HANDBOOKS -FOR- THE* CLERGY . ''-C\ EDITED- BY- A-W i^fanSSBBiffn YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE COLLEGE OF MISSIONS LIBRARY at the YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL 5>anDftoofe0 for tfje Clergp edited by ARTHUR W. ROBINSON, D.D. VICAR OF ALLHALLOWS EABK1NO BY THE TOWER THE STUDY OF THE GOSPELS THE STUDY OF THE GOSPELS BY J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON, D.D. DEAN OP WELLS SIXTH IMPRESSION LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 1911 All rights reserved PREFACE This little book has grown out of a series of lectures, of which the first three were delivered from the pulpit of Westminster Abbey in Advent, 1900, and the remainder in the Divinity School at Cambridge in the following year. I have availed myself of the present opportunity to revise and supplement what I originally said, but I have been unwilling to abandon the easier style and more direct address which be long to the lecture as compared with the formal manual. The method of the book is neither syste matic nor controversial. My object has been to present in plain language such results of my own study as may serve as a guide to the studies of others. I specially hope to be of use to those whose sacred calling demands that they shall be perpetually reading and ex- vi Preface pounding the Gospel, but who have neither the time nor the training needed for an independent study of the minuter details of criticism. Ac cordingly, if what I here offer is disappointing to the severer student, I must plead that I have had him only indirectly in view. I am aware that to him I shall often be raising questions, where to others I seem to be answer ing them. Yet I trust that he will feel that, if I have sometimes spoken with assurance where I could not present the whole of the evidence which convinced me, I have never sought to foreclose inquiry, but have always everywhere maintained the rights of a reverent criticism. I am fully conscious of the insufficiency of what I have written, but I offer it in the hope that it will lead others to study the Gospel history with renewed care, and, in view of modern questionings, to tread where the ground is firmest. J. A. R. Westminster Abbey, F. of St Peter, 1902. CONTENTS CHAPTER I The Origin, Date, and Authorship op thk Synoptic Gospels Growth of a New Testament canon — It originates with the sacredness of the Gospels as con taining words and deeds of Christ — Our evidence of the facts about Christ and of the purport of His teaching not solely de pendent on the Gospels — The continuous witness of the Christian society — Approxi mate dates of the Gospels — The expression 'according to' points to a tradition of authorship — The Third Gospel written hy St Luke shortly after 70 a.d.— The term 'synoptic' — The Second Gospel used in the composition of the First and Third — Written between 60 and 65 a.d., or earlier, probably by St Mark — The First Gospel assigned by tradition to St Matthew — Its date and authorship must be left at present uncertain vu viii Contents PAOH — Remarks on Dr. Harnack's view of the dates of the Gospels, and on the subordinate importance of this inquiry .... 1 CHAPTER II The Use op St Mark's Gospel by St Matthew and St Luke That St Mark's Gospel lay before St Matthew and St Luke is the best working hypothesis — An illustrative incident — In ancient times new books were made out of old without acknow ledgment — Changes in detail made by later evangelists — The limited scope of St Mark's Gospel — The need of supplementing it led to various changes — Interesting details which were not reproduced — The value of this earliest picture of Christ .... 23 Note A. — A further Comparison between St Mark and his Successors 40 Note B.—On the Title ' The Son of Man ' . .49 CHAPTER III The Great Sermon in St Matthew and St Luke A non-Marcan Greek document used by St Matthew and St Luke — Not to be called Logia, a name which introduces confusion — St Mark's reti- Contents ix PAGE cence as to Christ's teaching — The contrast of St Matthew's Gospel — The Great Sermon — The parallel sermon in St Luke — St Matthew has expanded the sermon by inserting other groups of teaching — Examples of his method — The earliest form of the sermon — St Mat thew's main additions — The value of each form of the sermon . .... 67 CHAPTER IV The Use op the non-Maroan Document by St Matthew and St Luke St Matthew's method of grouping teachings and combining parallel narratives — St Luke's method of using documents by turns — The non-Marcan document to be reconstructed mainly on the basis of St Luke — Its scope and characteristics — The style of its narrative portions — Its startling use of paradox in teaching — Frequently softened by St Matthew — St Matthew's interest in the past influences his narrative — The needs of the living present lead him to avoid possible misconceptions — His interest in the existing Christian society — The comparative value of his narrative to the historian — The interpretation of the Gospel to each new age .... 86 Note C— A. Comment on Matt, xi 26-30 , , .103 x Contents CHAPTER V The Contrast between the Synoptic Nar ratives and St John's Gospel PAOI The opening of St John's Gospel — 'In the begin ning ' — A dogmatic treatise rather than a Gospel narrative is suggested — The contrast in language with the synoptic Gospels — The story is new, but implies familiarity with the chief actors and with many leading incidents — Three elements of contrast distinguished — — The problem of the Fourth Gospel arises out of all three — The difficulty is historical, and not merely theological — The influence of the contrast upon the careful student of the synoptic Gospels — The alternative solutions which present themselves . . . .117 CHAPTER VI Considerations bearing on the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel The distinctive truths of the Fourth Gospel have earlier testimony — The synoptic narratives not a single whole in contrast to St John — They offer two main pictures with charac teristic differences — The recognition of the Messiahship in St Mark and in St John — St Mark's simple scheme of ministry — The Contents xi FAQS larger range of St John — St Mark's is a Galilean story — His narrative furnished a framework to both St Matthew and St Luke — One authority, not three, for the limita tion to Galilee — Indications of a wider activity — A concurrent ministry in Jerusalem ren dered natural by the festivals — The Jerusalem ministry has a different colour — Conditions under which the writing of the Fourth Gospel may be conceived — The history of St John's life offer such conditions — The influence of fifty years of Christian experience upon the record — The harmony which underlies all contrasts — The Christ is the same in char acter and in claims 133 Note D. — On some Books of Reference and Methods of Study 168 CHAPTER I THE ORIGIN, DATE, AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS Cheistianity started upon her mission to the world with a book in her hand. That book was not the New Testament, or any part of it. Not a word of it had then been written, nor could it at that time have seemed likely that any new writings could ever stand on an equality with the sacred book, long before com pleted, which Christianity had inherited from Judaism. The scriptures to which the apostles appealed were the Old Testament scriptures. These held a unique position among the writ ings of the world. They contained the revela tion of God to the chosen people of God, the revelation of His nature, and of His will for men. The apostles were taught by Christ that these scriptures pointed to Him as the fulfilment of their prophetic message; and thus on His authority they became the sacred book of the Christian Church. A 2 The Study of the Gospels Their dignity remained for a long time quite unapproachable. 