INTERNAL EVIDENCE.] The only remaining words of the tradition are: “ . . the first day of the week . . . roll(ed) away [i.e., the stone at the opening of the tomb] . . . IIe is not here ; He is risen . . . Galilee . . . I/my fled from the to1nb.” llatthew and Mark continue for a few lines a narrative based 11pon so11ie common tradition; but even here there occurs the confusion mentioned above—Mark, “ as He told you ;” Matthew, “ behold, I told you ;” and the narrative of Mark ends at xvi. 9. The remaining verses of Mark are
- m appendix added by some later editor; and henceforth
the narratives of Matthew and Luke--liaving lost Mark—- preseiit no further traces of agreement. To sum up the contents of the common tradition, it omits the genealogies, miraculous incarnation, and the picturesque details of the infancy; it lays emphasis on the relations between John the Baptist and Jesus ; it contains none of the parables except the sower, the mustard seed, and the wicked husbandmen, and few of the long discourses of Jesus, except an abridged prediction of the second canning. The disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees about the Sabbath, about fasting, about exorcism, about the baptism of John, and the tribute, and Christ the Son of David, and the dialogue with the Sadducees about the resurrection, are very fully given; and so also is the dia- logue with the rich young man. Indeed it is a collection of dizilogucs and anecdotes rather th-an a set treatise of doctrine or biography. The sayings of Jesus recorded in it are short, pithy, and abrupt,‘ and many of them are polemic-al. Only now and then do we find a sentence which goes down deep below all polemies, and reveals a deep-laid spiritual plan. But putting such sentences together we perceive that the Triple Tradition describes a prophet wholly different from any that had before ap- peared in Israel; a prophet who not only (like Isaiah) protested against sabbaths and pm-ifications as ends in themselves, but who also preached the Fatherhood of God in a manner entirely peculiar to Himself, and who set aside the Mosaic law of divorce (Mk. 2;. 2-11). He also in- structed llis disciples to enter into the kingdom as little children (x. 15), and seems to have attached a certain symbolic mystery to childhood as representing Himself (ix. 37). He taught His disciples further to devote their lives to Him, and to ignore all life apart from Him (viii. 34), (“ to confess Christ, to deny themselves”). From the first He claims the power of forgiving sins (ii. 7) ; and, as soon as one of His disciples confessed Him to be the Messiah, He prepared for death, predicting that He should die, but rise again. Then, after prophesying the fall of the temple, and great distress in all nations, He predicted a final triumph for His disciples; and after bequeatliing Himself, His body and His blood, as at a funeral feast, as His final legacy to His disciples, He was arrested and put to death. Several miracles of healing are recorded, and, in addi- tion to these, the exorcism of the Gadarene (in which, however, great confusion is apparent), the stilling of the storm, the feeding of the five thousand, and the transfigura- tion. From the beginning of the discourse on the second coming, Luke diverges more and more from Matthew and
- Iark. After the death of Jesus, Matthew and Mark con-
tinue to agree in words and phrases, but a little confusion is apparent; and the tradition suddenly terminates with- out any record of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples. However we may regret this, it is perhaps what may be naturally expected on the hypothesis that we have before us an early tradition originated at a time when the numerous manifestations of Jesus after His death were still attested by living witnesses ; when as yet it had been ' (_'/. Justin, Apol. I, (Kirchhofer, p. 89), Bpaxefs -re Kai auiv-rope: -nap a-3-roii A6-you 'y¢'y61Iarn. (;‘rOSI’ELS 795 . 