04. St. Luke (or the Acts)

They found the eleven gathered together. . . . And they told what things were done in the way. . . . And as they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them. . . . But they were terrified and affrighted. . . . And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? . . . And He took it, and did eat before them (Luke xxiv. 33-45). And He said unto them (the eleven and them that were with them, ver. 33), . . . Thus it beloved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of

6. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved (ver. 16).

7. And these signs shall follow them that believe (ver. 17).

8. In My Name shall they cast out devils (ver. 17).

St. Luke (or the Acts).

sins should be preached in His name among all nations. . . . And ye are witnesses of these things (Luke xxiv. 46-48). Ye shall be witnesses unto me . . . unto the uttermost part of the earth (Acts i. 8).

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts ii. 38).

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. And he . . . was baptized . . . straightway (Acts xvi. 31, 33).

Lest they should believe and be saved (Luke viii. 12).

(Not in the parallel passage of Matthew or Mark.)

And by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people (Acts v. 12).

In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. . . . His Name, through faith in His Name, hath made this man strong (Acts iii. 6, 16).

Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the Name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour (Acts xvi. 18; cf. ch. v. 16; viii. 6, 7).

C

9. They shall speak with new tongues (ver. 17).

10. They shall take up serpents (ver. 18).

11. And if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them (ver. 18).

St. Luke (or the Acts).

Are not all these that speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? . . . We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God (Acts ii. 6-11).

Behold, I give you power to tread on serpents (Luke x. 19). (Recorded by St. Luke alone.)

There came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on Paul's hand. . . . And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm (Acts xxviii. 3-5).

Behold, I give unto you power (ἐξοναία) . . . over all the power (δυναία) of the enemy; and nothing shall by any means hurt you (Luke x. 19).

The following noteworthy statement is made by Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History," p. 151 (English translation, Bagster's edition):—

"We must now show how Papias, coming to them, received a wonderful account from the daughters of Philip. . . . Another wonderful event happened respecting Justus, surnamed

Barsabas, who, though he drank a deadly poison, experienced nothing injurious, through the grace of the Lord."

Eusebius adds that this was the Justus mentioned in Acts i. 23; that Papias, who was St. John's hearer, and the associate of Polycarp, had this statement from the daughters of Philip the Evangelist, who was one of the seven, and whose tomb was, in later times, pointed out at Hierapolis in Asia (p. 142); and he further states that Luke alludes to these daughters of Philip in the Acts when he says, "We came to Cæsarea, and having entered the house of Philip the Evangelist, one of the seven, we abode with him. Now he had four daughters that prophesied" (Acts xxi. 8, 9). Whatever account, then, these daughters of Philip the Evangelist may have communicated, in after years, to Papias at Hierapolis, they might easily and naturally have told to the writer of the Acts during the "many days" which he spent under their father's roof at Cæsarea (Acts xxi. 10). It may here be observed that, obviously from the nature of the case, these verses added to St. Mark cannot be—and they do not claim to be—a verbatim account. They are clearly no more than a terse graphic summary, a brief epitomised retrospect, from which the subjectivity of the writer, and his consciousness of the reader are by no means necessarily excluded. 12. They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover (ver. 18).

13. So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God (ver. 19).

St. Luke (or the Acts).

The father of Publius lay sick of a fever . . . ; to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him. . . . Others also, who had diseases in the island, came and were healed (Acts xxviii. 8, 9).

And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven (Luke xxiv. 51). Cf. ch. xxiii. 69.

Bishop Wordsworth, on Luke xxiv. 50, observes that "in St. Luke's Gospel the transition from the Resurrection to the Ascension—without any mention of the intervening Forty Days—is quite as rapid as in St. Mark."

14. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following (ver. 20).

15. The Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs following (ver. 20).

St. Luke (or the Acts).

I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God (Acts vii. 56; cf. ch. ii. 32, 33, R.V., margin; also ch. iii. 21).

Therefore they . . . went everywhere preaching the Word (Acts viii. 4).

And the Word of the Lord was published throughout all the region (Acts xiii. 49).

All they who dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus (Acts xix. 10).

I showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God. . . . Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day witnessing . . . that . . . Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (Acts xxvi. 20-23; cf. Rom. xv. 16-20). Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, who gave testimony unto the Word of His grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands (Acts xiv. 3).

St. Luke (or the Acts).

And now, Lord, . . . grant unto Thy servants that with all boldness they may speak

Thy Word, by stretching forth

Thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of Thy holy child Jesus (Acts iv. 29,

30).

And now, behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind (Acts xiii.

11; cf. Acts v. 12; xvi. 18;

xix. 11, 12).

It may be briefly added that—

(c.) The Author of the Third Gospel and the

Acts was a Jew familiar with the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament.

