Encyclopaedia Biblica/Gospels (C: Historical and synthetical)-Gotholias

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

Contents

GOSPELS (C: HISTORICAL AND SYNTHETICAL)[edit]

The present article will be devoted to a brief statement and discussion of the principal hypotheses which have been at various times put forward as tentative solutions of the Synoptical problem. On the fourth gospel see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE.

CONTENTS

I. TENDENCY IN THE SYNOPTISTS (108-114).

  • In general (108).
  • In Lk. (109-111).
  • In Mt. (112).
  • In Mk. (113).
  • Conclusion (114).

II. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.

  • Tradition theory (115).
  • Dependence theory (116).
  • Original gospel (117).
  • Original Mk. (118-119)
  • Logia (120).
  • Two-source theory (121).
  • Extent of logia (122).
  • Special Lk. source (123).
  • Smaller sources (124).
  • Theories of combination (125).
  • Review of classes of theory (126).
  • Use of Mt. by Lk. (127).
  • Sources of the sources (128).
  • Critical inferences (129).
  • Semitic basis (130).

III. TRUSTWORTHINESS OF SYNOPTISTS.

  • Fundamental principles (131).
  • Chronological statements (132).
  • Order of narratives (133).
  • Occasion of Words of Jesus (134).
  • Places and persons (135).
  • Later conditions (136).
  • Miracle stories (137).
  • Resurrection of Jesus (138).
  • Absolute trustworthiness
    • (a) About Jesus generally (139).
    • (b) About Jesus miracles (140).
  • Inference regarding the signs (141).
  • Metaphors misinterpreted (142).
  • Influence of OT (143).
  • Miraculous cures (144).
  • Conclusion as to words of Jesus (145).

IV. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF SYNOPTICS AND THEIR SOURCES.

  • Titles of gospels (146).
  • Statements of Fathers (147).
  • Author of 2nd gospel (148).
  • Author of 1st gospel and the logia (149).
  • Date of logia (150).
  • Date of
    • 1st gospel (151),
    • of 2nd gospel ( 152),
    • author and date of 3rd gospel (153).
  • Conclusion (154).
  • Gospel of Hebrews (155).
  • Other extra-canonical gospels (156).

I. TENDENCY IN THE SYNOPTISTS.[edit]

108. Tendency in general in the Synoptics.[edit]

The question of tendency deserves the first place, for the more tendency can be seen to have been at work in the composition of the Synoptic gospels, the less room is left for the action of merely literary influences and the like. Now, tendencies of one kind or another in the Synoptists are conceded even by the most conservative scholars. Thus they find that Mt. wrote for Jewish Christians, or for Jews, 2 to prove to them from the OT the Messiahship of Jesus ; this appears from Mt. s numerous OT quotations, often even prefaced with the words, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken (tea ir\ripu6ri rb pTjOtv : I 22 etc. ). Jerusalem is spoken of as simply the holy city (4s 27 53). Much space is given to the polemic against the Pharisees and Scribes. The contrast to Mt. pre

sented by Lk. is striking. Here many speeches, which according to Mt. were directed against the Pharisees, are addressed to the nation in general (Lk. 1115/129 639 43 as against Mt. 122438 15 12-14 7 15-20). In Lk. 3 7 (contrast with Mt. 87) we have the (surely impossible) story that the Baptist addressed the masses who desired to receive his baptism as a generation of vipers ( 127 a, a). The fact, too, that Lk. 834-38 carries the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam points to the conclusion that, in writing, he has Gentile Christians, or Gentiles, in his mind. The same inference can be made for Mk. ,

who is at pains to explain Jewish words or customs (73/1 ii 34 817 641 1642) and by frequently using Latin words (09 627 7 4 1039) and forms of expression (36 623 146$ 15 15) and even explaining Greek by Latin phrases (1242 15i6) shows that he was addressing readers who spoke Latin. Again, from the relatively small number of discourses of Jesus reported by Mk. we may perhaps conclude that he attaches less importance to the teaching than to the person of Jesus. It is the person that he desires to glorify.

Further, each evangelist in his own way is influenced by, and seeks by his narrative to serve, the apologetic interest. To meet particular objections, such as those preserved by Celsus (cp Mt. 28 15^), we find, for ex ample, an assertion so questionable as that of Mt. 2762-66 (the watching and sealing of the tomb, of which the other evangelists know nothing), or that of the bribing of the watchers (Mt. 28 11-15 a charge which, if actually made and believed, would certainly have involved their death; cp Acts 12 19). Once more, tendency appears also in another direction, the political in the desire to make the Roman authority as little responsible as possible for the death of Jesus (Mk. 15 1-14 Mt. 27 1-23 and very specially Mt. 27 24 ; most strongly of all in Lk. 281-23, where Pilate even invokes the judgment of Herod, w. 6-16 certainly an unhis- torical touch of which there is no hint in Mk. or Mt. (cp431 ACTS, 5, i).

1 Dr. Rendel Harris says (E/>Arem on the Gospel, 19), Bar Salibi seems to intimate that Tatian gave no harmonised account of the Resurrection. Every reader of Ephrem's text, as current in the Armenian, will have been struck by the poverty of the Commentary at this part of the Gospel. But there is no corre sponding poverty now in the Arabic Diatessaron.

J In particular (see 1303), for Greek-speaking Jews. It ought to be added, however, that Gentile Christians also were interested, or at least capable of being interested, in the evi dences of Christianity derived from the OT prophecies.

109. Pauline character of Lk.[edit]

The very widely accepted view, that Lk. is of a specifically Pauline character, can be maintained only in a very limited sense.

(a) The mission to the Gentiles is brought into very distinct prominence by the evangelist (231/1), not only in his own narrative but also in reporting the words of Jesus.

By Jesus, partly in express utterances (2447), partly in the choosing and sending forth of the seventy (10 i), whose number corresponds to that of the heathen nations enumerated in Gen. 10, partly in his interest in the Samaritans, who were not re garded by the Jews as compatriots and who in the Third Gospel are, to all appearance, the representatives of the Gentiles. The word stranger (RV"ig- alien ; aAAoyei^js), used to designate the cleansed Samaritan leper (Lk. 17 is), is the terminus tech- nicus used for all Gentiles in the well-known inscription marking the limits in the temple precincts which non-Jews were pro hibited from passing, under penalty of death. 1 Lk. has no parallels to Mt. 7 6 (pearls before swine), 10 <-,/. ( Go not into any way of the Gentiles ),10 23 1624 ( not sent but unto . . . house of Israel ). In Lk. 632 ( even sinners love those that love them ) the persons spoken of with depreciation are not, as in || Mt. 646^, publicans and heathens, but sinners. In Lk. 5 i-n (call of Peter) the mission to the Gentiles is hardly mistakable ( 32, last footnote) : the other boat which is summoned (5 7) to aid Peter in landing the multitude of fish, is that of Paul and his companions, whilst James and John (according to 5 10) figure as the comrades of Peter, and the astonishment and apprehension they share with him (5syl), signify that until now they had not grasped the divine command of an extended mission. That they nevertheless took part in the mission to the Gentiles at the divine command (5 5, at thy word ; cp 2447 repentance . . . in his name unto all the nations ) is in entire agreement with the representation in Acts 10 (see ACTS, 4).

(b) The reverse side is seen in the rejection of the Jewish nation, in great measure, or indeed, if the words be taken literally, altogether.

Cp 13 23-30 ( few saved? . . . Strive to enter . . . last . . . first and first . . . last ), 13 6-9 ( cut it down ), where the Jewish nation is intended by the fig-tree (see 43), 4 16-30 (Nazareth synagogue). 2 The rejection of Jesus in his native city means that he met with no recognition in his native land, the word native place (warpi s) being ambiguous. The mention of mighty works wrought in Capernaum (423), where, according to Lk., Jesus had not yet been (he reaches it for the first time in 431), makes it evident that the narrative has purposely been given the earlier place by the narrator, though not in agreement with his sources, as a sort of programme expressive of the relation of Jesus to the Jews as a whole ( 39, 127 a, y).

In an entire group of parables the whole point lies in the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles to salvation.

1 See TEMPLE.

2 Exceptions such as 13 16 19 9 ( daughter or son of Abraham), 1 33 ( reign over house of Jacob for ever ), 54 ( holpen Israel his servant ), 77 ( salvation unto his people ), 2321$ ( glory of thy people Israel ), 38 ( redemption of Jerusalem ), which doubtless come from the author s sources, do not invalidate the above observation all the less because they agree with what has already been observed under ACTS, 4.

Thus the Gentiles are indicated by the third class of those invited to the royal supper those compelled to come in from the highways and hedges (1415-24; cp H2/>). Again, Mt. s (25 14-30) purely ethical parable of the talents receives, in Lie. 19 12 ( far country, receive kingdom ), 14 ( citizens hated him ), 27 ( these mine enemies, slay them ), additions which give it a wholly different complexion. Here, the nobleman who goes into a far country and whose people, for declining his rule, are in the end put to death, was suggested by the well-known story of Archelaus, son of Herod the Great (see HKROD, 8); but in the intended application of the parable the nobleman is Jesus him self and the far country into which he travels is the region of the Gentiles ; cp the similar use of fur (jj.aKpa.v) in 15 13 ( prodigal ), Acts239 ( promise to all ... afar off ), 222i ( send thee [Paul] far hence unto Gentiles ), Eph. 2 13 ( once were far off ), 17 (same). Kven Lazarus, who in Lk. 16 19-26 comes into consideration only as poor and as suffering, must, in the addition in w. 27-31, be regarded as representing the Gentiles, the rich man and his brethren being characterised in the words they have Moses and the prophets as representing the Jews. Cp also 114.

(c) Against the work-righteousness of the Mosaic law we have the saying about the unprofitable servant (17 7-10), and the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (189-14), with regard to which, however, there is no reason to doubt that it was spoken by Jesus.

(d) In 1814 we have a specifically Pauline expression the designation of the Publican as justified (5e5t- Ktuw/A& os) ; another in 8 12 lest they believe and be saved (iva. fjiij jrio Teticra.vTfS ffwduxnv : cp i Cor. 1 21 to save them that believe ) ; also 188 the claim that when Christ should return he would be entitled to find faith (rr)v iriffnv) on the earth ; lastly the formula, thy faith has saved thee (i) iri<rns ffov ffecrwK^v ere) : 7 50 (woman in Simon s house), 17ig (Samaritan leper), 848 (woman with issue), 1842 (blind beggar). 1 The same formula, however, occurs also in Mk. 634 (woman with issue), 1052 (Bartimseus), Mt. 922 (woman with issue). It is therefore not specifically peculiar to Lk. ; and moreover a careful survey of all the passages cited does not show that Lk. has appropriated any specific doctrine of Paul, but only that he has made his own in all their generality the gains of the great apostle s lifework free dom from the law, and the assurance that salvation is open to all.

The same conclusion is reached by examination of another parable which also certainly was spoken by Jesus that of the Prodigal Son who is taken back into favour by the father with out anything being said of any sacrifice on his behalf such as Paul would certainly have regarded as necessary. The woman who was a sinner (Lk. 7 47 50) is saved not by reason of her faith alone but quite as much by reason of her love just as Abraham and Rahab are in i Clem. Rom. 107, 12 i.

110. Ebionite passages in Lk.[edit]

Over against what has just been pointed out we must set those ideas which Lk. has in common with what is usually called the Ebionitic side of primitive Christianity. 2 (a) The poor are blessed because of their poverty, the rich condemned because of their riches (Lk. 6 20-25 /Blessed .... Woe unto . . . ' 16 25-26 1 , rich man and Lazarus ; cp Jas. lg, let brother of low degree glory, 2s God . . . choose poor, 56 ye have killed . . . the righteous one; Clem. Horn. 15g possessions are in all cases sin ; loss of them in any way is a taking away of sins ; Tratrt ra KTrj/j-ara a.fj.apT rjfj.a.Ta r) TOVTUV Swat Trore crrepricris a/j.apriiav ianv affiaipeffis). (&) Beneficence wins salvation (Lk. 1141, give for alms . . . all things are clean [but see 130 d] ; 635, do good and lend; 16g, make friends by mammon ; cp Ecclus. 830, alms an atonement; Tob. 128 /., 2 Clem. Rom. 164, Clem. Ep. ad Jacobum, 9 ; beneficence the ground of salvation, einroua rrfs ffwrujpias atria), (c] God is to be stormed by earnest importunate prayer (118, because of importunity ; 18 1-8, judge and widow). Such thoughts, however, do not run through the entire texture of Lk. ; they are confined to definite portions, among which the parable of the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Importunate Friend and the Unjust Judge, may be specially mentioned ( 40, end). Indeed, the writer does not seem to have accepted them in their full extent, for by his appendix to the Rich Man and Lazarus (1627-31 question of sending warning) lie has given the parable quite another meaning ( 109 <J); similarly in the case of the Unjust Steward by the appendix 16 10-14 (little and much, one s own and another s) ( 128 d) ; and even in the last parable mentioned above, atten tion is directed from the Judge s unrighteousness by the addition of 18 8 ( faith on earth? ). 1

1 Other coincidences are seen also in 108 ( eat such things as are set before you ), 11 46 ( yourselves touch not the burdens 1 ), 203&5 ( all live unto him ), when compared with i Cor. 1027 ( whatsoever is set before you, eat ), Gal. 6 5 ( each bear own burden ), Rom. 148 ( whether live or die, the Lord s ). Cp Hawkins, i6o./ ; also (but with caution), Evans, St. Paul the author of the Acts and of the Third Gospel, 1884.

2 It is necessary here to give a note of warning against the usage of the Tiibingen school, which simply made Ebionitism identical with uncompromising Judaism.

111. Postponement of end of world in Lk.[edit]

In Lk. great care is taken to warn readers against expecting the coming of the kingdom as imminent (21 9, end not immediately ; 12, 'before all these things ; 24-25 /, until times of Gentiles fulfilled ; 17:20-21 'not with observation' ; 19:11, 'parable because supposed kingdom immediately' ). The straightway (evdfus) preserved in Mt. 2^29 has disappeared in Lk. (2125) ; so also (2123/. ) the statement in Mt. 2422 that the days preceding the end shall be shortened for the elect s sake, and (226g) the announcement of the speedy (air dpri) appearance of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven (Mt. 26 64). The idea in Lk. (21 24 / ) that the premonitory signs of the end cannot appear until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled rests upon the belief of Paul that before Christ s parusia the gospel must first be preached to all nations (Rom. 11 n 25 31). See, more fully, 153.

112. Special tendencies in Mt.[edit]

(a) Just as in Lk. Ebionitic and Pauline ideas are found in juxtaposition and contrast, so in Mt. are universalism and Jewish particularism (15 24, lost sheep of Israel : 1928 twelve thrones : 10:5-6 not into way of Gentiles ; 23 cities of Israel, as against 8:11-12, from east and west ; 21 28-22 16, two sons ; wicked husbandmen ; royal marriage; 28 19, teach all nations; 24 14, preached in whole world [oiKov/dvr]] ; 2613, wheresoever preached in whole world), legal conservatism 2 and freedom from the law (5 17-20, not destroy but fulfil ; 23z/~. , what they bid you do ; 24 20, pray flight not on a Sabbath ; as against 632 198, divorce; 5 34, swear not ; 39, resist not; 9i6/. , new patch, new wine; 12 7 /. , Son of Man lord of Sabbath).

(b) On further investigation, it is manifest, in the case of two parables especially, that the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles to salvation was introduced only as an after-thought.

1 These remarks do not in any way contradict the fact that in Acts community of goods is an ideal with the author ; for the idea of COMMUNITY OF GOODS (y.v., 5) is indeed related to the Ebionitic ideas of the Third Gospel, but is not identical with them. Further, it must not be forgotten that, though with Lk. this community was indeed an ideal for the past, it is quite another question how far he wished to see it realised in his own time.

2 The whole journey of Jesus into foreign territory (Mk. 7 24-31)15 set aside by the statement of Mt. 15 2i_/I that theCanaan- itish woman came out from the borders of Tyre and Sidon to meet Jesus. Far-reaching consequences follow from this ; see 135.

In the case of the royal supper, those first invited, after reject ing the invitation and slaying the messengers, are conquered in war and their city burnt (Mt. 22 bf.) ; but in the original form of the parable their place was in the king s own city. After the military expedition the preparations for the supper remain just as they had been (22 4 8). The others (oi AOITTOI) too in 22 6 has a strange look coming after 22 5 ( they went their ways ). The insertion points unmistakably to the destruction of Jeru salem in 70 A.D. as a punishment for the slaying of Jesus and his apostles, and serves to indicate the whole nation of the Jews as signified by those first invited. Had this been the original intention of the parable, it would not be easy to understand why Lk. (14 16-24) should have enumerated three classes of invited persons of whom of course only the third can signify the Gentiles. But conversely it would be equally incomprehensible how Mt. could have reduced the number of the classes to two had three classes been already mentioned in the original form of the parable as in Lk. Since there the heathen are the third class, if Mt. omitted that class he was obliged to transfer the explanation to the second class, which he could do only by inserting 22:6-7.

The two forms of the parable are in no case independent of each other, for of the three excuses of the first invited two agree very closely in Mt. and Lk. We must there fore assume that the parable in its original form in which we can, without any difficulty, attribute it to Jesus distinguished | only two classes of invited guests, as is now done in Mt., but i that these were intended to denote, not the Jews as a whole and the Gentiles as a whole, as in Mt., but the esteemed and despised classes respectively, among the Jews themselves, as in Lk. Each of the two evangelists, therefore, has judged it necessary to bring some reference to the Uentile world into the words of Jesus which, as originally uttered, did not look beyond the Jewish nation, but each has carried out his object in a quite independent manner ( 19, end).

With regard to the parable of the wicked husbandmen we are expressly told in Mt. 2145, as well as in Mk. 12 12 and Lk. 20 19, that the hearers understood it as referring to the chief priests and Pharisees. Clearly, therefore, it is a later addition when Mt. (21 43) tells us that the Kingdom of God shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof that is, to the Gentiles. Moreover, had it been genuine, this verse would have found its appropriate place before, not after, 2142 ( Did ye never read . . .? )

On the other hand, Mt. 20i-i6 has been left unchanged. The fact that here five classes of labourers in the vineyard are distinguished is enough to show that the reference cannot be to the Jews as a whole on the one side and to the Gentiles on the other. The distinction of two classes within the Jewish nation without any reference to the Gentiles, which has been shown above to have originally underlain the parable of the royal wedding, has been expressly preserved in the parable of the Two Brothers (Mt. 21 28-32), as also in that of the Pharisee and the Publican in Lk. (189-14).

(c) In two places in Mt. some critics have even de tected a polemic against the apostle Paul.

(a) In 5 19, Whosoever shall break . . . and teach . . . shall be called the least ( Paul having called himself in i Cor. 15 9 the least of the apostles, eXax Tros r(av dwoffToXav) , (/3) in 1828 (the enemy, cxOpbs &v6pwTros, who sows tares among the wheat).

Enemy (e \6po<s, with or without avBpuino ;) is, in the Pseudo- Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, a constant designation for Simon Magus, by whom is meant Paul (see SIMON MAGUS). Perhaps Paul himself in Gal. 4 16 ( am I become your enemy? ) is already alluding to the term enemy (ex#pos) as having been applied to him by his Judaistic opponents. At the same time, however, it must not be overlooked that the First Evangelist him self does not share this view of the enemy (e^Spbs ai/0p<o7ros) : according to him (13 39) the enemy is the devil ; it is only the author of the evangelist s source, therefore, that can have been following an anti-Pauline tendency here (cp i?sc).

As for Mt. 5:18-19. ( till heaven and earth pass . . . shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven ) it is almost universally recognised that these verses interrupt the connection,! and it therefore remains a possibility that they were not written by the author of the gospel but placed on the margin by a later hand (see 128 e).

(d) As regards the remaining legal and Jewish par- ticularist passages in Mt. (see above, a, b], on the other hand, it is not probable that they were first introduced after those of a universalistic character.

1. 5:20 ( For I say . . . except your righteousness ) would serve as giving the grounds (yap) for 5 isf. (one jot or one tittle) only if the Pharisees were open to the charge of denying validity to the minor precepts of the law. On the other hand, 5 20 would serve admirably as a ground for 5 17 (not to destroy but to fulfil) if by the word fulfil (TrATjpuxrai) Jesus wished to give to the law a fuller and more perfect meaning, far beyond the mere letter. Were 5 i8_/C actually the ground (yap) for 5 17, the meaning of fulfil (jrArjpuxrcu) could only be that Jesus desired in his actions to follow the law down to its minutest details, and enjoined the same in others also. But this disagrees not only with 620 but also with 621-48 ( Ye have heard ); Mk. 227^ ( Sabbath for man ) ; 7 1-23 (washing, corban) ; 10 1-12 (divorce), etc. in a word, contradicts the whole attitude of Jesus towards the Mosaic law.

They are neither so few as to admit of being regarded merely as isolated and mutually independent interpolations, nor yet so numerous as to compel us to regard them as arising from a systematic redaction. True, it must be conceded that lOsyC (not into way of Gentiles), 23 ( cities of Israel ), also 23 2 3* (. . . Moses seat, all ... bid you, do), and (with special facility) neither on a Sabbath (/urjSe o-afipdTta) in 24 20 admit of re moval without injury to the connection ; but not 15 24 ( unto lost sheep ), 26 (children s bread), or 1928 (twelve thrones). But precisely the neither on a Sabbath (jJ.ri&f <raf$fia.T<a) is quite certainly original if it comes from the little Apoca lypse ( 124^). As for the substance, we can more easily refer back to Jesus those utterances in which salvation is re stricted to Israel. So far as the principles of Jesus are con cerned they most assuredly contain within themselves no such limitation. Purity of heart, compassionateness, the childlike spirit, can be shown by the Gentile as by the Jew. The outlook of Jesus, however, seems still to have directed itself but little towards the Gentiles. He felt himself to be primarily a child of his own people, and even as regards these the task he had in hand was a gigantic one. Mt. 1624 (lost sheep) 26 (children s bread) as his first word to the Canaanitish woman (not as his last) is by no means incredible. He may very well have actually bidden his disciples restrict their preaching to the Jews (10 *,/. 23) on account of the nearness of the end of the world. Mt. 19 28 (twelve thrones) also is perhaps only u somewhat modi fied form of one of his own utterances, even if assuredly it was not spoken by way of answer to so mercenary a question as that of 1927 ( what shall we have? ). In the mouth of Jesus perhaps the most difficult saying to understand will be the expression of friendliness to the Pharisees in Mt. 23 2 ^a (Moses seat), to which the words of 16 12 ( beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees ), 284 (heavy burdens), 11 29 yC ( my yoke is easy ) are so directly contrary.

See, however, in general, 129 e. At all events it is necessary to assume that the last redactor (who was friendly to the Gentiles) in other words, the canonical Mt. dealt much more gently with his particularistic source than Lk. did with his.

(e) In spite of the straightway (ei)0^ws) of 2429 Mt. is not altogether exempt from the tendency we have already seen in Lk. to postpone the date of the parusia ; cp 2448 (my lord tarrieth), 25$ (the bridegroom tarries), 25 19 (after a long time).

113. Special tendencies in Mk.[edit]

Of the three Synoptics Mk. is characterised least by definite tendencies. The traces of Paulinism which some critics have found in Mk. are of the slightest. For example, 1 15 ( time is fulfilled . . . believe in gospel ; Gal. 44, fulness of time ; 826, sons through faith ), 939* (i Cor. 12s), 1044 (i Cor. 9ig) are remini scences of Paul ; but they are not Pauline ideas. The mission to the Gentiles finds its place in 13 10 ( gospel . . . unto all nations ), 14 9 ( wheresoever the gospel ) ; cp also all the nations (7ra<7i rots IGveffi) in 11 17 (house of prayer for all the nations), unless indeed this be merely a filling out of the citation from the LXX. Some aversion to Jewish particularism may be seen in the toning down of the answer of Jesus to the woman of Canaan (727, children first inserted) as compared with the form in Mt. 1526. Mk. also, like the others, seeks to postpone the date of the parusia. Instead of the straightway (eyfltws) of Mt. (242g) he has (1824) in those days, and in 9i he does not, like Mt. (1628), say there be some standing here that shall see the Son of Man coining in his Kingdom, but only that they shall see the Kingdom of God come with power.

114. Conclusion as to tendency.[edit]

On the whole, then, it would seem that such tendencies as have been spoken of manifest themselves only in a few parts of the three gospels. A special warning must be given against seeking to find too confidently any such tendencies in the way in which the original apostles are mentioned whether as implying praise or blame.

It would be in accordance with the general character of Lk. if some aversion to the original apostles were held to underlie the censure of James and John for their proposal to call down fire from heaven upon the inhospitable Samaritan village (Lk. 954^!); and it would be in accordance with the opposite char acter of Mt. if it made no mention of the hardness of heart with which the original apostles are charged in Mk. 6 52 S i-jf. But Mt. is precisely the one gospel which chronicles Peter s faint heartedness on the water, and Mt. as well as Mk. has the speech in which Jesus addresses him as Satan (Mt. 1428-31 1&2-2/. Mk. 832_/I). On the other side, it is precisely in Lk. (22 32) that we find the passage which, along with Mt. It>i8./I, could be in scribed in golden letters on the Church of St. Peter in Rome.

In another matter (should we be inclined to see here any tendency at all) the enhancement of the miracles of Jesus in number and character all the evangelists have a share ( 137). Thus, most of the tendencies we have discussed are followed, not in the interest of a party, but in that of the church which was ever more and more approximating Catholicism in character. But, further, the tendencies affect only a limited portion of the gospel material, and by far the larger part of this material does not admit of explanation by their means. In the sections referred to there are but two instances in which it has been claimed by the present writer that ideas have been clothed in narrative dress those of Peter s draught of fishes and of the tares among the wheat ; the other places in which this can be alleged are but few ( 142, and CLEOPAS), and even in these cases the symbolical meaning borne by the narrative arises almost always from an originally figurative manner of speaking being mistakenly understood as literal expression of a fact, not from deliberate and conscious invention for purposes of edification.

II. ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE THE SYNOPTICAL PROBLEM BY LITERARY CRITICISM.[edit]

115. Oral-tradition hypothesis.[edit]

In considering the attempts to solve the Synoptical problem by literary criticism we begin most conveniently with what, in appearance at least, is the simplest hypothesis : that of a primitive tradition gospel handed down solely by oral tradition. By continual narrating of the gospel history, it is held, there came at last to be formed a fixed type of narrative, in Aramaic. Upon this each evangelist drew directly without any acquaintance with the written work of any other.

(a) This hypothesis is an asylum ignorantiae. It spares the critic all necessity for an answer to the question wherefore it was that one evangelist wrote in this manner and another in that although the question presses for, and very often admits, a solution. If the Synoptical oral narrative was really so firmly fixed as to secure verbatim repetition of entire verses in three authors writing independently of one another, then the varia tions between the three become all the more mysterious, or else all the more manifestly due to tendency. Think only of the variations in the Lord s Prayer, in the words of institution of the Eucharist, in the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. The coincidence appears, how ever, not only in the discourses of Jesus, where it would, comparatively speaking, be intelligible, but also in narra tive, in quite indifferent turns of expression in which the same writers often also diverge very widely.

