LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 ^Received ^ 111 893 - i 8 9 
 ^Accessions No. H-Q bo. Class No. 
 
 

GOSPEL-CRITICISM 
 
 HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY 
 
 A STUDY OF THE GOSPELS AND OF THE HISTORY OF THE 
 GOSPEL-CANON DURING THE SECOND CENTURY 
 
 WITH A CONSIDERATION OF THE RESULTS OF 
 MODERN CRITICISM 
 
 BY 
 
 ORELLO C,ONE, D.D. 
 
 &HI7ETK3IT7 
 
 G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 
 
 NEW YORK LONDON 
 
 27 WEST TWENTY-THIKD ST. 27 KING WILLIAM ST., STRAND 
 
 Ije finuherbocher "press 
 1891 
 
rs 
 
 t 
 
 COPYRIGHT 1891 
 
 BY 
 ORELLO CONE 
 
 ttbe fmfcfcerbocfeer g>re03, Hew ^orft 
 
 Electrotyped, Printed, and Bound by 
 G. P. Putnam's Sons 
 
TO THE BELIEVERS WHO FEAR CRITICISM 
 
 AND 
 TO THE UNBELIEVERS WHO APPEAL TO IT 
 
Nicht jeder Buchstabe ist ein Wort, nicht jede Erzahlung eine 
 Geschichte Jesu. KEIM. 
 
 No divine revelation can be delivered into human keeping without 
 being shorn of its first lustre by the clouded region through which 
 it has to pass. . . . Yet there are discernible a few ineffaceable 
 lineaments which could belong only to a figure unique in grace and 
 majesty. MARTINEAU. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 SO long as there are unbelievers who appeal to criti- 
 cism and believers who regard it with aversion, no 
 apology need be made for a book which undertakes to 
 show the true nature of the critical process and its actual 
 results. For the appeal of unbelievers to criticism and 
 the aversion to it by the devout proceed in many cases 
 from an imperfect understanding of its aims and conclu- 
 sions. It is the belief of the author that Gospel-criticism 
 has important lessons both for the believer and the unbe- 
 liever, and that the one may learn from it what are the true 
 grounds of a rational faith in historical Christianity, and 
 the other the futility of the attempts ordinarily made to 
 invalidate it. 
 
 It is the object of this work to show the actual appli- 
 cation of the critical process to the Gospels, to indicate 
 the main lines of the course of the criticism of these 
 writings, and to ascertain what is tenable and permanent 
 in its conclusions. A selection of topics was necessary to 
 the accomplishment of the object in view within the 
 limits proposed, and the author has accordingly chosen 
 what appeared to him to be some of the most important 
 subjects with which Gospel-criticism has to deal. Besides 
 a brief consideration of the text and a study of the com- 
 position and authorship of each of the four Gospels, con- 
 siderable space has been given to an historical and critical 
 
 vii 
 
VI 11 PREFACE. 
 
 investigation of the formation of the canon of the Gos- 
 pels, or the history of these writings during the second 
 century, and, furthermore, to some special matters of 
 criticism, as in the chapters on the Eschatology of the Gos- 
 pels, Dogmatic " Tendencies " in the Gospels, etc., as well 
 as to questions touching the results of the critical inquiries 
 undertaken. 
 
 While the attempt has not been made to write a history 
 of the course of Gospel-criticism, it has been found to 
 subserve the purpose of the work to indicate in connec- 
 tion with some of the problems discussed the progress 
 of critical inquiry, particularly as to the theories of the 
 composition of the first three Gospels in treating of the 
 Synoptic Problem. The entire study has necessarily been 
 conducted with a constant reference to the works of the 
 great masters of Gospel-criticism, particularly to those of 
 the unequalled German masters ; but the writer has 
 endeavored to maintain an independence of judgment in 
 all cases, and to observe a becoming modesty, as he hopes 
 will be apparent, whenever he has found himself obliged 
 to reach conclusions opposed to those of learned and 
 eminent authorities. 
 
 As to the results of this study, the author ventures to 
 express the belief that it has been shown in the course of 
 it that while from the so-called traditional point of view 
 considerable concessions are required to be made to criti- 
 cism, the conclusions which must be drawn from its appli- 
 cation to the Gospels tend rather to establish than to 
 invalidate the essentials of historical Christianity. But 
 while men differ so widely as at present as to what these 
 essentials really are, he cannot expect the unanimous assent 
 of his readers to this conclusion. He is not unaware of 
 the power of prejudice and traditional beliefs in determin- 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 ing men's opinions on matters of the kind discussed in 
 these pages ; but he hopes that reason and the historical 
 sense, which is a species of common-sense possessed in a 
 greater or less measure by all men, will be allowed due 
 weight by his readers in forming their conclusions on the 
 important questions treated of in this volume. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 THE TEXT 1 
 
 I. The Autographs of the Gospels ....... I 
 
 2. Copies ........... 4 
 
 3. Extra-Textual Witnesses 6 
 
 4. The Manuscripts ......... 9 
 
 5. The Variants .......... 12 
 
 a. Unintentional Changes 12 
 
 b. Intentional Changes . . . . . . . .13 
 
 c. Dogmatic Changes 18 
 
 6. Some Principles of Textual Criticism ..... 19 
 
 7. The Versions 22 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CANON 27 
 
 I. The Apostolic Age ......... 33 
 
 2. The Post-Apostolic Age ........ 37 
 
 a. Clement of Rome ........ 41 
 
 b. The Epistle of Barnabas ....... 45 
 
 c. The Shepherd of Hernias ...... 48 
 
 3. The Epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius . . . . .51 
 
 4. Papias of Hierapolis and Hegesippus ..... 60 
 
 5. Justin Martyr's Gospels 65 
 
 6. The Clementine Homilies, Basilides, and Valentinus . . 74 
 
 7- The Canon of Marcion and Tatian's Diatessaron ... 85 
 
 8. Dionysius of Corinth, Melito of Sardis, and Athenagoras . 93 
 
 9- Theophilus of Antioch and the Canon of Muratori ... 97 
 
 10. Irenseus and Tertullian ........ 102 
 
 II. The Catholic Church and the Canon 108 
 
 12. The Gospels in the Alexandrian Church . . . . . 113 
 
xii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM Il8 
 
 I. The Hypothesis of Copying . . . . . . . 125 
 
 2. The Hypothesis of a Common Written Source or of an Original 
 
 Gospel 130 
 
 3. The Hypothesis of Oral Tradition 138 
 
 4. The Course of More Recent Criticism 142 
 
 5. Conclusions Regarding the Synoptic Problem . . . .150 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK l6l 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW .... 173 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 197 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 2IO 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS 254 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 DOGMATIC "TENDENCIES" IN THE GOSPELS . . . 291 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE GOSPELS ; OR, THE HERME- 
 
 NEUTICS OF THE EVANGELISTS 306 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES 318 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY . . . .337 
 
GOSPEL-CRITICISM 
 
 AND 
 
 HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE TEXT. 
 I. THE AUTOGRAPHS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 IF the authors of the Gospels had a presentiment of 
 the importance which later ages would attach to 
 their writings, it does not appear in any words which they 
 have left. The writer of the third Gospel is the only one 
 of them who explicitly states the object for which his 
 record was made, and he appears to have had in view 
 primarily, if not solely, the instruction of a certain The- 
 ophilus. But any hope which the evangelists may be 
 supposed to have cherished that their very words would 
 be preserved as a sacred legacy by future generations, 
 could not but be frustrated by the inevitable fortune to 
 which their productions were subject by the conditions 
 and circumstances under which they wrote. It was many 
 years after the composition of their records before writ- 
 ings giving accounts of the life and work of Jesus came to 
 be held in especially high regard, and to be preferred to 
 the still living tradition handed down by word of mouth. 
 
2 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Accordingly, scrupulous care, either in their preservation 
 or copying is not to be presumed on the part of those 
 into whose hands they may have fallen. Besides, the 
 autographs of the Gospels must have perished in a short 
 time on account of the fragile nature of the material on 
 which they were written. According to the custom of 
 the time they were doubtless written upon papyrus* by 
 means of a reed charged with ink,f instead of upon the 
 more costly parchment. The best of the papyrus was 
 fragile, and under constant use would be destroyed in a 
 few years. Use or neglect must, however, be assumed in 
 order to account for the early disappearance of the auto- 
 graphs of the Gospels, since there are examples of the 
 preservation of papyrus-manuscripts through long periods 
 of time in Egyptian tombs and in a villa of Herculaneum. 
 But the reports of the discovery of wonderfully preserved 
 originals of the Gospels, which were circulated by the 
 Roman Catholics in the dark ages, must be put to the 
 account of legend. It was said that the grave of Barna- 
 bas was opened in the fifth century in consequence of a 
 " revelation/' and that this saint was found to hold in his 
 hands a splendid copy of the first Gospel in the hand- 
 writing of Matthew himself. This copy was held sacred, 
 and preserved in Constantinople as a standard of the text 
 of this Gospel. A similar legend was current respecting 
 the marvellous preservation of an autograph of the fourth 
 Gospel at Ephesus, where it was worshipped by the 
 faithful. The time of the disappearance of the auto- 
 graphs of the Gospels cannot, of course, be accurately 
 determined. No trace of them is found in the oldest 
 Christian literature. Had they been in existence towards 
 
 * TtdTtvpot, 
 
 f Sta xdprov nai jiieA.avo$, II. John 12. 
 
THE TEXT. 3 
 
 the end of the second century, when controversies were 
 carried on which frequently turned upon readings of cer- 
 tain texts, they would doubtless have been appealed to as 
 decisive authorities, especially since at that time the Gos- 
 pels were beginning to enjoy high repute as oracles, and 
 to be placed upon an equal footing with the Old Testament. 
 Of the manner in which the originals of the Gospels 
 were written we may learn from the Italian and Egyp- 
 tian papyrus-rolls of the same date which have been 
 preserved. The text was written in columns upon the 
 papyrus in the so-called uncials, or capital letters, and ran 
 unbroken, z>., without division of words and marks of 
 punctuation. The iota was not subscribed, nor was it 
 always adscribed. Breathings and accents were not em- 
 ployed. That the authors of these writings gave them 
 the titles which they now bear is improbable. Against 
 the supposition that they entitled them " Gospels " is, 
 according to Tischendorf, Justin Martyr's constant refer- 
 ence to the evangelistic records known to him as " Me- 
 morabilia of the Apostles," * a designation to which he 
 once adds, " which are called Gospels." f He could hardly 
 have so expressed himself had these writings originally 
 borne the formal titles by which they have been known 
 since the formation of the canon. That part of the titles 
 which indicates the reputed authors of the several works, 
 the words, " according to Matthew," etc., has a so decid- 
 edly editorial look, as to leave little doubt that it was 
 prefixed to the originals. The titles also presuppose a 
 collection of Gospels, each one of which is distinguished 
 from the others by a heading that is uniform except in the 
 name of the evangelist to whom the writing is ascribed. 
 
 * oc.itoiJ.vrjiiovsviJ.aTCL TGOV aTto6To\.<&v. 
 \ a KaXelrai evayyekia. 
 
GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 2. COPIES. 
 
 Not only have the autographs of the Gospels unhap- 
 pily perished, but the earliest copies of them have had 
 a similar fortune, and, like the originals, have left no 
 trace of their existence. During more than two centuries 
 the fate of these writings and of their earliest transcrip- 
 tions is unknown. Of the care that was bestowed upon 
 the preparation of these copies, and by whom and for 
 what purpose they were made, history gives no informa- 
 tion. If it could be shown that during the first century 
 after they were composed the originals of the Gospels 
 were held in veneration as writings inspired of God, the 
 inference would be legitimate that the copying of them 
 was regarded as a sacred office, to be performed only 
 under a solemn sense of obligation to be painstaking and 
 accurate. It will appear, however, when we come to study 
 the history of the formation of the canon of the New 
 Testament, that they were protected by no such senti- 
 ment. On the contrary, if Papias be allowed to have ex- 
 pressed the general opinion of his time * on the subject, 
 the current oral tradition was even held in higher esteem as 
 a source of information touching the life and works of 
 Jesus than any written accounts of them. Whatever infer- 
 ences may be drawn from the phenomena presented by 
 the existing manuscripts of the Gospels to alterations and 
 interpolations made in the first centuries, there is little 
 that can be urged in favor of any radical changes from the 
 originals effected during this period. The general agree- 
 ment of the manuscripts which have been preserved and 
 compared, in the most important parts of the narrative, 
 and the remarkable similarity of the first three Gospels in 
 plan and even in verbal expression, furnish a strong pre- 
 sumption against any theory which may be set up of ex- 
 
 * About the middle of the second century. 
 
THE TEXT. 5 
 
 tensive modifications of the records by copyists. The 
 vexing " synoptical problem " is a standing witness to the 
 preservation of the essential integrity of at least a central 
 and important portion of the first three Gospels. It is 
 probable that single Gospels were copied separately at 
 first for private use or for public reading in the religious 
 assemblies. When the four Gospels were first wholly or 
 in part written in one collection, or connected with copies 
 of the Old Testament, is unknown. 
 
 Although many copies of the Gospels were doubtless 
 made during the second and third centuries, yet owing to 
 their destruction in the times of the persecutions of the 
 Christians, to neglect, and to the natural dissolution of 
 the material on which they were written, no manuscripts 
 remain which are supposed to antedate the time of Con- 
 stantine, or the first quarter of the fourth century. It is 
 evident that, if the earliest Christian writers succeeding 
 the evangelists had made numerous exact quotations 
 either from the originals of the Gospels or from the first 
 copies of them, such testimony to the condition of the 
 text during an obscure period of its existence would have 
 been of great importance. But information from this 
 source is so meagre and untrustworthy as hardly to be 
 worthy of consideration. Down to about the close of the 
 second century the remains of Christian literature are 
 inconsiderable. But they are sufficient to show us that 
 there was not yet much quoting from the Gospels, or, in- 
 deed, from any part of the New Testament, in the proper 
 sense of the word. Tischendorf finds that the citations 
 made at about the time in question are of the sort that 
 they agree with the variants handed down from a later 
 time without on critical principles having any special claim 
 to apostolical originality. The passages from the evan- 
 gelic history which are found in the apostolical fathers 
 
6 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 and in Justin Martyr show that in the age of these writers 
 the oral tradition had by no means yielded to written 
 documents either in currency or authority. The character 
 of the writings of this period was not such in general as to 
 call for appeals to the text in order to ascertain precisely 
 what had been taught by Jesus or the apostles. In the 
 discussions, however, which were carried on between the 
 so-called orthodox and heretical parties, it became im- 
 portant to know what was written in the records. Charges 
 of corrupting the text in the interest of a doctrine were 
 made from both sides. With the exception, however, of 
 those brought against Marcion, the Gnostic, who did in 
 fact omit some parts of the Gospel of Luke, these charges 
 were generally groundless. The accusations are for the 
 most part found on examination to have been founded on 
 different readings of the text. Readings which can be 
 shown to be wrong in the hands of the so-called heretics 
 are found to have been widely diffused among writers 
 opposed to them. With the exception just referred to, 
 wilful changes and interpolations are rarely to be charged 
 against either party. Even Marcion, like many another 
 heretic, appears not to have been so bad as he was 
 painted. For notwithstanding his conceded tampering 
 with the Gospel of Luke, it is said of him that in the 
 isolated readings which he is charged with having altered 
 it happens not unfrequently that he has retained the right 
 reading, and that his opponents are in error, while in very 
 many cases the alleged corruption is a various reading 
 more or less supported by the authorities. 
 
 3. EXTRA-TEXTUAL WITNESSES. 
 
 If the writers who stood nearest to the evangelists fail 
 us in contributing to a knowledge of the Gospels, their 
 
THE TEXT. 7 
 
 successors are found to be witnesses of more importance. 
 Their testimony is, however, impaired negatively by our 
 ignorance of their manner of quoting. Their citations 
 would be of great importance if made carefully from a 
 manuscript, but critically of little worth if made loosely 
 from memory. It must also be taken into account that 
 the text of their writings has been exposed to no little 
 corruption by copyists who modified the citations accord- 
 ing to the texts of the Gospels which they had before 
 them. Clement of Alexandria furnishes many passages 
 quoted from copies of the Gospels which antedate the 
 oldest manuscripts now in existence. He complains, 
 however, of a tendency prevalent in his own time to 
 change the Gospel ; * but it is not known precisely what 
 kind of modifications he had in mind, whether those 
 made by the Gnostics, or additions by such as thought 
 they could improve the text, or arbitrary changes under- 
 taken in the interest of harmonizing passages found in 
 the different Gospels. He himself quotes two sayings of 
 Jesus which are not found in the canonical text. Some- 
 times he makes citations freely from memory, not unfre- 
 quently mixing two narratives, while in very many places 
 he has preserved the true reading. 
 
 Origen's contribution to a knowledge of the text of 
 the Gospels as it was in the first part of the third century, 
 is of greater importance than that of any of his predeces- 
 sors among the early Christian writers. Many of his 
 quotations are of considerable length, and appear to have 
 been made from manuscripts, and not from memory. So 
 numerous and extensive are they, that it has been said 
 that almost the entire text of the New Testament might 
 be transcribed from his voluminous writings. But his 
 * fieranQsvai TO 
 
8 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 testimony is greatly curtailed by the loss of the original 
 Greek text of many of his works, they existing only in 
 a Latin translation, and is impaired by the corruption of 
 the text of those that have come down in the language 
 in which they were written. These latter, like the manu- 
 scripts of the New Testament, have suffered from the 
 carelessness or the temerity of copyists. Origen's own 
 testimony to the condition of the text of the Gospels in 
 his time is worthy of especial consideration. " As the 
 case stands," he says, " it is obvious that the difference 
 between the copies is considerable, partly from the care- 
 lessness of individual scribes, partly from the wicked 
 daring of some in correcting what is written, partly also 
 from [the changes made by] those who add or remove 
 what seems good to them in the process of correction." 
 It is to be regretted that we have not, among the fruits 
 of the great learning and industry of Origen, some con- 
 siderable contributions to the criticism of the text of the 
 Gospels. But while he gave his attention to the purifica- 
 tion of the text of the Old Testament in the Septuagint 
 version by a comparison of editions, he appears to have 
 been deterred at least from making public any work of 
 this kind on the text of the New Testament by the fear 
 of giving offence to the Church. He did not think he 
 could do it " without danger." It is evident that the 
 sentiment of his time must have been very unfavorable 
 to textual criticism. Several cases are, however, cited by 
 Norton, in which Origen has expressly noticed various 
 readings in the Gospels.* In three of these passages it 
 is pointed out that the variations which he notices are no 
 
 * Matt. viii. 28 ; xvi. 20 ; xvii. i ; xxi. 5, 9, 15 ; xxvii. 17 ; Mark iii. 18 ; 
 Luke i. 46 ; ix. 48 ; xiv. 19 ; xxiii. 45 ; John i. 3, 4, 28. To these Hort 
 adds, Matt. v. 22. 
 
THE TEXT. 9 
 
 longer found in our Greek copies ; in several our copies are 
 still divided ; and in one, Matthew xxvii. 17, a few copies 
 of no great age retain the interpolation which was found in 
 his time " in very ancient copies." Westcott calls atten- 
 tion to the circumstance as remarkable that Origen 
 asserts in answer to Celsus that Jesus is nowhere called 
 "the carpenter" in the Gospels which were circulated in 
 the churches, though this is undoubtedly the true reading 
 in Mark vi. 3.* 
 
 4. THE MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 No complete description of the manuscripts of the 
 Gospels can be undertaken here. A few of the most 
 important will be mentioned with the letters designating 
 them for convenience of reference in the course of this 
 treatise. The number of uncial manuscripts of the 
 Gospels now in existence is not great. Tischendorf 
 reckons forty, of which five are entire ; three nearly 
 entire ; ten contain very considerable portions ; fourteen, 
 very small fragments ; and eight, fragments more or less 
 considerable. To these must be added the Sinaitic, 
 which is entire, and two others. The following are the 
 principal primary uncials : 
 
 a. Codex Sinaiticus ( tf ), obtained by Tischendorf from 
 the convent of St. Catharine, Mt. Sinai, in 1859. The 
 Old and New Testaments are entire, and the Epistle of 
 Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are added. It was 
 published under the editorial direction of Tischendorf at 
 St. Petersburg in 1862 in four splendid folio volumes. It 
 is generally regarded as of the fourth century. 
 
 b. Codex Alexandrinus (A), also a manuscript of the 
 entire Greek Bible with the Epistles of Clement added ; 
 
 * Orig. contra Celsum, v. 36. 
 
IO GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 now in the British Museum. There are some chasms in 
 the Gospels : Matt, i xxv. 6, epj<j# ? - John vi. 50 
 viii. 52, Xeyei. Its date is supposed to be in the first 
 half of the fifth century. 
 
 c. Codex Vaticanus (B), No. 1209 in the Vatican 
 library, where it appears to have been almost from the 
 founding of that library in about A. D. 1450. Besides 
 the Old Testament in Greek it contains the New Testa- 
 ment entire to Heb. ix. 14. The rest of Hebrews, the 
 pastoral Epistles, and the Apocalypse were added in the 
 fifteenth century. It is assigned to the fourth century. 
 
 d. Codex Ephrcemi (C), a palimpsest manuscript con- 
 taining fragments of the Septuagint and of every part 
 of the New Testament. From the fourth century. 
 
 e. Codex Bezce (D), a Graeco-Latin manuscript of the 
 Gospels and Acts with a small fragment of III. John. It 
 has many lacunae. Referred to the sixth century. 
 
 f. Codex Guelpherbytani (PQ) two palimpsests of the 
 sixth and fifth centuries respectively. Fragments of the 
 Gospel of Luke. 
 
 g. Paris Codex (L), one of the most important of the 
 late uncial manuscripts, contains the four Gospels with 
 some lacunae. The text agrees remarkably with B and 
 with Origen. It is of the eighth century. 
 
 h. British Museum Add. 17,211 (R), a palimpsest 
 brought to England in 1847 from the convent of St. 
 Mary Deipara. The original text is covered by a Syriac 
 writing of the ninth or tenth century. About 585 verses of 
 Luke were deciphered by Tregelles and Tischendorf in 1854 
 and 1855 respectively. It is assigned to the sixth century. 
 
 i. Codex Dublinensis rescriptus (Z), in the library of 
 Trinity College, Dublin, is a palimpsest containing large 
 portions of Matthew. Assigned to the sixth century. 
 
THE TEXT. II 
 
 j. Codex Basileensis (E), contains the four Gospels 
 with a few lacunae, and was probably written about the 
 middle of the eighth century. A secondary uncial. 
 
 k. Codex Borgianus (T), fragments of John and Luke. 
 Fifth century. 
 
 1. Codex Cotton (N), twelve leaves of purple vellum 
 four of which are in the British Museum. Thirty-three 
 additional leaves containing fragments of Mark have 
 recently been found at Patmos, and were used by Tischen- 
 dorf in his eighth critical edition of the New Testament. 
 Sixth or seventh century. 
 
 m. Codex Sangallensis (4) a manuscript of the Gospels 
 with an interlinear Latin translation which corresponds 
 rather with the Vulgate than the Greek text. From the 
 ninth century. 
 
 n. The designations Y, N h , T b , O, 8, I (Tischendorf) 
 are of less importance, as are the secondary uncials, F, G, 
 H, K, M, S, U, V, r. 
 
 Tregelles has in his catalogue of manuscripts, which 
 Westcott regards as the most complete and trustworthy 
 yet made, thirty-four uncials of the Gospels and six hun- 
 dred and one cursives. Uncial writing continued in use 
 until about the middle of the tenth century. In the later 
 manuscripts of this class a slight space between the words 
 first makes its appearance. 
 
 The method of continuous writing employed in the earlier 
 manuscripts has already been mentioned. The reading 
 of the New Testament in the public assemblies, however, 
 required a division of some sort, and to meet this want 
 Euthalius published in the year 458 an arrangement of 
 Paul's Epistles in clauses (arixoi). A similar division had 
 previously been applied to the Gospels by an unknown 
 hand. But the earliest extant division of the New Testa- 
 
1 2 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 ment into sections is found in Cod. B. This division is 
 elsewhere found only in the palimpsest fragment of Luke 
 8- Two other divisions of the Gospels exist, one into 
 chapters (xe<pakaux, rirvXoi, breves) which correspond 
 with the distinct sections of the narrative, and are on an 
 average about twice as long as the sections in B. This is 
 found in A, C, R, Z, and probably came into use before 
 the fifth century. The other division, made in the inter- 
 est of a Gospel-harmony, originated with Ammonius of 
 Alexandria in the third century. He took the first Gos- 
 pel as the basis of his harmony, and grouped around it 
 the parallel passages from the other Gospels. His work 
 was completed by Eusebius of Caesarea. 
 
 5. THE VARIANTS. 
 
 Cicero loudly censures the copyists of his time, charging 
 their errors to false seeing, false hearing, and misunder- 
 standing. Mistakes of copyists are doubtless in the 
 nature of the case to be expected, particularly when, as 
 already remarked, the writings copied are not protected 
 by a sentiment of veneration. Since the errors them- 
 selves are likely to be copied and fresh ones made in each 
 copy, it is evident that with frequent transcribing the 
 number of so-called readings must become very great. 
 The various readings have been classified according to 
 the causes from which they arise. 
 
 a. Unintentional Changes. 
 
 These are very numerous, and are due to several ob- 
 vious causes. From errors in hearing and possibly in 
 seeing came the confusion of different I-sounds, called 
 Itacism, by which rj y i, ? s, etc., are frequently inter- 
 
THE TEXT. 13 
 
 changed, and less often o and GO, ov and GD, etc. Almost 
 all manuscripts contain errors of this kind.* Numerous 
 errors arose from the repetition or omission of similar let- 
 ters, and from a false division of words by which a part of 
 one word was joined to another, so that in some places the 
 true division still remains in doubt. In one manuscript the 
 false divisions of words have been corrected by another hand 
 than that of the writer, and the frequency of their occur- 
 rence is regarded by Westcott as an instructive illustration 
 of the corruption to which the text was exposed from this 
 source. Here belong errors in writing the breathings, as 
 eiz eXOcov for i68\6<jov, zv rovrop for ev TOVTO, etc. Not 
 infrequent are errors from failure of memory, when a 
 sentence may have been read and immediately written ; 
 the exchange of synonyms and particles and the omission 
 of the latter ; orthographic confusion, as in the manifold 
 writing of Genesaret. Finally, the frequent insertion of 
 connecting particles, nou, yap 7 ovv, may have been " as 
 much due to an unconscious instinct to supply natural 
 links in the narrative or argument as to intentional efforts 
 to give greater clearness to the text." 
 
 b. Intentional Changes. 
 
 These may have been made in good faith, says Holtz- 
 mann, who remarks that a thinking copyist may in some 
 circumstances be more dangerous than a thoughtless 
 one. There are found, then, " learned corrections " of a 
 linguistic or grammatical nature and syntactical changes 
 in the interest of what the copyist appears to have re- 
 garded as an improvement of the construction. Arbitrary 
 
 * Matt, xxvii. 60, Hero's, empty, for #azVo, new ; John xv. 4, 
 for /*># ; Matt. xi. 16, erspo^, for etalpoS ; by dictation of the text, 
 si de for fde, -fyjueiS for vjusiS and vice versa. 
 
14 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 variations in the text often arose out of the endeavor on 
 the part of copyists to bring parallel portions of the Gos- 
 pels into harmony. An example of this tendency is 
 furnished in the closing words of the Lord's prayer. 
 Matthew closes the prayer with the words, " but deliver 
 us from evil," and so reads Luke according to the usual 
 text. This reading in the third Gospel has the very strong 
 support of Codd. Alex., Ephr., Bezae, Basil., and many 
 versions ; but Codd. Vat., Sina'it., and some later ones omit 
 the words, and close the prayer with " not into tempta- 
 tion.' Besides, Origen, Jerome, and Augustine mention 
 the omission of them in Luke. How, then, came they to 
 stand in so many manuscripts ? The answer of textual 
 critics is that they were written there by copyists in order 
 to bring the third Gospel in this passage into harmony 
 with the first, since their omission from such manuscripts 
 as the Sinaitic and Vatican cannot be accounted for if 
 they were original, while the harmonizing tendency 
 readily explains their appearance elsewhere. To the 
 same motive must be attributed the reading in some 
 manuscripts which changes " the sixth hour " to " the 
 third " in John xix. 14, in order to bring the statement 
 of this evangelist more into accord with Mark xv. 25 as 
 to the hour of the crucifixion. According to the latter 
 historian, Jesus was crucified at the third hour,'* while 
 the former says that it was about the sixth hourf when 
 Pilate pronounced sentence upon him. Again, in Mark 
 ii. 7 there appears, as some suppose, to be a combination 
 according to certain manuscripts of the parallel passages 
 in Matthew and Luke. In Matthew we read, " this one 
 blasphemes/'^ in Luke, " who is this that speaks blas- 
 
 * TJV ds GO pa rpir?/. f oapa rjv ao$ e 
 
 \ 
 
THE TEXT. 15 
 
 phemies ? " * But Mark reads, " why does this one thus 
 speak? he blasphemes," f in Codd. Vat., Sinait., Bezae, 
 etc., while in Codd. Alex., Ephr., Basil., etc., we find, " he 
 speaks blasphemies." \ In this case the judgment of criti- 
 cism is that internal grounds do not appear to decide for 
 the one reading or the other, and the external witnesses 
 are divided. Tischendorf has adopted the reading of 
 Codd. Sinait. and Vat. One more example of this sort 
 must suffice, out of the many which might be adduced, and 
 that is quite remarkable. According to some of the best 
 authenticated manuscripts, Sinait., Vat., Ephr., the account 
 of the lance-thrust into the body of Jesus as he hung upon 
 the cross, given in John xix. 34, is found also in Matt, 
 xxvii. 49, with the difference that according to Matthew 
 the body was pierced before, and according to John, after 
 death had taken place. It is said that Pope Clement V. 
 at the Council of Vienna in 1311 forbade the addition in 
 Matthew ; but not for this reason, certainly, nor indeed 
 on account of the contradiction, has the reading in the first 
 Gospel been rejected by the critical authorities. It could 
 hardly have been wanting in any copies, had it been in 
 the original, and the harmonizing tendency explains its 
 appearance in some manuscripts of the first Gospel, even 
 though the attempt at harmonizing results in a contra- 
 diction which probably escaped the notice of the copyists. 
 Such an inadvertence is not, however, surprising. 
 
 Changes made for the purpose of reconciling an evan- 
 gelist with himself or with facts are sometimes found. For 
 example, in John vii. 8 the reading, " do you go up to the 
 feast, I go not yet (OVTTGO) up to this feast," is found in 
 manuscripts whose authority gives it strong support, as 
 
 * rz'S ttinv ovroS o A.aA,si /3A.td(pwi<x$ ; 
 f TI OVTO$ ovrcoS AorA-fz ; /3A.ad(pr/juei. 
 
 Immer, Hermeneutik des N. T. 1886, p. 97. 
 
1 6 GOSPEL-CRITICJSM. 
 
 Vat., Basil., and the most of the other uncials ; but the OUTTGJ 
 is omitted in Sinait. and some others, and OVH (not) 
 stands in place of it. Textual criticism decides against 
 the ovTtGo, not altogether, indeed, on the authority of manu- 
 scripts, but because its presence is accounted for by the 
 interest of copyists to reconcile the declaration of Jesus 
 that he would not go up to the feast with the fact that he 
 did immediately go. The attempts of copyists to correct 
 an error in referring a citation from the Old Testament 
 to its author caused persistent and wide-spread variations. 
 In Mark i. 2 the most of the uncials and some versions 
 support the common reading, " as it is written in the 
 prophets," and Irenaeus sanctions it. But Tischendorf 
 has adopted the reading, " in Isaiah the prophet/' 
 although the passage quoted, " behold I send my messen- 
 ger before thee," is not found in Isaiah. The reading, 
 " in the prophets," was evidently inserted by a copyist 
 who, finding that the passage was not in Isaiah, wished to 
 set the evangelist right by making a vague reference to 
 " the prophets." Tischendorf s reading rests on the author- 
 ity of the majority of the versions, of several of the fathers, 
 and of the old manuscripts, Sinait. and Vat. It is deemed 
 more probable that the error should have existed in the 
 original than that it should have been inserted in such 
 manuscripts as those referred to. But the fact of well-at- 
 tested attempts on the part of copyists or readers to correct 
 an author in one interest or another has no little weight in 
 determining the verdict of textual criticism in such cases as 
 this. One might, perhaps, be justified in the observation 
 that the well-known practices of copyists have established 
 a presumption in favor of a reading which contains an 
 error, and against one which is in conformity with facts, 
 when such variants as the one in question are found. 
 
THE TEXT. 17 
 
 Additions were sometimes made to the text by copyists 
 by inserting into it explanatory words, or glosses, which 
 some one had written in the margin of a manuscript. The 
 Codex Bezae is the most remarkable among the Greek man- 
 uscripts for the variety and singularity of these additions. 
 Some of these glosses have passed into the text, and re- 
 tained a place there until the critical revision of Tischendorf 
 threw them out. The critical authorities are generally 
 agreed in explaining the origin of many of these glosses from 
 the use of the Gospels for public reading in the assemblies 
 of the early Christians. Sometimes they are repetitions of 
 solemn expressions found elsewhere in the Gospels, as, 
 " He that hath ears," etc., and " Many are called, but few 
 chosen." The addition of the doxology to the Lord's 
 prayer in Matt. vi. 13 is regarded as liturgical. The 
 words, " For thine is the kingdom," etc., are wanting in 
 Codd. Vat., Sinai't., Bezae, in several versions, and in some 
 of the Greek and Latin fathers. The spurious character 
 of this addition is the more evident from the fact that its 
 origin is so easily traceable. 
 
 Interpolations of greater importance are the concluding 
 verses of the Gospel according to Mark, the account of the 
 angel at the pool of Bethesda, and of the woman taken in 
 adultery/* The first of these is wanting in Codd. Vat. 
 and Sinai't., while two Codd., D and L, give each a differ- 
 ent text from the received text. Besides, Eusebius, Jer- 
 ome, and others remark the absence of the section in the 
 most accurate manuscripts. It is found, however, in several 
 manuscripts and versions, and Irenaeus is the first among 
 the early Christian writers to mention it. It is probable, 
 therefore, that these verses are not from the author of the 
 second Gospel, but were added by a later writer or a 
 
 * Mark xvi. 920 ; John v. 4 and vii. 53 viii. 12. 
 
1 8 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 copyist of the second century. They may have been 
 taken from one of the many lost writings touching the 
 life of Jesus which were in existence in the first centuries, 
 and are mentioned by Luke in the prologue to his Gospel, 
 or they may be a fragment of the oral tradition which 
 found its way into the record, no one knows how or when. 
 A comparison of this section with the Gospel to which it 
 is attached, in respect to style and contents, shows how 
 slight was the difference among the first generations of 
 Christians between those narratives which we now accept 
 as historical, and those which we reject as legendary. The 
 interpolation in John v. 4 doubtless had a legendary 
 origin. The words are wanting in Codd. Vat., SinaTt., 
 Ephr., Bezae,and in several old versions. The case is simi- 
 lar, so far as the testimony of manuscripts is concerned, with 
 respect to the section, John vii. 53-viii. 12, containing the 
 account of the woman taken in adultery. In addition to 
 the external testimony, which is against it, criticism calls 
 attention to the language as unlike that of the author of 
 the fourth Gospel in the use of single words and phrases. 
 That it found its way into the Gospel out of the oral 
 tradition which, as we have seen, was held in high repute 
 in the second century, seems highly probable. 
 
 c. Dogmatic Changes. 
 
 A few readings are found which appear to have had 
 their origin in a dogmatic interest, and to have been made 
 in order to bring the teachings of the Gospels into accord 
 with the customs of a certain period or with its prevailing 
 opinions. Accordingly, it is thought by some that the 
 reading in Matt, xxviii. 19, flaym'ffavTet, " having bap- 
 tized," found in some manuscripts in place of ftanri ^OVTSZ, 
 " baptizing," was inserted in the interest of infant baptism, 
 
THE TEXT. 19 
 
 which was practised after the third century. The former 
 reading is, however, supported by the high authority of 
 the Vatican manuscript. On account of the similarity of the 
 Greek forms of the two words, Immer is perhaps charge- 
 able with drawing a too hasty conclusion, when he pro- 
 nounces this " without doubt " a dogmatic change. The 
 undoubtedly spurious 7rpK)roTOKov 7 " first-born," in Matt, 
 i. 25, may have been omitted from some manuscripts in the 
 interest of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. 
 There can be no question, however, of the influence of a 
 dogmatic interest in the reading, Luke ii. 33, "Joseph," 
 for " his father," and in verse 43 of the same chapter, 
 " Joseph and his mother," for " his parents." The latter 
 reading in both the passages referred to has been adopted 
 by Tischendorf. 
 
 6. SOME PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 
 
 The process of textual criticism is not altogether gov- 
 erned by general rules. The true critic cannot be re- 
 stricted by a mechanical method, but must move freely 
 among his materials, under the direction of principle, 
 indeed, but not the less of judgment and insight. The 
 first and indispensable requisite to a sound criticism is a 
 knowledge of the relative critical worth of the most im- 
 portant manuscripts. The weight to be allowed to a 
 manuscript in deciding a critical question as to a reading 
 depends partly upon its age and partly upon its relative 
 accuracy in comparison with the others. The Vatican and 
 Sinai'tic manuscripts, for example, not only date from a rel- 
 atively high antiquity, but omit very many readings which 
 are regarded as spurious in the later manuscripts. 
 Besides, these two manuscripts agree in a majority of 
 the readings. Among the chief guides in the procedure 
 
20 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 of textual criticism are the following general principles, 
 recognized in the main by Tischendorf, and given 
 according to Immer's classification: I. No critical con- 
 jecture is to be admitted unless it is supported by at 
 least one of the ancient witnesses. 2. The oldest readings, 
 although supported by few witnesses, generally deserve 
 the preference over the later, even when these latter are 
 more extensively confirmed. 3. The oldest witnesses are 
 so much the more assured as they are the better supported 
 by witnesses of different sorts, as manuscripts, versions, and 
 quotations from the fathers, or by testimony of different 
 origins, for example, oriental and occidental. Every pas- 
 sage is to be regarded as a traditional addition which is 
 omitted by the oldest witnesses, or designated as doubt- 
 ful from a trustworthy source : when it presents a striking 
 number of variants ; when it shows a joining, breaks the 
 connection, or at least when it may be omitted without 
 disturbing the connection ; when it shows a style deviating 
 from that of the writer. Again, a word or a sentence is to 
 be regarded as a gloss when the expression in question 
 does not have the oldest and best witnesses in its favor, 
 that is to say, is not established by the most trustworthy 
 quotations and the most ancient and accurate manuscripts ; 
 when it appears to be intended to remove an ethical or 
 dogmatic difficulty ; and when it explains and relieves a 
 thought hard to understand. In such cases the more 
 offensive or harder reading is to be preferred to the less 
 offensive and easier one, if the former has a strong exter- 
 nal confirmation. The principle is accordingly followed 
 which finds illustration in the example previously adduced 
 of the reading, " in the prophets," for " Isaiah the prophetj" 
 that of two readings that one is te be rejected which 
 betrays itself as intended to remove an offence, and that 
 
THE TEXT. 21 
 
 one to be retained which furnishes occasion for the scruple, 
 provided that the supposed correct reading has a prepon- 
 derance of critical testimony in its favor. But the reading 
 which betrays itself as a correction is then only to be 
 decidedly rejected, and that which is regarded as genuine 
 on internal grounds to be preferred when the latter is sup- 
 ported at least by one, or still better by several witnesses, 
 and, indeed, of different sorts, as manuscripts, versions, and 
 quotations. The reading which removes a difficulty, being 
 suspicious, is to give place to a more incorrect or harder 
 reading when the latter has the support of the most im- 
 portant and oldest manuscripts. The critical judgment 
 must always be grounded as well upon an appreciation of 
 the external witnesses as upon internal probabilities. In 
 case these two contradict each other, no general rule can be 
 laid down. The one comprehensive rule in reference to 
 the internal grounds is that the original reading is that 
 one from which the origin of the other may be explained. 
 These principles are not to be regarded as arbitrary or 
 as a priori 'in their origin. They are the result of a pains- 
 taking and learned study of the manuscripts, quotations, 
 and versions of the New Testament, and are as nearly scien- 
 tific in their nature as under the conditions they could be. 
 They are the product of a careful induction from the facts 
 and phenomena which are presented in the vast amount of 
 materials which come into the hands of the textual critic. 
 No presumption favoring a supposed exceptional charac- 
 ter of the manuscripts of the Gospels has stood in the way 
 of the rigorous application to them of the principles which 
 govern the treatment of all ancient remains of the kind. 
 Such a presumption, and, indeed, any a-priori theory 
 which should attempt to remove them from the class of 
 literature in general, and shield them from critical scrutiny 
 
22 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 as sacred, would defeat the very ends which textual criti- 
 cism proposes to itself. Westcott has well remarked that, 
 "if, indeed, there were any thing in the circumstances 
 attending the 'first publication of the New Testament 
 which might seem to remove it from the ordinary fortune 
 of books, then it would be impossible not to respect the 
 pious sentiment which accepts the early text as the im- 
 mediate work of Providence. But the history shows too 
 many marks of human frailty to admit of such a supposi- 
 tion. The text itself contains palpable and admitted 
 errors in every way analogous to those which occur in 
 the first classical texts. The conclusion is obvious, and it 
 is superstition rather than reverence which refuses to 
 apply to the service of Scripture the laws which have 
 restored so much of their native beauty to other ancient 
 writings." 
 
 7. THE VERSIONS. 
 
 Only those versions will be considered which belong 
 to the material f importance employed in the criticism of 
 the text, that is to say, a few of the most ancient. It is 
 a commonplace of textual criticism in reference to ver- 
 sions that so far as they admit of a re-translation into 
 Greek they may serve as secondary witnesses at least for 
 the original text. Literal translations are accordingly 
 regarded as of the greatest importance. Since in particu- 
 lar the Latin version, Itala, and the Syriac, Peschito, are 
 older than the oldest existing manuscripts, they would be 
 of great weight in the critical determination of the text, 
 were it not that their own text appears to have suffered 
 much from corruptions and in some doctrinally important 
 passages to have been conformed to the later Greek text 
 or to the Vulgate. They are, then, only especially help- 
 ful to textual criticism so far as fragments of them have 
 
THE TEXT. 23 
 
 been preserved in citations which have come to hand in 
 the early Christian writings. We have knowledge of the 
 existence of a Latin translation of the Gospels at about 
 the end of the second century. It is distinguished from 
 the later Vulgate by the name of Itala. Of this Bian- 
 chini published in 1749 Codd. Veronensis, Vercellensis, 
 and Brixianus, and Tischendorf, in 1847 Evangelium Palati- 
 num, etc. The Codex Veronensis dates from the fourth or 
 fifth century, the Vercellensis from about the middle of 
 the fourth, and the Brixianus from the sixth. The trans- 
 lation is characterized as strictly literal, and the language 
 as awkward and frequently offensive to Latin usage on 
 account partly of its provincialisms and syntactical errors. 
 The translator (or translators) appears not to have been 
 well versed in Latin, and to have prepared a work which 
 better served the needs of the common people than pleased 
 the learned. It is not surprising that after two centu- 
 ries the manuscripts of such a translation should present 
 a " variegated mixture." This version probably origi- 
 nated in proconsular Africa, where after the Roman con- 
 quest the Latin language became dominant. The numerous 
 citations made by the Latin writers of the Church from 
 Tertullian to Gregory the Great furnish to some degree 
 an apparatus for the restoration of this version, and in 
 them our oldest documents for the Itala find some con- 
 firmations of their readings. But the loose manner of 
 making quotations which prevailed in that time and the 
 differences in the manuscripts in use render this source of 
 information very untrustworthy. The difficulties of restor- 
 ing an edition of the Itala by a comparison of all the 
 fragments accessible are probably not too strongly stated 
 by Holtzmann, when he says that their removal would 
 require the labor of more than one human life. 
 
 The confused and corrupt condition of the Itala, whose 
 
24 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 text suffered fresh distortions with every new copy which 
 was made, caused the preparation of a more correct and 
 homogeneous version to be felt as an urgent necessity. 
 For this great task one man alone, perhaps, in his age 
 was qualified, Jerome, " the most learned westerner of 
 his own and many centuries." Commissioned by the 
 Roman Bishop, Damasus, he undertook the work with 
 many misgivings and no little apprehension and anxiety 
 as to charges against his orthodoxy which were likely to 
 be made. He expected, as he wrote in his Prefatio in 
 Hvangelia ad Damasum, that every one " doctus pariter et 
 indoctus" would cry out against him, " me falsarium me 
 esse sacrilegum" Under the influence of this solicitude, 
 which the event proved to have been only too truly pro- 
 phetic, he proceeded cautiously, correcting only the most 
 palpable errors, ut his tantuin qua sensum videbantur 
 mutare correctis reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant, 
 and in 383 the Vulgate version of the Gospels was com- 
 pleted. Important for the Old Testament which he 
 translated directly from the Hebrew, his work was of less 
 worth for the New Testament, which he can only be said 
 to have improved. For fear of giving offence he left un- 
 changed many erroneous renderings which he thought to 
 be harmless. Critically regarded, the Vulgate is import- 
 ant as a translation of the biblical text as it was at about 
 the close of the fourth century. This version made its 
 way to recognition against great and determined opposi- 
 tion. The African Church declared against it, and the 
 Roman Bishops in undertaking its support entered upon 
 "a conflict of two hundred years." Only in the sixth 
 century did it appear to have gained ground, and not 
 until the ninth was its victory won. Used for centuries 
 side by side with the older translation, it was inevitable 
 that its text should be even more corrupted than under 
 

 THE TEXT, 25 
 
 ordinary circumstances it would have been. By com- 
 mand of Charlemagne a revision of the text was under- 
 taken by Alcuin who in 80 1 presented him with the 
 Gospels in an improved text. This emperor himself is 
 said to have been occupied in his old age with correction 
 of manuscripts of the Vulgate. The corrupt condition of 
 the text remained, however, and in 1276 Roger Bacon com- 
 plained that readings and corrupters were equal in num- 
 ber, " quot sunt lectiones per mundum, tot sunt correctores 
 sen magis corruptores. 
 
 A translation of the New Testament into Syriac was 
 made at about the end of the second century, according to 
 the best authorities.* It is met with in manuscripts since 
 the ninth century under the name oiPeschito, which accord- 
 ing to Eichhorn means " the literal," according to others, 
 " the translated," or again, " the simple," " the sincere." It 
 does not appear to have gained wide recognition and to 
 have displaced other translations before the year 350. 
 A literal translation it is not, though in the main true. 
 Its worth for purposes of textual criticism is questionable, 
 since the text lies under the suspicion of having been modi- 
 fied by the Antiochian scholars in order to make it conform 
 to their Greek manuscripts. Not only are some interpo- 
 lations wanting, as John vii. 53 viii. 12, but also whole 
 books of the minor Epistles. It is not of great importance 
 apart from hermeneutical purposes, for the reason that no 
 thorough critical investigation of the text has been made, 
 and all editions of it are very defective. Fragments of the 
 Gospels in Syriac, perhaps written in the fifth century, 
 have been discovered in Egypt and brought to the British 
 Museum. They were published in 1858 by Cureton under 
 
 * Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst, p. 9 ; Wichel- 
 haus, De N. T. versione Syriaca antiqua quam Peschito vocant, p. 63. 
 
26 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 the title, " Remains of a very Ancient Recension of the 
 Four Gospels in Syriac." 
 
 It is evident from the foregoing brief survey of the for- 
 tune of the text of the Gospels that textual criticism has 
 to do with facts and phenomena purely human and his- 
 torical. Whatever may be the conclusion which men 
 reach respecting the original composition of these writings 
 and the inspiration of their authors, there does not appear 
 to have been any divine intervention for the preservation 
 of their words from the common fortune of ancient lit- 
 erary productions in rude and uncritical ages. Accident, 
 carelessness, caprice, and dogmatism have contributed to 
 embarrass the scholar in his unachievable task of restoring 
 the original text. The influence of a mother-church upon 
 its dependents, the fame of a copyist, of a copy itself, a 
 prevailing taste in some province, have conspired to give a 
 local coloring to the text. The influence of a single manu- 
 script or version may be traced in others of even a remote 
 origin. The surprising relationship of the text of tf to the 
 Itala may, indeed, favor the theory of a text antedating 
 both, which approached the original, and maintained a 
 neutral relation to the locally determined differences ; but 
 this is conjecture, and conjecture too of only an approxi- 
 mation. The oldest versions present a text so much cor- 
 rupted that in the use of them there is imposed upon the 
 critic the double task of making a critical recension of 
 their texts and of that for the restoration of which he 
 invokes their aid. Finally, when he has in a measure 
 mastered the immense mass of material which his task 
 brings to his hand, there still lies before him the unex- 
 plored and unexplorable terra incognita which occupies the 
 period extending from the beginning of the second cen- 
 tury to the time when the first express witnesses to the 
 text appear. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CANON. 
 
 THE history of the canon of the Gospels is a study 
 of the early fortune of these writings as literature, 
 of the use that was made of them, and of the estimation 
 in which they were held from the time when they first 
 came into the light of a literary period until they were 
 united, to the exclusion of other kindred records, in the 
 New Testament. More extensive and trustworthy his- 
 torical materials are here at our disposal than in the study 
 of the text. The literature of the Christian Church 
 which immediately succeeded the Gospels, bears uncon- 
 scious testimony to the use which was made of them and 
 to the reputation which they had during the period of 
 the formation of the canon, which may be said to have 
 occupied the latter part of the second century and the 
 beginning of the third. The manner, indeed, in which 
 the Gospels were treated in the Christian and so-called 
 heretical literature of this period is precisely the question 
 to be considered. For the study of the Gospel-canon is 
 not an inquiry into the nature of the Gospels with respect 
 to their divine authority, nor should it be controlled by 
 an interest to place them on a level with productions 
 merely human. Whether their authors were inspired, or 
 wrote as ordinary men, are questions with which this study 
 is not concerned. If, as the result of the investigation on 
 which we are entering, it shall appear that the Gospels 
 
 27 
 
28 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 were at one time regarded in the Christian communities 
 as merely human productions, and at another as the infal- 
 lible works of men under divine guidance and instruction, 
 in each case we shall have nothing more than an external, 
 historical fact, a matter of opinion, which may, indeed, be 
 explicable in its genesis, but will decisively answer no 
 questions respecting the internal character of the writings. 
 
 The inquiry in question, then, being historical, it is 
 evident that its purpose would be defeated if its procedure 
 should be controlled by traditional presumptions or dog- 
 matic opinions. With traditions it has nothing to do 
 except to investigate them historically. Whatever im- 
 portance ought to be attached to them can be determined 
 only by the results of an historical investigation. The aim 
 should constantly be kept in mind to follow the earliest 
 traditions respecting the Gospels to their sources, and 
 critically to ascertain their worth by a study of the influ- 
 ences and environments by which they were determined. 
 A tradition concerning the Gospels which arose in or near 
 the apostolic age will naturally be deemed very important, 
 since it may fairly be assumed to have been formed under 
 the influence of their authors or of men who enjoyed 
 intercourse with them. It must, however, be genetically 
 studied, and subjected to critical examination, precisely 
 as traditions of a later origin should be treated. 
 
 What, then, is precisely the idea of canonicity which 
 must be kept in mind in this study, and alone comports 
 with a truly historical examination of the canon of the 
 Gospels? What, in a word, does it signify that certain 
 biographies of Jesus have been selected out of the con- 
 siderable number known to have been written and circu- 
 lated, and have been honored with an exclusive authority 
 as canonical? It is evident that an inquiry proceeding 
 
THE CANON. 29 
 
 upon historical data will naturally, in the first place, 
 establish the fact of such a selection, and show that 
 certain writings began at a particular time to have a 
 distinction and repute as accounts of the life and teach- 
 ings of Jesus above all others of a similar character. So 
 far as reasons may appear among the historical facts 
 accessible to the student for this preference shown to any 
 books, it plainly belongs to the task of the historian of 
 the canon to set them forth to the advantage of such 
 books. But it is just here that the limits of a purely 
 historical investigation clearly appear. For the reason 
 why men accord to some writings a preference over others 
 must lie in their conviction of the superiority of those 
 over these in point of literary excellence, trustworthiness, 
 origin, or other similar considerations. History, however, 
 can only record the acts and opinions of men, and deter- 
 mine their importance from the relation which the persons 
 in question may be found to have held to the matters on 
 which their judgments or actions proceeded. The history 
 of the canon of the Gospels would, accordingly, go beyond 
 its province, if it were to enter upon a critical examination 
 of these writings, and pass judgment upon their divine or 
 human origin or authority. Tradition may assign an 
 apostolic origin to a certain book, and deny it to another. 
 The historian of the canon must record this tradition, and 
 may properly test its grounds. But what an apostolic 
 origin may add to the worth of one book, or its absence 
 detract from that of another, it does not belong to him 
 to determine. The canonicity of the Gospels, then, so 
 far as the present historical inquiry has to do with it, is 
 simply the reputation in which they were held during a 
 certain historical period as the best or most trustworthy 
 among the current writings of a similar character. Just 
 
30 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 as certain writings of other ancient literatures have been 
 preserved and honored as classical by the common judg- 
 ment of men, so a few books on the life and works of 
 Jesus were early regarded as most worthy of confidence 
 and most excellent as literary productions, and were 
 separated from others as canonical.* Classical and canoni- 
 cal from the historical point of view are substantially of 
 the same import. 
 
 Even if we consider the term canonical from another 
 point of view according to which the canonicity of a 
 biblical writing is regarded as determined by its genuine- 
 ness, or by its conformity to Christian doctrine as set forth 
 in writings of undisputed validity and eminence, it will be 
 found to have its origin in an act of judgment very similar 
 to that by which some writings are called classical in 
 distinction from all others. For the discussion of ques- 
 tions of this sort is always carried on with reference to a 
 certain standard, conformity to whidi determines the 
 canonicity referred to, just as conformity to a literary 
 standard marks a writing as classical. It is doubtless 
 from this point of view that the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 and the Apocalypse are sometimes treated as if their 
 canonicity were open to question, and that Luther called 
 the Epistle of James an epistle of straw. Neither its 
 supposed apostolical authorship nor the decree of an 
 ecclesiastical council assigning it a place on the canonical 
 
 * Eusebius furnishes a confirmation of this view of the matter when, 
 writing of certain books, the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and the Acts of the 
 Apostles by Andrew and John, and other writings "adduced by heretics," 
 he says : "The character f the style itself is very different from that of the 
 apostles, and the sentiments and the purport of those things which are ad- 
 vanced in them, deviating as far as possible from sound orthodoxy, evidently 
 prove that they are the fictions of heretical men, whence they are not only 
 to be ranked among the spurious writings, but are to be rejected as alto- 
 gether absurd and impious." Hist. Eccles. iii. 25. 
 
THE CANON. 31 
 
 list can permanently establish the real canonicity of a 
 writing. Very likely a feeling or judgment like that just 
 referred to was an important if not a determining factor in 
 the formation of the New-Testament canon in the early 
 Church, and the recognition everywhere and by all, nbiquc 
 et ab omnibus, of certain writings as canonical was the 
 result of their supposed conformity to a standard which 
 existed in the Christian consciousness of the time. The 
 term canonicity, however, when applied to a biblical 
 writing to mark it as infallible or inspired is dogmatic, 
 and has no other foundation than an assumption of the 
 infallibility of the writer.^ It is scarcely necessary to say 
 that no one of the writers of the four Gospels has set up 
 any such claim for himself as dogmatic theologians have 
 gratuitously made for all of them. With this sort of 
 canonicity it is evident that criticism can have nothing to 
 do, since it admits of no presumptions of the kind as to 
 the character of the Gospels, but requires that the results 
 of the critical process be awaited as the only right ground 
 of all judgments regarding their origin, purpose, and 
 claims to be regarded as exceptional productions. 
 
 The historical treatment of the canon of the New Testa- 
 ment has never been regarded with favor from the dog- 
 matic point of view, and is, indeed, of modern origin. 
 For a long time the belief was entertained that the Church 
 had always had the same canon. The old and even the 
 new orthodoxy down to Augusti in 1832* believed that 
 John made a collection of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, and put a seal upon it in the words in Rev. xxii. 1 8, 
 19, " If any one shall add unto these things God will add 
 unto him the plagues that are written in this book," etc. 
 The appeal to the authority of John is supposed to rest 
 
 * Versuch einer Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften. 
 
32 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 on a misapprehension of a passage in Eusebius, Hist. 
 EccL, iii. 24, to the effect that this apostle approved the 
 synoptical Gospels, and confirmed them for use in the 
 Church. Accordingly it is said in the verses in the library 
 of Eugenius of Toledo of the seventh century, 
 
 " Summus el egregius congcssit cuncta Joannes.'" * 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact which the history of the canon 
 clearly shows that the early Church, at least after the 
 second century, exercised considerable critical discrimina- 
 tion regarding the canonicity of the New-Testament 
 writings, and that in the classical passage in Eusebius, 
 Hist. EccL, iii. 25, the doubts respecting certain books 
 since accepted as canonical which prevailed as early as the 
 beginning of the fourth century are set forth in detail, it 
 was not until the first decade of the eighteenth century 
 that these doubts, already expressed thirteen centuries 
 before, began to be brought forward again. Even in 1707 
 Mill maintained that the Gospels were collected about 
 the year 100, and the Epistles about 1 10. But Semler's 
 thorough criticism showed that the canon of the New 
 Testament was a gradual growth which only reached a 
 relative completion towards the end of the second cen- 
 tury, f He also called attention to the catholic tendency 
 towards a union of the opposing factions in the early 
 Church as an important factor in the process of the forma- 
 tion of the canon. Eichhorn showed the settlement of 
 the canon to have been the result of a long historical 
 development, and called attention to Marcion's collection 
 of New-Testament writings as marking a tendency in this 
 direction. \ 
 
 * Holtzmann, Einleit. in das N. T. 2te Aufl. 1886, p. 91. 
 f Abhandlung von freier Untersuch. des Kanons, 1771-5. 
 \ Einleit. in das N. T. 1804. 
 
THE CANON. 33 
 
 I. THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 
 
 The apostolic age furnished few conditions favorable to 
 the formation of a canon of such Christian writings as 
 were then in existence, or, indeed, to embodiment in 
 literary form of the ideas which were destined through 
 literature to exert so vast an influence upon mankind. 
 The spiritual vitality and persistence of the teachings and 
 life of the great Nazarene are not more strikingly illus- 
 trated than by the fact that, unhonored by a great literary 
 expression and committed to the fortune of oral tradition, 
 they have survived to become the most fruitful agencies 
 in human civilization. Had the impulse which came 
 from the life of Jesus spent itself in a great Christian epic, 
 there might never have been a Christian Church. The 
 absence of a literary expression suited to the taste of the 
 cultivated was the good fortune of Christianity. Its 
 positive good fortune, too, it was that just as the com- 
 mon people heard gladly the teachings of its founder and 
 the learned among his hearers took offence at him, so in 
 the earliest course of its development it made its way 
 among such common people and " broke its path from 
 below upward." The learned and the scribes were not 
 among the first disciples of Jesus. Perhaps no church in 
 the middle of the first century was more cultivated than 
 that at Corinth ; yet Paul in writing to the Corinthians 
 reminds them that not many of them are " wise men 
 after the fashion of this world, not many mighty, not 
 many noble." 
 
 Unfavorable also to the formation of a canon was the 
 absence of a true historical perspective in the apostolic 
 age. Christianity was not then looked upon as destined 
 to an historical development and a world-conquering do- 
 minion extending through many centuries. Prophets 
 3 
 
34 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 there were, indeed, in that time, according to Paul ; but 
 no one of them appears to have been endowed with a 
 vision far-seeing enough to forecast the wonderful history 
 of eighteen Christian ages. On the contrary, the horizon 
 was very limited which shut in the view of the men of 
 those times. The " last days " were near at hand in 
 which they expected the great Christophany, which to 
 them was the only truly Messianic appearance of him 
 who had ascended that he might come again in glory and 
 power. * Under such conditions it were unreasonable to 
 look for literary productions intended for the instruction 
 of future ages or for the collecting of existing writings to 
 be handed down for any remote result. That men like 
 the apostles, drawn from humble avocations, f should in 
 such a situation occupy themselves with matters of this 
 kind is a priori improbable, except that under the spur of 
 necessity and for immediate ends they might set down 
 some things in a fragmentary way in writing. From Paul 
 more than from any other man in the apostolic age might 
 one look for a profound apprehension of the future for- 
 tune of the Christian religion. But even from him we 
 have only writings for the occasion. His letters were 
 called forth by the immediate needs of the communities 
 to which they were addressed, and relate largely to affairs 
 of the moment, to personal considerations, to business, or 
 are occupied with the then important but really quite 
 temporary question of the adaptation of Christian doc- 
 trines to the acceptance of Jewish inquirers and dispu- 
 tants. The permanent influence of writings like those of 
 
 * i Thess. i. 10 ; iv. 16, 17 and numerous other passages. An able treat- 
 ment of the subject has been made by Dr. Forbes in Essays, etc. by 
 Fifteen Clergymen, Boston, 1889. 
 
 f Acts iv. 13, " unlearned and common men," aypdjj.jj.arot ual 
 
THE CANON. 35 
 
 Paul, which were called forth by local and temporary in- 
 terests, and even their attainment of immortality as 
 literature are one thing, and the author's own thought 
 and intention respecting them are quite another. There 
 is no evidence and scarcely a probability that Paul in- 
 tended his Epistles to constitute a sacred canonical litera- 
 ture for appeal and citation by future generations. He 
 sometimes, indeed, refers to them, but no less to his own 
 spoken words and to the apostolic tradition as of equal 
 authority. * His preaching he calls " the word of 
 God,"f and never pretends to a special spiritual charisma, 
 or inspiration, for writing. Indeed, he places himself on 
 the same footing with other believers of his time as to the 
 gifts of the Spirit, such as speaking with tongues, and 
 claims no difference from them in kind, but rather recog- 
 nizes the endowment with the Holy Spirit as a common 
 grace and privilege of all who had accepted Christ. \ The 
 Old Testament is the only writing to which he appeals as 
 an authority. Passages from this he applies by a some- 
 what strained allegorizing to the circumstances of his 
 time, as if their authors had written with express refer- 
 ence to its conditions and needs. 
 
 Although in the apostolic age no need of a canon of 
 the New Testament was felt, and no steps were taken to 
 form one, tendencies in this direction may be traced in it. 
 These show themselves in connection with some of the 
 writings which are the oldest in our present canon. For 
 a certain public recognition, or canonizing, may be 
 allowed in the reading in the Churches to which they 
 were written of certain of the Epistles of Paul. | There 
 
 * i Cor. xv. 1-3 ; I Thess. ii. u, 13. f I Thess. ii. 13. 
 
 \ Gal. iii. 2, 5 ; I Cor. iii. 16 ; Rom. viii. 9 f. 
 
 I Cor. ix. 9, 10 ; x. ii ; Gal. iii. 8. f I Thess. v. 27. 
 
36 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 is, however, no intimation of any such recognition of the 
 Gospels, nor does the apostolic literature contain any 
 reference to them. A sort of " oral canon " of the 
 Gospel existed in the varued " words of the Lord," 
 \oyoi xvpwv, and we cannot but find it surprising that 
 Paul, writing soon after the middle of the first century, 
 does not show more frequent points of contact with it. 
 He does, indeed, frequently say that he writes certain 
 things " by the word of the Lord," or that the Lord says 
 them, and not he, whereby he probably refers to current 
 traditions of the teachings of Jesus* ; and in his account 
 of the institution of the Lord's Supper he reproduces 
 ostensibly the very words.f But in connection with the 
 great events which held the foremost place in his 
 thought, his teaching, and his philosophy of Christianity 
 the crucifixion and resurrection there is an entire 
 absence of the influence of any historical tradition upon 
 his mind. With the earthly history of Jesus this man, 
 who had been caught up into the third heaven, and seen 
 unspeakable things, had little concern. He went his own 
 way, and " did not confer with flesh and blood." It is 
 not, indeed, improbable that some of the most important 
 sayings of Jesus may have been committed to writing as 
 early as the date of the composition of the great Pauline 
 Epistles. An old tradition, in fact, runs to the effect that 
 a writing ascribed to Matthew was early in circulation, in 
 which were set down certain discourses or oracles of 
 Christ J in the vernacular of the people. But there is 
 no trace of its use in the apostolic age, and the date of 
 its composition is altogether a matter of conjecture. 
 
 * i Thess. iv. 15 ; I Cor. vii. 10, 12 : ix. 14 ; xi. 24, 25. 
 
 f I Cor. xi. 23-25. J lioyia Hvpiand. 
 
 Euseb., Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. 
 
THE CANON. 37 
 
 2. THE POST-APOSTOLIC AGE. 
 
 In the period extending from about the year 70 to 120 of 
 our era there existed conditions and were at work influ- 
 ences of considerable importance to the formation of the 
 canon. Here is to be found the prehistorical material for 
 the history of the canon. In the conditions of this time are 
 manifest the reasons why a collection of Christian writings 
 was not earlier made, and the forces which were in opera- 
 tion to bring it about eventually. To one who is able to 
 transport himself by imagination into this age, and realize 
 its conditions and the life of the Christian communities 
 in it, views of the writings composing the New Testa- 
 ment similar to those entertained at the present time by 
 believers will appear unthinkable in those people, and 
 much more a pressing interest and zeal in the formation 
 of an exclusive, sacred collection. The oral tradition of 
 the life and teachings of Jesus was still fresh and vivid, 
 and was repeated by the preachers and teachers in the 
 public assemblies of believers. Almost the whole litera- 
 ture of the time being epistolary, letters from prominent 
 leaders in the Churches must have been frequently 
 received and read to the congregations, and probably in 
 some instances passed on to others. The Epistles of 
 Paul were in existence, and can hardly have failed to be 
 multiplied by copyists and circulated to some extent. 
 Perhaps fragmentary narratives of the life of Jesus may 
 have had a similar fortune. That many such existed 
 appears from the prologue to the third Gospel, where 
 writings of this kind are expressly mentioned. To these 
 scattered writings no especial, exclusive sanctity appears 
 to have been attached ; and when our canonical Gospels 
 were completed, and came into the hands of the people, 
 there could have been no reason, either from their 
 
38 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 contents as compared with other writings of the kind in 
 circulation, or from any claims put forth by their authors, 
 for regarding them as possessing a divine sanction. 
 Indeed, the author of the third Gospel makes it very 
 apparent in the introduction to his narrative that he 
 undertakes the work after the manner of an ordinary 
 biographer who wishes accurately to instruct his friend. 
 Besides, the reverence felt by the Jewish Christians for 
 the Old Testament must have made them very reluctant 
 to place upon an equal footing with it any other writings, 
 particularly such as set up no claims to inspiration ; and 
 the gentile Christians who had been under the teaching 
 of Paul must have been imbued with a similar reverence 
 for the ancient oracles. Add to this that we may 
 reasonably assume that there was carried over from the 
 apostolic age into this the belief in the gift of the Holy 
 Spirit as common to all Christians,* and it becomes 
 evident that any new writings must have made their way 
 with no little difficulty to recognition as sacred scripture. 
 A canon in the sense under consideration is conditioned 
 upon an agreement on the part of a large number of per- 
 sons to accept certain writings and exclude others. Such 
 an agreement implies communication and intercourse 
 which cannot be supposed to have been practicable to 
 any considerable extent during the period in question. 
 The absence of an organization through which a general 
 consensus might be promoted and at length find expres- 
 sion was also at this period a reason why the formation 
 of a canon could not be effected. In such a condition of 
 affairs there could not but be a considerable development 
 
 * Clem., Rom. I ad Cor. ii. 46 ; Barnab. ix. xvi. xix. See Reuss, Gesch. 
 der heil. Schriften N. T., Eng. transl. by Rev. E. L. Houghton, 2 vols., 
 Boston, 1884. 
 
THE CANON. 39 
 
 of individual freedom of opinion and independence in 
 isolated Churches, and a corresponding narrowness and 
 provincialism of judgment as well as decided predilections 
 in favor of certain writings. Accordingly marked tenden- 
 cies and preferences and tenacious adherence to opin- 
 ions might naturally be looked for, which would operate 
 unfavorably to the settlement of the canon. If we add 
 to these considerations the fact that the age was uncriti- 
 cal, that is, not inclined in the nature of the case and not 
 moved by any motives to undertake a recension of manu- 
 scripts and to examine the claims of writers to special 
 authority, when none stood forth with pre-eminent claims 
 to it, we shall find the critical selection and sifting of 
 books and the distinguishing of them by a general con- 
 sensus as exclusively authoritative the remotest of proba- 
 bilities. 
 
 In the apostolic age there had already broken out a 
 conflict between two opposed conceptions of Christianity, 
 represented respectively by Paul, the apostle to the gen- 
 tiles, and the so-called " Pillar-Apostles," a term applied 
 by Paul himself to those who represented the Jewish 
 tendency. The question at issue was one of the greatest 
 moment, and it is not, perhaps, too much to say that on 
 its decision depended the entire historical development 
 and fortune of the Christian religion. A controversy 
 which was of so great importance, and was conducted with 
 so much earnestness that it left a marked impression on 
 a considerable part of the early literature of the Church, 
 could not at once be put to rest. Rather in the natural 
 course of things we should expect to find it gradually 
 brought to an end by compromises made in the interest 
 and under the influence of the faith held in common by 
 the opposing parties. The triumph of the great Pauline 
 
4O GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 doctrine of the universal mission of Christianity in free- 
 dom from the galling yoke of Jewish legalism over the 
 narrow opinions and tenacious prejudices of the original 
 apostles is a fact of history. But this view did not pre- 
 vail at once by the exclusion of all that opposed it ; and 
 accordingly there stand side by side in the canon Gospels, 
 Epistles, and other writings in which its doctrines, those 
 which opposed it, and those of a mediating tendency are 
 represented. But this conflict, carried over as it was into 
 the post-apostolic age, could not but interfere with an 
 early settlement of the canon. The situation in question 
 is well stated by Reuss : " The parties, which had required 
 some time to come to a full consciousness of the princi- 
 ples which separated them, were in the post-apostolic age 
 in some respects still less disposed to be friendly than 
 when the first preachers of the Gospel, now no longer 
 living, had endeavored in vain to twine the bonds of one 
 faith about the scattered members of the Church. Be- 
 sides, the writings of these men were in many ways in- 
 volved with the polemics of the day, so that they were to 
 the one party a stumbling-block and to the other a refresh- 
 ment of its convictions ; and a longtime must have passed 
 before those inclined to peace found a formula by which, 
 upon middle ground and by means of mutual concessions, 
 an actually common, catholic church could be formed, 
 abandoning the extreme views on both sides, and gather- 
 ing up for the common advantage whatever each party 
 had inherited of apostolic literary treasure." * Another 
 writer says to the same effect, that the circulation of some 
 of the books of the New Testament for a while depended 
 more or less on their supposed connection with specific 
 forms of Christianity, and the range of other books was 
 * Gesch. d. heil. Schrift. N. T. 8 288. 
 
THE CANON. 41 
 
 limited either by their original destination or by the na- 
 ture of their contents. * 
 
 The important witnesses for this period are Clement of 
 Rome, Barnabas, and Hermas. Their testimony is to be 
 considered with regard to the current opinions in their 
 time respecting the inspiration and authority of the Chris- 
 tian literature then in use, with particular reference to 
 accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus, or so-called 
 Gospels. In order to ascertain what were the earliest 
 tendencies towards the formation of the canon, they must 
 be questioned as to the nature of the writings in their 
 hands and as to their manner of using them for quotation 
 or illustration. 
 
 a. Clement of Rome. Two Epistles attributed to Clement 
 of Rome are appended to one of the oldest manuscripts 
 of the Bible, Codex Alexandrinus. They are addressed to 
 the Corinthians. The text is not entire, and some passages 
 are supposed to be interpolations. The second of these is 
 spurious, but the first is probably genuine, notwithstand- 
 ing Schwegler's objections, f and was written at about the 
 close of the first or the beginning of the second century. 
 Clement appears from the testimony of Irenaeus to have 
 held a prominent place in the Roman Church, perhaps 
 that of an overseer, or Bishop, and to have had inter- 
 course with some of the apostles.:): An early tradition 
 ascribed to him the authorship of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews and the Acts. He has been thought also to 
 have been a mediator between the contending Pauline 
 and Petrine parties in the early Church, and this theory 
 
 * Westcott, A General Review of the History of the Canon of the New 
 Testament, 6th ed., Cambridge and London, 1889. 
 f Nachapol. Zeitalter, 1846, ii. p. 125 f. 
 \ Adv. Haeies. iii. 3, 6 uccl 
 
42 GO SPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 finds some confirmation in his Epistle, the peculiarities of 
 the language showing, as some maintain, the influence of 
 both Peter and Paul, * and the doctrine of justification 
 by faith and of righteousness through works finding ex- 
 pression. The Epistle cannot be accorded a high rank 
 as a literary production, and as an exposition of Chris- 
 tianity it is not worthy of mention beside the great let- 
 ters of Paul. It betrays a mediocre personality without 
 intellectual grasp and destitute of profound feeling. It 
 abounds in homilies which are commonplace and flat, and 
 there appears to be no reason for its survival apart from 
 its antiquity and the position held by its author. 
 
 The words of Clement respecting the commission of 
 the apostles and spiritual gifts in general are significant 
 both for what they say and for what they leave unsaid. 
 "The apostles have brought us the good tidings/' he 
 writes, "by the Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ, by God. 
 Christ was sent forth by God, the apostles, by Christ; 
 and both [these things] were done in an orderly way by 
 the will of God."f Again, " God having chosen the Lord 
 Jesus Christ and us through him to a peculiar people," 
 etc. And, " Have we not one God and one Christ and 
 one Spirit of grace poured out upon us " ; "a full pouring 
 out of the Holy Spirit was made upon us all4 There is 
 here no intimation of the doctrine of especial apostolic 
 inspiration, but rather the contrary is implied. The 
 apostles were sent forth by divine ordination to preach 
 the Gospel, and the only distinction which they enjoyed 
 appears to be that they were near to Christ and directly 
 commissioned by him. One Spirit of grace was, however, 
 
 * Westcott, Canon, p. 24. 
 \ i Ep. ad Cor. c. 42. 
 \Ib. c. 58, 46, 2. 
 
THE CANON. 43 
 
 poured out upon the believers in general, who must be 
 regarded as designated by " us," * in accordance with the 
 doctrine of the general inspiration of Christians which we 
 have seen to have been that of the apostolic age.f 
 
 Of quotations from the Gospels in the proper sense of 
 the words there are no examples found in Clement. In 
 chapter 13, after making a quotation from Jeremiah ix. 
 23, 24, which he introduces with the words, " let us do 
 as it is written, for the Holy Spirit says," he proceeds: 
 " Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus 
 which he spake teaching clemency and long-suffering, 
 'pity, that you may receive pity; forgive, that you may 
 be forgiven ; according as you do it shall be done to you ; 
 as you give so shall it be given to you ; as you judge, so 
 shall you be judged ; as you are merciful, so shall you 
 obtain mercy ; with what measure you mete, so shall it 
 be measured to you.' " Again, in chapter 46, after quot- 
 ing with the formula, " for it is written " (ysypaitrai yap) 
 some words which are not to be found in the Bible, he 
 proceeds : " Remember the words of Jesus our Lord, 
 ' woe to that man ; it were well (K(X\OV) if he had not 
 been born, than that he offend one of my elect ; it were 
 better for him that a millstone be put about him and he 
 be thrown into the sea than that he offend one of my 
 little ones.' " It is to be noted in the first place that the 
 words ascribed to Jesus in these passages are not quoted 
 with the formula, " it is written," or, " the Scripture says," 
 according to the custom of the time in taking words from 
 the Old Testament ; in the second place, that they are 
 not correctly quoted at all, but appear to be either feebly 
 remembered fragments of oral tradition or citations from 
 
 *Kod iv itvevna rift xdpiroS TO kn^EV^iv etp 
 
 fCredner, Beitrage zur Einleit. in die heil. Schr. 1832, i. p. 14. 
 
44 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 written collections of the teachings of Jesus now unknown ; 
 and finally, that they are not attributed to any Gospel 
 either by particular name or general reference, as if the 
 writer were acquainted with or at least in the habit of 
 using such records. It cannot, certainly, be fairly urged 
 that the words are introduced " with a remark implying 
 a well-known record * * * and in a way suggesting 
 careful and precise quotation of the very words." Such 
 striking inaccuracies in quoting could hardly be committed 
 by a writer at all familiar with our canonical records, and 
 Weiss' remark that the citation in chapter 46, 8 may be 
 " fully explained " by a combination of Matt. xxv. 24 
 with xviii. 6 * cannot be substantiated if by " combination " 
 be meant a uniting of passages from a written page. 
 Some of the sayings of Jesus which Clement quotes 
 are not found in the Gospels, and others are apparently 
 shattered echoes of actual words of Jesus. No one well 
 acquainted with the Greek Gospels would be likely to 
 employ in making quotations from them words totally 
 unlike those used in the records.f The positive affirma- 
 tion in chapter 44 that " our apostles knew through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention con- 
 cerning the episcopacy " could only be made by one who 
 rather held in his mind some floating traditions of words 
 of Jesus than made careful reference to the records after- 
 wards accepted as Gospels. Besides, no one who could 
 so carelessly make use of the reputed sayings of Jesus 
 can fairly be supposed to have attached especial sacred- 
 ness or even importance to written accounts of them, 
 even if he was acquainted with such documents. 
 
 * Einleit. in das N. T. von B. Weiss, 1886, p. 29. 
 
 f As Ttepirebr/rai, "put about," for TtEpixeiTai Tcspi rbv r/jap^/lo* 1 
 avrov, "be hung about his neck." Many similar examples might be 
 quoted. 
 
THE CANON. 45 
 
 b. The Epistle of Barnabas. The early date of this 
 Epistle cannot be successfully contested, although there 
 are good reasons why it should not be ascribed to the 
 " apostle " Barnabas, the companion of Paul.* The 
 first quotation of it under the name of Barnabas is 
 found in Clement of Alexandria who cites it frequently. 
 Origen calls it a Catholic Epistle, and treats it with great 
 consideration, " almost according it canonical authority." 
 Eusebius mentions it as well known and commonly circu- 
 lated (q)ponevrf), though he reckons it among the anti- 
 legomena, or disputed books. f Jerome, while regarding 
 it as genuine, classes it among the apocryphal writings, 
 with which it appears to have been publicly read in his 
 time. In the Sinaitic manuscript of the Greek Bible it 
 stands next after the book of Revelation. The Epistle is 
 without address, and there exist no data for determining 
 its original destination. Its date is also indeterminate, 
 but a reference in it to the destruction of the temple at 
 Jerusalem places its composition beyond question later 
 than the year 70 of our era, while Norton's reasons for 
 dating it as late as the middle of the second century are 
 not at all conclusive. Its more probable date is between 
 100 and no.J 
 
 The doctrinal portion of the Epistle, which occupies 
 the first seventeen chapters, has for its object to set forth 
 the decadence of the Law and to separate Christianity 
 and its believers from the Old-Testament economy and 
 its rites and duties. The point of view is, accordingly, 
 
 * Acts iv. 26 ; xii. 25 ; xiii. i. 
 
 f Hist. Eccl. iii. 25 ; vi. 14. 
 
 \ Westcott, Canon, p. 42. Lipsius, Barnabasbrief in Schenkel's Bibel- 
 Lexicon, i. p. 363 f. Hilgenfeld dates the Epistle at about 97, Die apos- 
 tolischen Vater, 1853, Einleit. in das N. T. 1874. 
 
46 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Pauline ; but the manner in which the writer accom- 
 plishes his purpose shows his immense inferiority to the 
 great apostle. In no way does a mediocre intellect so 
 fully reveal itself as in the handling of a large theme 
 He adopts, indeed, the Pauline typological theory of 
 interpretation in dealing with the Old Testament, a 
 theory which dominated the apostolic and post-apos- 
 tolic ages, but in applying it he descends to puerilities 
 and absurdities which are nothing short of disgusting. 
 It is, indeed, difficult for one who takes the trouble to 
 read the Epistle not to sympathize with Norton's con- 
 temptuous judgment that " it might have been written 
 as a task by a dull pupil in a rhetorician's school." The 
 entire Mosaic economy in all its details becomes in his 
 hands a series of prophetic figures which are gathered up 
 hap-hazard and explained with a surprising subtlety, in- 
 deed, but without a dominating principle, in bad taste 
 and with great paucity of ideas.* In his typologizing 
 interpretation he employs some of the passages from the 
 Old Testament which are treated in a similar way by 
 various writers of the apostolic age, but in his daring and 
 invention in applying this method he has furnished its 
 most thorough refutation. 
 
