New Testament Introduction
                                 Louis Berkhof
                                Eerdmans, 1915
     _________________________________________________________________

                                    PREFACE

   This little work on New Testament Introduction is the result of labor
   done in and for the class-room, and is primarily intended for my own
   students. It is not and does not pretend to be a work of original
   research, but depends in a large measure on the labors of such men as
   Davidson, Reuss, Weiss, Westcott, Lightfoot, Godet, Holtzmann,
   Julicher, Zahn, e. a. The indebtedness to these will be evident from
   its pages.

   In method of treatment I have partly gone my own way, both in virtue
   of principles that are not generally recognized in works of
   Introduction and for practical considerations. As far as the limits of
   the work allowed, the directions given by Dr. Kuyper in his
   Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology have been followed; not only the
   human but also the divine side of the Sacred Scriptures has been
   treated.

   It has been my constant endeavor in writing this book, to make it a
   work that would introduce the students to the books of the New
   Testament, as they have in fact been transmitted to the Church, and
   not as some critic or other would have them be. Hence critical
   questions, though not disregarded, do not loom as large on its pages
   as they often do in works on Introduction; the positive constructive
   element has a decided precedence over the apologetic; and the human
   factor that operated in the origin and composition of the Scriptures,
   is not studied to the neglect of the divine.

   A limited number of copies was printed, partly in deference to the
   expressed wish of some of my present and past students, and partly
   because I desire to use it as a text-book in the future, there being
   none of the smaller works on Introduction, such as those of Dods,
   Pullan, Kerr, Barth, Peake e. a., however excellent some of them may
   be in their own way, that gave me what I desired. If the book may in
   some small measure be instrumental in leading others to a greater
   appreciation and an ever better understanding of the New Testament
   writings, I shall be very grateful indeed.

   L. BERKHOF.

   Grand Rapids, Mich., November 30, 1915.
     _________________________________________________________________

                                 PROLEGOMENA.
     _________________________________________________________________

1. NAME AND IDEA

   The name Introduction or Isagogics (from the Greek eivsagwgh,) did not
   always denote what it does today. As it is used by the monk Adrianus
   (circa 440) and by Cassiodorus (circa 570), it designates a
   conglomeration of rhetorical archaeo1ogica1, geographical and
   historical matter such as might be helpful in the interpretation of
   Scripture. In course of time the connotation of the word changed.
   Michaelis (1750) was the first one to employ it in something like its
   present sense, when he entitled his work, devoted to the literary
   historical questions of the New Testament, Einleitung in die
   gottlichen Schriften des neuen Bundes. The study of Introduction was
   gradually limited to an investigation of the origin, the composition,
   the history, and the significance of the Bible as a whole (General
   Introduction), or of its separate books (Special Introduction). But as
   a designation of this discipline the name Introduction did not meet
   with general approval. It was pointed out--and correctly so--that the
   name is too comprehensive, since there are other disciplinae that
   introduce to the study of the Bible; and that it does not express the
   essential character of the discipline, but only one of its practical
   uses.

   Several attempts have been made to supply a name that is more in
   harmony with the central contents and the unifying principle of this
   study. But opinions differed as to the essential character of the
   discipline. Some scholars, as Reuss, Credner and Hupfeld, emphasizing
   its historical nature, would designate it by a name something like
   that already employed by Richard Simon in 1678, when he styled his
   work, "Critical History of the Old Testament. Thus Hupfeld says: "Der
   eigentliche und allein richtige Name der Wissenschaft in ihrem
   heutigen Sinn ist demnach Geschichte der heiligen Schrif ten Alten und
   Neuen Testaments." Begriff und Methode des sogenannten biblischen
   Finleitung p. 12. Reuss arranged his work entirely on this principle.
   It was objected however, by several scholars that a history of the
   Biblical literature is now, and perhaps for all time an impossibility
   and that such a treatment necessarily leads to a co-ordination of the
   canonical and the apocryphal books. And this is just what we find in
   the History of Reuss. Hence the great majority of New Testament
   scholars, as Bleek, Weiss, Davidson, Holtzmann, Julicher, Zahn e.a.
   prefer to retain the old name, either with or without the
   qualification, "historical-critical."

   Another and important stricture on the name suggested by Hupfeld, is
   that it loses sight of the theological character of this discipline.
   Holtzmann correctly says: "Als Glied des Organismus der theologischen
   Wissenschaften ist die biblische Einleitung allerdings nur vom
   Begriffe des Kanons aus zu begreif en, nur in ihm findet sie ihre
   innere Einheit, "Historisch-critische Finleitung in das Neue Testament
   p. 11. This special consideration also leads Kuyper to prefer the name
   Special Canonics. Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid III p. 22
   ff. Ideally this name is probably the best; it is certainly better
   than the others, but for practical reasons it seems preferable to
   abide by the generally recognized name Introduction. There is no
   serious objection to this, if we but remember its deficiency, and bear
   in mind that verba valent usu.
     _________________________________________________________________

2. FUNCTION

   What is the proper function of this discipline? According to De Wette
   it must answer the questions: "Was ist die Bibel, und wie ist sie
   geworden was sie ist ?" Hupfeld objects to the first question that it
   has no place in a historical inquiry; hence he would change it a
   little and state the problem as follows: "Was waren die unter den
   Namen des Bibel vereinigten Schriften ursprunglich, und wie sind sie
   geworden was sie jetzt sind ?" Begriff u. Meth. p. 13. It is now
   generally understood and admitted that the study must investigate the
   questions of the authorship, the composition, the history, the purpose
   and the canonicity of the different books of the Bible.

   A difference of opinion becomes apparent, however, as soon as we ask,
   whether the investigation should be limited to the canonical books or
   should include the Apocrypha as well. The answer to that question will
   necessarily depend on ones standpoint. They who regard Introduction as
   a purely historical study of Hebrew and Old Christian literature, will
   hold with Raibiger and Reuss that the apocryphal books must also
   receive due consideration. On the other hand, they who desire to
   maintain the theological character of this discipline and believe that
   it finds its unity in the idea of the canon, will exclude the
   Apocrypha from the investigation.

   A similar difference obtains with reference to the question, whether
   it is only the human or also the divine side of the canonical books
   that should be the object of study. It is perfectly obvious that, if
   the discipline be regarded as a purely historical one, the divine
   factor that operated in the composition of the books of the Bible and
   that gives them their permanent canonical significance, cannot come in
   consideration. The Word of God must then be treated like all purely
   human compositions. This is the stand taken by nearly all writers on
   Introduction, and Hupfeld believes that even so it is possible to
   maintain the theological character of the discipline. Begriff u. Meth.
   p. 17. It appears to us, however, that this is impossible, and with
   Kuyper we hold that we should not only study the human, but should
   also have regard to the divine side of the Biblical books, notably to
   their inspiration and canonical significance.

   Lastly the conception of the final aim of this study also varies. Many
   scholars are of the opinion that it is the final purpose of
   Introduction to determine in a historico-critical way what part of the
   Biblical writings are credible and therefore really constitute the
   Word of God. Human reason is placed as an arbiter over the divine
   Revelation. This, of course, cannot be the position of those who
   believe that the Bible is the Word of God. This belief is our starting
   point and not our goal in the study of Introduction. Thus we begin
   with a theological postulate, and our aim is to set forth the true
   character of Scripture, in order to explain, why the Church universal
   honors it as the Word of God; to strengthen the faith of believers;
   and to vindicate the claims of the canonical books over against the
   assaults of Rationalism.

   To define: Introduction is that Bibliological discipline that
   investigates the origin, composition, history and purpose of the
   Scriptural writings, on their human side; and their inspiration and
   canonical significance, on the divine side.
     _________________________________________________________________

3. LEADING PRINCIPLES

   There are certain fundamental principles that guide us in our
   investigation, which it is desirable to state at the outset, in order
   that our position may be perfectly clear. For the sake of brevity we
   do not seek to establish them argumentatively.

   1. For us the Bible as a whole and in all its parts is the very Word
   of God, written by men indeed, but organically inspired by the Holy
   Spirit; and not the natural product of the religious development of
   men, not merely the expression of the subjective religious
   consciousness of believers. Resting, as it ultimately does, on the
   testimony of the Holy Spirit, no amount of historical investigation
   can shake this conviction.

   2. This being our position, we unflinchingly accept all that the
   various books of the Bible tell us concerning their authorship,
   destination, composition, inspiration, etc. Only in cases where the
   text is evidently corrupt, will we hesitate to accept their dicta as
   final. This applies equally to all parts of the Word of God.

   3. Since we do not believe that the Bible is the result of a purely
   natural development, but regard it as the product of supernatural
   revelation, a revelation that often looks beyond the immediate
   present, we cannot allow the so-called zeitgeschichtliche arguments
   the force which they are often supposed to have.

   4. While it is the prevailing habit of many New Testament scholars to
   discredit what the early Church fathers say respecting the books of
   the Bible, because of the uncritical character of their work, we
   accept those early traditions as trustworthy until they are clearly
   proven unreliable. The character of those first witnesses warrants
   this position.

   5. We regard the use of working-hypotheses as perfectly legitimate
   within certain limits. They may render good service, when historical
   evidence fails, but even then may not go contrary to the data at hand,
   and the problematic character of the results to which they lead must
   always be borne in mind.

   6. It is not assumed that the problems of New Testament Introduction
   are insignificant, and that all the difficulties that present
   themselves can easily be cleared up. Whatever our standpoint, whatever
   our method of procedure in studying these problems, we shall sometimes
   have to admit our ignorance, and often find reason to confess that we
   know but in part.
     _________________________________________________________________

4. ENCYCLOPAEDIC PLACE.

   There is little uniformity in Theological Encyclopaedias with respect
   to the proper place of this discipline. They all correctly place it
   among the Exegetical (Bibliological) group of Theological disciplinae,
   but its relation to the other studies of that group is a matter of
   dispute. The usual arrangement is that of Hagenbach, followed in our
   country by Schaff, Crooks and Hurst and Weidner, viz.: Biblical
   Philology, dealing with the words, and Biblical Archaeology, in its
   broadest sense, with the things of the Bible; Biblical Introduction,
   treating of the fortunes, and Biblical Criticism, supplying the test
   of Scripture; Biblical Hermeneutics, relating to the theory, and
   Biblical Exegesis, pertaining to the practice of interpretation. The
   order of Rabiger is unusual: Hermeneutics, Linguistics, Criticism,
   Antiquities, Biblical History, Isagogics, Exegesis, and Biblical
   theology. The disposition of Kuyper and Cave is preferable to either
   one of these. They place Introduction (Canonics) first, as pertaining
   to the formal side of Scripture as a book and then let the studies
   follow that have reference to the formal and material side of the
   contents of the Bible.
     _________________________________________________________________

5. HISTORICAL REVIEW

   Although the beginnings of New Testament Isagogics are already found
   in Origen, Dionysus and Eusebius; and in the time of the Reformation
   some attention was devoted to it by Paginus, Sixtus of Siene and
   Serarius among the Roman Catholics; by Walther of the Lutherans; and
   by the Reformed scholars, Rivetus and Heidegger;--Richard Simon is
   generally regarded as the father of this study. His works were
   epoch-making in this respect, though they had reference primarily to
   the language of the New Testament. He minimized the divine element in
   Scripture. Michaelis, who in his, Einleitung in die gottlichen
   Schriften des neuen Bundes, 1750, produced the first Introduction in
   the modern sense, though somewhat dependent on Simon, did not
   altogether share his rationalistic views. Yet in the succeeding
   editions of his work he gradually relaxed on the doctrine of
   inspiration, and attached no value to theTestimonium Spiritus Sancti.

   The next significant contribution to the science was made by Semler in
   his, Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, 1771-75. He broke
   with the doctrine of inspiration and held that the Bible was not, but
   contained the Word of God, which could be discovered only by the inner
   light. All questions of authenticity and credibility had to be
   investigated voraussetzungslos. Eichhorn also departed decidedly from
   traditional views and was the first to fix attention on the Synoptic
   problem, for which he sought the solution in his Urevangelium,
   1804-27. At the same time the Johannine problem was placed in the
   foreground by several scholars, especially by Bretschneider, 1820. An
   acute defender of the traditional views arose in the Roman Catholic
   scholar Hug. who fought the rationalistic critics with their own
   weapons.

   Meanwhile the Mediating school made its appearance under the
   leadership of Schleiermacher. The critics belonging to that school
   sought a mean between the positions of Rationalism and the traditional
   views. They were naturally divided into two sections, the naturalistic
   wing, inclining towards the position of Semler and Eichhorn; and the
   evangelical wing, leaning decidedly toward traditionalism. Of the
   first class De Wette was the ablest exponent, though his work was
   disappointing as to positive results; while Credner, following in
   general the same line, emphasized the historical idea in the study of
   Introduction. The other wing was represented by Guericke, Olshausen
   and Neander.

