Encyclopaedia Biblica/Gospels-Gospels (A: Internal evidence)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Gospels-Gospels (A: Internal evidence)
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

Contents

GOSPELS[edit]

The aim of this discussion is to set forth with sufficient fulness the facts that have to be taken into account in formulating a theory of the genesis of the Gospels, to record and criticise some of the more important theories that have been proposed, and to indicate if possible the present position of the question and the apparent trend of thought.

Discussion of the Gospels is in three parts, partly independent, partly complementary, viz:

  • A. INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS TO ORIGIN.
  • B. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AS TO ORIGIN
  • C. HISTORICAL AND SYNTHETICAL

Roughly it may be said that the first two are relatively full in their account of the contents of the gospels as a basis for considering their mutual relations, and in surveying the external evidence as to origin. The third aims mainly at giving an ordered account of the various questions bearing on (especially) the internal evidence that have been raised by scholars in the long course of the development of gospel criticism, and at attempting to find at least a provisional answer.

Special abbreviations used in these three articles.

  • Clem. Alex. (refT. to pp. in Potter s ed. and margin of Klotz).
  • Clem. Anc. Hom. = the epistle entitled An ancient homily, in Lightfoot s ed.
  • Clement. = Clementine Homilies, ed. Schwegler.
  • Diatess. =The Arabic Harmony commonly called Tatian s Diatessaron.
  • Ephrem = comm. ed. Moesinger.
  • Eus. = Eus. HE ed. Schwegler.
  • Gratz = Gratz sG7, ET.
  • Hippol. = Hippolytus's Refutation of Heresies, ed. Duncker.
  • Hor.Hebr. = Lightfoot, ed. Gandell, 1859.
  • Ign. = Epistles of Ignatius, ed. Lightfoot.
  • Iren. = Irenaeus, Refutation of Heresies (text of Grabe, books and sections of ET in ante-Nicene Library ).
  • Lightf. BE = Bp. Lightfoot, Bib. Essays.
  • Lightf. SR = Bp. Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion.
  • Lucian (ed. Gesner, Amsterdam, 1743, ref. to vol. and page).
  • Mk.App. = Appendix to Mk. i.e., Mk. 16:9-20.
  • Mk.-Lk. =the Common Tradition of Mk. and Lk. where it differs from Mt.
  • Mk.-Mt. = Common Tradition of Mk. and Mt. where it differs from Lk.
  • Mt.-Lk. = Common Tradition of Mt. and Lk. (whether in Synoptic or Double Tradition).
  • Orig.Cels. = Orig. contra Celsutn.
  • Orig.Comm.=(ed. Huet, Rouen, 1668).
  • Philo (Mangey's vol. and page).
  • Pseudo-Peter = Gospel of Peter.
  • Schottg. = Schottgen s Hor. Heb. 2 vols.
  • Ss. = The Codex (see TEXT), called Syrus Sinaiticus.
  • Tryph. =Justin's (ed. Otto).
  • Westc. = Bp. Westcott s Comm. on John.
  • Wetst. = Wetstein's Comm. on A T, t vols.

Literature on this subject. A. In German. For facility of reference we group the present selection from the German literature on the Synoptical problem partly according to the methods they employ, and partly according to the views they maintain.

i. Mainly tendency-criticism.

  • (a) Mt., Lk., Mk. : Baur, Krit. Unters. iiber die kanon. Evang., 47 ; Marcusevan- gelium, 51. Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, i. 44-103 ( 67) ; Aus dem Urchristentum, i. 28-45, 221-226 ( 78).
  • (b) Mt., Mk., Lk. : Hilgenfeld, Marcuscvangelium, 50; Die Evangelien, 54 ; ZIVT from 58 onwards. Holsten, Die drei ursprfing lichen Evangelien, 83 ; Die synopt. Evangelien, 85 ; cp 1253.
  • (c) Mk., Lk., Mt. : Bruno Bauer, Kritik der evang. Gesch. der Synoptiker, i,\f. , Kritik der Evangelien, 5o- 52. Volk-mar, Die Evangelien oner Marcus und die Synopsis, 70 ; Marcus und die Synapse der Evangelien, 76 ; Jesus Aazarenus, 82. Schulze, Evangelientafel, 61, (-) 86.

ii. Mainly, or entirely, literary criticism.

  • (a) Mk., Lk., Mt. : Wilke, der Urevangelist, 38. Pfleiderer, Urchristen tum, "87.
  • (b) Schleiermacher, Uber die Schriflen des Lukas, 17; Stud. u. Krit., 1832, pp. 735-768 (= Ib erke zur Theologie, ii. 1-220, 361-392); cp 120, 124 a.
  • (c) Theory of two sources (Mk. and the logia) : Weisse, Evangel. Gesch., 38; Evangelienfrage, 56 (but see 125/1). Wernle, Die synopt. Frage, 99.
  • (d) Original gospel of Philip, with the logia : Ewald, Die 3 ersten Evangelien, 50, ( 2 ) 71 ; JBIV, i848- 6s.
  • (e) Original Mk. with the logia : Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evangelien, 63 ; JPT, 1878, pp. 145-188, 328-382, 533-568 ; Theol. Jahresbericht, from 81. Cp 125 cf. Weizsacker, Unters. iiber die evangel. Gesch., 64; Das apostol. Zeitalter, 86, ( 2 ) 92. Johannes Weiss, St. . A r., 1890, pp. 555-569 ( Beelzebulrede ) ; 1891, pp. 289-321 ( Parabelrede ) ; 1892, pp. 246-270 ( Wiederkunftsrede ) ; in Meyer s Konnn. zu (Mk. und) Lk., ( 8 ) 92. Beyschlag, St. u. A r., 1881, pp. 565-636; 1883, 5^4-602 ; cp 118. Feine, JPT, 8s- 88 ; Eine vorkano-nische U berlieferung des Lk., 91.
  • (f) Apostolic source = the logia : Bernhard Weiss, St. u. Kr., 1861, pp. 29-100, 646-713; 1883, 571-594! JDT, 1864, pp. 49-140; 1865, 319-376. JPT, 1878, pp. 569-592; Marcust evangelhim, 72; Matthiiusevangelium, 76; in Meyer s Komm. zu ATt., (7) 83, (9) 98 ; zu Mk. und Lk., ( 7 ) 85, (8) (Mk. only), 92. Titius in Theol. Stud, fiir Bernh. Weiss, 284-331 ( 97); also separately under the title, Das I erhdltniss der Herrenu orte im Marciisevangelium zu den Logia des Matthdus. Cp above, 122, 125^, iz6c.
  • (g) Theory of two sources with borrowing from Mt. by Lk. ( 127) : Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Mt. benutzt?, 80; Stockmeyer, Quellen des Lk.-Kvang." in Theol. Zeitschr. aus der Schiveiz, 1884, pp. 117-149; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i., 86. Soltau, Eine L-iicke der synopt. Forschung, 99; Zeitschr. f. neatest. Wissenscli., 1900,219-248. Combined with hypothesis of an original Mk. : Jacobsen, Unters. iiber die synopt. Evangelien, "83; ZWT, 1886, pp. 152-179; 1888, pp. 129-158.
  • (h) More complicated hypotheses ( 129^:): Wittichen, JD T, 1866, pp. 427-482 ; ZIVT, 1873, pp. 499-522 ; JPT, 1879, pp. 165-182; 1881, pp. 366-375, 713-720; 1891, pp. 481-519; Lebet Jesu, 76. Scholten, Het oudste evangelic, 68 (Germ, transl., 69 : das alteste Evangelivtn) ; Hct paulinisch evangelic, 70 ; Is de derde evangelist de schrijver van het boek der handelingen, 73 (German translation of both, 80 ; under title das paulinische Evangelium).

B. In English. It may be well to notice that the efforts of recent English students have been mainly devoted to collecting and arranging the material for the solution of the critical problems under consideration, as a preliminary to the critical hypotheses which may, unforced, suggest themselves in the future.

  • (a) Books helpful to students: Rushbrooke s Synopticon ( 80), and Abbott and Rushbrooke s Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels ( 84) ; A. Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels ( 96) and St. Luke s Gospel ( oo) ; Sir J. Hawkins, }Iorce Synoptics: ( 99) ; F. H. Woods in Studia Biblica, 1 59^ ( 90).
  • (b) Special treatises, etc. : A. Wright, The Composition of the Gospels ( 90), and Some Neiv Testament Problems ( 98) ; Badham, The Formation of the Gospels ( 92, ed. 2) ; St. Mark s Indebtedness to St. Matthew ( 97); E. A. Abbott, Clue: A Guide to Hebrew Scripture (1900) and The Corrections of Mark (1900).
  • (c) Important articles : E. A. Abbott, art. Gospels in Ency. BrilW) 79 ; W. Sanday in Expositor for QI, 92, 93, and art. Gospels in Smith s Z>5( 2 ), 93; V. H. Stanton, art. Gospels in Hastings Dfi, vol. 2, 99 ; LI. J. M. Bebb, art. Luke, ibid. 1900; S. D. F. Salmond, art. Mark, ibid. 1900; J. V. Bartlett, art. Matthew, ibid. 1900. \V. C. Allen in Exp.T, 99 and 1900 (vol. ii).
  • (d) The following books bear upon the subject : Westcott, Introduction to the Studv of the Gospels ( 60 ; |S| 94) ; Salmon, Introd. to 1VT( &5) ; Plummer, Commentary on St. Luke ( 96).

GOSPELS (A: INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS TO ORIGIN).[edit]

CONTENTS

I. THE EARLIEST TRADITION (1-2).

II. THE TRIPLE TRADITION (3-14).

  • (i.) The edition of Mk. from which Mt. and Lk. borrowed (3)
  • (ii.) Mk. in relation to Mt. and Lk. (4-7).
  • (iii.) Jn. in relation to the Triple Tradition (8-14).
    • (a) Instances from the first part of Mk. (8).
    • (b) Predictions of the Resurrection ( 9).
    • (c) Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or Mk. and Mt.) caused by obscurity ( 10).
    • (d) The Passover and the Lord's Supper (11).
    • (e) The Passion ( 12).
    • (f) Conclusion and Exceptions ( 13-14).

III. DOUBLE TRADITIONS ( 15-20).

  • (i.) Mk. and Mt. ; Jn. in relation to Mk. and Mt. ( 15).
  • (ii.) Mk. and Lk. ; Jn. in relation to Mk. and Lk. ( 16).
  • (iii.) Mt. and Lk., or, The Double Tradition ;(a) Acts of the Lord ; (b) Words of the Lord ( 17-19).
  • (iv.) Jn. in relation to The Double Tradition ( 20).

IV. THE INTRODUCTIONS (Mt. and Lk. ), 21-23.

  • (i.) The effect of prophecy (21).
  • (ii.) Philonian Traditions (ib.).
  • (iii.) Justin and Irenaeus (ib.).
  • (iv.) Divergence of Mt. and Lk. ( 22).
  • (v.) Jn. in relation to the Introductions (23).

V. THE CONCLUSIONS (Mt. Lk. and the Mk. -Appendix), (24-33).

  • (i.) The Evangelists select their evidence ( 24).
  • (ii.) The Period of Manifestations ( 25).
  • (iii.) Traces of Poetic Tradition ( 26).
  • (iv.) Discrepancies ( 27).
  • (v.) Lk.'s view ( proofs ), 28.
  • (vi.) The Manifestation to the Eleven (The Mk. -Appendix, Lk., Ignatius), 29.
  • (vii.) The historical estimate of Lk. s tradition ( 30).
  • (viii.) Jn.'s view ( signs ), (31-32).
  • (ix.) Contrast between Jn. and the Synoptists ( 33).
  • (x.) Note on the Testimony of Paul ( 33 note).

VI. SINGLE TRADITIONS ( 34-63).

  • (a) The First Gospel ( 34-36).
    • (i.) Doctrinal and other characteristics ( 34).
    • (ii.) Evidence as to date ( 35).
    • (iii.) Jn. in relation to Mt s. Single Tradition ( 36).
  • (b) The Third Gospel ( 37-44).
    • (i.) [a] The Dedication, [b] Linguistic characteristics (37-38)
    • (ii.) Doctrinal characteristics (39).
    • (iii.) A manual for daily conduct (40).
    • (iv.) Evidence as to date (41).
    • (v.) Supernatural narratives (42).
    • (vi.) Lk.'s position historically (43).
    • (vii.) Jn. in relation to Lk.'s Single Tradition (44).
  • (c) The Johannine Gospel ( 45-63).
    • (i.) Hypotheses of authorship ( 45).
    • (ii.)
      • [a] Names (46)
      • [b] numbers (47)
      • [c] quotations (48).
    • (iii.) Style ( 49-51).
    • (iv.) Structure (88 52-63).
      • (a) The Gospel as a whole ( 52).
      • (b) The Details.
        • (1) The Prologue (53).
        • (2) The Bridegroom, or the Doctrine of Water; (a) Galilee, (b) Jerusalem, (c) Samaria (54)
        • (3) The Bread of Life ( 55).
        • (4) The Light ( 56).
        • (5) The Life (57).
        • (6) The Raising of the Dead (58).
        • (7) The Raising of Lazarus (59).
        • (8) The Preparation for the Sacrifice (60).
        • (9) The Deuteronomy (61).
        • (10) The Passion (62-63).

I. THE EARLIEST TRADITION.[edit]

1. Earliest Tradition.[edit]

Of the Four canonical Gospels the first Three (differing from the Fourth) so often agree in subject, order, and language, that they are regarded as taking a common view of the facts, and are hence called Synoptic.

Roughly it may be said that, of the Synoptists, Mk. exhibits the Acts and shorter Words of the Lord; Mt. a combination of the Acts with Discourses of the Lord, the latter often grouped together, as in the Sermon on the Mount ; Lk. a second combination of Acts with Discourses, in which an attempt is made to arrange the Words and Discourses chronologically, assigning to each the circumstances that occasioned it. A comparison shows that Mt. and Lk. , where Mk. is silent, often agree with one another. This doubly-attested account -for the most part con fined to Discourses, where the agreement is sometimes verbatim may be conveniently called the 1 Double Tradition. Where Mk. steps in, the agreement between Mt. and Lk. is less close ; and a study of what may be called the Triple Tradition, i.e. the matter common to Mk. , Mt. , and Lk. , shows that here Alt. and Lk. , as a rule, contain nothing of importance in common, which is not found also in our Mk. (or rather in an ancient edition of our Mk., containing a few verbal corrections for clearness [see below, 3]). This leads to the conclusion that, in the Triple Tradition, Mt. and Lk. borrowed (independently of each other] either from our Mk., or (more probably) from some document* embedded in our Alk.

Any other hypothesis requires only to be stated in order to appear untenable. For example :

  • (1) that Mt. and Lk. should agree by accident, would be contrary to all literary experience ;
  • (2) if Mt. and Lk. borrowed from a common document containing Mk., or (3) differing in important respects from Mk., or (4) if Lk. borrowed from Mt., or Mt. from Lk., the two (i.e., Mt. and Lk.) would contain important similarities not found in Mk. ;
  • (5) if Mk. borrowed from Mt. and from Lk., he must have adapted his narrative so as to insert almost every phrase and word common to Mt. and Lk. in the passage before him a hard task, even for a literary forger of these days, and an impossibility for such a writer as Mk.

2. John.[edit]

The Fourth Gospel (henceforth called Jn.) does not contain the Synoptic 'repent', 'repentance', 'forgiveness', 'faith', 'baptism', 'preach', 'rebuke', 'sinners', 'publicans', 'disease', 'possessed with a devil', 'cast out devils', 'unclean', 'leper', 'leaven', 'enemy', 'hypocrisy', 'divorce', 'adultery', 'woe', 'rich', 'riches', 'mighty work', 'parable'. 3 Instead of 'faith' (TU CTTIS), Jn. uses 'have faith in' (Trio-memo). Faith, in Jn., is abiding in Christ. The Synoptists say that prayer will be granted, if we 'have faith' : Jn. says (15 7), 'If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you'. ^ Except in narrating the Crucifixion, Jn. never mentions 'cross' or 'crucify', but he represents Jesus as predicting his being 'uplifted' or 'glorified'. In Jn. the Synoptic 'child' rarely occurs ; but the necessity of 'receiving the kingdom of God as little children' is expressed by him in the necessity(verbally different, but spiritually the same) of being born from above.

Since the author of the Fourth Gospel must have known (Eus. iii. 24?) the substance of the Three, 1 it is antecedently probable that, where the Synoptists differ, if Jn. favours one, he does so deliberately. Independently, therefore, of its intrinsic value, Jn. is important as being, in effect, the earliest commentary on the Synoptists.

  • For the meaning of the emphasised the, see below, 15.

The hypothesis of an Oral Tradition, as the sole origin of the similarities in the Synoptists, is contrary both to external and to internal evidence.

3 The kingdom of God, 1 or, of heaven, occurs in Jn. twice, in the Synoptists more than eighty times.

II. THE TRIPLE TRADITION.[edit]

3. Triple Tradition: Mt-Lk as Mk.[edit]

Here we have to consider:

  • (i. ) The edition of Mk. from which Mt. and Lk. borrowed ;
  • (ii.) Mk. in relation to Mt. and Lk. :
  • (iii.) Jn. in relation to Mk. , Mt., and Lk.

(i.) The Edition of Mk. from which Ml. and Lk. borrowed differs from Mk. itself merely in a few points indicating a tendency to correct Mk.'s style.

The most frequent changes are (a) to substitute etTrei for Ae yei, 2 and to insert pronouns, etc. for the sake of clearness. But there is often apparent (f) a tendency to substitute more definite, or classical, or appropriate words. For example, exxetcrSai and ttTroAAvcrOai are substituted for the single dn-oAAuo-flai (Mk. 2 22, applied to wine and wine-skins), (tAi fjj (or some other word) for the barbaric (Mk. 249 n 12) pd|8aTTOs, TrepiTraret for (Mk. 2 9) vTraye (to the paralytic), e7ri/3aAAei for the unheard of (Mk. 221) eTripaTrTec.S Ambiguity is removed f.g-, by the following bracketed additions : Mk. 4 n [to knou>] the mystery of God; (3 is) Andrew [his brother]; (44) tv rw o-Treipeit/ [auroi/]. In Mk. 4 15, for them, Mt. and Lk. substitute their heart. (c) Sometimes there is condensation (e.g. [Mk. 4 10] oi Trepi avToi> aiiv TOIS SiaSexa. [Mt.-Lk.oi /u.a#i]Tal airou]) ; or an unusual word (e.g. [432] di/ajSaiVei [of a plant] is changed to a more usual one [r)ur)o-e]) ; or a less reverential phrase (5 27) TOU 1/j.a-riov to a more reverential one (TOU KpatrweSov TOV i/uari ou). In Mk. 1025, rpujoiaAias is altered into rp^aros or rpvjn}- H.O.TOS, possibly because rpujuaAtd means in 05 (four or five times) the cleft of a rock. Once at least, our Mk. (850: ava\ov yevrfrai) seems to have the newer tradition, Mt. and Lk. (/mcupai/0fl) the older : but there the parallel Mt. is out of Mk. s order, and is taken from the Sermon on the Mount, indicating that both Mt. and Lk. derive the saying, not from Mk. hut from a different source, from which come the portions common to Mt. and Lk. above called The Double Tradition.

An examination of the deviations from Mk. common to Mt. and Lk. in the Triple Tradition confirms the view that Mt. did not borrow from Lk. , nor Lk. from Mt. Had either borrowed from the other, they would have agreed, at least occasionally, against Mk. in more important details. 1

1 This follows from the generally admitted fact that versions of the Three Synoptic Gospels were well known in the Church long before the publication of the Fourth (see below, External Evidence ). An interesting testimony to the authority of our Four Canonical Gospels, and also to the later date of the Fourth, comes from the Jew of Celsus, who says that (Orig. Cels. 2 27) certain believers, as though roused from intoxication to self- control (or to self-judgment, <!> CK /oie Orjs r/KOVTas ei? TO f^ftrravai. envTOis), alter the character of (/xeTa^ipaTTcti ) the Gospel from its first written form (ex TTJS TrpajTTjs ypa^rjs) in three/old, four fold, and manifold fashion (rpi\rf Kai TeTpaxij (cat TroAAaxij), and remould it (jueTan-AaTTEic) that they might have wherewith to gainsay refutations (iV e>;oiFi> jrpb? roi/s eAe yxov? ipveitrOau).

Celsus apparently believes that there was first an original Gospel, of such a kind as to render it possible for enemies to make a charge of intoxication (perhaps being in Hebrew and characterised by eastern metaphor and hyperbole), then, that there were three versions of this Gospel, then four, thus making an interval between the first three and the fourth, which he does not make between any of the first three. The word manifold appears to refer to still later apocryphal Gospels.

2 Perhaps etn-ei seemed more appropriate for history. At all events Lk. never applies Ae yei (without airo<cpi0ei s, etc.), to Jesus. The only apparent instance is Lk. 24 36, And saith unto them, Peace be unto you. This is expunged by Tischen- dorf, and placed in double brackets by WH. Alford condemns Tischendorf on the ground that the authority is weak. But the internal e^t^dence is strong.

3 The deviations of Mt. and Lk. from Mk. are printed in distinct characters in Mr. Rushbrooke s Synopticon, which is indispensable for the critical study of this question. It follows the order of Mk.

4. Primitive character of Mk.[edit]

(ii. ) Mk. in relation to Mt. and Lk.

It is a remarkable fact that - whereas the later Evangelists, and other writers such as Barnabas and Justin, appeal largely to detailed fulfilments of prophecy - Mk. quotes no prophecies in his own person, 2 and gives no miraculous incidents peculiar to himself except (Mk. 8:25) an ancient and semi-poetical tradition of the healing of the blind. He makes no mention of Christ s birth or childhood, and gives no account of the resurrection. 3

Occasionally, Mk. repeats the same thing in the form of question and answer. This may sometimes be a mere peculiarity of style, e.g., 2 19 3 33_/I : but in many cases (1 32 42 3 22 [compared with 3 30] 29 4 15 5 15 12 44 etc.), he seems to have had before him two versions of one saying, and, in his anxiety to omit nothing, 4 to have inserted both. For amplifications in connection with un clean spirits, see l?6/. 44 37-12 914-27; for others, relating to the crowding of people round Jesus, the publicity of his work, and his desire for solitude, see 12835-3745 21-415 310-12631 etc. (some paralleled in Lk., but not so fully or graphically). Mk. abounds with details as to the manner, look, and gestures of Jesus (see 85 731-37 822-26). In some of these, Aramaic words are given as his very utterances, e.g., 641 ^34 !436. Sometimes Mk. gives names mentioned by no other writer (cp 3 17 8 10 1046).

In some circumstances, Mk. s elaboration of unim portant detail (and especially the introduction of names), instances of which abound in the Apocryphal Gospels, would indicate a late writer. But Mk. often emphasises and elaborates points omitted, or subordinated, by the other Evangelists, and likely to be omitted in later times, as not being interesting or edifying.

For example, Lk. and Jn. subordinate facts relating to the personal appearance, influence, and execution of John the Baptist. Now Acts 193 indicates that several years after Christ s death the baptism of John was actually overshadowing the baptism of Christ among certain Christians. This being the case, it was natural for the later Evangelists to subordinate references to the Baptist. Lk., it is true, describes Jn. s birth in detail ; but the effect is to show that the son of Zachariah was destined from the womb to be nothing but a forerunner of the Messiah. Jn. effects the same object, in a different way, by recording the Baptist s confessions of Christ s pre-existence and sacrificial mission. It is characteristic of Mk. s early date, as well as of his simplicity and freedom from controversial motive, that, whether aware or not of this danger of rivalry, he set down, just as he may have heard them, traditions about the Baptist, that must have interested the Galilean Church far more than the Churches of the Gentiles.

1 Almost the only addition of importance in this corrected edition of Mk. is (Mt. 2668 = Lk. 2264) Who is it that smote thee? added to explain the obscure Mk. 1465 Prophesy.

2 The parenthesis in Mk. 1 2 is the only exception. This was probably an insertion in the original Gospel (see 8).

3 For proof that Mk. s Gospel terminates at I(i8, see WH on Mk. 169-20, which is there pronounced to be a narrative of Christ s appearances after the Resurrection," found by a scribe or editor, in some secondary record then surviving from a preceding generation : _ its authorship and its precise date must remain unknown ; it is, however, apparently older than the time when the Canonical Gospels were generally received ; for, though it has points of contact with them all, it contains no attempt to harmonise their various representations of the course of events."

4 So Papias, quoted by Eus. (3 39) : For he (Mk.) took great care about one matter, viz., to omit nothing of what he heard.

5. Rude Greek Style.[edit]

Another sign of early composition is the rudeness of Mk.'s Greek. Mk. uses many words expressly forbidden by Phrynichus, e.g., (623) ecrxT<os f\ei , (249 Greek Style. II S-) */>aj3a T Tos; (Ills) KoAAv/SioW ; (5 4 i) icopatriov; (146s) paTTKr^a; (1025) ia^i v. Just as the Apostolical Constitutions improves the bad Greek of the Didache (Taylor s Didacht, 43), so Lk. always (and sometimes Mt.) corrects these inelegancies. Such words (which stand on quite a different footing from Jewish Greek, such as we find in Lk.'s Introduction) might naturally find their place in the dialect of the slaves and freedmen who formed the first congregations of the Church in Rome ; but in the more prosperous days of the Church they would be corrected.

6. Vividness.[edit]

Again, a very early Evangelist, not having much experience of other written Gospels, and not knowing exactly what would most aedify the Church, might naturally lay stress on vivid expressions and striking words, or reproduce anacolutha, which, though not objectionable in discourse, are unsuitable for written composition.

Many such words are inserted by Mk. and avoided by Mt. or Lk. or by both e.g., (1 10) ax^o/ue covs, (22i) ayvaifros, (138) ~opolr6hsrs. For irregular constructions :ee 12 40 oi Ka&dovws (altered by Lk.): 5 z? ~ V Q &Ofis. Note also the curious change of construction from iva to the infinitive in 315, as compared with 3 1 4, and the use of on, to ask a question (2i6 !n 28). The Latinisms of Mk. are well known : see 627 7 4 1615 39. Those in 12 14 15 16, and <f>payeAAoCi in 1815, Mk. shares with Mt. Less noticed, but more noteworthy, are the uses of rare, poetic, or prophetic words ("32 /uo-ytAaAoi , 823 o/1/u.ara, 25 njAavyais), which may indicate a Christian psalm or hymn as the basis of Mk. s tradition. 1

7. Candour.[edit]

Mk. also contains stumbling-blocks in the way of weak believers, omitted in later Gospels, and not likely to have been tolerated, except in a Gospel of extreme antiquity. For example (6:5-6), He was not able to do there any mighty work ; (1 32 34) all the sick are brought to Jesus, but "he heals only many, whereas Mt. (Sib) says that he healed all, and Lk. (440) that he healed each one (kv\ eicao-To)) ; (820-21) his mother and brethren attempt to lay hands on him, on the ground that he was insane; (1035) an ambitious petition is imputed to James and John, instead of (as Mt.) to their mother; (1644) Pilate marvels at the speedy death of Jesus, which might have been used to support the view (still maintained by a few modern critics) that Jesus had not really died ; Mk. omits (67) the statement that Jesus gave power (as Mt. 10 1 Lk. 9i) to his apostles to heal diseases; 2 (824) he enumerates the different stages by which Jesus effected a cure, and describes the cure as, at first, only partial; (11 20) the fig-tree, instead of being withered up immediately (as Mt. 21 19 irapaxpij/Aa), is not observed to be withered till after the interval of a day.

