle had in view inthe del ivery of the d iscourses or writing of the book s wh ich they havehere publ ished .

88 The use of the phrase Word of l i fe in I J ohn 1 : I , the “ prologue of the epistle, i s approximately parallel, and in view of the usageof the prologu e of the gospel i s probably to be traced to the sameinfluence wh i ch produced th is ; yet i t i s only approximately paral lel,invo lving by no means so clear a hypostatizing of the Word as that ofJ ohn ff . The mode of speech of the letter even is doubtless anacqu ired one, but it has apparently become a natural one for the apostle.Th i s can hardly be said of the phraseo logy of the prologue of the gospel .

3" See HARNACK , Zei tschrift fii r Theologie und K irche, Vol . I I, pp.1 89-23 1 WENDT, The Gospel According to J ohn,

pp . 223-34 .

1 32 THE GOSPEL ACCORD ING TO JOHN

The purpose of the writer in the prologue i s evidently not

to introduce to readers hitherto unacquainted with them

either the conception of the “Word as the expression

and revelation of God,or the person Jesus Chri st, but

rather to predicate the former of the latter. These facts

indicate that the writer desires to avai l h imsel f of a con

ception more congenial to the thought of hi s readers than

to hi s own,in order to set forth in words famil iar to h is

readers the doctrine he wishes to teach,viz . , the

'

unique

ness,final ity

,and all-sufficiency of the revelation of God

made in the person Of Jesus Christ . In other words,he

translates into a current vocabulary and mode of thought

his own thought about Jesus , in order by such translation

to render thi s thought more intel l igi ble and more accept

able . This reminds uS of the evidence afforded by the

letter of Paul to the Colossians, and in a less degree by

Ephesians, that the genti le Christianity of Asia Minor

was subj ect in the first century to the influence of a certain

type of philosophy which tended to dethrone Christ from

his place o-f supremacy,and that Paul was led in opposing

it strongly to affi rm the priority, supremacy, and all

sufficiency of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God and

the mediator between God and man (Col . -20 ; 2 :

8 ff ,1 6 ff ) . The epi stle to the Colossians gives evidence,

also,that th is philosophy was affected by the same con

ception of the intrinsic evi l of matter which later appea red

in the gnostici sm of the second century — a conception

which led to the predication of numerous intermediary

beings between God and the world in order to avoid

attributing to God the evi l involved in creating an evi l

world . Thi s tendency is triply opposed in the prologue.

The world i s made the product of divine activity through

1 34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO joHN

of Jesus ; and we behel d hi s glory, the glory of one who

reveals God as an only-begotten son reveal s h is father.

In the third place, we cannot fai l to see in vss. 6-9 andI 5 an intention to oppose the doctrine, evidently held by

some, that John the Baptist i s the true Messiah and revela

t ion of God . O f the exi stence of a John the Baptist sectthere is a hint in Acts and further evidence in the

Clem . R ecogrt., I ,Thus against a tendency

,essential ly gnostic in char

acter, to separate God from the world by the intervention

of one or more intermediary beings,against the Philonean

notion of the “ Word ” of God as a mere phi losophic

conception , only rhetorically personified and never for a

moment identified with the Messiah or conceived of as

incarnate, against the assertion that John the Bapti st i s

the true Mess iah,the prologue affirms the eternal exist

ence of the Word as the one medium of God ’s relation

to the world,his incarnation in Jesus Christ,

‘

and hi s

messiahship .

42

‘1 Here Peter is represented as saying Yea even some of thed isciples of J ohn have separated themselves from the peop le, andproc laimed their own master as the Christ.” Th is bears w itness to theexistence of such a sect in the latter part of the second century. Butsuch a sect could not have sprung into existence so long after the deathof J ohn. It must have its roots in a much earl ier time, as Actsindeed, bears w itness that it d id have. Cf. HACKETT, Acts, ad . loc. ;

W I LK I N S ON , A J ohannine Docum ent in the First Chapter of Luke, pp.2 1 if . S ee on th is whole subj ect NEANDER, Church H istory, Vol . I , p .3 76, and the commentaries of Godet and Westcott ; contra, Weiss. In

h is monograph,D er Prolog des v ierten E vangel iums , 1 898, BALDEN

S PERGER has maintained that opposition to the J ohn-cult is the centra lpurpose of the gospel . S ee review by RHEE S in the American J ournal ofTheology,

April , 1 899 .