   The Tubingen school of New Testament criticism took its rise with F.
   C. Baur, 1792-1860 who applied the Hegelian principle o eve opment to
   the literature of the New Testament. According to him the origin of
   the New Testament, too, finds its explanation in the three-fold
   process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. There was action,
   reaction and compromise. Paul defended his position in the four great
   epistles (Romans, I and II Corinthians and Galatians), the only
   genuine productions of the apostle. This position is assailed by the
   Apocalypse, the sole work of John. And all the other writings of the
   New Testament were written by others than their reputed authors in the
   interest of reconciliation, the fourth Gospel and the first Epistle of
   John issuing in the blending of the different parties. Among the
   immediate followers of Baur we have especially Zeller, Schwegler and
   Kostlin. The further adherents of the school, such as Hilgenfeld,
   Hoisten and Davidson, modified the views of Baur considerably; while
   later German scholars, as Pfleiderer, Hausrath, Holtsmann, Weizsacker
   and Julicher, broke with the distinctive Tubingen theory and indulged
   independently in rationalistic criticism. The wildest offshoot of the
   Tubingen school was Bruno Bauer, who rejected even the four epistles
   regarded as genuine by F. C. Baur. He had no followers in Germany, but
   of late his views found support in the writings of the Dutch school of
   Pierson, Naber, Loman and Van Manen, and in the criticism of the Swiss
   scholar Steck.

   Opposition to the radicalism of the Tubingen school became apparent in
   two directions. Some scholars, as Bleek, Ewald Reuss without intending
   a return to the traditional standpoint discarded the subjective
   element of the Tubingen theory, the Hegelian principle of thesis,
   antithesis and synthesis, in connection with the supposed second
   century struggle between Petrine and Pauline factions. Ritschl also
   broke away from the Tubingen tendency, but substituted an equally
   subjective principle of criticism by applying his favorite
   Werthurtheile to the authentication of the books of the Bible. He had,
   as he claimed, no interest in saving mere objective statements. What
   had for him the value of a divine revelation was regarded as
   authentic. Some of his most prominent followers are Harnack, Schurer
   and Wendt.

   An evangelical reaction against the subjective Tubingen vagaries also
   made its appearance in Ebrard, Dietlein, Thiersch, Lechier and the
   school of Hofmann, who himself defended the genuineness of all the New
   Testament books. His disciples are Luthardt, Grau, Nosgen and Th.
   Zahn. The works of Beischlag and B. Weiss are also quite conservative.
   Moreover the writings of such men as Lightfoot, Westcott, Ellicott,
   Godet, Dods, Pullan e. a. maintain with great ability the traditional
   position respecting the books of the New Testament.
     _________________________________________________________________

                             6. SELECT LITERATURE

   Including the Works referred to in the Text. In order that the list
   may serve as a guide for students, both the edition and the value of
   the books are indicated.
     _________________________________________________________________

  I. BOOKS ON INTRODUCTION, BIBLE DICTIONARIES AND RELATED WORKS

   ALEXANDER, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments, Philadelphia 1851.
   Conservative.

   ANDREWS, The Life of our Lord upon the Earth, New York 1894. Excellent
   for chronological and historical discussions.

   BAIJON, Geschiedenis van de Boeken des Nieuwen Verbonds, Groningen
   1901. Scholarly with a liberal point of view.

   BARTH, Finleitung in das Neue Testament, Gutersloh 1908; 2d edit.
   since published. Conservative and good.

   BAUR, Church History of the first three Centuries, London 1878-79.
   Brilliant but written with a rationalistic tendency.

   BERNARD, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, New York 1864;
   4th edit. 1878. A conservative and valuable work.

   BLASS, Crammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gottingen 1911.
   Supercedes Winer and Buttmann, but does not render them worthless. An
   excellent work.

   BLEEK, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 4th edit. by Mangold, Berlin
   1886. Eng. transl. by W. Urwick, London 1870. One of the best works on
   N. T. Introd. Standpoint, moderately liberal.

   BUCKLEY, Introduction to the Synoptic Problem, London 1912. Proceeds
   on the Combinations-hypothese.

   CLARK, GEO. W., Harmony of the Acts of the Apostles, Philadelphia
   1897. A very useful work.

   DAVIDSON, S., Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, London
   1894. Scholarly, but extremely rationalistic and verbose.

   DAVIS, A Dictionary of the Bible, Philadelphia 1903. The best one
   volume Dictionary of the Bible.

   DEISSMANN, Light from the Ancient East, London 1911. Very valuable for
   the new light it sheds on the language of the N. T.

   DEISSMANN, St. Paul, a Study in Social and Religious History, London
   1912. A vivid and delightful portrayal of Paul and his world.

   DODS, An Introduction to the New Testament, London. A useful manual.

   FARRAR, The Life and Work of St. Paul, London 1879. Instructive and
   written in a beautiful style, but not always characterized by
   sobriety.

   GODET, Introduction to the New Testament, I Pauline Epistles,
   Edinburgh 1894; II The Collection of the Four Gospels and the Gospel
   of St. Matthew, Edinburgh 1899. Scholarly and conservative; devotes
   much space to the contents of the books.

   GODET, Bijbelstudien over het Nieuwe Testament, Amsterdam. Contains
   introductions to the Gospels and the Apocalypse.

   GREGORY, D. S., Why Four Gospels, New York 1907. The work of a
   conservative scholar, valuable in differentiating the Gospels.

   GREGORY, C. R., Canon and Text of the New Testament, New York 1907. A
   scholarly and moderately conservative work.

   HASTINGS, Dictionary of the Bible, dealing with its Language,
   Literature and Contents, New York 1900-04. Contains valuable
   introductions to the books of the Bible. Those pertaining to the New
   Testament are characterized by greater moderation than those relating
   to the Old; the latter are often extremely rationalistic, the former
   usually moderately conservative.

   HAUSRATH, History of New Testament Times: The Life of Jesus 2 vols.,
   Edinburgh 1878-80; The Life of the Apostles 4 vols., Edinburgh 1895. A
   learned work, full of information, but extremely rationalistic.

   HILL, Introduction to the Life of Christ, New York 1911. A concise
   statement of the problems that enter into a study of the Life of
   Christ.

   HOLDSWORTH, Gospel Origins. New York 1913. Though differing somewhat
   from the work of Buckley, it also advocates the
   Combinations-hypothese.

   HOLTZMANN, Historisch-critische Finleitung in das Neue Testament,
   Freiburg 1892. Perhaps the most important representative of the
   rationalistic position in New Testament study. Very learned, and rich
   in historical matter.

   JULICHER, Einleitung in des Neue Testament, Leipzig 1906. A scholarly
   work, written from the rationalistic point of view.

   KING, The Theology of Christ's Teaching, New York 1903. Conservative
   and very instructive; weak in genetic treatment.

   KERR, Introduction to New Testament Study, New York 1892. A
   conservative manual.

   KUYPER, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, Amsterdam 1894.

   LUTHARDT, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, Edinburgh 1875. An
   able conservative defense, containing a large Bibliography by C. R.
   Gregory.

   MCGIFFERT, The Apostolic Age, New York 1910. A scholarly but
   rationalizing work.

   MOFFAT, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. New
   York 1911. Very able, but vitiated by rationalistic principles.

   NORTON, Genuineness of the Gospels (abridged), Boston 1890. An able
   defense of the Gospels. The author adheres to the
   Traditions-hypothese.

   PEAKE, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, New York 1910.
   Well written, able, but following the line of negative criticism.

   PULLAN, The Books of the New Testament, London 1901. A very useful
   manual; conservative.

   PURVES, Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New York 1900. The work of
   a scholar. In point of view the antipode of McGiffert s book.

   RAMSAY, Historical Commentary on the Galatians, London 1899.

   RAMSAY, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, London 1903.

   RAMSAY, The Church in the Roman Empire, London 1893.

   RAMSAY, Luke the Physician (and other Studies), New York 1908. The
   works of Ramsay have a charm of their own: they are original and
   informing, based on large historical and arch~eological knowledge,
   and, on the whole, written in a conservative spirit.

   REAL-ENCYOLOPAEDIE, Hauck, Leipzig 1896-1909. Contains very valuable
   material for New Testament study, but many of its articles are marred
   by their destructive tendency.

   REUSS, History of the New Testament, Boston 1884. The work of a great
   scholar; its method is peculiar; its standpoint moderately
   rationalistic.

   SALMON, Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, New
   York 1889. The antipode of Davidson's Introduction; very able, but
   suffering from want of method.

   SCHURER, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,
   Leipzig 1901-1911. The greatest work on the subject, but, on account
   of its liberal tendency, to be used with care.

   SIMCOX, Writers of the New Testament, London 1890. Contains a lucid
   discussion of the style of the N. T. writers.

   STEVENS, Johannine Theology, New York 1894.

   STEVENS, Pauline Theology, New York 1903. Both works are stimulating
   and helpful, but must be used with discrimination.

   URQUHART, The Bible, its Structure and Purpose, New York 1904.

   URQUHART, The New Biblical Guide, London. Written by a staunch
   defender of the Bible, in popular style. Often helpful, especially the
   last work, in clearing up difficulties; but sometimes too confident
   and fanciful.

   VAN MELLE, Inleiding tot het Nieuwe Testament, Utrecht 1908. A very
   good manual; conservative in spirit.

   VON SODEN, Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte, Berlin 1905.
   Rationalistic.

   WEISS, Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, London 1888. One
   of the best Introductions to the New Testament. Moderately
   conservative.

   WEISS, Theology of the New Testament, Edinburgh 1892-3. On the whole
   the best work on the subject.

   WESTCOTT, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Boston 1902. Very
   helpful in differentiating the Gospels; defends the
   Traditions-hypothese.

   WESTCOTT, The Canon of the New Testament, London 1881. One of the best
   works on the Canon of the N.T.

   WESTCOTT and HORT, The New Testament in the original Greek;
   Introduction and Appendix, New York 1882. The indispensible companion
   to the Greek Testament, if one desires the reasons for the readings
   adopted.

   WREDE, The Origin of the New Testament, London 1909. Very brief and
   radical.

   WRIGHT, A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, London 1903. The most able
   presentation of the Traditions- hypothese.

   ZAHN, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig 1900; 3. Aufi. 1906;
   Eng. transl. Edinburgh 1909. A work of immense learning; the best on
   N. T. Introduction from the conservative side.
     _________________________________________________________________

  II. COMMENTARIES

   ALEXANDER, Commentaries on Matthew, New York 1867; Mark, New York
   1870; Acts 4th edit. New York 1884. Valuable works, containing sound
   learning and thoroughly conservative.

   ALFORD, The Greek Testament, Cambridge 1894; Vol I, 7th edit.; Vol.
   II, 7th edit.; Vol. III, 5th edit.; Vol. IV, 5th edit. A truly great
   work; brief, lucid, scholarly, conservative, embodying the results of
   German scholarship, yet with a measure of independence, though in some
   parts leaning rather much on Meyer. Still very useful, though not up
   to date. Contains valuable Prolegomena.

   BARDE, Kommentaar op de Handelingen der Apostelen, Kampen 1910. A good
   commentary, written in a conservative spirit.

   BEET, Commentaries on Romans, 10th edit.;I and II Corinthians, 7th
   edit.; Galatians, 6th edit.; and Ephesians, Philip pians, Colossians,
   3d edit., all London 1891-1903. Good commentaries by a Methodist
   scholar; conservative, but must be used with care, especially in
   passages pertaining to election, the doctrine of the last things, e.
   a.

   BIESTERVELD, De Brief van Paulus aan de Colossensen, Kampen 1908. An
   excellent work.

   BROWN, J., Expositions of Galatians, Edinburgh 1853; Hebrews,
   Edinburgh 1862; and I Peter, Edinburgh 1866. Sound works of a Puritan
   divine, learned but somewhat diffuse.

   CALVIN, Commentaries in Opera, Vols. 24-55. There is a fairly good
   English translation of the Calvin Translation Society. Calvin was
   undoubtedly the greatest exegete among the Reformers. The value of his
   exegetical work is generally recoguized by present day scholars.

   EADIE, Commentaries on Galatians, 1869; Ephesians, 1883; Colossians,
   1884; Philippians, 1884; Thessalonians, 1877, all at Edinburgh. Able
   and reliable works of a Presbyterian scholar.

   EDWARDS T. C., Commentary on I Corinthians, 3d edit. London 1897. A
   good and learned commentary, though sometimes a little over-strained.

   ELLICOTT, Commentaries on I Corinthians, Andover 1889; Galatians,
   1867; Ephesians, 1884; Philippians and Colossians, 1861;
   Thessalonians, 1866; Pastoral Epistles, 1869, all at London. Very able
   grammatical commentaries; conservative.

   Expositor s Greek Testament, London 1912. A very scholarly work on the
   order of Alford s Greek Testament; being more recent, it supersedes
   the latter. Standpoint is on the whole moderately conservative; it
   contains valuable introductions.

   GODET, Commentaries on Luke, 1875; John, 1877; Romans, -1886; I
   Corinthians, 1886-7, all at Edinburgh. Very able and reliable.

