The Presentation and Defense ofChristianity
The Gospel of Matthew is probably, as has been said, the most important book that was ever written. Its importance is due to the information which it contains about Jesus Christ. More fully perhaps than any other one book, the Gospel of Matthew has preserved the knowledge of Jesus.
Whatever be the future of the Church, the life of Jesus will now always remain the central fact of history. Even the secondary influence of Jesus is incalculable; even if none were left to own him as Lord and Master, still he would remain incomparably the most influential man that has ever lived. As a matter of fact, however, such a condition has never existed and never will exist. From the very beginning the life of Jesus made itself felt through those who accepted him, to the exclusion of all others, as the supreme Lord of their lives. If Jesus had been regarded merely as a quiet teacher of ethics, the Gospel of Matthew never would have been written, and probably the very name of Jesus would have perished. The wonderful influence of Jesus, which has transformed the world from darkness to light, which alone gives promise of a final reign of righteousness, has been exerted through the instrumentality, not of admirers, but of disciples. Jesus has been a Teacher only because he has been a Master.
To make Jesus Master in the lives of men was the purpose of the Gospel of Matthew, and it is the purpose of our study of the book. The Gospel was not written with merely scientific interest; it was not written merely to preserve certain gems from the lips of an inspired teacher. The ultimate purpose of the book was to make men fall at Jesus' feet with the words, "My Lord and my God." Such a purpose is not inconsistent with the most scrupulous truthfulness. Adoration of Jesus can be induced best of all, not by fanciful elaboration, but by sober fact. In the case of Jesus, truth was more glorious by far than the boldest fiction.
To make Jesus Lord and Saviour is the purpose of our workas teachers. That purpose cannot be attained by exhortation or by threatening, but only by impartation of knowledge. To know Jesus is to trust him and adore him. Many readers of the Gospels never attain to the true knowledge. Their failure is due to various causes—to moral laxness, to preconceived opinions, to spiritual dullness. One obstacle, however, is of a simpler kind. One thing that stands in the way of a real understanding of the Gospels is the habit of piecemeal reading. We read the Gospels bit by bit instead of allowing the whole to make its impression. We do not see the wood for the trees. Jesus is concealed from us by his individual acts. The Gospels should be read as well as studied—read rapidly, like an ordinary book, preferably in some rational form of printing where verse numbers and all editorial matters are relegated to the margin and the lines stretch across the page. These things may seem to be trivialities, and certainly they are not essential. What is essential—not in place of detailed study, but in addition to it—is a rapid reading of the Gospels, by which, through the exclusion of all non-essentials, the mysterious, holy person of Jesus is brought simply and freshly before the wondering soul. Not to know about Jesus, but to know him, is the prime object of our study. To know about him is a valuable part of education; but to know him is life eternal.
The Greek word for "gospel" means "good news." Nowhere in the New Testament, however, is that word applied to a book. There is no reference in the New Testament to a "Gospel" of Matthew or of Mark or of Luke or of John. In the New Testament the word "gospel" has a more general reference. It designates the "good news" which lies at the basis of Christian preaching, however that news may be known. Christianity is based upon "a piece of information." The subject of that information is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without Christ we should have been hopeless, but Christ has saved us. Information about what he has done for us, however that information be conveyed, is the gospel.
This broad use of the word "gospel" appears even in the titles "Gospel according to Matthew," "Gospel according to Mark," "Gospel according to Luke," and "Gospel according to John," which are not due to the original authors of the books. "Gospel according to Matthew" did not originally mean the same thing as"Gospel of Matthew." It did not mean the Gospel which Matthew produced, but the one Gospel of Jesus Christ as Matthew narrated it. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John produced simply four accounts of the same thing. That common subject of the four accounts is the gospel, the good news, of what Jesus Christ has done for his followers.
At a very early time, however, books which had the gospel as their subject came themselves to be designated as "Gospels." The usage is convenient, and will be freely adopted in these textbooks. We may speak indiscriminately of the "Gospel according to Matthew" and of the "Gospel of Matthew."
(1) Not Indicated in the Gospel Itself.—The Gospel of Matthew should be sharply distinguished from those books which themselves make definite claims as to their authorship. The Epistle to the Romans, for example, claims to have been written by the apostle Paul. If it was not written by Paul, it is a forgery. The book of The Acts, also, though it does not mention the name of the author, claims at least—through the use of the first person plural—to have been written by some companion of the apostle Paul. Even the Gospel of John, as we shall see, really affords clear indications about its own authorship. The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, lays no claim to any particular authorship. We might believe that it was written by some other person than Matthew and yet be perfectly loyal to the book itself. The self-witness of the book is confined merely to a claim of truthfulness. If we believe that the record which the book contains is true, then we might, in perfect loyalty to the Gospel, believe that it was written by some one like Luke or Mark, outside of the company of the apostles. Such a view, however, would display an unreasonable distrust of Christian tradition.
(2) Papias on the First Gospel.—The earliest extant information about the authorship of the First Gospel is to be found in a fragment which Eusebius, the church historian of the fourth century, has preserved from a lost work of Papias. Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor in the former half of the second century.
The fragment from Papias, which is found in Eusebius, Church History, iii, 39, 16, may be translated as follows:
"Matthew accordingly wrote [or compiled] the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated them as he was able."
It seems pretty evident that Papias is here referring to the First Gospel. Some, indeed, have supposed that he means by "the oracles" a writing composed almost exclusively of sayings of Jesus, which formed merely one of the sources of our First Gospel. This view is probably incorrect. Papias could designate the Gospel of Matthew as "the oracles" either because of the large place which sayings of Jesus have in this Gospel, as compared, for example, with the Gospel of Mark, or else because the whole Gospel, both speeches and narrative, was of divine, oracular authority. The view that "according to Matthew" in the ancient title and in Christian tradition means not that Matthew wrote the book, but that it is based in some way ultimately on his authority, is opposed by the analogy of Mark. As we shall see, the Gospel of Mark, in early tradition, was referred ultimately to the authority of Peter; if, therefore, "according to" was used in the sense indicated above, the Second Gospel would have been called the Gospel "according to Peter" instead of the Gospel "according to Mark."