The doubly augmented form of the verb (a.ireKa.Te<TTa.(hi) in Mt. 12i3 = Mk. 3s = Lk. 6 10 cannot indeed_ be adduced as an example, for the double augment is met with also not only in Mk. 825 (an-eKo/re crrr)) but often elsewhere outside the NT in the case of this verb (Winer( s ), 12, 7). But compare, for example, how Mt. 2" 12, in the hearing before Pilate, and Lk. 23 9 (who here has no parallel), in the hearing before Herod, uses the middle aorist met with in Mk. 14 61 in the hearing before the Synedrium but very rarely elsewhere in the NT he answered nothing (oiiSev iireKpiVaTo), though immediately afterwards (Mt. 27 14) we have the passive ([OUK] direicpWr)), Mk. also in the parallel passage (15 5) having this form ; or the Lord, Lord (xupie icupie) in the vocative of Lk. 646, retained from Mt. 7 21 (or his source), though in Lk. s modified form of the sentence why call ye me (TI 6e pe (caAeire) only the accusative (icupiov) would be appropriate. In one pair of parallels (Mt. 26 61 = Mk. 14 58) the words of Jesus are reported as being to the effect that he would build the (new) temple in the course of three days (Sia TfHtav rifiepuv) ; in another (Mt. 274O = Mk. 15 29) in three days (fv Tpicrlv ^/u.c p<u? or Tpuriv i^e pais). Mk. 11 15 (cleans ing the temple) coincides in the first half word for word with Lk 1045, in the second, almost word for word with Mt. 21 12, Further examples are Liven abundantly in Hawkins, Nora Synoptica, 42-52 ('gg), or Wilke, Der Urmungelist, 433-505 ('33). How far this agreement goes, in the discourses of Jesns, can be observed, for example, in Mt. 39/T = Lk. 3sf. ; Mt. 624 = . 1(5 13; Mt.7357 = Lk.6 4 iy: llg; Mt.8 2 o = Lk.9 58; Mt.9 3 y = Lk. 10 2 ; Mt. 11 4-6 = Lk. 7 22./C ; Mt. 11 21-233 257: = Lk. 10 13- I52I./T; Mt. 124i/? = Lk. 11 31/1 ;l or, for instances of coinci dence between all three evangelists, Mt. 236 7 = Mk. 12 38^ 39 = Lk. 11 43 20 46; Mt. 24i 9 = Mk. 13 17 = Lk. 21 23; Mt. 24 34 / = Mk. 1330 /; = Lk. 2132/: Between Mt. and Mk. this close agreement is met with elsewhere mainly in the OT quotations (e.g., Mt. 158/7 4 =Mk. Ibf. 10, Mt. 19 4 -6 = Mk. 106-g) and in the narrative of the Passion (e.g. , Mt. 26 24 30 32 = Mk. 14 21 26 28) ; of agreement between Mk. and Lk. Mk. l24_/C = Lk. 4 347: may be taken as examples. Instances of deliberate divergence in the midst of the closest verbal agreement can be pointed to in Lk. 11 20 (cast out devils) as against Mt. 12 28, or in Lk. 11 13 (to give good gifts) as against Mt. 7 n ( 120 c). The _artificiality and improbability which are seen to be necessarily inherent in the hypothesis under discussion as soon as one tries to apply it in detail, come very clearly to light in Arthur Wright s The Composition of the Four Gospels ( 90), A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek ( 96), The Gospel according to St. Lube (1900). Veil, the most recent German advocate of the hypothesis (Die Synoptischen Parallelen, 97), has even found himself driven to the assumption that Jesus communicated his teaching to his disciples catechetically, in the form of continually repeated question and answer, as was the custom with the Rabbis.

1 Consult further, Wernle, Die Synoptische Frage, 81 ( 99).

(b) To many this hypothesis commends itself as an asylum orthodoxies. It dispenses with the necessity of assuming that original documents from which our gospels had been drawn writings of eye-witnesses have perished ; also with the necessity of supposing that evangelists had deliberately in other words, with tendency altered the written text of their predecessors that lay before them. But such advantages are only apparent, not real ; the variations are present, and they do not admit of explanation as due to mere accident.

(c) Nevertheless, inadequate though the unaided hypothesis be as a complete explanation of the pheno mena displayed by our present gospels and of course we have been here dealing with it in its purity and as unassisted by any other assumption it is at the same time equally certain that it contains an essential element of truth. Unquestionably the formation of a gospel narrative was oral in its beginning. The opposite theory that a creative writer freely composed the entire material without any previous oral currency (Bruno Bauer, Volkmar) may be regarded as no longer in the field. But, further, the propagation of the gospel story by oral tradition continued to be carried on for a considerable time even after the first written docu ments had taken shape, and thus was capable of exerting an influence even upon gospels of a com paratively late date ( 119^, end).

1 At the same time, even when these are assumed as sub sidiary to the hypothesis, the remarks we have to make will still apply of course at all points where borrowing as between the three evangelists comes into the question.

2 The hypothesis of Griesbach, also called the combination- hypothesis, but not happily, for evidently Mk. or Lk., if either had been the third to write, could also have combined the data supplied by his two predecessors.

3 In the passage most frequently cited (Mk. 1 32) it was even necessary, after at even, to add, when the sun did set, for according to Mk. it was the Sabbath day and before sunset it would have been unlawful to bring any sick. Yet Lk. (440) could omit the first of the two clauses without loss, and Mt. (8 16), as with him the events did not occur on the Sabbath, could drop the second.

4 - Probably the most conspicuous example in point here is 'the carpenter' (6 T~KTWV) of Mk. 6 3 as against ' the carpenter's SOU' (6 TOG T~KTOUOF vi&) of Mt. 13 55, or 'son of Joseph' (vibs 'Tau$+) of Lk. 422. On the one side it is held that Mt. and Lk. are here secondary, because they shrink from calling Jesus an artizan ; on the other, the secondary place is given to Mk. because he shrinks from calling Jesus the son of Joseph.

116. Borrowing hypothesis.[edit]

The next hypothesis to rely upon very simple means is that the evangelist who wrote second in order made use of the work of the first, and the third used the work of one or both of his predecessors. To grasp this hypothesis in its purity we must put aside all idea of any other written sources than the canonical, and must keep out of account as far as possible the idea of any oral sources. 1

Of the six imaginable orders, two viz., Lk., Mt., Mk., and Lk., Mk.. Mt. have long been abandoned. A third Mt., Lk., Mk. - may also be regarded as no longer in the field. It relied specially on the observation that Mk. often makes use of two expressions for the same thing, for which in the parallel passages only one is found in Mt. and the other in Lk. But this phenomenon admits equally well of another possible ex planationthat the difiuseness observable in Mk. ( 4) gave Mt. and Lk. opportunity for condensation. 3 (Cp Hawkins, 110-113, also 100-105; Wernle, 23/1 151-154; Woods in Stud. Bibl. et Eccles. 266JC).

Three orders still continue to be seriously argued for : Mt. Mk. Lk. ; Mk. Mt. Lk. ; Mk. Lk. Mt. In spite of the fact that every assertion, no matter how evident, as to the priority of one evangelist and the posteriority of another in any given passage will be found to have been turned the other way round by quite a number of scholars of repute, 4 we nevertheless hope to gain a large measure of assent for the following propositions :-

(a) A very strong argument for the priority of Mk. is the fact that, with the exception of some thirty verses, his entire material reappears both in Mt. and in Lk. , or at least in one or other of them, and that too what is even more important in both, or at least in one, in the same order as in Mk. The absence of the thirty verses admits of a satisfactory explanation ( 118, n. ), whilst on the other hand the absence from Mk. of so much matter contained in Mt. and Lk. would be un accountable. For details as to this, and especially also for the explanation of the marked divergencies in the order of Mt. 8-12, we refer the reader to Woods, 63-78 and Wernle, 127-130.

For one example, see 128^: Mt. 13s4/ (speaking in parables) comes before Mt. 1844-52 (treasure, pearls, etc. ) instead of after it.

To Mk. 645-826 there is no parallel in Lk. In 15 above, this section of Mk. is derived from a separate tradition which he did not wish to include in his gospel. Reasons for the omis sion in Lk. are in fact conceivable ; for example, the discussion of the ceremonial law in 7 1-23 (washing, corban, etc.), it may have been thought, had little interest for Gentile Christian readers, or in the narrative of the Canaanitish woman Jesus may have seemed too Jewish ; in other sections the omission is less easily explained. Others have accordingly conjectured that in the copy of Mk. which lay before Lk., 645-826 were accidentally wanting. This suggestion cannot be set aside by showing that in Lk. 11 38 (Jesus not first washed) 12 i (beware of leaven) we have echoes of Mk. 7 2 (disciples unwashed hands) 8 15 (beware of leaven), for Lk. may have derived these from other sources. The most important point is that at Lk. 9 18 (Whom do the multitude say that I am?), where after omission of Mk. 645-826, Lk. again begins to follow Mk., he gives an introduction which embodies distinct reminiscences of the beginning of the portion omitted, 645-47 (praying alone, etc. : KO.I, avrov, Trpoa-isv\6ii.evov, KO.TO. /noi/a?). If, therefore, the section of Mk. was wanting in Lk. s copy, that copy must at least have contained Mk. s three first verses, or the single words just cited must at least have been still legible in it. Through the immediate sequence of Peter s confession (Mk. 8 27-30 = Lk. 9 18-21) on the feeding of the five thousand (Mk. 6 31-44= Lk. 9 10-17) it has also come about that Lk. transfers the scene of the confession to the locality of the feeding, that is, to Bethsaida (so accord ing to Lk. 9 10 ; somewhat otherwise, Mk. 6 45), instead of placing it at Caesarea Philippi (Mk. 827 ; cp 135).

(b) Mt. is secondary to Mk.

In Mt. 14 5 Herod wishes to put the Baptist to death, and is restrained only by fear of the people; in Mk. 6 ioyC, on the contrary, it is Herodias who wishes the death of John, whilst Herod hears him gladly. With this it agrees that in Mk. 626 Herod is sorry because he is bound by his oath to order the execution. But the same sorrow is ascribed to him also in Mt. 14 9. In Mk. 629 the Baptist is buried by his disciples; in Mk. 6 30 the disciples of Jesus return from their missionary journey and report the miracles they have wrought. The connection of the two verses is quite casual, the account of the Baptist s end being episodical. But in Mt. 14 12 it is the disciples of John who not only bury their master but also bring their report to Jesus the report, namely, of this burial. The report by the disciples of Jesus of their own return would, in fact, come in too late here, as they were sent out as early as 10 5 and their presence with Jesus again has been already presupposed in 12 i ; but in 14 12 Mt. would not have had the least occasion to mention a report by the disciples of John to Jesus had it not been that the report of Jesus own disciples had been mentioned in Mk. 630. In Mk. 10 177^ the answer of Jesus to the question, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? is Why callest thou me good? None is good, save God only." In Mt. \9i6f. the question runs: Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? and the first part of the answer corresponds : Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? Very in appropriate, then, is the second part : One (masc.) there is who is the good (6 ayaOos). Had not Mt. here had before him such a text as that of Mk. and Lk. he would certainly, following his own line of thought, have proceeded one (neut.) is the good (TO ayaOov), all the more because the immediate con tinuation also (jru. 17-19), the exhortation to keep the command ments, would have suited so admirably. The question of Mt. 193 contains the words for every cause (/cara iraa av alriav) merely because Mt. wishes to introduce fornication (n-opveta) as an exception (z>. 9). But in this form the question would have had no temptation in it, for an authority so great as Rabbi Schammai had already laid down restrictions on the freedom of divorce. On the were amazed (f I trrai To) of Mt. 1223 as coming from the is beside himself (i^ea-rri) of Mk. 3 21, see 8, middle, and ACTS, 17 i. On the first journey of Jesus into foreign parts, see 112 a, n.; cp further 137 a, 140*2 6, and 145 e h; also Wernle, 130-178.

(c) Lk. s secondary character in relation to Mk. is shown with extraordinary frequency, especially in the stylistic changes he makes while retaining individual words. Let a single example suffice.

According to Mk. 4 19 the lusts of other things enter into the man and choke the word of God. This entering in (fiarnopevoijLevai) does not suit the figure for the explanation of which it is used the figure, namely, of thorns choking the good seed. Lk. (8 14) accordingly avoids the expression entering in, yet does not fail to bring in the word (going, 1 nopfvofifvoi), using it now, however, of men who in their walk (RV as they go on their way ) are choked by cares and riches and lusts as if by thorns. The participle had in fact laid such hold on his memory as he read his model, that it came at once to his pen though in a new connection. Many other examples will be found in Wernle, 3-40 ; Krenkel, Josef hus u. Lucas, 35-49 ( 94). One can also make use of the collections in Hawkins, 53-61, though he himself prefers to infer from them oral transmission. But in order to furnish also from Lk. an instance of a materially important and clearly intended, if not quite deliberate, distortion of an expression in his source into a very different meaning, as has already been done in the case of Mt. (19 \6f. 12 23 ; see above, b), and will be done in that of Mk. (328yC, see below, d), we point to his procedure with the word Galilee (Lk. 246 when he was yet in Galilee, as compared with Mk. 16 7 goeth before you into Galilee = Mt. 28 7 ; see 9, beginning).

(d) While the preceding paragraphs seem to speak for the order Mk. Mt. Lk. (or Mk. Lk. Mt. ) we must nevertheless go on also to say that Mk. is secondary to Mt. On Mk. 72712 (children first), 1824 ( in those days after that tribulation ), 9i (some not taste of death), see above, 113.

In the parable of the wicked husbandmen Mk. mentions, on each occasion, only one messenger as having been sent, but finally, 1^5, in a quite unnecessary and even disturbing manner says that there were yet many others (in agreement with Mt. 21 35). Mt. says (12 32) that blasphemy against the son of man shall be forgiven, and only that against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, and, immediately before (v. 31), that every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. In place of these two sentences Mk. has only one (3 28/1) ; all their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies ; only not those against the Holy Spirit. Thus he has retained the word Son of Man, but made it plural and thereby set aside the sense which seemed offensive from the point of view of a worshipper of Jesus, viz., that blasphemy against Jesus can be forgiven. 1 Cp, further, the examples in 119.

1 The attempt has often been made to invert the relationship of the two passages and make out that Mt. 1231 is taken from Mk. 3z8/., and that Mt. 12 32 says the same thing and comes from Lk. 12 10, or rather from Lk. s source. It is argued that the Aramaic expression Son of Man, meaning any man whatever, as in Ps. 8 5, is rendered with justice ad sensum in Mk. by the plural, but in Lk. s source was erroneously applied to Jesus. But since Son of Man is the only, or almost the only, Aramaic expression for the idea man, it is impossible that the first writers of Greek in primitive Christendom should not have had occasion, a thousand times over, to render it by man (oi SpwTros). All the more inconceivable is it that precisely here they should have under stood Jesus alone to be meant by it, if such an interpretation had not been absolutely certain. In their worship of Jesus it must have appeared to them in itself the greatest possible blasphemy to say that blasphemy against Jesus could be forgiven ( 131). It is precisely Mk. who has allowed himself to be influenced by this consideration. He alone it is, further, who in 3 30 adds the remark that the reason why Jesus spoke of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was because they had spoken of himself as possessed by an unclean spirit (822). But the accusation in 3 22 is not, as Mk. makes it appear, a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but rather a blasphemy against the person of Jesus. Thus the saying to the effect that one blasphemy can be forgiven, another not, does not at all fit the context in the form it receives in Mk., and 830 is only an unsuccessful attempt on the part of Mk. to justify his addition. Mk. in so doing presupposes that Jesus had identified himself with the Holy Spirit. But the opposite view, that of Mt. and Lk., that he distinguished between himself and the Holy Spirit can have come only from Jesus himself. Moreover, it is to be observed that in Lk. this saying of Jesus stands in quite a different place (12 10) from that of the accusation (11 15, by Beelzebub, etc.), which according to Mk. (822-30) and Mt. (1224-32) furnished the occasion for it. Now, precisely here (11 i8<5-5o 23) Lk. is drawing from the same source as Mt. (1227_/ 30). In that common source, therefore, the two por tions referred to were not yet in connection with each other ; for in that case Lk. would certainly not have separated them here. We can attach all the less importance to their connection in Mk. if even their connection in Mt., though so much more suitable, is not original.

If what has just been advanced is correct, it shows that the borrowing-hypothesis, unless with the assistance of other assumptions, is unworkable, if only for the reason that it is compelled in one and the same breath to say contrary things as to the relative priority of Mt. and Mk. Nevertheless it is impossible to doubt that the evangelists did borrow from one another ; the only question is whether here it is only our present gospels, or not also other written sources, that have been made use of. For this reason we have hitherto refrained from expressing ourselves to the effect that Mt. (or Lk. ) was dependent on Mk. (or vice versa], contenting ourselves with saying that the one was secondary to the other ; we are thus led to consideration of the hypothesis of a written source or sources.

(e) Before passing from the borrowing -hypothesis, however, it will be- well to illustrate by a definite example the various linguistic changes to which refer ence has been made in the preceding paragraphs (a to d]. We select for this purpose the parable of the Sower and the interpretation it receives. The circum stantiality and diffuseness of Mk. appear in 4i (the thrice repeated sea [ddXacrcra], and the pleonasm by the sea, on the land ), in 4a ( he taught them . . . and said unto them in his teaching ), sf. (the repeated and [teal] four times and because it had not twice), 47 ( and it yielded no fruit ), 4i8 ( others are they that are sown among thorns ; these are they that . . . ) ; an infelicitous manner of expression is in v. 15 these are they where. It is Lk. who has done most to smooth Mk. and turn it into idiomatic Greek.

For Mk. s paratactic sentences Lk. substitutes participial constructions (Lk. 86-8= Mk. 46-8) or a gen. abs. (Lk. 8i=Mk. 4 1) ; also he substitutes better Greek words (Lk. 88 ayaOriv, exaTOVTan^aa-iova instead of Mk. 48 KaArji/, tv exarov , LK. 812 6ta/3oAos for (rarai/as of Mk. 4 15; Lk.8i3 Se xoi Tai for Aa/oi- J3di/ovcri!> of Mk. 4 16 ; Lk. 8 13/ a$ltna.vTa.(. for o-*cai>5aAi oi Tai of Mk. 4 17 ; Lk. 814 ov Te\etr<f>opov<ri.v for a/capTros yiveran of Mk. 4:19 ; Lk. 8:15 (capSt a xaAr) xat ayafltj is additional). In Lk. 8 14 he drops the Hebraism [cares] of the world (TOV oiwros); he uses prepositional phrases in Lk. 84 of every city (ot Kara. irdAii/) and by a parable (fiia TrapajSoArjs), and in Lk. 813 inserts the relative clause which, when they have heard (ot OTO.V . . .) immediately after the antecedent Those upon the rock (ot 6e e;ri riji ireTpav) instead of at the end of its sentence as in Mk. 4 16. Lk. s dependence upon Mk. is shown by the good ground ((caArj yrj) of Lk. 8i5 = Mk. 42O notwith standing the substitution of a different adjective (ayaBrf) in Lk. 88 = Mk. 48 (/caAij), similarly by his into (ei?)=Mk. 47 (4i8 on to," en-i), and his are choked (<ruju7ri t -yoi/T<u) in Lk. 8i4 = Mk. 4 19 choke (avvTrviyovviv) in spite of the amid (fv fi-ea-w) for Mk. s into (eis) and substitution of a different verb for choke (an-e iri/ifax for Mk. s o-weVftfai ) in Lk. 87 = Mk. 47. In v. \?b Lk. reverts to the construction of Mk. (4 15/1) which he had avoided in 123 ( = Mk. 4i5). He is not felicitous in his sub stitution of rock (8 6) for stony ground (Mk. 4 5), for on the bare rock nothing can grow at all.

Mt. (181-23) also smooths and Graecizes.

Mt. (v. 2) omits the second sea (SaAatrcra) of Mk. 4 i and in place of the third adopts a turn of expression with beach (cuytaAos). In i>. 6 he makes use of the gen. abs., in v. 21 substitutes other connectives (fie for KO.L and for etTa). The Hebraistic make fruit (/capn-bi/ Troieti/ ; cp Gen. 1 n) he alters to give fruit (Kapnbi> StSoVat). At the same time Mt. 13 23 shows his dependence on Mk. by retaining make (noielv) alongside of produce fruit (icap7ro<f>opeti/) and in 1822 (just as Lk. 814) two of Mk. s turns of expression (eis of Mk. 47 and fUfurvlyiiv as in Mk. 4 7 19), or in v. zb the sing. crowd (o^Acs, cp Mk. 4 1), although immediately before he has used his favourite form crowds (ovAot). That Jesus was sitting Mt. has already presupposed (v. i), and he has therefore to repeat the expres sion in v. 2 from Mk. 4 i after Jesus has entered the boat. In v. 19 Mt. has an infelicitous alteration to the effect that by the first sowing are intended those who do not understand the word, whereas we should think rather of those who easily allow them selves to be again robbed of it.

Though, from what has been said, Mk. appears to have lain before both Mt. and Lk. it is not possible to assign to him the priority at all points.

Mk. s hearken before behold in 4 3 is superfluous and disturbing; in 45 Mk. (and with him Mt. 185) introduces an amplification of the description which has the effect of prepar ing for the explanation of the parable ; it is absent in Lk. (86). The OT expression birds of the heaven which all three evangelists give in the parable of the mustard seed (Mk. 4 32 Mt. 13 32 Lk. 13 19) has in the present case been preserved only by Lk. (8 5) as also the make fruit (noielv Kapirov) of 8 8.

(f) On the relation of dependence as between Mt. and Lk. see 127. If the contention at the close of 1 20 is correct, the borrowing-hypothesis when taken without regard to the limitations demanded by Simons ( 1276) leads to insuperable contradictions here also as in the question of the interdependence of Mk. and Mt.

117. The original written gospel.[edit]

The hypothesis especially associated with the name of Eichhorn (from 1794) of one Aramaic gospel, in which Lessing as far back as 1778 conjecturally recognised the Gospel of the Hebrews, is in many points open to the same objections as that of an oral original, only with the difference that it explains the agreements in our gospels better, their divergences in the same proportion worse. Even the further assump tion of various translations into Greek with addition of new material at each translation is far from supplying the needed explanation of the divergences, for it is not by any means the literary form alone that differs ; the matter also, even the representation of the same matter, varies widely. The same thing has to be said of the hypothesis recently put forth anew by Resch (Die Logia Jesu, 98), who has even sought to restore to their presumed original Hebrew (not Aramaic) form the sayings of Jesus, along with a great number of narra tives, including a history of the passion, the resurrec tion, and the ascension of Jesus (thus even going beyond B. Weiss, see 126 c, end), and moreover maintains that this original gospel was already known to Paul. The hypothesis of an original written gospel contains a kernel of truth, only in so far as it is certainly undeni able that some one writer must have gone before the others in committing to writing the gospel tradition. But the fact of his having been first did not by any means necessarily secure for him exclusive, or even preponderating, influence over those who came after him ; his production may have been promptly followed by equally important writings from other pens.

A special form of the hypothesis of an original written gospel is that set forth above in 3-14, according to which the Triple Tradition was written in very curt and often ambiguous form, somewhat after the manner of a discussion on the Mishna or of a modern telegram, and was variously expanded and supplemented by the several evangelists.

118. Original Mk.[edit]

The agreement of Mt. and Lk. against Mk. , if the two former were not acquainted with each other, leads to the hypothesis that each of them had before him a Mk. in one and the same form though different from that which we now possess ; this was used both by Mt. and Lk. whilst the canonical Mk. diverges from it. The superior age of the form of Mk. postulated by this hypothesis would gain in probability if the canonical Mk. were found to be secondary to Mt. and Lk. (see n6d, e, 119 ; for the other view see 3, and, with reference to it, what is said in 126 a). Hawkins (Hor. Syn. App. B) reckons some 240 instances of agreement of Mt. and Lk. against Mk. Each individual case may be unim portant and might in other circumstances admit of the explanation that Lk. of his own proper motion chose the same alteration of the canonical text of Mk. as Mt. had ; but their large number forbids such an explanation here.

As for the extent of the original Mk. now conjectured, the difficulty with which the hypothesis can be made to work is increased if with Beyschlag we suppose it to have been nearly equal to the canonical Mk. ; in particular, it then becomes difficult to understand why a new book differing so little from the old should have been produced at all. If, again, the original book is held (so Holtzmann) to have been longer than the canonical Mk. it becomes possible to assign to it a con siderable number of paragraphs (now preserved to us only in Mt. and Lk. ) not so easily explained as derived from Mt. s and Lk. s other sources ( 122). If finally we think of the original Mk. (so Weizsacker) as shorter, then the additions of canonical Mk. that can be pointed to are merely the verses (some thirty or so) peculiar to him, together with such individual expressions as have no parallels either in Mt. or in Lk.

These individual expressions are partly for the sake of more graphic description (1 7 bowing down, KV\J/CLS ; 14 3 she brake the cruse ; see also 141 2-^f. \Q?-$f. 15 43 ; and the like), partly they give greater precision by giving names (2 14 3 17 10 46 15 21 40 16 i) or numbers (5 13 637 14s ; cp on the whole of this head Hawkins, 93-103; Wernle, 45-47, 2i5/.). They do not give one the impression, however, of being interpolations of later date than the rest of the work, and they can more easily be supposed to have been dropped by the writers who came after Mk. as hardly interesting enough (Wernle, 23 /. , 157 /) or fitted to cause offence (so for example 64 Sao/. that Jesus had no honour among his own kin and in his own house, and that they even said, He is beside himself, see 131). The entire verses, or narratives, on the other hand, which are peculiar to Mk. are much too inconsiderable to make it likely that a new book should have been judged necessary for their incorporation ; here too their omission by Mt. and Lk. admits of some explanation or it is possible to find traces of them in Mt. and Lk. 1

If the original Mk. is conceived of as having been materially snorter than the canonical Mk. , the point at which this comes into consideration is when the origin of the latter rather than when that of Mt. and Lk. is being discussed, for we have no means of determining with precision the extent of the sup posed original Mk. Particularly unpromising of any useful result must be any attempt (such as that made, for example, by Scholten) to construct an ori ginal Mk. that shall be devoid of miracle. If Jesus did anything that seemed to men wonderful it would naturally be reported as in the fullest sense miraculous on the very day on which it occurred. In Acts 207-12 the eye-witness that he was an eye-witness is not doubted relates that Eutychus was taken up dead, though he also knows and tells us that Paul had said the young man s life was still in him.

1 Mk. 4 26-29 (stages of growth) finds its parallel in Mt. 1824-30 (tares) (see 128 c), Mk. 731-37 (deaf and dumb), in Mt. 1529-31 (multitudes diseased), Mk. 1024 (answereth again and saith . . . how hard), in Mt. 1924 (and again I say . . . easier for camel) ; the were amazed (ef iVrai/To) of Mt. 12 23 arises from the is beside himself (efe cm)) of Mk. 821 (see 8, middle, and ACTS, 170, the touching of the eyes of the blind (Mt. 20 34 9 29) from Mk. 8 23 (spat on his eyes, etc.).

119. Secondary character of canonical era.[edit]

If Lk. was acquainted with Mt. , or Mt. with Lk. , the need for postulating an original Mk. which has been spoken of in the preceding section seems to disappear ; and in point of fact Holtzmann when he accepted Lk.'s acquaintance with Mt. (Jahrbb. FT, 78, 5537. ; Theol. Lt.-Zg. , 78, 553) seemed for a time to abandon the hypothesis of an original Mk.

