Chapter XXIX: The Historical Books (1)

1. The New Testament, like the Old, is not an abstract system of doctrines and duties, but a _record of facts_ involving doctrines and duties of the highest import. This record does not constitute an independent history, complete in itself, and to be explained in its own light. It is rather the necessary sequel to the record of the Old Testament. It interprets the Old Testament, and is itself interpreted by it. The two constitute together an organic whole, and can be truly understood only in their mutual connection. To discard the Old Testament whether formally or in practice, is to throw away the key which unlocks to us the treasures of the New; for the writers of the New Testament continually reason out of the Scriptures of the Old. If we cannot truly comprehend the Old Testament except when we view it as preparatory to the revelation contained in the New, so neither can we have a full understanding of the New except as the completion of the revelation begun in the Old. In a word, we understand revelation aright only in its unity.

2. The New Testament _uses_ all the teachings of the Old, but it does not _repeat_ them all. The unity, personality, and infinite perfections of God; his universal providence, and his supremacy as well over nations as individuals; the duties that men owe to God and each other, as embodied for substance in the ten commandments and expanded in the teachings of Moses and the prophets; the indissoluble connection, on the one hand, between righteousness and true prosperity, and on the other, between sin and ruin--all these great truths are so fully unfolded in the Old Testament that they need no formal repetition in the New. The person and office of the Messiah--as that great prophet, like unto Moses, whom God should raise up for his people in the latter days; as that mighty king of David's line, who should sit on his throne and in his kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice forever; as that high priest after the order of Melchisedec whom God should establish forever with a solemn oath--had been prefigured in the institutions of Moses, in the Psalms, and in the writings of the prophets.

Some other important truths not so fully revealed in the Old Testament but deducible in a legitimate way either from its general scope or from some brief hints in its teachings, had become firmly established in the faith of the Jewish people during the long interval that elapsed between Malachi and Christ. Such particularly were the doctrines of the resurrection of the dead and of future rewards and punishments. These truths, also, as well as those more directly and fully taught in the Old Testament, were assumed by the Saviour and his apostles as a platform for the peculiar revelations of the gospel, the sum of which is _Jesus Christ crucified for the salvation of the world_. The four gospels, then, as containing the history of our Lord's appearance and works, lie at the foundation of the revelation contained in the New Testament. To these, then, our attention must first be given; after which the history of the apostolic labors, as given in the Acts of the Apostles, will naturally follow.

I. THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.

3. The word _gospel_ (Anglo-Saxon, _god_, _good_, and _spell_, _history_ or _tidings_) answers to the Greek word _euangelion_, _good-tidings_, whence comes the Latin _evangelium_, with the derived words in use among us, as _evangelist_, _evangelical_, etc. It properly signifies the _good message itself_, and it is only by a secondary usage that it is applied to the _written histories_ of the Saviour's life, as being the embodiment of this message. The titles prefixed to these gospels from the beginning; "The Gospel according to Matthew", "The Gospel according to Mark," etc., indicate that the written record is not itself the gospel, but rather an account of the gospel _according to_ these different writers. Christ himself is the author of the gospel. It existed and was received by many thousands before a line of it was put upon record on the written page.

4. The genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, and authenticity of the four canonical gospels have already been shown at some length. Chaps. 2, 3, 4. In connection with the argument for their genuineness, their natural division into two parts--the first three, commonly called the synoptical gospels, and the gospel according to John; the remarkable agreements and differences of the three synoptical gospels among themselves; and the remarkable contrast which the fourth gospel presents to all three of the synoptical gospels, have also been considered simply as _existing facts_. Chap. 2, Nos. 14 and 15. But when we seek an _explanation_ of these remarkable phenomena, we enter upon a very difficult problem, one on which the ingenuity of Biblical scholars has exhausted itself for several successive generations without reaching thus far a result that can be regarded as perfectly satisfactory. Almost all conceivable theories and combinations of theories have been proposed, some of which, however, are now generally abandoned as untenable, and need not be considered at large.

5. Looking at the three synoptical gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we find a remarkable _agreement_ not only in their general plan, but in many of their details also. With the exception of our Lord's last journey to Jerusalem and the history of his passion there, they are mainly occupied with his ministry in Galilee. The selection of incidents is also to a great extent the same. "The most remarkable differences lie in the presence of a long series of events connected with the Galilean ministry, which are peculiar to St. Matthew and St. Mark (Matt. 14:22-16:12; Mark 6:45-8:26), and a second series of events connected with the journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-18:14), which is peculiar to St. Luke." Westcott, Introduct. to the Study of the Gospels, chap. 3. The coincidences of language, as well as incident, are also remarkable; and here the general law prevails that these coincidences are more common, as has been shown by Norton and others, in the recital of the words of others than in the narrative parts of the gospels, and most common when our Lord's own words are recited.