 The author's use of New-Testament writings is con- 
 fined within very narrow limits. He was acquainted 
 with some of Paul's Epistles, and certainly used Romans, 
 possibly also Galatians. If he had any knowledge of any 
 one of our four Gospels he certainly does not betray it by 
 mention or unquestionable citation. He makes a few 
 quotations of sayings of Jesus which have some similarity 
 to passages in the first Gospel, and Weiss is probably 
 right in saying that we do not need to go beyond this 
 
 * Reuss, La Theologie Chretienne au Siecle Apostolique, 1864, Livre VI. 
 
THE CANON. 47 
 
 record for their explanation. Their source cannot, how- 
 ever, be determined with certainty, and speculation about 
 it is futile, while dogmatic affirmation, like that of Tischen- 
 dorf, is entirely unwarrantable. The writer certainly did 
 not confine himself to sources known to us for the words of 
 Jesus, for he quotes as one of his sayings, " Let us resist all 
 iniquity, and hold it in odium." * Great stress has been 
 laid, particularly by Tischendorf, upon the fact that the 
 words " as it is written," which in the Latin version of the 
 Epistle were regarded by some as a gloss, f by some as an 
 addition of the Latin translator,;]: and by others as intro- 
 ducing a quotation substantially taken from some prophet- 
 ical writing, have been found in the Greek text in the 
 CodexSinaiticus.|l They introduce the quotation in chap- 
 ter 4, " Many are called, but few chosen," and since this 
 Sinaitic discovery they have been regarded by some as 
 proving that Matt. xxii. 14 is here cited as canonical 
 Scripture with the formula employed in quoting from the 
 Old Testament. But apart from the consideration that 
 a single instance of the use of this formula would prove 
 nothing in view of the writer's manner of dealing with 
 the evangelic material, there appears to be no good reason 
 why the words might not be a gloss in a Greek manuscript 
 of the fourth century. It is not improbable, as even West- 
 cott admits, that the proverbial phrase introduced by the 
 formula of Scripture-quotation may through a failure.of 
 memory have been referred by the writer to some scrip- 
 ture of the Old Testament. Several errors of this kind 
 are found in the Gospels, the writer of the first Gospel 
 
 * " Sicut dicit filius Dei," etc., c. iv. 
 
 f Dressel, Pat. apostol. Opera, " glossam olent." 
 
 \ Credner, Beitrage, i. 28. 
 
 Orelli, Selecta Patrum, p. 5. 
 
48 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 confounding Zechariah with Jeremiah and Mark referring 
 to Isaiah a passage from Malachi."* A similar confusion 
 occurs several times in Justin Martyr, f The preponder- 
 ance of historical evidence from this period is opposed to 
 the probability of the quotation of a passage from one of 
 the Gospels as Scripture by any writer in it. Hardly does 
 Justin, who wrote from thirty to forty years later, show 
 such consideration for any of the writings of the New 
 Testament. In chapter 5 of this Epistle there is a strange 
 application, or interpretation, of the words of Jesus re- 
 corded in Matt. ix. 13, "I came not to call the righteous, 
 but sinners to repentance," by which they are supposed 
 to find their explanation in his choosing the greatest sin- 
 ners as his apostles ! The absence of any reference to a 
 written Gospel does not, indeed, exclude the hypothesis 
 that this passage was quoted from our first Gospel, but 
 so gross a misapplication of it indicates that it was only 
 known to the writer out of its proper connection and as a 
 fragment of the popular tradition. 
 
 c. The Shepherd of Hermas. A certain Hernias is men- 
 tioned by Paul in Rom. xvi. 14, and to this man an 
 ancient tradition ascribed The Shepherd. There are, 
 however, good reasons for rejecting this tradition and for 
 holding that the writing was composed in the first quar- 
 ter of the second century. It is clearly indicated in the 
 book not only that none of the apostles were living when 
 it was written, but that many of the heads of the Church 
 had departed. Christianity is represented as already 
 widely proclaimed and as having suffered manifold and 
 bloody persecutions. The internal evidences so decidedly 
 indicate a date as late as the year 117 that they outweigh 
 
 * Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Mark i. I. 
 
 f Dial. c. 14, Apol. i. 53. Scholten, Die altesten Zeugnisse, p. n. 
 
THE CANON. 49 
 
 the testimony of some eminent fathers who were inclined 
 to regard it with great consideration as the work of Her- 
 mas. The writer himself evidently desired to have the 
 book pass for such, since he mentions Clement of Rome 
 as a contemporary. It is difficult to account for the high 
 favor in which it was held by many in ancient times. 
 Clement of Alexandria often quoted it with great respect, 
 and even Origen regarded it as the work of the Hermas 
 mentioned by Paul, thought it a very useful writing, and, 
 indeed, divinely inspired, though his citations from it 
 were sometimes made with reserve and qualifications. 
 Tertullian implies that it had been regarded by some 
 as having a claim to canonical authority, while after he 
 became a Montanist he reprobated its teachings, and 
 declared that it was rejected by the catholic Christians 
 as " apocryphal and false." Eusebius speaks of it as 
 reputed to be the work of Hermas, but reckons it among 
 the " not genuine " scriptures, although admitting that it 
 was thought by some to be " very necessary," and was in 
 his day read in the churches. The date assigned to it in 
 the canon of Muratori, that is, about 142, is hardly con- 
 sistent with the high estimation in* which it was held by 
 the fathers. 
 
 The work, which consists of visions, commandments, 
 and similitudes, is destitute of literary interest, and has 
 been characterized by one who studied it much, and wrote 
 a treatise on it, as " one of the most spiritless books that 
 the ancient Church has handed down to us." * He regards 
 it as of importance, so far as it shows the judgment and 
 discrimination of those fathers of the Church who could 
 hold in veneration a writing to which we find ourselves 
 almost constrained to refuse respect. But the present 
 
 * Jachmann, Hirte des Hermas, p. 43. 
 4 
 
50 GOSPEL- CRI TJCISM. 
 
 concern is not so much with the literary character of the 
 work, its Jewish-Christian tendency, its romance, and its 
 defence of asceticism, as with its bearing on the history of 
 the canon through its relation to the Gospels. With all its 
 visions and apocalyptics, it has almost nothing to do with 
 the facts of Christianity. Christ is mentioned but once, 
 and his death and resurrection not at all. The great 
 Pauline doctrine of justification through faith receives no 
 notice, and Paul's letters are not quoted. There are no 
 definite quotations from the Gospels, but certain frequent 
 coincidences of language show the writer's familiarity with 
 the Gospel-tradition at least. A confounding of two say- 
 ings of Jesus appears to be indicated in the remark that 
 they who remain like little children will be the first to 
 see God.* Certain admonitions against adultery may be 
 reminiscences of Matt. v. 28. The divorce of a wife is 
 allowed, and re-marriage forbidden as an act of adultery, 
 in accordance with Matt. v. 22.f The injunction is laid 
 down to fear the Lord (rather than Satan), because He is 
 able to save and to destroy probably a reminiscence of 
 Matt. x. 284 An allusion to Matt, xviii. 3, is made in 
 the narrative and discourse on strife for precedence, and 
 to Matt, xviii. 10, in the declaration that all little children 
 are honored of God and regarded as first. Of the ac- 
 count of the rich young man there appears to be a 
 reminiscence in the remark that the rich will with diffi- 
 culty enter into the kingdom of God. Westcott, however, 
 is evidently hasty in drawing the conclusion that the 
 writer of Hermas was probably familiar with our Gospels, 
 and even made allusions to the fourth. || Weiss more 
 cautiously and correctly says that the work contains 
 
 *Sim. ix. 29. f Mand. iv. I. \ Mand. xii. 6. 
 
 Sim. ix. 29. I Canon, pp. 201, 203. 
 
THE CANON. 51 
 
 no certain trace of them, and finds only an accord with 
 Mark x. 24 in Sim. ix. 20.* 
 
 3. THE EPISTLES OF POLYCARP AND IGNATIUS. 
 
 The authorship of an Epistle to the Philippians, ascribed 
 to Polycarp by Irenaeus and Eusebius,f has been much 
 discussed by the learned, and many still contend that it 
 is spurious. But since Polycarp died in 167, and the 
 letter is supposed by those who contest its genuineness to 
 have been written about the middle of the second century, 
 there appears to be no external evidence against the trust- 
 worthiness of the tradition which ascribes it to him. The 
 objection of Schwegler that "so extremely meagre, weak, 
 and disconnected a compilation of passages from the Old 
 and New Testaments ; a trivial combination of common- 
 places, liturgical formulae, and moral admonitions ; a letter 
 without occasion and aim, without individuality and salient 
 character, without peculiarity in language and ideas, is 
 wholly unworthy of the great Asiatic prince of the 
 Church," \ is founded upon a presumption regarding the 
 Bishop of Smyrna, which this critic does not take 
 the trouble to substantiate. Whether the entire Epistle 
 should be pronounced spurious, on account of the refer- 
 ence which it contains to the letters of Ignatius, or 
 whether this passage and some others should be regarded 
 as interpolations, and the remainder as a genuine writ- 
 ing of Polycarp, may be here left undecided. The 
 internal evidences, which presuppose the existence of 
 doctrines that did not appear so early as the date as- 
 
 * Einleit. p. 29. 
 
 f Adv. Haeres. in. 3 ; Hist. Eccl. iii. 36. 
 
 \ Nachapost. Zeitalt. ii. p. 154. 
 
 According to Volkmar, Ursprung unserer Evangelien, 1865. 
 
52 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 signed to it by some scholars, furnish a strong probability 
 that it was composed about the middle of the second 
 century.* The dogmatic point of view of the author 
 is Pauline, with a mediating tendency in respect to the 
 opposing parties. Rich in Pauline citations, it is, accord- 
 ing to Schwegler, poor in Pauline ideas, and is confined 
 almost exclusively to the domain of a dry moralizing. 
 Among its moral admonitions and warnings there is a fre- 
 quent and quite wearisome return to the perils of riches 
 and the blessings of poverty. An Ebionite tendency has, 
 accordingly, been by some critics attributed to the Epistle. 
 An inculcation of orthodox doctrine and a vigorous po- 
 lemic against heresies are also prominent characteristics. 
 The greatest importance is attached to the hierarchical 
 organization of the Church as a means of maintaining the 
 desired dogmatic unity, and believers are admonished 
 to obey the presbyters and deacons as God and Christ. f 
 
 There is no reference by the writer to any one of our 
 Gospels by name. There is no reason for supposing that 
 he was unacquainted with the synoptical records at least, 
 but he shows them no marked consideration, and deals 
 very freely, after the manner of Clement of Rome, with 
 the evangelical material. Sayings attributed to Jesus are 
 sometimes thrown together regardless of connection and 
 with entire indifference as to their source, as follows: 
 " Remembering what the Lord said, ' judge not, that ye 
 be not judged ; forgive, and it shall be forgiven you ; be 
 merciful, that ye may obtain mercy ; with what measure 
 ye mete it shall be measured to you ; and, blessed are the 
 poor and those persecuted for righteousness' sake, for 
 
 * Lightfoot argues against this in Essays on Supernatural Religion, 
 London, 1889. 
 f o5s Beep nal 
 
THE CANON. 53 
 
 theirs is the kingdom of heaven.' " * Of these passages 
 some are found in the Gospels, and others appear to be 
 reminiscences of reported words of Jesus. The use in 
 some cases of different Greek words from those in which 
 the same or similar sayings of Jesus are recorded in the 
 Gospels indicates either want of familiarity with a written 
 record, or free quotation from memory, or, again, depend- 
 ence on oral tradition. f One exact verbatim quotation 
 occurs in the words, " As the Lord said, ' the spirit, 
 indeed, is willing, but the flesh is weak.' " ^ Some coinci- 
 dences of language occur, as, " According to the truth of 
 the Lord who became a minister of all"; and, "If we 
 desire the Lord to forgive us, we ought also to forgive." || 
 None of the quotations in this Epistle are traceable to 
 apocryphal writings, but one is hardly warranted on this 
 account in excluding, with Westcott, the author's possible 
 use of Gospel-records somewhat different from ours. In 
 the absence of the slightest intimation in the Epistle that 
 he regarded any Christian writings as sacred or as exclu- 
 sive sources of information, there is no ground for affirm- 
 ing that he limited himself in making quotations to 
 certain records, or to any records whatever, and did not 
 draw from the abundant oral and written evangelic 
 material of his time. 
 
 The Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 
 are involved in so much uncertainty as to their authorship 
 and date, and have given rise to so much discussion, 
 which has brought out the greatest variety of opinion 
 among the learned, that a modest reserve is the only 
 
 * Chap. ii. 
 
 f The parallels are supposed to be Matt. vii. I, vi. 14, v. 7 ; Luke vi. 38 
 (Matt. vii. 2) ; Luke vi. 20 ; Matt. v. 10. 
 
 \ Chap. vii. Chap. v. fl Chap. vi. 
 
54 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 becoming attitude with regard to them, even in one who 
 has given the most careful attention to the subject. 
 There are in all fifteen Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, of 
 which eight are generally admitted to be spurious. The 
 seven over which the contest as to their genuineness has 
 been waged are addressed to the Magnesians, the Tral- 
 lians, the Philadelphians, the Smyrneans, the Ephesians, 
 the Romans, and Polycarp. These exist in a twofold 
 Greek recension, a longer and a shorter. The longer 
 recension is generally rejected as a fabrication made at a 
 comparatively late date, perhaps in the latter part of the 
 fourth century,* so that there remains to be considered 
 only the shorter form. This is called the Vossian recen- 
 sion, the Greek text having been discovered by Isaac 
 Voss in the seventeenth century. The Ignatian problem 
 was complicated when in 1845 three of the Epistles were 
 discovered in a Syriac version and published by Cureton. 
 These are those to the Ephesians, the Romans, and Poly- 
 carp, and are designated as the Cureton Epistles. The 
 questions in discussion now are whether the Vossian 
 Epistles were expanded by interpolations from the Cure- 
 tonian, or the latter reduced from the former by excision 
 and abridgment, and finally whether that one of the 
 recensions which may be decided to be original is genuine 
 or not. The important question then, is, whether the 
 Ignatian Epistles were written by the Bishop of Antioch, 
 as they purport to have been written, while he was on 
 the way to Rome, under a guard of Roman soldiers, to 
 suffer martyrdom, in the early part of the second century 
 (about 115), or were forged in his name about forty years 
 later. 
 
 The external testimony for these Epistles is not very 
 
 * Lightfoot. 
 
THE CANON. 55 
 
 favorable to their genuineness. Irenaeus, Clement of 
 Alexandria, and Tertullian, are silent regarding them. 
 With their polemics against heresies, they could hardly 
 have escaped mention by Irenaeus, along with that of 
 Clement of Rome and that of Polycarp in this connec- 
 tion, had he known of them, or knowing of them, had 
 believed them to be genuine.* Origen, indeed, is sup- 
 posed by some to have twice quoted them. But one of 
 the quotations adduced is found in a work of which only 
 the Latin translation by Rufinus exists, in which little 
 confidence can be placed on account of the changes and 
 interpolations which he introduced ; and the other is in a 
 work of doubtful genuineness. Eusebius is the first 
 writer who makes express mention of them, and he 
 introduces his narrative of the journey to Rome, the halt 
 at Smyrna, and the writing of the several Epistles in 
 their order with the words, " It is reported," or " tradition 
 
 says."t 
 
 External improbabilities against such a correspondence 
 under the existing circumstances are urged by the oppo- 
 nents of the genuineness of the Epistles. If, however, 
 it be granted that a prisoner under the escort of a band of 
 soldiers to the place of execution would be permitted to 
 receive delegations from sympathizers along the way, and 
 have opportunity to write long letters to the churches 
 which they represented, or to others, the character of the 
 
 * The quotation of a passage by Irenceus from the Ignatian letter to the 
 Romans, without other mention of its authorship than that it was by a 
 member of the Christian brotherhood, is futile as evidence of the genuine- 
 ness of these Epistles, though urged by Lightfoot. At most it shows their 
 existence in the last decade of the second century. 
 
 f Lightfoot does not appear to attach great importance to the testimony 
 of Eusebius, and passes lightly over it, appearing to rest the case, so far as 
 external evidence goes, mainly on Origen and Irenseus. Essays, etc., p. 82. 
 
56 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 reputed letters may well be appealed to in order to deter- 
 mine whether or no they are such as the supposed author 
 would naturally write in his situation. Neander, who 
 does not admit that the letters are altogether spurious, 
 but speaks of them as much interpolated, goes so far as 
 to say that, " as the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius 
 is very suspicious, so the Epistles, which throughout as- 
 sume the truth of this doubtful legend, do not bear the 
 stamp of a definite peculiarity and of a man of this time 
 a man who announces his last words to the churches " ; 
 and adds that a hierarchical intention is not to be denied. 
 Schwegler is moved to say that, under the circumstances 
 supposed by the theory of their genuineness the contents 
 of the letters are " an absolute psychological improba- 
 bility." * Norton, who disputes their genuineness on 
 other grounds also, is very outspoken on this point. 
 " There is," he says, " no natural expression of feeling. 
 The sentiments ascribed to Ignatius present a rude cari- 
 cature of a very weak, half-crazy, vainglorious bigot." 
 Then referring to the conception on which the Epistles 
 are founded, that of an aged bishop taken to execution, 
 he says : " One could hardly imagine that the outline 
 could be filled up, as it is, by the forger of these Epistles, 
 so that not a feeling of interest or respect should be ex- 
 cited for the sufferer. No writer of fustian tragedy ever 
 more grossly misrepresented human nature, or put more 
 extravagant rant into the mouth of his principal per- 
 sonage." f 
 
 Apart from the consideration that the letters abound 
 in references to heretical opinions which are supposed 
 not to have been promulgated until a time considerably 
 later than that of Ignatius, the hierarchical purpose men- 
 
 * Nachap. Zeitalter, ii. p. 160. Baur, Urspr. des Episcopats, p. 149 f. 
 \ Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. Additional Note, p. clxvi. 
 
THE CANON. 57 
 
 tioned by Neander is very plainly marked in them. They 
 appear to favor the tendency to a union of the Pauline and 
 Petrine parties, and to the formation of a catholic church. 
 u Do ye all follow your Bishop as Jesus Christ did the 
 Father, and the Presbytery as the apostles, and reverence 
 the deacons as the command of God," is the extravagant 
 language of the Epistle to the Smyrneans. Now the 
 ecclesiastical situation and tendency which find their 
 " programme " in these Epistles did not exist before the 
 latter half of the second century. Altogether the pre- 
 ponderance of evidence appears to place their composi- 
 tion in this period, rather than so late as the beginning of 
 the fourth century, as Norton will have it.* 
 
 The writer of these Epistles appears to presuppose a 
 written Gospel, or Gospels, to which, however, he is in- 
 different from his spiritualizing point of view. He hears 
 some say, he writes, that " unless they find the Gospel 
 in the archives, or ancient documents, f they will not be- 
 lieve ; " but to him the archives (ap^ia) are Jesus Christ, 
 and the cross is the authentic apx^iov. In accordance 
 with this point of view he makes no mention of Gospels 
 by name, although he appears to have some knowledge of 
 the evangelic history. He speaks, indeed, of the Gospel 
 in the abstract (TO fvayyeXiov), of the prophets as having 
 preannounced Christ, and of the apostles as the presbytery 
 of the Church. J But there is no intimation here or else- 
 
 * Hilgenfeld, " Hardly before 166," Einleit. in d. N. T. p. 72 ; Volk- 
 mar, "About 170," Urspr. uns. Evang. p. 163; Scholten, "Perhaps not 
 before 170," Aelteste Zeug. p. 52. 
 
 f Ad Philad. viii. v TOI$ apxeioiS (apxaiotS). The meaning is doubt- 
 ful. Credner refers the words to the prophets of the Old Testament, and is 
 followed by Reuss and Holtzmann. 
 
 \ Ad Philad. v. Ttpo6(pvyMV rep Evayy^icp ao$ dapni 
 nat rot's a.Tto^ToXoi's coS irpetffivreptG) 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
58 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 where in his writings of a conception of a sacred canon of 
 Gospels and Epistles. In fact there are traces of almost 
 as frequent a use of Clement of Rome and Hermas in 
 his Epistles as of the firrt Gospel. * That he was 
 acquainted with Matthew in its completed form appears 
 from his reference to the tradition of the miraculous con- 
 ception of Christ, whom he calls, " Our God, Jesus the 
 Christ. "f He says that Jesus was baptized in order that 
 he might purify the water an idea which he certainly 
 did not find in the Gospels as known to us. Not a quota- 
 tion, but a reminiscence of Matt. xiL 33, or of Luke vi. 
 44, are the words, "The tree is manifest from its fruit." \ 
 There is an almost exact reproduction of the words in 
 Matt. xvi. 26, " What shall it profit a man if he gain the 
 whole world and lose his own life ? " A similar case 
 occurs in the citation of the words, " He that is able to 
 receive it, let him receive it," the variation from the 
 canonical text indicating a free quotation. [ The anoint- 
 ing of the head of Jesus is mentioned, and treated as 
 having a spiritual and general significance, Jesus having 
 received the ointment in order that he might breathe in- 
 corruption upon the Church. " These are not a plant of 
 my Father" is a reminiscence of Matt. xv. 13, "Every 
 plant which my Father hath not planted," etc. 
 
 The question of the acquaintance of the writer of these 
 Epistles with the fourth Gospel has been warmly dis- 
 cussed. Expressions certainly occur which are similar to 
 phrases found in this Gospel, e. g., " The prince of this 
 
 * Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 123. 
 
 f Ad Eph. xviii. 'O ydp &EO I S rjfJLGdV 'fydovt 6 Xpidrot. 
 $ (pavepov TO dsrdpov, Ad Eph. xiv. 
 Ad Rom. vi. 
 
 || The Epistle (Ad Smyrn. vi.) reads 6 XGOftf&T #&?/>ez'rGi>, Matt. xix. 12, 
 xoopeir 
 
THE CANON. 59 
 
 world," " the living waters," and " the bread of God which 
 is the flesh of Jesus Christ." * There appears to be no 
 reason for denying to him an acquaintance with the fourth 
 Gospel which would not bear against his knowledge of 
 some of the first three, since his use of the synoptic his- 
 tories is largely based upon reminiscence, and the fourth 
 Gospel seems to stand upon substantially the same footing 
 in his mind. Scholten's argument to the contrary, which 
 does not take account of all the facts, while ingenious, is 
 not conclusive.f Hilgenfeld, though formerly denying, 
 has in recent works conceded the probability of the use 
 of the Johannean record by the author of these Epistles4 
 In reference to the resurrection-body of Jesus there ap- 
 pears to be a quotation from a record different from our 
 Gospels. Jesus is represented as having come to Peter 
 and those about him after his resurrection, and to have 
 said to them : " Touch me and see that I am not an in- 
 corporeal demon ; and straightway they touched him, and 
 believed, being convinced by his flesh and his spirit." | 
 There are here, it is true, points of contact with Luke 
 xxiv. 36, and with the account of the unbelief of Thomas 
 in John xx. 24 ; but the divergences from these records are 
 such as to make it very probable that an apocryphal Gos- 
 pel furnished the citation. Eusebius remarks regarding 
 this quotation that he does not know whence it was taken.T 
 Jerome, however, found a similar or the same account in 
 the Gospel of the Nazarenes, for he reports that, accord- 
 
 * Ad Rom. vii. ; ad Phil. vii. f Die altest. Zeug. p. 53 f. 
 
 \ In Kanon und Kritik des N. T., 1863, he concedes "a preponderating 
 probability" ; in Einleit. in das N. T., 1875, pp. 72, 73, he says that the 
 fourth Gospel belonged to the Evayyekiov of the writer, and that the en- 
 tire theology of the Epistles is grounded upon it. 
 
 1 Ad Smyrn. iii. f Hist. Eccl. iii. 36. 
 
60 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 ing to this Gospel, the disciples took Jesus for an incor- 
 poreal demon. * Origen also found in the writing Petri 
 Doctrina that Jesus said to his disciples quod not sit dce- 
 monium incorporeale. That the author of the Ignatian 
 Epistles, who nowhere shows any well-defined conception 
 of canonicity, should have quoted from an apocryphal 
 Gospel, is rather to be expected than otherwise. 
 
 4. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS AND HEGESIPPUS. 
 
 Papias is reported by Eusebius to have written a work 
 entitled " Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord," f in 
 five books. Irenaeus says that he was a hearer of John 
 and a companion of Polycarp, a statement which need not 
 be discussed for the present purpose. The writing men- 
 tioned by Eusebius was probably composed not far from 
 the middle of the second century, and the fragments of 
 Papias' testimony which have been preserved are impor- 
 tant for the history of the canon, since he was especially 
 occupied with the evangelic literature and tradition. The 
 fragment from Papias' book, preserved by Eusebius,:): 
 runs to the effect that he gave place in his " expositions " 
 to everything that he learned from the elders ; that 
 whenever he met any one who had been a follower of the 
 elders he inquired about the discourses of these ; and that 
 he did not think that he could derive so much profit from 
 the contents of books as from the utterances of a living 
 and abiding voice. It is important to notice that we have 
 here at length a mention of books as records of the Gos- 
 
 * Demon in the good sense, of course, i. e. t "a spirit inferior to God, supe- 
 rior to men " ; rtav TO dai/^oviov jusra^v k6n Qsov rs ual 
 Plato. 
 
 f Xoyicov KVpiaKGa 
 
 \ Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. 
 
THE CANON. 6 1 
 
 pel-tradition. What these books were, Eusebius proceeds 
 to inform us : " Of Matthew he [Papias] stated as follows : 
 ' Matthew composed the Oracles * in the Hebrew dialect,f 
 and every one translated them as he was able.' " As to 
 Mark, Eusebius reports that Papias said : "And John the 
 presbyter also said this : ' Mark being the interpreter of 
 Peter, whatever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, 
 but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or 
 done by our Lord, for he neither knew nor followed our 
 Lord, but was a follower of Peter, who gave him such in- 
 formation as was necessary, but not to give a history of 
 our Lord's discourses. Wherefore Mark has not erred in 
 anything by writing some things as he has, for he was care- 
 fully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that 
 he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts.' ' 
 
 Without undertaking to determine here whether the 
 Syro-Chaldaic Matthew and the Mark which Papias men- 
 tions were our canonical first and second Gospels or earlier 
 writings which served as a basis for them, it is sufficient to 
 observe that the books referred to are a sort of Gospel- 
 writings, and that he speaks of only two works of the 
 kind. His manner of introducing them is significant. He 
 appears to regard their composition as the work of ordi- 
 nary historians, whose records he proposes to supplement 
 by such information as he may be able to collect. There 
 is no intimation in his language that he believed them to 
 have been inspired, or in. any supernatural way guarded 
 against mistakes. One simply " wrote " ; the other was 
 " carefully attentive not to pass by anything that he 
 heard, and to state nothing falsely." Yet this one is 
 chargeable, it appears, with defect in arrangement. Of 
 writings as canonical that is, as exclusively to be received 
 
 * TO. Xoyia. \ Probably Syro-Chaldaic. 
 
62 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 he betrays no conception. In fact, the books which he 
 knows he thinks to be inferior as sources of the informa- 
 tion that he is seeking for the purpose of making his " ex- 
 position " to the living voice of oral tradition. Yet that 
 this " unwritten tradition " needed more careful sifting 
 than it received from Papias may be inferred from the 
 remark of Eusebius that he gathered from this source 
 " certain strange parables of our Lord and his doctrine and 
 some other matters rather too fabulous." His account of 
 the death of Judas, for example, shows that he put confi- 
 dence in sources which do not agree with our canonical 
 records. He relates that Judas' body, " having so swollen 
 that he could not pass where a chariot could easily pass, he 
 was crushed by the chariot so that his bowels were 
 emptied out." * Now it is evident either that the work 
 by Matthew which he knew, did not contain the account of 
 the death of Judas which is now found in our first Gos- 
 pel, or that he preferred some other source of information. 
 Again, according to Eusebius, " he relates a story of a 
 woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which is 
 contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." 
 
 Although Eusebius declares that he will " carefully 
 show " what use the early writers of the Church made of 
 the acknowledged writings and what opinions they ex- 
 pressed of them, he does not mention any reference by 
 Papias to our third and fourth canonical Gospels. Hilgen- 
 feld's inference that Papias knew the Gospel of Luke, 
 because he speaks with disapproval of employing " many " 
 witnesses with disparaging reference to the noKkoi In the 
 prologue of this evangelist's record, appears strained.f 
 
 * Preserved in QEcumenius, Comm. in Acta Apostol. 
 f Kanon u. Krit. p. 14. I do not find this inference drawn in the later 
 Einleitung. 
 
THE CANON. 63 
 
 Lightfoot's argument that Papias was acquainted with the 
 fourth Gospel drawn from the silence of Eusebius as to 
 any reference to it by him is trivial.* Having taken pains 
 to quote what he said about the first two Gospels, the 
 historian could hardly have omitted to mention a refer- 
 ence to the other two, or one of them, had it been found in 
 Papias' work. As there is no reason, however, for supposing 
 that he was not acquainted with our third Gospel, his 
 omission of all mention of it, which must be inferred from 
 Eusebius' silence, cannot be satisfactorily explained. It 
 is reported that he regarded the Apocalypse as inspired, 
 and his favorable opinion of this book accords with his 
 millenarian tendencies. As a Jewish Christian and a mil- 
 lenarian it would not be strange that he should regard 
 with little favor the Pauline third Gospel. In fact, he ap- 
 pears to have passed Paul by without mention and to 
 have quoted none of his Epistles, although, according to 
 Eusebius, he " made use of testimonies from I Peter and 
 I John." f Altogether he is a poor witness for the doctrine 
 that the Gospels were recognized as canonical or inspired 
 in the middle of the second century. 
 
 Hegesippus, a Palestinian Jewish Christian, made a 
 journey to Rome about the middle of the second century, 
 visiting many churches on his way. A few years later he 
 wrote " Memoirs, \ in five books, of the unerring tradition 
 of the apostolic message in a very simple style." Only 
 meagre fragments of this work have been preserved by 
 Eusebius. He found, it appears, on his way " the same 
 doctrine," and especially in Corinth was he refreshed by 
 finding the " true doctrine."! What this right doctrine 
 
 * Essays on Supernal. Rel. p. 49. \ -uTtojuvT/juara. 
 
 f Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 8. 
 
 | opBo's 
 
64 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 was to him is important for his relation to the canon. He 
 is pleased to find prevailing everywhere " that which the 
 Law and the Prophets and the Lord enjoin." Now we 
 know very well what he must have meant by " the Law 
 and the Prophets." In accordance with the prevailing 
 views of his time, the canon of the Old Testament is 
 covered by these words and recognized as authority. The 
 first steps towards a New-Testament canon are indicated 
 by joining with this ancient standard the words of the 
 Lord, or the sayings of Christ. But the first steps only 
 are visible here. Hegesippus does not mention any one 
 of our four Gospels as a source of this doctrine of the 
 Lord, and had he mentioned even one of them, it is not 
 probable that Eusebius would have failed to record the 
 fact. Of a series of canonical New-Testament writings he 
 does not reveal any conception. On the contrary, Euse- 
 bius expressly states that he quoted from the Gospel of 
 the Hebrews.* In the fragments of his writings which 
 have been preserved, there are allusions to the Gospel- 
 history which appear to support the opinion that he was 
 acquainted with our first and third Gospels. It is true that 
 the reminiscences might have had their source in the oral 
 tradition or in the Gospel of the Hebrews, but since our 
 Gospels were undoubtedly in existence when he wrote, 
 there is no good reason for supposing him to have been 
 ignorant of them.f The important fact is, he did not 
 
 * Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. The conclusion of the author of Supernatural 
 Religion, 4th ed., vol. i. p. 437, that Hegesippus used only this Gospel is 
 quite unwarranted. 
 
 \ The author of Supernatural Religion is needlessly strenuous on this 
 point, and complains unreasonably that " an able and accomplished critic like 
 Hilgenfeld " should conclude that Hegesippus knew the third Gospel. 
 Another " able and accomplished critic," Holtzmann, concedes that he knew 
 our first two Gospels. Einleit. in das N. T. p. 125. 
 
THE CANON. 65 
 
 ascribe to any Gospel or Gospels of our New Testament 
 exclusive canonical authority or inspiration, nor even 
 mention them by name. This fact is incontestable so far 
 as accessible evidence is concerned. There is no evidence 
 of his acquaintance with the fourth Gospel.* 
 
 5. JUSTIN MARTYR'S GOSPELS. 
 
 Justin, of Greek descent, a student of Grecian philoso- 
 phy, a convert to Christianity, " the only true and useful 
 philosophy," was the author of two defences of the Chris- 
 tian religion and a dialogue with a Jew, Trypho, which 
 were written about the middle of the second century. 
 The other works ascribed to him are probably spurious. 
 It promoted the attainment of his object in writing to 
 make extensive quotations from the early records of 
 Christian history, and on this account his works are of 
 the greatest importance to the study of the canon. The 
 controversy about the records which he used and his 
 manner of using them, which has been carried on for 
 more than half a century, constitutes a considerable litera- 
 ture. This controversy cannot be said to have solved all 
 the difficulties of the problem, but it has brought to light 
 facts of great importance. Justin frequently informs us 
 that his quotations as to the life and teachings of Jesus 
 are taken from a work or works which he calls " Memoirs 
 of the Apostles, "f but he does not designate the authors 
 
 * Even Tischendorf does not claim this. There is a phrase preserved in 
 Eusebius' fragment, ii. 23, concerning the death of James, " the brother of 
 the Lord," to the effect that some one asked James, "Who is the door of 
 [or to] Jesus ? " (rt$ 77 Ovpa rov Irjtiov:}. Westcott, although conceding that 
 the phrase may mean "door to Jesus" instead of "door spoken of by 
 Jesus," yet hangs on this slender thread his argument for Hegesippus' 
 acquaintance with the fourth Gospel ! Canon, p. 208. 
 
 J- aTCo/iivrfinovEv^KXTCC T(&V ctTtotfToXadv, i. e., Memoirs [written] by 
 the Apostles. 
 
66 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 of these Memoirs by name. The number of citations is 
 very large, embracing the most important events in the 
 life of Jesus and many of his teachings, and their resem- 
 blances to and differences from their parallels in our 
 Gospels render the question of their source very difficult. 
 Various theories have been advocated : That Justin drew 
 from an original or originals, from which our Gospels were 
 derived ; that his Memoirs were the Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews ; that he used a harmony, or combined nar- 
 rative ; and that our canonical Gospels furnished the 
 greater part of his materials. It is not consistent with 
 the plan of this treatise to enter into a minute examina- 
 tion of this question. A few of the prominent facts 
 regarding the citations and Justin's relation to his sources 
 will be sufficient to determine his evidence in the matter 
 of the canon of the Gospels. 
 
 The way in which Justin speaks of his sources arrests 
 attention. " Memoirs of the Apostles " appears to be a 
 somewhat inexact term, if it was intended to apply to our 
 four records, only two of which were ostensibly written by 
 apostles. Once he adds to the term the explanatory words, 
 "which are called Gospels," and once he quotes words 
 which he says are " written in the Gospel." It is impos- 
 sible to determine what Gospel or Gospels he had in 
 mind, since, with the single exception of a Gospel of 
 Peter mentioned once, he does not connect any particular 
 authors with his sources. It is well known that many 
 writings ascribed to apostles and others were early in 
 circulation purporting to be Gospels,* and it would be a 
 
 * The Gospels according to Peter, James, the Twelve, Nicodemus, the 
 Nazarenes, Thomas, etc. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 25 ; Origen, i., in 
 Lucam, in Matt. x. 17 ; Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr. ; Nicolas, Les 
 Evangiles Apocryphes. 
 
THE CANON. 6/ 
 
 begging of the question under discussion to assert that, 
 whenever Justin mentioned Gospels in general, he had in 
 mind just our four Gospels. Again, Justin says that the 
 Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets 
 were read in the assemblies of the Christians on Sundays.* 
 This fact, however, unfortunately throws no light on the 
 character of the Memoirs, or the estimation in which they 
 were held with regard to canonicity or authority. Many 
 of the early Christian writings which did not attain 
 canonical rank when critical discrimination in this regard 
 came to be applied to them were publicly read in these 
 assemblies. Such were an Epistle of Clement of Rome, 
 the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and 
 others.f What Justin does not say about his sources 
 is also of importance. He not only does not give the 
 names of their authors, but omits to mention or imply 
 that they were regarded as canonical, /. c., as exclusively 
 recognized, or as inspired. He cites them simply as 
 historical documents. Yet he was by no means un- 
 familiar with a doctrine of inspiration, as applied to 
 writers, for he held a very rigid theory of the inspiration 
 of the authors of the Old-Testament books. Inspiration, 
 he teaches, dispenses with the necessity for rhetoric or 
 dialectics, and the subjects of it have simply to abandon 
 themselves to the action of the Spirit. The divine 
 plectrum comes down from heaven, and uses them as 
 a harp to reveal celestial knowledge. He has been called 
 the Doctor of Inspiration, and the originator of the doc- 
 trine of plenary inspiration.^: It is, however, significant 
 
 * Apol. 67. 
 
 f Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 3, iv. 23 ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien 
 Justin's, p. 19 ; Volkmar, Ursprung uns. Evang. p. 91 ; Schwegler, Das 
 nachapost. Zeitalter, i. p. 228. 
 
 \ Reuss, Histoire du Canon, 1863, p. 50. 
 
68 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 that he puts faith in the statements of his Memoirs, 
 because the events related in them had been foretold by 
 the prophets of the Old Testament.* The highest cer- 
 tainty, he says, respecting incidents in the life of Jesus, is 
 to be attained by regarding " what was foretold." f The 
 presumption shows itself throughout his writings that his 
 historical Christian sources are to be credited, because in 
 them the words of the " spirit of prophecy " are con- 
 firmed. It is not open to question that his Memoirs, 
 whatever writings they may have been, were not put 
 by him upon an equality with the Old-Testament books 
 as products of inspiration. 
 
 While some of Justin's citations from his Memoirs 
 present no deviations from our Gospels which are not 
 explicable on the hypothesis of a free quotation of them 
 from memory, others show marked divergences from the 
 parallels in these records, and furnish a strong presump- 
 tion that he used other documents. His quotations from 
 the Old Testament are also often inexact, and passages 
 are sometimes referred to the wrong authors. Hence 
 mere carelessness of quotation is not sufficient to estab- 
 lish the theory that his Memoirs were not our Gospels. 
 The mention, however, of incidents in the life of Jesus 
 which are not recorded in our Gospels presents difficulties 
 which are not easy of solution on the hypothesis that he 
 did not make use of other records. The statement, for 
 example, that Jesus was born in a cave near Bethlehem \ 
 can hardly be accounted for by the hypothesis of erro- 
 neous quotation from memory. The supposition favored 
 by Semisch, that this variation crept in from oral tradi- 
 tion, might be allowed if the writer were Papias, who 
 declared, as has been shown, a preference for tradition. 
 
 * Apol. i. 33. f Apol. i. 35. \ Dial. 78. 
 
THE CANON. 69 
 
 But Justin expressly states that the sources of his infor- 
 mation are written, and he should not be interpreted on 
 any other theory except for the most cogent reasons. 
 That there is no need to resort to tradition in this case 
 appears from the fact that several uncanonical Gospels 
 record this tradition of the birth of Jesus in a cave.* 
 The tradition was widespread, and if he did not quote it 
 from some one of the existing records which contain it, 
 the presumption is very strong that he found it in his 
 Memoirs. Justin further relates that at his baptism Jesus 
 was regarded as the son of Joseph, the carpenter, and 
 himself as a carpenter, u for he was in the habit of work- 
 ing as a carpenter among men, making plows and yokes, 
 by which he taught the symbols of righteousness and an 
 active life." f The expression thrice recorded, that Jesus 
 sat by the Jordan, can hardly be accounted for except on 
 the supposition that it was contained in a written Gospel 
 which Justin used. Justin reports that when Jesus went 
 into the water for baptism a fire was kindled in the 
 Jordan, and that when he came out of the water a voice 
 came from the heavens : " Thou art my beloved son, this 
 day have I begotten thee."^: These incidents are all 
 wanting in our Gospels, and the task of criticism is to 
 account for their appearance in Justin. The hypothesis 
 of a traditional origin is, as we have seen, tenable if these 
 accounts are not found in written records which he may 
 be supposed to have known, and may have had as a part 
 of his Memoirs. The legend that Jesus made plows and 
 yokes as symbols, etc., is only implied in the Gospel of 
 
 * The Protevangelium of James, the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the 
 Saviour ; Tischendorf, Evan. Apocr. i. pp. 105, 171 ; Nicolas Les Evang. 
 Apocr. p. 54. Tischendorf thinks that Justin probably derived this account 
 from the Protevangelium. 
 
 f Dial. 88. \ Ib. 
 
?0 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Thomas, where it is written that his father was a maker 
 of these implements. But the story of the fire kindled 
 in the Jordan is found in the fragments of the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews. Here also are the words said 
 to have been heard from heaven in the form in which 
 Justin has them, i. e., " this day have I begotten thee," 
 instead of " in thee am I well pleased," as in our Gospels. 
 The legend of the fire in the Jordan is also found in the 
 writing called " The Preaching of Paul." Some manu- 
 scripts of Luke, but not the oldest, contain it, and it is 
 found in Cod. D and the Itala version of Matthew. 
 
 Justin also reports that in the time of Christ the people 
 attributed his miracles to magic, " for they ventured to 
 call him a magician and a deceiver of the people.* This 
 might be regarded as a reminiscence of the account in 
 our records of the charge that Jesus cast out demons by 
 Beelzebub ; but apart from the probability that had he 
 depended solely on our Gospels he would have stated the 
 matter in their language, which is striking, and not easily 
 forgotten, the consideration is of no little weight that his 
 version of it is contained in the uncanonical Gospel of 
 Nicodemus to which he in another place refers by name.f 
 The statement that after the crucifixion of Jesus all the 
 apostles fled, " having denied him," is contrary to our 
 Gospels, which mention only the denial of Peter. An 
 incident of the crucifixion is very differently reported 
 from the account in our Gospels. According to Justin, 
 those standing about said, " Let him who raised the dead 
 * Dial. 69, nai yap [idyov avrov sro^jucor 'kiytiv Hal 
 
 f Xeyovtiiv avrao yorjS sdrir, Evang. Nicod. Tischendorf, Evang. 
 Apocr. i. p. 208 ; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 255 ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evang. 
 Justin's, pp. 207, 258. The reference to tradition by Semisch is open to the 
 objections previously mentioned. 
 
THE CANON. /I 
 
 deliver himself." Again, " Those who saw him crucified 
 also wagged their heads each one of them, and distorted 
 their lips, and screwing their noses one to another spoke 
 ironically these words which are written in the Memoirs 
 of the Apostles : ' He declared himself the son of God ; 
 having come down, let him walk about ; let God save 
 him.' " * The divergences in this account from our 
 canonical records are so great that it cannot fairly be 
 claimed that the quotation was made from them. The 
 exactness of the reference is striking : " words which are 
 written in the Memoirs of the Apostles." This is the 
 language of one who is conscious of speaking by the 
 book. It is futile to plead aberration of memory to 
 account for such divergences as these, and a traditional 
 oral source is excluded by the pointed reference to the 
 document. 
 
 In a very few instances Justin's citations agree very 
 nearly with parallel passages in our Gospels. These have 
 been pointed out by Tischendorf and De Wette, and two 
 or three of them are here subjoined: Matt. viii. 11, 12, 
 " Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall 
 sit down," etc. ; Justin, " They shall come from the west 
 and from the east," etc., three times with the same varia- 
 tions. Matt. xii. 38, 39, " Then certain of the scribes and 
 Pharisees answered him saying, * Master, we would see a 
 sign from thee.' But he answered and said unto them, 
 1 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign 
 and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the 
 prophet Jonah * " ; Justin, " It is written in the Memoirs 
 that some of your nation questioning him said, ' Show us 
 a sign/ and he answered them, ' An evil and adulterous 
 generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign shall be given 
 
 * Dial. 101. 
 
/2 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 to them but the sign of Jonah.' " Matt. v. 28, " Every 
 one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath com- 
 mitted adultery with her already in his heart"; Justin, 
 " Whosoever may have gazed on a woman to lust after 
 her hath committed adultery already in the heart/' 
 
 It is needless to continue the examination of these 
 quotations. The problem of Justin's Gospels does not 
 admit of an exact and unquestionable solution ; yet it ap- 
 pears to have exercised a strange fascination upon students 
 of the canon, who have devoted to it hundreds of pages 
 and one or two entire treatises. Rather than to go on 
 and examine in detail the hundreds of quotations a pro- 
 cedure which, as Reuss says, has somewhat the appearance 
 of cavilling * it is perhaps better to conclude this study 
 with a statement of the results which have been reached 
 by two of the most distinguished scholars who have given 
 the subject a very thorough and conscientious study. 
 Credner thus substantially sums up the results of the ex- 
 tended and minute investigation which he made of the 
 subject in his Beitrage in 1832: Justin was acquainted 
 with our canonical Gospels, but used them little or not at 
 all immediately. The basis of his quotations was a writ- 
 ing different from them, which can hardly have been any 
 other than his own recension of the manifold Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, the same which often appears 
 also as the Gospel of Peter, and must have arisen from a 
 harmonizing combination of the evangelic history.f Hil- 
 genfeld, who in 1850 published an extended treatise on 
 Justin's Gospels, \ thus presents his conclusions in sub- 
 
 * Histoire du Canon, p. 57. 
 
 f Geschichte des neutest. Kanon, herausgeg. von Volkmar, 1860. 
 \ Kritische Untersuch. ilber die Evang. Justins, der Clement. Homil. 
 und Marcion's. 
 
THE CANON. 73 
 
 stance: Justin knew Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but his 
 acquaintance with John's Gospel is still in doubt.* He 
 advances beyond Papias, and marks a certain contrast to 
 him in that he totally excludes the oral tradition as a 
 source of the knowledge of the life of Jesus, and has 
 every thing which relates to the Saviour in written Gos- 
 pels. These apostolical Memoirs Justin reckons among 
 the writings which belong to the Christians (rj^irspa 
 Gvyypa^ata), and reports that they were read along 
 with the writings of the prophets in the Sunday-assem- 
 blies for worship. Thus in him we approach nearer in 
 every respect to the conception of a collection of the 
 sacred writings of Christianity. Yet with all the approxi- 
 mation it cannot be denied that Justin limits the concep- 
 tion of holy Scripture to the Old Testament, and does 
 not transfer it to the Christian writings. Everywhere, 
 whether he contend with Jew or heathen, only the books 
 of the Old Testament are recognized by him as holy 
 Scriptures or ypacpai Justin agrees entirely with Papias 
 in holding exclusively to the twelve Apostles. Besides 
 the Gospels he recognizes the Apocalypse as the work of 
 the Apostle John. But no mention of the Apostle Paul 
 and his letters is found in Justin ; rather they are directly 
 excluded. Accordingly, the Epistles of Paul are not 
 reckoned by him among rj^erepa avyypa^^ara. The 
 Gospel of John might possibly have found admission into 
 his original Gospel-harmony on account of the name of 
 the apostle. But in the evangelic quotations of Justin 
 we find much that is so peculiar as to require reference to 
 an uncanonical Gospel, f 
 
 * But in his Einleitung, 1875, Hilgenfeld says that it is hard to deny 
 Justin's use of John's Gospel, 
 f Kanon und Kritik, p. 27 f. 
 
74 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 The attempt to explain Justin's quotations by the 
 entire exclusion of our Gospels, by the author of Super- 
 natural Religion, and that of Westcott and Norton by 
 the exclusion of all other sources than these except oral 
 tradition, are both extreme and hardly tenable. The es- 
 sential facts in the case are, however, independent of the 
 vexed question whether Justin was acquainted with our 
 Gospels or not, and are rather that, granting that he knew 
 and used them, he nowhere intimates that they are to him 
 anything more than ordinary historical documents ; that 
 he does not regard or treat them as exclusive sources of 
 information, but draws freely from another source or other 
 sources, probably written ; that he fails to identify any of 
 the records which he used by giving the names of their 
 real or supposed authors ; that the only sacred Scripture 
 that he recognizes is the Old Testament ; that the sup- 
 posed prophecies of the Old Testament relating to events 
 in the life of Jesus are to him paramount and conclusive 
 evidence of the significance of these events for the divine 
 mission of Christ ; that for him the credibility of certain 
 things as facts related of Christ in the evangelic histories 
 is conditional not upon the veracity of these histories, but 
 upon just this prophetic foretelling ; and that finally he 
 does not reveal in his writings any well-defined discrimina- 
 tion as to canonical and uncanonical writings, but is 
 apparently unconscious of such a distinction. 
 
 6. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES, BASILIDES, AND VALENTINUS. 
 
 A strange and interesting product of the controversy 
 between the Jewish-Christian and Pauline parties in the 
 early Church is the Clementine Homilies,* a work which 
 
 * dementis Roman! quse feruntur Homiliae, etc., A. Schwegler, 1847 ; 
 dementis Rom. quse feruntur Horn. xx. nunc primum integrae, etc., ed. 
 A. R. M. Dressel, 1853. 
 
THE CANON. 75 
 
 was written in the interest of the former or Ebionite sect, 
 and represents a contest of arguments between Peter and 
 one Simon Magus, supposed to personate Paul, " the 
 enemy whose lawless and foolish teachings the gentiles 
 accepted."* The exact date of this " apocryphal religious 
 romance " cannot be determined, but it should probably 
 be placed in the latter half of the second century. 
 Credner judges it to have been written before the middle 
 of the second century, f Ritschl and Tischendorf about 
 the middle,;): Volkmar and Baur from twenty-five to forty 
 years later, and Hilgenfeld, 160-180. || It was forged in 
 the name of Clement of Rome in accordance with the 
 very common practice in that age of perpetrating pious 
 frauds. The book possesses interest not as a literary 
 production, but because it throws light on a momentous 
 controversy in the early Church and on the question of 
 the use and repute of the Gospels at the time when it was 
 written. It is certainly not unimportant in this latter 
 respect, even though it be, as Westcott remarks, " the 
 product of an isolated speculator." For the author 
 should be presumed not to speak for himself alone, but 
 rather to represent the general opinions and tendencies of 
 his time, at least so far as the particular sectaries in ques- 
 tion are concerned. 
 
 The relation of the writer of the Homilies to the evan- 
 gelic history is very similar to that of Justin Martyr, with 
 the exception that while Justin expressly mentions that 
 his sources are Memoirs of the Apostles, this writer refers 
 
 * Baur, Vorlesungen ttber Dogmengesch. i. I, p. 155 ; Westcott, Canon, 
 p. 285. 
 
 f Beitrage, i. p. 28. 
 
 \ Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche ; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, 
 etc. 
 
 Volkmar, Ursprung ; Baur, Vorlesungen, etc. 
 
 | Einleit. in das N. T. p. 43. 
 
76 GOSPEL- CKI TICISM. 
 
 to no sources whatever in a general way, and does not 
 quote any Gospel by name. Of a large number of refer- 
 ences to sayings and acts of Jesus throughout a work of 
 considerable extent only three or four are exact quota- 
 tions from our Gospels. The most of his quotations 
 present divergences more or less marked from the corre- 
 sponding passages in the canonical records, and some are 
 not found in them at all. Passages occur which are com- 
 binations of elements that are in our records and of ma- 
 terial foreign to them. A very good illustration of the 
 last-mentioned class is furnished in Horn. ii. 19 compared 
 with Mark vii. 2430. It runs as follows : " Justa, who is 
 among us,* a Syrophcenician woman, whose daughter was 
 affected by a sore disease, came to our Lord crying out 
 and supplicating that he would heal her daughter. But 
 he, being also asked by us, said : ' It is not meet to heal 
 the gentiles, who are like dogs from their using divers 
 meats and practices, while the table in the kingdom has 
 been granted to the sons of Israel.' But she, hearing this 
 and desiring to partake, like a dog, of the crumbs falling 
 from this table, having changed, i.e., leading the same life 
 as the sons of the kingdom, she obtained, as she asked, 
 the healing of her daughter." Here not only do the 
 striking variations from Mark's account point to a differ- 
 ent source, but the mention of the woman's name is a de- 
 tail much more likely to have been preserved in a written 
 form than to have been orally transmitted through a 
 period of more than a hundred years. 
 
 Of words ascribed to Jesus which are not found in our 
 Gospels two examples must suffice : " Be ye approved 
 money-changers " and " Why do ye not discern the good 
 reason of the Scriptures ? " The conclusion of Hilgen- 
 
 * The representation of the Syrophcenician woman as still living accords 
 with the writer's intention to pass his work off for a very early composition. 
 
THE CANON. 77 
 
 feld, who has made a very thorough study of the Homilies, 
 is that the author used our four canonical Gospels along 
 with an uncanonical one. He may have been more favor- 
 ably disposed towards Luke's Gospel on account of its 
 difference from Marcion's recension of it, and he may have 
 admitted among his sources that of John by reason of the 
 name of the Apostle. But this gradual recognition of 
 these two Gospels on the part of the Jewish-Christian sect 
 indicates the weakening of the original opposition to 
 writings of a Pauline tendency. The historical influence 
 which removed this opposition was Catholicism, or the 
 union of Christians into a catholic, united Church. This 
 had as its result the acceptance of the Pauline " apostoli- 
 con " and the entire apostolic Scripture-canon.* In the 
 spirit of an unbiassed critic this writer acknowledges that 
 since the discovery, in 1853, f ^ e latter part of the 
 Homilies he is constrained to admit that their author was 
 acquainted with the fourth Gospel.f The author of 
 Supernatural Religion undertakes too much in supporting 
 the theory that the writer of the Homilies did not make 
 use of our Gospels, but drew entirely from other sources.^ 
 Sanday concludes that " the facts do not permit us to 
 claim the exclusive use of the canonical Gospels. * * * 
 But that they were used mediately or immediately and to 
 a greater or less degree is beyond question." With this 
 opinion Westcott substantially agrees.] 
 
 * Kanon und Kritik, p. 30. 
 
 f Ib. p. 29, Anmerk. 3, Einleit. pp. 43, 44. The most important pas- 
 sage is Horn. xix. 22 : " Whether did this man sin or his parents, that he 
 was born blind ? " compared with John ix. 2 f. 
 
 \ The passage, e.g., in xix. 22, he regards as taken from a source which 
 the author of the fourth Gospel also used. This is certainly very arbitrary. 
 The citation of a Gospel by name is not necessary to establish its existence 
 at least. 
 
 The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 186. 
 
 || Canon, p. 287. 
 
78 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 The distinction, however, between knowing and using 
 the Gospels, and recognizing them as an exclusive source 
 of information regarding the life and teachings of Christ, 
 cannot be too sharply drawn. When we have shown that 
 our four Gospels were quoted by a writer in the middle of 
 the second century, who also quoted from other similar 
 writings without making any discrimination between these 
 different sources, we are far from having established the 
 doctrine that the Gospels now regarded as canonical were 
 then so regarded. Rather we have established a fact pre- 
 cisely the opposite to this doctrine. When, again, we find 
 a writer using our Gospels simply as ordinary historical 
 records and giving no intimation of special regard for 
 them as sacred or inspired, it is unwarrantable to argue 
 that he had attained the conception of canonicity. Finally, 
 if the writer in question does not mention any one of our 
 Gospels by the name of its reputed author, it is manifest 
 that no inference as to their genuineness can be drawn 
 from his use of them. 
 
 The Ebionitism which was represented by the Clemen- 
 tine Homilies, although regarded by some as the purest 
 form of original Christianity, has passed into history as a 
 heresy. The great Pauline conception of the universal 
 mission of the religion of Jesus enjoyed the fortune of 
 victory which, in the course of human affairs, generally 
 comes to broad ideas in conflict with ideas that are nar- 
 row. The heresy of Gnosticism also had its day, and be- 
 cause it was a narrow philosophy its day was short. 
 Descended from the Platonic philosophy, developed in 
 the allegorizing school of the Alexandrian Philo, Gnosis 
 assumed peculiar forms in the early Church. A mixture 
 of elements contributed by Jewish theology, oriental 
 
THE CANON. 79 
 
 theosophy, and the idealism of Plato, dominated by the 
 principle of dualism, and appropriating in an eclectic way 
 certain doctrines of Jesus, was the Gnosticism of the 
 second century. It was occupied with some of the great 
 problems which speculative thought has always struggled 
 with, and has never solved, such as the origin of the 
 world, the reconciliation of its imperfections with the 
 assumed perfection of God, how and why evil is in the 
 world, and its relation to the divine goodness. It was a 
 religious philosophy constructed upon the fundamental 
 principle that matter is essentially evil. Accordingly, it 
 was based upon dualism, and is thereby seen to have been 
 a product of heathen modes of thought rather than of 
 Christianity.* The world as material and evil could not, 
 according to this philosophy, have proceeded from the 
 Supreme Being, who is the Inconceivable, the Abyss, the 
 Unnamable. The maker of the world was a subordinate 
 power, the Demiourgos, sometimes apprehended as de- 
 pendent on the Supreme Being, sometimes as hostile to 
 Him. Judaism was subordinated, and regarded either as 
 a very inferior and defective revelation of God, or as 
 wholly the work of the Demiourgos. Christ held a most 
 important place in the Gnostic systems, with all their 
 variations in other respects. He was regarded as a higher 
 ^Eon, or emanation from the Divine Being, who came 
 forth from the kingdom of light for the redemption of 
 the world from the power of darkness. With his name is 
 connected everything which tends to maintain the con- 
 nection of the totality of things, to unite what has been 
 torn asunder, to bring back what has fallen away, to attain 
 the upper world out of the lower, and to lead to the per- 
 fection of the entire world-order. He is the goal towards 
 * Baur, Das Christenthum, etc., in den drei ersten Jahrh., 1860, p. 183. 
 
80 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 which the development of the world moves. What origi- 
 nally was salvation only in an ethical and religious sense 
 is in the Gnostic systems the restoration and completion 
 of the whole order of things.* 
 
 That these philosophizers undertook to bring their 
 speculations into some sort of agreement with Christian 
 doctrines there can be no doubt. Wishing to pass for 
 Christians par excellence, they sought a support for their 
 doctrines in the traditions and literature of Christianity. 
 It is probable that of all the systems which their syncretism 
 had put under contribution to build up new doctrines on 
 the origin of evil, on the relations of the infinite and the 
 finite, and on the means of elevating man to God, Christi- 
 anity furnished then the most numerous and most precious 
 elements, and that the Church offered them at the same 
 time the audience most inclined to hear them, f 
 
 No little controversy has been carried on over the ques- 
 tion whether or no Basilides, a leader cf one of the Gnostic 
 sects, who lived in the first quarter of the second century, 
 used our canonical Gospels. His writings have not come 
 down to us, and we have no knowledge of them except 
 what is derived from the writers who controverted his 
 teachings, principally Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Clement of 
 Alexandria, and Origen. An examination of the alleged 
 quotations shows his relation to the evangelic history and 
 tradition to have been very similar to that of the author 
 of the Clementine Homilies. He is reported, furthermore, 
 to have written a Gospel and called it after his own name4 
 Neander thinks that this was the Gospel according to the 
 
 * Baur, Das Christen thum, etc., p. 189. 
 \ Reuss, Histoire du Canon, p. 65. 
 
 \ Ausus fuit Basilides scribere evangelium et suo illud nomine titulare, 
 Orig. Horn. ii. in Lucam. 
 
THE CANON. 8 1 
 
 Hebrews, and that Basilides brought it from Syria to 
 Egypt. Eusebius states, on the authority of Agrippa 
 Castor, that he composed a commentary on " the Gospel " 
 in twenty-four books.* But it does not appear what this 
 Gospel (TO evayy\.iov) was. His own definition of " the 
 Gospel " implies that he meant by the term a certain ab- 
 stract, philosophical conception rather than such concrete 
 realities as our records ; for he says that it is " the knowl- 
 edge (Gnosis) of supermundane things." f 
 
 The statement of Hippolytus that the followers of 
 Basilides regarded " all things concerning Christ to have 
 happened as they are recorded in the Gospel," has, of 
 course, no necessary reference to Basilides himself, and 
 even if it had it would not establish his recognition of our 
 Gospels as canonical. Papias undoubtedly believed as 
 much, yet he does not appear to have known our present 
 Gospels, and such as he did know he subordinated to 
 tradition. Indeed, what Irenaeus says of the Gnostics of 
 his time may fairly be supposed to apply to Basilides: 
 "They boast that they have more Gospels than there 
 are.";): Again, the same writer charges that when they are 
 refuted from the Scriptures, they retort by accusing the 
 Scriptures themselves as without authority. Tertullian 
 also says that the heretics of his time did not receive 
 certain Scriptures.|| The actual state of the case is 
 doubtless well summed by Reuss : " The exegesis of the 
 Gnostics attached itself above all to the words of Christ in 
 order to bring out of them their own dogmas. But these 
 
 * Hist. Eccl. iv. 7. 
 
 f 77 T&V vTtspxotf/Liuar yv&Gi'-,, Hippol. Refut. omn. Haeres. vii. 37. 
 \ Adv. Haeres. iii. II, 9. 
 Adv. Haeres. iii. 2, 2. 
 
 || Praescr. Haeres. 17 ; Credner, Gesch. des neutest. Kanon, p. 24. 
 6 
 
82 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 words either circulated still in a purely traditional form or 
 were embodied in various writings more or less different, 
 more or less circulated, but not yet sorted by an ecclesi- 
 astical authority, and all serving equally according to the 
 occasion the use which one wished to make of them. 
 Now nothing was easier than to form new collections of 
 this sort, either by making extracts from those that one had 
 at handler by combining several books, or by composing 
 one's self accounts under the direct influence of the pre- 
 occupations of the system. There are famous examples 
 of each one of these methods."* But whatever writings 
 Basilides may have employed as sources of information 
 for the support of his system, he did not, it appears, con- 
 fine himself to them, but appealed to the authority of a 
 certain Glaucius whom he declared to have been an inter- 
 preter of Peter, and made use of certain traditions of 
 Matthias who, it was claimed, had had private intercourse 
 with Jesus, f 
 
 Valentinus, the head of a Gnostic sect, who lived about 
 the middle of the second century, appealed directly to 
 one Theodas, a reputed follower of Paul. \ Of direct 
 appeal to the Gospels there is no example in the few 
 fragments of his writings which have been preserved in 
 quotations from homilies and letters. The charge is pre- 
 ferred against him of introducing alterations, corrections, 
 etc., in some of the Epistles. Origen says that his follow- 
 ers acted with greater boldness, and altered the form of 
 the Gospel. Irenaeus charges this sect with bringing for- 
 ward their own compositions as Gospels and entitling one 
 of their books " The Gospel of Truth," " though it ac- 
 
 * Histoire du Canon, p. 70. f Hippol. Haeres. vii. 8. 
 
 \ Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 17, 106. 
 
THE CANON. 83 
 
 corded in no respect with the Gospels of the apostles." 
 A distinction must be drawn between the use of our 
 Gospels by the later followers of Valentinus and other 
 Gnostic leaders, who were nearer to those who wrote in 
 refutation of this heresy, and that of the leaders and 
 founders themselves. It is not always clear to which these 
 writers refer. The charge of Irenaeus, however, is signifi- 
 cant, that they (the Gnostics) neither consent to Scripture 
 nor to tradition. All the evidence goes to show that the 
 Gnostics, wishing to be regarded as Christians and to 
 make their speculations pass for the only true Christian 
 ideas, followed the custom of the orthodox believers in 
 appealing to the current writings and traditions of the 
 time to substantiate their tenets. But, instead of subordi- 
 nating their opinions to the Gospels as authoritative, they 
 exercised the greatest freedom in dealing with the docu- 
 ments, whatever they may have been, accepting such 
 parts of them as furnished support for their speculations 
 and rejecting the rest. The preceding investigations 
 having shown that the orthodox Christians themselves 
 had no canon, in the proper sense of the word, down to 
 the middle of the second century, it is futile to argue 
 from such a sort of recognition as the heretics gave to the 
 current literature to the canonicity of any part of it.* 
 When we consider, furthermore, that no one claims that 
 either Basilides or Valentinus quoted any one of our 
 
 * Valentinus, however, might have used all these writings [the Gospels] 
 for his purposes without therefore according to them canonical authority. 
 For he is reported not only arbitrarily to have altered the canonical Gospels, 
 but to have used others besides these, and to have put one of them at the 
 head of all ; for such a rank is signified by the name which it bore, evangeli- 
 um veritatis, by which only a purified Gospel can be meant. But if there 
 was need of such a Gospel, the rest could not (in his opinion) have con- 
 tained the pure, true Gospel. Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 38 f. 
 
84 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Gospels by name, it is evident how little significance is to 
 be attached to their use of a few passages which are very 
 similar to some in these records, and to Holtzmann's 
 opinion that the latter argued from the Gospel, according 
 to Matthew.* In view of the considerable number of 
 Gospels which were in circulation in the second century, 
 the use by these writers of isolated passages which are 
 found in our Gospels, without reference to the particular 
 source, does not go far towards establishing the genuine- 
 ness of these records. 
 
 Credner has well stated the circumstances and con- 
 ditions of this period : " The early Church saw come forth 
 from its bosom a multitude of the most contradictory as- 
 severations and systems which were more or less foreign 
 to the true sense of the Christian doctrine, and were 
 afterwards rejected and condemned by the orthodox as 
 heretical. It was not intentional hostility to Christianity 
 by which these so-called heretics were animated. It was 
 rather, at least in the case of the majority, an honest 
 seeking for truth, and the inborn striving of the thought- 
 ful and intelligent man to bring an earlier mode of 
 thought, in which he had been reared and perhaps grown 
 gray, into accord with a new and, to him, acceptable 
 doctrine. But these strivings would certainly have turned 
 out quite differently, certainly there would have been no 
 Cerinthians, Valentinians, Marcionites, and other sects of 
 heretics of whatever name, at least not in the form which 
 they took on, had the doctrines of Christianity been then 
 laid down in divinely attested writings, and not in mere 
 tradition. This assertion will be established if we are 
 able to show that all these heretics sought to confirm 
 their doctrines not by an appeal to certain writings au- 
 
 * Einleit. p. 136. 
 
THE CANON. 85 
 
 thorized in the Church, but to the oral and written tra- 
 dition, just as we have found to be the case with the 
 orthodox Christians." * The establishment of this fact 
 maybe regarded as one of the assured results of historical 
 investigation into the condition of the Church in the 
 second century, to which no one has perhaps contributed 
 more than the learned and candid scholar from whom the 
 preceding quotation is taken. 
 
 7. THE CANON OF MARCION AND TATIAN*S DIATESSARON. 
 
 About the middle of the second century there appeared 
 in Rome the son of a Bishop of Sinope in Pontus, who, 
 although he called himself a Christian, and aspired to the 
 first place in the Roman Church,f was refused communion 
 there on account of his theological opinions. This was 
 the great Gnostic heretic, Marcion, whose name holds a 
 prominent place in the history of the second century as 
 that of one of the most illustrious of its ecclesiastical 
 leaders. In spite of all the calumniation and abuse which 
 his orthodox opponents have heaped upon him, the ver- 
 dict of history declares him to have been a man of a 
 noble nature and a pure life. An Asiatic by birth and 
 familiar with oriental philosophy, he believed that Christi- 
 anity in its purity was in conflict with Judaism, and that 
 the Hebrew elements which he found in it ought to be 
 removed. He brought this opposition of the two faiths 
 into relation with his oriental dualism by the theory of a 
 just God and a good God. The former was the creator of 
 the world and the author of the Old-Testament revelation. 
 
 * Beitrage, i. p. 36. 
 
 f Eph., Haeres. xlii. I, first place, 7tpoe8pia, perhaps a seat in the col- 
 lege of elders, rtpsdfivrepoi, Westcott, Canon. Some think, however, 
 that he aimed at nothing less than the bishopric. 
 
86 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 On the other hand, the good God, the God of love, had 
 remained unknown until the appearance of Christ, in 
 whom, out of sympathy with man, He had revealed Him- 
 self, and attacked the kingdom of the just God, so that 
 the doctrines of the Old and the New Testaments were 
 placed in the relation of opposites to each other. Be- 
 lieving that the object of Christianity was the abolition 
 of the teachings of the Old Testament, Marcion declared 
 war against Hebraism and Judaism. Looking through 
 the writings which set forth the current Christian tenets, 
 he discovered in them, as in the teachings of the 
 apostles, certain antithetic tendencies, some being freer 
 and more independent, and others more limited and 
 inclined to Judaism. Now, since both these tenden- 
 cies, attachment to Judaism and separation from it, could 
 not, in his opinion, represent the teachings of Christ, he 
 was led to the conclusion that the twelve apostles, hav- 
 ing come out of Judaism and being prejudiced in its 
 favor, had not received and handed down the teachings 
 of Jesus without an admixture of Jewish doctrines, * 
 an opinion which he believed he could defend out 
 of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. He was led by this 
 opinion to the bold undertaking to restore the original 
 unity and purity of Christian doctrine, and in pursuance 
 of this end he selected out of the existing Christian litera- 
 ture those writings which had remained least affected by 
 Judaism, taking considerable liberty with them in the way 
 of change and excision, f According to him, Paul was 
 the only genuine apostle, and he accordingly accepted 
 Pauline writings alone. Of these he acknowledged as the 
 
 * Apostolos adhuc quse sunt Judaeorum sentientes annunciasse evangelium, 
 Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. iii. 12, 12. 
 f Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 41 f. 
 
THE CANON. 8/ 
 
 sources of his Christian doctrine ten Epistles, which he 
 placed in his collection in the following order : Galatians, 
 the two to the Corinthians, Romans, the two to the Thes- 
 salonians, Ephesians (which, according to Tertullian, he 
 entitled " to the Laodiceans), "" Colossians, Philippians, 
 and Philemon. One Gospel alone he recognized which 
 no longer exists in precisely the form in which he used it, 
 and concerning which our only information is derived 
 from the writings of those who undertook to controvert 
 his teachings. He divided his collection into two parts, 
 " The Gospel " and " The Apostolicon." 
 
 The precise character of Marcion's Gospel is one of the 
 problems of history and criticism which do not admit of 
 satisfactory solution. The question has been the subject 
 of learned controversy since the latter part of the eigh- 
 teenth century, and no general agreement has yet been 
 reached among those best qualified to form a judgment 
 upon it. On the authority of Tertullian it was generally 
 believed, until the time of Semler, about 1/83, that 
 Marcion's Gospel was a mutilated copy of Luke's. Sem- 
 ler, after making a careful study of the problem, con- 
 cluded that it was derived from an earlier one, of which 
 Luke's was likewise a version. Griesbach also denied the 
 relation usually supposed to exist between the two Gospels. 
 Eichhorn, repudiating Tertullian's statement as untrust- 
 worthy, maintained that Marcion's Gospel was the more 
 original, and one of the sources of Luke. Berthold and 
 Schleiermacher held that it was not a mutilated copy 
 of Luke,f but an independent original Gospel. Gieseler 
 
 * Adv. Marc. v. n, 17. 
 
 f Schleiermacher, however, expressed himself cautiously: "Perhaps 
 Marcion's Gospel was an earlier edition of Luke's, in which parts of the 
 beginning and end were wanting," Einleit. in das N. T. p. 65. 
 
88 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 adopted this view, but afterwards, influenced by Harm's 
 criticism, abandoned it in favor of the traditional one 
 which was defended or acquiesced in by Neander, De 
 Wette, Olshausen, Credner, Bunsen, Ewald, and Bleek, to 
 mention only the most prominent critics. Much more 
 extended and thorough studies of the subject were made 
 by Ritschl, Baur, Kostlin, Volkmar, and Hilgenfeld, who, 
 by reconstructing as far as possible the text of Marcion's 
 Gospel from the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius, 
 appear to have gone to the limits of an exhaustive analy- 
 sis of the data. The preponderance of opinion in this 
 group of brilliant critics seems to be in favor of the 
 traditional view and against the theory of the originality 
 and independence of the Gospel of Marcion. Schwegler, 
 however, holds that its relation to our Luke is similar 
 to that of the Gospel according to the Hebrews to our 
 Matthew. He thinks it far more probable that the Mar- 
 cionite Gospel was one of those source-documents of 
 Luke's Gospel, mentioned in the prologue of that record, 
 an old, even if somewhat fragmentary, record of evangelic 
 discourses and facts which originated in Pauline circles, 
 than that it was a falsified and mutilated Luke.* 
 
 The limits which this work imposes do not admit of 
 entering upon a discussion in detail of the question 
 whether Marcion's Gospel was Luke's, with alterations 
 and excisions, or some other. Indeed, so far as the 
 matter of the canon is concerned, the solution of this 
 problem is not of vital importance. " The task before us is 
 to determine the estimation in which the Gospels were 
 held, and how they were regarded and treated in Mar- 
 cion's time. His procedure furnishes the desired infor- 
 mation on this point, whether he adapted to his purpose 
 
 * Das nachapost. Zeitalter, i. p. 261. 
 
THE CANON. 89 
 
 our third Gospel or an independent work, which may 
 or may not have been one of Luke's sources. Only two 
 or three important and conclusive facts need to be con- 
 sidered. Marcion does not ascribe his Gospel to any 
 author, at least we have no information from his oppo- 
 nents that he did so. He called it simply " The Gospel " 
 (TO svayyk\iov\ He admitted that he changed the 
 original text, and gave reasons for doing so.* Now the 
 taking of such liberties with a writing is irreconcilable 
 with a belief in its infallibility or inspiration. While 
 it must be admitted that his procedure was bold and 
 violent, and that such a treatment of the evangelic records 
 would have wrought great harm if extensively practised, 
 it should be borne in mind that a just judgment on 
 his motives and actions in the case can only be formed 
 from the point of view of his age. He would, as Credner 
 very justly remarks, have deserved the severe censure and 
 condemnation which have been pronounced upon him, if, 
 proceeding as he did, he had either attributed divine 
 authority or inspiration to the Gospels which he pro- 
 nounced defective, or had claimed the same for his 
 own ostensibly purified Gospel.f But he lived at a time 
 when, as has been shown, no trace can be found of a 
 belief in the divine inspiration of the writings afterwards 
 united in the New Testament and regarded as canonical. 
 Accordingly, his treatment of a Gospel, his reception of 
 some Epistles and exclusion of others were in accordance 
 with the opinions and practices of his age, in which Chris- 
 tians were accustomed to rely upon oral tradition and to 
 quote writings, since rejected as uncanonical, as if they 
 were as authoritative as those finally accepted. It has 
 
 * Tertull., De Came Christi, c. 2. 
 f Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 44. 
 
90 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 been remarked that the general laxity of belief and usage 
 regarding canonicity is evident from the fact that there 
 does not appear to have been an objection raised against 
 Marcion's procedure in his own time. It was unfortunate 
 for his fame that he took a Gospel which was afterwards 
 received as canonical, and treated it with so much freedom. 
 But had such an opinion of its sanctity as could alone jus- 
 tify a condemnation of him existed in his time, it is cer- 
 tainly unaccountable that his contemporary, Justin Martyr, 
 who frequently brings charges against the Marcionites, 
 did not raise his voice against such a profanation of sacred 
 documents.* 
 
 The question whether or no Marcion knew and rejected 
 the fourth Gospel does not, from the testimony accessible, 
 admit of so decisive an answer as Tischendorf gives it. 
 Tertullian, writing at a time when the four Gospels were 
 recognized, or about half a century later than Marcion's 
 time, may very naturally have believed that any Gospel 
 not acknowledged by the great heretic was known and 
 rejected. But the fourth Gospel offers so many points of 
 contact with the doctrines of Marcion that it is extremely 
 improbable that if he had been acquainted with it he 
 would have found it objectionable. It is even very likely 
 that he would have preferred it to that of Luke.f But 
 however this may be, it is particularly worthy of note 
 that in the Evangelicon and Apostolicon of Marcion an 
 important step is seen towards the formation of a canon 
 of the New Testament, which could not have been with- 
 out influence in orthodox Christian circles, where the 
 exigencies of the contest with the Gnostics must have 
 
 * Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 44. 
 
 f Tertull., De Came Christi, 2, 3, ; Hilgenfeld, Einleit. p. 50 ; Scholten, 
 Die altesten Zeugnisse, p. 76. 
 
THE CANON. 91 
 
 caused to be keenly felt the need of an authoritative list 
 of writings, both for public reading in the churches and 
 for appeal in discussion.* 
 
 Prominent among the heretics of the second century 
 was Tatian, an Assyrian by birth, who in Rome was a 
 disciple of Justin Martyr. After the death of his teacher 
 in the persecution excited by Crescens, he left Rome, 
 and joined the ascetic sect of the Encratites, of whose 
 doctrines of abstinence he became a leading advocate. 
 Of his writings there remains only an Oration to the 
 Greeks, which was probably written about 170. The 
 claim that in this writing there are any quotations from 
 our Gospels rests on very questionable grounds, and is 
 hardly worthy of consideration.f There are traces in it, 
 however, of the first, third, and fourth Gospels,^: but 
 without ascription of them to their reputed authors. 
 His chief importance as a witness for the Gospels rests 
 on a work ascribed to him, called Diatessaron, or " By 
 Four," which is assumed to have been a harmony of our 
 four Gospels. || Critics are by no means unanimous 
 regarding the character of this work, some holding that 
 it was a harmony of our canonical Gospels, some that it 
 was composed of our first three Gospels and that accord- 
 ing to the Hebrews, and others that it did not contain 
 any of our Gospels, but was a harmony of that according 
 
 * This is generally maintained by the critical school, Holtzmann, Einleit. 
 
 P- 139- 
 
 \ Even Tischendorf does not make this claim. 
 
 \ This is contested, of course, by the author of Supernatural Religion, 
 but conceded by Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 129, and Scholten, Aelteste 
 Zeug. p. 93. 
 
 did TE6(5dpcov. 
 
 I Eusebius, tivvdcpstd rtS nal tivaycay?) rear 
 
92 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 to the Hebrews and three others unknown, or was simply 
 the former alone, since Epiphanius says that it was called 
 by that name in his time. The earliest mention of it is 
 made by Eusebius, who writes of it as one ignorant of 
 its character in detail. He says : " Tatian * * * put 
 together a certain amalgamation and collection of the 
 Gospels, I know not how,* and named it the Diatessaron, 
 which even now is current with some." The testimony 
 of Theodoret, Bishop of Gyros, about the middle of the 
 fifth century, is important for the relation of this work to 
 the history of the canon. He, it seems, had seen it, and 
 he says of it : " Tatian also composed the Gospel which 
 is called the Diatessaron, excising the genealogies and all 
 the other parts which declare that the Lord was born of 
 the seed of David according to the flesh. This was used 
 not only by those of his own sect, but also by those who 
 held the apostolic doctrines, who did not perceive the 
 evil of the composition, but made use of the book in 
 simplicity on account of its conciseness. I myself found 
 upwards of two hundred of such books held in honor 
 among your churches, and collecting them all together, I 
 had them put aside, and introduced the Gospels of the 
 four evangelists." f It is worthy of note that Theodoret 
 does not tell of what writings Tatian " composed " his 
 Diatessaron, and no inference can fairly be drawn in favor 
 of any particular writings of the many in circulation in 
 the early Church. It is not even certain that the name 
 Diatessaron was always attached to the work, for Victor 
 of Capua says that it was called Diapente (diet nevre), 
 " By Five." Theodoret does not assure us that it was 
 really composed of four Gospels, but only that it was 
 " called " Diatessaron. The nature and sources of the 
 
 * OVK oida o7tK)$ tivvQsiS. f Haer. fab. i. 20. 
 
THE CANON. 
 
 93 
 
 work are, in fact, too little known to warrant any positive 
 assertion concerning it, and Donaldson has well said that 
 we know no more of it than Eusebius who never saw it 
 knew. The absence of the genealogies, which Theodoret 
 accounts for by excision, has been explained by the 
 hypothesis that the Diatessaron was composed either 
 from Justin's Memoirs or the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews, neither of which contained the genealogical 
 matter and the reference to the Son of David. But even 
 if it be granted that this writing was a harmony of our 
 four Gospels, the omission in a dogmatic interest of 
 certain parts of some of them is irreconcilable with the 
 theory that Tatian regarded these books as authoritative. 
 Historical documents without especial sanction he might, 
 indeed, treat in this way, but records believed by him to 
 be inspired and infallible he would rather have undertaken 
 to bring into accord with his theories by means of a 
 violent exegesis after the manner of all dogmatists since 
 his time. All the evidence, then, goes to show that, as 
 we cannot properly apply the term " canon " to Marcion's 
 collection of a mutilated Gospel and certain Epistles, so 
 Tatian did not appear to have any well-defined conception 
 of a Gospel-canon, as that term came to be understood in 
 the third century. Both men were in this respect in 
 accord with the prevalent conceptions of their times, 
 however widely their Gnostic tenets may have separated 
 them from the orthodox believers in general. 
 
