NT.W TKSTAMKNT. 



jerfiaae raind ajainst the Pastoral epi-tles and 2' 

 Uvn n-pealrtlly answered. (See am. le> 

 KAI. Kl-IHTLW and I'M Mi I The impoiiant 

 quolioltt rm|m-lmg (he A;x-al\p<e are fully dis- 

 rumrd in the article KKVKI..VIOV Hut the m 

 tent attacks h.ive l-.n made upon I he genuineness 

 of the lour <M*|K-U. While Mr K. A. Abbott, in the 



ite statement of many 



of the quevtiuos KB|N :.'_ (lie (iospcjs. the positions 

 l.iki n "in satisfactory, ami the evidenci- pie 



i- ni.d is not convincing. It is. therefore, neeeasary to 



lily the origin of the (iospels. 



4 'flu- four canonical liuspcls are all of them gen- 

 uine, that U, the work of their reputed authors. 

 , the common matter found in three of them. 

 Matthew. Mark, and Luke) are in all 

 probability inde|>eiidcnt (d' each other (in a literary 

 the ciiinmon matter being derived from the 

 MilMance of the onil preaching of the apostles and 

 i-.iily disci plm. The |<ositions ot Mr. Abbott, to which ! 

 lno-1 serious exceptions must U- taken, arc: (I) his 

 theory of the origin (d' the synoptic (iospels ; (i!) his 

 denial of the genuineness of the Vourth (iospel. 



ft. The uri'iriii and rilntimi of the synoptic liospcls. 

 The Broken has U-en discussed most vigorously, but 

 i- still far from a satisfactory solution on any theory 



(her than that of inde|>endeniv. It still seems most 

 probable (as Canon Wesleott. (iodet. and others hold) 

 I hat no one of these three writers liorrowed mailer 

 from the (Josnel written by either of the others. It 

 is not probable that any one of them ever saw the 

 work of the oilier. There is no internal evidence of 

 any one of them having written (or modified) his nar- 

 rative to supplement, correet. or adapt the work of an 

 other. Nor can the theory of a common document as 

 the basis of all three be established. Mr. Abbott 



i ,--. - l,i- ),. n through a 1 '. r..n i- not common to [la- 

 th ree s\ iiop lists, and offers us the residuum as the 

 closest approximation we possess to the original narra- 

 tive from which each of the three was derived " (Mod's 

 lntr<xl. tn thf Xrir Tuttnmritt). The same theory has 

 been most licautifully illustrated in a printed edition 

 of the (ireek Testament, called .X'v""/ 1 '"'"''. of which 

 I>r. AbUitt is one of the editors. Hut a careful study, 

 with this convenient help, does not convince the writer 

 that we are thus brought nearer to the original source 

 of the narrative. It is true, and has long been re- 

 marked, that the Gospel of Mark bears greater evi- 

 <!. in v of originality than either of the others, ami that 

 were there an original (iospel as a common basis of all 

 three. Mark most nearly represents that original. But 

 further than (his we can scarcely go, nor is there any- 

 thing; to be gained by going tint her. Kit her our canoni- 

 cal (i.is|K-ls are true or they arc full of later additions. 

 As a literary problem we may discuss the literary origin 



I' ihe different forms of the same story as recorded by 



' more of the evamrelisl.s. Hut the unfairnesn 

 of most of the critic,- consists in this, that they s 

 n.id imply what they will not assert. They claim that 

 the discussion is a purely literary one, and presently 

 ^.\cr that it is a historical one. The Inithfui- 

 nesa of the various narratives is assailed under cover 

 of a literary problem. The Tubingen school was en- 

 tirely honest in its attitude. It attempted to solve the 

 literary problem by a certain historical theory ( 7' 

 llifiirii), to the effect that there were two opposing 

 - in the early Christian Church, and that the 

 U arose in the second century as the result of 

 t hew conflict* and attendant compromises. This theory 

 hw been disproved ; all more recently discovered evi- 

 dence Controvert* it, though much deference is paid to 



it in some of the articles in the UKITANNH -.\. The 

 preeent "critical " sehool d.*- not Mcept this theory, 



rat seeks to diseover the original historical basis of the 



imcw this is done without denying tho 



truth! -ur (loxticK but ofien.-r ii is implied 



ihitt H|| the tiialti-r which cannot l>c traced to some as- 



.-inal soiiicc- " |.< |, s,.< liiislwdilhy. Auainsl 



the entire melliod it tnnv be urged thnt no positive re- 

 sults have yet U i-n tiriniy cMahlishcd, desiule the im- 

 mense amount of labor IM-.-IOHI d upon the pioMcm. 