6. But with these remarkable agreements coexist equally remarkable _differences_. Each writer has his own peculiarities of style, which appear more distinctly in the original than they can in any version. It has been noticed also by Biblical scholars that these peculiarities are more marked in the narrative than in the recitative parts of the gospels in question. Each writer, moreover, brings in incidents peculiar to himself, not in the form of patchwork, but as parts of a self consistent whole. So far is he from exact outward conformity to either of the other gospels, in respect to arrangement and circumstantial details, that the diversity between him and them in these particulars, sometimes creates serious difficulties when we attempt to arrange the three different narratives in the form of a harmony.

7. No theory of the origin of these three gospels can be true which does not explain both their coincidences and their differences. Hence we may set aside at once the hypothesis of their _mutual dependence_ on each other--that the later evangelists used the writings of the earlier. By the different advocates of this theory, each of the three synoptic gospels has been made in turn the primary record from which the others drew; but no one of them has been able, upon this hypothesis, to account for the omissions or insertions of the supposed later evangelists, much less for the remarkable fact already noticed, that the peculiarities of each writer appear more fully in the narrative than in the recitative part of his gospel. The later evangelists may, indeed, have been acquainted with the writings of the earlier and have consulted them, but this supposition alone does not explain their peculiar coincidences and differences.

Another hypothesis is that of an _original document or documents_, from which all three are supposed to have drawn. The assumption of a single original written gospel, as the basis of our first three canonical gospels, is manifestly untenable. Had a primitive gospel existed of such compass and authority as to be the common source of our three synoptic gospels, it is inconceivable that the churches, which carefully preserved these three gospels, though two of them proceeded not from apostles themselves but only from their companions, should have allowed the original gospel so speedily and utterly to perish, that no traces of it remained in the days of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. Besides, this hypothesis, as it was soon seen, does not explain the peculiar relation of these gospels to each other in respect to coincidences and differences. Hence various modifications were proposed--an original Aramaic gospel with various Greek translations, this original Aramaic gospel variously increased with new matter, etc. In a word, the form of these assumed original documents was hypothetically explained from the actual form of our three synoptic gospels; the very reverse of the true problem, which was to explain, from some reliable data, the form of the canonical gospels themselves.

The remaining hypothesis is that of _oral tradition_ emanating from the apostles themselves, and maintained in its purity during their lives by their personal presence and teaching. That the gospel existed in this form alone for some years after the beginning of Christianity is admitted by all. The apostles were Christ's chosen witnesses of his life and teachings. From their lips proceeded the tradition which now constitutes our written gospels. The necessity of embodying this tradition in the form of permanent records was not felt at the beginning. But, as the churches were multiplied, oral tradition became liable to corruption in many ways through the multiplicity of the organs employed in its transmission. Then the need of written gospels began to manifest itself, and it was natural that the apostles should look to the supply of this need either by their own direct agency, or by that of men writing with their knowledge and approbation. How many years elapsed before the appearance of the earliest of our canonical gospels, which is commonly supposed to have been that of Matthew, we have no means of ascertaining with accuracy. But we may reasonably suppose that the period was long enough to allow the apostolic tradition of our Lord's life and teachings to assume a somewhat definite shape in respect to both matter and outward form. _First_, in respect to _matter_. As their public instructions could not cover the whole of our Saviour's history (John 20:30; 21: 25), they naturally selected, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, those parts of it which embodied the spirit and meaning of the whole. Since, moreover, the apostles remained together at Jerusalem for some time after our Lord's ascension (Acts 8:1; 15:6), it is highly reasonable to suppose that in a matter of such moment they had a mutual understanding--an understanding which, while it interfered with the freedom of no one, secured a general agreement as to the points in our Lord's history and teachings which should be especially insisted on. _Secondly_ in respect to _outward form_. While the apostles were preserved by the illumination of the Holy Spirit from any superstitious regard to the letter of our Lord's teachings, their reverence for him as a perfect teacher, whose words were truth unmixed with error, must have made them anxious to put the oral tradition of his sayings into as perfect a form as possible; whence the tradition of our Saviour's words would assume from the first a more fixed form than that of his life generally.

It is supposed by many that the writers of the first three gospels drew each from this common body of oral tradition such materials as suited his general plan; no one of them proposing to give the whole of our Lord's history, or even to observe a strict chronological order in the events recorded by him, any farther than such order was rendered necessary by their nature and essential connection. In the case of Matthew, who was one of the twelve apostles, it might be thought that he wrote simply from his own personal knowledge; but his gospel could not cover all the ground of our Lord's history as known to him, and we may well suppose that in the selection of his materials he had regard--not a servile, but a free regard--to the common oral tradition of the apostles, which was, in fact, the embodiment of their united wisdom under the illumination of the Divine Spirit. Each evangelist, as well Mark and Luke who were not apostles, as Matthew who belonged to the number of the twelve, wrote independently of the other two. The later writers may, indeed, have been acquainted with the writings of the earlier, but a bare inspection of the three gospels shows that there was no labored effort on the part of one evangelist to adjust his work to those of the others. Hence arise apparent discrepancies, as in the two genealogies of our Lord, which it is sometimes hard to explain. But these very difficulties witness to the independent truthfulness of the writers. Had they written in concert, or borrowed systematically from each other, such difficulties would not have existed.

