upon the other. These two documents will account, roughly speaking, for about three-fourths of the Gospel. There remains a considerable amount of peculiar matter, the birth-stories of John and Jesus, parables like those of the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, the Rich Man and Lazarus, incidents such as the Sermon at Nazareth, the mission of the Seventy, the cure of the ten lepers, the walk to Emmaus, which cannot be assigned to any known collection. But these are certainly not all of equal value. The origins of the birth-tales are probably to be found in the unconscious growth of legend. The immortal stories of the father awaiting the wanderer's return, of the merciful traveller who befriended one of his nation's enemies, bear the emphatic stamp of the Master's own creation. In the Sermon at Nazareth, attached to an incident which the phrase 'whatsoever we have heard done at Capernaum,' 423, proves to be transposed from a later place in the true order, the Evangelist probably indicates what he took to be the true scope of the mission of Jesus; and the despatch of the Seventy, and the peculiar arrangement of the last journey which sends Jesus through Samaria instead of by the Perean route, are similar symbols intended to justify the apostolate to the Gentiles. Elements of legend, of genuine tradition, and of design, thus meet and blend. It does not appear probable that Luke passed through any stages comparable to those which may be conjectured for Mark and Matthew. There do not seem to be any harmonistic intrusions

to bring it into accord with either the First or the Second Gospel. Such elements as it did tend to take up into itself may be seen noted in the Revisers' margin, as in the story of the angel in Gethsemane, 2243-44, the prayer 'Father, forgive them on the cross, 234, or the series of enrichments which may be traced through the group of narratives in 24. Whether Luke used Matthew either by direct copying or by dimmer reminiscence, is at present under debate, and high authorities are ranged on either side. The conclusion depends on the interpretation of minute indications of which the following is a random sample. In Luke 416 we read that 'Jesus came to Nazara where he was brought up.' The peculiar form Nazara occurs elsewhere in the Synoptics only in Matt. 413, and leaving Nazara, he came and dwelt in Capernaum.' Of this Mark says nothing, and the appearance of Jesus in Capernaum (Mark 12) takes place without any mention of his former home. Luke, so runs the argument, therefore, brings Jesus to Nazara before he begins a ministry in Capernaum, in defiance of Mark's order, because he understands Matthew to imply that after the arrest of John the Baptist Jesus returned first to Nazara, and only subsequently settled by the Galilean lake. And yet, even if this and other cases be held to justify the view that Luke reckoned a Greek Matthew among his sources, it does not follow that it was our canonical Matthew in its present form.

Through how many stages our First Gospel may

have passed in a long literary career, it is impossible even to conjecture. As it reaches us, it is marked by sufficiently definite peculiarities of structure compared with either of the other two Synoptics. The author practically divides the ministry of Jesus into two unequal halves, which are introduced by the same formula :—

Matt. iv., 17.

From that time began Jesus to preach and to say, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matt. xvi., 21.

From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem.

Each of the two great divisions thus formed contains large groups of the Master's teachings. These are ranged together in series, such as the Sermon on the Mount 5-7, the address to the Twelve in 10, the succession of parables in 13; or in the second part, the Woes against the Pharisees in 23, or the discourse of the Last Things in 24-25. But it can hardly be supposed that such aggregates are primary. The Sermon on the Mount is much fuller than the corresponding exhortation in Luke 6; portions of it may, indeed, be found elsewhere in Luke (e.g. Matt. 625-33- Luke 1222-31). In 1017-22 occurs a passage parallel with Mark 139 11-13 (10 has its counterpart in Matt. 24). The series of parables in 13 closes at ; it finds its analogue in Mark 4. But additions have been made to it, especially in 44-50, and when the number seven is complete, it is formally wound in 51-52

up

34

=

Matthew thus exhibits distinct marks of literary

arrangement. There are other phenomena confirming the surmise of later origin which is thus begotten. The difference between the First and Second Gospels in the external recognition of the Messianic character of Jesus, as well as in his own attitude to the high claim, has been already noted. Baur early drew attention to the contradictions which lie here peacefully side by side. The assertions of the validity and permanence of the law, the declaration of Jesus that he is sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the warning to the Twelve not to go to Samaria or to pass out among the Gentiles, the promise of twelve thrones to the apostles from which they should judge the twelve tribes of Israel,—these belong to the narrower Judean elements. To the opposite tendency must be reckoned the early announcement of the admission of the Gentiles to the kingdom, when its own sons are cast forth, 811-12; the prophecy that the gospel shall be preached through the whole world, 24, 2613; and the great judgment scene where all the nations are gathered, and the test of fitness for the blessed life is not privilege of race, or fulfilment of the law, or loyalty to Messiah, but simple sympathy with human need. How long a time must have been needed for such opposites to lose their pungency of antagonism and find reconciliation among the words of the same Teacher! To these may be added the imposing declaration with which the Gospel closes. The baptismal formula may have undergone subsequent alteration to harmonise it with the usage of a

later age; but if the form in 2819 really belongs to the original text, it would seem to be later than that of Acts 238 816 1048 195, and is only known otherwise in the second century. To this postapostolic period would also belong such stories as those which gather round Peter in 1428-31, or 1724-27; the public act by which Pilate disowned responsibility for the death of Jesus, as though the writer sought to exonerate the Roman authority, and throw the guilt on Israel; the legend of Judas with its explanatory note in 278; the marvels attending the crucifixion, 2751-53; and the allusions in 2762-66 2811-15 to Jewish explanations of the resurrection. There is even reason to suspect that additions may have been made to Matthew in the second century as to Luke. From the language of Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho, 107-108, it may be inferred that he was unacquainted with the explanation of the Jonah-sign in 1240; may we, in like manner, interpret the silence of Irenaeus to imply that he was unacquainted with the declaration Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church' 1618?

1 See F. C. Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1902, p. 102.

2 Recognised instances of growth by composition are found in such books as Enoch, the Apocalypse, and possibly Colossians and the letters to Timothy. 'Comp. Adv. Haer. iii. 18, 4; 13, 2; and 21, 8. It is surprising that he should make no reference to the words in his argument on behalf of Rome, iii. 3, 2. They are for the first time so employed in the treatise against gambling, De Aleatoribus, ascribed by Harnack to Victor, Bishop of Rome, 189-199 (Texte u. Unters. V. pp. 13, 93 ff.). They do not occur in the Clementine Recognitions, but lie at the back of a passage in the Homilies, xvii. 19. The Recognitions are assigned by Salmon (Dict. Eccl. Biogr. i. p. 577) to about 200: the Homilies to a later date, possibly 218. Y