Such additional notes as Matt. xxviii. 15, may have been added at this time.

3. The uncertainty as to the language in which the First Gospel was originally written, and difficulties attending the supposition that Matthew wrote it in its present form, do not preclude a safe judgment respecting the antiquity and credibility of the Gospel as it stands. The Greek Matthew of the canon has pervading characteristics of style. To mention one peculiarity,—the "kingdom of heaven" is a phrase which occurs thirty-two times in this Gospel, and occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. There is a long list of words which either occur in Matthew alone among the Synoptists, or occur so frequently in Matthew, as to form a distinctive peculiarity of this Gospel. 1

Now the Greek Matthew of our Bibles was in the hands of Papias and his contemporaries. He does not say that every one interprets the Hebrew Logia as he can, but, every one interpreted (puvevas) it as he could." The aorist shows incontestably that he speaks of a necessity that had once existed, but existed no longer. There is internal evidence, to which we shall advert on a subsequent page, which proves that the First Gospel, as we have it, existed as early as the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. There is nothing to militate against this conclusion, in the testimony of Papias, nor in anything to be found in the early Fathers. It is quoted as a sacred Scripture by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. It is a safe conclusion that the Apostle Matthew had such a relation to this Gospel as naturally caused his name to be uniformly connected with it in the ecclesiastical tradition as its author.3

1 See Holtzmann, p. 292 seq., for other characteristics of the style of the First Gospel; and Westcott, p. 360 n.

Hilgenfeld places the date of this Epistle as early as A. D. 97. Einl. in d. N. T., p. 38.

The relative place of the First Gospel, as an authority for the Life

On a review of the whole subject, we cannot doubt that the first Three Gospels sprang both from oral and written sources. It is altogether probable that memoranda would be very early made of particular events, or groups of events, in the life of Jesus. They would not only be related orally, but would also be put in writing. The same is true of the discourses of Christ. It seems probable that these earliest records were of Galilean origin. The next step would be the combination of such distinct memoranda, together with additional matter derived orally, in connected narratives. In this process the matter was massed, so to speak, under the three heads, the Saviour's Baptism and Temptation, His labors in Galilee, and His experiences at Jerusalem. To these essays in the composition of gospels, Luke refers (Luke i. 1, 2). Before he wrote, many had undertaken the same task. Their materials were the oral and written testimony of the immediate witnesses of the ministry of Jesus. The efforts of those previous authors had been to bring these materials into orderly arrangement. He sets about the same work, and adverts to the advantages which he had for successfully accomplishing it. There is reason to believe that Mark's gospel, being of earlier date, was one of the prior gospels which Luke speaks of; and, since the testimony of Papias acquaints us with the fact that Mark was a hearer of Jesus, depends upon the view taken as to the agency of Matthew in its composition. Those who, with Ellicott (Life of Christ, p. 150 n. 2), ascribe the Gospel in its present amplified Greek form to the Evangelist, would naturally place it in the same category with the Fourth Gospel. A somewhat different estimate would result from Prof. Westcott's opinion (Intr. to the Gospels, p. 231 n.) that "by whose hand the Greek Gospel was drawn up is wholly unknown." By writers like Neander (Leben Jesu, pp. 10, 178, 179), and Pressensé (Jésus-Christ, sa Vie, son Temps, etc., p. 197 seq.), who hold that the original work of Matthew was of a more limited compass, our First Gospel is placed on a level with the Gospels of Mark and Luke.

of Peter, a Gospel composed under such advantages would naturally be used by Luke much more than other documents not possessed of an equal claim to attention. It is certainly not improbable that a collection of discourses of Jesus, accompanied by brief explanatory matter of a narrative cast, was early composed; and it may be that the Gospel of Matthew in its present form is the result of an amplification of this original document. In this case, it is a question not easy to be determined, whether the primitive Matthew, or the First Gospel in its existing form, was used by Luke, in addition to the other sources of information as to the discourses of Christ, which were at his command.

That we have in the Gospels of Matthew and Markwe shall speak more in particular of the other Gospels hereafter a picture of the life, teachings, and miracles of Jesus, such as the immediate disciples of the Master were in the habit of presenting to their converts, is the fair deduction of a sound and searching historical criticism.

CHAPTER IX.

ance.

THE WRITINGS OF LUKE.

OUR New Testament canon contains two books, the Third Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, which are attributed by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and other writers in the latter part of the second century, and by Origen, Tertullian, and their contemporaries, to Luke, a companion of Paul. None of the Fathers imply that any doubt or dispute respecting the authorship of these writings had ever existed, from the day of their first appearTheir testimony is a witness to the tradition received by the universal church in the closing part of the second century. The Apostle Paul makes mention of an associate bearing the name of Luke. In the Epistle to Philemon, he sends a greeting from him, and styles him one of his fellow-laborers (vs. 24). Luke is referred to again in the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 14), as "the beloved physician;" and the context indicates that he was of Gentile birth. Once more, in the Second Epistle to Timothy, he is spoken of as the only companion of Paul at that time (iv. 11). Justin Martyr does not mention the Evangelist by name in his extant writings; nor from the drift and design of these writings would he naturally be led to do so. It is manifest, however, from his quotations,' that the

1 See e. g. Apol. i. 33; Dial c. Tryph., 105, cf. Luke xxiii. 46; Ibid. c. 103, cf. Luke xxii. 44.

Third Gospel was among the "Memoirs," written by the "Apostles and their Followers," from which he drew his knowledge of the evangelical history. But we are provided with an indirect testimony, in the first half of the second century, of a conclusive character. Marcion was the leader of a Gnostic party, which, in its one-sided zeal for Paul and his doctrine, and in its earnest, but incomplete, view of the divine compassion revealed in the Gospel, discarded the Old Testament, and rejected the other Apostles, He came from Pontus, in Asia Minor, to Rome about A. D. 140. He made use of a Gospel which the Fathers with one voice declare to have been a mutilated Luke, his design having been to expunge in the Third Gospel, which he accepted as coming from a companion of Paul, passages which recognize the Old Testament system. Of the priority of the canonical Luke there was formerly no doubt. There are few critics even of the Rationalistic schools who differ on this point from the general opinion. The arguments on which this conviction rests are irrefutable. Through the quotations of Tertullian and Epiphanius, we are enabled to compare Marcion's Luke with the Luke of the canon. Marcion's Gospel is found to include nothing in the way of discourse or narrative which is not contained in the Gospel of the canon. The deviations of Marcion are just of the nature which we should expect from the motive ascribed to him. If he does not carry out his expurgations with perfect consistency and success, this fact affords no room for surprise, and no good occasion for doubt as to his purpose. Moreover, the Third Gospel is marked by certain definite peculiarities of style. The writer has a vocabulary of his own -favorite words, and collocations of words. These characteristics are found to the full extent in the parts of the canonical Gospel not contained in Marcion.

These are