Although apostolic oral tradition is thus made the main source whence the writers of these gospels drew their materials, it is not necessary to affirm or deny their use, in a subordinate way, of written documents. That such documents existed in the time of Luke we know from his own words, chap. 1:1. He does not condemn them, but neither does he rely upon them. His gospel is not derived from them, but from his own accurate investigations; "It seemed good to me also, having accurately traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original Greek means), "to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." Chap. 1:3. And if Luke, the companion of Paul, was not dependent for his materials on any previously existing writings, neither was Mark, the companion of both Peter and Paul, nor Matthew, who was himself an apostle. Nor can the incorporation of such writings into the synoptic gospels be shown with any degree of probability. If it cannot be claimed for this hypothesis of a primitive apostolic tradition, as the source whence the writers of the synoptic gospels drew their materials, that it explains all the phenomena of their mutual relation to each other, it is, nevertheless, more satisfactory than any other that has been proposed, and may be regarded as a near approximation to the actual facts in the case.

Between the _traditions_ of which the apostle Paul speaks (2
Thess. 2:15; 3:6; also, according to the original, 1 Cor. 11:2)
received immediately from his mouth or pen, and the pretended
traditions of later days, handed down from century to century
through a succession of uninspired men, the difference is that
between light and darkness, between truth and fiction. We have
in the _writings_ of the New Testament the genuine apostolic
tradition, at first oral, but put into a written form during the
lifetime of the apostles. These traditions are the "gold,
silver, precious stones" of divine truth. All other traditions
are the "wood, hay, stubble" of human origin. In settling the
question respecting the _genuineness_ of the New Testament
writings, we proceed as in the case of any other writings. We
avail ourselves of all the evidence within our reach, external
and internal. We take the testimony of Irenæus and Tertullian,
and also of Marcion and Valentinus; though none of them were
inspired, and the two latter were heretical. But when we have
once determined what books were written by apostles or apostolic
men, these contain for us the only authoritative _tradition_, as
defined by the apostle: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and
hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word
or our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:15.

8. In comparing the synoptic gospels with each other and with the fourth gospel, we must ever bear in mind that no one of them professes to give a complete history of our Lord's life, or to arrange all the incidents which he relates in the exact order of time. Under the guidance of the divine Spirit each one pursues his own course, independently of the others, here inserting what one or more of the rest have omitted, or omitting what one or more of them have inserted; and here, again, bringing in incidents without regard to their exact chronological order, with some general preface like the following: "at that time," Matt. 12:1; "and he began again," Mark 4:1; "and it came to pass as he was alone praying," Luke 9:18; "and it came to pass as they went in the way," Luke 9:57; etc. Thus the wisdom of God has given us, not all the particulars of our Lord's history, but such a selection from both the incidents of his public life and his public and private teachings as best embodies the great facts of the gospel, and the doctrines and duties connected with them. In the four canonical gospels the church has, not all of our Lord's history and teachings, but all that the Holy Ghost judged needful for her establishment and edification to the end of time.

Of our Lord's history before his baptism we have only his
genealogy in a twofold form; some notices of his miraculous
conception; an account of his birth and circumcision, with the
visions and prophecies connected with them; a history of his
preservation from Herod's attempt to destroy him; the subsequent
residence of his parents in Nazareth, with a single incident of
his childhood. Luke 2:40-52. All these particulars have, in one
way or another, a bearing on his divine mission and work as the
Son of God. The apocryphal gospels on the contrary, as, for
example, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Gospel of Nicodemus,
abound in frivolous stories relating to our Lord's infancy and
later life, which have no connection with the great work of
redemption.

9. The peculiarities of the fourth gospel, as well as its relation to the three preceding gospels, will come up for consideration hereafter. At present we only remark that John wrote many years after the appearance of the synoptic gospels, and that, whatever reference he may have had to them, his gospel constitutes, in the plan of revelation, a _true complement_ to the other three. For (1) if we except the narrative of our Lord's passion, it covers, for the most part, ground not occupied by them. They give mainly the history of the Saviour's ministry in Galilee (Luke also, at some length, that of his last journey to Jerusalem); the scene of much of John's gospel, on the contrary, is Jerusalem and its near vicinity. (2) John unfolds more fully the nature of our Lord's person, and his peculiar relation to the Father and to his church. This he does, more especially, in his prologue (chap. 1:1-18); in the record of the Saviour's discussions with the Jews (chaps. 3, 5-12); and in that of his discourses addressed in private to the circle of the apostles, chaps. 13-17. Thus John's gospel is emphatically that of Christ's _person_, as illustrated by his works and words; while the three earlier evangelists give rather the gospel of his _public ministry_, through which his divine person everywhere shines forth. This deeper view of our Lord's person and office which the gospel of John unfolds met the wants of the primitive church in a more advanced stage, when false teachers were already beginning to sow the seeds of those errors which, in the next generation, brought forth such a rank and poisonous harvest. The same great characteristics adapt it to the wants of the church in all ages. Without the fourth gospel she could not be completely furnished to meet the assaults of error, which, from one generation to another, makes, with unerring instinct, its main assault upon the person and office of the Son of God.

