Chapter VII: Part II: The Lost Petrine Gospels (2)

That this tradition may be true is not unlikely. The rocks were rent, and the earth quaked, and it is probable enough that the Temple was so shaken that the great lintel stone fell.

St. Epiphanius gives us another fragment:

“_I am come to abolish the sacrifices: if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from weighing upon you._”(227)

In the Clementine Recognitions, a work issuing from the Ebionite anti‐ Gnostic school, we find that the abolition of the sacrifices was strongly insisted on. The abomination of idolatry is first exposed, and the strong hold that Egyptian idolatry had upon the Israelites is pointed out; then we are told Moses received the Law, and, in consideration of the prejudices of the people, tolerated sacrifice:

“When Moses perceived that the vice of sacrificing to idols had
been deeply ingrained into the people from their association with
the Egyptians, and that the root of this evil could not be
extracted from them, he allowed them to sacrifice indeed, but
permitted it to be done only to God, that by any means he might
cut off one half of the deeply ingrained evil, leaving the other
half to be corrected by another, and at a future time; by him,
namely, concerning whom he said himself, A prophet shall the Lord
your God raise unto you, whom ye shall hear, even as myself,
according to all things which he shall say to you. Whosoever shall
not hear that prophet, his soul shall be cut off from his
people.”(228)

In another place the Jewish sacrifices are spoken of as sin.(229)

This hostility to the Jewish sacrificial system by Ebionites who observed all the other Mosaic institutions was due to their having sprung out of the old sect of the Essenes, who held the sacrifices in the same abhorrence.(230)

That our Lord may have spoken against the sacrifices is possible enough. The passage may have stood thus: “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil; nevertheless, I tell you the truth, I am come to destroy the sacrifices. But be ye approved money‐changers, choose that which is good metal, reject that which is bad.”

It is probable that in the original Hebrew Gospel there was some such passage, for St. Paul, or whoever was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, apparently alludes to it twice. He says, “When he cometh into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me.”(231) The plain meaning of which is, not that David had used those words centuries before, in prophecy, but that Jesus had used them himself when he came into the world. If the writer of the Epistle did quote a passage from the Hebrew Gospel, it will have been the second from the same source.

In the Ebionite Gospel, “by a criminal fraud,” says St. Epiphanius, a protestation has been placed in the mouth of the Lord against the Paschal Sacrifice of the Lamb, by changing a positive phrase into a negative one.

When the disciples ask Jesus where they shall prepare the Passover, he is made to reply, not, as in St. Luke, that with desire he had desired to eat this Passover, but, “_Have I then any desire to eat the flesh of the Paschal Lamb with you?_”(232)

The purpose of this interpolation of two words is clear. The Samaritan Ebionites, like the Essenes, did not touch meat, regarding all animal food with the greatest repugnance.(233) By the addition of two words they were able to convert the saying of our Lord into a sanction of their superstition. But this saying of Jesus is now found only in St. Luke’s Gospel. It must have stood originally without the Μὴ and the κρέας in the Gospel of the Twelve.

Another of their alterations of the Gospel was to the same intent. Instead of making St. John the Baptist eat locusts and wild honey, they gave him for his nourishment wild honey only, ἐγχρίδας, instead of ἀχρίδας and μελί ἄγριον.

The passage in which this curious change was made is remarkable. It served as the introduction to the Gospel in use among the Gnostic Ebionites.

“_A certain man, named Jesus, being about thirty years of age, hath chosen us; and having come to Capernaum, he entered into the house of Simon, whose surname was Peter, and he said unto him, As I passed by the Sea of Tiberias, I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, Simon and Andrew, Thaddaeus, Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot; and thee, Matthew, when thou wast sitting at thy tax‐gatherer’s table, then I called thee, and thou didst follow me. And you do I choose to be my twelve apostles to bear witness unto Israel._

“_John baptized; and the Pharisees came to him, and they were baptized of him, and all Jerusalem also. He had a garment of camels’ hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his meat was wild honey, and the taste thereof was as manna, and as a cake of oil._”

Apparently after this announcement of his choice of the apostles there followed something analogous to the preface in St. Luke’s Gospel, to the effect that these apostles, having assembled together, had taken in hand to write down those things that they remembered concerning Christ and his teaching. And it was on this account that the Gospel obtained the name of the “Recollections of the Apostles,” or the “Gospel of the Twelve.”

The special notice taken of St. Matthew, who is singled out from the others in this address, is significant of the relation supposed to exist between the Gospel and the converted publican. If we had the complete introduction, we should probably find that in it he was said to have been the scribe who wrote down the apostolic recollections.

2. Doubtful Fragments.

There are a few fragments preserved by early ecclesiastical writers which we cannot say for certain belonged to the Gospel of the Hebrews, but which there is good reason to believe formed a part of it.

Origen, in his Commentary on St. Matthew, quotes a saying of our Lord which is not to be found in the Canonical Gospels. Origen, we know, was acquainted with, and quoted respectfully, the Gospel of the Hebrews. It is therefore probable that this quotation is taken from it: “_Jesus said, For the sake of the weak I became weak, for the sake of the hungry I hungered, for the sake of the thirsty I thirsted_.”(234)

That this passage, full of beauty, occurred after the words, “This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting,” in commenting on which Origen quotes it, is probable. It is noteworthy that it is quoted in comment on St. Matthew’s Gospel, the one to which the lost Gospel bore the closest resemblance, and one which Origen would probably consult whilst compiling his Commentary on St. Matthew.(235)

The saying is so beautiful, and so truly describes the love of our Lord, that we must wish to believe it comes to us on such high authority as the Gospel of the Twelve.