The testimony of Papias involves two principal assertions: in the first place, that Matthew wrote the First Gospel; and in the second place, that he wrote it in the "Hebrew" language.
The former assertion, which is supported by a striking consensus of early writers, has already been considered. The latter is much more puzzling.
(1) Meaning of "Hebrew."—By "the Hebrew dialect," Papias no doubt means Aramaic rather than what we call Hebrew. The term "Hebrew" was applied to both of the two closely related languages. Compare Acts 21:40. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Gospel would have been written in Hebrew; for before the time of Christ that had ceased to be the living language of Palestine. What Papias asserts, then, is that Matthew wrote in Aramaic.
(2) "Everyone Translated Them as He Was Able."—Papias asserts further that everyone translated the oracles as he was able. These words may be interpreted in various ways. Perhaps they mean that every man who used the original of Matthew had to translate it for himself; or perhaps that the Gospel was translated orally in the churches, as the Jews translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Aramaic in the synagogues; or perhaps that a number of written translations of the Gospel were made. At any rate Papias seems to imply that the condition which he here describes had cometo an end when he wrote. Some one Greek form of the Gospel had gained general acceptance; the time when everyone translated as he was able was at an end.
(3) Value of the Tradition.—The tradition of an Aramaic original of Matthew is not preserved merely by Papias, but appears in a considerable number of early writers. How far the other writers are independent of Papias is a disputed question. The tradition may be variously estimated. Some have supposed that it is entirely correct—that our Greek Gospel of Matthew is a translation, by Matthew himself or by some one else, of an Aramaic work: others have supposed that the tradition is altogether false—for example, that an Aramaic translation of the Greek Gospel was mistaken for an original from which the Greek Gospel had been translated: others hold intermediate views—for example, that one of the sources of our Greek Gospel was written in Aramaic. An important objection to the view that there was an Aramaic original of Matthew is that the Greek Gospel looks more like an original Greek work than like a translation. The tradition of the Aramaic Matthew places before us one of the unsolved problems of New Testament criticism.
One thing is certain—the language of the Gospel of Matthew, like that of the other Gospels, has a strong Aramaic coloring. This, however, does not require the hypothesis that our Matthew was translated from an Aramaic original. Undoubtedly, however our Greek Matthew was written, there was a time in the early days of the Church when the tradition of the life of Christ was carried on chiefly or wholly in the Aramaic language. The words of Jesus, at any rate, as they appear in our Gospels, have at some time or other undergone translation; for Jesus taught in Aramaic. The Aramaic coloring of the Gospels is one of the evidences of their trustworthiness. Though written in Greek, they are evidently rooted deep in the original Palestinian soil.
The date of the Gospel cannot be determined with accuracy. Some indication, however, is afforded by the assertion of Irenæus, of the latter part of the second century, that Matthew published his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. Even if this assertion should prove not to be absolutely correct, it would exhibit an early tradition for the years between about A. D. 60 and 70 as the date of the Gospel. This tradition is confirmed by the widespread view among early writers that Matthew was written before Mark; for Mark is now generally admitted to have been writtenbefore the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. There is really no serious objection to the traditional dating of Matthew. It was probably written in the sixties of the first century, and probably, as tradition says, in Palestine.
There are traces of the use of the Gospel in writers of the early half of the second century. On the other hand, there is no clear indication that it was used by any New Testament writer. The absence of citations from our Gospels in the epistles of Paul would tend to indicate that in the very earliest period the gospel tradition was carried on by word of mouth rather than by books.
In the four lists of the apostles, Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13, Matthew is designated by the bare name, except in his own Gospel, where he appears as "Matthew the publican." In Matt. 9:9, his call is narrated. In the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27,28, the name of the publican who was called is given only as "Levi." Without the Gospel of Matthew we should not have been able to identify Levi and Matthew. Evidently the apostle had two names, as was the case with so many others of the persons mentioned in the New Testament. After his call, Matthew made a great feast for Jesus. Luke 5:29; compare Mark 2:15. Matthew himself, alone among the Synoptists, does not even make it perfectly clear that it was he in whose house Jesus sat at meat. The peculiarities of the First Gospel in what is said about Matthew become significant when the authorship is known. Of course of themselves they would be quite insufficient to indicate who the author was. The assertion by early writers that Matthew wrote the Gospel, was based not upon indications in the Gospel itself, but upon independent tradition.
The first verse of the Gospel is evidently based upon the formula, occurring for the first time at Gen. 5:1, which marks off the divisions of the book of Genesis. It is most naturally regarded as a heading for the genealogy that follows in Matt. 1:2-17. There is only one objection to that view. In Genesis "the book of the generations of Adam," or "the generations of Shem" or the like, introduces an account, not of ancestors of the persons in question, but of their descendants. In Matt. 1:2-17, on the contrary, we have an account not of descendants of Jesus, but of ancestors. This objection has ledsome scholars to regard Matt. 1:1 as the title not of the genealogy but of the whole Gospel. The title would then represent Jesus as the beginning of a new race, or of a new period in the history of humanity.
This interpretation is unnecessarily subtle. It should rather be admitted that there is a difference between the phrase in Genesis and that in Matthew. The difference is very natural. In the case of Abraham the descendants were in view; in the case of the Messiah, the ancestors. Adam and Noah and Abraham were bearers of a promise; Christ was the culmination. Genesis looks forward; Matthew looks back. The difference in the use of the phrase is natural and significant.