'It is written,' and 'the scripture saith,' were the formulas by which they were cited. How it ever became possible that any other writings should attain the same level, and be cited by the same formulae of dis tinction and authority — in other words, how the canon of scripture could have become enlarged so as to include twenty-seven new books — is one of the most interesting problems of early Christian history. There is no doubt that the process began with the Gospels, and with them primarily as con taining the words of Christ. What the Lord had said was at least equally authoritative with the words of the Old Testament scriptures. Had He not used language which implied this in say ing, 'It was said to them of old time . . . but I say unto you ' ? Accordingly, books which recorded utterances of the Lord, if they were accepted as genuine records, would soon win their way to a position of importance. It is, however, to be noted that the writers of our Gospels appear to have no conception that they are adding new books to the Bible. Their motives are fairly obvious. One is recording, Origin, Date, and Authorship 3 apparently for the first time, the story of Christ's appearance in Galilee, His wonderful power, His unfailing sympathy, His freedom from conven tional bondages, His popularity with the people, His rejection by their religious leaders, His crucifixion and His resurrection from the dead. He does not tell us why he took his pen in hand. That is St Mark's Gospel. Another is making a careful combination of other accounts already existing, and supplementing them from his own resources, and all the while labouring to shew by passages of the Old Testament the relation of Jesus to the past as the long-promised Messiah of the Jews. That is St Matthew's Gospel. A third, St Luke, has undertaken a historical narrative of Christian beginnings for the instruction of a prominent Gentile convert. This he expressly tells us ; and his Gospel forms the first of two volumes of a treatise which is never brought to its formal close. The fourth evangelist is no mere recorder or historian, but an interpreter, who tells us how he sees the Christ-life as he looks back upon it across the spiritual experiences of half a century. He indeed, in his peculiar position, cannot have been quite unconscious that he was leaving 4 The Study of the Gospels a permanent legacy of instruction to the Church. These four were not the only records which found currency in early times. In an age of literary activity both among Jews and Greeks it would have been strange indeed if ' many ' had not ' taken in hand to draw up a narrative ' of those astonishing events. Some of these efforts quickly perished ; some were used up by one or other of our evangelists, and thus were super seded. Others again were of later origin, and were not independent of our Gospels ; but what new material they offered seemed to be untrust worthy and invented for a purpose. The fragments of them which have chanced to come down to us fully bear out the adverse judgment which the general mind of the Church passed on them. These four survived because they were worthy to survive. One of them indeed was well-nigh lost, just because its material was to be found almost completely embodied in two of the others, which were written on a larger scale. It must have seemed small and thin, lacking in complete ness, and practically unnecessary. It was so seldom transcribed that at one period there seems Origin, Date, and Authorship 5 to have been only one available copy of it, and that h&d lost its final leaf. All our copies of St Mark are descended from one which broke off' abruptly in the middle of a sentence — ' for they feared . . . ' A new ending was written, per haps early in the second century, but not all our manuscripts contain it : indeed, some of them have a much shorter ending, which has no better claim to be original. It is only in recent times that we have come to see how greatly we should have been losers if the whole book had perished. For centuries it was practically disregarded, and it was a long time before any one thought it worth while to write a commentary upon it. It is our own age, with its spirit of critical investigation, which has learned to thank the wonderful providence which preserved to us these priceless 'first impressions' of the life of Christ — the rugged phrases and the vivid touches which subsequent evangelists softened or removed. While apostles lived and could still be ap pealed to, and while other eye-witnesses could tell stories of the first days, the written Gospels could not reach the supreme position which they afterwards attained, when they had come by lapse of time to be the securest existing 6 The Study of the Gospels evidence of what Christ did and said. As the years passed their value steadily increased ; and side by side with them were read again and again the letters which certain apostles had written to the churches. When the Christians assembled for the Eucharist, passages were read aloud from these writings as well as from the Old Testament. 'The Lord and the Apostles' — as represented by the Gospels and the Epistles — became the ultimate court of appeal. The Acts, from its close connection with the Third Gospel, and the Apocalypse as a prophetic work bearing the sanction of St John's name, shared in the rise of the Gospels and Epistles to exclu sive reverence ; while a certain number of other books, like the Epistle of Clement and the ' Shepherd ' of Hermas, fought hard, but in vain, to be included in what finally became the canon of New Testament scriptures. Church decrees did not create the canon; they only registered at length the completion of the long process by which the instinct of the Church under the divine guidance had come to recognise certain books as the indispensable documents of the faith, and they decided for or against the few candidates whose claims were still in dispute. Origin, Date, and Authorship 7 We have thus very briefly indicated the way in which the common instinct of the Church recog nised in the four Gospels indispensable documents of the Christian faith. But it needs to be per petually repeated that our evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and of the general aim and purport of His teaching, does not depend upon the Gospels alone. If there were no narratives which told the full story of the great events, we should still gather the most important facts from the references which St Paul makes to them in his letters, and from other early writings which were quite independent of our written Gospels. Even if our Lord, who so far as we know wrote nothing Himself, had charged His disciples also to commit nothing to writing, and if as a consequence there had never been any written New Testament at all, the main facts would still have been handed down from generation to generation in the Christian society, whose very life was bound up with them. These facts were necessarily taught to all candidates for baptism, and they were summed up from the earliest times in a baptismal creed. And indeed the one method by which our Lord expressly desired that He should be kept in remembrance 8 The Study of the Gospels would by itself have handed down across the centuries, by a perpetually repeated act, the story of His death together with its amazing sequel. These great facts depend on no mere book-evidence. They are proclaimed to all the world by the continuous existence of a living society which is founded upon them. The tradition of the Church is in itself irre fragable evidence ; for no man can give a tenable explanation of the existence of the Church, if he denies that these facts were in the earliest times believed to have actually happened. And no man can explain why any particular celebra tion of the Eucharist takes place at all, if it be not because from the very beginning Christ was believed to have done a similar act on the even ing before He was crucified. Each new celebration is thus a fresh link in the long unbroken chain which connects us with the days of Jesus Christ. It is true that the Church's tradition might in details have become exceedingly obscure or sadly deficient, or gradually overlaid with pious imaginings, if no safeguard had been provided. The fact that this tradition was written down in great fulness so near to the date of the events is the safeguard which is required. For the Origin, Date, and Authorship 9 tradition is perpetually undergoing a process of correction by standard, as the Gospels are continually read as the supreme authorities for it. The first question, then, with which we shall deal is this : How soon was the tradition thus fixed by a committal to writing? or, in other words, What are the approximate dates at which our four Gospels were written ? Before we attempt an answer, I would again lay stress on the way in which this question has arisen. The great facts of our Saviour's life, death and resurrection do not depend for their evidence primarily upon the Gospels. The outline of the facts is preserved to the world in the continuous tradition of the Christian society, which would assuredly have handed them down from father to son, even if not a single book of Gospel narrative had been written. What the books do is to fill in the outline by giving us early recorded memories of the words and deeds of Christ, thus preserving details which otherwise must have been lost, and afford ing us a standard by which our conception of the facts may be constantly checked and corrected. The determination of the dates of the books therefore does not directly affect the security of 10 The Study of the Gospels the great facts on which Christian belief rests. We can approach the question without anxiety or apprehension on this score. It is an important question truly, but we must not mistake the character of its importance. We begin by asking what means we have of arriving at the approximate dates of the Gospels. If we could at once assume that they were written by the four writers whose names they bear, we should readily arrive at an answer : they would all fall easily within the limits of the first century. Two of them, we should say, were written by apostles, and two by intimate com panions of apostles. But this assumption we are not free to make. The titles of the books were not prefixed by the writers themselves, who never mention their own names : they