Another saying of Christ is quoted both by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, without saying whence they drew it, but by both as undoubted sayings of the Saviour. It ran:

“_Seek those things that are great, and little things will be added to you._” “_And seek ye heavenly things, and the things of this world will be added to you._”(236)

It will be seen, the form as given by St. Clement is better and simpler than that given by Origen. It is probable, however, that they both formed members of the same saying, following the usual Hebrew arrangement of repeating a maxim, giving it a slightly different turn, or a wider expansion. In two passages in other places Origen makes allusion to this saying without quoting it directly.(237)

In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke puts into the mouth of St. Paul a saying of Christ, which is not given by any evangelist, in these words: “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, _It is more blessed to give than to receive_.”(238) It is curious that this saying should not have been inserted by St. Luke in his Gospel. Whether this saying found its way into the Hebrew Gospel it is impossible to tell.

In the Epistle of St. Barnabas another utterance of Christ is given. This Epistle is so distinctly of a Judaizing character, so manifestly belongs to the Nazarene school, that such a reference in it makes it more than probable that it was taken from the Gospel received as Canonical among the Nazarenes. The saying of St. Barnabas is, “All the time of our life and of our faith will not profit us, if we have not in abhorrence the evil one and future temptation, even as the Son of God said, _Resist all iniquity and hold it in abhorrence_.”(239) Another saying in the Epistle of St. Barnabas is, “_They who would see me, and attain to my kingdom, must possess me through afflictions and suffering_.”(240)

In the second Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians occurs a very striking passage: “Wherefore to us doing such things the Lord said, _If ye were with me, gathered together in my bosom, and did not keep my commandments, I would cast you out, and say unto you, Depart from me, I know not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity_.”(241)

We can well understand this occurring in an anti‐Pauline Gospel.

Again. “The Lord said, _Be ye as lambs in the midst of wolves. Peter answered and said unto him, But what if the wolves shall rend the lambs? Jesus said unto Peter, The lambs fear not the wolves after their death; and ye also, do not ye fear them that kill you, and after that have nothing that they can do to you, but fear rather him who, after ye are dead, has power to cast your soul and body into hell fire._”(242)

This is clearly another version of the passage, Matt. x. 16‐26. In one particular it is fuller than in the Canonical Gospel; it introduces St. Peter as speaking and drawing forth the exhortation not to fear those who kill the body only. But it is without the long exhortation contained in the 17‐27th verses of St. Matthew.

Another saying from the same source is, “This, therefore, the Lord said, _Keep the flesh chaste and the seal undefiled, and ye shall receive eternal life_.”(243) The seal is the unction of confirmation completing baptism, and in the primitive Church united with it. It is the σφραγίς so often spoken of in the Epistles of St. Paul.(244)

Justin Martyr contributes another saying. We have already seen that in all likelihood he quoted from the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Recollections of the Twelve, as he called it. He says, “On this account also our Lord Jesus Christ said, _In those things in which I shall overtake you, in those things will I judge you_.”(245) Clement of Alexandria makes the same quotation, slightly varying the words. Justin and Clement apparently both translated from the original Hebrew, but did not give exactly the same rendering of words, though they gave the same sense.

Clement gives us another saying, but does not say from what Gospel he drew it. “The Lord commanded in a certain Gospel, _My secret is for me and for the children of my home_.”(246)

3. The Origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews.

We come now to a question delicate, and difficult to answer—the Origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews; delicate, because it involves another, the origin of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark; difficult, because of the nature of the evidence on which we shall have to form our opinion.

Because the Gospel of the Hebrews is not preserved, is not in the Canon, it does not follow that its value was slight, its accuracy doubtful. Its disappearance is due partly to the fact of its having been written in Aramaic, but chiefly to that of its having been in use by an Aramaic‐ speaking community which assumed first a schismatical, then a heretical position, so that the disfavour which fell on the Nazarene body enveloped and doomed its Gospel as well.

The four Canonical Gospels owe their preservation to their having been in use among those Christian communities which coalesced under the moulding hands of St. John. Those parties which were reluctant to abandon their peculiar features were looked upon with coldness, then aversion, lastly abhorrence. They became more and more isolated, eccentric, prejudiced, impracticable. Whilst the Church asserted her catholicity, organized her constitution, established her canon, formulated her creed, adapted herself to the flux of ideas, these narrow sects spent their petty lives in accentuating their peculiarities till they grew into monstrosities; and when they fell and disappeared, there fell and disappeared with them those precious records of the Saviour’s words and works which they had preserved.

The Hebrew Gospel was closely related to the Gospel of St. Matthew; that we know from the testimony of St. Jerome, who saw, copied and translated it. That it was not identical with the Canonical first Gospel is also certain. Sufficient fragments have been preserved to show that in many points it was fuller, in some less complete, than the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew. The two Gospels were twin sisters speaking different tongues. Was the Greek of the first Gospel acquired, or was it original? This is a point deserving of investigation before we fix the origin and determine the construction of the Hebrew Gospel.

