serious a stumblingblock. Its obtrusiveness soon becomes apparent when we learn-and scholars are here quite agreed -that our Gospel is no translation from the Hebrew, but an original Greek composition.1 Archbishop Thomson traces this statement concerning Matthew's authorship of a Hebrew Gospel to Papias, and with other orthodox writers impugns the character of Papias as an authority. Eusebius, in one passage, also speaks disparagingly of him; applies the epithet "fabulous" to some of his narrations; and talks of him as a man of "weak understanding." "This judgment," says Dr. Davidson, "rested on the fact that Papias understood certain parables of our Lord too literally, and entertained millenarian opinions to which the historian was strongly opposed."2 Besides, Eusebius calls him "a man most eloquent in every respect, and skilled in Scripture." Irenæus also held him in high esteem as a man of learning, and intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures.

A further consideration is noticeable. Papias describing the Oracles says, "every one interpreted them as he was able." Being in Hebrew this was natural enough; but does it not clearly indicate that there must necessarily have been many interpretations? And what ground have we for pretending that our version was one of the many? It has just been observed that our Matthew is not a translation at all. Even if it were, this would not mend matters. It would equally remain that the genuine and original Gospel of Matthew is lost. It is highly probable the first Gospel was based upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews. This seems to have been Jerome's notion, as it was that of other of the early Fathers. There certainly may have been Greek versions of this;-the fact that every

1 "Holtzman gives a long array of recent writers, who, differing much in their conclusions, are agreed that the Gospel, as it stands, cannot possibly be a translation from a Hebrew original."-The Synoptic Gos

pels. p. 34. The Archbishop of York expresses his agreement with this opinion.

2 Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. i. p. 367.

one interpreted or translated as he was able would ensure it. But I cannot see what ground Bishop Lightfoot has for saying, this statement of Papias "implies the existence of a recognised translation when Papias wrote." 1 The only writings of Matthew that Papias does refer to are the logia, written in Hebrew. In any case this much is pretty certain; Matthew was not the author of our Gospel, even if he himself ever translated his Hebrew Gospel. And supposing for a moment that Papias knew of a "recognised" Greek translation, or of any Greek gospel whatsoever, have we not his own word for it, that in his estimation no books were worth the "living and abiding voice?"

The account Papias gives of Mark is, if possible, still less encouraging. The presbyter John said: "Mark being the interpreter of Peter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered; but he did not write in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ. For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, followed Peter, who made his discourses suit what was required, without the view of giving a connected digest of the discourses of our Lord." 2

Irenæus says: "Matthew wrote a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding a church there. And after their decease, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter."

Clement states: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and having spoken the gospel by the spirit, many present exhorted Mark to write the things which had been spoken, since he had long accompanied Peter, and remembered what he had said; and that when he had composed the Gospel, he delivered it to them who had asked it of him. Which, when Peter knew, he neither forbade nor encouraged." 3

1 Contemporary Review, August 1875.

2 Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.

3 H. E. vi. 14. Vide Davidson, ubi supra, vol. i. p. 535.

1

If our second Gospel were really taken down from the words of Peter, this might, in some measure, compensate for the misfortune that Mark himself "was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord." Even of this, however, we have but slender assurance. "The narratives (says Dr. Davidson) savour of a later time than Peter's, or Mark's his interpreter; for they have legendary and ideal elements of post-apostolic growth." And "a careful examination. of Papias's testimony shows that it does not relate to our present Gospel, nor bring Mark into connection with it as its author." Again, it is natural to suppose that a record of Peter's preachings would contain special mention of all the remarkable events in which Peter himself was a prominent personage. Strange to say, these are the very events which happen to be unnoticed in our version of Mark. The miraculous draught of fishes, the miracle of the tribute money, Peter's walking on the sea, and-most important of all-the words, "And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church," are all omitted by Mark. It is further to be observed, Mark's reminiscences of the preachings of Peter were no consecutive narrative of the life and sayings of Jesus: he did not record in order that which was said or done by Christ. Our Gospel of Mark, on the contrary, carefully observes the order of events. It is "an arranged work like Matthew's and Luke's."

"If our observations be correct," concludes Dr. Davidson, "the canonical Gospel could not have been the production which Mark wrote from reminiscences of Peter's oral teachings and narratives. The author is unknown. External evidence on the subject is unsatisfactory, and does not prove Mark's authorship of our Gospel, neither does it show that it is an echo, more or less complete, of the apostle Peter's teachings." 2

The Gospel according to St. Luke may be summarily disposed of in a few words. The early writers never once 2 Ubi supra, p. 254.

1 I., p. 537 f.

mention the name of its author. All we know of Luke is that he was a physician and the companion of Paul. He had never seen Jesus; and the whole of his information was obtained at second-hand. The date of his Gospel is unknown. He either made free use of Matthew, or else drew from the same sources as those used by the author of the first Gospel. With the exception of one doubtful resemblance in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, there is no reason to suppose that Clement knew of Luke's Gospel. Judging by the silence of Eusebius, Papias was not acquainted with it. "The Ignatian Epistles show no trace of acquaintance with our Gospel."1 Under these circumstances, its testimony as regards miracles is of small value. We may therefore pass at once to the fourth Gospel.

The evidence we have to deal with here, is of a kind that appeals almost exclusively to the scholar. There is scarcely any matter of a historical nature upon which to found an argument either one way or the other. Still, such as it is, the evidence of the earliest writers must be the principal basis of our inquiry.

In his Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement makes no allusion to the Gospel of John. "This silence (says Canon Westcott) was not due to ignorance, and still less to any divergence from apostolic doctrine. He was acquainted with the writings of Paul and St. John, and he incorporates their thoughts and words into his Homily in a manner which shows that they had become his own." But as the Homilies are undoubtedly spurious, the silence of Clement in his Epistle may be taken as equivalent to his ignorance.

Justin Martyr is declared by some of the apologists to be a strong witness in favour of the fourth Gospel: although Canon Westcott thinks "his references to St. John are uncertain." Tischendorf points out that Justin designates Christ as the Word-a doctrine notably characteristic of

VOL. I.

1 Dr. Davidson.

N

the fourth Gospel. In the first place, the doctrine is much older than the Gospel of John; consequently Justin need not have quoted the latter. In the Book of Revelation, for example, Jesus is called the Word of God; and Justin was acquainted with the Book of Revelation; for he makes distinct mention of "John, one of the apostles of Christ," as its author. But the Book of Revelation was written in the year 68 A.D. or 69 A.D., and, as everybody agrees, the fourth Gospel was not written till long after that date.

In the second place, Justin's application of the doctrine of the Logos is quite distinct from that of the John of the fourth Gospel. Justin's doctrine is that, Christ was made flesh "through the power of the Word:" he also makes the Logos originate in time. There is, in short, a vagueness and confusion about Justin's conception, which Dr. Davidson ascribes to Philo, who, nearly a century before Justin, had been full of the subject. The author of the fourth Gospel, on the other hand, "teaches the co-existence of the Logos with the Father from the very beginning."1

Passing over numerous resemblances, which on careful examination seem much more probably to be derived from apocryphal sources than from the Gospel of John, perhaps the closest parallel between this and Justin's writings is in the discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus. In John iii. 3 it is written, "Except a man be born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God." In his first Apology Justin has, "Unless ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." The author of "Supernatural Religion," having commented on the difference in language in the original texts, insists strongly on the much more important difference of signification. The "born from above," upon which, as he points out, "the whole statement in the fourth Gospel turns," is ignored. by Justin. With the former, the expression refers to a

1 Cf. Supernatural Religion, vol. ii. p. 278, and Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 342.