Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/865

Rh >r- 11 ANALYs1s.] and said, “ Receive ye the holy breath” (or Spirit)—at the same time connecting with this highest gift the highest activity for which a human soul can he inspired by God, the faculty of forgiving sins. It is probable that the Gospel originally ended at xx. 31: “But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name.” This is a most appropriate termination ; and what follows bears every appearance of being an appendix added by the author, describing a miraculous draught of 153 fishes, and a meal of Jesus with seven of the disciples, followed by a dialogue between Jesus and Peter, in which the death of the latter is predicted, and the erroneous tradition that the beloved disciple should not die is shown to be baseless. Three inferences seem probable from this last narrative :— (1) that there had been at Ephesus a tradition (arising perhaps from the extreme old age of John and from some such expression as is recorded in John xxi. 22) that John would not die till the Lord had appeared; (2) that John had died when this account was written (for if he were living and past his ninetieth year, at a time when the clmreh daily expected the coming of the Lord, the Ephesian Chris- tians would not have needed any explanation or softening away of a prediction which would seem to them very likely to be fulﬁlled); but (3) if John was dead, it must seem that the words “ we know” could 11ot have been added (as they might be supposed to have been added, according to the Muratorian legend) by Andrew and Philip, who in all probability died before John died ; and if John was dead, it must seem that the words would not have been added by any elders of Ephesus representing the genera- tion after John ; for how could they—who stood on a footing altogether subordinate and inferior in point of reputation, and with no opportunities of information— have ventured to ratify the testimony of the “beloved disciple'!” It is more easy to arrive at negative than at positive results, when evidence is so slight; but it seems probable that the author, attempting to give the spiritual essence of the gospel of Christ, as a gospel of love, and assigning the Ephesian Gospel to the beloved disciple who had presided over the Ephesian church, by way of honour and respect (for the same reasons which induced the author of the 2d Epistle of Peter to assign that Epistle to the leading apostle), and being at the same time conscious that the book (though representing the Ephesian doctrine generally, and in part the traditions of John the apostle, as well as those of Andrew, Philip, Aristion, and John the elder) did 11ot represent the exact words and teaching of the dis- ciple —added the words “ We know, the,” partly as a kind of [mprinmtur of Andrew, Philip, and the rest; partly in order to imply that other traditions besides those of John are set forth in the book ; partly to characterize the book as a Gospel of broader basis and greater authority than the less spiritual traditions issuing from non—apostolie authors, which our evangelist desired to correct or supplement. N or is it in the least unlikely that this Gospel does represent the teaching of Andrew and Philip, and Aristion and John the elder, as well as that of John. If Papias of Hierapolis gathered up the traditions of these apostles and elders, why not also our author, writing in Ephesus perhaps several years before Papias? It is assuredly not for nothing that the name of “Matthew,” mentioned in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is not found in the Fourth Gospel; nor is it without signiﬁcance that the Gospel begins and ends with an inner apostolic circle. The “twelve” are indeed mentioned, but as in the background. The beloved disciple, Andrew and Peter, Philip and Natliaiiael,—tl1ese, and these only, are GOSPELS our evangelist records that Jesus breathed on His disciples ‘ 8-1 1 Thomas, Nathanael and the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples (presumably the same list as those above, with the addition of James, the son of Zebedee, and Thomas), are mentioned as alone admitted to the sacred meal which closes the Gospel. This fact marks the whole character of the book; it is esoteric and eclectic, and desiguedly modiﬁes the impression produced by the tradition previously recorded by the synoptics. The criticisrii of the first three Gospc7s.