According to a fragment of a lost work by Papias, written about the middle of the second century, under the title of “Commentary on the Sayings of the Lord,”(247) the apostle Matthew was the author of a collection of the “sayings,” λόγια, of our blessed Lord. The passage has been already given, but it is necessary to quote it again here: “Matthew wrote in the Hebrew dialect the sayings, and every one interpreted them as best he was able.”(248) These “logia” could only be, according to the signification of the word (Rom. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12; Pet. iv. 11; Acts vii. 38), a collection of the sayings of the Saviour that were regarded as oracular, as “the words of God.” That they were the words of Jesus, follows from the title given by Papias to his commentary, Λόγια κυριακὰ.

This brief notice is sufficient to show that Matthew’s collection was not the Gospel as it now stands. It was no collection of the acts, no biography, of the Saviour; it was solely a collection of his discourses.

This is made clearer by what Papias says in the same work on St. Mark. He relates that the latter wrote not only what Jesus had _said_, but also what he _did_;(249) whereas St. Matthew wrote only what had been _said_.(250)

The work of Matthew, therefore, contained no doings, πραχθέντα, but only sayings, λεχθέντα, which were, according to Papias, written in Hebrew, _i.e._ the vernacular Aramaic, and which were translated into Greek by every one as best he was able.

This notice of Papias is very ancient. The Bishop of Hierapolis is called by Irenaeus “a very old man.”(251) and by the same writer is said to have been “a friend of Polycarp,” and “one who had heard John.”(252) That this John was the apostle is not certain. It was questioned by Eusebius in his mention of the Prooemium of Papias. John the priest and John the apostle were both at Ephesus, and both lived there at the close of the first century. Some have thought the Apocalypse to have been the work of the priest John, and not of the apostle. Others have supposed that there was only one John. However this may be, it is certain that Papias lived at a time when it was possible to obtain correct information relating to the origin of the sacred books in use among the Christians.

According to the Prooemium of Papias, which Eusebius has preserved, the Bishop of Hierapolis had obtained his knowledge, not directly from the apostles, nor from the apostle John, but from the mouths of men who had companied with old priests and disciples of the apostles, and who had related to him what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John and other disciples of the Lord had said (εἶπεν). Besides the testimony of these priests, Papias appealed further to the evidence of Aristion and the priest John, disciples of the Lord,(253) still alive and bearing testimony when he wrote. “And,” says Papias, “I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving.”(254)

Papias, therefore, had his information about the apostles second‐hand, from those “who followed them about.” Nevertheless, his evidence is quite trustworthy. He takes pains to inform us that he used great precaution to obtain the truth about every particular he stated, and the means of obtaining the truth were at his disposal. That Papias was a man “of a limited comprehension”(255) does not affect the trustworthiness of his statement. Eusebius thus designates him because he believed in the Millennium; but so did most of the Christians of the first age, as well as in the immediate second coming of Christ, till undeceived by events.

The statement of Papias does not justify us in supposing that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, but only a collection of the logia, the sayings of Jesus. Eusebius did not mistake the Sayings for the Gospel, for he speaks separately of the Hebrew Gospel,(256) without connecting it in any way with the testimony of Papias.

According to Eusebius, Papias wrote his Commentary in five books.(257) It is not improbable, therefore, that the “Logia” were broken into five parts or grouped in five discourses, and that he wrote an explanation of each discourse in a separate book or chapter.

The statement of Papias, if it does not refer to the Gospel of St. Matthew as it now stands, does refer to one of the constituent parts of that Gospel, and does explain much that would be otherwise inexplicable.

1. St. Matthew’s Gospel differs from St. Mark’s in that it contains long discourses, sayings and parables, which are wanting or only given in a brief form in the second Canonical Gospel. It is therefore probable that in its composition were used the “Logia of the Lord,” written by Matthew.

2. If the collection of “Sayings of the Lord” consisted, as has been suggested, of five parts, then we find traces in the Canonical Matthew of five groups of discourses, concluded by the same formulary: “And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings” (τοὺς λόγους τούτους), or “parables,” vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53,. xix. 1, xxvi. 1. It is not, however, possible to restore all the “logia” to their primitive positions, for they have been dispersed through the Canonical Gospel, and arranged in connection with the events which called them forth. In the “Sayings of the Lord” of Matthew, these events were not narrated; but all the sayings were placed together, like the proverbs in the book of Solomon.

3. The “Logia” of the Lord were written by Matthew in Hebrew, _i.e._ in the vernacular Aramaic. If they have formed the groundwork, or a composite part of the Canonical Gospel, we are likely to detect in the Greek some traces of their origin. And this, in fact, we are able to do.

α. In the first place, we have the introduction of Aramaic words, as Raka (v. 22),(258) Mammon (vi. 22),(259) Gehenna (v. 22),(260) Amen (v. 18).(261) Many others might be cited, but these will suffice.

β. Next, we have the use of illustrations which are only comprehensible by Hebrews, as “One jot and one tittle shall in no wise fall.” The Ἰῶτα of the Greek text is the Aramaic Jod (v. 18); but the “one tittle” is more remarkable. In the Greek it is “one horn,” or “stroke.”(262) The idea is taken from the Aramaic orthography. A stroke distinguishes one consonant from another, as ח and ה from ד. With this the Greeks had nothing that corresponded.

