GOSPEL. different from those of the apostles from wliom the Synoptics niaj' be considered to have come. In addition to these main problems of the Gos- pels, there are the following minor ones: A. The Pkohle-m of tmk ('ONtext.s. Involved in this problem are the following principal points of present criticism : (a) The Nalivltij. — This is given in but two of the four Gosix>'ls — Matthew (i. IS-ii.) and Lulve (i. 5-ii. 39) — and is presented by them in narratives differing largely from each other. The one in Luke is the fuller, and gives every evidence of having been derived from written Aramaic sources ; the one in Jlatthew gives the impression of having come from oral sources. The chief question of debate is whether these sources rest ujinn historical fact or are the product of idealizing tradition. Against their acceptance as historical is the difficulty that during the peri- od of the Gospel history there sfcms to have been no popular, nor even disciple, knowledge of them, the significance of which fact is height- ened by the absence of all reference to them in the Xew Testament epistolary literature. In ad- dition to this are difficulties in the narratives as they stand, particularly the lack of full harmony in their record of events, as seen in the return of the family to Nazareth ; the singular agree- ment which the;' bear at points to the national Messianic expectations which were never realized, as seen in the angel announcement that the Child was to ascend the throne of David and reign over the House of .Jacob forever; and the poetic elab- oration of certain parts, as seen in the songs of Mai-y and Zacharias. Against the interpreta- tion of the narratives as idealizations, there is the difficulty of the necessary assumption of a remarkably early date for the process. Neither Matthew nor Luke was written much, if at all. later than a.d. 7.5 : and yet at the time of their writing this tradition was not only popularly re- ceived, but had come into the elaborated docu- mentary form represented in Luke. Such ideali- zation further must have been of a distinctively Gentile origin. Yith his high conception of the holiness of the married state, the Jew would not consider sui>ernatural birth necessary for an ideal — in fact, did not so interpret the prophecy of the virgin birth (Isa. vii. 14) ; and yet, on the part of the Gentile, the crude sensuality of supernatural birth in pagan m^fthologies would make the creation and acceptance of such a tradi- tion regarding Jesus within the Christian Church most difficult of accomplishment. Of the prob- lem thus presented there may be no complete solution, though there is nothing in it which renders impossible the acceptance of the essential fact of a miraculous birth. On the contrary, the difficulty of the Gospel and Epistle silence re- garding the event, and the difficulty gathering around the presence in the narratives of unful- filled .Jewish ideals, favor the historical character of the record : since, not only in proportion as the peculiar privacy of the event and the singular suspicion likely to attach to it in the popular mind are appreciated does the lack of publicity given become intelligible, but in proportion as the narratives record a form of aimouncement which agrees w^ith the stage of Messianic expecta- tions belonging to that beginning time of Gospel history, they show their primitive character, whatever poetic elaborations or harmonistic dif- ficulties they present; while in proportion as the 60 GOSPEL. main idea of the supernatural conception which the narratives contain wa,s imnatural to Jewish thought and unlikely of Gentile production, they show an element accounted for only on the as- sumption of actual fact. (b) The hold's Supper. — This is rccoi'ded in each of the Synoptists, all of whom agree in plac- ing it at the time of, and in connection with, the regular Passover meal. Murk and ^Matthew, however, agree as against Luke at two points: { 1 ) As to the sequence of the bread and the cup (Mark and Matthew phicing the bread first, Luke placing the cup both tirsL and last), and (2) as to the pennanencc intended in the observance of the meal ( Luke making .lesus purpose it as a subsequent memorial of Himself, Matthew and Mark recording no such intention on Jesus' part) . At the same time the Synoptists come into definite relation to the narrative of the Passion Week as given by the fourth Gospel, involving the time of the Supper and its relation to the regular Pa.schal meal, the fourth Gospel placing the Supper before the feast day and out of all association with the feast. In addition, account nmst be taken of the fact that Pan! has given us, in I. Cor. xi. 2.3-26, a definite statement of the institution of the Supper, which, in jiroportion as it is earlier than the (Jospel narratives could be, takes precedence of the Synoptic records. This Pauline statement agrees with Liike. and so di- verges from Mark and Matthew in its distinct mention of the cup being after the Supper, and of Jesus' purpose that the observance of the meal should be a permanent one with His dis- ciples. In fact, it is quite clear from the char- acter of the account of Luke that, in its state- ment of the after cup and of .Tesus' purpose, it is derived from Paul, who in his statement fur- ther diverges from all the Gospels in evidently associating together the Supper and the ordinary religions meal of the Church — the Agape — if he does not actually identify them. The problem presented is consequently two- fold: (1) Was the Supper observed before the regular Passover feast, and as a. meal distinctly different from it, or at the close of the feast and as a meal definitely associated with it? and (2) was its obsen'ance intended by Jesus to be a ' permanent one, or to be exhausted in the event of that night ? As to the first point, in case the dating of the fourth Gospel is to be taken as cor- rect, that part of the .Synoptic narrative which c'onnects the supper with the Passover feast (Mark xiv. 12-lG, and parallels, including Luke xxii. 1.5) must be regarded as an interpolation into the original tradition, due to the Clnirch's early identification of the two meals, while the Supijer itself must be understood as an ordinary .Jewish meal, the bread and wine of which Jesus s^Tiibolically refers to Himself. In case the dat- ing of the Synoptists is to be accepted, the fourth Gospel's chronology is to be regarded as distorted by its author, either through ignorance or for partisan reasons, and the Supper itself understood as identified in time and meaning with the regular Passover feast. In either case however, it is to be noted that all four Gospels agree in placing .Tesus' death on Friday, and that the significance recorded in the Synoptists and Paul as attached by .Tesus to the bread and wine of the meal is one which refers them to His death as a sacrifice. .As to the second point, the fact that Luke's mention of Jesus' purpose of a I