1 found impossible to reduce the experiences and impres- sions of those who had seen Hini—impressions necessarily variable and transient, blended with fear and with an ex- citement bordering on ecstasy——to a consistent and histori- cal shape; and when it had not yet been found necessary to define and harden the narrative so as to adapt it for the purpose of meeting doubts and objections. Matthew and Mark, b11t not in Luke, are the following :- (2) the ministering of the angels (Mat. iv. 11 ; Mk. i. 13) ; (3) the calling of the fishermen (Mat. iv. 18-22; Mk. i. 14-20); (4) the murmuring of His friends at N azaret.h (Mat. xiii. 53-57; Mk. vi. 1-4); (5) the influence of Herodias in procuring Jolm’s execu- tion (Mat. xiv. 8-13; Mk. vi. 25-29); (6) the walking on the water (Mat. xiv. 22-28; Mk. vi. 45-51); (7) the disputes with the scribes from Jerusalem (Mat. xv. 1-20; Mk. vii. 1-23); (8) the story of the Syro-Plimnician woman, which is narrated by Matthew and Mark in widely divergent language, but with an almost identical conclusion (.Iat. xv. 21-28; Mk. vii. 24-30); (9) the feeding of the four thousand (Mat. xv. 32-38; Mk. viii. 1-9), and the comparison between this miracle and that of the five thousand (Mat. xvi. 5-12 ; Mk. viii. 14-21) ; (10) the saying of Jesus that Elias had already come (Mat. xvii. 12; Mk. ix. 13); (11) the discussion of the enactments of Moses concerning divorce (Mat. xix. 4-8; Mk. x. 2-9); (12) the saying (but Luke inserts it elsewhere) that “many that are first shall be last” (Mat. xix. 30; Mk. x. 31); (13) the petition of the sons of Zebcdee for the chief places (Mat. xx. 20-28; Mk. x. 35-45); (14) the withering of the fig-tree (Mat. xxi. 18-22; Mk. xi. 13, 14, 20); (15) the introductory question of the lawyer, “Vhieh is the great com- mandment” (Mat. xxii. 36 ; Mk. xii. 28) ; (16) in the discourse on the last day, Luke omits reference to the “ consummation,” mm- -re’Aeia. (Mat), a'uv7eAe?a6a. (Mk.) ; “these things are the begin- ning of troublcs;” “the abomination of desolation." &c.; “he that rcadcth let him understand ;” “pray that your flight may not be in wintcr;” “ (tribulation) such as was not from the bcginning till now, nor ever shall be ;” the expression about the “ shortening” of the days “for the elects’ sake ;" “ He shall send His angels, and gather together the elect ;" “of this hour the Son knowcth not ;” (17) later on, Luke omits the anointing of Jesus “for His burial" (Mat. xxvi. 6-13; Mk. xiv. 3-9); (18) “ I will smite the Shepherd,” 8:e., and ‘‘I will go before you into Galilee" (Mat. xxvi. 31, 32; Mk. xiv. 27, 28) ; (19) the compact of Judas with the priests that a kiss should be the signal (Mat. xxvi. 48; Mk. xiv. 44); (20) the false witness about “destroying the temple in three days" (Mat. xxvi. 59, 62; Mk. xiv. 55-60); (21) the taunt “ Then that dcstroyest the temple ” (Mat. xxvii. 40; Mk. xv. 29) ; (22) the utterance of J esus. “ My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" with the consequent misunderstanding of the bystanders (Mat. xxvii. 46-49; Mk. xv. 34-36); (23) the utterance of the angel (or angels) at the tomb, “He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him" (Mat. xxviii. 7; Mk. xvi. 7). In considering these passages it is natural to ask whether any reason (besides ignorance of them) can be alleged why Luke should have omitted them. It is scarcely possible to fail to see design in some of these omissions,-for example, in those which relate to John the Baptist and Elias (1), (5), and (10). The author of the Acts of the Apostles is by general consent admitted to be identical with the author of the Third Gospel. Now remembering that Luke in the Acts (xix. 3) informs us that, many years after the death of Jesus, there were in Ephesus several disciples who were baptized with the baptism of John, and knew nothing of the Holy Spirit, we may well understand that the author of the Acts finds it necessary, when writing a gospel, to put in as clear a light as possible the sub- ordination of John to Jesus. Accordingly, in place of the graphic description of the austere food and garb of _the prophet, he gives (iii. 10-14) a description of his teaching, as containing the elements of a simple and almost common- place morality, intended merely to prepare the way for a higher teaching, and he adds an express negative from the prophet in answer to those who doubted whether John were the Messiah. Repeatedly does Luke deviate from the common tradition of Matthew and Mark on the subject of The Adclitions common to Jlaltlaew and Ilfarlr.-—The Additions additions to the Triple Tradition which are found in Common
(1) The description of John the Baptist (Mat. iii. 4 ; Mk. i. 6) ; M311‘-