SECTION III

origin of the gospels in particular

The various factors which operated in the production of the Gospels, took various forms, exerted various degrees of power, and consequently produced various kinds of interaction in the life of each separate Evangelist. Hence the sum of their effects could not but be different in each particular case. The total sum of effects is formed by the motive, the plan, of each Gospel, and by the germ which gives to each its own special form of development.

The simplest motive was the cause of the Gospel of Mark. We here behold an Evangelist who deals rather in vivid and copious representation than in profound doctrines and views, seizing with the ardour and animation of youth upon the Gospel tradition, and depicting in lively traits the ministerial life of Christ. But the tradition of the Gospel history which guided him, had already taken, through the statements and views of Peter, a special form exactly corresponding to his requirements; for the style of this versatile Evangelist’s narrative is, from the very first, determined by the lively views of this ardent and congenial, but stronger apostle, who, equally with himself, displays a preference for the concrete. Besides, this Evangelist was urged to write his Gospel by Romans, and indeed by single members of the Roman Church. The Roman Church, as such, must have expected from him a statement of the facts of the life of Jesus; but the wish of individuals, as such, would impel him more especially to a presentation of his matter in pictorial scenes; and the result would be just such a Gospel as we have in the second. Mark narrates events in his own manner; his ardent and lively imagination is everywhere manifested in his Gospel. He derived his information from the apostolic discourses of Peter, which dispensed with the chronological connection of events for the sake of blending them with doctrinal announcements. Hence a strict historical sequence is wanting in this Gospel.¹ His narrative was written for a circle of Roman Christians; hence he confined himself so much to the concrete, and made use of many Latin words and phrases. From the circumstance that his inducement to write arose from a private circle, the double conclusion of his Gospel may be in some measure explained. His communications, that is to say, were gradually formed: how naturally, then, might a cessation take place towards the close, and a subsequent completion be added, after the dissemination of the former communications! Criticism, in its oscillations between opposite extremes, has at one time too highly estimated, at another too much depreciated, this Evangelist and his Gospel in comparison with the other Gospels. Even Augustine caused this Gospel to be misconceived, by regarding Mark as ‘the follower and abridger’ (pedissequus et breviator) of Matthew.² Euthymius Zigabenus pronounces a similar opinion.³ In modern times Michaelis has remarked, that ‘Mark wrote with Matthew’s Gospel in his hand;’ and afterwards, that Luke also made use of it. Hereupon Griesbach sought to prove⁴ that ‘the whole Gospel of Mark, with the exception of a few verses, is derived from Matthew and Luke.’ Saunier, in his work über die Quellen des Evangeliums des Markus, 1825, Theile zur Biographie Jesu, p. 34, Strauss in the Leben Jesu, vol. i. p. 78, and others, have embraced this opinion. Even Ammon agrees on the whole with this view of the Gospels.

Erroneous notions of the second Gospel were first attacked in a doctrinal point of view by Mill and Wolf. When a contradiction was felt to exist between the doctrine of inspiration and the assumption that Mark was a mere ‘follower’ of Matthew, such a persuasion involved the true notion, that an Evangelist, as such, was too truly invested with the dignity of a definite, an inspired, and an apostolic life, too powerfully impelled to work in the strength and blessing of his own special spiritual gift, to exhibit the mere lifeless performance of a compiler or copyist. It was subsequently owned, that the Gospel of Mark could not be wholly accounted for by that of Matthew, but that it assumed a more comprehensive evangelical tradition. Koppe especially embraced this view. The recognition of the peculiarity of this Gospel was gradually prepared for, as may be remarked in Schott’s Isagoge, &c., p. 90. Nay, Mark was indemnified for the misconception he had experienced, by this view being surpassed, and his Gospel made the basis of those of Matthew and Luke, which has been done in our days by both Wilke⁵ and Weisse,⁶ after the precedent of Herder and Storr. Finally, credit for the greatest things has been given to this Evangelist, by attributing to him the Apocalypse also.⁷

That the originality of Mark makes him independent of Matthew and Luke, may be seen from his omissions, not to mention the characteristic vividness of delineation pervading his whole work. On the other hand, however, the originality of the second Gospel can derogate nothing from that of the first and third, which not only surpass Mark in extent, i.e., in reporting certain circumstances which he has omitted, but also in the more significant and profound sequence and tone of their communications.