 8. DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH, MELITO OF SARDIS, AND 
 
 ATHENAGORAS. 
 
 Dionysius was Bishop of Corinth at the time of Justin 
 Martyr's death, about 175, and was the author of a letter 
 to Soter, Bishop of Rome, and of several other letters. A 
 
94 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 few fragments of the former are all that remains of his 
 writings. Eusebius relates that in some of his Epistles 
 he gives expositions of holy Scripture, * an expression by 
 which the historian may have intended Scriptures of the 
 Old Testament or of the New. It is important to observe 
 that the words are those of Eusebius. In the fragments 
 of the Epistle to Soter there is a complaint that certain 
 "apostles of the Devil" had taken the liberty to change 
 some of his letters by additions and excisions, and the 
 writer adds that " it is not surprising if some have reck- 
 lessly ventured to adulterate the Scriptures of the Lord, 
 when they have corrupted these which are not of so 
 much importance." These "Scriptures of the Lord"f 
 were probably Gospel-narratives, the words being fre- 
 quently employed, as Credner remarks, in the writings 
 of the time in that sense. \ The attempt of the author 
 of Supernatural Religion to show that they designate 
 writings of the Old Testament is futile. It should be 
 considered, however, that no particular writings are men- 
 tioned, and that Westcott is accordingly too hasty in 
 drawing the conclusion from these words that the " writ- 
 ings of the New Testament were at this time collected, that 
 they were distinguished from other books, that they were 
 jealously guarded," etc. [ The most that can fairly be 
 inferred from this fragment is that a sharp line of distinc- 
 tion is drawn between the writer's own productions and 
 evangelic writings in general ; but there is no intima- 
 tion in it that a canon of the New Testament yet existed 
 or had been thought of. This is, indeed, the first instance 
 
 * ypaqxav Qeiaor 
 \ypacpai uvpiaKai, Euseb., Hist. Eccl. iv. 23. 
 
 | Beitrage, i. p. 52. See Clem. Alex., Strom, vi. 2, vii. I ; Iren., Adv. 
 Haeres. ii. 35. Vol. ii. 3d ed. p. 165. | The Canon, p. 191. 
 
THE CANON. 95 
 
 in the second century of the application of the word 
 Scriptures (ypofcpai) to the evangelic writings; but it 
 should be borne in mind that not only were many Gos- 
 pels which have not been received into the canon freely 
 quoted at about this time and, indeed, as will be shown 
 hereafter, much later, but other apocryphal writings were 
 regularly read in the churches, and some of these almost 
 attained canonical rank, the Shepherd of Hermas having 
 been quoted as " inspired " by Irenaeus.* Dionysius 
 informs the Romans that the Epistles of Clement and 
 Soter, their bishops, were read in his church ; and since 
 the Epistles of Paul to this church can hardly have 
 been neglected in the religious services, the inference is 
 very natural that no exclusively sacred or canonical char- 
 acter was accorded to the latter. It is worthy of note 
 that with all the accounts of the reading of Epistles in 
 the churches there is no mention of this use of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who lived in the last quarter 
 of the second century, has been quoted as furnishing 
 evidence for the canon. In a fragment preserved by 
 Eusebius he says, that having been requested by a cer- 
 tain " brother Onesimus " to furnish an account of the 
 " Old books, how many they are, and what is their order," 
 he undertook a journey to the East, and having obtained 
 the desired information, he sends a list of the books 
 of the Old Testament, and then he adds the names of the 
 books, omitting, however, that of Esther, f Now the 
 strange inference has been drawn that the mention of the 
 books of the Old Testament implies the existence of a 
 
 * Adv. Haeres. iv. 20, 2. 
 
 \ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 26. 
 
96 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 written canonical New Testament. But in making this 
 assertion it seems to have been forgotten that the distinc- 
 tion of an Old and New Covenant by no means implies 
 the existence of a canon of the latter, since it appears in 
 the writings of the New Testament itself. In the ac- 
 count of the last supper Jesus is represented as having 
 used the terms, " blood of the New Testament " and 
 "this is the cup of the New Testament"; and Paul 
 speaks of the Old Testament in contrasting the old and 
 new dispensations. Yet no one will claim that a canoni- 
 cal collection of writings could have been implied in these 
 words. But if it be granted that a New-Testament canon 
 is implied in this fragment, there is no evidence to show 
 what writings among the many Gospels and Epistles in 
 existence and use in his time Melito would have included 
 in his collection. The zeal of those who draw from such 
 premises the conclusion that he knew anything of a New- 
 Testament canon surpasses their discretion.* 
 
 Of Athenagoras no mention is made by Eusebius or 
 Jerome. His principal work was an Apology, or Em- 
 bassy, concerning Christians, addressed to certain Roman 
 Emperors, f and written probably about 176. Westcott 
 claims that in this writing there are " certain though tacit 
 references to Matthew and John," and Tischendorf finds 
 "several quotations from Matthew and Luke." An ex- 
 amination of the passages in question shows a resem- 
 blance to parallels in one or two of the synoptical Gospels, 
 but does not establish " quotations," and as to " refer- 
 ences," there are none in the way of a mention of the 
 
 * Westcott, Canon, p. 221. On the contrary, Reuss, Hist, du Can. 
 
 P- 43- 
 
 f Ttpetifisia Ttzpl %pi6Tiav dor '. 
 
THE CANON. 97 
 
 sources. Not even is the name of Christ introduced as 
 the speaker, but the vague " he says " * precedes the 
 passages. There is also one apocryphal saying ascribed 
 to the " Logos " to the effect that if any one kiss a sec- 
 ond time because it gives him gratification [he sins], and 
 the writer adds that the kiss, or salutation, must be used 
 with care, as, if it be defiled even a little by thought, it 
 excludes us from life eternal. The conclusion of Dr. 
 Donaldson regarding Athenagoras appears to be drawn 
 from a correct apprehension of the facts : " Athenagoras 
 makes no allusion to the inspiration of any of the New- 
 Testament writers. He does not mention one of them 
 by name, and one cannot be sure that he quotes from 
 any except Paul. All the passages taken from the Gos- 
 pels are parts of our Lord's discourses, and may have 
 come down to Athenagoras by tradition. "f It is evident 
 that he cannot fairly be quoted as teaching that our four 
 Gospels were recognized in his time as an exclusive 
 authority, as genuine and canonical. 
 
 9. - THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH AND THE CANON OF MURATORI. 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch was a heathen by birth, and, ac- 
 cording to Eusebius, the sixth Bishop of Antioch in the 
 time of Marcus Aurelius. His three books to Autolycus, 
 written in the latter part of the second century, are de- 
 voted to convincing a learned heathen of the truth of the 
 Christian religion, and are preserved entire.^ He quotes 
 a passage contained in Matthew as of " the evangelic 
 voice," and is the first writer in whom is found an ascrip- 
 tion of the fourth Gospel to John, whom he designates as 
 
 f Hist. Christ. Doct., etc. iii. p. 172. 
 \ Otto, Corpus Apologet. vol. v. 
 7 
 
98 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 one of those who were " vessels of the Spirit," * quoting 
 from the prologue to this Gospel. It is to be noted, how- 
 ever, that he makes a distinction between " the holy 
 word " in general f and "the evangelic voice.";]: But he 
 places all " vessels of the Spirit " on an equality with the 
 holy Scriptures, thus probably according to the evan- 
 gelists canonical rank and authority. " This," he says, 
 " the holy Scriptures teach us, and all the vessels of the 
 Spirit, one of whom, John, says, * In the beginning was 
 the Word, and the Word was with God/ " He even ac- 
 cords to the announcement in Matt. v. 18 superiority to 
 the Old Testament.] According to Jerome he was the 
 author of a commentary on the four Gospels.^ 
 
 In the latter part of the seventeenth century Muratori 
 discovered in the Ambrosian library at Milan a manu- 
 script of the eighth or ninth century which has been the 
 subject of much investigation and discussion in the in- 
 terest of the history of the canon of the New Testament. 
 The writing is anonymous, and is defective and mutilated 
 both at the beginning and the end. It appears to have 
 been originally a list of the sacred books accepted by the 
 Roman Church, although the first two canonical Gospels 
 are wanting at the beginning, and is the oldest list of the 
 kind that is known, since it claims to have been written 
 by a contemporary of the Roman Bishop Pius, and men- 
 tions the writing of the Shepherd of Hermasas recent and 
 
 * Ttvevjuarotpopoi. f 6 ayioS TtoyoS. 
 
 The failure of the author of Supernatural Religion to acknowledge this 
 fact is by no means an indication of fairness. 
 
 I Ad Autol. iii. 13. 
 
 ^[ Quatuor evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compingens, Ep. 12 1 ad 
 Algasiam. 
 
THE CANON, 99 
 
 the author of it as a brother of the Bishop.* Great urh 
 certainty exists as to the date of this fragment, the epis- 
 copate of Pius being variously given from 127 to 157, and 
 the composition of the writing from 160 to the beginning 
 of the third century.f The character of the writing is 
 also in dispute, Credner maintaining that it is merely a 
 list of the books accepted and not a fragment of a larger 
 work, \ while Westcott regards it as having formed part 
 of an apocalyptic work, perhaps a dialogue with some 
 heretic, unless it is composed of detached pieces of a 
 considerable composition. There is also uncertainty as to 
 the language in which it was originally written. The 
 Latin in which it was found, a sort of barbaric or rustic 
 dialect, is thought by some to be a clumsy translation 
 from Greek, by others as indicative of a North-African 
 origin.|| The authorship is a matter of pure conjecture. 
 Some assign it to a writer of the fourth century, and 
 others doubt its authenticity altogether. Credner, whom 
 Westcott pronounces "a most impartial judge," regards 
 it as a genuine list of the latter part of the second century. 
 This point may be regarded as settled by the preponder- 
 ance of critical judgment,^ although some of the questions 
 just mentioned do not admit of a satisfactory settlement. 
 
 * Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hernia con- 
 scripsit sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesise Pio episcopo fratre ejus. 
 
 f Tischendorf, 160-170 ; Westcott and Wieseler, about 170 ; Credner and 
 Harnack, 170-190 ; Volkmar, 190-200 ; Hilgenfeld, time of Irenasus and 
 Tertullian ; Keim, time of Tertullian. 
 
 \ Gesch. d. neutest. Canon, p. 143. 
 
 Bunsen, Tregelles, Westcott, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld (who has restored the 
 Greek text in Kanon u. Kritik, and Einleitung), and others. 
 
 I Credner, Hesse, Reuss, Bleek, and many others reject the theory of a 
 translation from Greek. 
 
 1 Hilgenfeld : " The conception of holy Scriptures of the New Testament 
 appears here already fully formed." Einleit. p. 99. 
 
100 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 The first words of the fragment are the conclusion of a 
 sentence, " at which (quibus) nevertheless he was present, 
 and he so placed [it]." This sentence is supposed to 
 relate to the Gospel of Mark, and the preceding, which is 
 wholly absent, to that of Matthew. Then follow the 
 words : " Third book of the Gospel according to Luke. 
 Luke, that physician, after the ascension of Christ, when 
 Paul took him with him as studious of the right, wrote it 
 in his name as he deemed best ; nevertheless he had not 
 himself seen the Lord in the flesh, and followed him ac- 
 cording as he was able, beginning thus from the nativity 
 of John." The text then proceeds to narrate some 
 strange circumstances connected with the origin of the 
 fourth Gospel, which it ascribes to John " of the disciples," 
 as follows : " Being entreated by his fellow-disciples and 
 his bishops, John said, ' Fast with me for three days from 
 this time, and whatever shall be revealed to each one of 
 us, let us relate it to one another.' On the same night it 
 was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John 
 should relate all things in his own name, aided by the 
 revision of all," etc. Then follows a mention of Acts, 
 containing a record by Luke, and of thirteen Epistles of 
 Paul, with an arrangement different from that in our 
 canon and with reasons assigned for the writing of some 
 of them. An Epistle to the Laodiceans and one to the 
 Alexandrians * forged under the name of Paul and several 
 others it is declared cannot be received in the Catholic 
 Church, " for gall ought not to be mixed with honey." f 
 The Book of Wisdom is said to be received, written by 
 
 * Perhaps the Epistle to the Hebrews. Credner, Kanon, p. 161. 
 
 f " Fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit." This play upon words is 
 adduced as evidence that the writing was originally in Latin, an argument 
 which appears quite as trivial as the trifle on which it is founded. 
 
THE CANON. IOI 
 
 friends of Solomon in his honor, also two Apocalypses, 
 that of John and that of Peter. The Epistles of Peter, 
 one of John, and that to the Hebrews are not included. 
 The fragment closes with the mention of Hermas already 
 referred to, and the rejection of some heretical writings. 
 The conclusion is abrupt, in the midst of an unfinished 
 sentence. 
 
 The canon of Muratori admits of several interpretations 
 as related to the history of the New-Testament canon. 
 It may be thought to indicate that the progress towards 
 a real formation of the canon was well under way in the 
 latter part of the second century ; the extension of the 
 canon of the original apostles so as to include the Pauline 
 writings may be interpreted as the last act of the recon- 
 ciliation of parties ; * its special reference to certain 
 heretical works may suggest that it was the result of the 
 Gnostic and Montanistic storms when all non-apostolic 
 ballast was thrown out of the ship of the Catholic Church.f 
 In forming a judgment regarding it we need to be on our 
 guard against the bias of a too strong apologetic interest. 
 It must be borne in mind that the author is wholly un- 
 known ; that the Manuscript dates from the eighth or 
 ninth century ; that, as Donaldson suggests, it may have 
 been interpolated, although the presumption of interpola- 
 tion should not have weight in the absence of evidence ; J 
 and finally, that in the light of the conclusions of the 
 preceding investigations, the fragment would present a 
 strange anachronism at any time before about the end of 
 the second century. The writer does not give his own 
 opinion regarding the books mentioned, but professedly 
 
 * Hilgenfeld. f Harnack. 
 
 \ Donaldson thinks that the passage regarding the date shows .signs of 
 tampering. Hist. Chr. Doct. and Life, iii. p. 209. 
 
1 02 GOSPEL-CRI TICISM. 
 
 the general sentiment of the Church. If now, in writings 
 of undisputed date and genuineness, we do not find that 
 prior to the end of the second century the books of the 
 New Testament are mentioned and massed after the 
 manner of this fragment of uncertain date and unknown 
 authorship, this fact ought certainly to have great weight 
 in determining our judgment regarding its importance for 
 the history of the canon. 
 
 10. IREN^EUS AND TERTULLIAN. 
 
 Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, is an important witness for 
 the canon, since he speaks not alone for the Western but 
 also for the Eastern Church, from which he went to Gaul. 
 In his work against the heretics, written about 190, he 
 appeals to the most of the New-Testament writings as 
 holy Scripture,* and puts them on an equality with the 
 Old Testament. He holds the following language respect- 
 ing the Gospels : " Matthew produced his Gospel among 
 the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul 
 were preaching the Gospel and founding the Church in 
 Rome. After the departure [death] of these, Mark, the 
 disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us 
 in writing what had been preached by Peter ; and Luke, 
 the companion of Paul, committed to writing the Gospel 
 preached by the latter. Afterwards, John, the disciple of 
 our Lord, the same that lay upon his bosom, also pub- 
 lished the Gospel while he was yet at Ephesus, in Asia," f 
 The quaternity of the Gospels is distinctly recognized, or 
 rather the four Gospels are referred to as one fourfold 
 
 * ypaqxxiy Bsiat ypacpai y ypacpai Hvpianaiy Adv. Haeres. ii. 5, 20 ; 
 27, i. 
 
 \ Adv. Haeres. iii. I, i. 
 
THE CANON. 103 
 
 Gospel.* We do not, however, find the critical point of 
 view represented in Irenaeus. Rather he appears uncon- 
 scious of it, and writes as one who merely records current 
 traditions. He is satisfied with reporting after Papias 
 that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the dialect of the He- 
 brews, but as to the important question of the relation of 
 this to the Greek first Gospel he is most uncritically silent. 
 He proceeds with so little critical discrimination that he 
 does not consider, as Scholten remarks, how much the 
 recognition of a Hebrew original of Matthew stood in the 
 way of the canonical validity of the Greek Matthew.f It 
 is clear that the worth of his testimony must be deter- 
 mined by his point of view, and that so judged, he fur- 
 nishes us nothing more than the fact that in his time our 
 four Gospels were uncritically accepted, and ascribed to 
 the writers whose names were traditionally associated with 
 them. 
 
 The " fourfold Gospel " appears to be accepted as an 
 article of faith without reasons sought and found in his- 
 tory or criticism, but for trivial reasons quite foreign to 
 the subject : " But neither can the Gospels be more in 
 number than they are, nor on the other hand can they 
 be fewer. For as there are four quarters of the world in 
 which we are, and four general winds, and the Church is 
 disseminated throughout all the world, and the Gospel is 
 the pillar and prop of the Church and the spirit of life, it 
 is right that she should have four pillars on all sides, 
 breathing out immortality and revivifying men. From 
 which it is manifest that the Word * * * has given us 
 the Gospel four-formed, but possessed by one spirit ; as 
 David also says supplicating his advent : ' Thou that sit- 
 
 TO 
 
 f Die altesten Zeugnisse, p. 114. 
 
104 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 test between the cherubim, shine forth.' For the cheru- 
 bim also are four-faced, and their faces are symbols of the 
 working of the Son of God, * * * and the Gospels 
 therefore are in harmony with these, among which Christ 
 is seated. For the Gospel according to John relates his 
 first effectual and glorious generation from the Father, 
 saying : ' In the beginning was the Word. * * * But 
 the Gospel according to Luke, being, as it were, of a 
 priestly (!) character, opened with Zacharias, the priest, 
 sacrificing to God. * * * But Matthew narrates his gen- 
 eration as a man. * * * This, therefore, is the Gospel 
 of his humanity. * * * But Mark makes his beginning 
 after a prophetic spirit coming down from on high to 
 men. * * * Such, therefore, as was the course of the 
 Son of God, such also is the form of the living creatures 
 * * * and such is the character of the Gospel \i. e., quad- 
 riform]. Therefore, vain, ignorant, and audacious are 
 those who set aside the form of the Gospel, and declare 
 the aspect of the Gospels to be either more or less than 
 has been said."* Such are the grounds which Irenaeus 
 finds for believing in the canonicity of the four Gospels, 
 when cutting loose from tradition he trusts himself to 
 reason. His position was not, however, uncontested in 
 his own time, for he admits that the fourth Gospel was 
 disputed by some. 
 
 Irenaeus marks the transition from tradition to a New- 
 Testament Scripture. The appeal to the latter predomi- 
 nates, while he cannot entirely break with the former. 
 Addressing a friend of his youth, Florinus, who had 
 adopted heretical doctrines, he says : " These doctrines 
 were not delivered to thee by the presbyters before us, 
 those Avho were the immediate disciples of the apostles. 
 
 * Adv. Haeres. iii., n, 8, 9. 
 
THE CANON. 105 
 
 For I saw thee, when I was yet a boy, in Lower Asia with 
 Polycarp. * * * I can tell the very place where the 
 blessed Polycarp was accustomed to sit and discourse 
 * his familiarity with those who had seen the 
 Lord ; how also he used to relate their discourses and 
 what he had heard from them concerning the Lord, his 
 miracles, his doctrine ; all these were told by Polycarp 
 in consistency with the holy Scriptures, as he had re- 
 ceived them from the eye-witnesses of the doctrine of 
 salvation." * Although the work of the Spirit is fully 
 recognized by him in the apostles, he by no means re- 
 gards the divine powers as absent from his own age. He 
 claims that in cases where a whole church has united in 
 fasting and prayer to bring a dead man to life, " the spirit 
 has returned to the reanimated body, and the man has 
 been granted to the prayers of the saints." He testifies 
 also that " some have knowledge of things to come * * * 
 others heal the sick by the imposition of hands, and even 
 the dead have been raised, and continued with us many 
 years." f That he did not regard the Gospels as self- 
 authenticating, but rather as needing Jhe support of 
 prophecy, is apparent from the words in immediate con- 
 nection with those just quoted : " But if they say that our 
 Lord also did these things [miracles] only in appearance, 
 we shall refer them to the prophetic declarations, and shall 
 show from them that all these things were strictly fore- 
 told." We find him in this respect at the point of view 
 of Justin Martyr, f But apart from this support invoked 
 from the Old Testament, he recognizes the Gospels as in- 
 dependent sources of evidence for the doctrines of the 
 
 * Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 20. 
 f Ib. v. 7. 
 
 \ oi<3 k7ti6rsv(5a]iiEVy eitEidrj nal TO TtpcxprjriKov rtrevjua e<pq. Apol. 
 i- 33 " whom we believed, since also the prophetic spirit said it." 
 
1 06 GOSPEL. CRI TICISM. 
 
 Church and decisive documents of Christianity, which 
 possess the same authority for those of the New Covenant 
 as the Old Testament for the Jews.* The Old and New 
 Testaments are placed upon the same footing, the former 
 having come forth from the prophets, the latter from the 
 apostles, f The apostles, and they alone, have handed 
 down true Christianity not only orally, but also in writing. 
 The Gospels they have delivered to us in our Scriptures 
 by the will of God to be the foundation and column 
 of our faith. J The Gospels are quoted as " Scripture " 
 with the same formula as the writings of the Old Testa- 
 ment, and Matthew is referred to as " inspired." Mark 
 and Luke are brought into connection with an apostolic 
 source by being associated, as previously shown, with Peter 
 and Paul. 
 
 Tertullian, whose activity extended into the second 
 decade of the third century, may be regarded as a witness 
 for the canon of the African Church. His scientific 
 method renders him a very valuable witness, because 
 with him the Scripture-citations do not present them- 
 selves sporadically, without order and succession, as with 
 Irenseus ; but when he treats a special point of morals or 
 of dogma, he aims to pass in review the different parts of 
 sacred Scripture according to the order of the books. | 
 He gives his testimony as the judgment of the Church: 
 " I say, then, that not only among the apostolic churches, 
 
 * Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 152. 
 
 f Universae scripturse et prophetiae et evangelia. 
 
 \ Per Dei voluntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum et col- 
 umnam fidei nostrae futurum. 
 
 With the formula of Scripture {ypofprf) he also quotes the Epistle of 
 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. 
 
 | Reuss, Histoire du Canon, p. 113. 
 
THE CANON. IO/ 
 
 but among all the churches which are united with them in 
 Christian fellowship the Gospel of Luke, which we ear- 
 nestly defend, has been maintained from its first publi- 
 cation. And the same authority of the apostolic churches 
 will uphold the other Gospels which we have in due suc- 
 cession through them and according to their usage, I 
 mean those of Matthew and John, although that which 
 was published by Mark may also be maintained to be 
 Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was ; for the narrative of 
 Luke also is generally ascribed to Paul, [since] it is allow- 
 able that that which scholars publish should be regarded as 
 their masters' work." u These are, for the most part, the 
 summary arguments which we employ when we argue 
 about the Gospels against heretics, maintaining both the 
 order of time which sets aside the later work of forgers, 
 and the authority of churches which upholds the tradition 
 of the Apostles, because truth necessarily precedes forgery, 
 and proceeds from them to whom it has been delivered."* 
 Tertullian employs " scriptura " and " scriptures " as 
 Irenaeus employs ypacprf and ypacpai of the New Testa- 
 ment as an inspired document in two parts, " Evangeli- 
 cum " and " Apostolus" or " evangelicce et apostolicce lit era" 
 His favorite expression, however, for the Gospel is " Evan- 
 gelicum Instrumentum" He also uses the word " Testa- 
 mentum," and speaks of the " totum instrumentum utrius- 
 que testamenti" the whole instrument of both testaments, 
 as containing all the ordinances and commandments of 
 God. It does not appear, however, that he assumes a 
 critical attitude either towards the Gospels or the tradi- 
 tions by which he believes them authenticated, but rests 
 his belief in their genuineness on the tradition of the 
 churches, his maxim being that " That has been derived 
 
 * Adv. Marc. iv. 5. 
 
108 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 by tradition from the apostles which has been preserved 
 inviolate in the churches of the apostles." We are not 
 surprised, accordingly, at his uncritical acceptance of the 
 tradition that " the narrative of Luke is generally ascribed 
 to Paul." The " summary arguments " in the preceding 
 quotation indicate his point of view and the limitation of 
 his inquiries. Previously to his acceptance of Montanism 
 he used the Shepherd of Hermas, which as a Montanist he 
 rejected, apparently for purely dogmatic reasons, as " that 
 apocryphal Shepherd of fornicators," * while saying a good 
 word for the Epistle of Barnabas. 
 
 II. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE CANON. 
 
 In the absence of means of easy communication 
 between the different and often widely-separated Chris- 
 tian communities in the second century, the conception 
 of unity and a common bond of faith and fellowship 
 among them must have been slowly developed. The 
 journeys, however, of prominent teachers among the 
 various little communities, and the letters occasionally 
 sent from the leader of one of them to the brethren in 
 another, must have tended to generate the idea of a whole 
 church, or a church throughout all ; that is, a catholic or 
 universal church.f The Gnostic controversy, however, 
 probably contributed more than any other influence to 
 bring the churches to a consciousness of historic unity. 
 The appeal to tradition was not, indeed, unknown apart 
 from the exigencies of this controversy, in the midst of 
 which it became the very natural and general resort of 
 
 * Illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. 
 
 f rj ncxff o\.ov tuukritiia., Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 16. The term 
 " catholic church," rf KaftoXiuri kKytkrjGia., first appears in the Ignatian 
 Epistle to the Smyrneans, viii. 
 
THE CANON. \ 09 
 
 the defenders of the orthodoxy of the times. It was 
 deemed the best answer to the speculations of the 
 heretics to set forth the fundamental doctrines of primi- 
 tive Christianity as they had been handed down from 
 Christ through the apostles and their successors. The 
 creed was simple and in few words. There was one God, 
 who had created the world by His Son, the Word. This 
 latter had inspired the prophets, had finally become flesh, 
 and preached the new kingdom of God ; had been cruci- 
 fied, raised from the dead, and was seated at the right 
 hand of God, whence he sent forth the Holy Spirit upon 
 believers. At length he would return in glory in the 
 great Parousia to take them to himself, and, punish the 
 unbelievers. This was the Rule of Faith * which had 
 been handed down, and was deemed essential to the 
 integrity of the Church and the soundness of the indi- 
 vidual believer. Above all questions of mere interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture, it appeared to the orthodox contestants 
 to be of supreme importance to determine the grounds 
 of the authority of the writings themselves ; and it is 
 natural that in proportion as the conception of canonicity 
 was formed and defined, the tendency in this direction 
 should become more pronounced and positive, particu- 
 larly in the exigencies of controversy with heretics. To 
 minds untrained in critical investigation, the appeal to 
 the venerated tradition of the Church furnished the most 
 congenial source of confirmation. What Christ had 
 taught and the apostles preached could be determined in 
 no way so well as through the churches in which the liv- 
 ing word had been preached and handed down. We 
 have seen that to Papias " the living voice " was that of 
 individual teachers. It is not surprising that with the 
 
 * Regula Fidei, Canon of the Church, Kavc&v 
 
1 1 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 consolidation of the Church a change should take place 
 in the form of the appeal to tradition ; and in Tertullian 
 a change is, in fact, observable. For he finds the standard 
 of right .knowledge and belief, as well as of all true inter- 
 pretation in the tradition of the churches from the apos- 
 tolic age down through the entire succession. When the 
 heretics denied the infallibility of the apostles, and 
 claimed that these were incapable of comprehending the 
 profounder sense of the teachings of Jesus ; when they 
 referred to the disagreement between Peter and Paul, it 
 was maintained by the defenders of the faith that only 
 among themselves, the real descendants of the apostles, 
 was the genuine tradition to be found, on which the true 
 faith could alone be established, and in accordance with 
 which alone a right interpretation was possible. 
 
 It was but a step from this appeal to the tradition of 
 the churches, which derived its chief worth from its apos- 
 tolical source, to an appeal to writings of a supposed apos- 
 tolical origin, so as to meet the heretics with weapons 
 drawn from the armory of Scripture-texts. Their denial 
 of the participation of the Supreme God in the revelation 
 of the Old Testament could not be more effectively 
 answered than by an appeal to apostolic writings recog- 
 nized as equal in authority to that, as inspired in a word, 
 as holy Scripture. The ground of their validity was their 
 supposed connection with the apostles in their origin 
 and their conformity in doctrine with what was believed 
 to be the genuine apostolic tradition as held in the 
 churches. A striking illustration of this point of view is 
 furnished in a proceeding of Serapion, a Bishop of Anti- 
 och, at the end of the second century. It appears that 
 a division had arisen in the church at Rhosse in reference 
 to the Gospel of Peter. Serapion, in order to appease 
 
THE CANON. Ill 
 
 the strife, at first permitted the Gospel to be read, pre- 
 sumably because of its supposed apostolic origin. But 
 having learned afterwards that it contained some hereti- 
 cal teachings, he forbade its use. He declared the prin- 
 ciple on which he acted to be that Peter and the other 
 apostles are to be accepted as Christ himself, but that 
 the writings which falsely go under their names are to be 
 rejected.* 
 
 The consolidation of the catholic Church, then, was 
 the condition of the settlement of the canon of the 
 Gospels. As the Church came to a consciousness of itself; 
 as the instinct of self-preservation in the conflict with 
 heresy more and more united it ; as the appeal to apos- 
 tolic tradition preserved in its various branches and to 
 writings believed to be of apostolic origin became a 
 necessity ; as an authority held to be above question 
 could not be dispensed with in the exigencies of its devel- 
 opment, it found itself constrained to hold fast to its 
 revelation contained in the teachings of the apostles, to 
 exclude all writings which deviated from the traditional 
 catholic faith, and to collect the documents of this 
 revelation in a canon, or rule of faith and practice.f 
 Apostolic in origin, that is, written by apostles or by men 
 who had been in intercourse with them, and apostolic in 
 doctrine according to the tradition of the churches must 
 all writings be which were accepted as canonical. The 
 chief promoters of canon-forming were probably the 
 Bishops, and it is likely, as Holtzmann maintains against 
 Tischendorf, Bleek, and others,;): that the process of estab- 
 lishing the canon would have been much slower than it 
 was, if it had been obliged to wait upon the agreement 
 
 * Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 12. f KavooVy canon, rule. 
 
 t Einleit. in das N. T. p. 143. 
 
112 GOSPEL-CRI TICISM. 
 
 of the churches through general enlightenment and 
 mutual understanding. The Bishops, tracing their suc- 
 cession from the apostles, would naturally regard the 
 writings of these as the true standard of catholic ortho- 
 doxy. The procedure of Serapion, previously mentioned, 
 is a good illustration of the fact and the necessity of 
 episcopal supervision in the matter of accepting and 
 rejecting the current writings. Clothed with authority in 
 matters of doctrine, it would naturally fall to them to 
 decide what books should be read in the churches, and 
 thus receive a sort of canonical recognition. 
 
 It would doubtless be a great error to suppose that the 
 leaders in the Church during the latter part of the second 
 century engaged, after the manner of modern theologians, 
 in critical researches to establish a canon of sacred New- 
 Testament Scripture. As little are we justified in thinking 
 them to have been preoccupied with the absolute and 
 exclusive authority of the supposed apostolic writings. 
 True representatives of the catholic tendency, which has 
 remained essentially the same to the present day in the 
 Roman Church, their predominant interest was ecclesiasti- 
 cal. They were far from being protestants in their atti- 
 tude towards Scripture or tradition. According to one of 
 them, the Spirit of God comes to individuals only through 
 the Church, so that one may say not only that the Church 
 is where the Spirit is, but also that the Spirit is where the 
 Church is.* They taught that the depositaries of tradi- 
 tion, the chiefs of the different communities, especially of 
 those founded by the apostles, above all of that at Rome, 
 were the best teachers of the truth.f 
 
 * Ubi enim ecclesia ibi et spiritus Dei, et ubi spiritus Deii bi ecclesia, 
 * * * cujus non participant omnes qui non currunt ad ecclesiam. Irenseus. 
 
 f Discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quse est ab apostolis ecclesise 
 successio. Ibid. 
 
THE CANON. 113 
 
 12. THE GOSPELS IN THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH. 
 
 The Alexandrians treated the conception of canonicity 
 with greater freedom and in a more spiritualizing way 
 than did the Western Church. Clement (170-211) not 
 only took into account the external, apostolic origin of 
 writings, but their spiritual derivation from the apostles, 
 or the question of their contents as worthy or unworthy of 
 their authorship. So purely subjective a point of view as 
 this latter undoubtedly has its perils. But it was controlled 
 by a regard for testimony, and also, it appears, modified 
 somewhat by philological criticism.* In a work which is 
 lost, " Hypotyposes," Clement gave, according to Eu- 
 sebius, an abridged account of all the canonical scriptures, 
 not even omitting those that were disputed, such as the 
 Epistle of Barnabas and the Revelation of Peter. In the 
 " Stromata " he quotes Clement of Rome and Barnabas as 
 apostles, f and the Shepherd of Hermas as a divine revela- 
 tion. \ Besides, he quotes the Gospels according to the 
 Hebrews and the Egyptians, and although he distinguishes 
 these from the four Gospels, his distinction between 
 canonical and uncanonical books does not appear to be 
 drawn with a very firm hand. In the writing previously 
 mentioned, the " Hypotyposes," he gives the tradition re- 
 specting the order of the Gospels, as derived from the 
 oldest presbyters, as follows : " Those which contain the 
 genealogies were written first ; but the Gospel of Mark 
 was occasioned in the following manner : When Peter had 
 proclaimed the word publicly in Rome, and declared the 
 
 * The Epistle to the Hebrews, attributed in the Western Church to Barna- 
 bas, was regarded by Clement as the work of Paul, because worthy of an 
 apostle. It was thought to have been written in Hebrew, and the translation 
 was attributed to Luke because of a similarity in its style to the Acts. 
 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. 
 
 f Strom, ii. 6, sec. 31, iv. 17. \ Ib. i. 29. Ib. 93. 
 
 8 
 
1 1 4 GOSPEL-CRI TIC ISM. 
 
 Gospel under the influence of the Spirit, as there was a 
 great number present, they requested Mark, who had fol- 
 lowed him from afar, and remembered well what he had 
 said, to reduce these things to writing ; and after compos- 
 ing his Gospel, he gave it to those who requested it of 
 him. Which when Peter understood, he neither hindered 
 nor encouraged it. But John, last of all, perceiving that 
 what had reference to the body of the Saviour was suffi- 
 ciently detailed, and being encouraged by his familiar 
 friends, and urged by the Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel."* 
 It is noteworthy that this tradition proceeds upon the as- 
 sumed priority of Luke to Mark, and that it represents the 
 composition of the Gospels as undertaken in a quite human 
 way and without divine impulse or guidance, with the 
 single exception of the fourth Gospel, to the writing of 
 which the author was " urged on by the Spirit." 
 
 Origen, whose life extended to the middle of the third 
 century, drew more sharply than Clement the distinction 
 of canonical and uncanonical. With him the historical in- 
 terest predominates, and the internal character of the 
 Christian writings is subordinated to their recognition and 
 use in the churches. He was the first to distinguish the 
 current Gospels, Epistles, and other works, as " accepted "f 
 and " doubted " ; \ but from the manner in which he was 
 able to carry out this distinction is apparent the great dif- 
 ficulty of establishing a clear and secure result. So far as 
 the Gospels are concerned, however, he unhesitatingly de- 
 clares that our four canonical ones are alone to be accepted, 
 although he uses and quotes that according to the He- 
 brews, and mentions the Acts of Paul. His language 
 concerning the Gospels is : " I have learned by tradition 
 
 * Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. f ojuohoyovjusra. 
 
 \ a.)JL(f)ifta7(X6}JLEva. Hilgenfeld, Kanon und Kritik, p. 47. 
 
THE CANON. 115 
 
 concerning the four Gospels, which alone are uncontro- 
 verted in the Church of God spread under heaven,* that 
 that according to Matthew, who was once a publican but 
 afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; 
 * * * that according to Mark, second ; * * * that ac- 
 cording to Luke, third ; * * * that according to John, 
 last of all." 
 
 As to other Gospels, they were all rejected by Origen, 
 and excluded from use, especially from public reading. 
 There might, indeed, he thought, be much in them that 
 was unobjectionable and even right, but they were to be 
 regarded as apocryphal.f While all that was contained 
 in the four Gospels rested upon divine inspiration, and was 
 therefore genuine, the contents of others were doubtful. 
 In regard to these apocryphal Gospels, however, we find 
 him sometimes holding a tentative and even wavering 
 attitude, which might, perhaps, be expected in a man who 
 held the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement of Rome in 
 high esteem, and thought the Shepherd of Hermas very 
 useful and even inspired. :(: In one passage he appears to 
 be undecided whether the book called " The Preaching of 
 Peter " is genuine, spurious, or mixed, while in another 
 place he excludes it definitely from the canon. || In gen- 
 eral these Gospels had for him an unequal worth, or very 
 little, or none at all, and he quotes few of them, rejecting 
 others entirely with the remark that they were not written 
 at the impulse of the Holy Spirit. But if Origen was 
 unable without some wavering to draw the line between 
 
 * a nat fj.6va dvavTipprjrd sdrir ev ry vTto, etc. 
 f Evayyskia ditoupvcpa. 
 
 | Quae scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur, et ut puto divinitus inspirata. 
 In Ep. ad Rom. x. c. 31. 
 
 Ttorepov yvrjtiiov rf voftov rf juiuror. In Joh. xiii. 17. 
 I De Prin. Pref. 8. 
 
1 1 6 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 canonical and uncanonical writings, he spoke without re- 
 serve of the necessity of closing the canon of holy Scrip- 
 tures according to the principle that those documents 
 must be held as sacred which had been regarded as holy 
 Scripture in the Church down to that time, and that the 
 number of them must be neither increased nor diminished. 
 These are called " the books in the Testament," or Cove- 
 nant,* or so far as there was no doubt as to their admission 
 in the Church, " the generally acknowledged, the Scriptures 
 which are current, and believed in all the churches of God 
 to be divine." The acknowledged writings (ojuoXoyovjusva), 
 in regard to whose admissibility a general agreement ex- 
 isted, he placed in the first class of holy Scriptures. From 
 these he distinguished a second class, which comprised 
 the writings in respect to whose origin and genuineness 
 doubts existed in the Church. In view of what has already 
 been said it is evident that none of our four Gospels were 
 placed in the second class. 
 
 A period in the history of the canon of the Gospels has 
 now been reached at which the study of the subject for 
 the purposes of this treatise may be terminated. Our 
 four Gospels, after having remained unnamed and undis- 
 tinguished in the mass of the early Christian literature for 
 about one hundred years, are found to have made their 
 way by the beginning of the third century to a general 
 recognition in the Church as exclusive historical sources 
 for the life and teachings of Jesus. They are clearly dis- 
 tinguished from other similar writings. They are believed 
 to be of apostolic origin, that is, to have been written by 
 apostles or their immediate followers. They are regarded 
 as " inspired," and are quoted as such along with the 
 * TO. kv ry diaOrfKy fiifihia, or simply v8iaQr]Ha. 
 
THE CANON. 1 1/ 
 
 writings of the Old Testament. In other words, they are 
 recognized as the Christian classics of the Church, and 
 have accordingly attained to canonical rank in the sense 
 of that term which was set forth at the beginning of this 
 chapter. The inquiries which are here terminated, it 
 should be borne in mind, are historical, and have resulted 
 only in establishing certain facts of history. To what ex- 
 tent the judgments which the Church held of these 
 writings in the third century are tenable on critical 
 grounds it will be the task of the succeeding investigations 
 to determine. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 
 
 A LTHOUGH a difference between the first three 
 ^~Y Gospels and the fourth was early observed, and 
 expressed in the tradition that John wrote " a spiritual 
 Gospel," it is due to the critical tendency in modern times 
 that, in the investigation of these writings, the former 
 have been kept quite distinct from the latter, and con- 
 sidered as a special type of the evangelic history. So 
 long as the mechanical theory of inspiration prevailed, 
 the study of the Gospels in their relation to one another 
 exhausted itself in the futile endeavor to harmonize the 
 four records, in order by all sorts of arbitrariness and 
 violence to bring them into accord. But when they could 
 no longer be regarded as written after the dictation of the 
 Holy Spirit, the study of them as literature resulted in 
 giving to the critical interest its due influence and impor- 
 tance, and not only in distinguishing them more sharply 
 into the two classes previously mentioned, but also in 
 subjecting the first three to a thorough examination in 
 their relation to one another. The conclusion has been 
 reached that these present the biography of Jesus from 
 the point of view of the popular tradition, while the fourth 
 Gospel is controlled, in a less degree, by a historical pur- 
 pose, and much more by a theological interest. The 
 tendency in the study of the Gospels during the last fifty 
 years, has not been towards an investigation of them by 
 
 118 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 1 19 
 
 the process of criticism alone, but by means of historical 
 inquiry as well. According to this historico-critical method 
 of examining them, they are studied not simply as litera- 
 ture, but as products of the time in which they were writ- 
 ten, that is, as works which in no small degree reflect the 
 ideas and discussions, the hopes and fears, which prevailed 
 in Christian circles towards the end of the first century and 
 the beginning of the second. Whatever defects and limi- 
 tations may be charged against this method, it is certain 
 not only that nearly all the results of importance which 
 have been attained in this field of investigation are due to 
 it, but also that it is destined henceforth to prevail, and 
 that a return to the old dogmatic point of view is not 
 likely ever to become general. 
 
 The first three Gospels, in their relation to one another, 
 present a unique phenomenon in literature. Their ac- 
 counts of the life and teachings of Jesus are so similar in 
 outline and contents, and present agreements in concep- 
 tions and forms of expression so striking, that they offer a 
 common view of the history, and accordingly received 
 from Griesbach the designation of " Synoptics." Not 
 only, however, do they thus to a certain extent cover one 
 another, but they also present remarkable differences, 
 which often amount to discrepancies, and even contradic- 
 tions, in words, in names, in forms of expression, and in 
 the sequence of events. The similarity appears in a very 
 striking form in the general conception and order of the 
 whole narrative. The public ministry of Jesus is con- 
 nected in all three with the preaching of John the Baptist, 
 is chiefly confined to Galilee, and is set forth in certain 
 epochs, as the feeding of the five thousand, Peter's con- 
 fession, and the tragic conclusion in Jerusalem. This last 
 series of events, the discourses spoken here, the passion, 
 
1 20 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 death, and resurrection, are set forth with a greater agree- 
 ment than is found in any other extended part of the 
 narrative. A remarkable similarity is also evident in the 
 method of constructing the history and of using the ma- 
 terials composing it. Instead of that consecutive sort 
 of narrative, which results from a complete grasp and 
 fusing of the subject-matter, these Gospels present a 
 succession of little accounts, which isolate themselves 
 by peculiar beginnings and formulas of closing, as if they 
 were put together by the writers like mosaics. Sixty 
 such small sections have been distinguished which, a few 
 differences apart, are found in all three. Matthew and 
 Luke have about forty sections in common ; and Mark 
 has twenty in common partly with Matthew and partly 
 with Luke.* 
 
 The extent of the agreement of the three synoptists 
 also appears to be determined by a uniform choice of 
 material, which can hardly be explained by a reference to 
 an "objectively identical background of history." Out 
 of the great amount of historical material, which must 
 have been at the disposal of each of them, all appear 
 to have confined themselves to the same small group 
 of incidents. It can hardly be supposed that Jesus 
 pronounced no other discourses than those reported by 
 these three narrators. It is expressly related that he 
 healed vast numbers of the ill of various diseases ; but 
 why are no cases given except those in which all the three 
 evangelists agree ? Of the " many wonderful works " 
 which he performed, why do these historians present 
 almost the same, and no others ? A woe is pronounced 
 upon Chorazin and Bethsaida, according to Matthew and 
 Luke ; but as to the occasion which called it forth, why 
 
 * Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 348. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 121 
 
 are all silent ? It appears from such phenomena that the 
 connection of the accounts, the extent and choice of the 
 material, cannot have been determined by the historical 
 data actually existing, and probably within reach of any 
 writer who might be inclined to seek them, but rather by 
 some influence in their sources which affected all the 
 narrators. It is inconceivable that three historians, who 
 should have made independent researches in the abun- 
 dant materials for a life of Jesus which must have existed 
 towards the end of the first century, would have produced 
 three writings presenting such phenomena as those of our 
 three synoptics. Remarkable agreement in details, along 
 with slight variations, is illustrated in the sections report- 
 ing the baptism, the temptation, and the return to Galilee, 
 in the accounts of the storm on the lake and of the Gada- 
 renes, of the paralytic and the publican, Matthew, of the 
 teachings regarding fasting, the plucking of the ears of 
 corn and of the cure of the withered hand, of the woman 
 with an issue of blood, of the daughter of Jairus, of the 
 first prophecy of the passion, of the transfiguration, of 
 the blind man at Jericho, and of Jesus' entrance into 
 Jerusalem. The agreement of all three, or more fre- 
 quently of two, narrators is often remarkable in passages 
 where it extends to the very words with only slight 
 variations, as in the account of the feeding of the five 
 thousand.* Sometimes this sort of agreement runs 
 through a considerable section, as in the accounts of the 
 cure of the paralytic which are regarded as furnishing " a 
 classical example." f 
 
 Parts of the discourses of Jesus appear in all three 
 narrators, and more frequently in two of them almost 
 
 * Matt. xiv. 19, 20; Mark vi. 41, 42 ; Luke ix. 16, 17. 
 f Matt. ix. 2-8 ; Mark ii. 3-12 ; Luke v. 18-26. 
 
122 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 literally alike in the Greek text. This is the more sur- 
 prising, as Jesus spoke in Aramaic. An example of this 
 is found in the eschatological prophecies. * Quite re- 
 markable is the use of unusual words and expressions 
 by the three, as, " The bridegroom shall be taken from 
 them " ; the figure, " taste of death " ; f the middle voice 
 dnsKpivaro in the essentially parallel passages, Matt, 
 xxvii. 12, Mark xiv. 61, Luke xxiii. 9, while in all 
 other places where the word is used, with one exception, 
 the passive is employed ; the use of the unusual word 
 dvaKokooS precisely in three parallel passages.^ It is quite 
 significant that some citations from the Old Testament 
 common to the three records are found to differ from the 
 Hebrew text in the manner of the Septuagint, and yet to 
 have certain peculiarities which are the same in all 
 of them. 
 
 These phenomena are manifestly inexplicable on the 
 hypothesis that the three evangelists wrote independently 
 of one another. Criticism, then, could not but under- 
 take the task of explaining the relation of the three rec- 
 ords in their origin to ascertain how such facts as they 
 present can be accounted for, or, in other words, to fur- 
 nish a solution of the synoptic problem. The problem is 
 complicated, as has already been remarked, by the fact 
 that in the same passages which indicate a close relation 
 of the records in their sources, striking differences often 
 appear which sometimes amount to contradictions. In 
 the account of the cure of the paralytic, previously 
 referred to, a variation appears at the conclusion after 
 
 * Matt, xxiv., Mark xiii., Luke xxi. 
 
 f Matt. ix. 15 ; Mark ii. 20 ; Luke v. 35 ; Matt. xvi. 28 ; Mark ix. i ; 
 Lnke ix. 27. 
 
 \ Matt. xix. 23 ; Mark x. 23 ; Luke xviii. 24. Holtzmann, Einleit. 
 P- 350. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 12$ 
 
 much that is remarkably similar. According to Matthew, 
 the people glorify God itfJio had given sucli power to men ; 
 according to Luke, they say, " We have seen strange 
 things to-day " ; according to Mark, " We never saw it in 
 this fashion." But the accounts of the appearances of 
 Jesus after the resurrection, by Matthew and Luke, are 
 mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. According to 
 Luke, Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection 
 only in Judea ; according to Matthew, only in Galilee. 
 This is one of many examples which might be quoted ot 
 a peculiarity of these narratives. They sometimes give 
 accounts of the same event in almost entire agreement, 
 then suddenly separate, and disagree in their statements, 
 only soon perhaps to come again into harmony.* Again, 
 there are sections in one which are entirely wanting in 
 one or both of the others. The discourses of Jesus in 
 Mark are few in comparison with those in Matthew and 
 Luke, and Luke has some important ones which are not 
 given in the other two, the parables of the prodigal son 
 and of the good Samaritan, for example. Much that 
 Luke has in common with Matthew appears in a different 
 historical setting. The accounts of the call of Peter in 
 Matthew and Mark are totally irreconcilable with that 
 given in Luke.f Differences in the grouping and succes- 
 sion of events are not uncommon, one evangelist scatter- 
 ing material which by one or both of the others is given 
 in a mass. Lexically regarded the records present con- 
 siderable differences. The words common to all three 
 are found to be in Matthew and Luke 14 per cent. ; in 
 Mark 23 per cent. Matthew has of words peculiar to 
 
 * Compare the story of the Centurion, Matt. viii. 5-10 with Luke 
 vii. i-io. 
 
 f Matt. iv. 18-22 ; Mark i. 16-20 ; Luke v. i-n. 
 
1 24 GOSPEL. CRI TICISM. 
 
 himself 56 per cent., Mark 40 per cent., and Luke 67 per 
 cent. About half the words in Mark are found in Mat- 
 thew, but only a fourth of those of Luke, while a third of 
 the words of Mark are in Luke.* Lexically the first two 
 are most alike, the first and third most unlike. 
 
 The foregoing very meagre outline of the relation of 
 the first three or synoptic Gospels will perhaps suffice to 
 give a tolerable idea of the general nature of the critical 
 problem to be solved. This synoptic problem, however, 
 is not concerned merely with a mechanical solution of the 
 relation of the synoptics to one another, but must neces- 
 sarily include the more important question of the origin 
 of these writings. The hypothesis which proposes to 
 explain their likenesses and differences can be no other 
 than a hypothesis as to their composition. The subject 
 is, accordingly, of great importance, and it has been in 
 accordance with a right insight that for more than a hun- 
 dred years critical researches in the study of the Gospels 
 have concentrated upon it. No thorough treatment of 
 the Gospels can avoid this problem, and its importance to 
 their exegesis is not likely to be overestimated. Holtz- 
 mann shows a correct apprehension of the matter when 
 he says that where doubt arises as to the correct exegesis 
 of a passage, the right view is obtained in very many 
 cases only from a comparison of the two- or three-fold 
 form in which it appears in the different synoptical nar- 
 ratives ; and that the formation of a competent judgment 
 on the contents of the narratives depends largely on a 
 right insight into the origin and dependence of the differ- 
 ent forms in which they lie before us.f Davidson's re- 
 mark that it would be a waste of time at the present day 
 
 * Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 351. 
 
 f Hand-Commentar zum N. T., 1889, p. I. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 12$ 
 
 to discuss the various attempts which have been made to 
 solve the synoptic problem may be true in reference to 
 the learned, but the general reader can hardly be better 
 introduced to the study of the Gospels than by a brief 
 review of the principal hypotheses which have been 
 offered for its solution. These with some modifications 
 are the following: I. That the later evangelists copied 
 from the earlier. 2. That a common written source (or 
 sources) was used by all. 3. That all drew from an oral 
 tradition which had assumed a fixed form. These pro- 
 posed solutions will now be considered briefly without 
 strict regard to historical sequence. 
 
 I. THE HYPOTHESIS OF COPYING. 
 
 The theory that the similarities in the first three Gospels 
 may be accounted for by supposing that the later writers 
 used the work of their predecessors is perhaps the most 
 natural. It is also the oldest, and was essentially, 
 though not at all in detail, set forth by Augustine,* who 
 taught that the evangelists wrote with reference to one 
 another in the order, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that 
 the differences among them are due to their not having 
 remembered the history in the same way, so that the 
 parallel course of the three lines was disturbed by purely 
 subjective influences. This order, according to which 
 Mark was the slavish follower and abbreviator of Mat- 
 thew, f held sway until the end of the eighteenth century, 
 when it was broken by Koppe and Storr,^; the former 
 contesting the doctrine that Mark was an epitomator of 
 
 * De Consensu Evangelistarum, i. 2, 4, 12. 
 
 f Marcus Matthaeum secutus tamquam pedisequus et breviator. 
 
 ^ Koppe, Marcus non Epitomator Matthsei, 1792 ; Storr, Ueber den 
 Zweck der evangel. Gesch. Joh., 1786 ; and De Fontibus Evangel. Matt, et 
 Luoe, 1794. 
 
1 26 GOSPEL- CRI TIC ISM. 
 
 Matthew, and the latter maintaining that he was first in 
 the order of time, and the Greek translation of Matthew 
 the latest. The priority of Luke was defended as early 
 as 1776 by Biisching,* and a little later by Evanson.f But 
 the most celebrated work upon the subject in the interest 
 of the copying-hypothesis is that of Griesbach, who at- 
 tempted to account for the synoptic phenomena by the 
 theory that Mark was founded upon Matthew and Luke, 
 and that its writer stood to these Gospels in the relation 
 of a copyist and abbreviator.-J De Wette followed Gries- 
 bach in making Mark dependent on Matthew and Luke, 
 leaving the way open for the assumption of several media 
 between any two of the evangelists. 
 
 The test of this hypothesis, in whatever form it may be 
 maintained, does not lie in accounting for the similarities 
 in the three records, but in explaining the differences and 
 discrepancies which they present. Verbal coincidences 
 and agreements in matters of fact and in the sequence of 
 events very naturally suggest the use of one or two of the 
 records by the writer of another ; and while it is true that 
 a slavish copying need not be assumed by the terms of the 
 hypothesis, it is equally true that wide divergences present 
 insuperable difficulties on the presumption that a copyist 
 respected the record which he used. At any rate, a ra- 
 tional explanation of the differences in the records is 
 necessary to the establishment of the hypothesis. The 
 three accounts of the calling of Peter furnish an illustra- 
 tion in point.] Now, on the supposition that Mark copied 
 
 * Die Evangelien, etc., 1776. 
 \ The Dissonances of the Four Evangelists, 1792. 
 
 \ Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matth. et Lucse commen- 
 tariis descriptum esse monstratur, 1789-90. 
 
 Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einleit. in das N. T. 7te Ausg. 1852. 
 | Matt. iv. 18-20 ; Mark i. 16-20 ; Luke v. i-n. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. I2/ 
 
 from Matthew, or vice versa, this section would not be 
 entirely free from difficulties. The expressions, " two 
 brethren, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew, his 
 brother," and " Simon and Andrew, his brother," are 
 hardly related to each other as original and copy. But 
 the difficulties become insuperable when Luke's narrative 
 is taken into account. To suppose this to have been an 
 original for the other two, or for one of them, is absurd. 
 It has all the features of an independent composition, and 
 the others are equally independent with regard to it. A 
 similar difficulty appears in comparing the three accounts 
 of a healing of blindness at Jericho. Matthew relates that 
 as Jesus was going out of the city, two blind men cried out 
 to him to have pity on them, and he healed them. Mark 
 records the incident as if there were but one blind man, 
 and gives his name, with special detail, as the son of 
 Timaeus, Bartimseus, entering into particulars in his usual 
 graphic way as to his throwing off his garment, leaping up, 
 and coming to Jesus. On the other hand, Luke says that 
 the incident occurred as Jesus was approaching the city. 
 He differs from Matthew, and agrees with Mark in report- 
 ing but one blind man, but contradicts the latter in saying 
 that Jesus ordered the man to be brought to him. Accord- 
 ing to Matthew the blindness was healed by a touch, * but 
 according to Mark and Luke by a word only.f Again, 
 Matthew relates that two demoniacs were restored by 
 Jesus among the Gadarenes, while Mark and Luke men- 
 tion but one, and enter into many details not given by 
 Matthew.^ In the account of the cursing of the barren 
 fig-tree Matthew represents its withering as the immediate 
 
 * T!lb(XTO TbOtV OULICX-TGOV . 
 
 f Matt. xx. 29-34 ; Mark x. 46-52 ; Luke xviii. 35-43. 
 ij; Matt. viii. 28-34 ; Mark v. 1-20 ; Luke viii. 26-39. 
 
128 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 consequence of the curse : " And the disciples seeing it 
 were struck with awe, and said, ' How suddenly this fig- 
 tree has withered.' ' But Mark's account runs to the 
 effect that the curse was pronounced on one morning, 
 and the withering of the tree was first observed on the 
 following morning.* Luke omits the story. These facts 
 are quite irreconcilable with the hypothesis of the de- 
 pendence of the synoptists on one another as copyists 
 in whatever form it may be presented. 
 
 A favorite illustration of Mark's dependence on the other 
 two evangelists is furnished in the following parallels : 
 
 Matt. viii. 16. Mark i. 32. Luke iv. 40. 
 
 And when evening And in the evening And when the sun 
 
 came they brought to when the sun was set was setting all who had 
 
 him many that were they brought to him all any sick with divers 
 
 possessed by demons, that were sick and those diseases brought them 
 
 etc. possessed of demons. to him, etc. 
 
 The fact that Mark here appears to combine from Mat- 
 thew and Luke the expressions, " And when the evening 
 came" and, "When the sun was setting" into, "And in 
 the evening when the sun was set," was regarded as evi- 
 dence that his Gospel is an epitome of the other two. 
 But it has been pointed out that double expressions of 
 this kind are in several other places used by Mark, who 
 seems to have had a predilection for them, for example, 
 " Early, long before day," i. 35, and "Very early ... at 
 the rising of the sun," xvi. 2. Besides, in the case re- 
 ferred to, Mark had said in verse 21 that the day was a 
 sabbath, and on that day the sick could be brought only 
 after sunset, so that the double expression is not necessarily 
 referable to a careless epitomizing. But conclusive against 
 the hypothesis that Mark used the other two records is 
 
 * Matt. xxi. 18-22 ; Mark xi. 12-25. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 129 
 
 the fact that his text does not contain the lexical and 
 stylistic peculiarities which are found in these.* 
 
 This hypothesis of a copying by the later evangelists 
 of the writings of their predecessor or predecessors, al- 
 though supported in some of its protean forms by many 
 eminent scholars, has not well stood the test of time, and 
 now finds little favor. Weiss says of it that it appears as 
 a pure aberration, so far as it only leads to a mistaking 
 and obscuring of the actual situation, while all other 
 hypotheses proceed from considerations which are partly 
 right, and so have a relative justification, f Reuss re- 
 marks that by all the combinations to which the hypothe- 
 sis has given rise are easily explained the agreement of 
 one writer with another and the pure additions which 
 have been borrowed from other sources either oral or 
 written. But the deviations in detail give rise to difficul- 
 ties, because they show that a preference was given to 
 those other sources over the evangelist (or evangelists) 
 who by the hypothesis was used, so that actually the 
 relation of dependence did not exist. This concerns 
 especially the beginning and end of the history. But 
 wholly inconceivable is the omission of entire sections of 
 importance.^: To Mark must be attributed the intention 
 of only giving excerpts from the history, if he is supposed 
 
 * He does not take from Matthew the peculiar words, ayyzkoS xvpiov, 
 juahania, xaipcS, Ttapovdia, 6 kayoS rrj$ fiadiksia}, r/ pa.6ikzia TK>V 
 ovpavoov, etc. ; nor from Luke, Xi^rrj, 7ri6rdrr/S, 6 nvpioS (of Christ), 
 XdpiS, x a P^ ^ ai ) 6<*>ri?p) tfc&rrfpia, 8e nai, jusrd ravra, ZcpiGrdrai, 
 VTtotfrpegiEiv, TtavetiQai, vitdpxsiv, etc. ; nor finally, from both, words 
 which would most naturally force themselves upon his attention, as 
 itopevetfOai, naXslv (to name), which last he uses only once in a quota- 
 tion, xi. 7, agio's, srepot, etc., Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 361. 
 
 f Leben Jesu, i. p. 39. 
 
 J Of Matt. xiv. 22-xvi. 12, xix. I f. xx. I f. in Luke ; of Luke vii. II f. 
 x. 25, and the greater part of chapters xii.-xvii. in Matthew. 
 9 
 
130 GOSPEL- CRI TIC ISM. 
 
 to have written later. The lesser differences in the com- 
 mon sections are such that it is not always the same 
 evangelist who has the more complete, accurate, and 
 vivid narrative ; these differences cannot, therefore, be 
 regarded as thorough-going emendations, or signs of indi- 
 vidual negligence and haste. But as one is compelled to 
 explain them as due to other causes, the hypothesis falls 
 on account of its untenableness, since it must assume that 
 one of the evangelists had the work of another before 
 him, and line by line copied, corrected, abridged, interpo- 
 lated, transposed, etc. But the narrative certainly does 
 not give the impression of such careful, studied labor. 
 Besides, the consideration has been disregarded through- 
 out that still other books, in like manner similar and dis- 
 similar, were in existence, and must also in any case have 
 been taken into the series of sources. * 
 
 2. THE HYPOTHESIS OF A COMMON WRITTEN SOURCE OR OF AN 
 
 ORIGINAL GOSPEL. 
 
 The celebrated author of the hypothesis of an original 
 Gospel as a solution of the synoptic problem believed 
 himself, to employ his own language, to have accom- 
 plished the first essay of a higher criticism of the New 
 Testament, the writings of which he in his Introduction 
 proposed to investigate according to the rules of criticism 
 as they are applied to other human writings. Eichhorn, 
 in the learned work in which his theory of an original 
 Gospel was set forth, f undertook a purely literary and 
 historical treatment of the Gospels, which exerted a 
 powerful influence on the thought of the century which 
 it introduced. Already in the study of the canon it 
 
 * Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T. 180. 
 f Einleit. in das N. T., 1804. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 131 
 
 has been seen that contemporaneous with, and perhaps 
 anterior to, our Gospels there existed a considerable 
 Gospel-literature, and the third evangelist expressly de- 
 clares that the work of writing accounts of the life of 
 Jesus had been taken in hand by many before he at- 
 tempted it. The existence of such writings, some of which 
 appear to have been held in high regard in the early 
 Church, could not but suggest an inquiry as to the relation 
 which they may have sustained to the canonical Gospels, 
 and whether some other writings of the kind of which no 
 trace remains may not have been very near to the latter 
 in their origin. The peculiar phenomena of the synoptic 
 Gospels still further provoked investigation, and it was 
 with reference to them to the exclusion of the fourth 
 Gospel that Eichhorn's hypothesis of Gospel-formation 
 was propounded. 
 
 The synoptic phenomena of agreement and difference 
 are accounted for on this theory by the hypothesis that 
 the basis of the narratives was an original Gospel * which 
 was a sort of guide, or book of elements, for the preachers 
 who assisted the apostles in the earliest teaching of Chris- 
 tianity. It was supposed to have been written about the 
 year 37 or 38 and to have been a rough outline in the 
 popular language and mode of thought of Judaism to 
 serve as a proof that Jesus was the promised Messiah. 
 From this sprang the numerous Gospels which were in 
 circulation in the second century, and were rejected in 
 favor of our four canonical Gospels, as well as other trans- 
 lations and revisions of the original writing. For the 
 solution of the problem which our synoptics present 
 Eichhorn supposed that these were written independently 
 of one another, thus rejecting entirely the theory of copy- 
 
 * Urevangelium. 
 
132 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 ing or dependence in all its forms. The sections in them 
 which are common to all are on this hypothesis to be 
 regarded as the original biography of Jesus, but the dif- 
 ferences which are found along with the similarities are to 
 be explained by supposing that the original Hebraic out- 
 line which was the basis of the synoptic narratives under- 
 went many revisions, of which each of the writers had a 
 different one. Since the similarities of expression in many 
 passages of the three records cannot be accounted for on 
 the supposition of three independent translations of the 
 original Gospel by each of the three evangelists, it is sup- 
 posed that a translation of it into Greek was made before 
 it had received additions. This translation was used by 
 the three independent translators of three different copies 
 of the revised and enlarged original Gospel in the prepara- 
 tion of Greek editions of them. Thus the differences and 
 verbal agreements of our synoptics are supposed to be 
 accounted for, the latter being traced to one translator 
 and the former to the three translators who could not 
 escape from the influence of their predecessors. 
 
 But there remain to be accounted for whole sections in 
 one evangelist which are not in either of the others, or in 
 two which are not in the third. These are regarded as 
 incompatible with the theory that one evangelist wrote 
 with the work of another before him, and there remains, 
 according to Eichhorn, only the supposition that when 
 two of these writers have common sections they derived 
 them from the same original source. These sections were 
 originally composed in the Hebrew language, and the two 
 writers had two different translations of them into Greek. 
 It is also necessary to assume, in order to carry out the 
 theory, that the documents used by the three evangelists 
 had gone through many hands, and had received various 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 133 
 
 additions from the current tradition of the life and teach- 
 ings of Jesus. Many important changes may also have 
 been made by the evangelists themselves, but it is, of 
 course, impossible to determine what they are. The 
 Gospels, then, are in a certain sense distortions of the 
 original biography of Jesus. What is really original in 
 them constitutes only that part in which they agree. All 
 else is the result of alteration, difference in translation, 
 addition, interpolation, transformation. The genuineness 
 of the Gospel of Matthew can, of course, according to this 
 theory, be maintained only in a very unusual sense. Of 
 apostolical origin it contains nothing but those sections 
 which are common to all three, and passed into it from the 
 original Gospel. But the portions which are peculiar to it 
 and, indeed, many which the other two have in common 
 with it are regarded as unhistorical and unapostolical on 
 account of their legendary character. The first Gospel, 
 Eichhorn says, may be regarded as Matthew's, but not in 
 the sense that it came from him in its present form, but 
 because an original Gospel lay at the basis of it which was 
 by him transformed and in some places corrected. * By 
 means of this separation of the unapostolical (the accounts 
 of the birth, childhood, and temptation) from the apostoli- 
 cal portions, or all that had an apostolical confirmation, 
 Eichhorn thought that he was establishing the credibility 
 of the evangelic history, because the original Gospel did, 
 indeed, contain accounts of miracles, but only in harmless 
 adaptation to the lower popular speech and the ordinary 
 Jewish ideas.f " If no angelic host greeted the birth of 
 Jesus with a song of praise, if no graves were opened at 
 the crucifixion, and no saints were sent from them to ap- 
 
 * Einleit. i. p. 457. 
 
 | Hilgenfeld, Kanon und Kritik, p. 134. 
 
1 34 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 pear in Jerusalem, and no guardians watched the tomb of 
 Jesus ; how much remains of the objections with which 
 thirty years ago [in the Wolfenbiittel Fragments] the 
 Gospel-history was shaken in its foundations ? And where 
 would be found its new fortifications which might hitherto 
 have been successfully undertaken? Through this separa- 
 tion of the apostolic from the unapostolic which the higher 
 criticism, if one will only not scorn its gift, recommends 
 with the weightiest grounds, are to be found the means of 
 securely establishing the inner credibility of the evangelic 
 history." * The Gospel according to Matthew, in which 
 there are many additions, did not receive its present form 
 until after the destruction of Jerusalem. The Gospel ac- 
 cording to Mark is a Greek edition of the Hebrew original 
 Gospel, with a few additions made for the purpose of 
 elucidation. The third Gospel was written by Luke, the 
 travelling-companion of Paul, for the use of a distinguished 
 man, Thcophilus. It is a similar edition of the enlarged 
 original Gospel, and its credibility depends on the excel- 
 lence of the sources, which are given for the most part 
 word for word, and on the capacity of the evangelist for 
 critically judging them. " Eichhorn, then, put the one 
 original Gospel, whose changed and enlarged emanations 
 our first three Gospels were assumed to be, in the place of 
 the one and identical history of Jesus upon which the old 
 harmonistic view distributed the Gospels." 
 
 Eichhorn did not share the doubts concerning the gen- 
 uineness of the fourth Gospel which had been entertained 
 before his time. He did not relate it to the original Gos- 
 pel in the same way as the synoptics, but thought it to be 
 an independent work of an illuminated apostle who wished 
 to establish the Messianic dignity of Jesus not from the 
 
 * Einleit. i. p. 459. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 135 
 
 Palestinian point of view, as derived from the Holy Spirit, 
 but rather after the Palestinian-Hellenic mode of thought, 
 as from the fulness of the Logos. It was a Gospel written 
 with reference to the Hellenic culture of the period which, 
 in accordance with the philosophy of Zoroaster, Plato, and 
 the Stoa, apprehended the Logos as the expression of the 
 power and wisdom of God. As a sort of " correcting sup- 
 plement " to the original Gospel, it derives the proof of 
 the Messiahship of Jesus not from his miracles, but from 
 his teaching, in which he attributes to himself all the wis- 
 dom of God, and appeals to the pure truth of his doctrine, 
 while the miracles are only mentioned as a secondary 
 matter. For Eichhorn, then, there were really only two 
 Gospels, one of the Jewish popular belief and one of illu- 
 minated Christianity.* 
 
 Although the elaboration and defence of this hypothe- 
 sis were accomplished with great ingenuity and learning, 
 it is so complicated and mechanical, and rests on so many 
 arbitrary assumptions, that it was unable to secure general 
 or lasting acceptance. There appears to be no good 
 reason for the assumption that personal peculiarities, arbi- 
 trariness, and independence in the writers of our Gospels 
 might not as well be supposed to account for the phe- 
 nomena which these writings present, as like qualities 
 attributed to unknown authors, translators, and manipu- 
 lators of assumed documents from which the existing 
 evangelic literature may have been formed. The suppo- 
 sition that our Gospels are mere aggregates of an indefi- 
 nite plurality of materials for history cannot explain why 
 out of so large a supply three historians should hit upon 
 substantially the same. Nor is it probable that they would 
 have arranged and grouped the materials so that almost 
 
 * Hilgenfeld, ut supra, p. 137. 
 
136 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 always where one of them suspends the sequence of 
 events both the others hold it fast.'* Again, the question 
 naturally arises whether there is any reason for supposing 
 that such a work as the assumed original Gospel ever 
 existed at all. There is no evidence offered for its exist- 
 ence, but it should at least be made to appear that the 
 circumstances and needs of the time called for such a 
 writing, or rendered its production probable. It ought to 
 be shown that within six or seven years after the death of 
 Christ an apostle should have thought it necessary to pre- 
 pare a bare outline of his life in writing, intended to show 
 that he was the promised Messiah, and to serve as a book 
 of elements for the early preachers. It is necessary to 
 overcome the presumption that at a time when the oral 
 tradition was fresh in the minds of all the need of writings 
 embodying it would not be felt at all, even for those who 
 might be sent forth to proclaim the Gospel, a presumption 
 which has the support of all the earliest literature of the 
 Church. If such a work as the supposed original Gospel 
 did exist, it is questionable whether it must not have been 
 quite too meagre to serve as a basis for the whole Gospel- 
 literature which is referred to it ; whether some historical 
 trace of its existence would not be likely to have remained 
 if ever it existed at all ; ( and whether if it was known to 
 be of apostolic origin it is probable that it would have had 
 such a fortune as the hypothesis assumes in the hands of 
 copyists, interpolators, and the whole series of manipulators 
 through whom it appears to have almost lost its identity. 
 
 Finally, the tenability of the hypothesis depends on its 
 standing the test to which it is subjected when applied to 
 the explanation of the synoptic phenomena. Eichhorn 
 
 * 4> Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 359. 
 
 f Baur, Krit. Untersuch. ttber die kan. Evangelien, p. 28. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 137 
 
 went so far as to affirm that by comparing the first three 
 Gospels we are able even now to separate the original life 
 of Jesus, or the original Gospel, from all subsequent addi- 
 tions, and collecting it out of those Gospels to restore it 
 free from all traditions of later times.* He actually 
 undertook to do this on the principle that " all those por- 
 tions which are common to all three evangelists were 
 originally contained, in the common document," and he 
 devoted to the task more than one hundred pages of the 
 first volume of his Introduction. But he himself admits 
 the difficulty of a satisfactory execution of this task when 
 he says : " We are seldom able to determine as to the words 
 how much originally belonged to the primitive text, since 
 we are acquainted with it only through translations/' When 
 the supposed original Gospel has been thus separated 
 from the three records, we have a certain number of pas- 
 sages parallel in the sense that they relate to the same 
 events, but they present wide divergences in many re- 
 spects. No one will pretend, says Norton, when the 
 statement is brought distinctly to this point, that there 
 may be found in each Gospel a series of words coincident 
 in meaning with a similar series to be found in each of the 
 other two, which may, therefore, be considered as repre- 
 senting the text of the original Gospel. f 
 
 As an Englishman, Bishop Marsh, had the honor of 
 elucidating and modifying the hypothesis of Eichhorn, so 
 a countryman 'of his, Edwin A. Abbott, has recently pre- 
 sented a new form of the same theory with important 
 changes, and has attempted to show by a sort of harmony 
 of the synoptics the contents of the original Gospel. \ 
 
 * Einleit. in das N. T. i. p. 145. 
 
 f Genuineness of the Gospels, i. Additional Notes, p. clix. 
 % The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, 1884. Also article on 
 The Gospels in the Encyclop. Britannica, ninth edition. 
 
1 3 8 GOSPEL- CRITICISM. 
 
 But his " Common Tradition " is so fragmentary that it is 
 difficult to think of it as having constituted a connected 
 writing. Besides, the work is far from being a thorough 
 treatise on the synoptic question, and leaves many of the 
 most difficult problems connected with it unconsidered. 
 
 3. THE HYPOTHESIS OF ORAL TRADITION. 
 
 Yet another attempt to solve the synoptic problem was 
 made by Gieseler, who, after refuting the theory of Eich- 
 horn, presented the hypothesis of a fixed oral tradition 
 as the source of the three narratives, claiming that since 
 it admitted of historical justification, and fully explained 
 the origin of the Gospels in their existing relations to one 
 another, it ought to have the preference over that.* His 
 hypothesis has been called the counterpart of that of 
 F. A. Wolf on the origin of the Homeric Poems. It pro- 
 ceeds from the historically-established statement, that in 
 the early years of the apostolic age, the Gospel was not 
 written down for purposes of instruction, but was orally 
 propagated. The apostles, being men without culture, 
 could only by necessity be moved to write, and no de- 
 mands could have been made upon them which they were 
 not able to meet by means of oral communication. In 
 the direct application of his theory to the phenomena of 
 the synoptic Gospels, Gieseler maintained that the circum- 
 stance that all three have sections that are common is 
 explained by the supposition that the oral' standard was 
 not determined by a council, but arose, as of itself, among 
 the apostles by means of frequent repetitions of the same 
 narratives. As the evangelists afterwards wrote inde- 
 pendently, there was naturally made by each a different 
 
 * Historisch-kritischer Versuch liber die Entstehung und die friihesten 
 Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien, 1818. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 139 
 
 selection out of the existing abundant material, which was 
 partly determined by the individuality of each writer, and 
 partly by the needs of those for whom the writing was 
 intended. The similar arrangement of the narrative 
 creates the least difficulty. For if the events of the life of 
 Jesus appeared to the evangelists to be of the greatest 
 importance, a correct knowledge of their succession could 
 not be lightly esteemed. The deviations are explained 
 by the large liberty which the .oral tradition must have 
 allowed them. The fact that the language of all the evan- 
 gelists, even that of Luke, who was a master of the pure 
 Greek idiom, is that of a Hebraizing-Greek, is best ex- 
 plained by -the assumption of an oral source sanctioned by 
 constant usage ; since it would otherwise be inexplicable 
 that Luke, who wrote for Greeks, should not have elabo- 
 rated the existing accounts in a language better suited to 
 them. It is further argued that if such an oral type was 
 the basis of our Gospels, there must arise an agreement in 
 expression along with deviations in often unimportant 
 synonyms, in peculiarities in adding single circumstances, 
 and in the transposition or altered representation of the 
 same thoughts, similar to the phenomena which these 
 writings present. 
 
 It is supposed that among the apostles, the memory of 
 each came to the assistance of that of the others, and that 
 the men who were made fellow-laborers of the apos- 
 tles were instructed by one of them in the presence of 
 the rest, so that these memorabilia, or memoirs, assumed 
 a tolerably fixed historical form which substantially 
 appears in the similar parts of the synoptic Gospels. But 
 since in the repetitions of the history considerable free- 
 dom of representation must be assumed, together with 
 the admission into their discourses by the apostles of 
 
140 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 various circumstances and events drawn from the memory 
 of each, the tradition must have been constantly changing 
 internally and receiving additions. Hence the deviations 
 from one another in our synoptic records. This originally 
 Aramaic oral type of the Gospel-tradition was carefully 
 translated into Greek, as considerable numbers of Helle- 
 nists were received into the Church. Finally, each of the 
 evangelists adapted himself in the choice and use of the 
 historical material of the tradition to the circle of readers 
 for whom his work was primarily intended, so that Mat- 
 thew wrote a purely Palestinian Gospel, Mark a modified 
 Palestinian one, and Luke a Pauline work from the point 
 of view of the great apostle's interpretation of Christianity. 
 Although this hypothesis sets out from a point of view 
 which has much plausibility, and is, indeed, not without a 
 considerable degree of justification, it is open to so many 
 serious objections that it can hardly be regarded as a 
 satisfactory solution of the problem in question. It has 
 been received with favor by many Catholic and Protestant 
 theologians probably in part for the reason that more 
 than either of the other two theories it preserves the 
 dignity of the evangelists as independent writers, and at 
 the same time lends to their differences a relatively inno- 
 cent appearance, so far as oral tradition in the nature of 
 the case must offer more room for individual variations.* 
 Weiss attributes its popularity in some quarters to an 
 apologetic interest which is zealous in denying the de- 
 pendence of the evangelists on one another, or on 
 written sources, in order not to be obliged through the 
 establishment of either of these hypotheses too directly to 
 acknowledge the human origin of our Gospels and the 
 intentional variations of one writer from another. As the 
 
 * Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 357. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 141 
 
 hypothesis of an original Gospel when developed as it 
 was by its advocates explained the agreements of the sev- 
 eral writers much better than their differences, while the 
 assumed dependence on written sources allowed, perhaps, 
 far too little play to their individuality, that of an oral 
 original Gospel has been thought to account for the 
 differences while leaving the similarities unexplained. 
 
 For how, asks Baur, can we make it intelligible to our- 
 selves that the three evangelists, if they took the contents 
 of their narratives from the common tradition, should 
 agree as they do not only in the matter, but also literally 
 in the expression? Still less is it explicable that this 
 agreement is again only partial not with the three to- 
 gether, but only with two of them. If this verbal agree- 
 ment of only two evangelists in certain cases has its 
 ground in the tradition, then there must have been dif- 
 ferent branches of the tradition. But if the tradition was 
 so divided as we find it in every such case, is not the con- 
 clusion to be drawn that it was, indeed, something so 
 changeable and so variously modified that such a verbal 
 agreement as exists with all the variations in a great part 
 of the Gospel-history must be the greatest of riddles ? It 
 cannot, indeed, be denied that nothing is more natural 
 and necessary than the assumption that the Gospel-history 
 first propagated itself through oral tradition, which may 
 have become at length a continuous source of evangelic 
 narratives. Testimonies, such as that of Papias, show 
 what importance was attached to it even in his time, when 
 written Gospels were already in existence. But to refer 
 all the antecedents of our Gospels to oral tradition alone 
 is to disregard a very natural inference from the prologue 
 to Luke's Gospel, in which written narratives (sources ?) 
 are expressly mentioned.* It has also been urged against 
 
 * Kritische Untersuch., etc. p. 33. 
 
1 42 GOSPEL. CRI TICISM. 
 
 this hypothesis that there is no historical evidence of the 
 existence of such a standing apostolical tradition as it 
 assumes ; that such a mechanism of memorizing as it 
 requires is opposed to the entire spirit and activity of 
 the times ; that the want of agreement in the synoptic 
 narratives of the most important events, the passion and 
 resurrection of Christ, is irreconcilable with it ; and that 
 the chief mass of the synoptic historical material is of such 
 a nature as to presuppose an antecedent literary form.* 
 Mr. Norton has adopted this hypothesis, and given it an 
 elaborate exposition, f He has not, however, removed the 
 objections which lie against it. Westcott has also ad- 
 vocated it, but with no better results, f 
 
 4. THE COURSE OF MORE RECENT CRITICISM. 
 
 The synoptic problem was apprehended by Schleier- 
 macher from a new point of view. Rejecting the dilemma 
 by which previous inquiries had been limited, that there 
 must have been a dependence of one of the synoptists 
 upon another or an original source for all, he sought to 
 explain the synoptic phenomena by the assumption of 
 several sources, embracing only parts of the history, which 
 were variously combined by the three writers of the Gos- 
 pels. The oft-recurring appearance of parts of the his- 
 tory which are common to two or three, and again of 
 parts which are peculiar to one or two, seemed to this critic 
 to indicate several antecedent sources which the evange- 
 lists had partly in common, partly not, while the devia- 
 tions in the order of the common narrative rendered 
 improbable the assumption of an original writing embra- 
 cing the entire history. The application of this hypoth- 
 
 * Holtzmann, p. 358 ; Meyer, Commentar iiber das N. T. i. I, p. 29. 
 f Gen. of the Gospels, i. Additional Notes, p. clxviii f. 
 \ Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, etc. chap. iii. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 143 
 
 esis, however, by its author to the Gospel of Luke, * 
 which he broke up into numerous fragments, did not 
 serve to commend it to the judgment of critics. Baur 
 has characterized this criticism of the Gospels as arbitrary, 
 ingenious, and, on the whole, resulting in dismemberment 
 and dissolution, f Schleiermacher was, however, more 
 successful in his famous treatise on the Testimony of 
 Papias as to our first two Gospels, \ in which he argued 
 that our first Gospel is founded on a collection of the 
 sayings of Jesus made by Matthew, or the logia-collection 
 of Papias, and a brief work by Mark. 
 
