cosi'KLS 



COS.S \MKR 



311 



-\|M-. -i in- tor either from the church any title to 

 authorit v us infallible. 



HAKMONIKS OK THK GOSPELS. Compilations of thin 

 natun-. designed to facilitate comjwrison ami mutual 

 illustration of the dill'i-ivnt narratives, and to bring out 

 tli-ir essential ugn-cmi-nt and consistency in wjeinin^ 

 in-.-, began to bit made at an early date. Tbe 

 .-.ulirst known iH tbe Diatessaron of Tatian (j.v.). 

 .1,1.. ini' also makes allusion to the work of a certain 

 ') hi-.pliilus. Bishop of A ntiooh, toward the close of tbe 

 utiiry, who had left a monument of his ingenuity 

 by ' fitting together into one whole the things said by the 

 f.uir evangelists.' Eusebius ti-lls us that in the middle 

 of the 3d century a certain Ammonius of Alexandria also 

 icti-d a diatessaron, taking Matthew as his basis, 

 and placing side by side with him the parallel passages 

 in the other thror gospels. This work suggested to 

 MIS liims.-lf the plan of his own Sections and 

 Canont. In this each gospel is divided separately into 

 sections which are numbered continuously, and, further, 

 there is a table of ten canons each containing a list of 

 passages. The first canon, in four columns, exhibits all 

 i In- passages which are common to the four gospels; the 

 second, third, and fourth, in three columns, show the 

 passages which are found in any three ; the fifth, sixth, 

 seventh, eighth, and ninth, those which are common to 

 any two ; and the tenth, in four separate lists, the pass- 

 ages |>eculiar to a single evangelist. This work of 

 Eusebius, which was afterwards adapted to the Vulgate 

 by Jerome, continued to be used as a key to the concord- 

 ance of the gospels, down to the 16th century. Of 

 post-Reformation harmonies, the earliest is the ffarmonia 

 Ecantjelica of Osiander ( 1537), whose doctrine of inspira- 

 tion led him to believe that each evangelist must have 

 written in strict chronological order, and that therefore, 

 wherever there is the slightest divergence as to time, 

 place, or circumstance between any two evangelists in 

 any given narrative, it is necessary to assume the events 

 thus differently related to have been distinct. On these 

 principles he is compelled to make out that Peter denied 

 Ins I^ord nine times. Calvin's Harmonia ex tribus 

 idistis Comppxita (1553) represents a much more 

 moderate view. The number of works bearing the title 

 of Harmonies or Synopses that have appeared during the 

 last three centuries is very great. The best and most 

 popular of them such as those of Clericus (1700), 

 night (1758), Griesbach (1776), Robinson (1845) 

 Wieseler (1843), Anger (1852), Stroud (1853) are 

 enumerated by Tischendorf in his own Synopsis 

 Erangrtica, the latest and most convenient of them all 

 (5th ed. 1884). 



LITERATURE. For the older literature on the synoptic 

 gospels, reference must be made to the handbooks of 

 Biblical Introduction and Church History, and to the 

 more recent commentaries. Among these last that of 

 Alford in his Greek Testament (7th ed. 1874-77) retains 

 an honourable place. See also the Speaker's Commentary. 

 Of translations from the German, the commentaries of 

 Meyer and Lange claim special mention ; of the former, 

 which is the less homilctical and more scientific of the 

 two, the latest (7th) German edition is by B. Weiss 

 ( 1883-85 ). Kelt's Commentary on Matthew appeared in 

 1877, and that on Mark and Luke in 1879. In the new 

 Hand -Com UK ntnr ;nm Ncuen Testament the synoptics 

 are ably treated by H. J. Holtzmann (1889). Ewald's 

 Die drei ersten Emn<idien iibersetzt u. erkldrt (1871) 

 is still of value. See too Reuss, Histoire fivanyelique 

 ( 1876) ; and compare the bibliographies under BIBLE and 

 JKM -v 



1 'n the synoptical problem the fullest and latest state- 

 ments are to be found in Holtzmann, Kinlvitini'i 'n 

 dot Nrue Testament (2d ed. 1886). and B. Weiss, Kin/. 

 in d. Neue Test. (2d ed. 1889). The latter has been 

 translated into English, A Manual of Introduction to the 

 New Testament (1887). Both these writers recognise a 

 ' logia ' document, and the priority of Mark to both tho 

 first and the third canonical gospeL Weiss, however, 

 thinks that the logia document contained a very consider- 

 able number of incidents also, and that Mark had access 

 tn it. The fullest discussions by English scholars are 

 those of Dr E. A. Abbott in the art 'Gospels' in vol. 