But if the evangelical narrative would not be complete without the fourth gospel, neither would it be perfect for the use of the church with this alone. The record of our Lord's life and teachings as given in the first three gospels is preëminently adapted to popular instruction. It is precisely such a record as the preachers of the gospel need in their public ministrations. With it they can use the fourth gospel with effect; but without it they would want the natural preparation for and introduction to those deep and spiritual views of Christ's person and office which the bosom-disciple unfolds. It is not in the three synoptic gospels, nor in the gospel of John taken separately, that we find the complete evangelical armor, but in the perfect whole of the four.

10. Very numerous attempts have been made to construct _harmonies_ of the four gospels. One plan is to form out of the whole, in what is supposed to be the true chronological order, a continuous narrative embracing all the matter of the four, but without repetitions of the same or similar words. Another plan is to exhibit in chronological order, the entire text of the four gospels arranged in parallel columns, so far as two or more of them cover the same ground. The idea is very imposing, but the realization of it is beset with formidable if not insurmountable difficulties. It is certain that the evangelists do not always follow the exact order of time, and it is sometimes impossible to decide between the different arrangements of events in their records. In the four narratives of the events connected with the resurrection all harmonists find themselves baffled. Had we a full account of all the particulars of that exciting scene, we might undoubtedly assign to the different parts of each narrative its true place in the order of time. But with our present means of information this is impossible. Experience shows that the most profitable way of studying the evangelical narrative is to take _each gospel as a whole_, but with continual reference to the parallel parts of the other gospels, so far as they can be ascertained. In this work a good harmony, like that of Robinson, may render essential service, though its arrangements must in many cases be regarded only as _tentative_--essays at obtaining the true order, rather than the certain determination of it.

The relative number of _chapters_ in the different gospels does
not give their true relation in respect to _size_. The chapters
are respectively 28, 16, 24, 21; which are to each other in the
proportion of 7, 4, 6, 5 1/4. But estimating according to the
number of pages (in an edition without breaks for the verses),
it will be found that the gospel of Luke holds the first place,
its size being to that of the other gospels nearly as 60 to 57,
35, 46. The relation of Matthew's gospel to that of Mark, in
respect to the quantity of matter is then nearly that of 8 to 5.

In the notices of the separate gospels which follow it is not
thought necessary to give an elaborate analysis of their
contents. The aim will be rather to exhibit the prominent
characteristics of each, and its special office in the economy
of divine revelation.

II. MATTHEW.

11. The unanimous testimony of the ancient church is that the first gospel was written by the _apostle Matthew_, who is also called Levi. With his call to the apostleship he may have assumed the name of Matthew, as Saul took that of Paul. He was of Hebrew origin, the son of Alphaeus, and a tax-gatherer under the Roman government, Matt. 10:3; Mark 2:14; 3:18; Luke 5:27, 29; 6:15; Acts 1:13. He was evidently a man of some means (Luke 5:29), and his office must have required for its proper discharge a knowledge of the Greek as well as of his native Hebrew; that is, Aramaean, as the word Hebrew means in the New Testament, when applied to the vernacular of the Palestine Jews.

12. The question respecting the _original language_ of Matthew's gospel has been, since the time of Erasmus, a matter of controversy, in which eminent biblical scholars have been found on different sides. The problem is to find a solution which shall bring into harmony the following well-established facts: (1) that, according to the united testimony of the early church fathers, Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew; (2) that our present Greek gospel has all the freedom of an original work, that it has remarkable coincidences in language with the second and third gospels, and especially that the citations from the Old Testament which stand in our Lord's discourses follow as a rule the Greek version of the Seventy; (3) that all the early writers, those who testify to the Hebrew original of this gospel included, receive and use our present Greek gospel as the genuine and authoritative gospel of Matthew; (4) that the original Hebrew gospel, to the existence of which there is such abundant testimony, was allowed utterly to perish, while the Greek form of it alone was preserved and placed at the head of the canonical books of the New Testament.

13. The testimony from Papias, in the beginning of the second century, and onward to the fourth century, has often been quoted and discussed. It is not necessary to adduce it here at length. It may be found in Kirchhofer, in the critical commentaries and introductions, and also in the modern Bible dictionaries. The words of Papias, as preserved to us by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39) are as follows: "Matthew therefore wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able." If there were any ground for doubting what Papias meant by "the oracles," it would be removed by the testimony of the later writers, as Pantaenus and Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 5. 10; 6. 25), Irenæus (Against Heresies, 3. 1), Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3. 24), Epiphanius (Heresies, 29. 9; 30. 3), and others. They who maintain that Matthew wrote originally in Greek suppose that the early fathers confounded an apocryphal gospel, the so-called "gospel according to the Hebrews," with the true gospel of Matthew. Others think, perhaps with more reason, that the gospel according to the Hebrews was a corrupted form, or, what amounts to nearly the same thing, a close imitation of the true Hebrew gospel of Matthew.