8. Jn. and Triple Tradition in Mk. 1-8.[edit]

(iii. ) Jn. in Relation to the Triple* Tradition.

(a) Instances from the first part of Mk. The following comparisons will elucidate Jn. s relation to the Triple Tradition. (It will be found that Jn. generally supports a combination of Mk. and Mt. , and often Mk. alone, against Lk. ; the exceptions being in those passages which describe the relation of John the Baptist to Christ. There Jn. goes beyond Lk. )

Mk. 1 zf., As it is written in Isaiah, etc. If these prophecies, wrongly assigned to Isaiah, are not an early interpolation, they are the only ones quoted by the Evangelist in person. Mt. and Lk. assign one of these prophecies to Jesus; Jn. assigns both to the Baptist, so as to emphasise the willing subordination of the latter ( I am [but] the voice ).

Mk. (16^1) mentions no suspicion among the Jews that the Baptist might be the Messiah. Lk. mentions (815) a silent questioning (that does not elicit a direct denial). Jn. adds a public question (119), Who art thou? followed by a public denial, 1 am not the Christ."

Mk. 17: after me. Rejected by Lk. (possibly as being liable to an interpretation derogatory to Jesus), but thrice repeated by Jn. (1 15 27 30) in such a context as to testify to Christ s precedence and pre-existence.

Mk. 18: shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, omitting and with fire, which is added by Mt. and Lk. Jn. goes with Mk. (Jn. 1 33) : He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.

Mk. lg mentions Jordan in connection with the baptism of Jesus ; Lk. does not (though he does afterwards in his preface to^the Temptation). Jn. (1 28) does, with details of the place. (Note that Lk. never mentions the Synoptic beyond Jordan ; Jn. has it thrice.) Lk. (822), in describing the descent of the Spirit, adds in a bodily shape. Jn. implies that the descent of the Spirit was (1 33) a sign to the Baptist alone, and states that it permanently abode on Jesus. Thus he excludes bodily shape, at all events in the ordinary sense. Lk. alone (136) had stated that the Baptist was connected with Jesus through family ties; Jn. represents the Baptist as saying (133), And I knew him not.

1 It is beside the mark to reply that these words are used, occasionally, by classical prose writers. The point is, that o/u/ua occurs in NT only here and in a Mk.-like account of blind- healing in Mt. 2034, whereas o^oA^os occurs in NT about ninety times I In the canonical books of OT, ofj.ua occurs only in Proverbs. TtjAavyjjs occurs only here in NT, and only twice (apart from a leper s bright scab ) in OT, and there in poetical passages. MoyiAaAos (practically non-occurrent in Greek litera ture, see Thayer) is found nowhere in the Bible, except in (P of Is. 356, and in Mk. s account of the man who had (Mk. 732) an impediment in his speech."

2 It is omitted also in 3 15 (where D and Ss. add it).

3 The parallel passages of Mt. and Lk. to Mk. will be found by reference to Rushbrooke s Synopticon. It may be as sumed that, in this section, Mt. agrees with Mk., except where otherwise indicated.

Mk. 1 14 f. (possibly also Mt.) leaves room for an interval after the Temptation, in which the reader may place Christ s early teaching in Jerusalem before John was betrayed. Lk. 414, omitting the mention of John, appears to leave no interval. Jn. repeatedly says, or implies, that the early teaching took place (3 24 4 i 3) before the Baptist was imprisoned.

Mk. 217: I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinful. Lk. adds to repentance. Jn. never uses the word repentance. 1

Mk. 821 puts into the mouths of Christ s household or friends the words (3 21), He is beside himself (ef Vn)) ; Mt. and Lk. seem to transfer this to the multitudes. They render it were astonished (ef icrrai/To), or marvelled (e#ai7/.a<rai ). Jn. goes with Mk. in mentioning a charge of madness (jtiaiVerat), and connecting it with the charge of possession (1020 : He hath a devil and is mail ). Mk. 822-30 repeats the charge of the Pharisees, (a) in the form (822) He hath Beelzebul, and (830) He hath an unclean spirit, while adding (/;) a milder form (822): In the prince of the devils he casteth out the devils. Mt. and Lk. reject (a) and adopt (b), defining prince by Beelzebul. Jn. goes with Mk. (Jn. 102o), He hath a devil.

Mk. 426-29: the parable of the seed that springeth up, the sower knoweth net how, is omitted by Mt. and Lk. Jn. gives the essence of this in his description of the birth from the Spirit, as to which, we (3s) know not whence it cometh and whither it goeth, apparently modelled on Eccles. 11 $f. : As thou knottiest not what is the May of the wind (TI S 17 ofibs row Trvev/aaTOs), nor liow the bones grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the work of God who doeth all. In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand : for thou knowest not which shall prosper, this or that. 2

Mk.6i-6: Aprophet in his own country. Lk. alone connects this proverb with a visit to Nazareth, in which the Nazarenes try to cast Jesus down a precipice , Jn. (444) connects it with a visit in which the Galileans received Jesus. Cp NAZARETH.

Mk. 827-29. Here Lk., alone of the evangelists, represents Jesus as (9i8) praying (Trpo<re\>\6fj.fvov), and he does the same in four other passages where Mk. and Mt. omit it. Jn. never uses the word Trpo<revxT6a.i throughout his Gospel.

(/3) Predictions of the Resurrection. As to these Mk. and Lk . give us a choice between two difficulties.

9. In predicting Resurrection.[edit]

(a) Mk. 9 10 (comp. also 9 32) says, that the disciples ques tioned among themselves what was the meaning of rising from the dead. Yet what could be clearer ? In Lk., Christ s predictions of death and resurrection begin with fulness of detail, which diminishes as the Gospel proceeds ; and the last prediction of death contains a statement that (i> 45) it was as it were veiled from them. (b) Also, whereas Mk. 14 28 (and Mt.) contains the prediction. After I have been raised up, I will go before you to Galilee, Lk. omits this; and subsequently, where Mk. (167) and Mt. repeat or refer to this promise, Lk. alters the words to Galilee into while he was yet in Galilee.

Jn. s relation to (a) and (t) is as follows in (a ) and (b ).

(a } Jn. makes it obvious why the disciples could not understand Christ s predictions.

Take the following : (2 19) Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (eyepco) ; (3 14) The Son of man must be lifted up (in//co0rjrat) ; (1223) The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified ; (13 31) Now hath the Son of man been g lorificd (e6of a<r#i)) :J and God hath been glorified in him, and God will glorify him in himself and will straightway glorifyhim. Who was to conjecture that, when Jesus spoke of being lifted up from the earth, he said this (12 33), signifying (oT)|u.aiV<ui>) 1 by what death he was (rjiueAAei/) to die ? or that glorify meant glorifying the Father, and hence the Son, by the supreme sacrifice on the Cross? No one can deny that these were what Jesus calls dark sayings (paroimiai). True, the disciples contradicted him: (1029) Behold at this moment (y\iv) speakest thou clearly and utterest no dark saying. But they were wrong.

1 Call, used by Lk. 41 times, Mt. 26, Mk. only 4, is used by Jn. only twice. Righteous (Si xaios) frequent in Mt. and Lk. (but only twice in Mk.), to describe one who observes the law is used but thrice in Jn., and then in the higher Platonic sense(17z5 O righteous Father, and see 630 724). A/uap-noAos, 17 times in Lk., only n times in Mt. and Mk. together, occurs only 4 times in Jn., and never except in the conversation of the Jeivs. Jn. differs in expression from Mk. and Mt. ; but he differsyfer more from Lk.

2 Similarly, in the Logia of Behnesa (see 86), Raise the stone, cleave the tree, Jesus while mainly referring to the Baptist s doctrine about raising up stones as children to Abraham, and about cutting down the barren tree of Jewish formalism may possibly have had in his mind Eccles. 10 9.

3 The aorist cannot be exactly expressed in English : hath been is nearer to the meaning than was.

4 Signifying i.e., representing under a figure or sign (which no one understood at the time). In 21 18 the cross is signified more clearly by the stretching out of the hands ; but no one is said to have understood the stretching out," and the context almost compels us to suppose that it was not understood.

Jn. seems to say, therefore, not that Christ s teaching, though clear, was concealed (Lk. 945} from the disciples supernaturally, but rather that it was necessarily altogether beyond them till the Spirit was given. Imbued with the popular belief that resurrection must imply resurrection in a fleshly form, visible to friends and enemies alike, how could they at present apprehend a spiritual resurrec tion, wherein the risen Christ must be shaped forth by the Spirit, and brought forth after sorrow like that of (1621) the woman when she is in travail?

Mk. and Mt. seem to have read into the utterances of Jesus details borrowed from subsequent facts or con troversies.- Towards these, Lk. and Jn. take different attitudes.

Lk., starting at first in accord with the Synoptic Tradition, gradually drops more and more of the definite predictions ; and at last, when confronted with the words, After I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee, omits the promise altogether. Jn., on the contrary, recognises that the predictions of Christ were of a general nature, though expressed in Scriptural types.

Jn. and Lk. differ also in their attitudes towards Scripture as proving the Resurrection. Lk. represents the two travellers as blind to the risen Saviour, till he (24 27) interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Jn. expressly says that the belief of the beloved disciple preceded the knowledge of the Scriptures : (20 8) And he saw and believed ; for not even yet did they know the Scripture, how that he must needs rise from the dead.

In the light of Jn., returning to Mk. s statement that the disciples discussed together what the rising from the dead might mean, we have only to substitute this for the, and it becomes intelligible. Every one knew what rising from the dead meant. But they did not know the meaning of this kind of J rising from the dead i.e., what Christ said about his resurrection.

(b } The promise (Mk. 1428 and Mt.), I will go before you to Galilee, occurs in close connection with Peter s profession that he will not desert Jesus. Jn. has, in the same connection (142), I go to prepare a place for you.

This leads us to look elsewhere for a confusion between Galilee and place. Comparing Mk. 1 28 with Lk. 437, we find that Lk. has, instead of The whole n-cpi ^wpos of Galilee, the words every place of the irepi x<upo? (so also in Lk. 7 17, Trao-r/ rfj Trepix^PV stands where we should expect iracrrj T/J ToA. : so Chajes [Markns-studien, 13], who also independently offers the same theory [double meaning of 7 7|1 to account for Lk. 4 37). In Mk. 3 7, Lk. omits Galilee. The question, then, arises, whether the original may have been some word signifying region, or place which (i) Mk. - Mt. interpreted to mean Galilee, (2) Jn. the place (of my Father) or the (holy) place, v/hile (3) Lk. found the tradition so obscure that he omitted it altogether. Now the word "Jv?, a longer form of V Ss ( Galilee ), is used to mean (Josh. 22 io/0 region. Again, Mt. 28 16, to Galilee, to the mountain where he appointed for them, suggests two traditions, (i) Galilee, (2) appointed mountain. 1 Lastly, besides many passages (Acts 125; Ign. Magn. 5; Barn. 19 i ; Clem. Rom. 5, TOV bfaikofitvov TOTTOC, and also TOV ayioi/ TOTTOV) where Jn. s word TOTTOS is used, with an attribute, to mean place (in the next world), Clem. Alex, (p. 978, Trapo. TcoToiro) (caretxoi To), uses the word absolutely of Paradise. All this leads to the inference [which is highly probable as regards Galilee, and which further knowledge might render equally probable as regards place ] that an expres sion, misunderstood by Mk. and Mt. as meaning Galilee, and omitted by Lk. because he could not understand it at all, was understood by Jn. to mean [my Father s place, i.e.] Paradise. In any case, we have here a tradition of Mk. and Mt., rejected by Lk., but spiritualised by Jn. in such a way as to throw light on the different views taken by Lk. and Jn. of Christ s sayings about his resurrection.

1 In i Sam. 20 20, where MSS of <5 have a corrupt reproduc tion of mattarah, Sym. has <ruvTeray^.fvov (TOTTOV) appointed place. Also compare Mt. 28 10, Go tell my brethren to depart to Galilee,’ with Jn. 20 17, ‘GO to my brethren and say unto them I ascend Unto my Fathcr. Does not this indicate that what ’Mt. understood as meaning ‘Galilee’ or ‘appointed mountain ‘ Jn. understood as meaning ‘heaven’? This points to some briginal capahle of being expressed by ‘the place,’ ‘the holy place,’ ‘ thy (place) of the Father,’ ‘the Mountain,’ ‘the Holy Mountain.

10. In correcting Lk. s deviations.[edit]

(c) Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or Mk.-Mt.) caused by obscurity, appear to be corrected, or omissions supplied, by Jn., in the following instance s :

Mk. (11 7, eKoffia-fv) and Mt. say that Jesus sat on the ass ; Lk. first confused inaSiafv with ixtfiow, 1 and then substituted for the latter the unambiguous iirfftiftaa-av they put him thereon. Jn. (12 14, e/caflicrei ) goes with Mk. The Synoptists all mention garments, placed on the ass and strewn in the road. But Mk. and Mt. mention also the strewing of branches (Mt. /cAafious) Mk., however, calling them ori/3a5as, a word that mostly means litter, or grass and straw used for bedding, or for the stuffing of a mattress. This Lk. omits. John inserts palm - branches (without mentioning garments ), but in a different context: (12 13) They took (in their hands) the branches of the palm trees (TO /Sai a i<av QoiviKiav), and went forth to meet him. 2

Whether Jn. or Mk. was right, or whether both were right, is not now the question. The point is that where Lk. omits a tradition of Mk. possibly as being difficult, Jn. modifies it, or substitutes a kindred one.

Mk. s (143-9) account of the anointing of Jesus by a woman is either omitted by Lk. (7 36-50), or placed much earlier and greatly modified, the woman being called a sinner, and the host being described as Simon, a Pharisee. Mk. and Mt., however, call him Simon the leper, and Jn. (12 1-7) suggests that the house belonged to Lazarus and his sisters. It is not impossible that the difference may be caused by some clerical error. Chajes, op. cit. 747^, accounts for Simon the leper by a confusion between vusili the pious = the Essene, and jjTixn, the leper. May there have been some further confusion between ymn and ijyS Lazarus ? Jn. apparently guards the reader against supposing the woman to be a sinner, by telling us (11 if.) that it was Mary, the sister of Lazarus.^


1 Or the confusion may have arisen from a Hebrew original, in which the active voice was mistaken for the causative, a common error in , and one that may explain several deviations of Lk. from Mk.-Mt. ,

2 Some have explained the as meaning the branches ot tl (well-known) palm trees (of the neighbourhood). More pro bably Jn. meant the palm -branches, used in processions of welcome and religious triumph," as when Simon (i Mace. 13 51) entered the tower in Jerusalem in triumph with praise and palm-branches (aireVews <cat jSaiW), and as was the regular custom at the feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23 40), in which the bundles of palm-branches and other twigs were (Hor. Hebr. on Mt. 21 9) shaken formally during the recitation of certain parts of Ps. 118, and so closely associated with (Ps. 118 25) Hosanna, that the bundle itself was sometimes called a Hosanna. But cp HOSANNA. ,

3 Mk. says that Jesus said (146) i^cTe avrrji/, Let her alone. A very slight change (-e being often -at in MS_S) would alter this to oMJmu avTfj i.e., i^i evTai aurfj, or a^eirai avrjj ( [her sins] are forgiven her, or she is forgiven ), which is what Lk. 7 48 has in the form a</>e u)vTcu.

  • Asregards(i), Lk.22is, / have desired (f!re6v^<ra.) ... to

eat this fassover, might- have been originally used (however interpreted by Lk.) of desire not destined to be fulfilled (as in Mt.13 17 Lk. 17 22). Also (3) and (4) and (5) may be interpolations (but more probably early additions, made in a later edition of the work) fro.n i Cor. 11 23-25, or (more probably) fr tradition. ft.

11. In the Last Supper.[edit]

(d) The Passover and the Lord s Supper. The Synoptists, and especially Lk., seem to represent the Crucifixion as occurring after, Jn. as occurring before, the Paschal meal. There are traces of a confusion in Lk. between the Day of Preparation and the Day of Passover. It was one thing to Mk. 14:22 and Mt.) prepare to eat the Passover, and another to (Lk.228) prepare the Passover that we may eat it, which Lk. substitutes for the former. Also Mk. 14 17 6i/u as yei/o/ueVrjs (which Mt. adjusts to a different context, and Lk. omits) indicates that Mk.'s original tradition may have agreed with Jn. s view : for no one would have been abroad at, or after, sunset, when the Passover meal was to be eaten. Though Mk. and Mt., in parts, unquestionably sanction Lk. s view, they do not express it so decidedly as Lk., and they contain slight traces of an older tradition, indicating that the Last Supper was on the Day of Preparation.

i. Mk. 14 18, One of you shall betray me, he that eateth. (itrtitov) with me, was perhaps a shock to some believers, as indicating that Judas partook of the bread. Mt. omits the italicised words, retaining Mk. s more general phrase, while they were eating. Lk. omits eating, having simply,_ the hand of him that is to betray me is with me on the table. Jn. (13 is) quotes Ps. 41 9, He that eateth my bread . . . , and specially mentions Judas as receiving the (1326) sop from Christ s own hands.

2. Mk. 1420 (and Mt.), He that dippeth his hand in the dish with me will be the traitor, is omitted by Lk. Jn. combines a modification of this with the foregoing ; Jesus (13 26) dips the sop and gives it to Judas. Lk. amplifies and dignifies, while Jn. appears to subordinate, the circumstances of the Last Supper. What Jn. had to say about the feeding on the flesh and blood of the Saviour, he placed earlier, in the synagogue at Capernaum. There, Jesus insists, (( , 53) the words (ajj/aara) that 1 have spoken to you are spirit and are life, and, the flesh profiteth nothing. Now he reiterates this doctrine (13 10), ye are clean (Ka6apoi), but not all. This, when compared with (15s), ye are clean ((caflapoi ) because of the word that I have spoken unto you, indicates that participating in the bread and wine and washing of feet was aseless, except so far as it went with spiritual participation in the Word himself. A climax of warning is attained by making Judas receive the devil when he receives the bread dipped in wine by the hand of Jesus.

4. Jn. avoids the ambiguous Synoptic word covenant, will, or testament (fnaSi\x.i\), and makes it clear, throughout the final discourse, that he regards the Spirit as a gift (or legacy) that implies nothing of the nature of a bargain or compact.

5. Mk. 1427 (and Mt.; but Lk. om.) All ye shall be caused to stumble ; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad, was likely to cause a scandal as though God could smite his son. This may be seen from Barnabas, who gives the prophecy thus: (On/) When they [i.e. the Jews] shall smite their own shepherd, then shall perish the sheep of the flock. Jn., while retaining Christ s prediction that the disciples should be (1632) scattered, effectively destroys the scandal by adding that, even when abandoned by them, he would not be abandoned by the Father (ib.\ And yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. 1

12. In the Passion.[edit]

(e) The Passion. The facts seem to be as follows: i. Mk.1442 and Mt. place the words, Arise, let us go at the arrival of Judas. Lk. omits all that intervenes between (a) Mk. 14 38 Watch and pray . . . temptation, and (b) Mk. 1442 Arise, let us go, having merely (22 46) Stand up and pray t . . . temptation. Now to stand (iDl 1 ) was nothing else than to pray (Hor. Hebr. 2 142). But stand might also mean watch, cp Neh. 73. Lk. may have considered (b) a duplicate of (a), taking the meaning to be stand fast and pray. In. places the words Arise, let us go, at the moment when Jesus feels the approach, not of Judas, but of (14 3 o/) the 'prince of the world', who has just taken possession of Judas.

2. Lk. omits all mention of the 'binding' of Jesus. Yet early Christian writers (e.g. Melito) regarded it as a symbolical act, being performed in the case of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, the prototype of Christ (Gen. 22 9). Jn. inserts it (18 IZ), as does Mk. 15 i (and Mt.).

3. Lk. speaks of (22 52) generals (o-Tpar^yovs) of the temple^ Jn. says (1812), The chiliarch, and the officers of the Jews. Lk. has, loosely, (82) Annas and Caiaphas as high priests ; Jn. says that (18 13) Caiaphas was high priest, and Annas his father-in-law.

4 According to Mk. 14 55-60, false witnesses asserted that Jesus had declared that he would destroy the temple. Mt alters would into was able, and implies that, though what had been previously testified was false, this may have been true.l Lk. omits the whole. In his time the destruction ot the temple by the Romans was accepted by Christians as a divine retaliation, which might be regarded as inflicted by Jesus himself, so that he might wish to avoid saying that the testimony was false. Jn. says in effect, Some words about destroying "the temple " had been uttered by Jesus (2 19) ; but they referred to " the temple of his body." And the Jews were the "destroyers."

5. Mk. 15 6 (and Mt.) says that it was the custom t. release a malefactor at the feast. Lk. omits this. Jn. not only inserts it, but adds that Pilate himself (1839) reminded the Jews of it. . x

6 Mk. 15 16-20 (and Mt.) mentions the (purple or scarlet, robe and the crown of thorns. Lk. omits these striking incidents for what reason, it is difficult to say. 2 Jn. inserts both of them. . ,

7. Mk. 1465, alone of the Synoptists, mentions blows with the flat hand (panC^ara ; in , only in Is. 506). Jn. also mentions them 19 3 (and cp 18 22).

13. Conclusion.[edit]

(f) Conclusion and Exceptions. The instances above enumerated might be largely supplemented. The conclusion from them is that setting aside (1) Descriptions of possession, and other subjects excluded from the Johannine province, 3 (2) allusions to John the Baptist, (3) a few- passages where Jn., accepting Lk.'s development, carries it a stage further, ///. scarcely ever agrees with Lk. , as against Mk. , whilst he very frequently steps in to support, or explain by modifying, some obscure or harsh statement of Alk. , omitted by Lk.

1 D and Ss. destroy this possibility by reading two false witnesses

" 2 l?arnabas (7) connects them with the scapegoat. Possibly this connection may have seemed to Lk. objectionable.

a The miracle (Mk. 11 13 Mt. 21 19) of the Withered Fig Tree may come under this head. It has a close resemblance to Lk. s (136) parable of the Fig Tree. Cp Fu;.

14. Exceptions.[edit]

Two important exceptions demand mention :

(a) Mk. 1625, It was the third hour and they crucified him, is omitted by Alt. and Lk., and contradicted indirectly by Jn. 19 14, It was about the sixth hour (when Pilate pronounced sentence). Mk. may have confused F ( sixth ) with r ( third ). [In i Mace. 637 the impossible two and thirty may be due to a similar confusion. 1 Or the sentence may be out of place and should come later, describing the death of Jesus as occurring when it was the third hour from the time when they crucified him. How easily confusion might spring up, may be seen from the Acts of John (12), when he was hanged on the bush of the cross in the sixth hour of the day (<upa e )crr)s ^nepiinjs) darkness was over all the land. First, e rr)s, sixth, might be mistaken for e/c TTJS, from the (or vice versa) ; then a numeral would have to be supplied. Or e TTJS might be repeated (or dropped) before CKTT;?. In Mk. 1633, D, which elsewhere gives CKTO? in full, has an unusual symbol [j.

The conclusion is that Mk. seemed to Mt., Lk., and Jn. to be in error, and that Jn. corrected by insertion what Mt. and Lk. corrected by omission.

(b) Mk. 1430, Before the cock crow twice thrice thou shall deny me, is given by Mt. and Lk. with the omission of twice. This is remarkable, because twice enhances the miraculousness of the prediction. May not Mk. be based on a Semitic original, which gave the saying thus, Before the cock crow, twice and thrice ( = repeatedly, see Job 8829 405)? Jn. (1833) accepts Lk. s modification of Mt., but with a slight varia tion the cock shall not crow, until such time as thou deny me thrice (e ws ou api ijo T/ |U.e rpt s).

Here Jn. accepts, but improves on, the Synoptic correction of Alk., who, though perhaps literally correct, does not represent the spirit of what Jesus said.

III. DOUBLE TRADITIONS.[edit]

The Double Traditions include what is common to

  • (i). Mk. and Mt.,
  • (ii.) Mk. and Lk.,
  • (iii.) Mt. and Lk.

The last of these three is so much fuller than (i) or (ii) that it may be conveniently called 'The Double Tradition'.

15. Double traditions : Mk.-Mt.[edit]

(i.) Mk. and Mt. ; Jn. in relation to Mk. and Mt. Much of this has been incidentally discussed above, under the head of the Triple Tradition : and what has been said there will explain why Lk. and Jn. omit Mk. 16 2 and 624-29 (accounts of the Baptist), 9 13 ( Elias is come already ), 1634-36 ( He calleth for Elias ). 3 Lk. s omission of a long and continuous section of Mk. (645-821) including (a), Christ s walking on the Sea, (&), the doctrine about things that defile, and (c), about the children s crumbs, (d}, the feeding of the Four Thousand, (e], a comparison between this and the feeding of the Five Thousand, and (f ), the dialogue (see 39 n. ) following the doctrine of leaven may indicate that Lk. knew this section as existing in a separate tradition, which, for some reason, he did not wish to include in his Gospel. Most of it may be said to belong to the Doctrine of Bread, as taught in Galilee. Jn. also devotes a section of his Gospel to a doctrine of Bread (but of quite a different kind from Mk. s), concentrating attention on Christ as the Bread. Lk. also omits (Mk. 943-47) the cutting off of hand and foot, and (Mk. 162-9) the discussion of the enactments of Moses concerning divorce the former, perhaps, as being liable to literal interpretation, the latter, as being out of date. The ambitious petition (Mk. 1035-40) of the sons of Zebedee, Christ s rebuke (Mk. 832/1) of Peter as Satan, and the quotation (Mk. 1427), I will smite the shepherd, Lk. may have omitted, as not tending to edification. In the discourse on the last day Lk. omits a great deal that prevents attention from being concentrated on the destruction of Jerusalem as exactly fulfiling the predictions of Christ ; but especially he omits (Mk. 1832), of this hour the Son knoweth not.

It must be added that, both in this Double Tradition and (to a less extent) in those parts of the Triple Tradition where Lk. makes omissions, Mk. and Mt. generally agree more closely than where Lk. intervenes. The phenomena point to a common document occasion ally used by Mk. and Mt. , and, where thus used, avoided by Lk. and also by Jn. The Walking on the Water is an exception to Jn. s general omission. The Anointing of Jesus (since Lk. has a version of it) has been treated above as part of the Triple Tradition. 1

1 Attempts have been made, but in vain (see Classical Review, 1894, p. 243), to prove that Jn. s sixth hour meant 6 A.M.

- 1 The parallel passages in Alt. can be ascertained by refer ence to Rushbrooke s Synopticon.