“ GODET (Commentary on J ohn, Vol . I , p . 284 ) finds the ch iefpolemic of the prologue in its opposition to the docetic d istinction

THE PU RPOSE 1 3 5

But thi s i s not al l . The prologue not only affirms

certain propositions about Jesus which are denied by the

contemporaries of the writer ; it i s in entire harmony with20 30, 3 1 , in emphas iz ing faith in Jesus Chri st as the con

dition of true l i fe,here represented also as true sonship to

God

I f now we examine the body of the gospel , we find no

further reference to the phi losophical heresies contro

verted in the prologue,but a controll ing emphasis upon

the simpler and more positive ideas o f vss . 1 2,1 3 .

Indeed, the gospel may almost be said to be summarized

in the words of vss . I I - 1 3 He came unto hi s own,and

they that were his own received him not . But to as many

as received him,to them gave he the right to become

chi ldren o f God, even to them that bel ieve on hi s name

which were born not of blood, nor of the wil l of flesh,nor

of the wi ll of man, but o f God .

” We are tol d of his

appearance among his own people, the Jews, of their

rej ection of him , first tentative,then growing more and

more decis ive ; of hi s acceptance by a few who bel ieved

on him , and the Master’s reception of them into an inti

mate fel lowship with himsel f and with God ; and through

all o f Jesus ’ constant insistence that in him is l i fe,that it

i s imparted to those who bel i eve in him,whi le they who

rej ect remain in death . We cannot, indeed, overlook the

fact that in the early part of the gospel there are repeated

between J esus and the Christ, accord ing to wh ich the latter descendedinto J esus at h i s baptism, but left h im and reascended into heavenbefore the passion . HARNACK also (Zei tschrift fur Theologz’e and K irche,

Vol . I I , p . 2 1 7) includes th is anti-docetic polemic in the purpose of theprologue. That the first epistle i s d istinctly anti-docetic in its aim therei s no reason to question ( see espec ially 1 J ohn ff ,

though Godetinterprets vs . 6 as d irected against the messiahsh ip of the Baptist) . Butthe traces of such polemic in the gospel are sl ight.


references to John the Baptist,in every one of which he i s

represented as bearing testimony to Jesus or refusing to

make any claim for himsel f,declaring that Jesus must

increase, but he himsel f d ecrease -

35 ;

nor can we fai l to connect these passages with the refer

ences to John in the prologue, or to see in both an opposi

tion to the John the Baptist cult . Yet these passages dc

scarcely more than bring into clearer rel ief the otherwise

constant emphasi s on the l i fe-giving power of faith in

Jesus Christ, the supreme revelation and only-begotten

Son of God .

While, therefore, we discern in the prologue evidence

that it i s rather a bridge from the gospel to the readers

than a summary of the book from the author’s own point

of View, and whi le, as we compare the prologue, the body

of the book, and the statement of purpose in 3 1 ,

we perceive that each differs somewhat from the other

in emphasis or minor conceptions ; while we may observe

that the references to John are sufficiently distinct from

the rest of the matter to constitute possibly a distinct

stratum of the book ; yet we discern al so that the book

reflects a situation which,i f complex

,i s nevertheless sel f

consi stent, and a unity of purpose that impl ies the domi

nance of one mind or o f a group of minds holding sub

stantially the same doctrine and seeking the same ends.

I f we seek a definition of that purpose, the evidence

leads us to say that negatively the gospel was intended to

oppose certain conceptions o f God and the world,akin at

lea st to those of Philo and the Gnostics — conceptions

which belittled or excluded the work of Christ — and

incidentally to controvert the doctrine of the messiahship

of John the Baptist ; but that thi s negative aim was itsel f

( 38 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

ANALYS IS OF THE GOSPEL

I . THE PROLOGU E OF THE GOSPEL : The centra l doctrines o f the book so expressed in terms o f currentthought as to relate the fo rmer to the latter andfac i l itate the trans it io n from the latter to thefo rmer . I I -18

II . THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS : John bears hi s test imony ; Jesus begins to revea l h imsel f ; faith i sbegott en in some, and the firs t s igns o f oppos iti onappear . I 19— 4 : 54