   GREYDANUS, De Openbaring des Heeren aan Johannes, Doesburg. A good
   popular commentary.

   HODGE, Commentaries on Romans, 2d edit. 1886; I Corinthians, 1860; II
   Corinthians, 1860; Ephesians, 1886. Admirable commentaries, especialy
   the one on Romans.

   International Critical Commentary, New York, in course of publication.
   Some volumes of exceptional value; others of inferior merit.
   Characterized by a rationalistic tendency, especially the volumes on
   the 0. T.

   LANGE, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal and
   Homiletical. On the whole a useful work; New Testament far better than
   the Old. Often suffers for want of clearness, and sometimes loses
   itself in mystical speculations. Its Homiletical material has little
   value.

   LIGHTFOOT, Commentaries on Galatians, 1895; Philippians, 1895;
   Colossians and Philemon, 1895, all at London. Very able commentaries,
   containing valuable dissertations. Conservative.

   MEYER (Lunemann, Huther and Dusterdieck), Commentary on the New
   Testament, New York 1890. Meyer is recoguized as the prince of
   grammatical commentators. Parts of Vol. 8 and Vols. 9, 10, 11, contain
   the work of Lunemann, Huther and Dusterdieck, which though good, is
   not up to the standard of Meyer s work. Standpoint: moderately
   conservative. Last German edition by Weiss, Haupt e. a. is no more the
   work of Meyer.

   OLSHAUSEN, Commentary on the New Testament, New York 1860-72. Quite
   good. Excells in organic interpretation of Scripture; but its
   mysticism often runs wild.

   Pulpit Commentary, London 1880 sqq. This, as its name indicates, is
   far more homiletical than exegetical; yet it contains some real
   exposition.

   STIER, The Words of the Lord Jesus, New York 1864. Very useful, but
   often fanciful and diffuse; devout, but frequently characterized by
   too great a desire to find a deeper meaning in Scripture.

   STRACK UND ZOCKLER, Kurzgefasster Commentar zu den Schriften des Alten
   und Neuen Testaments, sowie zu den Apokryphen, Munchen 1886-93. One of
   the best recent German commentaries. Moderately conservative.

   VINCENT, Word Studies in the New Testament, New York 1887-91. Contains
   some useful material.

   WESTCOTT, Commentaries on the Gospel of John, 1890; the Epistle to the
   Hebrews, 1892; and the Epistles of John, 1905, all at London. All very
   scholarly and reliable.

   ZAHN, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (several co-laborators), Erlangen
   1903 sqq., still in course of publication. Will constitute one of the
   best conservative commentaries of the New Testament.
     _________________________________________________________________

                            The Gospels in General
     _________________________________________________________________

THE TITLE OF THE GOSPELS

   The shortest form of the title is kata. Matqa/ion, kata. Ma,rcon, etc.
   The Textus Receptus and some of the Mnn. have to. kata. Matqa/ion
   euvangge,lion; but the greater part of the Mjj. read euvangge,lion
   kata. Matqa/ion, etc.

   The word euvangge,lion passed through three stages in the history of
   its use. In the older Greek authors it signified a reward for bringing
   good tidings; also, a thankoffering for good tidings brought. Next in
   later Greek it indicated thegood news itself. And finally it was
   employed to denote the books in which the gospel of Jesus Christ is
   presentedhistoric form. It is used very extensively in the New
   Testament, and always in the second sense, signifying the good news of
   God, the message of salvation. This meaning is also retained in the
   title of the gospels. The first trace of the word as indicating a
   written gospel is found in the didache, the Teaching of the Twelve
   Apostles, discovered in 1873 and in all probability composed between
   the years 90 and 100 A. D. This contains the following exhortation in
   15: 3: "And reprove one another not in wrath but in peace, as ye have
   it in the Gospel. Here the word euanggelion evidently refers to a
   written record. It is very explicitly and repeatedly applied to a
   written account of the life of Christ about the middle of the second
   century. The plural euanggelia, signifying the four Gospels, is first
   found in Justin Martyr, about 152 A. D.

   The expression kata. Matqa/ion, kata. Ma,rcon, etc., has often been
   misinterpreted. Some maintained that kata. simply indicated a genitive
   relation so that we should read: the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of
   Mark, etc. But if this is the idea intended, why was not the simple
   genitive used, just as it is employed by Paul, when he expresses a
   similar idea, to. euvangge,lio.n mou, Rom. 2:16; 16:25? Moreover, it
   cannot be maintained that the preposition kata is equivalent to the
   Hebrew Lamedh of possession, for the Septuagint never renders this by
   kata.. Others inferred from the use of this expression that the
   Gospels were not written by the person named but were shaped after the
   Gospel as they preached it. But on this interpretation it seems very
   peculiar that the second and third Gospels were not called kata.
   Pe,tron and kata. Pau/lon, seeing that they were fashioned after their
   type of preaching. The expression must be explained from the Church's
   consciousness that there is but one Gospel of Jesus Christ, and
   indicates that in these writings we have that Gospel, as ti was shaped
   (i. e. in writing) by the persons whose names they bear.

   That the early Church caught the idea of the unity of the Gospel is
   quite evident. It is true, the plural of euanggelion is sometimes
   employed, but the singular prevails. Justin Martyr speaks of the
   Memoirs that are called Gospels, but he also expresses himself thus:
   "the precepts in what is called the Gospel," "it is written in the
   Gospel." Irenaeus in one of his writings states his theme as: "The
   Gospel is essentially fourfold." Clement of Alexandria speaks of "the
   Law, the Prophets and the Gospel," and Augustine, of "the four
   Gospels, or rather, the four books of the one Gospel."

   The English word Gospel is derived from the AngloSaxon godspell,
   composed of god=God and spel=story, thus indicating the story of the
   life of God in human flesh. It is not improbable, however, that the
   original form of the Anglo-Saxon word was godspell, from god=good and
   spel=story, this being a literal translation of the Greek
   euvangge,lion. It denotes the good tidings of salvation in Christ for
   a perishing world.
     _________________________________________________________________

THE NUMBER OF THE GOSPELS RECOGNIZED BY THE EARLY CHURCH

   In view of the fact that the first Christian century produced many
   Gospels besides those which are included in our canon, and that many
   at the present day deny the authority of some or all of our Gospels,
   it is important to know, how many the early Church received as
   canonic. The apostolic fathers, though often quoting the Gospels do
   not mention their authors, nor do they enumerate them. They testify to
   the substance and canonicity of the Gospels therefore, but not, except
   indirectly, to their authenticity and number. In all probability the
   earliest evidence that the Church of the first ages accepted the four
   Gospels that we now possess as canonic, is furnished by the Peshito,
   which most likey dates from the first half of the second century. And
   being a translation, it points to the fact that even before its origin
   our four Gospels were received into the canon, while all others were
   left out. Another early witness is found in the Muratorian Fragment, a
   mutilated work of which the real character cannot now be determined,
   and that was probably written about 170 A. D. It commences with the
   last words of a sentence that seemingly belongs to a description of
   Marks Gospel, and then tells us that "Lukes Gospel stands third in
   order, having been written by Luke, the physician, the companion of
   Paul." After making this statement it proceeds to assign the fourth
   place to "the Gospel of John, a disciple of the Lord." The conclusion
   seems perfectly warranted that the first two Gospels, of which the
   description is lost, are those of Matthew and Mark. An important
   witness, really the first one to a fourfold Gospel, i. e. to a Gospel
   that is four and yet is one, is Tatian, the Assyrian. His Diatessaron
   was the first harmony of the Gospels. The exact date of its
   composition is not known; the meaning of its name is obviously [the
   Gospel ]by the Four. This, no doubt, points to the fact that it was
   based on four Gospels, and also implies that these four were our
   canonical Gospels, since they constituted the only collection in
   existence that needed no other description than "the Four." The
   testimonny of Eusebius is in harmony with this when he says "Tatian,
   the former leader of the Encratites, having put together in some
   strange fashion a combination and collection of the Gospels, gave it
   the name of the Diatessaron, and the work is still partially current."
   Church History, IV, 29. Very important testimony to our four Gospels
   is found in the writings of Irenaeus (c. 120-200) and of Tertullian
   (c. 150-130). The former was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn had
   enjoyed the personal instruction of the apostle John. He preached the
   Gospel to the Gauls and in 178 succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons.
   In one of his books he has a long chapter entitled: "Proofs that there
   can be neither more nor fewer than four Evangelists." Looking at the
   Gospels as a unit, he called them "the Gospel with four Faces." And he
   searched to find mystic reasons for this quadruple form, thus showing
   how strongly he and his age were persuaded that there were but four
   canonical Gospels. He compares the quadriform Gospel (tetra,morfon) to
   the four regions of the earth, to the four universal spirits, to the
   cherubim with four faces, etc. The testimony of Tertullian is equally
   explicit. This famous church father received a liberal education at
   Rome, lived on in heathen darkness until about his thirtieth or
   fortieth year, when he was converted and entered the ministry.
   Embittered by the treatment he received at the hands of the Church, he
   went into the fold of the Montanists about the beginning of the third
   century. He wrote numerous works in defense of the Christian religion.
   In his work against Marcion he says, after stating that the Gospel of
   Luke had been maintained from its first publication: "The same
   authority of the apostolic churches will uphold the other Gospels
   which we have in due succession through them and according to their
   usage, I mean those of [the apostles] Matthew and John; although that
   which was published by Mark may also be maintained to be Peters, whose
   interpreter Mark was: for the narrative of Luke also is generally
   ascribed to Paul: since it is allowable that that which scholars
   publish should be regarded as their masters work." Just as those that
   went before him Tertullian appealed to the testimony of antiquity as
   proving the canonicity of our four Gospels and the other Scriptural
   books; and his appeal was never gainsaid. Another significant
   testimony is that of Origin, the great teacher of Alexandria of whom
   Eusebius records that in the first book of his commentaries on the
   Gospel of Matthew he asserts that he knows of only four Gospels, as
   follows: "I have learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels,
   which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God spread under
   heaven, that according to Matthew, who was once a publican but
   afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; . . . that
   according to Mark second; . . . that according to Luke third; . . .
   that according to John last of all." Church History VI, 25. Eusebius
   himself, who was the first historian of the Christian Church, in
   giving a catalogue of the New Testament writings, says: "First then we
   must place the holy quaternion of the Gospels."

   From the testimony which we have now reviewed the conclusion seems
   perfectly warranted that the Church from the earliest times knew four
   and only four canonical Gospels; and that these four are the same that
   she has recognized ever since. It is true that the heretic Marcion
   acknowledged only the Gospel of Luke, and this in mutilated form, but
   his attitude toward the Gospels finds a ready explanation in his
   dogmatic bias.
     _________________________________________________________________

THE LITERARY CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS.

   The Gospels have a literary character all their own; they are sui
   generis. There is not another book or group of books in the Bible to
   which they can be compared. They are four and yet one in a very
   essential sense; they express four sides of the one euvagge,lion of
   Jesus Christ. In studying them the question naturally arises, how we
   must conceive of them. Now we need not argue that they are not mere
   collections of myths and fables, with or without a historical basis,
   as many Rationalists would have us believe. Nor is it necessary to
   show at length that they are not four biographies of Jesus. If their
   authors intended them to be such, they would be very disappointing
   indeed. There is, however, another misconception against which we must
   warn, because it is quite prevalent in the circles of those who accept
   these writings unquestionably as a part of the Word of God, and since
   it is a positive hindrance to a true understanding of these priceless
   records. We refer to the conviction that the writers of the Gospels
   were minded to prepare for following generations more or less complete
   histories of the life of Christ. In reading these writings we soon
   find that, looked at as histories, they leave a great deal to be
   desired. In the first place they tell us comparitively little of that
   rich and varied life of Christ, of which they knew so much, Cf. John
   20: 30; 21: 25. The historical facts narrated by John f. i. only
   represent the work of a few days. His Gospel would thus be a life of
   Jesus with yawning gaps. The same is true of the other Gospels. In the
   second place the materials, except those at the beginning and at the
   end of Christs life are not arranged in chronological order. Any
   possible doubt that we may have on this point is soon dispelled, when
   we compare the Gospels. The same facts are often narrated in
   altogether different connections. Closely allied with this is a third
   feature that deserves attention. The casual relation of the important
   events that are narrated is not traced, except in a few instances, and
   yet this just what one expects in histories. And finally if they were
   really meant to be histories, why was it necessary that we should have
   four of them?

   The harmonists generally proceeded on the erroneous conception to
   which we refer. They were aware indeed that there were great lacunae
   in all the Gospels, but thought they might remedy matters by supplying
   from one Gospel what was wanting in the other. Thus the relation of
   the Gospels to one another was conceived of as supplemental. But their
   work was doomed to failure; it did violence to the exquisite
   compositions on which they operated, and marred the characteristic
   beauty of those literary productions. They were always uncertain asa;
   to the true order of events, and did not know which one of the
   evangelists was the best chronological guide. Some preferred Matthew,
   others chose Mark, and still others followed Luke. And after all their
   efforts to combine the four Gospels into one continuous narrative with
   the facts arranged in the exact order in which they occurred, their
   work must be pronounced a failure. The Gospels are not histories of
   the life of Christ, nor do they, taken together, form one history.

