JESUS
CHRIST
Gospels
and
their
purpose.
—
It
is
now
generally
agreed
that
the
Gospel
according
to
IVIk.
is
the
oldest
of
the
four.
Beginning
with
the
Baptism
of
Jesus,
it
gives
a
sketch
of
His
Public
Ministry,
with
specimens
of
His
teaching,
and
carries
the
narrative
to
the
morning
of
the
Resurrection.
The
original
conclusion
has
been
lost,
but
there
can
be
no
doubt
that
it
went
on
to
relate
at
least
certain
Galilsean
appearances
of
the
risen
Lord.
This
Gospel
supplies
most
of
our
knowledge
of
the
life
of
Jesus,
but
its
main
concern
is
to
bring
out
the
inner
meaning
and
the
religious
value
of
the
story.
It
is,
in
short,
a
history
written
with
the
purpose
of
demon-strating
that
Jesus
was
the
expected
Messiah.
In
proof
of
this
it
is
sufficient
to
point
out
that
it
describes
itself
at
the
outset
as
setting
forth
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Christ,
the
Son
of
God
(Mk
1'),
that
the
faith
of
the
disciples
culminates
in
Peter's
confession
that
He
is
the
Christ
(8^'),
that
the
ground
of
His
condemnation
is
that
He
claims
to
be
'the
Christ,
the
Son
of
the
Blessed'
{14"-
«2),
and
that
the
accusation
written
over
His
cross
is
'The
King
of
the
Jews'
(IS's).
The
Gospel
according
to
Mt.
Is
now
usually
re-garded
as
a
second
and
enlarged
edition
of
an
Apostolic
original.
The
earlier
version,
known
as
the
Logia
on
the
ground
of
a
note
of
Papias
(Euseb.
HE
ill.
39),
was
a
collection
of
the
Memorabilia
of
Jesus.
As
the
Logia
consisted
mainly
of
the
sayings
of
our
Lord,
the
later
editor
combined
it
with
the
narrative
of
Mk.
in
order
to
supply
a
more
complete
picture
of
the
Ministry,
and
at
the
same
time
added
fresh
material
from
independent
sources.
■
Its
didactic
purpose,
like
that
of
Mk.,
is
to
exhibit
Jesus
as
the
Messiah,
and
It
supports
the
argument
by
citing
numer-ous
instances
of
the
fulfilment
in
the
life
of
Jesus
of
OT
prediction.
It
is
sometimes
described
as
the
Gospel
of
the
Jewish
Christians;
and
it
appears
to
have
addressed
itself
specially
to
the
difficulties
which
they
felt
in
view
of
the
destruction
of
Jerusalem.
Could
Jesus,
they
may
well
have
asked,
be
the
Messiah,
seeing
that
His
mission
had
issued,
not
in
the
deliverance
of
Israel,
but
In
its
ruin?
In
answer
to
this
the
Gospel
makes
it
plain
that
the
overthrow
of
the
Jewish
State
was
a
punishment
which
was
foreseen
by
Jesus,
and
also
that
He
had
become
the
head
of
a
vaster
and
more
glorious
kingdom
than
that
of
which,
as
Jewish
patriots,
they
had
ever
dreamed
(28"-™).
The
Gospel
according
to
Luke
is
also
dependent
on
Mk.
for
the
general
framework,
and
derives
from
the
original
Mt.
a
large
body
of
the
teaching.
It
follows
a
different
authority
from
Mt.
for
the
Nativity,
and
to
some
extent
goes
its
own
way
in
the
history
of
the
Passion;
while
'the
great
interpolation'
(9"-18"),
made
In
part
from
its
special
source,
forms
a
priceless
addition
to
the
Synoptic
material.
Lk.
approached
his
task
in
a
more
consciously
scientific
spirit
than
his
predecessors,
and
recognized
an
obligation
to
supply
dates,
and
to
sketch
in
the
political
background
of
the
biography
(22
3'-
^).
But
for
him
also
the
main
business
of
the
historian
was
to
emphasize
the
religious
significance
of
the
events,
and
that
by
exhibiting
Jesus
as
the
Saviour
of
the
world,
the
Friend
of
sinners.
He
is
specially
Interested,
as
the
companion
and
disciple
of
St.
Paul,
in
incidents
and
sayings
which
illustrate
the
graciousness
and
the
universality
of
the
gospel.
Prominence
is
given
to
the
rejection
of
Jesus
by
Nazareth
and
Jerusalem
(4i6-a»
19"-"),
and
to
His
discovery
among
the
Gentiles
of
the
faith
for
which
He
sought
{17"'
").
It
is
also
characteristic
that
Lk.
gives
a
full
account
of
the
beginnings
of
the
missionary
activity
of
the
Church
(lO'-*").
The
author
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
makes
considerable
use
of
the
narratives
of
the
Synoptists,
but
also
suggests
that
their
account
is
in
important
respects
defective,
and
in
certain
particulars
erroneous.
The
serious
defect,
from
the
Johannine
point
of
view,
is
that
they
represent
Galilee
as
the
exclusive
scene
of
the
Ministry
JESUS
CHRIST
until
shortly
before
the
end,
and
that
they
know
nothing
of
a
series
of
visits,
extending
over
two
years,
which
Jesus
made
to
Jerusalem
and
Judaea
in
fulfilment
of
His
mission.
That
there
was
a
design
to
correct
as
well
as
to
supplement
appears
from
the
displacement
of
the
Cleansing
of
the
Temple
from
the
close
to
the
beginning
of
the
Ministry,
and
from
the
emphatic
way
in
which
attention
is
drawn
to
the
accurate
in-formation
as
to
the
day
and
the
hour
of
the
Cruci-fixion.