3 For the Withering of the Fig -Tree (Alk. 11 13-20) see 13 n.

16. Mk.-Lk.[edit]

(ii. ) Mk. and Lk.; Jn. in relation to Mk. and Lk. is very brief. The larger portion of it relates to exorcism Mk. 121-25 938-40 (and note the close agreement between Mk. and Lk. as to the exorcism of the Legion, a name omitted by Mt. in his account of it). There are also accounts of Jesus (Mk. 135-38 45) retiring to solitude, and of people Mocking to him from (38) Tyre and Sidon. A section of some length attacks the Pharisees, as (Mk. 12 38-40) devourers of widows houses, and prepares the (Mk. 12 39 = Mt. 236) way for (Mk. 1241-44) the story of the widow s mite. In the later portions of the Gospel, Lk. deviates from Mk. (as Mt. approximates to Mk. ), returning to similarity in the Preparation for the Pass over (Mk. 14 12-16), but from this point deviating more and more.

Lk.'s insertion of what maybe called the widow- section, is consistent with the prominence given by him to women and to poverty (see below, 39).

17. The double tradition : its Acts.[edit]

(iii. ) Mt. and Lk.- or, 'The Double Tradition' ; (a) the Acts the Lord (b) the Words of the Lord. The Acts of the Lord are confined to the details of the Temptation and (b) the healing of the Centurion's servant.

(a) Mk. gives no detailed account of a Temptation, but just mentions it, adding (113) and the angels ivcrc ministering (SujKoyoui^tohim i.e., apparently during the Temptation ; Alt. says that, after the departure of the devil, angels approached and began to minister (TrpocrT/AOoi/ /cal Sirj/cdi/ow) unto him ; Lk. mentions no angels. Jn. omits all temptation of Jesus, but suggests (1 51) that angels were always ascending and descend ing on the Son of man, and that, in course of time, the eyes of the disciples would be opened to discern them.

(/3) As regards the healing, some assert that Jn. (446-53) does not refer to the event described by Alt. (8 5-13) and Lk. (7 1-9). But, if so, it can hardly be denied that he, knowing their account, was influenced^ by it in inserting in his Gospel another case of healing, resembling the former in being performed (i) at a distance, (2) on the child (apparently) of a foreigner, and (3) near Capernaum. Mt. and Lk. differ irreconcileably. 3 Jn., while correcting both Evangelists in some respects, and especially in tacitly (448) denying that Jesus marvelled, corrects Lk. more particularly, by stating (i) that the man came to Jesus, (2) that Jesus pronounced a word, or promise, of healing, (3) that the child was healed in that hour, and (4) by making it clear that the patient was not a servant but a son. 1 In the first three points, Jn. agrees with Mt. ; in the fourth, he interprets Mt. ; in all, he differs from Lk.

1 Space hardly admits mention of the possible reasons for Lk. s several omissions. Some of these passages (e.g., the practical abrogation of the Levitical Law of meats in Alk. 724-30) may have seemed to him to point to a later period, such as that in Acts 10 9-16, where Christ abrogated the Law by a special utterance to Peter. Again, in the Doctrine of Bread, while (Mk. 7 28) crumbs and (Alk. 815) leaven are used spiritually, loaves and (Alk. 814) one loaf are used literally; and this mixture of the literal and metaphorical may have perplexed Lk., especially if he interpreted the miracle of the Fig-Tree meta phorically, and was in doubt as to the literal or metaphorical meaning of the Walking on the Water. Some passages he may also have omitted as duplicates, e.g., the Feeding of the Four Thousand. As regards leaven, Lk. s insertion (12 1 which is hypocrisy ), if authentic, is fatal to the authenticity of Alk. 8 17-20. Perhaps the original was simply Beware of leaven, and the ex planation, g^^>en after the misunderstanding, was Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees i.e., hypocrisy. The rest was evangelistic teaching ( How could Jesus mean real leaven and real bread when he could feed his flock with the leaven of heaven at his pleasure? ) inserted first as a parenthesis (perhaps about the Son of man or the Son of God), and then transferred to the text in the first person. The variation of Alt. 169-12 ftom Mk. suggests that the words were not Christ s.

Jn. inserts the narrative of Jesus walking on the Sea, but adds expressions (6 16 21), borrowed from Ps. 10723, g down to the sea and (ib. 30) the haven where they would be, which increase the symbolism of a story describing the helplessness of the Twelve, when, for a short time, they had left their master. Jn. omits the statement (Alk. and Alt.) that Jesus constrained the disciples to leave him.

2 The passages referred to in this section will be found in Rushbrooke s Synopticon, arranged in Alt. s order.

3 D and Diatess. omit Lk. 7 ja Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee, thus harmonising Lk. with Alt., who says that the man did come to Jesus.

18. Its Words.[edit]

(b) The Words of the Lord are differently arranged by Mt. and Lk. Mt. groups sayings according to , their subject matter. Lk. avows in his preface (13) an intention to write in (chronological) order, and he often supplies for a saying a framework indicating the causes and circum stances that called it forth. Sometimes, however, he is manifestly wrong in his chronological arrangement, e.g. , when he places Christ's mourning over Jerusalem ( 13 34 35) early, and in Galilee, whereas Mt. (2837-39) places it in the Temple at the close of Christ's teaching. 2

The Lord's Prayer (Mt. 69-13 Lk. 11 2-4). It was perhaps on the principle of grouping that Mt. added to the shorter version of the Lord s Prayer the words, 1 thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth, as having been in part used by Jesus on another occasion (Mt. 2642). 3 Mt. s other addition, Deliver us from the evil one, is not indeed recorded as having been used by Jesus elsewhere, but it resembles the prayer of Jesus for his disciples in Jn. 17 15 : keep them from the evil one (and cp 2 Tim. 4i8). On Lk.'s changes, see LORD'S PRAYER ; they adapt the prayer for daily use, and indicate that Lk. follows a later version of the prayer in his alterations, but an earlier version in his omissions. 4

The exactly similar passages in the Double Tradition are for the most part of a prophetic or historical char acter. Some describe the relations between John the Baptist and Christ ; another calls down woe on Chorazin ; another, in language that reminds us of the thoughts, though not of the words of Jn. , thanks God for revealing to babes what He has hidden from the wise and prudent ; another pours forth lamentations over doomed Jerusalem. Others, such as, But know this, that if the goodman, etc., and Who then is the faithful and just steward, etc., appear to have an ecclesiastical rather than an individual reference, at all events in their primary application. All these passages were especially fitted for reading in the services of the Church, and consequently more likely to have been soon committed to writing. On the other hand, those sayings which have most gone home to men s hearts and have been most on their lips, as being of individual application, seem to have been so early modified by oral tradition as to deviate from exact agreement. -Such are, The mote and the beam ; Ask and it shall be given unto you ; Take no thought for the morrow ; Fear not them that kill the body ; Whosoever shall confess, etc. ; He that loveth father or mother more than me, etc. ; and note, above all, the differences in the Lord s Prayer. As Lk. approaches the later period of Christ's work, he deviates more and more both from Mt. and from Mk. , perhaps because there was a Judaean as well as a Galilean tradition of the life of Jesus, and Lk. , towards the close of his history, depended mainly on the former.

1 Mt. 86 mentions irois, which may mean child, but more often means servant in such a phrase as 6 miis jxov, O.VTOV etc. See (RV) Mt. 12 18, my servant ; Acts 8 13, his Servant (marg. or Child ). Lk. mentions (7 2) fioCAos servant Jn. has repeatedly (446 47 50) uios son, but finally recurs to Mt. s word (451), his child (ircus) liveth (the only instance in which Jn. uses jrais).

- The reason for Lk. s transposition is probably to be found in the last words of the passage, Ye shall not see me, until ye shall say, Blessed is he that comet h in the name of the Lord, words uttered by the crowd (Lk. 19 38) welcoming Jesus on his entrance into Jerusalem. Lk. probably assumed that the prediction referred to this particular utterance, and must, there fore, have been made sometime before it i.e., before the entrance into Jerusalem.

3 Cp i Mace. 36o RV : As may be the will in heaven, so shall he do.

4 Cp Lk. 9 23 : It any one wishes to come (epxeaBai) after me, ... let him take up his cross daily, where Lk. substitutes the present infin. f IT Mk. s and Mt. s i\0elv, and inserts daily. in order to adapt the precept to the inculcation of thf daily duty of a Christian.

19. The Parables.[edit]

The Parables, owing to their length and number (and perhaps their frequent repetition in varied shapes by Jesus himself, and by the apostles after the resurrection), would naturally contain more variations than are found in the shorter Words of the Lord. The parable of the Sower, coming first in order, and having appended to it a short discourse of Jesus (Mk. 4n/) that might seem intended to explain the motive of the parabolic teaching, 1 might naturally find a place in the Triple Tradition. But this privilege was accorded to no other parable except that of the Vineyard, which partakes of the nature of prophecy. 2

The longer discourses of the Double Tradition show traces of a Greek document, often in rhythmical and almost poetic style. Changes of words suca as nflc Atjo a.f for fwfdvfj.ri(rav, /SacriAeis for tK<uoi, e(cAau<raTe for eic6>//ao-0e, (riTOjxeVpioi for Tpo$>jf, anitrriav for vwOKpntav, may indicate merely an attempt to render more exactly a word in the original ; but such substitutions as (Lk. 13 27) aSutCa for (Mt. 7 23) ii/o/Lua, and (Lk. 11 13) [the] Holy Spirit for (Mt. 7n) good things, may indicate doctrinal pur pose. The original of Lk. 11 13 was perhaps (i) TTO.V ayaOov (as Ja. 1 17), (i\)irva.o.ya.8oi>, (iii) Tri/aayioi^asin Ps. 143 10 thy spirit is good TO ayiof [Nc.a RT] avofloV). Lk. appears to have the older version when he retains (Lk. 1426) hate his father, Mt. (1037) love more than me.

Other variations indicate a corruption or various interpretation of a Greek original (not, of course, precluding a still earlier Hebrew3 one): e .g, , Mt. 1029 Svo o-rpoufli a atro-apiov was probably in Lk. s text orpovtfia /3 a<r<rapiov which he read as ft acro-aptia, i.e., for two farthings, and then he added i ( five ) before <npov8ia. to complete the sense. Perhaps a desire to make straightforward sensej as well as some variation in the MS., may have led Lk. to substitute TO. evovra. for TO tiros in Mt. 2823-29 Lk. 1137-52.* This last passage exhibits Lk. as apparently misunderstanding a tradition more correctly given by Mt. In Mt. it is part of a late and public denunciation of the Pharisees in Jerusalem ; in Lk. it is an early utterance, and in the house of a Pharisee, Christ s host. Probably the use of the singular (Mt. 2826 Thou blind Pharisee ), together with the metaphor of the cup and platter, caused Lk. to infer that the speech _ was delivered to a Pharisee, in whose house Jesus was dining. The use of (Lk. ll^g) o Kvpios (see below, 38) makes it probable that Lk. s is a late tradition. Other instances of Lk. s altera tions are his change of the original and Juda^an (Mt.2334) rro<f>ovs xal ypa./x/u.aTeis into the Christian (Lk. 11 49) airooroAovs. Lk. also omits the difficult (Mt.2334) a-ravptaa-eTf. In Mt. 2834, Jesus is represented as saying, Wherefore, behold / send unto you prophets . . . and some of them shall ye slay andcrucify, etc. ; in Lk. 1149, Wherefore also the W isdom of God said, I will send unto them prophets . . . and some of them shall they slay, etc., omitting crucify. Here Lk. seems to have preserved, at least in some respects, the original tradition, whereas Mt., interpreting the Wisdom of God (cp i Cor. 124 Christ the Wisdom of God ) to mean Jesus, substituted for it /. Also Mt. retains an apparently erroneous tradition (2835) which made Zachariah son of Barachiah ; Lk. omits the error.

In the parables of exclusion e.g. the Wedding Feast, the Talents, and the Hundred Sheep it may be said that Mt. lays more stress on the exclusion of those who might have been expected to be fit, Lk. on the inclusion of those who might have been expected to be unfit.

Thus, in the Wedding Feast, Lk. adds (14 15-24) the invitation of the poor, the maimed, etc. ; Mt. adds (221-14) the rejection of a guest who has no wedding garment, and, in the Talents (2030), the casting out of the unprofitable servant." In Mt. 22 10 1847 the inclusion of iroir/poi prepares for an ultimate ex clusion. The conclusion of the Hundred Sheep is, in Mt. 18 12- 14, It is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish ; in Lk. 15 7, There shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. The Single Traditions of Mt. and Lk., when examined, Iwill be found severally to reveal the same tendency to dwell on exclusion and inclusion ; and this will confirm the inference, in itself probable, that the hand of each Evangelist is apparent in the varying characteristics of the parables of the Double Tradition.

1 Cp PARABLES.

2 Mk. 129 (also Mt. and Lk.) he will destroy the husband men i.e., the Jewish nation. The parable of the Sower may also be said to predict the history of the Church, its successes and failures.

3 Hebrew, when used in the present article concerning the original tradition of the Gospels, means 'Hebrew or Aramaic', leaving that question open. But see Clue, A. and C. Black, 1900.

4 Other instances are (Mt.2521) 6lrc lrohhwv 'over many things', which might easily be corrupted into ET' L rroheov 'over ten cities' (see Lk. 1917, and comp. Mk. 520 Aeranohar, perhaps written L rrahsr, parallel to Lk. 839 adhrv). Also, in the Mission of the Seventy (Lk. lO4J), g+ j3aura'&.re . . . &roB<paTa KaL pySdva Karb r;lv b8bv buna'uqu6'e.elc $v s' kv c1udhhSvr~ O k h , is almost certainly (Abbott and Rushbrooke s Common Tradition of the Synoptists, p. xxxvii.) a confusion of two details in the Mission of the Twelve (i) Take nothing for the journey, (2) (Mt. 10i2) Salute the house. The corruption of a Greek original is perhaps sufficient to explain this ; but it is more easily explicable on the hypothesis of a Greek Tradition corrected by reference to a Hebrew original.

20. Jn. and Mt.-Lk.'s 'words'.[edit]

(iv. ) Jn. in relation to The Double Tradition. 1 The discourses in Jn. have almost for their sole subject the Father as revealed through the Son, and lie outside the province of the precepts, parables, and discourses of the Double Tradition. In the Synoptists, Jesus is a teacher of truth ; in Jn., Truth itself.

The word light (not used by Mk.) is employed by Mt. and Lk. (Mt. 5i6t>23 Lk. 816 1133-30) to signify the light given by the teachers of the Gospel, or else the conscience. The Disciples themselves are called by Mt. (014) the light of the world. Jn. introduces Christ as saying (8 12) I am the Light of the World. Again, Mt. 7 13 14 and Lk. 1824 declare that the gate is narrow ; Jn. implies that it is not objectively narrow, but only to those who make it so,- being no other than (107) Christ himself, through whom the sheep (10 9) go in and go out, and shall find pasture. Mt. 7 23 speaks of sinners as being excluded by avo^ia. (breaking the law of Moses), Lk. 13 27 substitutes aSixia (break ing the law of justice) : Jn., not in his Gospel but in his Epistle (i Jn. 84, cp with 5 17), appears to refer to some controversy about these words when he pronounces that a/j.apria is dlvOfiut in the true sense, and that all a&iKLa. is a/xapTia.

Though Jn. never mentions praying but always asking or requesting, he nevertheless introduces Jesus as uttering, in his last words (17 1-15), a kind of parallel to the Lord s Prayer, of such a nature as to imply that what the disciples were to pray to God for, as future, Jesus thanked God for, as past.

It is true that prayer and praise are combined, and the words are wholly different : for example (17 i) the hour is come has no counterpart in the Lord s prayer. But (a) the hour, in Jn., means (1223-27) the hour of glorifying the Father through the Son, that is to say, the hour of doing his will and establishing his kingdom ; so that, in essence, the hour is come means Thy kingdom is already come. So, too (b) (176), I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me means, in effect, Thy name hath been hallowed. (c) The prayer that, as the Son has glorified the Father on earth, so the Father may glorify the Son in heaven (17 5 napa. <reauTui) with the glory which he had before the world was, means, in effect, Thy will hath been done on earth ; so may it now be done in heaven as it was from the beginning. (if) Also, remembering that the words of God are the bread of man, we find in 178 ( the words thou gavest me / have given them ) an equivalent to I have given them day by day their daily bread. (e) The declaration (17 11-15) that he has kept all except the son of perdition in the name given him by the Father, seems to mean I have prevented them hitherto from being led into temptation. (y) Last comes the one prayer not yet realised (17 15), keep them safe_/)w the evil one (e/c TOU vovripov) which seems to allude to the clause in Mt. s version Deliver us from the evil one (awb TOV Troi/ijpoG). *

Possibly there is also an allusion to Mt. 1634 Lk. 1251, I have not come to bring peace (not as though denying the truth of Mt. and Lk., but as though supplementing what, by itself, would be a superficial statement), in Jn. 1427 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and (1033) These things I have spoken . . . that in me ye may have peace.

Jn. s agreement with Lk. 1426 hateth . . . his own soul (or life), against Mt. 1037 loveth more than me (omitting soul ), in Jn. 1225 he that hateth his soul in this world, indicates Jn. s belief that Lk. has preserved the older tradition. But Jn. s addition shows his sense of the obscurity of Lk., who did not make it clear that father, mother, and soul, are to be hated only so far as they are in this world" i.e., instruments of temptation.

More conjectural must be the theory of an allusion to the Double Tradition in Jn. 1030 K^iveiv -n\v Ke<aATJi>, used of Jesus on the Cross. It is commonly rendered bowing his head, but no authority is alleged for this. 4 The expression is not found in the LXX, and occurs in NT only in Mt. 820 Lk. .(58, The Son of man hath not where to rest his /lead. But there is pathos and power in the thought that the one place on earth where the Son of man rested his head was the Cross, and the one moment was when he had accomplished the Father s will.

1 The relation of Jn. to the Double Tradition of the Acts of the Lord has been considered above, 17. This section deals with his relation to the Double Tradition of the Words of the Lord.

2 Comp. Clem. Alex. p. 79 : Orel*?) eirl yij? vTrepopajju.e i/r), rrAarcia ei> oupai/ois irpocncuPOV/ieVT).

3 Even in this last clause Jn. implies partial fulfilment already : They have been delivered : now let them be kept in a state of deliverance.

  • When Lk. means bowing, he uses 24s K\iveiv TO. irpocrcuira

ei? Tr/p yiji/. And the word bow is so common in the Bible

that the non-use of K\ivtiv ice^aAjji to represent it throughout (55 and NT makes it improbable that it would represent bowing here.

IV. INTRODUCTIONS (Mt. and Lk. )[edit]

21. Introductions : Mt. and Lk.[edit]

(i. ) The effect of prophecy in these is very manifest. The agreement of Mt. and Lk. in the introductions describing the birth and childhood of Jesus consists in little more than fragments from Is. 7 14, which, in the Hebrew, is, 'A young woman shall conceive and bear a (or, the) son and shall call his name Immanuel', but in (s, 'The virgin (veavis) shall be with child and bring forth a son, and thou (i.e., the husband} shalt call his name Immanuel'. This was regarded as having been fulfilled, not by the birth of Isaiah's son recorded in Is. Ss/. (but cp IMMANUEL) but by the birth of the Messiah. In the earliest days of the Jewish Church of Christ, the Messiah would naturally be described in hymns and poetic imagery as the Son of the Virgin the Daughter of Sion. In Rev. 12i-6 the Man Child is born of a woman clothed with the sun, who evidently represents the spiritual Israel. Eusebius (HE v. 145) quotes a very early letter from the church of Lyons where the Virgin Mother means the Church, and other instances are frequent. 1

(ii. ) Philonian Traditions about every child of promise would tend in the same direction: (i. 131) the Lord begat Isaac ; Isaac (i. 215) is to be thought not the result of generation but the shaping (ir\d<r/j.a.) of the unbegotten. The real husband of Leah is (i. 147) the Unnoticed (6 i^cri/xafojU.ei os), though Jacob is the father of her children. Zipporah is found by Moses (i. 147) pregnant, (but) by no mortal. Tamar is (i. 598-9) pregnant through divine seed. Samuel is (i. 273) born of a human mother who became pregnant after receiving divine seed. Concerning the birth of Isaac, Philo says (i. 148) : It is most fitting that God should converse, in a manner opposite to that of man, with a nature wonderful and unpolluted and pure. If such language as this could be used by educated Jewish writers about the parentage of those who were merely inspired by God s Word, how much more would even stronger language be used about the origin of one who was regarded as being filled with the Word, or the \Vord himself !

(iii. ) Justin and Irenaeus confirm the view that pro phecy has contributed to shape the belief in a miraculous conception. Justin admits that some did not accept it, but bases his dissent from them on ( Tryph. 48) the proclamations made by the blessed prophets and taught by him (i.e., Christ). Irenoeus says that the Ebionites declared Jesus to have been the son of Joseph (iii. 21 1) following (Ka.Ta.KO\ov(>i?]<Tai Ts), those who interpreted virgin in Is. 7 14 as young woman (veavis). Pro phecy will also explain the divergence between Mt. and Lk. Some, following the Hebrew, might say that the divine message came to Mary, the mother of the Lord, others (following (5) might assert that the message came to Joseph, Mary s husband. Lk. has taken the former course, Mt. (though inconsistently) the latter. Prophecy also explains Mt.'s and Lk.'s attitude toward the Messianic name Immanuel. Jesus was not (any more than Isaiah's son) called by this name, and Lk. omits all reference to it. Mt. (or the author of Mt.'s Introduction), 1 though he represents Joseph as receiving the Annunciation, represents people in general as destined to give Jesus this name, and alters the prophecy ac cordingly (Mt. 121-23), Thou shall call his name Jesus . . . that it might be fulfilled . . . They shall call his name Immanuel.

1 The name virgin is sometimes ambiguous. Thus, when Abercius (A.D. about 190) writes that the pure I irgin grasped the Fish (the Fish meaning Christ), Lightfoot (Ign. i. 481) hesitates between the Virgin Mary and the Church, but apparently inclines to the latter. Marcion is accused by Epiphanius of seducing a virgin and being consequently ex communicated. But (i) neither Tertullian (an earlier but not less implacable enemy of Marcion) nor the still earlier Irenaeus, makes mention of any such charge ; (2) Hegesippus (Eus. iii. 32 7) says that the Church remained a. pure and uncomtpted virgin till the days of Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, when heresies began. Marcion must clearly be acquitted : cp Diognct. ad _fin. ovSe Eva. <#ei peT<u dAAa TrapOeVos (the Church) TrtcrreveTai.

22. Their divergence.[edit]

(iv. ) Divergence of Mt. and Lk. For the rest, Mt. and Lk. altogether diverge. Both the genealogies of Jesus (according to all reasonable inter pretation) trace his descent through Joseph not through Mary, 2 and there survive even now traces of a dislocation between them and the Gospels in which they are incorporated. 3 The Genealogies (for an account and analysis of which see GENEALOGIES ii.) appear to have denied, the Gospels certainly affirm, a Miraculous Conception.

(a) Mt. 1 16, in its present text, has I. 6e eyeVvrjo-ei rov Ico<rr)<> TO oil-Spa Mapias, e 175 eyeynjih) IrjcroO? o Aeyo^ei/os XpicTTOS. Hut Ss. has J. begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ. Begat is also retained by a, b, Bobb. and S. Germanensis, even though they make Mary the subject.* This indicates that the original had simply (a) James begat Joseph, and Joseph begat "Jesus." Then, when the belief in the Miraculous Con ception arose, various corrections were made, such as (ff) to whom was espoused, or betrothed, Mary the Virgin, or the husband of Mary, to indicate that the begetting was to be taken in a putative sense, or to refer the reader to what followed as a corrective of the formal genealogical statement. Then (c), Mary was repeated as the subject of a new clause in the genealogy, but with the repetition of the now misplaced begat. Then (if), some altered begat into brought forth, others into from whom was begotten.

(b) Lk. 823 (WH) has (cat avrbs %v ITJCTOUS apx<>M ei/0 i">(rei t Tiav TpiaKovra, <ai> vios, J>s ivofuftTQ, Ici)OT;<|>. But Ss has, And Jesus, when he was about thirty years old, as he was called the son of Joseph, son of Heli, etc., which is not a complete sentence. D has fy Se Ir)<roCs ws friav TPIO.KOVTO. ap^o/aeros <i>s eyOjkurro et^ai vibs Iu)OTJ<|>, etc., and just before, has (3 22) cyio try/if pov yfyivi TjKa. <re : but both Clem. Alex. (407) and Iren. (ii. !! 5) read fp\6fj.e i/os (for ap^djuevos), and interpret it as coming to baptism. D maybe interpreted to mean that Jesus, at the beginning of his thirtieth year, was (really), as he was supposed to be, the son of Joseph, but that, in the moment of baptism, he was begotten again by the Holy Spirit. Ss will have the same meaning if we insert was as the missing verb, Jesus . . . [was], as he was called, the son of Joseph. The Ada Pilati throw light on almost forgotten Jewish charges against Jesus that may have influenced some Evangelists, inducing them to lay stress on the fact that Jesus was really the son of Joseph, or at all events that Mary, at the time of the birth of her first-born, was espoused to Joseph. 6

1 It is highly probable, on grounds of style, that the author of the Introduction is not the author of the whole of Mt. s Gospel.

2 D rewrites the earliest part of Lk. s genealogy, partially conforming it to Mt.

3 This is all the more important if the tradition recorded by Clem. Alex, is correctly interpreted to mean that those portions of the Gospels which consist of the genealogies were \vritten first (see below, So).

4 Codex a (and sim. Bobb.) has J. autem genuit Joseph, cui desponsata Virgo Maria genuit Jesum"; b has Joseph, cui desponsata erat V. M., V. autem Maria genuit Jesum. Later, b and Bobb. (a is missing) use panel and peperit of Mary, showing that genuit is not an error here, but is a retention of the old true reading, inconsistent with the altera tions adopted. Codex d (D is missing) alters genuit into peperit, but in other respects agrees with a. Corb. and Krix. agree with the Greek text. The Vat. MS. of the Diatess. gives Mt. 1 16 thus : Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, who of her begat Jesus, the Messiah. See the English transla tion by Hogg (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, add. vol. 1897, p. 45, n. 6), who points out the possibility of confusion between who of her begat, and from whom was begotten, in passing from Syriac to Arabic.

Ss, however, has above (not This day I have begotten thee, but) (Lk. 3 22), Thou art my Son and my beloved. But this may have been taken as equivalent to I have begotten thee to-day as my Son." Codex b has quod videbatur et dicebatur esse filius Joseph ; d follows D.

6 In Acta P. (A and B) 1 if., the elders of the Jews say to Jesus, Thou art born of fornication, (B, of sin ), to which other pious Jews reply (i) (A), we know that Joseph espoused (or betrothed [ejaojoreuaaTo]) Mary, and that he is not born of fornication ; (2) (B), we know that Joseph received Mary his mother in //if way of espousals, to guard her, of which another version is (3), His mother Mary was given to Joseph for espousal, not in actual wedlock, but to guard (eis fiMffffttav, oil yajou/ojc, dAX eis nipr/aic). The first of these three versions defends Jesus against the Jewish charge, but surrenders the Miraculous Conception. The second is obscure. The third sacrifices the defence, but retains the miracle.