The Ebionites and Nazarenes used each apparently a different
form of a Hebrew gospel which is sometimes called the gospel
according to Matthew, but more properly "the gospel according to
the Hebrews" (once by Jerome "the gospel according to the
apostles"). According to Epiphanius that in use among the
Ebionites was "not entire and full, but corrupted and abridged."
Heresies, 30. 13. Jerome says: "Matthew, who is called Levi,
having become from a publican an apostle, first composed in
Judea, for the sake of those who had believed from among the
circumcision, a gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words.
Who was the person that afterwards translated it into Greek is
not certainly known. Moreover, the Hebrew copy itself is at this
day preserved in the library of Cæsarea which Pampilus the
Martyr collected with much diligence. The Nazarenes, who live in
Beroca, a city of Syria, and use this volume, gave me the
opportunity of writing it out." De Vir. Illustr., 3. Here he
certainly identifies this gospel, which, as he repeatedly
informs us, he translated, with the true Hebrew gospel of
Matthew. But he afterwards speaks of it more doubtfully, as "the
gospel according to the Hebrews," and more fully as "the gospel
according to the Hebrews, which is written indeed in the Chaldee
and Syriac language, but in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes
use to the present day, [being the gospel] according to the
apostles, or, as most think, according to Matthew" (Against the
Pelagians, 3); "the gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites
use, which we have lately translated from the Hebrew language
into the Greek, and which is called by most the authentic gospel
of Matthew." Comment. in Matt. 12:13. The most probable
supposition is that Jerome, knowing that Matthew originally
wrote his gospel in Hebrew, hastily assumed at first that the
copy which he obtained from the Nazarenes was this very gospel.
The character of the quotations which he and Epiphanius give
from it forbids the supposition that it was the true Hebrew
gospel of Matthew. It may have been a corrupted form of it, or
an imitation of it.

14. Of those who, in accordance with ancient testimony, believe that the original language of Matthew's gospel was Hebrew, some assume that the apostle himself afterwards gave a Greek version of it. In itself considered this hypothesis is not improbable. Matthew, writing primarily for his countrymen in Palestine, might naturally employ the language which was to them vernacular. But afterwards, when Christianity had begun to spread through the Roman empire, and it became evident that the Greek language was the proper medium for believers at large; and when also, as is not improbable, some of the existing canonical books of the New Testament had appeared in that language, we might well suppose that, in view of these circumstances, the apostle himself put his gospel into the present Greek form. But it is certainly surprising that, in this case, no one of the ancient fathers should have had any knowledge of the matter. In view of their ignorance it seems to be the part of modesty as well as prudence that we also should say with Jerome: "Who was the person that afterwards translated it into Greek is not known with certainty." The universal and unhesitating reception of this gospel by the early Christians in its present Greek form can be explained only upon the supposition that it came to them with apostolic authority; that it received this form at the hand, if not of Matthew himself, yet of an apostle or an apostolic man, that is, a man standing to the apostles in the same relation as Mark and Luke.

This supposition will explain the freedom of Matthew's gospel
and its coincidences in language with the gospels of Mark and
Luke. An apostle or apostolic man would give a faithful, but not
a servile version of the original. The oral tradition of our
Lord's life and teachings from which the first three evangelists
drew, as from a common fountain (see above, No. 7), must have
existed in Palestine in a twofold form, Aramaean and Greek. The
translator would naturally avail himself of the Greek
phraseology, so far as the oral tradition coincided with that
embodied in Matthew's gospel. Those who have carefully examined
the subject affirm that the citations from the Old Testament
adduced by Matthew himself in proof of our Lord's Messiahship
are original renderings, with more or less literalness, from the
Hebrew. The citations, on the contrary, embodied in the
discourses of our Lord himself follow, as a rule, the Greek
version of the Seventy; probably because the translator took
these citations as they stood in the oral tradition of these
discourses.

Meanwhile the original Hebrew form of the gospel, being superseded by the Greek in all the congregations of believers except those that used exclusively the vernacular language of Palestine, gradually fell into disuse. The "gospel according to the Hebrews," noticed above, may have been a corrupted form of this gospel or an imitation of it. As Marcion chose the Greek gospel of Luke for the basis of his revision, so the Ebionites and Nazarenes would naturally use the Hebrew gospel of Matthew for their purposes.

15. The gospel of Matthew opens with the words: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." In accordance with this announcement, it traces back our Lord's lineage through David to Abraham, giving, after the manner of the Jews, an artificial arrangement of the generations from Abraham to Christ in three sets of fourteen each, chap. 1:17. To effect this, certain kings of David's line are omitted--between Joram and Ozias (the Uzziah of the Hebrews), Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; between Josias and Jechonias, Eliakim--and David is reckoned twice; once as the last of a set of fourteen, then as the first of the following fourteen. The thoroughly Jewish form of this introduction indicates the primary design of Matthew's gospel, which was to exhibit to his countrymen Jesus of Nazareth as their _long promised Messiah and king_. To this he has constant reference in the facts which he relates, and which he connects with the prophecies of the Old Testament by such forms of quotation as the following: "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet," chaps. 1:22; 2:15, 23; 13:35; 21:4; 27:35; "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet," chaps. 4:11; 8:17; 12:17; "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet," chap. 2:17; etc. His direct references to the Old Testament in proof of our Lord's Messiahship are more numerous than those of either of the other evangelists. Peculiar to him is the expression "the kingdom of heaven," to signify, in accordance with Rabbinic usage, the kingdom which the Messiah was to establish in accordance with the prophecies of the Old Testament; though he takes a spiritual view of its character, and not the earthly and political view of the Jewish doctors. Another designation of the same idea, common to him with the other evangelists, is "the kingdom of God," which also was current among the Rabbins. This "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" is also the kingdom of the Messiah. Chaps. 13:41; 20:21.