——For fourteen centuries the church was content to follow Augustine (Dc Conscnsu E1:angclist- arzmz, i. 4) in believing that Mark was “as it were the humble companion (pcdisscquus) and abridger " of Matthew. Towards the end of the 18th century this dogma was shaken, and two different hypotheses were put forward: (1) that the evangelists had borrowed from one another, either Matthew from Mark, or Mark from Luke, or even (so capricious and baseless were the hypotheses which now started into cxistcnce) Matthew and Mark from Luke; (2) that all the three Gospels depended upon an original and common Gospel. The first of these hypotheses may for convenience be called the “borrowing” hypothesis; the second may be called the “ traditional” hypothesis. Eichhorn was the ﬁrst to systematize the “ traditional” hypothesis, maintaining (1794) that the original tradition was a written Aramaic Gospel, known to the three synoptists, but afterwards (1804) so far modifying his views as to recognize that the Aramaic tradition had been translated into Greek, and passed through several documentary stages, before it assumed the form preserved in the triple version of our synoptists. Inside the circle of those who maintained the traditional hypo- thesis there now arose inncr divisions upon the question, which evangelist most closely approximated to the “ original” tradition. Eichhorn had assigned (1804) the priority to Matthew, Giiitz (1812) to Mark. Moreover, a new form of the hypothesis was shaped out by Schlcicrrnachcr (1817), who maintained that our Gospels were composed on the basis of a number of disconnected documents; while Gieseler (1818) showed that it must have been, in any case, oral tradition which served the needs of the earliest disciplcs,—— tradition stcrcotyped by time, and reduced to some kind of similar pattern before being committed to writing by the synoptists. Still no certain conclusions were arrived at. De Vcttc (beginning from 1826) assumed a common oral tradition for Matthew and Luke, and treated Mark as an cpitomizer. Crcdncr (1836) joined Schleier- macher in tracing our Gospels back to a collection of words of the Lord, which he supposed Matthew to have combined with the oldest
 * Gospel, viz., Mark; similarly Lachmaun (1835). Block (1862-1866)

relapsed into Griesbach"s view (1784-1790) that Mark was based on Matthew and Luke. All these conflicting hypotheses might naturally induce those who had not themselves eloscly studied the synoptic texts to believe that the truth of the matter was unattainable, and that, in any case, the synoptic narratives (not being the records of eye—witnesscs, nor being preserved in unaltered documents written contc.mporanc- ously with or soon after the events) must necessarily be untrust- worthy. Accordingly, in 1835, Strauss maintained that the whole synoptic narrative was legendary or othcrvise untrustworthy. The defenders of the synoptists against Strauss found little consideration, and the hypothesis that Mark contained the original Gospel was dis- crcditcd by the cxtravagance of its supporters. In 1846-7 Schweg- ler and Baur, recurring to the “ borrowing hypothesis," issued it in a new form as an " adapting hypothesis.’ The original Gospel was now supposed to be the Gospel of the Hebrews (see p. 818 above), which was imagined to contain in all its bare truthfulness the Ehionite doctrine of the early church. Matthew combined this original J evish-minded document with some other document of more liberal sentiments. Luke was at first a Pauline protest against Judaism, but was afterwards supplemented, in a conciliatory spirit, with passages coloured with Ebionitic and J cwish thought ; Mark was treated as a neutral and colourless adapter of Matthew and Luke,—‘‘ pedissequus ct hreviator_” This was the Tubingen doctrine, sometimes called the “ tendency hypothesis," because the adaptations were supposed to proceed from theological “tendencies. ” Ewald (beginning from 1849) combated the Tiibingen theory, maintaining that (1) there was an original Gospel, perhaps composed by the evangelist Philip ; (2) in addition to this, there was a collec- tion of “ logia ” ruadc by Matthew; (3) and, out of both thcsc docu- merits, or by an author acquainted with these documents, was formed Mark, or, at all events, Mark in its original shape; (4) Matthew con- tains (1) (2) and (3), together with extracts from a “ book of higher history”; (5) three anonymous evangelists revived this narrative, which received its last form at the hands of Luke (see the account of Ewald’s theory in 'estcott's Gospels, p. 203). From this time the eompilatory and artistic character of Luke began to be general] y recognized ; and even the Tiihingcn school gave up the theory that Mark had adaptcd Luke. Hilgenfcld, “in a five years’ litcrary struggle with Baur” (see Holtzmann, in St-hcnkcl's L’(bcl-Lr.‘.r1'co7I, mentioned as called by Jesus in the begimlillgi Peter and 1 art. "Evangelien"), proved Mark's independence. liiistliu (1853) X. —— rc-6 Criticism of synoptic Gospels.