1 . The testimony o f John and the beginnings offa ith in Jesus . 1 : 19— 2 : 12

a ) The test imony of John to the representatives o f the Jews . I 19

-28

b) John po ints out Jesus as the Lamb o f Godand the one whom he had come to announce . I 29—34

c ) John po ints o ut Jesus to his own disc ip l es,and two o f them fo l low Jesus .

d ) Jesus gains two other fo l lowers .e) In Cana of Gal i lee Jesus firs t mani fests hisglo ry in a S ign and strengthens the faith o fh is discip les . 2 : 1 -1 2

2 . Jesus in Jerusalem and Judea : Opposit io n andimperfect faith . 2 : 1 3

—

3 36

a ) The c l eansing of the temp l e : oppos itionmani fested . 2 : 13

-22

b) U nintel l igent faith, based on s igns, in Jerusa lem . 2 : 23

-25

c) In particular, N icodemus i s rep roved andinstructed . 3 : M s

d ) The motive and effect o f divine revelationin the Son. 3 : 16-2 1

‘3

e) The further test imony o f John the Baptistto his own in ferio rity and Jesus’ superio rity 3 : 22

—

30

f) The supreme character o f the revelatio n inthe Son.

-36

43

‘3 Concerning these sections,see p . 1 29 .

ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL 1 39

3 . Jesus in S amaria, and the beginnings of workin Gal i lee . chap . 4

a ) Jesus’ sel f-revelatio n to the S amaritan

woman, and the s imp le faith o f the S amaritans . 4 : I

-42

b) The receptio n o f Jesus in Gal i lee, fo r themost part o n the bas i s o f s ign s seen, but inone case without waiting fo r such evidence.

-54

THE CENTRAL PERIOD or JESU S ’ MINI STRY,to the

end o f hi s public teaching : Jesus declares himsel fmo re and more fu l ly

,many bel ieve on him

,and

the faith of his discip l es i s strengthened, but theleaders of the nat ion rej ect h im and reso lve uponhis death . chaps . 5-121 . The hea ling o f the impotent man at the pool ofBethesda, rais ing the sabbath questio n, andthen the quest ion of Jes us’ relat io n to hisFather, God . chap . 5

“

2 . The feeding o f the five thousand and attendantevents leading to the discourse on Jesus as theBread of Li fe, i n consequence o f which manyl eave him, but the Twelve bel ieve in him morefi rmly. chap . 6.

3 . The j ourney to the feast of Tabernac l es, anddiscuss ion concern ing who Jesus i s, whence hei s, and whither he goes . chaps . 7, 8 “

4 . The heal ing o f the man bo rn blind, and theteaching o f Jesus concerning himsel f as the

W ith th is chapter, 7 : 1 5 -24 was probably original ly connected .

On th i s question and the relation of chap s. g and 6 . see p. 1 23 .

4“But these chapters, as they stand, apparently include three sectionsthat do not properly belong to them : 7 : 1 5

-24 , wh ich belongs w i th thefifth chapter ; 7 : 5 3— 8 : 1 1 , wh ich does not properly belong to th isgospel , though doubtless h istorical and probably as old as the rest of thegospel ; 8 : 1 2-20, wh ich seems to belong to chap . 9 . Chap. 7 : 25 -5 2 hasal so apparently suffered some transposition. See pp. 1 23 , 1 24 , and n . 30.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

Light o f the World and concern ing sp i ritua lb l indness . chap . 9

“

5 . Discours e o f Jesus at the feast o f Dedicat ionconcern ing himsel f as the Good Shepherd and

the Door of the Fo ld. chap . 1 0

6. The rais ing of Laz arus, and the teaching of

Jesus concern ing h imsel f as the Resurrectionand the Li fe . chap . I I

7. Jesus’ last presentat ion of himself to the Jewsof Jerusalem .

0) Jesus ano inted by Mary at Bethany.

b) The triumphal entry.

0) The coming o f the genti les to see JesusJesus’ announcement o f h is death and itsresults . 12 20-360

d ) The rej ectio n o f Jesus by the Jews ; its

natu re and exp lanat ion .

“12 36b-50

IV. THE FU LLER REVELATION OF JESU S To HI S BELIEV

ING DI SCIPLES . chaps . 13—17I . The washing o f the disc ip les ’ feet by Jesus, andthe less on o f humil ity and service. 13 : 1

-20

2. The prediction o f the betrayal, and the withdrawal o f the betrayer. -

3 1a

3 . The farewel l discourses of Jesus . 13 : 3 I b— I6 z 33“

4 . The prayer o f Jesus fo r his disc ip les . chap . 17

“ W ith wh i ch , however, -21 and 8 : 1 2-20 are so evidentlyconnected in subj ect as to suggest that they originally belonged to th ischapter. S ee 11. 30, p . 1 24 .