γ. We find Hebraisms in great number in the discourses of our Lord given by St. Matthew.(263)

δ. We find mistranslations. The Greek Canonical text gives a wrong meaning, or no meaning at all, through misunderstanding of the Aramaic. By restoration of the Aramaic text we can rectify the translation. Thus:

Matt. vii. 6, “Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” The word “holy,” τὸ ἅγιον, is a misinterpretation of the Aramaic קרשא, a gold jewel for the ear, head or neck.(264) The translator mistook the word for קורשא, or קרשא without ו “the holy.” The sentence in the original therefore ran, “Give not a gold jewel to dogs, neither cast pearls before swine.”

Matt. v. 37, “Let your conversation be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.” This is meaningless. But if we restore the construction in Aramaic we have יהןא לכם הן הן, לאו לאו, and the meaning is, “In your conversation let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay.” The yea, yea, and nay, nay, in the Hebrew come together, and this misled the translator. St. James quotes the saying rightly (v. 12), “Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.” It is a form of a Rabbinic maxim, “The yea of the righteous is yea, and their nay is nay.” It is an injunction to speak the truth.

We have therefore good grounds for our conjecture that St. Matthew’s genuine “Sayings of the Lord” form a part of the Canonical Gospel.

We have next to consider, Whence came the rest of the material, the record of the “doings of the Lord,” which the compiler interwove with the “Sayings”?

We have tolerably convincing evidence that the compiler placed under contribution both Aramaic and Greek collections.

For the citations from the Old Testament are not taken exclusively from the Hebrew Scriptures, nor from the Greek translation of the Seventy; but some are taken from the Greek translation, and some are taken from the Hebrew, or from a Syro‐Chaldaean Targum or Paraphrase, probably in use at the time.

Matt. i. 23, “A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.” This is quoted as a prophecy of the miraculous conception. But it is only a prophecy in the version of the LXX., which renders the Hebrew word παρθένος, “virgin.” The Hebrew word does not mean virgin exclusively, but “a young woman.” We may therefore conclude that verses 22, 23, were additions by the Greek compiler of the Gospel, unacquainted with the original Hebrew text.

Matt. ii. 15, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” This is quoted literally from the Hebrew text. That of the LXX. has, “Out of Egypt have I called my children,” τὰ τέκνα. This made the saying of Hosea no prophecy of our Lord; consequently he who inserted this reference can have known only the Hebrew text, and not the Greek version. But in ii. 18, the compiler follows the LXX. And again, ii. 23, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” Ναζωραῖος. The Hebrew is כזר of which Ναζωραῖος is no translation. The LXX. have Ναζιραῖος. The compiler was caught by the similarity of sounds.

Matt. iii. 3. Here the construction of the LXX. is followed, which unites “in the wilderness” with “the voice of one crying.” The Hebrew was therefore not known by the compiler.

Matt. iv. 15. Here the LXX. is not followed, for the word γῆ is used in place of χώρα. The quotation is not, moreover, taken exactly from Isaiah, but apparently from a Targum.

Matt. viii. 17. This quotation is nearer the original Hebrew than the rendering of the LXX.

Matt. xii. 18‐21. In this citation we have an incorrect rendering of the Hebrew לתורתו “at his teaching,” made by the LXX. “in his name,” adopted without hesitation by the compiler. He also accepts the erroneous rendering of “islands,” made “nation,” “Gentiles,” by the LXX.

But, on the other hand, “till he send forth judgment unto victory,” is taken from neither the original Hebrew nor from the LXX., and is probably derived from a Targum.

Thus in this passage we have apparently a combination of two somewhat similar accounts—the one in Greek, the other in Aramaic.

Matt. xiii. 35. This also is a compound text. The first half is from the LXX., but the second member is from a Hebrew Targum.

Matt. xxvii. 3. In the Hebrew, the field is not a “potter’s,” nor is it in the LXX., who use χωνευτήριον “the smelting‐furnace.” The word in the Hebrew signifies “treasury.” The composer of the Gospel, therefore must have quoted from a Targum, and been ignorant both of the genuine Hebrew Scriptures and of the Greek translation of the Seventy.

These instances are enough to show that the material used for the compilation of the first Canonical Gospel was very various; that the author had at his disposal matter in both Aramaic and Greek.

We shall find, on looking further, that he inserted two narratives of the same event in his Gospel in different places, if they differed slightly from one another, when coming to him from different sources.