(a) The hypothesis nevertheless continues to be re commended by a number of secondary traits in canonical Mk. which do not indeed, like those mentioned in n.6d, prove dependence of Mk. on Mt. or on Lk. but still render it inconceivable that the canonical Mk. could have been the work which served Mt. or Lk. as a source. Of course there come into consideration here those places also in which Mt. and Lk. show no agree ment against Mk.

To this category belong such additions as made with hands (xeipoiroi rjTos) and made without hands (axpojroi r)Tos) (Mk. 14 58 || Mt. 266i; not in Lk.), as also the sense-disturbing parenthesis (Mk. 9 12 || Mt. 17 n ; not in Lk.), And how is it written . . . set at nought ? (KCU TTWS ye ypaTrrai . . . ef ov- 0ecu>0(j), the remark, based on Roman Law (Mk. 10 12 after v. n = Mt. 19 9 ; Lie. omit), that the woman also can put away her husband, and (1 2 || Mt. 3 3 Lk. 3 4) the quotation from Malachi wrongly attributed to Isaiah. Conversely in 1462 the hence forth (air dprt), which Mt. (26 64) has, is omitted. 7 27^ (children first) ; 9 i (some standing by) ; 13 24 (in those days after that tribulation, see 113) have been recast; and in 1462 I am (eyoi eijiu) is an elucidation of the obscure thou sayest (<ru ein-a;) of Mt. 2664. In 42i_/ the sayings about the lamp and about the hidden thing which must be brought to light are, by the introduction of in order that (iVa), adapted to the object for which they are here intended, namely, to say that if one happens to have found out the meaning of any parable he is not to keep his discovery a secret ; but this application of the two sayings is certainly not the original one (see 134). In Mk. 3 16, when the statement that Jesus appointed the twelve is repeated, the designation of Simon as the first apostle is omitted, only his being surnamed Peter is mentioned. In 10 42 the expression they which are accounted to rule (oi 6oicovi>Tes dpxeti ) instead of the simple rulers (01 dp^oi/Tes) of Mt. 20 25 is a mitigating reflection of the same kind as is frequently met with also in Lk. (the closest parallel in Lk. 8 18, that which he thinketli he hath ). In Mk. 1234 the statement that no man after that durst ask him any question is introduced at a quite inappropriate point (namely, immediately after the commenda tion of the discreet scribe) ; it is met with in its right place in Mt. 22 46 immediately after the discomfiture of the Pharisees by the telling answers of Jesus to their tempting questions. In Mk. 11 25, we find the father who is in heaven (6 ircmjp 6 i TOIS oiipavoLy), the only instance in Mk. of an expression which is characteristic in Mt. Cp also 950 ( 3).

(b) It is open to us, no doubt, to try to account for these secondary passages by assuming that after the canonical Mk. had been used by Mt. and Lk. it was altered by copyists.

The additions in Mk. 14 58 ( made with[out] hands ) do not, in point of fact, reappear in 1629 ( railed at him, saying ); Mk. 9 12^ ( how is it written, etc. ) falls into place after 9 13 ( Elijah is come ) and perhaps was originally a marginal note on this verse by an early reader. 1 2 (quot. from Mai.) or even 1 if. (v. 3 from Is.) have often before now been thought to have been prefixed at a later date -especially 1 2, since only v. 3 comes from Isaiah while v. 2 on the contrary comes from Mai. 3 i and moreover coincides verbatim, in spite of original Heb. and LXX, with Mt. 11 io = Lk. 7 27 ( 4, n. i). Should we be prepared to go further and agree to treat as the work of a later hand everything that could by any possibility be so explained, we should regard also the end of MK. 12 5 ( and many others, beating some, and killing some," discussed in n6rf), and the mention of the sisters of Jesus in 3 32 (against vv. 31, 33), as having been introduced by an old reader (3 32, in anticipation of v. 35 whosoever shall do, etc.); so also 11 2 ( whereon no man ever yet sat ) and even 11 13 ( for it was not the season of figs ; see 137 , /3). And j the gospel s in 835 1029 may also be an addition; the words for my sake make it superfluous. On the other hand, after prophesy (7rpo(>JTeu<70j>) in Mk. 146.5, tne words which Mt. (2668) and Lk. (2264) agree in giving, who is he that smote thee, may have dropped out ( 3, n. 2); so perhaps also to know (yi/u>i>ai) after is given in Mk. 4 n ; it is found both in Alt. (13 n)and in Lk. (8 10). Cp Hawkins, 122. Henceforth (an- apri), on the other hand, can have come into Mt. 26 64. from divergent oral tradition, the existence of which alongside of written sources must always be taken into account, especially when dealing with such important utterances of Jesus ( use).

(c) On the other hand, there are many places to which this explanation (later alteration of canonical Mk. ) does not admit of being applied.

7270: ( children first ), 9i (some standing by), 13 24 (in those days after that tribulation), 42iyC(lamp), 1042 (accounted to rule) are much too well conceived to allow of our resolving them into marginal glosses ; so also Mk. 830 ( because they said ) ( 1160 , n.) and the weakening of the statement in 144 as compared with Mt. 268 (that some, but not the disciples, complained of the waste of the ointment). That the cock crowed twice at Peter s denial of Jesus is stated not only in 1430 but also in w. 68 and 72 ; and even if the statement must be traced to a misunder standing (as in 14), the misunderstanding must be imputed to the author, not to a glossator who would hardly be so very care ful as to insert his note in three separate places. We should not be justified in setting down Mk. 948-50 (fire not quenched ; salted with fire ; salt is good) as a later addition simply because in this passage sayings are strung together without any inward connection with each other ; for the same phenomenon can be observed elsewhere in the gospels ( 1331:).

(d) It avails little to seek to find in Codex D and the allied MSS an older text of Mk. as compared with which the present Mk. has been corrupted by tran scribers.

In the first place, D but rarely presents different readings in those places where Mt. and Lk. offer a better text than canonical Mk. Moreover, when, for example, in Mk. 4n D has the to know (yvwvai), the absence of which was noted above, this may be due quite as well to insertion from Mt. or Lk., or even to anti cipation of the how shall ye know ? (yvta<recrSf) of 4 13. In D there are manifold traces of a very independent mind. For this reason we cannot be perfectly confident that D s reading in 16, John was clothed in a camel s skin (Kippiv <can>;Aou), s . tne original one, although the expression in canonical Mk. is diffi cult : John was clothed with camel s hair. The camel s skin may be a deliberate rectification of the text quite as well as that adopted in Mt. 84, he had his raiment of camel s hair. For the same reason it would not be safe to lay stress on the fact that for Mk. 227/1 D has only these words : Rut I say unto you, the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath, or that Mk. 835 b (if any man would be first) is altogether absent (cp 12

120. The logia as a source for Mt. and Lk.[edit]

(a) From the statement of Papias given above in s. 65, Schleiermacher in 1832 first drew the inference that the apostle Matthew had made in Aramaic a collection only of the sayings of Jesus. Whether this is what Papias really meant is questionable, for undoubtedly he was acquainted with the canonical Mt. and had every occasion to express himself with regard to this book as well as with regard to Mk. If he was speaking of Mt. , then he was as much in error as to its original language as he was as to its author (see 149) ; this, however, is conceivable enough. That by his logia Papias intended the whole gospel of Mt. , although this contains not discourses merely but narratives as well, is not by any means impossible (see 65, n. 3). In Greek, logia, it is true, means only things said (Acts 7 38, the angel which spake; Rom. 82 oracles, etc.); but if Papias took the word as a translation of Heb. dibhre ( na^) which he may readily have done, on his assumption of a Semitic original then for him it meant events in general. 1

(b) The actual state of the case in Mt. and Lk. , how ever, furnishes justification for the hypothesis to which scholars have been led by the words of Papias, even though perhaps only by a false interpretation of them. A great number, especially of the sayings of Jesus which are absent from Mk. , are found in Mt. and Lk. in such a way that they must be assumed to have come from a common source. If these passages were found in absolute agreement in both gospels it would be possible to believe that Lk. had taken them over from Mt. , or Mt. from Lk. ; but in addition to close general agreement the passages exhibit quite characteristic divergences.

(c) In point of fact the controverted question as to whether it is Mt. or Lk. who has preserved them in their more original form must be answered by saying that in many cases it is the one, in many other cases the other.

Secondary in Lk., for example, are : 124 as against Mt. 1028 (be not afraid of them which kill the body), 11 13 as against Mt. 7 n (prayer for the Holy Spirit), Lk. 1142 as against Mt. 2823 (the generalisation every herb, TTO.V \axavov), or, 1144, the mis understanding that the Pharisees are like sepulchres because they appear not, and not because, as in Mt. 2327./C, they are outwardly beautiful but inwardly noisome. In Lk. 627-36 = Mt. 5 38-48 Lk. makes love of one s enemy the chief considera tion and introduces it accordingly at the beginning in v. 27. He betrays his dependence, however, by repeating it in v. 35 because in the parallel passage, Mt. 5 44 (or in Mt. s source), it is met with in that position. Cp further, 127 a. On the other hand Lk. s representation in 1326 (we did eat and drink) fits better with the Jewish conditions in which Jesus lived than does Mt. 722 (Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy?). In Lk. 202i the Hebraistic expression respect the person (Aa^Sai/eii/ Trpocrioirov : lit. accept the face ) is retained, whilst in Mk. 12i4 = Mt. 22 16 the phrase is changed. On Lk. 8 6 (other fell on the rock) see 116 e, end, on 1130, 140(1. In the Lord s Prayer the text of Mt. where Lk. has parallels is distinctly the more original ; on the other hand, the clauses which are not found in Lk. may have been intro duced afterwards (see 18 and the maxim in 145 c ; also LORD'S PRAYER).

1 In what follows, we use the word logia (because it has become conventional) in both senses ( sayings alone, and say ings and narratives ) throughout, even if the authors to whom we have occasion to refer, prefer another word. This is specially desirable when they simply say the source, for we must allow for the possibility of several sources for the synoptic gospels.

2 In Mk. there are only two passages that can be called doublets 935 ( if any man would be first ) and 10 437: ( who soever would become great ) on which see 128 [/] ; for 9i ( there be some here ) and 13 10 ( gospel first preached ) can hardly be so classed. For doublets cp Hawkins 64-87, Wernle 111-113 (i neither is the enumeration complete).

121. Doublets and theory of two sources.[edit]

A similar conclusion the existence of a source used in common by Mt. and Lk. but different from Mk. is indicated by the doublets, that is to say the utterances which either Mt. or Lk. , or both, give, in two separate places 2

(a) In the majority of cases it can be observed that in Mt. the one doublet has a parallel in Mk. and the other in Lk. In these cases it is almost invariably found that in the parallel with Mk. not only the occasion but also the text is in agreement with Mk. , and in the parallel with Lk. occasion and text are in agreement with Lk. Similarly, Lk. , wherever there is a doublet, is found to agree in the one case with Mk. and in the other with Mt. If it must be conceded that in many cases the agreement of text is not very maryfest, this is easily accounted for by the consideration that the evangelist (Mt. or Lk. ) in writing the text the second time would naturally recall the previous occasion on which it had been given. 1 The passages, however, in which the observation made above holds good are many enough. 2 To account for them without the theory of two sources would, even apart from these special agreements, be extraordinarily difficult, indeed possible only where an epigrammatic saying fits not only the place assigned to it in what is assumed to be the one and only source, but also the other situation into which the evangelist without follow ing any source will have placed it.

In some places indeed this would seem to he what we must suppose to have actually happened, as we are unable to point to two different sources. So Lk. 14 n = 18 14 ( he whoexalteth him self shall be abased ) ; or the quotation from Hos. 66 (mercy not sacrifice) in Mt. 9 13 = 12 7 (which, moreover, is not very ap propriate in either case). It must be with deliberate intention that the preaching with which, according to Mk. 115 (the time ; repent)= Mt.4i7, Jesus began his ministry is in Mt.32 already assigned to the Baptist ; or the binding and loosing ( 136) to Peter. On the other hand, the answer I know you not which follows the invocation Lord, Lord in Mt. 722_/C (many will say) and 25 n f. (five virgins) is associated with a different narra tive in the two cases and cannot therefore, properly, be regarded as an independent doublet ; so also with the threatening with fire (3 12 = 13 30).

But, in other cases, such a repetition of a saying, on the part of an evangelist, without authority for it in some source in each case, is all the more improbable because Lk. often, and frequently also Mt. (see, e.g. , 128 [f,g\, or the omission of Mk. 8 38 = Lk. 9 26 after Mt. 1626 on account of Mt. lOss), avoids introducing for the second time a saying previously given, even when the parallel has it, and thus a doublet might have been expected as in the cases adduced at the beginning of this section.

Were this not so, we should expect that Lk. , having before him ex hypothesi the same sources as Mt. , would in every case, or nearly every case, have had a doublet wherever Mt. had one ; and vice versa. As a matter of fact only three or four sayings are doublets in Mt. as well as in Lk. ; on the other hand, although the derivation of a passage from the logia is not always free from doubt, we are entitled to reckon that Lk. has seven doublets peculiar to himself, and Mt. twice as many.

(b) We are led to the same inference that two sources were employed by those passages common to the three Gospels in which Mt. and Lk. have in common certain little insertions not to be found in Mk. ; as, for example, Mt. 186/1 (millstone) = Lk. 17 i/- as compared with Mk. 942, or Mt. 3n/. (baptize with water) = Lk. 3i6f. as compared with Mk. \T f., at the close of which passage both even have in common the words and with fire (/ecu Trvpi). Another very manifest transition from one source to another is seen in the parable of the mustard seed. This is given in the form of a narrative only in Lk. 13 18/. ; in Mk. 430-32, on the other hand, in the form of a general statement. Now, Mt. 1831/1 has in the one half narrative, in the other general state ment.

In short, the so-called theory of two sources, that is of the employment by Mt. and Lk. of Mk. (or original Mk. ) on the one hand, and of the logia on the other ranks among those results of gospel criticism which have met with most general acceptance.

1 For example Lk. 1133 (lamp under bushel) agrees much more closely with 8 16 (under bed) than with its proper parallel in Mt. 5 15; but Lk.8i6 agrees just as closely with its proper parallel in Mk. 4 21 as it does with Lk.ll33- Cp further, especially, Mk. 8 35 (save life, lose it)=Mt.!6 25 = Lk. 924, from which the other two parallels, Mt. 10 39 = Lk. 17 33, are distin- guised in common only by the use of xai instead of 5e.

2 E.g. Mt. 13 12 (whosoever hath)= Mk. 4 25 (with Lk. 8 18 b) ; Mt. 25 29(unto every one that hath) = Lk. 1926, or Mt. 199 = Mk. lOn; Mt. 6.32 (divorce) = Lk. 16 18, or Mt. 19 3 o = Mk. 10 3 i ; Mk. 20 16 (last, first) = Lk. 1830, or Mt. 21 2i = Mk. 11 23 ; Mt. 17 20 (faith as mustard seed)=Lk. 17 6, or Mt. 21 22 = Mk. 11 24 ; Mt. 7 7f: (ask) = Lk. 11 g or Lk.’8 17 = Mk. 4 22 ; Lk. 12 2 (covered up revealed)=Mt.i026 or Lk.926=Mk.838; Lk.129 (denieth, denied)=Mt. 1033, ortLk.923=Mk. 834=Mt. 1624; Lk. 1427 (bear cross)=Mt. 10 38.

122. Limits of material from logia.[edit]

If the original Mk. was more extensive than the canonical, possibly it contained things which, on another assumption, Mt. and Lk. might be supposed to have taken from the logia In particular has been asserted of the centurion of Capernaum (Mt. 85-13 = Lk. 7i-io), of the detailed account of the temptation (Ml 4x-ix=Lk. 4i-X3)i and also of the Baptist s message (Mt. 112-19 = Lk.7i8-3s), the logia being held to have been merely a collection of discourses. At present it is almost universally con ceded that in any such collection the occasions of the discourses included must also have been stated in nar rative form. This once granted, it is no longer possible to deny that, in certain circumstances, even narratives of some length may have been admitted, if only they led up to some definite utterance of Jesus. B. Weiss ( 125 d, I26c), and, after him, Resch ( 117), have even carried this thesis so far as to maintain that the logia formed a complete gospel with approximately as many narratives as discourses.

A definite separation of the portions derived from the logia might be expected to result from linguistic investi gation. B. Weiss has in point of fact sought with great care to determine the linguistic character of the logia ; but his argument is exposed to an unavoidable source of error, namely this, that the vocabulary of the logia can be held to have been definitely determined only when we have already, conjecturally, assigned certain definite passages to this source. In so far as this provisional assignment has been at fault, the resultant vocabulary will also have to be modified. Such a vocabulary can never be accepted otherwise than conditionally for this reason, besides the reasons indicated above, that it would be necessary first to de termine whether it is Mt. or Lk. that has preserved the logia most faithfully. The task, moreover, is rendered doubly difficult, by the fact that Mt. and Lk. by no means adopt their sources without modification ; they alter freely and follow their own manner of speaking instead of that of their source, or allow themselves to be influenced by Mk. even in pieces borrowed from the logia ; and vice versa.

It is specially interesting to notice that Titius, a disciple of B. Weiss, expressly acknowledges the unprovableness of his master s hypothesis as a whole. He calls it an equation with many unknown quantities. Nevertheless he thinks he can prove it quite irrefragably if it be restricted to the discourses. This has theappearance of sounder method, for greater unanimity prevails as to the extent of the discourses which belonged to the logia (Wernle, 91 187). At the same time, even when this restriction has been made, the difficulties that have been urged hold good, and all the more so since Titius at the outset assigns too large an extent to the logia and also, what is more serious, in his verbal statistics makes a number of assumptions of a kind that are quite usual but also quite unjustifiable. It was there fore an exceedingly bold step when (amongst others) B. Weiss (Das .Marcus-ei angfliunt, 1872), Wendt (Die Lekre Jesn, First Part, 1886), Resch (Die Log-in /esu, 1898) and Blair (Apostolic Gospel, 1896) printed the logia, or a source similar to them, verbatim. Hawkins (88-92) came to the conclusion that by linguistic methods no trustworthy separation of the logia- portions could be made. See further 126 c.

123. Special source for Lk.[edit]

(a) The divergences between Mt. and Lk. in the passages common to the two but not shared by Mk. 1 20 b) are often so great that it be comes a question whether both have been drawing from one and the same source. If it be assumed that they were, then one or other of them, or both, must have treated the source with a drastic freedom that does not accord well with the verbal fidelity to their source elsewhere shown by them ( 1150). It is the Ebionitic passages, chiefly, that come into consideration here. According to no, Lk. derived them from some source. Now, this source must have had many matters in common with the logia; e.g. , pre-eminently, the beatitudes, 1 as also Lk. 635^ (lend, hoping for nothing again) ; 1141 ( give for alms ); 1233 ( sell . . . and give alms ). In no it has further been shown to be probable that it was not Lk. himself who was enamoured of Ebionitic ideas. All the more must they already have found a place in the edition of the logia which he had before him.

(b) The hypothesis of a special source for Lk. must not, however, be stretched to the extent of assuming that everything Lk. has from the logia had come to him only in Ebionitic form. Much of his logia material is free from all Ebionitic tendency, yet it is not likely that the Ebionitic editor who often imported his ideas into the text so strongly would have left other passages wholly untouched. Slight traces of an Ebionitic colour ing perhaps can be detected in Lk. 14 330 ( whosoever renounceth not all ), 2i/. (bring in the poor) (cp 13 ; bid the poor), 636 ( merciful, oiKrip/j.oi fs) ; 1822 ( sell all, irdvTO.) ; 198 (half of my goods). But that Lk. had access to, and made use of, the unrevised logia also can hardly be denied.

(c) All the more pressingly are we confronted with the question whether the Ebionitic source of Lk. con tained also those passages which are peculiar to Lk. This is at once probable as regards the parables enumerated in no. In fact, for the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, at least in its Ebionitic shape (i.e. , 1619-26 without the appendix w. 27-31 ; see 109 ), it is possible to conjecture an original form of a purely ethical nature which characterised the Rich Man as godless and Lazarus as pious, and thus had a place (along with the beatitudes) among the logia, and may have come from the mouth of Jesus. On the other hand, such pieces as the parable of the Prodigal Son (15n-32), of the Pharisee and the Publican (189-14), of the unprofitable servants (17 7-10), on account of their wholly different theological complexion, cannot possibly be attributed to the same Ebionitic source. For this reason alone, if for no other, it becomes impossible to suppose that Lk. had a special source for his account of the journey of Jesus through Samaria (951-1814); this narrative, too, has some things in common with Mk. , others with Mt. We are thus led to the con clusion, so far as Lk. is concerned, that he had various other sources besides Mk. (or original Mk. ) a con clusion that is, moreover, in harmony with his own preface.

1 The two forms in which these are found admit of explanation most easily if we assume that in spirit (rci n-i fv/naTi ; Mt. 5 3) and righteousness 1 (TTJV 6i<cato<rv>T)i ; Mt. 56) were originally absent. The Ebionitic source and, with it, Lk. has in this case preserved the tenor of the words with the greater fidelity ; but Mt., by his insertions, has better preserved the religious and ethical meaning in which unquestionably Jesus spoke the words perhaps also by the addition of unambiguously moral utter ances such as 58_/C (pure in heart, peacemakers) which with equal certainty can be attributed to Jesus, and 647 (mourn, merciful). Both these are wanting in Lk., although they are capable of being used in an Ebionitic sense if he had chosen to take meek (n-pafis) in the sense of Ps. 37 9 1 1 22 29, and merci ful (fAoj/xoi es) in that of Lk. 11 41.

2 [Cp HEXATEUCH, g 3.]

124. Minor sources.[edit]

(a) Short Narratives. Going much beyond the results embodied in the foregoing section ( 123). Schleiermacher, as early as 1817, assumed a series of quite short notes on detailed events which, founding (incorrectly) on Lk. 1 1 (see 153, n. 2), he called narratives (dnryriffeis). On the analogy of OT criticism this might be called the fragment-hypothesis. - That our present gospels should have been directly compiled from such fragmentary sources, as Schleiermacher supposed, is not conceivable, when the degree in which they coincide in matter and arrangement is considered ( n6a). As subsidiary sources, however, or as steps in the transition from merely oral tradition to consecutive written narrative, the possibility of such brief notes can by no means be disregarded (see 129^). Still, to show that they ex isted is by no means easy.

(b) The little Apocalypse. Nevertheless, the belief is continually gaining ground that into Mt. 24, into Mk. 13, and (only with greater alterations) into Lk. 21 a work often called the Little Apocalypse has been introduced.

The evidence of this is found in the first instance in the want of connection.

These things (raura) in Mt. 24 33 ( = Mk. 1829= Lk. 21 31), coming as the phrase does after v. 31, must refer to the end of the world ; yet originally it must have meant the pre monitory signs of the approaching end, for it is said that when the beholders see all these things, then they are to know that the end is nigh. Therefore Alt. 24 32 / ( = Mk. 13 28 / = Lk. 21 29-31) is not in its proper place here. On the other hand, Mt. 2434 comes appropriately enough after 2431. Mt. 24 29 ( = Mk. 1824), speaking as it does of a tribulation, does not come in well after the discourse about false Messiahs and false prophets in Mt. 2423-28 ( = Mk. 1821-23) tne parallel to which in Lk. is actually found in another chapter (1723_/I) but would be ap propriate after Mt. 24 i5-22( = Mk. 13 i4-2o=Lk. 2120-24), where the connection is excellent. Mt. 249-14 ( = Mk. 139^-i3 = Lk. 21 12-19) occurs also in Mt. 1017-22, in a form which, as suiting Jewish circumstances better (10 17, in their synagogues they will scourge you ), must be regarded as the more original ; it is to be regarded as out of place in chap. 24. On the other hand, the abomination of desolation, Mt. 24 15 ( = Mk. 1814), comes fittingly after mi. 6-8 ( = Mk. 137-9a=Lk. 219-11). As for v. 5 ( = Mk. 136=Lk. Zlsi), it belongs, so far as its substance at least is concerned, to the passage, vv. 23-28, which we have already seen is out of place here. KzM./( = Mk. 13i_/: = Lk. 21s/) do not fit well with v. 15 ( = Mk. 1814) where only a desecration, not a destruction, of the temple is thought of (otherwise in Lk. 2120 when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed on which see 8 153). Regarded as a unity, accordingly, the passage would consist of Mt. 246-8 15-22 29-31 34 = Mk. 187-93 14-20 24- 2730. As a discourse of Jesus it is prefaced by v. 3^(=Mk. 134 = Lk. 21 7) an introduction which anticipates v. 30 and if you will by v. 4 (=Mk. 13s = Lk. 21 8a), and it is brought to a close in v. 35 ( = Mk. 13 3 i = Lk. 21 33).

In contents, however, the passage is quite alien from Jesus teaching as recorded elsewhere, whilst on the other hand it is closely related to other apocalypses. It will, accordingly, not be unsafe to assume that an apocalypse which originally had a separate existence has here been put into the mouth of Jesus and mixed up with utterances that actually came from him. The most appropriate occasion for a prophecy concerning an abomination about to be set up in the temple (24 15) would be the expressed intention of the emperor Caligula which in 40 A.D. threw the whole Jewish world into the greatest excitement to cause a statue of himself to be erected there. 1 The origin of this apoca lypse will best be placed somewhere between this date and the destruction of Jerusalem, which is not yet pre supposed in Mt. 24 15. Whether it was composed by a Jew or by a Christian is an unimportant question (see, however, 145 [/]).

(c} Anonymous Gospels. Of other minor sources that have been conjectured mention may here be made of the so-called anonymous gospel found by Scholten 2 in Mt. 87-1012 43-ii<z 85-10 13 19-22 827-34 112-19, in other words, in the main, the passages mentioned at the beginning of 122, and of the book which is held to be cited by Lk. (1149) under the title of Wisdom (ffoQla, 19 150).

(d) Buddhistic sources. Seydel ( Evangelium von Jesu, 1882 ; Buddhalegende, 84 ; < 2 >, 97) has not actually attempted to draw up a gospel derived from Buddhistic material ; but the parallels he has adduced from the life of Buddha are in many places very striking, at least so far as the story of the childhood of Jesus is con cerned, 3 and his proof that the Buddhistic sources are older than the Christian must be regarded as irre fragable. 1

1 Tac. Hist. 5 9 ; Philo, Leg. 30-43 ; Jos. BJ\\. 10; Ant.x\iil 8 2-9. See ISRAEL, 96.

a Das iilteste Kvangelium, I. end, p. y>f.

3 To the virgin-birth (Mt. 1 is), the annunciation to Mary (120/:), the star (2 i-io), the gifts (2u), Simeon (Lk. 225-39), the incident at twelve years of age (Lk. 2 41-50), must be added also the presentation in the temple ; and here it is worthy of remark that such a presentation was not actually required either by the passage (Ex. 132 12 15) cited in Lk. (222-24) or > et by the other passages Nu. 3 46 18 1 5 Ex. 22 29.