16. But precisely because Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, his mission is not to the Jews only, but _to all mankind_, in accordance with the original promise to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Gen. 22:18. While he records the fact that our Lord's personal ministry was restricted to the Jews (chaps. 10:5, 6; 15:24), he also shows from our Lord's own words that the unbelieving "children of the kingdom"--the Jews as the natural heirs to the Messiah's kingdom--shall be cast out, and the believing Gentiles received into it (chaps. 8:11, 12; 21:43); and he brings his gospel to a close with the great commission: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Chap. 28:19, 20.

17. A striking characteristic of this gospel is the _fulness and orderly manner_ with which it records _our Lord's discourses_. Striking examples of this are the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7), his awful denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees (chap. 23), and the majestic series of parables (chap. 25). Doubtless, Matthew had by nature a peculiar endowment for this work, which the Holy Spirit used to preserve for the church much of our Lord's teachings which would otherwise have been lost. The narrative part of this gospel, on the other hand, has not the circumstantial fulness of the following gospel. As already remarked, the field covered by Matthew's narrative is mainly that of our Lord's Galilean ministry, with the great events connected with his final visit to Jerusalem, though he gives indications of repeated visits to that city. Chap. 23:37-39.

18. It has been assumed by some that Matthew follows, as a general rule, the order of time. But others deny this, thinking that his arrangement is according to subject-matter rather than chronological sequence, especially in the first part (Alexander's Kitto); and this appears to be the correct judgment. He follows the exact order of time only when the nature of the events recorded requires him to do so.

19. It is universally admitted that Matthew wrote his gospel _in Palestine_. This fact accounts for the absence of explanatory clauses relating to Jewish usages, such as are not unfrequent in the gospel of Mark. As to the interpretation of Hebrew words, as "Immanuel" (chap. 1:23); and the words on the cross (chap. 27:46), that belongs to the Greek form of the gospel. The _date_ of this gospel is doubtful. According to the tradition of the ancient church it was written first of the four gospels. Assuming that it originally appeared in Hebrew, we may reasonably suppose that a period of some years elapsed before it was put into its present Greek form.

20. The _integrity_ of this gospel is unquestionable. In modern times the genuineness of the first two chapters has been called in question by various writers, but the insufficiency of their arguments has been shown by many, among whom may be mentioned Davidson, Introduction to New Testament, vol. 1, pp. 111-127. In the words of this writer the chapters in question are found "in all _unmutilated_ Greek MSS., and in all ancient versions;" "the earliest fathers had them in their copies, and received them as a part of the gospel;" "the ancient heretics and opponents of Christianity were acquainted with this portion of the first gospel;" "the commencement of the first chapter is closely connected with something preceding;" and "the diction of these two chapters bears the same impress and character which belong to the remainder of the gospel, proving that the gospel, as we now have it, proceeded from _one_ author."

III. MARK.

21. There is no valid ground for doubting the correctness of the ancient tradition which identifies the author of the second gospel with "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37), who is called simply John (Acts 13:5, 13), and Marcus or Mark (Acts 15:39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; perhaps also 1 Peter 5:13). He was _cousin_ to Barnabas (Col. 4:10, not _sister's son_, as in our version), which relationship may explain Barnabas' earnest defence of him (Acts 15:37-39). His mother Mary resided in Jerusalem, and it was to her house that Peter resorted immediately upon his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts 12:12). The intimacy of Peter with Mary's family must have brought about an early acquaintance between the apostle and Mark. Ancient tradition uniformly affirms a close relation between Peter and Mark, representing the latter to have been the disciple and _interpreter_ of the former. See below.