And
still
more
designedly
than
in
the
earlier
Gospels
is
the
history
used
as
the
vehicle
for
the
dis-closure
of
the
secret
and
the
glory
of
the
Person
of
Jesus.
The
predicate
of
the
Messiah
is
reaffirmed,
and
as
the
Saviour
He
appears
in
the
most
sublime
and
tender
characters,
but
the
Prologue
furnishes
the
key
to
the
interpretation
of
His
Person
in
a
title
which
imports
the
highest
conceivable
dignity
of
origin,
being,
and
prerogative:
'In
the
beginning
was
the
Word,
and
the
Word
was
with
God,
and
the
Word
was
God.
And
the
Word
became
flesh,
and
dwelt
among
us
(and
we
beheld
his
glory,
glory
as
of
the
only-begotten
from
the
Father),
full
of
grace
and
truth'
(l'-
»).
TnistworihinessoftksGospels.
—
It
is
impossible
toproceed
on
the
view
that
we
possess
four
biographies
of
Jesus
which,
being
given
by
inspiration,
are
absolutely
immune
from
error.
"The
means
by
which
they
were
brought
into
shape
was
very
different
from
the
method
of
Divine
dictation
.
The
Evangelists
were
severely
limited
to
thehistorical
data
which
reached
them
by
ordinary
channels.
They
copied,
abridged,
and
amplified
earlier
documents,
and
one
document
which
was
freely
handled
in
this
fashion
by
Mt.
and
Lk.
was
canonical
Mk.
That
mistakes
have
been
made
as
to
matters
of
fact
is
proved
by
the
occurrence
of
conflicting
accounts
of
the
same
events,
and
by
the
uncertainty
as
to
the
order
of
events
which
is
often
palpable
in
Mt.
and
Mk.,
and
which
to
some
extent
baffled
Lk.
in
his
attempt
'
to
trace
the
course
of
all
things
accurately.'
There
is
also
considerable
diveraity
in
the
report
of
many
of
our
Lord's
sayings,
which
compels
us
to
conclude
that
the
report
is
more
or
less
inaccurate.
Whether
giving
effect
to
tneir
own
convictions,
or
repro-ducing
changes
which
had
been
made
by
the
mind
of
the
Churcn
on
the
oral
tradition,
writers
coloured
and
altered
to
some
extent
the
sayings
of
our
Lord.
At
the
same
time
the
Synoptics,
when
tested
by
ordinary
canons,
must
be
pro-nounced
to
be
excellent
authorities.
They
may
be
dated
witiiin
a
period
of
forty
to
fifty
years
after
the
death
of
Christ
—
Mk.
about
A.D.
69,
Mt.
and
(probably)
Lk.
not
later
than
A.D.
80.
'The
great
mass
of
the
Synoptic
Gospels
had
assumed
its
permanent
shape
not
later
than
the
decade
A.D.
60-70,
and
the
changes
which
it
underwent
after
the
great
catastrophe
of
the
fall
of
Jerusalem
were
but
small,
and
can
without
difficulty
be
recognized'
(Sanday,
Out-lines),
Further,
that
Gospels
composed
in
the
second
generation
can
be
trusted
to
have
reproduced
the
original
testimony
with
general
accuracy
may
be
held
on
two
grounds.
There
is
every
reason
to
believe
the
ecclesiastical
traditions
that
the
contents
of
original
Mt.
were
cornpiled
by
one
of
the
Twelve,
and
that
the
reminiscences
of
Peter
formed
the
staple
of
Mk.
(Euseb.
HB
ill.
39).
It
is
also
certain
that
the
Synoptic
material
was
used
throughout
theinterveningpenodmtheChristianmeetingsforworship,
and
the
memory
of
witnesses
must
thus
have
been
in
a
position
to
ensure
the
continuity
of
the
report,
and
to
check
any
serious
deviations
from
the
oldest
testimony.
The
general
trustworthiness
is
further
supported
by
the
con-sideration
of
the
originality
of
the
Synoptic
picture
of
Jesus
and
His
teaching.
The
character
of
Jesus,
and
the
acts
in
whichitisrevealed.formawholewhichhas
the
unmistakable
stamp
of
historical
reality,
and
forbids
us
to
think
that
to
any
great
extent
it
can
have
been
the
product
of
the
collec-tive
Christian
mind.
Jesus,
in
short,
is
needed
to
explain
the
Church
and
cannot
be
Himself
explained
as
the
product
of
HLs
own
creation.
It
is
also
to
be
noticed
that
the
Synoptic
teaching
has
a
clear-cut
individuality
of
its
own
which
shows
that
it
has
sturdily
refused
to
blend
with
the
ApostoUc
type
of
theology.
With
the
Fourth
Gospel
the
case
stands
somewhat
differ-ently.
It
It
be
indeed
the
work
of
John
the'beloved
disciple,
ite
authonty
stands
higher
than
all
the
rest.
In
that
case
the
duty
of
the
historian
is
to
employ
it
as
his
fundamental
document,
and
to
utilize
the
Synoptics
as
auxiliary
sources
.
i?J"^,^^w
of
tliB
present
writer
the
question
is
one
of
great
difficulty.
It
is
true
that
there
is
a
powerful
body
of
Patristic
testimony
in
support
of
the
tradition
that
the
FourthGospelwascomposedbytheApostleJohninEphesus