125. Combinations of hypothesis.[edit]

The Synoptical Problem is so complicated that but few students, if any, will now be found who believe a solution possible by means of any one of the hypotheses described above without other aids The need for combining several of them is felt more and more. Most frequently, we find the borrowing-hypothesis combined with the sources-hypothesis in one form or another, and, over and above, an oral tradition prior to all written sources assumed. Instead of attempted detailed accounts, we subjoin graphic representations of some combinations which are not too complicated and which bring into characteristic prominence the variety that exists among the leading hypotheses.

(a) Hilgenfeld combines with the borrowing hypothesis the further assumption of a written original gospel in two successive stages, Hebrew and Greek (so also Holsten, only with omission of the first stage).

[Hilgenfeld diagramme goes here]

(b) The simplest form of the two-source-hypothesis was argued for by Weisse in 1838 ; in 1856, however, he assumed an original Mk. along with the logia.

[Weisse (1838) diagramme goes here]

(c) An original Mk. alongside of the logia was postulated as a source (a) in simple form by Holtzmann down to 1878. The borrowing-hypothesis in its purest state - the theory, namely, that one canonical gospel had been used in the preparation of the other - was thus superseded ( 118).

[Holtzmann (before 1878) diagramme goes here]

(d) As a more complicated form we single out that of Lipsius (as described by Feine, JPT, 85, p. i/.). In addition to Holtzmann's scheme he assumed a borrowing from canonical Mk. by Lk. , and also an Ebionitic redaction of the logia ( 123).

[Lipsius diagramme goes here]

(e) B. Weiss reverts almost to the hypothesis of an original gospel. He postulates for the logia (which he therefore prefers to call the Apostolical source ), as many narratives as discourses ( 122, 126 c).

[B. Weisse diagramme goes here]

(e) Simons essentially simplified the theory of two sources by postulating (what all the hypotheses hitherto enumerated had avoided doing) a borrowing by Lk. from Mt. ( 127)

[Simons diagramme goes here]

(f) Holtzmann from 1878 combined this last with the hypothesis of an original Mk. ( 119).

[Holtzmann (1878) diagramme goes here]

(g) The latest form of the two-source-theory is that propounded by Wernle. Whether Mt. and Lk. severally used one or more subsidiary sources he leaves an open question. With regard to the logia he assumes that before they were used by Mt. and Lk. they had under gone additions, transpositions, and alterations yet not to too great an extent at the hands of a transcriber or possessor. The copy which Mt. used had been worked over in a Judaistic spirit ( 129^). that used by Lk. was somewhat shorter. Mk. was acquainted with the logia, but did not use them ; he merely took them for granted as already known and on that account introduced all the fewer discourses (against this see 148). Our present Mk. is different from that used by Mt. and Lk. but only by corruption of the text, not by editing.

[Wernle diagramme goes here]


1 Only the parable of the Wicked Servant (Mt. 2445-51) and, indirectly, the narrative of the end of the betrayer (Mt. 27 3-10) are affected by the resemblance to the story of Ahikar ; cp J. R. Harris, The Story of Ahikar, dof., Did Judas really commit suicide? in Amer. Journ. of Theol., 1900, pp. 490-513; and see ACHIACHARUS, i.

126. Confrontation of hypotheses.[edit]

It is the agreement between Mt. and Lk. as compared with Mk. that tries any hypothesis most severely, and it is with reference to this point that all the most important modifications in the various theories have been made. We proceed to test the leading hypotheses by its means always on the presupposition that neither Mt. was acquainted with Lk. , nor Lk. with Mt.

(a) The hypothesis of an original Mk. is in a general way very well titled to explain the agreement in question in so far as canonical Mk. is secondary to Mt. and Lk. But if, on the other hand, our Mk. has elements of greater originality, as we have seen to be the case with many of his exact details, then one will feel inclined, in accordance with 3. to suppose that it was a younger copy of Mk. that Mt. and Lk. had access to. In actual fact, however, sometimes the one condition holds good, sometimes the other. It is in this textual question, over and above the question already ( 118) spoken of as to its extent, that the difficulty of the original-Mk. -hypo thesis in its present form lies.

(b) If certain passages which are found in Mk. occurred also in the logia, then Mt. and Lk. may have derived their representation, in so far as it differs from Mk. , from the logia, provided that the logia was unknown to Mk. That there were passages common to Mk. (an original Mk. is not required when we approach the question as we do here) and the logia is at least shown by the doublets, and is by no means excluded even where there are no doublets (see 121 b and Wernle, 208 /. ). One, however, can hardly help think ing that the great degree of verbal coincidence which nevertheless is seen between Mk. on the one hand and Mt. and Lk. on the other comes from oral tradition. Thus a very high degree of confidence in the fixity of the oral narrative type ( 115) is required, and this marks one of the extreme limits to which such hypotheses can be carried without losing themselves in what wholly eludes investigation. But, moreover, the logia must be con ceived of as a complete gospel if we are to suppose that it contained all the sections in which Mt and Lk. are in agreement against Mk. Hawkins (pp. 172-176) reckons that out of 58 sections which almost in their whole extent are common to the three evangelists there are only 7 where Mt. and Lk. are not in agreement against Nik., and in 21 of the remaining 51 he finds agreements which are particularly marked and by no possibility admit of explanation as being due to chance.

(c) According to B. Weiss not only Mt. and Lk. but also Mk. made use of the logia ; Mk. , over and above, drew upon the oral communications of Peter and was again in his turn used by Mt. and Lk. This hypothesis has the advantage of accounting for the secondary passages of Mk. as due to a more faithful reproduction of the logia by Mt. and Lk. .and the fresher colours of Mk. as due to the reminiscences of Peter. It still remains surprising, doubtless, that Mt. and Lk. should have omitted so many of these vivid touches if they lay before them in Mk. The supposition that they did not regard Mk. as of equal importance with the logia is not in itself inherently impossible ; but it does not carry us far, for they elsewhere take a great deal from Mk. Still more remarkable is it that Mk. should have omitted so much from the logia. The suggested ex planation that in writing down the reminiscences of Peter he regarded the logia as only of secondary value is, in view of the number of passages which according to Weiss he took from them, still more improbable almost than that already mentioned.

As regards the coincidences between Mt. and Lk. against Mk. , a very simple explanation seems to be found for them in the hypothesis of Weiss, viz. that Mt. and Lk. drew upon the logia with greater fidelity than Mk. did. This, however, can of course be claimed by Weiss only for those sections which he actually derives from the logia. Yet for one portion of the sections in which such coincidences occur (see above, ) he finds himself compelled by his principles to regard Nik. , not the logia, as the source of Mt. and Lk. In this way, of the 240 coincidences enumerated by Hawkins, some 50 no inconsiderable number remain unaccounted for. Nor can we overlook the improb ability that the logia, as conceived of by Weiss, should have contained, as he himself confesses, no account of the passion.

127. Borrowing by Lk. from Mt. (or vice versa).[edit]

In so far as the various hypotheses referred to in the preceding section are found to be insufficient, in the same degree are we compelled to admit that Lk. must have been acquainted with Mt. ( or vice versa).

(a) Each of the two assumptions partly without any thorough investigation and partly under the influence of a tendency criticism long found support ; but the second ( 1 57, A i. c ) has at present few to uphold it. The other has for the first time been taken up in a thorough going manner with use of literary critical methods by Simons l 125^).

We begin with arguments of minor weight.

(i) Out of the selection of specially strong evidences in sup port of it given in Hawkins (i 74/1) we have already ( 119^) pointed out that Mt. 13 11 Lk. S 10 (as against Mk. 4n) and Sit. 2068 Lk. 264 (as against Mk. 14 05) admit of another ex planation. Similarly, the Bethphage and Bethany of Lk. 11> 29 may be sufficiently explained by assuming that originally only the first word stood in the text (as in Mt. 21 i) or only the second (as in Mk. 11 i), and that it was a copyist who, of his own proper motion, introduced the name he found lacking. Possibly we ought to trace to the source of Mt., rather than to the canonical Mt., such material divergences as we find in Mt. 21 17 Lk. 21 37 (that Jesus sffnt the night outside of Jerusalem, a statement not found in Mk. 11 19) ; in Mt. 21 23 Lk. 20 i (that Jesus taught in the temple, as against Mk. 11 27 he was walking in the temple ) ; in Mt. 26 50 Lk. 22 48 (that Jesus spoke to the betrayer in the garden a statement not found in Mk. 1445); in Mt. 2S8 Lk. 24 9 (that the women reported to the disciples the angel s message, whereas according to Mk. 16 8 they said nothing to any one ; on this last point, however, see \ 138^). Similarly, the representation, the impossibility of which has already been referred to in 108 (by which the Baptist is made to address the penitent crowds flocking to his baptism as a generation of vipers) is either due to an infelicitous juxtaposition of Mt. 3 5 (where it is said that the multitudes went out to him) and Mt. 3 7 (where the words in question are addressed to the Pharisees and Sad- ducees) ; or it may be due to use of Mt. s source. Lk. appears to be dependent at once on Mk. and on Mt. (or Mt. s source) when, in 42-13, ^ e represents the temptation in the wilderness both as happening during the forty day* (as in M k. 1 13), and also as happening after their expiry (as in Mt. 4 2-1 \\

(ii) Greater importance belongs to the verbal agreements. In Mt. 9 17 Lk. 637 spilled (if\ci<rOa.i) is used of the wine, perish (ot>AAv<r0ai) only of the bottles ; in Mk. 2 22 parish " (a7roAAu<T#at) is used of both. In Mt. 9 20 Lk. 844 the woman touches the hem of the garment of Jesus, in Mk. 527 simply the garment. In Mt. 14 i Lk. 9:7 Herod Antipas is correctly called tetrarch, in Mk. 614 22 25-27 and also in Mt.149 inexactly 'king' (pamhelic). Mt. 19 29 Lk. 18 30 have 'manyfold' (Irohha- IrAaoiova), Mk. 10 30 'a hundredfold' (iKaTovraIrhaolova). In Mt. 26 75 Lk. 22 62 it is said of Peter 'he went out and wept bitterly'(I&.88v 2&u LA ~ UUWmKp & ) ; in Mk. 1472 'he began to weep' (dmj3ah8v iKhaLfv). In Mt.2759f: Lk. 2353 it is said of Joseph of Arimathea 'he wrapped it in a linen cloth . . . and laid ' (Iv~rlih~&v ab.& oiv8dvr . . . E&~Kw) in Mk. 15 46 'he wound him in a linen cloth . . . and laid' (Zvdhqu~v rfj urv86vc kai ~ar&‘qrsv; 1 WH &JKEV). Mt. 28 I Lk. 23 54 have, as against Mk. 162, 'it began to dawn' (&i+dumiv)-though indeed, in a different connection. In Mt. 28 3 Lk. 244, as against Mk. 16 5, the countenance of the angel, or the apparel of the two angels is compared to lightening. In Mt. 14:13 Lk. 9:10-11, as against Mk. 6:32-33, we find not only 'he departed' (iIrhaoova or V7rxwpi)<r i/) instead of 'they went away' (am/ASo^), but also 'the multitudes accompanied him' (oi ovAoi . . . >)KoAov #)cra BVT<}> instead of 'many outwent them' (n-oAAoi . . . TrpOTJASo ovAoi)

A material divergence from Mk., but at the same time an approach to coincidence of expression is seen in Lk. 2370, where the answer of Jesus to the high pries;is given in this form : 'Ye say that I am'. The first two words are a paraphrase of the 'thou hast said' (d &as) of Mt. 26 64 ; the remainder of the sentence is a repetition of the paraphrase in Mk. (119 a). For another material divergence from Mk. see Lk. 11 17 = Mt. 12 25 as against Mk. 323 (Jesus knowing the thoughts of his enemies).

(b) Specially important are cases in which a casual expression of Mt. is laid hold of. So, for example, in Lk. 9 34 (' while he said these things ') as compared with Mt. 17 5 ('while be was yet speaking'), and as against Mk.97. Similarly Lk. (4 16-30) was able to find a justification for his erroneous dement , that Jesus had come forward in the synagogue at Nazareth at the very begiilning of his public activity (cp $9 39, 109 h), in Mt. 4 13, where it is said that Jesus before coming to Capernaum left Nazareth (in Lk. 431 he comes to Capernaum from Nazareth). The scribe's question as to the greatest of the commandments is described not by Mk. (12 28) but only by Mt. (22 35) as having been asked for the purpose of 'tempting' Jesus. According to Lk. 10 25 the questioner asks what he must do to inherit eternal life. Nevertheless he too is represented as having sought to 'tempt' Jesus. Lk. 16 17 would be specially convincing on the present point if here a sentence had been taken over from the latest hand of Mt. (5 18). But the original text of Lk. probably said the opposite (see 1281?). On the other hand, we really have a sentence by the latest hand in Mt.728 with which Lk. 7 i betrays connection, for with the formula, When Jesus had ended all these words, Mt. concludes his great speech-composi tions not only here, but also in four other places (11 i 13 53 19 i 20 i). Moreover, Lk. also shares with Mt. the statement that the multitude heard the preceding discourse, though this is con tradicted by the introduction to it in Lk. 620 as well as in Mt. 5 i. Mk. says in 12 18 correctly, There came unto him Sad ducees, oi.Vii es Ae yovcrii , who [as is well known] say that there is no resurrection ; Mt. 2223 infelicitously reproduces this as there came unto him Sadducees saying (Ae -yoi Tes) that, etc. Lk. 2027 seeks to improve this : There came to him certain of the Sadducees, they which say (oi aimAe yoi Tes) that there is no resurrection, and they asked him, saying. The articiple ought to have been in the genitive (rGv avAqdvrwvf In the nom. (02 &VTL~&TSS) we seem to have an echo of Mt.'s 'saying' (h&,om&). Lk. rightly inserts the article missing in Mt. Thq reference, however, must be to the Sadducees, not to 'certain (TIK S). The formula, 'while he was saying these things' (see above, Lk. 9 34), is met with also in Lk. 11 37, where Jacobsen would derive it from Mt. 1246 as also he would derive the state ent in Lk. 12 1, 'When the myriads of the multitude were gathered together insomuch that they trode one upon another' (which indeed does not fit well with what immediately follows : 'he began to say to his disciples') from Mt. 132. Jacobsenl considers that when he wrote these passages Lk. had reached, in taking what he has taken from Mt., exactly the neighbourhood of the two Mt. passages just cited (1246 13 2). This, however, cannot he made evident.

(b) On general grounds, on the other hand, the dependence of Lk. on Mt. (and, equally so, the con verse) is very improbable. In each of the two evan gelists much material is absent which the other has, while yet no possible reason can be assigned for the omission. Nay, more, the representations given in the two are often in violent contradiction. Even agree ments in the order, in so far as not coming from Mk. , almost always can be accounted for as derived from a second source the logia. Simons has, therefore, in agreement with Holtzmann, put forward his hypothesis only in the form that Lk. regarded Mt. as a subsidiary source merely, perhaps, in fact, only knew it by frequent hearing, without giving to it any commanding import- ance. This is in very deed quite conceivable, if only he knew the logia, and was in a position to observe how freely Mt. had dealt with that material.

(c) Soltau sought to improve the hypothesis of Lk. s dependence on Mt. by the assumption that it was with the penultimate form of Mt. that Lk. was acquainted. That Mt. If. was still absent from Mt. when Lk. used it is an old conjecture. The pieces from the middle of the gospel which Soltau reserves for the canonical Mt. are of very opposite character (to it he reckons even the highly legalistic saying in 5i%/. and the strongly anti- Judaistic one in 2 26/.) and are attributed by him to very various motives. This indicates a great difficulty in his hypothesis. Nevertheless the suggestion is always worth considering that OT citations of the latest hand which are adduced to prove the Messiahship of Jesus ( 108), and perhaps some other portions besides, did not yet lie before Lk. That there is no reason to shrink from a hypothesis of this kind, see 129.

1 Untersuch it. d. synopt. Huang., 1883, <-,if.

128. Sources of sources.[edit]

Let us now proceed to consider whether the possible origin from still earlier written sources of those consecutive books which were the last to precede our present gospels can be raised above the level of mere conjecture. This of course can be done, if at all, only at a few points. To show that it has not unfrequently been affirmed, even though no very thoroughgoing consequences were drawn from the affirmation, we shall begin by giving three examples well known in the literature of the subject.

(a) Johannes Weiss (on Lk. 5 17, in Meyer s Connnentar) says that the exemplar of Mk. used by Lk. underwent, after it had been so made use of, another revision, which we have in our Mk., and that it had been previously made use of by Mt. before passing into the hands of Lk. Here and in the following paragraphs (a-g) let A, B, and C be necessarily different hands, and Aa, Ab, Ac, on the other hand, be such portions as may perhaps be due to one and the same hand but perhaps also proceed from different hands ; similarly also with Ba, Bb, Bc, etc. ; then the view of Weiss can be stated as follows. A is a written source on the healing of the paralytic without mention of the circumstance that he was let down through the roof. This source was drawn upon, on the one hand by Mt., on the other by B, who introduced the new circumstance just mentioned. B was drawn upon, on the one hand, by Lk., on the other by Mk. It is in this way that at the same time Johannes Weiss explains also how Mt. and Lk. coincide in many details as against Mk. B thus takes the position which original Mk. has in the usual nomenclature, not however and this is the important point being the oldest writing, but being itself in turn dependent on a source. For our own part we cannot regard this view as being sufficiently firmly based, since it has been shown in 116b that it is Mt. who has greatly curtailed the narrative of the death of Herod ; it is therefore conceivable also that in the passage before us he should have left out the detail about the roof also, his interest being merely in the miracle itself as prov ing the Messiahship of Jesus, not in any special detail of it such as this (cp Hawkins 127-129 ; and also Wernle, 156 f. for similar passages).

(b) Woods, 86-88, assumes for the narrative of the Mission of the disciples two sources, one (which we shall call A) relating to that of the twelve, the other (B) to that of the seventy. 1 Mk. 67-11 and Lk. 9 1-5 drew only from A. A and B were both drawn upon by a third document (C) which was used in Lk. 10 1-12 as the sole source, but in Mt. 10i-i6 along with A. It will create no difficulties if we recognise in A an original Mk. (according to Woods the Marcan tradition ), in B the logia. Whilst, however, such critics as Bernard Weiss and Holtzmann are agreed that Mt. and Lk. 10 were drawn direct from the logia (as Lk. 9 was from Mk., or original Mk.), Woods has found it necessary to interpolate an intermediate stage (C) in which both these sources were already fused. One might even feel inclined to go a step further. Lk. in 107 f: would certainly not have given the injunction to 'eat such things as are set before you,' first in speaking of a house, and then in speaking of a city, unless the one form had come from one source, the other from another. It happens, however, that neither of the two forms is found either in Mk. or in Lk. 9. Lk. 10, therefore, apart from the Mk. source (A), which is made use of, for example, in 10 i (ava. STJO, two and two ), would seem to have had two other sources. In any case Woods observation is correct, that Mt. has fused together all the sources that can be discovered in Mk. or in Lk. Whilst passing over the rest of Lk. 108, Mt. introduces the city into 10 n at the place where Mk. 6 10 and Lk. 04 speak of the house ; the house he introduces into 10 12 in the parallel to Lk. 10 5 which is absent from Mk. and Lk. i. In 10 9 Mt. has silver (dpyvpof) with Lk. 3 (apyvpiuv), and also brass (xaAoi>) as well (with Mk. (58). Similarly, with Mk. and Lk. 9 he has twelve in 10 i, though he had not hitherto given the number of the twelve and has to enumerate them for the first time in 102-4. The injunction laid on the missionaries in 10 9 to acquire (K-njcnjo-to) no money is to be explained from 10 8 as meaning that they are forbidden to take any reward for their teaching or healing on their journey ( freely ye have received, freely give ), whereas in 10 10 ( no scrip for the way, fi>) irripa.v eis o&ov) we are to interpret it as a prohibition against taking anything with them when they set out from home (as in Mk. 68 = Lk. 83).

1 The main point is not affected if it be assumed that B also dealt with the mission of the twelve, and that the seventy were first introduced by Lk. ( 109 a).

(c) Loman ( / /. T, 69, pp. 577-585) traces back to one original parable those of the Tares in the Wheat in Mt. 13 24-30 and of the Seed growing secretly in Mk. 426-20. However different they may be apparently, he urges, and however possible it might be to show that even such words in which they agree as man, spring up, fruit, blade, corn, harvest (dvOpuirro?, fi\a<rTav, Kaprros, ^opros, (TITOS, Oepiovios) belonged to two quite distinct parables, a common original form is betrayed by the word sleep (xaSevSeiv). Mk. would never have introduced any touch so self-evident as that of the man sleeping and rising night and day had there not lain before him something in which the sleep was spoken of. By the addition that the man awoke again daily the original meaning of the sleep is obscured.

If the two parables cannot be supposed to be of independent origin, it is at the same time only with great violence that we could derive Mk. s from Mt. or Mt. s from Mk. Mt. s lacks the quality of a true original in so far as it is not an incident of ordinary life that any one should sow tares in another s field and the other parables of Jesus are conspicuously taken from affairs of every day. Mk. s lacks the character of an original in so far as its fundamental idea that the kingdom of God comes to its realization without the intervention of God or of the Messiah (in other words, the precept of laisser aller, laisser faire) is quite a modern one, directly inconsistent with the conceptions of Jesus as disclosed elsewhere in the gospels.

Loman therefore supposes that Mt. 13 24 26 27 alone stood in a source A : after the seed had been sown, the tares grew up with it and the servants asked their master whence these came. The answer he takes from Mk. 4 28, but in the form : the earth brings forth the tares of itself. With this the parable ended. That such a saying would be eminently appropriate in the mouth of Jesus he proves very aptly by Mt. 15 19 (out of the heart proceed evil thoughts).

An anti-Pauline form of the parable, however, 8a, took Paul as the sower of the false doctrine which was supposed to be denoted by the tares. It therefore introduced Mt. 13 25 saying that the enemy (on this designation for Paul see 112^) had sown the tares, and it also, for the conclusion of the parable in A, substituted Mt. 13 28/1 the master s answer that the tares were sown by the enemy. B<5 then added Mt. 13 28^-30 signifying that nevertheless no attempt should be made to extirpate the false doctrine of Paulinism, that it should be left to the Final Judg- ment. The polemic against Paul here is thus milder than that of Paul against his Judaistic adversaries in z Cor. 11 13'15 ; Gal. 1 sf.', 5 12. Canonical Mk., further, was acquainted with A and Ba. In order to avoid the anti-Pauline meaning of Bn he left out the whole figure of the enemy (dxt’pds) and consequently also the tares. He had therefore to take the answer of the master from A, not however of course in the form that the tares sprang up of themselves, but in the form that it was the good seed that did so. This last very modern idea accordingly did not find expression here out of the inde pendent conviction of an ancient author, but arose from the difficulty in which Mk. found himself. The sleep of the master lost its original significance when the daily waking was added. From 42q it is clear that Mk. had also B before him, for he speaks of the harvest. Canonical Mt. expressly says in the interpretation of the parable attributed to Jesus (1839) that the enemy is the devil. Either, therefore, he no longer perceives the anti-Pauline tendency of KIT, or like Mk. he deliberately seeks to avoid it, though he takes a quite different way to do so. There remains a possibility that he may have understood the Pauline doctrine to be meant by the false teaching introduced by the devil ; but it is equally possible that he was thinking of some form of heresy.

This hypothesis of Loman combines with a literary criticism which has for its object the elucidation of the mutual relations of the various texts, also a tendency-criticism which postulates an anti-Pauline tendency in Ba. Even should one be unable to adopt the latter criticism, it is not necessary on that account to reject the former ; it is open to any one to suppose that the enemy (f\Bpb$ avSpojiros) may have been at the outset some form (as already indicated) of heresy.

(d) To the three examples given above we purpose to add a few others which, so far as we are aware, have not been previously employed in this connection.

In Lk. 16 1-9 the Unjust Steward is commended. He accordingly must be intended in the commendatory clause (v. ioa) which follows He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much not in the words of censure (v. io) he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. And yet in 168 he is called the unrighteous steward. In 16 ii we read further If ye then (ouv) have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon and so forth. By the very little in which one is to show fidelity we must accordingly understand Mammon. Where then are we to look for the steward s fidelity as regards Mammon ? According to the parable, in this that he gave it away. Unfaithfulness accordingly would manifest itself if one were to keep Mammon to oneself. The steward, however, did not keep Mammon to himself and yet was called unrighteous (which of course is not to be distinguished from unfaithful ). We see accordingly that the terminology in 16 10-12 is in direct opposition to that of the parable itself. Further, the contrast in the parable is not in the least between fidelity and its opposite. What the steward is com mended for is his cleverness ; the opposite to this would be want of cleverness. Thus i<v. 10-12 are an appendix to the parable by another hand. Taken by themselves their meaning would be simply an exhortation to fidelity in money matters. Here, however, they are brought into connection with the parable of the steward, whose relation to Mammon is represented as one of .fidelity. Their fundamental idea accordingly is just as exactly Kbionitic as that of the parable itself. Thus two Kbionitic hands can be distinguished, and distinct from both is that of Lk. himself who has added yet another transformation of the meaning, in v. n/., where he declares the parable to have been directed against the Pharisees and their covetousness.

(e) According to 112 b d we may take it that the final redaction of Mt. was made in a sense that was friendly to the Gentiles and thus attached no value to compliance with the precepts of the Mosaic law. Unless then Mt. 5 i8/i be a marginal gloss (see 112 c], it must have been introduced not by the last, but by the penultimate hand, and its context comes from a source of an antepenultimate hand.

5 18 itself rests upon Mt. 24 347^ or the source in which this originally stood. The close of 5 18, till all things be accom plished, does not amalgamate easily with the beginning of the verse, Till heaven and earth pass away [one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away]. Moreover, it is difficult to see why the law should cease to have validity the moment it is fulfilled in its entirety. But the closing sentence in 2434 is perfectly intelli gible : This generation shall not pass away till all these things be accomplished. All these things means here the premonitory signs of the end. 2435 proceeds : Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away. Marcion has the same thought in his redaction of Lk. 1017: It is easier that heaven and earth should pass away than that one tittle should fall from my words. For this, canonical Lk. has than for one tittle of the law to fall. But this can hardly have been what Lk. intended to say, for this verse stands between two verses which accentuate with the greatest possible emphasis the abolition of the law. The conjecture of Lipsius therefore is very attractive that Lk. wrote than for one tittle of my law to fall (T) ToC vofiov fj.ov fiCav Ktpaiav ne&dv). Here, on account of his antipathy to the idea of law, Marcion substituted (but without altering the sense) words for Maw (fj riav \6yuiv fiov fiiav Ktpaiav Trecrcif). But a very old transcriber of Lk took the word my GIOV) for a wrong repetition of the second syllable of law (VQIJ.OV) ; he therefore omitted it and thereby changed the meaning of the sentence to its opposite. This nomistic mean ing is reproduced in Mt. 5 j8_/C

One sees how many the intermediate steps must have been before these two verses could have received their present form. Still, as already said, 5 i8/! may possibly be a marginal gloss.

(f) InMk. 9 33-42 and parallels (Mt. 18i-6Lk. 946-50), very diverse things are brought into combination. First, the account of the disciples disputing with one another as to precedence (9 33/1 ), then the story of Jesus placing a little child in their midst with the exhortation to receive such in his name (936/. ) ; next, the exhortation (938-40) not to forbid other miracle-workers ; further, the promise (941) that even a cup of water given to a follower of Christ shall by no means lose its reward ; and lastly (942), the threatening against those who cause any of the little ones that believe in Christ to stumble.

