GOSPELS

for the differences; and much Ingenuity has been expended on showing how an Aramaic word might, by different pointing (for points take the place of vowels in Aramaic), or by a slight error, produce the differences in Greek which we find. But it is enough to say that this theory could not possibly account for the close verbal resemblances or even for most of the differences. A Greek document must be the common source.

(c) The non-Markan sources of Mt. and Lk. — We have now to consider those parts of Mt. and Lk. which are common to both, but are not found in Mk., and also those parts which are found only in Mt. or only in Lk. In the former the same phenomena of verbal resem-blances and differences occur; but, on the other hand, the common matter is, to a great extent, treated in quite a different order by Mt. and Lk. This peculiarity Is thought by some to be due to the source used being oral, even though the 'Petrine tradition,' the common source of the three, was a document. But the same objections as before apply here (e.g. cf. Mt 6"- 2'=Lk 16" 12M, or Mt 23"-»«=Lk 13"'-, which are almost word for word the same). We must postulate a written Greek common source; and the differences of order are most easily accounted for by observing the characteristics of the Evangelists. St. Matthew aimed rather at narra^ tive according to subject, grouping incidents and teach-ings together for this reason, while St. Luke rather pre-served chronological order (ct. the treatment of the Baptist's imprisonment, as above). Thus in Mt. we have groups of sayings (.e.g. the Sermon on the Mount) and groups of parables, not necessarily spoken at one time, but closely connected by subject. We may infer that St. Luke treated the document common to him and St. Matthew In a stricter chronological order, because he treats Mk. in that way. He introduces a large part of Mk. in one place, keeping almost always to its order; then he interpolates a long section from some other authority (Lk 9s'-18"), and then goes back and picks up Mk. nearly where he had left it. Probably, therefore, Lk. Is nearer in order to the non-Markan document than Mt.

Of what nature was this document? Some, following a clue of Papias (see art. Matthew [Gospel acc. to]), call it the ' Logia,' and treat it as a collection of teachings rather than as a connected history; it has been sug-gested that each teaching was introduced by 'Jesus said,' and that the occasion of each was not specified. This would account for differences of order. But it would involve a very unnecessary multiplication of documents, for considerations of verbal resemblances show that in the narrative, as well as in the discourses, a common non-Markan document must underlie Mt. and Lk.; and, whatever meaning be ascribed to the word logia, it is quite improbable that Papias refers to a record of sayings only. While, then, it is probable that dis-courses formed the greater part of the non-Markan docu-ment, we may by comparing Mt. and Lk. conclude that it described at least some historical scenes. — ^The document must have included the preaching of the Baptist, the Temptation, the Sermon on the Mount, the healing of the centurion's servant, the coming of John's messengers to Jesus, the instructions to the disciples, the Lord's Prayer, the controversy about Beelzebub, the denuncia-tion of the Pharisees, and precepts about over-anxiety. It is very likely that it contained also an account of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and many other things which are in Mk.; for in some of the passages common to all three Synoptists, Mt. and Lk. agree together against Mk. This would be accounted for by their having, in these instances, followed the non-Markan document in preference to the ' Petrine tradition.'

In addition there must have been other sources, oral or documentary, of Mt. and Lk. separately, for in some passages they show complete independence.

3. Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics. — The differences which strike us at once when we compare Jn. with the Synoptics were obvious also to the Fathers.

GOSPELS

Clement of Alexandria accounts for the fact of the differences by a solution which he says he derived from 'the ancient elders,' namely, that John, seeing that the external (Ut. ' bodily') facts had already been sufliciently set forth in the other Gospels, composed, at the request of his disciples and with the inspiration of the Spirit, a 'spiritual' Gospel (quoted by Eusebius, HE vi. 14). By this phrase Clement clearly means a Gospel which emphasizes the Godhead of our Lord. The human side of the Gospel story had already been adequately treated. Elsewhere Eusebius (HE iii. 24) gives an old tradition that John had the Synoptics before him, and that he supplemented them. In all essential particulars this solution may be treated as correct. The main differ-ences between John and the Synoptics are as follows:

(a) Geographical and Chronological. — The Synoptists lay the scene of the ministry almost entirely in GaUlee and Persea; St. John dwells on the ministry in Judsea. The Synoptists hardly note the flight of time at all; from a cursory reading of their accounts the ministry might have been thought to have lasted only one year, as some early Fathers believed, thus interpreting 'the acceptable year of the Lord' (Is 61=, Lk 4"); though, it we carefully study the Synoptics, especially Lk., we do faintly trace three stages — in the wilderness of Galilee (a brief record), in Galilee (full description), and in Central Palestine as far as Jerusalem and on the other side of Jordan. During this last stage Jesus 'set his face' to go to Jerusalem (Lk 9"; cf. 2 K 12", Ezk 21'). But in Jn. time is marked by the mention of several Jewish feasts, notably the Passover, and we gather from Jn. that the ministry lasted either 2J or SJ years, according as we read in 5' ' a feast ' (which could hardly be a Passover) or 'the feast' (which perhaps was the Passover) . These differences are what we should expect when we consider that the Synoptic story is chiefly a Galilaean one, and is not concerned with visits to Jerusa-lem and Judaea until the last one just before the Cruci-fixion. Yet from incidental notices in the Synoptics themselves we should have guessed that Jesus did pay visits to Jerusalem. Every religious Jew would do so, if possible, at least tor the Passover. If Jesus had not con-formed to this custom, but had paid the first visit of His ministry just before the Crucifixion, we could not account for the sudden enmity of the Jerusalem Jews to Him at that time, or for the existence of disciples in Judsa, e.g., Judas Iscariot and his father Simon Iscariot (Jn 6" RV), probably natives of Kerioth in Judaea; Joseph of Arimathaea, 'a city of the Jews' (Lk 23"); the house-hold at Bethany; and Simon the leper (Mk 14'). The owner of the ass and colt at Bethphage, and the owner of the room where the Last Supper was eaten, evidently knew Jesus when the disciples came with the messages. And if the Apostles had just arrived in Jerusalem for the first time only a few weeks before, it would be unlikely that they would make their headquarters there im-mediately after the Ascension. Thus the account in Jn. of a Judeean ministry is indirectly confirmed by the Synoptics (cf. also Mt 23" 'how often').

(b) Proclamation of Jesus' Messiahship. — In the Synoptics, especially in Mk., this is a very gradual proc-ess. The evil spirits who announce it inopportunely are silenced (Mk l^'-). Even after Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi at the end of the Galilaean ministry, the disciples are charged to tell no man (Mk S'") . But in Jn., the Baptist begins by calling Jesus 'the Lamb of God' and 'the Son of God' (l^- "); Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael at once recogiiize him as Messiah (1"- "• "). Can both accounts be true? Now, as we have seen, a Judaean ministry must have been carried on simultane-ously with a Galilaean one; these would be kept abso-lutely separate by the hostile district of Samaria which lay between them ( Jn i') . Probably two methods were used for two quite different peoples. The rural popula-tion of Galilee had to be taught by very slow degrees; but Jerusalem was the home of religious controversy, and

306