Nothing material can be urged against the tradition of the fathers, according to which Mark composed his Gospel at Rome, about the time of Peter’s martyrdom. The variety of their statements may perhaps be accounted for by the various editions of this Gospel. According to Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, Mark composed his Gospel during the life of Peter; hence the edition which Eusebius followed was one wherein the conclusion, chap. 16:9-20, was wanting. Irenæus makes the Evangelist write after the death of Peter; consequently he used a later edition, which included the conclusion.

While Mark sketched vivid pictures from the Gospel history from a Petrine point of view for Roman Christians, Matthew undertook the task of composing a Gospel for Hebrew Christians. His disposition and official vocation equally impelled him to such a work. He could not but lead his fellow-believers in the Old and New Testaments to the heights of the theocratic standpoint, and show them the fulfilment (the πλήρωσις) of the Old Testament in the New. Hence his Gospel is, as to matter, filled with references to the Old Testament; as to form, with Hebraisms. Hence he is constrained to represent the Messiah in the great acts of His historical manifestation, and so to arrange them as to make them act, as far as possible, in their totality as credentials of His dignity. Hence so prominent a position is occupied in the beginning of this Gospel by the genealogy, and at its close by the announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem. In striking contrast, however, to that genuine Israelitism, the line of Messianic life appearing in the person and institution of Christ, must that false tradition of Israelite nature, viz., Pharisaism, be exhibited. This foundation of the Gospel of Matthew was from the first so firmly laid, that its Greek compiler could alter nothing essential, without intentionally destroying the execution of this significant design.⁸

The birth-place of this Gospel must at all events have been Palestine. The date of its origin is probably that when, by reason of the storm then gathering over Jerusalem, the Christians began, according to their Master’s injunctions, to leave the Jewish commonwealth, sunk as it was in delusion, and to emigrate chiefly to Pella.⁹

Luke wrote his Gospel under the influence of his Pauline tendencies. Hence he stood in direct opposition, not only to inimical Judaism, but also to morbid judaized Christianity. This standpoint gave him a special sense for all those incidents in the Gospel history, in which the calling of the whole Gentile world into the kingdom of God appears. Hence a stronger feature of catholicity pervades his Gospel. It also satisfactorily proves that the supposed discoveries, according to which this Gospel contains Ebionite views needing to be expunged, are entire failures. Luke wrote the history of the divine Friend, the Shepherd, the Saviour, of the human race. In carrying out this task, a number of written notices of the life of Jesus were at his disposal. Some of these pieces he allowed to produce their full effect, by incorporating them in his work without materially altering them. But he could not feel himself bound, in the task of editing such documents as had come to his knowledge, to follow exactly the succession of events in the Gospel history from its commencement, as he certainly might have done, partly by the help of tradition, and partly perhaps by that of his own memory (παρακολουθεῖν ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, chap. 1:3).¹⁰ His peculiarity has imparted its tinge to his whole Gospel, though we cannot but feel how differently he would have written, if he had not been guided by the distinct impress of Gospel tradition.¹¹ He wrote his Gospel, first, for Theophilus, a Christian of some consideration, who at the same time represents, in his view, a class of Christians who, both by education and the solicitude they evinced on the subject, had a better right than many others to require such a history of Christ’s life as, being founded upon accurate information, might afford them certainty (ἵνα ἐπνγνῷς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν). When, then, Luke promises Theophilus that he would write the Gospel history in order, καθεξῆò, we are led to expect that he meant thereby the accurately ascertained chronological sequence. But when we view the actual state of the case, and remark that he observes this historical sequence only in general, and not in his delineation of Christ’s ministry; that, on the contrary, he brings prominently forward another kind of order, namely, that of Christ’s continual journeyings; we cannot but suppose that this was the order which he intended from the first. Other writers of Gospels had already attempted to set forth in order (ἀνατάξασθαι) the Gospel history, according to certain principles of arrangement: this, however, was to be his principle, to communicate to Theophilus the Gospel history, in a previously determined order, of which the journeys of Christ should form the leading idea.¹²

The date of this Gospel is probably an early one: perhaps about that of St Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. At all events, it is antecedent to that of the Acts of the Apostles. There must, however, always be a difficulty in supposing that Luke discontinued this latter book at a place where he might have carried it on much further, namely, at the time when Paul had lived two years at Rome.