The dispute about precedence is answered according to Mk. (z/. 35) by the saying of Jesus, If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and minister of all. This is not found in Lk. except in the place (2226) where it occurs as a parallel to Mk. 1043/1 Besides giving it in the same parallel to Mk. l(>43f.(Mt. 20 2 f >/ .), Mt. has it again, only in a quite different place (23 1 1) ; and yet neither Mt. nor Lk. would have omitted it in the parallel to our present passage, Mk. 9 35, had they found it there. For indeed it is very appropriate to the matter, whilst the mention of the child by no means serves to settle the dispute, for the child is not brought forward as an example of humility but as a person to be received, and not for the sake of his attributes as a child but for the sake of the Name of Christ. Mt. felt this want of connection, and in order to represent the child as an example he says in v, i that the disciples did not discuss the question among themselves but referred it to Jesus, who answered by placing the little child in their midst. Between this act and the exhortation based upon it he inserts further his third verse, Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." This he borrows from Mk. 10 15, as is made unmistakably clear by the fact that in the parallel to this passage, viz., in Mt. 19 13-15, he omits it, so as to avoid a doublet. Mt. IS 3 is also in substance a very fitting settlement of the dispute between the disciples, and would not have been passed over by Lk. had it lain before him. The ex hortation to receive such a child is in Mt. 18 5 in the same degree inappropriate to the context. Mt. therefore interpolates between the two distinct thoughts his fourth verse : Whoso ever shall humble himself like this little child, the same shall be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But even this insertion does not fill the hiatus between v. 3 and v. 5.

The exhortation in Mt. 185 to receive the little child is immediately followed (r. 6) by the antithesis, But whoso shall cause one of these little ones to stumble. This fits well enough, on the assumption that children are intended by the little ones. In Mk. and Lk., however, the two thoughts are separated very unnaturally by the account of the miracle-worker who followeth not with us, and in Mk. , too (841), by the promise of a reward for the cup of cold water a promise which Mt. (1042) gives in a quite different connection, and there, moreover, using the expression these little ones, by whom, however, he under stands (differently from 186) grown-up persons of low estate. To this promise there is appended in Mk. 942 the threatening against him who shall cause one of these little ones to stumble, quite fittingly only, however, on the assumption that by these little ones we are to understand grown-up people of low estate, not children, as in Mt.

Let us now endeavour to trace, genetically, the origin and growth of this remarkably complicated passage. In a source A were combined only those two parts which are common to all three gospels to wit, the statement of the dispute among the disciples and of the placing of a child in the midst with the exhortation to receive him. But no connection between them had been as yet established. This (primitive) form is found with least alteration in Lk. 946-48*2 ; in Mk. it is represented by 833/1 36/1, in Mt. by 18 1/. 5. Ba added to it the promise of reward for the cup of water to a disciple (Mk. 941). Bi further added the threatening against him who shall cause a little one to stumble (Mk. 942). 1 C interpolated the story of the miracle -worker who followed not with the disciples. Its distinctive character forbids the obvious course of assigning it to Be. Now, in Mk. , only 9 38 390: 40 answers to the form of the story in Lk. 949/1 The form of the whole pericope which arose through addition of this piece (without Mk. 939^), thus takes the place which in the usual nomenclature is given to original Mk. But on this occasion original Mk. 1 has had not one literary predecessor merely, but two, or, should Ba be separated from Bb, three ; and these write not, it is to be noted, independently of each other ; the one was continually making use of the other.

1 Since Mt. 18 offers parallels only to what we have attributed to A + Bb, one might be inclined rather to attribute to Ba the addition of Mk. 942 and to Bb that of Mk. 9 41. If this were done it would have to be presupposed (what was left open, above, under a) that Ba and Bb mean two different authors. We should then have the advantage of being able to suppose that Mt. was acquainted with Ba, but not with Bb. At the same time, however, we should have to attribute Mk. 941 in that case rather to C, for on the previously mentioned presupposition it must remain equally possible that Ba and Bb together mean only one author. The hypothesis would, therefore, only become more complicated. Further, it is not probable that Mk. 942 should have been introduced earlier than 9 41. It is simpler, therefore, to suppose that Mt. knew Ba+Bb in other words, Mk.94i as well as Mk. 942, but that he dropped 841 because he had himself already reproduced the same thought in 1042 (cp 121 a).

Canonical Mt. rests upon A+B (or at least Bb, but surely also Ba: see last footnote). Mt. then, as stated above, changed the introduction in v. i, and added his own v. 3/1, so as to bring into mutual connection the dispute about precedence and the precept about receiving the child. Mt. s v. 6, through its direct contiguity with v. 5 (instead of with 1042 which here ought to have been repeated as parallel to Mk. 941), underwent a change of meaning, to the effect that children, not grown-up persons, were meant. Lk. rests on A + C. He added 948^, he that is least among you all, the same is great." This does not, indeed, come in appropriately after the precept about receiving a child ; it would have found a place with greater fitness before this precept and after the statement of the disciples dispute, in other words between v. 470 and v. 47^ i. e. , at the very point where Mk. v. 35 introduces the same thought.

Mk. rests upon A + Ba + Bb + C. He adds on the one hand his v. y)b, which Lk. would certainly not have passed over had he known it, and on the other hand his v. 35, containing so excellent a settlement of the precedence- dispute. Neither Mt. nor Lk. was acquainted with the verse or (as already said) they would not have omitted it or introduced something like it at a later place, as in Lk. v. 48^.

It is certainly worthy of notice that Mk. , by the in sertion of v. 35, has produced the only doublet which he has ( 121 a, n. i ). The circumstance that Jesus calls the disciples to him in v. 35 whilst in v. 33/1 he has already been questioning them, points also to the conclusion that the passage is composed from various pieces.

(g ) The successive contents of Mk. 4 1-34 and parallels (Mt. 181-35 ; Lk. 84-18) cannot possibly have been set down in any one gospel in their present order at one writing. Let us examine them. After the parable of the Sower, Jesus is alone with his disciples (Mk. 4io = Mt. 13io=Lk. 89) ; so also when he explains the par able (vv. 13-20 = Mt. 13 18-23 = Lk. 811-15). Nor is any hint given of his again addressing himself to the people ; yet we read in Mk. 4s3/. that he spoke openly to the people in parables (so also Mt. 1834), and that he gave his explanations to the disciples in private. There is ground, therefore, for supposing that in one source, A, there stood an uninterrupted series of parables, viz., all those which have parallels in Mt. (Mk. 4 1-9 26-29 30-32 in an older form as regards 26-29 ; see above, c) ; also the conclusion v. 33/. Ba, on the strength of the concluding statement that when they were alone Jesus expounded all things to his dis ciples, introduced Mk. 4 10 13 14-20 ; l Bb the verses 21-25 to the effect that one ought not to keep back know ledge once gained of the meaning of a parable, but ought to spread it freely. C introduced 4n/l These verses to the effect that the parables were intended to conceal the meaning they contained from the people are in contradiction alike to v. 33/1 and to vv. 21-25, and are, moreover, impossible in the mouth of Jesus. What pleasure could he have had in his teaching if he had to believe his God-given task to be that of hiding from the people the truths of salvation ? It is, therefore, utterly futile to make out forced con nection between Mk. 4io and Mk. 4 n /I, by inter preting to the effect that Jesus, when asked as to the meaning of the parables, in the first place, said, by way of introduction to his answer, that to the disciples it was given to apprehend the meaning, and then went on to tell them what it was. Moreover, Mk. 4 13 does not fit in with this connection. The verse is clearly a question in which Jesus expresses his astonishment at the small understanding of the disciples : How? you do not understand this parable ; how then shall you know all the parables ? This astonishment again is out of place if Jesus in v. nf. has found nothing to be surprised at in the circumstance that the disciples needed to have the meaning first of all imparted to them. The question is appropriate, therefore, only as a direct reply to v. 10, and furnishes a very good occasion for Jesus to decide to give them the interpretation (cp, further, 129 b, n. ). Here also, as under (f), C takes the position which elsewhere is appropriate to original Mk. , and here also there are two or three antecedent literary stages. D inserted the parable of the leaven (Mt. 1333 = Lk. 132o/~. ).

1 In Mk. 4 10 the disciples ask concerning the parables. The plural carries us back to what is said in Mk. 4 2 that Jesus spoke several. The sense, therefore, can very well be that which Lk. (8 9) expresses more clearly though with reference to one parable only : they asked about the meaning of these parables. Were it the intention of Mk. to say like Mt.(13io) that they asked about the purpose of the parables, then we must suppose that only Lk. has rightly preserved the thought of the source Ba.


Each of the three canonical gospels then rests upon A + Ba + Bb + C; 1 Mt. , too, upon D. Mk. did not change the extent of vv. 10-13 (perhaps it was he who left out the yvuvai from v. n ; cp RV with AV), on the other hand he gave to vv. 21 f. a form which suits the applica tion here made of the saying better than does that of Mt. and Lk. (see 119 a). Mt. and Lk. , on the other hand, in order to be able to retain from C, Mk. 4ii/l, deleted the surprised question of Jesus in Mk. 4 13 (from Brt), because it was inappropriate after this insertion.

Moreover, Mt. has also so altered the question of the disciples (who in Mk. 4io and Lk. 89 ask as to the meaning of the parable) as to make it suit the answer which was first brought in from C : to you it is given to understand the parables, but to the multitude it is not given. It now runs in Mt. (13io) : Why speakest thou to them in parables ? But such a form of the question cannot have been the original one for this reason, if for no other, that according to it, Jesus would have had no occasion to expound the parable to the disciples. Further, Mt. has in 13 12 introduced a saying which in B<5 at first came after the interpretation of the first par able. We further see that he must have found difficulty in the assertion that the purpose ("iva., Mk. 412) of the parables was to conceal the meaning they contained. He substitutes therefore : For this cause do I speak to them in parables because (6 ri) they see not and hear not. He thus puts in the foreground the defective understanding of the multitude as a fact with which Jesus must reckon. By what follows, however (v. 14 f. ), taken from Isaiah, he gives it clearly to be seen that he had before him an exemplar in which their not being understood was alleged as the purpose of the parables (see the lest perchance, ui? Trore, in 13is). Finally perhaps it was Mt. himself who added the interpretation of the parable of the Tares (not immediately after the parable, but at the end of the whole section that is parallel to Mk. 41-34; cp n6a), and also the other parables 1836-52 ; possibly also v. 35.

Still it is also permissible to suppose that only Mk. 4 1-9 33 f. stood in A, but this makes little change in our construction as a whole ; it only becomes necessary in that case to postulate that Be added Mk. 4 26-32.

On the other hand, the mutual relation of sources can become still somewhat more complicated if Loman s hypothesis regarding w. 26-29 ( see above, c) be combined with what has just been elaborated about Mk. 4 1-34. Yet it is possible to do this without multiplying the number of source* We therefore refrain from introducing the hypothesis in question, all the more because it might, as being of the nature of tendency-criticism, call forth special objections.

(h) Finally, it has to be pointed out that even the doublets might be used to give probability to the com posite character of the logia. In 121 a they have been employed to show that Mt. and Lk. alike draw from two sources. For the most part these were, on the one hand Mk. (or original Mk. ), and on the other the logia. Only, it happens by no means infrequently that both places in which Mt. has the same saying are generally traced to the logia. What would seem to follow for this would be that the writer of the logia himself made use of two sources. Now, we are not inclined to carry back Mt. 7 16 = 20 to two sources from which the logia drew, but prefer to regard the repetition as an express and deliberate accentuation of the statement upon which stress is here laid. But we do in all seriousness adduce Mt. 10 15 = 11 24 ( more tolerable for Sodom ), 7 17 = 1233 (the tree and its fruits), as well as the utterances of John which are also afterwards put into the mouth of Jesus (87 = 2833, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape ; 3 10 = 719, every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire ).

1 As regards B/ i.e. , Mk. 4 21-25 it is possible to suppose that Lk. (8 1 8) may have omitted V. 24$ because he already had it in 638, and that Mt. may have omitted all these verses because he also had them all elsewhere in one place or another (5 15 1026 72 633) the last, in particular, in the very pericopewith which we are now dealing (13 12).

129. Inferences for gospel-criticism.[edit]

What has been said above as to sources of sources has far-reaching consequences.

(a) If it holds good even partially, then most of the hypotheses hitherto put forward as to the origin of the gospels can no longer be maintained. For in that case, either the original Mk., or the logia, or whatever be the name given to the sources immediately preceding our canonical gospels, we are no longer dealing with the earliest written compositions each produced by a writer working independently without written sources, and the canonical authors were not dependent (as used to be supposed) on these writers alone, but had at their disposal also the sources of these sources. It is no longer possible to control them in every detail, to ask what exemplar they had and why they made this, that, or the other change. On the other hand, the thesis that an ancient-seeming saying if it occurs in a writing that can be shown to be relatively young can have no claim to an early origin, must be wholly given up.

(b) The first impression one derives from the new situation thus created is, that by it the solution of the synoptical problem which appeared after so much toil to have been brought so near, seems suddenly removed again to an immeasurable distance. For science, how ever, it is not altogether amiss if from time to time it is compelled to dispense with the lights it had previously considered clear enough, and to accustom itself to a new investigation of its objects in the dark. Possibly it may then find that it has got rid of certain false appearances under which things had formerly been viewed. In this particular instance, it finds itself no longer under com pulsion to assign a given passage to no other source than either to the logia, or to original Mk. , or to some other of the few sources with which it had hitherto been accustomed to deal. The great danger of any hypothesis lies in this, that it sets up a number of quite general propositions on the basis of a limited number of observations, and then has to find these propositions justified, come what may. 1

(c) On the other hand, signs have for some consider able time not been wanting that scholars were on the way to recognition of the new situation just described. It is not only Scholten and Wittichen who have postu lated a tolerably complicated genealogy for the gospels, with Proto-, Deutero-, Trito-Mk. , and the like; even those critics also who are confident in the adequacy of the usual hypotheses are often found reckoning with the possibility or even probability that writings like original Mk. , or the logia, whether in the course of transcription, or at the hands of individual owners, may have received additions or alterations whenever any one believed himself to be acquainted with a better tradition upon any point. The possibility is taken into account, in like manner, that canonical Mk. in particular does not lie before us in the form in which it lay before those who came immediately after him ; possible corruptions of the text, 1 glosses and the like, have to be considered. Another element in the reckoning is that already our oldest MSS of the gospels have latent in them many examples of transference from the text of one gospel into that of another, examples similar to those which we can quite distinctly observe in many instances when the TR is confronted with these same witnesses.

1 Let one example suffice. Mk.4i3 the verse which was found so helpful in 128^- is regarded by Feine and others as an addition by canonical Mk., because it is in point of fact in consistent with 4nyC, and these two verses, since they occur in all three gospels, must be ascribed to the source that is to say, to the only source with which one allows oneself to reckon, whether we call it with Feine, original Mk., or, with B. Weiss, logia. If one could only tell how it was that canonical Mk. came to add this verse !

It may be that an older form of Mk. , or of original Mk. , or of the logia, whose differences from our present gospels are so limited in range and so little intended, can hardly, strictly speaking, deserve the name of a special source, the general contents and arrangement being so much alike ; yet the effect, in its bearing on the character of the text in its details, is pre cisely the same as if we actually were to assume such a source. For in particular cases it is not possible for us to rely upon a text as lying before us or as capable of being more or less easily reconstructed, and so to judge of the changes that have been made by the canonical evangelists ; we have to reckon with an immense range of possibilities and thus security of judgment is lost.

Lastly, scholars are also beginning to remember that the evangelists did not need to draw their material from books alone, but that from youth up they were acquainted with it from oral narration and could easily commit it to writing precisely in this form in either case whether they had it before them in no written form, or whether they had it in different written form. In this matter again we are beginning to be on our guard against the error of supposing that in the synoptical problem we have to reckon merely with given quantities, or with such as can be easily ascertained.

(d) From the point just reached to the recognition of sources of sources differing not only in text but also in extent, order, and tendency is always, it is true, a real step. Yet the distinction is after all but a fluid one. By mere additions it is possible to give a writing a tendency, which without these does not exist in it ( 109 , no, 112). It is essentially by the introduction of additional touches that, as we have seen in 128 a-g, the highly- complicated production, the disentanglement of which now causes so much difficulty, was produced out of a simple combination of related, or at least not mutually inconsistent, pericopes. And each intermediate stage in the process at one time had currency as a gospel writing and served as a basis for further developments. But if this consideration is taken seriously, it becomes in creasingly impossible to hold what any one occupying the standpoint of c would wish to hold in spite of every concession to the actual state of the facts namely, that the man to whom, whether by tradition or by the voice of some scholar, the authorship of the latest recognisable form of such a pre-canonical writing is ascribed, can also be regarded as the author of the earliest of these forms. Of the man who has made such manifest changes in the few places that still allow us to follow him in the process, it will be only safe to assume that he treated other passages also in the same way, only that we no longer have the means of detecting it. In that case, however, and still more certainly where there is individual tendency, his writing must be regarded as a new work in so far as in this class of literature new ness can be spoken of at all ; it cannot be treated as merely another form of its predecessor. From this point of view we shall be able to give its full force to Lk. s prologue, according to which many authors had already undertaken in an independent way to draw up in writing (this is the force of the expression avard^affdai, cp 153, n. 2) an account of the life of Jesus. But Schleiermacher s view of the narratives (SnjyrifffLs) ( 124 a) also in this way comes to its rights ; for doubtless there must have been quite short notes also as well as narratives of a more comprehensive character ( 37. 64, 85), and yet these also can have had their influence on the subsequent form of individual pericopes. The reconstruction of original Mk. and of the logia, of their arrangement and even of their very words to which so much acuteness has been devoted loses greatly in interest as soon as these writings are regarded, not as the earliest, but only as intermediate steps. In the same measure does one gain insight into the diffi culty of the problem, and the lesson of caution in dealing with it. For further reasons for the view here taken of the situation see I4&/. , 153.

(e) On the other hand, however, certain difficulties become easier to deal with. We can now, for example, offer an explanation of the passage in Mt. 2823^, so friendly to the Pharisees, and of all the Jewish-particu laristic passages in 112 a, d, which it is impossible to ascribe to Jesus, and also even, whatever the inter mediate stages may have been, of the legalistic Mt. 5 i8/~. ( 128 e ) ; they are attributable to a Judaistic redaction which the logia underwent before they were made use of, and (according to 112 b] altered to an opposite sense, by Mt. The character of the original logia becomes in this way more uniform and more in accord ance with the free attitude of Jesus towards the law, and one can understand better how it was that this attitude of his was successfully transmitted, whereas all record of it might very easily have dropped out of sight had the first transmitter already been so Judaistically minded.

1 For example, that Lk., according to 9 7 ( it was said by some ), still read in Mt. 6 14 H\fyov instead of eAeyei^the present reading), while Mt. already, on account of this last reading, regarded Mk. 6 16 as a mere repetition and therefore left it out.

130. Semitic original.[edit]

By way of appendix the question of late so keenly discussed - viz. , as to the influence which the undeniable fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic may have had upon the formation of the gospels - may here be appropriately considered.

(a) If Papias was right in his assertion regarding Mt. (see 65), this influence would have been very great. But our gospels were from the first written in Greek even the genealogy in Mt. li-i/, 1 as well as that in Lk. 823-38, which contains (v. 36) the name of CAINAN (q.v. , 2), met with only in the LXX. In fact, even in what we find reason for tracing back to the logia, the quota tions are, at least in a quite preponderating number of cases, taken from the LXX (cp especially 44 where the original in Dt. 83 supplies no basis for pij^uart). It is precisely the author of canonical Mt. who oftenest gives the quotations from the Hebrew (Hawkins, 123- 127), and who could not have given such quotations as, e.g. , 2 15 23 817 27 9/. after the LXX at all; but the allegation that his book is a translation from a Semitic original breaks down on the fact that it also nevertheless follows the LXX, and that, too, exactly in passages which would not have been available had the Hebrew original been followed.

Only the mistranslation virgin (TrapSeVos, cp MARY [MOTHER OF JESUS]) made it possible to adduce (in Mt. 1 22^) Is. 7 14 ; only the omission of the second member to in the desert (ev 7-17 cprjfioj) in the Hebrew parallelism in Is. 40 3 () made it pos sible to bring these words, in Mt. 3 3, into relation with what precedes instead of with what follows, and thus to find in the words a prediction of one crying in the wilderness, though in Isaiah the crier is of course not in the wilderness, where no one could have heard him, but in the midst of the exiled Israelites in Babylon. In Ps. 83 it is only the LXX that speaks of praise in the sense in which Mt. 21 16 finds it here. Further Hosanna (uxrai i a) in 21 9 with the dative is regarded as a cry of devotion

Praise, Vivat which is not reconcilable with the true understanding of the original passage (see HOSANNA ; cp Dai- man, IVorte Jesu, 1 180-182).

(b} The language of Mk. Hebraizes still more strongly than does that of Mt. Nevertheless, the combinations of Allen (Expos., 1900, 1436-443) do not prove that the evangelist wrote Aramaic, but only that he wrote a kind of Jewish Greek that he had derived from a reading of the LXX. Lk. also has Hebraisms, not only in chaps. 1 /. but elsewhere as well, and not only where he is dependent on Mk. or Mt. but also where he had no exemplar before him (as, for example, often and it came to pass," Kal iyevero ; see Hawkins, 30), and yet no one holds Lk. s writing to be a translation of a Semitic original. Is. 40s (Mk. 13) could not possibly be cited in an Aramaic writing (see above, a).

1 See Allen, Exp. T, 99, pp. 135-137. Against his further assertion that the genealogy was constructed by the author of the entire Gospel, see, however, MARY (MOTHER OF JESUS).

Just as little can the very small number of variants partly Lucan in character in D and old Latin translations, which Blass (Phil, of Gospels, 98. pp. 190-218) does not regard as traceable to transcribers, be held to show that the entire gospel of Mk. was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek in different ways, or even as Hlass formulates the hypothesis that Luke, the companion of Paul, himself before he wrote the third gospel, revised and published a bad Greek translation of the Aramaic Mk., on which account it was that afterwards he omitted much of it from his own book, not wishing to exceed the ordinary limits of a papyrus roll. Elsewhere (see ACTS, 17) it has been shown with what independence the text has been dealt with in D and its allied MSS. Least of all can Blass s hypothesis seek support in the contention that Lk. shows little verbal coincidence with Mk. This fact (so far as it is a fact) can of course be sufficiently explained by the linguistic character of Mk., which Lk. regarded as admitting of improve ment. Whether Mk. s linguistic imperfections are due to translation from the Aramaic is a quite separate question. Finally, there are no grounds for the conjecture of Blass that the Aramaic original document dealing with the earliest his tory of the church in Jerusalem, which is held to have been used by Lk. in Acts 1-12 (on this point, see ACTS, 17 [.], col. 56) was written by Mark, and that he will on this account have written the gospel also in Aramaic notwithstanding that, according to Papias, he was Peter s interpreter and that he has so many Latin words ( 108).

(c) A written source still older than the logia or Mk. (or original Mk. : see 148, end) may have been written in Aramaic. A writing in Hebrew ( 117) is not wholly impossible but certainly quite improbable. There seems to have been a Hebrew original in the case of the Psalms of Solomon (see APOCALYPTIC, 83). But here the ruling pattern may have been that of the OT psalms, and perhaps also in Pompey s time Hebrew was somewhat more generally in use than it came to be 100 years afterwards. It is not very helpful to suggest that people would have been naturally inclined to treat of the sacred subjects of the gospel history in the sacred language. The masses did not understand Hebrew (see ARAMAIC, 5), and yet gospel writings, unless they were to miss the purpose for which they were written, had to be adapted to the intelligence even of the least instructed.

(d} The gain from recourse to the theory of such an original is in the first place this, that certain Greek expressions will then admit of explanation as being errors of translation. Once made, such errors could very well pass on without change from one Greek writing to a second and to a third. But it will be at once obvious that such an explanation can have im portance only in regard to particular passages, not in regard to the origin of the gospels as complete books.

Nor even for this purpose is it necessary to aim at retrans- lation of whole sentences, a process which will always offer room for new error ; all that will be required will be that we should discover the individual words or expressions from which the error can possibly have arisen.! As an instance we may point to Wellhausen s 531 (Lk. 11 41)^ which may equally as well mean purify as give alms, Sore f\fT]fi.o<Tvvi}v , the sense will then be the same as in Lk. 11 39, and in the parallel Mt.2325./C, and thus the character given to the passage in no will be changed.

(e) Another advantage will be that the consideration of an Aramaic or Hebrew original will aid in determining as to the meaning and use of important or difficult words and ideas in the NT. A very familiar example occurs in the ino which Jerome found in the gospel of the Hebrews for eirt.oijffi.os in Mt. 6n, and which is assuredly right (see Winer 8 , 16, 3 b ; and cp LORD S PRAYER). But it must be said that the recent recourse had to Aramaic in this field of research has already had some very infelicitous results.

Thus Lietzmann, 2 Wellhausen, 3 and others assert that Jesus used the word son of Man only in the sense of man gener ally (cp n6d, n.), but did not apply it to himself in that of Messiah ; in this last sense, they maintain, it was only taken by the evangelists from the Apocalyptic literature, and so came to be introduced into the gospel history. 1 But Dalman in his turn (p. 159) disputes the genuineness of the words not the son but only the Father (Mk. 1832 ; cp Mt. 2436), on the ground that in the time of Jesus these expressions were not customary without additions such as my [son], of God, my [Father]. As if the meaning they express could not possibly, nevertheless, have come from Jesus, and only the form of expression be due to the later use assumed by Dalman (cp 139).

1 Cp Wellh. in Nachr. d. Gesellsch. d. Wisscnsch. zu Gdttingen, 95, pp. \if. , Arnold Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, 96 ; Nestle, Philologica Sacra, 96.

- Der Menschensohn, 96 ; also Theol. A rbeiten aits det Rhcinischen ivissensch. Predigerverein, neue Folge, Hft. 2, 99.

3 7/(7 3 ) 381 ; and Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, 6, 99, pp. 194-215.

III. CREDIBILITY OF THE SYNOPTICS.[edit]

131. Fundamental considerations.[edit]

The investigation of the mutual relationships between the synoptic gospels has in itself a scientific interest and can therefore be carried on with interest even by the student for whom the credibility of the gospels is a matter of comparative indifference. Still, in the end the answer to this question is the goal of every research in this field. The question is often, however, still handled quite unscientifically. Thus, many still think themselves entitled to accept as historically true everything written in the gospels which cannot be shown by explicit testimony to be false. Others pay deference at least to the opinion that a narrative gains in credibility if found in all three gospels (as if in such a case all were not drawing from one source) ; and with very few exceptions all critics fall into the very grave error of immediately accepting a thing as true as soon as they have found themselves able to trace it to a source.

Once we have freed ourselves from the dominion of such fallacies it cannot but seem unfortunate that the decision as to the credibility of the gospel narratives should be made to depend upon the determination of a problem so difficult and perhaps insoluble as the synoptical is. It would accordingly be a very im portant gain if we could find some means of making it in some measure at least independent of this. Such means have already been hinted at above ( 27, n. i, and 34, n. 2).

The examination of the credibility must from the beginning be set about from two opposite points of view. On the one hand, we must set on one side every thing which for any reason arising either from the substance or from considerations of literary criticism has to be regarded as doubtful or as wrong ; on the other hand, one must make search for all such data, as from the nature of their contents cannot possibly on any account be regarded as inventions.