The title, with the whole genealogy, is significant of what is to follow. At the very start, the ruling thought of Matthew's Gospel finds expression. Jesus is son of David, and son of Abraham; he is the culmination of the divine promise.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 270-272, 290-293. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (supplemented), articles on "Gospel" and "Matthew." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 1-20. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. i: Plumptre, "The Gospel According to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke," pp. xli-xliii, 1-186. Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. ii, pp. 367-427, 506-601. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.
The Gospel of Mark contains scarcely any material which is not also contained in one or both of the other two Synoptic Gospels. The loss of Mark would not diminish appreciably the number of facts that we know about Jesus. Nevertheless, the Second Gospel is of the utmost importance; for although it narrates for the most part only the same facts as are also narrated elsewhere, it narrates them in a different way. Indeed the very brevity of the Gospel adds to its special value. A picture is sometimes the more impressive by being limited in extent. Read the Gospel of Mark, not piecemeal but as a whole, and you obtain an impression of Jesus which can be obtained from no other book.
(1) Papias on Mark.—As in the case of Matthew, so in that of Mark it is Papias of Hierapolis who provides the earliest information about the production of the Gospel. Again also the words of Papias are quoted by Eusebius (Church History, iii, 39, 15). The passage from Papias is as follows:
"This also the presbyter said: 'Mark, on the one hand, being an interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately as many things as he remembered, yet not in order, the things which were either said or done by the Lord.' For neither did he hear the Lord nor did he follow him, but afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter, who carried on his teaching as need required but not as though he were making an ordered account of the oracles of the Lord; so that Mark committed no fault when he wrote some things as he had remembered them. For he had one care—that he should not leave out anything of the things that he had heard, or represent anything among them falsely."
(2) Antiquity of the Papian Tradition.—It will be observed that Papias is here represented as quoting from "the presbyter." Probably, however, it is only the first sentence that is quoted; the rest seems to be an explanation by Papias himself. By "presbyter,"or "elder," Papias means not an officer in the Church, but a man of an older generation. The tradition is therefore very ancient. Papias himself lived in the former half of the second century; a man of a still older generation would probably have acquired his information about Mark well before A. D. 100. Such information is not to be lightly rejected.
(3) Mark an Interpreter of Peter.—According to the presbyter, Mark was an "interpreter" of Peter. If the word be taken strictly it means that Mark translated the words of Peter from one language into another—probably from Aramaic into Greek. On the whole, however, it is not probable, in view of linguistic conditions in Palestine and in the Church, that Peter would be unable to speak Greek. Perhaps, then, the sentence means that Mark was merely the mediator, in a general sense, of Peter's preaching. He presented the teaching of Peter to those who had not had the opportunity of hearing it themselves. Perhaps the meaning is that he had done so formerly by word of mouth. Perhaps, however, it is rather the Gospel itself that is referred to. By writing the Gospel Mark became an interpreter or mediator of the preaching of Peter.
At any rate, whatever meaning be given to the word "interpreter," the general sense of the sentence—especially when taken in connection with the following explanation by Papias is fairly clear. Mark derived the information for his Gospel not from personal acquaintance with the earthly Jesus, but from association with Peter.
(4) Mark Not Written "In Order."—The presbyter said further that although Mark wrote accurately what he heard from Peter, he did not succeed in giving "in order" an account of the things that Jesus did and said. Evidently the historical incompleteness, the lack of uninterrupted sequence, of the Gospel of Mark is here in view.
But by what standard is the Gospel judged? It can hardly be by the standard of Matthew, for Matthew pays even less attention to temporal sequence than Mark does. The order in Luke also is by no means in all respects more strictly chronological than that in Mark. Only one standard satisfies the requirements of the presbyter's words—the standard provided by the teaching of John. John was the great leader of the Church of Asia Minor. His teaching naturally formed the standard of authority in that region. Perhaps at the time when the presbyter expressed his judgment on Mark the Gospel of John had already been written, so that one Gospel could be compared with the other; perhaps, however, it was merely theoral teaching of John, afterwards embodied in the Gospel, which afforded the basis of comparison. The Gospel of John alone provides something like a chronological framework of the public ministry of Jesus: John alone mentions the early Judean ministry; John alone narrates the successive visits of Jesus to the feasts in Jerusalem. If, as is possible, "the presbyter" of Papias was none other than John himself, then of course the whole matter becomes especially plain. John knew that there were important omissions in the Gospel of Mark; he probably observed, for example, that that Gospel if taken alone might readily create the impression that the ministry of Jesus lasted only one year instead of three or four. No doubt he corrected this impression in his oral teaching; certainly he corrects it in his Gospel. In commending the Gospel of Mark, John would naturally call attention to its chronological incompleteness.
Like the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark opens not with a sentence, but with a heading. As in the former case, however, the exact reference of the heading is uncertain. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" may, in the first place, mean merely, "Here begins the gospel of Jesus Christ." "The gospel of Jesus Christ" would then be simply the story about Christ that is narrated in the book that follows.
In the second place, the phrase may be taken as a description of the contents of the book. The whole of Jesus' life would then be described as the beginning of that proclamation of the gospel which was afterwards continued by the apostles and by the Church.
In the third place, the phrase may be merely a heading for the section that immediately follows, for Mark 1:2-8, or for vs. 2-13. In this case the preaching of John the Baptist, with or without the baptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit, and the temptation, would be described as the beginning of, as preliminary to, the proclamation of the gospel, which is mentioned in vs. 14, 15.
Perhaps the first interpretation is to be preferred as being the simplest, though it must be admitted that the phrase is a little puzzling.
