Page images
PDF
EPUB

by years or festivals, and the record would be marked not so much by divisions of time as by groups of events. In all these respects the synoptic gospels exactly represent the probable form of the first oral gospel. They seem to have been shaped by the pressure of recurring needs, and not by the deliberate forethought of their authors. In their common features they seem to be that which the earliest history declares they are, the summary of the apostolic preaching, the historic groundwork of the Church.”1

No absolute

certainty as to origin of each

the particular

But granting the earliest form of the gospel narrative to have been oral, that concession is far from determining the particular origin of our present gospels. And it ought to be agreed among discerning critics that, from the nature of the case, in the absence of sufficient evidence, Gospel. no absolute certainty can be attained. How and when Matthew and Mark wrote, what was the special occasion of their writing, how far they may have used written documents, and what understanding the apostles and evangelists may have had among themselves about writing down the words and works of their Lord, are all questions. which admit of no positive answer. It is not the province of a work on hermeneutics to discuss the different theories of the origin of the written gospels, but to define principles of procedure essential to any profitable discussion of the subject. And it is all important to bear in mind that where absolute certainty on a given question is impossible, dogmatic assumptions must be avoided, and considerate attention should be bestowed upon any reasonable suppositions which will help to elucidate the problem. In the absence of external testimony the gospels themselves, and other New Testament books, may be expected to suggest the best indications of the origin and aim of any one of the gospels. It appears that it was regarded as an essential qualification for apostleship to have seen the Lord (Acts i, 21, 22; 1 Cor. ix, 1). And is it not every way reasonable to suppose that the apostles had an understanding among themselves as to what principal facts of the Lord's life should be embodied in their preaching? May it not Probable suphave been agreed among them that Matthew and John positions as to should each write a gospel of the Lord? At one time it was agreed, according to Paul (Gal. ii, 9), that James, Peter, and John should go as apostles to the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles. The council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, described in Acts xv, shows how carefully matters of general interest to the Church were discussed by the great leaders. Is it likely, then, that so important a matter as the publication of authoritative

1 Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 212, 213, Boston, 1862.

their origin.

accounts of the Christ would have been neglected by them? There was a saying abroad in the Church that John should not die (John xxi, 23). Whatever its precise meaning, it may have been the occasion of his putting off the composition of his gospel until all the rest of the apostles had passed away. The ancient tradition that Mark's Gospel is essentially that of Peter, and Luke's essentially that of Paul, is corroborated by their general character and form. With those who accept the apostolic origin and divine inspiration of the four gospels there is no reasonable ground for denying that these records were put forth by a common understanding of the apostles and elders of the Church, and for the purpose of providing the churches everywhere with an authoritative testimony of the life and works of the Lord Jesus. It appears from Luke's preface (Luke i, 1) that many persons took in hand, at an early day, to publish narratives of the current oral gospel, namely, the things that were looked upon as fully accomplished by God in the person of Jesus, and before the eyes of those who were with him from the first. This fact probably made it expedient that the great events of that gospel should be set forth by apostolic authority, and when at length these four authoritative records went forth to the churches they supplanted all others, and have ever commended themselves to the faith of Christian believers in all lands.

Distinct plan

each Gospel.

Further suggestions as to the origin of the four gospels will appear as we proceed to inquire into the distinct plan and purpose of and purpose of each. Is it reasonable to suppose that these gospel records were composed and sent forth among the early churches without any definite plan and purpose? Are they merely so many collections of fragmentary traditions thrown together haphazard? When an event recorded by one is omitted by another, are we to suppose that the omission arose from ignorance of the event? To suppose the affirmative of any one of these questions would seem highly absurd, for each of the four gospels contains so many evidences of definite design, and so many inimitable word-pictures, that we cannot believe that any authors, competent for the writing of such books, would have put them forth without orderly arrangement and without special purpose. It is far more probable that each evangelist had a reason for what he omitted as well as for what he recorded.

Irenæus gives the following account of the gospels: "Matthew Tradition of the issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their early Church. own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand

down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterward, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." With this general statement of Irenæus all ancient history and tradition substantially agree.

the Jew.

A cursory examination of Matthew's Gospel will discover its special adaptation to Jewish readers. The first verse, Matthew's Gosin true Jewish style, declares it to be "The Book of pel adapted to the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." The great purpose of this gospel throughout is to exhibit Jesus as the Messiah of whom the prophets had spoken, the divine founder of the kingdom of God. Hence he makes more extensive and more elaborate use of Old Testament prophecy than any other of the evangelists. These prominent features of the first gospel are certainly a fair indication of its special purpose.

Roman taste.

The ancient tradition that Mark's Gospel is substantially that of Peter,' is confirmed by the general style, scope, and plan Mark's Gospel of the gospel itself. Peter's active and rapid manner adapted to the would naturally dictate a condensed and pointed gospel. His ministry to such Gentile converts as Cornelius would be likely to show the need of an account of the Lord Jesus especially adapted to that class of minds. Mark's Gospel well meets this ideal. It omits genealogies and long discourses. It has comparatively few citations from Old Testament prophecy. It portrays the life of Jesus as that of a mighty conqueror. It was certainly adapted to meet the tastes of the Roman mind, whose ideals of rapidity, power, and triumph were well expressed in the famous words of Cæsar, "I came, I saw, I conquered."

Luke's Gospel, declared by the voice of the most ancient tradition 1 Against Heresies, book iii, chap. i, 1. That Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, or Aramæan, but early put forth in Greek by the hand or under the oversight of Matthew himself, is now the opinion of many of the best biblical scholars. But the arguments pro and con may be seen in Meyer, Commentary on Matthew, Introduction; Alford, Greek Testament, Prolegomena; Introduction to New Testament by Hug, De Wette, Bleek, Davidson, etc., and Biblical Dictionaries of Smith, Kitto, and M'Clintock and Strong.