When a profane historian finds before him a historical document which testifies to the worship of a hero un known to other sources, he attaches first and fore most importance to those features which cannot be deduced merely from the fact of this worship, and he does so on the simple and sufficient ground that they would not be found in this source unless the author had met with them as fixed data of tradition. The same fundamental principle may safely be applied in the case of the gospels, for they also are all of them written by worshippers of Jesus. We now have accordingly the advantage which cannot be appreciated too highly of being in a position to recognise something as being worthy of belief even without being able to say, or even being called on to inquire, whether it comes from original Mk. , from logia, from oral tradition, or from any other quarter that may be alleged. The relative priority becomes a matter of indifference, because the absolute priority that is, the origin in real tradition is certain. In such points the question as to credi bility becomes independent of the synoptical question. Here the clearest cases are those in which only one evangelist, or two, have data of this class, and the second, or third, or both, are found to have taken occasion to alter these in the interests of the reverence due to Jesus.

If we discover any such points even if only a few they guarantee not only their own contents, but also much more. For in that case one may also hold as credible all else which agrees in character with these, and is in other respects not open to suspicion. Indeed the thoroughly disinterested historian must recognise it as his duty to investigate the grounds for this so great reverence for himself which Jesus was able to call forth ; and he will then, first and foremost, find himself led to recognise as true the two great facts that Jesus had compassion for the multitude and that he preached with power, not as the scribes (Mt. 936 729). Let us, then, proceed to test in the two ways indicated some of the leading points in the synoptic gospels.

1 See on the other side Schmiedel, Prat. Monatshefte, 98,; . 252-267 291-308; Muirhead, Exp. T, Nov. 99, pp. 62-65; Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1 191-219.

132. Chronological framework.[edit]

The chronological framework must be classed among the most untrustworthy elements in the gospels. Not only are the data often quite vague - a defect for which we could not blame the evangelists if they had no precise information; often also it is impossible to have any confidence, when Mt. so frequently says 'then' (roTf), 'on that day' (4v eKfivy TJJ 17/^99), or the like, or when Mk. says 'straightway' 1 (fvOus), that the event really followed on what immediately precedes it in the narrative. Were we to take the evangelists literally, an enormous number of events would have to be compressed within the limits of certain days (e.g., Mt. 1215-1852), and there would be only a very moderate number of days of the public ministry of Jesus with regard to which any events are recorded at all. Of the six time-determinations in Lk. 3i /. manifestly brought together with great care only the first three can be regarded as free from exception. Philip ruled over Trachonitis and other territories, but only over a small portion of Ituraea. The office of high priest was never filled by two persons at the same time ; it is Caiaphas who ought to have been named, whilst Annas held the office from 6 to 15 A. D. On LYSANIAS see that article. The statement about the census of Quirinius in 2 1/. is quite erroneous (see CHRONOLOGY, 59/1, QUIRINIUS, also above, 22, last footnote). But the data are often even in direct contradiction to each other. In Mt. 8-12 especially, matters stand in a quite different chronological connection from that which they have in Mk. and Lk. ( n6<z). Or the mother and brethren of Jesus come, in Mk. 831 and Mt. 1246, after the discourse about Beelzebub, in Lk. 819 after the great parable- discourse (see further 18, begin.).

133. Order of the narrative.[edit]

The case is no better with the order of the narratives.

(a) A large number of sayings of Jesus have been placed together by Mt. in five longer discourses which on each occasion he closes with the formula referred to in 127 (a, 7). Among these are included, for example, a series of seven woes upon the Pharisees, 23 13-36, a series of seven parables, 181-52, and a series of six theses in correction of the law (621-48; 34, n. i ; Hawkins, 131-135). Lk. has arranged in two similar large groups - the so-called small and large interpolations, 6:20-8:3 and 9:51-18:14 - material partly the same as, and partly different from, that of Mt.

The greater interpolation the narrative of what is known as the Samaritan journey can make no claim to historicity. In the midst of it we find (10 1 and 17) the mission of the seventy and their return, (1831) the warning against the plots of Herod Antipas, who ruled over Galilee only, not Samaria, (14 1) a feast in the house of a Pharisee, who can hardly have lived in Samaria, and (17 n) the statement that Jesus was on the borders of Galilee and Samaria, which yet he had already passed (851) in his journey to Jerusalem.

(b) But even outside of these compiled discourses the order of narration is often such as to suggest the sus picion that it has been determined by the nature of the contents. The rubbing of the ears of corn and the healing of the man with the withered hand (Mk. 223-86) are related the one immediately after the other, only because both occurrences showed Jesus in conflict with the law of the Sabbath. Or are we to believe that the two or three men - the whole number recorded in the gospels (Mt. 819-22 Lk. 957-62) - who asked of Jesus to be admitted to the number of his disciples, all presented themselves at one and the same moment viz. , when he was about to take ship across the Sea of Galilee, or, according to Lk. , at one and the same point in the journey through Samaria ? Com pare, further, the wholly different order in which the events in Mt. 8-f2 ( n6a) are given as compared with Mk. and Lk. , with the result that (e.g. } the choice of the apostles comes to be placed immediately before their sending-out (102-4), and the series of miracles before the arrival of the messengers from the Baptist ( 137 a).

(c) In many cases it is not so much for the sake of the order, but simply for the sake of a word, that certain sayings of Jesus are brought into contiguity with others ; thus, Mk. 942-48 are brought together only by the idea of stumbling-block (ffKav5a\ifet.v), w. 48 and 490 only by that of fire, w. 49* and 50 only by that of salt, Lk. 1133-36 only by that of light, 1324/. only by that of the door. But what is said with regard to these things is in each case quite different, and he does no honour to Jesus who believes himself in duty bound to prove that the Master gave forth in one breath utter ances so utterly disconnected.

(d) In other places there is manifest lack of clear appreciation of the situation. The prohibition which certainly comes from Jesus himself and is no mere in vention of the evangelists- against making known a deed of healing wrought by him, a prohibition still found in Mt. 84 9 30, would be utterly futile if, previously (423/ ) and simultaneously (935), Jesus had healed whole crowds of sick persons. In 12i6 the prohibition is laid even upon a great multitude of persons healed at one and the same time. But we find the same thing also in the parallel Mk. 812 and even in l34 = Lk. 441; and here also follows the same prohibition laid upon individuals (Mk. ! 44 = Lk. 5 14 Mk. 826).

(e) In Mk. one is very willingly disposed to recognise an appropriate arrangement of the events of the public ministry of Jesus as a whole. It is certainly the fact that his first chapter gives the impression that the public activity of Jesus may actually have begun in the manner here related. But so far as the rest of the gospel is concerned, little confidence can be placed even in Mk. s order. In saying this, we lay no stress on the assertion of Papias (see 65) that he set down the deeds and words of Jesus without order ; for Papias may very well have been judging of that order with Mt. as his standard. Nor can we accept the view of B. Weiss, that Mk. in tended by his frequent use of the imperfect to convey that he is narrating not individual deeds of Jesus but only the sort of things that he was in the habit of doing, as for example in 42. 1 The whole sum, however, of separate events in Galilee (miracles, discourses, and the like) has so comparatively little that is characteristic, and their order for a writer who wrote only for the glorification of Jesus and not for a laboriously exact account of his biography was of so comparatively little importance, that it would not be safe for us to rely on them with any confidence whatever. In one point Mk. has a superiority over Mt. and Lk. ; in 72431 he records a journey of Jesus to Tyre and Sidon, in other words, a long distance abroad. So also the journey to Cassarea Philippi recorded by him (827) in common with Mt. (1613) signifies for him a noteworthy epoch in the public life of Jesus {% 135). See further 145^".

1 As against this view of B. Weiss see Feine, JPT, 87, pp. 45-57, 77 88, pp. 405_/I ; Holtzmann, ibid., 78, pp. 168-171, with WeUs s reply, pp. 583-585.

134 Occasions of utterances of Jesus.[edit]

The alleged situations in which the recorded utterances of Jesus were spoken can by no means be implicitly accepted. Was the Lord's Prayer given in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 69-13), or at the special request of the disciples (Lk. 11 1-4)? Did Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount to his disciples (Mt. 5i Lk. 620), or was it heard by the multitudes (Mt. 7 28 Lk. 7 1) ? For a whole series of utterances of Jesus Lk. has assigned occasions of which Mk. and Mt. know nothing (e.g., 9i8 Il2 9 37 / 12 4 i 1823 141525 15i/. 17s 37 19 n). Even where an utterance of Jesus recurs more than once in the gospels and we may be certain that he repeated himself much oftener than is recorded ( 145 a) they yet afford us not the slightest guarantee that the repetition took place precisely at the point at which they place it.

The saying about the light under a bushel is found in three different connections. In Mk. 4 21 and Lk. 8 16 the light is the interpretation of the parables Jesus had spoken (see IIQ.) manifestly a very special application of a thought of very much wider scope. In Lk. 1133 the saying comes after the sentence which affirms that in the person of Jesus a greater than Jonah is present ; here, then, the light can only be Jesus himself. In this connection, however, it is impossible to carry through the most obvious meaning of the saying that one ought not to put the light under a bushel. Moreover we find in 11 34 a saying added only on account of the verbal suggestion ( i33c)^-that the light of the body is the eye. Once more, then, it is not likely that the saying belongs to this place. In Mt. 5 14-16 two different representations are combined ; the disciples are ex horted to let their light shine, the city set on the hill on the other hand shines of itself. By the light the disciples are here meant, but the opening words, ye are the light of the world, can easily have been framed on the model of the preceding sentence, ye are the salt of the earth, and that, too, for the first time by Mt., for the two sentences can hardly have stood together in one source since in Mk. and in Lk. they are given in two quite dis tinct places. Thus in no one passage have we any security that we are in possession of the original connection of the saying, and it would be just as conceivable that it may have been spoken by Jesus when one of his followers, concerned about his safety, had besought him, as Peter on one occasion (Mt. 16 22) did, to spare himself and not expose himself to danger in fact very much as in Jn. Q ^f., only without the specifically Johannine meaning of the word. See, further, Hawkins, 129-131 ; Wernle, 2io_/I

135. Places and persons.[edit]

In the case of an eye-witness the recollection of an event associates itself readily with that of a definite place, but for those who are not eye-witnesses this has much less interest. In Lk. 9:18 Peter's confession is not made at Caesarea Philippi ; indeed, the evangelist knows nothing about a journey thither at all ( 116a, end). The leper was cleansed according to Mt. 8:1-2 after Jesus had finished his Sermon on the Mount, but according to Lk. (5 12) a considerable time before that, when Jesus was in one of the cities, similarly as in Mk. 140.

On the return from his first journey abroad (to Tyre and Sidon) Jesus, according to Mk. 7 31, arrives at the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, according to Mt. 1629 (if we are to take the most obvious meaning of the words), at the western. After the feeding of the 4000 both evangelists agree in saying that he crossed the lake ; but according to Mk. 8 10 the crossing is to the west shore, according to Mt. 15 39 it is to the east. Then follows a new crossing, after which the apprehension about want of bread arises in Mk. 8 T.T,/. on the eastern shore, in Mt. 16 5 on the western. The two routes coalesce according to Mk. 8 27 Mt. 1613 only when Caesarea is reached unless we are to assume that Mt. , in what precedes, means the same localities as Mk. and has only expressed himself misleadingly (cp 112 a).

As for persons neither the names of the women at the cross (see CLOPAS, 2) nor even the names of the twelve disciples (Mt. 102-4 Mk. 816-19 Lk. 614-16) are given in two places alike (see APOSTLE). On the divergence between Mt. 9 9 on the one hand and Mk. 2 14 and Lk. 627 on the other, see LEVI and MATTHEW.

136. Conditions belonging to a later time.[edit]

Several of the reported sayings of Jesus clearly bear the impress of a time which he did not live to see. The precept about taking up one's cross and following Jesus (Mt. 1038 1624)is certainly not to be explained by pointing out that the sight of condemned persons carrying their crosses to the place of execution was a familiar one ; for in that spectacle the most important element of all was wanting that of innocence. The words in question cannot have taken their present shape till after the death of Jesus. Exhortations as to how to behave in times of persecution (Mk. 189-13) he can hardly have found it necessary to give so early, for, however numerous his followers may have been, he formed in his lifetime no definite community outside the bonds of the Jewish religion, and still less a church. It was therefore also in the lifetime of Jesus hardly possible that his followers should be expelled from the synagogue in the manner spoken of in Lk. 622, and still less so that they should be expelled on account of the name of Christian (see CHRISTIAN, i). The graduated order of procedure against an erring brother (Mt. 1815-17) is much more easily explained when transplanted to a later time. In the mouth of Jesus it is, at all events, intelligible only if by ecclesla (tKK\-r)<rla) we understand not the Christian but the Jewish local community. But also the authority con ferred in the verse immediately following (18i8), Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, could never have been given by Jesus either to the apostles or, what the context leaves open, to his followers in general , still less to Peter to whom it is limited in 16ig(cp BINDING AND LOOSING). Still more 16 18 is open to serious question, quite apart from other reasons, on account of the word ccclesia, and because the verse is wanting in Tatian s Diatessaron. Into the discourse on the occasion of the mission of the disciples special precepts have been introduced, of a sort which can only owe their origin to later missionary practice taught by painful experience (e.g. , Mt. 10 1113). The baptismal precept to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28 19) is questionable, not only because, according to the older accounts, the risen Jesus was only seen, not heard ( 138 d], but also because, according to the NT throughout, baptism was only in the name of Jesus (Rom. 63 Gal. 827 Acts238 816 104819s i Cor. 6n 113; even in Hermas also; Vis. iii. 7 3). The Trinitarian formula is met with first in Justin (Apol. I6i) and in the Didachl (7i). So also, if Jesus had enjoined the mission to the Gentiles on the original apostles, as is stated in Mt. 28 19, it would be a practical impossibility to understand, how they, or their followers, could have withstood Paul so hotly upon this very point.

137. The miracle narrative.[edit]

It would clearly be wrong, in an investigation such as the present, to start from any such postulate or axiom that 'miracles' are impossible. At the same time, on the other hand, some doubt as to the accuracy of the accounts cannot fail to arise in the mind even of the stoutest believer in miracles when he observes such points as the following :

(a) How contradictory they are. In Mk. 1 32 34 all the sick were brought to Jesus and he healed some ; in || Mt. 8 16 they brought many and he healed all; in || Lk. 4 40 they brought all and he healed all, as also in Mt. 424. In Mk. 3jf. 10 a great multitude followed him and he healed many ; in || Mt. 12 15 many followed and he healed all. According to this the view of the evangelist must have been that he was followed exclusively by sick persons. According to what is said in i^j,d not only the early date but the historicity altogether of those healings en-masse must be held to be doubtful.

Before the feeding of the 5000, in Mk. (634) Jesus teaches the multitude ; in Mt. (14 14) he heals their sick; in Lk. (9n) he does both. At the beginning of his journey to Jerusalem, according to Mk. (lOi), Jesus teaches the multitude; according to Mt. (192) he heals them. According to Lk. (?2i) Jesus heals a number of sick possessed and blind in the presence of the messengers of the Baptist, and immediately before this he raises the widow s son at Nain (711-17); Mt. knows nothing of this, and Mk. as little (the message of the Baptist is wholly wanting in Mk. ). But on the other hand Mt. records as before this date not only the healing of a leper (81-4) and of a paralytic (9i-s ) t as does Mk. 140- 2i2=Lk. 5 12-26, but also the raising of the daughter of Jairus (9 18-26), and the healing of two blind men (927- 31), and of a dumb man possessed with a devil (;cw06s : 932-34) healings which in Lk. are all brought in as having been wrought after the message of the Baptist (840-56 1835-43 11 14-16). Thus each of the two evan gelists secured that the messengers of the Baptist should be able to hear of miracles of most various kinds as wrought by Jesus (Mt. lls = Lk. 7 22) ; l but each has done so in a different way. After the cleansing of the temple, Jesus, according to Mt. (21 14), heals blind and lame there ; of this Mk. and Lk. know nothing. Similarly in 2852 f. he alone reports the resurrection of many dead persons on the death of Jesus.

On the other hand, Mt. (2617-20) describes the preparation of the Passover meal without presupposing any super natural knowledge on the part of Jesus as is done in Mk. (14 12-17) and Lk. (227-14). Lk. alone knows not only of the miracles reported in 7 11-17 2I . but also of the healing of the woman with the spirit of infirmity, of the man with the dropsy, of the ten lepers, and of the high priest s servant s ear, as also of the fact of Peter s miraculous draft (1810-17 14i-6 17 11-19 22 50 f. 5i-n). In the last two cases the silence of Mt. and Mk. is all the more significant as they give a quite precise account of the very occurrences in the midst of which a miracle, according to Lk. , was wrought, and in Gethsemane all the apostles, and at the call of Peter at least he and some others, were present (Mk. 1447 = Mt. 2651-54; Mk. li6-2o=Mt. 4i8-2 2 ; cp 32, n. 5, 42). Only Mk. , again, knows of the healing of a blind man in two successive stages, by application of spittle and by laying on of hands (822-26). Instead of the one man, deaf and with an impediment in his speech, who is healed by Jesus in Mk. (732-37) by the same means, inl|Mt. \5y>f. a whole multitude of lame, blind, and dumb are healed. At Gerasa Mk. (62) and Lk. (827) make mention of one demoniac, Mt. (828) of two, and that too (v. 29) with clear divergence from || Mk. $7 = Lk. 828, and dependence on the words of the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mk. 124 = Lk. 434), all mention of which has been wholly omitted by Mt. At Jericho Mk. (1046) mentions one blind man as Jesus was leaving the city, Lk. 1835 one as he was entering, Mt. 2029/1 two as he was leaving. The man who in Lk. 11 14 is dumb is also blind in Mt. 1222. 2 According to Mk. 623 the daughter of Jairus is at the point of death, according to Lk. 842 she is a-dying ; in Mt. 9 18 the father s statement runs, my daughter is even now dead, whilst in Mk. 635 and Lk. 849 this announcement is brought to Jesus only after the healing of the woman with the issue of blood which has been wrought in the interval.

To the number 5000 as well as to the 4000 of those who were miraculously fed Mt. adds in each case (14 21 15 38) besides women and children. In Mk. 1 1 20 the fig tree is found to be withered away on the morning after the curse has been pronounced ; according to Mt. 21 19 it withered away immediately. Whilst in Mk. 1 iof. it is Jesus who sees the heaven opened and the spirit descending and hears the voice, so that one is able, if so disposed, to take the whole passage as describing an inward mental experi ence, with regard to which the disciples had derived their knowledge from himself alone, Mt. 3i6f. repre sents the opening of the heavens as an objective occur rence and gives the voice in the third person and thus not as for the hearing of Jesus alone, whilst according to Lk. Szif. the Spirit even descends in bodily shape. As for the narratives of the nativity and childhood see MARY (MOTHER OF JESUS) and NATIVITY. We pass over the numerous other minor differences in the accounts of miracles in the gospels, in order to touch upon :

1 It must be granted that in Mt. 832-34 K<O$O? means a dumb, and in 11 5 a deaf, person. But the two infirmities so often go together that this difference of meaning cannot be held to in validate the statement in the text, which in all other respects is absolutely exact.

2 These two passages must be regarded as parallel because in each there follows this detailed examination of the criticism that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub (Mt. 12 24-32 = Lk. 11 15-23). A second parallel to Lk. 11 14 is Mt. 9 32-34, which agrees in its details with Lk. more exactly.

(b) Two cases in which even one strongly predisposed to believe in miracles would find it difficult to accept a narrative of this kind on account of the time to which it is assigned, (a) Lk. 2344/. expressly, and Mk. 1633 Mt. 2745 also to all appearance, allege an eclipse of the sun, a celestial phenomenon which, however, is pos sible only at the period of New Moon i.e. , shortly before the ist of Nisan and cannot happen on the 1 5th or I4th of a month. To save for the narrative some relic of credibility the suggestion has even been made that it is in fact an eclipse of the moon that is re corded. But in offering this explanation it was for gotten, not only that at midday such an occurrence would not produce darkness, but also that the shadow of the earth falling upon the moon is visible only from the side of the earth that is turned away from the sun, in other words, during the night, not in the middle of the day from 12 to 3.

(b) As for the fig tree (Mk. 11 12-14 20-25 Mt. 21 18-22), it is certainly the fact that its fruits begin to form before the leaves unfold approximately about Easter- tide. But at this early stage they are still exceedingly small and quite uneatable. The first ripe figs are gathered in the end of June, most of the rest in August, and some not till so late as February. Some do not reach their development at all in the year of their formation, but only in the following spring. Fruits of this last- named class might therefore have been found by Jesus on the tree ; but they are in no sense a characteristic mark of a good tree ; the characteristic of such a tree is its young freshly-produced figs. But with figs of this last kind Jesus could not have satisfied his hunger ; the nar rative would have been possible at any time from June to February ; but, placed at Easter, it is not so ; and yet it belongs so definitely to the Easter season that it would be indeed a bold thing to say that it is true in itself but wrongly dated. The only really pertinent remark is that of Mk. (Ili3): it was not the season of figs. This is so contrary, however, to the whole of the rest of the narrative that Scholten thought himself justified in setting it down as a marginal note by a foreign hand ( 119 6). Thus, even where there is not the slightest shadow of aversion to miracles as such, there is nothing to surprise us when these two narratives are declared to be unhistorical. See FIG TREE.

(c) Taken as a whole the facts brought forward in the immediately preceding paragraphs show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the evangelists write. The conclusion is inevitable that even the one evangelist whose story in any particular case involves less of the supernatural than that of the others, is still very far from being entitled on that account to claim implicit acceptance of his narrative. Just in the same degree in which those who came after him have gone beyond him, it is easily conceivable that he himself may have gone beyond those who went before him.

138. The Resurrection of Jesus.[edit]

With reference to the resurrection of Jesus

(a) the most credible statement in the Synoptics is that of Mt. (and Mk. ) that the first appearances were in Galilee. The appearance in Jerusalem to the two women ( Mt. 28 gf. ) is almost universally given up not only because of the silence of all the other accounts, but also because in it Jesus only repeats the direction which the women had already received through the angel. If the disciples had seen Jesus in Jerusalem as Lk. states, it would be absolutely incomprehensible how Mk. and Mt. came to require them to repair to Galilee before they could receive a manifestation of Jesus. The con verse on the other hand is very easy to understand ; Lk. found it inconceivable that the disciples who, according to him, were still in Jerusalem, should have been unable to see Jesus until they went to Galilee. In actual fact the disciples had already dispersed at Gethsemane (Mk. 14so Mt. 2656); this Lk. very signi ficantly omits. Even Peter, after he had perceived, when he denied his Master, the dangers he incurred, will hardly have exposed himself to these, gratuitously, any longer. At the cross only women, not disciples, were present. Whither these last had betaken them selves we are not told. But it is not difficult to con jecture that they had gone to their native Galilee. The angelic command, therefore, that they should make this their rendezvous, may reasonably be taken as a veiled indication that they had already gone thither. The presupposition made both by Mk. and by Mt. that they were still in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection is accordingly erroneous. It was this error of theirs that led Lk. to his still more erroneous inversion of the actual state of the facts.

(b) The second element in the synoptics that may be accepted with confidence is the statement that it was Peter who received the first manifestation of his risen master. All the more surprising is it that it is only Lk. who tells us so, and that only in passing (2434). It is the chief point in the statement of Paul, i Cor. 15i-n. This passage must be regarded as the earliest account of the appearances of the risen Jesus ; unquestionably it goes back to the communications made by Peter during the fifteen days visit of Paul, three years after the conversion of the latter (Gal. 1 18).

(c) Not only is it a mark of inadequacy in the gospels that they have nothing to say about the greater number of the manifestations here recorded ; it also becomes necessary to withhold belief from what they actually do relate in addition. Paul would certainly not have left it out had he known it ; the duty of bringing forward all the available evidence in support of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus as against the Corinthian doubters was of the most stringent kind.

(d) Thus, on the one hand, the statements that Jesus was touched, and that he ate ( Lk. 24 39-43), are seen to be incredible. But these are precisely the statements which make it possible to understand why the evangelists should pass over the mere appearing of Jesus (&&lt;f>0-r)} to which the statements of Paul are confined, inasmuch as they believed they could offer proofs of a more palpable character.

In criticism it was a great error to believe that by the expres sion was seen (OJ^STJ) Paul was characterizing the appearances as unreal. It is indeed true that in the NT this expression with one exception (Acts 726) is applied to visions ; but, unless he be a thoroughly modern person well versed in philosophy and science, the visionary is under a psychological necessity to regard as real the things which he sees in vision even though he distinguishes between them and the objects of ordinary sight. The only thins: that would prevent him from doing so would be if the vision offered that which according to his ideas was utterly impossible. But in the case before us this is far from being so. In the NT the resurrection of a man e.g., of the Baptist or of Elijah is supposed to be thoroughly possible (Mk. 614-16 = Mt. 14 2 = Lk.9 7 / Mk.9n Mt. 17 10 11 14).

What the expression was seen (&&lt;pdr)) proves is, accordingly, rather this that in no description of any appearances of the risen Lord did Paul perceive any thing by which they were distinguished from his own, re ceived at Damascus. With reference to this he uses the same expression ; he therefore characterizes it as a vision (diTTaffia), and, as he still distinguishes from this the revelation (aTroKaXinj/is) in 2 Cor. 12 1, we shall have to take the word literally and interpret it as denoting seeing, not hearing.

(e) The statements as to the empty sepulchre are to be rejected ; Paul is silent regarding them, and his silence is very strongly reinforced by Mk. 168 which says the women told no one anything of what they had seen. This failure to carry out the angel s bidding is quite unthinkable, and one readily understands why Mt. and Lk. should say the opposite, though this is probably the most violent change they have anywhere made on their exemplar. (The word fear, </>6/3os, in Mt. 283 shows that he had before him the were afraid, <f>o- POVVTO, of Mk. ) The statement of Mk. is intelligible only if we take him to mean that the whole statement as to the empty sepulchre is now being promulgated for the first time by the publication of his gospel. He cannot intend to say that the women held their peace for a short time only, for the general belief is that Jesus appeared very soon after his resurrection, and every delay on the part of the women would have put back the time at which the disciples could arrive in Galilee and behold the promised appearing of the Lord. If Mk. is understood in the sense we have indicated, then in him we have a virtual admission, veiled indeed, yet clear, that all statements as to the empty sepulchre were innovations of a later time.

(f) Nor, as against this, will it avail to urge the inherent likelihood that the sepulchre must without fail have been visited.

Here the assumption is that forthwith on the resurrection day the tidings of the empty sepulchre became known in Jerusalem. But this supposition has been shown to be groundless.. Yet even had the tidings been brought forthwith to the Christians in Jerusalem, and even if they had thereupon at once visited the sepulchre, their evidence would not have proved more than did that of the women. Only an examination by opponents could have claimed greater weight. But it is hardly likely that the tidings reached their ears forthwith. Yet, even had this happened and the sepulchre been found empty, the fact would have been capable of being explained by them as due to a removal of the body. The (unhistorical) statement of Mt. as to setting a watch over the sepulchre ( 108) had in fact just this very purpose in view to exclude the possibility of any such removal. But after the visit of the women the watch was not continued even in Mt. Further it has to be borne in mind that according to Jewish belief a body did not remain recognisable for more than three days (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 20 a). Had a body, therefore, really been found, it would no longer have been possible to identify it as the body of Jesus.