are derived from the tradition of the Church — a tradition which needs to be tested. It is sometimes said that the formula 'accord ing to,' in the title, for example, 'The Gospel according to Matthew,' was not intended to imply that St Matthew was the writer of that Gospel, but only that this book contains the Gospel as he was accustomed to declare it. That is a view which I cannot accept. In the earliest Origin, Date, and Authorship 11 sense in which the word was used there could be only one Gospel — the Gospel, or good news, which was revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To speak of four Gospels would have seemed ridiculous until a later period, when any record of the life of Christ had come to be called ' a Gospel.' What the titles intended to express was the one Gospel according to the presentation of it by different writers. In our oldest manuscripts the four Gospels are regarded as a whole, and treated as though they had one general title, The Gospel; for the separate books are simply headed by what were supposed to be their author's names — 'according to Matthew,' 'according to Mark,' and so forth. These uni form titles belong to the period when the four books were collected to form one whole; they certainly do not proceed from the authors them selves : and as certainly, in my view, they were intended by those who prefixed them to imply authorship. The tradition of the names of the authors comes to us from a very early time : say, the middle of the second century at latest. It would be uncritical to abandon an early and continuous tradition of this kind, unless good reason could 12 The Study of the Gospels be given for doing so. In trying to test the tradition by the evidence of the books themselves we shall do well to begin with St Luke's Gospel. For this is the first volume of a larger work, of which the Acts of the Apostles forms a second volume. It is an exceptional advantage to have so large a body of material to deal with in seek ing for indications of date and authorship. And as a matter of fact we find that, when the history which this writer narrates reaches a certain point in the life of St Paul, he begins to say, We did this and that, intimating his own presence at the scenes which he records. A careful study of this part of the book shews, to my mind un doubtedly, that the writer of what are called the ' We sections ' is the same as the writer of the whole work, including the Gospel. His style is too clearly marked to leave us in doubt on this point. Thus we have the important fact that our third Gospel was written by a fellow- traveller of St Paul.1 And so we are getting ' I would advise those who desire to see the question argued in a scholarly and simple way to read a little book on The Authenticity of St Luke's Gospel by the late Bishop of Bath and Wells, Lord Arthur Hervey (published by S.P.C.K.). It is a good example of the treatment of an argument of this kind. Origin, Date, and Authorship 13 at a date. For he brings St Paul's story down to the end of the two years of his Roman im prisonment, which is placed in the spring of 63 by Bp Lightfoot and four or five years earlier by Dr Harnack. I think that it is almost certain that the writer contemplated a third volume, for he ends off the second very abruptly, and in a way that is in strong contrast with his formal preface ; so that we have no right to conclude that the whole work was written by the year 63. I should incline to put it shortly after 70 ; I am not convinced that it need fall quite so late as between 78 and 93, the limits proposed by Dr Harnack. Thus at the outset we have discovered firm ground; and taking our stand here we are able to look back to an earlier period. St Luke — for I do not hesitate to identify him with the companion of St Paul of whom we have been speaking — mentions in the preface to his whole work that he has had predecessors who have already written records of the early days. We should have known that, even if he had not told it us : for when we set St Luke's Gospel side by side with St Matthew's and St Mark's, we find that a great many incidents which he relates are related by 1 4 The Study of the Gospels one or both of the others ; that often the inci dents follow one another in the same order ; and that the actual language used in describing them is frequently the same. The fact that they have so much common matter has led to their being often arranged for purposes of study in a synopsis or common view ; and, consequently, in modern times they have been given the name of the synoptic Gospels to distinguish them from St John's Gospel, which will not easily fit into the same scheme. What is called the problem of the synoptic Gospels (or, more shortly, the synoptic problem) is the difficult question how we are to account for their being so like each other, and yet presenting a vast number of exceedingly minute differences, besides offering some varia tions of order and many passages narrated by one only, or two only, of the three. We shall return to this problem at a later stage ; but I should wish to say a little at once as to the results of a prolonged study of it. Almost every section of St Mark is found either in St Matthew or in St Luke, or in both of them. The order of St Mark's incidents is, with hardly an exception, preserved either in one or in both ; that is to say, where St Matthew deserts it St Origin, Date, and Authorship 15 Luke keeps it, and vice versa. And the phrase ology of St Mark is often preserved by both, and still more often by one where the other has changed it. The most natural explanation of this would be that both St Matthew and St Luke used the work of St Mark, adding to it new matter and often modifying its language, which is rugged and sometimes obscure. If this ex planation be not accepted, the next in probability is that all three used some document which is now lost, and that, whereas the others often deviated from it, St Mark reproduced it with extraordinary fidelity. For myself, I am con vinced, after much investigation, that the former is the true explanation, and that our St Mark was used by St Matthew and by St Luke. If this be admitted we have a means of arriving at' the date of St Mark's Gospel as well. For it must have been already written when St Luke set about his work. Thus it was certainly written while some of the apostles were still living, and probably before the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70. Dr Harnack, who admits, as an ascertained result of criticism, that St Mark was used by St Luke, gives as its probable date the years between 65 and 70. This date obviously makes 16 The Study of the Gospels it possible that the book should have been written by the author whose name it bears according to the second-century tradition. Can we justify that tradition still further? I believe that we can. The tradition does not confine itself to the title, ' according to St Mark.' It takes a definite form. St Mark is said to have been the ' inter preter' of St Peter, and to have written his Gospel in Rome from information derived from that apostle.1 Now it is exceedingly probable that St Peter could not write or preach, even if he could speak at all, in any language but his mother tongue, the Aramaic of Galilee, a local dialect akin to Hebrew. When he wrote or preached to Greek-speaking people he would use Mark or some other disciple as his interpreter. It is very natural to suppose that St Mark might, with his special opportunities, desire to record in writing St Peter's recollections of the life of Christ. The Gospel which bears St Mark's name is clearly intended for non-Jewish readers : for 1 The fragments of Papias, to which reference is made here and below, may be read in Lightfoot's Apottolic Fatheri (smaller edition : the texts with translations). They are fully discussed by Lightfoot in his Essays on Supernatural Religion. The various traditions regarding St Mark are investigated by Dr Swete in his Commentary on St Mark's Gospel. Origin, Date, and Authorship 17 again and again he explains Jewish customs and Jewish words in a way that would be needless for Jews, but quite necessary for Roman readers. There are points of detail which further corro borate the view, and we may feel satisfied in accepting St Mark's authorship as practically certain, and the year 65 as a probable date.1 When we come to speak of St Matthew, we have no such helps as we have had for St Luke and St Mark. It may be taken as certain that he used St Mark, and also that he did not use St Luke, nor was used by him. It is true that second-century tradition assigns a Gospel to him; but whereas the details of that tradition helped us in regard to St Mark, they introduce a serious difficulty in regard to St Matthew. For the tradition — to give the words of Papias, who is said to have been a disciple of St John — states that ' Matthew composed the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue,' meaning probably his native Aramaic. But it is certain that our St Matthew is not a Greek translation of an Aramaic or Hebrew book. This is shewn, among 1 It may indeed be