 De Wette, whose position has been characterized as one 
 of " sceptical indecision," apprehended the synoptic prob- 
 lem substantially from Griesbach's point of view, holding 
 that Mark's Gospel was an abridged combination of the 
 other two. He cast doubt upon the apostolic author- 
 ship of the first Gospel, held that of the second to be 
 uncertain, and as to the third evangelist was sure only 
 that he was a disciple of Paul. To John he accorded 
 only a certain share in the fourth Gospel, the compo- 
 sition of which might have been the work of a disciple 
 of that apostle. 
 
 The mythical view of the Gospel-history set forth by 
 Strauss in his celebrated Life of Jesus [ was founded on 
 the total untrustworthiness of the narratives of the New 
 Testament, and resulted in giving a new impetus to scien- 
 tific investigation into the origin of the Gospels. Among 
 the writings which this work called forth that of Weisse is 
 one of the most important not only for its intrinsic merits 
 
 * Kritischer Versuch tiber die Schriften des Lukas, 1817. 
 
 f Krit. Untersuch. p. 35. 
 
 \ Werke zur Theologie, ii. p. 361 f. 
 
 Lehrbuch der hist-krit. Einleit. in das N. T. 1826, 5th ed. 1848. 
 
 I Das Leben Jesu, ist ed. 1835 ; 4th ed. 1840. 
 
1 44 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 as a critical treatise on the Gospels, but also for the influ- 
 ence which it has exerted. * Without sympathy with 
 Schleiermacher's predilection for the fourth Gospel, 
 Weisse adopted in part the former's theory of the syn- 
 optics, and modified it to the effect that the writing 
 by Mark, mentioned by Papias, was no other than essen- 
 tially our canonical second Gospel ; that our canonical 
 first Gospel was composed from this and the logia-collec- 
 tion of Matthew, and that Luke is a freer revision of it. 
 He is regarded as the real author of the so-called " con- 
 servative " f Mark-hypothesis. 
 
 This Mark-hypothesis was developed in a more radical 
 way by Wilke, who, while assuming a literary depend- 
 ence of the synoptists on one another, called especial 
 attention to the influence of the individual reflections of 
 each as accounting for the differences in their narratives. 
 His conclusion was that the Gospels " are formed on a 
 literary plan, and are no compositions of legend or of 
 oral tradition." This " literary plan " he traced to a writ- 
 ten original Gospel, which was not with Eichhorn to be 
 found outside the canon, but was, in fact, our canonical 
 Mark, which Luke first revised, and finally, Matthew with 
 the use of Luke's record. The little that Mark has which 
 is not found in the other two records he regarded as later 
 additions, whereby Hilgenfeld thinks, apparently with- 
 out good reasons, that he gave the death-thrust to his 
 hypothesis. 
 
 The historical criticism of Baur marked an epoch in the 
 study of the New Testament. Setting out from the study 
 
 * Die evangel. Gesch. kritisch und philosoph. bearbeitet, 1838. 
 f Hilgenfeld, Einleit. p. 191. 
 
 \ Der Urevangelist, oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuch. der Verwand- 
 schafts-Verhaltnisse der drei ersten Evangelien, 1838. 
 Kanon und Kritik, p. 163. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 145 
 
 of the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and the Corinthi- 
 ans, in which he detected the strife of Jewish Christianity 
 and Paulinism, he used this party-contest, which Semler 
 had noted as a factor in the formation of the canon, as the 
 key to the problems of Gospel-criticism. The Gospels, 
 which Strauss had apprehended as the naive productions 
 of early Christian legend, and Wilke as works of literary 
 reflection and intended oppositions, appeared to Baur as 
 products of those partisan strifes and of their overcoming 
 and adjustment in the catholic Church. For him the 
 criticism which places the Gospels under the point of view 
 of tendency-writings is rightly called historical, because it 
 makes it its principal task to transport itself into the times 
 out of which they proceeded. He began his criticism with 
 the fourth Gospel, which he regarded as an ideal com- 
 position, a tendency-writing, which originated in the late 
 transition-time from the oppositions of the Pauline and 
 Jewish-Christian parties to their final accommodation in 
 the catholic Church about the middle of the second cen- 
 tury. The third Gospel was a purely Pauline writing in 
 the original form in which Marcion had it, but in its revi- 
 sion by Luke in the canonical form it manifests the con- 
 ciliatory tendency which appears in the Acts.* In regard 
 to Mark, he accepted the theory of Griesbach, that it was 
 a compilation or epitome made from the two other synop- 
 tics. It was a colorless writing, neutral with respect to 
 the Pauline- Jewish controversy, and did not even possess 
 independence. The first Gospel was the oldest, and in it 
 appears the original Jewish-Christian view of Christianity. 
 It received its present form about the year i3O.f If 
 
 * Baur's opinions on Marcion's Gospel were somewhat modified at length 
 by Volkmar's criticisms. 
 
 f Krit. Untersuch. uber die kan. Evangel. 1847. 
 10 
 
146 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 there is, said Baur, in the series of our canonical Gospels ? 
 one in which we have the substantial contents of the Gos- 
 pel-history in an original, genuinely historical source, that 
 can only be Matthew's Gospel. But he held that even in 
 it the dogmatic point of view of the evangelist had influ- 
 enced the representation of the facts. Absolute historical 
 credibility could not, certainly, belong to a writing which 
 was a later revision of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel with 
 additions from tradition. 
 
 That Baur's criticism exceeded the right measure of 
 moderation was conceded by some of the ablest of the 
 adherents of his school. His position on the fourth 
 Gospel has been ably contested by conservative scholars, 
 and representatives of the critical tendency have found in 
 the history of the canon attestation of a higher antiquity 
 of the Gospels than he acknowledged. Hilgenfeld places 
 Mark before Luke as a Petrine Gospel representing the 
 transition from the Jewish Christianity of Matthew to the 
 Paulinism of the third Gospel. The first Gospel, founded 
 on a writing by Matthew (not, however, a mere collection 
 of sayings of Jesus), which dates from the sixth decade of 
 the first century, received, according to him, its present 
 form through a free revision soon after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem. The Jewish-Christian tendency of the original 
 was counteracted in the revision in the interest of a freer 
 interpretation of Christianity, and shows the influence of 
 Pauline ideas. The third Gospel arose at about the end 
 of the first century out of a Pauline revision of the first 
 two and other Gospel-writings. Finally, on the basis of 
 the preceding histories of Jesus in the heat of the Gnostic 
 excitement from 120-140, the fourth Gospel was written 
 by an unknown author.* The author of this theory claims 
 
 * Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung, 
 1854 : Einleit. in das N. T. 1875. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 147 
 
 for it that it shows the process of the formation of the 
 canonical Gospels to have begun in a genuinely historical 
 basis in the circles and age of the original apostles, and 
 to have passed through the principal phases of the primi- 
 tive Christian consciousness. 
 
 While Schwegler ' and Zeller f carried out the theories 
 of the Tubingen school with considerable fidelity to the 
 principles of its distinguished founder, Volkmar developed 
 the tendency-idea to the most untenable extremes. Ac- 
 cording to him, all the Gospels, beginning with the sup- 
 posed original Gospel of Mark, are purely tendency-writings 
 composed in the interest of Paulinism, which was sup- 
 pressed at first, at length victorious. Some real tradition 
 from primitive apostolic times may be conceded to Mark, 
 but the Gospel is not a writing of the interpreter of Peter, 
 but a Pauline polemic against the Jewish-Christian tenden- 
 cies of the Apocalypse. The third Gospel was called forth 
 by Judaistic additions to the original Pauline Gospel, such 
 as the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, and the saying that 
 Jesus came to fulfil the law, and was written between 100 
 and 105. But the harmonizing, Jewish-Christian-Pauline 
 Gospel was that of Matthew, erroneously placed first in the 
 canon, which combines the other two with an eye to both 
 parties in the controversy. " The Gospel of the Logos," 
 our fourth, he places at 155. J 
 
 Ewald declared a war of extermination against all that 
 bore the name of tendency-criticism. He was not, how- 
 ever, fortunate in his complicated scheme of Gospel- 
 
 * Das nachap. Zeitalter, 1846. 
 
 f Articles in Theol. Jahrbticher, 1842-1857. Die Apostelgeschichte nach 
 ihrem Inhalt, etc. 1854. Vortrage und Abhandlungeu, etc. 1865. 
 
 \ Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwickelung, etc. 1857. Der Ur- 
 sprung unserer Evangelien, etc. 1866. Die Evangelien, oder Marcus und 
 die Synopsis der kan. und ausserkan. Evang. 1870. 
 
148 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 building, a combination of the conclusions of Eichhorn, 
 Schleiermacher, and Weisse, along with a zealous defence 
 of the apostolical origin of the fourth Gospel.* His 
 scheme for the synoptics is the following: (i) The most 
 ancient Hebrew Gospel probably by Philip, used by 
 Paul ; (2) the logia-collection by Matthew ; (3) the first of 
 the complete Gospels, that of Mark, not our canonical 
 second Gospel, however, but an older writing mentioned 
 by Papias ; (4) the first book of the " higher history/' a 
 new edition of No. I ; (5) the existing Gospel of Matthew, 
 founded on Mark and the logia ; (6-8) " traces of a sixth, 
 seventh, and eighth demonstrable book " ; (9) Luke, which 
 concludes the development of the Gospel-literature by 
 using the preceding writings, with the exception of Mat- 
 thew, and making a few additions, " so that this great 
 work has still more than our present Matthew the charac- 
 ter of a mere collection without much inner connection." 
 This wonderful hypothesis on the origin of the synoptic 
 Gospels has never secured the approval of critics, and 
 could not, indeed, make its way with all its arbitrary 
 assumptions and want for the most part of historical 
 support. 
 
 Much simpler is the solution of Meyer, the eminent 
 commentator on the New Testament. He reasons that 
 since the testimony of Papias on the writing of Mark 
 furnishes no reason for regarding this writing as different 
 from our canonical second Gospel ; since our Matthew is 
 not identical with the logia which tradition ascribes to 
 this apostle, but is an unapostolic historical work which 
 gradually grew out of this original writing ; since, finally, 
 Luke, who presupposes an evangelic literature, and wrote 
 
 * Jahrbucher der biblischen Wissenschaft, 1849-61. Die drei ersten 
 Evangelien, etc. 1850. Gesch. Christus, etc. 1855. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 149 
 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, must in any case be 
 regarded as the last of the synoptists, therefore the Gospel 
 of Mark (all theories of an original Mark being rejected as 
 untenable) presents itself as the oldest Gospel and the de- 
 termining standard of the other two in connection with 
 oral tradition and other writings employed as sources. 
 The author of Mark used the logia-collection of Matthew 
 according to his peculiar purpose, which did not lead him 
 to make a detailed report of discourses. As the original 
 logia-collection gradually took the form of the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, that of Mark must have in- 
 fluenced its formation in respect to contents and the 
 course of the history. At length, when Matthew was 
 finally edited as our Greek Gospel, Mark was doubtless 
 used in such a way as to afford an explanation of the fre- 
 quent similarity of expressions in the parts common to 
 both. Later, again, Luke must have had Mark among 
 his sources ; and so the way in which the latter has been 
 used has given rise to the appearance that it stood be- 
 tween the other two as dependent and a mere borrower. 
 But in respect to this appearance great injustice has been 
 done to Mark in the hypothesis of Griesbach, particularly 
 as applied by De Wette, Baur, Kostlin, and Bleek. If, 
 then, along with oral tradition, the logia of Matthew and 
 our Mark must be regarded as the chief written sources 
 of our first Gospel, to which latter it often holds the rela- 
 tion of omitting or making excerpts, there must also have 
 been other Gospel-writings which were used in the com- 
 position of it. Certainly recognizable are such single 
 writings in the genealogy and the prehistorical accounts, 
 and less certainly determinable, yet not to be denied, are 
 they in the further course of the history.* 
 
 * Krit.-exeget. Commentar liber das N. T. ste Aufl. 1864, i. i, p. 35 f. 
 
150 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 5. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 
 
 In the foregoing historical survey of the course of criti- 
 cal inquiry into the composition and relation of the 
 synoptic Gospels no attempt has been made at complete- 
 ness, and the works of many distinguished scholars have 
 not been mentioned. Its purpose has been accomplished 
 if there have been shown certain well-defined and per- 
 sistent tendencies, which may be regarded as prophetic 
 and determinative of the conclusions which this inquiry 
 has reached after a century's investigation and discussion. 
 In the first place, it is evident that neither the hypothesis 
 of the use of the work of one evangelist by another in 
 any form whatever, nor that of an original Gospel, nor 
 that of oral tradition, has been able to maintain itself as 
 alone furnishing an adequate solution of the synoptic 
 problem. In the second place, the course of criticism 
 clearly indicates a tendency towards a combination of 
 some of the features of the hypotheses of Griesbach, 
 Eichhorn, and Gieseler. Finally, there is manifested in 
 the course of criticism a persistent and indomitable ten- 
 dency to hold to the priority of Mark, and to regard this 
 Gospel, along with the original logia-collection of Mat- 
 thew, as the chief source of the first Gospel in its present 
 form and of Luke's record. Some attempts have, how- 
 ever, been made in recent times to revive the theory of 
 Griesbach, for example by Bleek in general agreement 
 with De Wette and by Delitzsch, Kahnis, and Nosgen in 
 a dogmatic interest. 
 
 The most important critical investigations of the first 
 three Gospels in recent times have been chiefly occupied 
 with the further development of the hypothesis of Weisse,* 
 which, as has been shown, assumes the dependence of our 
 
 * With a few notable exceptions, particularly Hilgenfeld. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. I 51 
 
 canonical Matthew and Luke upon Mark regarded as an 
 original source.'" Weiss has attempted to supplement 
 and correct this hypothesis by showing that the oldest 
 written source, Matthew's logia, was not merely, as has 
 been held by very many scholars since Schleiermacher, a 
 collection of the sayings of Jesus, but contained also con- 
 siderable narrative. He also holds that this writing was 
 known to Mark and used by him in the composition of 
 his Gospel. The solution of Holtzmann was somewhat 
 different in his work on the synoptics published in 1863. 
 He concluded that it was not our present Mark which lay 
 at the basis of the synoptic narrative, but an original 
 Mark, the work which he believed to have been referred 
 to by Papias, and that our second Gospel was derived 
 from it. This hypothesis found much favor, and was 
 adopted by Schenkel in his life of Jesus, and by other 
 critics of note, f But the distinguishing of our Mark 
 from the supposed original Mark presented great diffi- 
 culties, and Weiss claims to have detected repeatedly the 
 untenableness of the various forms which the hypothesis 
 
 * This hypothesis has been supported in some of its various forms chiefly 
 by Weisse, Die evangel. Gesch. 1838, Die Evangelienfrage, 1856 ; Wilke, 
 Der Urevangelist, 1838 ; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T. 6te Aufl. 
 1887 ; Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangel. 2te Aufl. 1871 ; Ritschl, in Theol. 
 Jahrbiicher, 1851 ; Reville, Etudes sur 1'Evangile selon Matthieu, 1862 
 Renan, Vie de Jesus, I7me ed. 1882, Les Evangiles, 1877 ; Holtzmann, 
 Die Synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, Einleit. 1887 ; Hausrath, Neutest. 
 Zeitgesch. i. 1879 ; Scholten, Das alteste Evangel. 1869 ; Jacobsen, Unter- 
 such., etc. 1883 ; Volkmar, Die Evangel. 1870 ; Pfleiderer, Das Urchris- 
 tenthum, 1887, with the order Mark, Luke, Matthew ; Weizsacker, Unter- 
 such., etc. 1864 ; Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, 1886 ; Weiss, Einleit. 1886 ; 
 Bruckner, Die vier Evangel. 1887. 
 
 f Weisse and Wilke before him were obliged to assume that a form of 
 Mark somewhat different from our present second Gospel lay before Mat- 
 thew and Luke. 
 
2 $ 2 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 has taken in the hands of its advocates, Beyschlag, Schol- 
 ten, Weizsacker, and others. Holtzmann himself appears 
 practically to have abandoned it at length, * and besides, 
 to hold with Wendt, Jacobsen, Mangold, and others that 
 Matthew was known to Luke, and used by him at least in 
 a subsidiary way. f 
 
 It is conceded, however, that the first Gospel contains 
 indications of great antiquity, since it has words ascribed 
 to Jesus which clearly show an intention apparently held 
 during a greater part of the Galilean period of his minis- 
 try to confine his work within the limits and to the law 
 and customs of Judaism. The declaration that he is sent 
 only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and the in- 
 junction to his disciples to go only to these, are found in 
 no other Gospel. The same is true of the saying that he 
 came not to destroy but to fulfil the law and the 
 prophets. \ It is questioned whether these features are 
 really historical which represent the mission of Jesus as a 
 development of Judaism, or are to be charged to the 
 acknowledged fact that this Gospel was intended for and 
 adapted to the Jewish Christians. Their original charac- 
 ter appears in most cases to be indicated by the fact that 
 the other evangelists show traces of either intentionally 
 omitting the passages or mitigating their force. Although 
 these features of originality appear in the first Gospel, 
 they are overbalanced by certain decisive marks of a later 
 and derivative origin. For criticism finds the representa- 
 tion of the history to rest upon an arrangement of the ma- 
 terial according to the subject-matter, which is carried out 
 through most of the narrative, an artificial grouping of it 
 which is dominated by a certain numerical symbolism of 
 the genuine Jewish sort, as twice seven numbers of three 
 
 * Einleit. in das N. T. p. 357. f Weiss, Einleit. in das N. T. p. 485. 
 \ Chap. xv. 24, x. 6, v. 17. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 153 
 
 generations, three temptations in the desert and in Geth- 
 semane, seven parables, seven woes, etc. A work show- 
 ing throughout so systematic an arrangement, so much 
 reflection and art in selection and composition, could 
 hardly be the first record of the evangelic history.* 
 
 On the contrary, the priority of Mark is capable of being 
 shown with great probability, not so much by a detailed 
 comparison of parallel passages and in a mechanical way 
 as by a study of his entire conception and plan of the 
 history. It has been shown with tolerable clearness that 
 in Mark the whole narrative is presented in its simplest, 
 fundamental form. In fact, it is only in his Gospel that 
 the great epochs of the Galilean ministry of Jesus can be 
 shown with clearness. In this respect he alone represents 
 the unity of the historical course of events which runs 
 through the synoptical narratives, and has preserved their 
 historical thread. If we take the succession of single nar- 
 ratives in Mark, and place on one side that in Matthew 
 and on the other that in Luke, we can demonstrate step 
 by step that each of the two others presupposes this as 
 the original one.f With this theory that Mark is the 
 oldest of the Gospels agree the distinguishing internal 
 character of his record, the absence of all that is prehis- 
 torical, the immediate beginning of the history with the 
 appearance of the Baptist, the undeveloped account of 
 the temptation, the freedom from legendary interpolations 
 in the history of the passion which are found in Matthew, 
 the objectivity without theological intention and method, 
 and especially the character of the immediate vivacity, 
 picturesqueness, and clearness of the delineations and 
 descriptions.^: 
 
 Of especial significance in favor of Mark's originality 
 
 * Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 366. f Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 367. 
 
 \ Meyer, Commentar, i. p. 36. 
 
154 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 and priority is thought to be the consistent and steady 
 progress in his narrative with reference to Jesus' procla- 
 mation of himself as the Messiah, in contrast with the 
 confused and contradictory delineation of Matthew. In 
 Mark it is neither John the Baptist nor the disciples who 
 first recognize the Messiahship of Jesus, but the demo- 
 niacs.* An injunction of silence is laid upon them even 
 after they have once proclaimed him before a multitude. 
 A similar reserve is practised in the cure of the blind man 
 at Bethsaida, and in two other cases which have parallels 
 in Matthew, f In both cases Matthew omits the injunc- 
 tion of silence, apparently because in his narrative Jesus 
 is openly proclaimed as Messiah from the beginning. In 
 these omissions the dependence and secondary character 
 of Matthew's record are thought to be indicated, and still 
 more is this the case in places in which he appears to 
 forget his part, as when Jesus having healed a leper in the 
 presence of a great multitude, the injunction to tell no one 
 is subjoined ! But according to Mark the cure is privately 
 performed in a house. :f Still more striking is it that just 
 before the choice of the apostles Jesus heals many, ac- 
 cording to Mark, and lays on the demons the injunction of 
 silence, while Matthew abbreviates the account to the 
 effect that many followed Jesus, and he healed them all, 
 and enjoined them to tell no one ! Yet already his 
 healing power had been represented as publicly known. ] 
 Here Matthew appears to have retained a sentence of his 
 original with an incorrect reference, so that his account 
 becomes unintelligible. Again, only in Mark does Jesus' 
 
 *Chap. i. 24, 34, v. 7. 
 
 f Chap. viii. 22-26, v. 45, vii. 36 ; cf. Matt. ix. 26, 33. 
 \ Matt. viii. 4 ; Mark i. 43, ^eftaXsv, sent him out [of the house]. 
 Mark Hi. 10-12 ; Matt. xii. 15, 16. 
 | Chap. iv. 23-25, ix. 26, 31, 33, 35. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 155 
 
 saying to Peter when the latter proclaimed him have con- 
 sistency, while in Matthew the apostles are represented as 
 all along familiar with the idea of his Messiahship. In 
 dealing with elements which constitute the kernel of the 
 Gospel-history, there can hardly be any question whether 
 priority and originality belong to the writer, who with 
 consistency and unbroken purpose, carries out an idea, or 
 to the one who represents the matter now in a self-contra- 
 dictory way and now in opposition to the peculiarity of 
 the other. * 
 
 A similar phenomenon is presented in the representa- 
 tions by the two evangelists of the ability of the disciples 
 to understand Jesus. Mark carries out with great con- 
 sistency the idea of their slowness of apprehension, while 
 Matthew in many cases presents the opposite conception, 
 and again, apparently influenced by Mark's narrative, falls 
 into agreement with him. In respect to comprehending 
 the parable of the sower, Matthew represents the disciples 
 as those who have and to whom more shall be given, 
 while in Mark they appear as not comprehending the 
 parable at all and in peril of being deprived of what they 
 have, f At the stilling of the tempest both evangelists, 
 indeed, represent the disciples as having little faith, but in 
 Matthew the words, " Who then is this that the winds 
 and the sea obey him?" are put into the mouth of the 
 people, while in Mark it is the disciples to whom they are 
 attributed. In like manner, in the account of the walk- 
 ing of Jesus on the water, Matthew makes the disciples 
 confess that Jesus is the Son of God, while Mark repre- 
 sents them as without insight and hard of heart. The 
 
 * Ritschl, Theol. Jahrbucher, 1852, p. 515. 
 
 f Matt. xiii. n, 12 ; Mark iv. 13, 25, 29. 
 
 \ Matt. viii. 27 ; Mark iv. 41 ; Meyer, Commentar in loc. 
 
 Matt. xiv. 33 ; Mark vi. 51 f. 
 
1 56 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 unfitting request of the sons of Zebedee is ascribed by 
 Mark to these disciples themselves, but by Matthew to 
 their mother, while the latter follows Mark in representing 
 Christ's answer as addressed to the sons, wherein it would 
 appear that he added the mother's part in the interest of 
 his theory of the insight of the disciples, and in so doing 
 confused the narrative. 
 
 The oldest source of the Gospel-history, the apostolical 
 writing by Matthew in Aramaic referred to by Papias, 
 was undoubtedly used along with Mark by the first evan- 
 gelist, and there is a very strong probability that it was 
 also used by Luke. Favorable to this latter theory is the 
 fact that Matthew and Luke have many fragments of 
 discourses in common which are not found in Mark. 
 These are so similiar in details of expression as to indi- 
 cate that they were taken from a common source. * The 
 " great interpolation " in the midst of Luke's narrative, \ 
 by which his agreement with Mark, whom he follows to 
 this point, is interrupted, and the common thread of the 
 narrative broken, furnishes an illustration. It has been 
 pointed out that the greater part of the discourses which 
 Luke isolates in this section are found in Matthew in 
 different relations so as not to form sections, but to be 
 brought into an already existing connection which they 
 fill out along with sentences from Mark. In the sermon 
 on the mount in Matthew a collection of sayings, probably 
 spoken at different times, is given the appearance of a 
 single discourse of instructions to the disciples. Again, 
 seven parables are grouped together according to the 
 writer's favorite numerical symbolism. \ If we compare 
 the sermon on the mount in Matthew with Luke, chapter 
 
 * For example, the unusual word, krtiovGiov, Matt. vi. 1 1 ; Luke xi. 3. 
 f Chap. ix. 51 xviii. 14. | Matt. xiii. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 157 
 
 vi., it will appear that the former inserts some passages in 
 the great discourse which Luke alone appears to have in 
 their right connection, since in the latter they follow 
 words which give occasion for them. * The series of 
 ayings concerning anxiety and the laying up of treas- 
 ures appears in Luke in connection with a logical motive, 
 but in the sermon on the mount detached, without motive, 
 and in a reversed order, f A large number of similar illus- 
 trations might be quoted. There is a difference of opin- 
 ion on the question whether the apothegms and short 
 discourses which Luke presents detached and scattered 
 were by him torn out of the "architectonic structures " of 
 Matthew, or appear in his record in their original relations. 
 Which is the more probable, asks Holtzmann, that Luke 
 wantonly shattered the great structures and scattered the 
 fragments to the four winds, or that out of what lay 
 before the former as heaps of stones Matthew constructed 
 these walls ? To this critic the true solution of the prob- 
 lem appears to be that Luke had the source from which 
 Matthew constructed his compositions of the discourses, 
 but that to the former does not belong in all cases the 
 priority in the framing of the single discourses and say- 
 ings. The suggestion of Strauss appears to come of a 
 clear insight : " The pithy sayings of Jesus could not, 
 indeed, be dissolved by the flood of the oral tradition, but 
 were, perhaps, not seldom torn from their natural connec- 
 tion, floated away from their original strata, and landed 
 like fragments of rock in places where they did not really 
 belong." The hypothesis accordingly appears reasonable 
 that in the earliest tradition the sayings of Jesus were 
 handed down only as isolated fragments, and not until 
 
 *Matt. vi. 7-13, vii. 7-11 ; Luke xi. 1-13. 
 f Luke xii. 22-34 5 Matt. vi. 19-21, 25-34. 
 
158 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 later were inquiries raised as to the occasions which gave 
 rise to them. In some cases these inquiries appear to 
 have been fruitless, so that it remains unknown what were 
 the circumstances to which are to be referred the woes 
 pronounced upon Bethsaida and Chorazin, the allusion to 
 the sacrificed Galileans and the tower of Siloam. Accord- 
 ingly, Holtzmann is led to conjecture that in the source in 
 question, the original logia, the fragments followed one 
 another as do the aphorisms in Hippokrates, since on no 
 other supposition can the discourses of Jesus, which have 
 no fixed place in the Gospel-history, appear in Matthew at 
 one point of their wandering and in Luke at another. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections of Wendt, Weiss' posi- 
 tion, previously referred to, that the logia-source was 
 known to Mark appears to be well taken. Assuming the 
 entire independence of this Gospel as to the first and 
 third, it is difficult to explain its origin without supposing 
 the use of a written source. The discourse on the Pa- 
 rousia* is far too extended to have been propagated by 
 oral tradition, and shows to a critical analysis a series of 
 insertions and additions which are so much opposed to an 
 original form of it that it must have been known to the 
 author in a written form. The fragments of the discourse 
 of Jesus in his own defence against the charge that he was 
 in league with Beelzebub, of that on the occasion of send- 
 ing out his disciples, and of that regarding the strife for 
 precedence on the part of two of the twelve, f may with 
 more reason than in the preceding case be thought to rest 
 upon oral tradition. But it has been pointed out that in 
 spite of the greater freedom with which these are repro- 
 duced in comparison with the original tradition in the 
 older source, their verbal expression shows so great a 
 
 * Chap. xiii. f Chap. iii. 2339, v ^ 7~ ir x - 4 2 ~45- 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 159 
 
 similarity with that of the logia preserved in the first 
 and third Gospels that they can hardly be regarded as 
 constructed independently of that document. Nearly all 
 the sayings preserved by Mark outside the immediate 
 connection of his narrative may be traced to reminis- 
 cences of discourses and series of apothegms whose exis- 
 tence in the logia may be shown with great probability, 
 and the same is true of the verbal expression in these 
 cases. It is difficult to think of the parables preserved in 
 Mark as independent of those contained in the logia- 
 source. The parable of the mustard-seed is apparently a 
 graphic transformation of the first parable of the pair from 
 the logia in Luke.* Of the parable of the sower there is 
 a far simpler and more original statement in the source, f 
 and the simile of the kingdom of God drawn from the 
 sower is a transformation of a parable in the first Gospel. \ 
 The only other parable which Mark has, that of the labor- 
 ers in the vineyard, must have been derived from the 
 source in question, since the text in Matthew appears to 
 be more original, and the interpretation which is retained 
 is in conflict with the application borrowed from Mark. || 
 In the source it may have been one of a pair of parables 
 with that of the marriage-feast, which the first evangelist 
 connects with it. T 
 
 It is perhaps needless to pursue into greater detail the 
 discussion of the synoptic problem. Even if the logia- 
 source be not established in the third Gospel, the depend- 
 ence of the latter on Mark is hardly open to question ; 
 
 * Chap. iv. 30 f. ; Luke xiii. 18-21. 
 
 f Chap. iv. 3-9 ; Luke viii. 5-8. 
 
 \ Chap. iv. 26-29 5 Matt. xiii. 24-30. 
 
 Chap. xii. 1-9; Matt. xxi. 3341. 
 
 || Matt. xxi. 43. 
 
 ^[ Matt. xxii. 1-14 ; Weiss, Einleitung. 
 
1 60 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 and if we leave undetermined the question whether or no 
 its author used the first Gospel, it would appear that we 
 have in the relations of writings and documents already 
 set forth ample means for the explanation of the synoptic 
 phenomena, so far as they are capable of explanation. 
 The logia-source written by Matthew and understood 
 according to Schleiermacher's interpretation of Papias and 
 the priority of Mark which may be regarded as an incon- 
 testable conclusion of recent Gospel-criticism furnish the 
 key to the solution of the problem of the relation of the 
 synoptic Gospels. The agreements and similarities in the 
 three records find an adequate explanation in the use by 
 the first and third evangelists of these two sources. The 
 differences in the records are to be explained by the de- 
 pendence of the writers to some extent on oral tradition 
 and uncanonical written sources and by the individuality 
 and literary independence of each. 
 
 Those readers who shall have had the patience to study 
 the foregoing review of the course of investigation of the 
 synoptic question will not fail to see the importance of 
 the discussion of it to Gospel-criticism and the connection 
 of the problem with many inquiries with which this is 
 concerned. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. 
 
 THAT our second canonical Gospel originated with a 
 certain John Mark is the unanimous testimony of 
 tradition. While this testimony is too vague to afford 
 precise information as to the nature and extent of his 
 connection with the composition of the writing, it par- 
 ticularizes the circumstance that he was intimately asso- 
 ciated with the Apostle Peter.* Through Barnabas, to 
 whom he appears to have been related by blood, he came 
 into connection with Paul, and was the occasion of a dis- 
 pute and separation between these two missionaries.f 
 The tradition of his connection with Peter runs back to 
 Papias, who depended, it appears, on a certain presbyter 
 John for his information, according to whom Mark wrote 
 down, so far as he remembered them and without order, 
 the sayings and doings of Jesus as he had heard them 
 from Peter. This tradition is largely dependent, as to its 
 historical worth, upon the degree in which it is confirmed 
 by a critical analysis of the Gospel. In some respects the 
 account of Papias corresponds very well with the phe- 
 
 * Pupil, companion, and interpreter. Whether by this last term we are 
 to understand, according to some critics, a linguistic assistant, or, according 
 to others, a clerk, is not important. See Acts xii. 12 ; I. Peter v. 13. 
 There appears to be no good reason for the conjecture of Grotius, Schleier- 
 macher, and others that two persons of the name of Mark are to be distin- 
 guished in the New Testament. 
 
 f Acts xii. 25, xv. 37 ff. 
 
 ii 161 
 
162 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 nomena which the record presents. For this Gospel is 
 distinguished in some parts among the synoptics for a 
 vivid and life-like delineation which suggests the eye- 
 witness. Among its peculiarities have been noticed a 
 predilection for the story and the inner life of the disciples 
 and a proportionally large number of narratives in which 
 they are immediately concerned, particularly the three 
 confidential friends of Jesus. The entire first part of the 
 Gospel concerns affairs of which the first visit of Jesus at 
 Peter's house forms the centre, and the climax is reached 
 in the graphic scene of the Messianic confession of this 
 apostle, who finally is especially mentioned at the close 
 of the record, as one to whom the risen Christ would show 
 himself. 
 
 To the objection that the testimony of the presbyter 
 John does not apply to our canonical Mark, since this 
 does not show the want of order (recall) which he remarked 
 in the writing of which Papias speaks on his authority in 
 Eusebius' account,* it should be said that his judgment 
 in the matter must be considered from his own point of 
 view. If he judged it in this regard from a comparison 
 of it with an arrangement of the discourses of Jesus in 
 another work known to him, and that writing were the 
 logia-collection of Matthew, it can only be concluded that 
 in his opinion the order of the latter was the more origi- 
 nal, as indeed it may have been if it contained, as some 
 scholars suppose, along with the discourses of Jesus some 
 slight connecting and explanatory narrative. Such a work, 
 written by an eye-witness, might, even though it were very 
 brief, have better answered than Mark's record to the 
 presbyter's conception* of the true order of the course of 
 events. The worth of his judgment must also be deter- 
 
 * Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. 163 
 
 mined to some extent by the consideration that he could 
 have had no very accurate knowledge of the actual order 
 of the events of the life of Jesus. Davidson, whose advo- 
 cacy of the Griesbach-hypothesis necessitates the placing 
 of the composition of Mark after that of the two other 
 synoptics, denies the applicability of the presbyter's testi- 
 mony to our canonical second Gospel, because it is as much 
 an orderly narrative as either of the others, as if the presby- 
 ter had given any intimation of a knowledge of these, or 
 could, indeed, have had any acquaintance with them ! * 
 
 While a critical analysis of the Gospel shows that the 
 judgment of the presbyter and Papias as to the arrange- 
 ment of the events of the life of Jesus is correct, since 
 such an analysis results in finding that the evangelist in 
 setting down from memory the teachings of Peter has 
 rather followed an order determined by the subject- 
 matter than attempted a strictly chronological account, 
 there is no reason for regarding the tradition as an ex- 
 haustive and conclusive statement of the origin of the 
 record in question.f The entire literary character of the 
 Gospel is incompatible with the theory that its author 
 was a mere clerk, who slavishly followed the preaching of 
 Peter. If we may judge of the character of the preaching 
 of this apostle from the record of it in the Acts, this Gos- 
 
 * Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, ii. p. 80. 
 
 f The tradition has internal and external evidences of trustworthiness. 
 But a knowledge of the natural history of traditions warns us not to receive 
 them uncritically. One form of this tradition, for example, represents 
 Mark as having written after the death of Peter, and from another we 
 learn that Peter was alive when the evangelist composed his record, and 
 that he appeared quite indifferent to the work, neither hindering nor 
 encouraging it. Again, the latter tradition has no support in the evident 
 relation of the synoptics, since it places first the composition of the Gos* 
 pels containing the genealogies, thus putting the writing of Mark's record 
 after that of Luke's. 
 
1 64 GOSPEL. CRI riCISM. 
 
 pel is far from being a reproduction of it. The extended 
 discourse on the Parousia and several series of sayings 
 besides can hardly have been carried in the memory 
 either of Peter or his interpreter, and are probably free 
 compositions. There are some sections which find their 
 most probable explanation by the hypothesis that pithy 
 sayings of Jesus which were well adapted to be remem- 
 bered were set down without regard in all cases to the 
 circumstances which called them forth. The tradition is 
 doubtless accounted for and satisfied by the supposition 
 that the teaching of Peter as Mark remembered its salient 
 features was one of the sources of the Gospel, while there 
 is nothing irreconcilable with it in the assumption that 
 other sources which may have been available were also 
 used. If we waive the claim of those critics who find that 
 the author made extracts from Matthew's logia, there 
 remain the abundant oral tradition from which he may 
 have drawn and, perhaps, his own knowledge as an eye- 
 witness of the closing scenes of the life of Jesus. 
 
 There is great probability that the fragments which 
 form the series of narratives which Mark may have elabo- 
 rated from suggestions received in listening to the instruc- 
 tions of Peter were not only connected by passages sup- 
 plied by himself, but even enlarged by additions from 
 other sources. A critical study of the discourse on the 
 Parousia in the thirteenth chapter previously referred to 
 and a comparison of it with the parallels in the first and 
 third Gospels have convinced many critics of the first 
 rank that it contains two different and independent sec- 
 tions, one of which is probably a fragment of a current 
 Jewish apocalyptic composition.* In connection with the 
 
 *Chap. xiii. 1-6, gb-13, 21-23, 28, 29, 32-37. See Colani, Jesus Christ 
 et les Croyances, etc., 1864; Weizsacker, Untersuchungen, etc. 1864; 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. 165 
 
 words of Jesus regarding divorce is inserted the statement 
 peculiar to Mark that " if she [the wife] put away her hus- 
 band and marry another she committeth adultery." This 
 passage is of questionable originality, and appears to put 
 into the mouth of Jesus a reference to a custom among the 
 Greeks and Romans regarding divorce. * A Jewish woman 
 could not divorce her husband. The account of the wid- 
 ow's mite has been thought by some critics to present a 
 difficulty if regarded as history, since Jesus could hardly 
 have known that the amount which she put into the treas- 
 ury constituted her whole living. But as Jesus elsewhere 
 relates parables as if they were historical narratives, f it is 
 probable that this was originally a parable which Mark, 
 because it was not designated as parabolical, took for his- 
 tory, and so represented it. 
 
 The relation of this Gospel to the first is a much con- 
 tested question, and has already been considered briefly 
 in the chapter on the synoptic problem. A few consider- 
 ations should, however, be added here. Some sayings of 
 Jesus in the second Gospel appear to show a dependence 
 on their parallels in the first, and cannot, indeed, be 
 regarded as framed without reference to them. Notwith- 
 standing the great freedom with which they are given, 
 and the appearance which they present of resting on an 
 independent oral tradition, a critical comparison of their 
 phraseology with that of the parallels indicates a contact 
 
 Pfleiderer, Jahrb. fur deutsche Theol., 1868 ; Weiffenbach, Der Wieder- 
 kunftsgedanke Jesu, 1873 ; Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, i. 1886. See Chapter 
 VIII. of this work. 
 
 * Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, i. p. 40 ; Meyer, Commentar, i. 2, p. 140. 
 Baur regards the passage as a reflection of Mark regarding the equality of 
 the sexes, but it is more probably referable to his acquaintance with the 
 Roman custom. 
 
 f Chap. iv. 3, xii. i. 
 
166 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 of the author with the latter, even though only through 
 memory.* The saying of Jesus given in chapter ix. 35, 
 and again in x. 43, shows on comparing it with its parallel 
 that it is given once with a certain independence -and 
 again as if a recollection of the phraseology of the parallel 
 had influenced the form of statement. So in chapter 
 x. 46-52, although there is an appearance of independence, 
 a trace is observed of a recollection of the phraseology of 
 Matt. ix. 27-31. The mere reference to the temptation 
 of Jesus is generally regarded as presupposing an ac- 
 quaintance with an account of it more in detail. The un- 
 deniably secondary character of some passages in Mark is, 
 then, opposed to the hypothesis of its priority. This fact 
 led Wilke to assume later additions to Mark, Weisse to 
 the hypothesis that certain passages which the other two 
 Gospels contain over Mark originally stood in the latter, 
 and Holtzmann to his former theory of an original Mark. 
 The hypothesis, however, that Mark was acquainted with 
 and indirectly at least used the logia-source of the first 
 Gospel explains the secondary character of many of his 
 passages, and solves some of the principal difficulties of 
 the problem. At all events, no solution is practicable 
 which attempts to explain the phenomena in question by 
 the mere dependence of one of the synoptists upon one 
 or both of the others. Mark's record, then, appears to be 
 the oldest Gospel, though not the oldest writing dealing 
 with the Gospel-history. 
 
 Some of the more extended historical passages may 
 very likely have been derived from oral tradition. The 
 detail with which some of these are presented is foreign 
 to the later tradition as it appears in the first and third 
 Gospels, and has been thought to denote the antiquity of 
 
 * Weiss, Das Marcusevangelium, 1872, p. n. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. 1 67 
 
 that which is here preserved. The account of the minis- 
 try of the Baptist ; of the baptism and temptation of 
 Jesus ; of the storm on the lake ; of the raising of the 
 daughter of Jairus ; of the first feeding of the multitude ; 
 of the transfiguration, and the healing of the demoniac 
 which immediately follows it, present now in brevity, now 
 in vivid detail, the appearance of originality. In the 
 second account of the feeding of the multitude the simi- 
 larity of the circumstances with those of the former leads 
 to the belief that it is a duplicate narrative of the same 
 event, and that its repetition is due to the fact that the 
 writer had two traditions before him with different state- 
 ments of the numbers of the multitude. The tendency 
 to such a change of numbers in the current tradition is 
 illustrated in the accounts of the feeding of the multitude 
 in the first Gospel, where for the " five thousand men " of 
 Mark's narrative, in the one case, and the " about four 
 thousand " in the other, we have " about five thousand 
 men besides women and children " and " about four thou- 
 sand men besides children and women " * respectively, 
 thus at least doubling the numbers. An indication of a 
 tendency to think parabolic sayings into parabolic acts 
 appears in the narrative of the barren fig-tree through the 
 connection in which Mark places the event with the words 
 of Jesus in regard to the faith which might remove a 
 mountain, f and through the symbolic reference to the 
 judgment on the unfruitful Jewish people which is implied 
 in the position given to the act. For in Luke's Gospel 
 the tradition of the saying about the power of faith 
 appears with the example of a sycamine-tree instead of a 
 mountain, and a parable is related touching the judgment 
 
 * Chap. vi. 44, viii. 9 ; Matt. xiv. 21, xv. 38. 
 f Chap. xi. 12-14, 20-23. 
 
1 68 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 upon the Jews in which a fig-tree is taken as the figure. * 
 In fact, the third evangelist appears to have exercised a 
 critical discrimination when, in his reproduction of Mark's 
 narrative, he has passed over the second account of the 
 feeding of the multitude, as well as the story of the 
 blasted fig-tree. There is, perhaps, a legendary expansion 
 of history in the general delineation of healings in the 
 sixth chapter, particularly in the closing remark,f for the 
 manner of healing here described is not in harmony with 
 Jesus' work elsewhere described by Mark, while it accords 
 very well with the conception of the unlimited wonder- 
 working of Jesus which the later tradition presents.^: 
 
 The most salient and striking literary peculiarity of this 
 Gospel is its vivid, graphic delineation. The writer is not 
 fettered by the requirements of a chronological order nor 
 encumbered with a dogmatic pragmatism. Those critics 
 who, like Volkmar and, in a less degree, Pfleiderer, find 
 in this record a marked Pauline " tendency " have greatly 
 mistaken its scope and purpose. Striving only to be 
 natural and direct, Mark has unconsciously produced a 
 picture. The reader sees Jesus surrounded by crowds of 
 people to whom he dispenses teaching and healing, his 
 vain attempts to withdraw into seclusion, and his miracles 
 made the theme of public talk in spite of his endeavors to 
 the contrary. || The places where events occur are sketched 
 with accuracy, and the situation is given in detail, even to 
 
 * Luke xiii. 6-9. f Verses 54-56. 
 
 \ For example, instead of the " many " who, according to Mark i. 34, iii. 
 10, were healed by Jesus, Matthew and Luke report that " all" were cured. 
 Matt. viii. 16, xii. 15 ; Luke iv. 40, vi. 19. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, i. 
 p. 41 f. 
 
 Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, p. 263 f ; Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, 
 P. 359 f- 
 
 i Chap. i. 32 f, 36 f, 45 f, ii. 13, iii. 7 f, iv. i f, etc. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. 169 
 
 the vivid representation of the method of effecting a cure, 
 the circumstances, gestures, emotions which accompany 
 the act, and the effects which it produces. * The demoni- 
 acs are placed before us with their piteous and strange 
 words and their terrible violence. We see in the Gospel, 
 as in a panorama, how the ministry of Jesus, beginning in 
 the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee and taking Capernaum 
 as its centre, extends in ever wider circles, and how the 
 fame of the teacher spreads in all directions, and attracts 
 increasing multitudes. Over against the enthusiastic 
 crowds of the common people appear on the scene the 
 ominous forms of the scribes and Pharisees, whose opposi- 
 tion, rapidly rising to mortal enmity, is brought to view by 
 a series of narratives expressly chosen for this purpose.f 
 At the close of his ministry he is placed in Jerusalem in 
 the midst of these hostile forces and tendencies, the high- 
 priests, the pharisees, the sadducees, the scribes, and even 
 the party of the Herodians repeatedly mentioned by 
 Mark. J Again, we see how, out of the crowds of people 
 who press about Jesus for the sake of his healing powers 
 or from curiosity, who first hail him as Messiah, and finally 
 clamor for his death, there gradually detaches itself a little 
 company of hearers eager to learn of him ; we learn of 
 his relations to his kindred ; || we hear of the women who 
 remain true to him even at the cross and the tomb ; of the 
 unknown man who furnished the colt, and put at his dis- 
 posal the room for the passover-supper ; of the youth who 
 followed him to Gethsemane ; of Simon the Cyrenaean, 
 who bore his cross ; and of Joseph of Arimathaea, who 
 provided a burial-place. We see how he stands related to 
 
 * See the healings, chap. vii. 31, viii. 22-26. 
 
 f Chap. ii. i-iii. 6. Chap. iii. 34, iv. 10. 
 
 \ Chap. xi. 27-xii. 40, iii. 6, xii. 13. || Chap. iii. 26, 31 f. 
 
1 70 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 his disciples, and how the weakness of their faith and their 
 slowness of heart are again and again set forth, until finally 
 he devotes himself almost wholly to their culture. Out of 
 the circle of the twelve, however, detaches itself a smaller 
 group of his confidential friends, among whom Peter is the 
 foremost, whose great confession constitutes the climax o'f 
 the narrative. It is incorrect to say that the Gospel is 
 occupied solely with the acts of Jesus. It is true that, apart 
 from the discourse on the Parousia, no discourses are given 
 for the sake of their doctrinal contents alone. What he 
 taught in the synagogue is not communicated, but the 
 impression of his manner of teaching is graphically de- 
 lineated. * The Gospel abounds in life-like conversations 
 which show vividly the striking manner in which Jesus 
 could answer questions and repel attacks. For the reason 
 that it so immediately and graphically represents the 
 event, the writer has a predilection for the dialogue and 
 the direct discourse, and even preserves some Aramaic 
 words of Jesus, f 
 
 The linguistic usage of the writer is well adapted to be 
 the expression of the literary character of the work. A 
 critical examination of his style has shown a predilection 
 for the graphic imperfect tense and the vivid historical 
 present ; for making conspicuous the beginning of an act \\ 
 for plastic, marked, highly-colored expressions, and espe- 
 cially for diminutives ; for formulas of comparison of all 
 sorts ; for a doubling of the expression for the same thing, 
 in particular the negation ; the connecting of the positive 
 and negative expressions ; and for the ever-recurring v6v$, 
 
 * Chap. i. 21 f, vi. 2. 
 
 f Weiss, Einleit. p. 501. Das Marcusevangelium, p. 26. 
 
 \ rjp^aro twenty-six times. 
 
 itoXvS forty-three times, TtoXXd fifteen times. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. 1 71 
 
 which is used forty times.* The narrative is also marked 
 by an emphatic circumstantiality of expression ; the repe- 
 tition of the same or related words ; the name instead of 
 the pronoun ; the frequent abundance of pronominal and 
 adverbial terms ; the paraphrase of the finite verb by 
 tivai with a participle. The language is strongly Hebra- 
 istic, as is shown especially by the long-drawn-out construc- 
 tions with xal and 6e. Participial constructions are com- 
 paratively rare, but when they do appear are sometimes 
 clumsily heaped up. 
 
 The tradition concerning the composition of the Gospel 
 favors Rome as the place where it was written. The in- 
 ternal evidences tend to confirm this tradition, the expla- 
 nation of Aramaic words and Jewish customs f indicating 
 that the Gospel was written for gentile readers. In favor 
 of its Roman origin are the reference to the Roman 
 custom in regard to divorce ; the reduction of a coin to 
 the Roman quadrans ; J the presupposition of the reader's 
 acquaintance with Pilate ; and the mention of Alexan- 
 der and Rufus, sons of Simon, as if they were well-known 
 Christians in Rome, one of whom, Rufus, may be referred 
 to by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. || The appar- 
 ent object with which the Gospel was written furnishes 
 the only indication attainable of the time of its composi- 
 tion. This object was not so much to present a chrono- 
 logical history of the life of Jesus as to encourage the 
 believers in him by showing, in the first place, evidences 
 
 * Peculiar is the pregnant use of /, of the on recitative, and of many 
 Latin words, (nsyrvpicar, updpfiarot,, &dr?j<$, Ttpairoopiov, KoSpdv- 
 ri?S, tiTtEKOvXdrGOp, (ppayeXXoZr], and phrases, chapter ii. 23, perhaps, 
 and xv. 15. 
 
 f Chap. vii. 3f, xiv. 12, xv. 6, 42. Davidson, ii. p. 119 f. Weiss, 
 Einleit. p. 502. 
 
 J Chap. xii. 42. Chap, xv, I. || Rom. xvi. 23 ; Mark xv. 21. 
 
172 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 that he had adequately confirmed his Messianic character 
 by his life and teachings, and, in the second place, by set- 
 ting forth the promise of his early return in glory. The 
 Gospel appears from the thirteenth chapter to have been 
 written under the shadow of the impending overthrow of 
 Jerusalem, at a time when the hope of the Christians in 
 the Parousia was flagging. It is thought by some critics to 
 represent a loosening of the immediate connection be- 
 tween the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming 
 of Christ. There is also wanting in it all reference to the 
 overthrow of the city as an event already consummated 
 even in the prophetic words in the second verse of the 
 thirteenth chapter.* The most probable conjecture ap- 
 pears to be that which places its composition in the last 
 years of the sixties, at which time Matthew's logia may 
 very likely have existed in a Greek translation in Rome.f 
 The record ends at chap. xvi. 8, and contains no account 
 of an appearance of Jesus after his death. 
 
 * Those critics who regard these words as a vaticinium post eventum place 
 the composition of the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem. Pfleiderer 
 appears to incline to this view, although he thinks it " not impossible" that 
 they may be a genuine tradition of words of Jesus. (Das Urchristenthum, 
 p. 416.) Those who think Mark used Luke and Matthew, according to the 
 Griesbach hypothesis, must, of course, date the Gospel much later. Keim 
 supposes its date to have been about 100 (Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, i. p. 
 54) and Davidson about 120 (Introduction, ii. p. in). 
 
 f Weiss, Einleit. p. 518. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 
 
 A CCORDING to an ancient Christian tradition the 
 J^\^ first attempt in evangelic literature was made by 
 Matthew, whom the first Gospel designates as the publican.* 
 The earliest form in which the tradition appears is pre- 
 served by Eusebius in the section of his history devoted 
 to Papias, who wrote in the first half of the second cen- 
 tury an explanation of the oracles, or sayings, of Christ.f 
 Papias appears to have been a disciple of persons who had 
 seen or heard Jesus and a man of influence who devoted 
 himself to the collection of oral traditions regarding the 
 earliest history of Christianity. His testimony, then, de- 
 serves to be heard and weighed. His statement regarding 
 Matthew's writing is that the latter composed " The 
 Oracles "J in the Hebrew dialect, and that every one 
 translated them as he was able. Since the term " ora- 
 cles/' or logia, stands in the passage without qualification, 
 its meaning is obscure, and has given rise to no little dis- 
 cussion. As has been shown in the chapter on the synop- 
 
 * Chap. ix. 9. Mark and Luke in passages undoubtedly parallel with this 
 name the publican Levi, the former further designating him as the son of 
 Alpheus, but Luke in the list of the apostles does not call him the son of 
 Alpheus, while he mentions as such a James whose brother was Judas. Mat- 
 thew's identity with Levi is accordingly doubtful, and the latter may not 
 have been called as an apostle. Mark ii. 14., iii. 17 f ; Luke v. 27, vi. 14 f ; 
 Matt. x. 2 f. 
 
 f Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. rd Xoyia. 
 
 173 
 
1 74 GOSPEL- CRITICISM. 
 
 tic problem, the conflicting solutions of that question and 
 the most opposite theories as to the origin of the first 
 three Gospels take their departure from this point. There 
 can be no doubt, however, that the term " logia " describes 
 a composition in the Aramaic dialect containing some 
 account of the teachings and possibly of the life of Jesus. 
 The remark concerning the translation of this writing by 
 every one as he was able, very likely refers to the use of it 
 in the public assemblies of the Christians or by private 
 readers, rather than to any general circulation of copies of 
 it or to written translations in considerable numbers. No 
 inference can be drawn from the words of Papias to the 
 existence of the original Aramaic writing in his time. 
 Rather the reference to the original work and to the neces- 
 sity of translations is to facts already passed. 
 
 Since Papias does not accurately report on the nature 
 and contents of this writing by Matthew, the important 
 question whether it was essentially our first canonical 
 Gospel in Aramaic or a work of a different sort can be de- 
 termined, so far as his testimony is concerned, only by a 
 study of the single word with which he describes it. The 
 reference of the passage to Christ being unquestionable, 
 we have, then, first to determine what Papias meant by 
 the logia of Christ. It appears arbitrary to divide the 
 question as Holtzmann does on the supposition that 
 Papias may have been thinking in making his report of a 
 different work from that known and testified to by his 
 supposed informant, the presbyter John, that is, of an 
 Aramaic Gospel used by a heretical sect of Jewish Chris- 
 tians and given out by them as the original of Matthew's 
 Gospel.* To assume that the witness, on whose testi- 
 mony the whole question rests, did not understand his 
 
 * Einleit. p. 387. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 175 
 
 informant, and was ignorant in regard to a vital part of 
 the matter, is needlessly to cast discredit upon him. On 
 this hypothesis it is inexplicable that Papias should have 
 used the term " logia " to designate the work in question 
 instead of the usual fvayyk\iov to denote Gospel. Now 
 the Greek word \oyiov (plural Xoyia) is a diminutive of 
 AGIOS', and means " a little word," " a brief utterance," 
 "an oracle," but "chiefly any utterance of God, whether 
 precept or promise." * It is applied to oracles which 
 commonly take a sententious or gnomic form, f Accord- 
 ingly, in Romans, J Paul writes of the Jews as having 
 been " entrusted with the oracles of God," apropos of the 
 law of which each precept was regarded as an effatum Dei. 
 In Christian literature the word is applied to passages in 
 the Bible taken separately and regarded as an expression 
 of a will or a truth divinely revealed. The \oyiov is, 
 then, essentially something of a didactic character, and is 
 not necessarily connected with the narration of events. 
 The fact that it is sometimes applied to the Bible as a 
 revelation does not affect the conclusion respecting the 
 use of it by Papias, for in his time nothing was known 
 
 * Grimm's Wilke's Clavis N. T. sub voce. 
 
 \ According to Suidas, Xoyia are rd rtapd Osov A.sy6/J.era naraXoyd- 
 Srjr, "the things said in prose from God," distinguished from j/a^o'//ot, 
 oracles in verse. Reville, Matthieu. 
 
 \ Chap. iii. 2, cf. Acts vii. 38. 
 
 Eusebius frequently employs the word in the senses referred to. He 
 calls the ten commandments treated of in a work by Philo rd dsna Xoyia, 
 Hist. Eccl. ii. 18. Ephraim, the Syrian, also designates the N. T. in 
 reference to its containing proof-texts for the Trinity as Xoyia uvpiand 
 nai aito6Toi\.iKa. nrjpvynara, whereby he does not mean the Gospels and 
 Epistles as such, but the sayings of Jesus and the apostles as alone furnish- 
 ing the proofs in question. Schleiermacher, Ueber das Zeugniss des Papias, 
 Werke zur Theol. ii. p. 367. Compare the Epistle of Polycarp, vii., nal o$ 
 av jusQodevy rd Xoyia rov nvpiov TtpoS rdS tdia<a tTtiQvjuiaS, H.r.X. 
 
1/6 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 of inspired Christian writings, as has been shown in the 
 discussion of the canon. He, then, could not have used 
 it in reference to a canonical writing supposed to possess 
 divine authority, but, as in the title of his own work, only 
 of discourses of Christ with the difference that his writing 
 as an sgiyyrjffiS, or explanation, may very likely have con- 
 tained considerable matter explanatory of the \oyiot 
 HVpianofy or oracles of the Lord (Christ). 
 
 The evident intention of Papias to mark a distinction 
 between the writings of Matthew and Mark which were 
 known to him leads to the conclusion regarding the 
 former which has already been indicated. Mark's work 
 he describes as an account of the words and deeds of 
 Christ, * and immediately after mentioning it he proceeds 
 to give an account of the tradition concerning the writing 
 by Matthew, which he characterizes simply as the logia, 
 the oracles, the effata of Christ. It is true that, continu- 
 ing, he says of Mark that, not having been a hearer or a 
 follower of Christ, but only of Peter, he received no in- 
 struction which could qualify him to give an orderly nar- 
 rative of the discourses of Jesus. The conclusion has 
 been drawn from this remark that Papias puts the writings 
 of Matthew and Mark on the same footing, since, after re- 
 ferring to the former as the logia, he mentions the latter 
 as an account of the discourses of Christ, f But that he 
 intends to draw a clear distinction between the two writ- 
 ings is evident from the manner in which he speaks of the 
 one as simply the logia and of the other as the things said 
 and done by Jesus. The difference between \oyia, oracles, 
 and ffvvra^i? robv \6ycov 7 J a narrative of the discourses, 
 
 * rd vTfo rov xpitfrov r? XexQevra ff 
 
 f Davidson, Introduction, i. p. 467. 
 
 \ koyoov is the reading of Val. B. C. D. F. H. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 1 77 
 
 is too manifest to require illustration, even if the sense of 
 the latter term had not previously been fixed by the 
 words, " things said and done." Even Weiss, who holds, 
 on grounds of Gospel-criticism, that the logia contained 
 some connecting narrative, remarks that it is quite unten- 
 able to argue from the misunderstood testimony of Papias 
 in regard to Mark that he meant by the term logia the 
 things said or done, or used the former term in the sense 
 of the later usage of the Church, according to which 
 \oyia Hvpiaxa designated the Gospels on account of their 
 really canonical contents, and ra \6yia (Beov) the divine 
 revelation of the Scriptures, as if there were any import in 
 which it could be said (from the point of view of the history 
 of the canon, of course) that Matthew collected the \oyia 
 in such a sense. * 
 
 The state of the case is quite different when we come to 
 the later testimonies regarding Matthew's writing, so that 
 some scholars have been led to the conclusion that there 
 existed an original Hebrew Gospel according to Matthew, 
 of which our canonical first Gospel is a Greek translation. 
 Some of the advocates of this view, however, maintain 
 that Matthew's part in the composition of this work was 
 confined to the writing of the logia. f The testimony of 
 Irenaeus is that " Matthew among the Hebrews published 
 a Gospel in writing in their own dialect. \ Pantaenus, who 
 lived in the latter part of the second century, is said by 
 Eusebius to have found in India (southern Arabia ?) a 
 Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew which had been left there 
 by Bartholomew. Jerome makes a similar statement.! 
 Elsewhere he says that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew 
 
 * Einleit. p. 493. \ Adv. Haeres. iii. I. 
 
 J- Meyer, Commentar, i. I, p. 14. Hist. Eccl. v. 10. 
 
 || De Viris illust. c. 36. 
 
 12 
 
178 GOSPEL- CRI riCISM. 
 
 for the benefit of those of the circumcision who believed, 
 and that it was uncertain who translated it into Greek. 
 He further says that the Nazarenes, who had a copy of it 
 in Pamphilius' library at Caesarea, allowed him to make a 
 transcription of it. Again, he says that he translated the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Nazarenes 
 and Ebionites used, into Greek and Latin. * Yet Epipha- 
 nius is positive that the Gospel used by the Nazarenes 
 and Ebionites was the Hebrew Matthew, f although it 
 was known as that according to the Hebrews. But again, 
 Clement and Origen distinguished it from Matthew's 
 Gospel as independent and different. There can be little 
 doubt that the two writings were different, since citations 
 are preserved from the former of passages which are not in 
 our first Gospel. Now there is no little uncertainty in all 
 this testimony. The story of Bartholomew is legendary, 
 and there is no evidence that Pantaenus made an exami- 
 nation of the Gospel which he found in Arabia, so as to 
 be qualified to affirm that it was an original writing by 
 Matthew. It might, in fact, have been a translation of 
 the Greek first Gospel into Aramaic. It appears that 
 Jerome confounded the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
 with a supposed Aramaic Matthew, and afterwards 
 wavered, and said that it was simply thought by most 
 people to be identical with the latter. \ His commentary 
 on the Gospel of Matthew shows no acquaintance with a 
 Hebrew original. If we accord to Hilgenfeld that Papias 
 knew of various Gospels which were modifications of an 
 original work by Matthew, this critic's conclusion by no 
 means follows that Papias meant by the \oyia. a complete 
 
 * Ib. c. 2 and 3. f Haeres. xxix. 9. 
 
 \ Ut pleri autumant secundum Matthaeum. Comm. supra Matt. xii. 12. 
 Weiss, Einleit. p. 496. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 179 
 
 Aramaic Gospel.* For the demonstrable differences be- 
 tween our Matthew and the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews in its varied forms indicate nothing so much as 
 that the former was an independent elaboration from tra- 
 ditional and legendary sources of the original logia-col- 
 lection itself. The statements of Eusebius, Origen, and 
 others as to a complete Aramaic Gospel by Matthew were 
 probably echoes of an early tradition which grew out of 
 the testimony of Papias. This testimony as to the logia 
 stands unimpaired in spite of the attempt to show on 
 the one hand that it is to be referred to an Aramaic trans- 
 lation of a work written by Matthew in Greek, and on the 
 other to a complete Aramaic Gospel. The conclusion of 
 Weiss is probably in accordance with the general tendency 
 of criticism at the present time, viz., that of this original 
 writing by Matthew, which had already gone out of use 
 in the time of Papias, and was known to none of the later 
 fathers, we have no other knowledge than that given by 
 him. 
 
 With the early existence of a complete Gospel by Mat- 
 thew are irreconcilable the phenomena presented by the 
 Gospel of Luke, who in his prologue indicates an acquaint- 
 ance with many written accounts of the life of Jesus. It 
 is hardly supposable that if such a writing by the hand of 
 an apostle had existed when he wrote he would not have 
 known and consulted it. But knowing such a work he 
 could not have departed so widely from it in so many 
 particulars. Had he believed in the apostolic origin of 
 the story of the flight into Egypt, of the infancy, and of 
 the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection to his disci- 
 ples in Galilee, it is incredible that he should have written 
 about these matters in a manner wholly irreconcilable 
 
 * Die Evangelien, etc. p. 119. 
 
180 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 with these accounts.* Likewise, if Papias had known a 
 complete Matthew, it is not likely that he would have 
 been ignorant of the account of the death of Judas as 
 reported in that Gospel, and would have published the 
 entirely different story which has been preserved, espe- 
 cially since he declares, in the fragment in Eusebius, that 
 he was careful to inquire what Matthew had reported, as 
 well as what was said by certain others. Either Papias 
 was false to his own principle, an assumption for which 
 there is no ground, or his Matthew was not our first Gos- 
 pel.f Again, if our actual first Gospel had appeared 
 during the life of the apostle Matthew, and been stamped 
 with his apostolic seal, an ancient Bishop, very curious to 
 know just what the apostles had said, would not, towards 
 the middle of the second century, have regarded tradition 
 as the best means of learning what Matthew had said. J 
 
 That our canonical first Gospel is an independent com- 
 position in the Greek language and not a translation from 
 an Aramaic original is capable of demonstration from 
 internal evidences, and may be regarded as an established 
 result of modern criticism. The decision of the ques- 
 tion turns largely on the writer's way of quoting passages 
 from the Old Testament. As to these citations Credner 
 remarks that few subjects have had so much investigation 
 as this without a satisfactory result. Proofs have been 
 found in them both for and against an Aramaic original, 
 and, indeed, if single passages are considered alone, they 
 will furnish evidence for either hypothesis. Credner's 
 
 * Compare Matt. iii. 13-23, xxvii. 16-20 with Luke ii. 39, 40, xxiv. 13-53. 
 
 f Credner, Einleit. in das N. T. p. 91. 
 
 \ Reville, Etudes sur Matthieu, p. 6 ; cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. 
 
 Holtzmann regards this conclusion as unquestionable. Baur, Hilgenfeld, 
 Meyer, Davidson, and others understand by translation a more or less free 
 transformation of an Aramaic original. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 1 8 1 
 
 most searching and learned investigation of the subject is 
 one of the most valuable contributions to Gospel-criticism.* 
 His conclusions are that the author of the first Gospel 
 quotes freely from, and holds throughout in his citation 
 of passages from the Old Testament to, the Greek trans- 
 lation (the Septuagint), but in the Messianic passages, and 
 in these alone, makes comparisons and alterations accord- 
 ing to the Hebrew text, or, as Gesenius supposes, accord- 
 ing to an ancient Targum. From the Pentateuch are 
 quoted several passages, some twice, none of which have 
 a Messianic reference. All show a Greek origin, that is, 
 dependence on the Greek translation of the Old Testa- 
 ment, f From the Psalms eight passages deserve atten- 
 tion, the most of which are freely interwoven according 
 to the Septuagint, and others verbally reproduced. There 
 are no strictly Messianic passages among these. \ Sixteen 
 important quotations are made from the prophetical writ- 
 ings, being eight from Isaiah, one from Jeremiah, and 
 seven from the minor prophets. These are the really 
 Messianic proof-texts, and in them is apparent the strong- 
 est inclination to the Hebrew text ; yet this inclination is 
 of such a nature that the Greek basis remains unmistak- 
 able^ The writer of Matthew sometimes makes his 
 quotations from the Septuagint when that version, often 
 incorrect, is 'more suitable to his dogmatic purpose than 
 
 * Beitrage zur Einleit. in die bibl. Schriften, Bd. ii. 
 
 f Chap. ii. 20, iv. 4, 7, 10, v. 38, xv 4, xvii. 16, xix. 5, 18, xxii. 37. 
 
 \ Chap. xxi. 9, 16, 42, iv. 6, vii. 23, xiii. 35, xxii. 44, xxvii. 46. 
 
 Chap. i. 23, cf. Is. vii. 14 ; iv. 15, cf. Is. viii. 23 ; xii. 18-21, cf. Is. 
 xlii. if ; viii. 17, cf. Is. liii. 4 ; all purely Messianic passages. Cf. iii. 3, 
 xiii. 14 f, xv. 8 f, xxi. 13. From Jeremiah, xxxi. 15, Matt. ii. 18, deviating 
 somewhat from the Septuagint. From the minor prophets, Hos. xi. i, 
 Matt. ii. 15 ; Micah v. 2, Matt. ii. 6 ; Zech. ix. 9, Matt. xxi. 5. Inclining 
 more to the Septuagint are chaps, ix. 13, xi. 10, xii. 7. 
 
1 8 2 GOSPEL- CRITICISM. 
 
 the original Hebrew text. The quotation, i. 23, from 
 Isaiah vii. 14, furnishes an illustration. The historic 
 sense of the prophecy is that a young woman, perhaps 
 the wife of the prophet,* is with child, and will bring 
 forth a son whose birth will be the sign of the judgments 
 of Jahveh upon Israel. By following the Septuagint in 
 the translation of the Hebrew word for marriageable 
 young woman by the Greek word for virgin, f the writer 
 of Matthew makes the prophetic text serve as a proof of 
 the doctrine of the miraculous conception of Mary, a 
 proof, of course, from his exegetical point of view. 
 
 On the other hand, the evangelist sometimes departs 
 from the Septuagint-version when it suits the purpose for 
 which a quotation is made. In viii. 17 he finds the cures 
 performed by Jesus predicted in Isaiah liii. 4, where the 
 original reads: " He hath borne our griefs [sickness], and 
 carried our sorrows." The Septuagint translates the pas- 
 sage : " He bears our sins, and is distressed on our ac- 
 count," and this expiatory idea is expressed in I. Peter, ii. 
 24. This rendering did not suit the connection in which 
 the evangelist wished to use the quotation, and he accord- 
 ingly departs from the Septuagint, and adheres pretty 
 closely to the Hebrew text, rendering it : " Himself took 
 our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses." Again, a knowl- 
 edge of Hebrew is indicated in ii. 23 ; " And he shall be 
 called a Nazarene," a saying which is referred to " the 
 
 * Gesenius, Comm. uber den Jesaia ; Knobel, Der Prophet Jesaia, etc. 
 
 f The Hebrew word, noSy, used in this passage, means "a marriageable 
 young woman," i.e., one of the age to marry, and not "a virgin." The 
 Hebrew word for the latter is r6ttfl2. Other Jewish translators of the Old 
 Testament were more correct in rendering the former in Greek by vzavi 1 * 
 than the seventy, whom the first evangelist followed, by itapQero<s. Justin, 
 ignorant of Hebrew, reproaches the Jews for translating it by 
 Dial, cum Trypho, 71. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 183 
 
 prophets." The idea was evidently derived from two 
 passages in Isaiah xi. i, and Ix. 21, in one of which there 
 is a prophecy of a royal descendant of the line of David 
 who is designated as " the Branch," the Hebrew for which 
 word is similar to the first two syllables of Nazarene.* 
 The strange idea of the evangelist could not have come 
 from the Greek version, f and can only be explained by 
 supposing that he had studied the Hebrew text. These 
 are only a few of the examples which might be cited to 
 show that the first evangelist used both the Septuagint 
 and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in his quota- 
 tions from that book, but that in the great majority of 
 cases he depended on the former. The conclusion is that 
 the first Gospel was composed in Greek, and that the 
 author was a Jew versed in the Old-Testament Scriptures. \ 
 The acceptance of the testimony of Papias to the com- 
 position of the logia by Matthew in Aramaic and of the 
 evidence already adduced foi the writing of the Gospel in 
 Greek in its present form, leads to the inquiry as to its 
 author. The external evidence carries us no farther than 
 Matthew's authorship of the work mentioned by Papias. 
 An examination of the Gospel furnishes strong support on 
 internal grounds for the opinion that it is not the work of 
 an apostle or of an eye-witness. Not to emphasize the 
 fact that a contemporary would not be likely to employ 
 the expression, " until this day," the legendary portions 
 of the narrative are conclusive against its apostolical au- 
 thorship. Such are probably the accounts of the birth 
 
 y, Nezer. It is, however, nowhere said by a prophet, much less by 
 "prophets," that the person in question should "be called a Nazarene." 
 f The Septuagint translates the word by (pvrevjiKX. 
 J Weiss, Einleit. p. 527 ; Reville, Etudes sur Matthieu, p. 31. 
 &>, or juexpi ^ d^spov. Chap, xxvii. 8 ; xxviii. 15. 
 
1 84 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 and infancy of Jesus ; the details of the temptation in the 
 desert ; the episode of Peter's walking on the water ; the 
 story of the piece of money to be found in the mouth of a 
 fish ; the rending of the veil of the temple ; the resurrec- 
 tion of the saints at the time of the crucifixion ; and the 
 corruption of the guard placed at the tomb.* To any one 
 who may repudiate these objections on the ground that 
 they are subjective, it may be replied that they are 
 not urged from a prejudice against the supernatural 
 as such, but partly because they offend the historical 
 and critical judgment which, when unbiassed, cannot 
 but pronounce some of them to be of the nature of 
 legendary stories, which in apocryphal Christian writings 
 would be unhesitatingly set aside as such, and partly 
 because of internal difficulties. The apostolic origin of 
 the story of the infancy is, as has already been remarked, 
 irreconcilable with Luke's narrative. The detailed account 
 of the temptation furnishes in itself no grounds of histori- 
 cal verification, and has rather the appearance of an ex- 
 pansion of symbolic ideas into a narrative than an account 
 of actual occurrences. The symbolism of the abolition of 
 the Jewish cultus, which lay in the rending of the veil of 
 the temple, and of the resurrection of believers to be 
 effected through the death of Christ, in the opening of 
 the graves, may have received a similar historical expan- 
 sion in the related legends. The account of the guard of 
 .soldiers at the grave of Jesus and of their corruption by 
 the Jewish authorities is beset with insuperable difficul- 
 ties, and is correctly characterized by Meyer as belonging 
 to " unhistorical legends." Reville, in a work crowned by 
 the " Society of The Hague for the Defence of the Christian 
 Religion," remarks in regard to the foregoing accounts : 
 
 * i. ii. iv. l-il, xiv. 28-31, xvii. 27, xxvii. 51, 52, 53. Compare, Meyer, 
 Commentar, i. i, p. 60 1. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 1 8$ 
 
 " Now we regard it as evident that an author contempo- 
 rary with Jesus, witness of his life, his death, and his 
 resurrection, would not give place in his evangelic narra- 
 tives to these impressions more or less accentuated by 
 legend pious or mythic. In order to conceive of their 
 possibility, it is necessary to allow between the primitive 
 fact and its recital a sufficient lapse of time for the nimbus 
 produced by distance, to permit the imagination thus to 
 color the objects without prejudice to the na'ivet and the 
 perfect sincerity of intention which lend so much charm to 
 our sacred books." * 
 
 There are, moreover, apart from all objections which 
 may appear to be tainted with subjectivity, several con- 
 siderations of weight against the apostolical authorship of 
 the Gospel. There are no intimations in the book that it 
 was written by Matthew. An eye-witness would hardly 
 have passed over in silence the ministry of Jesus in Judea, 
 which is in itself probable, and is presupposed by the 
 evangelist himself, f The order of time appears to be in 
 part arbitrary and in part to have been determined by 
 an arrangement of events according to an order of the 
 subject-matter. There is wanting throughout the vivid- 
 ness of narration which denotes the eye-witness, especially 
 in the account of the crucifixion. In this respect the 
 Gospel is admitted to be inferior to Mark's. The dis- 
 courses of Jesus are artificially constructed by a com- 
 bination of elements which, though sometimes related, 
 evidently belong to different occasions. Two accounts 
 are repeated with slight variations.^: Two animals are 
 
 * Etudes sur Matthieu, p. 33. 
 
 f Chap, xxiii. 37. 
 
 \ Chap. xiv. 16-21, cf. xv. 32-38 ; chap. ix. 32-34, cf. xii. 22-20. Other 
 doublets, v. 29, 30, cf. xviii. 8, 9 ; v. 32, and x. 22, cf. xix. 9 and 
 xxiv. 9, 13. 
 
1 86 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 mentioned on the occasion of the entry into Jerusalem in 
 triumph in order that there may appear to have been a 
 fulfilment of a prophecy which the evangelist evidently 
 misunderstood. The scene in the synagogue at Nazareth 
 is misplaced, and Matthew's call has an improbable rela- 
 tion of time in the narrative. From these considerations 
 and many others which it is not necessary to urge, it 
 must be concluded that, as a whole, the Gospel is not of 
 apostolic origin, and cannot be the work of an eye-witness. 
 Its immediate composition by an apostle is accordingly 
 denied at the present time, not only by representatives of 
 the strictly critical school, but by all those who in refer- 
 ence to the synoptical question hold to the theory of two 
 sources, the logia and Mark, or in regard to the Johannean 
 question favor the apostolicity and historical credibility of 
 the fourth Gospel ; for on account of the differences be- 
 tween the narratives of Matthew and John, one of these 
 records at least must be struck out of the number of 
 primitive historical sources. * 
 
 The editor of our first Gospel doubtless used as the 
 sources of his narrative the logia of Matthew, the Gospel 
 of Mark, and oral tradition. The entire material of 
 Mark's Gospel, with trifling exceptions, has been in- 
 corporated into this record, and generally in the same 
 arrangement in which it stands in the former. The order, 
 however, appears to be frequently determined according 
 to the subject-matter rather than by regard for chronology. 
 The secondary character of the Gospel as compared with 
 that of Mark appears in various deviations from the latter, 
 often determined by literary motives. Places and persons 
 are mofe definitely determined. f Additions are made by 
 
 * Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 387. 
 
 f Chap. iii. I, "of Judaea" added, cf. Mark i. 4 ; the going to Capernaum 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. l8/ 
 
 way of explanation, enlargement, and coloring.* Entirely 
 new features are inserted in several places, f Words which 
 in Mark are only intimated receive a more pronounced 
 and formulated statement ; questions introducing a saying 
 of Jesus are shaped according to the answer, and the whole 
 narrative appears intended to smooth and alleviate what 
 is rough and harsh in the other. \ There are several pas- 
 sages which are evidently insertions into the text of 
 Mark. The revision of Mark's text by the first evan- 
 gelist nowhere appears more evident than in the history 
 of the passion which the former has reported in a quite 
 original way. The beginning of this history is plainly a 
 transformation of Mark's opening sentence. The demand 
 of money by Judas and his payment with the thirty 
 pieces; his direct unmasking; the climax of the three 
 acts of prayer in Gethsemane and of the three denials ; 
 
 is determined by a prophecy, iv. 13, cf. Mark i. 14-21 ; John is designated 
 as " the Baptist " on his first appearance, iii. i ; Simon is mentioned at once 
 with his cognomen of Peter, iv. 18, and many similar cases, xiv. i, xix. 20, 
 xxvi. 3, xxvii. 56, etc. 
 
 * " By a word," added to describe method of healing, viii. 16 ; the reason 
 added for plucking the ears of corn, xii. i, and for Peter's following of Christ, 
 xxvi. 58 ; the manner of Christ's death, xx. 19, and the object of the shedding 
 of his blood, xxvi. 28, cf. Mark x. 34, xiv. 24. 
 
 | Chap. xvi. i, Sadducees added ; xix. 19, the commandment of love to 
 neighbor added to the decalogue ; xxvii. 29, the reed placed in the right hand 
 as a sceptre. 
 
 \ Formulas made more precise or enlarged, iii. 2, cf. Mark i. i, 2 ; xvi. 
 22, cf. Mark viii. 32 ; xxvi. 27, 50, 52, 54, cf. Mark xiv. 22 f., 45, 47, 49 ; 
 questions modified, etc., xvii. 19, cf. Mark ix. 19 ; xviii. I, cf. Mark ix. 34 ; 
 xix. 3, cf. Mark x. 2 ; xix. 27, cf. Mark x. 28 ; xxiv. 3, cf. Mark xiii. 4 ; 
 difficulties removed, etc., xiii. 10-13, c f- Mark iv. 10-13 ; xv. 16-20, cf. 
 Mark viii. 18-23 > xv "' IO ~ I 3. c f> Mark ix. 12, 13 ; xiv. 34-36, cf. Mark 
 vii. 54-56. 
 
 Chap. xiv. 28-31, xvii. 24-27, xxvii. 3-10, 19, 24 f, 52 f, 62-66, xxviii. 
 2-4. 
 
1 8 8 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 the proposal of a choice between Barabbas and Jesus by 
 Pilate, are evidently secondary features. * Again, the 
 fact that much of Mark's peculiar use of words has passed 
 over into the first Gospel shows it to be a revision of the 
 former. 
 