As regards the childhood of Jesus, Mt. looks on Bethlehem (2i) as the predicted home of Joseph and Mary, and mentions their going to Nazareth as a thing unexpected and (223) a fulfilment of prophecy. He also mentions (as fulfilments of prophecy) a flight into, and return from, Egypt, and a massacre in liethlehem. Neither of these is mentioned by Lk. , and the latter is not mentioned by any historian. 1 But a typical meaning is also obvious in both Mt.'s narratives ; Jesus is the vine of Israel brought out of Egypt. He is the antitype of Moses, who was saved from the slaughter of the children under Pharaoh. Lk. treads the safer ground of private and personal narrative, except so far as he has given trouble to apologists by his statement about an enrol ment that took place under Quirinius, which was the cause why Joseph and Mary left their home in Nazareth in order to be enrolled at Bethlehem, the home of their ancestors. 2 Instead of prophetic there is contemporary and typical testimony : Anna, the prophetess of Asher, representing the extreme north ; the aged Simeon representing the extreme south ; and Elizabeth and Zachariah, of the tribe of Levi.

As regards the Baptist, while omitting some points that liken him to Elijah, Lk. inserts details showing that, from the first, John was foreordained to go before the Messiah, not really as Elijah, but (1 17) in the spirit and power of Elijah.

23. Jn.'s method.[edit]

(v.) Jn. in relation to the Introductions is apparently, but not really, negative. In his own person he makes no mention of Nazareth or Bethlehem. He takes us back to the cradle (Jn. 1 1) in the beginning, as though heaven were the only true Bethlehem (House of [the] Bread [of life]). The fervent faith of the first disciples defies past prophecies about Bethlehem, and present objections as to Nazareth and Joseph, by admitting the apparent historical fact to be fact, and yet believing (1 45 /. ) : We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus, the son of Joseph, the man of Nazareth. When the objection is urged against (146) Nazareth, faith in the personality of Jesus overwhelms the objector with the mystical reply (1 46), Come and see. 3 In Mt. it is the fulfilment of prophecy ; in Lk. it is the testimony I of visions and voices pointing to John as the messenger of the Messiah, and to the Messiah himself; in Jn. it is (1 14), the glory as of the only begotten of the Father that constitutes the true testimony to Christ.


1 Some attempt to explain the omission by other omissions of the crimes of kings by their panegyrists i but Josephus dwells on the history of Herod and his family, in order to show (Ant. xviii. 5 3) the retribution of Providence.

2 Quirinius was governor of Syria, A.D. 6, ten years after this time. The most plausible explanation suggested is, perhaps, that Quirinius was tivice^ governor of Syria ; but there is no direct, and scarcely any indirect, evidence to justify the belief. There is also no proof that Mary s presence was obligatory. That Lk. invented such an enrolment is im possible ; but that he antedated it is highly probable. Making (or revising) a compilation toward the close of the ist century, he might naturally consider that the enrolment supplied an answer to the difficult question, How came the parents of Tesus to Bethlehem at the time of the birth ? See CHRONOLOGY, 59 f- ; a so QUIRINIUS.

3 For the meaning of this Rabbinical formula, see Schottg. and Hor. Hebr., ad loc., and Wetst. (on Jn. 140) who quotes, among other illustrations, Rev. Ci. It introduces the explana tion of a mystery. Note also a similar contrast between personal belief and pedantical unbelief in "40^! : Some . . . when they heard these words, said, This is . . the prophet . . . but some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee* Hath not the Scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David and from Bethlehem? And compare the sub ordinate officers (7 46, Never man so spake 1 ) with the chief priests and Pharisees (7 52, Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet ). Westcott says, on Jn. 7 42, There is a tragic irony in the fact that the condition which the objectors ignorantly assumed to be unsatisfied, i.e. birth in Bethlehem, was actually satisfied. But are we to believe that Jesus knew that the condition was satisfied, and yet left the objectors in their ignor ance, so as to keep back from them the fulfilment of God s word, making himself responsible for the tragic consequences ? And in the face of such an objection, publicly and persistently made, is it credible that a conspiracy of silence should have been maintained by Christ s relations, friends, and neighbours? This, at all events, cannot be disputed, that Jn. represents the disciples as believing in a Jesus of Nasareth, whilst the un believing Pharisees demand a Jesus of Bethlehem.

V. THE CONCLUSIONS.[edit]

The conclusions (Mt. Lk. and Mk. -App. ) in effect treat of Christ's resurrection. This the genuine Mk does not describe, breaking off abruptly at (16:8), 'for they were afraid'. l

24. The conclusions: method.[edit]

i. The Evangelists select their evidence. Mt. mentions two appearances. In the first, Christ appears to women who held his feet ; in the second, to the Eleven ; but it is added that some doubted. In Lk. Christ never appears to women. Indeed, Lk. almost excludes such an appearance by speaking of (2423) a vision of angels, which the women are reported to have seen, without any mention of Christ s appearing to them. In this omission he resembles Paul, who enumerates several appearances to men but none to women. 2 Now, in giving a list of the appearances on which he had laid stress, an apostle might write thus in a letter to his own converts. But Lk. writes as a historian, giving Theophilus evi dence that he might know the exact truth. Him, therefore, we might reasonably expect not to omit any important testimony, known to him, concerning Christ s resurrection. His omission, in itself, disposes of the theory that the differences of Lk. from Mt. arise from mere haste or carelessness of observation, like those with which we are familiar in a court of justice. Like a glacier-worn rock, Lk. exhibits the signs of attempts to smooth away points of objection. Not, of course, that he invents. But while adopting old traditions, he accepts adaptations suggested in the course of new con troversies. He shows a desire to prove, improve, edify, reconcile, select motives natural, but not adapted to elicit the exact truth.

1 For the evidence of spuriousness (lately increased by the discovery of the Sinaitic Codex of the Syriac Gospels) see WH 2 (notes), pp. 29-51.

2 Cp A eta Pilati (7) (A and sim. B), We have a law that a woman is not to come forward to give evidence. Doubtless, such an objection was often heard by Christians from their adversaries.

3 The only evidence is Acts 13 fit Trepan/ reo-crapaKoi Ta, where D reads, in different order, recrcr. i^a. without Sia. In Hebrew days sometimes means some, or several, days, as in Gen. 404, They continued [for some] days ((5 ^e pas) in ward. By corruption, or tradition, M (i.e. forty ) might easily be added to HMEPON (or HMEPil) before or after it ; and the number would suit OT traditions about Israel, Moses, and Elijah. The Valentinians supposed Christ to have remained with his disciples eighteen months : Pistis Sophia, ch. 1 mentions eleven years. Lk. indicates that the disciples were to remain (Acts 1 +f.) in Jerusalem till the descent of the Spirit, i.e., two or three days. Apollonius indicates (Eus. v. 1814) from tradition, a period of twelve years : Clem. Alex. (764) says, In the Preaching of Peter, the Lord says to the disciples after the Resurrection, I have chosen you twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me . . . that those who disbelieve may hear and testify, not being able to say in excuse I 'We did not hear'  ; but, just before, (762) 'Peter says that the Lord said to the apostles. . . . After twelve years go forth to the world, lest any should say, We did not hear. Perhaps there was a con fusion between twelve years and twelve (really eleven) apostles. See below ( 89), for the evidence that Barnabas and Jn. disagreed with Lk. as to the day of the Ascension.

25. Duration of Manifestations.[edit]

(ii. ) The Period of Manifestations. Even for the coolest and most judicial historian, the difficulty of reconciling and selecting must have been very great. Jn. , though he mentions only three manifestations, implies (20 30) that there were many more. Not improbably the period of appearances and voices was much longer than is commonly supposed. 3 Mt. tells us, concerning the only manifestation that he records as made to the Eleven, that (2817) some doubted, while others worshipped. If other manifestations were of the same kind, different observers might record them differently. To testify to the resurrection was the special duty of an apostle, and such testimony was oral. The two earliest Gospels (even if we include Mk. -App. as genuine) contain very much less about the resurrection than the two latest. When at last the apostles passed away, and it became needful to write something about Christ s rising from the dead, and to add it to the already existing manuals of his teaching, the writers might find themselves forced to choose a few typical instances that seemed to them most according to the Scriptures, and best adapted for edifying the Church. At first, they might be con tent (as Paul was) with bare enumerations ; but, when the time came to fill in details, the narrators might supply them, partly from prose traditions, partly from the most ancient and popular of those hymns, which, as Pliny testifies, they sang to Christ as to a god, on the day on which they celebrated his resurrection, partly from the Scriptures on which the earliest witnesses for Christ s resurrection lay so emphatic a stress.

26. Poetic tradition.[edit]

(iii. ) Traces of poetic tradition. In the more ancient traditions of Mk. and Mt. , some details appear to arise from hymnal traditions. x Later accounts indicate an intention to convey either (as in Lk.) proofs of a historical fact, or (as Jn. ) signs indicative of the real though spiritual converse held with the disciples by the risen Saviour.

1 It is impossible here to do more than indicate one or two traces of this. The earthquake, which Mt. alone reports, might naturally spring from Pss. 46_/I, God is gone up with a shout, and The earth melted ( ecraAevflj), was shaken ). Mt. s account of the resurrection of (2752) many bodies of the saints a miracle, if authentic, more startling than the Raising of Lazarus, but omitted by the other Evangelists was probably derived from some hymn describing how Christ went down to Hades and brought up to light the saints detained there. Mk. 1()2 says that the women came to the sepulchre when the sun had risen, inconsistently with his own very early, Lk. s deep dawn, and Jn. s dark. This becomes intelligible if tradition was variously influenced by hymns describing how (Mai. 42) the sun (of righteousness) had risen, or by the prophecy (Ps. 405) God shall help her, and that at the dawn of the morning. It is difficult for us to realise the probable extent and influence of metaphor in the earliest traditions of the Christian Church. The Logion of Behnesa, Raise the stone, cleave the tree, is taken by many in a literal sense. But it probably means, Raise up stones to be children of Abraham ; cut down and cleave the tree of Pharisaism. Christ never used such words as sowing and ploughing in a literal sense. If his own disciples misunderstood, for example, his use of the word leaven, it is highly probable that the hymns of the first Christian generation might be so misunderstood as to affect the historical traditions of the second.

2 Later writers modify Mt. s account so as to soften some of its improbabilities. Pseudo- Peter makes the soldiers tell the whole truth to Pilate, who (at the instance of the Jews) enjoins silence. In some MSS of Ada Pilati (A) the soldiers try to deny the truth, but are supernaturally forced to affirm it. The retention of Mt. s story, with modifications, in apocryphal books of the second century that delighted in the picturesque, does not prove a late origin. Some have thought that Mt. s tradition is proved to be late by the excess of prophetic gnosis in it. But that, alone, is not a sure criterion. The difficulties pre sented by Mt. s account of the dead bodies of saints arising, and of the women grasping the feet of Jesus, and the bald statement that some doubted, all suggest early origin. The use of prophetic gnosis depends in large measure not on the date but on the personal characteristics of the writer. For example, there is more in Mt. than in Jn. But the existence of stumbling-blocks is a sure sign of an early date. In course of time, sceptics and enemies detected and exposed stumbling- blocks, and subsequent evangelists adopted traditions that sprang up to remove or diminish them.

27. Discrepancies.[edit]

(iv. ) Discrepancies. Mt.'s account appears to have been (in parts at all events) the earliest. The testimony of the soldiers to the Resurrection (where note the words (28 15) to this day ) was dropped in subsequent gospels, perhaps owing to the unlikelihood that Roman soldiers would risk their lives by a falsehood such as Mt. describes. 2

Henceforth there was (Mk., Lk., Jn.) no guard ; the stone was not sealed ; there was no great earthquake ; an angel did not descend from heaven ; the women came, not to look at the tomb (for they had carefully looked at it before (Mk. 1647 Lk. 2855), but "to bring spices for the purpose of em balming the body. But when did the women buy them? When the Sabbath was quite passed (Siayero/uei/on) says Mk. (16 i). Not so, says Lk. (2356); they bought them first, and then rested on the Sabbath. Again, what was the use of the spices if the great stone was in the way ? Mk. gives no reply. Lk. obviates the objection by not asserting that the stone was great. Pseudo-Peter, who has committed himself to a very huge stone, replies, the women determined, if they could not enter, to leave the spices outside the door. Jn. says in effect, The women brought no spices. The body had received this honour already from Nicodemus. From this point, incompatibilities constitute almost the whole narrative. The women (i) came to the tomb (Mk. 16z [a] Mt., Lk., Jn.) very early, before dawn, or while it was yet dark, yet (Mk. 16 2 [b])aftcr sunrise ; (2) they said (^\\..)nothing to anyone, yet (Lk. ) they told the KU~>en everything ; (3) they (Mk., Mt.), were to bid the Eleven go to Galilee, yet (Lk.) they were merely to remind the Kleven of what Jesus had said in Galilee, or (Jn.) they (or rather Mary) brought no message at all from angels, but subsequently a message from Jesus that he was on the point of ascending ; (4) they (Lk., and perhaps Mk.) 1 entered the tomb, yet (Jn., prob. Mt.) they did not enter it ; (5) the angel was (Mk., Mt. )<><?, yet (Lk. Jn.) two ; (6) the angel (or angels) (Mt.) encouraged the women because they sought Jesus (Mt. 285): Do not ye~ fear, for I know that ye seek Jesus, and yet (Lk.) blamed them for so doing (Lk. 245: Why seek ye the living among the dead? 3 ); (7) The Eleven (Mk., Mt.) were to go to Galilee to see Jesus, yet (Lk., Jn.) they saw him in Jerusalem, and were (Acts) not to depart from Je>~usalem (apparently not having left it since the resur rection ); (8) Peter (Lk.24i2, y.l. 4 ) looked into the tomb and then went home without entering, yet (J n -) Peter entered the tomb; (9) Mary (Jn.) was not to touch Jesus because he had not yet ascended, yet (Mt.) the women field fast his feet though he had not yet ascended ; (to) when the two disciples from Emmaus reported that the Lord had appeared to them, the Eleven (Mk.-App. 10 13) did not believe, yet (Lk.) they replied the Lord is risen indeed ; (n) the Lord (Mt. Jn.) appeared to the disciples in Galilee, yet (so far as we can judge from Lk. and Acts) no manifestations in Galilee could have occurred.

28. Lk.'s proofs.[edit]

(v. ) Lk.'s view ( proofs ). Lk. concentrates himself on the accumulation of (Acts 13) proofs, by

  • (1) rigidly defining the time when Jesus ascended and left his disciples,
  • (2) representing Jesus as appearing merely in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, so as to omit all appearances in Galilee where some doubted,
  • (3) giving the impression that the women saw nothing but (2423) a vision of angels,
  • (4) recording no apparition that was not attested by at least two [male] witnesses,"
  • (5) introducing Jesus as eating 5 in the presence of his disciples.

Yet even Lk. shows loopholes for detecting possible misunder standing of metaphor. Compare, for example, Lk. s narrative of the Lord s drawing near, and conversing with the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, with the Martyrdom of Polycarp (ii.) the Lord was standing near and conversing with them (jrapeo-Toj? 6 Kvpios w/ouAa airTois). In the latter, the standing near is spiritual ; and so may have been (originally) the drawing near," and the conversing, in the former. b

The difficulties that befell Lk. in his attempt to ascertain the facts may be illustrated by the probable explanation of his omission of the appearance of Christ to Peter. In reality, Peter was probably one of the two disciples journeying to Emmaus, as is repeatedly assumed by Origen. But Lk. s tradition confused the story, by attributing to the Rlwen the words really uttered by the two travellers. Lk. 2433^ should have run (as in D), the travellers found the Eleven and those with them, and said (lit. saying, Af-voi/res, not Ae-yo^ra?) the Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared to Simon. 1 This is consistent with Mk.- App., who says of the two travellers, they went away and told it unto the rest (i.e., to the Eleven), neither believed they them.

1 B (eAflovcrai) favours the supposition that they did not enter. This is not inconsistent with efeA0eii>, which some times means depart, nor with Mk. 168, l<j>iryoi> a?rb TOW li.tm)iJLfiov, which may mean that they fled away from (not out of) the tomb.

2 Ye is emphatic. The soldiers might well be afraid, but the women were not to be afraid.

3 This is still more obvious in Pseudo-Peter, But if ye believe not, stoop and look.

4 Though probably not apart of the original Lk., this insertion represents a very early tradition, and perhaps formed a part of a later edition of the Gospel. It can hardly be a condensation of Jn. 203-10.

5 See Tobitl2i9 (and cp. Philo on Gen. 18s) for the estab lished belief that an angel or spirit might ,Iive familiarly with men for a long period, but could not eat.

6 Also 2431, their eyes were opened (<.T\voi\&ri<Ta.v) may be a metaphor meaning that their eyes were opened to discern Christ in the Scriptures (cp. Lk. 2445, Acts 16 14, where it is used of opening the mind, or, heart) ; and their constraining the Lord s presence (n-ape/Siao-ai To) at the breaking of bread, reminds the reader of the implied precept to resort to violence in prayer (Lk. 16 16, and cp. 181-5).

29. 'The Eleven'.[edit]

(vi. ) The Manifestation to the F.leven (Mk.-App., Lk. , Ignatius), occurring in Mk.-App. 'afterwards', but in Lk. while the two travellers are telling their tale, is described by the latter as follows (2439): See my hands and my feet that it is I myself : handle me and see (\f*ri\a.<f>-r}ffaTe /*e Kal f5ere) ; for (Sri) a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me having. [And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 2 ] And while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered, he said unto them : Have ye anything to eat here (^?0d5e)? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish [and a honeycomb.] And he took it and did eat before them. Cp Ignatius, Smyrn. 3 : For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection ; and when he came to Peter and his company (rots irepl lUrpov), he said to them: "Take (Xd/Sere), handle me (\f/t]\a<f>ricraT^ /jie) and see that ( Were Sri ) 3 I am not a bodiless demon." And straightway they touched him and believed, being mixed with (Kpadivres) his flesh and his Spirit (or, v.l. , blood).* For this cause also they despised death, and were found superior to death. And after his resurrection he ate with them and drank with them as being in the flesh (wj although spiritually united with the Father. The word Xd/Sere (as in Mk. 1422 Mt. 2626 Xd/3ere [<j>dyere]) is grammatically, as well as traditionally, adapted to express a Eucharistic meaning, 5 and the words, mixed with his flesh and spirit (or blood), implying a close union such, as binds each member of the Church, to Christ in the one Body or one Bread, may very well be a part of the tradition (or of some comment on it) from which Ignatius is quoting. If so, the original (though not the Ignatian) meaning may be correctly expressed by the Armenian paraphrastic version, they believed, who (or, and they) were participators of the Eucharist (lit. communicated), and who (?) feasted before on his body and blood. In other words, the disciples not only received a vision and an utterance of the Lord, but also were made one with the body and spirit (or blood] of Christ and were raised above the fear of death by participating in the Eucharist and therein handling his flesh. These facts, being literalised in later narratives, may have given rise to the statements, made in good faith, that they had handled Christ s body, or that Christ had given them his body to handle.

1 Ss is confused, They found the Eleven gathered together, and them that were with them. And he hath appeared. And they . . . saying, Our Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon. And they also told them what things had happened in the way. ..." In direct speech the two travellers would say, The Lord hath appeared unto us. In reported speech, this would become, the Lord appeared unto them. The next stage of the tradition would define them as Simon and a companion. Lastly, Simon, as being the more important, %vould be alone mentioned.

2 WH regard the bracketed words as an insertion at a period when forms of the oral Gospel were still current.

3 See that is prob. the rendering of tfiere on here (so Lightf.), though in the corresponding passage in Lk. it means see, because.

4 The best MSS are in favour ofvynuuNl.

5 No instance has been alleged of the use of Ao/3eTe in the sense of the middle, Ad/3eo-0e, take hold of.

There are several signs of early variations as to this tradition both in Ignatius and in Lk. The words and see that I am not a bodiless demon dislocate the sentence, which begins with an appeal to touch, not to sight. We know from Origen (see Lightf. ad loc.) that these words were in the Preaching of Peter which he rejected, and we have reason to believe that they were not in the Gospel of the Hebrews, as known to him and Eusebius ; Lightf. suggests that they were added in the recension of that Gospel known to Jerome. Cancelling them, we should have, as the original, in the Gospel of the Hebrews, Take me; and they straightway handled him and believed. As regards Lk., Irenaeus (iii. 14 3), when quoting passages from Lk. accepted by Marcion and Valentinus, omits this passage, though Tertullian inserts it as part of Marcion s Gospel. Possibly Irenaeus con sidered that Marcion was quoting it from some apocryphal source (though Tertullian does not say so, but merely accuses Marcion of perverting the passage). Irenaeus himself nowhere quotes this passage, but alludes to the assumption about spirits expressed m it, in v. 2 3 For the Spirit (TO yap nrev/Ka) hath neither bones nor flesh. Tertullian ([a] Marcion 443, [b] De Came Christi 5) quotes the words twice, omitting the appeal to handling, and also omitting flesh. Even In (a), the context shows that he is not quoting a mutilated text of Marcion s ; but (fi) makes it certain that the omission is Tertullian s own. He quotes thus, (a) See my hands and feet that it is I myself, (e) See that it is I ; and in both cases adds, for a spirit hath not bones as ye see me having. In the context of (b), he asserts that a spirit has flesh, but has not bones, hands, and feet. Marcion (according to Tertullian) interpreted the passage thus : (Marcion 4 43) A spirit hath not bones, as, i.e. and so, ye see me having (no bones] : and he remarks that Marcion might as well have cancelled the passage as interpret it thus. [In (ff) Clark has, by error, hath notjiesh and bones instead of hath not bones. ] A fragment of Hippolytus from Theodoret (Transl. Clark, p. 95) has : For He, having risen . . . when His disciples were in doubt, called Thomas to Him and said, " Reach hither ; handle me, and see : for a Spirit hath not bones and flesh, as ye see me have."

D (differing from d) has (Lk. 24 39) </r;Aa<f>T)<raTe cai iSere TO irva ocrra OVK e^ei icat <ra.piea.<; KaBtas ^.e ^Ae7^eTe exovra. Codex a has Handle me yourselves (reading auroi for aiirds in what precedes). In Ss the passage, which has been (142) scraped with a knife, runs thus, Behold, see my hands and my feet, and feel and see that it is I ; for a spirit . . . flesh and bones ... as ... see me ... When . . . not . . . were. Again he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat ? Codices a b d and Brix. omit me after handle.

The emphasis laid on bones may have arisen from an allusion to Is. 60 14 (BXAQ); Your bones shall spring up. Blood was omitted, perhaps in accordance with a sense that it could not appeal either to sight or to touch. (Justin [Tryph. 76] indicates something specially non-human about the blood of Christ.)

30. Historical estimate of Lk.[edit]

(vii. ) The historical estimate of Lk.'s Tradition must be lowered,

  • (1) by evidence of his other errors and misunderstandings given above,
  • (2) by the variatlons in the corresponding tradition quoted by Ignatius and Tertullian,
  • (3) by the fact that, about A. D. 110, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (of which city Luke [Eus. 846] is said to have been a native), wishing to attest the reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quotes from an unknown authority a passage that omits all mention of eating, and neither here nor elsewhere refers to the testimony of Lk. This certainly leads to the inference that Lk. had not, in the mind of Ignatius, that preponderant authority which a canonical or even authoritative Gospel might be expected to have. 1

Lk.'s evidence must not be dismissed without a reference to Acts 14, (Tvi aAi^oiiAei os, which really meant assembling with, but was probably interpreted by Lk. (as by patristic com mentators, e.g. Clement, Epist. to James and Horn. 15 13) eating with, cp Acts 10 41 : Not to all the people, but to witnesses, to those foreordained by God, namely ourselves, who (oirices) ate and drank with him after the resurrection from the dead. This, when combined with Acts 1 4 Lk. 2443 and Lk. 13 26 ( we have eaten and drunk in thy presence ; not in parallel Mt. 7 22) indicates a consistent interpretation of such a nature as (possibly) to convert metaphorical accounts of spiritual intercourse and revelation into literal accounts of historical proofs.

31. Jn.'s 'signs'.[edit]

(viii. ) Jn.'s view (signs). In Jn. , proof is entirely subordinated to signs i. e. , spiritual symbolisms. The first manifestation of Jesus is to a woman, who (20 16) does not recognise him till called by name. The Ascension is mentioned as impending and as (apparently) preliminary to being (20i7) touched. In the second manifestation, Jesus conveys to the disciples the Holy Spirit which (739) could not be conveyed till after the Ascension a fact indicating that, in the interval between the two, Jesus had ascended. In a third (making the second to the disciples ], he offers himself to the handling of the incredulous Thomas, and pronounces a blessing on those who have not seen yet have believed. In a fourth, (21 14 the third to the disciples ), he is in Galilee, directing the seven fishermen in their task of catching the one hundred and fifty-three 1 fish in the net of the Church, and feeding them with the One Bread and the One Fish before they go forth to preach the Gospel to the world. Then, without definite demarcation of the period of manifestations and voices, the Gospel ends.

1 Apologists usually depreciate what they call a mere argument from silence ; but it has weight varying with cir cumstances. Here it is extremely weighty. The evidence is almost as strong as if Ignatius said expressly, I did not know Lk.. or else, I knew Lk., but did not believe it to be so authori tative as the tradition from which I quoted.

32. Contrast between 'signs' and 'proofs'.[edit]

In all this, the difference between Jn. and Lk. is obvious. Take, for example, the first manifestation to the disciples. In Jn., the disciples are not (Lk. 24 37) terrified and affrighted ; they have received the message from Mary in which Jesus calls them his brethren, and when Jesus stood in the midst of them, 2 they rejoice as soon as they see the hands and the side. 3 They do not (as in Lk.) suppose Jesus to be a spirit (or, as D, phantasm ) ; they require no appeal to sight or touch ; nor does Jesus eat in their presence. The object of the first manifestation in Jn. is apparently not to prove the Resurrection but to convey the Spirit to the disciples. There is no explanation of prophecy ; the Spirit is conveyed at once, not promised as a future gift. The appeal to touch comes afterwards. The incredulity of Thomas (absent on the first occasion) makes Jesus reproachfully suggest on a second occasion that the incredulous disciple may touch the wounds in his hands and side ; but it is not indicated that Thomas does this. The words that follow suggest that it was not done : (20 29) Because thou hast seen thou hast believed : (it is not said, Because thou hast touched ).*

The same spiritual (as distinct from Lk. s logical) purpose pervaded Jn. s sign of the seven who, if proof and not a sign had been intended, should have been the Eleven. 1 5 There is indeed some similarity between the words of Jesus in Jn. 21s : Children, have ye any meat? and those in Lk. (24 41) : Have ye here anything to eat ? But how great a difference in reality ! In the latter case the Messiah deigns to take food from the disciples in order to meet their (Lk. 24 38) reasonings ; in the former, the Saviour gives himself to the children to strengthen them for the work of the Gospel.

1 For the symbolism of this, see below, 47.

2 This standing in the midst, however, is from prophetic gnosis : see Ps. 22 22, quoted by Heb. 2nf. and by Justin \Tryph. 106) : also cp Lk. 2436.