The Evangelist John had, according to a tradition which there is no reasonable ground for doubting, the synoptical Gospels before him, when he composed his own. Hence he did not concern himself with directly communicating such parts of the Gospel history as were already known. But the history of the life of Jesus had, through the operation of the recalling Spirit, become to his profound and delicate mind, more than to any other apostle, the history of the Incarnate Logos, the centre of the ideal world. That centre of civilization¹³ in which it was his lot to represent the Church of Christ, induced him to form his confession of Christ into an ideal Christology. He was, however, impelled to this full development of his views by the twofold manner in which the worldly spirit, which had entered the Church, had deformed Christian doctrine; hence its mature form resulted from its contest with the first beginnings of Ebionitism and Gnosticism. The Evangelist had consequently the opportunity of forming his Christology with special reference to the inimical contrasts which it had to encounter in the world. Hence arose that fundamental idea of his Gospel, which has already been stated. If the synoptical Evangelists had spared him the task of narrating Gospel facts, they had, on the other hand, prepared another task for him, by their neglect of chronological sequence in their several delineations of the Gospel history. In this respect, therefore, John was induced not only to give it decided prominence in his Gospel, but also to depict more copiously the commencement of Christ’s ministry, which his predecessors had but slightly touched on. It was peculiar to his mind to view the general in the prominence of the particular. Hence the more important incidents of the Gospel history, in which, on the one hand, the reception which the light of the world experienced from ‘His own,’ and, on the other, the repulse by which ‘the darkness’ excluded itself there from, were most decidedly expressed and carried out, occupied the foreground in this view. This ideal Christology, the ideal and real life of Christ represented, with reference to both the friendly and inimical treatment it met with in the world, in an orderly succession of its most striking incidents, formed the plan of his Gospel. John could not have arrived in Ephesus before he had reached an advanced age. Here, however, he found himself within the influence of just such inducements, whether arising from favourable or opposing circumstances, as were calculated to mature within his mind the form of his Gospel.

───♦───

Notes

According to the conclusions at which criticism has as yet arrived, the Evangelists appear before us as figures which, like mysterious spirits, freely and easily pass through its attacks, because critics are entangled in endless and often mortal contests with each other. Thus, at one time, it is said that the author of Matthew’s Gospel not only frequently copied from Mark, and was thus externally dependent upon him, but also frequently misunderstood him, as being wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew manner of thought and expression (comp. Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Markus, p. 47); that he has irrevocably forfeited the credit of an eye-witness (Strauss, Leben Jesu, ii. 309); nay, that his Gospel, in its present form, is no apostolical testimony at all (Credner, Einleitung, p. 95).

Then, again, the collection of sayings by the Apostle Matthew, said to form the basis of the first Gospel, is declared to be, with respect to the authenticity, trustworthiness, and genuineness of its communications, in every way equal to the communications of Mark (Weisse, d. evang. Gesch. vol. ii. p. 1); and these sayings are said to have been copied with almost verbal accuracy (Id. vol. i. p. 109). Again, this Gospel, it is asserted, exhibits very plainly the characteristics of its Jewish origin (Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 4). At one time Matthew is looked upon as the author of the Gospel, but the Gospel is considered a fiction (see Bauer, Krit. der evang. Gesch.); at another, the Gospel is credible, and even derived as a translation from the primitive Aramæan Gospel, but has been ascribed, without valid historical ground, to Matthew (see Ammon, die Geschichte des Lebens Jesu, vol. i. p. 61); nay, this Gospel, independently of its pretensions to the authority of an apostle and eye-witness, is placed before those of Mark and Luke (Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, p. 35). Now Mark appears as a compiler, making a selection from Matthew and Luke (Theile, zur Biog. Jesu, p. 34; Strauss, Leben Jesu, vol. i. p. 78), and only a few verses are allowed to be original (Griesbachii, Opusc. vol. ii.). Then, again, Mark is the founder of the whole family of synoptical Gospels (Wilke, Weisse, &c.) His statements are said to be reproduced, after being levelled and flattened, in the other Gospels; his views are independent, his chronological arrangement his own (Hitzig, as above, p. 46). Not only are the synoptical Gospels founded upon his, but the Apocalypse is also his work. With respect to Luke, at one time, there is not sufficient ground for attributing to him the Gospel bearing his name. A doubt is even cast upon the testimony that it was the production of a companion of St Paul. In any case, the companion of St Paul may have composed his work among accumulations of tradition, from which no apostolic influence protected him (Strauss, Leben Jesu, i. 80). Too much honour is done to the author of this work, when the attempt is made to bring any of his statements into harmony with chronology (Id. p. 265). In the case of Luke, historical accuracy is, seriously speaking, entirely out of the question (Weisse, vol. i. p. 90). At another time this same Evangelist is represented as a Christian investigator, whose credit is not diminished but increased by referring his work to the earlier works of original and gifted eye-witnesses of the events (Schleiermacher, Ueber die Schriften des Lukas, xvi.) Again, we cannot mistake the more cultivated Hellenist in him. The tradition, that he committed to writing the Gospel preached by Paul, is strikingly corroborated by comparing certain passages in Paul’s Epistles with parallel passages in this Gospel, especially the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Gieseler, Historisch-kritischer Versuch, p. 124). Finally, the Apostle John is, by a critical bias, gradually removed from the list of Evangelists. According to B. Bauer, the unnamed disciple, who has been supposed to be this apostle, is only a phantom formed by the fourth Evangelist (Kritik, iii. 340). According to Lützelberger, the Gospel itself is infected with crude dualistic assumptions, and is therefore of Manichæan tendency (Die kirchl. Trad. p. 286). According to Gfrörer, on the contrary (Das Heiligthum und die Wahrheit, p. 346), the work of the fourth Evangelist is not only genuine, but he has performed his task ‘as well as could have been expected.’ According to Credner, only an inhabitant of Palestine, an immediate eye-witness and an apostle, only the beloved disciple of the Lord Jesus, only that very John whom Jesus had bound to Himself by the heavenly charm of His teaching, could have been the author of such a Gospel (Einleitung, p. 208).