placed some years earlier than thi», if we assume that it was written during St Peter's lifetime, and that St Peter suffered, as tradition asserts, during the Neronian persecution, B 18 The Study of the Gospels other proofs, by the fact that he embodies whole sen tences of the Greek St Mark, as well as of a second Greek document which was also used by St Luke. Our St Matthew is demonstrably composed in the main out of two Greek books, and there is no ground for thinking that any part of the narrative ever existed in any other language. Therefore, we conclude either that Papias made a mistake in saying that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or that if he wrote in Hebrew his work has perished without leaving a trace behind it. In the latter case we may account for the title by the general belief on the one hand that St Matthew had written a Gospel, and the existence on the other hand of a nameless Gospel, which came to be attributed to him when his Hebrew Gospel had fallen out of knowledge.1 I do not think, therefore, that we can prove the tradition that our first Gospel was written by St Matthew. If indeed a sufficiently early date could be established for the book, then we might 1 It is conceivable that the non-Marcan Greek document which St Matthew and St Luke used in common was originally written in Aramaic. If so, its authorship might be assigned to the apostle Matthew, and thus we might account to some extent for the statements of Papias. But it must be remembered that this is a purely conjectural hypothesis. Origin, Date, and Authorship 19 accept the tradition of its authorship in spite of the puzzling statement about its having been written in Hebrew. But what is its probable date ? I do not know a harder question in the whole of New Testa ment criticism. Dr Harnack says ' probably 70- 75,' but with the important reservation, ' except certain later additions.' If, however, the Gospel must be regarded as a whole — as, I think, it must be — there is no doubt that he would assign it to a later date. I do not feel that I am entitled at present to express a definite opinion on this difficult question, and therefore I must content myself with leaving the authorship and date alike uncertain.1 But I would remind you that such a verdict of non liquet does not affect the status of the book in the New Testament. It nowhere claims to have been written by an eye-witness, or by an apostle, or by any particular person at all. It does not ask to be believed because of its authorship. It stands on its merits ; it was accepted by the general consciousness of the Church as a true record and placed among the 1 For the sake of brevity and clearness, however, I shall frequently use the expression ' St Matthew ' to designate the writer of our first Gospel. It will be understood that I do not thereby imply that the writer was the apostle of that name. 20 TJie Study of the Gospels canonical books. The heart and mind of the Church in all ages has confirmed this early verdict : indeed it was no churchman but M. Renan who said that it had exerted a greater influence than any other book in the world. The date and authorship of St John's Gospel will come up for consideration later on. But I may say at this point that there has been some modification of late in the attack which has been made on the Gospel ; and that Dr Har nack, in his Chronology, from which I have already been quoting, would give as the limits of its date * not after 110, and not before 80.' As far as time-limits go, therefore, it may have been written by the apostle St John; but Dr Harnack prefers to think, for reasons which do not commend themselves to many, that it was more probably written by another person of the same name — John the presbyter, or elder, of Ephesus. Most of us will be satisfied to accept the earlier date which this scholar allows us, and to retain the unbroken tradition of its apostolic authorship. Two remarks may be made before we leave this part of our inquiry. (1) I have quoted Dr Harnack's views of the dates of the Gospels for Origin, Date, and Authorship 21 two reasons : first, because he has quite recently published a valuable work on the Chronology of Early Christian Literature, and has given carefully considered judgments, which his ability and learning specially entitle him to pronounce ; and, secondly, because he does not start from the point of view of the Church tradition, but has rather been working his way back from the revolutionary positions of the school which domi nated German theology some thirty years ago, and to which our own Lightfoot and Hort dealt mortal blows. If he approximates to the older views, it is because a larger study of the whole of the documents of early Christian literature has convinced him that negation had gone too far. He would not, I think, wish to be claimed as an orthodox divine in the English sense ; but in sending me his Chronology he wrote that he hoped that as to its main positions we should find ourselves in agreement, and that differences would henceforward appear in the interpretation of the books rather than in the problems of their date and authenticity.1 1 The meaning of the latter part of this statement has since been made clear by the publication of his fascinating lectures now translated into English under the title What is Christianity ! 22 The Study of the Gospels (2) The other remark which I would make is this : Satisfactory as the results of our inquiry on the whole appear to be, I should not wish it to be thought that the points we have been dis cussing are vital to the Christian faith. I should not ask a man who had serious doubts of the truth of Christianity to enter upon a literary inquiry as to the date and authorship of the Gospels. I should say : Leave that untouched for the present. Read the books themselves, wholly irrespective of when or by whom they were written, or even of their accuracy in detail. Take the picture of Christ as drawn by the vigorous hand which wrote our second Gospel. Read it as a whole : let the story grow upon you : watch that powerful, sympathetic, original Char acter : ask how the simple, unliterary author came by his story, if it was not that the story was a direct transcript from the life. If a new Power was then manifested in the world, revealing a new ideal of human goodness, saving men every where and only refusing to save Himself, must you not yearn to welcome the belief that this Power was not finally vanquished by death, but still lives to save men to the uttermost ? CHAPTER II THE USE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL BY ST MATTHEW AND ST LUKE The view that St Mark's Gospel lay before St Matthew and St Luke, and that they embodied the main part of it with considerable modifica tions of detail, would require for its justification a more elaborate discussion than could be entered upon here. I recognise that this view is not free from difficulties ; but I can confidently commend it as a working hypothesis, which will be found exceedingly instructive to the student who em ploys it in his comparative investigation of the synoptic narratives. It will be well, therefore, to indicate by an example the general character of the argument on which it is based. Let us take for examination a particular inci dent which is common to the three Gospels — namely, the question put to our Lord in the temple with regard to His authority.1 Our first task is to set the three narratives in parallel 1 Matt, xxi 23-27 ; Mark xi 27-33; Luke xx 1-8, 23 24 The Study of the Gospels columns, writing them in short sentences so as better to catch the eye.1 And here a word must be interposed as to differences of reading, which, even though minute in themselves, gain an importance in an inquiry of this kind. We are so accustomed to printed books that we are apt to forget that until the last five hundred years it was not possible to put out an edition of a thousand copies of a book all exactly alike. Indeed you could not get two copies which were exactly alike. It is perhaps a humiliating fact, but none the less it is a fact, that no one, however trained and experienced, can copy exactly what he sees before him for any number of pages together. He is practically certain, however careful he may be, to introduce some changes. In early times this mere human inability to be accurate necessarily affected the text of the Gospels. But other causes were at work which greatly increased the probability of variation. The owner of a book sometimes wrote in the margin some little addition or supposed improvement, and the copyist in his turn, think- 1 The student will find this preliminary work admirably done for him in Mr Wright's Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek; but he will gain much by the experience of con structing a synopsis of some passages for himself. The Influence of St Mark 25 ing it was something that had been left out of the text by mistake, put it into his new copy. Moreover, in the case of the Gospels the parallel texts were in the scribe's mind, and unconsciously or consciously he would write a passage in St Mark as he had already written