The following are parallel passages:

iv. 23 And Jesus went about ix. 35 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their all the cities and villages, synagogues, and preaching the teaching in their synagogues, gospel of the kingdom, and and preaching the gospel of healing all manner of sickness the kingdom, and healing every and all manner of disease sickness and every disease among the people. among the people. v. 29 And if thy right eye xviii. 9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is cast it from thee: it is profitable for thee that one better for thee to enter into of thy members should perish, life with one eye, rather than and not that thy whole body having two eyes to be cast should be cast into hell. into hell fire. 30 And if thy right hand 8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy offend thee, cut it off, and foot offend thee, cut them cast it from thee: for it is off, and cast them from thee: profitable for thee that one it is better for thee to enter of thy members should perish, into life halt or maimed, and not that thy whole body rather than having two hands should be cast into hell. or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 32 But I say unto you, That xix. 9 And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of wife, except it be for fornication, causeth her to fornication, and shall marry commit adultery: and whosoever another, committeth adultery: shall marry her that is and whoso marrieth her which divorced committeth adultery. is put away doth commit adultery. vi. 14 For if ye forgive men xviii. 35 So likewise shall my their trespasses, your heavenly Father do also unto heavenly Father will also you, if ye from your hearts forgive you: forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. vii. 16 Ye shall know them by xii. 33 Either make the tree their fruits. Do men gather good, and his fruit good; or grapes of thorns, or figs of else make the tree corrupt, thistles? and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. ix. 13 But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I will have what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. mercy, and not sacrifice. ix. 34 But the Pharisees said, xii. 24 But when the Pharisees He casteth out devils through heard it, they said, This the prince of the devils. fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. x. 15 Verily I say unto you, xi. 24. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for That it shall be more the land of Sodom and Gomorrha tolerable for the land of in the day of judgment, than Sodom in the day of judgment, for that city. than for thee. 17 But beware of men: for they xxiv. 9 Then shall they will deliver you up to the deliver you up to be councils, and they will afflicted, and shall kill you: scourge you in their and ye shall be hated of all synagogues; nations for my name’s sake. 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. xii. 39 But he answered and xvi. 4 A wicked and adulterous said unto them, An evil and generation seeketh after a adulterous generation seeketh sign; and there shall no sign after a sign; and there shall be given unto it, but the sign no sign be given to it; but of the prophet Jonas. the sign of the prophet Jonas. xiii.12 For whosoever hath, to xxv. 29 For unto every one him shall be given, and he that hath shall be given, and shall have more abundance: but he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him from him that hath not shall shall be taken away even that be taken away even that which he hath. he hath. xiv. 5 And when he would have xxi. 26 But if we shall say, put him to death, he feared Of men; we fear the people; the multitude, because they for all hold John as a counted him as a prophet. prophet. xvi. 19 And I will give unto xviii. 18 Verily I say unto thee the keys of the kingdom you, Whatsoever ye shall bind of heaven: and whatsoever thou on earth shall be bound in shalt bind on earth shall be heaven: and whatsoever ye bound in heaven: and shall loose on earth shall be whatsoever thou shalt loose on loosed in heaven. earth shall be loosed in heaven. xvii. 20 And Jesus said unto xxi. 21 Jesus answered and them, Because of your said unto them, Verily I say unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith and unto you, If ye have faith as doubt not, ye shall not only a grain of mustard seed, ye do this which is done to the shall say unto this mountain, fig tree, but also if ye shall Remove hence to yonder place; say unto this mountain, Be and it shall remove; and thou removed, and be thou cast nothing shall be impossible into the sea; it shall be unto you. done. xxiv. 11 And many false xxiv. 24 For there shall arise prophets shall rise, and shall false Christs, and false deceive many. prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders: insomuch that, if it were possible, they should deceive the very elect. xxiv. 23 Then if any man shall xxiv. 26 Wherefore if they say unto you, Lo, here is shall say unto you, Behold, he Christ, or there; believe it is in the desert, go not not. forth: behold, he is in the secret chamber; believe it not.

The existence in the first Canonical Gospel of these duplicate passages proves that the editor of it in its present form made use of materials from different sources, which he worked together into a complete whole. And these duplicate passages are the more remarkable, because, where his memory does not fail him, he takes pains to avoid repetition.

It would seem therefore plain that the compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel made use of, first, a Collection of the Sayings of the Lord, of undoubted genuineness, drawn up by St. Matthew; second, of two or more Collections of the Sayings and Doings of the Lord, also, no doubt, genuine, but not necessarily by St. Matthew.

One of these sources was made use of also by St. Mark in the composition of his Gospel.

According to the testimony of Papias:

“John the Priest said this: Mark being the interpreter of Peter,
whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not,
however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord,
for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said,
he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as
occasion called forth, but did not study to give a history of our
Lord’s discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by
writing this and that as he has remembered them; for he was
carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he
heard, nor to state anything falsely in these accounts.”(265)

It has been often asked and disputed, whether this statement applies to the Gospel of St. Mark received by the Church into her sacred canon.

It can hardly be denied that the Canonical Gospel of Mark does answer in every particular to the description of its composition by John the Priest. John gives five characteristics to the work of Mark:

1. A striving after accuracy.(266)

2. Want of chronological succession in his narrative, which had rather the character of a string of anecdotes and sayings than of a biography.(267)

3. It was composed of records of both the sayings and the _doings_ of Jesus.(268)

4. It was no syntax of sayings (σύνταξις λογίων), like the work of Matthew.(269)

5. It was the composition of a companion of Peter.(270)

These characteristic features of the work of Mark agree with the Mark Gospel, some of the special features of which are:

1. Want of order: it is made up of a string of episodes and anecdotes, and of sayings manifestly unconnected.

2. The order of events is wholly different from that in Matthew, Luke and John.

3. Both the sayings and the doings of Jesus are related in it.

4. It contains no long discourses, like the Gospel of St. Matthew, arranged in systematic order.

5. It contains many incidents which point to St. Peter as the authority for them, and recall his preaching.

To this belong—the manner in which the Gospel opens with the baptism of John, just as St. Peter’s address (Acts x. 37‐41) begins with that event also; the many little incidents mentioned which give token of having been related by an eye‐witness, and in which the narrative of St. Matthew is deficient.(271) St. Mark’s Gospel is also rich in indications of the feelings of the people toward Jesus, such as an eye‐witness must have observed,(272) and of notices of movements of the body—small significant acts, which could not escape one present who described what he had seen.(273)

That the composer of St. Matthew’s Gospel made use of the material out of which St. Mark compiled his, that is, of the memorabilia of St. Peter, is evident. Whole passages of St. Mark’s Gospel occur word for word, or nearly so, in the Gospel of St. Matthew.(274)

Moreover, it is apparent that sometimes the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel misunderstood the text. A few instances must suffice here.

Mark ii. 18: “And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees were fasting. And they came to him and said to him, Why do the disciples of John, and the disciples of the Pharisees, fast, and thy disciples fast not?” It is clear that it was then a fasting season, which the disciples of Jesus were not observing. The “they” who came to him does not mean “the disciples of John and of the Pharisees,” but certain other persons. Καὶ ἔρχονται is so used in St. Mark’s Gospel in several places, like the French “on venait.”

But the compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel did not understand this use of the verb without a subject expressed, and he made “the disciples of John” ask the question.

Mark vi. 10: Ὅπου ἂν εἰσέλθητε εἰς οἰκίαν, ἐκεῖ μένετε ἕως ἄν ἐξέλθητε ἐκεῖθεν. That is, “Wherever (_i.e._ in whatsoever town or village) ye enter into a house, therein remain (i.e. in that house) till ye go away thence (_i.e._ from that city or village).” By leaving out the word _house_, Matthew loses the sense of the command (x. 11), “Into whatsoever town or village ye enter—remain in it till ye go out of it.”

Mark vii. 27, 28. The Lord answers the Syro‐Phoenician woman, “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.” The woman answers, “Yes, Lord; yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” The meaning is, God gives His grace and mercy first to the Jews (the children); and this must not be taken from the Jews to be given to the heathen (the dogs). True, answers the woman; but the heathen do partake of the blessings that overflow from the portion of the Jews.

But the so‐called Matthew did not catch the signification, and the point is lost in his version (xv. 27). He makes the woman answer, “The dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from _their masters’_ table.”

Mark x. 13. According to St. Mark, parents brought their children to Christ, probably with some superstitious idea, to be touched. This offended the disciples. “They rebuked those that brought them.” But Jesus was displeased, and said to the disciples, “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” And instead of fulfilling the superstitious wishes of the parents, he took the children in his arms and blessed them. But the text used by St. Matthew’s compilator was probably defective at the end of verse 13, and ended, “and his disciples rebuked....” The compiler therefore completed it with αὐτοῖς instead of τοῖς προσφέρουσιν, and then misunderstood verse 14, and applied the ἄφετε differently: “Let go the children, and do not hinder them from coming to me.” In St. Mark, the disciples rebuke the parents; in St. Matthew, they rebuke the children, and intercept them on their way to Christ.

Mark xii. 8: “They slew him and cast him out,” _i.e._ cast out the dead body. The compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel did not see this. He could not understand how that the son was killed and then cast out of the vineyard; so he altered the order into, “They cast him out and slew him” (xxi. 38).(275)

Examples might be multiplied, but these must suffice. If I am not mistaken, they go far to prove that the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel used the material, or some of the material, out of which St. Mark’s Gospel was composed.

But there are also other proofs. The text of St. Mark has been taken into that of St. Matthew’s Gospel, but not without some changes, corrections which the compiler made, thinking the words of the text in his hands were redundant, vulgar, or not sufficiently explicit.

Thus Mark i. 5: “The whole Jewish land and all they of Jerusalem,” he changed into, “Jerusalem and all Judaea.”

Mark i. 12: “The Spirit driveth,” ἐκβάλλει, he softened into “led,” ἀνήχθη.

Mark iii. 4: “He saith, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath‐days, or to do evil?” In St. Matthew’s Gospel, before performing a miracle, Christ argues the necessity of showing mercy on the Sabbath‐day, and supplies what is wanting in St. Mark—the conclusion, “Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath‐days” (xii. 12).

Mark iv. 12: “That seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not hear.” This seemed harsh to the compiler of St. Matthew. It was as if unbelief and blindness were fatally imposed by God on men. He therefore alters the tenor of the passage, and attributes the blindness of the people, and their incapability of understanding, to their own grossness of heart (xiii. 14, 15).

Mark v. 37: “The ship was freighted,” in St. Matthew, is altered into, “the ship was covered” with the waves (viii. 34).

Mark vi. 9 “Money in the girdle,” changed into, “money in the girdles” (x. 9).

Mark ix. 42: “A millstone were put on his neck,” changed to, “were hung about his neck” (xviii. 6).

Mark x. 17: “Sell all thou hast;” Matt. xix. 21, “all thy possessions.”

Mark xii. 30: “He took a woman;” Matt. xxii. 25, “he married.”