1) Even Credner, in his Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 123, shares Schleiermacher's view : that the description given of the presbyter John by Papias, according to which Mark did not write τάξει, does not suit our Evangelist. He remarks that this Gospel preserves the same order as Matthew and Luke, and that they therefore who would nevertheless refer the expression of ‘John the presbyter’ to Mark, do at the same time impugn the chronology of Matthew and Luke. At all events, the chronology of Matthew and Luke is corrected by the Gospel of John.

2) De consensu evang. i. 2.

3) Comp. Ammon, die Geschichte des Lebens Jesu, p. 69.

4) Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthei ct Lucœ commentariis decerptum esse demonstratur (Opuse. acad. vol. ii.)

5) Der Urevangelist, oder exeg. krit, Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhaltniss der drei ersten Evangelien, Dresden und Leipzig, 1838.

6) Die evang. Geschichte, vol. i.

7) Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marius und seine Schriften, oder; welcher Johannes hat die Ofenbarung verfasst, Zurich, 1843.

8) Comp. Credner, Einleitung, pp. 62, 63.

9) According to Irenæus, adv. Heres. 8, 11, Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Peal were preaching the Gospel in Rome. This remark points to the same period.

10) Compare Schleiermacher: Ueber die Schriften Lukas, Berlin,'1817. With great penetration and delicate perception, has Schleiermacher pointed out the primitive basis of this Gospel, though he certainly makes the Evangelist play too much the part of a mere compiler.

11) See Credner, 132.

12) Compare, on the introduction to Luke’s Gospel, Gfrörer, die h. Sage, Pt. i. p. 33.

13) The Church tradition according to which the Apostle John exercised the office of bishop and ended his life at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, has been opposed, as being without foundation, by Lützelberger, in his essay Die kirchliche Tradition, &c. This tradition is, however, independently of its own value, accredited by Irenaeus (Contra Her. iii. 3), and still more decidedly by certain ancient writings, in which the Asiatic churches of the second century, in their contentions with the Romish Church concerning Easter, appeal to the authority of the Apostle John. These are, chiefly, the letter of Polykrates, Bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, Bishop of Rome (Euseb, Hist. Eccles. v. 24), and the letter of Irenæus to Victor, according to which Polycarp also appeals to the Apostle John, in opposition to the Romish Bishop Anicetus. What then has Lützelberger to oppose to this? Schwegler (Theol. Jahrbücher von Zeller, No. 2, p. 289) points out as his most important arguments: (1.) An explanation of Gal. ii. 6, according to which, it is said to follow from ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν, that John was already dead when the Epistle to the Galatians was written. (2.) The hypothesis, that by the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved,’ spoken of in the fourth Gospel, we are to understand, not John, but Andrew. Schwegler speedily and completely confutes both these assertions. It is being over scrupulous to suppose, that allowing John to have been Bishop of Ephesus is equivalent to admitting that he failed-to execute his missionary vocation ; for the mission of the apostles was not only to be diffusive over the earth’s surface, but concentrated in its important places.