it in St Matthew; sometimes, no doubt, he would definitely try to make the two accounts harmonise in points of language. In recent times the science of textual criticism has sprung up, and we have been enabled not only to go back to very early manuscripts, but also to group our manuscripts in families and trace the origin of many of these ' various read ings,' as they are called. The results of this laborious and difficult work are best represented in the edition of the New Testament in Greek issued by Westcott and Hort. For the English reader the more important changes will be found in the Revised Version, which for the purpose of minute comparison is preferable to the Authorised Version. Having, then, the three narratives written out in parallel columns, in accordance with the most accurate text at our disposal, we underline in the middle column (St Mark) such words as are also found in both the side columns. At once we see 26 The Study of the Gospels that what we have underlined may, but for a few gaps, be read by itself as a continuous and in telligible narrative ; and we feel certain that these three accounts cannot be independent of each other ; for no three writers would by sheer coincidence have used so many words in common. It might, indeed, be said that the actual words spoken by our Lord, or by His adversaries, were treasured in most faithful memories. But this will not help us to explain the likeness of the narrative in which these words are set. Look, for example, at the phrase which describes the effect of Christ's question upon His opponents : 'they reasoned with themselves, saying.' Why did not one of the writers say, 'they were troubled,1 or 'they were perplexed,' or 'they took counsel together'? Why do they all use the verb ' reasoned ' and the participle ' saying ' ? Indeed we may further ask why they all agree in inserting a description of the inner feelings or private discussions of the antagonists at all ; why no one of them passes straight to the answer which was ultimately made. We see then that this remarkable similarity is not con fined to the spoken words, but extends to the narrative framework in which the words are set. The Influence of St Mark 27 We may now take a further step. If St Matthew and St Luke both agree to preserve so much of what we see in St Mark, it is likely that St Matthew has preserved some things besides which St Luke has dropped, and that St Luke has preserved others which St Matthew has dropped. Accordingly we go on to under line such words of St Mark as are found either in St Matthew alone or in St Luke alone. We now find that we have underlined almost the whole of St Mark's narrative. A few scraps only remain unattested, such as the words ' again to Jerusalem,' 'to do these things' (which is a repetition of words used already), and ' answer me' (an interjected phrase not necessary to the sense). I think that the impression gained by any one who will take the trouble to do what I have suggested will certainly be that St Mark's Gospel lay before the other two evangelists, and that they used it very freely, and between them embodied almost the whole of it. Of course we must not generalise from a single passage. The inquiry must be pursued throughout the whole of the Gospel, and we must not neglect the com paratively few words which St Matthew and St Luke have in common, but which are not found 28 The Study of the Gospels in St Mark's narrative of the same incident. It is such words that lend countenance to the alter native theory that all three evangelists were using another document which is now lost. That is a hypothesis which is very attractive, and for some time I thought that it offered the best explana tion : but further study convinced me that it was cumbersome and unnecessary, and that it introduced difficulties greater than those which it promised to solve. We have thus seen something of the process of the embodiment of St Mark by the two subse quent writers. It is not a slavish copying, but an intelligent and discriminating appropriation. If a modern writer were to act thus we should give it the harsh name of plagiarism. We allow the appropriation of matter, but not of words, unless indeed there is some sign, such as inverted commas, to indicate the writer's obligation to his predecessor. But in the age with which we are dealing such appropriation was considered per fectly legitimate. Books were made out of books. No such thing as property in words was thought of, no notion of copyright existed. If a thing was well said, that was a reason for saying it again in the same way ; if it could be The Influence of St Mark 29 improved, then by all means it should be modi fied, as much of the old being kept as seemed desirable to the new writer. Among the Jews we find that this method of making new books out of old ones had been practised from the earliest times ; the Book of Genesis, for example, is undoubtedly made up to a large extent out of pre-existing documents. And the same method was in vogue in the first and second centuries of our era, both among Jews and Christians. The Didache, or Teaching of the Apostles, which was brought to light about twenty years ago, has embodied an earlier book called The Two Ways, and has itself been reproduced in a modified form at a later period. Let us next take a few examples of the changes which it was felt desirable by the later evan gelists to make in St Mark's narrative. In Mark ii 26 we read in reference to David's taking the sacred shew-bread for his hungry men that he entered into the house of God ' when Abiathar was high priest.' As a matter of fact we read in 1 Sam. xxi that Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was the high priest who gave David the shew- bread and was put to death by Saul for doing so. As giving a date to the incident the men- 30 The Study of the Gospels tion of the better-known Abiathar might be thought sufficiently accurate ; but the expression was at least open to objection, and it is interest ing to see that it is simply dropped by St Mat thew and St Luke, although they agree in giving the words which immediately precede and those which immediately follow. It has been suggested that a confusion between Ahimelech and Abia thar was of earlier date than the writing of the Gospels ; but it is at any rate plain that it was well not to reproduce a statement which was in obvious contradiction to the Old Testament narrative. That is an instance of the removal of words which seemed to involve an historical inaccuracy. We may now note a case of ap parent geographical inexactness. St Mark calls the little sheet of water which he has made so sacredly familiar to us all, 'the sea of Galilee,' and very often he simply calls it ' the sea ' (comp. Josh, xii 3): So also does St Matthew. But not so St Luke, who knew the sea and its terrors too well; he, with his noted accuracy of expression, changes ' the sea ' of St Mark into ' the lake.' But it is time to pass from details to a broader survey. With the exception of three or four in cidents the whole matter of St Mark's Gospel is The Influence of St Mark 31 to be found either in both or in one at least of the other evangelists. And the order in which his incidents are arranged is always attested by one or by the other. It is clear that they were anxious to lose nothing of his work which they could find room to embody ; but, on the other hand, they must have recognised in it a serious deficiency, which they on their part were in a position to supply, For the scope of St Mark's Gospel was limited. In the earliest days the all-important things would seem to be those which concerned our Lord's ministry and His death and resurrection. These were the things which it was necessary, as we read in the first chapter of the Acts, that the newly elected apostle should be able to wit ness to from personal knowledge : he must be one, St Peter says, of those ' which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the bap tism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us.' This corresponds closely with the general scope of St Mark's Gospel. Its opening words are, ' The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,' and its first narrative is ' the baptism of John.' And, again, this period 32 The Study of the Gospels corresponded to St Peter's experience, which may possibly also help to account for the limitation of this Gospel to Galilee with just one week in Jerusalem at the close. We can readily understand that this limita tion offered in itself (even apart from the scanti ness of St Mark's record of our Lord's teaching, which we shall consider later on) a sufficient reason for the writing of other and fuller nar ratives. It was clearly to be desired that some thing should be recorded of the genealogy of our Lord, of the wonderful early days, and of the Holy Family. And St Luke in particular was much more interested in Jerusalem, and would wish to tell more of what took place there. He had set himself to gather information as a historian. St Mark was to him only one source ; he had another, as we shall see, which was also in writing; and much he doubtless