Originally, perhaps, arranged 1 0 : 22-29 ; 1 -1 8 ; 30-42. S ee 11 . 30,

p . 1 24 . Concerning 1 0 : 1 9-2 1 , see previous note.

”VS S . 36b-43 are evidently a comment of the evangel ist on themeaning of the events that precede. Vss. 44-5 0 are probably h i s summaryof J esus ’ whole teach ing to the nation. The character of the wholepassage 3 6b-so ind i cates that i t is fel t to mark the conclus ion of theh istory of J esus’ offer of h imsel f to the nation .

“ Concerning poss ible restorations of the o riginal order here. see

pp . 1 24 , 1 25 .

INDE!

Acrs, authorsh ip of, 54 f.AN CI ENT TE S T IMON I E-S , 8 f.

, 30 f.,

5 5 f., 88 f. , 1 1 4 ff .

ARAMAI C WORDs : in M ark 29 ;

in the New Testament, 3 2 f.AUGUS T I NE, theory concerning therelation of the synoptic gospels,9 1 .

AUGUS TUS , system of enro lmentsinstituted by, 68 f.BETHANY beyond J ordan, 1 05 .

BETHES DA, poo l of, 1 06 .

CEN S U S in E gypt, 68 f. ; in thegovernorsh ip of Quirinius, 70 if .

CHRONOLOGY : of J ohn, 1 0 1 , 1 1 9 f. ;date of Jesus’ b irth, 67 f., 73 f.DIATES SARON of Tatian, 80, 90, 1 25 .

D I S PLACEMENTS in J ohn, 1 22 if .

E NROLMENT : see Census .EUS EBIU S , quotations from, 9 ,

30 f 88 f.GADARENES

,country of, 2 f., 1 0.

GERAS ENES , country of, 2 f.GOS PELS , titles of, in ancient manuscripts, 8 .

HEBREW LANGUAGE : known toauthor of first gospel , 6 ; knownto author of fourth gospel , 1 05 .

HEROD IAS , 28 .

HEROD THE GREAT, nature of h i sauthority, 69 f.

H IGH-PRI ES THOOD , references to,in the gospels , 9 9 f.

H I STORI CAL M ATERIAL used for

argumentative purpose,

1 3 f.,

3 9 f.IRENE U S , statements concerningthe gospels , 3 0, 5 6, 1 1 7 .

JACOB’

s WELL, 1 06 .

J EROME, testimony c 0 n c e r n i n gM ark , 3 1 d iscussion of relationbetween Hebrew M atthew and

Greek M atthew, 9 1 .

J OHN , GOS PEL ACCORD ING To : national ity of the author, 9 9 ff. ;h is knowledge of Hebrew, 1 05character of h is Greek , 1 05 h isresidence, 1 05 ff . ; h is rel igiousposition, 1 1 0 relation to eventsnarrated, 1 1 0 if . ind ications ofh is identity, 1 1 2 ff. ; ancienttestimonies, 1 1 4 ff. ; ind i cationsof ed itorial work in the gospel

,

1 1 7 if . relation to the synopticgospels, 1 1 8 ; uniformity of

sty le, 1 20 if , 1 27 f arrangement and possible d isp lacements

,

1 22 ff. ; chapter 2 1 an append ix,1 26 ; constituent “ book lets

,

”

1 27 ; unity, 1 29 ; intended readers, 1 29 f. purpose of the gospel, 1 30 ff. purpose of the prologue, 1 32 ff . ; p lan of the gospel, 1 3 7 ff . ; influence of Ph iloupon th e gospel, 1 08 f. , 1 33 ;

d iscussion of 1 01 if d iscussion of 3 1 , 1 30 f.

J OHN THE BAPT I ST, sect of, 1 34 .

J US T I N M ARTYR, testimony con

cerning the gospel O f Luke, 5 5 .

LATI N WORDS in M ark, 3 3 .

LITERARY M ETHODS of the earlyChristian period, 89 f.