It is significant that the Gospel of Mark begins not with the birth and infancy of Jesus, but with the ministry of John the Baptist and the subsequent preaching of Jesus in Galilee. Markseems to be following with great exactness the scheme of early apostolic preaching as it is laid down in Acts 10:37-43. Apparently Mark is preëminently the missionary Gospel; it contains only those things which had a place in the first preaching to unbelievers. That does not mean that the things which Mark omits are necessarily less important than the things which it contains. Mark gives a summary, not exactly of the most important things about Jesus, but rather of the things which unbelievers or recent converts could most easily understand. Hence the omission of the mystery of the birth, of the profound teaching of the early Judean ministry, of the intimate instructions to the disciples. These things are of fundamental importance. But they can best be understood only after one has first acquired a thorough grasp of the public ministry, and of the death and resurrection.
The Second Gospel, judged by purely formal standards, cannot be called exactly a beautiful book. It lacks the rhythm of Old Testament poetry, and the grace of the Gospel of Luke. But its rough, vigorous naturalness conveys a message of compelling power.
In the Library.—Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (edited) article on "Mark." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 21-26. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. i: Plumptre, "The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke," pp. 187-234. "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Maclear, "The Gospel according to St. Mark." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. ii, pp. 427-506, 601-617. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.
The purpose of the Gospel of Luke was, the author says in his prologue, that Theophilus might know the certainty concerning the things wherein he had been instructed. These words involve recognition of a fundamental need of the Church, which is to-day often ignored. After interest in Christianity has been aroused, after faith has been awakened, the Christian feels the need of a deeper intellectual grounding of the faith that is in him. This feeling is perfectly legitimate; it should not be stifled; the expression of it should not be treated necessarily as sinful doubt.
The treatment of these natural questionings is one of the most important problems that faces the teachers of the present course. We are dealing with young men and women of maturing minds, many of whom can no longer be satisfied with the unthinking faith of childhood. If Christianity is to remain permanently a force in their lives it must be related to their entire intellectual equipment; it must be exhibited as a reasonable thing, which is consistent with a sane and healthy view of the world. In other words, we are dealing with the problem of religious doubt, which is almost an inevitable stage in the development of intelligent Christians of the present day.
Undoubtedly the problem is often very unwisely handled. By hearing every natural expression of their doubt unmercifully decried as rebellion against the Word of God, many intelligent young people are being driven into hopeless estrangement from the Church. It is useless to try to bully people into faith. Instead, we ought to learn the method of the Third Gospel.
Very possibly Luke was facing the very same problem that is before us teachers to-day—very possibly Theophilus, to whom the Gospel and The Acts were dedicated, was a young man who had grown up in the Church and could now no longer be satisfied with the vague and unsystematic instruction that had been given him in childhood. At any rate, whether he was a young man grown upin the Church, or a recent convert, or merely a Gentile interested in Christianity, he was a person of intellectual interests, and those interests are treated by the evangelist not with contempt but with the utmost sympathy. The Gospel was written in order that Theophilus might "know the certainty" of those things wherein he had been instructed.
That might be regarded as the motto for the entire course of study which we have undertaken this year. It should be our aim to lay before young people of the Church the certainty of the things wherein they have been instructed—to enable them to substitute for the unreasoning faith of childhood the profound convictions of full-grown men and women. Moreover, exactly like the author of the Third Gospel, we are endeavoring to accomplish this aim, not by argument, but by an orderly presentation of "those matters which have been fulfilled among us." A simple historical presentation of the facts upon which Christianity is founded is the surest safeguard of Christian faith.
Alone among the Synoptists Luke gives his readers some direct information about the methods of his work. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1,2. This information, which was barely touched upon in the Student's Text Book, must here be considered somewhat more in detail.
(1) Luke Not an Eyewitness from the Beginning.—From the prologue to the Gospel, Luke 1:1-4, it appears, in the first place, that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events that he narrates—at least he was not an eyewitness "from the beginning."
(2) His Predecessors.—In the second place, it appears that he had had predecessors in his task of writing an account of early Christian history. Apparently, however, none of these previous works were produced by an apostle or by an eyewitness of the earthly ministry of Jesus. The previous writers, like Luke himself, were dependent upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The Gospel of Matthew, therefore, since it was written by an apostle, was not one of the works to which reference is made. This conclusion is amply confirmed by a comparison of Matthew with Luke. Evidently, at least, the two are entirely independent. If Luke refers to the First Gospel in the prologue, at any rate he made no use of it.
(3) Was Mark One of the Predecessors?—The Gospel of Mark, on the contrary, answers to the description of the previous works. It was written not by an eyewitness, but by one who listened to eyewitnesses.Perhaps, therefore, it was one of the many works to which Luke refers. If so, it may well have been used by Luke in the preparation of his own Gospel. This supposition is by no means excluded by a comparison of the two books. As a matter of fact, the great majority of modern scholars suppose that the writer of the Third Gospel made use of the Gospel of Mark. All that can here be asserted is that this view, though not required by what Luke says in his prologue, is perfectly consistent with it.
(4) Luke's Attitude Toward the Predecessors.—It should be observed that Luke attaches no blame whatever to the efforts of his forerunners. When he says that they had "taken in hand" or "attempted" to write accounts of certain things, he does not imply in the slightest that their attempts had been unsuccessful. He means simply to justify his own procedure by a reference to what had already been done. "My effort at writing an account of the origin of Christianity," he says in effect, "is no strange, unheard-of thing. I have had many predecessors." Such a reference to the work of predecessors was in antiquity a common literary form. At the very beginning of his work, Luke displays the effects of his Greek literary training.
Of course, however, although Luke attaches no blame to his predecessors, he would not have undertaken a new work if he had thought that the old satisfied all needs. Evidently he hoped to accomplish by his own book something that his predecessors had not accomplished or had accomplished only in part.
(5) The Subject of the Gospel.—Finally, therefore, Luke informs his readers what his own peculiar methods and purposes were. The main subject of the Gospel is not described with any definiteness in Luke 1:1-4, but it appears in the retrospect at the beginning of the second work. There the subject of the Gospel is designated as "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen." Acts 1:1,2. The subject of the Gospel, in other words, was the earthly life of Jesus.