3 Not, as Lk., the hands and the feet. In Jn., as in Pseudo-Peter, the feet are apparently regarded as bound, not nailed, to the cross.

4 In Jn., the first manifestation to the disciples seems to include a new and spiritual Genesis or Creation of man. The old Genesis (27) described how God breathed (ei/e^vo-ijo-ei/) into the face (of man) the breath of life, and man became a living- soul.

The rarity of e/jitj>va-S.v, which occurs in NT nowhere except in Jn. 20 22, suffices to make the reference to Gen. 2 7 certain. Philo also frequently quotes Gen. 2 7 (with eju.</>u<7-ai/) to contrast the earthy or first man with the spiritual or second man. Not improbably Jn. also has in mind that Ignatian tradition which described the apostles as mixed with his flesh and his spirit. (Careful analysis of all the passages where Ignatius combines flesh and spirit and flesh and blood makes it probable that spirit (not blood ) is the correct reading. At the same time, if both traditions were prevalent, Jn. s first manifestation to the disciples would express the being mixed with his spirit, and the second (that to Thomas) the being mixed with his blood ).

In any case, Jn. takes this historically sacred word, tradition ally associated with the creation of man, and represents it as dramatised in an act, in which the Logos remakes man in the Divine image, breathing into" him that Spirit of himself which (as Paul says, i Cor. 1645) was not only living (fiv) but also life-giving (^OOTTOIOW), so as to enable the disciples to transmit life to others.

5 It is interesting to note here (in the light of Mk. 1 16-20) the difference between Lk. s and Jn. s Draught of Fish, which Lk. connects with the calling of Peter to be a Fisher of Men, but Jn. with an imparting of the One Fish and the One Bread to the seven disciples apparently as a preparation for their apostolic work. It will be found that Lk. differs from Mk. and Mt. in seven points: (i) the boats are standing by the lake ; (2) there are two boats (the Jewish and Gentile Churches), not one ; (3) all (Peter included) have given up fishing in despair ; (4) Jesus enters one of the vessels ; (5) the nets are rent asunder ; (6) Peter fears and bids Jesus depart ; (7) Jesus does not expressly bid any of the fishers follow him. Jn. differs from Lk. in all these details: (i) It is Jesus (not the boats) who is standing by the sea ; (2) there is but one vessel ; (3) Peter has not given up fishing ; (4) Jesus does not enter the vessel ; (5) in spite of the multitude of the fishes (21 n) the net was not rent ; (6) Peter leapt into the sea and hastened toward Jesus ; (7) Peter is bidden, after the Sacramental Feast, not only to feed Christ s sheep, but also to follow him.

33. Last words : Paul.[edit]

(ix. ) Contrast between Jn. and the Synoptists. There is a curious contrast between the personal and as it were private nature of Christ's last utterances in Jn. and the public or ecclesiastical utterances recorded by Lk. , Mk.-App. , and the last verses of Mt.

In Jn. , Hither, break your fast, Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? In the Synoptists, either (Mk. - App. ) the injunction to preach the Gospel, the prediction of condemnation for those who will not believe and be baptized, and the promise of signs such as the casting out of devils, tongues, lifting up serpents, 1 drinking poison, etc., and healing the sick ; or else (Mt. ) bap tizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things as many as I commanded you, and a farewell in Galilee, with an assertion that Jesus possesses all power, and a promise that he will be always present with the disciples; or, lastly (Lk. ), an opening of the dis ciples minds to understand the Scriptures, and a long statement that the Scriptures must needs have been thus fulfilled, and that there must be the preaching of repentance in his name with a view to the remission of sins to all the nations beginning from Jerusalem, 2 and then a promise, and a warning that they must remain in the city till the promise is fulfilled: concern ing all which utterances we are warned by our knowledge of the various accounts of Christ s revelations to Paul that we must accept none of them as necessarily repre senting the actual words of Christ himself, though (in various degrees, and subject to various qualifications) they may be regarded as revelations to the Early Church, conveyed, during the period of manifestations, to this or that disciple, in the same way in which the vision and the voice were conveyed to Paul at his conver sion. 8

1 An interesting instance of the combination of (i) the historical, (2) the exaggerated, (3) the metaphorical, (i) The healing of diseases by the Christians was a historical fact ; (2) the gift of tongues as we infer from Paul s Epistles was a phenomenon remarkable, but not supernatural ; (3) the taking up, or, more probably, destroying (apovtriv) of serpents was probably a literalising of the promise in Lk. 10 19 that the disciples should trample upon serpents and scorpions and all the power of the enemy.

2 The text is doubtful.

3 The Testimony of Paul, in any full discussion of the Re surrection, would come first and claim a detailed consideration. Here we can only observe on i Cor. 15 3-8 that (i), among the earliest traditions communicated to converts, was a doctrine (probably oral, TrapeStaiea) on the Resurrection of Christ ; (2) in this tradition, accordance with the Scriptures played a prominent part ; (3) the manifestations of Christ were described by the word appeared (u>$07)), a word regularly denoting visions [the only instance in which it is used in NT of the appearance of a material body is Acts 1 26] ; (4) Paul places first an appearance to Cephas, and last but one an appearance to James, neither of which is recorded in our canonical Gospels ; (5) he excludes all appearances to women ; (6) he places the appearance of Christ to himself on the same footing as those witnessed by the apostles ; (7) he speaks of the risen body as a spiritual body (on which, note that Clem.Alex. (970-972) says that every spirit has a body, and that demons are called bodiless only in comparison with the spirits that are destined to be saved), and as being (8) the same, in kind, for Christ, as for the faithful after death i.e. , as we should infer, not a tangible bcdy. (9) The latest of Paul s speeches on his vision repeats, as from Jesus, a long discourse (Acts 2t> 14-18). It then continues (ib. 19) Whereupon ... I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision. But Paul s earlier speech (22) assigns to Jesus merely a portion of this discourse, while another portion (mentioning 'a witness' and 'sins') occurs (22 15 J) in the report of a speech of Ananias to Saul, and another (mentioning the Gentiles ) is uttered by Jesus indeed, butona much later occasion (22 18-21) when the apostle was in a trance. On the other hand, in the earliest account of the vision, the mention of Saul s mission to the Gentiles is made by Jesus (815) not to Saul, but to Ananias; and Jesus is represented as saying to Saul no more than occurs in 22.

These facts lead to the following general conclusions :

  • (a) Words recorded as having been uttered by Jesus may reallyhave been heard in the course of a 'vision'.
  • (b) Words recorded as uttered in a 'vision' may have been heard in the course of a trance.
  • (c) The alleged occasion of utterance may really be a confusion of two or even more occasions,
  • (d) Some of the words may have proceeded not directly from Jesus, but indirectly, through an inspired speaker.

VI. SINGLE TRADITIONS.[edit]

(a) THE FIRST GOSPEL.[edit]

34. Single tradition: Mt.[edit]

(i. ) Doctrinal and other -characteristics. That Mt. was primarily intended for Jewish readers is suggested by

  • the stress laid on prophecy;
  • the tracing of genealogy tradition back to Abraham (not, as in Lk. to Adam; cp GENEALOGIES ii. ) ;
  • the Sermon on the Mount corresponding to the Law given on Mount Sinai ;
  • the contrast between what had been said of old time and what the new Lawgiver prescribed ;
  • the word 'lawlessness' (altered in Lk. 1^27 to 'iniquity' ), used by Mt. alone, and
  • the strong condemnation of him who (Mt. 619) breaks, or teaches others to break, one of the least of the commandments. *

Mt. s parables point less to the inclusion of the Gentiles than to the exclusion of unworthy Jews. He alone has the saying (22 14) : Many are called but few chosen." He seems to move amid a race of backsliders, among dogs and swine unworthy of the pearls of truth, among the tares sown by the enemy, among fishermen who must cast tack again many of the fish caught in the net of the Gospel. The broad way is mentioned by him alone, and the multitude of those that go thereby, and the guest without the wedding garment, and the foolish virgins, and the goats, and those who even cast out devils in the name of the Lord and yet are rejected by him because they work lawless ness. He alone introduces into the Lord s Prayer the words Deliver us from the evil (one). Elsewhere he alone gives as a reason for not being distracted, sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. The wavering or retrogression of many Jewish converts when the breach between Jews and Gentiles widened, about the time of the siege of Jerusalem, may well explain the emphasis laid by Mt. on backsliding ; and the condemnation of lawlessness might refer to Hellenising Jews who considered that the new law set them free from all restraint, and who, in casting aside every vestige of nationality, wished to cast aside morality as well. Yet Mt. prefers (12 33) even open and con sistent wickedness to the sin of the hypocrites whom his Gospel continually denounced (the word occurs in Mt. 13 times, in Mk. i, in Lk. 3, in Jn. o) ; and he dwells more than the rest on the blessings of the meek, the merciful, and the little ones whose angels behold the face of the Father.

Besides the fulfilments of prophecy or type mentioned in his Introduction, Mt. sees several others not men tioned in the Triple Tradition.

Some of these, e.g. that relating to the (21 2-5) ass and the colt, (27 9) the potter s field, (1240) the three days and three nights in the belly of the whale as representing the time of Christ s remaining in the tomb, and the (23 35) apparently in accurate reference to Zachariah the son of Baracniah, contain such obvious difficulties that they may be regarded as evidences of early, not of late composition, 2 and the same applies to (2 23) He shall be called a Nazarene, which is found in no existing book of prophecy. See NAZARETH.

Apart from his account of the Resurrectjon, few new miracles are introduced by Mt. Two of these consist of acts of healing. Two are connected with Peter, (i) Mt. 1428-33, the walking on the water, (2) Mt. 17 24, the coin in the fish s mouth. As to these, the omission of the former by Mk. and Jn., who record what precedes and follows, points to the conclusion that it is a poetic symbolism of Peter s lapse and restoration. A metaphorical explanation probably applies also to the latter. 3

1 Cp also Proceedings of the Society of Historical Theology ( 97), t,f>f., as to the seven beatitudes on character (omitted or altered by Lk.), the seven petitions of the Lord s Prayer (where Lk. probably retains the original and shorter form), the seven parables in Mt. 13, the genealogy compressed into a triad of fourteen, and other numerical groupings that show Jewish influence.

2 An authoritative and widely circulated Gospel stands in this respect on quite a different footing from an apocryphal and non- authoritative book. The former would be attacked by con troversialists, and any difficulties contained in it would be exposed. Christians could not cancel the difficult passages without giving up the authority of the book. Consequently the difficult passages would remain in that Gospel, but would be quietly dropped by subsequent evangelists. Hence, as between our canonical Gospels, the presence of difficulties is a mark of early date. But this criterion does not apply to comparatively obscure works not so liable to attack.

3 See an extraordinary comment in Ephraem (p. 161) So when Simon . . . took his net and went to cast it into the sea, they also went with him (cp Jn. 213, I go a-fishing. They say unto him, We also come with thee ). Also cp Philo (1 499) on the holy didrachm, a^d Clem.Alex. (947), where he says that the fish hints at (aiviTTti) God-given food, and that the stater might admit other solutions not unknown (oinc ayvoov- jueVas) which implies a tradition of symbolism on this incident. For other traces of Philonian symbolism in the Synoptic Gospels, cp Mt. 13 33 and Lk. 13 21 on the leaven which a woman hid (fviitpv\litv, eicpu!//ei ) in three measures (<rara) of meal, with Philo (1 173) on the three measures (jaeVpa) of the soul that are to be kneaded like cakes (eyKpv^t ai) wherein the sacred doctrme must be hidden (ice/cpu ^flac). After the destruction of the Temple, Vespasian compelled Jews in all parts of the Empire to pay the didrachm to the Roman Treasury. Among Christian Jews there may have arisen the question whether they, being no longer Jews, were liable to pay it.

35. Its date.[edit]

(ii. ) Evidence as to date. When Mt. recorded the prediction that the apostles (1023) would not accomplish the cities of Israel until the Son of man had come, must he not have assumed that, in some sense, he had come already ? If so, this will explain the difficult expression in 2664, ye shall henceforth, or immediately (air dipn), see the Son of man, etc. 1 It would seem that, as Jn. saw at least a primary fulfilment of Zech. 12 10 ( They shall look on him whom they pierced ) in the moment when the spectators of the Cross gazed on the pierced side of Jesus, so Mt. regarded the coming of Christ with power as com mencing from the time of the sacrifice on the Cross, or of the Resurrection. But, whatever be the inter pretation, the difficulty of this and some other passages leads to the belief that Mt. has in some cases preserved the earliest tradition. Other passages point to a very much later date e.g. , the name of the Field of Blood borne (278) to this day, the charge of stealing Christ s body repeated (28 15) to this day, and the mention of the Jews in the same passage as an alien race ; also the recognition of (7 15) the false prophets as a definite class to be avoided, and of (18 17) the church as the arbiter in quarrels. Perhaps, too, when viewed in the light of the Didacht, the precepts (5 24) to be reconciled with a brother before bringing one s gift to the altar, and (76) to avoid casting pearls before swine, indicate a time when the Eucharist had so long been celebrated in the Church as materially to influence the general traditions of the doctrine of Christ.

36. Its relation to Jn.[edit]

(iii. ) Jn. in relation to Mt.'s Single Tradition. Jn. often agrees with, but intensifies, the doctrine of Mt. Mt.'s depreciation of (021-48) the teachers of old time is more strongly expressed in Jn.'s (10s) 'thieves and robbers' ; Mt.'s (1130) easy yoke is less strong than Jn. 831 f., which implies that Christ's service shall deliver from every yoke ; Mt. 125-7 the priests profane the Sabbath is not so clear as Jn. 7 22 on the Sabbath ye circumcise a man ; and Mt. s (12342833) offspring of vipers and serpents (Satan being the serpent ) is less forcible than (Jn. 844) ye are of your father the devil. Mt., alone of the Synoptists, describes the Pharisees as (15 14) blind, and mentions (15 13) the rooting up of Pharisaism, and (1^27) the rewarding of men according appeared to Jn. liable to be perverted into a confession that Christianity was a religion of weakness and puerility. 18 At all events, though he alone of the Evangelists supports Mt. 21 5 in quoting Zech. 9 9 Behold thy king cometh, he omits meek (TrpaiSs) 3 on which the Rabbis (Schottg. 2 139 171, etc.) laid emphasis; and, whereas Mt. immediately afterwards (21 157^) describes the testimony to Jesus as that of babes and children, Jn. (12 42 f.) states that even of the rulers many believed on him. In a few other passages (Mt. 2622 25, Jn. 13 247^ ; Mt. 26 52 Jn. 18 1 1), though partly correcting Mt., Jn. appears to be rather supporting him against omissions or statements of Mk. and Lk.

1 Mk. 1462 omits immediately, Lk. 226o substitutes shall be for ye shall see. Cp also Mt. 1028 till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom, Mk. 9 i the kingdom of God having come, Lk. 927 the kingdom of God.

2 Cp i Cor. 14zo be not children (naiSia) in mind: how- beit in malice be ye babes, but in mind be men (see also i Cor. 3 i 13 i).

3 There may have been, however, controversial reasons for omitting that epithet.

4 Cp Lightf. BE 107, Theophilus, if a real person and not a nom de guerre. Theophilus, in itself, is not an unlikely name for a Jew. And the omission of (cpai-tore in Acts 1 1 might be explained on the ground that Lk. thinks it in bad taste to be-noble a young catechumen too much (just as Dion. Halic. Orat. Antiq. [Reiske, 5 445] begins and ends [til 128] a treatise with (cpa-nore Afj.fj.aLe, but intersperses [719] T<2 ^lAraTO) and [722] /3e ATi<rre). To use the term obtru sively is characteristic of the obsequious man in Theophr. Charact. 5, ai/6paKpaTi<TTOJ et7noi/(Jebb, after a large display of respect ).

Kpa.ri.a-Te certainly cannot refer to moral qualities alone. This is proved (i) by Lk. s use of the vocative in Acts 24 3 2625 (and cp 2326); (2) by 2 Mac. 4 12, Jos. Ant. iv. 2s (in the latter, vocatively), where it is applied to young men of distinc tion or nobility, and cp Lucian 2272 Kp^riav 01 (cpaTtorot, . . . ou^i oi iJtwrai fj.6vov, aAAa <cal oi /SacriAt/cajTepoi (cai TrptoTeveii/ dfioOfTes). (3) Dion. Halic. seems (as quoted above) to dis tinguish between (cpaTtore and jSeATicrre. (4) It seems highly probable that the author of the first part of the Epistle to Diognetus has Lk. in view when writing ( i) eTreiir/ opo>, ^parterre AidyiTji-e, where Diognetus represents not a Christian, but an inquirer, and is probably a fictitious name. If so, this tends to show that he regarded Lk. s Theophilus as represent ing a typical catechumen, just as his own Diognetus repre sented a typical inquirer. On the whole, the impression left by the use of the name is that it is typical of one who might be addressed in a twofold sense as (Hamlet, i. 5 38) thou noble youth. Philo undertakes a treatise on the Creation (1 1) for the sake of the God-beloved (TOU 0eo<J>iAous). And does not Lk. s (Actsli) TOV fj.ev irptarov \6yov en-onjo-anxT)!/ Trepi navrtav, a> edc^iAe, sound like an echo of Philo 2 444 6 /uef n-pdrepos Adyos V wiv, <J> edfiore, irepl TOU . . . ? Tatian speaks of (12) interpretations (of Scripture) which being published in writing make those who give heed to them greatly beloved of God (<?eo<>iAeis).

(b) THE THIRD GOSPEL[edit]

37 Single tradition : Lk.[edit]

(i. ) Literary form. (a.) The Dedication of Lk. The dedication (l:1-4) shows that we have passed into a new literary province. The Muratorian fragment calls attention to the fact that the author writes in his own name, a novelty among evangelists. He also dedicates his work to some one who, if not an imaginary God-beloved, 4 would appear to be a patron, a man of rank. The apostles the (1 2) eye witnesses and ministers of the word appear to have delivered their testimony by oral tradition (iraptdoffav) and to have passed away. To supply their places (li) many had attempted to draw up a formal narrative (dvard^affdaL 5ir)jri<nv) concerning the matters fully established in the Church. These writers had clearly not been eye-witnesses, nor were they, in Lk. s judgment, so successful as to make unnecessary any further attempts. Apparently they had failed in the three points in which he hopes to excel : they had not ( i ) traced everything up to its source (irapijKoXovdrjKOTi &vudev Traffic), and this (2) accurately (cl/cpt/3wj), and (3) they had not written in order (/ca0e|?7s).

All this affords an interesting parallel to the description of the collection of the Mishiia by R. Judah (Hor. Hebr. 1 161). When he saw the captivity was (sic) prolonged, and the scholars to become faint-hearted, and thestrength of wisdom and the cabala to fail, and the oral law to be much diminished he gathered and scraped up together all the decrees, statutes, and sayings of the wise men. For the captivity was prolonged, substitute the Lord delayed his coming, for sayings of wise men substitute traditions (Trapafidcrets) and narratives (iiryij<reis), some of which were probably based on the Psalms of Israel and the hymns of the first generation of Christians and we have the same phenomena introducing themselves. Catechumens were disturbed by the diversity of traditions ; catechists and evangel ists themselves found it hard to distinguish the genuine from the spurious; it was time to gather and scrape up together the traditions especially those upon the Resurrection and the Incarnation, and to do this with such exactness (aicpi/3u>s) that the catechist might know the certainty (a<rcaAeiai/) about the points of Christian faith.

38. Its style.[edit]

(b) Linguistic characteristics. As a corrector, in the Triple Tradition, Lk. has been shown above to be a linguistic purist, and his insertions often indicate a love of sonorous and compound words (1822 1?33). But in his Introduction, when describing the days before the Nativity (as also when describing the first days of the church in Acts), the narrative takes an archaic and Hebraic turn.

The vocabulary of Lk. is largely borrowed from the LXX,andin particular from the Apocrypha e.g., en-i/SAci/fop, <x7ro<nracr<JeVTa>p, t;ri|3aAAet (in the sense of belonging ), cmcriTicr/xos, the use of VI/UOTOS for God, (TTty/ouj, ayri/SaAAeii/, euOeros, nepi<rira.o-9at, Kaipbf eTTKrKOTrijs, Soxri and Auo-iTeAei. Cp Lk. s story of the rich fool (12 19) with Ecclus. 11 18; Lk. 187 ( Though he bear long with them [nxaiepo0i>ju.er| . . . ) with Ecclus. 22 22 ; Lk. 142 ( Blessed art thou among women ) with Judith 13 18. Often there is an allusive use of LXX words. Cp Lk. 2851 (about Joseph of Arimathaea who had not consented to the decision of the Pharisees) with Ex. 23 i, Thou shalt not consent -with (crvyKaTadrjay) the unjust ; Lk. 23 49 with Ps. 888 Thou hast put mine acquaintances (yi/cocn-ous) far from me ; and Lk. 20 20 eyicaSeVous with Job lit 12, 31 9 ; also Lk. 1 7 7rpoj3e/3r)/coTes ev rais Sepals with Gen. 18 n 7rpo/3e/3r)KOTes r\ij.fpiav. It is difficult to decide whether those portions of Lk. which approach the LXX in rhythm and vocabulary are translations from Hebrew documents, or imitations, conscious or unconscious, of the books of the LXX. But the use of 6 Kupios, 1 the Lord in (7 13) the raising of the widow s son at Nain, (10 i) the appointment of the Seventy, (11 39) the rebuke of the Pharisees, (1242) the preface to the parable of the faithful and just steward, (1815) the healing of the daughter of Abraham bound by Satan, (17 sf.) the parable of the sycamore tree, (186) the parable of the unjust judge, (19 8) the story of Zacchaeus, (22 61) Christ s looking on Peter, and the verse (24 3) where it is said that they found not the body of the Lord Jesus confirms the theory (which is also supported by internal evidence) that these passages in Lk. are translations. Another test-word is IepovcraA>j/u.. Lk. uses IcpoucraA^ about twenty-six times, lepocroAujua only three times (222 1H28 287). The latter form is sometimes used geographically by writers who use the former rhetorically or historically ; but it is remark able that in 222 and 4^1 the two forms should be used, apparently in the same sense, ai^yayov O.VTOV eis Iepo<roAujua and firo- pevovro . . . eis lepoutmAjj^. 2 Cp JERUSALEM, i.

39. Its spirit.[edit]

(ii. ) Doctrinal Characteristics. The key-note of Lk.'s doctrine is touched in the song of Zacharias over the Baptist, and struck more clearly in the song of Simeon over the child Jesus ; proclaiming, in the first case, redemption for (1:77) God s people, in the second, for (2:31-32 ) all the peoples, a light for revelation of the Gentiles.

The implied (416-30) rejection of the Jews in favour of the Gentiles at the outset of Christ s public life in Nazareth is a chronological error ; but it indicates the tendency of the Gospel. When (Mt. 632) the Gentiles are condemned as seeking pleasures, Lk. is careful to add (1230) the Gentiles oftheivorld, i.e., those who are spiritually Gentiles; and Lk. s seventy missionaries are emblematic of the Gospel to the nations." Mk. makes no mention of the Samaritans; Mt. has merely (105) Go not into any city of the Samaritans ; but in Lk. the sons of Zebedee are rebuked for desiring to call down fire on a Samaritan village ; a just Samaritan shames both priest and Levite ; and a grateful Samaritan puts nine Jewish lepers to the blush. As for the law, it is valid as long as Jesus is a child or (251) subject to his parents; but as soon as he has been baptized, it is regarded as (4i8 16 16) superseded because fulfilled.

Lk. s Gospel is abundant in contrasts. It couples blessings with (Lk. 624-26) woes. It proclaims a conflict pending between God and Satan, forgiveness and sin, self-renunciation and worldliness which is to culminate in the triumph of mercy imparting to the Gentiles (244?) a message of repentance and remission of sins.

When Satan departs from Jesus, it is only (413) for a time ; Satan binds a daughter of Abraham, is beheld by Jesus fallen from heaven, enters into Judas, and demands the Twelve that he may sift them. There is a sharp demarcation between rich and poor. It is the poor, not (as Mt. 63) the poor in spirit, that are blessed. In Lk., Christ pronounces a woe upon them that are rich, rebukes the cumbered Martha, exhorts the rich to entertain the poor, and dooms the rich fool to a sudden death, while Dives is consigned to unalterable torment. But, above all, Lk. contrasts repentance with pride. If Lazarus is contrasted with Dives, the grateful Samaritan with the ungrateful Jewish lepers, the merciful Samaritan with the heartless priest and Levite, and the trivial anxieties of Martha with the simple devotion of Mary, much more does the publican find his foil in the Pharisee who prays by his side ; the woman which was a sinner and loved much, in Simon the churlish host who loved little ; the prodigal younger son in the envious elder son ; and the penitent thief on the right in the impenitent thief on the left. All these stories, as well as that of Zacchseus, and the lost piece of silver, must have appealed with great force to many who applied to them selves the words of Ephes. 2i : And you did he quicken when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins ; they magnify the power of forgiveness contrasting the instantaneous and complete victories of faith (for the most part without works ) with the inferior results of a long life of ordinary and prudent respectability.

1 The Gospel of the Hebrew always uses the form 6 Kvptos, never 6 IjjeroCs.

2 Another test-phrase is ti-ntv fie, frequent in Genesis and the early part of Exodus, but rare or non-existent in later books. It does not occur in Mk. or Mt. In Jn. it occurs only (a) in the interpolated 8 1 1, the woman taken in adultery; (p) in 126 [where D transposes Se, and Ss omits eiirei/ 5e ( Now Judas did not care ), the original probably being simply, Not that Judas cared ]; (f) in 21 23 OVK elirev 5e, where Se is sup ported by NBC and is perhaps genuine, meaning however.

In Lk. (as also in Acts) it is frequent, mostly in his Single Tradition, but sometimes in the Double or Triple when lie introduces ivords or arrangements of his own. In view of these facts/ Mt. 1247, bracketed by Tischendorf and placed by WH in marg., should be rejected as an interpolation.

40. Its aim.[edit]

(iii. ) A manual for daily conduct. The insertion of 'day by day', both in the Lord's Prayer and in the precept to take up the cross, indicates a purpose in the writer to produce a practical Gospel. Lk, seems to see, as the main obstacles to the Faith, not hypocrisies nor Jewish backsliding, but the temptations of wealth and social position acting upon half-hearted converts ; and his sayings about building the tower, putting the hand to the plough, renouncing all one s possessions, and hating father and mother, are pathetic indications of what must have been going on in the divided household of many a young Theophilus. The important part played by devout women in Acts prepares the reader for finding prominence assigned to them here. Lk. alone gives us the songs of Mary and of Elisabeth, and the testimony of Anna. The mother of the Lord (not Joseph) ponders in her heart the words of her Son, and her sufferings are made (235) the subject of prophecy; Lk. alone mentions the domestic anxieties of Martha and the devoted faith of her sister, the cure of the afflicted daughter of Abraham, the woman who invoked a blessing upon the womb that bare Jesus, the story of her who loved much, and the parable of the woman rejoicing over the lost piece of silver. Lot s wife is mentioned by him alone ; nor do we find in any other Gospel the utterance of Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem. Mk. and Mt. concur with Lk. in pro nouncing a blessing on the man who gives up father or mother or lands or houses for Christ s sake ; but Lk. alone adds wife.