 The evident dependence of our first Gospel upon the 
 second does not, however, account for an important por- 
 tion of its contents, consisting principally of material not 
 contained in Mark and apparently inserted in the frame- 
 work of the latter. This portion is composed chiefly of 
 discourses and sayings (logia) of Jesus, partly grouped in 
 great masses and partly dispersed. Its extent is so great 
 that it cannot have come to the writer through oral tradi- 
 tion. The logia reported to have' been written by Mat- 
 thew are probably its source. That the evangelist found 
 this material in a written form is capable of proof by 
 tracing the logia back through Luke's revision of the dis- 
 courses to their original form, from which they were com- 
 bined by the first evangelist into larger masses, and by 
 distinguishing the original sense of some portions of them 
 from that which they have received in the connection 
 given them by the latter, f Another evidence that the 
 first evangelist borrowed these sayings of Jesus from a 
 written document is found in the duplicates of expressions 
 which he gives once in the connection of Mark and in de- 
 pendence on his setting, and again in a quite different 
 connection and a modified setting. This phenomenon 
 can only be explained by the hypothesis that he regarded 
 
 * Chap. xxvi. 1-4, xxvi. 15, 25, 42, 44, 72, 74, xxvii. 17, 21. Weiss, Ein- 
 leit. p. 520. That the text of the first Gospel is in the most peculiar narra- 
 tive portions a literary revision of that of Mark, so far as the latter is wholly 
 original, has been shown by Weiss in a thorough parallel exegesis in his 
 Marcusevangelium. 
 
 f Weiss, Einleit. p. 521. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 189 
 
 the sayings which he found in different literary settings as 
 different expressions.* 
 
 There are good reasons for thinking that the first evan- 
 gelist regarded the logia, an apostolical writing, as his 
 principal source, and accordingly gave it the preference 
 over all others at his disposal, whenever a question arose 
 as to the form of expression or actual contents. This 
 view is confirmed by the fact that in many cases, although 
 having the text of Mark before him, he has preferred the 
 older source, and so, in spite of his dependence on the 
 former, has in these passages preserved the original form.f 
 While many of the critical conclusions regarding the rela- 
 tion of the evangelist to his sources must be conceded to 
 rest on a somewhat fragile support of conjecture, a most 
 careful and patient examination of the subject, conducted 
 with freedom from bias and carried into great detail, 
 appears to have shown, in the way in which he uses the 
 logia and Mark, the fundamental thought of his composi- 
 tion. This was not, then, merely to enlarge the Gospel of 
 Mark by the insertion of new material from another source, 
 however probable this purpose may appear on a superficial 
 glance at the distribution which he makes of that source 
 in his Gospel, but to expand into a biography of Jesus the 
 old apostolic document so as to adapt it to the needs of 
 
 * The saying about the offending hand, etc., v. 29 f, occurs again, modi- 
 fied according to Mark, in xviii. 8 ; that on divorce, v. 32, again in xix. 9 ; 
 that as to bearing the cross, x. 38, again in xvi. 24 ; that of the sign of 
 Jonah, xii. 39, again in xvi. 4 ; that of wonder-working faith, xvii. 20, 
 again in xxi. 21 ; and vice versa, that according to Mark xiii. 12, again 
 according to the logia, xxv. 29 ; xix. 30, again in xx. 16 ; xx. 26, again in 
 xxiii. ii ; xxiv. 42, again in xxv. 13. But the most striking duplicate of 
 the sort is the series of sayings, x. 17-22, which, because Mark has received 
 them into the discourse on the Parousia, xiii. 9-13, are repeated, slightly 
 changed, in xxiv. 913. 
 
 \ Cf. Matt. xiii. 24-30, with Mark iv. 26-29. 
 
I QO GOSPEL. CRITICISM. 
 
 his time and of the Jewish Christians, which, in its existing 
 form, it no longer satisfied. As a means to this end there 
 offered itself to him the historical frame-work of Mark's 
 Gospel, which he did not essentially modify except in the 
 earlier portions. But in order to provide for the abundant 
 materials of his chief source in this, it appears to have 
 suited his purpose and the plan of his work to mass the 
 dispersed groups of sayings and parables which he found 
 in the former into larger and more compact discourses. 
 If the hypothesis is correct which assumes the logia to 
 have been one of Luke's sources, it would appear from 
 the parables and sayings which his record has that are 
 not in the first that the author of the latter did not 
 succeed in utilizing all the material of the common source, 
 but it is believed that he has preserved it in the greatest 
 abundance and with the utmost fidelity, and accordingly 
 in his work has been rightly recognized the old Gospel of 
 Matthew, although it is an enlarged and greatly modified 
 edition of that writing.* 
 
 The first evangelist and Luke being supposed to have 
 used the logia-source, the complete reconstruction of it is 
 made from these two Gospels, with results varying accord- 
 ing to the critical point of view. Since the former fol- 
 lowed Mark's record with considerable dependence, it is 
 evident that one cannot pretend to entire accuracy in the 
 process of separating between the two sources, especially 
 when discourses and parts of them are in question. The 
 reconstructions by Weiss and Wendt leave little to be 
 expected from further critical research, however much 
 they may leave to be desired, f It is believed that both 
 
 * This is substantially the conclusion of recent criticism in the interest of 
 the "conservative" Mark-hypothesis. 
 
 f Weiss, Das Matthausevangelium, p. 18 f ; Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, i. 
 p. 44 f. Cf. Weizsacker, Untersuchungen, etc. ; Reville, Etudes sur Matthieu ; 
 and Holtzmann, Einleit. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 191 
 
 the first and the third evangelists had an independent 
 knowledge of the logia, since now the one and now the 
 other gives the source in the greater completeness, in the 
 more correct connection, or with the more original details. 
 It is hardly to be assumed, however, that they had before 
 them written copies of this source, or if they had them 
 felt constrained to follow their order and arrangement, 
 since their reproductions show many displacements of the 
 single sayings. On the other hand, it must be concluded 
 from the frequent and often surprising agreement of the 
 two in the Greek wording of the logia-fragments that the 
 source used by them was Greek, and accordingly that if it 
 was identical with the writing mentioned by Papias, it 
 was not known to them in its original Aramaic form, but 
 in a Greek translation. This conclusion is, indeed, not 
 unquestionable, because we can see from certain indica- 
 tions that Luke was probably acquainted with our first 
 Gospel as well as with that of Mark and the logia. It is 
 hence possible that his agreement with the first Gospel in 
 the wording of the logia-fragments may be explicable by a 
 reminiscence of that record, just as his agreement with its 
 many slight modifications in the reproduction of the rec- 
 ord of Mark is explicable on the same ground. Further, 
 it has been concluded that the manner in which the 
 writer of the first Gospel and Luke have connected the 
 contents of the logia and Mark's record is so far essen- 
 tially different, as the former has united those portions 
 which are similar in subject-matter, while the latter has 
 inserted the principal contents of the logia into Mark's 
 account in two great connected parts.* By this procedure 
 Luke has not only preserved single fragments of the logia 
 which the first evangelist has omitted because, perhaps, 
 he found in Mark's narrative no opportunity of joining 
 
 * Luke vi. 2O-viii. 3, and ix. 5i-xviii. 14. Weiss, ut supra. 
 
GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 them with it, but has also in general correctly reproduced 
 the original succession of these fragments. 
 
 Our first Gospel does not, however, find its complete 
 explanation in the two sources, the logia and Mark, but 
 contains portions which must be assigned in all probability 
 to the abundant oral tradition, the existence of which is 
 not only known through Papias, but also through the 
 early literature of the Church. The absence in Mark 
 of certain apparently legendary narratives is one of the 
 evidences commonly adduced for its greater antiquity, or 
 at least its more intimate relation to an apostolical source. 
 But the first evangelist appears to have thought that an 
 account of the birth and infancy of Jesus and of his 
 appearance after his resurrection was necessary to a com- 
 plete biography of him. It is not necessary to suppose 
 that written sources were employed in the writing of 
 chapters i. ii. and xxviii. The genealogy bears so plainly 
 the stamp of the writer's doctrinal point of view that there 
 can be little doubt of its origin with him in its essential 
 features. It is Jewish in its character, and aims to estab- 
 lish the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. The 
 entire account of the infancy has unmistakable marks of 
 popular tradition naivete, vagueness in regard to persons 
 and things, and pious confidence in the incessant interven- 
 tion of the finger of God to make the good cause triumph.* 
 The theory of the construction of the Gospel from sources 
 requires the reference to tradition of some passages which 
 have already been assigned a legendary origin on other 
 grounds, f The explanation of the parable of the tares 
 
 * Reville, Etudes, etc. p. 185. 
 
 f In particular the stories in which Peter is especially concerned, chaps, 
 xiv. 28 f, xvii. 24 f ; the end of Judas ; the dream of Pilate's wife, and 
 Pilate's washing of his hands ; the signs at the crucifixion, and the mention 
 of the corruption of the guards at the tomb, chap, xxvii. Some sayings of 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 193 
 
 and of that of the draught of fishes, * the remarks on the 
 fulfilment of prophecy in the life of Jesus, and all other 
 portions of the record which the evangelist has added 
 himself, are distinguished by a peculiar use of words 
 found only in his revision and clearly revealing his hand. 
 On the other hand, his dependence on documents shows 
 itself when sayings once given from memory are re-in- 
 serted where they appear to have been found in the 
 connection of one of his sources, f 
 
 In the absence of historical information as to the place 
 and time of the composition of this Gospel there is no 
 recourse except to indications given here and there in the 
 narrative. Weiss' judgment that the author did not write 
 in Palestine, but was a Jew of the dispersion, is supported 
 by very good reasons. A Palestinian would not speak of 
 his country as " that country." \ He appears, indeed, as 
 has been remarked, to have been a Jew learned in the Old 
 Testament and able to read it in the original, and he 
 speaks of Jerusalem as the holy city, but there are indi- 
 cations that he was not familiar with the geography of the 
 country so as to speak of the places after the manner of a 
 resident writing for residents. | Besides, it has been ques- 
 
 Jesus, whose connection we are not able to show in the logia, may also have 
 come to the evangelist through oral tradition. See chaps, v. 7 f, 14, vii. 6, x. 
 16, xv. 13, xviii. 10, xix. 10 f, xxi. 14 f, xxvi. 52 f. 
 
 * Chap. xiii. 36-43, 49 f. 
 
 f Compare ix. 13 with xii. 7 ; xvi. 19 with xviii. 18 ; x. 15 with xi. 24, or 
 vice versa ; iii. 7 with xxiii. 33 ; iii. 10 with vii. 19. 
 
 \ Chap. ix. 26, 31, 77 yi) EHEivrj. 
 
 Chap. iv. 5, xxvii. 53. 
 
 I " The wilderness " of Mark is mentioned as " the wilderness of Judaa" 
 and the writer apparently takes the city on the east coast of the Jordan 
 mentioned in his source for Gadara, chap. iii. I, 6, viii. 28, 33. That the 
 Gospel was intended for Jews of the dispersion appears from the fact that 
 the writer translates for them the words Immanuel, Golgotha, and those 
 from the Psalms in the prayer on the cross. 
 
1 94 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 tioned, with very good reasons, whether a Palestinian who 
 wished to enlarge the oldest apostolical source would, in 
 Palestine where numerous eye-witnesses must still have 
 been living, have depended almost entirely on the writing 
 of Mark, who was not an eye-witness, and would have 
 added from an independent source nothing but a small 
 number of traditions which bear evident marks of being 
 second-hand. The manner in which he writes of the set- 
 tlement of the parents of Jesus in Nazareth after their 
 return with the child from Egypt indicates an ignorance 
 of their original place of residence.* It has been main- 
 tained that certain passages in the Gospel are directed 
 against a prevailing gentile-Christian libertinism, and that 
 the evangelist put these denunciations into the mouth of 
 Jesus with regard to the fact that the Jewish-Christian 
 readers for whom the Gospel was intended lived in the 
 midst of circumstances to which they would apply, f 
 These intimations are supposed to refer to Asia Minor, 
 where, according to certain Epistles of the New Testa- 
 ment, this libertinism appeared in a threatening form in 
 the latter part of the apostolic age. From this point of 
 view the question as to the original language of the Gos- 
 pel cannot remain in dispute, since it must have been, 
 as a matter of course, the Greek in current use by the 
 evangelist and his readers.:): 
 
 The Jewish point of view and interest of the evangelist 
 are plainly indicated in the Gospel. An internal conflict 
 there is, indeed, in it between the Jewish-Christian and 
 Pauline tendencies ; and however this phenomenon may 
 be explained, whether by the hypothesis of a later revision 
 
 * Chap. ii. 22 f, cf. Luke ii. 39. 
 f Chap. vii. 22 f, xiii. 41, xxiv. 12. 
 \ Weiss, Einleit. p. 535. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 195 
 
 of a Pauline writer, or by assuming that the passages 
 which indicate the universal destination of Christianity 
 belonged to the original tradition of Jesus, the ancient 
 opinion that the Gospel was written " for those of the cir- 
 cumcision " must be the conclusion of criticism. To the 
 historic sense there is revealed in it the influence of that 
 early strife over the Messiahship of Jesus in which the dis- 
 ciples must have been engaged with their Jewish opponents 
 in Solomon's porch, when, for publishing " the glad tidings 
 concerning Jesus the Christ," the rude hand of authority 
 was laid upon them. Historical criticism cannot regard 
 the book as written without a purpose, or a " tendency," 
 to employ a much-abused and much-contested word, yet 
 a word which will never disappear from the terminology 
 of this science.* The purpose, or " tendency," then, of 
 the first Gospel is to convince the Jews of the doctrine \ 
 and to confirm the Jewish Christians in it that Jesus was 
 Israel's true Messiah. Along with this is also discernible 
 a polemical purpose, for the Jews are scourged in it for 
 their uhsusceptibility and obduracy towards the Messianic 
 message as in no other Gospel, and the discourses of Jesus 
 to this end are reported with great fulness and detail.f 
 To the writer as to Justin Martyr the whole life of Jesus 
 is determined by prophecies of the Old Testament, and 
 everything, even the episodes of the passion, takes place 
 in order that these may be fulfilled. Jewish, too, is the 
 prominence given to legalism and to the conception of 
 Jesus as sent only to the chosen people, as well as the 
 oriental numerical symbolism already referred to which 
 characterizes the literary method of the writer. 
 
 * See chapter ix. of this work. 
 
 f Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 1873, iii. p. 319 ; Keim, 
 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1867, i. p. 52 ; Holtzmann, Die synoptischen 
 Evangelien, 1863, p. 381. 
 
196 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 The date of the composition of the Gospel in its present 
 form is altogether a matter of conjecture so far as any 
 precise determination of it is concerned, and some modern 
 critics express more positive opinions regarding it than the 
 data warrant. It is generally conceded by Protestant 
 scholars that the final editing did not take place before 
 the year 70 and that the date of the logia must be placed 
 several years earlier. The Gospel undoubtedly contains 
 passages which presuppose the existence of the Jewish 
 state and the worship in the temple. But sayings retained 
 unchanged from the original source furnish no evidence 
 as to the time of the final revision of the work. The pas- 
 sage in which it is declared that the second coming, or 
 the Parousia, will take place " immediately after " * the 
 destruction of Jerusalem does not prove that the Gospel 
 was completed before the latter event, since the coming 
 of Christ might have been expected immediately after it, 
 though the word should not be subjected to too great a 
 pressure. Such passages as that which mentions the de- 
 truction of a city and its inhabitants for unbelief, f that 
 containing the threefold formula of baptism, a formula 
 which is certainly of late origin, and that indicating the 
 delay of the Parousia, have decided the judgments of 
 some critics in favor of a date later than the year 70, and 
 have determined significant changes of opinion. | The 
 reasons of Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, and Reville for placing the 
 composition of the Gospel about ten years after the over- 
 throw of Jerusalem are cogent, but hardly conclusive. 
 Baur, who brings the composition down to about 1 30, and 
 finds in chapter xxiv. an allusion to the time of Hadrian, 
 has not convinced many. 
 
 * svQeooS, chap. xxiv. 29. f Chap. xxii. 7. 
 
 \ Chap, xxviii. 19, cf. Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48, xix. 5 ; I. Cor. i. 13, vi. 
 II ; Gal. iii. 27 ; Rom. vi. 3. xP r %> Elv , chap. xxiv. 48, xxv. 5. 
 
 I Notably in Keim and Holtzmann. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. 
 
 SINCE Irenaeus' time"" tradition has ascribed our third 
 Gospel to Luke, who, according to the Epistle to the 
 Colossians,f was a physician, and a friend and fellow-laborer 
 of Paul, and was with him in Caesarae and Rome. Little 
 is known of his biography, but it would appear from the 
 way in which he is mentioned in Colossians that he was 
 not " of the circumcision." His birth is rather conjec- 
 tured than known, but that he was probably a Greek is ,, 
 indicated by the pure style of his prologue which is in 
 strong contrast with the Hebraizing-Greek of his sources 
 in the rest of the Gospel. The supposition that he was 
 one of the seventy disciples is in contradiction to the ac- 
 knowledgment which he makes in his prologue as to the 
 sources of his information J in which he distinguishes him- 
 self and those of his time from the " eye-witnesses." The 
 study of his Gospel naturally begins with the consideration 
 of this prologue by which it is distinguished from the 
 other three records in our canon. We here learn from 
 him something of his qualifications for his task and of the 
 manner in which he proceeded to accomplish it. He 
 expressly compares his work with that of many others 
 
 * Adv. Haeres. iii. i, i. 
 
 f Chap. iv. 4, cf. Phil. 24, II. Tim. iv. n, Epiph. Haeres. li. 12. 
 \ This legend arose, perhaps, from the fact that Luke alone gives the 
 account of the seventy, cf. Meyer, Commentar, i. 2, p. 224. 
 
 197 
 
198 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 who before him had undertaken from the traditions of 
 eye-witnesses to write accounts of the life of Jesus, and 
 evidently implies that he thinks himself able to improve 
 upon their work, since he had " accurately traced up all 
 things from the first." He proposes also to write a narra- 
 tive which shall be in order, * that is, shall have a proper 
 chronological arrangement, whereby it is perhaps implied 
 that the " many " who had undertaken to write Gospels 
 had not satisfied him in this respect. The mention of 
 many attempts to write similar accounts does not, how- 
 ever, necessarily imply Luke's acquaintance with nor his 
 use of all of them. Much less is there sufficient reason for 
 believing that he combined them into a mosaic-work 
 according to Schleiermacher's theory of the composition 
 of the Gospel, with which the author's claim to have 
 " accurately traced up all things from the first " is hardly 
 reconcilable. On the contrary the work has throughout a 
 uniform linguistic character, and shows frequent traces of 
 recasting and critical revision. He did not, however, 
 compose the Gospel in the classic Greek of which we may 
 infer from his fine prologue that he was a master, but 
 adopted the Hebraistic style of his predecessors in this 
 kind of writing, thus yielding to the influence of his 
 sources and his environment. 
 
 It appears from the prologue that the Gospel was writ- 
 ten with no general purpose of instructing mankind nor 
 with a consciousness of composing sacred Scripture for 
 future generations, but especially for the benefit of a friend 
 whom the writer names as Theophilus. Nothing is known 
 of this person, and his place of residence is a matter of 
 conjecture. The opinion has been favorably received that 
 he lived in Rome. The Gospel was evidently written for 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. 199 
 
 a gentile reader or for readers not familiar with Jewish 
 localities and customs. This is apparent from the expla- 
 nations which the writer seems to find it necessary to 
 make of the feast of unleavened bread, * of Nazareth, of 
 Capernaum, of Arimathea, of the country of the Gada- 
 renes, of Emmaus, and of the Mount of Olives.f 
 
 With regard to the sources of Luke's Gospel it is capa- 
 ble of being shown with great probability that apart from 
 a few omissions the entire Gospel of Mark has been incor- 
 porated into it even more completely than into the first 
 Gospel. Even in the rare cases in which a fragment of 
 Mark's narrative has been replaced from another source, 
 as in the scene in the synagogue at Nazareth and in 
 Peter's draught of fishes, criticism discerns features of 
 Mark's representation interwoven.^ A departure from 
 the order of Mark is made in the position given to this 
 scene in the synagogue at Nazareth which is placed im- 
 mediately after the temptation. The whole account 
 appears to have been taken from another source than 
 Mark, like that of the calling of the disciples, which is also 
 transposed. The awkward attachment of the narrative 
 to that of Mark appears in the twenty-third verse where 
 acts done in Capernaum are presupposed, while not until 
 the thirty-first verse is reached is the removal to Caper- 
 naum mentioned. But apart from this episode the order 
 of the second evangelist is almost exclusively followed, 
 although there are evidences in many places of an attempt 
 to revise his narrative in the matter of style, in enlarging, 
 and in explanation.! So familiar is Mark's narrative to 
 
 * Chap. xxii. i. \ Chap. iv. 22, 24, v. 10 f. 
 
 f Chap. i. 26, iv. 31, xxiii. 51, viii. 26, xxiv. 13, xxi. 37. 
 Chap. iv. 16-30. 
 
 I Revision in style, chap. iv. 32, 36, 37, compared with Mark i. 22, 27, 
 28 ; the explanatory TtokiS T. FaX., iv. 31 ; EX GOV 7Cv - 8<xijLi. O.KC&., iv. 33 ; 
 
200 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Luke that he frequently applies traits of it in narratives 
 derived from other sources, and the influence of the form- 
 er's diction is evident in many places in Luke's record.* 
 
 Luke was not, however, confined to Mark, but among 
 his " many " sources it is possible to trace another 
 already known to us in the first Gospel, and probably 
 also in the second. The recurrence in another connec- 
 tion of sayings apparently derived from Mark is most 
 naturally explained by the hypothesis that the author 
 must have found them in that connection in a written 
 form.f The most striking example of such doublets h 
 the discourse on the occasion of sending out the apostles 
 
 Ec,ov6. H(xi Svraju.y iv. 36 ; dvrsxoju. rtvp. jiisydXw, iv. 38 ; yev- 
 Evri^ fjiiepa's, iv. 42 ; the paraphrase of the K?}pv$(*), iv. 43 ; the more 
 accurate description pltyav avr. et<s TO juetfor, iv. 36 ; aradrd'5 aito r. 
 6vvay., iv. 38 ; r}pGorr]6ar avr. instead of Xey. avr., ib; the reflective 
 remark, judder /3A.dif>ar avr., iv. 35. In chap. v. 17 the presence of the 
 Pharisees and teachers of the law is anticipated ; in viii. 23 Jesus' falling 
 asleep is mentioned ; in viii. 27, the nakedness of the demoniac ; in viii. 
 42, the age of the maiden ; in viii. 51, the presence of the parents. Weiss, 
 Marcusevang. , Einleit., etc. 
 
 * For Mark's frequent evQvZ Luke has Ttapa^prf^a except in chap. v. 
 13, and vitdyziv, elsewhere avoided, is usedinxix. 30, /? TO Ttlpav\\\ viii. 
 22, and Na^aprjvoS for Na,a)paio$ in iv. 34. Expressions frequent in 
 Mark occur only rarely in the parallels in Luke, as naQevdetv, typai- 
 retv, daijuori^soOat, diSaxr?, dirdoor, draxvt. Other favorite expres- 
 sions of Mark are borrowed, as upaTEir, tfv fyrsiv, etc. Davidson has 
 collected many peculiarities of the style of Luke, Int. ii. p. 56 f. The sub- 
 ject is fully treated by Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evangel, p. 302 f. 
 
 f The separate elements of the series of sayings in chap. viii. 16-18 
 (Mark iv. 21-25) recur in chap. xi. 33, xii. 2, xix. 26 ; chap. ix. 23-26 
 (Mark viii. 34-38), in chap. xiv. 27, xvii. 33, xii. 9. On the other hand, 
 chap. xx. 46 (Mark xii. 38) was already in chap. xi. 43, and chap. xi. 14, 
 in a more original form in xii, n. Luke also interweaves sayings indepen- 
 dently which he adopts in another place from a connection probably existing 
 in a written form. Compare chap. xvii. 31 with xxi. 22, and chap, xviii. 14 
 with xiv. ii. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. 2OI 
 
 which is given once from Mark, and again soon after 
 under a different title.* That the discourse in the latter 
 form was addressed to the twelve in Luke's source is 
 apparent from an allusion which it contains appropriate 
 only to them.f Again, series of sayings and parables 
 are often transplanted by Luke into a connection with 
 which they do not accord, and may accordingly have 
 been borrowed from a writing in which they had a differ- 
 ent connection.^ The fact that the principal part of the 
 sayings of Jesus which Luke has, and Mark has not, is 
 found in the first Gospel, and, indeed, in those elements 
 of it which are assigned to the apostolic source, leads to 
 the conclusion that the same source was used by Luke. 
 Davidson's objection to this hypothesis, that Luke would 
 not be likely to use the logia-document, since the first 
 Gospel was in existence when he wrote, and had sup- 
 planted the former, is entirely a priori, and rather sug- 
 gests stronger probabilities for the opposite view. For 
 the logia-source, being apostolical, would naturally com- 
 mend itself to an historian like Luke, while our Greek 
 Matthew would be regarded by him as a work of the 
 
 * Chapters ix. and x. 
 
 \ Chap. x. 4, xxii. 35. 
 
 \ The meaning of chap. xii. 2 is obscured by its connection with the say- 
 ing about the leaven, xii. i. The same words ocqur in chap. viii. 17 in a 
 better connection. See also Mark iv. 22. The sense of the saying regard- 
 ing the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in chap. xii. 10 in its connection 
 with xii. ii can hardly be the original one, and just as little that of chap, 
 xiii. 30 in connection with xiii. 28 f. The saying in chap. xiii. 34 is unin- 
 telligible in its connection. The parables in chap. xiv. 16-24, xv. 4-10, 
 xviii. 2-8, and xix. 12-27 betray meanings which do not accord well with 
 their introductions, and those in chap. xiv. 8-14 lose, by their introductions, 
 xiv. 7, 12, their parabolic sense, which is definitely established by chap, 
 xiv. ii. Weiss, Einleit., and Marcusevangel. 
 
 Introduction, ii. p. 5. 
 
202 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 same rank as his own, and perhaps as most of the sources 
 accessible to him. It is not, indeed, improbable, but 
 rather the contrary, that he knew and consulted our first 
 Gospel, but, as Davidson acknowledges, the evidences of 
 his use of it are few.* On the other hand, the indications 
 are very clear that he made a liberal use of the document 
 on which the first evangelist largely depended for the 
 materials of the discourses and the " oracles " of Christ, 
 adopting from it the discourse of the Baptist, that against 
 those who asked for a sign, that announcing woes, the 
 second on the Parousia, and many lesser series of sayings 
 and parables. 
 
 The question whether Luke took these discourses from 
 the first Gospel or from the logia-document finds its solu- 
 tion in favor of the latter alternative, for the reason that 
 he has not in his use of the material followed the arrange- 
 ment of the first evangelist, who has massed the sayings 
 of Jesus into great discourses, but has presented them 
 rather in their original separation, with a statement of the 
 occasion which gave rise to them,f or in their evidently 
 original connection.^ Sometimes, however, he gives 
 them without occasion, or with an incorrect one,|| or, 
 again, in a separation from the fine connection of the first 
 Gospel, T a procedure which it is difficult to account for 
 on the hypothesis, of his use of the latter. The form of 
 the parables of the sower and of the grain of mustard ** 
 
 * Davidson quotes only two passages, but Simons has written a volume on 
 the subject. 
 
 f Chap. xi. 1-13, xii. 13-34, 54~59, xiv. 25-35, *vii. 22-37. 
 
 \ Chap. xi. 33 f., xiii. 24-29, xxii. 25-30. 
 
 Chap. xii. 51 f., xiii. 18-21, xvii. 1-4. 
 
 || Chap. xii. 2 f. 
 
 Tf Chap. vi. 40, cf., Matt. x. 24. 
 
 ** Chap. viii. 4-8 ; xiii. 18. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. 203 
 
 is probably the most original in Luke. Matthew appears 
 to have adopted them from Mark in an altered form. In 
 the discourse on the Parousia, the second of the inser- 
 tions which the first evangelist makes from Mark is 
 omitted,* and the first one is subjected to a very free 
 treatment,t which appears to indicate that it did not 
 belong to the original four, and was taken, not from the 
 first Gospel, where it appears in an entirely different con- 
 nection, but from the logia-document. Luke's revision of 
 this document is regarded as much freer than that of the 
 first evangelist, so that the form in which he has pre- 
 served it is on the whole not very original. In both there 
 frequently appear, however, independent and different 
 revisions of the source.^: 
 
 Both the third and the first evangelists proceed 
 with independence and freedom in their use of Mark. 
 They are not bound by his arrangement, and occasionally 
 break through it in different ways. How both take the 
 liberty to correct in different senses a text that is obscure 
 may be seen by consulting the parallels to Mark ii. 15-18, 
 especially Matt. ix. 10, Mark ii. 15, and Luke v. 29. 
 How each in his own way explains a figure appears in 
 the case of the warning as to the leaven of the Phari- 
 sees^ and how an obscure connection is variously cleared 
 
 * See Matt. xxiv. 23 f. 
 
 f Compare Luke xxi. 12-19 with Matt. x. 17-22. 
 
 \ The sermon on the mount can hardly be original either in the form in 
 which the third or the first evangelist gives it. The former abridges, the 
 latter enlarges it. Transformation hence became necessary. The first 
 evangelist gives seven beatitudes in the place of the four of the third, and 
 the latter reinforces them by a series of woes. The parables of the talents 
 and the supper are presented by both allegorically, but in different ways. 
 How now in one, now in the other, the original is retained is shown by 
 Weiss, Matthausevangel. See Einleit. p. 540 f. 
 
 Mark viii., 15 ; Matt. xvi. 12, Luke xii. I f. 
 
204 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 up may be seen in the parallels to Mark ix. 3337. 
 Luke's ignorance or disregard of the record of the first 
 evangelist is apparent from the fact that he seems to 
 know nothing of the latter's characteristic additions to 
 the text of Mark, and all the peculiarities of the passion 
 and the resurrection in his account. The prehistorical 
 portions of the two Gospels* and their accounts of the 
 appearances of Jesus after the resurrection are, as has 
 been already pointed out, directly exclusive of each 
 other, f Of the peculiarities of language which character- 
 ize the first evangelist there is scarcely a trace in Luke- 
 Weiss accordingly concludes that it is one of the most 
 incontestable results of Gospel-criticism that Luke used 
 the apostolic source of the first Gospel, but was unac- 
 quainted with that record itself.;); 
 
 The third Gospel doubtless contains considerable ma- 
 terial which was not derived from the logia-document and 
 Mark. It is, of course, impossible precisely to determine 
 what this is, as also to decide exactly what parts of it 
 came from written and what from oral sources. But the 
 striking contrast of the narrative of the birth and infancy 
 of Jesus, beginning at chapter i. 5, in its Hebrew-Greek 
 with the classic Greek of the prologue indicates the use 
 here of a written source. Weiss thinks it highly probable 
 
 * It is doubtful whether a writer acquainted with the second chapter of 
 Matthew could have written Luke ii. 39 if he attached any importance to 
 the former ; and if he knew of the genealogy of the first Gospel which 
 shows Jesus to have been a descendant of David in the royal line he would 
 hardly have traced his descent on an obscure parallel line. 
 
 f Luke must either have been ignorant of the first evangelist's account of 
 the appearance of Jesus in Galilee after the resurrection, or have disregarded 
 it entirely in writing chapter xxiv. 49. 
 
 | This conclusion is not, however, the unanimous verdict of criticism. 
 See Ed. Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthaus 
 benutzt ? 1880. See also Davidson, Introduction, ii. p. 5 f. 
 
THE COS? EL ACCORDING TO LUKE. 205 
 
 that these materials were taken chiefly from one source 
 which contained a complete biography of Jesus, since they 
 represent all sides of his public life. This critic accord- 
 ingly assigns to another source some of the sections which 
 Wendt includes in the logia-document. There are pas- 
 sages which are not contained in Matthew and Mark, 
 such as the parables of the prodigal son, the rich man and 
 Lazarus, the Pharisee and publican, etc.* In the history 
 of the passion there are some portions, such as the 
 prophecy of the betrayal, the denial, the prayer in Geth- 
 semane, and the proceedings before the council, which 
 differ so widely from Mark, while the account of the cruci- 
 fixion contains such striking additions, that the hypothesis 
 of a combination of another source with the narrative of 
 the second Gospel appears to be well grounded. Much 
 diversity of opinion exists regarding the long interpola- 
 tion, chapters ix. 5i-xviii. 14, so called because it inter- 
 rupts the chronology of the narrative of Mark, and its 
 purpose and source have been minutely discussed. It is 
 ostensibly an account of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, but 
 it does not become parallel with Mark until chapter xviii. 
 15. Instead of a direct journey, the narrative appears 
 intended to relate a leisurely moving about, first in the 
 direction of Samaria, thence from its inhospitable borders 
 back to Galilee, again to arrive upon those borders in 
 chapter xvii. 1 1. Hence Luke does not relegate the story 
 of Mary and Martha to Bethany, wherein he is in conflict 
 with the fourth Gospel.f The general conclusion appears 
 to be justifiable that in this section Luke followed a source 
 giving, perhaps, an account of the journeys of Jesus, and 
 abounding in sayings, discourses, and parables, (some of 
 
 * Chap. xv. xvi. xvii. 7-10, xviii. 1-15, x. 29-37. 
 f Meyer, Commentar, i. 2, p. 385. 
 
206 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 which were contained in the logia-document), differently 
 placed, perhaps, and modified in form, but suited to the 
 Pauline view of Christianity. 
 
 The early traditions regarding the composition of the 
 third Gospel recognize its Pauline character, and some of 
 them even connect Paul with its origin. Irenaeus calls 
 Luke's writing " the Gospel preached by Paul." * Tertul- 
 lian says that " Luke's digest is usually ascribed to Paul."f 
 Jerome thought that Paul referred to Luke's Gospel in 
 the words, " The brother [Luke] whose praise is in the 
 Gospel throughout all the churches," J and said that some 
 supposed that whenever Paul in his Epistles used the 
 expression, " according to my Gospel," he meant that of 
 Luke. It would, however, be hazardous to draw from 
 these traditions any conclusions relative to the origin of 
 the Gospel. They appear to have arisen from a dogmatic 
 interest to enhance the importance of the record by con- 
 necting it with an apostle ; though it is, of course, impos- 
 sible to say how much an early-discerned Pauline tendency 
 in it may have had to do with their origination. While 
 Luke does not in his prologue make any reference to Paul 
 as one of his authorities, and connects him in no way 
 with the writing of the Gospel, there are throughout the 
 work certain points of contact with him and certain coin- 
 cidences of language and thought which indicate an influ- 
 ence exerted upon the writer by the Pauline Epistles. 
 Many extreme positions have been taken by critics in 
 treating of this matter, some of which are little short of 
 trifling. The Pauline account of the last supper is, how- 
 ever, so similar to that given by Luke that there appears 
 
 * Adv. Hseres. iii. I, i. 
 
 f Adv. Marc. iv. 2, 5. See also Euseb., Hist. Eccl. vi. 25. 
 II. Cor. viii. 18. De Vir illustr. c. vii. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. 2O/ 
 
 to be good reason for supposing the latter to be a combi- 
 nation of Mark's with the former. Some critics find a 
 Pauline diction in the first two chapters which has remark- 
 able resemblances to Romans ix. xi.* 
 
 The historical point of view of the Gospel is quite dif- 
 ferent from that of the first, and indicates a more devel- 
 oped apprehension of Christianity. The writer, with his 
 Pauline training and environment, could not towards the 
 end of the first century produce such an account of the 
 life and teachings of Jesus as the Jewish first evangelist 
 had produced from his point of view twenty years earlier. 
 Only by a miracle could he compass such a composition. 
 In " accurately tracing up all things from the first " he 
 could not but give the results affected by the Christian 
 consciousness of the time as it took form in his own per- 
 sonality. Hence in his narrative the distinctively Jewish 
 coloring is effaced. The Jewish state is in ruins, Chris- 
 tianity has become a world-religion, and at the very begin- 
 ning of the record the descent of its Founder is traced as 
 " a second Adam," from the progenitor of the race " who 
 was the son of God." Accordingly, the messengers of 
 Christianity are no longer merely the twelve apostles, 
 corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, but the 
 seventy, who are sent forth with no injunction limiting 
 them to Jewish circles, but to gather the " great harvest." 
 On the scene appear the humble publican contrasted with 
 the self-righteous Pharisee, the Samaritan who returned 
 to give thanks for his cure, the other Samaritan who was 
 
 * Davidson, ii. p. 12. Many words and phrases are used which are found 
 only in Paul's writings, as aiKfJ-akcori^Eiv , dvaXwoai, dvarts/iiTtEtr, 
 drrartodojiia, endiaoHeir, xvpievsiv, etc. But the danger is manifest of 
 inferring too much from such isolated verbal resemblances, a long list of 
 which might be given. 
 
208 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 the type of brotherly love, the sinful woman with her love 
 and faith, the penitent thief on the cross. The legend of 
 Jesus has had more time for development, and has not 
 been slow to improve it. Hence expansion at the begin- 
 ning in the tradition of the birth and infancy, and expan- 
 sion at the end in that of the appearances after the 
 resurrection. The personality of Jesus has increased in 
 dignity and power. With greater majesty he moves 
 among the scenes of his ministry, and before him Satan 
 falls like lightning from heaven. On the cross he yields 
 up his life with no cry of abandonment and pain, but with 
 an assured commendation of his spirit to the Father. 
 
 The Gospel furnishes no definite indication of the place 
 of its origin. Modern criticism has generally decided in 
 favor of Rome, particularly with reference to the same 
 author's Acts of the Apostles, whose Roman origin is very 
 probable.* The author's use of the Roman Gospel of 
 Mark is favorable to this view, and, according to Hilgen- 
 feld, the way in which he attempts to exculpate Pilate in 
 the matter of Jesus' execution. Kostlin decides for Hel- 
 lenistic Asia Minor, and an ancient tradition points to 
 Achaia or Macedonia. At all events, there can be no 
 question that the Gospel originated outside of Palestine 
 and in gentile-Christian territory. Hilgenfeld questions 
 that Luke was the author, but gives no very good reasons 
 for this doubt.f 
 
 Indications of a later date than that of the other two 
 synoptics are furnished, particularly in the eschatological 
 discourses, but the data which these furnish are not very 
 definite. After the destruction of Jerusalem the Gospel 
 appears certainly to have been written, and at a time when 
 the expectation of an immediate return of Christ was no 
 
 *Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. 1850, p. 360. f Die Evangelien, p. 225. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. 2(X) 
 
 longer entertained. The Parousia is not set forth with 
 the vividness of the delineation of the first Gospel, but 
 with more reserve and vagueness. There appears to be 
 a critical revision by the author of the earlier expres- 
 sions regarding the advent. He does not make the disci- 
 ples ask Jesus to reveal " the time of his coming and of 
 the end of the world/' but only " when these things," the 
 overthrow of the temple, etc., " shall be." In the first 
 Gospel the coming of Christ is placed " immediately after 
 the tribulations " of Jerusalem's fall, but in Luke " the 
 end is not immediately." * Luke's delineation of the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem in his rendering of the forecast of 
 it was evidently written some time after the event, and 
 the ill-fated city is represented as trodden down by the 
 gentiles until their times should be fulfilled.! The perse- 
 cutions of the Christians in the time of Trajan appear to 
 be described, and among the signs of the impending final 
 judgment is perhaps a reference to a phenomenon of the 
 eruption of Vesuvius in the time of Titus, the " roaring of 
 the sea and waves, men's hearts failing them for fear." \ 
 The situation appears to be one of distress which must be 
 endured under the yoke of foreign dominion, and great 
 steadfastness and watchfulness are required. This view 
 does not exclude a forecast by Jesus of the fate of the 
 Jewish state, but is based on a critical judgment of the 
 influence of the writer's historical environment upon the 
 form of his narrative, or, in other words, is the result of a 
 study of the record as literature. The probable date of 
 the composition of the Gospel is about the year 90, and 
 the reasons given for placing it later do not appear to be 
 conclusive. 
 
 *Matt. xxiv., Luke xxi. f Chap. xxi. 24. 
 
 t /<*. 25, 26. 
 14 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 
 
 THE study of the first three Gospels has shown them 
 to represent a definite type of the biography of 
 Jesus both in respect to his personality and the character 
 and theatre of his ministry. But the ordinary, uncritical 
 reader cannot but feel, when he turns to the fourth Gos- 
 pel, that he enters a different realm of thought, and 
 approaches a unique conception of Jesus regarding his 
 person and his manner of teaching. He will, indeed, note 
 some points of contact with the synoptic narrative, but 
 whether or no he construe the peculiarities with which he 
 meets as due to a purpose to represent another phase of 
 the character and life of Jesus, he will be unable to escape 
 the sense of a different environment and spiritual atmos- 
 phere from that which he experienced in reading the other 
 Gospels. To the critical reader, however, the contrast is 
 more striking, and has been observed and expressed by 
 the great, both among the ancients and^the moderns. To 
 Clement of Alexandria this writing was a spiritual Gos- 
 pel ; * to Origen the firstling of all scripture ; f to Luther 
 the only, tender, true chief-Gospel ; J and to Herder the 
 echo of the older Gospels in the higher choir. As it is 
 the fundamental difference of this Gospel from the synop- 
 
 * TO Ttvf.v)j.ariKov svayyi-Xiov, Euseb., Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. 
 
 f ctTtapxtf itdtirjt, ypacpijS. In Job. tome i. 5. 
 
 \ Das einzige, zarte, rechte Hauptevangelium. 
 
 Der altesten Evangelien Nachklang im hoheren Chor. 
 
 210 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 211 
 
 tic narratives which first draws the attention of the casual 
 reader and of the critic, so it is with the consideration of 
 it that the study of the work naturally begins. No great 
 importance could rightly be attached to this difference if 
 it concerned only such superficial matters as the arrange- 
 ment of the material of the history, slight discrepancies as 
 to the time and place of events, and such peculiarities as 
 appear in the first three when compared with one another. 
 But the facts of the case are such as to warrant the words 
 of one of the most candid critics, which express the judg- 
 ment of many scholars of great learning and sincerity : 
 " The difference between the fourth Gospel and the other 
 three affects the whole conception of the person and 
 teaching of Christ and the fundamental distribution of the 
 events of his public ministry." * 
 
 The attentive reader who passes from the study of the 
 synoptic Gospels to that of the fourth finds his attention 
 at once arrested by its prologue. He is taken off his feet. 
 He has left the solid ground of history, and is caught up 
 into the aerial regions of speculation. The oldest Gospel 
 had introduced him to its story with the simple words : 
 '* The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ." The 
 next in order had proceeded at once to make him 
 acquainted with the human genealogy of Jesus. The 
 third had informed him concerning the historical sources 
 by which its record was authenticated. But this Gospel 
 ushers him into the realm of the supersensible amidst the 
 elements of "the beginning," and tells him strange things 
 of a Logos who was God, and was with God, through 
 whom all things were made, who became flesh, and dwelt 
 
 *An Attempt to Ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, especially 
 in its Relation to the Three First, by John James Tayler, B.A., London, 
 1867. 
 
2 1 2 GOSPEL- CRITICISM. 
 
 among men. Here is no longer a simple story of the son 
 of David with his human parentage, the representative of 
 his people, the heir and restorer of their ancient glory, 
 but a mystic speculation concerning a personal revelator 
 of the Eternal, a celestial Light coming forth from the 
 bosom of God and flashing upon the uncomprehending 
 darkness of the world. The reverse of a historical method 
 is this of the prologue. The reader is introduced at once 
 into an ideal world, and led to expect a -philosophical 
 treatment of history dominated by a dogmatic conception 
 derived from the Alexandrian speculations. The prologue 
 justifies the reader in looking for a treatment of the 
 evangelic material more or less affected by a " tendency," 
 or a purpose to establish a theory, if not by invention, at 
 least by a handling of the matter adapted to effect a pre- 
 determined conviction. He finds, in fact, such an expec- 
 tation confirmed towards the end of the record where the 
 evangelist declares with great na'ivet that the Gospel has 
 been written precisely to establish the reader's belief that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God.* How different is all this 
 from the synoptic narratives in which Jesus appears upon 
 the open field of history without a speculative background, 
 submitting to the baptism of John, enduring temptation 
 in the wilderness, engaged in a real process of develop- 
 ment, withholding Messianic pretensions until the full 
 consciousness of his mission is attained, beginning his 
 wonderful works by no display of almighty power, but by 
 the healing of demoniacs and cures prompted by compas- 
 sion ! In these records the background of the life of 
 Jesus is the unadorned social life of his countrymen 
 which conspires with his personality to make him what 
 he becomes. There is a charming conformity to nature 
 
 * Chap. xx. 30, 31. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 21$ 
 
 in this setting of his biography. For Jesus needed, as 
 Keim remarks, not alone a John in order to be himself, 
 but a believing people in order that in the charm of his 
 mind instead of mere logic and in the reciprocity with 
 men wonders might happen, and meditative souls at his 
 feet in order that he might climb the full height of his 
 destiny. 
 
 This Gospel also introduces us to a new series of events. 
 After the writer descends to the ground of reality from 
 the region of philosophic speculation in which he moves 
 in the prologue, he places before us things strange to us 
 as readers of the synoptists. There are new words of the 
 Baptist to the messengers of the Sanhedrim, of Jesus to 
 John's disciples who had come to him; new situations, 
 such as baptism by the disciples of Jesus as well as by 
 John ; the carrying of a common purse whose bearer was 
 Judas; the attempt of Galileans to make Jesus a king; 
 the visit of Greeks to him ; new persons, as the Samari- 
 tan woman, the nameless man born blind, Nicodemus, 
 Lazarus ; and new localities, as Enon, Salim, Ephraim, 
 Bethany on the Jordan. The theatre of the ministry 
 of Jesus is quite different in this Gospel from that of 
 the synoptic tradition. In the latter Jesus appears first in 
 Capernaum, and is occupied during the first half of his 
 ministry about the Sea of Galilee. The second part is 
 employed in the northern borders, and Luke gives inti- 
 mations of a journey towards the south. But in the 
 fourth Gospel Judea is the principal field of Jesus' work. 
 According to the synoptists Jesus made but one journey 
 to Jerusalem after the beginning of his public ministry, 
 and that towards the end of it. Then he cast the money- 
 changers out of the temple. But according to the fourth 
 Gospel, this purification of the temple was performed at 
 
214 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 the beginning of his ministry, which touched Galilee in 
 occasional excursions mostly of short duration.* This 
 change of theatre required a change of representation. 
 Hence the greater part of the peculiar synoptic narratives 
 find no place in this new arrangement of the biography of 
 Jesus. We miss the characteristic teachings of the earlier 
 tradition, the temptation, the numerous healings, the 
 demoniacs, the sermon on the mount, the discourse from 
 the boat, the thronging Galileans, the transfiguration. 
 There is a change in time also. This new biography 
 could not find room within the limits of the synoptic 
 narrative with its brief Galilean episodes and its single 
 journey to the final tragedy in Jerusalem. According to 
 these Jesus attends but one passover, and his ministry 
 appears to occupy but about one year, while his public 
 ministry as detailed in the fourth Gospel extends over 
 about double that time. 
 
 Striking characteristics in strong contrast to the older 
 Gospels are presented in this record, in the relation which 
 discourses and narratives hold to each other, as well as in 
 the peculiarities of the discourses themselves. This pro- 
 portion results from the purpose of the Gospel to set forth 
 the inner essence and nature of Jesus, rather than to pro- 
 duce a biography. Accordingly, discourses and sayings 
 intended to be self-revelations predominate, and doings 
 hold a subordinate place. The history illustrates the 
 idea, is there for its sake, and hence is made secondary to 
 it. Often it is incomplete, as if the writer, mastered by 
 his purpose of idealization and hurried on to a spiritual 
 or metaphysical result, had dropped the thread of his 
 narrative, and forgotten to take it up after he had carried 
 the story so far as was necessary in order to furnish occa- 
 
 * Chap. ii. 12, iv. 43, vii. I. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 21$ 
 
 sion for the unfolding of the Logos-idea.* Nothing dis- 
 tinguishes this Gospel from the others in so marked a 
 manner as the discourses ascribed to Jesus. In the 
 synoptics, Jesus speaks in the popular, simple Eastern 
 style which abounds in proverbs and parables. He 
 speaks as a man of the people, addressing himself in 
 homely terms to the simple-minded. But in this Gospel 
 the profound allegory takes the place of the easy parable, 
 and instead of the pithy, brief, but luminous sentences, 
 with which he clothes his thought in the synoptics, there 
 prevails here a stilted and strained style of discourse, which 
 is often pursued at length, regardless of the capacity of 
 the supposed hearers, and with frequently-recurring mis- 
 understandings on their part. Often a discourse, which 
 begins on a well-defined occasion, takes a wide range, and 
 ends with the occasioning incident and itself hanging in 
 the air, nothing having been accomplished but the enforce- 
 ment of a doctrine of the person and work of Jesus. f We 
 also miss in these discourses the practical interest, the 
 direct aim at conduct, which pervades all the teachings of 
 Jesus in the synoptic records, the admonitions to self- 
 denial and tender mercy, the warnings against the perils 
 of riches, worldly lust, and care, the lesson of the sower, 
 the blessing on the poor, the preaching of the kingdom of 
 God, and the conditions of entering it. The kingdom 
 recedes to give place to the personality of Jesus, which is 
 advanced into the foreground, although by no means 
 treated in a manner adapted to the popular understanding. 
 Weizsacker well expresses the impression which the dis- 
 courses of the fourth Gospel make upon the reader when 
 
 * For example, it is not related what was the effect on Nicodemus of the 
 discourse which Jesus delivered to him, chap. iii. 1-22, and whether or 
 no the Greeks attained their object, chap. xii. 20-22. 
 
 j* Compare the " conversation " (?) with Nicodemus. 
 
2 1 6 GOSPEL. CRI TJCISM. 
 
 he says that it is one of " hardness," of a succession of 
 glaring lights uninterrupted by any softening.* 
 
 The tendency of the fourth evangelist to glorify the 
 person of Jesus perhaps best explains the character of his 
 apprehension and record of the " signs " which he ascribes 
 to him. Their difference from the miracles recorded in 
 the synoptics is striking and significant. The compassion- 
 ate, humane Son of Man who went about doing good, so 
 charmingly portrayed in general by the synoptics, appears 
 to have made little impression upon this writer, whose 
 attention was enchained by his conception of the heaven- 
 descended Logos, who performs wonderful works of the 
 most astounding nature, who is never " unable " to com- 
 pass them, who possesses marvellous insight and foresight,f 
 knows what is in man, and is never said to have the senti- 
 ment of pity. His public ministry is introduced (in a way 
 how different from that of the synoptists !) with the amaz- 
 ing miracle of turning water into wine, a miracle which 
 appears to be entirely uncalled for, except to " manifest 
 his glory" and become a "sign."J The narrative of the 
 feeding of the five thousand is related with a manifest 
 purpose to exalt Jesus, as is that of the healing of the 
 nobleman's son, which has other features that distinguish 
 it to the point of irreconcilability from that of the first 
 and second Gospels. Instead of being at Capernaum, 
 according to the latter, Jesus is at Cana, a place twenty- 
 five miles distant. Instead of offering to go to the house 
 to heal the son, Jesus accosts the nobleman with a rebuke. 
 In the synoptics, the man tells Jesus not to trouble him- 
 
 * Untersuchungen iiber die evangel. Gesch. p. 250. 
 f Chap. iv. 64, xiii. 3, xviii. 4. 
 
 \ drfjuetor, used by this writer, but by the synoptists only in a bad sense. 
 The synoptic word SvvdueiS, " mighty works," he never uses. 
 Chap. vi. 5, 6. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 
 
 self to go to the house, but to speak the word only, while 
 here he supplicates him to come down ere his child die. 
 The important incident of the nobleman's faith at which 
 Jesus marvelled, according to the synoptics, is omitted. 
 Jesus' marvelling at anything does not accord with the 
 point of view of this writer. Without entering upon a 
 discussion of the question as to the historical character of 
 the wonders recorded in this Gospel, and waiving all con- 
 siderations touching their symbolical purpose, one cannot 
 but regard it as indicating a decided " tendency " that the 
 man born blind should be declared to have been so born 
 in order that the works of God might be made manifest 
 in him (a strange teleology, surely !), and that Lazarus 
 should be said to have died that the son of God might be 
 glorified ! The incidents connected with the death and 
 resurrection of Lazarus all tend to the same end as the 
 preceding accounts. Jesus is represented as glad that he 
 was not present during the illness of Lazarus, in order 
 that his disciples may believe. He appears to let him die 
 in order that he may raise him, remaining where he was 
 two days after he had heard of his illness. Though he had 
 to be informed of his friend's danger, he knows, apparently 
 by a miraculous prescience, that he is dead, yet, arrived 
 at the place, inquires where he was buried. At the grave 
 he prays "for the sake of the multitudes" "that they 
 may believe." He calls the dead man from the tomb by 
 a word of almighty power in order that " the glory of 
 God " may be manifested. History all this may, indeed, 
 be, but the conclusion can hardly be avoided that it is 
 history subordinated to an idea. 
 
 Preliminary to the discussion of the historical character 
 of the Gospel a consideration of its sources is important. 
 It is in the highest degree improbable that the evangelist, 
 
2l8 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 whoever he may have been, composed the work by a tour 
 de force of pure invention. Should the theory that he 
 wrote it under the influence of a dogmatic purpose be es- 
 tablished, it would by no means follow that he proceeded 
 independently of the abundant materials for writing a 
 Gospel which must have been within his reach, or that he 
 was not affected in his mode of expression and even in his 
 ideas by the existing Christian literature. The synoptic 
 Gospels had certainly been for some time in existence 
 when he wrote, and his use of their material to some ex- 
 tent is now admitted by the critics of the most opposing 
 schools.* Along with the many sayings in honorable 
 mention of Peter which Baur notices we are reminded of 
 the first Gospel by the gentle beast of the entry into Jeru- 
 salem, the sword-scene in Gethsemane, Mary at the tomb, 
 the son of the centurion, etc. There are points of contact 
 with the synoptic narratives in the account of the cleans- 
 ing of the temple, with the difference in time already 
 pointed out ; in that of the feeding of the multitude ; in 
 , that of the walking on the sea, with marked discrepancies, 
 since the account in the fourth Gospel implies that Jesus 
 did not go into the boat ; in that of the anointing at Beth- 
 any, in which there are divergencies from the older 
 accounts ; in that of the public entry into Jerusalem ; in 
 Jesus' pointing out his betrayer ; and in the history of the 
 passion and resurrection. In all this contact with the 
 earlier records the evangelist uses the greatest freedom, 
 and does not scruple at numerous variations in things 
 small and great. He gives the synoptic sayings of Jesus 
 which he uses in quite new and independent connections. 
 The sayings regarding the destruction of the temple and 
 
 * Baur, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Ewald, Holtzmann, Godet, Hengstenberg, 
 Luthardt, Weizsacker, Wittichen, and others. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 2 19 
 
 the naming of Peter are placed at the beginning instead of 
 the end of the history. There appear to be some points 
 of contact in the Gospel with the Pauline ideas and 
 forms of expression, particularly in regard to the rela- 
 tion of the law and the dispensation of grace, but the 
 resemblances are not close enough to warrant the conclu- 
 sion that the writer was familiar with the Pauline thought 
 to such an extent as to have made it his own.* The ques- 
 tion of the sources, says Keim, leaves us undecided how 
 we ought to explain the strong novelties and the bold de- 
 viations of the Gospel. Is it the living stream of oral tra- 
 dition, is it the eye-witnesship of the author which justifies 
 or excuses him, or must not one in many points rert in 
 the belief that he made a free literary transformation of 
 the history on the ground of a philosophical and religious 
 idea which according to his own confession he would 
 serve ? f 
 
 The tendency of the modern criticism of the Gospel is 
 towards an affirmative answer to this latter question. 
 Baur's objections to the historical character of the Gospel 
 from this point of view, however extreme and overwrought 
 some of them may be, have never been entirely overcome, 
 and their influence appears still in the judgment of moderate 
 and conservative critics, like Weizsacker and Wendt, who 
 maintain some connection of the apostle John with the 
 composition of the Gospel. In arriving at a decision as 
 to the historical character of the record much depends, of 
 course, on the conception of history with which one sets 
 out. Judged by the most rigid conception of history, per- 
 haps no one of the four Gospels could be pronounced a 
 
 * Holtzmann gives a long list of parallel passages which show, indeed, 
 some greater or less similarities of thought. But one cannot decide to what 
 extent these ideas may have been the common property of the time. 
 
 f Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i., p. 121. 
 
220 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 strictly historical composition throughout. But it would 
 be manifestly improper to apply such a standard to any 
 one of them. A history free from all ideal and legendary 
 elements could not without a miracle have been written 
 under the circumstances in which the Gospels originated. 
 If, then, we take the synoptic records as representing the 
 sort of history which one might fairly suppose would be 
 written by Christians living near the end of the first cen- 
 tury, we cannot but see, if we will lay aside prepossessions 
 as much as possible, that the fourth Gospel is a widely 
 different type of composition from even these. 
 
 Not to dwell on the speculative themes which dominate 
 the Gospel, and must be acknowledged to be disturbing 
 to the historical development of any composition dealing 
 with the materials of history, it is evident to the unbiassed 
 student that the purpose is not purely historical. The 
 comparison of it with the synoptic narratives shows clearly 
 a selective aim in the use of material and consequently a 
 one-sidedness. An eclectic Gospel, as Keim remarks, is 
 a one-sided Gospel. In passing over many parts of the 
 history of Jesus, as we must conclude it does if we give 
 credence to the synoptics, and adhering tenaciously to 
 another part of it, it has, as even Weizsacker acknowledges, 
 presented only a "half-true picture" of his life. The impres- 
 sion which it makes is, besides, that of a completed work 
 the supplementing of which from the other records would 
 be a proceeding of great violence. To transfer to it the 
 material, and still more the spirit, of the discourses and acts 
 of Jesus out of the others would be to create a phantom, 
 a hermaphrodite of unnaturalness and contradictions.* 
 This dispensing with, or rather downright exclusion of, 
 a long series of correct traditions has been rightly regarded 
 
 * Keim, Gesch. Jesu, p. 122. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 221 
 
 as inconsistent with a genuine historical aim. The theory 
 that the Gospel was written with the design of supple- 
 menting the synoptic records is untenable on the ground 
 that it in part repeats, and in part directly traverses, their 
 narratives. 
 
 The subjective character of the Gospel has been repeat- 
 edly pointed out. It is not, of course, to be expected that 
 a writer should conceal himself in composing a history ; 
 but it is evident that, just to the degree in which he 
 obtrudes himself, in that degree is the historical character 
 of his composition prejudiced. Now in this Gospel the 
 personality of the writer is excessively prominent. Not 
 only are the discourses ascribed to Jesus and the narrative 
 portions marked by a uniformity of style and peculiar 
 turns of expression which give them the appearance of 
 having been cast in the same mould, but commentators 
 find it difficult in many cases to separate the words of 
 Jesus from the reflections of the evangelist. It is evident 
 that the writer has put himself into the entire book to 
 such a degree as very much to prejudice its historical 
 character. One cannot but ask, and criticism has often 
 asked, how the writer, even if an ear-witness, could have 
 retained in memory these long discourses of Jesus, which 
 are the more difficult for the memory on account of their 
 peculiar character. That discourses which often have no 
 point of attachment in events, are wanting in logical con- 
 nection, and are suspended in the high regions of specu- 
 lation, could have been accurately reproduced by the 
 memory, is a psychological incredibility. That they 
 could have been handed down through oral tradition, 
 as the pithy sayings and parables of the synoptics doubt- 
 less were, may confidently be declared impossible. Even 
 those critics who attempt to maintain the essential integ- 
 
222 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 rity of the discourses by the supposition that the assumed 
 author, John, had become imbued with the teachings of 
 Jesus, and had made his spirit and thought his own, are 
 obliged to admit the " subjective freedom " of the writer 
 in the construction of these long disquisitions. But, sub- 
 jective freedom admitted, the question cannot but arise to 
 what extent the historical credibility of the Gospel is 
 affected by it. Is the mode of teaching which is here 
 attributed to Jesus, and is so fundamentally different from 
 that which the synoptists gathered from Matthew's logia 
 and from the oral. tradition, the actual historical method? 
 All that is most trustworthy in the tradition of Jesus 
 represents him as speaking in such a way that the common 
 people heard him gladly, employing such terse, epigram- 
 matic, and parabolic forms of clothing his ideas as go 
 straight to the popular mind, and make a tenacious and 
 lasting oral tradition. The long, diffuse, involved, and 
 philosophic discourses in the fourth Gospel cannot be the 
 historical words of the great Teacher of the synoptic 
 tradition, if that tradition is to be accepted as essentially 
 authentic. The " subjective freedom " of the writer 
 appears to have been exercised to the extent that it has 
 totally transformed the method of teaching, and, more 
 than this, has substituted an Alexandrian mysticism for 
 plain, practical, every-day morality. " The limpid spon- 
 taneity of that earlier teaching, with its fresh illustrations 
 and profound sentences uttered without effort and un- 
 tinged by art, is exchanged for diffuse addresses and 
 artificial dialogues, in which labor and design are every- 
 where apparent." 
 
 The historical credibility of the Gospel has also been 
 called in question, in view of its relation to Paul and the 
 early controversies in the Church between Jewish and 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 22$ 
 
 Pauline Christians. Attention has already been called to 
 the points of contact with Pauline thought in the Gospel. 
 Whether the writer had studied the theology of Paul in 
 the Epistles of this apostle, or had elsewhere learned it, 
 certain it is that his representation of the attitude of Jesus 
 towards the Jews and the gentiles is so decidedly Pauline 
 that the opposition of the apostles and Jewish Christians 
 generally to the tendency represented by the apostle to 
 the gentiles is unintelligible on the presumption of the 
 historical truth of the Gospel. Had the apostles known 
 Jesus to have taught as he is here represented as teaching, 
 they could not have opposed Paul, and had Paul known 
 it, he could not have failed to appeal to such an authority. 
 With all the spiritualizing of the law in the synoptics, 
 Jesus there announces that he came not to abrogate but 
 to fulfil it, and that not one jot or tittle should pass from 
 it until all be fulfilled. No such declaration is put into his 
 mouth in the fourth Gospel, nor does the evangelist 
 express any such sentiment. The spirit of the record is 
 that which belongs to a later development of Christianity 
 under the influence of Pauline ideas. The words, " The law 
 was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus 
 Christ," * are quite Pauline, and imply that there was 
 neither grace nor truth in the old dispensation. Christ 
 is made to disclaim the functions of the law, since he 
 came not into the world to judge it.f Eternal life comes 
 only of faith in the Son.:): The temple-worship passes 
 away to give place to the spiritual worship, which is 
 bound to no place. No more spiritual importance is 
 attached to the Old Testament than to say that "the 
 Jews" think they have eternal life in it. Indeed "the 
 
 * Chap. i. 17. f Chap. iii. 7, v. 24. \ Chap. iii. 36 
 Chap. iv. 23 
 
224 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Moses is depre- 
 ciated. It was no " true bread " that came through him.* 
 " The Jews " appear as foreigners in this Gospel, and 
 Jesus is made to speak to them of the law as "your law/' 
 " their law." They are of the Devil, and do the works of 
 their father. The almost shocking declaration is put into 
 the mouth of Jesus that all who came before him were 
 thieves and robbers. This even surpasses Paul in down- 
 right anti-Judaism ; and unless it be conceded that the 
 " subjective freedom " of the evangelist has greatly modi- 
 fied the actual teaching of Jesus, so that we have here the 
 idealization of a later time and not pure history, then the 
 great Pauline controversy of the apostolic age remains an 
 enigma, perhaps "a phantom, a dream, a folly." 
 
 No more striking illustration of the influence of dog- 
 matic prepossession appears in theological literature than 
 is furnished in the voluminous discussions of the his- 
 torical evidence as to the date of the composition of the 
 fourth Gospel. From a few data of no very complicated 
 or obscure character the most contradictory conclusions 
 have been drawn, and the judgments as to the time when 
 the Gospel was first recognized in Christian literature differ 
 by about three quarters of a century. The protracted 
 discussion of the question has, however, tended to bring 
 all students who are not extremists nearer to agreement, 
 and there is ground for the hope that a correct conclusion 
 is attainable by those who will bring an unbiassed judg- 
 ment to the consideration of the matter. Truth ever 
 escapes the partisan, pursue he never so hotly. Begin- 
 ning with Papias whose writing referred to by Eusebius 
 probably dates 130140, we find that his New-Testament 
 canon, if the term may be allowed, was limited to an 
 
 * Chap. v. 49. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 22$ 
 
 original writing by Matthew, (the logia,) one by Mark, the 
 first Epistle of John and the first of Peter. He also 
 acknowledges the Apocalypse as a writing of the apostle 
 John. It is remarkable that he makes no mention of 
 Luke's Gospel, of Paul's Epistles, and of the fourth Gos- 
 pel. Did he mention only such writings as were in his 
 opinion traceable to the original apostles, Peter's sup- 
 posed connection with the second Gospel bringing it 
 under this category ? Did he know of the fourth Gospel 
 and omit to mention it because he did not regard it as of 
 apostolic origin ? Or was it not known to him, or, indeed, 
 not yet in existence ? Or, again, did he mention it and 
 Eusebius fail to report his words concerning it? The 
 affirmative of this last question is a glaring improbability, 
 although Mr. Matthew Arnold thinks that " the good 
 Bishop of Caesarea" had a " very loose fashion" or 
 " little stringency of method," and might have failed to 
 mention so important a matter.* If Eusebius was right 
 in saying that Papias used testimonies from the first 
 Epistle of John, then the Gospel was probably in exist- 
 ence in Papias' time, since there can be little doubt that 
 the author of the Epistle was the author of the Gospel. 
 But Zeller tries to show that the Bishop of Caesarea was 
 a poor critic and made mistakes, and that he is not to be 
 depended on in his testimony that Papias was acquainted 
 with the first Epistle of John. Davidson, however, re- 
 pudiates such criticism as " scarcely fair," while holding 
 against the great majority of scholars that the Epistle 
 and Gospel had different authors. The conclusion of a 
 " fair " criticism seems to be that the Gospel was probably 
 in existence as early as 140, but that Papias for reasons 
 about which it is idle to speculate did not mention it. 
 
 * God and the Bible, 1883, p. 242. 
 15 
 
226 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 The Tubingen critics, so far as they follow Baur in dating 
 the composition of the Gospel as late as 170-180, strenu- 
 ously deny that Justin (147-160) made any citations from 
 it or was acquainted with it. Certain it is that his use of 
 it, if he used it at all, was very slight, since, although he 
 makes more than one hundred quotations which have strik- 
 ing resemblances to synoptical passages, we find very few 
 passages which can even be called reminiscences of the 
 fourth Gospel, and only one or two which have the 
 appearance of quotations. When he calls Christ " the 
 blameless and just light sent by God to man/' when he 
 employs as a favorite word akrjSivo*, " true," so often 
 used in this Gospel, and speaks of the " blood of Christ 
 sprung not from human seed, but from the will of God,"* 
 he appears to show a familiarity with the record in ques- 
 tion. Familiarity with a Christological doctrine of the 
 Gospel is indicated in the words in reference to Christ : 
 " He was an only-begotten son of the Father, sprung 
 from him * * * and afterwards born a man through the 
 virgin," etc.f The term )Aovoyevr]$j " only-begotten," here 
 used by Justin is applied to Jesus only in the fourth 
 Gospel. To say that it was a word already current in 
 a certain Christian school has much the appearance of 
 an evasion in view of the whole evidence from Justin. 
 The fact that in the last clause of the passage Justin 
 refers to the synoptic accounts of the birth of Jesus does 
 not show that he had no other source nor does it require 
 that the term " only-begotten " be explained out of the 
 first three Gospels, since two sources may as fairly be 
 assumed as one. In fact, the passage appears to be 
 the product of reminiscences of the fourth Gospel and 
 the synoptics. 
 
 * Dial. c. 63, cf. John i. 13. f Dial. c. 105. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 22/ 
 
 The most important passage from Justin is that on the 
 new birth, and runs thus : " Christ said, unless ye be born 
 anew ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, 
 that it is impossible for those once born to enter into the 
 wombs of those that bore them, is obvious to all men." * 
 Now, since Justin did not derive his knowledge of the 
 teachings of Christ from traditions, but depended on 
 writings, the question which this citation raises is simply, 
 from what writing did it probably come to him ? Was it 
 taken from the synoptics, from some apocryphal Gospel, 
 or from the fourth Gospel? That the matter presents 
 difficulties, cannot be denied. For " born anew " he does 
 not use the words of the fourth evangelist, yswrfdri avoa- 
 6ev but draysvrjdrjTSj a word which does not occur in the 
 fourth Gospel, nor, indeed, anywhere in the New Testa- 
 ment except in I. Peter i. 3, 23. Again he says " kingdom 
 of heaven," an expression peculiar to the first Gospel, 
 while in the fourth " kingdom of God " occurs through- 
 out. These facts have seemed to Baur and others to war- 
 rant the conclusion that Justin did not know the fourth 
 Gospel, but derived the words in question from the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews.f But the last clause of the 
 passage is so like the words in the fourth Gospel as to 
 leave little doubt that the whole passage is a free quota- 
 tion from it, or rather an adaptation or reminiscence. Of 
 quotations in the strict sense Justin makes none from our 
 Gospels, and it is not necessary to suppose that he wrote 
 these words with the fourth Gospel before him. But it is 
 only the exigencies of a theory which can lead any one to 
 judge that he had in mind only the passage from Matthew, 
 
 * Apol. i. 61, cf. John iii. 3-5. 
 
 f Krit. Untersuch. uber die kan. Evangel, p. 352 ; Davidson, Introd. ii. 
 P- 375- 
 
228 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 " Except ye be converted and become as little children, 
 ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Yet 
 Tubingen critics have advocated this view. One who has 
 no theory to serve will, however, naturally conclude that 
 while Justin may have taken the passage from some other 
 source, our fourth Gospel being the only one known to 
 contain anything resembling it closely, the presumption 
 is in favor of its existence in his time and of his knowl- 
 edge of it. Baur asks why, if Justin took this passage 
 from the fourth Gospel, he did not quote it correctly. It 
 is surprising that any one familiar with Justin's loose way 
 of quoting should raise this question. Baur also objects 
 that it is improbable that if Justin knew the fourth Gospel 
 and acknowledged it as of apostolic origin, he would have 
 quoted so little from it.* Here lurks a fallacy. For the 
 two questions whether Justin knew the Gospel and whether 
 he believed it to be of apostolic origin should be kept dis- 
 tinct. The former can be answered with great probability 
 in the affirmative, while for the latter the grounds are 
 quite uncertain, if any exist at all. We have found in our 
 study of the canon that not only Justin but also writers 
 of a later time than his were in the habit of making liberal 
 use of Gospel-writings without .regard to the question of 
 their origin or canonicity. As to Justin's reasons for not 
 making more citations from the fourth Gospel, it is evident 
 that we can only speculate about them. It is possible 
 that its marked difference from the other Gospels known 
 to him led him to doubt the correctness of its representa- 
 tion of the teaching of Jesus. Certain it is that his con- 
 ception of Jesus' manner of teaching could not have been 
 derived from this record, but only from the synoptic ac- 
 counts or others similar to them. For he says : " Short 
 
 * Krit. Untersuch., etc., p. 353. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 22Q 
 
 and concise are the sayings that came from him, for he was 
 not a sophist, but his word was a power of God." * 
 
 The question respecting the testimony of Basilides 
 (125-130) to the fourth Gospel cannot be so easily decided 
 as some partisans appear to think. The work " Against 
 Heresies " or Philosophumena, falsely ascribed to Origen 
 and by some thought to be the work of Hippolytus, appears 
 to state that Basilides referred to the words, " That was the 
 true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the 
 world," as "that spoken in the Gospels," and that he 
 used many other passages which resemble words contained 
 in the fourth Gospel. There is, however, some doubt 
 whether the author of the work refers to Basilides or his 
 school. The work was written about the beginning of the 
 third century, and if the reference was to the followers of 
 Basilides it would, of course, establish nothing as to the 
 existence and use of the Gospel in the first half of the 
 second century. It appears that the writer of Philosophu- 
 mena was careless as to the use of the verb " says," f with- 
 out a definite subject, so that it is not easy to determine 
 whether he refers to Basilides or his school. Sometimes 
 he speaks of Basilides and his son, and other Gnostics, and 
 " the whole choir of these " or " the whole school of 
 them," J and then quotes them with the verb " says." It 
 is remarkable that nowhere in his work does he mention 
 John, except as the author of the Apocalypse. It is diffi- 
 cult to pronounce positively on this question, although 
 Matthew Arnold and Ezra Abbot are positive against 
 Tayler, Davidson, and the great majority of the critical 
 
 * fipaxetZ ds KOCL <5vvro}JLoi itap avrov Xoyoi ysyoratiiv, ov ydp 
 6o(pi6rr) < > vitrjpxev, aX\.d dvvajuiZ Qsov 6 "kayoS avrov rfv. Apol. i. 14. 
 f (prjtiir. 
 \ rtd$ 6 ro^TGov xopot, rtdtia rj TOVTGOV 
 
230 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 school that Basilides is quoted. So much, at least, is cer- 
 tain, that if Basilides is quoted in this work, his testimony 
 establishes no more than that the Gospel was in existence 
 and approved by a Gnostic soon after the first quarter of 
 the second century ; but that it was written by John is 
 not established, nor is anything made known regarding 
 its origin. 
 
 The earliest account that we have in Christian literature 
 of the composition of this Gospel is contained in a frag- 
 ment in the canon of Muratori, which has already been 
 quoted in the chapter on the canon, where its legendary 
 character was pointed out. Towards the end of the fourth 
 century Epiphanius preserved the tradition connecting 
 John with the authorship of the Gospel. He says that 
 John wrote last, reluctantly, and because he was con- 
 strained to write, and that he wrote in Asia at the age of 
 ninety. Athenagoras, who wrote his " Plea for the Chris- 
 tians " and " The Resurrection of the Dead " about 177, 
 has some passages which bear a very strong resemblance 
 to Johannine thought. He as well as Justin held the 
 doctrine of the Logos, but since it was current in the 
 thought of the time, and may be traced to Philo, the 
 fourth Gospel was not necessarily its source. He speaks 
 of " the one God who made all things through the Word 
 proceeding from Him," but he makes no definite reference 
 to John or the Gospel. The first Epistle to Diognetus is 
 " deeply imbued with Johannine thought," such as, " He 
 sent His Son in love, not to judge," and " They are not of 
 the world, as I am not of the world." But there is no 
 indication of the source of these sayings. Tatian, too, a 
 pupil of Justin, appears to have been acquainted with the 
 Gospel, although he does not expressly refer to it. About 
 the year 180, Theophilus of Antioch, in a writing addressed 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 2$ I 
 
 to Autolychus, makes the first distinct reference to the 
 Gospel, and attributes it to John, although he does not 
 say the apostle John. He classes it among the holy Scrip- 
 tures, and calls its author " inspired," * thus giving him a 
 place among canonical writers. 
 
 The conclusions regarding the external evidence for the 
 Gospel appear to be that there is a strong probability of 
 its existence soon after the first quarter of the second 
 century ; that it was perhaps known to Papias, though not 
 used by him so far as our data enable us to judge ; that 
 it was known to Justin, but very sparingly used by him 
 for reasons which we can only conjecture ; that any earlier 
 use of it is doubtful ; that there are very strong indications 
 of its use by Athenagoras and the author of the Epistle to 
 Diognetus ; that there is a legendary tradition as to its 
 Johannine authorship and its revision by certain associates 
 of John, which dates from about the last quarter of the 
 second century (canon of Muratori) ; that prior to this 
 latter date there is no evidence of any kind which connects 
 John with its composition or makes any reference to its 
 authorship ; and finally that about 180 appears the first 
 distinct expression of the opinion that John was the author 
 and that the Gospel was regarded as canonical. The cau- 
 tious and unbiassed student of the early Christian literature 
 soon learns, however, not to place too much reliance upon 
 tradition, particularly when he meets with it in the legen- 
 dary form in which that of the canon of Muratori presents 
 itself. He feels in-need of precisely the sort of confirma- 
 tion which in most cases is not to be had, the grounds on 
 which this or that writer based his assertions regarding 
 the origin of books, a knowledge of the evidence which 
 was before him, if, indeed, there was any, and he did not 
 
 * 7tVEVJJ,aT6(pOpO<s. 
 
232 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 proceed upon mere rumor credulously accepted. The 
 student, for example, would like to know the sources of the 
 information on which Theophilus makes the assertion that 
 John wrote the fourth Gospel. Since, according to a very 
 good tradition, there were two Johns, he naturally asks 
 which of them Theophilus had in mind ; how Theophilus 
 knew that the writer of the Gospel was a Trrsv^arocpopos ; 
 whether or no he had informed himself regarding the 
 composition of the Gospel so as to be able to tell whether 
 the John in question actually wrote the Gospel himself or 
 was somehow indirectly connected with its authorship ; 
 and finally, what sort of a man this Theophilus intellectu- 
 ally was. A fair view of the matter appears to be that of 
 Matthew Arnold : " Tradition may be false ; yet it is at 
 least something * * * in a thing's favor that men have 
 delivered it. But there may be reasons why we cannot 
 believe it." If, then, there be reasons why we cannot 
 believe the tradition respecting the authorship of the 
 fourth Gospel by the apostle John, at least if we are to 
 understand it as testifying to his immediate, personal 
 composition of it, these reasons must be found in the 
 Gospel itself, and we are remanded to a study of it as the 
 only, if not altogether satisfactory, means of settling the 
 question, so far as it is capable of definitive settlement. 
 
 In pursuance of this aim and in view of the limits within 
 which the treatment of the subject is here confined, it 
 becomes necessary to omit a consideration in detail of the 
 question of the relation of the fourth Gospel and the 
 Revelation with reference to the problem of authorship. 
 On the theory that the apostle John wrote the Revelation, 
 and his authorship of this work is better attested exter- 
 nally than his authorship of the Gospel, it has been argued 
 with great cogency that the same person could not have 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 233 
 
 written the Gospel. The difference of the two writings is 
 so great in spirit, point of view, aim, and language that 
 identity of authorship is most improbable. The writer 
 who in the Revelation shows himself a true " son of thun- 
 der," as John is designated in the synoptic narratives, 
 could not have produced the spiritual, gentle fourth 
 Gospel. On the other hand it has been argued that the 
 two writings have resemblances which indicate identity of 
 authorship. Again, some of the ablest scholars have con- 
 tended that there are not sufficient grounds either external 
 or internal to support the Johannean authorship of the 
 Revelation, while they find arguments which appear to 
 them conclusive that the "beloved disciple" was the 
 author of the Gospel. Others hold that John wrote 
 neither of these works, and Keim and Lutzelberger deny 
 altogether the story of his residence in Asia Minor. The 
 most recent criticism of the Revelation makes it a com- 
 posite work containing Jewish and Christian elements 
 assignable to dates separated by a period of sixty or 
 seventy years, and completed as late as the year 136.* 
 But the question of the authorship of this book is not of 
 essential importance in the consideration of that of the 
 Gospel, although its solution would throw light upon some 
 of the problems involved. To waive, then, the investiga- 
 tion of a matter so complicated will simplify without 
 seriously prejudicing the discussion of the subject of 
 immediate concern. 
 
 Among matters internal to the Gospel bearing on the 
 question of authorship, belong the passover-controversy 
 and the divergence of this record from the synoptics as to 
 the day of the crucifixion. The synoptists expressly 
 
 * The subject is discussed with considerable fulness in Martineau's Seat 
 of Authority in Religion, 1890, p. 217-227. 
 
234 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 state that Jesus partook of the passover-supper which was 
 eaten, " according to the law," on the evening of the I4th 
 of the Jewish month Nisan. Accordingly, he must have 
 been crucified on the I5th of the month. The fourth 
 Gospel is equally explicit in the statement that when 
 Jesus was brought before Pilate the passover-supper was 
 still in the future, for the writer says, that the Jews " went 
 not into the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled, but 
 that they might eat the passover." * It follows that 
 according to this record the crucifixion was on the I4th 
 Nisan, or one day earlier than according to the synoptists. 
 There is no question that there is here an irreconcilable 
 difference between the fourth Gospel and the others as to 
 the day of the crucifixion. The attempts of extreme par- 
 tisans like Hengstenberg and Wieseler to reconcile the 
 discrepancy have been shown to be futile by Bleek, who 
 maintained the genuineness of the Gospel. All attempts 
 to make it appear that this evangelist is correct to the 
 prejudice of the synoptists have failed. But the matter 
 does not end with a discrepancy between the records. The 
 question whether or no the I4th Nisan was the day on 
 which Jesus ate the passover with his disciples was con- 
 tested in the second century between the Eastern and 
 Western branches of the Church, or rather a controversy 
 arose which turned upon this question. This has been 
 called the passover-controversy. It appears that the 
 churches in Asia were accustomed to celebrate on the 
 I4th Nisan, a feast of the " passover of salvation," or a 
 communion in commemoration of the last paschal meal of 
 Jesus with his disciples. Eusebius says : " The churches 
 in Asia, guided by a more ancient tradition, supposed 
 that they ought to keep the I4th day of the moon as a 
 
 *Chap. xviii. 28. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 235 
 
 festival of the passover of salvation, on which day the 
 Jews were wont to kill the paschal lamb." * The I4th 
 Nisan was accordingly observed as a festival-day by the 
 partaking of a supper in the evening. 
 