(6) Completeness of the Narrative.—In treating this subject, Luke had striven, he says, Luke 1:3, first of all for completeness. In his investigations he had followed all things from the beginning. This feature appears plainly in the Gospel. Instead of beginning as Mark does, with the public ministry of Jesus, Luke first gives an account of the birth and infancy, and not content with that, hegoes back even to events preceding the birth not only of Jesus, but also of his forerunner.
(7) Accuracy.—In the second place, Luke says that he had striven after accuracy. Here again the Gospel justifies the claim of its author. The effort after precision may be seen perhaps especially in such a passage as Luke 3:1,2, where there is an elaborate dating of the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry.
(8) Orderly Arrangement.—The effort at orderly arrangement, which forms a third part of the claim which the author makes, was, especially in the Gospel, limited by the material that was at hand. Evidently in Palestine in the early period, the memory of the earthly ministry of Jesus was preserved not in a connected narrative, but in isolated anecdotes. It was impossible, therefore, even for a historian like Luke to maintain a chronological arrangement throughout; where chronological arrangement was impossible he was obliged to be satisfied with an arrangement according to logical affinities. This logical method of arrangement, however, is not resorted to by Luke so much as by Matthew; and for considerable sections of his narrative he was able to gratify his historian's desire for recounting events in the order in which they happened.
(9) Luke a Historian.—Detailed examination of the prologue should not be allowed to obscure the outstanding fact that the sum of what Luke here attests is a genuine historical aim and method in the composition of his work. Of course, history in Luke's mind did not exist for its own sake. The Gospel of Luke is not a mere scientific dissertation. On the contrary, the history which is narrated was to the author a thing of supreme value. But it was valuable only because it was true. There is not the slightest evidence that Luke was a bad historian because he was a good Christian. On the contrary, he was a Christian just because he was a historian. In the case of Jesus, knowledge of the real facts is the surest way to adoration.
(10) Is Luke 1:1-4 a Prologue to both the Gospel and The Acts?—The first four verses of the Gospel of Luke may be taken as a prologue either to the Gospel alone or else to the entire work, including both the Gospel and The Acts. The latter view, since the subject is described in v. 1 only in very broad terms, is not to be rashly rejected. No doubt, however, in the prologue Luke was thinking especially of the former part of the work—the part for which he was dependent altogether upon the testimony of others. The first verses of The Acts link the two parts close together.Their connection has been obscured by the traditional arrangement of our New Testament books. But that arrangement is altogether advisable. The former part of the Lucan work certainly belongs among the Gospels; and of the Gospels the Gospel of John must certainly be placed last, as being supplementary to the others.
The characteristics of the Gospel of Luke may perhaps be presented more vividly than by the general description in the Student's Text Book, by an examination of a few typical passages. The two such passages which we shall choose somewhat at random, are the narrative of the birth and infancy in Luke 1:5 to 2:52, and the parable of the Prodigal Son. Ch. 15:11-32. Both of these are without any parallel in the other Gospels. Matthew provides an infancy narrative, but it is concerned for the most part with events different from those that appear in Luke.
(1) The Narrative of the Birth and Infancy.—It has often been observed that the characteristic Greek sentence of the prologue, Luke 1:1-4, is immediately followed by the most strongly Hebraistic passage in the New Testament. The Semitic style of Luke 1:5 to 2:52 becomes explicable only if Luke was here making use of Palestinian sources, either oral or written. This conclusion is confirmed by the whole spirit and substance of the narrative. In this narrative as clearly as anywhere else in the New Testament we find ourselves transplanted to Palestinian soil.
The early date of the narrative is as evident as its Jewish Christian and Palestinian character. There is here no reference to concrete events in the later history of the Church. Messianic prophecy appears in its Old Testament form uncolored by the details of the fulfillment. Evidently this narrative is no product of the Church's fancy, but genuine history told in the very forms of speech which were natural to those who participated in it.
The first two chapters of Luke are in spirit really a bit of the Old Testament continued to the very threshold of the New. These chapters contain the poetry of the New Testament, which has taken deep hold of the heart and fancy of the Church.
In this section of his Gospel, Luke shows himself to be a genuine historian. A biographer is not satisfied with narrating the public life of his hero, but prefaces to his work some account of the family, and of the birth and childhood. So our understanding of the ministry of Jesus becomes far deeper when we know that he grewup among the simple, devout folk who are described in the first two chapters of Luke. The picture of Mary in these chapters, painted with an exquisite delicacy of touch, throws a flood of light upon the earthly life of the Son of Man.
Beauty of detail, however, must not be allowed to obscure the central fact. The culmination of the narrative, undoubtedly, is to be found in the stupendous mystery of Luke 1:34,35. Far from being an excrescence in the narrative, as it has sometimes been represented in an age of rampant naturalism, the supernatural conception of Jesus is the very keystone of the arch. In this central fact, Matthew and Luke, totally independent as they are, are perfectly agreed. By this fact Jesus is represented, more clearly perhaps than by anything else, as not a product of the world but a Saviour come from without.
(2) The Prodigal Son.—The parable of the Prodigal Son, simple though it is, has often been sadly misinterpreted. It has been thought to mean, for example, that God pardons sin on the basis simply of human repentance without the necessity of the divine sacrifice. All such interpretations are wide of the mark. The parable is not meant to teach how God pardons sin, but only the fact that he does pardon it with joy, and that we ought to share in his joy.
Misinterpretation of the parable has come from the ignoring of its occasion. The key to the interpretation is given in Luke 15:1,2. Jesus was receiving publicans and sinners. Instead of rejoicing at the salvation of these poor, degraded sons of Abraham, the Pharisees murmured. In rebuke, Jesus spoke three parables. One of them, the parable of the Lost Sheep, is reported also by Matthew, ch. 18:12-14; but the last two, the parables of the Lost Coin and of the Prodigal Son, appear only in Luke.