   But what are they, if they are neither biographies nor histories? They
   are four pen-pictures, or better, a four fold portraiture of the
   Saviour a fourfold representation of the apostolic kh,rugma; fourfold
   witness regarding our Lord. It is said that the great artist Van Dyke
   prepared a threefold portrait of Charles I for the sculptor, that the
   latter might fashion an absolutely faithful likeness of the king.
   These three portraits were necessary; their differences and agreements
   were all required to give a true representation of the monarch. So it
   is in the case of the Gospels. Each one of them gives us a certain
   view of the Lord, and only the four taken together present to us his
   perfect likeness, revealing him as the Saviour of the world. The
   apostolic ch,rugma had taken a wide flight. Its central content was
   the cross and the resurrection. But in connection with this the words
   and deeds of the Saviour and his history also formed the subject of
   the apostles preaching. And when this apostolic chrugma was reduced to
   writing, it was found necessary to give it a fourfold form, that it
   might answer to the needs of four classes of people viz. to those of
   the Jews, to those of the Romans, to those of the Greeks and to those
   of the people who confessed Christ as Lord; needs that were typical of
   the spiritual requirements of all future ages. Matthew wrote for the
   Jews and characterized Christ as the great King of the house of David.
   Mark composed his Gospel for the Romans and pictured the Saviour as
   the mighty Worker, triumphing over sin and evil. Luke in writing his
   Gospel had in mind the needs of the Greeks and portrayed Christ as the
   perfect man, the universal Saviour. And John, composing his Gospel for
   those who already had a saving knowledge of the Lord and stood in need
   of a more profound understanding of the essential character of Jesus,
   emphasized the divinity of Christ, the glory that was manifested in
   his works. Each Gospel is complete in itself and acquaints us with a
   certain aspect of the Lords life. Yet it is only the fourfold Gospel
   that furnishes us with a complete, a perfect image of him whom to know
   is life eternal. And it is only, when we grasp the different features
   that are mirrored in the Gospels and see how they blend harmoniously
   in that noblest of all lives, the life of Christ, that we have found
   the true harmony of the Gospels.
     _________________________________________________________________

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.

   The first three Gospels are known as the Synoptics, and their authors
   are called the Synoptists. The name is derived from the Greek su,n and
   o;yij, and is applied to these Gospels, since they, as distinguished
   from the fourth, give us a common view of the life of our Lord. But
   notwithstanding the great similarity by which these Gospels are
   characterized, they also reveal very striking differences. This
   remarkable agreement on the one hand, and these manifest
   dissimilarities on the other, constitute one of the most difficult
   literary problems of the New Testament. The question is, whether we
   can account for the origin of these Gospels in such a manner that we
   can explain both the close resemblances and the often surprising
   differences.

   In the first place the general plan of these Gospels exhibits a
   remarkable agreement. Only Matthew and Luke contain a narrative of the
   infancy of our Lord and their accounts of it are quite distinct; but
   the history of Christs public ministry follows very much the same
   order in all the Synoptics. They treat successively of the Lords
   preparation for the ministry, John the Baptist, the baptism, the
   temptation, the return to Galilee, the preaching in its villages and
   cities, the journey to Jerusalem, the entrance into the Holy City, the
   preaching there, the passion and the resurrection. The details that
   fit into this general plan are also arranged in quite a uniform
   manner, except in some places, especially of the first Gospel. The
   most striking differences in the arrangement of the material results
   from the narrative of a long series of events connected with the
   Galilean ministry, which is peculiar to Matthew and Mark, Matt.
   14:22-- 16:12; Mark 6: 45--8: 26; and from the history of another
   series of events related to the journey to Jerusalem that is found
   only in Luke 9: 51--18:14.

   But there is not only similarity in the broad outlines of those
   Gospels; the particular incidents that are narrated are also in many
   cases the same in substance and similar if not identical in form. The
   amount of agreement that we find in this respect is represented by
   Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels p. 373, and by Westcott,
   Introduction to the Study of the Gospels p. 201, in the following
   manner: If the total contents of the Gospel is represented by 100, the
   following result is obtained:

   Mark has

   7 peculiarities and--93 coincidences

   Matthew has

   42 peculiarities and--58 coincidences

   Luke has

   59 peculiarities and--41 coincidences

   If the extent of all the coincidences be represented by 100 their
   proportionate distribution will be:

   Matthew, Mark and Luke

   53

   Matthew and Luke

   21

   Matthew and Mark

   20

   Mark and Luke

   6

   Still another estimate, viz, that by verses, is suggested by Reuss,
   History of the New Testament, I p. 177:

   Matthew out of a total of 971 verses has 330 peculiar to him.

   Mark out of a total of 478 verses has 68 peculiar to him.

   Luke out of a total of 1151 verses has 541 peculiar to him.

   The first two have 170 to 180 verses that are lacking in Luke; Matthew
   and Luke, 230 to 240 wanting in Mark; Mark and Luke about 50 wanting
   in Matthew. The number common to all three is 330 to 370.

   The preceding statements refer to the subject-matter of the Synoptics.
   Taken by itself this might give us an exaggerated idea of the
   similarity of these Gospels. As a corrective it is necessary to bear
   in mind that the verbal coincidences, though they are remarkable
   indeed, are nevertheless considerably less than one would expect. Dr.
   Schaff and his son, after some calculations based on Rushbrookes
   Synopticon, get the following results:

   "The proportion of words peculiar to the Synoptics is 28,000 out of
   48,000, more than one-half.

   In Matthew 56 words out of every 100 are peculiar.

   In Mark 40 words out of every 100 are peculiar.

   In Luke 67 words out of every 100 are peculiar.

   The number of coincidences common to all three is less than the number
   of divergences.

   Matthew agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out of 7.

   Mark agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out of 41/2.

   Luke agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out of 8.

   But comparing the Gospels two by two, it is evident that Matthew and
   Mark have most in common, and Matthew and Luke are most divergent.

   One-half of Mark is found in Matthew.

   One-fourth of Luke is found in Matthew.

   One-third of Mark is found in Luke.

   The general conclusion from these figures is that all three Gospels
   widely diverge from the common matter, or triple tradition, Mark the
   least so and Luke the most (almost twice as much as Mark). On the
   other hand, both Matthew and Luke are nearer Mark than Luke and
   Matthew to each other." Church History, I p. 597.

   In connection with the preceding we should bear in mind that these
   verbal agreements are greatest, not in the narrative, but in the
   recitative parts of the Gospels. About one fifth of them is found in
   the narrative portion of the Gospel, and four fifths in the recital of
   the words of our Lord and others. This statement will create a false
   impression, however, unless we bear in mind the proportion in which
   the narrative parts stand to the recitative element, which is as
   follows:

   Narrative

   Recitative

   Matthew

   25

   75

   Mark

   50

   50

   Luke

   34

   66

   From what has now been said it is perfectly clear that the Synoptics
   present an intricate literary problem. Is it possible to explain the
   origin in such a manner that both the resemblances and differences are
   accounted for? During the last century many scholars have applied
   themselves with painstaking diligence to the arduous task of solving
   this problem. The solution has been sought along different lines;
   several hypotheses have been broached, of which we shall name only the
   four most important ones.

   In the first place there is what has been called (though not
   altogether correctly) ~the mutual dependance theory
   (Benutzungshypothese, Augustine, Bengel, Bleek, Storr). According to
   this theory the one Gospel is dependent on the other, so that the
   second borrowed from the first and the third from both the first and
   the second. On this theory, of course, six permutations are possible
   viz.:

   Matthew, Mark, Luke.

   Matthew, Luke, Mark.

   Mark, Matthew, Luke.

   Mark, Luke, Matthew.

   Luke, Matthew, Mark.

   Luke, Mark, Matthew.

   In every possible form this theory has found defenders, but it does
   not meet with great favor at present. True, it seems to account for
   the general agreement in a very simple manner but serious difficu1ties
   arise when one seeks to determine which one of the Gospels was first,
   which second and which third. This is perfectly evident from the
   difference of opinion among the adherents of this hypothesis. Again it
   fails to account for the divergencies; it does not explain why one
   writer adopts the language of his predecessor(s) up to a certain
   point, and then suddenly abandons it. Of late it is tacitly admitted,
   however, that it does contain an element of truth.

   In the second place the hypothesis of oral tradition
   (Traditions-hypothese, Gieseler, Westcott, Wright), should be
   mentioned. is theory starts from the supposition that the Gospel
   existed first of all in an unwritten form. It is assumed that the
   apostles repeatedly told the story of Christs life, dwelling
   especially on the most important incidents of his career, and often
   reiterating the very words of their blessed Lord. These narratives and
   words were eagerly caught up by willing ears and treasured in faithful
   and retentive memories, the Jews making it a practice to retain
   whatever they learnt in the exact form in which they received it. Thus
   a stereotyped tradition arose which served as the basis for our
   present Gospels. Several objections have been urged against this
   theory. It is said that, as a result of the apostles preaching in the
   vernacular, the oral tradition was embodied in the Aramaic language,
   and hence cannot account for the verbal coincidences in the Greek
   Gospels. Again it is urged that the more stereotyped the tradition
   was, the harder it becomes to account for the differences between the
   Synoptics. Would anyone be apt to alter such a tradition on his own
   authority? Moreover this hypothesis offers no explanation of the
   existence of the two-fold, the triple and the double tradition, i. e.
   the tradition that is embodied in all three of the Gospels and that
   which is found only in two of them. The majority of scholars have now
   abandoned this theory, although it has ardent defenders even at
   present. And no doubt, it must be taken into account in the solution
   of this problem.

   In the third place we have the hypothesis of one primitive Gospel
   (Urevangeliums-Hypothese) from which all three of the Synoptists drew
   their material. According to G. E.Lessing this Gospel, containing a
   short account of the life of Jesus for the use of traveling
   missionaries, was written in the popular language of Palestine.
   Eichhorn, however, following him, held that it was translated into
   Greek, worked over and enriched in various ways, and soon took shape
   in several redactions, which became the source of our present Gospels.
   There is very little agreement among, the defenders of this theory
   regarding the exact character of this original source. At present it
   finds little favor in scientific circles, but has been discarded for
   various reasons. There is absolutely no trace of such an original
   Gospel, nor any historical reference to it, which seems peculiar in
   view of its unique significance. And if the existence of such a source
   be postulated, how must the arbitrary alteration of it be explained,
   how did these different recensions come into existence. It is evident
   that by this theory the problem is not solved, but simply shifted to
   another place. Moreover while in its original form this hypothesis
   accounted very well for the agreement, but not for the differences
   found in the Synoptics, in its final form it was too artificial and
   too complicated to inspire confidence and to seem anything like a
   natural solution of the Synoptic problem.

   In the fourth place the so-called double source, or two document
   theory (Combinations-hypothese, Weisse, Wilke, Holtzmann, Wendt)
   deserves mention since it is the favorite theory of New Testament
   scholars today. This hypothesis holds that, in order to explain the
   phenomena of the Gospels, it is necessary to postulate the existence
   of at least two primitive documents, and recognizes the use of one
   Gospel in the composition of the others. The form in which this theory
   is most widely accepted at present isthe following: The Gospel of Mark
   was the first one to be written and, either in the form in which we
   now have it, or in a slightly different form was the source of the
   triple tradition. For the double tradition, which is common to Matthew
   and Luke, these writers used a second source that, for want of
   definite knowledge regarding it, is simply called Q (from the German
   Quelle). This Q may have been the lo,gia of Matthew mentioned by
   Papias, and was probably a collection of the sayings of our Lord. The
   differences between Matthew and Luke in the matter of the double
   tradition finds its explanation in the assumption that, while Matthew
   drew directly from Q, Luke derived the corresponding matter from Q and
   other sources, or from a primitive Gospel based on Q. On the last
   supposition the relation of Matthew and Luke to Q would be as follows:

   qchart

   But even so the use of some inferior sources by both Matthew and Luke
   must be assumed. The double source theory presupposes the existence of
   a rather large precanonical literature.

   There are some evident objections to this theory also. The assumption
   that the lo,gia of Matthew was anything else than the Hebrew or
   Aramaic original of our Greek Matthew is a baseless supposition; it
   has no historical foundation whatever. Furthermore the theory offers
   no explanation of the fact that the writers in some cases faithfully
   copied their original and in others altered the text rather freely or
   even departed from it entirely. And by postulating the development of
   a somewhat extensive Gospel literature previous to the composition of
   Matthew and Luke, it has naturally led to the position that our
   Gospels were written late, and therefore in all probability not by
   their reputed authors. Moreover it also requires us to believe that
   Luke included the Gospel of Mark in the number of the attempted Gospel
   stories which his Gospel was meant to supercede.