Strangely incongruous with these sayings and with the great body of Synoptic doctrine, are the parables of the unjust steward, the unjust judge, and the friend persuaded by importunity. The moral of them appears to be Copy the world, only in an unworldly fashion. Yet the thought, the style, and the language, make it difficult to believe that Jesus uttered these parables in their present shape ; and the last two (as they stand) seem at variance with his command to remember that the Father knoweth what things we need before we ask for them. Every thing points to the conclusion that we have here, and probably elsewhere in Lk., discourses, based indeed on Christ s doctrine but not containing his words or modelled after his methods and style. Else, why, in the parable of the Shepherd, do we find the dramatic element in Lk. 156 whilst it is absent in Mt. 1813? and why do Lk. s parables alone introduce the soliloquy e.g., in the case of the rich fool, the prodigal son, the unjust steward, the unjust judge?

41. Its date.[edit]

(iv. ) Evidence as to date. Lk. , more clearly than Mk.-Mt. , describes the fall of Jerusalem as the result of a siege and capture. He also more definitely sets a term for all troubles. Lk. alone has the exhortation to (21:28) 'look up'. Omitting the remarkable saying of Mk. and Mt. that the Son himself knoweth not the hour, he declares that the trampling down of Jerusalem will be only till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Then will come a time of distress not, however, now for Israel, but for the Gentiles and amidst convulsions of nature the Son of man will come. In the hope of this coming, the disciples are to lift up their heads, remembering that, although some of them will be slain, not a hair of their heads will be injured. The comparatively cheerful discourse on the Coming, combined with the joyful and triumphant tone of the Introduction, accords with the general tenor of Lk. when compared with Mt. , and indicates as the author a Christian Gentile to whom (as to Barnabas) the fall of Jerusalem was an accepted and not unwelcome fact. Writing with recollection, but not under the present pressure, of persecution, when the Church was making rapid progress in the conversion, not only of the slaves, the poor, and the devout women, but also of the higher and more educated classes in the Roman Empire, the Evangelist seems to be looking forward to the moment when the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled, and the Son of man would suddenly come. Such a date might be reasonably fixed at the close of Vespasian's or the beginning of Nerva's reign. 1 See ESCHATOLOGY, 84/1

1 Acts 28 30 ( And he (Paul) abode two whole years [in Rome] } suggests, at first sight, that Acts - and, a fortiori. (Acts 1 i) the former treatise, i.e., Lk. - was completed during the apostle's life. But although Acts may incorporate documents written while Paul was living and left unaltered by the compiler, the compila tion may have been made many years after the apostle s death.

42. Its miracles.[edit]

(v. ) Supernatural Narratives peculiar to Lk. , apart from the Introduction and the Conclusion, are :

  • (1) the miraculous draught of fishes ;
  • (2) the raising of the widow's son at Nain ;
  • (3) the healing of the woman bound by Satan ;
  • (4) the cure of the dropsical man ;
  • (5) the appearance of the angel strengthening Jesus, and
  • (6) the healing of the severed ear. 1

As regards (6), its omission by all the other Evangelists is, in itself, almost fatal to its authenticity, and it is probably to be explained as the result of a literary misunderstanding. There was probably some tradition ambiguous, or obscure, and omitted by Mk. that Jesus said (a) let it (i.e. the sword) be re stored to its place. This was misunderstood by Lk. as meaning (b) let it (i.e. the ear) be restored. He therefore substituted (b) for (a), and amplified his narrative in such words as to leave no ambiguity. -

43. Its relative trustworthiness.[edit]

(vi. ) Lk.'s position historically. We are led to the conclusion that, although Lk. attempted to write 'accurately' and 'in order', yet he could not always succeed. When deciding between an earlier and a later date, between this and that place or occasion, between metaphor and literalism, between what Jesus himself said and what he said through his disciples, he had to be guided by evidence which sometimes led him right, but not always.

In regarding the story of the fig-tree as a metaphor, and the promise about treading on scorpions as a spiritual promise, and in placing the home of the infant Jesus at Nazareth, not at Bethlehem, he was probably right. The Feeding of the Four Thousand he may have rightly rejected as a duplicate of the tradition about the Five Thousand. But he himself seems to give in his Mission of the Seventy a duplicate of the Mission of the Twelve. 3 His two-fold description of Jesus as mourning over Jerusalem, once (1834) in Galilee, and once (1941) near the city itself, seems an error of an inferential character (like his inference from the expressions cup and platter, that a certain discourse of Jesus was uttered at the table of a Pharisee). 4 Again, Mk. and Mt. show traces of duplicate traditions concern ing the insults offered to Jesus in the Passion ; and these (combined with the Psalmist s predictions about (Acts 4 26) The kings of the earth ) may have led Lk. to adopt a tradition not mentioned by the other Evangelists that Herod joined with Pilate to persecute Christ. In the journey to Emmaus and the Manifestation to the Eleven, it has been shown ( 28./) that he seems to take metaphor for literal statement. Some textual ambiguity may have induced him to believe that the Nazarenes, instead of (as Mk. and Mt.) being caused to stumble in Jesus, tried to cause Jesus to fall 5 (down a precipice), and that the words uttered to the woman at the anointing 6 were not Let her alone, but Her sins are forgiven her."

Lk.'s absolute omission of some genuine and valuable traditions especially in connection with Christ's ap pearing to women after the Resurrection and with Christ's promise to go to Galilee though it may be in part extenuated on the ground of the need of selection, and in part almost justified on the ground of the obscurity of the original, nevertheless seriously diminishes the value of his work. Every page of it shows signs of pains, literary labour, and good taste. It is by far the most beautiful, picturesque, and pathetic of all the Gospels, and probably the best adapted for making converts, especially among those who have to do with the life of the household. But, if bald bare facts are in question, it is probably the least authoritative of the Four.

Jn. often intervenes to describe facts mentioned by Mk. -Mt. and omitted by Lk. But, as regards facts mentioned by Lk. alone, Jn. is either silent or gives so different a version of them (as in the case of the Draught of Fishes) that many would fail to recognise an intention to describe the same event. On this point, see the next section.


1 Of these (3) and (4) demand no special mention ; (i) must be classed ( 32 and 47) with Jn. s draught of 153 fishes, which is symbolical ; (2) will be discussed with the Raising of Lazarus (see below, 58). As to (5) (described by WH as not a part of Lk. s gospel, but as one of the most" precious among the remains of an evangelical tradition, locally current beside the Canonical Gospels, and as being rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century ) see 62 (4).

2 The same word airoKaOnTTavaL means restore a sword in Jer.29 (Heb. 47)6, and a limb in Lk. 610. The solution is unconsciously suggested by Ephrem (236-7): Justitiam (i.e. gladium) in locum suum reduxit . . . Aurem in locum suum restituit.

3 Cp Lk. s accounts of the two Missions (a) 93-5 (t) 10i-i2 with Mt.s account of the single Mission (Mt. 10 7-15), and it will be found that (b) is almost entirely made up of that portion of Mt. which does not occur in (a).

4 See above, 19.

Confusion between a verb and its causal form produces many variations in the LXX(Gen. 8223 Num. 202? Jer. 15 i6etc.), and probably explains many Synoptic variations ; cp Mk. 2 19 Mt. 9i5_8ui/a>/Tai i/rjorevW (Mt. wevedv) with Lk. 634 Svva.<r8e . . . 7roi)j<rai i/ijcrreCo-ai ; Mk. 92 Lk. 928 Mk. 11? Lk. 1935. A great many instances occur in Theodotion s and the LXX version of Daniel (1 5 [trrijom, CTTTJI-CU] n 213 16, etc.).

6 See above, 10 n.

44. Its relation to Jn.[edit]

(vii. ) Jn. in relation to Lk.'s Single Tradition. It is only where Lk. alters, or omits, some Synoptic Tradition, or where he attempts to describe the phenomena that followed the Resurrection, that Jn. (as a rule) steps in to correct Lk. The Fourth Gospel lies outside that large and beautiful province, peculiar to the Third, which deals with the welcome of repentant sinners ; and some of the words most in use with Lk. 'repentance', 'faith', 'rich', 'riches', 'divorce', 'publican', and (in the words of Jesus) 'sinner' are altogether absent from Jn.

Perhaps the only important point of doctrine in which Jn. may be thought tacitly to contradict the Single Tradition of Lk. is prayer, as to which Lk. encourages something approaching to importunity, while Jn. so far discourages it that he avoids the very use of the word, preferring ask or request, and every where implies that the essential thing is, not that the petitioner should be importunate, but that he should be in Christ, in which case his petition must be granted.

Lk. aims at chronological order. Jn., while giving a new chronology, groups his history according to symbolical and spiritual principles. Lk. often removes from the old Tradition such words as Atticists might condemn ; Jn. seems sometimes to prefer them,l and always uses a vocabulary simple even to monotony. Lk. writes what eye-witnesses have delivered, Jn. (not here dissenting, but indicating superiority) writes in the name of eye-witnesses concerning (Jn. 1 14) that which we have contemplated (eSeacra/aeSa).

So far, Jn. may be said to differ, without correcting ; but on one or two points of Lk. s Single Tradition he seems to write correctively. For example: Lk. 82 mentions Annas and Caiaphas as high priests, but Jn. 18 13 describes Annas as the father-in-law of the high-priest Caiaphas; Lk.2252 mentions generals of the temple, but Jn. 18i2 the chiliarch. Lk., alone of the Synoptists, mentions Martha and Mary together. Mary, he says, was seated at Christ s feet ; Martha was troubled (8opvj3dr), Lk. 1041) about much serving. Jn. does not contradict this ; but he presents us with a different aspect of Martha. Mary, he says, was sitting at home with the Jews ; Martha went to meet Jesus, and made a confession of faith in him, and induced Mary to come forth also to meet him.

In two or three instances, Jn. represents as an act what Lk. represents as a "word. E.g., Lk. 2227 ( I am in the midst of you as he that serveth ) is parallel to Jn. 13 1-5, where Jesus serves ; Lk. 2232 ( I have besought for thee ) seems parallel to the prayer to the Father in Jn. 17 15 ( keep them from the evil one ). Perhaps we may add Lk.2346 ( I commend my spirit ) and in Jn. 1930 ( he delivered up [wapfSoiKe] his spirit ).

1 R.g. KpajSaTTOS, icoAA.vj3i<rTTJs, TUOTIICOS (as used in Mk. 14 3).

2 The text is uncertain. There may have been originally a distinction between the witness and the writer : 2031 has simply hath been written, and 1935 simply hath witnessed.

(c) THE JOHANNINE GOSPEL.[edit]

The Fourth Gospel has been the subject of various (i. ) hypotheses of authorship. The internal evidence for these (apart from direct statements) is derivable from (ii. ) names, allusions, etc. ; (iii. ) style ; (iv. ) structure.

45. Jn. : authorship.[edit]

(i. ) Hypotheses of authorship. The Gospel states that (2l2o 24) the disciple whom Jesus loved is the witness and writer 2 of these things, adding and we know that his witness is true. A comparison of several other passages leads (by a process of elimination) to the inference that the author writing perhaps with some co-operation or attestation of others was John the son of Zebedee. But the belief that the apostle originated the Gospel is compatible with a conviction that he did not compose or write it in-its present shape.

For example, the teaching of the aged apostle may have been taken up by a disciple or interpreter, and may have been ultimately published by the latter, as Peter s is said to have been recorded and circulated by Mark (see below, 65), Peter s interpreter. If, as Irenaeus says, John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse about A.D. 96, the difference of style between that and the Gospel would necessitate a very lone interval to admit even a possibility that he wrote the latter. Suppose the apostle to have been ninety, or, say, only eighty- five, when he wrote the Apoc., and concede an interval of only ten years to allow him to learn a new kind of Greek, change his vocabulary, and adopt a new style, new thoughts, and a new tone, yet this brings us to 106 A.D. and the apostle to the age of a hundred or ninety-five. Is it probable that one so aged could retain powers of memory and expression sufficient for the mental construction, or even the literary expression, of a work in which, as will be shown, every word is weighed and every detail adapted to a spiritual purpose ? The improbability is increased by the tradition (reported by Jerome) that towards the close of his life the venerable apostle had to be carried into the midst of the congregation and could do no more than repeat over and over again the injunction Love one another.

If this was so, John's Gospel would nevertheless continue to be preached, probably by one or more of his elders, preaching in his name, say from A.D. 98 to A.D. no or A.D. 115. Then it becomes easy to understand how the individuality of an interpreter may have combined with the force of new cir cumstances attacks from philosophers without, conflicts with incipient Docetism within to mould the oral Johannine Gospel into its present shape, first without an appendix, and then, when the nominal author had passed away (say A.D. 108), with the additional chapter that, in effect, alludes (21 23) to his death. Who this Elder or interpreter may have been we cannot now discuss. 2 For the present it must suffice to point out that, as the Muratorian Fragment enrolls among the canonical books the Wisdom of Solomon, though admitting it to have been written not by Solomon but by Solomon s friends in his honour, so a pupil and interpreter of John, committing to writing a Johannine Gospel, might deem it a merit to ignore his own part in the composition, and to impute it as a whole to his master and teacher. The alternative was to do as Lk. had done : to use I and me in the preface, and to explain that the writer had received his doctrine from the apostle. That, however, was an innovation. The first two Gospels had given no signs of author ship. The Fourth Gospel differs from the Third in method, arrangement, and system, as well as in matters of fact and views of fact. Lk. s novel precedent might even stimulate the Johannine interpreter to merge his own authorship in that of the apostle, or, rather, in that of the disciple whom Jesus loved, and whom he perhaps regards as a pattern and type of true discipleship.

Some of these points will be more fitly discussed under External Evidence. What has been said above is intended to guard the reader against assumptions fatal to unprejudiced criticism.

For example, it is commonly assumed (i) that the author must be an eye-witness or a forger ; (2) that if he knows some things not known to the Synoptists he must know everything known to an apostle and must be an apostle ; (3) that the minute details with which the narrative abounds are signs of an eye-witness with a taste for the picturesque, and of an ear-witness with a keen sense of the dramatic. 3 On the contrary, (i) if the writer is a disciple regarding himself as the pen of a teacher, he is not to be regarded as a forger ; (2) if the writer received from John the apostle some things not known to the Synoptists, it does not follow that he received everything, still less that he must himself be an apostle ; (3) if, among a vast store of details of name and number (such as might naturally drop from the lips of a very old man in oral accounts of reminiscences) he selected those which lent themselves to a symbolical meaning, it does not follow that he was an eye-witness or ear-witness ; and it may even be that he would have regarded picturesqueness as an impertinence approximating to profanity in one who was attempting to write a Gospel that should be a New Testament Scripture.

1 The Apocalypse contains much internal evidence (e.g. the reference to cheap wine and dear corn in Rev. 66) for placing at least part of the work in the reign of Domitian. The ancient external evidence for the Domitian date is singularly strong. Cp APOCALYPSE.

2 See JOHN, SON OF ZEREDEE. If it was John the Elder a contemporary who, as Eusebius (iii. 396) tells us, was confused with the apostle the imputation of the Gospel to John the apostle might be more easily explained.

3 Some critics actually extend this last inference to the dialogue with the Samaritan woman at which no disciple was present !

4 In order to appreciate what follows, the reader must re member (i) that every name, number, detail, and even syllable in Scripture, was generally supposed in Rabbinical tradition to have some spiritual significance ; (2) that this significance or symbolism was reduced to a system by the Alexandrian Jews (see Siegfried and Drummond on Philo); (3) that Jn. (as will be shown in foot-notes to this section) was familiar with the Philonian teaching.

Further, how little security there is that names would be accurately preserved in passing from Hebrew to Greek (not to speak of the gulf dividing an oral tradition from Gospels written, say, A.D. 65-110) may be seen by comparing two books of B in the circumstances most favourable to accuracy, viz., -where both translate the same Hebrew original by which errors might be corrected. Cp (a) 2 Ch. 86815 with (b) i Esd. 18 15 : (a) Iei>)A (b) H(7vr)Aos, f.8 : (a) Ai/xrar, ISeiflw^. (b) Za.\apt.a.s, Efifieti/ous, v. 1 5. Similar discrepancies abound in i Esd. and 2 Esd. It was inevitable that variations in obscure Gospel names should abound at the beginning of the second century, leaving it open to the writer to choose that form which seemed most suitable.

46. Jn.'s proper names.[edit]

(ii. ) Evidence from Names, etc. Here we consider (a) Names, (b) Numbers, and (c) Quotations.

(a) Names of places in Jn. divide themselves into two classes : first, the well known ; second, the obscure and contested. Concerning the former, Jn. may be shown to write mostly from biblical, or literary, not from local, know ledge. The latter he mentions only when they are adapted for symbolism.

For example:

  • (1) that Jesus(82o) spake in the Treasury is an error (so far as we know) arising from a supposition that what held in the days of Nehemiah (1037-39, a "d cp Neh. 185) held also in the time of Christ ;1 that the temple was built in (2 20) forty and six years was a false inference 2 from Ezra 1 1 about the second temple.
  • (2) That Jesus (18 1) crossed the Kidron may very well have happened ; but the fact appears to be introduced as a parallel to David, who similarly (2 S. 1623) crossed the Kidron in mourning to return in triumph.
  • (3) The mention of the cornfields of Sychar, or Shechem, far from implying an eye witness, might have been made by any reader of Philo (1471) familiar with Gen. 4915.
  • (4) Dialogues between a Samaritan and a Jew about this mountain (Gerizim) as compared with Mount Sion, existed among the Talmudists, and it was the custom to place the scene at the foot of the former near Shechem. 3 SYCHAR (ff.v.) appears to have been an opprobrious name for Shechem (see 54, y) ; it adapted itself to the dialogue on the living water.
  • (5) As for the alleged familiarity with Capernaum and its sea, it reduces itself to this, that the writer knew Capernaum to be on the sea-shore, so that people would go down to it, and knew that the sea was large enough to allow men to row under stress of weather and not necessarily in a straight direction for (619) twenty-five or thirty furlongs.

Passing to obscure and contested places, we find

  • (6) in (3 23) Aenon near to Salim [the var. loc. Salem is cited] (i.e., fountains near to Peace^ ), a reference to the Baptist s purification by water as a preparation for the higher purification of Melchizedek, king of Salem (or Peace} i.e., Christ. Cp SALIM. As for
  • (7) the corrupt passage 4 relating to Bethesda, Bethzatha, or Beth-saida, the most probable supposition is that Jn. wished to describe some place of bathing or purification in Jerusalem, that the Jews themselves (Wetst. ad loc.) called a bathing place by the Greek-derived name probatike ( sheep-pool ), and that a kindred name appeared to be applied to a pool in Jerusalem by Nehemiah. 5 Lastly
  • (8), the pool of Siloam, and its spiritual interpretation which Jn. introduces in the healing of the man born blind, the type of the converted Gentile world would be known to every reader of Is. 86.

1 Neh. 1039 might give the impression that the children of Israel, when bringing their offerings into the Chambers, were allowed to enter the treasure-house. Mk. 1241 { over against the Treasury ) is correct, and so is Josephus (BJ \. 5 a, Ant. xix. 6 1). But no unofficial person was, in Christ s time, allowed in the Treasury.

2 See the Classical Revinu, 94, pp. 89-93, anf l he Chronology of Eusebius (ii. 81). A pious Jew would regard Herod as re pairing, not as building, the temple. A historian would say, with Josephus (Ant. xv. Us), that Herod built his part of the temple in eight years.

3 Hor. Hebr. on Jn. 4 20.

4 The RV rendering by the sheep (gate) is unsupported by any instance of a similar ellipse in Greek literature, and is in directly condemned by Eusebius and Jerome.

5 See Neh. 815, the pool of the Jleeces for the shearing of the king. Sheep in Philo (1170) represent the irrational passions. The sick man in Jn. typifies sinful Israel (Jn. 614

sin no more ) waiting for the intermittent purification of the Law (typified by the intermittent pool).

8 Thirty-eight does not occur in the whole of the Bible except in these two places.

7 The Law = 10 (the ten commandments); the Spirit (Rev. 1 4 3 1 etc.) = 7- According to Philo (1 10), the fulfilment of any potentiality, say 3, is 1+2+3 i he fulfilment of 4 is 1 + 2+3+4. The fulfilment of 10+7 (or 17) is 1 + 2 + 3 +iT,i-e, 153 : absurd of course to modern readers, but a systematic result of Philonian interpretation, and not thought absurd by Augustine.

47. Its Numbers.[edit]

(b) Numbers. If the man at Bethesda represents sinful Israel, his 38 years of waiting might correspond to the 38 years that elapsed before Israel (Deut. 2 14) went over the Brook Zered. 6 The 153 fish, according to Philonian principles, 7 would mean (as explained by Augustine) the Church as evolved from the Law and the Spirit. The 6 water-pots containing 2 or 3 firkins apiece (after the Jews manner of purifying) represent the inferior dispensation of the week-days i.e., the Law preparing the way for the perfect dispensation of the Sabbath i.e., the Gospel 1 of which the wedding feast at Cana is a type. Peter (21 8) swims over 200 cubits, 2 a number that represents (Philo on Gen. 5 22) repentance. The five porches in Bethesda represent the five senses of unredeemed humanity i.e., the unregenernte passions and so the five husbands of the Woman of Samaria represent what Philo calls the five seducers, who lead the soul from its union with God.

48. Its OT quotations.[edit]

(c) Quotations. Quotations from OT (rare in the Gospel, and non-existent in the Epistle) are condensed and adapted to the context. Almost all differ both from the Hebrew and from the LXX, even where these agree. For the most part, Jn. quotes the OT as illustrating fundamental tendencies or pointing to types. 3

The words (10 34) I said ye are gods are taken to indicate that all men who have received the Word of God are in some sense divine. (817) The testimony of two men is true means that in the spiritual world, as in the material, experience is the test of truth ; so that he who can produce the results he aims at is proved to be so far as the province of the action extends in the region of truth, having the testimony of two (himself and God, or himself and Nature). From first to last this Gospel abounds in allusions to the OT and is permeated with Jewish tradition, but the author seems to have shared in the growing dissatisfaction felt by Jews with the LXX at the beginning of the second century, and to have been largely influenced by Christian traditions of free quotation. 4

49. Its style.[edit]

(iii. ) Style. The Fourth Gospel abounds in iteration sometimes (a) double, sometimes (b) triple, sometimes (c) of the same statement expressed positively and negatively - quite different from anything in the Synoptists.

(1:20) He confessed, and (c) denied not, but (a) confessed ; (32oy.) everyone that doeth ill ... cometh not to the light . . . but he that doeth the truth (c) cometh to the light ; (10 79) ! am the door of the sheep. . . I am (a) the door. (a) In the Baptist s testimony, and at the beginning of the Gospel, the iteration (with or without slight variation) is often twofold e.g., 1:31-33 I knew him not (twice), and cp 3 31 4 23^ 6 39^ 6 35 48 etc. (b) But not infrequently with the aid of question and answer, or other slight variations, which have a meaning besides break ing the sense of monotony the effect of a threefold iteration is produced, as when Jesus is predicting his Resurrection (16 16- 19), where the words A little while and ye shall see me, are repeated thrice, and a little while seven times. So the words of Mk. and Mt. (cometh) after me rejected by Lk. are converted by Jn. (1152730) into a triple testimony from the Baptist to the pre-existence of Christ.

Westcott rightly calls attention to the triple repetition of these things in 12 16, where the allusion is to an unconscious fulfilment of prophecy ; but in fact the Gospel abounds with such instances (83-7 654-57 8 55 10 15-18 1613-16 13 34^); and some times the repetition refers not to words but to acts. Thrice did Jesus (728 37 12 44) cry aloud (e/cpof ei/) : thrice (65 1141 17 i) raise his eyes to heaven, and always as a prelude to some sublime mystery of act or utterance. The writer implies that Jesus manifested himself to the disciples after the Resurrection by many signs ; but he selects three, and, of the last, he says (21 14) This is now the third time . . .

1 For this mention of 6, in connection with 2 and 3, cp Philo

2 281 : The number 6 ... composed of 2X3, having the odd as male, and the even as female, whence originate those things which are according to the fixed laws of nature . . . What the number 6 generated, that the number 7 exhibited in full perfection.

2 _The number 200 occurs again (67) in the old tradition derived from Mk. 6 37 : two hundred pennyworth of bread. This is a good instance to show how Jn. may (as often elsewhere) have retained an old tradition that adapted itself to spiritual interpretation, as if to say, Not all the repentance in the world could suffice to buy bread to feed the Church ; it must be received as tits, free gift of God. On the other hand, in mentioning (12 5) three hundred pence (see Philo on Gen. 6 15), Judas Iscariot unconsciously (like Caiaphas, 11 49), testifies to the completeness of the offering of sweet savour which represents (as 300 does in Philo) the harmony between God and man, or the symmetrical body of Humanity, so that it is here appropriate to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, and the consequent unity of the Church in his body.

3 , J. n - 192 4. appears at first sight to resemble Mt. s quotations in being ^an instance of minute and exact fulfilment. But the vesture is the Church, which is not to be 'rent', and there is also a reference to the Logos, which keeps the Church together (Phil. 1562) 'Nor shall he rend his gaments (Lev. 21 IO), for the Logos of the spiritual Universe , . . keeps all its parts in union.

4 Perhaps also he did not know Hebrew enough to render the OT with that exact accuracy which was attempted soon after his days in the version of Aquila. That a writer might be familiar with Hebrew tradition but not with the Hebrew language, is proved by the example of Philo.

50. Jn. a witness.[edit]

Numerical groupings, in threes, fives, sevens, etc., are frequent in the Talmudists ; and something similar has been indicated (s. 34, ii) as present in Mt. But in Jn. we find repetition rather than grouping. Now Jn. differs from the Synoptists (and shows some resemblance to the Apocalypse) in being from first to last a witness, whether from the Evangelist, or the Baptist, or the Son, or the Father ; and it expressly distinguishes between (812) earthly things and heavenly things, to both of which Christ bears witness. Hence we are led to ask whether Jn. s twofold iteration may not be a kind of verbal image of the principle that The testimony of two men is true (referring to the earthly witness of the Son attested by the co-operation of the Father). Again, the occurrence of threefold iteration in references to the Resurrection and other mysteries, recalls the mention (in the Epistle) of the Three that bear witness on earth, (i Jn. 5 if.) the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, which three make up the one. Here the witness, though on earth, yet testifies to a heavenly mystery, namely, to the essence and redeeming powers of Christ. Thus, once more, we are led to ask whether this juxtaposition of twofold and three fold iteration may be neither accident nor tautological blemish, but the result, partly of a style formed in the schools of Jewish thought, partly of a deliberate purpose to direct the spiritual reader to distinguish between the things of earth and those of heaven. And the question is almost changed into an affirmative inference, when we find Philo commenting on the distinction (1 284^) between the Lord s speaking once or twice, and declaring in allusion to Deut. 19 15 ( two witnesses or three ) that (1 243) A holy matter is proved by three witnesses. I

Probably, also, the combination of positive and negative was based on principles of Midrash. 2

1 Cp HOT. Hear. 184 for a quaint illustration of the 'twice ' and 'thrice' (the 'twice' apparently denoting earthly confirm; ation, and the 'thrice' the 'holy matter'). Siegfried (p. 168) gives as a Philonian rule, that 'Scripture points to a deeper meaning by doubling an expression', and adds that this is ' a principle of Midrash. It might he a mere accident that Jn, rejects the Synoptic '(Jesus) answering said ' and always prefers 'answered and said'. But note that in the Synoptists! Christ always says 'Verily'; in Jn., always 'Verily, Verily. Both can hardly be right ; for who can believe that Christ used former? Yet, if Jn. added the second verily without additional meaning, he was guilty of tautology, which Philo calls (1 529) the vilest kind of macrology (fiaicpoAoytas TO <f>av\6TOLToi> eifios, TavToAoyiav), denying its existence in the OT. Moderns may think this a trifle ; but the question is, not what they think, but what was thought by a Jew A.D. 95-115. To him, no word in Scripture could be trifling.