LUKE, GO S PEL OF author’s preface, 46 , 86 ff . ; national ity of

the author, 47 ff. ; character ofh is Greek

, 5 2 ; use of sources,5 3 ( cf. 9 7 f. ; h is rel igiousposition, 5 3 ; evidence O f h isidentity derived from relation ofthe gospel to Acts, 5 4 ; testim ony O f trad ition, 5 5 f. ;

' in

tended readers , 5 7 ff. ; purposeand point of view , 5 9 if . planof the book , 63 ff. relation toM atthew and M ark , 9 5 , 9 7 f. ;

d iscus ion of 2 : 1 -5 , 68 ff. ; O f

144

-24 , 74 ff of 67 fof 3 : 23 . 67 , 74 .

LUKE, New Testament statementsconcerning, 5 7 .

M ARK, GOS PEL ACCORDI NG To : national i ty of the author, 2 7 if

h is relation to the events,29 ;

h i s rel igi ous pos ition, 29 test imony of tra d ition, 30 f. ; in

tended readers, 32 f., 40 ; purpose of the writer, 3 3 if . p lanof the book , 4 1 ff . ; arrangement,chrono logical or topical , 39 , 4 1 ;last twelve verses of, 3 7 ; relation to M atthew and Luke, 94 f.,9 7~

M ARK, New Testament statementsconcerning, 3 1 .

M ATTHEW , GO S PEL ACCORD I NG To

national ity of the author, 1 ff . ;

h is rel ig ious position, 8 ; te stimony of trad ition, 8 f. in

tended readers, 1 0 if ., 1 7 ; purpose of the writer, 1 2 if ., 20 ;‘

not a J udaistic gospel , 1 8 ; unity ,1 9 ; intended to meet a definites ituation

, 1 9 ; plan of the book ,

2 1 if. ; sources and relation toM ark and Luke, 9 5 , 9 7 f.

M I S HNA, c ited , 77 , 78.

M URATORIAN FRAGMENT, testimonyconcerning the gospel of Luk e,5 6.

OLD TES TAMENT : use of, by M at

thew , 4 1 1,1 5 ; use of, by

M ark , 29 use of, by Luke, 49 f.reference to, in Luke -24 ,

74 f. ; use O f, by J ohn, 1 04 .

ORAL GOS PEL, 92 f.

PAPIAS , h is statements concerningthe gospels, 9 , 30 , 88 f., 9 7 f.PH ILI P, son of Herod the Great,4 , 28.

INDE!

PH ILO, influence upon the fourthgospel , 1 08 f., 1 3 3 .

PH ILOSOPH Y z opposed by Paul,

1 09 , 1 3 2 ; attitude of J ohntobvard , 1 09 , 1 32 if .

PRES ENTATI ON in the Temple, 75 .

PURI FI CATION , law O f, 74 if .

TATIAN’

s D IATES SARON , 80, 90, 1 25 .

TEM PLE,rebu ild ing of, 1 0 1 ff.

TE ST I MONY of ancient writers concerning the gospels, 9 , 3 0 f.

,88

f. , 1 1 4 if .

THEOPH I LUS , reference to the gospel of J ohn , 1 1 7 .

TIBERI U S , fifteenth year of, 5 0,

67 f.

W ILDERNES S OF J UDEA, 1 .

“ WORD ,” doctrine of the, 1 08 f.,1 3 1 fi

'

.

QU I RIN I U S : date of governorsh ip,72 f. ; enrolment under, 68 if .

QUOTAT ION S from the O ld Testament occurring in the gospels

,

5 , n,29 , 49 f.

, 75 , 1 04 .

QUOTAT I ON S from ancient writersconcerning the gospels : fromE useb ius, 9 , 30 f., 88 f fromIrenx us, 30, 5 6 , 1 1 7 ; fromJ erome, 3 1 ; from the M ut atorian fragment

, 5 6 ; from Theophilus

,1 1 7.

SATU RN INU S , 73 .

S ILOAM , Pool of, 1 06 .

SON OF M AN , 3 5 .

SYNOPT I C GOS PELs : resemblancesof, 8 1 E ; d ifferences, 85 ; factsrespecting relation to one an

other, 82 ff . , 94 ff . ; theories of

origin and interrelation, 9 1

’

ff. ;

relation to fourth gospel, 1 1 1 f.,

1 1 9 .

A Short Introduction the Gospels - Forgotten Books

Documents

Transcript of A Short Introduction the Gospels - Forgotten Books