gained from oral inquiry. He had accordingly to fit in a great deal of new matter. A substantial part of this came at the outset before the Baptist's preaching ; and so it did not disturb the Marcan order, for it was all introductory. But later on he felt bound to make some rearrangement, so as to give reasonable positions to his fresh incidents The Influence of St Mark 33 and to his fuller records of teaching. The amount of new matter introduced had a further effect ; it made it necessary for him to clip and pare the old, so far as that could be done without serious loss. And so the redundancy of St Mark, who is exceedingly repetitive, was pruned by the hand of one who was an artist in style ; and in the process many little details fell away, as well as complete incidents, and even in one case a whole group of incidents. For it was necessary that the writer should put forth his work in volumes of a manageable size. His Gospel and the Acts are almost identical in bulk, and each reaches what appears to have been the recognised limit for a volume. The writer of St Matthew's Gospel treated the same problem somewhat differently. He too felt the need of beginning earlier ; and he too had much new matter, especially in the way of dis courses. As to order, he had a method of his own, which was to bring like to like, to group incidents and teachings of a similar nature. Thus we have a group of parables, another of conflicts with the Pharisees, and several groups of teachings, of which the most noted is placed at the forefront of the Galilean ministry as form- 34 The Study of the Gospels ing the Sermon on the Mount. He therefore took parts of St Mark's Gospel where he wanted them ; and he has in consequence some notable repetitions. But he too found it necessary to abbreviate St Mark's narratives, and he does so with a freer hand than St Luke ; as, for example, by compressing a story into a short compass, whereas St Luke preferred to omit it altogether rather than cut it down (comp. e.g. Mark xi 12-14, 20-24, the withering of the fig tree, with Matt. xxi 18-22). There were other causes which led each of these writers to modify the language of St Mark ; for each in his own way was a master of style, which St Mark certainly was not ; and each had a clear purpose before him, which guided the selection and presentation of the materials at his disposal.1 Before leaving this part of our subject, I would call attention to two small personal notices which occur in St Mark, but are not reproduced by St Matthew or St Luke. One of these is the state ment that at our Lord's arrest, when ' all forsook Him and fled,' a young man attempted to follow Him, and when "they laid hold of him left his 1 See further, in illustration of the foregoing paragraphs, Note A, on St Mark and his successors. The Influence of St Mark 35 garment in their hands and fled. The other evangelists do not retain this little incident. It was quite unimportant to the history ; it led to nothing ; it ended at once in a hasty retreat. How came St Mark to record it ? We have the explanation at once if we adopt the suggestion that the nameless young man was St Mark him self. I know nothing against this view ; and in favour of it may be pleaded the statement which we read in the Acts, that Mary the mother of Mark had a house in Jerusalem and was one of the early believers. The other notice to which I have referred is a statement in regard to Simon of Cyrene — that strange figure from Africa, the dark and suffer ing continent, who in a kind of mysterious pro phecy is compelled to bear the cross of the world's Redeemer. St Mark alone tells us that he was 'the father of Alexander and Rufus.' Possibly the later evangelists had no knowledge of these two brothers, and saw no kind of value in retaining their names. But they must have been known to St Mark, and probably to those for whom his Gospel was primarily written. Is it a mere coincidence that when St Paul writes to the Roman Christians, long before he ever 36 The Study of the Gospels visited Rome, he sends a greeting to a man named Rufus and to his mother, who had met the apostle somewhere and had shewed him no or dinary kindness ? ' Salute,' he says, ' Rufus . . . and his mother and mine ' (Rom. xvi 13). It is not an idle fancy to suppose that St Mark, in writing the story of Simon's bearing the cross, added for the sake of Roman Christians this little touch of personal interest ; and, if so, she who was a second mother to St Paul would seem to have been the widow of the man who carried the cross after Jesus. I hope that in the light of what I have very briefly said you will be encouraged to read St Mark's Gospel with a fresh interest as the work of a single hand which paints with broad strokes and bright colours the earliest picture we possess of the Saviour of the world. I would have you not only study parts of it in detail, but also read it rapidly through as a whole; trying to read it as you would read a new story which you had never heard of before; watching closely the prelude to the story, the first appear ance of the young prophet from Nazareth, what He says and what He does, the effect produced on the people and then presently on their leaders, The Influence of St Mark 37 the bright welcome passing gradually into sus picion, the causes of the offence which He gave, the development of the political situation, and above all the unique character which little by little is unveiled to us until it reaches its climax in voluntary death. You will note how St John the Baptist first appears on the scene with a call to national repentance and a promise that one stronger than he is coming after him. You will see Jesus coming from Nazareth and promis ing to fulfil all expectations, offering to men good news from God. You will observe how He fulfils John's sign. He is strong to draw men after Him by a word, strong to cast out the evil spirit who interrupts His teaching, strong to heal all manner of diseases, strong to resist the first outburst of popularity which threatens to divert Him from His chosen course. And then you will mark how this strength is linked with a tender sympathy; how He touches the leper ; how He gets into touch, as we say, with the paralysed young man before He will heal his disease ; how He draws to Himself the outcast tax-gatherers who are ' not in society,' pleading, when He is rebuked, that they are sick and that He is their doctor. You will see how gently 38 The Study of the Gospels He deals with those to whom such actions give legitimate offence, how He understands and makes allowance for their natural prejudice. And, at the same time, you will observe how His strength and His sympathy are matched by His unwonted liberty from conventional re strictions ; how really revolutionary He is, how He claims that customs are meant to serve men rather than to rule them, and how all the while He is making us look to Himself as a new fount of authority, though He puts forward at first no distinct claim to be the expected Messiah. You will specially observe that on several important occasions He speaks of Himself by a new title as 'the Son of Man,' as truly human and, at the same time, representing all men.1 And you will find that He expects His followers to live a life like His own, a life of continuous service, seeking no private ends but perpetually giving itself to supply all human needs which cross its path ; a life which finds its fitting close on Calvary, and is truly summed up in the mocking epigram hurled at Him as He hangs upon the cross, 'He saved others: Himself He cannot save.' 1 See Note B, on the title ' The Son of Man.' The Influence of St Mark 39 So you will read ; and as you read you will worship. The homage of your whole being will go out towards a life which seems both ' human and divine, the highest, holiest manhood.' You will not understand how God and man are blended here; but you will feel that you must worship, and that it cannot be wrong to worship ; for nothing so divine has anywhere been seen in nature or in human life. You will say with the amazed Roman officer who stood on guard at the foot of the cross, ' Truly this man was the Son of God.' Such a picture could never have been drawn by any human imagination. It is inexplicable altogether, if it be not a direct transcript from the life. The Christ of the Gospel is His own evidence. It must have been so, we say as we lay down the book, or it could not have been written so. It was so, and it is so : for He is not dead, but He is risen, and is alive and with us now. ' Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day and for ever.' NOTE A A further Comparison between St Mark and his Successors St Maek's Gospel is characterised throughout by a certain fulness of expression which is combined with extreme simplicity. The fulness has nothing of turgidity about it ; it is not in the least due to fine writing ; it is mainly produced by repeti tion both of ideas and also of words. The story is told as it would be in conversation ; dialogue plays a large part in it, and the utterances of speakers are introduced in the plainest way, gene rally by ' he saith ' and ' they say,' with no further distinction of the interlocutors. Emphasis is gained by the repetition of an idea in a slightly heightened form and by the frequent use of con trast. Indeed, repetition seems to be welcomed for its own sake. Two phrases are used where one would suffice to carry on the narrative, but the second generally adds some fresh detail. Much could be dispensed with if there were cause for parsimony, but nothing is really otiose. So long as the story is plainly told, the words in which it is couched seem to be little regarded. Two examples of the repetitive character of the narrative may be given by way of illustration : — (1) ' Many publicans and sinners sat down to 40 Note A 41 meat with Jesus and His disciples ; for they were many and they followed Him. And the scribes and Pharisees, seeing that He eateth with the sinners and publicans, said to His disciples, Where fore eateth He with the publicans and sinners ? ' (ii 15, 16). How much more briefly this may be told, can be seen at once by a comparison of either St Matthew or St Luke at this point. (2) ' And again He began to teach by the sea, and a very great multitude is gathered unto Him; so that He entered into a boat and sat in the sea, and all the multitude was by the sea on the land. And He was teaching them in parables many things; and He said to them in His teaching: Hearken; behold there went forth a sower to sow, and as he sowed,'' &c. (iv 1 ff.). Here there are three mentions of 'teaching,' three of ' the sea,' three of ' sowing,' and two of 'the multitude.' The passage immediately be fore this, the incident of 'the Mother and brethren,' is even more noteworthy for its verbal repetitions, but it is too long to quote. The ' picturesque details,' upon which so much stress is laid in the criticism of St Mark's Gospel, really belong to the same category of fulness of expression. They are interesting to us at this distance of time, for they help us to realise the scenes with greater vividness. But they are by no means necessary to the story, whether we regard it as the record of a historical incident, or as the vehicle of a moral lesson. If space had to be gained, these details might be cancelled as 42 The Study of the Gospels trivial in comparison with recorded sayings of Christ. Again, it is important to observe, in discussing the fate of these ' picturesque details,' that a very large number of them describe emotions, or acts expressive of emotion, on the part of the Lord and His disciples. Thus, in the case of the Lord, anger, compassion, complacence, are each recorded three times : grief, agony, surprise, vehemence, each once. And of actions we have ' looking around ' five times, ' looking upon ' twice, ' look ing up ' once, ' turning ' thrice, ' groaning ' twice, ' embracing in the arms ' twice, ' falling down ' once. But when we come to compare the parallel passages in St Matthew and St Luke, we find that all the more painful emotions disappear, with one exception (the agony). Anger, grief, groaning, vehemence are gone; compassion remains twice in St Matthew, complacence (if it may be so termed) once in both ; and in a few instances a substituted word seems to indicate the pre vious existence of something which has been removed. There clearly must be a reason why the more painful emotions are less represented in the other Gospels. The frequent suppression of the record of emotions in general might be due to a desire to abbreviate, which would lead to the oblitera tion of features not essential to the story. But that this particular class of emotions should entirely disappear is probably the result of a kind of reverence which belonged to a slightly later stage of reflection, when certain traits might Note A 43 even seem to be derogatory to the dignity of the sacred Character. This is borne out by the analysis of similar details in regard to the disciples. Perplexity (5 times), amazement (4), fear (4), anger (1), hard ness of heart (1), drowsiness (1), are all recorded with more or less frequency in St Mark. But in the other evangelists we find the same tendency to eliminate as before. It may be due, here again, partly to a desire to abbreviate, but yet more to the development of a corresponding reverence for the character of the apostles. When, however, we come to examine parallel notices in regard to ' the multitudes,' who listened to our Lord's teaching and witnessed His miracles, there is small trace of any such omission. The wonderment of the multitudes was an important element in the history, and at least twice in St Luke we find that the phrases of St Mark are heightened. In the case of our Lord's adver saries, indeed, so far from finding any omission of the details of their emotions and actions, we even seem to discover a general tendency both in St Matthew and in St Luke to expand and emphasise the notices of hostility. No one who has not collected all the instances, of which I have given but a rapid summary, and tabulated them side by side with their parallels in the other Gospels, would readily believe how large an amount of alteration of St Mark by the other evangelists can be at once accounted for by the process which I have just described. For the excision of the details in question leads in 44 The Study of the Gospels many places not merely to the loss of a word, but to the dropping of a whole clause or to its complete recasting. And this, after all, is but one small cause that might reasonably be con sidered to have induced change in the narrative as written by St Mark. It may be well here to note some other points which might strike a subsequent writer as calling for modification. I have already referred to the narrowness of scope of St Mark's narrative regarded as a whole.1 The need of some account of the genealogy and birth of the Christ, and of His early days, would be quickly felt, as also the need of a further record of His work in the sacred city of Jerusalem. Above all, some further examples of the Lord's teaching would be required. In St Mark the personality of the great Prophet is everything. Teaching is sub ordinated to action. Again and again we are told that He taught, and the effects of His teaching are noted. But what did He teach ? We are given a few parables out of many, a number of striking sayings, often very difficult ; but we learn little of His iessons about life, and almost nothing of the aims and issues of His work as the Son of Man. Later evangelists must have counted this a serious defect ; and they would be the more eager to supply it, if there lay at hand ample materials in another document in which teachings held a more pro minent place. These considerations suffice to explain the amplification and to some extent 1 See above, pp. 31 f. Note A 45 also the dislocation of St Mark's narrative, when it came to be embodied by St Matthew and St Luke. With regard to the modification of the style of those passages which they incorporated directly from St Mark, we quickly discover that both St Matthew and St Luke were, in comparison with their predecessor, literary artists of no mean power. Of St Luke this is universally granted : I believe it to be true only in a less degree of St Matthew, though his methods are very dif ferent, and he is less ready to take offence at mere points of style. It has been pointed out recently, in connexion with books of the New Testament, that in ancient times there were recognised limits which were imposed by material conditions upon the length of writings. Both St Matthew and St Luke had so much to add, that it was likely that they would exercise a certain economy in embodying earlier materials. In the case of St Mark's Gos pel, not much could be wisely omitted altogether. But the superabundance of description could be cut down, the perpetual repetition might be avoided, and space might thus be gained for fresh "matter without exceeding the ordinary compass of a volume.1 1 The three longest books of the New Testament are almost identical in length. Measuring by the pages of Westcott and Hort's edition, we find Matt. = 70, Luke = 72, Acts =70. St Luke, having reached what Origen might have called the atfrd/wojs irepiypaQ-fi of a volume (contra Cels. iii ad fin., iv ad fin.), ends his Gospel with a participial clause, at a point where there was a brief resting-place in the history. His second volume he similarly closes within a like compass at another natural resting-place — the two years' imprison- 46 The Study of the Gospels As the new writers, then, were not mere copyists, it was likely that many other pecu liarities of St Mark's style would disappear before their revising touch. The extreme sim plicity of construction, for example, which added clause to clause with an ever-recurring ' and,' was certain to give way to a more graceful, if not a more effective, method of narration. So again the 190 short relative clauses, which frequently take the place of substantives or participles, or which add nothing but a little emphasis, were destined to a severe reduction in passing under the censorship of any writer who thought in Greek and not, as St Mark probably did, in Aramaic. Apart from points of style, of which many more examples might easily be given,1 there were various details which seemed to call for correction. Here and there the very simplicity of the nar rative, or its curtness, made it at least ambiguous, if not unintelligible; as in the words (xi 3) d icvpios avrov ypeiav e^et leal ev8ii<; avrbv atrocrTeXKei, ment of St Paul — ending even more abruptly with an adverb. It is difficult to think that he did not contemplate adding a third volume of similar compass, and ending with a peroration, in the style of his preface, which would have brought his whole work to a formal close. 