This distinction between the heavenly and the earthly, repre sented by threefold and twofold rhythms, is perceptible at the very outset (1 i/. ), where the three clauses about the Logos, followed by their summary in one clause suggesting the Three heavenly Witnesses, who are One are followed by the account of the man, named John, of whom it is twice said that he (1 jf.) came to bear witness of the light.

2 On the Positive and Negative, see the Canon of So/tar, a treatise of suspicious origin but containing very ancient elements (Gratz, Hist. 4 16), All laws of the Torah . . . resolve themselves into the mysteries of the masculine and the feminine principle (positive and negative). Only when both parts meet together does the higher unity arise. As regards what may be called the Canon of the Twofold witness, see Schottg. (2362) (on Ex. 31 16) : It (the Sabbath) is mentioned twice because of the Shechinah above and below, i.e., in Johannine language, to attest it in the name of the Son and of the Father : and see the comment on Gen. 5 I (ib. 1671) : 'Behold two Adams are named in this section : one is the mystical ceZesfia2, the other is the mystical terrestrial' So Philo (on Ex. 25,13 14) speaks of 'duo verba divina or duplicis mundi rationes.

3 The first chapter alone suffices to prove this (1 3 5 9 15 16 50). Especially difficult is it to decide whether his verbs are used affirmatively, interrogatively, or imperatively (5 39 12 19 14 1 15 18 27 16 31 20 29) ; and his on may often mean that or because (3 21 5 28 7 52 etc.).

51. Its ambiguities.[edit]

It may be objected that such a style would be highly artificial, whereas Jn.'s style is simplicity itself. But, in the first place what might seem artificial for us might be a second nature for those bred amid Jewish and Alexandrian traditions of the interpretation of the OT; and, in the second, though Jn.'s words are as simple as those of Tennyson's In Memoriam, his style is not simple.

There are more ambiguities in Jn. than in all the rest of the Gospels put together, 3 so that sometimes it might almost seem as if he intended to leave his readers to choose between several possible meanings, or even to decide, according to their impres sions, whether the Evangelist or some other is speaking. Moreover he abounds in subtle variations impossible to render in English, and wholly wanting in the Synoptists between Greek words such as : (21 15 sq.) </>iA<o and ayajroi ( Simon, . . . iovest [dyamf s] thou me ? followed by Simon, . . . art thou my friend [6iAei$] ? ) and (ib.) ol&a and yiinatricio ( Thou kncnuest [0*605] that I am thy friend [</uAu>] followed by Thou knowest [olias] all things, thou understandest [yivuicrKeis] that I am thy friend [(/uAwJ ). Similar distinctions are drawn between the meanings of iroiui and rpd<r<rw, between Oftapflv, oi//r0cu, i&elv and /SAf jrftK, and between the aorist, and present, and subjunc tive. 1 All these are natural in an Alexandrian Jew familiar with Philonian philosophy and so long habituated to Greek as to be able to play on its words and utilise to the utmost its minute differences of grammatical expression.

52. Its systematic structure.[edit]

(iv. ) Structure. (a) The Gospel, as a whole. The Fourth Gospel (Westc. on Jn. 12 1) begins and closes with a sacred week. The week has to be deduced from a careful reading of the context. But this is a characteristic of the Gospel, distinguishing it from the In the latter, symbolism is on the surface ; in the former, latent. The word seven occurs about fifty-five times in the Apocalypse (e.g. , seven spirits, stars, angels, vials," etc. ); in the Gospel never. None the less, as might be expected in a work that opens with the words in the beginning, so as to suggest a parallel with the seven days of Creation and Rest, the thought of the perfect seven pervades all Jn.'s highest revelations of the divine glory. 2

There are seven miracles or signs. There is a sevenfold witness (West, xlv.) of (i) the Father, (2) the Son, (3) the Son s works, (4) Scripture, (5) the Forerunner, (6) the Spirit, (7) the Disciples. In the final discourse a Deuteronomy in which Jesus reviews his testimony, the clause ravra AeAdArjica vfi.lv (which occurs nowhere else in the Gospels) is repeated seven times. So is the noun love (which the Epistle mentions as the very Name of God). 3 Lastly, the sacred words, I AM, used (8 58) absolutely to represent the eternal being of the Son, are combined with seven predicates, to represent seven revela tions : (i) the Bread, (2) the Light, (3) the Door, (4) the Good Shepherd, (5) the Resurrection and the Life, (6) the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and (7) the true Vine.

1 E.g. 10 38 : iva yi/dire KOL yiv(a<rici)Te that ye may know and grow in knowledge. A difference is also kept between 7ri<7Tevaxri and Trtoreiieruxn.

2 There are indications that Jn., in writing his Gospel about the New Genesis or regeneration of man, had in view the Great Announcement of Simon Magus, who (see below, 91), allegorising the Pentateuch, discerned in the five books a refer ence to the five senses, and in the whole a description of the second creation. If so, it is to the point to remember that the Talmudists (Schottg. ii. 363) found a mystical meaning in the sevenfold repetition of the cloud i.e., the Shechinah in the Pentateuch.

3 Owing to the variation of MSS, it is impossible to speak with certainty as to the repetition of 6 edsas the subject, repre senting the divine Creator. There is fair evidence, however, for its sevenfold repetition, and still better for that of eV in the words of Jesus, expressing the divine -unity.

  • Prov. 8 1-36 Job 28 12-28. The latter declares that God

alone hath seen and declared (elfiec <cai efrjyijo-aTo) wisdom.

5 Mic. 7 20 Ps. 85 9-i i.

  • > Thus he leaves it an open question to be answered in what

follows concerning the person of Christ as to the ttature of the Word. Wisdom would have closed the question by giving it a too narrow answer. Note that Jn., alone of the Evangelists, never nses the word wisdom, though it is found (four times) in the Apocalypse. He regards God as a Spirit, permeating, attracting, and harmonising all that is, and especially all that is in the sphere of righteousness. To call such a being Wisdom would be bathos. In the Epistle he prefers Love.

7 WH, vol. ii., on Mk. 1 i ; say that several fathers connected the words thus, and this is by far the least harsh con nection, whether the parenthesis (1 ?/.) be considered genuine or not.

53. Prologue.[edit]

(b) The Details. (i) The Prologue is based on ancient traditions, describing 4 Wisdom as having taken part with God from the beginnin in the creation, and predicting the accomplishment of God s truth and grace, and the tabernacling of his glory among men. 5 These traditions Jn. concentrates on Christ. Only, instead of calling him Wisdom, he prefers the term Word, 6 more commonly used in the OT.

The Synoptists begin their Gospels by saying in effect (Mk.) The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . was John 7 (eyeVero Imai/it)?), or by tracing the descent of Jesus to (Mt.) Abraham, or (Lk.) Adam. Jn. goes farther back, saying that the Word was (^v) in the beginning, and . . . was God," and that the man John merely (Westc. on Jn. 1 6) arose, or came into existence (eyevero). He then turns to nature and histor What has been (yeyovcv) in the Word, he says, was I and the Life was (J/v) the Light of men. l Alluding to the name by which the Jews called the Messiah (the Comer, 6 px- fii>os), Jn. tells us that the Light has been ever from the be ginning (1 9) coming to the world, but that at last, as the Psalmist had predicted, the Word tabernacled among men, and they beheld his glory. But what glory ? Not that of material splendour, but that of grace and truth. 2 These words introduce a parallelism with the OT. 3 The same Logos who has given light and life to men has also given grace and truth to Israel ; (1 17) The Law was given through Moses, the grace (thereof ) and the truth (thereof ) were through Jesus Christ. 4 See TRUTH.

Having prepared us by a parenthesis (1 14, the glory as of an only-begotten ) to conceive of an only-begotten, and of a glory in the unity of divine love, exceeding all Hebraic notions of the splendour of prophetic signs or visions, and all Hellenic notions of wisdom, he now concludes by saying that it is not (as Job had said) God who has declared Wisdom, it is (1 18) the Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father who has declared ( fTyj^aTo) God.

1 For the connection, cp Ps. 869, With thee is the fountain of life ; in thy light shall we see light. Also note the distinction between that which has been and is (yeyovtv) in the Logos, and that which came into being (eyeVero) through the Logos. The former is permanent, the latter transient. This distinction is lost in the punctuation of the AV, was not anything made that was made?

2 Ps. 869-11, after mentioning 'glory', 'tabernacle', 'mercy' or 'grace', and 'truth' goes on to personify these virtues and to describe Truth as 'rising up' from the earth, and Righteousness as 'looking down' from heaven. This enables us to understand the spiritual meaning of (Jn.151) 'the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man'. They are 'grace and truth', 'peace and righteousness', looking down from heaven and rising up from earth. Thus was fulfilled the promise implied in (Gen. 28 12) the vision of Bethel when Jacob rested on the stone which was afterwards 'anointed ( ~ ~ L u T ~ s ) , ' the type (Just. Typh. 86) of, Christ. Probably 86ta &S (for So.$& WS) should he read with the Valentinians (Iren. l85), cp Orig. Cels. 668, where the context necessitates S6.$a, though the text has been conformed to T.R.

3 Light corresponds to truth, as every Jew would feel who thought of the high priest s Urim and Thummim ( light and truth ), and of Ps. 43 3, Send out thy light and thy truth. Again, the life of man, says the Psalmist (30 5), is in God s favour (SeArjjuari, more often \a.pis). Hence, what, from the point of view of nature, may be called light and life, will be, from the point of view of the Law, truth, and favour, or grace

4 Cp. Barn. 5 6, the prophets having their grace from hint, i.e., Christ. For the curious expression (1 16) grace for grace i.e., apparently grace following grace, i.e., one grace or favour, after another cp Philo, 1342, constantly bestowing his graces one after another (eyofieVas dAArjAun ) (possibly based on some Jewish tradition about the repetition of grace in connection with [Zech. 47] the head stone, (5 uro-njTa Xdpiros xa.pi.ra. ovrijs.)

5 Origen takes Cana(h) to mean purchased .possessions ; but it might mean (n:p) jealous or zealous, a word applied only to Yahwe as the husband of Israel. The meaning zeal or jealousy suits the context, and also (2 17), The zeal of thine house, etc.

6 From the well, not from the vessels." So Westc. ad loc.

7 Philo, 1 296 : he that hath received from God, directly (or indirectly, through an angel), draughts of wine (d/cpdrov), will not drink out of a cistern. See also his comment on Gen. 167, and his description of the Therapeutae as (2485) intoxicated dj.(Ovo-6(i>Tf;) with the wine of the divine love of God. Add also (1 103) Melchizedek bringing forth bread and wine instead of water, and (1 683) the truly great High Priest, the Cupbearer of God, who, having received the draughts of grace, gives them in turn, pouring forth the libation in its fulness, namely himself. For the six vessels and the two or three firkins, see above, 47. According to Westcott s view, adopted above, the water in the vessels remained water, but the water afterwards drawn from tlie well became wine ; so that the filling of the vessels was a purely emblematic act. This fact, the context, the structure of the Gospel, and the traditions of Philo, combine to indicate that the whole of the narrative is spiritual and emblematic.

54. Doctrine of Water.[edit]

(2) The Bridegroom. This section contains the Doctrine of Water : ist, the Water of the Law superseded by the Wine of the Gospel ; 2nd the Water of Purification from above ; 3rd, the Water of Life that quenches the soul s thirst. The three scenes of these subsections are severally Galilee, Jerusalem, and Samaria.

(a) Galilee. After a period of (129354321) six days comes the wedding-feast at Cana, 8 where Jesus, the un acknowledged Bridegroom of the Church, after first doing justice to the purification of the Jews, bids his ministers draw forth from the well 6 the water which the Governor of the Feast pro nounces the best wine. 7

(b) Jerusalem. The next act of the Bridegroom is to attempt to win back and purify the unfaithful daughter of Jerusalem, typified by the temple. The Synoptists, from the human standpoint, describe the temple as a den of robbers ; Jn. 2 16, as a place of merchandise (ffjurbptov}.

Herein Jn. seems to be following the prophets, who called Tyre (Ez. 273 Is. 2817) a place of merchandise (eju.Tropioi ) of the nations i.e., as the Hebrew in the latter passage expresses it, she played the harlot. To Jn. the greedy merchandise of the priestly monopolists in the temple appeared a kind of idolatry (cp. Col. 3 5) i.e., unfaithfulness to the Bridegroom and he represents Jesus as devoured by jealousy (VjAos) for the House of God i.e., for the true Church (his bride and his body) and as predicting that, even though men might destroy it, it should be raised up in three days.

Closely connected with this attempt to purify Jerusalem (Ezek. 1015-35), he harlot, comes the mention of a new birth by water and the Spirit. 1 It is introduced as a doctrine of earthly things i.e., as a rudimentary one and in inculcating it Jn. seems to be assuming baptism with water, and insisting on baptism with the Spirit also. The full purification, which requires blood (i Jn. 5 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood ) is yet to come ; but it is faintly suggested by the (2 4) hour, and (3 14) the (brazen) serpent. 2

(c) Samaria. 3 From unfaithful Jerusalem the Bridegroom passes to unfaithful Samaria (the woman with the five husbands ). She, too, like the House of Jacob of old (Jer. 213-25), had played the harlot with many husbands, and had gone to the waters of Shihor 4 to slake her thirst, having forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters.

The dialogue takes place near Jacob s well. In Philo, the well and the fountain represent different stages of know ledge. The well of Agar represents a lower stage than that of Rebecca ; Rebecca (1 249-55) supplies the camels from the well, but the servant from the fountain, because the latter is (1 2 55) the holy word. The highest and best well of all is the Father of all, the Fountain of life, ez*er-j2 owing (a.evao<;).b In Jn. we find a place called (45) Sychar or drunkenness, prob ably an opprobrious name for Shechem (see 46 a), alluding to (Is. 28 1-7) the drunkenness of Ephraim, but in any case suited to the moral of the dialogue. It is (45) near the place that Jacob gave to Joseph his son. This is explained by Philo. Shechem ( shoulder ) has two meanings; in connection with Gen. 49 15, where a certain athlete becomes a husbandman, it indicates labour ; but when it is mentioned as given to Joseph, it means (1 92) the bodily things which are the objects of the senses. Jesus (Jn. 46), wearied .of his journey, sat thus at the well. So Philo (1 89 yC) says that Moses sat at the well not in a cowardly retreat, but like an athlete recover ing breath for a new attack an interesting parallel to the position of Jesus before his attack on Samaritan unbelief. It was (4e) about the sixth hour the hour described by Philo on Gen. 18 1) as fittest for the revelation of divine truth. he woman of Samaria, coming to draw water from Jacob s well, received the rebuke from Jesus (4 18), Thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy hus band. Philo says (on Gen. 36) that woman is symbolically the sense (sensus), and (1 131) There are two husbands of the senses, one lawful, one a seducer ; but he proceeds to say that the seducer acts through the five senses; he also (1 563) con nects having many husbands (cp Jer. 223, 7roAvai>6puu) with having many gods, and speaks of (1 609) those enamoured of many gods, who know not the one Husband, namely God. e

The woman (Jn. 4 28) left her water-pot (vSpiav) and departed to carry news of the Messiah. Philo differs here, but in such a way as to show that the water-pot is not a mere picturesque detail. He says that Rebecca (1 252) did not, like Agar, need the ao-Kos, leather skin i.e., the body to hold the water, but only the vSoia, water-pot, which is a symbol of a heart that can hold the supreme draught. Jn. s view may be that, as Rebecca needed not the aer/cd?, so the woman of Samaria, who had risen a stage higher, needed not the v&pia., having received the in dwelling spring of living water.

The seed of the Gospel having been sown in Shechem, the associations of the place are changed. It is connected no longer with Jacob but with Jesus (or with Jacob in his higher stage, as a type of Jesus); no longer with 'the things of the senses', but with 'the Husbandman.'l 'Jesus bids the disciples 'lift up their eyes to look on the fields white already with the results of his husbandry. Immediately the harvest begins. The Samari tans come from the city. Some of them had believed in Jesus (4 39) on the testimony of the woman. But Philo says that it is characteristic of a false god to exist only by report and con vention, and the report moreover of a woman (1 258 ; axoj", (cat TO! voiJ.ie<r8ai, KOI aKojj jueWoi yvvaiKO^). Here it is added that afterwards the Samaritans (4 42) believed no longer owing to the speaking (AaAiaf) of the woman, but owing to the word (Aoyoi/) of Christ.

1 Cp the introductory words in the same passage of Ez.16 -$f., Thus saith the Lord thy God unto Jerusalem . . . neither wast thou washed in water to cleanse thee ; thou wast not salted. Salt is a symbol of the Spirit. Mk. 9 49 speaks of salting with fire.

2 See Philo, 1 80, on the brazen serpent (the enemy of the serpent that came to Eve); it is (it. 315, 317) the strongest virtue. For the apparently abrupt transition that ensues from the serpent to the living water, see Philo, 1 82 ; The one is healed by the brazen serpent, the other is caused to drink that most excellent draught, Wisdom, from the fountain which he brought forth from his own wisdom.

3 The statement, that (Westc. Jn. p. Ix) there can be no question as to the individuality of the discourse with the woman of Samaria, is perfectly true, if individuality means unity of style and purpose. It is practically certain, however, that the dialogue did not actually occur in the exact words recorded by Jn. For (i) no disciple (4 8) was present ; and, even if we assume that the Evangelist received an account of the dialogue from Jesus himself, (2) both Jesus and the Woman of Samaria talk in Johan- nine style. The same applies to the dialogue with Nicodemus.

4 I.e., the Nile.

5 Cp a tradition on Joel 3 [4] 18, Schottg. 1 361 : As the first Goel caused a well to spring up, so shall a second cause waters to spring up.

6 What IS the sixth husband (Jn. 4 r8), 'he whom thou now hast'? Philo speaks (26) of the 'six powers' of turbulence, namely, the five senses and uttered speech', of which the last prates with unbridled mouth of countless things that should not be uttered. If Jn. wrote in part with a view to contemporary heresies, he might very well include that of Simon Magus, who is said in Acts (811) to have held the Samaritans at a very early period bound in his enchantments. Justin Martyr testifies to his influence in Samaria in the first half of the second century. More probably, however, it means, primarily, religious pride and ambition (leading to hatred of truth and moral goodness), Rev. 13s a mouth speaking great things, which some might identify with Simon Magus.

55. The Bread of Life.[edit]

Jesus returns to Galilee and Cana. Thus the cycle of the Bridegroom ends in the place where it began, making way for the doctrine ot Bread.

(3) The Bread of Life 2 -The healing of the sick man at Bethesda on the Sabbath, which represents the healing of Israel - not unaccompanied with (5 14) warning that the work might be undone - is followed by a statement 3 that the Son does nothing but what he sees the Father do. Hence, when he lifts his eyes 4 before the eucharistic sign of the giving of the bread, we are prepared to hear that what he gives, the Father is really giving. It is the bread from heaven.

By placing the giving of Christ s flesh and blood early in the Gospel, and by introducing, much later, the one commandment of love, fulfilled by Christ on the Cross, Jn. gives the impression of a desire to discourage materialistic views of the Eucharist : (6 63) The spirit it is that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit and they are life. 5

1 Philo, i. 92471, quoted above.

2 For(Jn. 4 46-54) the healing of the nobleman s son compared with Mt.-Lk. s healing of the centurion s servant, see above (8 17). /3ao-iAicos may mean either king s servant, or king- like, princely. Origen (perhaps reading j3n<nAi oxos with D), regards the nobleman as representing Abraham, and the raising of the son as representing the action of the Logos in raising up Isaac, as if from the dead. If that is so, the three miracles of healing represent the action of the Logos (i) before the Law, (2) under the Law, (3) outside the Law. This sign is wrought at Cana, and is (454) the second. It terminates the section of the Bridegroom, and introduces that of health and food, or healing and the Bread of Life.

3 Philo says that (1414) the First-born imitates the Father s ways looking to his archetypal patterns.

4 Jesus thrice lifts his eyes (651141 17 1) : when he (i) gives the Bread, (2) raises Lazarus, (3) offers the final sacrifice of praise and prayer to the Father.

5 Words but words received into the heart not acts, nor miracles, are the climax of Christ s life among his Disciples before the crucifixion. IIe washes their feet ; but Judas, like the rest, is washed, and Judas is also expressly said by Jn. (not by the Synoptists) to have received 'the sop'. Neither act makes them (1,3 11) 'unclean;. They are 'clean' (15 3) ' becasse of the word that he has spoken and they have received; Judas is not clean because he has not received it.

56. The Light.[edit]

(4) The Light. The doctrine of Light, though enunciated in the Prologue, and touched on (apparently not by Jesus but by the Evangelist) in 3:19-21, is not definitely set forth by Jesus till near the middle of the Gospel (8 12), I am the light of the world.

This revelation is described as being followed by a more active hostility in the enemies who now (8 37-44) seek to destroy him, revealing themselves as the children of the Destroyer. The depth of darkness (8 48 : thou hast a devil ) draws out the fullest light : (8 58 Before Abraham was, I AM ). Then, upon an attempt to stone Jesus, he was hidden (eitpv/S))), 1 and went forth from the temple. This and a second (12 36) eclipse are two witnesses against the darkness that will not (1 5) apprehend the light.

Next comes the healing of the Gentile world, typified by the man who was blind from his birth.

As Naaman was sent to Jordan, so the blind man is sent to (9 7) the Pool of Siloam, which represents (Is. 8 6_/C) the worship of the true God as distinct from the worship of false gods (see also Is. 7 322 g 11 862 ; Hor. Hebr. 1365, 3 292). The Judaising inference that the Gentile world must be purified by Jewish waters i.e., by the Law is obviated by the statement probably implying the supersession of the Law by (Gen. 49 10) Shiloh that Siloam means sent. 2 This sign is altogether different from the healing of the man at Bethesda (Israel), who is never said to believe, and who is threatened with penalty in case of relapse. The Gentile world (838) believes, so that this sign includes the creation of spiritual, as well as material, light.

The section terminates with a denunciation of the abiding sin of the blind who profess to lead others and who say we see. 3

1 Westcott has no note here ; but the second hiding (eKpvfir)) in 12 36 he translates was hidden (not hid himself), and declares it to be the result of the want of faith of Christ s adversaries; and he there refers to the present passage (8 59), as being apparently similar. The difficulty of this theory ( want of faith ) here will be at once detected by embodying it in the context : They took up stones therefore, to cast at him, but Jesus was hidden from them as the result of their want of faith, and went out of the temple.

Are there not two meanings : (i) one for spiritual readers (2) another for superficial? In (i), the meaning is that Christ was hidden from the souls of his enemies, in (2), that he was hidden from their bodily eyes by divine intervention. The former is spiritual, but gives us no clear indication of the way in which Jesus escaped. The latter is definitely miraculous, but not ne- cessarily spiritual. Jn. seems to leave it to his readers to choose. Perhaps he is here (as often) expressing dramatically what Lk. expresses non-dramatically (Lk. 10:42 dnpb|3y 'but now they are hid from thine eyes'). (The meaning 'hid himself', grammati cally possible, is, from a Johannine standpoint, impossible.)

2 Probably Jn. (as Grotius suggested) identified Siloam with the Shiloh of Gen. 49 10 ; cp SHILOH.

3 Cp Philo (1 382) on the two kinds of ignorance, of which the second fancies that it knows what it does not know, puffed up with a false notion of its own wisdom : this generates deliberate evil-doing (CK wpoi/oia? afiucrjfiaTa). It is this proud, complacent, and deliberate evil-doing (implying hatred and scorn of goodness), that is, in the Synoptists, unpardonable, and, in Jn., the sin that abideth (/ueVei.) i.e., cannot be effaced. (For ^icVei cp Jn. 15 16 i Cor. 13 I3 .)

  • The true Shepherd and the true Husbandman (or Vine

dresser) are connected by Philo (1 300-305) in a discourse about the husbandry, or tendance, of the soul. He distinguishes between the mere tiller of the ground (who is [ib. 301] a hire ling ) and the real husbandman (who prunes, or encourages growth, as the case may require). So (ib. 304) the shepherd is distinguished from the mere keeper. Poets, he says (ib. 306) call kings the shepherds of their people, but the title is rightly reserved for 'the wise'. The difference between Philo and Jn. is that the former makes no mention of 'laying down life for the sheep.

5 If the text is correct, came (fiXBov) means (with allusion to the Comer, or Deliverer), came in the character of the ideal Deliverer. Of Gideon, Barak, David, as of Abraham, Jn. would say that they (8 56) saw Christ s day i.e., they did not claim to be independent, but depended on the ideal Deliverer. But this does not explain ?rpb enou before me. We should expect 'apart from me' or 'setting themselves above me'

A Hebrew original may have caused confusion between 'before (in time) 'before (in estimation)'. and 'in the dace of. Cp-Ex.-ZO3 'before me' (mg., 'beside me')~Arjv, 106324 419 'before' (mg., 'like'). Or an original Gr. tradition, 66Eav ~XOVTBP PP)(FLV rpb ;poi3 (cp Mk. 1042 80~0i)vrcs, P p p v with parall.) might mean 'before me', or 'above me. Cp Justin, AjoZ. 12 (Zpxovrap lrpb r f i s bAqO~ias86[av r~p6vres). Since Christ is ‘the Truth,’ lrpb vjs bA@oias in Justin may represent a traditional version of the n-pb e^iou in Jn. Many authorities omit n-pb e/Aou owing to the perversion of the words by heretics. Justin may have adopted a new interpretation of them.

Tatian (12 and 14), gives the name of robbers to demons, and adds (18) the admirable Justin has rightly denounced them as "robbers". Either he did not remember it in the Gospel, or he did not, at the time of writing, recognise the Gospel as authoritative. The saying has affinities to the Greek notion that the only lawful kingdom is that of the wise man (see Philo 2 38).