But if it be evident that the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel laid under contribution the material used by St. Mark, it is also clear that he did not use St. Mark’s Gospel as it stands. He had the fragmentary memorabilia of which it was made up, or a large number of them, but unarranged. He sorted them and wove them in with the “Logia” written by St. Matthew, and _afterwards_, independently, without knowledge, probably, of what had been done by the compiler of the first Gospel, St. Mark compiled his. Thus St. Matthew’s is the first Gospel in order of composition, though much of the material of St. Mark’s Gospel was written and in circulation first.

This will appear when we see how independently of one another the compiler of St. Matthew and St. Mark arrange their “memorabilia.”

It is unnecessary to do more to illustrate this than to take the contents of Matt. iv.—xiii.

According to St. Matthew, after the Sermon on the Mount, Christ heals the leper, then enters Capernaum, where he receives the prayer of the centurion, and forthwith enters into Peter’s house, where he cures the mother‐in‐law, and the same night crosses the sea.

But according to St. Mark, Christ cast out the unclean spirit in the synagogue at Capernaum, then healed Peter’s wife’s mother, and, not the same night but long after, crossed the sea. On his return he went through the villages preaching, and then healed the leper.

The accounts are the same, but the order is altogether different. The deutero‐Matthew must have had the material used by Mark under his eye, for he adopts it into his narrative; but he cannot have had St. Mark’s Gospel, or he would not have so violently disturbed the order of events.

The compiler has been guilty of an inaccuracy in the use of “Gergesenes” instead of Gadarenes. St. Mark is right. Gadara was situated near the river Hieromax, east of the Sea of Galilee, over against Scythopolis and Tiberias, and capital of Peraea. This agrees exactly with what is said in the Gospels of the miracle performed in the “country of the Gadarenes.” The swine rushed violently down a steep place and perished in the lake. Jesus had come from the N.W. shore of the Sea to Gadara in the S.E. But the country of the Gergesenes can hardly be the same as that of the Gadarenes. Gerasa, the capital, was on the Jabbok, some days’ journey distant from the lake. The deutero‐Matthew was therefore ignorant of the topography of the neighbourhood whence Levi, that is Matthew, was called.

St. Mark says that Christ healed one demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum, then crossed the lake, and healed the second in Gadara. But St. Matthew, or rather the Greek compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel, has fused these two events into one, and makes Christ heal both possessed men in the country of the Gergesenes. In like manner we have twice the healing of two blind men (ix. 27 and xx. 30), whereas the other evangelists know of only single blind men being healed on both occasions. How comes this? The compiler had two accounts of each miracle of healing the blind, slightly varying. He thought they referred to the same occasion, but to different persons, and therefore made Christ heal two men, whereas he had given sight to but one.

In the former case the compiler had not such a circumstantial account of the restoration to sound mind of the demoniac in the synagogue as St. Mark had received from St. Peter. He knew only that on the occasion of Christ’s visit to the Sea of Tiberias he had recovered two men who were possessed, and so he made the healing of both take place simultaneously at the same spot.

An equally remarkable instance of the fact that St. Matthew’s Gospel was made up of fragmentary “recollections” by various eye‐witnesses, is that of the dumb man possessed with a devil, in ix. 32. At Capernaum, after having restored Jairus’ daughter to life and healed the two blind men, the same day the dumb man is brought to him. The devil is cast out, the dumb speaks, and the Pharisees say, “He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.”

This is exactly the same account which has been used by St. Luke (xi. 14). But in xii. 22 we have the same incident over again. There is brought unto Christ one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb; him Christ heals; whereupon the Pharisees say, “This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” Then follows the solemn warning against blasphemy.

It is clear that the Greek compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel must have had two independent accounts of this miracle, one with the warning against blasphemy appended to it, the other without. He gives both accounts, one as occurring at Capernaum, the other much later, after Jesus had gone about Galilee preaching, and the Pharisees had conspired against him.

St. Matthew says that after the healing of Peter’s wife’s mother, Jesus, that same evening, cured many sick, and in the night crossed to the country of the Gergesenes. But St. Mark says that he remained that night at Capernaum, and rose early next morning before day, and went into a solitary place. According to him, this crossing over the sea did not occur till long after.

The following table will show how remarkably discordant is the arrangement of events in the two evangels. The order of succession differs, but not the events and teaching recorded; surely a proof that both writers composed these Gospels out of similar but fragmentary accounts available to both. The following table will show this disagreement at a glance.