   None of the theories broached up to the present time has proved
   satisfactory. There is still a great deal of uncertainty and confusion
   in the study of the Synoptic problem; we do not seem to be nearer to
   its solution now than we were fifty years ago. The great aim has
   always been to explain the origin of the Synoptics without taking into
   account the supernatural factor that entered into their composition.
   Now we do not doubt the value of these studies; they have already
   taught us a good many things regarding the origin of these Gospels;
   but they have proven themselves insufficient to lead to a final
   solution of the problem. It is, of course, folly to rule this problem
   out of existence by simply appealing to the supernatural agency of the
   Holy Spirit. It is true, if one believes in the mechanical inspiration
   of the Bible, there is no Synoptic problem. This is quite different,
   however, for those who believe that the Scriptures have been inspired
   in an organic way. The more naturally we conceive of the origin of
   these writings, the better it is, if we only do not lose sight of the
   operation of the divine factor, of the directing, the guiding
   influence of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Kuyper, Encyclopedie III p. 51 f. It
   is hardly sufficient to say with Urquhart, New Biblical Guide VII p.
   357, that the key to the problem is found in the fact that the
   Synoptic Gospels are all the work of one author, and that each book is
   serving a distinct purpose. Yet this statement contains two important
   truths that we should continually bear in mind.

   In any attempt to account for the similarities of the synoptics great
   allowance should be made for the influence of oral tradition It is
   very natural to suppose that, since the apostles for some time labored
   together at Jerusalem with Peter at the head, a particular, perhaps
   Petrine type of tradition became the common property of these early
   preachers and of their first hearers. And because the life of Christ
   entered as a very important element into the life of his apostles, and
   they felt the supreme significance of his words, it is also reasonable
   to assume that they aimed at inculcating the teachings of our Lord on
   their hearers in the exact form in which He gave it. It is equally
   rational to suppose that, at a comparatively early time, the desire to
   escape the uncertainty that always attends oral transmission, led to
   the composition of brief gospel narratives, containing especially the
   sayings and discourses of our Lord. These suppositions are entirely in
   harmony too with the opening verses of the Gospel of Luke: "Forasmuch
   as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those
   matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered
   them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers
   of the word, it seemed good to me also, etc." Some of these early
   documents may have been written in Aramaic and others in Greek. The
   groundwork thus furnished and drawn upon by the writers of our
   Gospels, explains in a very natural way most of the agreements that
   are found in the Synoptics. And those that cannot be accounted for in
   that manner may have resulted directly from the guiding influence of
   the Holy Spirit, who led the writers also in the choice of their
   words. These three Gospels are in a very real sense the work of one
   Author.

   In seeking to explain the differences that are found in the Synoptic
   Gospels, we should bear in mind first of all that they are no
   histories, but memoirs, historical arguments. In composing them each
   one of the writers had his own purpose. Matthew, writing for the Jews,
   made it his aim to present Christ as the King, the great Son of David;
   Mark, intending his Gospel for the Romans, endeavored to draw a vivid
   picture of the powerful Worker, conquering the forces of evil; and
   Luke, addressing the Greeks and adjusting his Gospel to their needs,
   sought to describe Christ as the universal Saviour, as a person with
   wide sympathies. This diversity of aimaccounts to a great extent for
   the variations exhibited in the Gospels, i. e. for omissions on the
   one hand and additions on the other, for differences in the
   distribution and arrangement of the material, etc. The writers of the
   Gospels selected from the great mass of early traditions the material
   that was suited to their purpose and used it to advantage. The
   difference between the Synoptics is not accidental, is not the result
   of the chance use of certain sources. And where the identical
   teachings of Christ are sometimes found in different forms, we should
   remember, first, that the Lord may have uttered the same truth at
   different times in varying forms; and secondly, that the Synoptists do
   not always give the identical words of the Saviour, but were so guided
   by the Holy Spirit that they do give an exact representation of the
   Lords teachings, perhaps in a form better adapted to their purpose
   than the original would have been. Cf. Kuyper, Diet. Dogm., Locus de
   Sacra Scriptura II p. 131 f.; Gregory, Why Four Gospels; Van Leeuwen,
   Literatuur en Schriftuur p. 14 ff.; Urquhart, New Biblical Guide VII
   p. 328-428.

   For further study of the Synoptic Problem we refer to; Norton,
   Genuineness of the Gospels; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the
   Gospels; Arthur Wright, A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek;
   Holdsworth, Gospel Origins; Buckley, Introduction to the Synoptic
   Problem; Hill, Introduction to the Life of Christ; Reuss, History of
   the New Testament I p. 163-218 (where the most important German
   literature is referred to) ; and the various Introductions of
   Davidson, Weiss, Zahn, Julicher, Salmon, e. a.
     _________________________________________________________________

THE RELATION OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN TO THE SYNOPTICS.

   After pointing out the remarkable agreement between the synoptic
   Gospels and referring to some of the attempted explanations of this
   feature, we must consider the equally striking difference that exists
   between the Synoptics on the one hand and the Gospel of John on the
   other. This difference is so great that even untrained minds
   immediately feel it. Hence the question naturally arises: How can we
   account for it? This is in substance the Johannine problem. The
   differences that are found may conveniently be arranged under two
   heads: 1. Differences touching the external course of events in the
   Lords ministry; and 2. Differences in regard to the form and contents
   of Christs teaching.

   I. Differences touching the external course of events in the Lord's
   ministry.

   a. According to the Synoptics the principal scene of the Lords
   activity is Galilee. He repairs to this Northern province soon after
   the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and apparently does not return
   to Judea until the last Passover. The representation that is found in
   the Gospel of John is quite different. Very little is said about the
   Galilean ministry, while the activity of Christ in Judea looms large
   on his pages. Most of the work of which John speaks was done at
   Jerusalem.

   b. The first three Gospels mention but one Passover in their narrative
   of Christs public ministry, viz. that at the end of his life. This led
   many to the conviction that the Lord's public ministry was limited to
   a period of one year. In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, we
   find three Passovers definitely mentioned, while a fourth is probably
   refferred to in 5:1. Judging by this the length of the Lords ministry
   was at least two and possibly three years.

   c. The people with whom Jesus deals primarily are not the same in the
   Synoptics and in the Gospel of John. In the first three Gospels we see
   Jesus moving along the Galilean peasantry and preaching to them the
   gospel of the Kingdom, while in the fourth the Jews (by which John
   means the leaders of the people, i. e. Chief Priests, Scribes and
   Pharisees) are generally in the foreground, and certain individuals,
   that are not named, or are merely names, in the Synoptics, are very
   prominent, such as Philip, Nathanael, the Samaritan woman, Mary
   Magdalena and Thomas.

   d. The attitude of the Jews towards Jesus appears to be quite
   different in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of John. According
   to the Synoptics Jesus meets with great success at first. The
   multitudes flock unto him, are delighted to hear him and marvel at his
   teachings and work. And it is only after He has clearly shown that He
   had not come to establish an earthly kingdom that their enthusiasm
   dies away, and that He begins to prepare his disciples for his coming
   suffering and death. The Gospel of John makes it appear that from the
   beginning of Christs ministry at Jerusalem the hearts of the Jews were
   filled with a hatred that gradually grew, reaching its highest pitch
   after the raising of Lazarus, and that finally issued in the
   crucifixion of the Lord of glory.

   e. There are also several details in which the Gospel of John does not
   agree with the Synoptics. We shall only mention a couple of the most
   important examples. In the synoptic Gospels we find the cleansing of
   the temple at the end of Christ's public ministry, while John places
   this at the very beginning. Then there is also a the representaion of
   the of the Lord's death. The Synoptics convey the impression that
   Christ ate the Passover in the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and was
   therefore crucified on the 15th; while the Gospel of John seems to say
   with equal explicitness that He ate it a day in advance of the regular
   time and died at the very hour, when the symbolic Paschal lamb was
   slain.

   II. Differences in respect to the form and contents of our Lord's
   teaching.

   a. There is a striking diversity in the form in which the teaching of
   Jesus is cast. In the Synoptics we have short incisive sayings of the
   Lord, which in some cases are and in others are not connected with
   what immediately precedes or follows. In the Gospel of John, on the
   other hand, we find long and labored discourses, closely connected
   with the signs, the miracles of our Lord. The first three Gospels
   contain a goodly number of parables, which are strangely absent from
   the fourth Gospel, where we have have instead a few allegories, such
   as the Door of the Sheepfold, the good Shepherd, and the true Vine.
   The style of the Gospel of John too is quite different from that of
   the Synoptics. It is a more Hebraic style, in which the statements are
   brief, the construction is simple and the sentences are usually
   connected with the conjunction and. This style is carried through also
   in the discourses of Christ, so that in some cases it is very hard, if
   not impossible, to tell just where the words of the Lord come to an
   end and those of the evangelist begin, or vice versa. Notice this
   especially in the third chapter.

   b. There is an equally great difference in the contents of the Lords
   teaching. In the Synoptics the central theme on which Christ dwells is
   the Kingdom of God. He speaks of its origin, its nature, its subjects,
   its King, its requirements, its righteousness, its enemies and its
   future glory. In vain do we turn to the fourth Gospel for a
   corresponding line of thought. The Kingdom of God is mentioned but
   once there, viz, in the conversation of our Lord with Nicodemus.
   Christ himself is the main theme of the discourses found in the Gospel
   of John. The Lord speaks of his heavenly origin, of his essential
   character and of his return to glory. He presents himself to the Jews
   as the Messiah, the Son of God, the heavenly manna, the water of life,
   the true liberator, the light of the world, the good Shepherd, the
   resurrection and the life, etc. In the Synoptics we find that Jesus
   only occasionally, and then towards the end of his ministry, speaks of
   himself. In connection with this we may remark that the
   self-revelation of Christ both by his words and works differs greatly
   in the Synoptics and in the fourth Gospel. In the former Jesus begins
   by speaking of the Kingdom and makes little mention of the King. Only
   gradually does He reveal his true character and it is not until He is
   well along in the course of his public ministry that Peter is led up
   to the confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
   Only in the last week of his life does Jesus throw off all reserve and
   speaks clearly of himself as the Messiah sent from God. In the Gospel
   of John however, everything is quite clear from the beginning. John
   the Baptist points to Christ as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the
   sin of the world ;" to the Samaritan woman Jesus says: "I am He ;" and
   to the Jews attending the unnamed feast he speaks clearly of the
   unique relation in which He stands to the Father. This is closely
   connected with another fact. In the synoptic Gospels the humanity of
   Christ is made very prominent. We behold him there primarily as the
   Saviour who is taken on our nature, shares in our infirmities, and is
   tempted even as we are, though without sin. The fourth Gospel, on the
   other hand, brings the divinity of Christ into strong re1ief. We
   notice this at the very beginning of the Gospel: "In the beginning was
   the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It strikes
   us in the signs which Christ gave to reveal his glory, and in the
   discourses that speak at length of his essential nature, of his
   descending out of glory, his being in glory, and his returning to the
   glory that He possessed from the foundation of the world; and it rings
   in our ears as we listen to the confession of Thomas: "My Lord and my
   God."

   There are many critics at the present time who magnify these
   differences into discrepancies, and find in them a ground on which to
   reject the authorship of John. They maintain that the fourth Gospel is
   a treatise written with marked theological bias, inspired by the
   controversy about the person of Christ in the second century. The
   great stumbling block for them is the very clear teaching contained in
   this Gospel respecting the divinity of Christ. This, they hold, could
   only be the fruit of theological preconceptions. And the great desire
   on the part of the author to establish this beyond the shadow of a
   doubt is said to explain a good many of the other special features
   that characterize this gospel. This explanation contains both a
   falsehood and a truth.

   A careful study of the Gospel of John, a study that takes its true
   character in consideration, does not bear out the contention that
   several of the differences between the Gospel of John and the
   Synoptics amount to discrepancies. Neither does it reveal differences
   that cannot be accounted for in a perfectly natural way. We desire to
   point out first of all that there are not only dissimilarities but
   also correspondences between these Gospels. The incidents that we find
   mentioned in all the Gospels are the following: The baptism of John ,
   the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on the sea, the
   anointing at Bethany, the triumphal entry, the last supper, the
   betrayal, the trial, the crucifixion, the burial and the resurrection.
   Of course in some cases the details of the narrative vary. Besides
   these parallel narratives there are many passages in which we find
   imagery, sayings or words that find their counterpart in the synoptic
   Gospels. Davidson says that about one-third of the matter in John
   agrees with that in the Synoptics.

   It is evident from the foregoing that the diversity is greater than
   the similarity, and the great question is: How must we account for the
   differences? In pointing out the way in which we must look for a
   solution of this problem we call attention to several particulars.

   1. We should not lose sight of the true character of John's writing.
   Neither it nor the other Gospels are meant to be complete histories of
   what the Lord did and said during his life in the flesh. If this were
   its claim, it would be disappoint in the extreme, since all that John
   narrates happened in a few days. Like the Synoptics the Gospel of John
   is a pen-picture of the Lord, is a witness to him from a particular
   point of view, and represents a phase of the apostolic ch,rugmai. We
   must allow for the principle of selection and of selective arrangement
   in the composition of this work. It was John's aim to describe the
   Lord from a particular point of view. Hence he chose from the great
   mass of apostolic tradition, whether oral or written, the materials
   that suited his purpose best, and arranged them in the most effective
   way, taking in consideration as much as possible the chronological
   order in which the events occurred. This general truth must be borne
   in mind continually, if we would understand the differences between
   the Gospel of John and the Synoptics.