57. The Life.[edit]

(5) The Life. The mention of the blind leaders leads to the mention of the ideal Leader who knows (ie. loves) all that are his, and that, too, individually (10:3 < f >(1)V ^ KaT ^ VOfjLa ), so that they are drawn towards him as the Good Shepherd who does not drive, but leads. 4

All the shepherds and deliverers of the world "that came before the Logos are described as (10 8) thieves and robbers, 6 because they did not understand that ruling implies serving and even dying. The Shepherd (10 n) layeth down his life for the sheep (10 17) in order that it may be received again. In other words, the Resurrection, or attainment of life through death, is a law of the spiritual world, a part of the Father s will. Thus Jn. anticipates the objection that, if the Shepherd dies in conflict with the wolf, the wolf is victorious.

Later, the law is restated as the law of the Harvest : (1224) Except it (the grain) die, it abideth alone, but if it perish it bringeth forth much fruit ; meantime, Jesus says (10 18) that he has power to take up his life as well as to lay it down, and these words naturally prepare us for a sign of this particular power. Such a sign is afforded by the Resurrection of Lazarus.

58. Raising of the Dead in Gospels.[edit]

(6) The Raising of the Dead. That marvellous cures (and, not improbably, revivifications) were wrought by the earliest Christians is indicated by the Pauline Epistles, by indirect Talmudic testimony, in and by early Christian traditions. There are signs, however, of very early exaggera tion arising from misunderstood metaphor. For example, Apollonius (Eus. v. 18 14) alleges (170 A.D.) that John in Ephesus raised a dead man. How, we ask, did this escape earlier writers Papias, for example, who records such an act of Philip, but not of John? The answer is to be found in Clem.Alex. (960), where the apostle, questioning an Elder about a young convert, receives the answer He is dead. What death? He has died to God. The apostle reconverts the youth, who becomes a trophy of resurrection. Similarly, whereas the churches of Gaul speak of reconverted apostates as (Eus. v. 1 45) the dead brought to life by the prayers of martyrs, Irenjeus(ii. 31 2) says that, ere now, in the brotherhood, owing to sore need, many have been raised by the prayers of the Church, and this, literally ; and it seems highly probable that he has confused some metaphorical tradition. 1 The question arises, how early did such misunderstandings occur? The wicked," says a Jewish tradition, 2 though living, are termed dead. Let the dead? says our Lord, bury their dead. In Christ s commission to the Twelve, Mt. (10 8) alone has raise the dead, and afterwards (11 5) the dead are raised. Yet Mt. de scribes Jesus himself as revivifying no one except the daughter of Jairus, concerning whom Mt. has written (924) she is not dead but sleepeth. See JAIRUS. It is probable that Mt. has here given the actual words of Jesus, or the closest approximation to them ; they were perhaps omitted by Mk.-Lk. owing to their being first literalised and then regarded as difficult or erroneous. Lk. as well as Mk. records, it is true, (7 22) the dead are raised ; but he meets the possible objection, No dead have been raised, by inserting the raising of a widow s son (7 11-17) immediately before. Including Jairus s daughter, he might now plead that the raising of two persons justified the plural are." But besides the suspicion attaching to the absence of this narrative not only from Mk. but also from the parallel Mt. which closely agrees with Lk. the story suggests a misunderstanding of metaphor. In 2 Esd. 943^ there is a vision of a woman (Sion) sorrowing for the death of her only son (the City or Temple). Christians would assert that Christ (Jn. 2 19) raised up the Temple, or, in the language of Christian psalms and hymns, that he raised up the only son of the sorrowing widow. 3 Thus the possible influence of symbolism combines with other causes 1 * to oblige us to reject as non-historical Lk. s account of the raising of the widow s son. See NAIN.

1 (i) Eusebius, in quoting these words of Irenaus, prefixes to them (v. 7 i) on Sr/, that, as he says, which (though in ii. 176 it introduces a statement attested by the canonical Acts of the Apostles ) may imply, according to context, an emphasis laid on the subjectiveness and doubtfulness of what is alleged (see iv. 1546 v. 18613); ( 2 ) he words owing to sore need (6ia TO ava.yKa.lov) apply very well to apostasy, but less well to literal death; (3) subsequently, Irenaeus (ii. 824) implies that, whilst healing of the sick still went on (itavrai), the raising of the dead was a thing of the past (^6>) . . . i^ye pOijo-av), and that, though they had lived for some time, none were living when he wrote (Tro.pe jLieii ai <rvv r)fiiv ereo-tv ifcacois). For the date of the Gallican letter, seventeenth year of Titus Antoninus Pius (not Marcus Aurelius Antoninus), see Expositor, 1896 (p. in ff.). The earlier date (by lengthening the interval between Irenseus and the Gallican letter) facilitates the theory that Irenaus mis understood the metaphor. When Papias records similar acts, Eusebius, by the words (iii. 39 9) Qa.vit.avi.av and napa&oov, appears to indicate his disbelief in them, at least if we combine them with the following (ib. 11-13) mythical, not perceiving what was figurative and mystical, of very limited intelligence.

2 Berakhoth, 18, Bereshith Rabba, c. 39. The applica tion is derived from Ezek. 21 25, And thou, O deadly wounded wicked one, prince of Israel. The interpretation is applied to Eccl. 9 5, The dead know not anything. See an article on The Raising of the Dead in the Synoptic Gospels in The Nciv World, 96, pp. 473-493.

3 So Lam. 1 i How doth the city sit solitary that was full of people ! How is she become as a widow !

  • Lk. 7 14/1 says that Jesus (1) came near and touched the coffin, (2) the dead man sat up, (3) he began to speak, (4) Jesus gave him to his mother. Similar details are found in ( 2 K. 18:21 and i K. 17:22-23), which describe miracles of revivification performed by Elisha and Elijah.
59. Raising of Lazarus.[edit]

(7) Reserving the historical question for special treat ment (see LAZARUS) it may be said here that : in spite of Martha s inferential statement in 11 39 the words of Jesus at the tomb (11 41), Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me, imply that the hearing was already past, and the life of Lazarus was in effect already granted to his prayers. We must, however, suppose that the narrative though possibly based on one or more of Christ s actual works is mainly allegorical. The great negative reason is the silence of the Synoptists J about Christ s greatest miracle, which was, according to Jn. , the chief cause of both (a) the applause that greeted his entry into Jerusalem, and (6) the resolution of the priests to slay him. 2

The positive reasons are : (i) Jn., adopting Philonian tradi tions of style and expression, and writing on the lines of the OT, might naturally subordinate the literal to the symbolical. For example, Philo calls the creation of Eve from Adam s rib (1 70) mythical (pv9u>Ses). If such was Jn. s view, he might well think himself justified in composing a single symbolical story that might sum up a hundred floating traditions about Christ s revivifying acts in such a form as to point to him as the Consoler of Israel, and the Resurrection and the Life of the world. (2) The name of Lazarus suggests symbolism. Another form of it is Eliezer, who is, in Philo (1 481), the type of a being liable to dissolution and (indeed) a corpse, but held together and kindled into life (a>07rvpeiT<u) by the providence of God. (3) Lk. and Jn. alone mention Martha and her sister Mary. They appear to differ in their views of the sisters ; possibly they differ as to the brother Lazarus. 3 Some early writers took Lk. s Lazarus to be a real person ; * and it is easy to see that traditions about the Lazarus of Lk. may have prepared the way for the Lazarus of Jn. Jesus, it might be said, raised many from the dead ; but concerning one, Lazarus by name, he said (Lk. 1631) : " If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe though one rise from the dead." The next step would be to say that this prediction was fulfilled : Lazarus was raised from the dead ; yet the Jews did not believe. 3

1 Those who regard the speeches in Acts as historical would also have to explain how Paul, in mentioning the Resurrection, omits (17 31) the raising of any dead people by Christ, and, still more, how Peter (1038), when emphasising his acts of healing, makes no mention of revivification.

2 This has never been explained. Some have suggested that the Synoptists kept silence to screen Lazarus. But how could they hope to screen one who was known to all Jerusalem, not to speak of the multitude of pilgrims?

3 As regards the different delineations of the sisters, see 44. In Lk. (1638) Martha comes first as entertaining Jesus, appar ently (or certainly, see v. 1.) in her house ; then Mary is men tioned, but Lazarus not at all. Jn. (11 i) mentions in order Lazarus, Mary, Martha. In Jn. Mary is (before the anointing is narrated) she who anointed the Lord, which implies knowledge of only one anointer. But in Lk. (737) the only woman that anoints the Lord is a sinner. Again, in Lk., the anointing is in the house of Simon the Pharisee ; in Jn. in the house of Lazarus. Lk. s mention (1623) of a Lazarus in connection with the life after death in Abraham s bosom suggests that there is some confusion of tradition latent under these differences and similarities in Lk. and Jn. On -the name Lazarus, see above, 10, and cp LAZARUS.

4 Iren. iv. 2 4 (see Grabe s note), Tertull. De Anim. 7, and the Fathers generally, regard the story as history. Lazarus is placed by Constit. Apost. vii. 8 7 in the same category as Job. But those who took this view, no doubt, distinguished the Lazarus of Lk. from the Lazarus of Jn.

5 A literal interpretation of the narrative is accompanied by many minor difficulties, such as the question why Jesus, after he had been informed of the sickness of Lazarus, remained beyond Jordan (11 6) two days. From this and from 11 17 Lightfoot infers (#178) a journey which occupies three days, Westcott (on Jn. 11 6) The journey would occupy about a day. There is no solid basis for either conclusion. A full discussion of the subject would show the mystical meaning underlying these and other details.

6 Jn. takes pains to show that the Voice was not, in the popular and modern sense of the term, objective. A multitude was present. Those who heard anything did not hear the true thing. They heard thunder or an angel. See Gratz, 2341, for the decline of the authority of the Bath-Kol.

60. Preparation for Sacrifice.[edit]

(8) The Preparation for the Sacrifice. We pass to the beginning of (12i) the week before the Passover. The anointing of Christ (12 1-8) is a kind of preparation of the lamb for the sacrifice, and the coming of the Greeks to the New Temple is hailed by Jesus as a sign that (12 23 ) the hour of glory has arrived. The Voice from heaven, which the Synoptists place at the Baptism (where Jn. omits it), and also at the Transfiguration, is mentioned (1228) here alone in this Gospel, as ratifying the act of Jesus when he puts, and answers negatively, the question What shall I say? [Shall I say], save me from this hour i" By this act, he virtually fulfills the Law of Sacrifice, or the Law of the Harvest, which he has (1224) just enunciated. If (Hor. Hebr. ad loc.) the prince of this world is, in Jewish Tradition, the prince of the seventy nations of the Gentiles, there is peculiar point in the words that follow the introduction of the Greeks : (1231) Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the prince of this world* be cast out ; and I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me. But as before (859), with this second manifestation of light comes (1236) a second and final eclipse (e)cpu(3jj).

The unstable o^os or multitude of the Jews is now mentioned for the last time, quitting the stage as the devout Gentile world enters; and its last words are (1234): Who is this Son of man ?

61. Last charge.[edit]

(9) The Deuteronomy. The public doctrine of Jesus ends when he 'cries aloud' for the third time (see above, 49), saying that his word will judge the world and that (12:50) his word is the word of the Father.

We are now transported to a higher sphere, to the inner teaching of Christ, the revision and summary of his doctrine, the giving of the One commandment, the promise of the Paraclete, and the prayer to the Father.

It is a Deuteronomy, full of mystical allusions in which a numerical symbolism sometimes veiled, sometimes manifest, as in the seven times repeated refrain These things have I spoken unto you is prevalent throughout. As Abraham (Gen. 184) washed the feet of the Three Persons and gave them food, so now the Son, or Messiah (Schottg. 2 bif.), repays the debt to Abraham s children. The Talmudists, speaking in the spirit of the prophets, describe (Schottg. 2 370) the mansions and habitations of God as coming to man, and Philo speaks of the Divine word and Powers (i. 249 158) making their home in, and sharing their table with, the devout soul, and of (i. 643) God himself as walking in the souls of the perfectly purified. So Jn. teaches that the Father and the Son will (1423) make their mansion in the heart of the faithful. 2 As Philo, agreeing with the Talmudists, warns us that (1 457) place (TOTTO?) does not mean a region filled with matter, but God himself, the refuge of the Universe, so Jn., by his context, teaches us that the (142) place (TOTTOS) which Jesus will prepare for his disciples is a home in the bosom of the Father.

All these allusive iterations of ancient traditions, and all the lines of various doctrine, converge towards Christ in his threefold character of (146) the way, the truth, and the life.

First, in the doctrine of the Way, the disciples are taught to pray in his name a clause seven times repeated. 3 Then the Truth, or the Spirit of Truth, introduced before, becomes the predominant element, leading to the threefold (16 8) conviction of the Spirit. 4 The two sections of the Way (or Son) and the Truth (or Spirit) terminate with a prediction of victory because the Father is with the Son ; so that the latter has, in effect, already (1633) conquered the world. Last comes the doctrine of the Father himself (the Life), called (17 1) Father, (ifi. n) holy Father, and finally (ib. 25) just, or righteous 5 Father. Here my name ceases and thy name is introduced. Finally with repeated references to the Church as being (17267 10, etc.) that which or those whom the Father hath given to the Son the Last Words terminate in an outpouring of the Son s devotion to the righteous Father, wherein his name is, in effect, revealed as love : (1726) I have made known unto them thy name, and will make it known, that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them.

1 Cp Lk. 10 18, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven, uttered on the return of the Seventy.

2 Cp Is. 57 15.

3 14 13 14 26 15 16 1623 24 26 (15 21 is obviously to be excluded).

4 The Paraclete or friend called in to help," is connected by Philo sometimes (ii. 247) with the Elenchos, or Convicting Power, sometimes (ii. 155, 227) with the high priest entering God s presence to represent the Cosmos, but perhaps more often with the Spirit of the ideal Cosmos (the name Logos being given to the High Priest, see i. 501). Sometimes (ii. 227) the Priest appears as interceding with the Father of the Cosmos, but calling to his aid the Son of the Father. Philo does not bind himself to one form of expression. The Elenchos is called (ii. 247) Paraclete ; (i. 219) God s own Logos ; (i. 195) the ideal Alan, or Man according to Truth (6 irpbs aAjjfleiac av6 pwTros). The whole of Jn. s last discourse shows Philonian influence ; but (as usual), whereas Philo regards the intellect, Jn. regards the heart a consequence of the belief of the latter in the incarnate Logos.

5 fit /caio? in Jn. and i Jn. lo 2 i, etc. instead of having the narrow legal meaning implied in the Synoptists Mt. 1 19 Lk. 16 Mk. 2 17, etc. means just in the Platonic sense, and is the climax of the attributes of God and Christ.

62. Passion.[edit]

(10) The Passion (see above, 12). Space can be found here for only one or two points, not only peculiar to Jn - but essential to his purpose. They are connected with Christ's last utterances on the Cross, and with what followed them.

1. The words Eli, Eli, etc., recorded by Mk. and Mt. , are said to have been misunderstood by bystanders at the time. Lk. omits" them, and even Mk. and Mt. are at variance in the context. 1 In the corresponding passage Jn. has simply I thirst.

Of course the first impulse is to take this, as the bystanders took it, in a purely literal meaning, and to say that it has no connection with Mk. and Mt. But in the Fourth Gospel the words bread, water, food, eat, drink, feed, and thirst are hardly ever used by Jesus in the literal sense ; e.g. , when the disciples bring him food he replies that (434) his meat is to do the will of the Father and accomplish his work. This suggests that in Christ s last utterance the same spiritual standard must be maintained, so that, in effect, it was the expression of a thirst for that final accomplishment of God s will which would enable him to say it is finished, and then to break down the barrier of the flesh and to enter into unfettered communion with the Father (cp Ps.(i3 i).

What Mk. and Mt. express in the form of (apparent) complaint, and what Lk. entirely omits (perhaps because of its difficulty), Jn. appears to express in the form of the highest spiritual aspiration. Not that he excludes the physical meaning, but (as always throughout the Gospel) he includes a spiritual meaning that the Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, endured for our sakes to feel, for a brief space, as if, in a certain sense, he were not there, so that he thirsted for the presence of God.

2. The spontaneousness of Christ's death was not clearly expressed by the two earliest traditions. 2 Lk. inserts, as uttered by Jesus, the first half of the quotation that, to this day, terminates a pious Jew's confession on his death-bed (Ps. 31s). Yet even this was liable to the Jewish objection that it implied, as the utterer, not a Redeemer, but one in need of redemption. No such objection applied to the tradition preserved by i Pet. 2 23 (Trapedidov, perhaps gave himself up as a sacrifice ; cp Gal. 2 20 Eph. 52). This word Jn. adopts. But he represents Jesus not as saying this, but as doing it : (1930) }\e gave up his spirit. See above, 20.

3. The rending of the veil is omitted by Jn. , partly perhaps because, in his view (i) Christ's body is the Temple, and the veil is his flesh, so that the piercing of his side by the soldier s spear constituted the true and essential rending of the veil, but partly because (2) Jn. may have considered the Synoptic tradition erroneous.

Jn.'s tradition here explains many difficulties. Death under crucifixion did not generally ensue till after two or three days ; Mk. (1644) mentions Pilate s surprise (omitted by Mt.-Lk.) at the speedy death of Jesus. Unbelievers, explaining Christ s resurrection as a fraud, might say, Pilate might well be "sur prised," for death could not happen so soon. Jn. steps in to say that it did happen, and to spiritualise the circumstances. The crurifragium (see CROSS, 6), was performed, he says, on the two criminals ; but this infliction (which would have violated the ordinance about the Paschal Lamb [Ex. 1246]) was averted from Jesus by his death, and the death was attested by the piercing of his side ; and thus two Scriptures were fulfilled.

1 Mk. 15 36 supposes a<ere to be addressed by the man with the vinegar to the bystanders, Mt. 2749 supposes a<es to be addressed by the bystanders to the man. See ELI, ii. Aramaic (or, in D, Hebrew) is confused in all the MSS. Pseudo-Peter interprets the words My Power, my Power, why hast thou forsaken me?" Justin (Tryph. 125) translates HA by Jiifajius, Eusebius (Dent. Ev. x. 8494; Robinson on Pseudo-Pet. 21) translated the word in the Psalm by tcrxus, and Aquila by ioxopi

2 The word <f><airijv, in Mk. s (15 37) d<ieis <J>U>VTJV e^eirvevcrev (where MSS might have <j><i>vrj fj,fya\rj), seems to have been, in the corrected edition used by_ Mt.-Lk., (jxavfi /ieyoAr). Mt. (27 50) retained atj>fis (in the form cu^rJKep), but with TO irveinia (from Mk. s efeVvev(7ei>) as object. This expresses somewhat more of voluntariness. Lk. (23 46) goes farther. Retaining cfe n-cevo-ei in the sense of breathing his last, he adds an expression of trust on the part of Jesus.

It is more probable that the Synoptic account of the rending of the veil should have sprung from a misunderstanding of the piercing of the side than vice versa. In the earliest days of the Church, when it became customary to speak of Christ's flesh as the veil (Heb. lOigf.), it would be natural to describe the piercing of his body as the rending of the veil. It is said (Joel s Religionsblicke, 7) that the Jews believed the veil of the Temple to have been literally rent, shortly before the capture of the City. This may have helped to literalise the veil-tradition. Christians would say to Jews, What you speak of, did not happen in the siege, or at least it did not happen only then ; the veil was rent when our Lord was crucified by you. Also, against the Synoptists, there is this consideration, that the rending of the veil, if it had occurred, would probably have been kept a secret by the priests (who alone would know of it), and, if it was ever revealed by any of them, would probably be revealed by zealous converts apt to make exaggerations and find coincidences.

4. The piercing of Christ s side takes us to the central thought of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle, namely, the love of God revealed in the Blood of Christ the Paschal Lamb.

The Epistle to the Hebrews (9 19) recognises that the old way to God was through (Lev. 146) blood, water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, but asserts that the new way was (Heb. 10 19 ./) simply by the blood of Jesus. The Epistle of Barnabas (11 1-8), however, will not give up the old Levitical elements : it even adds the Levitical wood, which it discerns in the Cross (fuAov), and, though not without difficulty, it brings in the notion of water by speaking of the Cross (f v\ov) as a tree, past which flows the purifying stream of baptism. In the Gospels, the scarlet cloak represents the scarlet wool, and the cross the wood ; but the blood that came from the mere piercing of the hands, or perhaps the hands and feet, 1 might well seem insufficient to express the purifying blood of the Lamb; and there was nothing at all to indicate the water. An early tradition inserted in Lk. (2244) endeavoured to supply the blood of sprinkling by relating how drops as of blood streamed from Jesus in his agony ; but still there was no mention of water. Yet not only did the Levitical requirements mention running water, but Zech. 13 1 predicted the opening of a fountain against sin and uncleanness for Israel. 2 It is in the piercing of Christ s side that Jn. sees a revelation of the opening of this p urifying fountain. This completes the three fold sacrifice that Christ had made for men : (i) the invisible sacrifice of the breath, or spirit ; (2) the human soul, visibly re presented by the blood ; (3) the human body, visibly repre sented by water. 3

Physically, that these details should have been seen by the eye of a disciple kept probably at some distance from the cross by a crowd of hostile spectators and soldiers, must be, if not impossible, at least disputable. But, whatever physical facts may have been seen, the essence of the narrative is a spiritual fact. A revelation is vouchsafed to the beloved disciple. His eyes are opened to discern the Fountain of Life. 4 It may have been given to some one to see literally the piercing of the side and to hand down to the church of Ephesus a historical fact obscured in previous traditions. But the spiritual meaning of the act is not to be regarded or criticised from the materialistic or historical standpoint. 1 The whole of the context is spiritual in thought and mystically symbolical in expression. First there is a threefold mention of accomplishment. Then, as there were seven signs wrought by Christ during his life, so now there are, perhaps, seven accomplishments of OT type or prophecy that accompany, or follow, his death. 2 In the last of these, the most striking of all (prospective as well as retrospective, pointing backward to prophecy but also forward to the conversion of the Gentiles, to the christianising of the Roman Empire, and to the metamorphosis of blind persecution into awe-struck adoration), the soldiers of this world, coming to break the bones of the Paschal Lamb, are not only diverted from their purpose, but as it were forced to look on him whom they pierced."

1 In the Synoptists, the feet, too, are pierced, but not in Jn. and Pseudo-Peter.

2 The LXX, however, reads CITC place for 11 CD fountain, so that Greek-speaking Christians would hardly be much influenced by this passage. Justin does not mention it, yet he quotes Lk. s tradition, omitting the word blood, and seeing in it a fulfil ment of Ps. 22 14 poured out like water.

B This symbolism seems to be in accordance with Philo s (1653) describing ashes and water as the origin of man s genera tion (-yei/eVews ai opx<0 \ ar >d ( - 251) the purification of the body with water as preparatory for the purification of the soul with blood. But Jn. may be also alluding to the mixed cup of the Eucharist, which contained wine mixed with water. Irenseus says that (5 1-3) the Ebionites (who denied Christ s divine nature and used water alone in the Eucharist) not receiving the combination of God and man into their soul, rejected the mix ing of the heavenly wine, and did not receive God into their mingling (non recipientes Deum ad commistionem suam) : in other words he declares their rejection of the divine nature in Christ to be analogous to their rejection of the wine in the Eucharist. According to this view, the wine in the Eucharist, and the blood of Christ on the cross, would represent Christ s divine nature. But whatever reference Jn. may have had to Ebionitism, or to a rising Docetism that rejected Christ s human nature, it seems probable that his main object is to bear witness for the Church to Christ s human nature as being completely real in body and soul as well as spirit. Applied to the Eucharist, the Johannine view would recognise the body in the bread, the soul and spirit in the water and blood.

4 Cp Ps. 869: With thee is the fountain of life : in thy light shall we see light a passage closely connected with a key-passage in the Gospel (14): The life was the light of men, and cp Rev. 21 6: I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. Also cp Rev. 22 1 : a river of water of life . . . proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. It was a saying, older^han the Fourth Gospel, that (Barn. 85) The kingdom of Jesus is on the tree (or Cross, cTri fvAou : cp Justin, i Apol. 41, Tryph. 73, The Lord hath reigned from the tree ). So, in Jn., the Cross being the place where Christ is lifted up and where God is glorified is the throne of God. In Barn. 11 as in Rev. 222 (imitating the pastoral picture of Ezek. 477 *<?)< he Cross is also -the tree (fv Aof) of life whose leaves will heal the nations, and it is planted by the side o/t\\e river of living water. But there were varieties of tradition, and Barnabas himself quotes a saying that sug gested the thought of the Cross as a Vine from which the juice, or blood, is dropping : (Barn. 12) When a tree shall bow down and rise up, and when blood shall Aropfrom a tree.

This view is developed in the later Johannine vision. The water and the blood fiowfrom the Cross, or rather from Christ on the Cross. See Rev. 22 17.

63. Conclusion.[edit]

Thus, amid mysticism and symbolism, 3 as it began, ends the Johannine life of Christ. Viewed as history, it must be dispassionately analysed so as to separate, as far as possible, fact from not-fact. No criticism, however, ought to prevent us from recognising its historical value in correcting impres sions derived from the Synoptic Gospels, and the epic power and dramatic irony with which it brings on the stage the characters and classes whereby the will of God is being continuously fulfilled, so that we find ourselves learning from Pilate to behold the man," and discern ing with Caiaphas that it is expedient that one man should die and not that the whole people should perish. It often raises us above details of which the certitude will probably never be ascertained, into a region where we apprehend the nature and existence of a Word of Life, essentially the same in heaven and on earth, human yet divine, the incarnation of the concord of the spiritual universe. Yet, while no Gospel soars so high, none stands more firmly, more practically, below.

1 it may be objected that the author lays stress upon seeing (19 35 : He that hath seen hath borne witness ). The very stress, however, indicates that seeing has a spiritual signification, as in (149) 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father',(l14) 'we beheld his glory ; and elsewhere in Jn. Space does not allow the exposition of the Philonian and Johannine uses of expressions relating to sight and vision, which would demonstrate this conclusion. But it maybe assumed that, whenever verbs of the senses are used by Jn. wifh emphasis, they are always used primarily in a spiritual significance. 'Handling' in I Jn. 1 I ,is no exception to this invariable rule; see above (on the 'handling ' in Ignatius), s. 29.

2 (I) The 'thirst',(2) 'hyssop',(3) 'vinegar',(4) the 'bone not broken', (5) the 'looking' on him whom they pierced', are all definitely mentioned in the OT, and (6) the 'delivering of the spirit may be regarded as a fulfilment of Ps. 31 5 ; but there is no verbal allusion either to Zech. 13 1, or to Ps. 22 14. We cannot therefore assert that seven is here in the author s mind. But the structure of the whole Gospel makes it probable.

3 (1^35) : (i) And he that hath seen hath borne witness (2) and his (avrou) witness is true (3) and he (eKeu os) knoweth that he saith true. On the assumption (so Westcott and Alford) that CKetfos is the usual substitute for a repeated <xuT09, the sentence is strangely tautological. But may not Jn. intend eKeiro? to mean Christ? The passage is the keynote to the Epistle, and in the Epistle (see Westc. on i Jn. 26) exeiVos is always used of Christ (cp especially i Jn. 3 16, 4 17). It is characteristic of Jn. that he should use the pronoun so that a superficial reader should render it in one way and a spiritual reader in another. In any case, the threefold form of the attestation appears deliberately adapted to the context describing the Three Witnesses.