 Twi-nlv distinct theories could In' cited, each differing, 

 from the others, and .some of them dcslnu li\e , 

 other. l''or example, Meyer and \\ i-i->, two uf (he 

 most di.-liiiL'uished (ierman eomnicntalors. agreeing in 

 many rcs|>ecls, differ in regard to the relation of the 

 synoptic I ios|M-ls. Meyer holding Malk to U- the ear- 

 lier. Weiss stonily contending for Matthew, while they 

 differ as to the "original source" King back of the 

 synoptists. Weiss :nvi pts a_ large amount of narra- 

 tive mailer in the "apostolic source" which he as- 

 sumes to lie back of the (iospcl of Matthew. To (his 

 Meyer responds in substance : "if there is so much 

 narrative, why not accept the < iospel of Matthew 

 itself as the original sou ice?" Indeed the attempt to 

 s -pai-aie the " discourses " from the history can only 

 |, i o\e a sony failure : many of the most striking say- 



MVC their pertinence from the occasion (ofien a 

 miracle) that M-i^cMcd them. The height of absuidity 

 was reached in this discussion by Kwald. who. in his 

 analysis, finds ten distinct books, seven ot them going 

 to make up in differing combinations the three synop- 

 tical (Jospels. It is. of course. :in interesting literary 

 problem, and in discussing it there is room for great 

 ingenuity. Hut thus tar one man's gue.ss*liu.s proved 



-I as another's. 



In order to find room for nil this literary develop- 

 ment it is necessary to place the date of willing at a 

 lime which, on other grounds, seems too late. The 

 three synoptical (lospcls bear eveiy m:uk of having 

 been written before the destruction of Jerusalem 

 (A. I). 70). Dr. Abbott makes a labored plea for a 

 later date in the case of Luke. Bui the onK 

 incut of any special force is that from Luke's specific 

 references to the details of the destruction of ,)eiiisa- 

 1cm (chaps, xix. 4ii ; xxi. 24). It is urged that such 

 plain statements could have been written only after 

 the event. That amounts to this position: because 

 Luke represents Jesus Christ as making a distinct 

 prediction which was speedily fulfilled. Jesus Christ 

 did not make the prediction, but Luke invented it and 

 put it in his mouth. I'ntbrtunatcly Mr. Abbott is not 

 alone in arguing upon such an as.-nmplion. J!ut it is 



clear fr the Hook of Acts that the (iospel of Luke 



was written as "a former treatise' (Aet.-i. I). The 

 narrative in the B<x>k of the Acts closes with A. i 

 Ii is natural to infer that the date ol the second (realise 

 was near that time. Furthermore. Luke was with 

 1'aul at C.'esnrea during the years :>'.>, r.ii. Wl ..i, 

 more natural than to suppose that during this time he, 

 collected the material for his (iospel. since lie refers 

 to his laUirs in discovering the lads (Luke i. .'!)? It 

 is exceedingly improbable that ten years would elapse 

 bclore lie published these facts. It is therefore likely 

 that all three (iospels had Ix-en penned by the close 

 of A. D. H.'i. '['here is not siillicient time for editing. 

 and manipulating "original sources" in the interval 

 Ix-twccn tlie death of Christ and this date. 



The recently discovered evidence, moreover, con- 

 firms the early date of the (iospels. Not only is it 

 now established that the Kpistle of Barnaba* e\| n s-]y 

 cites the (iospel of Matthew, but the Tuifliiiii/ <if tlie. 



.\liuftli* again and again uses the language of 

 that (Jospi'l, and in some cases seems plainly to refer 

 to that 01 Luke. This document, lost for many cen- 

 turies. w:w written almi A.M. ii'u. [twaidkoovered 

 ill IsT.I. but not published until !.- In the same 

 collection of MSS. the entire Homily (miscalled '2 

 ( 'lemeni) was discovered. In this sermon the preacher 

 refers to the New Testament Scriptures as ra ~/6)ia THV 

 ip. xiv.). Now the dale of this homily is be- 



v i>. l^i and Ho. Hy that lime clearly the 

 (Ii.spels were read ill Christian assemblies as Sacred 

 Scriptures. 1'apias has referred to Matthew as writing 

 " Ixigia." and it h:i^ been stoutly affirmed by some. 

 critics that this term can onK mean ' discourses, " and 