   2. The great controlling factor, however, in the construction of this
   Gospel, was the aim of the writer. Therefore it is necessary that we
   have some understanding of this. Happily we need not guess at it,
   because John himself tells us what purpose he had in writing his
   Gospel. He says in 20: 31: "But these things are written that ye might
   believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing
   ye might have life through His name." According to this statement the
   apostle had a twofold aim, the one theoretical and the other
   practical, the one his proximate, the other his ulterior aim. The
   theoretical aim of the evangelist was twofold: he wanted to show in a
   convincing manner that the historical Jesus was the Christ sent from
   God for the salvation of the world; and that this Christ was not a
   mere man, but the very Son of God, who in his pre-existent state
   shared in the divine glory, a glory which He radiated even while He
   dwelt among men in the form of a servant, and that would again shine
   forth in heavenly splendor after He had finished his task. It was the
   desire of the writer further, to present this Christ, this Son of God,
   to his readers in such a manner that they might be led to believe in
   him, and that they, being united to him the fountain of life by faith,
   might have life everlasting. With this end in view John, of course,
   selected those signs and discourses of the Lord that were best adapted
   to bring out his glory and to lead others to faith in him. He almost
   seems to tell us this himself, when he concludes his narrative of the
   first miracle performed by our Lord at Cana with the words: "This
   beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his
   glory; and his disciples believed on Him." John views the miracles of
   which he speaks as shmeiathat exhibit the divine greatness of Christ.
   And he limits himself almost exclusively to those of which he can say
   definitely that they led men to believe on Christ, or of which Christ
   himself points out the symbolic significance in His discourses, as:
     * The changing of water into wine at Cana ("and his disciples
       believed on Him.") The healing of the rulers son at Cana
       (Capernaum) ("and himself believed and his whole house.")
     * The healing of the impotent man at the pool Bethesda (Christ the
       restorer of life).
     * The feeding of the five thousand near Bethsaida (Christ the
       spiritual food, the heavenly manna).
     * The restoring of the blind mans sight at Jerusalem (Christ the
       light of the world).
     * The raising of Lazarus at Bethany (Christ the resurrection and the
       life).

   In harmony with his aim too the evangelist records such discourses of
   the Lord as serve to explain the shmeia to bring. out the unique
   relation in which Christ stands to the Father, to accentuate Christs
   authority, to emphasize the divine character of his mission. etc.
   Moreover he introduces several individuals to show us how Jesus
   labored tol bring them to the conviction that He was the Christ, the
   Sons of God, as f. i. Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and
   Thomas.

   Now if we bear these things in mind, many of the differences between
   this Gospel and the Synoptics are immediately explained. The aim of
   John being what it is, he naturally speaks of Christ rather than of
   the Kingdom of God, introduces whatever accentuates the divinity of
   our Lord, and brings out as much as possible that Christ revealed
   himself as the Messiah from the very beginning of his public career.
   But doing this in a historical way, he cannot represent the Galilean
   peasants but only the eaders of the Jews at Jerusalem as the
   recipients of this revelation, for it was only to them, who were
   versed in the Scriptures, that Christ spoke so explicitly from the
   outset, and it was primarily for them that He expressed his thought in
   profound discourses rather than in parables. This in turn determines
   the time of which John speaks in his gospel and also explains how it
   is that he mentions so many feasts, because it was almost exclusively
   on these occasions that Jesus visited Jerusalem and came in contact
   with the Scribes and the Chief Priests. It also sheds light on the
   difference in the attitude of the Jews toward Jesus. For a long time
   the Galileans were attached to Christ and marveled at his words and
   works; the spirit of opposition was aroused in them especially towards
   the end of Christs labors among them and mostly by the machinations of
   the Pharisees that came from Jerusalem. The leaders of the Jews in
   Judea, on the other hand, hated Jesus almost from the beginning of his
   public ministry. Their hatred kept pace with the knowledge they
   received of Christ.

   3. Every attempt at solving the Johannine problem must also make
   allowance for the fact that John was acquainted with the other Gospels
   and avoided as much as was conistent with his aim the repitition of
   facts that were already generally known. We have no doubt that John
   had read the other Gospels before he wrote his own. There are certain
   features in his Gospel that we can understand only on that
   supposition. According to 21:19 John wrote his Gospel after the death
   of Peter and therefore comparatively late. Now he certainly would not
   be such a stranger in his own world of thought as not to know the
   Gospels that had already been composed. Then we find that in several
   places the evangelist trusts to the previous knowledge of his readers.
   He does not describe the institution of the Lords supper in his
   Gospel; yet he clearly assumes in 6: 5 1-58 that his readers were
   acquainted with it. Though he does not give a description of the
   ascension, he proceeds on the assumption that this fact is well known,
   6:62; 20:17. Cf. further 1:40; 3:24; 6:70, etc. In several cases in
   which the persons introduced in the Gospel misunderstand the Lord, the
   writer does not deem it necessary to explain for his readers what
   Jesus really meant, because he knew that they themselves were able to
   correct the mistake, Cf. 7: 35, 36; 3:4; 4:15; 6:52. It is a very
   weighty consideration in this connection too that John does not deign
   to answer objections that are brought against the Messiahship of
   Christ. Notice f. i. 1:45, 46; 7:41, 42; 7: 52. The evangelist does
   not give a single hint of the solution of the difficulty thus raised
   repeatedly. We can understand this only on the supposition that he was
   aware of the fact that his readers knew from the other Gospels how to
   solve the problem. John evidently read the other Gospels and this
   explains how he could avoid to such a great extent what they had
   already brought to the knowledge of the people.

   4. Finally we must also bear in mind that the individuality of the
   author is stamped his literary production. John was a profound
   meditative spirit, who drank deeply at the fountain of life. He
   searched for the mainspring of action in the career of our Saviour; he
   pondered on the hidden background of the mysterious, the wonderful
   life of his Master. He was the best qualified of all the apostles to
   describe the divine greatness of the Lord. And it was no small
   achievement of his, that he presented the profoundest truths in the
   most simple manner. The simplicity of its language is a very striking
   feature of the fourth Gospel. It is due in part, no doubt, to Johns
   idiosyncracy, and in part to his habit of contemplating Christianity
   in its most fundamental relations. It need not surprise us that we
   find the same style in the discourses of Christ, for in these also the
   style is to a great extent Johns. Neither John nor the other
   evangelists always give us the exact words of Jesus. It is true that
   he generally employs direct discourse in introducing the words of the
   Saviour, but this is merely an oriental custom and does not imply that
   the words were used exactly in that way. But the Spirit of God so
   guided the writer that he reproduces, though possibly in a slightly
   different form, the exact truths which Jesus sought to inculcate on
   his hearers. And this Spirit, which is also the Spirit of Christ,
   vouching for these words, makes them just as really the words of
   Christ, as if they had been an exact reproduction of the words Jesus
   had used in addressing the Jews.
     _________________________________________________________________

THE INSPIRATION OF THE GOSPELS.

   During the past century the human origin of the Gospels has been
   carefully investigated. With a great deal of patience and ingenuity
   every chapter and verse of these writings has been scrutinized and
   referred to its supposed ultimate source. The discussion of the divine
   factor that operated in the composition of these books, however, has
   been conspicuously absent from these studies. And this neglect is not
   the result of chance, but of a very deliberate plan. A large number of
   scholars today do not believe in any special inspiration of these
   writings; others, who do not wish to deny their divine inspiration,
   nevertheless maintain that their claim to this prerogative should be
   waived in the historical investigation of their origin.

   In the preceding century many were wont to label the Gospels
   sneeringly as fictitious narratives, written by a few religious
   fanatics, who deliberately lied about Jesus. This crude and baseless
   opinion does not meet with great favor today. People intuitively
   recoil from that position and feel that they must take a more
   respectful attitude towards the Gospels. They now regard these as the
   product of the reverent and in part unconscious invention of the
   Church; or as the expression of the corporate consciousness and the
   corporate mood of the first Christian community. Even so, of course,
   they are simply human productions that contain besides a large quota
   of truth a great deal of mythical and lengendary matter.

   Over against this position we hold that the Gospels were written by
   men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that they are therefore
   absolutely trustworthy and authoritative accounts of the life of our
   Lord. They are inspired records. They constitute one of the most
   precious fruits of the apostolic inspiration, since they are one and
   all the literary embodiment of the apostolic chrugma. The substance of
   what the apostles preached is contained in these writings. Now as well
   as the prophets in the old dispensation, the apostles in the new were
   inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is quite evident from the New
   Testament. Consider the promises which our Lord gave to His disciples:
   Matt 10:19,20 ".... for it shall be given you in that same hour what
   ye shall speak; for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your
   Father that speaketh in you." John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is
   the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach
   you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I
   have said unto you." John 16:13,14, "Howbeit when the Spirit of truth
   is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak of
   himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He
   will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for He shall
   receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." Notice too that these
   promises found their initial fulfilment on the day of Pentecost. We
   read in Acts 2:4: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and
   'began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
   utterance." And after this day the apostles were conscious of being
   guided by the Spirit of God. Paul says in I Cor. 2:11-13, "For what
   man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in
   him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
   Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit
   which is of God; that we might know the things which are freely given
   us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which mans
   wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing
   spiritual things with spiritual." And in II Cor. 13: 2b, 3, "--and
   being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to
   all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare; since ye seek a
   proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is
   mighty in you." These few passages, which might easily be multiplied,
   must suffice for the present.

   Some who admit the inspiration of the prophets, do not believe the
   apostles were also inspired, because in their case they do not hear
   the familiar formula "thus saith the Lord," nor behold the
   characteristic phenomena that accompanied the inspiration of the
   prophets. They do not distinguish between different kinds of
   inspiration. There are especially three points of interest between the
   inspiration of the prophets and that of the apostles.

   1. Under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit did not yet dwell in the
   Church, but operated on believers from without. So it was also in the
   case of the prophets. The Holy Spirit took possession of them,
   sometimes suppressed their personality to a. certain degree, and then
   employed their consciousness for his purpose. In the new dispensation,
   however, He took up his abode in The Church, and first of all in the
   apostles, who were to be the Churchs foundation; and then, identifying
   himself to a great extent with their conscious life, used them as
   instruments to produce his revelation.

   2. In the case of the prophets it was the entrance of a foreign
   element, a foreign power into their lives, and something extraordinary
   in their career that impelled them to prophesy. It was a power that
   they could not resist, because it became as a fire burning within
   them. With the apostles, on the other hand, it was the indwelling
   Spirit in connection with their official task that led them to speak
   the Word of God. The inspiration of the prophets was intermittent;
   that of the apostles, continuous in the performance of their regular
   apostolic duties.

   3. The prophets often spoke of unknown and unseen things, while the
   apostles discoursed on things which they knew and saw. In connection
   with this the Holy Spirit did not operate through the same faculty in
   both the prophets and the apostles. In the former it was the
   imagination, in the latter the understanding, especially memory and
   reflection, that constituted the medium of divine revelation. Hence
   the prophets generally spoke in poetic and in symbolic language, while
   the apostles as a rule clothed their thought in ordinary prose. In the
   case of the Gospels the inspiration of the apostles has above all the
   character of a u`po,mnhsij. Cf. John 14:26.

   This apostolic inspiration gave birth to the ch,rugma of the apostles,
   but does not yet account for the infallible records we have of this in
   the Gospels. Besides the apostolic we must take into consideration a
   seperate graphical or transcriptive inspiration, if we would fully
   understand the divine origin of the Gospels. The authors were led by
   the spirit of God in composing these writings, in giving to the
   preaching of the apostles a definite written form. They were guided in
   the selection of their material and its proper arrangement, and in the
   choice of their words and expressions, so that their records are truly
   a part of the Word of God for the Church of all ages.

   The question naturally arises, whether we have any reasons to think
   that the Gospels were so inspired. In answer would say that we have,
   though we do not flatter ourself with the idea that these reasons
   would convince anyone who is disinclined to accept the Scriptures as
   the very Word of God.

   1. The contents of the Gospels testify to their divine origin. We find
   in them a fourfold portraiture of the Saviour. There are many
   differences in the individual pictures, yet together they form a grand
   unity. Four writers, each one portraying the life of Christ in his own
   way, to a great extent without knowing each others writings or drawing
   on them, so that their individual portraits blend perfectly into a
   harmonious whole,--it is marvelous, it can only be understood, if we
   assume that these four writers were all guided unerringly by the same
   superintending Spirit. The Gospels are really the work of one author.
   And the life that is pictured in them is a divine life, unfathomable,
   mysterious, far surpassing human understanding. And yet that
   incomparable, that divine life has been so faithfully portrayed, with
   such a profound insight into its real character and hidden depths, in
   such a simple, natural, artless manner, that it has been the marvel of
   ages. Could man, unaided by higher power, describe such a life? No,
   only they who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, were equal to the
   task.