Papias (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl. 3. 39) says, upon the authority
of John the Presbyter, "Mark being Peter's interpreter, wrote
down accurately as many things as he remembered; not, indeed, as
giving in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ.
For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as
I said, of Peter, who gave his instructions as occasion
required, but not as one who was composing an orderly account of
our Lord's words. Mark, therefore, committed no error when he
thus wrote down certain things as he remembered them. For he was
careful of one thing, to omit nothing of the things which he
heard and to make no false statements concerning them." These
words of Papias are somewhat loose and indefinite. But, when
fairly interpreted, they seem to mean that as Peter taught
according to the necessities of each occasion, not aiming to
give a full history of our Lord in chronological order, so Mark
wrote not all things pertaining to our Lord's life and ministry,
but certain things, those namely that he had learned from
Peter's discourses, without always observing the strict order of
time. We need not press the words "in order" and "certain
things," as if Papias meant to say that Mark's gospel is only a
loose collection of fragments. It is a connected and
self-consistent whole; but it does not profess to give in all
cases the exact chronological order of events, nor to be an
exhaustive account of our Saviour's life and teachings. Eusebius
has preserved for us in his Ecclesiastical History the testimony
of Irenæus on the same point (Hist. Eccl., 5. 8); also of
Clement of Alexandria (Hist. Eccl., 6.14); and of Origen (Hist.
Eccl., 6. 25). He also gives his own (Hist. Eccl., 2. 5). We
have besides these, the statements of Tertullian (Against
Marcion, 6. 25); and Jerome (Epist. ad Hedib. Quaest., 2). All
these witnesses, though not consistent among themselves in
respect to several minor details, yet agree in respect to the
two great facts, (1) that Mark was the companion of Peter and
had a special relation to him, (2) that he was the author of the
gospel which bears his name. We add from Meyer (Introduction to
Commentary on Mark) the following exposition of the word
_interpreter_ as applied to Mark in his relation to Peter: "No
valid ground of doubt can be alleged against it, provided only
we do not understand the idea contained in the word
_interpreter_ to mean that Peter, not having sufficient mastery
of the Greek, delivered his discourses in Aramaean, and had them
interpreted by Mark into Greek; but rather that the office of a
_secretary_ is indicated, who wrote down the oral communications
of his apostle (whether from dictation, or in the freer exercise
of his own activity) and so became _in the way of writing_ his
interpreter to others."

Mark's connection with the apostle Paul, though interrupted by the incident recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (15:37-39), was afterwards renewed and he restored to the apostle's confidence, as is manifest from the way in which he notices him. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11. If, as is probable (see below, No. 22), Mark wrote between A.D. 60 and 70, his long intimacy with Peter and Paul qualified him in a special manner for his work.

22. Ancient tradition favors the idea that Mark wrote his gospel _in Rome_. Had he written in Egypt, as Chrysostom thinks, we can hardly suppose that Clement of Alexandria would have been ignorant of the fact, as his testimony shows that he was. In respect to _date_, the accounts of the ancients differ so much among themselves that it is difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion. We may probably place it between A.D. 64 and 70. The _language_ in which Mark wrote was Greek. This is attested by the united voice of antiquity. The subscriptions annexed to some manuscripts of the Old Syriac, and that in the Philoxenian Syriac version, to the effect that Mark wrote _in Roman_, that is, in Latin, are of no authority. They are the conjectures of ignorant men, who inferred from the fact that Mark wrote in Rome that he must have used the Latin tongue.

The story of the pretended _Latin autograph_ of Mark's gospel
preserved in the Library of St. Mark at Venice is now exploded.
The manuscript to which this high honor was assigned is part of
the _Codex Forojuliensis_, which gives the text of the _Latin
Vulgate_. The text was edited by Blanchini in the appendix to
his _Evangeliarium Quadruplex_, _Fourfold Gospel_. The gospel of
Mark having been cut out and removed to Venice was exalted to be
the autograph of Mark. See Tregelles in Horne, vol. 4, chap. 23.
The fact that Mark wrote out of Palestine and for Gentile
readers at once accounts for the numerous explanatory clauses by
which his gospel is distinguished from that of Matthew. Examples
are: chaps. 7:3, 4; 12:42; 13:3; 14:12; 15:42; and the frequent
interpretations of Aramaean words: 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46;
14:36; 15:34.

23. The opening words of Matthew's gospel are: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," by which, as already remarked, he indicates his purpose to show that Jesus of Nazareth is the long promised Messiah of David's line, and the seed of Abraham, in whom all nations are to be blessed. Mark, on the contrary, passing by our Lord's genealogy, commences thus: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He recognizes him, indeed as the son of David, and the promised Messiah and king of Israel. Chaps. 10:47, 48; 11:10; 15:32. But, writing among Gentiles and for Gentiles, the great fact which he is intent on setting forth is the person and character of Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew gives special attention to the Saviour's discourses. With these considerably more than a third of his gospel is occupied. Mark, on the contrary, devotes himself mainly to the narrative of our Lord's works. With this is interwoven a multitude of his sayings; since it was the Saviour's custom to teach in connection with surrounding incidents. But if we compare the set discourses of our Lord recorded by Mark with those which Matthew gives, they will hardly amount to a fifth part in quantity. Between the narrative parts of Matthew and Mark, on the contrary, there is not a very great disparity in respect to the space occupied by each.