 The Roman Christians, breaking away from bondage to 
 all rites which had a connection with Judaism, ignored 
 the passover-feast, and transferred their memorial of the 
 Saviour to the day of his resurrection, that is, to Easter 
 Sunday, which they celebrated as a yearly festival uniting 
 the ideas of a crucifixion- and resurrection-passover.f 
 Those who observed the I4th Nisan were called quarto- 
 decimans. Now, in the course of the long controversy 
 between the Eastern and Western churches over this ques- 
 tion which was finally settled by the council of Nice in 
 favor of the Roman usage, it is important to observe that 
 appeal was made by the former to the practice of the 
 apostle John in regard to the celebration in dispute. 
 This was not far from the middle of the second century, 
 when the Gospel was probably in existence, which places 
 the crucifixion on the I4th Nisan. Yet the Romans did 
 not appeal to its authority, although it would have favored 
 their view. On the contrary, in the discussion between 
 Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of the East, we find that 
 the latter maintained his position on the strength of 
 John's custom of observing the I4th of the month as the 
 day on which Jesus ate the passover-supper, while accord- 
 ing to the fourth Gospel that supper, if eaten at all, must 
 have been eaten on the evening of the I3th, since the 
 crucifixion was on the I4th. Polycrates (190) writing as 
 Bishop of Ephesus to Victor of Rome, appeals to the 
 practice of the " great lights " of the Eastern Church who 
 
 * Hist. Eccl. v. 23. 
 
 I A 7td(5x.a. 6Tavpoa<5ifiov and a 
 
236 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 " observed the genuine day," and among them to " John 
 who rested upon the bosom of our Lord," and to Poly- 
 carp, "both Bishop and martyr." All of them, he says, 
 " observed the I4th day of the passover, according to the 
 Gospel," i.e., of course, the synoptical records. Accord- 
 ingly, these " great lights " can have recognized this 
 account only as correct, and even John followed it in 
 opposition to that of the fourth Gospel. How, then, 
 knowing that Jesus partook of the last meal with his 
 disciples on the evening of the I4th, and was crucified on 
 the 1 5th, could he have written the chapter of the fourth 
 Gospel which is directly contradictory to these facts ? No 
 more glaring contradiction can be conceived than that a 
 man should have written thus of the day of the crucifixion 
 and have joined the quartodecimans in keeping the pass- 
 over-feast on the 1 4th of the month, particularly when his 
 views are expressed by Hippolytus to the effect that, 
 " Christ celebrated the passover on that very day (the 
 I4th), and I, therefore, must do as the Lord did." 
 
 The fourth Gospel was not, however, wholly out of the 
 controversy, for one writer at least, Apollinaris (170), in a 
 fragment of his work on the question in dispute, not only 
 indicates the discrepancy between it and the other 
 records, but places in a true light the real nature of the 
 issue. Writing in opposition to the quartodecimans, he 
 says : " They say that on the I4th the Lord ate the lamb 
 with his disciples, and suffered himself on the great day 
 of unleavened bread ; and they explain Matthew as stat- 
 ing the matter in accordance with their own ideas. Hence 
 their notion is irreconcilable with the law, and according 
 to their views the Gospels seem at variance." * These 
 
 * The evils resulting from the quartodeciman theory are thus said to be 
 two : a contravention of the law which enjoined that the paschal lamb and, 
 & fortiori, Christ, should be sacrificed on the I4th of the month, and by the 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 237 
 
 words of Apollinaris : " They (the quartodecimans) say 
 that on the I4th the Lord ate the lamb with his disciples," 
 appear to set forth the actual question in dispute, to settle 
 which the example of John was cited. Unfavorable are 
 they, as well as those of Hippolytus previously quoted, 
 to the theory advocated by some scholars that the paschal 
 controversy had regard not to the subject of the festival, 
 but only to the day ; that the Christians of Asia Minor in 
 carrying out an originally Jewish-Christian practice had 
 attached themselves to the Jewish law, and established 
 an analogous festival on the same day on which the Jew- 
 ish passover fell ; but afterwards, in order to show the 
 propriety of connecting with this Christian festival of 
 salvation the commemoration of the institution of the 
 last supper, had maintained the like practice of Jesus 
 according to the synoptists.* With all the difficulties of 
 the problem it appears pretty certain that at the time of 
 the passover-controversy there was no question of a cele- 
 bration of the passover in general, but of an event of the 
 Gospel-history connected with it ; of the institution, in 
 fact, of the Lord's supper at the last passover-celebration 
 by Jesus. But if the festival of the Christians of Asia 
 Minor concerned this institution it stands in insoluble 
 contradiction with a Gospel which cuts off its roots, since 
 it formally excludes a last passover-meal of Jesus with 
 his disciples, f 
 
 acceptance of the synoptic account, an introduction of discord between the 
 two narratives. Apollinaris seems to imply that in his time the statement 
 of the fourth evangelist regarding the last supper was already received by 
 certain persons. From this problem of the variance of the records, Dr. 
 Routh shrinks : Difficillima quaestio, cui me virum pusilli ingenii interponere 
 noluerim. Relig. Sacra, i. p. 168. Tayler, Fourth Gospel, p. 108. 
 
 *Lucke, Gieseler, Bleek, De Wette, Riggenbach, Hase, SchUrer, Luth- 
 ardt, Weiss, Ezra Abbot, and others. 
 
 f Holtzman, Einleit. ; Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Keim, Scholten, Hilgen- 
 feld, Davidson, Matthew Arnold, Martineau, Tayler, and others, to whom 
 
238 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 The echoes of this discussion have long since died away, 
 and it is no longer a matter of importance to Christians 
 whether Jesus was crucified on one or another day of 
 the month. The sole interest in the question is now a 
 critical one, and relates to the authorship of the fourth 
 Gospel. Two questions must, however, be kept distinct : 
 Is it probable that the apostle John wrote a Gospel, 
 against an important statement in which he stands his- 
 torically committed ? and Is the position of those critics 
 tenable who hold that the writer of the Gospel, whoever 
 he may have been, composed it with the object in part of 
 exerting an influence in the paschal controversy against 
 the identification of the last supper with the Jewish pass- 
 over? It is evident that the affirmative of the former 
 question does not at all necessitate that of the latter. 
 The purpose of the writer, however, to represent Jesus as 
 the true paschal lamb cannot be doubted, and probably 
 accounts for the discrepancy. * 
 
 If we begin the search for the author of the Gospel 
 with a study of the intimations as to his personality con- 
 tained in the work itself, we are first impressed with a 
 vague presence which rather conceals than manifests 
 itself. In the body of the Gospel there appears three 
 times a personage otherwise undefined than as the 
 disciple whom Jesus loved, and in the appendix (chapter 
 xxi.) he is expressly pointed out as one who was to sur- 
 vive the second coming of Christ. But it is nowhere 
 intimated that this disciple was John. Of the Word 
 (Logos) that became flesh the evangelist says : " We 
 beheld his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten of a 
 
 with Hausrath and Pfleiderer acknowledgments are due for suggestions for 
 this chapter. 
 
 * Martineau, Seat of Authority, etc., p. 233. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 239 
 
 father," * thus including himself among those who had 
 beheld a certain supersensible manifestation " full of 
 grace and truth," which he calls a " glory." The nature 
 of this seeing is indeterminate, and may be a spiritual 
 intuition of which one might thus speak who had enjoyed 
 an experience of the " grace and truth " of Jesus, as " ye 
 have seen the Father," and " the world seeth me no more, 
 but ye see me." f In another place the evangelist refers 
 to a witness in confirmation of a statement : " And he 
 that hath seen this hath borne witness, and that one 
 knoweth that he saith what is true, that ye also may 
 believe." \ The improbability that a writer should refer 
 to himself as " that one " has led Ewald to conjecture 
 that John, whom he supposes to have been the author, 
 employed a young friend as amanuensis who inserted 
 these words ! Certainly, the only natural explanation of 
 the passage is that the author refers in it to one who has 
 already borne testimony which he uses, and wishes to 
 assure the reader to be trustworthy. An author writing 
 of himself could neither say " that one " nor " hath borne 
 witness." In the appendix the disciple previously men- 
 tioned is declared to be the one that " hath written these 
 things." If this chapter was written by the author of the 
 Gospel it is evident that he was, or wished to pass for, the 
 vague disciple whom Jesus loved, whoever he may have 
 been. But it is generally conceded that the twentieth 
 chapter is the proper and natural ending of the Gospel, 
 and that the twenty-first was added later. The author- 
 ship of the chapter is too uncertain to warrant any 
 
 * Chap. i. 14. 
 
 \ The same word for " see" is used in all these passages and in chap. i. 
 51, "Ye shall see the heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and 
 descending on the Son of Man." 
 
 \ Chap. xix. 35. $ KlVO<a. 
 
240 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 conclusions from it as to that of the Gospel itself. Sus- 
 picion is thrown upon it by the last verse which has a 
 decidedly apocryphal character : " And there are also 
 many other things which Jesus did ; and if they were to 
 be every one written, I suppose that not even the world 
 itself could contain the books that would be written." 
 This verse is textually well authenticated, being found in 
 all the oldest manuscripts except the Sinaitic. Tischen- 
 dorf's rejection of it is quite arbitrary. Widely different 
 opinions have been held as to the veiling of the voucher 
 for the narrative in these passages on the assumption of 
 John's authorship of the Gospel, according as it is thought 
 to indicate a delicate modesty, or especially in the charac- 
 terization of the disciple as one whom Jesus loved, an 
 ambiguous and artificial manner of introducing him,* if 
 not a presumptuous self-exaltation, f or vanity, \ or a 
 piece of offensive self-glorification, or an unendurably 
 conceited self-designation. || These difficulties disappear, 
 however, with the rejection of an immediate Johannine 
 authorship. 
 
 Since, from the critical point of view, the Gospel must 
 be regarded as the product of a human personality, the 
 question naturally arises whether the Galilean fisherman, 
 John, the son of Zebedee, surnamed " the son of thun- 
 der," was a person likely to produce it. From the synop- 
 tics we learn that he was of an ambitious, fiery, and 
 vindictive nature. He aspired to sit beside the Son of 
 Man in his glory, and would call down fire from heaven 
 on the inhospitable Samaritan village. It should be re- 
 membered that the portrait of the disciple whom Jesus 
 loved is painted only in the fourth Gospel, and is not 
 
 * Holtzmann. f Weisse. \ Scholten. 
 
 Keim. | Schmeidel. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 241 
 
 there intimated to be that of John. According to our 
 knowledge of him from the synoptics, he was much better 
 qualified to write the fierce and fiery Apocalypse than the 
 love-breathing Gospel. Paul represents him as one of the 
 " pillar-apostles " who maintained the legalistic attitude 
 of the original apostles, and preached the Gospel only to 
 those of the circumcision,* in a word, as " the natural 
 continuation of the disciple of the synoptic Gospels, 
 called among the first to be a follower of Jesus." Now, 
 the fourth Gospel represents a phase of universalism 
 which even surpasses that of Paul, as has already been 
 pointed out, a phase of the development of Christianity 
 to which the world is the field, to which a universal 
 spiritual worship is preferable to rites and ceremonies in 
 Jerusalem or on Gerizim.f The writer of this great work 
 has left far behind him all national limitations and the 
 meagre ingathering through Jewish proselytism ; recog- 
 nizes " other sheep " than those of the fold of Israel ; 
 beholds with prophetic eye " one flock and one shep- 
 herd " ; represents the great Martyr as dying " not for 
 the nation only, but that he may also gather together in 
 one body the children of God that are scattered abroad," 
 and introduces Greeks to see Jesus in the solemn hour of 
 preparation for the sacrifice which was to " bear much 
 fruit." J Here one sees no longer traces of " the violent 
 separation of the new faith from the mother-religion " ; 
 there are no echoes of the pathetic complaint of Jesus 
 over his people ; the voice of Paul is not heard in sym- 
 pathy for his " brethren according to the flesh " ; no word 
 of promise or of prophecy for the reprobate nation is 
 spoken, but rather one of irrevocable condemnation ; || the 
 
 * Gal. ii. 7-12. \ Chap. x. 16, xi. 52, xii. 2O f. 
 
 f Chap. iii. 16, 17 ; iv. 23, 24. Luke xix. 41-44. 
 
 I Chap. xii. 38-40. 
 16 
 
242 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 glowing hope of Paul for the conversion of " all Israel " 
 finds no place in the sombre picture depicted in the 
 ominous prophecy, " Ye shall die in your sins." * 
 
 This is evidently not the point of view of a Jewish- 
 Christian writer of the apostolic age. Not to charge the 
 author with a wholesale invention, one cannot but see 
 that he has given the biography of Jesus such a setting, 
 has used his material in such a way, as to indicate un- 
 mistakably the time of the waning of Judaism and the 
 growing supremacy of Pauline ideas. The Judaism which 
 he has before him is that of the beginning of the second 
 century, and the Christianity which he represents is that 
 of the same period, with its theological ideas, problems, 
 disputations, and refinements of speculation. It would 
 be difficult to conceive of the synoptists representing 
 Jesus as entering into a discussion with the Jews on the 
 problem how he could be one with God and represent the 
 Father without overthrowing the monotheistic doctrine.f 
 Such speculations were as remote from their time and 
 foreign to their thought as they were native and familiar 
 to the first quarter of the second century. It is also 
 questionable that the author's point of view indicates 
 familiarity with the Jews of the time of Christ, their 
 country, state, and institutions. He speaks of their cus- 
 toms in such terms as a foreigner would employ for 
 example, of " the manner of purifying of the Jews," " the 
 Jews' passover was nigh," " as the manner of the Jews is 
 to bury," etc. This style is peculiar to him among the 
 evangelists. The judgment of Matthew Arnold appears 
 just, that "it seems almost impossible to think that a Jew 
 born and bred a man like the apostle John could ever 
 have come to speak so." "A Jew talking of the Jews' 
 
 * Chap. viii. 24. \ Chap. x. 30-37. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 243 
 
 passover * * * is like an Englishman writing of the 
 Derby as the English people's Derby." As to " Bethany 
 beyond Jordan," * it is well known that Origen's personal 
 investigation on the spot failed to find such a place, and 
 that, finding a Bethabara there, his influence prevailed in 
 establishing that reading temporarily. The oldest and 
 best manuscripts, however, read Bethany. f It is only the 
 exigencies of a theory that can lead scholars to conclude 
 that there must have been such a place, though it has never 
 been found. f A geographical error of this kind could 
 not have been committed by an apostle of Jesus. Again, 
 a writer familiar with Jewish institutions v/ould not write 
 of Caiaphas as " High-priest of that year," as if the office 
 were a yearly one. It is likely that, writing in Asia Minor, 
 the custom prevailing there was before his mind. 
 
 Objections against the Johannine authorship of the 
 Gospel have been urged with great cogency, on the 
 ground of the theological point of view of the author and 
 of his manner of dealing with the philosophical problems 
 which he introduces. While his limited vocabulary shows 
 the narrowness of his range of thought, this range of 
 
 *Chap. i. 28. 
 
 f Davidson's remark is at least obscure: *'We assume that Bethany, 
 not Bethabara, is the true reading, as Origen attests ; with the approval of 
 Lachmann and Tischendorf " ! Introduction, ii. p. 427. 
 
 \ Meyer and De Wette. Matthew Arnold's judgment is that the author's 
 4 ' Palestinian geography is so vague * * * that when he wants a name 
 for a locality he takes the first village that comes into his remembrance, 
 without troubling himself to think whether it suits or no," and that, know- 
 ing the Bethany where Lazarus lived, he hastily took it as the place where 
 John baptized ! To Baur this Bethany is a pure invention, made in order 
 to have Jesus' work begin and end at Bethany ! Such are some of the 
 vagaries and follies of criticism. 
 
 " The High-priest of the new temple in the province appointed from 
 year to year." Mommsen. Holtzmann. 
 
244 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 thought betrays itself as anything but that of primitive 
 Christianity, and rather indicates a contact with Gnostic 
 ideas. It has been suggested that perhaps that which, 
 for Gnosticism, was separated into a plurality of ^Eons, is, 
 in the Johannine Logos-doctrine, combined in the form 
 " the only begotten of a father," in whom dwelt all the 
 of fulness of the Godhead. * Some of the author's philo- 
 sophical principles are far too much like the dualistic 
 speculations of the Gnosis to be classed with primitive- 
 Christian conceptions without a manifest anachronism. 
 Such are the ideas of a fundamental opposition between 
 the kingdom of God and that of the world,f between God 
 and the Devil, light and darkness, truth and falsehood, 
 and that of the helpless spiritual condition of those who 
 are of the " world." \ Not only does the Time-spirit thus 
 cast a " dualistic shadow upon the Gospel," but its termi- 
 nology of the school is more prominent than the language 
 of the unsophisticated religious consciousness. The 
 mysticism, also, which is a unique feature of the Gospel, 
 is very questionably of Jewish or early-Christian origin. 
 In its doctrine of salvation the emphasis is laid upon the 
 incarnation of the Logos, || a speculative doctrine wholly 
 foreign to the original conception of soteriology. The 
 sensuous, external conception of the judgment, which is 
 expressed with great fulness in the earlier Gospels, finds 
 incidental expression, it is true, but it is evident that the 
 author's idea of the world-judgment is that of an inward 
 separation by recognition or rejection of the Logos, or a 
 
 * Chap. i. 14, cf. I Tim. i. 4, Col. ii. 9. 
 f Chap. viii. 23, xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16. 
 
 j Chap. viii. 44-47, i. 4, v. 10, iii. 19-21, xii. 35, viii. 43, 44, 47, x. 26, 
 xii. 37-40. 
 
 Chap. xiv. 17, xvii. 9, xiv. 23, xv. 4-7, xvii. 23. 
 
 | Chap. v. 28, 29, xi. 50-52, xvii. 19, i. 9-13, viii. 12, xvii. 4-8. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 245 
 
 judgment in the modern sense of the word.* The 
 original notion of a resurrection of the dead is trans- 
 formed into that of an inward, eternal life, beginning 
 upon the earth, and never to be extinguished. f The 
 visible return of Christ from heaven, the great and in- 
 extinguishable hope of the early Christians, which is 
 perhaps once intimated in the body of the Gospel, and is 
 clearly expressed only in the spurious appendix, is changed 
 into an enduring spiritual fellowship, and even into the 
 dissemination of his spirit among men. J Not less char- 
 acteristic is the gentle but unmistakable setting aside of 
 the belief which is supported by miracles and of external 
 institutions in baptism and the Lord's supper. In all 
 this there has been generally recognized the latest and 
 ripest development of theology in the New Testament, 
 but it should not be overlooked that it is a form of it 
 which deviates most widely from the original, and that it 
 cannot be accounted for apart from the speculations of 
 the second century. An evolution it is, indeed, but not 
 an evolution which could take place in the inward expe- 
 rience of an apostle of Jesus. It has, accordingly, been 
 well observed that one must make the disciple greater 
 than the Master, and ascribe to him a growth surpassing 
 the possibilities of individual human development, if one 
 will suppose such ideas to have been ripened in the mind 
 of the aged man who, in his best years, stood beside 
 James and Peter as one of the " pillar-apostles " of the 
 Jewish-Christian Church. 
 
 *Chap. v. 28, 29, xii. 48, iii. 18-21, v. 24, xv. 22-24. 
 
 fChap. vii. 39, 40, 44, 54, xi. 24, viii. 5.1, xi. 25, 26. 
 
 \ Chap. xiv. 3, xxi. 22, 23, xiv. 18-23, xy i- J 6-23, xiv. 16-18, xv. 26, 
 xvi. 7, 13-15. 
 
 Chap. ii. 23-25, iv. 39, 42, 45, 48, x. 38, xx. 29, iii. 3-8, vi. 63. The 
 institution of the Lord's supper is not mentioned. Holtzmann Einleit.; 
 Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgcr.ch. 
 
246 GOSPEI^CRITICISM. 
 
 That out of the circle of the original apostles could pro- 
 ceed two such radically different and even contradictory 
 representations of the person and nature of Jesus as that 
 of Matthew's logia and the preaching of Peter, or the 
 Gospel of Mark, which are the basis of the synoptic 
 records, and that of the fourth Gospel, is quite incredible. 
 The Christology of the latter is a complete transformation 
 of that of the former. The descendant of David, the son 
 of a carpenter, a young man belonging to a family of the 
 people, his brothers named and his sisters known, who 
 uses the common speech of the lowly, and draws lessons 
 from the lilies and the birds, according to the synoptists, 
 becomes in this record the incarnation of a pre-existent 
 essence, the Philonic Logos become Messiah, the divine 
 being, heaven-descended, without whom nothing was 
 made, who was in the beginning with God, and was God. 
 His entire discourse and conduct are represented in ac- 
 cordance with this conception of him. He speaks of a 
 glory which he had with God " before the world was." * 
 What he declares is that which he has seen, which the 
 Father has told him, 'has commanded him. His divine 
 existence is an eternal present ; " before Abraham was, I 
 am" f he says. Not only are the secrets of heaven an 
 open book to him, but the secrets of the human heart 
 also. He needs not that men should tell him anything, 
 for he knows what is in man,J recognizes Simon as the 
 " rock " at a glance, without testing him as did the Jesus 
 of the synoptists ; miraculously sees Nathaniel at a dis- 
 tance under the fig-tree ; || knows preternaturally the 
 previous life of the Samaritan woman ; If foreknows his 
 betrayer, the death of Lazarus, and the time of his own 
 
 *Chap. xvii. 5. f Chap. viii. 58. \ Chap. ii. 25. 
 
 Chap. i. 42. 8 Chap. i. 49. ^[Chap. iv. 16. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 247 
 
 death.* He knows no limitations, works miracles as with 
 omnipotent power, heals a man at the distance of a day's 
 journey, turns water into wine, and by a word calls a dead 
 man already putrescent from the grave. He has but to 
 command, and it comes to pass, for the Father has 
 put all things into his hands. No traces of human 
 growth, wrestling, and struggle mar this wonderful por- 
 trait of a divine one incarnate. The great Logos has no 
 part in the baptism of John, no awful days and nights of 
 conflict with temptation in the wilderness. Satan does 
 not venture to approach him. The final tragedy is only 
 a means by which the heaven-descended one may return 
 to the world above, and he has no need to falter and 
 writhe and watch. " Shall I say," he cries, " Father, save 
 me from this hour?" If his soul is for a moment 
 " troubled," there is no protracted struggle, no bloody 
 sweat, and no need of an angel to strengthen him. On 
 the cross he speaks no words of heart-broken despair, 
 but, with godlike majesty, proclaims, " It is finished ! " 
 Finally the master-hand that has drawn this great picture 
 sweeps from the heavens the apocalyptic paraphernalia of 
 the synoptic second coming, as a Jewish conception, or 
 rather a dream, unfitted to a world-religion and incon- 
 gruous with a later philosophy. 
 
 It does not, however, by any means follow from the 
 foregoing considerations that this Gospel is for the most 
 part a work of pure invention, a fancy-piece, written to 
 serve the exigencies of a theological system, and devised 
 with consummate art to bring to the support of that sys- 
 tem the assumed teachings of Jesus. Granting that the 
 internal evidences are decidedly unfavorable to the Johan- 
 nine authorship, we are by no means under the necessity 
 
 *Chap. vi. 64, xi. 113, xii. 23, xiii. I. 
 
248 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 of adopting this " rigorous " theory. As to the authors 
 being " a consummate artist/' Matthew Arnold has shown 
 by a process of fine literary criticism that it is no true art 
 which he employs, because " it does not manage to conceal 
 itself." The unlikeness of his Jesus to the Jesus of the 
 synoptists is " too glaring." " The redaction and compo- 
 sition of this Gospel show literary skill, and indicate a 
 trained Greek as their author, not a fisherman of Galilee. 
 But it may be said with certainty that a literary artist 
 capable of inventing the most striking sayings of Jesus to 
 Nicodemus or to the woman of Samaria would have made 
 his composition as a whole more flawless, more artistically 
 perfect than the fourth Gospel actually is. Judged from 
 an artist's point of view it has blots and awkwardnesses 
 which a master of imaginative invention would never have 
 suffered his work to exhibit." * The Gospel, then, remains 
 to be accounted for, and any theory of its origin must 
 reckon with the fact of its unmistakable spiritual charac- 
 ter, which we have seen was recognized by the ancients, 
 and must offer an explanation of the great sayings attrib- 
 uted to Jesus in it and of the qualities unique and beau- 
 tiful which made it appear to Luther and even to Baur 
 " the only, tender, true chief-Gospel." The theory of the 
 composition of the Gospel which will stand the test of 
 criticism must also take account of the tradition which 
 connects its origin with John. While tradition is not 
 blindly to be received, it does, as we have seen, count for 
 something, and should not be arbitrarily set aside. An 
 acceptable hypothesis cannot disregard the fact that the 
 Gospel was received without dispute in the latter part of 
 the second century as a Johannine account of the life and 
 teachings of Jesus, and took its place in the canon early 
 
 * God and the Bible, p. 247. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 249 
 
 in the third century along with the other Gospels. No 
 theory of the Gospel can, however, be expected to stand 
 which does not have a strong support in the record itself, 
 which is not, in a word, sustained by the internal evidences. 
 Now, that there are internal indications of the composite 
 character of the Gospel can hardly be denied by a careful 
 and unbiassed reader of it. It is a work of striking incon- 
 gruities. . Whoever reads it attentively finds himself now 
 charmed and stirred by passages of great beauty and 
 spiritual profoundness, now shocked and perplexed by 
 enigmatical words and by sayings hard to reconcile with 
 a conception of the unity and consistency of the whole. 
 The problem which these internal phenomena present has 
 received various solutions, according to the point of view 
 of different investigators. Schweitzer * regarded the ac- 
 counts of the Galilean ministry of Jesus as later interpo- 
 lations. Tobler,f Ewald, \ Hase, and Weizsacker | have 
 attempted to explain the mingling of authentic or apostoli- 
 cal with spurious or unapostolical elements in the Gospel 
 by the hypothesis that an evangelic oral tradition of the 
 apostle John, which had come down without definite 
 form, was recorded in it with many modifications by one 
 of his disciples. On the other hand, Weisse^f maintains 
 that the basis of the Gospel was a writing by John con- 
 taining certain discourses of Jesus which received a his- 
 torical revision by a later hand. Weisse's hypothesis has 
 recently been assumed in its general features by Wendt,** 
 
 * Das Evangelium Johannes nach seinem inneren Werth und seiner Be- 
 deutung, etc., 1841. 
 
 f Die Evangelienf rage, etc., 1858. 
 
 \ Die Johanneischen Schriften, 1861. 
 
 Geschichte Jesu, 1876. f Untersuchungen, etc., 1864. 
 
 ^[ Die Evangel. Gesch., 1838 ; Die Evangelienfrage, 1856. 
 
 ** Die Lehre Jesu, i. 1886. 
 
250 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 and defended with much acumen and in critical detail. 
 According to this view, the fourth evangelist held a rela- 
 tion similar in general to that of the first evangelist to the 
 logia of Matthew, and the marked difference of the former 
 from the latter work is due in part to the character of the 
 logia of Jesus preserved by John and in part to the point 
 of view of the writer who gave them a historical setting. 
 It is maintained that one can hardly find the differences 
 difficult to explain when one takes into account a half- 
 century's development of Christianity, the Alexandrian 
 philosophy, the influence of Pauline ideas, and the point 
 of view of a Greek-Christian writer in Asia Minor. 
 
 But all the critical acumen which has been applied to 
 the development of the Weisse-Wendt hypothesis does 
 not succeed in freeing it from grave difficulties and an 
 appearance of arbitrariness. The literary unity of the 
 Gospel is so generally admitted by critics of opposing 
 schools that it can hardly be regarded as a contested 
 question. Now, the joining of a logia-document of any 
 considerable extent written by a Jewish-Christian apostle 
 to the composition of such a writer as the fourth evange- 
 list must have been, so as to produce a work like the 
 fourth Gospel, is in the highest degree improbable, is per- 
 haps a literary impossibility. Wendt, it is true, does not 
 oppose the unity 'of the Gospel in the sense of contesting 
 its unitary redaction in its present form ; but he cannot be 
 said to have overcome the difficulty which is presented in 
 the supposition that a writer of the Johannine school 
 should have taken such liberties with an apostolic logia- 
 document as to give it the impress of his own individuality 
 and the coloring of his theological opinions to the extent 
 of making it unrecognizable as apostolic. Besides, as we 
 have already seen, it is in the discourses of Jesus as set 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 2$ I 
 
 forth in this Gospel that some of the principal objections 
 to its Johannine authorship appear, and the difficulties are 
 not overcome by the arbitrary elimination which Wendt 
 makes of certain objectionable portions of them. Such 
 a piece-work as this theory would make it, the Gospel 
 certainly does not appear to be. Neither is any consid- 
 erable participation of the apostle John in its composition 
 made to appear probable by the quite gratuitous assump- 
 tion of a radical change of his opinions and shifting of 
 his point of view in later life under the influence of gen- 
 tile-Christian and Pauline ideas in Ephesus. That in this 
 environment he should gradually have " put off many 
 remnants of Jewish-Christian limitations," that " the por- 
 trait of his Master should have been transfigured in him," 
 " removed from the human sphere, and surrounded with 
 a divine splendor," * is anything but " probable." A 
 companion of Jesus in youth and " pillar -apostle " in 
 middle life could scarcely be transformed into an Alexan- 
 drian philosopher and Pauline universalist by any magic 
 likely to have been operative in the Ephesian envi- 
 ronment. 
 
 That the problem of the authorship of the fourth Gos- 
 pel is one to be solved off-hand by radical criticism, or to 
 be pronounced upon ex cathedra by conservative dogma- 
 tism, no sound critic will maintain in view of a century's 
 discussion of it. A criticism which has a savor of spiritual 
 discernment will not cast this remarkable work aside as an 
 invention of second-century Gnosticism, containing only 
 " the arid mysticism of the schools of Alexandria." If the 
 external evidences are indecisive of its early origin ; if 
 from internal grounds we cannot regard it as the work cf 
 an apostle ; if it plainly has a composite character, then 
 
 * Schenkel, Das Charakterbild Jesu. 1864. 
 
252 GOSPEL- CRI TIC ISM. 
 
 the unbiassed critic may still be just to the ancient tradi- 
 tion of the Ephesian church and to the profound spiritual 
 sayings of the Gospel in holding that, while on any hy- 
 pothesis of its origin many critical problems remain 
 unsolved, there is at least a strong probability for a 
 Johannine nucleus in the book, for frequent " words of the 
 Lord " (Xoyia Kvpiaxa) handed down from the apostle 
 without connection, probably, and without a historical 
 setting, which have in this remarkable work found a liter- 
 ary embodiment in the midst of much mysticism, it is 
 true, and overlaid by Greek-Christian, second-century 
 speculations, but distinguishable from these by their 
 unique quality and surprising originality. The attentive 
 reader finds on almost every page of the Gospel words 
 which are probably genuine Johannine logia of Jesus. 
 They have been now skilfully, now awkwardly, connected 
 with the narratives, and embodied in the discourses, and 
 are recognizable by their profound spirituality and by 
 that gnomic character which is stamped upon the synoptic 
 tradition of Jesus. A prudent criticism will perhaps 
 refrain from the somewhat hazardous attempt to distin- 
 guish these logia in detail from the rest of the record, as 
 well as from venturing conjectures as to the form or way 
 in which they may have come to the writer. Inventions 
 these quickening words surely cannot be, unless the Jesus 
 of the synoptists, who taught " as one having authority," 
 was also an invention of Galilean fishermen. If these 
 logia descended from the Ephesian apostle, and so much 
 at least ought to be accorded to the tradition, then the 
 Gospel which contains them may well be entitled that 
 " according to John." 
 
 Since Baur placed the date of the composition of the 
 Gospel at about the year 170, the tendency of representa- 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 253 
 
 tives of the critical school has been towards the assump- 
 tion of an earlier period, the variations extending through 
 about a quarter of a century. The precise date is mani- 
 festly indeterminable, but the opinion which assigns it to 
 the second quarter of the second century is probably 
 correct. Idle are all speculations as to its author. Worse 
 than idle is the charge that he intended to forge a Gospel 
 in the name of an apostle. That he wrote with sincerity 
 is as evident as that he wrote with a purpose. His rela- 
 tion to John is somewhat analogous to that of the first 
 evangelist to Matthew, though he doubtless handled his 
 materials with much greater freedom than the latter. 
 Like the author of the second Isaiah, he remains, and will 
 forever remain, a great Unknown. This incomparable 
 Gospel is a monument to a great genius, and we may well 
 believe that no one would be more ready than he to 
 acknowledge his indebtedness to his greater Master. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 THE sayings ascribed to Jesus regarding "the last 
 things," and particularly regarding his own partici- 
 pation in certain events which were believed to be the 
 final scenes of the Messianic drama of the then " present 
 age," present some of the gravest problems with which 
 the criticism of the Gospels has to deal. That Jesus 
 should have had so much faith in the vitality and the 
 transforming power of his doctrine as to look forward 
 with unshaken confidence to its gradual but certain tri- 
 umph ; that he should have believed his word destined to 
 judge men by separating between good and evil, light 
 and darkness; and that by a bold figure of speech he 
 should have connected himself with this triumph and 
 judgment, are natural inferences from his personality and 
 history. Little doubt, indeed, can exist that he did more 
 than once speak prophetic words of such spiritual import. 
 These words present no serious difficulties to interpreters 
 of insight and literary sense. The real difficulty in the 
 eschatological sayings ascribed to him begins, as Schenkel 
 has pointed out,* with the passages in which Jesus an- 
 nounces his personal return to the earth, and this in 
 immediate connection with the judgment on Jerusalem. 
 All attempts in an apologetic interest to deny that the 
 synoptists wrote of such a coming of Christ in such a 
 
 * Das Charakterbild Jesu, p. 280. 
 254 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 2$ $ 
 
 connection are not in accordance with a sound hermen- 
 eutics, and do not deserve refutation. The real problem 
 to be solved, then, it is not difficult to state. For most 
 modern interpreters of note agree that in the synoptic 
 eschatological discourses the Parousia is represented as a 
 personal visible reappearance of the Son of Man in the 
 life-time of the generation then living for the establish- 
 ment of his kingdom and for judgment, and also that this 
 return is often, particularly in the great discourse con- 
 cerning the last things in the thirteenth of Mark and its 
 parallels, connected with the abomination of desolation 
 and the judgment on Jerusalem.* The chief divergence 
 of opinion arises on the question whether the notion of a 
 return in the form in which it lies before us is to be put 
 to the account of Jesus, with the error and self-deception 
 involved, or to that of his disciples who may have mis- 
 understood him and to that of the evangelists who re- 
 corded the misunderstanding. 
 
 The only explanations of the passages in question worth 
 seeking or considering are such as proceed from a histori- 
 cal and critical study of the Jewish-Messianic beliefs and 
 expectations and of the relation of Jesus to these. The 
 purely exegetical process which is usually unfruitful must 
 be especially so in this case. Only when the Gospels are 
 studied as products of the Jewish race in a particular 
 phase of its historical development can many of the prob- 
 lems which they present be rightly solved. The true 
 criticism is historical criticism. Not until Jesus is appre- 
 hended in his relation to the ideas and history of his 
 nation can his life be truly written. For the solution, 
 then, of the problem before us we must go back to the 
 
 * So Bleek, Meyer, De Wette, Baur, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Weisse, 
 Wendt, Hase, Weizsacker, Keim, Pfleiderer, and many others. 
 
256 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 original Jewish-Messianic expectations, and follow them 
 down to the time of Christ. In the next place must be 
 considered the relation which Jesus regarded himself as 
 sustaining to Jewish Messianism. Finally we must study 
 in the light which we may hope to get from these investi- 
 gations the principal Messianic or eschatological sayings 
 which are ascribed to him in the Gospels. 
 
 Out of the books of Hebrew prophecy speak no waver- 
 ing, uncertain voices. The Hebrew, being an intense 
 believer in the providential mission of his nation, never 
 lost his faith in the future triumph of Jahveh's chosen 
 people and their cause. In the predictions of the prophets 
 this faith finds glowing expression. It is enfeebled by no 
 disaster, it is quenched by no adversity. The Hebrew 
 warriors shall ultimately triumph over the enemies of the 
 nation on whom the Most High will pronounce judg- 
 ment. The oldest of these prophets whose visions have 
 been preserved, Joel, towards the middle of the ninth 
 century B.C., depicts in fine poetry the great day of 
 Jahveh, which shall be announced by dreams of old men 
 and visions of young men, by " wonders in the heavens 
 and in the earth, blood and fire and pillars of smoke." 
 "The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon 
 into blood." All nations shall be gathered in the valley 
 of Jehoshaphat for the judgment of Jahveh on account 
 of His people, whose scattered captives shall be brought 
 back, while they who took them away shall be sold into 
 slavery. Jahveh shall roar out of Zion, the heavens and 
 the earth shall shake, Egypt shall become a desolation, and 
 Edom a wilderness for their violence towards Judah, but 
 " Judah shall dwell forever." * Micah, after announcing 
 the fearful judgments which shall fall upon the chosen 
 
 * Joel, chap. ii. iii. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 people for their sins, Zion plowed as a field and Jerusa- 
 lem become heaps, proclaims that " in the'last days " the 
 mountain of the Lord's house shall be established, and 
 " many nations " shall come up to it, and shall learn of 
 the ways of the God of Jacob who shall judge among 
 many peoples, and shall rebuke strong nations afar off 
 amidst universal peace, the beating of swords into plough- 
 shares and spears into pruning-hooks.* The prophets 
 exhaust the resources of imagination in painting the 
 splendors of " the age to come," the blessed, Messianic 
 time. Tears and weeping shall be no more. There shall 
 be no old man who does not fill out his days, and the 
 child shall die a hundred years old. f Nature shall be 
 renewed, and rejoice in a new heaven and a new earth. J 
 The house of Jacob shall be restored, the captives brought 
 home, the ten tribes reconciled to Jerusalem to form one 
 people and one realm in which " the iniquity of Israel 
 shall be sought for, and there shall be none." || The 
 foreign peoples who have oppressed the holy nation shall 
 be terribly chastised, while the Jews shall found a vast 
 empire, and the vanquished shall pay them tribute. 
 
 The Hebrew prophets did not, however, stop with the 
 delineation of an indefinite, kingless future. The golden 
 age of the reign of David, the great conqueror, the com- 
 peller of peace, the ideal prophet-king, furnishes the key- 
 note of many prophecies. This great theocratic prince, 
 this Charlemagne of Israel, this man after God's own 
 heart, was never to be without a descendant on the 
 throne of his people. The idea of a personal Messiah of 
 the Davidic line, who should restore the ancient glory 
 
 * Micah, chap. in. iv. -j- Is. Ixv. 20. 
 
 t Ib. 17. Zech. x. 6-r i. Is. xi. 13. 
 
 J Is. 1. 19, 20. 
 17 
 
258 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 of his race, does not, however, appear in full vigor until 
 towards the middle of the eighth century before Christ, 
 when Samaria was already ruined, and the decadence of 
 Jerusalem had begun. Isaiah and Micah, Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel (about 720-600 B.C.), are the principal prophets 
 who associate the Son of David with their hopes of the 
 future.* These have been called " the royalist-prophets," 
 while of their successors, who lived during or after the 
 Babylonian exile, the unknown author of Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 
 and Malachi do not speak of a descendant of David nor 
 of any visible chief of the theocracy which was to be 
 restored. Sometimes David appears to stand for the 
 dynasty in general, as, " I will be your God, and David 
 shall be your king forever." Again, a single king only 
 seems to be in view, a descendant of David, as when 
 Zechariah designates the Messiah as a Branch who shall 
 build the temple and sit upon the throne.f From Beth- 
 lehem shall this king come forth, under whose sway " the 
 remnant of his brethren shall return unto the'children of 
 Israel." He shall also be " great unto the ends of the 
 earth," and shall deliver the people " from the Assyrian 
 when he cometh into our land." But the future of all the 
 visions of the prophets is near at hand. In " a very little 
 while " shall the Branch of Jesse appear, who shall over- 
 throw the enemies of Judah and bring the exiles from 
 Assyria and Egypt.;); The descendant of David who was 
 to appear from Bethlehem should be " peace " when the 
 Assyrian should come into the land, and, turning against 
 these enemies, should make Israel as a lion, and rebuild 
 the temple. The writer of the second Isaiah is occupied 
 with an early restoration from the Babylonian exile, and 
 
 * Micah v. 1-4 ; Is. ix. 5, 6, xi. 1-5 ; Jer. xxx. 5, 6, 15-17 ; Ezek. xxiv. 
 23, 24, xxxvii. 24, 25. 
 
 f Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. \ Is. xi. 1-5, 11-13. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 sees the hope of the future in the theocratic and pious 
 remnant of the people which had been " bruised for the 
 transgressions of many." A peculiar trait appears in 
 Malachi, who announces that, before the great and ter- 
 rible day of the Lord, Elijah, who had, according to an 
 early tradition, been translated, should be sent to " turn 
 the hearts of the children to their fathers," lest the earth 
 be smitten in the divine wrath " with a curse." This 
 prophet is not announced here as a forerunner of Mes- 
 siah, of whom Malachi does not speak, but of Jahveh, 
 who is to come for the great judgment upon the idolatrous 
 nations and upon Israel. This strange fancy has been 
 characterized as " the first fantastic element which is 
 joined to hopes hitherto so simple and natural."^* 
 
 The presence of " fantastic elements " characterizes the 
 Jewish apocalyptic literature of a later period. The point 
 of view of the Maccabean age is represented in the book 
 of Daniel, written probably about 167 B.C., to encourage 
 the Jews in their conflict against Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 Here, however, no descendant of David, no personal 
 Messiah appears. The natural order gives place to a 
 cataclysmal development. The " one like the son of 
 man," whose appearance " with the clouds of heaven " 
 is declared with genuinely apocalyptic features, is not 
 a personal Messiah, but represents the kingdom of collec- 
 tive Israel, whose distinguishing qualities are set forth in 
 this way to contrast it with the preceding visions, as the 
 noble human characteristics are superior to those of 
 beasts. f The human ruler of the kingdom of God does 
 
 * Colani, Jesus-Christ et les Croyances Messianiques de son Temps, 2 me 
 ed. 1864, p. 1 6. 
 
 f Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel erklart, 1864, p. 115 ; Holtzmann, Judenthum 
 und Christenthum im Zeitalter der apokryphischen und neutestamentlichen 
 Literatur, 1867, p. 198. 
 
260 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 not appear in this book. The overthrow of the enemies 
 of the nation is to be consummated by supernal forces, 
 when " the great prince which standeth for the children 
 of thy people," the archangel Michael, " shall stand up," 
 and those " found written in the book " shall be delivered. 
 In the book of Enoch, written about seventy years 
 after that of Daniel, in the name of the Old-Testament 
 worthy who " walked with God," the Messiah appears as 
 no earthly prince or scion of -a king, but as one who be- 
 fore the world was created dwelt in the bosom of God. 
 He is called " the Elect," " the Just," " the Anointed," 
 "the Son of Man," " the Son of a man," " the Son of a 
 woman." Concealed at present in the heavens, he shall 
 at length.appear, the elect shall stand before him, and the 
 kings of the earth shall fall at his feet.* Here the time 
 of the catastrophic end is near, when the oppressors of 
 the Jews shall fall, and after the judgment the Messiah 
 shall reign. In Hebrew prophecy and Jewish apocalyp- 
 tics the end of the travail-pains (codives) and of the 
 tribulations ((fcfyevf) is always near. The apocryphal 
 writings of the Old Testament are, for the most part, 
 contemporary with the apocalypse of Enoch. But they 
 are silent as to the person of the Messiah. They give ex- 
 pression to what may be called a Messianic hope, that is, 
 a hope of the return of Israel to Palestine, the perpetuity 
 of the nation, the conversion of the heathen, the chastise- 
 
 * "If this delineation is pre-Christian, it shows how, in certain narrow 
 circles at least, the apprehension of the Messiah had begun to be formed by 
 means of the idea of the Son of Man in Daniel, and consequently as a pre- 
 existent celestial being." Holtzmann, Judenthum, etc. Dillmann regards 
 the entire book as a Jewish production, Das Buch Henoch iibersetzt und 
 erklart, 1853. Hilgenfeld maintains the Christian origin of a part of it, and 
 finds thus an explanation of the Messianic titles, " Son of a man," " Son of 
 a woman," Die jiidische Apokalyptik, 1857. Dillmann, in article " Henoch" 
 in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, reaffirms his former position. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 261 
 
 ment of the enemies of the Jews, a bodily resurrection of 
 the dead, and the assembling of the dispersed people in 
 Jerusalem. Power is given of God to David " forever," 
 and Elijah shall come to appease the divine wrath before 
 the judgment. 
 
 As we approach and enter upon the Christian era, we 
 find the Jewish conception of the personality of the Mes- 
 siah again well defined. There appears to be a return to 
 the ancient prophetic point of view in the Targums and 
 the Gospels. The Messiah is the anointed of God, the 
 son of David, the king of Israel,* the one who is to come, 
 he who cometh in the name of the Lord, he that cometh 
 of the seed of David and from Bethlehem, f then disap- 
 pears, and returns suddenly without that anyone knows 
 whence he comes.;): He shall have as forerunners Elijah 
 and other prophets, particularly the one foretold by 
 Moses. His office is to be at once religious and politi- 
 cal, and his reign is called the kingdom of the Messiah, 
 the kingdom of David, and the kingdom of God.[ He 
 shall separate the wheat from the chaff ; he shall pray for 
 the sins of his people ; he shall take away the sin of the 
 world ; he shall establish the kingdom of Israel by bring- 
 ing back the ten tribes, and deliver the Jews from their 
 enemies ; he shall gain a victory over Gog, the personifi- 
 cation of the pagan power, and the Jews shall share 
 in the spoils.^f The expectation of the Messiah was, then, 
 
 * Luke ii. 36 ; Mark xii. 36 and parallels ; John i. 50. 
 
 \ Luke vii. 19 ; Matt. xxi. 9 ; John viii. 42. 
 
 \ Targ. Jonath., Micah iv. 8. 
 
 Mark ix. n, vi. 15 ; John i. 21, vii. 40. 
 
 I Targ. Jonath. , ut supra ; Mark xi. 10 ; Targ. Jonath. , Is. xl. 9 and 
 Micah iv. 7. 
 
 Tf Matt. iii. 12 ; Targ. Jonath., Is. liii. n ; John i. 29 ; Targ. Jonath., 
 Zech. x. 4 ; Luke i. 74 ; Targ. Jonath., Is. xxxiii. 23. 
 
262 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 the expectation of the consolation of Israel and the re- 
 demption of Jerusalem.* History shows the prominence 
 of political hopes in this earnest awaiting of the Messiah. 
 Josephus can explain the bold insurrections of the Jews 
 against the Roman power only by an " oracle," which 
 had predicted for them the empire of the world. f The 
 monarch was to be the son of David, and the seat of em- 
 pire Jerusalem. Those disciples of Jesus were, accordingly, 
 consistent Jews who asked of him a place as viceroys in 
 his Messianic reign. \ 
 
 The form which Jewish Messianism assumed towards 
 the end of the first century of our era appears in the fourth 
 book of Esdras, written probably by a Jew about A.D. 
 96. The nation, overthrown, deprived of political and 
 military power, had no hope but in the supernal powers. 
 The author beholds Messiah rise from the sea, and fly 
 with the clouds of heaven, while the earth trembles 
 wherever he turns his glance. He abides in heaven with 
 Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, who had been removed from 
 the earth without death, until at the end he comes forth 
 in order from Mount Zion to slay with his flaming breath 
 the heathen who were besieging it, to bring back the ten 
 tribes and enter upon his reign over the elect. But he is 
 not appointed to preside at the final judgment. Rather 
 Jahveh declares by the mouth of Uriel that the heavens 
 and the earth were made by Him, and by Him shall be 
 their, end. It thus appears that from the time of Joel to 
 the end of the first century of our era Jewish Messianism 
 underwent great modifications. The judgment of the 
 valley of Jehoshaphat becomes a terrible world-catastro- 
 phe to which the teachings of the Persian religion have 
 
 * Luke ii. 25, 38. f De Bello Jud. v. 5, 4. 
 
 \ Mark x. 35 and parallels. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 263 
 
 added the resurrection of the dead to take part in the 
 great assize. The personal Messiah, the son of David, 
 disappears in the political decadence of the nation, with 
 a priestly aristocracy for two centuries at the head of 
 affairs, with the Maccabeans in power, descended not 
 from the tribe of Judah, but from that of Levi, and with 
 the spiritualizing of the Messianic idea which prevailed 
 during the period of the apocalyptic literature. Finally, 
 later Judaism, with its closed canon of sacred Scripture, 
 its veneration of the letter, its fine-spun interpretations, 
 its allegorizing, brought back the original Messianic con- 
 ception, and restored the effaced image of the son of 
 David, which was hailed with joy by the helpless and op- 
 pressed people of the era of Jesus. 
 
 In studying the relation which Jesus regarded himself 
 as holding to Jewish Messianism, it is not necessary to 
 enter upon a discussion of the question at what period 
 he openly made this relation known. This question ap- 
 pears to be complicated by the different points of view 
 of the evangelists. It is sufficient for our purpose to say 
 that it appears on a fair interpretation of the Gospels 
 that he regarded himself as in some sense the Anointed, 
 the Christ. The terms employed by him to designate 
 the principle that he came to establish are the ones which 
 were familiar to the Jews of his time as Messianic expres- 
 sions, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.* 
 John the Baptist is said to have announced the approach 
 of the kingdom of God, that is, of the Messiah ; and 
 Jesus during a part of his Galilean ministry speaks of it 
 in the same way as future, although he does not represent 
 
 * Matthew generally employs the latter term, Mark and Luke use only 
 the former. These terms appear, however, to be sometimes used synony- 
 mously with our expression " the life to come." 
 
264 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 it -with the terrible features which his forerunner gives it, 
 but rather as the " good news.* Later he speaks of it as 
 already come. His works show the advent of the new 
 reign.f This kingdom cometh not with visible signs, as 
 the Jews suppose, but is already in their midst. J The 
 new life of renunciation, peace, and joy which he has 
 brought to the world is the veritable kingdom of God. 
 It is Christianity itself, " a treasure," a " pearl of great 
 price." In order to enter this kingdom one must become 
 as a little child. Blessed are the poor, the persecuted, 
 the weary and heavy-laden, for to such belongs the king- 
 dom, while the rich will hardly enter it. Far from being 
 limited to Israel, there is danger that it be taken from 
 this people and given to others.] It is evident, then, that 
 one has not to read far in the Gospels to find that the 
 Messianic conception of Jesus was widely different from 
 that of the Jews of his own or of any previous time. 
 " In making supreme the spiritual character of his king- 
 dom he removed the confusion of the temporal and the 
 spiritual, the visible and the invisible, which inhered in 
 the Hebrew theocracy." It is safe to say, in spite of the 
 Judaistic coloring which has been given to some of his 
 words, particularly by the first evangelist, that he recog- 
 nized no special national claims to or rights in his king- 
 dom. His word is a leaven which is to transform human 
 society by a process of development, and not by violence 
 and convulsions. As the Jewish national Messiah, as 
 assuming the role of that expected person, he could not 
 have spoken as he did without conscious deception or 
 superlative folly. 
 
 * Mark i. 15. \. Luke xvii. 20. 
 
 f Matt. xi. 4-6, xii. 28. Mark x. 14, and parallels, 
 
 fl Matt. xxi. 43. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 26$ 
 
 This conclusion is confirmed by the relation which 
 Jesus assumed towards the popular Messianic titles of his 
 own and previous times. " Son of David " he never calls 
 himself, and when the blind men, the woman of Canaan, 
 the beggar, and the multitude hail him with this title, he 
 pays no attention to it. Adopting the rabbinical exege- 
 sis, he once shows by a forcible argumentum ad /wminem 
 that according to the terms of a Psalm, probably errone- 
 ously ascribed to David, the Messiah cannot properly be 
 called the son of that king. The conclusion of this re- 
 markable argument appears to be that he regarded the 
 Messiah as greater than a temporal monarch, not to be 
 compared to the greatest of earthly kings, and not a son 
 even of David, the grand Messianic type of his nation.* 
 The appellation, " Son of God," was undoubtedly a Mes- 
 sianic title current among the Jews previously to and at 
 the time of Christ, and the evangelists employ it in this 
 sense. They report that a voice from above proclaimed 
 it at the baptism and the transfiguration, and Mark re- 
 ports that the demoniacs accosted Jesus by this title. At 
 Csesarea Philippi Peter's celebrated response, " Thou art 
 the Christ, the Son of the living God," was gladly ac- 
 cepted by Jesus according to the account of the first 
 evangelist.-)- Before the High-priest Jesus acknowledged 
 himself to be the Christ, the Son of God.J These latter 
 words are not, in the first place, very well authenticated, 
 since it does not appear that any one of his disciples was 
 present at the scene, Peter alone being mentioned as hav- 
 
 * Matt. xxii. 42-45 ; Mark xii. 35-37. See Meyer in loc. 
 
 f Matt. xvi. 16. According to Mark, Peter's answer was simply, " Thou 
 art the Christ," while according to Luke it was, " Thou art the Christ of 
 God." These record no commendation of Peter for the answer. 
 
 \ Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. 
 
266 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 ing followed him at a distance, and as being, according to 
 one account, " outside in the court," and according to 
 another, " below in the court." * At all events, when we 
 take into account his repeated and undoubtedly genuine 
 declarations of the spiritual and unworldly character of 
 his kingdom, we are constrained either to reject all that 
 appear to have a contrary meaning, or to modify them 
 to accord with the former. The fact appears to be 
 that Jesus intentionally avoided applying to himself 
 the standard Messianic title, " Son of God," and that 
 he chose the simple appellation, " Son," to express what 
 was deepest in his consciousness, his spiritual relation 
 to God, the Father. He teaches, it is true, that all 
 men are children of God ; that even prodigals are still 
 sons ; that prayer should be addressed to God as our 
 Father, and that there is a special sense in which men 
 may become sons of God on certain conditions. f Yet 
 there can be no doubt that he claimed for himself a 
 pre-eminence among the sons of God which entitled him 
 to call himself " the Son.";f He is reported as claiming 
 for himself an especial knowledge of God and the func- 
 tion of a pre-eminent revelator of His will. When he 
 calls himself "the Son," then, he appears to speak out 
 of the profound consciousness of the indwelling of the 
 Father, of intimate communion with Him, and not at 
 all to wish to be understood as claiming to be the 
 Messiah in the Jewish sense of the word, but rather the 
 Son of God in " the mystic and Christian meaning " of 
 the term. 
 
 There remains to be considered the term by which Jesus 
 usually designated himself, " the Son of Man," while 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 58, 69 ; Mark xiv. 54, 56. \ Mark xiii. 32. 
 
 f Matt. v. 9, 45. Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 32. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 267 
 
 neither the people nor the disciples apply it to him. The 
 reasons for believing that he did not by this appellation 
 wish to declare himself as the expected Messiah are very 
 strong, although some noted exegetes have not been con- 
 vinced by them.* In the first place this was not a common 
 designation of the Messiah among the Jews before Christ 
 nor in his time. It appears, indeed, in the book of Daniel 
 and in the Apocalypse of Enoch. In the former it is 
 employed in connection with apocalyptic visions of a 
 Messianic character in the general sense of the word. 
 The fact that the hope in a personal Messiah is foreign to 
 the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, as it is to 
 Obadiah and Malachi, furnishes a strong presumption 
 against a personal reference in the passage in Daniel in 
 which one appears " as the Son of Man." Rather, as has 
 already been said, the term is here applied to a kingdom 
 which the writer represents under the symbol not of a 
 beast, but of the noble human figure, f As to the book 
 of Enoch, the appellations, " Son of Man " and " Son of a 
 man," there employed of the Messiah may be of Christian 
 origin, and if they are not, this single instance of their use 
 is of little importance. It is hardly to be supposed that 
 Jesus would have borrowed the term from such a writing. 
 The language used by Jesus at Caesarea Philippi shows 
 that he did not intend by the term to designate himself as 
 the Messiah, and that he could not have supposed the 
 disciples to understand it in that sense. The words : 
 " Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? " cannot 
 mean, who do men say that I, the Messiah, am ? Jesus 
 
 * Particularly Meyer, Commentar, i. I. p. 223 f, and Keim, Geschichte 
 Jesu, ii. p. 570. 
 
 f Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, p 116 ; Colani, p. 112 ; Weisse, Die Evan- 
 gelienfrage, pp. 101, 102. 
 
268 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 could not thus have put into Peter's mouth the answer for 
 which he commends him, and of which he declares that it 
 came by a revelation of God. It is probable, then, that 
 Jesus chose for himself this by no means current and 
 popular designation of the Messiah with the design not of 
 saying directly that he was that expected one, but rather 
 to mark himself, in opposition to the splendid Jewish- 
 Messianic expectations, as Man, as one who completely 
 participated in all that is human, qui nihil humani a se 
 alienum putat* It appears, too, according to Mark,f that 
 notwithstanding Christ's repeated use of the term, the 
 people had not prior to the event at Caesarea Philippi 
 recognized him as Messiah, but had thought him to be 
 John the Baptist or one of the prophets, and that not 
 even his apostles would have known him without the 
 special revelation granted to Peter. Again, the claim 
 which Jesus made of the authority as Son of Man to 
 forgive sins, \ is not set up as pertaining to Messiah, 
 otherwise he would probably have employed instead of 
 *' Son of Man " an unambiguous term, as " Son of God," or 
 " Son of David." Rather he speaks of himself as spe- 
 cially commissioned to represent the human race, and 
 accordingly as authorized to pronounce the judgment of 
 forgiveness on human transgression. This son of Man- 
 kind, this archetypal Man, sprung from the race " crowned 
 with glory and honor," is endowed with the highest human 
 dignity, and clothed with a divine prerogative. 
 
 If, then, Jesus did not regard himself as the Messiah in 
 the sense of the term current among the Jews and gen- 
 erally set forth by the ancient prophets, in what sense did 
 he apply that title to himself? It appears, according to a 
 
 * Baur, Vorlesungen iiber neutestamentliche Theologie, 1864, p. 81. 
 f Chap. viii. 27. \ Matt. ix. 6. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 269 
 
 tradition which there seems to be no good reason for 
 doubting, that at Caesarea Philippi he at least allowed the 
 Messianic appellation to be applied to himself, whether, 
 according to Matthew he received it with approval, or, 
 according to Mark, passively and in silence. Now, familiar 
 with the literature of his nation as he must have been, 
 Messianism could have been no strange idea to him. It is 
 not improbable that he had been profoundly impressed 
 with the religious features of the golden age, the Messi- 
 anic future, which abound in many of the prophetic de- 
 lineations. The proposition is by no means hazardous, 
 is, in fact, psychologically grounded, that he apprehended 
 the Messianism of the ancient seers in accordance with his 
 nature, his religious genius. May not he who treated the 
 law with so much freedom have also transformed the 
 prophets? One cannot think of him as associating the 
 advent of the Messianic age with scenes of carnage and 
 " garments rolled in blood," nor with apocalyptic imagery 
 and cataclysmal terrors. He could no more be a Judas 
 Maccabeus or a Simon Bar-Cochab, than he could ima- 
 gine himself as ushering in the Messianic kingdom by a 
 catastrophic descent with the clouds of heaven. To such 
 a soul as his the " future age " of Israel's glowing prophecy 
 and indestructible hope must have presented itself as a 
 "restitution of all things " in a moral and spiritual sense, a 
 veritable kingdom of God whose subjects should love one 
 another as he loved men, and practise his gentleness, 
 humility, patience, and obedience to the Father. But 
 too much emphasis cannot be laid upon the fact that to 
 Jesus this " future age" (fxioov ^tsXXcor') was not a far-off 
 epoch. Its hour had already struck. No need of apoca- 
 lypses and visions to herald it ! The kingdom of God 
 was already in the midst of a people slow of heart to 
 
270 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 apprehend it. The stone which the builders rejected was 
 already laid at the corner of the world's Messianic temple. 
 In declaring himself to be the Messiah, then, Jesus, with a 
 consciousness of his moral and spiritual superiority, with 
 a sublime confidence in himself as a king of men, places 
 himself at the head of this new kingdom of God, and 
 stakes its entire fortune upon the enthusiasm and love 
 which his personality may inspire. 
 
 In greeting with approval, then, Peter's confession at 
 Caesarea Philippi Jesus accepted the Messiahship accord- 
 ing to his own apprehension of it, that is, in a transformed 
 sense. Now the die is cast. The momentous step is 
 taken. But he who has made the high resolve does not 
 think of himself as a triumphant Messiah, marching at the 
 head of conquering legions to restore the fallen fortunes 
 of the line of David. Rather with a heavy heart and in 
 the shadow of the cross he proceeds towards Jerusalem. 
 In the language of the evangelist, from that time he " began, 
 to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and 
 suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and 
 scribes, and be put to death." Transformation of the 
 traditional and current Messianism could not be more 
 radical than this. A Messiah who should suffer at the 
 hands of the elders and chief priests, who should give 
 himself up to his enemies, who should be put to death, 
 was so contrary to all that the prophets had taught and 
 the people believed of this person, that it is no wonder 
 that the Jews have never accepted him as their Messiah. 
 How complete was the transformation of the Messianic 
 conception may be seen in the Epistles of Paul, in which 
 he labors to make acceptable to Jews the idea of a suffer- 
 ing Messiah. Whence, then, did Jesus derive his Messianic 
 conception ? It has already been intimated that one will 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 2/1 
 
 not greatly err if one answers that he derived it from his 
 own nature. But we are led to think of an Old Testament 
 source when we recall the impressive scene in the syna- 
 gogue at Nazareth when he read from the second Isaiah 
 the beautiful words about preaching the glad tidings to 
 the poor, proclaiming deliverance to the captives, the 
 recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty the op- 
 pressed, to. proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. 
 That Jesus, when he had read these words, and said : 
 " To-day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears," applied 
 to his own office and ministry to men the terms which the 
 prophet used in reference to himself, is by no means im- 
 probable. The fifty-third of Isaiah, then, that pathetic 
 " hymn to grief," in which the great prophet of the 
 Babylonian age represents the hope of his nation as cen- 
 tred in the pious, theocratic remnant of the people, " the 
 servant of Jahveh," " oppressed and afflicted," " brought 
 as a lamb to the slaughter," must have found a quick 
 response in his mind, and, if it did not suggest his mission 
 to him, must have confirmed his antecedent conception of 
 it.* But apart from suggestions found in the prophets, 
 the transformation of the Messianic type, one would say, 
 must have been inevitable in a mind like that of Jesus. 
 Conscious of a mission of Messianic import to his nation 
 that is, a mission of salvation, of deliverance, one of 
 his clear insight could not but see the hopelessness, the 
 folly, of their temporal expectations, and realize that the 
 only Messiah that could help them, the only Messiah that 
 God would ever send to them, must be such a one as him- 
 self, the moral reformer, the religious teacher, the Anointed 
 of the divine Spirit, the man who could sacrifice himself 
 for them. 
 
 * See Colani, ut supra, to whom acknowledgments are due for suggestions 
 and interpretations. 
 
2/2 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 If, now, Jesus actually used the language ascribed to 
 him by the evangelists (and it is open to grave doubts 
 that he did so), in which he represents himself as fulfilling 
 prophecies in his death, if we can without a shock think of 
 such a character as going to his death " in order that it 
 might be fulfilled " which was spoken by any oracle what- 
 ever, then we must believe that he set aside all the 
 prophecies of the royalist-Messianic sort, and, by a spiritu- 
 alistic interpretation not at all uncommon in his age, read 
 his fate in that of the humble " servant of Jahveh " who 
 was " bruised for the iniquities " of the people. If one 
 will, let one call this proceeding by which a word is re- 
 tained whose meaning has been radically changed, " an 
 accommodation to the weakness of his disciples." A 
 conscious deception it certainly was not, since immediately 
 after his acceptance of Peter's confession at Caesarea Phi- 
 lippi Jesus began to speak of his humiliation. If the dis- 
 ciples were mistaken in their apprehension of the nature 
 of his Messiahship, it was because of that dulness which 
 made it impossible for them during their association with 
 him to comprehend the spiritual character of his king- 
 dom. Rather we have here the transformation which a 
 great soul gave to an effete idea, a vain expectation ; a 
 transformation which the literalists of his own time could 
 not understand, a transformation at which the literalists 
 of all subsequent ages have stumbled. 
 
 This spiritual apprehension of his mission and his Mes- 
 siahship is the incontestable fact from which the considera- 
 tion of the relation of Jesus to the apocalyptic eschatology 
 of the synoptic Gospels must proceed. From this point 
 of view the probability amounts almost to a demonstration 
 that he cannot by any express word or intimation have 
 encouraged the expectation which the evangelists certainly 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 2?$ 
 
 entertained that he would descend to the earth surrounded 
 by angels to establish the kingdom of God. There would 
 be some reason for charging this expectation to him if it 
 did not admit of another explanation. Now, its explana- 
 tion is found in the fact that the early followers of Jesus 
 were Jews, and must have cherished the Jewish-Messianic 
 hopes and doctrines. In spite of all his teachings to the 
 contrary, they believed, even after his death, that he should 
 have been a temporal Messiah, and saw all their hopes 
 shattered by the tragedy of Calvary. To believe in Jesus 
 was for them to believe that he was the Jewish Messiah 
 who would establish the longed-for theocratic kingdom. 
 They could not continue to believe in him, and relin- 
 quish the expectation that he would yet be a veritable 
 Messiah, coming in glory and power to efface the igno- 
 miny of his humiliation and death. Hence the affinity of 
 Jewish and Christian apocalyptics. Out of what slowness 
 of heart to comprehend the nature of Jesus, out of how 
 fundamental a misconception of him did this idea spring ! 
 It is one of those dreadful contradictions which dulness 
 always perpetrates when it attempts to interpret greatness. 
 A belittling apocalyptic attachment is joined to the great- 
 est career in history which had been finished with sublime 
 grandeur on Calvary, and Jesus, in his earthly existence, 
 is made a mere precursor of himself, his life " a Christian 
 preface to a Jewish poem." 
 
 That the Jewish-Christian Messianic expectations should 
 have found expression in the Gospels is antecedently 
 probable on the presumption that these writings are the 
 products of their times, and not infallible oracles dictated 
 through supernatural intervention ; and one cannot long 
 hesitate when one must choose between this hypothesis 
 and the doctrine that Jesus actually spoke of a second 
 18 
 
274 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 coming as the evangelists represent. At about the time 
 when the synoptists wrote Christians were intensely occu- 
 pied with the expectation of a near return of Christ to the 
 earth. We know this from the book of Revelation in 
 which the second advent is depicted with the vividness 
 and materialism of Jewish apocalyptics, and from the 
 Epistles of Paul in which the " groaning creation " and 
 the ardent longing for the Parousia are by no means sub- 
 ordinate features. Whether the form which is given to 
 the expression of the expectation in the several passages 
 be charged directly to the evangelists or to well-inten- 
 tioned alterations of the text, it does not seem too much 
 to say that " it were a veritable miracle if these feverish 
 beliefs had left no impression upon our Gospels." But 
 we are not left to conjecture as to the freedom of the 
 evangelistic handling of the matter. The third Gospel 
 which was written subsequently to the capture of Jerusa- 
 lem by Titus shows what liberties an evangelist allowed 
 himself with the text of the celebrated discourse ascribed 
 to Jesus on the destruction of the city and the "last 
 things." Besides omitting the passage in which Jesus 
 acknowledges his ignorance of the time of the catastrophe, 
 he rejects that concerning the abomination in the holy 
 place, probably because he knew that no pagan idol had 
 been set up there, and adds details from his own knowl- 
 edge of the events occurring in the investment of the city, 
 the destruction of life and the captivity of the people.* 
 It is significant, too, that he strikes out the words which 
 Matthew puts' into the mouth of Jesus to the effect that 
 the second coming will take place " immediately after " 
 the overthrow of Jerusalem, doubtless because he knew 
 that events had not confirmed them. 
 
 * Chap. xxi. 24. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 2/5 
 
 What sort of eschatological sayings were ascribed to 
 Jesus in good faith, no doubt, by the early Christians may 
 be seen in the celebrated account of the luxuriant growth 
 of grapes to be expected in the Messianic kingdom, which 
 Irenaeus took from Papias' work on the sayings of Christ. 
 Now this good Bishop, Papias, as we have seen, was a 
 diligent collector of information regarding the teachings 
 of Jesus, not from writings, which he held in small esti- 
 mation, but from the " living voice " of oral tradition. 
 This account of the wonderful vineyards which the saints 
 should enjoy after the second coming of Christ and the 
 attendant renewal of the " creation " he says he obtained 
 from the apostle John, and Irenaeus gives it as an example 
 of Christ's teaching.* In the times of the Messianic reign, 
 it appears, there will grow vines having ten thousand 
 shoots, and each shoot ten thousand branches, and each 
 branch ten thousand twigs, and each twig ten thousand 
 clusters, and each cluster ten thousand berries, and the 
 juice of each berry will make twenty-five measures of wine ! 
 Now, while no one will claim that Jesus ever said any- 
 thing of this kind, it must be admitted that the external 
 authentication of the prophecy is remarkably good. Be- 
 sides being directly referred to John, it is confirmed by 
 the oldest and most important witness to our first two 
 Gospels. Its sensuousness bears a strong resemblance to 
 the New-Jerusalem prophecies of the Apocalypse. As to 
 the question of its origin there can be but one answer. It 
 sprang from the second-advent expectations of the early 
 Church. The fact that it was believed by disciples of 
 the apostles to be an authentic saying of Jesus lends 
 strong support to the hypothesis that some words re- 
 garding his second appearance ascribed to him in the 
 
 * " Quemadmodum docebat Dominus et dicebat." 
 
276 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Gospels find their most probable explanation in the same 
 source. 
 
 The foregoing considerations prepare us to look in the 
 Gospels for a more or less free handling of the words of 
 Jesus in accordance with the Jewish-Christian Messianic 
 expectations which were current and dominant in the 
 early Church. What is more natural than that to the 
 solemn injunction at the close of the parable of the ten vir- 
 gins : " Watch, therefore, for ye know not the day nor 
 the hour/' tradition should have added the words, "where- 
 in the Son of Man cometh " ? * They stand in many manu- 
 scripts, but Tischendorf omits them. It does not, indeed, 
 appear improbable that Jesus should have enjoined watch- 
 fulness and fidelity upon his disciples, and have employed 
 terms applicable to all men in view of the uncertainty 
 which belongs to all human calculations. He may, indeed, 
 have said that the lord of the servant will come in a day 
 when the latter is not looking for him. But he could 
 hardly have said that the kingdom of God is comparable 
 to a state of things in which men are watching for the 
 coming of the Son of Man with the clouds of heaven. 
 Such words imply a limitation and degradation of this 
 kingdom, and give it a temporary and apocalyptic char- 
 acter quite incompatible with his exalted spiritual con- 
 ception of it. The critical judgment cannot but attach 
 suspicion to such formulas as " wherein the Son of Man 
 cometh/' especially in view of the probably liturgical 
 formula which has been added to the Lord's prayer, " for 
 thine is the kingdom/' etc. Irreverent as this suspicion 
 may appear to some devout minds, we must entertain it 
 if we will preserve many of the fine parables of Jesus 
 from a merely apocalyptic application, and accord to them 
 
 * Matt. xxv. 13. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 2// 
 
 that universal scope which alone agrees with the general 
 character of his teachings. The reverence, however, which 
 it is of the greatest importance to us to cultivate and pre- 
 serve is a reverence for Jesus rather than a reverence for 
 his biographers. No one can read without profound emo- 
 tion the words of Jesus to his disciples in Gethsemane : 
 " Watch, lest ye enter into temptation.'* We feel that it 
 would be a great loss if they were struck from the record. 
 But the apocalyptic words ascribed to him about coming 
 with the angels on the clouds move no one, unless it be 
 those misguided people who still look for him so to come, 
 and set the day of his return ; and there are not a few who 
 would experience a sense of relief if it could be made to 
 appear probable that they were not spoken by him at all. 
 It does not, however, at all follow that, if Jesus neither 
 himself indulged in nor gave encouragement to apocalyp- 
 tic visions of the Jewish sort, he made no forecast of the 
 future fortune of his kingdom on the earth. His faith in 
 the success of his word is expressed in the parables of the 
 leaven and the grain of mustard. If, however, any one 
 should object that the subject is regarded in this chapter 
 from a subjective, a-priori point of view, let that one 
 consider the manner in which three of the evangelists, the 
 synoptists, have reported one of these prophecies of Jesus. 
 The first evangelist, after making him declare that the 
 Son of Man is to come in the glory of his Father with the 
 angels, puts into his mouth the words : " Truly do I say 
 to you, there are some of those standing here who will 
 not taste of death till they have seen the Son of Man 
 coming in his kingdom." * Mark reports the words as 
 follows : " There are some of those standing here who 
 will not taste of death till they have seen that the king- 
 
 * Matt. xvi. 28. 
 
278 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 dom of God hath come with power." * But Luke says : 
 " Till they have seen the kingdom of God." f The pas- 
 sages are almost verbatim the same, except in the closing 
 words. Plainly, no one can tell precisely what Jesus said 
 on this occasion. According to the first synoptist cer- 
 tainly, and perhaps according to the second, he employed 
 the terms of Jewish apocalyptics. According to Luke, he 
 simply foretold the spiritual development of his kingdom. 
 Did the writer of Matthew add the apocalyptic words, or 
 did some copyist add them ? The fact that Luke, who 
 wrote last, omitted them, favors the hypothesis that he 
 exercised precisely the sort of critical discrimination 
 which is in question in the present discussion. It is not 
 by any means, however, to be maintained that Jesus 
 employed no figurative language in speaking of his future 
 relation to his cause. It is plain that he identifies his work 
 and himself: " Lo, I am with you always"; " Where 
 two or three are gathered together in my name, there am 
 I in the midst of you." That he used very strong figures 
 of speech on occasion is apparent from such passages as 
 Luke x. 1 8, 19. There can be no doubt, too, that with 
 the insight of a true seer he foresaw that the welfare of 
 the Jewish people depended on their acceptance of his 
 teachings, on abandoning their wild Messianic dreams, 
 on rendering to Caesar the things that were Caesar's and 
 to God the things that were God's. The particular case 
 of the Galileans whom Pilate had massacred calls forth 
 from him a pathetic prophecy upon the nation : " Except 
 ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." \ 
 
 An examination of some of the passages in the synop- 
 tic Gospels in which the second coming of Christ is men- 
 
 * Mark ix. I. f Luke ix. 27. 
 
 \ Luke xiii. 3, cf. xx. 15, 16. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 tioned will show the application of the principles set forth 
 in the foregoing discussion of the subject. Let us take 
 first a passage found in the first Gospel only : * " And 
 when they persecute you in one city, flee to another. 
 For truly do I say to you, ye will not have gone over the 
 cities of Israel till the Son of Man hath come." It has 
 already been pointed out in a foregoing chapter that this 
 discourse in its main features is wholly out of place in 
 this early period of the ministry of Jesus, when the dis- 
 ciples are sent out on a missionary journey. It belongs 
 undoubtedly to a later period of his work.f But in any 
 case it is irreconcilable with the saying ascribed to Jesus 
 in another place that before his second coming the Gos- 
 pel will be published throughout the whole world. Later 
 experiences of persecution and flight probably gave its 
 existing form to the passage, experiences in which was 
 mingled an ardent expectation of the coming of Christ to 
 put an end to the trials of his followers. The occasion of 
 the flight of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem to Pella 
 to escape the persecutions of their compatriots, when 
 they doubtless consoled themselves with the hope that 
 the advent would take place before they should be en- 
 tirely driven from their country, furnishes the most 
 probable explanation of the origin of the words. 
 
 Another passage peculiar to Matthew contains words 
 which it is very improbable that Jesus can have spoken. || 
 
 * Chap. x. 23. 
 
 f Meyer, Commentar in loc. Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke 
 Jesu, 1873, p. 300 ; Colani, p. 105. 
 
 \ Matt. xxiv. 14. 
 
 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 5. 
 
 I Chap. xix. 28. Peculiar to Matthew in this connection. See Luke 
 xxii. 30, where the words are extremely inappropriate after the supper, and 
 "surcharge the picture with a new Judaistic coloring." 
 
280 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Peter, having asked what the disciples who had left all to 
 follow Jesus should have, this evangelist makes Jesus 
 answer : " In the renovation " [" the restitution of all 
 things," or the Messianic reign], " when the Son of Man 
 sitteth on the throne of his glory, ye who have followed 
 me shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of 
 Israel." These words are not at all necessary to the sense, 
 for those which follow them here, as well as in the other 
 synoptists, are an answer to the question. Besides, the 
 passage is in flagrant opposition to the refusal of Jesus to 
 assure to the sons of Zebedee places of honor in his king- 
 dom : " Ye know not what ye ask, for to sit on my right 
 hand or on my left is not mine to give." He does prom- 
 ise them, indeed, that they shall drink of his cup and be 
 baptized with his baptism. Here is a true word of Jesus 
 evangelic and profound. It is a psychological improba- 
 bility that the author of these words can have spoken the 
 others also. Let him who pronounces this criticism an 
 arbitrary dealing with the text reflect that Luke is equally 
 arbitrary in omitting the words in question in this connec- 
 tion, and that Mark omits them altogether. Let the 
 student, with the alternative before him that either these 
 words are genuine or an interpolation, decide which of the 
 two suppositions is the more probable, that Jesus actually 
 made to his disciples a promise like this, which has never 
 been fulfilled, a promise whose materialism must have ex- 
 cited the most unspiritual hopes and ambitions in their 
 breasts, or that the thought originated in the apocalyptic 
 Messianism of the early Church, and found expression 
 through the evangelist or the hand of an interpolator. 
 
 Two of the synoptists ascribe an apocalyptic saying to 
 Jesus before the High-priest,* while a third, Luke, modi- 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 64 ; Mark xiv. 62. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 28 1 
 
 fies it in the interest of a spiritual apprehension.* The 
 first evangelist reports him to have said : " Henceforth ye 
 will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power 
 and coming in the clouds of heaven." Mark gives the 
 same words after suppressing the adverb " henceforth " 
 (an* IxpTi). But Luke's version is : " From this time the 
 Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of 
 God." It cannot be denied, in the first place, that some 
 weight must be allowed to Volkmar's remark that the 
 disciples, being absent from the scene before the High- 
 priest, the words cannot be well authenticated. f But 
 Weiffenbach's attempt to parry this objection by observ- 
 ing that "such a characteristic (?) word, which in the 
 Sanhedrim led to the outbreak of fearful horror and to 
 the definitive sentence of death, could not remain within 
 the four walls of the hall of judgment, but must fly with 
 stormy force from mouth to mouth,":): only tends to 
 strengthen it. A word which flies as with the wings of 
 the storm through an excited multitude has small chance 
 of being correctly reported. One may, indeed, say with 
 Keim that Jesus before the Sanhedrim (High-priest) may 
 have made a confession "'by which. he out of the heart's 
 blood of his faith maintained the claims of his Messiah- 
 ship apparently lying in ruins " ; but our chief concern 
 is with determining what he really said there. If, then, 
 the account of the first evangelist represents, as it proba- 
 bly does, the earliest form of the tradition, who will not 
 choose to follow Luke in his critical revision of it, since a 
 choice must perforce be made between the two records ? 
 
 * Luke xxii. 69. Luke's account is confused, the scene being changed 
 to the " council." 
 
 f Die Evangelien, oder Marcus und die Synopsis, etc. 1870, p. 588. 
 J Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, p. 206. 
 Geschichte Jesu, iii. p. 335. 
 
