in detail, and in that the language is almost coincident with that of the narrative in the Gospels (1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 23-26).1

The Epistle to the Hebrews.

iv. St. JOHN.

The Epistle to the Hebrews touches on each of the great features in the Saviour's life, as His incarnation (ii. 9 ff.), His descent from Judah (vii. 14), His temptation (ii. 18; iv. 15), His consecration to His ministry (v. 5), His humiliation (ii. 9 ff) and sufferings (v. 8), His agony (v. 7, with peculiar details), and crucifixion (vi. 6) outside the walls (xiii. 12), and His exaltation to the right hand of God (viii. 1; ix. 24 ff.).2 The references which St. John makes in his epistles to the circumstances of the life of Christ are exactly accordant with the character of his Gospel. He dwells on the preexistence of the Son of God (iv. 9), and, at the same time, affirms with the most complete distinctness His real incarnation (iv. 2), and bodily presence (i. 1, αἱ χεῖρες ἡμ. ἐψηλάφησαν), and death (i. 7; ii. 2). In the same way, without noticing the resurrection expressly, he speaks of the mediatorial work of Christ in the presence of the Father (ii. 1), and His future "coming in the flesh" (2 Ep. 7, ¿pxóμevov). The beginning and close of the Lord's ministry, His baptism and death, are shown to be mysteriously united, inwardly in the completion of a divine testimony, and outwardly in one of the last incidents of the Passion (v. 6). In St. John the spiritual significance is extended over the literal, but a foundation of historic details lies at the foundation of the higher lesson.

The connection of the Evangelic narrative with the Apostolic Epistles is not, however, confined to mere allusions. The spirit and tone of the letters presuppose

1 If the text of Luke xxii. 19, 20, be correct, the coincidence is verbal, but the confusion which exists in these verses renders it more than probable

The substance of the Gospels recognized generally in the Epistles.

some such record as

that an interpolation has been made from 1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.

2 Cf. Stanley, Ep. to Corinthians, pp. 586 fr. 2 Ed.

that which is contained in the histories. The substance of the Gospels is an adequate explanation of the form of the first Christian teaching, and it is impossible to conceive of any other. If it be true that scarcely any clear references to the recorded discourses of the Lord are contained in the Epistles, for the parallels to 1 Cor. vii. 10 (Matt. v. 32) and 1 Cor. ix. 14 (Luke x. 4, 7, cf. 1 Tim. v. 18) are at best uncertain, it is no less true that the life and words of Christ are everywhere assumed as the basis of all doctrine. He is Himself wisdom (1 Cor. i. 30), the centre of truth (Eph. iv. 21), "the true" (1 John v. 20); His commandments are absolute (1 Cor. xiv. 27); His words are the decisive rule of "sound" doctrine (1 Tim. vi. 3); His example the one perfect model (1 Pet. ii. 21; Phil. ii. 5; 1 John ii. 6). It is everywhere assumed that the Christian is familiar with the portraiture of his Master, and each of the traits which are preserved in these passing notices is seen in its full expression in the Gospels. The New Testament, as a whole, is a key to the sub-apostolic history; the Gospels, not perhaps in their written but in their oral form, are the key to the Epistles.1

Thus far, then, it has been shown that the characteristic work of the Apostles was preaching, and not Summary. writing; that they were inclined to this form of teaching by character and training, no less than by their special commission; that the first "Gospel" was consequently an oral message, and not a written record; that the books of the Old Testament were the sufficient Apostolic Scriptures (cf. 2 Tim. iii. 15). It has been further shown that this oral Gospel of the Apostles was

1 It is remarkable that there is (as far as I know) no direct allusion to the miracles of our Lord in the Epistles; but it is possible (Stanley, 1. c.) that the word dauóvia in 1 Cor. x. 20, 21, which occurs elsewhere in St. Paul only in 1 Tim, iv. 1, may be chosen with a distinct reference to the antagonism so

often brought out in the Lord's life in His "casting out devils." It is a similar fact, that in the writings of the apostolic fathers there are (I believe) no allusions to the miracles of the Apostles. The omission in both cases arises from the nature of the writings.

historic; that the Apostles were expressly declared to be witnesses of the whole ministry of Christ; that their preaching rested on the details of His life; that their letters presuppose an acquaintance with the facts of the Gospel, and preserve such an outline of its contents as is filled up in our Gospels. It remains still to inquire whether there is any direct evidence for connecting our present Gospels with the oral cycle of evangelic facts which is thus seen to have existed; and whether the theory of a common oral origin is consistent with the peculiarities of form which they exhibit.

II. The written Gospels.

1. Distinctly connected with the Apostolic preaching.

On the first point early testimony is explicit and uniform. Each of the first three Gospels is distinctly connected by adequate evidence with the previous preaching of Apostles, as being intended to supply a permanent record of that which was before only traditional. The written Gospels are acknowledged in history to be the last stage of the Apostolic preaching, the preparation for the passage into a new age.

a

(a) St. MARK on the evidence of Papias; and

The earliest account of the origin of a "Gospel" is that which Papias has given on the authority of the elder John. Papias was himself a "direct hearer" of this John, and John was 66 disciple of the Lord," if the text of Papias be correct, and, at any rate, contemporary with the later period of the Apostolic age. "This also, then, was the statement of the elder. Mark having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned (unμóvevσe);3

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. Routh, Rell. prefer the second rendering as more Sacr. i. pp. 13 ff.