This comes yet more strongly into view if we picture to ourselves the order of events in the way in which, in all probability, they actually happened. The first belief in the resurrection of Jesus arose through the appearances in Galilee on the third day after his death, or later. The disciples believed in them and therefore felt them selves under no necessity to assure themselves by ex amination of the sepulchre. Even if the tidings of the Galilaean appearances had been brought to Jerusalem forthwith, not even so would they have given occasion for such an examination. It was unnecessary : the followers of Jesus believed them without further evi dence ; his enemies laughed them to scorn. One knew that the emptiness of the sepulchre after so long a time could prove anything just as little as could the production of a no longer identifiable body. It is unnecessary to enter more fully into the almost incred ible variations in the accounts of what happened at the sepulchre, after what has already been said (see, for enumeration, 27).

(g) The conclusion of Mk. (169-20) is admittedly not genuine (see W. and H., Appendix, and above, 4, n. 2). Still less can the shorter conclusion printed by W. and H. lay claim to genuineness. Should it be found that the longer, in accordance with an Armenian superscription found by Conybeare (Expos., 93 b, pp. 241-254), was written by the presbyter Aristion the name in the inscrip tion is Ariston, then a very unfavourable light would be shed upon this disciple of the Lord, as Papias calls him. Almost the entire section is a compilation, partly even from the fourth gospel and Acts. At the same time the words for they were afraid (etyofiovvTO yap, 168) cannot have been the close intended by the author, especially seeing that appearances in Galilee are an nounced (167). The suggestion that the author was interrupted as he was finishing is a mere makeshift. It cannot be urged in support of it that in Mt. and Lk. no traces of the conjectured genuine conclusion of Mk. are to be found. We could not be sure whether at least Mt. has not drawn from it, especi ally as he coincides entirely with Mk. 166/1 But deliberate divergence from the (supposed) conclu sion of Mk. would also be very intelligible, for Mt. and Lk. have already, as against Mk. 168, said the opposite of what lay before them in their exemplar. The fact that the last leaf of a book is always the most liable to get lost can suffice to explain how the close of Mk. should have disappeared without leaving any trace. Yet a deliberate removal of it is also conceivable, if it did not answer the demands which had already come to be set up in the time of Mt. and Lk. Nothing can be conjectured with any certainty, except that it described an appearance of Jesus to the disciples. The fact that Peter is also individually named in 16? may perhaps be held to indicate that the conclusion con tained also an appearance to Peter alone.

139. Absolutely credible passages.[edit]

The foregoing sections may have sometimes seemed to raise a doubt whether any credible elements were to be found in the gospels at all ; all the more emphatically therefore must stress be laid on the existence of passages of the kind indicated in 131. Reference has already been made to Mk. 10:17-18 ( Why callest thou me good? none is good save God only ), as also to Mt. 12 31 f. ( that blasphemy against the son of man can be forgiven ) , and to Mk. 821 (that his relations held him to be beside himself; cp 116^ d). To these, two others may now be added: Mk. 1832 ( of that day and of that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son but the Father ; the words neither the Son (ovSe o vibs) are absent from Mt. in many MSS and the whole verse from Lk. ; cp 130 e); and Mk. 15 34 Mt. 2746 ( My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? an utterance which Lk. has wholly omitted).

These five passages, along with the four which will be spoken of in 140, might be called the foundation- pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus. Should the idea suggest itself that they have been sought out with partial intent, as proofs of the human as against the divine character of Jesus, the fact at all events cannot be set aside that they exist in the Bible and demand our attention. In reality, however, they prove not only that in the person of Jesus we have to do with a com pletely human being, and that the divine is to be sought in him only in the form in which it is capable of being found in a man ; they also prove that he really did exist, and that the gospels contain at least some absolutely trustworthy facts concerning him. If passages of this kind were wholly wanting in them it would be impos sible to prove to a sceptic that any historical value whatever was to be assigned to the gospels ; he would be in a position to declare the picture of Jesus contained in them to be purely a work of phantasy, and could remove the person of Jesus from the field of history, all the more when the meagreness of the historical testimony regarding him, whether in canonical writings outside of the gospels, or in profane writers such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, is considered.

1 Lk. also as well as Mk. has his share in the weakening of this sentence, the verse he gives immediately before it being 12 9), he that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God.


140. On the miracles of Jesus.[edit]

(a) According to Mk. 812 Jesus emphatically declined to work a sign (crrjfj.etop) before the eyes of his contemporaries: 'there shall no sign be given unto this generation'. In Mt. 12:39 16:4 and Lk. 11:29 this saying is given in the enlarged form, 'there shall no sign be given to this generation but the sign of Jonah' (the prophet). Unless here the meaning intended be the exact contrary of what is said in Mk. , the sign of Jonah cannot be really a sign, but rather the opposite of one.

To illustrate how, notwithstanding, it was possible for Jesus to express himself so, let us put an imaginary parallel case. A conqueror, without receiving any provocation, invades a country. Its inhabitants send an embassy to ask of him what justification he can show for his aggression. He gives the answer : You ask me what I can allege in justification ? I shall give you no other justification than that which my sword gives. The situation in the gospel is quite similar.

The one thing which Jesus has hitherto done, and, if he refuses to work signs ((nj/xetet), the one thing which he can continue to do, is to preach. The main activity of Jonah also in like manner consisted in preaching. By the sign of Jonah accordingly is meant the opposite of a sign viz. , preaching like that of Jonah. This is shown also by the immediate sequel : the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. Next follows the example of the Queen of Sheba who came to hear the preaching of Solomon (Mt. 12:41-42 =Lk. 11:31-32).

It is only in Mt. (12:40) that this good connection is broken by the interpretation that the sign of Jonah means his three days sojourn in the belly of the whale, and that by this is signified the three days sojourn of Jesus in the heart of the earth. But even apart from its breaking the connection, this verse, which rests only on misunderstanding of the ambiguous utterance in Lk. 11 30, is quite unsuitable ; for a sign of course makes its impression only when it can be seen. The people of Nineveh could not observe the emergence of Jonah from the place of his sojourn, nor indeed is it even stated that he told them of it ; all that is said is that he preached to them.

(d) According to Mk. 65 f. Jesus was able to do no mighty work (save healing a few sick folk) in Nazareth and marvelled at the unbelief of its people. This then is the reason why he was unable. Mt. 13 58 is a manifest weakening of this : he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

(c) In Mk. 814-21 the disciples, in the crossing of the Lake, which has been touched on in 135, are re presented as having forgotten to take bread with them. Jesus says : Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod (in Mt. 166 : of the Pharisees and Sadducees ). This exhortation the disciples take as a reproach on them for their forgetful ness. But Jesus rebukes them for their little understanding, and reminds them of the feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000. The conclusion is given fully only by Mt. (16 Tif.), but unquestionably in the sense of Mk., How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread ? . . . then understood they how that he bade them beware of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Both evangelists have previously related the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 as facts. If Jesus reminds them of this, the consequence must of course be that they should think of material loaves as being what they are to beware of. In reality, however, the deduction is quite the opposite. This is possible only on one assumption if the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 was not a historical occurrence, but a parable having this as its point that the bread with which one man in the wilderness was able to feed a vast multitude signifies the teaching with which he satisfied their souls. On this view the closing statement of the narrative first finds its full explanation ; more bread remains over than was present at the beginning ; truth is not con sumed when it is communicated to others, but only serves to awaken in them ever new thoughts and an ever-growing power to satisfy in their turn the spiritual hunger of others. It is exceedingly surprising, yet at the same time evidence of a reproduction of earlier materials, that Mk. and Mt. should give the present narrative at all a narrative which in their understand ing of the miracle of the feeding is so meaningless.

Mt. has made some attempt, albeit a somewhat feeble one, to bring the two narratives into harmony. With him Jesus (16 8) re proaches the disciples for their little faith. Similarly Mk. at an earlier place (652), the wording of which recalls that of the present passage, alludes to the miracle of the loaves and implies that the disciples ought to have learned from it implicit faith in the supernatural power of Jesus even in the storm. All the more important is it to notice that in the passage of Mk. now before us (S 14-21) Jesus blames them, in the only fitting (and therefore the only original) way, for their little understanding; and Mt. by taking up this reproach in 10 9 n shows that the other, that of unbelief, is not the original one.

(d) In Mt. lls Lk. 7 22 Jesus sends an answer to the Baptist that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. As has been shown above ( 137 a), both evangelists have seen to it that all the miracles mentioned have taken place, either at an earlier date, or before the eyes of the Baptist's messengers. All the more remarkable there fore is it that the list should close with what is not a miracle at all. It would be impossible to counteract the preceding enumeration more effectually than by the simple insertion of this final clause. The evangelists therefore cannot have added it of their own proper motion. Neither could Jesus have neutralised the force of his own words if we assume miracles to be intended in such an extraordinary way. On the other hand the clause in question fits admirably, if Jesus was speaking not of the physically but of the spiritually blind, lame, leprous, deaf, dead. This is the meaning, too, which these words actually have in the OT passages, Is. 35s/. 61 1, which lie at the root of this, and it also fits very well the continuation in Mt. 116 Lk. 723, which reads, Blessed is he who is not offended in me (i.e., in my unpretentious simplicity). Here, therefore, we have a case, as remarkable as it is assured, in which a saying of Jesus, though completely misunderstood, has been in its essence at least incorporated with verbal accuracy in the gospels.

141. Inference as to 'signs'.[edit]

Jesus, then, declined to work signs ((TTj/ueta), and that, too, on principle. Mk. 812 (and parallels) is not a saying of a kind that he could have uttered one day and broken the next ; moreover he expressly says that no sign should be given to this [whole] generation, because as a whole it was wicked and rebellious against God. Now, the word semeion does not denote any kind of wonder, but only a wonder of the kind which serves the end of showing the power of him who works it as, in the present case, the Messiahship of Jesus. But, so far as the reported miracles of Jesus have this end, they are, if this saying of his is to be accepted, no longer to be taken to be credible ; either they never happened at all or (at least), if historical, they were not miraculous.

This applies very conspicuously to the withering of the fig-tree. Apart from the motive mentioned in 137 b, ft, this particular miracle is rejected by many theologians on the ground that such a deed, having no manifest saving purpose, appears to them un worthy of his character. The same principle will apply also at least to the stilling of the storm and the walking upon the water, and likewise to the stater in the fish s mouth, even though, strangely enough, it is not expressly said anywhere that this miracle was actually carried out.

1 On the earliest text see 123 a, n.

142. Origin of miraculous narratives in figurative speech.[edit]

(a) As for the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000, so also for the withering of the fig-tree, we still possess a clue to the way in which the narrative arose out of a parable. The narrative in question is not found in Lk. , and this is, doubtless correctly, explained from the supposition that Lk. considered his parable (136- 9 ) of the fig-tree - or rather the unspoken sequel to the parable, that the tree had at last to be cut down after all - as identical with the narrative. By the fig-tree, in this view, was meant the nation of Israel, and that which we have seen to be impossible if the story is taken as a relation of actual fact ( 137 b, /3) becomes very effective as soon as the symbolical interpretation is adopted. At the close of his ministry, at his last passover festival, Jesus utters his curse upon the nation that has borne no fruit. Figu rative forms of expression, which could give rise to the story of the feeding, are also to be found in Mt. 56: blessed are they that hunger, 1 for they shall be filled, and the verse which in Mk. (634) stands before the miraculous narrative, to the effect that Jesus taught the multitude, embodies in reality the substance of that narrative.

For Peter's draught of fishes, cp Mk. 1:17 and Mt. 18:47-50. It is not difficult to conjecture expressions made use- of by Jesus out of which the narrative of the walking on the water and the stilling of the tempest could be framed, somewhat after the analogy of Mk. 11 22-24 and Lk. 176 : if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, then shall ye be able to command the storm and it will obey, and ye shall be able to walk unharmed upon the troubled sea (of life). Indeed even the words which actually stand in the passages last cited might have given occasion to the formation of miraculous narratives. If ye shall say in faith to this mountain, Be thou cast into the sea, or to the sycomore tree, Be thou transplanted into the sea, so shall it be done. But literalism of this sort even in those days had its limits.

(b) The same explanation is capable of being applied also where deeds or words attributed to Jesus himself are not concerned. It is very easily conceivable that a preacher on the death of Jesus may have said, purely figuratively, that then was the veil of the temple rent in twain (Mk. 1538 = Mt.27si = Lk. 2845). What he meant to say was that by the death of Jesus the ancient separation between God and his people was done away. By a misunderstanding, this saying could easily be taken up as statement of a literal physical fact. So also, if another preacher said, using figurative language, that at the death of Jesus the graves had opened (Mt. 27 52), or that darkness (of sorrow) had spread over all the earth (Mk. 1533 = Mt. 2?45 = Lk. 2844). Cpalso 26, n.

143. Influence of OT passages.[edit]

(a) In the present connection we need not do more than allude very briefly to what by Strauss was regarded as almost the onl source of origin for such miraculous narratives as had no real foundation in fact - namely, passages of the OT. These may very well have con tributed to the shaping of such narratives, even though we do not assume that they originated them. For the raisings of the dead cp i K. 1717-24 2 K. 417-37; for the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, cp Ex. 16 1-18 Nu. 114-9 2 K. 442-44 ; for the walking upon the water Ps. 77 20 [19] Is. 43 16 Job 9 8 ; for the stilling of the storm, Ps. 107 23-32 ; for the healing of the withered hand i K. 136 ; for the healing of the dumb man, Wisd. 102i.

(b) Apart from the miracles, there is one OT passage which has very clearly influenced the form of the gospel narrative in Mt. 21:7. It is impossible to deny Mt.'s representation here to be that Jesus rode into Jerusalem upon two asses. Even if one chooses to interpret the words as meaning that he sat upon the garments and not upon the animals the sense is sub stantially the same, for the garments were laid upon the asses. The misunderstanding rests only upon a too literal interpretation of the prophecy in Zech. 9 9, which is not shared by Mk. and Lk. So also the number thirty (unmentioned in Mk. 14 n Lk. 22s) given to the sum received by Judas, as also the casting away of the money into the temple (Mt. 26 15 27s), would seem to come not from tradition but from the passage in Zechariah (11 12 f.) expressly cited in Mt. 27 9 f. Upon Bethlehem, as the birthplace of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the massacre of the innocents, see MARY [MOTHER OF JESUS] and NATIVITY.

144. Miracles of healing.[edit]

According to Mk. 65^ (see 140 b) we are to understand that Jesus healed where he found faith. This power is strongly attested throughout the first and second centuries that, in view of the spiritual greatness of Jesus and the imposing character of his personality, it would be indeed difficult to deny it to him. Even the Pharisees do not deny his miracles of healing, though they trace them to a compact with Beelzebub (Mk. 822 Mt. 934 1224 Lk. 11 15). According to Mt. 1227 = Lk. 11 19 the disciples of the Pharisees also wrought such miracles ; the man who followed not with the disciples of Jesus cast out devils (Mk. 938-4o=Lk. 949/ ) ; the same is said of those whom in Mt. Inf. Jesus rejects in his final judgment. Paul asserts that a like power was possessed by himself (2 Cor. 12 12 Rom. 15 19), and by other Christians (i Cor. 128-n 28) ; Justin mentions castings-out of devils (Apol. 26 Dial. 30, 35, 39, 76, 85) ; so also Tertullian (Apol. 23), Irenseus (231/1 Eus. HE 67), and Quadratus (Eus. HE\\. 32). 1

That Jesus demanded faith is frequently stated (Mk. 923_/". Mt. 928), as also that he was approached with faith (Mk. 2s = Mt. 92 = Lk. 620; Mt. 810 = Lk. 7 9 ; Mt. 15z// = Mk. 7a8 /. ; see 109 d), and that he prayed.

Many of the accounts contain particulars that could hardly have been introduced at will merely for effect. Thus in Mk. 5 7-10 the devil does not leave the demoniac of Gerasa at the first adjuration ; Jesus must first, just like a modern alienist, enter with the man into a conversation in which he elicits from him what his hallucinations are. In Mk. 5)14-29 all the symptoms shown by the boy, except the falling into the fire, can be paralleled from the descriptions of epilepsy in ancient medical writers (Krenkel, Beitr. zur Attflielhmg derGesch. u. d. Briefs d. Paulus, go, pp. 50-63).

Of course we must endeavour to ascertain how many, and still more what sorts of cures were effected by Jesus. It is quite permissible for us to regard as historical only those of the class which even at the present day physicians are able to effect by psychical methods, as, more especially, cures of mental maladies. It is highly significant that, in a discourse of Peter (Acts 10 38), the whole activity of Jesus is summed up in this that he went about doing good and healing all those that were oppressed of the devil. By this expression only demoniacs are intended. Cp also Lk. 1832. It is not at all difficult to understand how the contemporaries of Jesus, after seeing some wonderful deed or deeds wrought by him which they regarded as miracles, should have credited him with every other kind of miraculous power without distinguishing, as the modern mind does, between those maladies which are amenable to psychical influences and those which are not. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the cure may often have been only temporary. If there was a relapse, people did not infer any deficiency in the miraculous efficacy of the healer ; they accounted for it simply by the return of the demon who had been cast out. On this point Mt. 1243-45 is very characteristic. Perhaps also Lk. 82 may be cited in this connection, if the seven devils were cast out of Mary Magdalene not simul taneously but on separate occasions.

Most obscure of all are the two accounts, found only in Mk. (732-35 822-26), according to which Jesus made use of saliva to effect a cure. Precisely in these two cases it is extraordinarily difficult to believe in a cure whether by this or by psychical methods.

1 As for Josephus, cp BJ\\. 86 vii. 6 3, Ant. iii. 11 3 viii. 2 5 and c. Ap. 1 31 ; for Pliny, JVffSQ 2 ; for Lucian, Philops. 16 f. According to Tacitus (Hist. 4 81), Vespasian effected several wonderful cures (cp above, col. 1456).

145. Conclusion as to discourses of Jesus.[edit]

(a) Even if the public ministry of Jesus had lasted for a few months only, he must have uttered a thousandfold more than all that has been recorded in the gospels. His longest discourse would, if delivered in the form in which it has come down to us, not have taken more than some five minutes in the delivery. However self-evident, this has been constantly overlooked by the critics. They are constantly assuming that we possess the several words of Jesus that have been reported approximately in the same fulness with which they were spoken. For the parables perhaps (apart, of course, from the manipulations pointed out above, in 109 b, 112 b, 128 c d] this may be to a certain extent true. Of other utterances, we have traced in Mt. lls=Lk. 722 and Mk. 8 14-21 = Mt. 165-12 ( 140 c d) one or two which must have been preserved almost verbatim. In what remains, however, it can hardly be sufficiently emphasised th at we possess only an excessively meagre precis of what Jesus said, namely, only so much as not only made an immediate impression when first heard, but also continued to survive the ordeal of frequent repetition (for much of it possessed too little interest for those who had not been actual ear- witnesses). In this process not only was an extra ordinary number of utterances completely lost ; but a large number of the sayings of Jesus now received for the first time that consecutive and pointed form which made them seem worthy of further repetition. Without doubt Jesus must very often have repeated himself ; but what he assuredly often repeated in many variations has been preserved to ns only in a single form. One may perhaps venture to compare the process with that of a photographer who prints from many negatives of the same individual on the same paper. There is pro duced in this way an average likeness which when viewed from some distance seems satisfactory enough, but when it is more closely viewed the vagueness of its contours is at once discovered.

(b) The context in which we now find the sayings of Jesus must never (from what has been said in 134) be taken as a trustworthy guide in determining what the original meaning may have been. In every case the context tells us only what the evangelists, or their pre decessors, found it to mean ; indeed in many cases it is impossible to believe that even for them the place where they introduce the saying is intended to convey any hint as to the meaning. A source like the logia laid naturally very little stress upon this point. The greater number of the utterances of Jesus are like erratic blocks. All that one sees with perfect clearness is that they do not originally belong to the place where they are now found. What their original position was is unknown. The observer has to rest satisfied if in spite of its removal to a new site the real nature and quality of the stone can be made out ; and this is happily very often the case.

On the other hand, a wholly mistaken line is taken when, for example, the attempt is made to base consequences on any such assumption as that Jesus was apt to give forth parables or say ings in pairs. The parable of the leaven which in Mt. 1831-33 and Lk. 13 18-21 immediately follows on that of the mustard-seed is still wanting in Mk. 4 30-32. In Lk. s source as well as in Mk. s the sayings about the salt and about the light were still separate (not connected as we now see them in M 1.613-16). Equally futile are discussions as to the order in which Jesus may have spoken the beatitudes. If any one were to try to repeat the beatitudes after hearing them once he would not be sure of re taining the original order. We cannot expect more of those who heard Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount not only is it needless to ask whether it was heard by the disciples alorfe or by the multitude as well ( 134) ; it is equally needless to ask whether it was intended for the one or for the other. It is a conglomer ate. Little of what is found in Mt. 5-7 recurs in Lk. 6 20-49. On Mt. 5 13-16 see 134, on 5 17-48 see 145 g. In chap. (>J. a really good connection is found only within each of the following groups: 6 1-6 with 16-18; 625-34; ^ Jm 5 I 77-n; not between these groups reciprocally, nor yet between them and the other sayings contained in these chapters. Nay, there is not the least ground for supposing, because they are three in number, that Jesus enumerated immediately in succession those things in which according to Mt. Gi-6i6-i8 hypocrisy is to be avoided, quite apart from the fact that the enumeration is disturbed and broken by w. 7-15.

(c) Words of such pre-eminent importance as the Lord s Prayer or the words of institution of the Eucharist, or the description of a scene so unforgettable as that in which the sign is given by which the betrayer is made known (Mk. 14i8-2o; Mt. 2621-23 ; Lk. 2^21) are given in a very conflicting manner. Of the words uttered on the cross, Mk. and Mt. have only one, which in turn is omitted by Lk. , who, however, gives three others. In this last case, however, one may be sure that Mk. and Mt. are in the right ( 139) ; and to the three previous ones one may safely apply the maxim that additions are more likely than omissions ; omissions would in fact be difficult to account for ( 120 c}. Mk. 1422-24 accordingly, with omission of take (Xd/3eTe), may be regarded as the relatively (not absolutely) oldest form of the words of institution of the Eucharist. (Against the deletion of Lk. 22 19^ 20 see Schmiedel in Hand-Commentar on i Cor. 1134.)

(d) While in the case of the Eucharistic words only Lk. is dependent on Paul, Mt. and still more Mk. avoid ing his novelties, Paul in i Cor. 7 iof., as against all the synoptists, exhibits the earlier form of the prohibition of divorce. This we infer from the fact that it is he who gives the strictest form of the prohibition. Subsequent relaxations in view of the difficulty, in working the severer form, are intelligible, increases of stringency are not ; especially would these be unintelligible in the case of Paul, who actually finds himself constrained (i Cor. 7 15) on his own responsibility to introduce a relaxation of the law. Even the Epistle of James, although it already omits (612) Jerusalem as an object by which one can swear ( 150), gives an older form of the precept against swearing than is found in Mt. 5 37 ; namely, Let your yea be a (simple) yea, and your nay a (simple) nay.

(e) As for the substance of the sayings of Jesus, it has already been pointed out in 109 b, in, 112 b, 136 how little credence we can attach to the historicity of the sayings attributed to Jesus about the call of the Gentiles, the baptismal formula, the later conditions of the primitive church, and the postponement of his parusia. Here it may be added that in Mk. 14 9 a say ing which certainly was originally the closing remark of a preacher on the anointing at Bethany is given as a word of Jesus. In Mt. (2663) it is still further altered by the addition : Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of. As regards a passage of such great im portance as Mk. 1045 = Mt. 2028 ( to give his life a ransom for many ), judgment can be given only in accordance with the following considerations. It can be accepted as genuine if Jesus spoke of his life as a ransom in no other sense than that in which he did so at the last supper i.e., as an offering not for sin but for the immunity of his followers, after the manner of the Passover lamb in Egypt, or for ratification of their cove nant with God as in Gen. 15 1017 Jer. 34 18 Ex. 24i-8, and if he did so at a date not too long before his death. Otherwise the doubt will have to be expressed, that the sentence comes from the Pauline theology. In any case it is noteworthy that it is absent from || Lk. 2227.

That Jesus had in view the possibility of his death some con siderable time before it came upon him is not unlikely. But the very precise predictions of it with their various details are open to the suspicion that they took shape at a later date in accordance with the facts of history, and least of all is it credible that Jesus should have put forth such a prediction directly after Peter s confession Mk. 831 Mt. 10 21 Lk. 10 22. This confession must have been one of the supreme moments in the joyous con sciousness of Jesus the discovery that he was finding recog nition as the Messiah and was winning his battle. Suffering and death are the very opposite of all that is looked for in the Jewish Messiah, and of what Jesus at that moment could have looked forward to for himself.

(f) From the eschatological discourses disappears everything specifically apocalyptic concerning the signs of his parusia, if the separation of the little Apocalypse as made in 124 b is correct. This does not, however, by any means imply the elimination of all eschatological utterances whatsoever. On the contrary, there still remain to be attributed to Jesus the words in Mt. 1627 f. 262964 (ultimately also 1023 1928/ ; see 112 a?) in which he prophesies his return with the clouds of heaven, and the like. This is in fact quite intelligible, and even necessary, if he held himself to be the Messiah ; in such a case it would have been impossible for him to believe that God would allow him and his work to go to ruin through the persecutions of his enemies. The failure of these prophecies to come to fulfilment ought in no case to lead to any attempt to make out that they were not uttered by Jesus, or to interpret them in such a sense as causes their inconsistency with the facts to disappear. As has been shown inin, 112 e, 113, the evangelists found that much trouble was required in order to tone down this inconsistency ; they had not the least occasion, therefore, to invent such predictions or to heighten them ; the prophecies must have lain before them as quite fixed elements of tradition.

Another question is whether Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple as in Mk. 13 2 Mt. 24 2 Lk. 21 6. If the little Apoca lypse (Mk. 13 14 Mt. 24 15) or Rev. 11 if. 13 is from a Christian hand the answer can hardly be affirmative, for a Christian writer could hardly have presumed the continued existence of the temple in contradiction to Jesus own prophecy. Both these pieces, however, may be Jewish ; and Jesus could have foreseen the destruction of Jerusalem even without supernatural know ledge. In no case, however, ought we to lay weight on the circumstance that he connects it with the end of the world, for this arises from the fusion of the (certainly vacillating) tradition regarding his own words with the little Apocalypse ( 124^). Therefore, also, we must refuse to entertain the conjecture that in reality he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem only, and that his alleged prediction of the end of the world rests on a misunderstanding of the disciples. According to the same mode of reasoning, he cannot have prophesied his resurrection alone without adding a prediction of his second coming from heaven ; for this, according to the general and most ancient belief, which makes no mention of an ascension also (i Cor. 15 4-12 Rum. 834 Kph. 1 20 2sf- Acts 232-35 Heb. 1 3 10 12 iL z [13 20 Rev. 1 18] i Pet. 3 19 22 Eph. 4<)f.), carried him direct to heaven ; but there was quite as general a belief that as Messiah his work of setting up the kingdom of God upon earth required his presence here.