1 Of St Mark's 64 instances of foa, which he used with Semitic freedom, St Matthew retains 17, St Luke 14 ; and almost every substitute for it involves further alteration of the sentence which contained it. Of St Mark's 150 historic presents, St Luke retains but one, St Matthew 21, in 9 instances prefixing r6re. This alone accounts for a vast amount of change. (Some of these figures may re quire modification, but I think that, they are substantially correct. ) Note A 47 trakw a>8e, where each of the clauses is capable of two interpretations ; and in the strange utter ance regarding Elias (ix 12, 13). Elsewhere actual mistakes were to be rectified, as at the outset (i 2) where the words of Malachi are cited as from Isaiah, and in ii 26 ' the high- priesthood of Abiathar.' At other points there were expressions which were open to serious misunderstanding, and which a sense of reverence might remove : as in the several places where it is said that our Lord ' could not ' do this or that ; x or, as we have already seen, where anger is attributed to Him. Under the same head fall those miracles in which cures are effected with reluctance or with ap parent difficulty. St Mark's Gospel is most readily accounted for as the product of two factors; the narrative of a Galilean eye-witness, and the interpretation of that narrative in a Greek form for Roman readers. Tradition points to St Peter, the Galilean fisherman, as the source of the narrative, and to St Mark, his interpreter at Rome, as the writer of the book. Everything in the scope and style of the work is in harmony with this view of its origin. We have nothing to tell us that St Peter was with our Lord in several of the visits to Jerusalem which are described so fully by St John. In any case his home in every sense was Galilee ; he was at home there, as he was not at home in Jerusalem. Again, underneath the whole of the phraseology 1 Mark i 45, vi 5 (contrast Matt, xiii 58), vii 24. 48 The Study of the Gospels lies a Semitic element; it often protrudes itself to such an extent as to make us believe that, if the writer was not actually translating a Semitic narrative, he must have thought in a Semitic language, though he wrote in Greek ; and he delights to retain Aramaic words at points of special interest, though he is always careful to follow them by a literal translation.1 His Jewish mind, too, does full justice to incidents which primarily interested only a Jew ; but here again he is copious in explanation, never losing sight of the needs of those for whom he is writing. It was natural that other narratives should come to be compiled later on under other conditions, and for other readers. Apart from the modifica tions which we have considered as in any case to be expected, others would result from the temperament of the author and from the require ments of those whom he addressed. Thus a man well read in the ancient scriptures might feel 1 See Mark iii 17 Boanerges, which is Sons of thunder ; v 41, Talitha aim, which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise ; vii 11, Corban, which is Gift ; vii 34, Ephphatha, which is Be opened ; x 46, the son of Timaeus, Bartimceus ; xiv 36, Abba, Father ; xv 22, the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull ; xv 34, El6t, Eldt, lama sabachthdni ? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me f The parallels in the other evangelists should be traced in Wright's Synopsis. It will be found that the Aramaic words disappear, except in the last two instances, where St Matthew retains them. A similar study should be made of St Mark's Latin words : Kpi.fSa.TTOv, ii i, 9, 11, 12, vi 55 ; p,6Si.ov, iv 21 ; Xeyuip, v 9 ; isireKovXdTuip, vi 27 ; £eoTi}s, vii 4 ; ST/pipiov, vi 37, xii 15, xiv 5 ; KoSp&VTTjs, xii 42 ; QpayeWovv, xv 15 ; Tpcuribptor, xv 16 ; KevTvpiw, xv 39, 44, 45. Note A 49 called to write a Gospel for Greek-speaking Jewish converts. He would dwell on the fulfilment of prophecy, and would colour his writings with Old Testament allusions. Another might write for Gentile converts, addressing himself to educated Greeks. Mere Jewish custom would have little interest for his readers, except where it gave the necessary historical colouring. Teachings, in particular, which dealt with Jewish matters primarily, would give way to others of more general interest. Two such evangelists, very differently constituted and very differently placed, but each with a sense of style and with an ad ditional supply of materials, are before us in the writers of our first and third Gospels. NOTE B On the Title ' The Son of Man' The title ' the Son of Man ' occurs in every one of the strata of evangelic record which we have learned to distinguish — namely, — (1) St Mark ; (2) The non-Marcan document ; (3) Additional matter peculiar to St Luke ; (4) Additional matter peculiar to St Matthew ; (5) St John. The table which follows will show at a glance its distribution in the synoptic Gospels. D THE SON OF MAN O I. — Passages belonging to St Mark Makk. Luke. Matthew. 1. . . ii 10 Authority to forgive sins . v24 ix 6 2. . . ii2S vi 5 xii8 3. . . viii 31 Must suffer many things . - . ix22 *xvi21 4. . . viii 38 Shall be ashamed of him, when . ix26 xvi 27 5. . . ix 9 Save when . . . rise from the dead . xvii 9 6. . . ixl2 How it is written . . . should suffer . xvii 12 7. . . ix31 Is delivered into the hands of men ix44 xvii 22 8. . . x33 We go up to Jerusalem and . . . delivered xviii. 31 xx 18 9. . . x45 Not to be ministered unto .... xx 28 10. xiii 26 Coming in clouds . ... xxi. 27 xxiv30 11. 1 12.) xiv216«|goetl?a5iti3™t*eV ,-i . . . \ By whom ... is betrayed f xxii 22 xxvi 24 bis 13. . . . xiv 41 Behold, . . . is betrayed .... xxvi 45 14. . . . xiv 62 On the right hand . . . coming -with clouds xxii 69 xxvi 64 II. — Passages belonging to the non-Mabcan Document 15. . . vi22 16. vii 34 17. . . ix5S 18. . . xi30 19. . . xii 8 20. . . xii 10 21. . . xii 40 22. . . xvii 24 23. . . xvii 26 24. . . xvii 30 Luke. As evil for the sake of Came eating and drinking . Hath not where to lay His head Sign of Jonah Confess before the angels . A word against An hour when ye think not As the lightning ... so shall be Days of Noah Days of Lot Matthew. *vll xil9 viii 20 xii 40 (cf. *xvi 4) *x 32 xii 32 (cf. *Mark iii 28) xxiv 44 xxiv 27 xxiv 37 xxiv 39 (Lot omitted) III.— Insbetions into Maecan (or non-Mabcan) Passages 25. 26.27. 28.29.30.31.32. Luke. xxi 36 To stand before the Son of Man . xxii 48 Judas, betrayest thou xxiv 7 Remember how He spake . Matthew. xvi 13 Whom say men . xvi 28 Coming in His kingdom xix 28 On the throne of His glory xxiv 30 Shall appear the sign of xxvi 2 Ye know that after two days Mark. Matthew. *xiii 33 *xxiv 42 ?xiv 45 *xxvi 50 *xvi7 *xxviii 7 Luke. ?viii 27 *ixl8 *ixl *ix27 *x29 ?xxii 28 f. *xiii 26 *xxi 27 *xivl ?xxii 1 IV. — Passages peculiar to St Luke or to St Matthew to Luke. 33.34. . . 35. . . . xvii 22 . xviii 8 xix 10 To see one of the days of Shall He find faith? To seek and to save Matthew. 36. . . 37, 38. . 39. . . x23 . xiii 37, 41 . xxv 31 Cities of Israel Soweth the good seed . . . Bend forth His angels Come in His glory ... all nations * An asterisk prefixed marks the absence of the title in the parallel. 52 The Study of the Gospels One or two instructive facts appear at once from an examination of this table : — (a) In St Mark the title is used eight times in passages which foretell the Passion or the Resurrection. In the non-Marcan document it is never so used ; this document seems to contain no explicit prophecies of this kind. (b) The two passages in which the ' coming with clouds' is mentioned belong likewise to St Mark. These again are explicit prophecies. They are of special interest as being the only passages which directly connect the title with Dan. vii 13 fF. It is to be noted that they belong to the latest period of the ministry. (c) The earliest of the passages in St Mark are two which bring out with special clearness the representative character of the title. In order to study the meaning of the title, it is necessary to trace the usage of two other titles, ' the Son of David ' and ' the Son of God.' And to do this satisfactorily we must note all the principal references which our Lord makes to His own person. It will suffice for the present to confine our attention to St Mark's Gospel. 1. We begin with the words spoken to our Lord at His Baptism (i 11) : ' Thou art My Son, the Beloved; in Thee I am well-pleased' (5v el 6 vto? fiov 6 wyairr)T6Ta<; trepl tov dyaOov; el