To establish this point it is not necessary to do more than to refer to St. Luke and the

Acts, passim, in Grinfield's "Novum Testamentum Græcum, Editio Hellenistica." I have collected many instances of the writer's Hebraistic phraseology, in "St. Paul the Author of the Acts," pp. 50-52, and 165-168.

It follows, as a corollary, that any words and phrases from the LXX.—that is, all the words and phrases of these verses (with two exceptions)—might well have been known and used by the writer of the Third Gospel. Cf. § II. (a), p. 13.

(d.) The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts was a Christian—a Jewish Christian.

This is, in fact, self-evident; see, especially, Acts vi. 7; xii. 24; xix. 17, 20.

(e.) The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts wrote for Gentile readers.

This is clear from the general tone of the history (the two books forming one continuous history by the same author), and, especially, from such explanatory passages as, “The mount called the Mount of Olives” (Luke xix. 29); “a city of the Jews” (Luke xxiii. 51); from Acts xv.; and from the way in which “the Jews” are referred to throughout as being generally hostile to the preaching of the Gospel, e.g., Acts xiii. 42–48. "St. Luke wrote especially for the Gentiles" (Townson, "On the Gospels," i. 207).

(f.) The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts wrote especially for Gentile Christians at ROME.

According to Zeller, "Rome is the probable birthplace of the Acts" ("The Acts of the Apostles," E. Tr. ii. p. 280).

"Luke thought it necessary to add an explanation whenever he had occasion to refer to places in Palestine (Luke xxiii. 51), or Crete, and even to the larger towns in Macedonia (Acts xvi. 12); whereas he assumes that in Sicily and Italy (particularly Lower and Middle Italy as far north as ROME) even the smaller places will be well known," e.g., the Three Taverns (Acts xxviii. 15). (Ebrard, "Gospel History," E. Tr. p. 552). (g.) The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts was possessed of literary ability.

Jerome, quoted by the late Bishop Wordsworth, observes, that the author of the Third

Gospel was "inter omnes Evangelistas Græci sermonis eruditissimus" ("Greek Test," i. Int. to St. Luke).

"St. Luke is a consummate painter in language" (Ibid.) See also "St. Paul the Author of the Acts," Note C. ii. p. 96.

(h.) The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts wrote many years after the first preaching of the Gospel.

This is evident from the fact that he records the arrival of St. Paul in Rome, an event which did not take place till the year 61 A.D. (Wieseler) that is, not until about thirty years after the Crucifixion.

(i.) The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts wrote in the Apostolic Age.

The writer appears to have been a contemporary and companion of St. Paul (see the "we"-passages in the Acts), and the commonly-received tradition has assigned the work to Luke, "the beloved physician," who was with St. Paul in his imprisonment at Rome (Col. iv. 14). Moreover, the writer's use of ὁ Σεβαστος, which is equivalent to "the reigning Emperor," as applied to Nero (who died A.D. 64), and the fact that such a comprehensive and minutely-detailed history (which is so full of St. Paul's life and labours) makes not the slightest allusion to the death of the Apostle, while the picture of the Church in the Acts exactly corresponds to the state of the Church depicted in St. Paul's Epistles, are proofs that the work belongs to the Apostolic age (cf. "St. Paul the Author of the Acts," pp. 60-62). See also the next section (j). (j.) The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts was possessed of Apostolic authority, or at least he obtained Apostolic sanction.

"Thus it was not St. Luke's name which procured for this Gospel its currency in the Church, but the authority of the Apostle Paul. . . . Under these circumstances, it is not astonishing that, in the Primitive Church, there was no opposition either to Luke's Gospel or his

Acts of the Apostles" ("Olshausen on the Gospels," i. p. xli.; cf. Row, "Bampton Lectures," 3rd edit., pp. 284-287).

I venture to affirm that a weight of evidence has now been adduced sufficient to establish an unmistakable connection between this last section of the Second Gospel and the Third Gospel (together with the Acts), and between the authors.

IV.

THERE IS A VERY CLOSE AND INTIMATE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRD GOSPEL (AND THE ACTS) AND ST. PAUL.

THIS statement is so generally acknowledged to be correct (not, however, by Baur and Strauss), that it is needless to enlarge upon it.

Irenæus (A.D. 170) says that "Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel which he (Paul) used to preach" (Westcott, "Introduction to the Gospels, 4th edit., p. 184).

Tertullian (A.D. 200) says that "the summary of Luke was generally assigned to Paul" (Ibid.)

"Origen (A.D. 220) calls St. Luke's Gospel 'the Gospel quoted by Paul,' alluding to Romans ii. 16; and Eusebius (A.D. 300) refers

Paul's words, 'according to my Gospel' (2 Tim. ii. 8), to that of Luke, in which Jerome (A.D. 390) concurs" ("Dict. of the Bible," art. Gospel of Luke).