SO

'Eusebius says that Peter, having established the Gospel among the Romans, greatly did the splendour of piety enlighten the minds of his hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but once, nor to receive the unwritten doctrine of the Gospel of God, but they persevered in every variety of entreaties to solicit Mark, as the companion of Peter, that he should leave them a monument of the doctrines thus orally communicated in writing. Nor did they cease their solicitations until they had prevailed with the man, and thus became the means of that history which is called the Gospel according to Mark."-Eccl. Hist., book ii, chap. xv (Bohn's Ed.).

Luke's the

to be the substance of Paul's preaching,' is pre-eminently the gospel of the Gentiles. It deals more than any other Pauline Gospel gospel with Jesus' words and works for the whole to the Gentiles. world. Luke alone records the mission of the seventy. He alone records the parable of the Good Samaritan, and that of the Prodigal Son. He narrates the journey and ministry in Peræa, a comparatively heathen land. But while adding many things of this kind, he also sets forth in his own way the main facts recorded in Matthew and Mark.' And the three together, because of the general view they give of the same great outline of facts, are called the Synoptic Gospels.

Not without reason has the Gospel of Luke been believed to have special adaptations to the mind of the Greeks. As a mighty universal conqueror was the grand ideal of a Roman, so the perfection of humanity was the dream of the noblest Grecian intellect. Luke's orderly narrative, with all those delicate traits which none but the "beloved physician" could so well detail, is pre-eminently the gospel of the Son of man, the gospel of universal redemption." The Gospel of John has manifestly a specific design different from that of the other gospels. Its lofty spiritual tone, itual Gospel of its fulness of doctrine, and its profound conceptions of the life of faith. the divinity of the Lord, arrest the attention of all readers. "The Synoptic Gospels," says Westcott, "contain the gospel of the infant Church; that of St. John the gospel of its

John's the spir

'Irenæus Against Heresies, iii, 1. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., book vi, chap. xxv, where Origen is quoted as saying: "The third Gospel is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles."

2 "The Gospel of St. Paul," says Westcott, "is, in its essential characteristics, the complementary history to that of St. Matthew. The difference between the two may be seen in their opening chapters. The first words of the Hebrew evangelist gave the clue to his whole narrative; and so the first chapter of St. Luke, with its declarations of the blessedness of faith, and the exaltation of the lowly, lead at once to the point from which he contemplated the life of Him who was 'to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.' The perfect manhood of the Saviour, and the consequent mercy and universality of his covenant, is his central subject, rather than the temporal relations or eternal basis of Christianity. In the other gospels we find our King, our Lord, our God; but in St. Luke we see the image of our great High Priest, 'made perfect through suffering, tempted in all points as we are, but without sin,' so that each trait of human feeling and natural love helps us to complete the outline and confirms its truthfulness."-Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 370-372.

9 See Da Costa, The Four Witnesses, pp. 185-225, and Prof. D. S. Gregory, Why Four Gospels? pp. 207-276. In both these valuable works the idea that Matthew's is the gospel for the Jew, Mark's for the Roman, Luke's for the Greek, and John's for the Church is elaborated with much detail. Gregory, however, at some points, carries the matter to an undue extreme.

maturity. The first combine to give the wide experience of the many; the last embraces the deep mysteries treasured up by the one. All alike are consciously based on the same great facts; but yet it is possible, in a more limited sense, to describe the first as historical, and the last as ideal; though the history necessarily points to truths which lie beyond all human experience, and the 'ideas' only connect that which was once for all realized on earth with the eternal of which it was the revelation."1 Clement of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusebius,' also observes: "John, last of all, perceiving that what had reference to the body in the gospel of our Saviour was sufficiently detailed, and, being encouraged by his familiar friends, and urged by the Spirit, he wrote a spiritual gospel." John's Gospel is pre-eminently the gospel of the word of God. It deals especially with the mystery of God in Christ, and sets forth the Lord as the life of men and the light of the world. It is a revelation of the life of faith in the Son of God. It was written "that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, ye may have life in his name" (John xx, 31)."

Keeping in mind the leading idea and aim of each of the four gospels, we may study their several characteristics to Characteristics advantage. It will often be found that what at first of the several arrests attention as an inconsistency is an evidence of evangelists. the scrupulous fidelity of the evangelist. What sceptical critics have pronounced unaccountable omissions may be evidences of special design. The vivid portrayal of events, the little incidents true to life, the touches of pathos, the forms of expression which none but eyewitnesses of the events could use, are a mightier proof of the credibility of the gospels than all the alleged discrepancies are of their incredibility.

Noticeable

Considering now, for example, the Gospel of Matthew as designed especially for Jewish readers, how natural for him to announce it as the book of the generation of Jesus characteristics Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. How to his purpose to describe the birth of Jesus, in the days of Herod the

3

'Introduction to Gospels, p. 254.

of Matthew.

2 Ecclesiastical History, vi, 14.

Thus Westcott, "The subject which is announced in the opening verses is realized, step by step, in the course of the narrative. The word 'came to his own,' and they 'received him not;' but others 'received him,' and thereby became 'sons of God.' This is the theme which requires for its complete treatment, not a true record of events or teaching, but a view of the working of both on the hearts of men. The ethical element is co-ordinate with the historical; and the end which the evangelist proposes to himself answers to this double current of his gospel. He wrote that men might believe the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing—by spiritual fellowship-might have life in his name."-Introduction to Gospels, pp. 276, 277.

« PreviousContinue »