 x. of Ency. Brit. (1880), and by Professor Salmon. Hiji- 

 tnn,;ii Introduction to the Books of the Nnc Ttttimt- > 

 (4th oil 1HX1). Dr Abbott seeks to disentangle the 

 original ' triple ' tradition borne witness to by tho three 



synoptic* ; lie finds that Mark u of earlier date than 

 Matthew, and contains the earliest Greek tradition, iUelf 

 a translation of the very early Aramaic tradition. Dr 

 Salmon argues for a form of the I 'r-evangelium hypothec!* ; 

 he thinks the theory of a common jUn-i-k original is 

 required by the verbal coincidences, and by the common 

 citations of the Old Testament Mark's gospel represent* 

 tin- original source most fully, but was probably latest in 

 publication, and ceitainly not copied eith<-r by Matthew 

 or by Luke. Dr Westcott in his Intnxluction to tlie 

 .V ,1,1,1 of the Gospeli (1861; 7th ed. 1888), which un- 

 fortunately has not been brought down to date, argues 

 for the oral hypothesis. This theory is also that of 

 Alford. Of the borrowing hypothesis the latest and 

 ablest exponent is Dr Pfleiderer, who in his Urc.hrixten- 

 tliiini (1887) shows the priority of Mark, but thinks that 

 Matthew depended chiefly on Luke. For detailed study 

 of the relations of the synoptics, Rnshbrooke's Sitmt/i- 

 ticon ( 1880 ), which gives all the textual facts with graphic 

 completeness, may be characterised as indispensable. 

 Compare also Rushbrooke and Abbott's little manual 

 entitled Common Tradition i /'// Xinmptical Gospels in 

 the Text of the Revised Version ( 1884). 



Gosport ( ' God's port ' ), a market-town and 

 seaport of England, in the county of Hants, stands 

 on the western shore of Portsmouth harbour, and 

 directly opposite Portsmouth, with which it is con- 

 nected by a floating bridge. Here are an exten- 

 sive iron-foundry for the manufacture of anchors 

 and chain -cables, naval powder-magazines, several 

 barracks, the Royal Clarence victualling yard, 

 which contains a brewery, a biscuit-baking estab- 

 lishment worked entirely bv steam, and numerous 

 storehouses, and Haslar Hospital (q.v. ). The 

 town has also some sail-making and yacht-build- 

 ing, and considerable coasting trade. Pop. (1881) 

 12,343; (1891) 15,457; with Alverstoke, 25,452. 



Gossamer, a light filamentous substance 

 which often fills the atmosphere to a remarkable 

 degree during fine weather in the latter part of 

 autumn, or is spread over the whole face of the 

 ground, stretching from leaf to leaf, and from plant 

 to plant, loaded with entangled dew-drops, which 

 glisten and sparkle in the sunshine. Various 

 opinions were formerly entertained concerning the 

 nature and origin of gossamer, but it is now suffi- 

 ciently ascertained to be produced by small spiders, 

 not, however, by any single species, but by several, 

 not improbably many, species ; whilst it is also 

 said to be produced by young and not by mature 

 spiders, a circumstance which, if placed beyond 

 doubt, would help to account for its appearance 

 at a particular season of the year. The production 

 of gossamer by spiders was first demonstrated by 

 the observations of Dr Hulse and Dr Lister in the 

 17th century; but these observations did not for 

 a long time meet with due regard and credit, par- 

 ticularly amongst the naturalists of continental 

 Europe. It is not yet well known if the gossamer 

 spread over the surface of the earth is produced by 

 the same species of spider which produces that 

 seen floating in the air, or falling as if from the 

 clouds. Why gossamer threads or webs are pro- 

 duced bv the" spiders at all is also a question not 

 very easily answered. That they are meant merely 

 for entangling insect prey does not seem probable ; 

 the extreme eagerness which some of the small 

 spiders known to produce them show for water to 

 drink has led to the supposition that the dew- 

 drops which collect on them may le one of the 

 ol.jeets of the formation of those on the surface of 

 the ground, whilst it has been also supposed that 

 they may afford a more rapid and convenient mode 

 of transit from place to place than the employment 

 of the legs of the animal. As to the go^aim-rs in 

 the air, conjecture is still more at a loss. They 

 are certainly not accidentally wafted up from the 

 ground, as 'might be supposed ; the spiders which 

 produce them are wafted up along with them ; but 