ST. MATTHEW. ST. MARK. (At Capernaum), iv. 13. (At Capernaum), i. 21. 1. Goes about preaching in the Heals man with unclean spirit villages of Galilee (23), 1. (23‐28). 2. Sermon on the Mount 5. Peter’s mother‐in‐law (v.‐vii.). healed (30, 31). 3. Leper cleansed (viii. 2‐4). 6. At even heals the sick (32‐34). 4. Centurion’s servant healed (5‐13). 5. Peter’s wife’s mother Next day rises early and goes healed (14, 15). into a solitary place (35‐37). (Leaves Capernaum). 6. At even cures the sick 1. Goes about the villages of (16). Galilee (38‐39). 7. Same night crosses the sea 3. Heals the leper (40, 41). (18‐27). (In the country of (Outside the town of Gergesenes). Capernaum), 45. 8. Heals two demoniacs (28‐39). (Returns to Capernaum), ix. 1. (Returns to Capernaum), ii. 1. 9. Sick of the palsy healed 9. Sick of the palsy healed (2‐8). (2‐13). 10. Calls Matthew (9). 11. Hemorrhitess cured 10. Levi called (14). (20‐22). 12. Jairus’ daughter restored 19. Plucks the ears of corn (18‐26). (23‐28). 13. Two blind men healed 20. Heals the withered hand (27‐30). (iii. 1‐5). 14. Dumb man healed (32, 33). 21. Consultation against Jesus (6). (Leaves Capernaum), 7. 15. Warning against blasphemy 6. Heals many sick (10‐12). (34). (Goes about Galilee), 35 and Goes into a mountain and xi. 1. 16. Sends out the Twelve (x). chooses the Twelve (13‐19). (Probably at Capernaum). 15, 23. The Pharisees blaspheme; 17. John’s disciples come to warning against blasphemy him (xi. 2‐6). (22‐30). 18. Denunciation of cities of 24. Mother and brethren seek Galilee (20‐24). him (31‐35). 19. Plucks the ears of com 25. Teaches from the ship; (xii. 1‐9). parable of the sower (iv. 1‐20). 20. Heals the withered hand 7. Crosses the lake in a storm (10‐13). (35‐41). 21. Consultation against Jesus (In the country of Gadarenes). (14). (Leaves Capernaum), 15. 8. Heals the demoniac (v. 1‐20). 22. Heals deaf and dumb man (Returns to Capernaum), 21. (22). 23. Denunciation of blasphemy 11. Hemorrhitess healed (24‐32). (25‐34). 12. Jairus’ daughter restored (22‐43). 24. Mother and brethren seek 16. Sends out the Twelve (vi. Jesus (46‐50). 7‐13). 25. Teaches from the ship; parable of sower (xiii. 1‐12). (Returns to his own country), 53.

The order in St. Luke is again different. Jesus calls Levi, chooses the Twelve, preaches the sermon on the plain, heals the Centurion’s servant, goes then from place to place preaching. Then occurs the storm on the lake, and after having healed the demoniac Jesus returns to Capernaum, cures the woman with the bloody flux, raises Jairus’ daughter and sends out the Twelve.

In the Gospel of St. Mark, the parable of the sower is spoken on “the same day” on which, in the evening, Jesus crosses the lake in a storm.

In the Gospel of St. Matthew, this parable is spoken long after, on “the same day” as his mother and brethren seek him, and this is after he has been in the country of the Gadarenes, has returned to Capernaum, gone about Galilee preaching, come back again to Capernaum, but has been driven away again by the conspiracy of the Pharisees.

It would appear from an examination of the two Gospels that articles 23, 24 and 25 composed one document, for both St. Matthew and St. Mark used it as it is, in a block, only they differ as to where to build it in.

19, 20 and 21 formed another block of Apostolic Memorabilia, and was built in by the deutero‐Matthew in one place and by St. Mark in another. 5 and 6, and again 9 and 10, were smaller compound recollections which the compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel and St. Mark obtained in their concrete forms. On the other hand, 3 and 16 formed recollections consisting of but one member, and are thrust into the narrative where the two compilers severally thought most suitable. We are therefore led by the comparison of the order in which events in our Lord’s life are related by St. Matthew and St. Mark, to the conclusion, that the author of the first Gospel as it stands had not St. Mark’s Gospel in its complete form before him when he composed his record.

We have yet another proof that this was so.

St. Matthew’s Gospel is not so full in its account of some incidents in our Lord’s life as is the Gospel of St. Mark.

The compiler of the first Gospel has shown throughout his work the greatest anxiety to insert every particular he could gather relating to the doings and sayings of Jesus. This has led him into introducing the same event or saying over a second time if he found more than one version of it. Had he all the material collected in St. Mark’s Gospel at his disposal, he would not have omitted any of it.

But we do not find in St. Matthew’s Gospel the following passages:

Mark iv. 26‐29, the parable of the seed springing up, a type of the growth of the Gospel without further labour to the minister than that of spreading it abroad. The meaning of this parable is different from that in Matt. xii. 24‐30, and therefore the two parables are not to be regarded as identical.

Mark viii. 22‐26. By omitting the narrative of what took place at Bethsaida, an apparent gap occurs in the account of St. Matthew after xvi. 4‐12. The journey across the sea leads one to expect that Christ and his disciples will land somewhere on the coast. But Matthew, without any mention of a landing at Bethsaida, translates Jesus and the apostolic band to Caesarea Philippi. But in Mark, Jesus and his disciples land at Bethsaida, and after having performed a miracle of healing there on a blind man—a miracle, the particulars of which are very full and interesting—they go on foot to Caesarea Philippi (viii. 27). That the compiler of the first Gospel should have left this incident out deliberately is not credible.

Mark ix. 38, 39. In St. Matthew’s collection of the Logia of our Lord there existed probably the saying of Christ, “He that is not with me is against me” (Matt. xii. 30). St. Mark narrates the circumstances which called forth this remark. But the deutero‐Matthew evidently did not know of these circumstances; he therefore leaves the saying in his record without explanation.(276)

Mark xii. 41‐44. The beautiful story of the poor widow throwing her two mites into the treasury, and our blessed Lord’s commendation of her charity, is not to be found in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Is it possible that he could have omitted such an exquisite anecdote had he possessed it?