2 This word is ambiguous, like areuvnuóvevoe below, and may mean "remembered," or "mentioned." It is used in both senses in the chapter of Eusebius in which the quotation occurs. The first sense is that in which it is commonly taken here, but after further consideration I am inclined now to

consistent with the other forms in

which the tradition is preserved. A passage of Eusebius (Dem. Ev. iii. 5), however, seems to favor the other rendering in the second case: Пéтрos oùdè καθῆκεν ἐπὶ τὴν εὐαγγελίου γραφὴν δι ̓ εὐλαβείας ὑπεροχήν τούτου Μάρκος γνώριμος καὶ φοιτητὴς γεγονὼς ἀπομνημονεῦσαι λέγεται τὰς τοῦ Πέτρου

though he did not [record] in order that which was either said or done by Christ (οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα). For the neither heard the Lord nor followed (apηkodovIŋσev) Him; but subsequently, as I said [attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the wants [of his hearers], but not as making a connected narrative of the Lord's discourses (wσTEρ σívτaέiv τῶν Κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λόγων. Αll. λογίων). So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars (eva γράψας) as he narrated them (ἀπεμνημόνευσεν); for he took heed to one thing, to omit nothing of things he heard, and to make no false statement in [his account of] them.”

This most important testimony notices the three points on which stress has been already laid, the historic character of the oral Gospel, the special purpose with which it was framed, the fragmentariness of its contents; and it was on such an oral basis that our present Gospel of St. Mark is said to have been founded, according to the evidence of one who must have known the Apostles.

later writers.

Later writers, partly as it seems from an independent tradition, and partly from this statement of Papias, repeat the same general statement of the relation of St. Mark to St. Peter with various differences of detail. Irenæus defines more exactly the time of the publication of the Gospel, though the reading is uncertain. "After the decease (odov, cf. 2 Pet. i. 15) of these (Peter and Paul), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." Clement of Alexandria records, as a tradition of the elders of former

1

περὶ τῶν πράξεων τοῦ Ἰησοῦ διαλέ- Η. Ε. v. 8. The reading, μετὰ τὴν ξεις . . . . πάντα γὰρ τὰ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τούτου (sc. τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγ τοῦ Πέτρου διαλέξεων εἶναι λέγεται γελίου) ἔκδοσιν (Cramer, Cat. in Marc. άпоμνημμоνεúμμатa. Comp. also Clem. p. 264) is worthy of notice, as the date Alex. ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 14. . . . . TOP is not consistent with the other acΜάρκον μεμνημένον τῶν λεχθέντων counts. Elsewhere Irenæus calls Mark ἀναγράψαι τὰ εἰρημένα. . . . interpres et sectator (i. e. àcóλovDOS) 1 Iren. adv. Hær. iii. 1. Cf. Euseb. Petri (iii. 10, 6).

....

time” (παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων), an account, which, though very similar to that of Papias, appears to be distinct from it. "[It is said] that when Peter had publicly preached (kηpúέavтos) the word in Rome, and declared the Gospel by inspiration (πνεύματι ἐξειπόντος τὸν Aoyov), those who were present, being many, urged Mark, as one who had followed him from a distant time, and remembered what he said, to record (ávaypáva) what he stated (rà cipnuéva); and that he, having made his Gospel, gave it to those who requested him; and that Peter, when he was aware of this, took pains neither to hinder him nor to encourage him in the work (προτρεπτικῶς μήτε κωλῦσαι μÝTE πρоτρÉασJai)." Origen says still more expressly that "Mark made his Gospel as Peter guided him (ipnyýσato).” Tertullian, in like manner, remarks that "the Gospel of Mark is maintained to be Peter's, whose interpreter he was, . . . . for it is possible that that which scholars publish should be regarded as their master's work." 3

1

The tradition was repeated in later times, but generally in the later form which Eusebius gave to it, according to which St. Peter expressly "sanctioned the writing [of Mark] for the use of the Church," in accordance with a divine revelation; a statement which is at direct variance with the authority which Eusebius quotes, and internally improbable.*

1 Clem. Alex. Fragm. Hypotyp. p. 1016 P. Euseb. H. E. vi. 14. So also Adumbr. in Pet. Ep. I. p. 1007; Marcus Petri sectator palam prædicente Petro evangelium Romæ coram quibusdam Cæsareanis equitibus et multa Christi testimonia proferente, penitus ut possent quæ dicebantur memoriæ commendari, scripsit ex his quæ Petro dicta sunt evangelium quod secundum Marcum vocitatur.

The false references which Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15) and Jerome (de virr. illustr. 8) make to this passage, as though St. Peter did confirm the Gospel by special

revelation, are evidently later embellishments of the tradition.

2 Comm. in Matt. i. Euseb. H.E. vi. 25. 3 Contr. Marc. iv. 5.

To these writers Justin M. may be added, who speaks of "the memoirs (añoμvnμoveúμaтa) of Peter" with an obvious reference to St. Mark; Dial. c. 106. Hist. of N. T. Canon, pp. 130 f.

4 The later writers are quoted by Credner, Einl. p. 113 ff.

In another place Eusebius (H. E. ii. 16) represents St. Mark as "preaching himself in Egypt the Gospel which he composed."