   2. Taking for granted the inspiration of the Old Testament, which is
   conclusively proved by the words of Jesus and the apostles we feel
   that it calls for an inspired complement. It covers the period of
   preparation that is prophetic of a future completion, the time in
   which the Church was in its infancy, that points forward to the
   maturity of a coming age. It is filled with prophecies that await
   fulfilment; it contains the shadow that is cast before the coming
   body, growing more distinct as the ages roll on, until at last it
   seems as if the body will presently appear, yet it does not--the Old
   Testament requires a compliment. And in harmony with it this too must
   be inspired. Of what avail would the inspiration of the Old Testament
   be, if that in which it culminates is not inspired. The divine surety
   would be wanting.

   3. At least two of our Gospels were written by apostles who in
   speaking to their contemporaries, were inpired by the Spirit of God.
   Now it would be an anomaly that they should be guided by the Holy
   Spirit in their oral witnessing to Christ, and be without that divine
   guidance in perpetuating their testimony for all future ages. It was
   the will of God that people until the end of the world should believe
   on him through the word of the apostles, John 17: 20; I John 1: 3.
   Hence it was of the greatest importance that there should be an
   infallible record of their testimony.

   4. There are some Scripture passages that point to the inspiration of
   the gospel records. The older Lightfoot, (Works IV p. 1193, 114; XII
   p. 7, and following him Urquhart, The Bible its Structure and PurposeI
   Ch. 5), find a proof for the inspiration of Lukes Gospel in 1: 3,
   where they would translate the words parhcolouqhco,ti a;nwqen by
   "having had perfect understanding of all things from above." This
   interpretation is favored by the fact that a;nwqen has this meaning in
   eight of the thirteen times that it occurs in the New Testament, and
   in three of the remaining instances means again, while it is
   translated "from the beginning" only here and in Acts 26:4. The
   expressed purpose of Luke in writing his Gospel also falls in
   exceedingly well with the rendering from above. It is, he writes to
   Theophilus, that you may have the certainty of those things in which
   you have been instructed." Yet the verb paracolouqe,w, meaning, to
   follow up carefully, and thus, to obtain knowledge, argues decisively
   against it. What is of greater significance for us, is the fact that
   the Gospel of Luke is quoted as h. grafh, in I Tim. 5:18, where we
   read: "For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzzle the ox that
   treadeth out the corn, and, The laborer is worthy of his hire." The
   only place in the entire Bible where the last words are found, is Luke
   10: 7. Finally we call attention to II Peter 3:15, 16, where the
   apostle says: ". . . even as our beloved brother Paul also according
   to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his
   epistles, speaking of these things; in which are some things hard to
   be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as
   they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." Here
   we find that the writings of Paul are placed on a level with other
   inspired writings, which Peter calls, "the other Scriptures." There is
   good reason to believe that this expression refers to the books of the
   Old Testament, and to those of the New Testament that were already
   composed, when Peter wrote his second epistle, among which we may also
   reckon the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

   5. The fact that the early Church from the very beginning accepted
   these Gospels as canonical, is also a proof of their inspired
   character, for in it the communal consciousness of the Church
   expressed itself in regard to these writings; and it is said of
   believers in their corporate existence that they, taught by the Holy
   Ghost, know all things. Dean Alford says: "The apostles being raised
   up for the special purpose of witnessing to the gospel history,--and
   these memoirs having been universally received in the early Church as
   embodying that their testimony, I see no escape left from the
   inference that they come to us with inspired authority. The Greek
   Testament, Vol. I, Prolegomena Section VI.

   6. Finally the Holy Spirit testifies in the heart of every believer to
   the divine character of the Gospels, so that they feel assured that
   these writings contain the veryWord of God. Under the influence of the
   Holy Spirit they realize that these Gospels too minister to the
   deepest needs of their spiritual life, they realize their infinite
   value, marvel at their exquisite beauty and find in them ever
   increasingly the words of everlasting life. Thus they cannot but speak
   their "Amen" to the contents of these books.
     _________________________________________________________________

THE CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.

   The Gospels are of course, closely related to the Old Testament
   Scriptures. They describe in a vivid manner the initial stage of the
   fulness of time, showing how all the prophecies that pointed to Christ
   and to a new and more spiritual dispensation began to be fulfilled.
   Rather than enlarge on this relation, however, we shall here briefly
   describe the peculiar function of the Gospels in the New Testament
   revelation. These writings are related to the rest of the New
   Testament, as the Pentateuch is to the following books of the Old
   Testament. Both are of a fundamental character, laying foundations on
   which an imposing superstructure is raised. In the case of the Gospels
   this is clearly indicated by the opening words of Luke in the Acts of
   the Apostles: "The former treatise have I written, Theophilus, of all
   that Jesus began both to do and to teach." In this passage the word
   h;rxato is not pleonastic, as was held by some, but emphatic.
   According to this word the Gospel contained the narrative only of what
   Jesus began to do and to teach, which would prove to be the solid
   foundation and the germinating principle of all that He would continue
   to do on earth (through His apostles) and in heaven. The Gospels mark
   but an initial stage in New Testament revelation; they lack finality.

   The form, the method and the substance of Christs teaching in the
   Gospels,--it all bears the stamp of an incipient stage. Everyone that
   reads the Gospels and compares them with the epistles is struck by the
   simple manner in which Christ presents his teachings to the multitude.
   He gave his instruction primarily in the form of parables and
   proverbial sayings. Now it is the essence of proverbial speech that it
   detaches itself from particular occasions, and is therefore best
   adapted to the expression of general fundamental truths. Because
   parables and proverbs set forth the truth in a lively and concrete
   way, they were very appropriate in teaching those that were just
   initiated in the spiritual truths of the new dispensation. Since they
   generally disclose the truth but partially, they stimulate the spirit
   of inquiry. A very suitable way of instructing beginners indeed! We
   notice that the disciples gradually longed for a different form of
   instruction, and towards the end of his life Christ says to them:
   "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time cometh,
   when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you
   plainly of the Father." John 16:25. -- The method of Jesus' work
   points to the same general conclusion. His teaching has a fragmentary
   character. He speaks a word here and a word there, discourses now with
   this person and then with that one, just as a missionary among the
   gentiles is apt to do, expressing the deepest truths in a sporadic
   way. Important doctrines were thus uttered without any attempt to
   relate them to other truths. All this is in perfect harmony with the
   initial character of Christ's work.--The contents of Christs teaching
   also are primitive and fundamental. Many of the most important truths
   are indeed taught in the Gospels, but they are not elaborated, nor set
   forth in all their significance, as f. i. the doctrine of the
   atonement, of justification by faith, of the forgiveness of sins, of
   the Kingship of Christ, etc. Other truths were suppressed, because, as
   the Lord himself says, even the best of his hearers were not yet able
   to bear them, John 16:12. The works of Christ were also initiatory.
   His miracles contained within them. the promise of still greater works
   in the future. He says to his disciples: "He that believeth on me, the
   works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall
   he-do, because I go unto my Father," John 14:12.

   Now the writers of the Gospels simply narrated this initial work of
   Christ, as they remembered it. They do not make mention of the greater
   works that followed after Christ had gone to heaven, nor do they
   (except in very rare instances) reflect on or seek to interpret the
   life and teachings of the Saviour. This remains to be done in later
   writings.
     _________________________________________________________________

                             The Gospel of Matthew
     _________________________________________________________________

   CONTENTS*

   The Gospel of Matthew may be divided into five parts:

   I. The Advent of the Messiah, 1: 1-4: 11. Matthew proves by the legal
   genealogy that Christ was the Son of David, the child of the promise;
   that, in harmony with the prophecies, He was born of a virgin at
   Bethlehem and his way was prepared by John the Baptist; and records
   his baptism and temptation.

   II. The Public proclamation of Messiah's Kingdom, 4: 12 16: 12. Here
   we find Jesus, after John is taken captive, choosing his first
   disciples and beginning his work in Galilee, 4: 12-4: 25. Then follows
   a splendid example of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, in
   which the law of the New Kingdom is promulgated, and its righteousness
   and life are contrasted with those of Pharisees and Scribes, 5-7. This
   is followed by the description of a series of miracles, interspersed
   with brief teachings of the Lord and the calling of Matthew, giving
   clear evidence of the power and mercy of Jesus and establishing his
   authority to set up the New Kingdom and to proclaim its laws, 8: 1-9:
   38. Next we have a catalogue of the twelve apostles and their
   commission to announce the coming Kingdom to the house of Israel, 10.
   It is brought out that the teachings and miracles of Jesus lead to
   serious questionings on the part of John the Baptist, to open
   opposition from the side of Pharisees and Scribes, and to the
   interference of his relatives, 11: 1-12 :50; that as a result Christ
   substitutes parabolic for plain teaching, 13: 1-53; and that the
   opposition finally culminmates in his rejection by the synagogue of
   Nazareth, by Herod and by the spiritual leaders of the people, both of
   Jerusalem and of Galilee, leading in every instance to the withdrawal
   of his gracious works and also to an exposition and condemnation of
   the hypocracy and wickedness of the leaders of the nation. 13: 54-16:
   12.

   III. The Distinct and Public Claim of Messiahship, 16: 13-23: 39. In
   this section the evangelist shows, how Christ instructs his disciples
   regarding the Messiahship. The Lord calls forth their explicit
   confession of him as Messiah, 16: 13-20; and teaches them in a
   threefold form that He must suffer and die, but will rise again. In
   connection with these announcements we have the narrative of the
   transfiguration and the healing of the epileptic demoniac, and
   instruction regarding the civil and religious relations and duties of
   the disciples, such as the payment of the temple tribute, the
   self-denying, humble, loving and forgiving spirit of true
   discipleship, divorce, the proper attitude toward children, the danger
   of earthly possessions, the gracious character of the reward in God's
   Kingdom, and the ministering spirit demanded in his followers, 16:
   21-20: 28. At Jerusalem also He now makes his claim, entering the city
   as the Son of David and assuming Messianic authority in the temple. He
   brings out clearly the future rejection of Israel, answers the test
   questions of his enemies and pronounces a sevenfold woe on Pharisees
   and Scribes, 20: 29-23: 39.

   IV. The Sacrifice of Messiah the Priest, 24: 1-27: 66. Matthew
   demonstrates that Christ, now that He is rejected by the Jews,
   prepares his disciples for his sacrificial death by unfolding the
   doctrine of his future coming in glory and by teaching them the true
   posture of his followers in waiting for the day of his coming, 24:
   1-25: 46. He then describes how Christ brought his sacrifice, after
   eating the Paschal lamb, being betrayed by Judas, condemned by the
   Sanhedrin and Pilate, and dying on the cross, 26:1 27: 66.

   V. The Truimph of Messiah the Saviour and King. The author brings out
   that Jesus by rising again from the dead fully established his claim
   to the Messiahship. Abundant evidence of the resurrection is furnished
   and it is clearly shown that in the end Christ is clothed with
   Messianic authority.
     _________________________________________________________________

   CHARACTERISTICS

   1 As to form we find, in the first place, a characteristically Jewish
   numerical arrangement of things in this Gospel. The genealogy in ch. 1
   consists of three groups of generations of fourteen each. There are
   seven beatitudes ch. 5; seven petitions in the Lord's prayer ch. 6; a
   group of seven parables ch. 13; and seven woes on Pharisees and
   Scribes ch. 23. As to the style of Matthew, in the second place, may
   be said that it is smoother than that of Mark, though not so vivid.
   But it is tinged with Hebraisms, less indeed than the language of
   Luke, but more than that of Mark. It is rather impersonal, lacking in
   individuality. Its individualism of language consists mostly in the
   frequent use of certain words and phrases. The Hebraistic formulae of
   transition cai. evge,neto and cai. ido,u occur repeatedly, and the
   simple to,te is constantly used, especially with a historical tense.
   Further the following characteristic expressions are found: h`
   basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n instead of the more common h` b) tou/ qeou/*
   i[na plhrwqh|/ to. rhqe.n u`po, curi,ou dia. tou/ profhtou/, or an
   abbreviated form of this expression; and o[pwj instead of i[na.

   2. The arrangement of the material in this Gospel also differs
   considerably from that in the other Synoptics. The narrative is not
   continuous, but is interrupted by five great discourses, such as are
   not found in the Gospels of Mark and Luke, viz, the Sermon on the
   Mount, chs. 5-7; the charge to the apostles, ch. 10; the parables of
   the Kingdom, ch. 13; the discourse on the church, ch. 18; and the
   final eschatological discourses of Christ on the last judgment, chs.
   23-25. After every one of these discourses we find the words: "And it
   came to pass, when Jesus had ended (made an end of, finished) these
   sayings, etc.

