680
VI. Destination and Purpose. — ^Tradition repre- that Matthew (xxvi, 10) seems to say that Jesus sents the Gospel as written primarily for Roman cleansed the Temple the day of His triumiihal entiy Christians (see above, II), and mtemal evidence, if it into Jerusalem and cm^ed the ^ tree only on the does not quite prove the truth of this view, is alto- following day, while Mark assigns ooth events to the gether in accord with it. The language and customs following day, and places the cursing of the fi^ tree be- of the Jews are supposed to be unknown to at least fore the cleansing of the Temple; and while Mattiiew some of the readers. Hence terms like Boanipyh (iii, seems to say that the e£Fect of the curse and the aston- 17), Kopfiap (vii, 11), i<f>^d (vii, 34) are interpreted; ishment of the disciples thereat followed immediatdy, Jewish customs are explained to illustrate the nar- Mark says that it was only on the following day the rative (vii, 3-4; xiv, 12); the situation of the Mount disciples saw that the tree was withered from the roots of Olives in relation to the Temple is pointed out (xiii, (Matt., xxi, 12-20; Mark, xi, 11-21). It is often said, 3); the genealogy of Christ is omittea; and the O. T. too, that Luke departs from Mark's arrangement in is quot^ (Hily once (i, 2-3; xv, 28, is omitted by B, K, placingthe disclosure of the traitor after the institution A, C, D, X). Moreover, the evidence, as far as it of the Blessed Eucharist, but if, as seenos certain, the goes, points to Roman readers. Pilate and his office traitor was referred to many times during the Supper, are supposed to be known (xv, 1 — cf. Matt., xxvii, 2; this difference may be more apparent than real (Mark, Luke, ill, 1); other coins are reduced to their value xiv, 18-24; Luke, xxii, 19-23). And not only is there in Roman money (xii, 42); Simon of Cyrenc is said this considerable agreement as to subject-matter and to be the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21), a arrangement, but in manv paasa^, some of consider- fact of no importance in itself, but mentioned prob- able length, there is such coincidence of words and ably because Kufus was known to the Roman Chris- phrases that it is impossible to believe the accounts to tians (Rom., xvi, 13); finally Latinisms, or uses of be wholly independent. On the other hand, side by vulgar Greek, such as must have been particularly side with this coincidence, there is strange and fre- common in a cosmopolitan city like Ilome, occur quently recurrine divergence. "Let any passage more frequently than in the other Gospels (v, 9, 15; common to the three Synoptists be put to the test vi, 37; XV, 39, 44; etc.). The phenomena presented will be much as follows;
The Second Gospel has no such statement of its first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words
purpose as is found m the Third and the Fourth (Luke, identical; then as manv wholly distinct; then two
1, 1-3; John, xx, 31). The Tubingen critics long clauses or more expressed in the same words, but differ-
regarded it as a Tendency" writinK» composed for ing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and
the purpose of mediating between ana reconciling the n<^ in the third; then several words identical; then a
Petrine and Pauline parties in the early Church, clause or two not only wholly distinct, but apparently
Other Rationalists have seen in it an attempt to allay inconsistent; and so forth; with recurrences of the
the disappointment of Christians at the delay of same arbitrary and anonialous alterations, ooinci-
Christ's Coming, and have held that its object was to d^ices, and transpositions ( Alford, " Greek Tseta-
set forth the Lord's earthly Ufe in such a manner as to menf , I, prol., 5).
show that apart from His glorious return He had sufiS- The question then arises, how are we to explain this ciently attested the Messianic character of His mis- very remarkable relation of the three Gospels to each sion. But there is no need to have recourse to Ra- other, and, in particular, for our present purpose, how tionalists to learn the purpose of the Gospel. Hie are we to explain the relation of Mark to the other two? Fathers witness that it was written to put into per- For a full discussion of this most important Hterary mancnt form for the Roman Church the discourses of problem see Synoptics. It can barely be touched St. Peter, nor is there reason to doubt this. And the nere, but cannot be wholly passed over in silence. At Gospel itself shows clearly enough that Mark meant, the outset may be put aside, in the writer's opinion, by the selection he made from Peter's discourses, to the theory of the common dependence of the three prove to the Roman Christians, and still more perhaps (kNspels upon oral tradition, for, except in a veiy to those who might think of becoming Christians, that mooified form, it is incapable by itself alone of ex- Jesus was the Almighty Son of God. To this end, in- plaining all the phenomena to be accounted for. It stead of quoting prophecy, as Matthew does to prove seems impossible that an oral tradition could account that Jesus was the Messias, he sets forth in ^phic for the extraordinary similari^ between, e. e. Mark, language Christ's power over all nature, as evidenced ii, 10-11, and its parallels. Literaiv dependence or by His miracles. The dominant note of the whole connexion of some kind must be admitted, and the Gospel is sounded in the very first verse: The be- question is, what is the nature of that dependence or ginning of the ffospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God" (the connexion? Does Mark depend upon Matthew, or upon words " Son of God" are removed from the text by both Matthew and Luke, or was it prior to and utilised Westcott and Hort, but quite improperly — cf. Kna- in both, or are all three, perhaps, connected through benb., "Comm. in Marc.", 23), and the Evangelist's their common dependence upon earlier documents or main purpose throughout seems to be to prove the through a combination of some of these causes? Li truth of this title and of the centurion's verdict: " In- reply, it is to }>e noted, in the first place, that all early deed this man was (the) son of God" (xv, 39). tradition represents St. Matthew's Gospel as the first
VII. Relationto Matthew AND Luke. — The three written; and this must be understood of our present Synoptic Gospels cover to a large extent the same Matthew, for Euscbius, with the work of Papias before ground. Mark, however, has nothing corresponding him, had no doubt whatever that it was our present to the first two chapters of Matthew or the first two of Matthew which Papias held to have been written in Luke, venr little to represent most of the long dis- Hebrew (Aramaic). The order of the Gospels, accord- courses of Christ in Matthew, and perhaps nothing ing to the Fathers and early writers who refer to quite oarallel to the long section in Luke, ix, 5I-xviii, the subject, was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Clem- 14. 6n the other hano, he has very little that is not ent of Alexandria is alone in signifying that Luke found in either or both of the other two Synoptists, the wrote before Mark (Euseb., " Hist. Eccl. , VI, xiv, in amount of matter that is peculiar to the Second Uos- P. G., XX, 552), and not a single ancient writer held pel, if it were all put together, amounting onlv to less that Mark wrote before Matthew. St. Augustine, than sixty verses. In the arrangement of the com- assuming the priority of Matthew, attempted to ao- mon matter the three Gospels differ veiy considerably count for the relations of the first two Gospels by up to the point where Herod Antipas is said to have holding that the second is a compendium of the first heard of the fame of Jesus (Matt., xiii, 58; Mark, vi, {Matihanim sccutus ianquam jyedisequus et breviaUfr — 13; Luke, ix, 0). From this point onward the order "De Cons«'ns. Evang.' , I. ii, in P. L., XXXIV). of events Is practically the same in all three, except But, as soon as the serious study of the Synoptic