The teaching of all three of these parables is exactly the same. The imagery varies, but the application is constant. That application may be expressed very simply: "God rejoices at the salvation of a sinner; if, therefore, you are really sons of God, you will rejoice too." In the parable of the Prodigal Son, however, the application is forced home more poignantly than in either of the other two. In that parable alone among the three, the Pharisees could see—in the elder brother—a direct representation of themselves.
The incident of the elder brother, sometimes regarded as a mere detail, really introduces the main point of the parable. Everythingelse leads up to that. The wonderful description of the joy of the father at the prodigal's home-coming is all intended as a contrast to the churlish jealousy of the brother. The elder brother was as far as possible from sharing in the father's joy. That showed that he was no true son. Though he lived under the father's roof, he had no real inward share in the father's life. So it was with the Pharisees. They lived in the Father's house; they were, as we should say, members of the Church. But when salvation, in the person of Jesus, had at last come to the poor, sinful outcasts of the people, the Pharisees drew aside. God rejoiced when the publicans crowded in to Jesus; but the Pharisees held back. That showed that after all they were not, as they thought, true sons of God. If they had been, they would have shared God's feeling.
It should be noticed that the parable ends with an invitation. The elder brother is not harshly rebuked by the father, but tenderly urged to come in still. Will the invitation be accepted? The question is not answered; and there lies the crowning beauty of the parable. The Pharisees are still given a chance. Will they still share the joy of God at the return of his lost children? They must answer the question for themselves.
And we, too, have the same question to answer. If we are really children of God, then we shall not despise the outcasts and the sinners, but shall rejoice with him at their salvation. The parable is characteristic of the Gospel of Luke. Of course, Luke did not compose it. Nothing in the Gospels bears more indisputably the marks of Jesus' teaching. But from the rich store of Palestinian tradition Luke sought out those things which displayed sympathy for the downtrodden and the sick and the sinful. It was an inestimable service to the Church. Shall we heed the message? God rejoices at the salvation of a sinner. Shall we be sharers in his holy joy?
In the Library.—Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (edited), article on "Luke." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 27-32. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. i: Plumptre, "The Gospel According to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke," pp. 235-365. Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. iii, pp. 1-173. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.
The author of the Fourth Gospel was a great man. He was great, however, not as a philosopher or as a religious genius, but as an apostle; not as the originator of great ideas, but as one who received the teaching of another. He was great, not as one who created a profound theology, but as one who could understand the Lord Jesus Christ. The "Johannine theology" is the theology not of John but of Jesus. So at least John himself represents it. He claims to be not a theologian, but a witness. The value of his book depends upon the truth of his witnessing. If the Johannine picture of Christ is the creation of the author's genius, it commands admiration; but only if it is a true picture of the historic Jesus can it offer eternal life.
Is the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel fiction or fact, a splendid product of religious genius or a living Saviour?
Few questions have caused profounder agitation in the modern Church. The question cannot be separated from the question of authorship. Clearly if the book was written by an intimate friend of Jesus, its witness must be true. Who wrote the Fourth Gospel? This question is of vital importance.
At the close of the second century—the earliest period from which any really abundant Christian literature outside of the New Testament has been preserved—the tradition about the authorship of the Gospel was practically unanimous. Even the one small and uninfluential sect that disagreed practically supports the common view, for its denial was evidently based upon objections to the contents of the Gospel and not at all upon any independent information.
(1) Irenæus and Polycarp.—Of the three important writers of the close of the second century, all of whom attest the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, Irenæus deserves special mention. Irenæus spent his early life in Asia Minor, but afterwards becamethe leader of the Church in Gaul. Before he left Asia Minor he had some very interesting associations. One of them was with Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was martyred in A. D. 155. Polycarp would be an important figure merely on account of the early period in which he lived; but what makes his testimony supremely valuable is his personal association with John. Irenæus himself in his early youth, before he had left Asia Minor, had heard Polycarp discoursing about the things he had heard John say. Polycarp, then, was a personal disciple of John, and Irenæus was a personal disciple of Polycarp. Only one link, therefore, separated Irenæus from John. Moreover, since Irenæus in his youth had lived in Asia Minor, the very place of John's residence, it is natural to believe that what he heard Polycarp say about John could be supplemented in other ways.
Now beyond any reasonable doubt whatever, Irenæus supposed that the John of whom he had heard Polycarp speak was none other than John the apostle, the son of Zebedee. If that supposition was correct, then the connection between Irenæus and the apostle John was exceedingly close; and when Irenæus exhibits an absolutely unwavering belief that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle, it is very unlikely that he was mistaken. He had known one of the personal disciples of John; he himself had lived in Asia Minor where John had been the well-known leader of the Church, and where the Fourth Gospel, no matter who wrote it, was almost certainly produced. When, therefore, he asserts, not as something new, but as a thing which he had known from the beginning, that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John, surely he must be believed.
This conclusion has been avoided by the hypothesis that the John about whom Polycarp spoke was not really, as Irenæus supposed, John the son of Zebedee, but another John, a certain John the presbyter, who was not one of the twelve apostles at all. The unnaturalness of such an hypothesis appears on the surface. Could a native of Asia Minor who had repeatedly heard Polycarp speak about the John in question, and who had many other opportunities for acquainting himself with the traditions of the church in Asia Minor—could such a man, together with all his contemporaries, have come to labor under so egregious a misapprehension?
(2) Other Attestation.—The testimony of Irenæus to the Fourth Gospel is of particular importance, on account of Irenæus' connection with Polycarp. But it is only one detail in a remarkable consensus. When the most widely separated portions of the Church before the close of the second century all agreed that theFourth Gospel was written by John the son of Zebedee, their common belief could not have been of recent origin. Earlier writers, moreover, by their use of the Gospel attest at least its early date.
The tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee is confirmed by the testimony of the Gospel itself. Although the book does not mention the name of its author it clearly implies who he was.
(1) Indirectness of the Testimony.—This testimony of the Gospel itself is all the more valuable because it is indirect. If the name John had been mentioned at the beginning, then it might conceivably be supposed that an unknown author had desired to gain a hearing for his work by putting it falsely under the name of a great apostle. As it is, the inference that the author claims to be John the son of Zebedee, though certain, does not force itself upon the careless reader. A forger would not thus, by the indirectness of his claim, have deprived himself of the benefits of his forgery.
The testimony of the Gospel to its author must now be considered.
(2) The Author an Eyewitness.—In the first place, almost at the very beginning, we observe that the author claims to be an eyewitness of the life of Jesus. "We beheld his glory," he says in John 1:14. By beholding the glory of Christ he evidently does not mean merely that experience of Christ's power which is possessed by every Christian. On the contrary, the glory of Christ, as it is intended by the evangelist, is fully explained by such passages as ch. 2:11. The miracles of Jesus—palpable, visible events in the external world—are clearly included in what is meant. It will be observed that in ch. 1:14 it is very specifically the incarnate Christ that is spoken of. The evangelist is describing the condition of things after "the Word became flesh." Evidently, therefore, it was the earthly life of Jesus which the evangelist claims to have "beheld."
This conclusion is confirmed by I John 1:1-4. Scarcely anyone doubts that the First Epistle of John was written by the man who wrote the Gospel. When, therefore, the author of the epistle speaks of "that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life," evidently these words have significance for the Gospel also. The author fairly heaps up expressions to show, beyond all possibility of misunderstanding, that he had come into actual physical contact with the earthly Jesus.
(3) The Unnamed Disciple of John 1:35-42.—The author of the Fourth Gospel, then, clearly claims to be an eyewitness of the earthly life of Christ. Further indications identify him with a particular one among the eyewitnesses. In John 1:35-42, an unnamed disciple of Jesus is mentioned. "One of the two," it is said in v. 40, "that heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother." Who was the other? There is some reason for thinking that he was one of the two sons of Zebedee. But the matter will become clearer as we proceed.
Another question is why this disciple is not mentioned by name. The Fourth Gospel is not chary of names. Why, then, is the disciple who appears so prominently along with Andrew and Simon not mentioned by name? Only one plausible explanation suggests itself—the explanation that the unnamed disciple was the author of the Gospel, who, through a feeling common in the literature of antiquity, as well as of our own time, did not like to mention his own name in the course of his narrative. We have already observed that the author claims to be an eyewitness of the life of Christ. John 1:14. When, therefore, near the beginning of the narrative a disciple of Jesus is introduced, rather mysteriously, without a name, when, furthermore, events in which this disciple was immediately concerned are narrated with unusual vividness and wealth of detail, vs. 35-42, the conclusion becomes very natural that this unnamed disciple is none other than the author himself.
(4) The Beloved Disciple.—This conclusion, it must be admitted, so far as this first passage is concerned, is nothing more than a likely guess. But by other passages it is rendered almost certain.
In John 13:21-25, a disciple is mentioned as leaning on Jesus' breast and as being one whom Jesus loved. This disciple is not named. But who was he? Evidently he was one of the twelve apostles, for only the apostles were present at the Supper which is described in chs. 13 to 17. The disciple "whom Jesus loved," however, was not only among the Twelve; he was evidently among the innermost circle of the Twelve. Such an innermost circle appears clearly in the Synoptic Gospels. It was composed of Peter and James and John. The beloved disciple was probably one of these three; and since he is clearly distinguished from Peter, ch. 13:24, he was either James or John.
The introduction of an unnamed disciple, which seemed significant even in John 1:35-42, becomes yet far more significant in the present passage. In the account of the Last Supper, a considerablenumber of the disciples are named—Peter, Judas Iscariot, Thomas, Philip, Judas not Iscariot—yet the disciple who is introduced with especial emphasis, whose very position at table is described with a wealth of detail far greater than is displayed in the case of any of the others, is designated merely as "one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." The strange omission of this disciple's name can be explained only if he was the author of the book. Clearly the painter has here introduced a modest portrait of himself in the midst of his great picture.
Passing by John 18:15,16, where "the other disciple" is probably the author, and ch. 19:26,27, where the repetition of the strange designation, "the disciple ... whom he [Jesus] loved," confirms the impressions derived from ch. 13:21-25, we discover another important indication in ch. 19:35. "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe." "He that hath seen" can scarcely refer to anyone other than the beloved disciple who was mentioned just before as standing by the cross. In the present verse, this beloved disciple is represented as the one who is now speaking. The identification of the beloved disciple with the author of the Gospel, which was implied before, here becomes explicit.
In John 20:1-10, "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" is of course the same as the one who appears in ch. 13:21-25; 19:26,27,35.
(5) Testimony of the Appendix.—In John 21:7,20-23, the beloved disciple appears again, and in v. 24 he is identified, in so many words, with the writer of the Gospel. In this verse the first person plural is used; other persons seem to be associated with the author in commending the Gospel to the attention of the Church. This phenomenon is explained if the twenty-first chapter be regarded as a sort of appendix, perhaps added at the request of a circle of friends. It will be observed that ch. 20:30,31 forms a fit ending to the book; what follows therefore appears the more like an appendix, though it was certainly written by the author's own hand and published before his death along with the rest of the book.