Of all these predictions it is possible to deny that they were uttered by him only if it be at the same time denied that he held himself to be the Messiah. But in that case it will be impossible to explain how the disciples, who had been thrown into the utmost depths of despond ency by his death, nevertheless came to be able to believe in his resurrection. Those theologians who go so far as to remove all the utterances of Jesus to the effect that he was the Messiah, hardly continue to hold that the belief in his resurrection rests on anything more real than the visions of the disciples which arose out of their sub jective mental condition. All psychology, however, affirms that visions arise only when that which is seen in the concrete has previously taken firm and living hold on the soul of the visionary. The belief is therefore inevitable that the disciples had already, in the lifetime of Jesus, held him to be the Messiah. They could not, however, have done so without acquainting him with this belief of theirs ; and if he had denied it, it is im possible to understand how their respect for his authentic declaration should have permitted them to go on believ ing the opposite. As regards the date of his second coining, the statements in Mt. 1628 (that it would be before the then living generation had passed away) and in 2664 (that it would be immediately, air &pri) have a like claim to probability. Whatever he may have said as to this, it is most certain that he also declared that none knoweth of that day or of that hour (Mk. 13 32 Mt.24 3 6).

(g) It would be quite out of place to look in the gospels for direct statements as to any development in Jesus during the period of his public activity. The latest date at which reverence for him would have allowed a conception of anything of the kind to be assigned is that of his temptation (Mt. 4i-n Lk. 4 1-13) before his ministry began. It could only be from unconscious touches of theirs that we could be led to conjecture any develop ment later than this. Yet such a conjecture we may venture to make, for example, as regards Jesus freedom of attitude towards the Mosaic law. What he says in Mt. 621 f. about murder, or in 5 27 f. about adultery, may be easy enough to reconcile with his declaration that he is not come to destroy the law (617); but the case is otherwise with the sayings immediately following, upon divorce (5si/. 19 1-9), upon swearing (633-37), upon retaliation (538-42), upon love of one s enemy (543-48), as also upon the laws about foods (Mk. 7i-23 = Mt. 15 1-20), and about the Sabbath (Mk. 223-86 and parallels). If the first-mentioned conservative saying (5 17) is to be held genuine, we must assign it to the first period of the public activity of Jesus. It is in fact quite credible that Jesus, who unquestionably was a pious Jew, at first saw in the Mosaic law the unalterable will of his Father, and regarded the errors of the Pharisees as consisting only in a too external apprehension of it. But it is equally intelligible that in the course of his controversy with them he should have become convinced how many precepts the law in point of fact embodied which were antagonistic to the spirit of religion as it had revealed itself to him. It was one of his greatest achievements that he sacrificed the letter of the law to this and not this to the letter of the law ; but we may be sure that it cost him many a hard struggle.

(h) Another point in regard to which we may venture to conjecture some development in Jesus during his public life is his Messiahship. As late as on the occasion of Peter s confession we find him commanding his dis ciples to keep this a secret (Mk. 830 Mt. 1620 Lk. 9 21). With this it agrees that in Mk. , before this date, he applies the designation Son of Man to himself only twice 1 (2 10 28). In Mt., on the contrary, he does so very often, and, besides, the significance of Peter s con fession is completely destroyed by 14 33, where already all the apostles have been made to declare him to be the Son of God. In Mt. , accordingly, this trace of develop ment in Jesus thinking is obliterated.

(i) It is when the purely religious-ethical utterances of Jesus come under consideration that we are most advantageously placed. Here especially applies the maxim laid down in 131 (end) that we may accept as credible everything that harmonises with the idea of Jesus which has been derived from what we have called the foundation pillars ( i39/. ) and is not otherwise open to fatal objection. Even though such utterances may have been liable to Ebionitic heightening, and already, as showing traces of this, cannot lay claim to literal accuracy even though they may have been unconsciously modified into accord with conditions of the Christian community that arose only at a later date even though they may have undergone some distortion of their meaning through transference to a connection that does not belong to them the spirit which speaks in them is quite unmistakable. Here we have a wide field of the wholly credible in which to expatiate, and it would be of unmixed advantage for theology were it to concentrate its strength upon the examination of these sayings, and not attach so much importance to the minute investigation of the other less important details of the gospel history.

IV. AUTHORS AND DATES OF THE GOSPELS AND THEIR MOST IMPORTANT SOURCES.[edit]

146. Title of the gospels.[edit]

Evangelion means originally (and still continues to do so in 2 S. 4 10) the reward given for a piece of good news. In late classical Greek the good news itself, for which the Lxx has the fem (etayye\ia) in 2 S. 18:20-27. For religious tidings we have the verb (evayye\ieffdai) in Is. 61 1, cited in Lk. 4 18. The NT has the substantive also in this sense. It was a serious error on Origen s part when (ap. Eus. HEvl.Idd] he took the Gospel of Lk. to be meant where Paul speaks of my Gospel ( Rom. 2 16 2 Tim. 28). In the Didacht r !5 4 also, evangelion still signifies the substance of the gospel history without reference to the book in which it was written ; so too in 82, the Lord says in his gospel ; so too in Irenasus when he describes the gospel as fourfold (iii. lln[8]) ; so too even in the Muratorian fragment (I. 2 : evangelii libei"). But here we already find also (1. 17) evangel- orum libri ; similarly Justin ( 76) speaks of the memorabilia of the apostles which are called gospels, and Claudius Apollinaris says in the Chron. Pasch. ffraffidfeiv SoKei TO. fvayy&ia (cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 42, 54), the gospels seem to contradict one another. Thus it was not till the middle of the second century that the word came to signify a book, and, even after that, till the end of the second century, it continued to bear its original meaning as well. The titles Gospel according to Matthew," to Mark, etc., accordingly do not, linguistically considered, mean the written Gospel of Matthew, etc. ; still less, however, written Gospel based on communications by Matthew, as if the very titles conveyed that Matthew, Mark, and the others were not the authors, but only the guarantors for the contents of the books. The inscription means simply Gospel history in the form in which Matthew put it into writing. In Mk. 1 1 the expression the Gospel of Jesus Christ seems already to designate a book; but at the same time it teaches us that the writer of these words cannot have set down as title to the whole book the words Gospel according to Mark (evayyeXiov Kara Map/cop). Thus also in Mt. and Lk. etc. the titles (efla-y- yfXiov Kara M. , Kara A. ) do not come from the authors. In fact the writings bore no superscription at all. * Every one who possessed any book of this sort will have called it the gospel (rb evayy^Xiov) , just as in the case of Marcion the gospel of Lk. which he caused to be used in his congregations was called simply gospel (evayye^iov). The additions with according to (/card) became neces sary at a later date when people began to possess several such books either separately or bound together in one volume. If, therefore, it should prove not to be the case that our gospels were severally written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the statements that they were do not arise from falsification on the part of the actual authors, but only from error on the part of the church fathers, such as Papias or the person upon whom he relied.

1 We firmly hold that by this name he means to designate himself as the Messiah and that too even in Mk. 2 10 28, although these are the two places in which there is most justification for the attempt to make it mean man in general. Cp 130*; also SON OF MAN.

147. Statements of the church fathers.[edit]

Besides the statements of Papias (65), at most those only of the church fathers of the close of the second and third century referred to in 75-82 can come into consideration here - How small however, is the confidence that can be placed in the authors of these will at once be evident when it is remembered that Irenasus (and similarly Tertullian, adv. Marc. 4 2) declares Luke to have com mitted to writing the Gospel preached by Paul. The details of the life of Jesus had so little interest for Paul that, for example, in 2 Cor. 89 in order to induce the Corinthians to contribute liberally to the collection for the poor in Palestine he is able to adduce no other feature in Jesus as a pattern than the fact of his having become man. As his explicit declarations in 2 Cor. 5i6 i Cor. 1 23 Gal. 3 1 tell us, he preached extremely little to his congregations about the earthly life of Jesus. The whole attribution to Paul of the gospel of Lk. , which, according to Origen, the apostle even refers to in Rom. 2i6 as my Gospel ( 146), is only an expedient which the church fathers adopted to enable them to assign a quasi-apostolic origin to the work of one who was not himself an apostle.

For this reason suspicion attaches also to the state ment that the gospel of Mk* rested upon communica tions of Peter ( 148), especially as it is accompanied with an elaborate apology for Mark s undertaking.

The statements of the church fathers, moreover, are not in the least consistent among themselves. Accord ing to Irenaeus, Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome thus somewhere in the sixties, while according to a tradition in Eusebius (HE iii. 246) he wrote it before his departure from Palestine into foreign parts, that is to say, much earlier. Again, according to Irenaeus, Mark wrote after the death of Peter and Paul, while according to Clement of Alexandria, Peter lived to see the completion of Mark s gospel. Nay, more, the two statements as to Peter s attitude to this gospel which Eusebius (HE ii. 152 and vi. 14 6f. ) takes from Clement ( 80) are in conflict with each other, quite apart from the question whether Clement did not also regard the Gospels that had genealogies as older than those which had not. In short, all that can be said to be certain is this, that it is vain to look to the church fathers for trustworthy in formation on the subject of the origin of the gospels.

1 Bi/3Aos yevea-cias in Mt. 1 i could, at a subsequent date, be regarded as such after the analogy of Gen. 24; after that of Gen. 5 i it originally referred only to the genealogy of Jesus, Mt. 11-17.

148. Author of Mk.[edit]

According to Papias (see 65), and also his authority, the second gospel was written by MARK (q.v. ). Mark is known to us from Acts 12 12 13s- f Mk There is also an inclination to identify Of Mk. ki m w ith the young man who left his garment in the hands of his pursuers in the garden of Gethsemane (Mk. 14 si/. ). This conjecture, how ever, has no value, of course, in the way of proof either that the young man was Mark, or that he was the author of the second gospel ; he need only be one of the chief vouchers for its contents. In what Papias says the important point is not so much the statement that Mark wrote the gospel as the further statement that Peter supplied its contents orally. If the student interprets the narratives of the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand, of the stilling of the storm, of the walking upon the water, of the withering of the fig-tree, and so forth, in the manner that has been indicated in preceding sections of this article ( 137, 140-143), then the supposition that the gospel is essentially a re petition of oral communications by Peter, will at once fall to the ground. But even apart from this, the compass of the entire work is far too short.

It is hardly felicitous to say in reply to this that Mk. repeats so few of the words of Jesus because he was aware that the others were already known through the logia ( i?5g). Why, in that case, then, does he fill some seven of his sixteen chapters with these? As for what Mk. tells us about Peter personally, it certainly is true that the statements concerning him in which Mt. is richer than Mk. (his walking upon the water, _ 1428-33 ; the promise given him, 16 17-19 ; the stater in the fish s mouth, 1724-27) can make no claim to historicity. But the statements in which, e.g., Wernle (p. 197) recognises the leading position of Peter (he finds it necessary to add also and of the sons of Zebedee ), are found with trifling exceptions in Mt. and Lk. also. Only Mk. 1 36 13 3 16 7 are wanting in both the others ; Mk. 3i6 637 is wanting also in Mt. only, and Mk. 1433 37 in Lk. only. Peter s leading position in the gospel, in any case corresponds to the actuality. But precisely for this reason the statements regarding it are all the less conclusively shown to be derived from Peter personally.

Whether it was original Mk. that arose in the manner described by Papias will be differently judged according to the various opinions that are held regarding that writing. No answer to a question of this sort, however, can be of any real service to gospel criticism, for we no longer possess original Mk. Should Mark have written in Aramaic then he cannot be held to have been the author of canonical Mk. , which is certainly not a translation (see 130^), nor yet, in view of the LXX quotations which have passed over into all three gospels, can he be held to have been the author of original Mk. , but only to have been the author of the source from which the last-named writer drew.

149. Author of Mt. and the logia.[edit]

The employment of various sources (amongst others, of Mk. , or original Mk. ), the characteristic difference of the quotations from the LXX and the original (130a), the indefiniteness of the determinations of time and place ( 132, 135), the incredibilities of the contents ( 108, 137), the introduction of later conditions ( 136), as also the artificial arrangement ( 1330), and so forth, have long since led to the conclusion that for the authorship of the First Gospel the apostle Matthew must be given up.

All the more strenuously is the effort made to preserve for Matthew the authorship of the logia. From the contents it is clear that one must assign to the logia many things which no ear-witness can have heard from the mouth of Jesus. This is the case even if only discourses (for examples, see 136 and also 150) are sought in the logia, or if it is assumed that the legalistic and Jewish -particularistic passages were first introduced in the course of a revision ( 1291?). If one derives most of the narratives also from the logia, the considerations against their apostolic origin already adduced in 148 became still more cogent. That the apostle Matthew should have been the author of a still older writing is not excluded. On this supposition the statement of Papias that he wrote in Aramaic becomes also possible, which cannot be said of the logia according to 1300. But there remains this difficulty, that according to the prologue of Lk. no eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus took pen in hand none at least appear to have produced any writing which Lk. would have called a narrative (dLTiytjffis) ( 153, n. 2).

150. Date of logia.[edit]

In Mt. 521 f. the Jewish judicial procedure is still presupposed; in 523/. the sacrificial system ; and in 5 35 Jerusalem is referred to as still a city while in Jas. 5:12 the swearing by Jerusalem is significantly omitted ; it was certainly no longer in existence then. While it is not practicable to prove by means of these passages that Mt. was composed before 70 A.D. (see 151), they strongly tend to establish that earlier date for the logia.

Mt. 23 35 is in the highest degree remarkable. Zachariah the son of Berechiah is the well-known prophet of the OT, who did not suffer martyrdom. But, according to 2 Ch. Uzo /., Zechariah the son of Jehoiada did so suffer. This was about 750 B.C., so that he certainly cannot be called the last martyr, and least of all can he be so called merely because Chronicles is the last book in the OT. From Josephus (/> / iv. 5 4, 343) we learn that in the year 68 A. D. Zechariah the son of Baruch (N iese :J3opri , Papovxov, j3api<r/cai.ov) was put to death iv fj.t<r<a TO> iepcj>. The conjecture is a very obvious one that the author had this event in his mind. If it be correct, the date of composition will have to be placed considerably later than 68 A.D., as the writer could not, very shortly after this event, easily have confounded this Zechariah with some other who had lived before, or in, the time of Jesus. It must not be overlooked, however, that accord ing to || Lk. 11 49-51 the source of this narrative is the Sophia of God, that is to say, according to the most probable conjecture, a book distinct from the logia which either bore on its title the words Wisdom of God or introduced the Wisdom of God as speaking. It is doubtful therefore whether the passage is to be assigned to the logia.

151. Date of canonical Mt.[edit]

For the earliest instance in which a passage is quoted which now is to be found in our canonical Mt. (Epistle of Barnabas) see 89. It is not permissible to infer a date earlier than 70 A D either from the 'straightway' (ei 0<?ws) which Mt. 24 29 has retained from the little Apocalypse (see in, 1246) or from the other indicia adduced in 150. In Mt. 227 the destruction of Jerusalem is clearly presupposed as already past (see 112 ). The church-conditions also, as well as the postponement of the parusia (see 136, ii2<?), point to a later date. It is not practicable to separate these passages as later interpolations, and thus gain for the Gospel as a whole the earlier date. They are much too numerous, and many of them as, for example, precisely 226/. much too closely implicated with a tendency which pervades the entire work ( 112 ab}. On the other hand, it is quite open to us to regard some of them as interpolations : for example, 1617-19, or the baptismal formula 2819, or the appearance of Jesus to the women 28 9/, or also chaps. I/ Substantially, these are the leading pas sages on account of which many are disposed to bring down the date of the entire gospel as late as to 130 A.D. The fact that it was used, as well as Mk. and Lk. , by the author of the Fourth Gospel would not forbid this late date (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE. 49-52). Probably, however, its main contents must have been in existence at an earlier period if they were known to Lk. ( 127, 153), and even the most of chaps. 1 / is presupposed to have been in existence if it can be shown that in 119 A.D. a final addition was introduced into it. This has been suggested as regards the story of the Magi : a Syriac writing, ascribed to Eusebius of Ceesarea, which was published by William Wright in the Journal of Sacred Literature, 1866, pp. 117 /. and discussed by Nestle 1 and Hilgenfeld in ZWT, 93, 1, pp. 435-438, and 95, pp. 447-451, makes the statement, which can hardly have been invented, that this narrative, committed to writing in the interior of Persia, was in 119 A.D., during the episcopate of Xystus of Rome, made search for, discovered, and written in the language of those who were interested in it (that is to say, in Greek).

1 The heading of the whole tractate is, according to Nestle, Betreffend den Stern : zeigend, tvie unii durch was die Magier den Stern erkannten tend dass Joseph Maria nicht ah sein Weib nahm.

152. Date of canonical Mk.[edit]

As regards canonical Mk. we possess a datum for fixing its date only if we assume it to have been the book that was used by Mt. and Lk. If we find ourselves unable to do this it is open t0 us to suppose that it may have received its final form later than Mt. and Lk. It is not, however, justifiable to find a proof of this in the fact that in 1:1 it designates the public appearance of the Baptist as the beginning of the gospel of Jesus. Some scholars have detected here a silent polemic against those gospels which begin with the narratives relating to the nativity of Jesus. The significant avoidance of the 'straightway' (ei #e ws) of Mt. 24 29 in Mk. 1824 ( 113) certainly points clearly to the period after the destruction of Jerusalem. On Mk. 169-20, see 138^.

153. Author and date of Lk.[edit]

If Luke, the companion of Paul, cannot have been the author of Acts (see ACTS, 915), neither can he have been the author of the Third Gospel. That both works are from the same pen may be regarded as quite certain.

The weightiest evidences of the employment of Josephus by Lk. are seen in Acts (see ACTS, 16) ; yet tolerably many are found in the gospel also. In that case the year 100 A.D. will be the superior, and some where about no A.D. the inferior, limit of the date of its composition, since there must have been a considerable interval between the production of the gospel and that of Acts. The very precise description of the destruction of Jerusalem in Lk. 1943/. 21 n 20-24 is in full accord with history and, in language, with Josephus. It cannot exactly be pronounced absolutely impossible that it should nevertheless have been written before 70 A.D. , for a lively imagination acquainted with the localities could hardly have presented them very differently. Only, the prediction of the little Apocalypse ( 124 ) which is still rightly interpreted in Mt. and Mk. in ac cordance with Daniel (see DANIEL, ii. ) as referring to the setting up of a foreign image in the temple has been made by Lk. , wrongly yet very skilfully, in accordance with the expression epTj/xcocrts, 1 to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem (21 20). Upon this event, he says, will follow (v. 24) the times of the Gentiles ( in) during which Jerusalem is to be trodden under foot. Not till after these times are the signs in heaven to appear and the Son of Man to come with clouds (w. 25-27), and not till this point does he promise to the followers of Christ their redemption and the coming of the Kingdom of God (vv. 28 31). Had Lk. written before the destruc tion of Jerusalem we might have expected him to have thought of this event as connected with the second coming of Jesus. That instead of this he should re present the judgment day (v. 22) and the beginning of the kingdom of God as being separated by so long an interval is, as compared with all prophecy and apocalyptic, something quite new and admits of only one explanation that the destruction of Jerusalem could at the time of writing be no longer regarded as a recent event.

In his prologue Lk. distinguishes himself not only from the eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus but also from the many who before him had written comprehensive gospels, 2 and from the number of these, he again seems to exclude the eye-witnesses.

Lk. makes a quite clear division : the eye-witnesses have handed down (-rrapeSoa-av), and that by word of mouth, otherwise no purpose would have been served by adding to eye-witnesses (auTOTTTai) the further predicate ministers of the word (vmjpe Tai TOU Adyou) ; others have composed gospel writings ; and Lk. seeks to excel these last by accurate research (or by taking up the narrative from an earlier point) and by correct arrangement. That he himself had direct intercourse with eye-witnesses is therefore not very probable, and it is not at all expressed by the word (I 2), they delivered them unto us which from the begin ning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, for immedi ately before he speaks of the things which have been fulfilled among us, a phrase by which he obviously cannot mean himself and his contemporaries, but only Christendom generally ; similarly therefore in v. 2. Cp 37 64.

1 DDK pj3B> in Dan. 12 n (cp 9 27 11 31) is simply a veiled ex pression for DptT *?5;3= Lord of heaven z .^., Zeus, whose altar (or statue?) was erected upon the altar of burnt-offering in December 168 B.C. (I Macc. 154 59). The Syriac Bible actually gives ] * ~ w $pl in 2 Macc. 6 2 in connection with this event as a rendering of the Greek word Zeus. Thus Daniel had not desolation in his mind in the least. See ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. Further information as to similar veiled designations of heathen Further information as to similar veiled designations of heathen deities is given in Winer! 8 ), 5, n. 56.

2 The verb dva&&xub’aL (EV 'set forth in order') denotes (hotpinitself, andbecause, by the words 'also to me' [~Bpoil, Lk. applies it also to his own performance) the composition of a com- prehensive work in accordance with literary aims. Atriyrjo-i? (AV declaration, RV narrative ) accordingly must also mean this, and not a mere statement about a particular occurrence, without pretension to literary art (cp 124 aizqd).


154. Conclusion.[edit]

The discussion of the dates of the gospel yields, it will be seen, but few definite results. We have deliberately refrained from making use of certain arguments which could be more or less easily applied otherwise. All the more would we emphasise the proposition, that our uncertainty on the chronological question by no means carries with it any uncertainty in the judgment we are to form of the gospels themselves. The chronological question is in this instance a very subordinate one. Indeed, even if our gospels could be shown to have been written from 50 A.D. onwards, or even earlier, we should not be under any necessity to withdraw our conclusions as to their contents ; we should, on the contrary, only have to say that the indubitable transformation in the original tradition had taken place much more rapidly than one might have been ready to suppose. The credibility of the gospel history cannot be established by an earlier dating of the gospels themselves in any higher degree than that in which it has already been shown to exist, especially as we know that even in the lifetime of Jesus miracles of every sort were attributed to him in the most confident manner. But as the transformation has de parted so far from the genuine tradition, it is only in the interest of a better understanding and of a more reason able appreciation of the process that one should claim for its working out a considerable period of time.

155. The Gospel of the Hebrews.[edit]

By way of appendix a few words must be said here on the question, postponed from APOCRYPHA (26, i) to this place, as to whether the gospel of the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the sources of the synoptics. According to the church fathers this gospel was the Hebrew or Aramaic form of canonical Mt. If this were correct, it would not have been necessary for Jerome to make a separate translation of it. According to Nicholson ( 7# Gospel according to the Hebrews, 79) it was a later Hebrew edition of the gospel of Mt. , issued after the Greek had already been published by Matthew himself. Since Lessing's time ( 117) it has often been regarded especially in the Tubingen school as one of the sources, or even as the most ancient, or even as the only, source of our synoptics. Handmann, again (Hebrder-evangelium in Texte v. Untersuch. 63, 88), identifies it with the logia. That it may have been, in some older form, one of the sources of the Synoptics cannot be contradicted ; but neither can it be proved, for we no longer possess the older form. Among the fragments preserved to us there are only a few which are not open to challenge on the score of their late date. Many on the other hand are unquestionably late legends ; e.g. , James, the brother of Jesus, swore at the last supper (where according to our evangelists he cannot even have been present) to eat nothing till he should have beheld Jesus after his resurrection ; Jesus accord ingly appeared in the first instance to him, brought bread, broke it, and gave it to him. Or, again, at the death of Jesus the superliminare or lintel of the temple was broken. Or, Jesus is reported to have said : even now has my mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me by one of my hairs and borne me to the great mountain Tabor : and more of the like. .

It is almost universally conceded that the fragments of the so-called gospel of the Ebionites can claim antiquity in a much less degree still than can the gospel of the Hebrews to which it is related.

156. Other uncanonical gospel fragments.[edit]

(a) Other uncanonical gospel -fragments. The so-called logia of Jesus found at Oxyrhynchus, first published by Grenfell and Hunt.

These contain, besides an (almost) verbatim repetition of Lk. 6:42, sentences which go far beyond the Johannine theology, and have absolutely nothing analogous to them in the canonical gospels. It would be a great error to see in them a portion of the gospel logia of Mt. But the hypothesis also, that they are excerpts from the gospel of the Egyptians, has its strongest support only in the fact that according to accounts this gospel itself was of an equally mixed character. Moreover, the identification cannot be made out, were it only for this reason that we cannot know whether these seven or eight sayings were excerpted wholly from one book, or whether they were compiled from a variety of sources. For, in fact, the principle on which such a heterogeneous variety of sayings has been brought together is quite obscure to us (cp 86).

(b) Jacoby (Ein neues Rvangelienfragment, 1900) has published a Coptic fragment which, amongst other things, touches upon the scene in Gethsemane.

In character this is the same mixture of Synoptic and Johannine or even supra-Johannine ideas as has been observed in the Oxyrhynchus logia. Its derivation from the gospel of the Egyptians is just as questionable as is that of those logia. If then we read in it what, according to the connection, it can hardly be doubted, notwithstanding the fragmentary character of the piece, we ought to read that Jesus used the words, 'The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak', with reference to himself and not with reference to the disciples, and if we should feel inclined to regard this as the more original application, 1 we must not do so merely on account of the source in which we find it.

(c) The case is quite similar with the gospel according to Peter (see PETER).

(d) The fragment, first published by Bickell in the Ztschr. f. Kath. Theol., 1885, pp. 498-504, which has been dealt with by (amongst others) Harnack (Texte u. Untersuch. 54, pp. 481-497) and Resch (ib. 102 ; pp. 28-34, 322-327).

This fragment contains in a somewhat divergent form the prediction of Jesus that all his disciples would be offended in him and that Peter would deny him, mentioning also that the cock crowed twice ; it agrees most strongly with Mk. 14 26-30 but also with Mt. 2631 by the words in this night, since these words in Mk. do not occur in v. 27 but only in i>. 30. That we have here before us a pre-canonical form of the text cannot be proved with certainty from the divergences in in dividual words. A stronger argument is supplied by the fact that in the present fragment v. 28 of Mk. ( = v. 32 of Mt.) is wanting a verse which has long been recognised as disturbing the connection : After I am risen again I will go before you into Galilee. At the same time, we must not forget that it may have been omitted precisely for this reason, if we are dealing with a free excerpt. Neither does this fragment, then, supply us with an irrefragable proof for the existence of written sources for our gospels.

(e) The so-called 'dicta Jesu agrapha', that is to say, sayings of his which are not met with in the gospels, have been collected with great care by Resch in Texte u. Untersuch. 64, 89.

Resch s judgment of these, his readiness to recognise genuine sayings of Jesus preserved even in the latest church fathers, and his employment of these for his Hebrew original gospel ( 117) have, however, met with very just criticism in the same series (14 2) at the hands of Ropes (Die Spriiche Jesu, d. e in den kanonischen Evangelien nicht iiberliefert sind, 96). At the same time Ropes himself in accepting so many as fourteen sayings as probably genuine has perhaps gone too far. A somewhat richer selection, but without pronouncing any judgment as to their genuineness, is given by Nestle in Novi Testamenti sup- plementum, 96, pp. 89-92, where, besides a collation of Codex D, the extra-canonical fragments as a whole will be found very conveniently brought together.

1 It is so applied in the Roman Missal and Breviary (see Office for Palm Sunday).

P. W. S.

GOTHOLIAS[edit]

(yoeoAioy [BA], -ONIOY [ L D- J Esd -833 = Ezra87, ATHALIAH, 3.