282 GOSPEL- CR1 TIC ISM. 
 
 In the great eschatological discourse recorded in Mark 
 xiii., Matthew xxiv., and Luke xxi. the application of the 
 critical method in question is indispensable to a rational 
 solution of the problems presented. The hypothesis 
 appears to have great probability in its favor that in 
 Mark xiii. 5-31 and parallels we have a fragment of Jew- 
 ish-Christian apocalypse which was written and in circula- 
 tion shortly before the overthrow of Jerusalem, perhaps 
 the very " oracle " to which Eusebius refers as inciting 
 the Christians to the flight to Pella.* The section is 
 evidently an interruption of the narrative, since the an- 
 swer of Jesus to the question of his disciples is only given 
 at the end of the apparent interpolation. The words 
 which the first evangelist preserves. " Let him that 
 readeth understand," belong to a writing, and are mani- 
 festly unfitting in a spoken discourse, and " Pray that your 
 flight be not on the sabbath," cannot have come from 
 Jesus.f Eusebius says that the chief men of the church 
 received an oracle which commanded them to emigrate. 
 If this oracle was regarded by the Christians as having 
 come to them " through revelation," as Eusebius says, its 
 incorporation in the record is not difficult of explanation. 
 If anywhere in the Gospels the apocalyptic-Messianic 
 expectations of the early Christians have found expres- 
 sion, it is certainly in this section that they exist in a 
 most pronounced form. All the traits of apocalyptic 
 writings appear here, and so evident are they that even 
 Keim, who holds that Jesus believed in and explicitly 
 taught his second personal coming to the earth, finds 
 himself compelled to admit the apocalyptic origin of these 
 words. \ 
 
 * Hist. Eccl. iii. 5. So Keim, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Colani, Weiffen- 
 bach, Wendt, and many other critics of the first rank, 
 f See Luke xiii. 15, xiv. 5. 
 \ Geschichte Jesu, iii. 199 f. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 283 
 
 To this eschatological discourse as recorded by Mark 
 and Luke the first evangelist adds a dramatic scene of 
 general judgment which is to be enacted " when the Son 
 of Man shall come in his glory and all his angels with 
 him." * Then " all nations " will be gathered before him, 
 and he will " separate men from one another as a shepherd 
 separateth the sheep from the goats," rewarding and pun- 
 ishing them according as they shall have fed and clothed 
 and visited in prison or neglected the least of these his 
 brethren, that is, the Christians. The attention of the 
 critical reader of this passage is first drawn by the incom- 
 patibility which it presents with some of the other sayings 
 concerning " the last things " ascribed to Jesus by the 
 evangelists. Evidently this coming of the Son of Man 
 must be regarded as the same coming referred to in 
 previous chapters and declared to be impending, to be 
 consummated, in fact, in the life-time of the existing 
 generation. Yet this judgment on " all nations," this 
 world-assize, presupposes the proclamation of the Gospel 
 to all mankind. If it be a judgment on Christians only, 
 as some exegetes suppose, they must be gathered from 
 all nations, while if, according to other interpreters, it be 
 a judgment on unbelievers with reference to their treat- 
 ment of the " brethren " of the judge, the existence of 
 Christians among all peoples is implied. The time-limit 
 here required is plainly far beyond the life of the genera- 
 tion living in the time of Christ. One cannot but recall 
 here the incompatibility previously pointed out between 
 the declarations that the disciples shall not have gone 
 over the cities of Israel before the Parousia, and that the 
 Gospel must be preached to all nations before that event. 
 These facts furnish incontestable evidence of the modifi- 
 cation of the eschatological expectations of the early 
 
 * Chap. xxv. 31-46. 
 
284 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Christians. They show, too, that these expectations in 
 the form in which they are expressed in the synoptic 
 Gospels, with all their fantastic and inconsistent features, 
 find their most probable explanation in the intense Mes- 
 sianic hopes which prevailed among Jewish Christians 
 when these writings were composed. Besides, the words 
 which open the section in question, and represent Jesus as 
 coming in his glory " with the angels " and sitting" on the 
 throne of his glory," are not more strange and improbable 
 from his lips than is the doctrine here set forth of his 
 office of judge of the nations. In no other place in the 
 synoptic Gospels is he so represented, and this passage, 
 standing alone, as it does, can hardly establish the doctrine 
 as his. To Paul must be charged this bold innovation in 
 Jewish Messianism, which never recognized the Messiah as 
 a judge.* How unfitting, too, to a delineation of a world- 
 assize is the judgment here described which takes into 
 account no conduct but that springing from good-will or 
 indifference towards the " brethren " ! A strange world- 
 judgment, surely, is this which consigns to age-lasting 
 punishment men of " all nations " for not visiting in 
 prison, clothing, and feeding " the least " of the believers, 
 and leaves out of account all other sins of omission or 
 commission ! It is, then, in the highest degree improba- 
 ble that this section in its present form can have come 
 from Christ. Some genuine words of his, such as Matt. 
 x. 40-42, may have lain at the basis of it, or it may origi- 
 nally have been a parable which later received this 
 apocalyptic form and coloring. 
 
 Serious and insuperable objections lie against all other 
 explanations than the one here proposed of the eschato- 
 
 * I. Cor. iv. 5. Here the judgment follows the return of Christ, eao$ av 
 6 KvpioS. See also II. Cor. v. 10. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 28$ 
 
 logical sayings ascribed to Jesus in the synoptic Gospels. 
 The most of these explanations proceed upon the pre- 
 sumption that he has been correctly quoted, a presumption 
 which a critical comparison of the records shows to be 
 unfounded. The doctrine that Jesus employed the ex- 
 travagant language in question to indicate his spiritual 
 coming and presence in his church,* involves the con- 
 clusion that he used words to which his disciples must 
 have given a sensuous interpretation, words, in fact, which 
 could not but be misleading. This explanation proceeds 
 from a dogmatic interest, and has nothing to commend it 
 to a sound hermeneutical judgment. One might with 
 equal propriety maintain that the account of the marvel- 
 lous Messianic vineyards recorded by Papias may fairly 
 be in like manner " spiritualized." But happily this did 
 not make its way into the Gospels, and has accordingly 
 been spared such a hermeneutical treatment. The popu- 
 lar orthodox interpretation which finds in the language 
 under consideration a prophecy of the coming of Christ 
 in a future general judgment and catastrophic " end of 
 the world," f is untenable in view of the explicit and 
 repeated statement that the generation then living would 
 see the Parousia. 
 
 That Jesus put forth no claim to the Messiahship in any 
 sense appears to be the view defended with great force 
 and acumen by Martineau,^: who urges with good reasons 
 that in the eschatological discourses the term " Son of 
 Man," evidently employed in the Jewish-Messianic sense, 
 expresses an afterthought of the evangelists, and not a 
 conception of Jesus himself. In interpreting the scene at 
 
 * Immer, Neutestamentliche Theologie, 1877, p. 143 f. 
 f Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, 1885, iv. p. 87. 
 \ The Seat of Authority in Religion, pp. 326-358. 
 
286 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Caesarea Philippi, however, Martineau repudiates, without 
 giving a reason for doing so, the report of the first evange- 
 list that Jesus explicitly accepted the appellation " Christ," 
 or " Messiah," with the declaration that Peter's insight 
 was by a revelation of God, and regards the result of the 
 great episode as a " disclaimer " on the part of Jesus of all 
 Messianic pretensions. A disclaimer of the Messiahship 
 in the popular, Jewish sense, probably also in Peter's 
 sense, who had spoken better than he knew, there cer- 
 tainly was in Jesus' rebuke of the solicitude which could 
 not tolerate a suffering Messiah. But the injunction of 
 silence does not justify the conclusion that he did not 
 assume in any sense a Messianic mission to his nation, and 
 regarded the Messiahship as " ^private prerogative which 
 could be clandestinely held." Evidently nothing could 
 have been more repugnant to Jesus, nothing more impru- 
 dent, than to suffer this inflammatory word " Messiah " 
 to be thrown out upon the common air, changed from the 
 esoteric, spiritual meaning in which he held it, and per- 
 verted to a revolutionary watch-word. While perhaps the 
 critical study of the original evangelic tradition shows that 
 Jesus made no announcement of himself as Messiah prior 
 to the scene at Caesarea Philippi, and then reservedly and 
 not at all as the expected Son of David, there appears to 
 be a very decided implication of a Messianic mission in 
 the frequent declarations that with him the kingdom of 
 heaven was ushered in. The sense in which he employed 
 this Messianic term is clear to us, though it was veiled to 
 his disciples. His kingdom was not of this world. It is 
 open to grave question, then, whether the theory under 
 consideration does not tend to invalidate a central and 
 well-authenticated portion of the tradition of Jesus. 
 
 There remains to be considered the theory that Jesus 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 287 
 
 spoke touching his return to the earth essentially in the 
 terms of the records, and thereby expressed his own ex- 
 pectation of an actual, personal Parousia to be early 
 realized for the consummation of his mission in the found- 
 ing of the Messianic kingdom. " As death without revival 
 was a downright burial of his Messiahship, so life without 
 return abolished upon the earth his Messianic work, the 
 world-kingdom, the kingdom of heaven," says Keim.* 
 From this point of view the expectation of a personal 
 Parousia was incidental to the humanity of Jesus. " There 
 is nothing more certain than that on the ground of a 
 human consciousness he could find only this adjustment 
 and no other, if he bound the salvation of the world not 
 alone to the spiritual truths which he announced, but also 
 to his person and to the Messiahship, his Messiahship, and 
 that on the same human ground especially the catastrophe 
 of Jerusalem must appear in general as the limit at which 
 his Messiahship should attain to honor and power upon 
 the earth." f It is evident that the self-deception of Jesus, 
 perhaps even his fanaticism and folly, cannot but be im- 
 plied in this hypothesis. It is hardly necessary to say, in 
 view of the results of the criticism of the Gospels, that it 
 is idle to maintain this theory on the ground of the testi- 
 mony of the synoptists to the sayings in question, when 
 the variations and inconsistencies of that testimony are 
 taken into account. Ineffectual, too, it is to urge that if 
 we discredit these eschatological, apocalyptical sayings 
 ascribed to Jesus we invalidate the entire record. For 
 the dilemma in which we are placed is either to conclude 
 that the synoptists have misrepresented Jesus by giving 
 to his words the coloring of the Messianic expectations 
 of their time, or that he in the most solemn terms prophe- 
 
 * Geschichte Jesu, iii. p. 566. \ Ib. p. 219. 
 
288 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 sied a coming on the clouds with a retinue of angels, and 
 was, accordingly, a self-deceived apocalyptist. That he 
 should have believed that his mission could only be 
 accomplished by founding a " world-kingdom " and pre- 
 siding in person over it, is in most flagrant contradiction 
 to his spirit and aim as made known in words of his which 
 have the unmistakable stamp of genuineness. It is a 
 doubtful confirmation of the Gospel as a whole to estab- 
 lish the correctness of the record at the expense of the 
 trustworthiness of Jesus. By this sort of criticism criticism 
 itself is dissolved. 
 
 If, now, it results from the criticism of the Gospels 
 that Jesus left to mankind no word respecting a second 
 coming in person to take .place either in the first century 
 or at a remote " end of the world " ; that he taught noth- 
 ing concerning a general judgment and a dramatic scene 
 of a separation of men from one another " as a shepherd 
 separates the sheep from the goats " ; that he rather left 
 the consequences of human conduct to be inferred from 
 the general principles of his teaching than depicted them 
 by means of apocalyptic imagery ; that, in a word, his 
 real Gospel, when freed from Jewish-Christian accretions, 
 is not at all a Book of Revelation disclosing celestial ar- 
 cana, then is not the loss great in losing all that we lose 
 by this critical sifting, unless it be for those who in 
 religion " want the materialism of the apocalypse," and 
 while " gazing up into heaven " miss the earthly foot- 
 prints of the Master. 
 
 In accordance with the " spiritual " point of view of 
 the fourth Gospel, we should expect to find in it an escha- 
 tology different in important particulars from that of the 
 synoptics. While the doctrine of a visible return of 
 Jesus to the earth was well adapted to the materialistic 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 289 
 
 popular conception, it evidently maintained itself with 
 difficulty. We have seen that in the first Gospel it is to 
 take place " immediately" after the judgment on Jerusa- 
 lem. In Mark the determination is not so definite, and 
 Luke inserts the indefinite period of the " times of the 
 gentiles." At the time of the composition of the second 
 Epistle of Peter, probably in the last half of the second 
 century, the writer of it finds " scoffers " who ask " when 
 is the promise of his coming? " and consoles himself with 
 the thought that " one day with the Lord is as a thou- 
 sand years." Some traces of the persistent popular no- 
 tion remain even in the fourth Gospel. We find here a 
 " last day " of resurrection both for those who have done 
 good and those who have done evil.* Many mansions 
 are to be prepared, and Jesus will come to receive the 
 disciples to himself, f The prominent and peculiar escha- 
 tological feature of the Gospel is, however, a spiritualiza- 
 tion of the Parousia and the judgment. All sensuous 
 traits of a second coming are banished in favor of a spir- 
 itual presence. The judgment is " now," and the con- 
 demnation of men is in their rejection of the "light" 
 that has already come into the world.;): The true judg- 
 ment is the separation between those who love the 
 light and come to it, and those who hate the light and 
 remain in darkness. He who believes in the Son is not 
 judged, but he who does not believe is judged already. 
 Eternal life is attainable here and now, for he that be- 
 lieveth hath it, while on the unbeliever the wrath of God 
 abideth. He who thus -passes from death into life has 
 experienced the real resurrection, which is a spiritual 
 transformation. They who eat the flesh of the Son of 
 Man and drink his blood have eternal life. To them 
 
 * Chap. v. 29. f Chap. xiv. 3, 18, 28. \ Chap. iii. 19. 
 
 19 
 
GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 he is the resurrection and the life. The doctrine that 
 the second coming of Christ passes over in this Gospel 
 into that of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the send- 
 ing of the Paraclete, who should lead the disciples into 
 all truth, and bring to their remembrance all things that 
 Jesus had taught them, has the weight of Hausrath's 
 authority in its favor, who finds in the thought of the 
 evangelist an identification of Christ and the Paraclete.* 
 Oscar Holtzmann sees in this identification a reproduc- 
 tion of a Philonic doctrine, and the dependence, accord- 
 ingly, of the fourth Gospel upon the Alexandrian 
 philosophy.f 
 
 * Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch. iii. p. 579. 
 f Das Johannesevangelium, 1887, p. 78. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 DOGMATIC " TENDENCIES " IN THE GOSPELS. 
 
 MR. MATTHEW ARNOLD'S genial criticism of 
 the theories of " vigor and rigor " has exposed 
 some of the excesses committed by Baur and his followers 
 in supporting the hypothesis of doctrinal " tendencies " in 
 the writers of the Gospels. To the celebrated Tubingen 
 critic and many of the adherents of his school, the Gospels 
 were pre-eminently tendency-writings.* Their writers were 
 advocates. They had taken sides with reference to the 
 great question which is supposed to have been agitated 
 in their time ; they were friendly or hostile to the Pauline 
 doctrine, and wrote the Gospels to support their individ- 
 ual partisan convictions. We have already seen to what 
 extremes this theory was carried in the Tubingen criti- 
 cisms of the fourth Gospel, a considerable part of which 
 the exigencies of it required to be regarded as inventions 
 in the interest of a preconceived doctrine. In the place 
 of downright invention this criticism sometimes assumed, 
 however, a modification and arrangement of the materials 
 of tradition by the evangelists in order to subserve a 
 dogmatic purpose. It may well be conceded to Mr. 
 Arnold, and maintained in the name of sane criticism, 
 that many of the procedures of these learned scholars are 
 very questionable ; that they suppose in the evangelists a 
 finesse which they in all probability did not possess ; and 
 
 * Tendenz-Schriften. 
 291 
 
GOSPEL-CXITICISM. 
 
 that they require conclusions of vast import to be drawn 
 from very slender premises. Of this sort is the " ingenious 
 conjecture " of Schwegler made in support of the theory 
 that the third Gospel was written in the interest of the 
 Pauline or gentile-Christian view of Christianity, that the 
 impenitent and penitent thieves who were crucified with 
 Jesus were intended to represent, respectively the Jews 
 and the gentiles, the former rejecting, the latter accepting 
 Christ. If, however, there is in this account a tendency 
 or a conscious intention of the writer, one can hardly de- 
 cide which is the more to be admired, the skill of the 
 evangelist in concealing it or the ingenuity of the German 
 critic in discovering it. In the same Gospel it is related 
 that Peter fishes all night and catches nothing, but when 
 at the command of Jesus the net is once more let down, 
 a great multitude of fishes is caught, and the net breaks. 
 Volkmar discovers that in this narrative the writer meant 
 to contrast the barren result of preaching the Gospel to 
 the Jews with the fruitful result of preaching it to the 
 gentiles.* But the surprising ingenuity which could 
 make this discovery is surpassed by that which finds the 
 more advanced Paulinism of the author of the fourth 
 Gospel proved by the fact that in his account of the 
 same miracle, which he places after the resurrection, he 
 declares that the net was not broken, and thereby indi- 
 cates that the heathen may be brought in " without any 
 such disruption of the church as to his faint-hearted pre- 
 decessor had seemed inevitable " ! The fourth evangelist's 
 mention of only one boat engaged in this fishing instead 
 of the two of the third Gospel is, again, an intimation 
 
 * This strange fancy appears to have been adopted by J. Estlin Carpenter 
 in The First Three Gospels, their Origin and Relations, second edition, 
 London, 1890, p. 330. 
 
DOGMATIC " TENDENCIES" IN THE GOSPELS. 293 
 
 that the co-existence of a Jewish and gentile Christianity 
 is no longer satisfactory to the religious consciousness 
 which now demands a catholic church, one and indi- 
 visible ! 
 
 It is evident, however, that neither the extreme state- 
 ment of a theory nor extravagances committed in its 
 defence do by any means invalidate the essentials of the 
 theory itself. A fair test of the tendency-doctrine, accord- 
 ingly, requires an examination of the Gospels in some 
 detail with reference to its assumptions. We may well 
 begin, then, with the first Gospel, which is regarded by 
 the Tubingen school as originally written in the interest 
 of Jewish Christianity and with intentional opposition to 
 the Pauline doctrine. It cannot, indeed, be denied that 
 the Gospel contains some passages which, taken by them- 
 selves, appear to favor this theory. Among these may be 
 mentioned the declarations ascribed to Jesus that he came 
 not to destroy, but to fulfil, the law ; that in his coming 
 again with the angels he will " reward every man accord- 
 ing to his works," in assumed opposition to the Pauline 
 doctrine of salvation by faith ; that if one will enter into 
 life one must " keep the commandments"; and that the 
 disciples ought to do whatsoever the scribes and Pharisees 
 enjoin.* The deprecation of a flight from Jerusalem on 
 the Sabbath also appears to represent the Jewish super- 
 stitious reverence for that day.f The injunction not to 
 give that which is holy unto the dogs might be regarded as 
 a thrust at Paulinism if any support could be made appar- 
 ent for Hilgenfeld's gratuitous reference of " dogs " to the 
 gentiles.^: In the sending out of the apostles the injunc- 
 
 * Chap. v. 17 f., xvi. 27. xix. 17, xxiii. 2 f. 
 
 f Chap. xxiv. 20. 
 
 $ Chap. vii. 6 ; Hilgenfeid, Die Evangelien, p. 114. 
 
294 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 tion is given to them not to " go into the way of the gen- 
 tiles," but rather " to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," 
 and it is declared that the consummation of all things 
 will come before they will have gone over the cities of 
 Israel, thus apparently excluding a ministry to the gentiles.* 
 On the other hand, the Gospel contains many passages 
 which an interpreter interested in detecting in it a Pauline 
 "tendency" would find favorable to his theory. Jesus is 
 made to declare, for example, that one cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven unless one's righteousness exceed 
 that of the scribes and Pharisees, and in connection with 
 this anti-Jewish saying he announces strikingly liberal 
 modifications of the teachings of those " of old time." f 
 The spiritualizing of the law to the extent of declaring all 
 its requirements to be fulfilled by doing as we would be 
 done by indicates rather a tendency to Paulinism than to 
 Judaism. A similar tendency appears in the disparage- 
 ment of external forms in the explanation of the parable 
 concerning defilement, "To eat with unwashed hands 
 defileth not a man," and in the declaration that on the 
 two great commandments hang all the law and the proph- 
 ets.;): The prophecy that many will come from the East 
 and the West, and sit down in the kingdom, while the 
 children of the kingdom will be cast into outer darkness, 
 shows certainly no leaning to Judaism, and scarcely leaves 
 room for so much hope for the chosen people as Paul 
 expressed more than once. In a similar vein are the 
 declaration that before " the end come " " the Gospel will 
 be preached in all the world for a witness unto all 
 nations," and the commission to the disciples to go out 
 and teach all nations. || The refusal by Jesus of the re- 
 
 * Chap. x. 5 f. f Chap. v. 20 f. \ Chap. xv. 20, xxii. 40. 
 
 Chap. viii. n, 12. jChap. xxiv. 14 (see also xxvi. 13), xxviii. 19. 
 
DOGMATIC "TENDENCIES" IN THE GOSPELS. 295 
 
 quest of the woman of Canaan on the ground that he 
 was sent only " to the lost sheep of the house of Israel " 
 has, indeed, an anti-Pauline appearance, but is neutralized 
 by his final granting of the petition.* The Messianic title, 
 " Son of David " is, indeed, much more frequently applied 
 to Jesus in this Gospel than in the others, but only as the 
 popular designation. f On the occasion of the triumphal 
 entry into Jerusalem Jesus is hailed by the multitude as 
 the Son of David, and appears to acknowledge the title, 
 and thereby to place himself at the Jewish point of view. J 
 There can be little doubt that the scene is an integral part 
 of the Gospel, and the problem presented is whether or 
 not it was enacted as recorded in this Gospel. The fact 
 that Jesus argued from one of the Psalms to prove that 
 the Messiah could not be the son of David renders his 
 acceptance of the title on this occasion very doubtful. 
 Baur, accordingly, thinks that the scene of the entrance 
 into Jerusalem as here recorded is one of the problematical 
 events of the Gospel-history, since it is as easily explicable 
 how such a narrative might arise out of the Jewish-Messi- 
 anic idea as the assumption is difficult that the thing can 
 have occurred as here related. || The fact that the first 
 evangelist accepted either intentionally or without objec- 
 tion the tradition with this cry of " Son of David" which 
 Luke omits may indicate a Jewish-Christian tendency, or 
 may be put to the account of mere naivete. That the first 
 Gospel as a whole does not appear to be the work of a 
 partisan in the Pauline controversy is evident from the 
 foregoing review of texts in which two tendencies are 
 strongly represented. Hilgenfeld accordingly maintains 
 
 * Chap. xv. 24. \ Chap. xxi. 
 
 f Chap. ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31, xxi. 9, 15. Chap, xxii., 41-45. 
 || Kritische Untersuchungen, etc., p. 611. 
 
296 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 with much acumen that the original form of the Gospel 
 was of the Judaistic tendency, and that the Pauline pas- 
 sages were added by a reviser.* But it is very improbable 
 that a Pauline reviser, who can have had no scruples at 
 taking liberties with the text, would have left the passages 
 standing in his revised edition which are as decidedly anti- 
 Pauline as his supposed additions and modifications are 
 Pauline. Baur, whose intellectual greatness and rare criti- 
 cal discrimination saved him from many of the vagaries 
 into which some of his disciples have fallen, acknowledges 
 that since the Gospel in many passages indubitably bears 
 testimony to the universality of Christianity, one cannot 
 charge it with representing a limited Judaism. The anxi- 
 ety, he adds, with which the other Gospels, in order not 
 to concede too much to Judaism, have omitted or changed 
 certain passages is a far more distinguishing criterion 
 of a definite tendency-character than the naivete" with 
 which the author of the first Gospel has taken them up 
 from the tradition, and left them standing by the side of 
 others which apparently contradict them. 
 
 That the first Gospel, however, represents the Jewish- 
 Christian conception of the Gospel-history can hardly be 
 denied by any unbiassed student of it. In this respect it 
 has a " tendency," and is, in the phraseology of the 
 Tubingen school, a " tendency-writing." This concession 
 does not at all, however, carry with it the conclusion that 
 the tendency in question is of such a nature as seriously 
 to affect the plan and composition of the writing and sub- 
 vert its historical credibility, however much this may be 
 prejudiced by it. The type of Gospel-writing which we 
 have in this record is a natural and necessary result of the 
 historical connection of Christianity with Judaism. Jesus 
 *Dic Evangelien, pp. 100-120. See Eaur, ut supra. 
 
DOGMATIC "TENDENCIES" IN THE GOSPELS. 297 
 
 declared, indeed, that he came not to annul the law and 
 the prophets, and this artless record of his teachings and 
 ministry shows only too well that he did not in fact destroy 
 them, and reveals with what tenacity the most tenacious of 
 religious beliefs held his divine word in its inflexible grasp. 
 The law and the prophets constitute without doubt the 
 point of view from which the writer of this Gospel regards 
 the mission of Jesus and the evangelic tradition. The 
 Old Testament is his point of departure. He finds that 
 the Gospel was contained in it from the beginning, and 
 makes it no small part of his task as an evangelist to show 
 how the former may be explained out of the latter. The 
 frequent reference to the Old Testament and the applica- 
 tion of passages from it to the events of the life of Jesus 
 constitute a peculiarity of this writer which has given rise to 
 the remark that one does not sometimes know whether the 
 history is there for the sake of the citation or the citation 
 for the sake of the history. Throughout the Gospel, and 
 particularly in the first two chapters, the tendency is man- 
 ifest to find in the events of the life of Jesus the fulfilment 
 of prophecies of the Old Testament. Jesus is born of a 
 virgin, and " all this took place in order that it might be 
 fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the 
 prophet." * He was born in Bethlehem according to a 
 prophecy, and the flight into Egypt took place in order 
 to fulfil a word of Hosea.f In the slaughter of the chil- 
 dren by order of Herod a saying of Jeremiah found its 
 fulfilment, and when the parents of Jesus on their return 
 from Egypt take up their residence in Nazareth with the 
 
 * 'ivnt TtXrjpGoQy TO prjQer, nrA., cf. Is. vii. 14. 
 f Chap. ii. 6, cf. Micah v. 2 ; chap. ii. 15, cf. Hosea xi. i. 
 \ Chap. ii. 1 8, cf. Jer. xxxi. 15. For a discussion of these quotations 
 from a hermeneutical point of view see the next chapter. 
 
298 GOSPEL-CKITICISM. 
 
 child, this also happened in order that a prophecy might 
 be fulfilled, which said that he should be called a Naza- 
 rene.* John the Baptist is " the voice of one crying in 
 the wilderness," spoken of " through Isaiah the prophet." 
 When Jesus dwells for a time in Capernaum " in the bor- 
 ders of Zebulon and Naphtali," it is that a saying of Isaiah 
 " might be fulfilled." f This " pragmatism " dominates the 
 evangelist's entire conception of the history, so that he 
 appears unable to regard any act or experience of Jesus 
 otherwise than from the point of view of prophetic an- 
 nouncement and fulfilment. No sooner does he begin to 
 relate the healing of the sick and the casting out of demons 
 by Jesus than he " pragmatizes " about these works by 
 declaring that they are done " in order that " what Isaiah 
 had foretold might come to pass ; and even Jesus' direc- 
 tion to those whom he had healed not to make him known 
 is said to be given for the same reason. J The parabolic 
 method of teaching is employed by Jesus in order to fulfil 
 a prophecy of Isaiah, and the people who are slow of 
 heart, and hearing hear not, also have a share in the fulfil- 
 ment, whose monotonous recurrence betrays the persistent 
 predilection of the writer. Not only are the Pharisees 
 denounced as hypocrites, but they were prophesied of by 
 Isaiah. || The preparations for the triumphal entrance 
 into Jerusalem are made in order to fulfil a prophetic word 
 of Jeremiah, and the shouting multitude proclaim the 
 Messiahship of Jesus in the words of a Psalm. 1" In the 
 histoiy of the passion it is declared that the disciples will 
 
 * Chap. ii. 23. 
 
 f Chap. iii. 3, cf. Is. xl. 3 ; chap. iv. 14, cf. Is. ix. i, 2. 
 \ Chap. viii. 17, cf. Is. liii. 4 ; chap. xii. 18, cf. Is. xlii. 1-4. 
 Chap. xiii. 14, 35, cf. Is. vi. 9, Ps. Ixxviii. 2. 
 | Chap. xv. 8, cf. Is. xxix. 13. 
 ^[ Chap. xxi. 4, 5, cf. Zech. ix. 9 ; chap. xxi. 9. 
 
DOGMATIC "TENDENCIES" IN THE GOSPELS. 299 
 
 forsake Jesus, " for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, 
 and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered." * When 
 the chief priests bought a potter's field with Judas' thirty 
 pieces of silver, " that was fulfilled," we are told, " which 
 was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet." f 
 
 Without entering here upon a discussion of the her- 
 meneutical method according to which these Old-Testa- 
 ment passages receive the application which the writer of 
 the Gospel makes of them, it is evident that the weari- 
 some citation betrays a tendency to " Judaize " which, 
 while not peculiar to him, is his marked characteristic in 
 comparison with the other evangelists. It is difficult to 
 believe, in view of this unquestionable tendency, that he 
 wrote with no other object than to set forth the life and 
 teachings of Jesus. Rather the evidences of an ulterior 
 design are as unmistakable as that design itself is prob- 
 able. We have already seen how hard it was for Jews 
 to believe in a Messiah who had not fulfilled the national 
 Messianic expectations, and how Paul found it necessary 
 to argue vigorously against this prejudice of his country- 
 men. Now a Jewish writer, whether apostle or evangelist, 
 could not leave the life and teachings of Jesus standing 
 by themselves as sole and sufficient evidences of his Mes- 
 siahship, but thought it necessary in writing for Jews to 
 appeal to the only holy Scriptures acknowledged by him- 
 self and his readers, the Old Testament. No other evidence 
 lay so near his hand ; and not to employ it would have 
 been un-Jewish, unnatural. But to use it liberally, even 
 if somewhat soberly in comparison with some of the un- 
 canonical early writers, to press the Old Testament in the 
 interest of the demonstration in question is precisely the 
 
 * Chap. xxvi. 31, cf. Zech. xiii. 7. 
 (Chap, xxvii. 9, cf. Jer. xviii. i, 2, Zech. >a. 12, 13. 
 
300 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 sort of proceeding which a true historical divination would 
 look for in a writer like the author of the first Gospel. 
 For historical divination expects a writer to reflect the 
 prepossessions of his age and to write from its point of 
 view. When it does not find him altogether doing so it 
 rightly assumes some influence of an environment, and 
 proceeds to inquire of what nature it was. The critical 
 and historical judgment cannot, then, approve any other 
 method of interpretation than that known as the histori- 
 cal, and is offended by a hermeneutical procedure which 
 goes upon the presumption that a Jewish-Christian writer, 
 living towards the end of the first century, could at all 
 view the life of Jesus much as a Christian of the nine- 
 teenth century views it. Although criticism may be 
 obliged to leave without an entirely satisfactory solution 
 the problem which is presented by the appearance, side 
 by side, of Pauline and anti-Pauline elements in the first 
 Gospel, it cannot at all be in doubt that this is in a very 
 real sense a " tendency-writing," conceived and executed in 
 the interest of establishing for Jews the Jewish-Christian 
 Messianic office of Jesus. We have already seen that the 
 eschatological portions of the Gospel find their most 
 probable explanation in the Messianic expectations of the 
 writer and his contemporaries, and if the tendency in 
 question is such as is a priori to be expected, it appears 
 to be established by reason as well as by the evidence 
 furnished by the texts which have been quoted. 
 
 Since the second Gospel offers little that calls for con- 
 sideration under the title of this chapter, and the tendency 
 of the fourth Gospel has already been pointed out in 
 Chapter VII., there remains only the third Gospel to be 
 studied with reference to the matter in question. Men- 
 tion has already been made in Chapter VI. of the recog- 
 
DOGMATIC "TENDENCIES" IN THE GOSPELS. 30! 
 
 nition by early traditions of the Pauline character of this 
 Gospel, and if we accept the principle with regard to 
 tradition that " it is something in a thing's favor that 
 men have delivered it," we shall have the presumption 
 to begin with that in studying Luke we have to do with 
 a writing which has a tendency more or less unequivocal. 
 It is very much in favor of this tradition, in the first place, 
 that modern criticism since Gieseler has confirmed it so 
 far as the character of the Gospel as a whole is concerned, 
 though reaching quite different conclusions in some mat- 
 ters of detail. Extreme defenders of the tradition, on the 
 one hand, have argued for a direct or indirect share of 
 Paul in the writing of the Gospel.* The so-called " broad 
 centre " of theology finds in Luke a modification of the 
 common material of the history conditioned by Pauline 
 traditions and points of view.f According to the Tubin- 
 gen school the Gospel is a blending of Pauline and Jewish- 
 Christian elements in a conciliatory manner, indeed, but 
 essentially in the interest of a moderate Paulinism. Some 
 of the critics of this school, however, show not a little 
 favor to the extreme theory of the Saxon Anonymous 
 in regarding the Gospel as a thoroughly Pauline partisan 
 writing, which expresses hatred for the Jews, satirizes 
 Peter, etc.|| Finally, the attempt has been made to reduce 
 to a minimum or entirely to dissipate the Paulinism of 
 the Gospel, ^f 
 
 * Thiersch, Aberle, Godet, and H. H. Evans. 
 
 f Bleek-Mangold, Holtzmann, Schanz, Schenkel, Weiss, and others. 
 Kenan's point of view is essentially the same. 
 
 \ Baur, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Overbeck, Hausrath, Holsten, Pfleiderer, and 
 others. 
 
 Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ihr Verhaltniss zu einan- 
 der, etc. 2te Ausg. 1852. 
 
 | Hasert and Volkmar, the latter more moderate. 
 
 Tf Schwanbeck, Reuss, Ritschl. 
 
302 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 It is certainly fair to judge this Gospel as to the matter 
 in question by the explicit statement which the writer 
 makes of his object in the introduction. Here he says 
 that he writes for the instruction of Theophilus as to the 
 " exact truth " in regard to those things in which he had 
 been instructed. Now as Theophilus was doubtless a 
 Greek-Christian, and as history brings Luke into relation 
 with Paul, the presumption $f a Pauline point of view in 
 the Gospel appears to have at least probability in its 
 favor. But it goes without saying that one is not war- 
 ranted by these data in looking in it for an obtrusive 
 propaganda of Paulinism, for great finesse and cunning 
 art, or for downright invention of situations and doctrines 
 in the interest of a theory. We have reason probably to 
 look for precisely that setting and coloring of the history 
 which are due to the writer's environment and point of 
 view, and are denoted by the word " tendency." To 
 more than this the writer's situation could hardly have 
 been favorable. The observation of Holtzmann appears 
 to be well grounded that at the time when the Gospel 
 was written the material of the Gospel-history was so 
 fixed in the consciousness of the Church that its trans- 
 formation according to Pauline principles could not have 
 been thoroughgoing, and must have been confined to 
 slight modifications in the way of transpositions, omis- 
 sions, and insertions. * The way in which the twelve 
 apostles are sometimes referred to does not necessarily, 
 as Davidson f thinks, following the Saxon Anonymous 
 whom Baur takes to task for his excesses,:): indicate a 
 disposition to depreciate and ridicule them, or rather 
 " to give them a lower place than Matthew assigns them." 
 
 * Einleit. p. 400. \ Introduction, ii. p. 45. 
 
 ; Krit. Untersuch. p. 526 f. 
 
DOGMATIC " TENDENCIES" IN THE GOSPELS. 303 
 
 It is true that the writer mentions once a strife among 
 them as to who should be greatest, and several times 
 their slowness of heart in understanding Jesus. * But he 
 may have found the narrative as he gives it in his sources. 
 Not every variation in the Gospel-narratives indicates a 
 tendency. Besides, a writer cannot fairly be charged with 
 intentional opposition to the twelve who apparently with 
 design passes over such passages as Christ's rebuke of 
 Peter and the account of the latter's profanity, f If such 
 a procedure renders it impossible that the writer should 
 be regarded as an " anti-Petrine," remarks Holtzmann, 
 much less can he be called an anti-Judaist in view of the 
 facts that the great discourses against the leaders of the 
 people contained in the first Gospel, the threats and woes 
 of the anti-Pharisaic philippics, the cursing of the fig-tree, 
 the execration of the entire people, are partly passed over 
 by him, and partly robbed of their effect by distribution 
 at different points. 
 
 A decided inclination towards a broader and more 
 liberal apprehension of Christianity than that of the 
 Jewish Christians is, however, unmistakable in this Gospel, 
 and is indicated by several traits. Luke alone has the 
 account of the appointment and mission of the seventy, 
 whose large number as compared with the twelve may 
 very well be supposed to indicate an enlargement of the 
 field of labor so as to include the gentiles. Accordingly, 
 certain passages of a Jewish-Christian tendency in the 
 first Gospel are omitted in this Pauline record, such, for 
 example, as the injunction to the twelve not to go to the 
 gentiles nor to the Samaritans, and the saying of Jesus 
 that he was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house 
 
 *Chap. ix. 45, 51-56; xviii. 34; xxiv. 25. 
 \ Matt. xvi. 22, 23 ; xxvi. 74. 
 
304 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 of Israel. * Certain accords with Pauline expressions 
 indicate a familiarity with the thought if not with the 
 Epistles of Paul.f The account of the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper appears to be in part copied from Paul4 
 In the discussion of Jesus with the Sadducees on the resur- 
 rection the words, " for all live to Him," are added appar- 
 ently from Paul. In the explanation of the parable of 
 the sower an expression is added to the other synoptic 
 accounts in accordance with the Pauline doctrine of sal- 
 vation through faith. || The saying respecting the first 
 and the last in the kingdom appears to refer to the rela- 
 tions of Jews and gentiles. 1" Pauline is the prophecy 
 put into the mouth of Simeon.** The genealogy which 
 goes back to Adam is in significant contrast to that of the 
 first Gospel which stops at Abraham. The scene in the 
 synagogue at Nazareth has an addition in the Pauline 
 interest, ff In the parable of the supper is allegorically 
 expressed the Pauline thought that the gentiles are called 
 into the kingdom in the place of the indifferent Jews.J^: 
 Not without significance are the story of the good Samari- 
 tan, who may be regarded as a representative of the 
 gentile world, and the fondness of the evangelist for 
 narratives and parables representing forgiveness and love 
 for sinners. The love born of faith is emphasized in the 
 touching story of the anointing, and on the publican's cry 
 for mercy the blessing of justification is pronounced. |||| 
 
 * Matt. x. 5 ; xv. 24. ^[ Chap. xiii. 30. 
 
 fChap. x. 7, 8, cf. I. Cor. ix. 5, 14 ; x. 27. ** Chap. ii. 31-34. 
 
 JChap. xxii 19, 20, cf. I. Cor. xi. 23-25. ft cha P- iv - 25-27. 
 
 Chap. xx. 38, cf. Rom. vi. n ; xiv. 18. \\ Chap. xiv. 21-24. 
 
 | Chap. viii. 12, ivoc jurf TttdrevtiarreZ dcaQoodt, cf. I. Cor. i. 21. 
 Chap. x. 30-38 ; vii. 36-50; xv. 11-32. 
 
 Hi Chap. viii. 15-24, dsdiHai^evo?, "justified," the Pauline terminology 
 at least. 
 
DOGMATIC " TENDENCIES" IN THE GOSPELS. 305 
 
 As a merely dogmatic composition, however, the third 
 Gospel cannot fairly be regarded. Its generally conceded 
 tendency towards Paulinism is not at all incompatible 
 with its claim to as great a degree of credibility and as 
 truly historical a character as belong of right to either of 
 the other synoptic Gospels. Its slight Judaistic coloring 
 bears testimony to its fidelity to the original tradition, 
 while its breadth and liberality show the influence of the 
 great Pauline idea by which alone the mission of Jesus 
 
 received its true, world-historical interpretation. 
 20 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE GOSPELS, OR THE HER- 
 MENEUTICS OF THE EVANGELISTS. 
 
 THE criticism of the Gospels must not only take into 
 consideration the fact that the evangelists quote 
 largely from the Old Testament in the endeavor to place 
 the mission of Jesus in a relation of dependence on Jewish 
 prophecy, but it must also investigate the principles of in- 
 terpretation according to which these quotations are made, 
 and study the phenomena in question in the light of a 
 scientific hermeneutics. It is not necessary for the pur- 
 pose in view in this chapter to enter into an examination 
 in detail of all the citations of the kind which are made in 
 the Gospels, and the present inquiry will accordingly be 
 limited to a few taken from the first and fourth Gospels. 
 For an account of the general character of the citations 
 from the Old Testament made by the first evangelist the 
 reader is referred to page 180. The question naturally 
 arises at the outset whether the quotations to be con- 
 sidered may fairly be regarded as interpretations of the 
 Old Testament, since some of them are " free " quotations, 
 others are made from the Septuagint version, which is noto- 
 riously inaccurate, and few if any show certain evidences of 
 a careful reference to the original Hebrew. It must be 
 conceded that these conditions furnish a decided pre- 
 sumption against a real interpretation, and present in a 
 strong light the absurdity of the pretension of the evan- 
 gelists to show in the history of Jesus the fulfilment of 
 
 306 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE GOSPELS. 307 
 
 prophecy. Now, it is precisely this pretension to give a 
 real interpretation of Old-Testament passages that gives 
 rise to the problem. For if the quotations in question 
 were only applications of passages from the Old Testa- 
 ment by way of illustration, or mere literary embellish- 
 ments, it is evident that the case would be quite different 
 from that actually before us, and that there would be no 
 occasion for calling in question the hermeneutics of the 
 evangelists. 
 
 That the formula with which many of the quotations 
 are introduced indicates a serious purpose to interpret the 
 writers so quoted does not admit of question. Such a 
 purpose could not be more explicitly announced than by 
 the words : " Now all this took place in order that it 
 might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through 
 the prophet." * Winer says of this expression and of all 
 expressions of the same import that " it cannot be 
 doubted " that " when used in reference to an event 
 which has already occurred" they have "the more precise 
 sense of in order that it might be fulfilled " that is, that 
 the Greek particle iva has the " telic " and not the 
 " ecbatic " sense, f The highest authorities in lexicog- 
 raphy and the most distinguished commentators agree 
 with the eminent grammarian. J Now, an examination of 
 a few passages in which the quotations occur will suffice 
 to show the hermeneutical method of the evanelists. 
 
 * rovro de o'X.ov yeyovEv Iva rttypGaCy TO prflkv vTtu uvpiov did 
 rov TtpoGrirov, Matt. i. 22. 
 
 f Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, etc., 1869, p. 461. 
 
 \ Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti, Thayer's translation, 1887, 
 sub voce 'iva, and Fritzsche, Olshausen, De Wette, and Meyer on the pas- 
 sages. The ecbatic (&xpaTiu6<s) sense of 'iva. as ita ut, " so that," in these 
 passages is rejected by the best authorities, although it has been advocated 
 in a dogmatic interest. 
 
308 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Attention has already been called in Chapter V. to the 
 fact that the first evangelist, * in interpreting the passage, 
 Is. vii. 14, as a prophecy of the miraculous conception of 
 Jesus, made the quotation from the Septuagint transla- 
 tion, which incorrectly renders the Hebrew word for 
 marriageable young woman by TtapOzvoS, " virgin." A 
 reference to the prophet quoted shows the incongruity of 
 the application which the evangelist makes of the pas- 
 sage, f The birth of the child is announced as a " sign " 
 to Ahaz. This child shall eat butter and honey, that he 
 may know to refuse the evil and choose the good, for 
 before he shall have reached the age of such knowledge 
 the land abhorred by Ahaz shall be forsaken of both her 
 kings. Nothing more than this is indicated or intimated 
 in the original passage and its connection. A passage 
 from HoseaJ is interpreted as a prophecy which was 
 fulfilled by the flight into Egypt, or rather by the return 
 of the parents of Jesus with the child out of that country. 
 Here the translation of the Septuagint did not suit the 
 purpose of the evangelist, and he has correctly rendered 
 the Hebrew text. But the prophet had in mind Israel 
 as a people, and evidently nothing else : " When Israel 
 was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of 
 Egypt." A prophecy of Jeremiah is said to be fulfilled 
 in the lamentation over the children slaughtered by the 
 order of Herod, | a free quotation according to the Septu- 
 agint, Cod. Alex., probably. T The words of the prophet 
 relate, however, to the Babylonian captivity. It is said 
 that Joseph took up his abode in Nazareth " in order that 
 
 * Chap. i. 23. f Is. vii. 14. \ Hosea xi. I, Matt. ii. 15. 
 
 The septuagint renders the Hebrew 133, "my son," by TO. reura avrov, 
 "his sons." 
 
 | Jer. xxxi. 15, Matt. ii. 18. ^[ Credner, Leitriige, ii. p. 146. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE GOSPELS. 309 
 
 it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the 
 prophet : He will be called a Nazarene. " * No such 
 prophecy, however, occurs in the Old Testament, f John 
 the Baptist is said to have been foretold by Isaiah in the 
 words of the great prophet of the restoration spoken in 
 reference to the return of the Jews from the captivity in 
 Babylon. J The statement is explicit : " For this is he 
 that was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet," etc. In 
 Is. ix. i, 2, the prophet declares that the people who were 
 in the darkness of the Assyrian captivity " have seen a 
 great light " in the hope of restoration to their country ; 
 but the first evangelist regards Jesus' residence in Caper- 
 naum as a fulfilment of these words. The citation is one 
 of the freest, and is a distortion of the original apart 
 from the incongruous application. It cannot be referred 
 to the Septuagint and is nearer the Hebrew text. 
 Credner remarks that the old translations, the variants in 
 the Septuagint, and the old explanations show that the 
 passage was a cliff to the expositors which they did not 
 know how to sail around ; but that if the sense was so in- 
 definite and ambiguous it was so much the more allowed 
 to give, as does the evangelist, a Messianic interpretation 
 to the obscure words and with their help to contest the 
 unbelief in a Messiah from Galilee. | Twice also does the 
 first evangelist apply to Jesus words spoken by the second 
 Isaiah in reference to the pious remnant of the people of 
 the Babylonian captivity, the remnant true to the theo- 
 cratic religion in whom was the hope of the nation. T 
 
 According to the theory of the authorship of the fourth 
 Gospel set forth in Chapter VII. its citations from the Old 
 
 * Chap. ii. 23. f See page 183, Note *. 
 
 \ Matt. iii. 3, cf. Is. xl. 3. Chap. iv. 14, 15. 
 
 I Beitrage, ii. p. 139. 
 Tf Chap. viii. 17, xii. 17, cf. Is. liii. 4, xlii. 1-4. 
 
310 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Testament should be found to be made from the Septua- 
 gint, through which alone the writer probably knew the 
 Hebrew sacred Scriptures. They are, in fact, made from 
 this translation, sometimes accurately, and sometimes 
 with great freedom, in order to adapt the words quoted 
 to the purpose in view. This writer leaves no doubt in 
 the reader's mind that he believed in an explicit and in- 
 tentional reference to Christ by the prophets. Though 
 Jesus wrought many " signs," he says, the Jews did not 
 believe in him, " in order that what was spoken by Isaiah 
 the prophet might be fulfilled : Lord, who hath believed 
 our report ?" etc. * Then he adds : " For this cause they 
 could not believe, because Isaiah said again : He hath 
 blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, lest they 
 should see with their eyes, and understand with their 
 heart, and turn from their ways, and I should heal them." 
 Finally he establishes the telic sense of his Greek particle, 
 i'va, by adding: " These things said Isaiah because he saw 
 his glory and spake of him." f Here we have two pas- 
 sages brought into connection which originally had no re- 
 lation' to each other, and are in fact from two different 
 writers, the first and second Isaiah. They are not in any 
 sense prophecies, and require no fulfilment. The first 
 Isaiah hears " the word of the Lord to the people, ' See 
 ye, indeed, and perceive not,' " etc., and " Make the heart 
 of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut 
 their eyes, lest they see," etc. Then the prophet asks, 
 " How long? " The answer is, " Until the cities be wasted 
 * * * and the land be desolate.";); In the other pas- 
 sage the prophet of the restoration simply complains that 
 his word is disregarded. There is nothing in the passages 
 
 * Chap. xii. 38, cf. Is. liii. I. f Chap. xii. 40, 41, cf. Is. vi. 10. 
 
 \ Is. vi. 10 f. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT AY THE GOSPELS. 311 
 
 or their context to indicate a reference by their writers to 
 events future to their own times. Again, the treachery 
 and the fate of Judas are represented as a fulfilment of 
 prophecy.* But the Psalm to which reference is made 
 for the words, " My own familiar friend who did eat of 
 my bread hath lifted up his heel against me/'f contains 
 complaints of the writer purely personal to himself, and if 
 any part of it is applicable in the way of prophecy to 
 Christ, a sound interpretation requires that all of it should 
 be applicable to him. Yet no one would allow that the 
 words, " Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee," 
 can properly be so applied. The typology on which apol- 
 ogists depend for the vindication of the hermeneutics of 
 the evangelists almost always breaks down when the con- 
 nection of the Old-Testament passage is taken into ac- 
 count. There is in fact no passage in the Old Testament 
 which by the most strained allegorizing can be made out 
 to be a prophecy of the person or the fate of Judas. 
 
 It is unnecessary to proceed further in the examination 
 of these quotations. One hazards nothing in saying that 
 in all the Gospels there is not a single application of a so- 
 called prophetic passage from the Old Testament to the 
 history of Jesus which can be justified by a scientific in- 
 terpretation. The hermeneutical method of the evange- 
 lists was a false method, and it is fruitless to attempt its 
 defence. Nothing can be more absurd than the frantic 
 efforts of apologists to make it appear to be good herme- 
 neutics, unless it be to set up the claim that the evange- 
 lists were " inspired " grammarians and hermeneuts, and 
 were miraculously preserved from error in their interpre- 
 tations of the Old Testament. Their method was the al- 
 legorical, which from the Epistle to the Hebrews to the 
 
 * Chap. xiii. 18 ; xvii. 12. f Ps. xi. i. 
 
3 1 2 GOSPEL-CRI TICISM. 
 
 Speaker's Commentary has vitiated the greater part of 
 biblical interpretation in the Christian Church. It owes its 
 origin and maintenance to the exigencies of a dogmatic in- 
 terest.* In order to support a given doctrine by appeal 
 to a writing supposed to be authoritative passages are 
 quoted from this scripture, and if by a correct historical 
 and grammatical interpretation they do not yield the 
 desired sense they are allegorized (ak\a dyopevsir, to say 
 other things), or made to say what they do not really 
 mean. Now, as has been shown in Chapter IX., the first 
 evangelist wrote in a dogmatic interest. He wished to 
 make it appear that the history of Jesus had been fore- 
 told by the Hebrew prophets. He could not do this 
 without allegorizing, and since allegorizing was the fashion 
 of his time, he resorted to it in perfect naivete" and good 
 faith. But Christian interpreters who ought to have known 
 better, in whose justification in fact naivete cannot be plead- 
 ed, have avenged upon the writings of the evangelists their 
 unsophisticated torture of the law and the prophets. 
 
 It is precisely this fact that the hermeneutical method 
 of the evangelists was the one in vogue in their time 
 which furnishes a reason for their procedure and the only 
 apology that can be made for it. The allegorical and 
 typical interpretation by .which any sense that a dogmatic 
 interest required could be obtained from a biblical pas- 
 sage, and the extreme literalism which pressed a text or a 
 word regardless of its original meaning and its context, 
 were characteristics of the Palestinian- Jewish exegesis.f 
 Had the evangelists been superior to the influences of 
 their age in this regard, they would have presented a 
 truly surprising phenomenon, and given, perhaps, evi- 
 dence of miraculous guidance and inspiration. That they 
 
 *See Essays, etc., by Fifteen Clergymen, Boston, 1889, p. 140 f. 
 J- Iramer, Ilermeneutik, p. 28. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE GOSPELS. 313 
 
 employed this method, however, far more sparingly than 
 many of their contemporary writers is an evidence that 
 they possessed those qualities of soberness and good judg- 
 ment to which it is largely due that their writings were 
 reckoned among the classics of the Christian literature of 
 the first two centuries, or in other words became ca- 
 nonical.* It was inevitable that from the rabbinical liter- 
 ature and from Philo, the great Alexandrian allegorist, 
 who employed it freely in the interest of eliminating from 
 the Old Testament certain ethical teachings and histori- 
 cal statements which offended Hellenic culture, this 
 method of interpretation should pass into the Christian 
 Church. We should expect to find it pervading the New 
 Testament from our knowledge of the antecedents and 
 environment of its writers. Of these says Bleek, the cau- 
 tious representative of a " mediating " theology, that in 
 their conception of single passages in the Old Testament 
 they are more or less dependent on an earlier exegetical 
 tradition as it had taken form in the schools of the Jews, 
 as well as on the entire condition of exegesis in their time 
 among that people ; and since we are not justified in pre- 
 supposing that the Jewish exegesis of the time rested 
 either in general or in particular on perfectly correct prin- 
 ciples, and was employed in a manner wholly right, we 
 cannot but expect that this fact should have so influenced 
 the New-Testament writers as to lead them to apprehend 
 this or that Old-Testament passage in a sense which, in a 
 greater perfection of exegetical science and skill, and with 
 a more harmonious application of all the auxiliary helps, 
 would not prove to be entirely correct and accurate.f 
 
 * See p. 30. 
 
 f Ueber die dogmatische Benutzung alttestamentlicher Ausspriiche im 
 neuen Testament, etc., Studien und Kritiken, 1835, p. 447. See also 
 Dopke, Hermeneutik der neutest. Schriftsteller, 1829, p. 189 f. 
 
314 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Accordingly, we are not surprised to find the author of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews * referring to Christ the 
 words of a Psalm, " Thou art my son, this day have I 
 begotten thee," which in the original are addressed to a 
 Jewish king, and making a similar use of allegorical inter- 
 pretation in many other passages. The exegesis of the 
 apostle Paul, too, shows the influence of his rabbinical 
 training, for he is quoted as employing this same passage 
 in a similar way, f and throughout his Epistles he treats 
 the Old Testament allegorically and typologically. To 
 him Adam was a type (TVTTOZ) of Christ, and various 
 events of Hebrew history happened as " ensamples " 
 (rvniK&l, TVTTOI) for Christians. The two wives of Abra- 
 ham were " an allegory," and prefigured the old and the 
 new covenants. J The rock smitten by Moses prefigured 
 Christ, and was a " spiritual rock" (jtttpa nvsv^ariHrj)^ 
 typical of the source of " Irving water." He presses the 
 collective singular, " seed " (ffTtfp^ia) in order to show that 
 by it only the one Christ can be meant, as if it were 
 at all allowable to say that a promise was made to the 
 " seeds " of Abraham ! If the author of the Epistle of 
 Barnabas and Justin Martyr descend to a more trivial 
 typology than the writers of the New Testament employ, 
 their offence is different in degree only and not in kind 
 from that of the latter. 
 
 To refer the question of these quotations to typology 
 and leave it there, as many expositors do, | is quite un- 
 satisfactory from the critical point of view. For criticism 
 cannot but inquire into the grounds of typology, and see 
 whether or no it have any justification, and if there be 
 
 * Chap. v. 5, cf. Ps. ii. 7. f Acts xiii. 33. \ Gal. iv. 24. 
 
 Gal. iii. 16. See Immer, Neutestamentliche Theologie, p. 252. 
 | Even Meyer. See his commentary on the passages. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE GOSPELS. 31$ 
 
 any, of what sort it is. Now typology in the only sense 
 in which it can have any significance for theology involves 
 prophecy, or, in other words, it implies that a person or 
 an event written of by an author in some past age is in- 
 tended to prefigure a person or an event which in some 
 future age shall be a fulfilment of the type. The only 
 real antetype, then, is something which is prophetically 
 seen and intentionally expressed in the terms by which it 
 is assumed to be indicated. According to this canon the 
 paschal lamb can only have been a type of Christ, or the 
 emigration of Israel from Egypt typical of Jesus' return 
 from that country, if the writers in whom these supposed 
 types are found intended to convey such a prefiguring. 
 On no other principle can the typological interpretation 
 be guarded against perversion by unlimited caprice and 
 fancy. If a certain thing or event may be a type of any 
 other thing or event subsequently happening to which a 
 writer turning the leaves of history to find " ensamples " 
 may see fit to apply it, then there is manifestly an end of 
 all typology except that of the imagination. To pre- 
 figure nothing in particular but anything in general is 
 really not to prefigure at all. Now, if we apply this 
 canon to the Old Testament we shall find in it no types 
 at all. For it does not appear that in any of the passages in 
 it which are applied in the Gospels or Epistles to events 
 in the history of Christ the writers had any remotely 
 future circumstances or personality in mind, but only 
 matters in or very near their own time. 
 
 If we interpret the Old-Testament authors in accordance 
 with the principles which we apply to the interpretation 
 of other writers, we do not find that their words explained 
 in their natural or grammatical and historical meaning 
 appear to prefigure events which were to happen several 
 
3 1 6 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 hundred years after their time. Whence then are the 
 types ? Plainly, they are the invention of a false, rabbini- 
 cal exegesis. No one would ever have thought of them 
 but for the refinements of this perverted hermeneutics. 
 Those who applied this exegesis to the Old Testament 
 made the discovery of types, because they wished to find 
 in writings assumed to be authoritative the confirmation 
 of certain doctrines, and being unable to find it in any 
 other way, resorted to the process of exegetical pressure. 
 If one will seek to defend typology by the doctrine of a 
 " double sense," then with that doctrine let it stand or 
 fall. If the Old-Testament writers conveyed the type in 
 a " hidden " or " deeper " sense of their words, then it is 
 not allowable to say that they were conscious of it, since 
 we have no right to affirm that one is conscious of a par- 
 ticular thing which one does not express. But if the type 
 is " hidden," who will undertake to furnish a rule for find- 
 ing it out ? The only means of certainly determining 
 what it is in each case would appear to be an inspired 
 hermeneutics, of which history furnishes no examples. 
 The theory that the prophets of the Old Testament were 
 not conscious of indicating types, but prophesied " better 
 than they knew," is altogether trivial and absurd. He 
 who prophesies better than he knows, or, in other words, 
 what he does not know, cannot be said really to prophesy 
 at all. The alleged prophecies are afterwards interpreted 
 into his writings, and may be one thing or another accord- 
 ing to the fancy of the interpreter. The only application 
 of type, then, which appears to be permissible is that 
 which Diestel calls the " logical " * and Immer seems to 
 approve.f It is, however, emptied of all theological sig- 
 
 * Article " Vorbild " in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, v. p. 620. 
 f Hermeneutik, p. 133 f. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE GOSPELS. 317 
 
 nificance, since it rests upon mere historical analogy, or 
 similarity of circumstances or fortune in different ages. 
 In this sense, according to Immer, the " servant of 
 Jahveh " in the second Isaiah may be a type, though not 
 a prophecy, of Christ. But it is evident that from this 
 point of view the application might be made to any per- 
 son who should be " afflicted " on account of the trans- 
 gressions of his people. But in no such trivial sense did 
 the evangelists understand and apply the prophecies of 
 their sacred books, and the rationalizing which so perverts 
 their serious intention is very unjust to them. They un- 
 dertook, as has been shown, a real interpretation, and no 
 mere literary embellishment. If their exegesis was faulty, 
 and faulty it certainly was if there exist any valid prin- 
 ciples of interpretation, it is because they were true chil- 
 dren of their race and age, and thought and wrote in 
 entire sincerity in accordance with the standards and the 
 point of view then and there recognized and in vogue. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 
 
 THE decisive test to which the criticism of the Gospels 
 is subjected lies in its conclusions respecting their 
 historical character. It cannot shrink from answering the 
 questions which are here pressed upon it not only by the 
 devout, by the Christian consciousness, by the Church, by 
 eighteen centuries of Christian history, but also by scep- 
 ticism itself. For these questions concern the interpreta- 
 tion of history and the rationality of thinking. They 
 regard the problem, whether the most fruitful moral and 
 spiritual impulse in the world's history proceeded from 
 a fact or a dream, from a great personality or a phan- 
 tom. The criticism of the Gospels must, then, answer 
 whether these writings are the artless productions of sin- 
 cere men containing the tradition of Jesus of Nazareth 
 in its essential features, or artificial creations, religious 
 romances, dominated by ideal aims and " tendencies " in 
 which history is dissolved. Questions of this sort are 
 rightly addressed to the critic of the Gospels, not because 
 the Gospels are the source of Christianity, not because 
 there was not a Christian religion before there were Gos- 
 pels, and a century of Christian history before they were 
 recognized as canonical, but because they are the revered 
 and most ancient documents of Christianity, and contain 
 and preserve the tradition of Jesus. Now, although the 
 invalidation of the Gospels would not, indeed, destroy 
 
 318 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 319 
 
 Christianity, for it is indestructible, he who subjects them 
 to a free handling and reconstruction may well be called 
 upon to give an account of his results, whether there 
 remain a kernel or a husk. 
 
 That a kernel and not a husk remains as the result of 
 the critical sifting of the Gospels is at length the almost 
 unanimous verdict of criticism whose real function it is, 
 indeed, to preserve the kernel and cast the husk aside. It 
 is a significant fact in the history of the criticism of the 
 Gospels that extremists, of whatever school, have not 
 exerted a permanent influence, have not well maintained 
 their ground. The vagaries of Bruno Bauer, and the 
 negative criticism of Strauss, though put forth with great 
 learning and acumen, find no advocates among the distin- 
 guished scholars of the present day, and the tendency in the 
 Tubingen school has been steadily towards the recognition 
 of the historical element in the synoptic Gospels, and a 
 more conservative view of the history of the canon. After 
 having apparently exhausted all the possibilities of form- 
 ing hypotheses, examined with infinite patience all the 
 facts in the case as well as innumerable fancies and theo- 
 ries, analyzed the records with the most unsparing scrutiny, 
 and illuminated them with the widest and most accurate 
 historical and linguistic learning, Gospel-criticism appears 
 to have run its course, and to have ended in entirely 
 defensible, conservative conclusions. The so-called source- 
 criticism of Eichhorn advanced by its author at the begin- 
 ning of this century with the design of " establishing the 
 internal credibility and truth of the Gospel-history," has, 
 though rejected in his particular application of it, continued 
 to grow in favor, and has established itself as the only 
 method which can produce satisfactory results. The rela- 
 tion of this source-criticism to the historical character of 
 
32O GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 the Gospels is apparent from the conclusions of the pre- 
 ceding chapters which have been devoted to a study of 
 the synoptics from that point of view. It is manifestly of 
 the greatest importance to the question of the historical 
 character of the synoptic Gospels, which will alone be 
 considered here, that the writers all appear to have de- 
 pended in a greater or less degree on one original source, 
 which may be clearly traced in these records, if not recon- 
 structed from them. The logia, or sayings of Jesus,* 
 the first collection of which Papias ascribes to Matthew, 
 undoubtedly composed the principal part of this source. 
 These pithy, aphoristic sayings of Jesus which, as Strauss 
 remarks, could not be dissolved by the flood of oral tra- 
 dition, in however different ways they may have been 
 combined by the synoptists, may be regarded as consti- 
 tuting the historic kernel of their narratives. Had Papias* 
 Exposition of the \6yia Hvpiaxa been preserved we know 
 not what strange and improbable sayings would have 
 been found in it attributed to Jesus. For the oral tradi- 
 tion on which he depended for his collection must, in the 
 nature of the case, have been a precarious source. That 
 this source had perils for the evangelists, too, so far as 
 they depended on it, cannot be denied. The fact, how- 
 ever, that Matthew committed his collection of the logia 
 to writing is of the greatest importance, and the extent 
 to which the historical credibility of the synoptics is due 
 to it is perhaps inappreciable. But it should be kept in 
 mind in considering the perils to which the synoptists 
 were exposed from oral tradition or from any other source 
 that they appear to have been men of exceptionally sound 
 and sober judgment. This quality is evinced by the 
 nature of their writings, and is a factor in the historical 
 * rd Xoyia rov xvpiov, \6yia yivpia.-K.d~ 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 321 
 
 character of these which cannot be too highly estimated. 
 Had they been such men as the good Bishop Papias, their 
 records might have contained the account of the famous 
 vineyards of the Messianic age, and we do not know what 
 fantastic and absurd stories besides. 
 
 The assumed lapse of time between the event and the 
 record is evidently an important consideration in the 
 study of the historical credibility of the Gospels. Not to 
 be too precise in the matter of dates, we may place the 
 composition of the synoptics between forty and sixty 
 years after the death of Christ. It would appear at the 
 first glance that after the life-time of from one to two 
 generations histories in the proper sense of the word 
 could not reasonably be expected to be produced under 
 the then existing circumstances. There is room for grave 
 question at this point, and due weight should be allowed 
 to the doubt to which these conditions give rise. It 
 should be borne in mind, however, that the synoptists 
 based their records on antecedent writings, one of which 
 can be traced without doubt to Matthew, and found in 
 various fragments in all three narratives. Of this we 
 know, indeed, with certainty, nothing more than that it 
 contained certain sayings of Jesus. Criticism is unable 
 precisely to determine its extent, and has no means of 
 fixing its date. Of other writings mentioned by Luke, 
 and probably used by him, it knows nothing, and is not 
 at unity with itself as to his use of our first Gospel. This 
 situation evidently presents a difficulty which is not at all 
 relieved by the fact that the evangelists did not proceed 
 in the manner of modern historians, perhaps we may say 
 in the manner of historians proper of any age, and inform 
 their readers of the sources of their narratives. The dif- 
 ficulty is, however, somewhat relieved by the character of 
 
322 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 the central figure in the history, the personality of Jesus 
 as we know it from the records themselves. That he 
 made a very profound and lasting impression upon his 
 generation, and in particular upon his immediate followers, 
 there can be no doubt. The simple grandeur of his char- 
 acter, and the easily remembered teachings which he left, 
 sententious, aphoristic expressions, according to the synop- 
 tic records, must have produced a tradition of great vivid- 
 ness and vitality to which history probably furnishes no 
 parallel. If we add to this the fact which is generally 
 conceded, that the tradition of Jesus constituted the 
 substance of the preaching and teaching of the apostles 
 and their followers for a considerable time after his death, 
 we have conditions antecedent to the writing of the 
 Gospels not at all unfavorable to the composition of 
 writings entitled to be called historical, so far at least as 
 the essential teachings of Jesus and the portrait of his 
 character are concerned. The concession of Kostlin, a 
 Tubingen critic, is noteworthy in this connection : " The 
 narratives of the synoptists date from a time which was 
 near enough to the facts reported by them to enable them 
 to hold them in memory, and to remain in accord with 
 the historical situation, even in regard to those important 
 features of it, as the beginning and end of the public 
 ministry in Galilee, in connection with which attempts 
 had already been made in a symbolic and poetic way, and 
 through ideal narratives and Old-Testament prototypes 
 representing his earthly person and history in the splendor 
 of Messianic glory, to set forth the greatness and dignity 
 which belonged to Jesus as the Messiah, and the blessings 
 which would flow from him to his people." 
 
 The source-criticism according to which Mark's Gospel 
 is the oldest, and has been substantially taken up into the 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. $2$ 
 
 other two synoptics, finds confirmation in the fact that 
 that record approaches more nearly a genuinely historical 
 character than these. It is tolerably free from legendary 
 narratives, and is throughout well arranged and self-con- 
 sistent, though not always presenting a strictly chrono- 
 logical order. Of " tendency " and disturbing dogmatic 
 interests there is almost no trace. The proclamation of 
 the kingdom is the prominent theme, and the personality 
 of the Founder is subordinated. As has been pointed out 
 in Chapter III., the Messianic title and claims of Jesus are 
 not thrust forward at the beginning as in the first Gospel, 
 but a cautious and steady progress is indicated which is 
 consistent with the great scene at Caesarea Philippi. This 
 historical plan corresponds with the probabilities of the 
 case, and is so far favorable to the credibility of this Gos- 
 pel in a very important part of its contents. For nothing 
 is more improbable than that Jesus should for any consid- 
 erable time have journeyed about Galilee in the face of 
 the Roman authorities under the banner of the " Son of 
 David " and the " King of Israel." Besides, the frequent 
 and sometimes awkwardly-placed injunctions of silence 
 even in the first Gospel show the persistence of the tra- 
 dition as Mark has in general apprehended it. This 
 Gospel, however, which was not written until after the 
 first generation from the death of Christ, could not 
 entirely escape the influences of that legendary period 
 in which some unhistorical features were stamped upon 
 the tradition of Jesus. 
 
 That the oral proclamation of the Gospel, naturally 
 occupied no doubt very largely with a repetition of the 
 sayings and doings of Jesus, should have taken on a frag- 
 mentary, disconnected form was natural and inevitable. 
 No change in this form except for the worse could result 
 
324 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 from the delivery of the message of the Gospel by others 
 than the original witnesses, by wandering preachers and 
 ecstatic speakers " with tongues." How the evangelic 
 tradition was affected to the prejudice of historical accu- 
 racy and continuity by the way in which it came to those 
 who finally gave it a fixed form in writing is shown in the 
 Gospels themselves, particularly when their narratives are 
 critically compared with one another. The separate 
 scenes of the life of Jesus are placed in a loose connection, 
 so that one is puzzled to tell whether a given arrangement 
 is made with intention, or because the writer found diffi- 
 culty in handling his material. Sayings of Jesus are 
 grouped in masses or dispersed apparently according to 
 a purpose or a fancy of the evangelist, and frequently an 
 aphorism receives from its setting now one application 
 and now another. The chronological sequence is often 
 indeterminable, as when the first evangelist connects the 
 preaching of John the Baptist immediately with the 
 return from Egypt by the words, " In those days," etc. 
 The relation of the records to one another is of such a 
 nature that the arbitrary and violent procedures of the 
 harmonists could not but be abandoned as soon as the 
 doctrine of the inspiration of the evangelists was found 
 to be untenable. Yet in the midst of all the chaotic 
 elements which the flood of oral tradition rolled along is 
 clearly discernible an historical grouping of salient facts, 
 the appearance of the Baptist, the Galilean ministry of 
 Jesus, the healings, the teachings, the travels with the 
 disciples, the gathering multitudes, the conflicts, Caesarea 
 Philippi, the fateful journey to Jerusalem, Gethsemane, 
 the trial and the tragedy, the consternation of the little 
 flock, and the mysterious birth of a great hope. 
 
 As history, however, pure history in the proper sense 
 of the word, the Gospel-narratives can by no means be 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 325 
 
 regarded. Of vivid, immediate impressions of the life 
 and teachings of Jesus they are not, and in the nature of 
 the case could not be, the record. The historical interest 
 and motive, with all the prominence which they hold 
 throughout, are not unmixed with motives and interests 
 which check and wrest their proper development. To 
 apply to these records the canons of historical composi- 
 tion were an error only less misleading than that of regard- 
 ing them as the speculations of artful " tendency " philos- 
 ophers, or collections of myths intended to interpret the 
 life of Jesus through prototypes of Old-Testament history 
 or legend. The constructions of apologists and the hy- 
 potheses of Strauss are alike broken in pieces against these 
 unique productions of love and legend. That the tradi- 
 tion of Jesus, in the absence of a fixed and definite form, 
 should have undergone no modifications in passing through 
 the media which it traversed before it was recorded in the 
 Gospels is incredible to any one who regards the condi- 
 tions from an historical or psychological point of view. 
 That cold and critical research rather than the transfigur- 
 ing imagination should have been occupied with it is 
 improbable and contrary to all the facts in the case. 
 Accordingly, the picture of Jesus which the evangelists 
 have produced is not a photograph nor a reproduction 
 from memory, but rather a reconstruction at which faith, 
 hope, and legend wrought. The prominence of the 
 biographical interest is not more evident in their records 
 than is the want of material for a real biography. In the 
 chronological confusion the subject-order often takes the 
 place of the time-order, and there is a painful absence of 
 important dates. Information regarding the youth and 
 education of Jesus there is none, and even his birth-place 
 is questionable. 
 
 That the Gospels are historical writings, then, is true ; 
 
326 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 but the affirmation is only a half-truth. The whole truth 
 is that they are different from histories, more than his- 
 tories. They contain historical reminiscences of Jesus, 
 vivid pictures of his life, striking sketches of his character, 
 above all, authentic reproductions of his great teachings. 
 But what a generation or two of Jewish Christians had 
 believed about him and hoped from him as the national 
 Messiah ; what construction Pauline Christians had put 
 upon some of his words ; what reverence, faith, and won- 
 der had wrought of transformation in his tradition ; and 
 what the glamour of poesy had woven into his legend, 
 these are also discernible in them. If the tradition of 
 the Founder of Christianity had a natural, historical 
 development, its product in the synoptic Gospels must 
 inevitably have been what it is, an account not only of 
 what he was in himself as Jesus, but of what he was 
 believed to be as Christ. Human love, veneration, faith, 
 could not so guard it that it would not take such a course. 
 Nothing short of a supernatural intervention, a suspension 
 of psychological laws, a reversal of history, could have 
 compassed a different result. The tendency to subordi- 
 nate the spiritual and essential teachings of Jesus to 
 materialistic and apocalyptic ideas and hopes was not less 
 strong, certainly, in the first century than it has been 
 since to the great detriment of Christianity. Accordingly, 
 of the three great principles of the early creed, " Jesus 
 was the Messiah ; he is risen ; he will come again in 
 glory," two were doubtless not taught by Jesus at all. 
 Their appearance in the Gospels is only explicable on the 
 theory that these writings are the deposit not alone of 
 the actual tradition of Jesus, but of the beliefs, medita- 
 tions, and hopes concerning him which occupied the first 
 generation or two after his death. That the form and 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 
 
 contents of the Gospels must have been to some extent 
 determined by the tendency to group the sayings of Jesus 
 around the two ideas, Jewish Messianism and the glorious 
 return of the Messiah with the angels, needs no other 
 proof than these writings themselves furnish. 
 
 That the Old Testament should have been read in a 
 new light by Jews who had accepted Jesus as their Mes- 
 siah, was the inevitable consequence of an entirely 
 changed point of view. But whether there was " a veil 
 upon their heart," or upon that of their brethren who did 
 not so accept Jesus, is a question on which Paul and the 
 scientific hermeneut are not agreed. The tendency, how- 
 ever, to search the Old Testament for events typical of 
 what Jesus should be as the Messiah could not but affect 
 the reconstruction of his tradition, in connection with the 
 belief that he ought to fulfil, if not surpass, what had 
 been prefigured, as was thought, by the great prototypes. 
 When by this new hermeneutics the Old Testament had 
 been so far transformed that its image of the Messiah- 
 king was converted into that of the suffering servant, so 
 that "the cross ceased to be a stumbling-block,"* the 
 tendency once established could not but lead by an in- 
 herent necessity to an exploitation of Hebrew history and 
 legend in the interest of showing various fulfilments in 
 the sayings and works of Jesus. Strauss shed a new light 
 upon the Gospels when he showed how many events 
 recorded in them have their prototypes in the Old Testa- 
 ment. But it is doubtless an error to regard the records 
 of the evangelists as the products of the cool reflection 
 of intentional myth-makers. Rather they show how these 
 writers had become accustomed to think about Jesus 
 under the influence of the Old Testament, to idealize 
 
 * Gal. v. ii. 
 
328 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 actual occurrences, and sometimes to intensify them into 
 a miraculous form. To say nothing of the wholesale 
 appropriation of the ancient Hebrew poetry in the pre- 
 historical portions of Luke's Gospel by the author in 
 sayings ascribed to Mary and Simeon, it is certainly not 
 without significance that there appear so evident reminis- 
 cences of words of psalmists and prophets in the accounts 
 of the miracles on the lake, the stilling of the tempest 
 and the walking on the water. In some of the accounts 
 of miracles wrought upon external nature it is difficult to 
 determine whether an actual occurrence, or an allegory or 
 parable, lay at the basis. If Luke appears to have found 
 in his sources the cursing of the fig-tree as a parable, it is 
 certainly neither incredible nor improbable that the ac- 
 count of the feeding of the multitude may originally have 
 had this form. Weizsacker's arrangement of the synoptic 
 narratives into groups of doctrinal tenets* intended to 
 exhibit the life and teachings of Jesus as they historically 
 were, or were apprehended to be from an idealistic point 
 of view, throws much light upon accounts of this sort. 
 "The feeding of the multitude shows Jesus upon the 
 heights ; he assembles the people, and has gifts for all ; all 
 are filled." f The natural reaction from the mythical 
 theory and the growing influence of an historical appre- 
 hension of the Gospels have led even conservative critics 
 to recognize a mingling of history and idealizing repre- 
 sentations in the synoptic narratives. " In detail," says 
 Holtzmann, " these transitions from historical recollection 
 and Old-Testament legendary form can scarcely be fol- 
 lowed with certainty. Only the beginnings and ends of 
 the entire movement can still be established, that is, the 
 
 * Lehrstiicke. 
 
 f Das Apostolische Zeitalter, 2te Aufg., 1890, p. 411. 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 329 
 
 support which a legendary representation has in the 
 events of the actual life of Jesus, and the definite direc- 
 tion in which, in consequence of guidance supplied by 
 the Old Testament, the delineation and the enhancement 
 into the miraculous must proceed." * 
 
 How far the demonstrable " tendency" of the evan- 
 gelists affected the historical character of the Gospels is a 
 question of importance in this connection. Very much 
 of the tendency which appears in the Gospels originated 
 in Messianism, and expresses itself in the attempt to 
 adjust the life and character of Jesus to the Jewish- 
 Messianic ideal. Jesus being believed to have been the 
 Jewish Messiah, it is to be expected, it may even be said 
 to be inevitable, that his tradition would assume a Mes- 
 sianic coloring. Then by a modification of the original 
 Messianic type the attempt would be made to shorten 
 the distance that actually separated the real Jesus of 
 Nazareth from the ideal Messiah, the Son of David, the 
 King of Israel, to abolish the difference between them as 
 far as possible, and bring them into a unity satisfactory to 
 thought. It is evident that one cannot fairly judge such 
 a writing as our first Gospel, for example, by the principle 
 that it must be throughout historical or not historical at 
 all. It betrays an absence of historical and literary sense 
 to apply to such a composition the rigid rule, falsus in 
 uno falsus in omnibus. If the tradition out of which it 
 sprang was affected by dogmatic tendencies, by pragma- 
 tism, if the writer was affected by these, it by no means 
 follows that the tradition did not bear the truth, and the 
 writer record it. If the first two chapters are unhistorical, 
 if Jesus did not announce a second coming on the clouds, 
 and if the dead did not come forth from their graves and 
 
 * Hand-Commentar 7,um neuen Testament, 1889, i. p. 19. 
 
330 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 walk the streets of Jerusalem at the crucifixion, it does 
 not at all follow that Matthew's logia are not incorporated 
 in the book, and that the parables are all inventions. 
 The Zeit-Geist has much to reveal to men if they would 
 only listen to him ; but if men can hardly interpret the 
 spirit of their own time, it is no wonder that that of past 
 ages with difficulty reaches their minds. To those who 
 are deaf to the revelations which the Time-Spirit of the 
 first century has to make, and blind to whatever his busy 
 invention wove into the tradition of Jesus, the Gospels 
 are in some parts written in an unintelligible language. 
 They are not fitted to be interpreters of these writings 
 as a whole, and would do well to confine their reading of 
 them to the parables and the sermon on the mount. 
 
 It is evidently of the greatest importance to observe 
 that so far as the tendency of the first evangelist led him 
 to regard the history of Jesus from the point of view of 
 Jewish Messianism, this tendency could not, and in fact 
 did not, affect the essentials of the history as he has 
 recorded it. The narrative contains its own correction in 
 such sayings as " my kingdom is not of this world/' and in 
 all the words of vast spiritual import whose authentication 
 is the more striking, since they stand out in bold relief 
 against all the temporal limitations and all the apocalyptic 
 imagery of the record. The correction of history applied 
 to the narrative will also show that Jesus was in no sense 
 the national Messiah of the Jews. Besides, it has al- 
 ready been shown that the hermeneutical correction when 
 brought to bear upon the passages in question leads to 
 the same result. The remarkable words of Baur may 
 well be quoted here : " All the concessions which must be 
 made to the mythical view, as well as all that which may 
 be placed to the account of the evangelist's pragmatism, 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 331 
 
 can in no way put in question the substantial, historical, 
 fundamental character of the Gospel ; and there follows 
 hence only the necessity of the requirement ever more 
 sharply to distinguish as much as possible by a continu- 
 ous critical investigation of its contents the two elements, 
 the historical and the unhistorical, which have blended in 
 their growth." The same may be said of Luke's Pauline 
 tendency. For this does not affect the essentials of the 
 history. A distinction must be made between the teach- 
 ings of Jesus and an interpretation of them which was 
 made in the first century in the exigencies of the Pauline- 
 Jewish controversy. If anything is unquestionable as to 
 the character of his teachings it is that they were intended 
 for mankind, and not for the Jews only, that they were 
 not national and limited, but universal. This character, 
 as we have seen, was so impressed upon the logia that it is 
 clearly discernible even in the Jewish first Gospel, while 
 the third evangelist was so faithful to the tradition that 
 he appears to have left some things standing in his record 
 which are unfavorable to his predilection. 
 