(6) Why Are John and James Not Mentioned by Name?—The conclusion of our investigation is that the author of the Fourth Gospel indicates clearly that he was either one or the other of the two sons of Zebedee. This conclusion is confirmed by the curious circumstance that neither one of these men is mentioned in the Gospel by name. How did they come to be omitted? They were in the very innermost circle of Jesus' disciples; many apostles far less prominentthan they are named frequently on the pages of the Gospel. There can be only one solution of the problem: one at least of these men is, as a matter of fact, introduced in the Gospel as the beloved disciple, and the reason why he is introduced in such a curiously anonymous way and why his brother also is not named, is that the author felt a natural delicacy about introducing his own and his brother's name into a narrative of the Lord's life.
One statement that has just been made requires qualification: it is not quite true that the sons of Zebedee are not designated by name in the Gospel. They are not indeed called by their individual names, but in ch. 21:2, they are designated by the name of their father. Possibly this slight difference of usage between chapter 21 and the rest of the Gospel has something to do with the fact that chapter 21 seems to be an appendix.
(7) The Author Was Not James, but John.—The author of the Fourth Gospel, then, identifies himself with one or the other of the sons of Zebedee. As to which one of the two is meant there cannot be the slightest doubt. James the son of Zebedee was martyred in A. D. 44. Acts 12:2. There is abundant evidence that the Fourth Gospel was not written so early as that; and John 21:20-23 apparently implies that the author lived to a considerable age. Evidently, therefore, it is John and not James with whom the author identifies himself.
(8) Is the Gospel's Own Testimony True?—Thus the singularly strong tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee is supported by the independent testimony of the book itself. Conceivably, of course, that testimony might be false. But it is very hard to believe that it is. It is very hard to believe that the author of this wonderful book, who despite all the profundity of his ideas exalts in a very special manner the importance of simple testimony based upon the senses, John 19:35; I John 1:1-4, has in a manner far subtler and more heinous than if he had simply put a false name at the beginning palmed himself off as an eyewitness of the Saviour's life. Many learned men have found it possible to accept such a view; but the simple reader of the Gospel will always be inclined to dissent. The author of this book has narrated many things hard to be believed. But there are still found those who accept his solemn testimony; there are still found those in whom the purpose of the book is achieved, who through this Gospel believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing have life in his name. John 20:31.
The tradition about the Fourth Gospel is not confined to the bare fact of Johannine authorship; it has preserved certain other very interesting information.
(1)The Ephesian Residence.—For example, tradition represents the Fourth Gospel as written after the other three Gospels and at Ephesus. The evidence for the Ephesian residence of the apostle John is singularly abundant and weighty; and the contrary evidence which has been thought to attest an early death of John is exceedingly weak. At first, John, like the others of the original apostles, remained in Palestine. He appears in Jerusalem a little before A. D. 50 at the Apostolic Council. Gal. 2:9. At some subsequent time, perhaps at the outbreak of the Jewish war in A. D. 66, he journeyed to Asia Minor and there for many years was the revered head of the Church. He lived indeed until the reign of Trajan, which began in A. D. 98.
(2)The Gospel of John Supplementary to the Synoptic Gospels.—According to tradition, the Gospel of John was not only written after the Synoptic Gospels, but was intended to be supplementary to them. This information is amply confirmed by the Gospel itself. Evidently John presupposes on the part of his readers a knowledge of the Synoptic account. This explains his peculiar choice of material—for example, his omission of most of the Galilean ministry, and of such events as the baptism and the institution of the Lord's Supper. It explains also, for example, a verse like John 3:24: "For John was not yet cast into prison." The Synoptic Gospels begin their account of the ministry of Jesus with what happened after the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Mark 1:14. Readers of Mark might even receive the impression that Jesus had not begun his teaching till after that time. John corrects any such impression in ch. 3:24.
If, then, the Gospel of John is intended not to compete with the Synoptic Gospels, but to supplement them, in what direction does the supplementing move? What is it that John adds to what had already been told? Here, again, tradition affords us useful hints.
Eusebius, in the early part of the fourth century, writes as follows (Church History, iii, 24, 7-13, translated by McGiffert, in "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," second series, vol. i, p. 153):
"And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned [Matthew, Mark and Luke]having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account. For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: 'Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.' Mark likewise says: 'Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, 'adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.' They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: 'This beginning of miracles did Jesus'; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; where he states the matter clearly in the words: 'For John was not yet cast into prison.' John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit."
According to Eusebius, then, John intended to treat the time before the imprisonment of the Baptist as the Synoptists treated the time after that event. We have already noted the element of truth in this observation. Of course it is not the only observation that needs to be made. Much of what John narrates occurred after the imprisonment of the Baptist.
According to Clement of Alexandria, of the close of the second century, who here reports what had been said by his predecessors in Alexandria, John, seeing that "bodily" matters had been treated by the Synoptists, supplemented their work by writing a "spiritual" Gospel. In this testimony also there is no doubt an element of truth. It is true that the Fourth Gospel reproduces certain profound elements in the teaching of Jesus which in the earlier Gospels appear only incidentally.
The oral tradition which forms the chief basis of the Synoptic Gospels was rooted deep in the earliest missionary activity of the Church. Especially, perhaps, in the Gospel of Mark, but also in Matthew and Luke, we have for the most part those facts about Jesus and those elements of his teaching which could appeal at once to simple-minded believers or to outsiders. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, drawing, like the others, from the rich store of Jesus' teaching and Jesus' person, has revealed yet deeper mysteries. In this profound book, we have the recollections of a beloved disciple, at first understood only imperfectly by the apostle himself, but rendered ever clearer by advancing experience, and firmly fixed by being often repeated in the author's oral instruction of the Church.
In the Library.—Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible," article on "John" (7): Purves, article on "John, Gospel according to St." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 33-40. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Westcott, "The Gospel according to St. John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Plummer, "The Gospel According to St. John." Browning, "A Death in the Desert" (vol. iv, pp. 191-206 of the Riverside Edition). Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. iii, pp. 174-355. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.