   3. As to contents the following peculiarities deserve our attention:
   In the first place the Gospel of Matthew has a more Jewish aspect,
   than the other Synoptics. Its predominant subject is, the Messiah and
   his Kingdom. The discourses of which we spoke all have reference to
   this Kingdom, and it is clearly brought out that the mission of Christ
   is to the Jews only and that the establishment of His rule will be a
   restoration of the fallen throne of David. Cf. the genealogy ch. 1 and
   also 2:2; 10:5, 6; 15:24; 19:28, etc. Yet we must not think that it
   positively excludes the idea of salvation for the gentiles; it clearly
   holds out a hope to them and even announces that the Kingdom will be
   taken from Israel on account of its unfaithfulness. Cf. 2:1-13; 8:
   10-12; 15:28; 21:43; 22:1-14. In the second place the first Gospel
   alludes to the Old Testament more frequently than any other: It
   emphasizes the fact that the New Testament reveals the fulfilment of
   Old Testament promises; that Christ was born, revealed himself and
   labored as the prophets of old had foretold. Matthew contains more
   than 40 quotations, while Mark has 21 and Luke, 22. The characteristic
   use of i`na (o[pwj) plhrwqh|/ in quotations proves that Matthew had an
   eye for the divine teleology in history. And in the third place
   Matthew looks at things in their grand general aspect and pays less
   attention to the minor details on which Mark so much loves to dwell.
     _________________________________________________________________

   AUTHORSHIP

   The superscription ascribes the first Gospel to Matthew. That this
   embodies the opinion of the early Church is evident from the testimony
   of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and several others, who all
   point to Matthew as the author. The Gospel itself shows unmistakably,
   by its Jewish physiognomy, that its author was a Jew, yea even that he
   was a Palestinian Jew, for he quotes from the Hebrew and not from the
   Septuagint. It contains no direct evidence, however to the authorship
   of Matthew, though there are a couple points of difference between it
   and the other Synoptics that are best explained on the assumption that
   Matthew wrote it. When we compare the lists of the twelve apostles in
   Mt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3: 16-19; and Luke 6:14- 16, we notice that only in
   the first Gospel the name Matthew is followed by the less honorable
   qualification "the publican ;" and that it has the order, "Thomas and
   Matthew" instead of, "Matthew and Thomas.'

   The apostolic authorship of this gospel is denied by several
   rationalistic critics, such as Davidson; Julicher and Baljon. Their
   reasons for rejecting it are the following:

   (1). Legend, misunderstanding and irrelevancy are very prominent in
   this Gospel, which would not be the case if the writer had been an eye
   and ear witness of Jesus. The reference is to such narratives as the
   story of the wise men, the flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of the
   innocents, ch. 2; the doublet of the miraculous feeding, 14:16-21; 15:
   32-38; the story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two animals, 21: 2,
   7; the opening of the graves at the resurrection of Christ, 27: 52;
   the setting of a watch at the sepulchre and the bribing of them, etc.
   (2). The Gospel of Matthew is too closely dependent on Mark, not
   merely in choice of matter and arrangement but in verbal detail, to be
   the work of an apostle. (3). The author never indicates by the use of
   the pronouns I or we that he was an eye witness of the things which he
   narrates.

   In answer to these objections it may be said that one's disbelief in
   miracles does not prove them false, and that the seeming difficulties
   to which reference is made easily yield to good exegesis. The
   dependence of Matthew on Mark (instead of the reverse as the Tubingen
   school believed) is indeed accepted by a great number of scholars
   today, but is not absolutely proven. And even if it were, it would be
   no disparagement for Matthew. The impersonal objective style is the
   prevailing one in the historical books of the Bible and is irrelevant
   as an objection to the authorship of the apostle.

   Our information regarding Matthew is very scanty. We read of him first
   in connection with the call to follow Jesus, Mt. 9: 9, 10; Mk. 2:14,
   15; Lk. 5 : 27-29. There is no reason to doubt that the Matthew of the
   first Gospel is the Levi of the second and third. Possibly his name
   was changed by the Lord after his call to the discipleship, just as
   those of Peter and Paul. In Mark he is said to be the son of Alphaeus,
   whom some identify with Alphaeus the father of the apostle James. But
   this identification does not commend itself to us, since we may assume
   that, if James and Matthew had indeed been brothers, this would have
   been stated in their case as well as it is in those of Andrew and
   Peter and John and James. He belonged to the despised class of
   publicans and hence cannot have been a very strict Jew. When Jesus
   called him, he made a great feast for the Lord, to which he also
   invited many publicans and sinners. Clement of Alexandria describes
   him as a rigorous ascetic, living "on seeds and herbs and without
   flesh." It is not impossible that by a very natural reaction his
   sinful life changed into one of great austerity. A veil of obscurity
   is cast over the apostolic career of Matthew. Tradition has it that he
   remained at Jerusalem with the other apostles for about twelve years
   after the death of the Lord, laboring among his fellow-countrymen.
   When the work was done, it is said, he preached the Gospel to others,
   according to the popular opinion in Ethiopia. He probably died a
   natural death.
     _________________________________________________________________

   COMPOSITION

   I. Original Language. A hotly debated question is that regarding the
   language in which Matthew originally wrote his Gospel. The difficulty
   of the problem arises from the fact that external testimony and
   internal evidence seem to disagree. As a result the camp is very much
   divided, some scholars ardently defending a Hebrew, others with equal
   zeal a Greek original. The earliest testimony in regard to this matter
   is that of Papias and runs as follows: "Matthew composed the oracles
   (lo,gia) in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone interpreted them as he
   was able." It is clear from the original that in these words the
   emphasis falls on the phrase "in the Hebrew language." But Papias does
   not stand alone in this assertion; a similar statement is found in
   Irenaeus: "Matthew among the Hebrews did also publish a Gospel in
   writing in their own language." Pantaenus is said to have gone to
   India, where he found "the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters."
   Origen quoted by Eusebius also says that "the first Gospel was written
   by Matthew . . . who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in
   the Hebrew language." Eusebius himself makes the following statement:
   "For Matthew, having first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about
   to go to other people, delivered to them in their own language the
   Gospel written by himself." Jerome also states that "Matthew wrote a
   Gospel of Jesus Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters for
   the benefit of those of the circumcision who believed. Who afterwards
   translated it into Greek, is uncertain." To these testimonies might be
   added those of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ebedjesu
   and Chrysostom.

   On the other hand it is pointed out that the present Greek Gospel does
   not impress one as a translation, but has all the appearance of an
   original work, since: (1.) The hypothesis of a translation fails to
   account for the identity seen in certain parts of the Synoptic
   Gospels. (2.) While the author himself indeed quotes from the Hebrew
   text of the Old Testament, the quotations of our Lord are almost
   uniformly taken from the Septuagint. Is it conceivable that this would
   be the case in a Hebrew Gospel? (3.) The Gospel contains translations
   of Hebrew words, as: "They shall call His name Emmanuel, which being
   interpreted is, God with us," 1: 23 ; "A place called Golgotha, that
   is to say, a place of a skull," 27: 33. (4.) There are certain
   explanations of Palestinian customs and habitual occurrences that
   would have been altogether superfluous in a Hebrew Gospel, naturally
   intended only for the natives of Palestine, f. i. in 22:23; 27:8, 15;
   28:15.

   The conclusion to which this evidence leads is corroborated by the
   following facts: (1.) In all probability no one has ever seen the
   Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and no trace of it can now be found. (2.)
   All the quotations from Matthew in the early Church fathers are taken
   from the present Greek Gospel. (3.) The Gospel of Matthew always stood
   on an equal footing with the other Gospels and is cited just as much
   as they are. This evidence both external and internal has given rise
   to several theories, which we can briefly state in the following
   manner: (1.) Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and someone else
   translated it into Greek. This position was held by the Church in
   general until the time of the Reformation. Since then several
   Protestant scholars took another view, because Rome defended the
   ultimate authority of the Vulgate by pointing out that the Greek
   Matthew was also merely a translation. The attacks of Rationalism on
   the so-called second-hand Matthew, and the dubious character of a part
   of the ancient testimony, also served to bring this theory into
   discredit. Notwithstanding this, however, some of the ablest scholars
   have defended it up to the present. The prevailing idea among them is
   that the Greek Matthew is not so much in all parts a literal
   translation as a new redaction. According to Westcott it gives in
   writing the Greek counterpart of the Hebrew Gospel, that had taken
   shape in oral tradition from the beginning. Zahn regards it as the
   ripe fruit of the interpretation of the Hebrew original in the
   congregations to which Papias refers.

   (2.) There never was a Hebrew original, but Matthew wrote his Gospel
   in the Greek language. The present gospel is not a translation, but an
   original work. They who hold this view are of the opinion that the
   testimony of Papias and of those following him was a sheer mistake,
   due partly to ignorance and partly to a confounding of the Gospel of
   Matthew with the Ebionite Gospel according to the Hebrews.

   (3.) Matthew wrote neither a Hebrew nor a Greek Gospel, but, if
   anything, a work called the lo,gia by Papias, which must have been a
   collection of the sayings or discourses of the Lord. According to some
   these lo,gia are lost, but must probably be identified with one of the
   supposed sources (Q) of our present Gospels. Others as Godet and
   Holdsworth believe that the work contained the discourses that we find
   in the Gospel of Matthew and was therefore incorporated bodily in our
   present Gospel.

   (4.) The evangelist after writing his Gospel in Hebrew with a view to
   his countrymen, possibly when he had left Palestine to labor
   elsewhere, translated or rather furnished a new recension of his
   Gospel in the Greek language with a view to the Jews of the Diaspora.
   The former was soon lost and altogether replaced by the latter.

   In formulating our opinion in regard to this question. we desire to
   state first of all that we have no sufficient reason to discredit the
   testimony of the early Church. It is true that Eusebius says of Papias
   that he was "a credulous, weak minded, though pious man," but in
   connection with this we must bear in mind: (1) that Eusebius says this
   in connection with the chiliastic opinions of Papias that were odious
   to the historian; (2) that he himself elsewhere testifies that Papias
   was a man "in the highest degree eloquent and learned and above all
   skilled in the Scriptures," and (3) that the peculiar views of Papias
   did not necessarily impair his veracity, nor invalidate his testimony
   to a historical fact. Let us remember also that it is inconsistent to
   believe Papias, when he says that Matthew wrote the Gospel, and to
   discredit his further testimony that the apostle wrote in Hebrew, as
   some scholars do. It is indeed almost certain that Pantaenus was
   mistaken, when he thought that he had found the Hebrew Gospel in
   India; and that Jerome labored under a delusion, when he imagined that
   he had translated it at Cesarea. What they saw was probably a
   corruption of the Hebrew original, known as, "the Gospel according to
   the Hebrews." But this possible mistake does not invalidate the other
   independent testimony of Jerome and that of all the early fathers to
   the effect that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew.

   In the second place we desire to point out that Papias in speaking of
   the lo,gia of Matthew undoubtedly referred to his Gospel. The word
   lo,gia does not mean speeches or sayings, as is now often asserted. It
   is found four times in the New Testament, viz, in Acts 7: 38; Rom. 3 :
   2; Heb. 5:12; I Peter 4:11, and in every one of these places it has
   its classical meaning of oracles. It is applied to the divine
   utterances of God in his Word. In later writers the word is generally
   employed to indicate inspired writings. There is no reason to think
   that Papias used the word in the sense of lo,goi. If in addition to
   this we take in consideration that in all probability the testimony of
   Irenaeus is based on, that of Papias and that he takes the word as
   referring to the Gospel of Matthew, the presumption is that Papias had
   the Gospel in mind. The meaning of his testimony is therefore, that
   the first Gospel was written in Hebrew. The so-called Logia-source is
   a creature of the imagination.

   In the third place the internal evidence of our present Gospel proves
   conclusively that this is not a mere translation of a Hebrew original.
   The evidence adduced seems quite sufficient. The Greek Matthew may be
   and most likely is in substance a translation of the original Hebrew;
   yet it mustibe regarded as in many respects a new recension of the
   Gospel. The loss of the Hebrew original and the general substitution
   for it of the Greek version is readily explained by the scattering of
   the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and by the early
   corruption of the Hebrew Gospel in the circles of the Ebionites and
   the Nazarenes.

   In the fourth place it seems most plausible that Matthew himself,
   shortly after he had written the Hebrew Gospel, translated it,
   adjusting it in several respects to the needs of the Jews that were
   dispersed in different lands. True, early tradition does not speak of
   this, and Jerome even says that it was not known in his time who
   translated it into Greek. This favors the idea that it was done very
   early. Moreover our Greek Gospel was known from the beginning as the
   Gospel kata` Matqa/ion, just as the second and third as the Gospel
   kata. Ma,rkon and kata. Louka/n. As such it is also universally quoted
   by those fathers that are accustomed to mention their authors. The
   case of Matthew would thus be analogous to that of Josephus.

   II. Readers and Purpose. The Gospel of Matthew was undoubtedly
   destined for the Jews. This is expressly stated by Irenaeus, Origen,
   Eusebius, Gregory Nazianz