 That theophanies and angelophanies do not belong to 
 the domain of history is a proposition which does not 
 require demonstration for one who has the elements of 
 the historical sense. To treat them as historically verifia- 
 ble is as unreasonable as to hold that their invalidation 
 invalidates the entire record in which they are found. 
 The whole scene in Gethsemane does not even become a 
 poetic representation, nor the words spurious, " Pray, 
 lest ye enter into temptation," because Luke brings an 
 angel upon the scene. The angelophanies in the account 
 of the resurrection do not convert that event into a 
 myth, any more than the story of the resurrection of the 
 
 * " Krit. Untersuch., p. 604. 
 
332 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 saints in the first Gospel renders the crucifixion unhistori- 
 cal. If, then, the divine overshadowing and the appear- 
 ances of angels cast suspicion on the prehistorical narra- 
 tives of the birth and infancy of Jesus in the first and 
 third Gospels, it is because these supernatural phenomena 
 constitute a part of the texture of the accounts. These 
 narratives are, however, prejudiced as to their historical 
 validity by the absence of verification and by internal 
 improbabilities and incongruities. They are not con- 
 tained in the oldest and most historical Gospel, and 
 formed no part of the original writing by Matthew. The 
 subsequent history far from confirming tends to cast 
 doubt upon them, the kernel of it showing no trace of 
 this " wonder-world of the childhood." The contempora- 
 ries of Jesus know him as the carpenter's son, Joseph's 
 son, * and of Mary herself is recorded no intimation of a 
 knowledge of the mysterious birth. On the contrary, sur- 
 prised at the effects of his ministry, she with her sons 
 comes to Capernaum to get possession of him as of one 
 who was " beside himself." f The synoptists represent 
 Jesus as furnished at the baptism with the spirit and 
 power requisite for his ministry, and in all his conflicts 
 with questioning, opposing enemies he never refers to a 
 birth-miracle as an authentication of his claims. In what 
 is said of him by Peter in the Acts and by Paul in his 
 Epistles there is no hint of this astounding mystery which 
 could not have failed of mention and comment in the 
 earliest writings had it belonged to the original tradition. 
 The internal incongruities of the two prehistorical 
 
 * Matt. xiii. 55 ; Luke iv. 2-2. 
 
 f on e^etfTrj, Mark iii. 21, 31. The two passages are to be interpreted 
 in connection as relating to the same event. See Meyer, *' Commentar," i. 
 2, p. 49 f. Cf. John vii. 3. 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 333 
 
 accounts indicate a legendary origin and character. In 
 the first Gospel the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem is spoken 
 of as though that city were the residence of his parents, 
 and Nazareth is mentioned as if it were a place previously 
 unknown to the family, in which, though apparently in- 
 tending to go back to their home in Judea after the flight 
 into Egypt, they took up their residence, " in order that 
 it might be fulfilled," etc. The author appears to know 
 nothing of the previous residence in Nazareth from which 
 Luke's narrative proceeds. According to Luke, the fam- 
 ily returned to " their own city Nazareth " after a few 
 weeks' sojourn in Bethlehem and the presentation of the 
 child in the temple, which does not appear to have excited 
 Herod's suspicion notwithstanding the Messianic an- 
 nouncements of Anna and Simeon. This is irreconcilable 
 with the first evangelist's account, which requires time 
 here for the journey of the magians from the East, the 
 flight into Egypt, and the return. The order of Herod 
 to slay all the children " from two years old and under, 
 according to the time which he had ascertained from the 
 magians," shows the time required by this account. 
 Again, the first evangelist's account of Joseph's sus- 
 picions and the angelic message to allay them does not 
 presuppose, but rather excludes, the celestial announce- 
 ment to Mary which Luke records. -For that Mary after 
 such a revelation should have made no communication 
 of the great mystery to Joseph would be, as Meyer 
 remarks, "not less psychologically unnatural than in 
 violation of her relation and duty as his bride." Psycho- 
 logical and moral impossibilities of this sort are the work 
 of legend, not of history. In the one instance in which 
 Luke appears to touch really historical ground he com- 
 mits an error, for his statement that there was an imperial 
 
334 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 census under Quirinius at the time of the birth of Jesus 
 is pronounced incorrect by conservative critics.* The 
 eminent commentator already quoted presents the whole 
 section of the* two Gospels from the right point of view 
 when he says of a fragment of it : " The truth of the 
 story of the shepherds and the angels lies 'in the realm of 
 the idea, not in that of historical reality. Regarded as 
 reality the history loses its truth as a premise, with which 
 what is notorious as a fact that Jesus was later unknown 
 and unrecognized as the Messiah, as well as the entire 
 silence of the evangelic preaching with respect to the 
 heavenly Gospel, is irreconcilable. The want of agree- 
 ment of this account with the story of the magians and 
 the murder of the children in the first Gospel is to be 
 explained by the fact that different wreaths of legend, 
 quite independent of one another, were wound about the 
 divine Child in his lowliness." f 
 
 These prehistoric chapters, as well as some other sec- 
 tions of the Gospels, can only be rightly apprehended 
 when we take into account the oriental aesthetic and 
 poetic feeling which busied itself with weaving beautiful 
 creations of fancy into the wonderful tradition of Jesus. 
 Truly interpreted these records cannot be until the lit- 
 erary sense and the historical judgment have done their 
 work upon them. But it is not the task of literary and 
 historical criticism to cut out and cast aside with con- 
 tempt these fine creations of poetic sentiment, the 
 productions of the love and devoutness of a susceptible 
 race and age. Its province rather it is to assign them 
 their true place and to estimate them at their true value 
 as fragments of " the history of Christianity rather than 
 of the history of Jesus." If it be true that " a religion 
 
 * " Offenbar unrichtig," Meyer. f Commentar, i. 2, p. 288. 
 
THE GOSPELS AS HISTORIES. 335 
 
 without poesy were an abortion incapable of life," then 
 we should be warned to retain and treat these aesthetic 
 effusions as the poetry of the first Christian century rather 
 than as the history of Jesus, since to retain and treat 
 them as history is to run the risk of invalidating the his- 
 torical kernel itself of the tradition. Only so, too, can 
 their spirit be appreciated and their inspiring mission 
 fulfilled. For " the more admiration the poetic beauty of 
 these productions of ancient Christian devoutness de- 
 serves and has found, the less is one just to their spirit 
 when one endeavors to transform them into prose at the 
 cost of the odor of wonder which the morning mists of 
 the evangelic history have distilled upon them." * 
 
 The foregoing considerations establish the maxim of 
 criticism that the evangelists' accounts of the life and 
 teachings of Jesus must often be corrected, not only by a 
 comparison of them with one another, but also by a judg- 
 ment based upon an historical knowledge of the influences 
 acting upon the tradition from the media through which 
 it passed. The complete illustration and defence of this 
 maxim would require an entire commentary upon the 
 Gospels. But the history of commentaries shows but too 
 clearly that only its application can put an end to the 
 puerile harmonizing and exegetical subtleties which have 
 so long discredited hermeneutical science. The true his- 
 torical character of the Gospels is only brought to light 
 when this principle is applied to them. Sometimes it 
 shows the influence of a belief dominating an entire 
 generation, as in the form given to the eschatological 
 discourses ; sometimes a design on the part of an evan- 
 gelist, as when Luke makes Jesus begin his ministry 
 at Nazareth instead of at Capernaum in order that the 
 
 * Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, i. p. 54. 
 
336 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 Pauline traits which he inserts may receive a greater 
 intensity * ; sometimes an ineptness, as when the same 
 writer puts into the mouth of Jesus violent words against 
 the Pharisees at the table of one of this sect ; f and some- 
 times a transformation of an ethical doctrine, as when the 
 morality of Jesus which taught a lofty contempt of re- 
 ward, that one is not even to expect thanks for doing 
 one's duty,^: and that help should be extended without 
 hope of anything " in return," is disfigured by an en- 
 couragement of calculating self-interest which shall find 
 its account in " houses, lands," etc., in a high place at a 
 feast, in a place at the " right hand," in sitting upon 
 " thrones," in recompense " at the resurrection of the 
 just." The objection that this maxim is subjective, and 
 leads to results which vary according to the caprice of the 
 interpreter, is without force in view of the arbitrariness 
 and caprice of the old interpretation and its infinitely 
 varying and contradictory conclusions. The result of a 
 century's critical investigation of the Gospels, the criti- 
 cism of the present and of the future cannot abandon 
 it, nor shrink from its thorough application. The charge 
 touching its conclusions really lies not against it, but 
 against the nature of the material with which it has 
 to deal. Only through it do we learn at length the real 
 character, and come to appreciate the worth of the Gospels 
 as histories. 
 
 * Luke iv. 16, 24-27. \ Luke xvii. 7-10. 
 
 f Luke xi. 37-52. Luke vi. 35. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 THAT criticism tends to invalidate historical Chris- 
 tianity is a prevalent popular impression. But 
 like many another popular impression, this is a popular 
 misapprehension. A prejudice, or perhaps it were better 
 to say a sentiment, is the root of this error. What is 
 established, what is venerable with age, what has served 
 noble ends, and nurtured great virtues, naturally calls 
 forth the conservative interest, the devotion, even the 
 zeal and fanaticism of mankind. Accordingly, when even 
 the soberest and most reverent criticism is directed upon 
 revered documents or institutions with the sincere purpose 
 of reconstructing the one or improving the other, it is 
 confronted by a sentiment which can see in its performance 
 only a menace or a work of destruction. Against a criti- 
 cism which is merely negative and destructive, it must be 
 conceded that this sentiment is a wise provision of nature. 
 It is not, however, until the discriminating judgment is 
 applied to the matter that a justifiable opposition to the 
 critical procedure can even seem to be established. Now, 
 at the first glance there does appear, indeed, to be ground 
 for a rational judgment against criticism as hostile to 
 historical Christianity, for the reason that in its name 
 many excesses have been committed, and many conclu- 
 sions reached which tend to dissolve the historical con- 
 tents of the Gospels by making it appear that these 
 22 337 
 
3 3 8 GOSPEL- CRI TICISM. 
 
 writings are composed mainly of myths, or of creations of 
 the imagination, or of " tendency-" speculations. But it is 
 evident that criticism, as a whole, can no more fairly be 
 condemned for its excesses than science or theology, as a 
 whole, for its errors. Besides, criticism has always tended 
 to correct itself, exposing and repudiating the errors 
 which have been committed in its name. Great critics 
 have alone been found competent to deal with the most 
 masterly perversions of criticism. So Strauss had his 
 Weisse, and Baur his Hilgenfeld within his own school, 
 and his Ewald and Meyer outside it. Accordingly, the 
 history of criticism shows a tendency towards quite sober 
 and sound conclusions, a tendency, in fact, to construct 
 rather than to destroy, to establish rather than to over- 
 throw, historical Christianity. 
 
 Now, since criticism proceeds upon the principle that 
 the Gospels are to be treated as literature, as productions 
 of men affected by the spirit which came forth from 
 Jesus, indeed, but also by the influences which their age 
 threw around them, who dealt with their materials in 
 a wholly sincere and earnest way, it must seek the grounds 
 of the credibility of the historical kernel of these writings, 
 or, in other words, the basis of historical Christianity, in 
 the documents themselves and in the data which history 
 furnishes. No other course is indeed open to it, since it is 
 one of its fundamental principles that no claims which 
 may be dogmatically set up in favor of the infallibility of 
 the writers of the Gospels can be allowed before they 
 have been tested by its processes. Such claims, then, 
 cannot be suffered to determine its conclusions. In fact, 
 if it should admit them its occupation would be gone, its 
 whole work superfluous. With respect to the historical 
 basis internal to the Gospels, it has already been shown in 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 339 
 
 the course of this work, how that is supplied in the Mark- 
 hypothesis and in the hypothesis of the logia-collection of 
 Matthew. These hypotheses may be regarded as estab- 
 lished, if not beyond question, at least by the preponder- 
 ance of critical authority. As to another series of logia 
 originating with John and incorporated in the fourth 
 Gospel, there is a strong probability as well as a consider- 
 able weight of critical judgment in its favor. Criticism 
 might, then, very well rest its case upon these conclu- 
 sions, and await the impartial judgment of mankind as to 
 its friendly or hostile relation to historical Christianity. 
 There are, however, important evidences independent of 
 the Gospels which may properly be adduced in confirma- 
 tion of the critical conclusions regarding the essential 
 historical contents of these records. 
 
 The apostle Paul is a pre-eminent witness to the 
 central facts which the Gospels record. For it were 
 certainly an error to think that his claim that he had his 
 Gospel by special revelation, that he " did not receive 
 it from man/' and that " those in reputation communi- 
 cated nothing new " * to him, excludes all knowledge on 
 his part of the leading external facts of the life of Jesus 
 and of the substance of his teaching. Rather these words 
 relate to his own peculiar interpretation of Christianity, 
 the fundamental doctrinal tenets which he held, the uni- 
 versal mission of the religion of Jesus and justification by 
 faith. It cannot be presumed that even before his con- 
 version he had no information as to the character of the 
 doctrine which he bitterly persecuted. A man of his 
 earnestness could not have persecuted a phantom. Neither 
 could he have been converted without evidence. How- 
 ever the event on the road to Damascus may be ex- 
 
 * Gal. i. 12, ii. 6. 
 
340 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 plained, there is certainly nothing in his intense and vivid 
 narration of it, which necessarily excluded details, that 
 should lead us to suppose that it had no psychological 
 antecedents, no -preparation of meditation, of remorse, of 
 conviction. Convictions he certainly had from that time, 
 and very positive ones. He was convinced that the man 
 Jesus who had been rejected and slain as a malefactor by 
 the Jews was the Christ, his own Saviour and the Saviour 
 of the world. He believed that in this great personality 
 a new principle of life was revealed for himself and for 
 mankind. Perhaps no stronger testimony could be fur- 
 nished, has ever been furnished, to the power of that 
 personality, to its historical reality as portrayed in the 
 Gospels, than that this man Paul, this Jew of the Jews, 
 yielded to it the homage of his great intellect, bowed his 
 strong will to the man of Nazareth, became the unwearied 
 and zealous minister of the Gospel which he had perse- 
 cuted, and consecrated to it all the resources of his 
 powerful nature, through privations, perils, stripes, even to 
 death. 
 
 Not a few of the central historical facts of the synoptic 
 Gospels are expressly referred to by Paul. According to 
 him, Jesus was born of the seed of David, born under the 
 law, was a " man," was " in the likeness of sinful flesh." 
 He was conscious of no sin, was obedient to the divine 
 will even unto death, and was filled with the spirit of 
 holiness. Of especial events in the life of Jesus he men- 
 tions the last supper and the betrayal ; the fact that Jesus 
 was not comprehended by the authorities of his time, and 
 that before them he was outwardly weak ; his inner joy in 
 affliction and his devotion to death out of love to man : 
 his passion and crucifixion as " our passover," and the 
 crowning spiritual event which followed it, and consti- 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 34! 
 
 tuted one of the central ideas of the Pauline theology. 
 Of some wonderful works wrought by Jesus Paul must 
 also have known, as may legitimately be inferred from the 
 facts that he recognized healing as among the spiritual 
 gifts in the Christian Church of his time, and that he ap- 
 pealed to " signs, wonders, and mighty deeds " performed 
 by himself as " signs of an apostle." The various gifts 
 are to him manifestations of the Spirit which gives the 
 word of wisdom, of knowledge, of faith, of prophecy, of 
 healing. But to him the Lord, or Jesus, is the Spirit who 
 now works these minor wonders in and through the be- 
 lievers, and also the greater wonder of changing them 
 "into the same image from glory to glory." Though 
 Paul stands forth in grand isolation and self-dependence 
 in the history of the primitive Church, we learn from his 
 writings that he was not without intercourse with men 
 who had personally known Jesus. That he learned noth- 
 ing of them concerning the prominent facts of the earthly 
 life of his Master is in the highest degree improbable. 
 Three years after his conversion, he tells us, he went to 
 Jerusalem and remained with Peter fifteen days. Four- 
 teen years later he again visited Jerusalem and held a 
 conference with some of the apostles. His recognition 
 by the apostles of Jesus as a missionary to the gentiles is 
 an indirect testimony in favor of the presumption that he 
 was instructed in the essentials of Christian knowledge 
 and faith. 
 
 Besides an acquaintance with facts of the history of 
 Jesus, such as that he had twelve apostles, Paul shows a 
 knowledge of the tradition of his teachings as recorded in 
 the Gospels. There are quotations of them, references to 
 them, and certain accords with them in his writings. With 
 respect to divorce he gives a free quotation as a " com- 
 
342 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 mand " of the " Lord,"* and says that the Lord " or- 
 dained " that " those who preach the Gospel should live 
 from the Gospel." The great doctrine of Jesus that the 
 substance of the law is love finds an accordant expression 
 in Paul's words that the whole law is fulfilled in one com- 
 mandment : " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 
 The words, " Being reviled, we bless ; being persecuted, 
 we endure it ; being defamed, we intreat " ; the saying 
 about faith which might remove mountains ; the admoni- 
 tion to render no one evil for evil, should be referred to 
 the tradition of Jesus as their most natural and probable 
 source, especially since Paul frequently appeals expressly 
 to '* the word of the Lord " as authority for certain 
 teachings. 
 
 The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who was 
 probably a contemporary of the synoptists, presents along 
 with some speculative traits confirmations of the tradition 
 known to them. He speaks of Jesus as "made in all 
 respects like to his brethren," a " partaker of flesh and 
 blood," being " able to be forbearing towards the ignorant 
 and the erring," himself " compassed with infirmity," " in 
 all points tempted as man, yet without sin," offering up 
 " in the days of his flesh " " prayers and supplications, 
 with strong crying and tears," though a son, yet " learn- 
 ing his obedience from what he suffered," and "being 
 perfected, becoming the author of everlasting salvation." 
 From other contemporary Christian documents abundant 
 confirmations of the essential, historical features of the 
 personality and teaching of Jesus as they are set forth in 
 the synoptic records might be produced. They all tend 
 to show the transforming power of the fruitful principles 
 of life and religion which came into the world through the 
 
 * I. Cor. vi. 10, II. 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 343 
 
 great Teacher, " the inner law of love to God and man, 
 which subjects all human relations to its exalting and 
 purifying influence, and unites all who receive it in a great 
 community of the spirit." The great spiritual transforma- 
 tion which this doctrine was regarded as effecting is set 
 forth in the Epistle to Titus : " For the grace of God that 
 bringeth salvation to all men was manifested, teaching us 
 that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live 
 soberly, righteously, and godly in the present world ; 
 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory 
 of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who 
 gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all 
 iniquity, and purify to himself a people to be his own, 
 zealous in good works." 
 
 Criticism appears, then, on its own grounds and by its 
 own methods to contribute to the confirmation of histori- 
 cal Christianity, if to establish the general credibility of 
 the synoptic Gospels as to the essential teachings and the 
 character of Jesus be to do this. It must be acknowl- 
 edged, however, that if by historical Christianity is meant 
 the whole body of doctrines, or a certain considerable 
 number of them, which have been and are taught in the 
 name of Christianity, then criticism does not give it sup- 
 port. If it is made to include such doctrines as the in- 
 fallibility of the records, original sin, total depravity, the 
 trinity, imputed righteousness, a vicarious atonement, and 
 endless punishment, then so far criticism is unfriendly to 
 it. If, however, it means that Jesus of Nazareth lived; 
 that he was a personality of unsurpassed moral and 
 spiritual greatness; that he taught a morality and re- 
 ligion founded upon the doctrine that God is the Father 
 of men, and all men are brothers, the central, practical 
 precept of which was love to God and man ; that he lived 
 
344 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 a blameless, worshipful life of consecration and service in 
 which his great teachings were eminently illustrated ; that 
 he performed some works which in his age were regarded 
 as wonders ; that after an amazing and brilliant career of 
 a few months in Galilee he was crucified at Jerusalem; 
 and that he was thereupon in some way manifested to 
 those who had loved and followed him as victorious over 
 death ; if these are the essential contents of historical 
 Christianity, then it finds in criticism not an opposing and 
 destructive agent, but a helpful ally. The relation which 
 some of the important conclusions of criticism hold to it 
 remains to be considered. 
 
 The criticism of the text of the Gospels shows that 
 these writings were exposed to the fortune which has 
 attended all the literary productions of ancient times ; 
 that the autographs were early lost ; that the text was 
 corrupted and interpolated ; that a considerable time 
 elapsed between their composition and the appearance of 
 careful and accurate quotations of them, during which the 
 changes to which the text was subjected are indeterminable ; 
 that there appears to be no reason for assuming that a re- 
 gard for them as other than human productions preserved 
 them from the perils to which they were exposed, nor 
 any grounds for believing in a divine intervention for 
 their protection ; that, however, alterations, corruptions, 
 and interpolations have not, in all probability, materially 
 affected their essential, historical contents that is, their 
 accounts of the great teachings of Jesus and their repre- 
 sentation of his life and character. These results are not 
 prejudicial to historical Christianity ; for if Christianity is 
 properly called historical that is, a religion which has 
 had a history, its development belongs to the ordinary 
 course of human affairs, and no supernatural intervention 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 345 
 
 can be assumed in its interest, such as would be a miracu- 
 lous preservation of its documents against the common 
 fortune of ancient writings. 
 
 The critical study of the canon of the Gospels shows 
 them in the stream of human history amidst a great 
 number of other writings to which the powerful impulse 
 proceeding from the personality of Jesus gave rise, left to 
 make their way to public recognition chiefly by their own 
 merits. It finds that, along with the oral tradition and 
 these other writings, they were for a considerable time 
 regarded as ordinary human sources of information as to 
 the life of Jesus ; that this tradition was thought by an 
 important witness near the middle of the second century 
 to be an authority superior to them ; that down to a 
 period which marks the lapse of nearly one hundred years 
 from the composition of the oldest of them they were 
 loosely and inaccurately quoted without mention of their 
 supposed authors ; that they appear to have attained /. 
 recognition largely by reason of internal qualities, their / 
 historical character, and general excellence in comparison ' 
 with other similar writings ; that the opinion prevailed in 
 the primitive Church that believers in Jesus were in gen- 
 eral inspired, and that no especial inspiration was supposed 
 to be possessed by those who wrote ; that other writings 
 than those now contained in the New Testament were 
 then believed by some to be inspired ; that not until 
 about the end of the second century were our four Gos- 
 pels ascribed to their reputed authors, and recognized as 
 the works of specially inspired men which were to be re- 
 ceived as exclusive or canonical sources for the life and 
 teachings of Jesus ; that the dogma of the inspiration of 
 these writers, resting on no claim made by them in their 
 works is to be regarded simply as a dogma which had an 
 
346 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 historical development, and admits of a genetic explana- 
 tion ; that the traditions current in the second century 
 respecting the origin of the Gospels must be critically 
 sifted, and are to be accepted only when confirmed by 
 the criticism of these writings themselves ; and finally, 
 that the writers of that century, commonly quoted as 
 " witnesses " to the canon, often give no reasons, or only 
 trivial ones, for their opinions, show little or no evidence 
 of having critically examined the matter, and accordingly 
 furnish testimony which is to be received only with cau- 
 tion and discrimination. These are precisely such phe- 
 nomena as one would expect to find in the natural, 
 historical development of a religion under the conditions 
 of the age in question ; and they are rather favorable 
 than otherwise to historical Christianity, since they show 
 its records to have come to recognition and authority in 
 the ordinary course of events on their intrinsic merits, 
 and accordingly to have been able to dispense with a 
 divine supervision to determine their selection as canoni- 
 cal. The question of the inspiration of their writers is 
 ttot vital to historical Christianity, for their infallibility 
 was not necessary to insure general accuracy and credi- 
 bility in their works, which is all that a system of belief 
 calling itself historical can reasonably claim for its docu- 
 ments. So far, then, as criticism tends to establish such 
 an accuracy and credibility in the essential contents of 
 the Gospels, it comes to the support of historical Chris- 
 tianity, and sustains its claims in the only way in which 
 they can be sustained. For if Christianity is based upon 
 the assumption of the inerrancy of the writers of its 
 records, it is likely to be rejected entirely when this 
 assumption is found, as sooner or later it must be, to be 
 unsupported by the facts in the case. 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 347 
 
 The results of the critical study of the synoptic problem 
 and the synoptic Gospels go to show that these writings 
 are precisely such attempts at historical composition as 
 one would look for under the existing conditions, which 
 were an original Gospel and a logia-document, an abun- 
 dant and varying oral tradition, writers with different 
 points of view, Messianic beliefs, tendencies, apocalyptic 
 expectations, a predilection for aesthetic and poetic repre- 
 sentations, and a disinclination to critical and historical 
 investigation. Writings so produced could not but pre- 
 sent agreements and contradictions, correct statements and 
 inaccuracies, historical and unhistorical elements, loose 
 connections, transpositions, and a want of chronological 
 arrangement. They might also be expected to contain 
 the essential historical facts of the tradition of the life and 
 teaching of Jesus, if we assume, as we must, the sincerity, 
 good sense, and earnest purpose of their writers. This 
 threefold form of the common tradition of Jesus furnishes 
 to historical Christianity a substantial basis, which is not 
 invalidated by the conclusions of criticism respecting the 
 origin of apocalyptic portions of it, or with regard to the 
 hermeneutical treatment of the Old Testament employed 
 by the writers, or concerning tendencies and Messianic 
 hopes. The conclusion that no one of the synoptics was 
 immediately written by an apostle does not overthrow 
 their historical credibility, since it is not essential to the 
 integrity of history that it should be recorded by the 
 original witnesses to the facts. The results of the criti- 
 cism of the first Gospel place it, then, on the same footing 
 with the second and third in relation to the sources of the 
 history. 
 
 Since, then, historical Christianity is not based upon 
 the immediate apostolic authorship of any one or all of 
 
348 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 the four Gospels, the criticism cannot be hostile to it, 
 which concludes that the fourth Gospel is not the work 
 of the apostle John. The historical ground of the begin- 
 nings of Christianity is securely established in the common 
 tradition of the synoptics ; and so far as the author of the 
 fourth Gospel recognized this tradition by in part found- 
 ing his work upon it, he has strengthened it by a confir- 
 mation which was perhaps more than half a century later 
 than the composition of the oldest of these writings. It 
 would probably be incorrect to say that in every instance 
 in which he departs from the synoptic tradition he writes 
 romance and not history, for there is no reason to suppose 
 that the synoptists have recorded all the historical facts 
 of the life of Jesus. But it is evident that his speculative 
 ideas about the nature and pre-existence of Jesus and con- 
 siderable portions of the long discourses which constitute 
 the greater part of his record are not history. They 
 cannot be made to appear to be of capital importance 
 without the gratuitous assumption of his infallible inspira- 
 tion as a philosopher and a reproducer from memory. 
 The importance of his work is no doubt very greatly en- 
 hanced if he has incorporated into it some Johannine 
 logia of Jesus ; but its utility is not to be estimated 
 entirely by its conformity to an historical standard, since 
 it is not without importance for the conception of Jesus 
 and the understanding of his personality and his tradition 
 to know how a man of great intelligence and spirituality 
 living in the first half of the second century apprehended 
 him in relation to the questions of that time. With re- 
 gard to apostolic origin, then, this Gospel appears to be 
 upon the same basis as the others. 
 
 It would appear, then, in view of the results of the 
 criticism of the Gospels which has been carried on for 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 349 
 
 more than one hundred years by men who, far from being 
 hostile to Christianity, have been and are devout be- 
 lievers in its inspired Founder and consecrated followers 
 of him, that some concessions must be made to this 
 science by the advocates of traditional opinions and in- 
 terpretations, just as in other departments of human 
 knowledge tradition has been obliged to give way to 
 scientific investigation. Unless the insight and reason of 
 a multitude of the greatest minds that have adorned the 
 Christian Church are altogether perverted ; unless con- 
 clusions which have maintained their ground, and are still 
 acquiring wider recognition after having been discussed 
 and contested for a century, are futile and abortive ; unless 
 the dogmatic assumption which takes the Gospels out of 
 the category of historical writings is better grounded than 
 the science of history which must include all historical 
 phenomena in order to be a science ; and unless the pro- 
 testations of the timid are to outweigh with mankind the 
 voice of the masters ; then is criticism destined to have 
 at length its rights and its empire. The maxim of criti- 
 cism laid down in the preceding chapter,* applied from 
 the point of view of historical criticism, which regards the 
 Gospels as products of their times under the influences 
 which proceeded from the inspiring personality and teach- 
 ing of Jesus, leads to the conclusion that these writings 
 contain unhistorical elements of various kinds. There are 
 mistakes which result from a misunderstanding, an error 
 of memory, or ignorance of history.f Different accounts 
 are combined into one, or the same is given twice. \ It is 
 
 * Seepage 335. 
 
 f The two beasts of the entry into Jerusalem, Matt. xxi. 2-5, cf. Mark 
 xi. 2-4, due to a misunderstanding of prophecy, Zech. ix. 9 ; and the state- 
 ment of Luke regarding Quirinius, ii. 2. 
 
 \ The two demoniacs at Gadara, a comparison of the texts showing 
 
35 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 found to be a characteristic of tradition to enhance events 
 and effects, * and to transform parables and parabolic 
 sayings into facts.f Spiritual are transformed into physi- 
 cal facts and events, as the ethical divine sonship of Jesus 
 into a supernatural physical generation, the consciousness 
 of this sonship and of the approval of God into an ex- 
 ternal announcement at the baptism, J and his internal 
 conflict into an objective occurrence in the temptation. 
 Historical narratives are constructed to represent what 
 was in the consciousness of the primitive Church as to the 
 dignity of Jesus and the effects which would follow from 
 his mission, as the account of his transfiguration to set 
 forth his glory in relation to Moses and Elias, the rending 
 of the veil of the temple to symbolize that by his death 
 admittance to God was opened to all, and the resurrec- 
 tion of the saints to indicate that to the pious of old 
 times he was the resurrection and the life. The present 
 is sometimes read back, so to speak, into the past, or the 
 accounts of events in his life and the reports of words of 
 Jesus are colored by a knowledge on the part of the 
 evangelist of events and institutions of his own time. A 
 case of I'aticinium post eventum is furnished, for example, 
 
 probably a combination of Mark i. 23 f. and v. I f. ; the instructions to the 
 twelve blended with those to the seventy in the tradition, Luke ix. I f., x. I 
 f. ; and the twofold account of the feeding of the multitude, Mark vi. 31 f., 
 viii. i f. 
 
 * The number of healings, Matt. xv. 30 f., cf. Mark vii. 32-37 ; the 
 struggle in Gethsemane, Luke xxii. 40-45, cf. Mark xiv. 35-39 ; and the 
 parable, Matt. xxii. 2-10, cf. Luke xiv. 16-24. 
 
 f The preaching of the Gospel is compared to fishing, and the kingdom of 
 God to a net, Mark i. 17, Matt. xiii. 47 ; but in Luke v. 2 f. a miraculous 
 draught of fishes is recorded. This must also pass for Luke's modified and 
 legendary account of the calling of Peter ; cf. Mark i. 16-20 ; Matt. iv. 
 18-22. 
 
 \ Matt. iii. 16, 17. 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 35 1 
 
 in Luke's detailed account of the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem. * The same writer represents the last supper as a 
 formal establishment of a rite, following Paul's account of 
 it rather than the simpler one of the first two evange- 
 lists, f and the formula -of baptism in Matt, xxviii. 19 is 
 of doubtful originality. The religious tendencies and 
 apologetic necessities of later times have induced modifi- 
 cations of and additions to the original tradition, some of 
 which have already been pointed out. \ 
 
 Yet if one will consider one cannot but see that this 
 discrimination between historical and unhistorical com- 
 ponents, this critical reconstruction, does not invalidate 
 the essentials of the Gospel-history. Rather the result of 
 the process is that they are relieved in greater distinctness 
 and grandeur. The real criticism of the Gospels, the 
 criticism that has stood the test of a long and fierce con- 
 flict, and is sure to make its way finally to general recog- 
 nition in the Church, is conservative and constructive. It 
 establishes the kernel of the history of Jesus in an inex- 
 pugnable position. Having cleared the ground and shown 
 the point at which Christianity must be assailed, if assailed 
 at all, it erects around it impregnable defences. The 
 religion which it sets forth and commends to mankind is 
 the religion of Jesus in its original simplicity and purity. 
 An " emasculated Christianity," if it be proper to speak 
 at all of such a thing, is not the product of its reconstruc- 
 tion, but of the construction of the first century. When 
 
 * Chap. xix. 43 f., xxi. 24. 
 
 \ Chap. xxii. 19, cf. Mark xiv. 22 f. ; Matt. xxvi. 26. f. 
 
 \ See besides, Luke's addition to the saying about hew wine in old skins 
 (chap. v. 39, cf. Mark ii. 21 f. ; Matt. ix. 16 f.), which is inappropriate to the 
 connection, indicates the disinclination of the Jewish Christians to the new 
 doctrine, and can have originated only in the time of gentile Christianity. 
 Weizsacker, Das apostol. Zeitalter, p. 390. 
 
35 2 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 by the application of its own processes in a truly scientific 
 way the excesses and errors of criticism have been cor- 
 rected, the divine doctrine of Jesus stands forth clearly 
 defined, and of his personality there emerge not only " a 
 few ineffaceable lineaments which could belong only to a 
 figure unique in grace and majesty," but the figure itself 
 emerges in its majesty and grace. 
 
 This doctrine and this personality as criticism revea]^ 
 rather than becloud/ them have never been approached, 
 and will never be surpassed. Goethe has truly said : " In- 
 tellectual culture may ever advance, the natural sciences 
 may grow in ever broader extent and greater depth, and 
 the human mind may enlarge itself as it will, no progress 
 will surpass the grandeur and moral culture of Christianity 
 as it shines forth in the Gospels." * No appreciation of the 
 teaching and the moral greatness of Jesus is, perhaps, 
 clearer and more acute than that of reverent critics, as 
 testify the words of one of the most learned and sagacious 
 of this class in modern times : " Is it seriousness or is it a 
 word when one calls this virtuous, God-allied human 
 life the noblest blossom of a noble tree, the crown of the 
 cedar of Israel? In a withered age a full, satisfied life, 
 in the midst of ruin a structure, among characters undone 
 an upright and a strong, among the godless and abandoned 
 a Son of God, among the mourning and despairing a joy- 
 ful, hopeful, giving soul, among sinners a saint ; in this 
 contradiction to the facts of the time, in this prodigious 
 exaltation above the oppressed, the low, the level con- 
 ditions of the century, in this transformation of stationari- 
 ness, retrogression, death-sickness into progress, health, 
 power, and the color of eternal youth, in this conspicuous 
 demarkation, finally, of his performance, his purity and 
 
 * Letzte Gesprache mit Eckermann, iii. 373. 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 353 
 
 his nearness to God even from the new, endless centuries, 
 which through him have overcome stationariness and retro- 
 gression, he makes the impression of mysterious loneliness, 
 superhuman wonder, divine creation." ' 
 
 Historical criticism is not opposed to the doctrine of a 
 providential revelation, like that given in Jesus Christ, 
 under the conditions of human development and the 
 limitations of human nature. It does not exclude God 
 from history, but finds it no wonder that, since he has 
 designs to work out in man, exceptional manifestations 
 of his revealing spirit should betimes appear. That in an 
 historical period when the course of events seems to have 
 prepared a place for him, when the world was waiting for 
 transformation, and many were ready and intent to catch 
 the accents of a divine voice, a personality should appear 
 charged with the powers of a new life and bearing a great 
 revelation, is a result to be looked for in the course of 
 providential dealing with men. The moral and spiritual 
 superiority of Jesus places his personality and teaching 
 beyond the invention of his age, and attests their historical 
 truth. He was, indeed, so far in advance of the spirit 
 and temper, the insight and intelligence, of his time, that 
 it is no wonder that his early followers looked upon him 
 as a phenomenal creation, a Son or a Word. In an age of 
 the supremacy of formalism he discarded forms, teaching 
 that not in Jerusalem and on Gerizim alone was the 
 Father to be worshipped, but wherever a human soul 
 would come into spiritual communion with him. In the 
 midst of tyranny and oppression he taught that all men 
 are brothers. Surrounded by cruelty and indifference to 
 human suffering, by scornful caste and pride of rank and 
 race, he preached the Gospel of helpfulness and mercy. 
 
 * Keim, Geschichte Jesu, iii. 662. 
 
354 GOSPEL-CRITICISM. 
 
 To Phariseeism, ostentation, and self-righteousness he set 
 forth the doctrine and the example of humility. Hemmed 
 in and pressed upon by a spirit of self-seeking, whose 
 dominant passion was temporal power, he made the 
 unique manifestation of self-devotion in history, and 
 wrought his life into the foundations of a kingdom not of 
 this world. Reared in the traditions of a people who 
 worshipped God as a national Divinity, he transcended 
 the greatest of its teachers and seers in the revelation of 
 the Universal Father. In a time-serving generation he 
 carried his uncompromising fidelity to duty to the pitch 
 of absolute self-sacrifice. His patience and his sufferings 
 have evoked the wonder and the tears of thousands, and 
 enshrined his memory in the heart of mankind. The cross 
 on which he died has become a great spiritual symbol to 
 the ages, and the crown of thorns which tortured his 
 brow the adoring faith of men has transformed into the 
 diadem of universal, endless spiritual dominion. " He 
 has laid an eternal rock," says Renan, " foundation of the 
 true religion ; therefore he deserves the divine rank ; an 
 absolutely new idea made through him its entrance into 
 the world ; we are all his disciples and his continuators." 
 As a spiritual interpreter of human nature he has, indeed, 
 never been surpassed, never equalled. As an embodiment 
 and manifestation of whatever is noblest, purest, and 
 tenderest in man, he stands unrivalled among the great 
 religious teachers of the ages. Other personality so 
 morally fruitful, so abounding in intensity of spiritual 
 power, has never appeared in history. In him all that is 
 most godlike and most human was united in harmony, 
 and found consummate expression. His life is at once 
 the enigma of the centuries and the solution of their 
 problems. In the universality of his religious genius, in 
 
CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 355 
 
 the scope and sureness of his ethical insight, in the depth 
 of his sympathy and the breadth and lucidity of his 
 understanding, in the intensity of his sufferings and the 
 completeness of his victory, he was the true Son of Man. 
 Tempted in all points, and assailed by the powers of sin 
 and the ferocity of enraged and brutal men, he held with 
 a firm grasp the sceptre of spiritual ascendancy which 
 shall never depart from his hand. It is no reluctant and 
 stinted homage of words which criticism pays to this 
 greatest of the divine messengers to man ; but its supreme 
 homage is paid to him by its reverent and fearless work 
 which, delivering his personality and his teachings from 
 the misconceptions of ages, places them in true perspective 
 and bold relief for the instruction and inspiration of man- 
 kind. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abbot, Ezra, on the paschal ques- 
 tion, 237 ; on Basilides and the 
 fourth Gospel, 229 
 
 Abbott, E. A., on synoptic prob- 
 lem, 137 
 
 Alcuin revises the Vulgate, 25 
 
 Alexandrine, manuscript, 9 ; church, 
 the, and the canon, 113116 
 
 Allegorical interpretation, the method 
 of, employed by the evangelists, 
 311 f. 
 
 Anicetus and the paschal question, 
 
 235 
 
 Anonymous, the Saxon, on Pauline 
 traits in Luke, 301 
 
 Apocalyptics, Jewish and Christian, 
 affinity of, 273 
 
 Apocryphal books of Old Testament 
 silent as to person of Messiah, 260 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels, quoted ia Igna- 
 tian Epistles, 59; and Justin's 
 memoirs, 66 
 
 Apollinaris on the paschal question, 
 236 
 
 Apostolic age, condition of, unfavor- 
 able to formation of canon 33, 
 34 ; tendencies in, towards forma- 
 tion of canon, 35 
 
 Application or interpretation of Old- 
 Testament passages by the evange- 
 lists, 307 
 
 Arnold, Matthew, on Papias and the 
 fourth Gospel, 225 ; on the fourth 
 Gospel, 230 ; on tradition, 232 ; 
 on the geographical knowledge of 
 the author of the fourth Gospel, 
 243 ; his criticism of the " ten- 
 dency "-doctrine, 291 
 
 Athenagoras and the canon, 96 
 Augustine, his theory of the relation 
 
 of the synoptics, 125 
 Augusti on the canon, 31 
 Autographs of the Gospels, early 
 
 perished, I, 2 ; how written, 3 
 
 B 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, in relation to 
 the canon, 45-48 ; his allegorizing, 
 
 46 ; does not quote our gospels, 
 
 47 ; his naOcj<s ysypaitTai, 47 
 Bartholomew, legend of, in reference 
 
 to first Gospel, 177, 178 
 
 Basilides in relation to the canon, 
 80 
 
 Bauer, Bruno, 319 
 
 Baur, on Eichhorn's hypothesis, 136 ; 
 on Gieseler's hypothesis, 141 ; his 
 historical criticism of Gospels, 144; 
 on Marcion's Gospel, 146 ; his 
 conclusions on date of Gospels 
 modified in his own school, 146 ; 
 on historical character of fourth 
 Gospel, 219 ; on Justin and the 
 fourth Gospel, 227 ; on term Son 
 of Man as used by Jesus, 268 ; on 
 triumphal entry of Jesus into Jeru- 
 salem, 295 ; oa " tendency " in the 
 first Gospel, 296 
 
 Bezse, Codex, remarkable for glosses, 
 
 17 
 
 Biography of Jesus, want cf material 
 for, on the part of the evangelists, 
 
 325 
 
 Bleek, on the paschal question, 234 ; 
 on the hermeneutics of the evan- 
 gelists, 313 
 
 Bunsen on the canon of Muratori, 99 
 
 357 
 
358 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Canonical and classical, 30 
 
 Canonicity, idea of, 28, 29 ; not es- 
 tablished by councils, 30 ; inde- 
 pendent of supposed inspiration, 
 31 
 
 Canon of Gospels, study of, 27-117 ; 
 nature of history of, 27 ; summary 
 of results of critical study of, 345 
 
 Carpenter, J. Estlin, approves ' ' ten- 
 dency "-criticism, 292 
 
 Church, hostile to revision of the 
 text, 24 ; and the canon, 32, 
 108-113 
 
 Clementine Homilies, the, in relation 
 to the canon, 74-78 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, complains of 
 changes made in text of Gospels, 
 7 ; regards Hebrews as work of 
 Paul, 113, note ; quotes Barnabas 
 and Clement of Rome as apostles, 
 113 ; his distinction of canonical 
 and uncanonical writings not clear 
 113; account of composition of 
 Gospels, 114 
 
 Clement of Rome, his Epistle in re- 
 lation to the canon, 4144 
 
 Clement V., Pope, forbids addition 
 to Matt. xvii. 49, p. 15 
 
 Colani on Messianism, 259, 271 
 
 Conception of Jesus, the miraculous, 
 331 ff. 
 
 Copies of Gospels made in second and 
 third centuries have perished, 5 
 
 Copying, hypothesis of, to explain 
 the synoptic problem, 125-130 
 
 Copyists, errors of, classified, 12 
 
 Credner, on Justin's quotations, 72 ; 
 on the Gnostics and the canon, 84 ; 
 on quotations from the Old Testa- 
 ment in the first Gospel, 180 ; on 
 the interpretation of Is. ix. I, 2 in 
 Matt. iv. 14, 15, p. 309 
 
 Criticism, the true, historical, 255 ; 
 conservative conclusions of, 319, 
 351 ; maxim of, 335 ; and histori- 
 cal Christianity, 337-35 5 ; proceeds 
 on the principle that the Gospels 
 are to be treated as literature, 338 ; 
 confirms historical Christianity, 
 343 f.; homage of, to Jesus, 355 
 
 Cureton published fragments of the 
 Gospels in Syriac, 25 
 
 D 
 
 Daniel, book of, its object and date, 
 
 259 
 
 Davidson, on the " order" of Mark's 
 Gospel, 163 ; on Papias' testimony 
 as to Mark's Gospel, 163 ; on date 
 of Mark's Gospel, 172 ; on rela- 
 tion of Luke to the logia and to 
 Matthew, 201 ; on Eusebius' testi- 
 mony to the fourth Gospel, 225 ; 
 on the reading ' ' Bethany " in John 
 i. 28, p. 243; on "tendency" in 
 Luke, 302 
 
 Delitzsch on the synoptic problem, 
 150 
 
 Demoniacs first recognize Jesus as 
 the Messiah according to Mark, 154 
 
 De Wette, on relation of synoptics, 
 126, 143 ; on the fourth Gospel, 
 
 143 
 
 Diestel on types, 316 
 
 Dillmann on the book of Enoch, 260 
 
 Diognetus, Epistle to, and fourth 
 
 Gospel, 50, 231. 
 Dionysius of Corinth and the canon, 
 
 93 
 Discourses of Jesus in fourth Gospel, 
 
 215 
 Discrepancy between first and third 
 
 Gospels in the prehistorical por- 
 tions, 204 
 
 Divination, historical, 300 
 Divisions in early Church hinder 
 
 formation of canon, 39 
 Divorce, Mark's reference to Roman 
 
 custom regarding, 165 
 Dogmatic changes in text, 18, 19 
 Donaldson, on Athenagoras, 97 ; on 
 
 canon of Muratori, IOI 
 Duplicates in Matthew, 185, 188 
 
 Eichhorn, on development of canon, 
 32 ; his hypothesis to explain rela- 
 tion of synoptics, 130-138; on the 
 fourth Gospel, 134 
 
 Enoch, book of, its Messianic fea- 
 tures, 260 
 
INDEX. 
 
 359 
 
 Epiphanius, on a Hebrew Matthew, 
 178 ; on the fourth Gospel, 230 
 
 Eschatology of Gospels discussed, 
 254-290, 335 
 
 Esdras, fourth book of, its Messia- 
 nism, 262 
 
 Ethical teaching of Jesus modified in 
 the Gospels, 336 
 
 Eusebius, on canonicity, 30 ; on 
 Epistle of Barnabas, 45 
 
 Evangelists, first and third, in rela- 
 tion to Mark, 203 
 
 Ewald, his hypothesis of formation 
 of synoptic Gospels, 148 ; his atti- 
 tude towards " tendency "-criti- 
 cism, 147 ; on kuEivo^ in John 
 xix. 35, p. 239 
 
 Falsus in ttno, falsus in omnibus, 
 not applicable to Gospels, 329 
 
 Fantastic elements in Jewish apoca- 
 lyptics, 259 
 
 Feeding of multitude, duplicate ac- 
 counts of, 168, 185 ; Weizsacker 
 on, 328 
 
 Fig-tree, the barren, Mark's account 
 of, as indicating a tendency to 
 think parabolic words into para- 
 bolic acts, 167 
 
 Figures of speech, Jesus' use of, in 
 reference to the future, 278 
 
 Formula of quotation from the Old 
 Testament used by the evangelists 
 as indicating a purpose to inter- 
 pret, 307 
 
 Fourth Gospel, see John. 
 
 Fritzsche on telic use of 'iva by evan- 
 gelists in quoting from Old Testa- 
 ment, 307 
 
 Fulfilment of prophecy as understood 
 by author of first Gospel, 308 ; 
 sought by evangelists as result of 
 new hermeneutics of Old Testa- 
 ment, 327 
 
 Future of Old-Testament prophecy, 
 258 
 
 G 
 
 Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, 192 ; 
 in Luke, 204 
 
 Gieseler on synoptic problem, 138- 
 142 
 
 Glosses, origin of, 17 ; when words 
 or sentences are to be regarded as, 
 20 
 
 Gnosticism, 78 
 
 Goethe, eulogy of Christianity, 352 
 
 Gospels, originally without titles, 3 ; 
 not protected by reverence from 
 errors of early copyists, 4 ; division 
 of into chapters, etc., n, 12; 
 writers of, do not claim inspiration, 
 31 ; results of study of, as literature, 
 118, 209; synoptic, limitation of 
 their historic material, 120 ; prob- 
 lem of their agreements and dif- 
 ferences, 122 ; not histories in the 
 strict sense of the word, 219 ; right 
 point of view for study of, 255 ; 
 as histories, 318-336 
 
 Griesbach, his hypothesis on relation 
 of synoptic Gospels, 126-130 
 
 Guard of soldiers at grave of Jesus, 
 184 
 
 H 
 
 Harmonizing of Gospels as effecting 
 changes in the text, 14 ; puerile 
 expedients of, 335 
 
 Harnack on canon of Muratori, 99, 
 101 
 
 Hase on composite character of 
 fourth Gospel, 249 
 
 Hebrews, Gospel according to, and 
 Matthew, 179 ; Epistle to, author 
 of, confirms the synoptic tradition, 
 342 
 
 Hegesippus, memoirs of, in relation 
 to the canon, 63 
 
 Hengstenberg on the paschal ques- 
 tion, 234 
 
 Hermas, the Shepherd of, date and 
 relation to the canon, 48 
 
 Hermeneutics, the, of the evange- 
 lists, 306-317 
 
 Hilgenfeld, on the Ignatian Epistles 
 and the fourth Gospel, 59 ; on 
 Justin's quotations, 72, 73 ; on 
 the Clementine Homilies, 77 ; on 
 the canon of Muratori 99 ; his 
 hypothesis of the relation of the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 synoptics, 147 ; on authorship of 
 third Gospel, 208 ; on an original 
 Matthew, 296 ; on the paschal 
 question, 237 
 
 Hippolytus on the Gnostics, 81 
 Historical interpretation, 300 
 Histories, the Gospels as, 219, 325 
 Hitzig on the Danielic vision of the 
 
 Son of Man, 259, 267 
 Holtzmann, on the restoration of the 
 Itala, 23 ; on the synoptic prob- 
 lem, 124, 140, 157 ; on Eichhorn's 
 hypothesis, 135 ; on an original 
 Mark, 151 ; on priority of Mark, 
 153 ; on Papias' testimony as to 
 Matthew, 174 ; on the historical 
 and legendary, 328 ; on the poetry 
 of the prehistorical narratives of 
 first and third Gospels, 335 
 
 Ignatius, Epistles of, in relation to 
 canon, 33 
 
 Immer, on textual criticism, 20 ; on 
 types, 316 ; on eschatology, 285 
 
 "Ira, used as telic particle in quota- 
 tions made by evangelists from 
 Old Testament, 307 
 
 Inspiration, not claimed by evan- 
 gelists, 31 ; Justin Martyr on, 67 ; 
 not thought in apostolic and post- 
 apostolic ages to be special, 39, 
 42 ; not attributed to evangelists 
 in middle of the second century, 
 
 175 
 
 Intercourse between churches, want 
 of, in post-apostolic age unfavora- 
 ble to formation of canon, 38 
 
 Interpolation of text, charges con- 
 cerning, 6 ; in Mark xvi. 9-20, 
 and John v. 4 and vii. 52-viii. 12, 
 p. 17 ; the great, in Luke, 156, 
 205 
 
 Interpretation, allegorical, used by 
 the evangelists, 311 f. ; the, of 
 teachings of Jesus required by 
 conditions of first century, 331 
 
 Irenaeus, on the Gospels of the 
 Gnostics, 81 ; quotes Shepherd of 
 Hermas as inspired, 95 *, writings 
 of, in relation to canon, 102-106 ; 
 
 appeals to prophecy to confirm 
 Gospel-accounts of miracles, 115, 
 gives fantastic reasons for accept- 
 ing the four Gospels, 103, 104 ; 
 his testimony to miracles in the 
 second century, 115 ; on the first 
 Gospel, 177, on the third, 206 
 
 Isaiah, the second, point of view of, 
 258 
 
 Itala, early Latin version of Gospels, 
 
 22 
 
 J 
 
 Jachmann on the Shepherd of Her- 
 mas, 49 
 
 lacobsen on relation of Matthew 
 and Luke, 152 
 
 Jerome author of Vulgate-version, 
 24 
 
 Jerusalem, judgment on, and the 
 Parousia, 254 
 
 Jesus, his appearance after resurrec- 
 tion, according to Matthew and 
 Luke, 123 ; discourses of, in Mat- 
 thew and Luke, 123 ; his an- 
 nouncement of himself as Mes- 
 siah, in Mark and Matthew, 154 ; 
 conception of, in fourth Gospel, 
 212 ; his confidence in the success 
 of his cause, 254 ; his relation to 
 Jewish Messianism. 263-270 ; his 
 spiritual apprehension of the king- 
 dom of God, 264 ; his attitude 
 towards the popular Messianic 
 titles, Son of David, Son of God, 
 265 f. ; his apprehension of his 
 Sonship, 266 ; in what sense he re- 
 garded himself as Messiah, 270 f. ; 
 at Csesarea Philippi, 270, 272, 
 286 ; impression made by his per- 
 sonality, 322 ; his teachings in- 
 tended for mankind, and not for 
 Jews only, 331 ; known by his 
 contemporaries as the carpenter's 
 son, 332 ; his moral and spiritual 
 greatness, 353 f. 
 
 Jewish Messianism, 256-263 ; atti- 
 tude of Jesus towards, 263 ff. 
 
 Jews, attitude of fourth evangelist 
 towards, 224 
 
 John's Gospel, probably known to 
 author of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 361 
 
 discussion of, 210-253 ; prologue 
 of, 211 f. ; relation of, to synop- 
 tics, 214 ; discourses of Jesus in, 
 215 f. ; accounts of miracles in, 
 216 ; sources of, 218 f. ; relation 
 of to Pauline ideas, 219, 222 ; 
 subjective character of, 221 ; his- 
 torical evidences as to, 224 ; 
 whether cited by Justin, 226 f. ; 
 conclusions regarding external evi- 
 dences, 231 ; authorship, 238 f. ; 
 point of view of that of second 
 century, 242 ; composite character 
 of, 249 ; logia of Jesus in, 252, 
 339 ; date of composition, 252 ; 
 eschatology of, 288 f. ; interpreta- 
 tion of Old Testament in, 309 f. ; 
 genuineness of, not essential to 
 historical Christianity, 347 f. 
 
 John the apostle supposed to have 
 settled the canon, 31 ; character 
 of in synoptics incompatible with 
 his authorship of fourth Gospel, 
 240 
 
 John the presbyter, on Mark, 61, 
 162 
 
 Justin Martyr's Gospels, with refer- 
 ence to the canon, 6574 > an< i the 
 fourth Gospel, 226 f. 
 
 Kahnis on synoptic problem, 150 
 
 Keim, on date of second Gospel, 1 72 ; 
 on date of first Gospel, 196 ; on 
 sources of fourth Gospel, 219, 220 ; 
 on the passover question, 237 ; on 
 synoptic eschatology, 255 ; on the 
 Parousia, 281, 287 ; on Pauline 
 traits in Luke, 301 ; tribute to 
 Jesus, 352 
 
 Kingdom of Jesus, spiritual nature 
 of, 330 
 
 Kostlin, on Marcion's Gospel, 88 ; 
 on place of composition of Luke, 
 208 ; on historical character of 
 synoptics, 322 
 
 Koppe, his hypothesis as to synop- 
 tics, 115 
 
 L 
 
 " Last days," thought to be near, in 
 apostolic age, 34 
 
 Legendary narratives in Gospels, 
 ,183, 331 f. 
 
 Xoyiot, discussion of meaning of, as 
 used by Papias of Matthew's writ- 
 ing, 174 ; Kvpiand by Matthew, 
 36 
 
 Logia of Jesus in fourth Gospel, 
 252, 339 
 
 Logia-source, used by authors of 
 synoptic Gospels, 156, 166, 186, 
 200 ; how sayings of Jesus were 
 contained in, 158 ; preferred by 
 author of first Gospels to other 
 sources, 189 ; used by first and 
 third evangelists, 190 ; how used 
 by Luke, 203 ; importance of the 
 fact that it was in writing, 320 
 
 Lord's prayer, changes in text of, 
 
 14 
 
 Luke, author of third Gospel, 197 ; 
 revised eschatology of Mark and 
 Matthew, 274, 278 ; his Pauline 
 "tendency," and the historical 
 character of his Gospel, 331 
 
 Luke's Gospel, relation of, to the 
 logia and Matthew, 156, 157, 202; 
 dependence of, on Mark, 159, 199 
 f. ; sources of, 191 f., 204 f. ; dis- 
 cussed, 197-209 ; and the logia- 
 source, 200 f. ; Pauline character 
 of, 206; "tendency "of and re- 
 lation to Paul's Epistles, 206, 300 
 f . ; historical point of view of, 207 ; 
 written last of the synoptics, date, 
 208 f. ; account of overthrow of 
 Jerusalem in, 209 ; not a merely 
 dogmatic composition, 305 
 
 M 
 
 Mangold on relation of Matthew 
 and Luke, 152 
 
 Manuscripts of Gospels, earliest ex- 
 isting, 5 ; account of principal, 
 9-1 1 
 
 Marcion, corrupts Luke's Gospel, 6 ; 
 his collection in relation to canon, 
 32 ; canon of, 85-90 ; acknowl- 
 edged only Pauline writings, 86 ; 
 his Gospel, controversy on, 87 f. 
 
 Mark, as epilomator and copyist, 
 126 ; his relation to Peter, 161 
 
362 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Mark's Gospel, priority of, to other 
 synoptics, 153 ; discussed, 161- 
 172 ; vivid style of, 162, 169 ; testi- 
 mony of Papias regarding, 162 ; 
 relation to first Gospel, 165 ; rela- 
 tion to logia-source, 166 ; and the 
 oral tradition, 166 ; contains 
 legendary expansion of oral tradi- 
 tion, 168 ; linguistic usage, 170 ; 
 object of, 171 ; time and place of 
 composition, 171 ; historical char- 
 acter of, 322 f. 
 
 Mark-hypothesis, the, as developed 
 by Weisse and Wilke, 143 f . ; 
 Meyer on, 148 ; Weiss and Holtz- 
 mann on, 151 
 
 Marsh on Eichhorn's hypothesis, 
 137 
 
 Martineau, on the paschal question, 
 238 ; on Jesus' Messianic claims, 
 285 f. 
 
 Mary and the miraculous concep- 
 tion, 332 
 
 Matthew, author of "Oracles" of 
 Christ, 36, 173 
 
 Matthew's Gospel, numerical sym- 
 bolism in, 152 ; dependence on 
 Mark, 153 ; difference from 
 Mark as to announcement of 
 Messiah, 154; discussion of, 173- 
 196 ; sources of, 186 f., 192 ; not 
 originally a Hebrew Gospel, 
 177 f.; and that according to 
 Hebrews, 1 79 ; as an apostolic 
 composition incompatible with 
 Luke's record, 179; an indepen- 
 dent composition in Greek, i8of. ; 
 quotations from Old Testament 
 in, 1 80 f. ; not work of an eye- 
 witness, 183, 185 ; relation to logia, 
 188 f. ; place and time of writing, 
 193 f. ; " tendency " of, 195, 293 ; 
 point of departure, 297 
 
 Melito of Sardis and the canon, 95 
 
 "Memoirs of the Apostles," Jus- 
 ting, 65-74 
 
 Messianic expectations of Jews, 
 255 f- 
 
 Messianism in Jewish prophets and 
 apocalypses, 256-262 ; as a source 
 of " tendency," 329 
 
 Meyer, his hypothesis on the synop- 
 tics, 148 ; on the legend of the 
 shepherds and the angels, 334 
 Miracle and allegory, 328 
 Multitude, feeding of, duplicates of, 
 167 J fed numbers of, in Mark 
 and Matthew, 167 
 Muratori, canon of, 98-102 
 Mysticism of fourth Gospel, 244 
 Mythical theory, reaction from, 328 
 
 N 
 
 Nazarene, the, and the "Branch," 
 183 
 
 Nazareth, how mentioned in first 
 Gospel, 333 
 
 Nice, council of, settled paschal 
 controversy, 235 
 
 Nosgen, on the synoptic problem, 
 150 
 
 Norton, on Epistle of Barnabas, 46 ; 
 on Ignatian Epistles, 56 ; on Jus- 
 tin's quotations, 74 ; on Eich- 
 horn's hypothesis, 137 ; on oral 
 tradition as solving the synoptic 
 problem, 142 
 
 Numerical symbolism in the first 
 Gospel, 152, 195 
 
 O 
 
 Old Testament, the, in the Gospels, 
 306-317 ; read in a new light by 
 Jewish Christians, 327 
 
 Oral canon, the, 36 
 
 Oral proclamation of Gospel, frag- 
 mentary character of, 323 
 
 Oral tradition, early, and the canon, 
 37 ; hypothesis of, to explain 
 the synoptic problem, 138-142 ; 
 perils of, for the evangelists, 
 320 
 
 Organization, want of, hinders for- 
 mation of canon in post-apostolic 
 age, 38 
 
 Origen on text of the Gospels, 7, 8 ; 
 his testimony to canon, 114-116 ; 
 first to distinguish Gospels and 
 Epistles as " accepted " and 
 " doubted," 114 ; his statement 
 
INDEX. 
 
 363 
 
 of tradition as to composition of 
 Gospels, 115 ; distinguished Gos- 
 pel of Nazarenes from that ac- 
 cording to Matthew, 178 
 
 Original Gospel, hypothesis of, 130- 
 138 
 
 Overbeck on Pauline traits in Luke, 
 301 
 
 Palestinian-Jewish exegesis, 312 
 
 Pantaenus on first Gospel, 177 
 
 Papias, testimony of, to canon, 60 ; 
 did not know a Gospel by Mat- 
 thew, 1 80 ; canon of, 224 ; rela- 
 tion to fourth Gospel, 225 
 
 Parabolic sayings thought into para- 
 bolic acts by Mark, 235 f. 
 
 Parousia, Mark's record of discourse 
 on, not from oral tradition, 157, 
 164 ; as set forth by Luke, 209 ; 
 in synoptic Gospels, 255 ; sayings 
 regarding in the Gospels exam- 
 ined, 278-284 
 
 Paschal question and the fourth Gos- 
 pel, 233 f. 
 
 Pauline-Jewish controversy, the, 39 ; 
 ideas in fourth Gospel, 219, 223 ; 
 traits in first Gospel, 294, 300 
 
 Paul, occasion of his Epistles, 34 ; 
 Epistles not written for future 
 ages, 35 j claims no especial in- 
 spiration as a writer, 35 ; alle- 
 gorizes Old Testament, 35, 314 ; 
 appeals to tradition of " words of 
 the Lord," 36 ; indifferent to his- 
 tory of Jesus, 36 ; on the Messiah 
 as judge, 284 ; his use of typol- 
 ogy. 3 T 4 a witness to the facts 
 of synoptic history, 339 ; conver- 
 sion of, 339 
 
 Peschito, early Syriac version of 
 Gospels, 22, 25 
 
 Peter, call of, as reported by Mat- 
 thew and Mark irreconcilable with 
 Luke's account, 123 ; confession 
 of, 265, 270 
 
 Pfleiderer, on Mark as a " tendency "- 
 writing, 168 ; on Mark's reference 
 to the overthrow of Jerusalem, 
 
 172 ; on Pauline traits in Luke, 
 
 301 
 
 Philo as an allegorist, 313 
 Polycarp, Epistle of, in relation to 
 
 canon, 51 ; on paschal question, 
 
 235 
 Post-apostolic age in relation to the 
 
 canon, 37 
 Pragmatism of first evangelist, 298, 
 
 330 
 
 Predilections, personal, hinder for- 
 mation of canon in post-apostolic 
 
 age, 37 
 Prehistorical narratives of first and 
 
 third Gospels want verification, 
 
 332 
 Presumptions as to canonicity not 
 
 accepted by criticism, 31 
 
 Quartodecimans, the, in paschal 
 controversy, 235 
 
 Quirinius, Luke's account of census 
 under, unhistorical, 334 
 
 Quotations from Gospels, in second 
 century, 7 ; not made by Clement 
 of Rome, 23 ; question as to Jus- 
 tin's, 65-74 
 
 Quotations from Old Testament, 
 formula as applied to Gospels, 43, 
 48 ; by first evangelists, 180 ; by 
 evangelists considered, 306-317 
 
 Readings, various, classified, 12 ; 
 arising from attempts to reconcile 
 evangelists with one another, 14 ; 
 arising from attempts of copyists 
 to reconcile an evangelist with 
 himself or with facts, 15 ; which 
 remove difficulties, suspicious, 21 
 
 Renan, on Pauline traits in Luke, 
 301 ; eulogy of Jesus, 354 
 
 Reuss, on conflicts in early Church 
 with reference to the canon, 40 ; 
 on Epistle of Barnabas, 46 ; on 
 Gnosticism and the canon, 81 ; on 
 Marcion's Gospel, 88 ; on copying 
 hypothesis, 129 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Revelation, the, and the fourth 
 Gospel, 232 ; historical criticism 
 not opposed to, 353 
 
 Reville, on Papias' ignorance of first 
 Gospel, 1 80 ; on legends in first 
 Gospel, 185; on date of first Gos- 
 pel, 196 
 
 Ritschl, on date of Clementine 
 Homilies, 75 ; on priority of 
 Mark, 155 
 
 Sanday on the Clementine Homilies 
 and the canon, 77 
 
 Schenkel on the eschatological prob- 
 lem, 254 
 
 Schleiermacher, on Marcion's Gos- 
 pel, 87 ; his theory of composition 
 of Luke, 198 
 
 Schiirer on paschal question, 237 
 
 Schwegler, on Epistle of Poly carp, 
 51 ; as a Tubingen critic, 147 ; his 
 extreme tendency-criticism, 292 
 
 Scriptures (ypacpai} first applied to 
 Gospel-writings, 95 
 
 Semler, on the canon as a growth, 
 32 ; on Marcion's Gospel, 87 
 
 Shepherds and angels, story of, 
 ideal, 334 
 
 Simon Magus in Clementine Homi- 
 lies, 75 
 
 Sinaitic Manuscript, 9 ; omits many 
 spurious readings, 19; and Vatican, 
 agree in majority of readings, 19 
 
 Source-criticism, growing favor of, 
 
 319 
 Spiritual transformed into physical 
 
 facts by tradition, 350 
 Storr on synoptic problem, 125 
 Strauss, his mythical theory, 143, 
 
 146 ; on the oral tradition of 
 
 sayings of Jesus, 157 ; his services 
 
 to Gospel-criticism, 327 
 "Supernatural Religion," author of, 
 
 on Justin's quotations, 74 ; on 
 
 Clementine Homilies, 77 
 Symbolism, of certain Gospel-narra- 
 tives, 184 ; numerical, in first 
 
 Gospel, 152, 195 
 Synoptic Gospels compared with 
 
 fourth Gospel, 118 
 
 Synoptic problem, with reference to 
 integrity of synoptic text, 5 ; dis- 
 cussion of, 118-160; importance 
 of to hypotheses of origin of 
 Gospels, 124 ; theories for solution 
 of, 125 ; results of study of, 347 
 
 Synoptists, their use of the same 
 limited material, 124 ; their Mes- 
 sianic beliefs, 272 f. 
 
 Targums, the, their Messianism, 261 
 
 Tatian, Diatessaron in relation to 
 the canon, 91 ; knew fourth Gos- 
 pel, 230 
 
 Tayler on fourth Gospel, 211 
 
 "Tendencies," dogmatic, in the 
 Gospels, 291-315 
 
 " Tendency," as affecting first Gos- 
 pel, 195, 293 ; as affecting his- 
 torical character of Gospels, 329 f. 
 
 Tertullian, on the heretics and the 
 Scriptures, 81 ; his uncritical ac- 
 ceptance of tradition, 107 ; testi- 
 mony to canon, 106-108 ; on third 
 Gospel as ascribed to Paul, 106 
 
 Text of Gospels, 1-27 ; witnesses to, 
 6 ; original, cannot be restored, 
 26 
 
 Text, summary of results of criticism 
 of, 344 
 
 Textual criticism, some principles 
 of, 20 ; has to do with human 
 phenomena, 26 
 
 Theophilus, and the canon, 97 ; his 
 Tfvevjaarocpopoi, 98 ; first to as- 
 cribe fourth Gospel to John, 230 
 
 Time-order often disregarded in the 
 Gospels, 185 
 
 Tischendorf, on textual criticism, 20 ; 
 on date of Clementine Homilies, 
 
 75 
 
 Tradition of Jesus, modified by the 
 media through which it passed, 
 325 ; characteristic of, to enhance 
 events and effects, 350 
 Tregelles on canon of Muratori, 99 
 Tubingen critics, on Justin's testi- 
 mony to fourth Gospel, 226 ; their 
 doctrine of " tendency," 291 
 
INDEX. 
 
 365 
 
 Tubingen school, modifications in, 
 
 319 
 Types, none in Old Testament, 315 ; 
 
 an invention of a false exegesis, 316 
 Typology, in hermeneutics of 
 
 evangelists, 311 f. ; true meaning 
 
 of, 315 
 
 U 
 
 Uncial manuscripts, 9 
 
 Uncritical acceptance, of Gospels by 
 
 Irenaeus, 103, 104; of tradition 
 
 by Tertullian, 107 
 Unhistorical features of Gospels do 
 
 not invalidate historical, 329 f. 
 Universalism of Paul surpassed in 
 
 fourth Gospel, 241 
 
 V 
 
 Valentinus and the canon, 82-85 
 
 Variants, 12 
 
 Vatican Manuscript, 9 ; omits many 
 
 spurious readings, 12 
 Vaticinium post eventum^ 172, 350 
 Versions of Gospels, 22 
 Virgin-birth of Jesus erroneously 
 
 derived in first Gospel from Is'. 
 
 vii. 14, pp. 182, 297, 308 
 Virginity, perpetual, of Mary, doc- 
 trine of, causes dogmatic change 
 
 in text, 19 
 Volkmar, on Marcion's Gospel, 88 ; 
 
 his ' ' tendency "-interpretation of 
 
 Peter's miraculous draught of 
 
 fishes, 292 
 Voss, recension of Ignatian Epistles 
 
 by, 54 
 Vulgate-version of Gospels, 22-24 I 
 
 revised by order of Charlemagne, 
 
 25 
 
 W 
 
 Weiffenbach on Jesus before the 
 High-priest, 281 
 
 Weisse, author of Mark-hypothesis, 
 
 143 ; on the Mark-hypothesis, 
 1 66 
 
 Weiss, on quotations of Gospels by 
 Clement of Rome, 44 ; on the 
 Shepherd of Hermas and the 
 canon, 50 ; on hypothesis of copy- 
 ing, 129 ; on Matthew's logia, 151 ; 
 on Mark and the logia, 158 ; his 
 reconstruction of the logia, 190 ; 
 on Luke's relation to logia and 
 Matthew, 204 
 
 Weizsacker, on historical character 
 of fourth Gospel, 220 ; on apostolic 
 and unapostolic elements in fourth 
 Gospel, 249 ; his arrangement of 
 synoptic narratives in groups of 
 "doctrinal tenets," 328 
 
 Wendt, on Mark and the logia, 157 
 on relation of Matthew and Luke, 
 152 ; his reconstruction of the 
 logia, 190 ; on composite character 
 of fourth Gospel, 249 
 
 Westcott, on the preservation of the 
 text, 22 ; on " Words of the Lord" 
 as oral canon, 36 ; on Justin's 
 quotations, 74 ; on oral tradition, 
 142 
 
 Wieseler on the paschal question, 
 234 
 
 Wilke, on the synoptic problem, 
 
 144 ; on the Mark-hypothesis, 166 
 Winer on formula of quotation from 
 
 Old Testament used by evange- 
 lists, 307 
 
 Zechariah, prophecies of the 
 
 "Branch" by, 258 
 Zeller, as a Tubingen critic, 147 ; 
 
 on Papias and the fourth Gospel, 
 
 225 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 
 
 THE SCRIPTURES, 
 
 HEBREW AND CHRISTIAN. 
 
 ARRANGED AND EDITED AS AN INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 REV. EDWARD T. BARTLETT, D.D., 
 Dean of the Divinity School of the P. E. Church in Philadel- 
 phia, and Mary Wolfe, Prof, of Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 REV. JOHN P. PETERS, PH.D., ^ EDITORS. 
 
 Professor of Old Testament Literature and Language in the 
 Divinity School of the P. E. Church in Philadelphia, and 
 Professor of Hebrew in the University of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The work is to be completed in three volumes, containing each about 
 500 pages, Vols. I. and II. now ready. 
 
 Vol. I. includes Hebrew story from the Creation to the time of Nehe- 
 miah, as in the Hebrew canon. 
 
 Vol. II. is devoted to Hebrew poetry and prophecy. 
 
 Vol. III. will contain the selections from the Christian Scriptures. 
 
 The volumes are handsomely printed in I2mo form, and with an open, 
 readable page, not arranged in verses, but paragraphed according to the 
 sense of the narrative. 
 
 Each volume is complete in itself, and will be sold separately at $1.50. 
 
 The editors say in their announcement : "Our object is to remove stones 
 of stumbling from the path of young readers by presenting Scriptures to 
 them in a form as intelligible and as instructive as may be practicable. This 
 plan involves some re-arrangements and omissions, before which we have 
 not hesitated, inasmucn as our proposed work will not claim to be the Bible, 
 but an introduction to it. That we may avoid imposing our own inlerper- 
 tation upon Holy Writ, it will be our endeavor to make Scripture serve as 
 the commentary on Scripture. In the treatment of the Prophets of the Old 
 Testament and the Epistles of the New Testament, it will not be practica- 
 ble entirely to avoid comment, but no attempt will be made to pronounce 
 upon doctrinal questions." 
 
 The first volume is divided into four parts : 
 
 PART I. HEBREW STORY, FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE TIME OF SAUL, 
 " II. THE KINGDOM OF ALL ISRAEL. 
 *' III. SAMARIA, OR THE NORTHERN KINGDOM. 
 
 " IV. JUDAH, FROM REHOBOAM TO THE EXILE. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF G. P PUTNAM'S SONS 
 
 The second volume comprises : 
 
 PART I. HEBREW HISTORY FROM THE EXILE TO NEHEMIAH. 
 " II. HEBREW LEGISLATION. 
 " III. HEBREW TALES. 
 " IV. HEBREW PROPHECY. 
 " V. HEBREW POETRY. 
 " VI. HEBREW WISDOM. 
 
 The third volume will comprise the selections from the New Testament, 
 arranged as follows : 
 
 I. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK, PRESENTING THE EVAN- 
 GELICAL STORY IN ITS SIMPLEST FORM ; SUPPLEMKNTED BY 
 SELECTIONS FROM ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE. 
 II. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, WITH SOME INDICATION OF THE 
 
 PROBABLE PLACE OF THE EPISTLES IN THE NARRATIVE. 
 III. THE EPISTLES OF ST. JAMES AND THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. 
 IV. THE EPISTLES'OF ST. PAUL. 
 V. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 VI. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (A PORTION). 
 VII. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 VIII. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 Full details of the plan of the undertaking, and of the methods adopted 
 by the editors in the selection and arrangement of the material, will be found 
 in the separate prospectus. 
 
 " I congratulate you on the issue of a work which, I am sure, will find a 
 wide welcome, and the excellent features of which make it of permanent 
 value." Rt. Rev. HENRY C. POTTER, Bishop of New York. 
 
 "Should prove a valuable adjunct of Biblical instruction." Rt. Rev. W. 
 E. STEVENS, Bishop of Pennsylvania. 
 
 "Admirably conceived and admirably executed. . . . It is the Bible 
 story in Bible words. The work of scholarly and devout men. . . . 
 Will prove a help to Bible study." Rev. HOWARD CROSBY, D.D. 
 
 "We know of no volume which will better promote an intelligent 
 understanding of the structure and substance of the Bible than this work, 
 prepared, as it is, by competent and reverent Christian scholars." Sunday- 
 School Times. 
 
 G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 
 
 NEW YORK : LONDON : 
 
 2 7 AND 29 WEST 230 STREET 27 KING WILLIAM ST., STRAND 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS. 
 
 WORKS BEARING ON THE STUDY OF THE 
 
 BIBLE. 
 
 I. The Bible of To-Day. By JOHN W. CHADWICK. 8vo, 
 cloth extra . . . . " . . . $r 50 
 
 " The need of some such work is keenly felt by thousands of intelligent 
 persons who are not in a position to make an adequate study of the elaborate 
 works in which this criticism has written its comments, yet earnestly desire 
 to know what conclusions the various scholars who have made studies of 
 the subject have reached." N. Y. Evening Post. 
 
 II. The Bible. What is it ? An attempt briefly to an- 
 swer the question in the light of the best scholarship, and 
 in the most reverent and catholic spirit. By the Rev. J. 
 T. SUNDERLAND. i6mo, cloth . . . . i oo 
 
 " His criticisms are scholarly, thorough, and uncompromising, but he 
 leaves ample room for a powerful defence of the Bible in its spiritual aspects 
 as the unfailing depository of religious faith and moral inspiration." 
 N. Y. Tribune. 
 
 III. Benedicite ; or, Illustrations of the Power, Wis- 
 dom, and Goodness of God, as Manifested in his 
 Works. By G. CHAPLIN CHILD, M.D. With an Intro- 
 duction by HENRY G. WESTON, D.D. i2mo, cloth extra, 
 beveled . . . . . . . . 2 oo 
 
 "A most admirable popular treatise of natural theology. It is no extrav- 
 agance to say that we have never read a more charming book, or one that 
 we can recommend more confidently to our readers with the assurance that 
 it will aid them, as none that we know of can do, to 
 
 " 'Look through Nature up to Nature's God.'" Round Table, N. Y. 
 
 V The Book of the Beginnings. A study of Genesis, 
 with a general introduction to the study of the Pentateuch. 
 By Rev. R. HEBER NEWTON. 
 
 i6mo, cloth, pp. xv.-{-307 . . . ; .100 
 Paper ......... 40 
 
 " These 'talks' will be acceptable to the general public, who wish to see 
 on what grounds the critics base their conclusions respecting the Penta- 
 teuch." The Nation. 
 
 VI. The Right and Wrong Uses of the Bible. By 
 
 Rev. R. HEBER NEWTON. i6mo, cloth, pp. 264 . 75 
 
 "It is impossible to read these sermons without high admiration of the 
 
 author's courage, of his honesty, his reverential spirit, his wide and careful 
 
 reading, and his true conservatism." American Literary Churchman. 
 
 G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS NEW YORK AND LONDON. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS. 
 
 The Nutshell Series. A Gathering of the Best Thoughts 
 of the Best Writers. Edited by HELEN KENDRICK JOHN- 
 SON. Arranged under the following heads: 
 
 I. Wisdom. II. Philosophy. III. Sentiment. IV. Epi- 
 grams and Epitaphs. V. Proverbs. VI. Wit and Humor. 
 
 Six volumes, oblong, 321110. Uniquely printed and handsomely bound 
 in cloth, gilt, in box . . . . . . $3 oo 
 
 In full calf flexible, gilt edges, in calf box . . . 10 co 
 
 In full calf, in unique oak case . . . . 12 oo 
 
 " A delightful little present." 
 
 " The admirable brevity in the selections is one of their first charms, 
 but this, on looking though them, yields to admiration for the excellent 
 judgment with which they are made." St. John Globe. 
 
 " The cutest thing we ever saw in the book line." Burlington Hawkeye. 
 
 The Pearl Series. Selections from the Poets. 
 
 Six volumes, exquisitely printed, in 48010, cloth, flexible, 
 each 50 cents. Per set, put up in an attractive box $3 oo 
 In full calf, in calf box . . . . . 10 oo 
 Or in unique oak case ..... 12 oo 
 
 I. Reflection. II. Fancy. III. Wit and Humor. IV. Love. 
 V. The Poet's Garden (Language of Flowers). VI. Faith, Hope, 
 and Charity, the three best gifts of heaven. 
 These volumes can be sold separately. 
 
 *jj.* This forms a companion set to the very popular Nutshell Series of 
 Prose Selections. 
 
 " The compiler's work has been done with adequate knowledge of the 
 material to be selected from, and with excellent taste. The collection is 
 fresh, quaint, and attractive." Chicago Tribune. 
 
 "The set gives evidence of a refined taste, and of care in book-mak- 
 ing." N. Y. A'ation. 
 
 " All the world's treasure-house of poesy is drawn upon for this fine 
 collection of poetic pearls ... as recherche a Christmas gift as one 
 could imagine." Burlington Hawkeye. 
 
 " The editor has revealed a wide and catholic reading." Albany Argus. 
 
 " Nothing daintier or more valuable than this collection of pearls of 
 poetry has come to our table this year." Syracuse Standard. 
 
 " Six of the daintiest little volumes imaginable." Indianapolis News. 
 
 " Diligent search and wide reading have met with their reward." Phila- 
 delphia American. 
 
 G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS, Publishers, NEW YORK AND LONDON 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 LD 21-100m-9,'48(B399sl6)476 
 
YCIOI560