24. Though Mark has but little matter that is absolutely new, he yet handles his materials in an original and independent way, weaving into the narratives which he gives in common with one or more of the other evangelists numerous little incidents in the most natural and artless way. His characteristics as a historian are _graphic vividness_ of description and _circumstantiality of detail_. If we except some striking passages of John's gospel, he brings us nearer to our Lord's person and the scenes described than either of the other evangelists. He brings before us, as in a picture, not only our Lord's words and works, but his very looks and gestures. It is he that records as has been often noticed, how the Saviour "looked round about" him with anger on the unbelieving multitudes and on Peter (chap. 3:5; 8:33); with complacency on his disciples (chap. 3:34; 10:27); and with the piercing look of inquiry (chap. 5:32); how he looked up to heaven and sighed when he healed one who was deaf and dumb (chap. 7:34); and how he sighed deeply in spirit at the perverseness of the Pharisees (chap. 8:12). He sometimes gives us the very words of the Saviour when he performed his mighty works--_Talitha cumi_ (5:41), _Ephphatha_ (7:34). His narratives are remarkable for bringing in little incidents which can have come from none but an eyewitness, but which add wonderfully to the naturalness as well as the vividness of his descriptions. When the storm arises he is asleep _on a pillow_ (chap. 4:38); Jairus' daughter arises and walks, _for she was of the age of twelve years_ (chap. 5:42); the multitudes that are to be fed sit down _in ranks by hundreds and by fifties_ (chap. 6:40), etc. As examples of vivid description may be named the account of the demoniac (chap. 5:2-20), and the lunatic. Chap. 9:14-27. It is not necessary to assume that Mark was himself a disciple of our Lord. If, as ancient tradition asserts, he was the disciple and interpreter of Peter he could receive from his lips those circumstantial details with which his narrative abounds.

25. The closing passage of this gospel, chap. 16:9-20, is wanting in a number of important manuscripts, among which are the Vatican and Sinaitic. The same was the case also in the days of Eusebius and Jerome. But it was known to Irenæus, and quoted by him and many others after him. The reader must be referred to the critical commentaries and introductions for the discussion of the difficult questions concerning it. Tregelles, who, in his account of the printed text has given a full statement of the case, thus expresses his judgment (in Horne, vol. 4, p. 436): "It is _perfectly_ certain that from the second century and onward, these verses have been known as part of _this gospel_ (whoever was their _author_)." He thinks that "the _book of Mark himself_ extends no farther than 'for they were afraid,' chap. 16:8; but that the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this question does not in the least involve their rejection as not being a part of canonical Scripture."

IV. LUKE.

26. The unanimous voice of antiquity ascribes the third gospel with the Acts of the Apostles to _Luke_. He first appears as the travelling companion of Paul when he leaves Troas for Macedonia (Acts 16:10); for the use of the first person plural--"we endeavored," "the Lord had called us," "we came," etc.--which occurs from that point of Paul's history and onward, with certain interruptions, through the remainder of the Acts of the Apostles, admits of no other natural and reasonable explanation. There is good reason to believe that he is identical with "Luke, the beloved physician," who was with Paul when a prisoner at Rome. Col. 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. From the first of these passages it has been inferred that he was not a Jew by birth, since he is apparently distinguished from those "who are of the circumcision," v. 11.

Tradition represents him to have been by birth a Syrian of
Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 3. 4; Jerome, Preface to Matt.,
and elsewhere), and a Jewish proselyte (Jerome, Quest. on Gen.,
chap. 46); and it adds various other legends which are not worth
repeating.

27. The evangelist himself, in his dedicatory address to Theophilus (chap. 1:1-4), gives us clear and definite information respecting the _sources of his gospel_. He does not profess to have been himself an eye-witness, but has drawn his information from those "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." His investigations have been accurate and thorough: "having accurately traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original words mean), he writes to Theophilus "in order;" that is, in an orderly and connected way. He proposes to give not some loose fragments, but a connected narrative; although, as we have seen above (No. 10), his order is not always that of strict chronological sequence. From the long and intimate connection of Luke with Paul it is reasonable to suppose that the latter must have exerted an influence on the composition of this gospel. Luke, however, did not draw the materials of his narrative from Paul (at least not principally), but, as he expressly states, from those "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." He did not write from Paul's dictation, but in a free and independent way; though there is no reasonable ground for doubting that it was with Paul's knowledge and approbation.

The "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" are those who (1)
were from the beginning eye-witnesses of our Lord's public
ministry; (2) were intrusted with the work of preaching the
word; that is, the apostles and such of their associates as had
companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and
out among them. Acts 1:21. The words of Luke must not be
strained; for he records some incidents of our Lord's history
_before_ his public appearance which could have been learned
only from Mary and her circle.

The remarkable agreement between Luke's account of the
institution of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:9, 20), and Paul's (1
Cor. 11:28-25) has often been noticed. It is most naturally
explained by the supposition that Luke recorded the transaction
in the form in which he had often heard it from the lips of
Paul. But there is nothing in the character of this gospel which
can warrant the supposition that the apostle exercised a formal
supervision over its composition. Such a procedure would be
contrary to the spirit of the apostolic age. The apostle himself
wrote by an amanuensis. But when one of his associates in the
ministry wrote, in whom he had full confidence, he left him to
the free exercise of his judgment under the illumination of the
Holy Spirit.

28. In respect to the _date_ of this gospel, if we assume that the Acts of the Apostles were written at Rome about A.D. 63-65 (Chap. 5, No. 5), it is reasonable to suppose that the gospel, which is dedicated to the same personage, was composed not very long before, perhaps even during the two years of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, in which case Rome would also be the _place_ of its composition. Whether Luke wrote before or after Mark is a question that has been differently answered, and cannot be determined with certainty. The proof that all three of the first evangelists wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem has been already given. Chap. 3, No. 14.