"St. Chrysostom (A.D. 397) finds in St. Luke's Gospel the style of St. Paul" (Townson, "On the Gospels," vol. i. p. 35).

The writer of the Synopsis bearing the name of Athanasius says that "the Gospel of Luke was dictated by the Apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessed Apostle and physician Luke" (Ibid.)

That most able, acute, learned, and luminous commentator, Bengel (A.D. 1742), observes that "the Acts were undoubtedly published by Paul's desire" ("Gnomon," Acts xxviii. 30).

And as to the similarity of style he says, "Luke's lively pen, which is admirably adapted to the very joyous narrative of the Acts, seems to have caught something from his many years' intimacy with Paul" ("Gnomon," Luke i. 1).

Wetstein (A.D. 1750), on Luke i. 3, states that "some persons consider it proved that the Gospel of Luke, as it is called, is rather to be referred to St. Paul as the author."

Dr. Townson (A.D. 1777) says, "Critics remark that there is often a great affinity in their phrases" (i.e., the phrases of Luke and Paul). ("On the Gospels," vol. i. p. 205).

Bishop Wordsworth says, "The statements of Christian antiquity concerning St. Luke's connection with St. Paul . . . are confirmed by the internal evidence presented by the Gospel of St. Luke" ("Greek Test., Int. to St. Luke's Gospel").

Dean Plumptre, in "Bishop Ellicott's Commentary," says, "There is so close an agreement between the vocabulary of St. Luke's Gospel and that of St. Paul, that it is scarcely possible to come to any other conclusion than that the one writer was intimately acquainted with the other" ("Introd. to the New Test.," p. 147). I may perhaps be permitted to add, that in my work, "St. Paul the Author of the Acts," I have traced such an exact correspondence of expression and thought, of manner and matter, of style and phraseology, between the so-called writings of St. Luke and the writings of St. Paul, that the only conclusion logically admissible seems to be that the Acts must have been written (or, at least, planned and superintended) by St. Paul himself.

In the words of the Literary Churchman, "Many striking analogies have been elicited between the language and sentiments in the two books, and in St. Paul's writings."

Other reviews have stated that "it has been shown how completely the Third Gospel and the Acts embody St. Paul's teaching." And that "what has been shown of the resemblance between the style of St. Paul's Epistles and these two historical works . . . is very convincing as to St. Paul having had a very great influence over the writer of these books and their composition." And also that "there is more to be said for the authorship of St. Paul than is commonly thought," and again, "The Pauline authorship has, to say the least, been made highly probable." And, lastly, Canon Hayman, in the Churchman, has acknowledged that "it has been made impossible for any candid mind to doubt that the Third Gospel and the Acts are documents of the Pauline age, and penetrated at first hand with the

Pauline spirit."

Hence, if the author of the Third Gospel and the Acts had anything to do with these additional verses of the Second Gospel—and we have seen what weighty reasons there are for such an assertion—there are equally good reasons for asserting St. Paul's connection with them. Let us now pass on to the more direct proof of this proposition.

V.

ST. PAUL HIMSELF WAS THE AUTHOR OF

THESE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE

SECOND GOSPEL.

(a.) The phraseology is Pauline.

Most of the words used in these verses occur in St. Paul's Epistles, including— ἀπιστειν (used twice, vers. 11, 16), Rom. iii. 3.

παρακολουθειν, 2 Tim. iii. 10.

ἀναλαμβανειν, 1 Tim. iii. 16.

These three important verbs are peculiar to

St. Luke, St. Paul, and these verses.

εὐαγγελιον (used by St. Paul more than twenty times—εὐαγγελιστης (perhaps coined by

St. Paul), occurs in no Greek writings

D before St. Paul's Epistles, and the history of St. Paul in the Acts).

ὁ Κυριος, applied to Christ (used by St. Paul fifty times, also frequently in the Third Gospel and the Acts, but never by either Matthew or Mark in his own person).

μορφη (peculiar to St. Paul; cf. μορφωσις (Rom. ii. 20), μορφουσθαι (Gal. iv. 19), συμμορ- φος (Rom. viii. 29), συμμορφουσθαι (Phil. iii. 10), all peculiar to St. Paul), Phil. ii. 7.

It is true that St. Paul does not happen to use the word θανασιμος (Polybius), or the phrase καλως ἐχειν (Xenophon). He did not use them because he had no occasion to use them; for he could not have been unacquainted with either this word or this phrase, seeing that when the LXX. is insufficient, he borrows his vocabulary from Polybius and Xenophon; as, for instance, παραχειμαζειν (1 Cor. and Polybius), ἀναπεμπειν (Philemon and Xenophon). As to phrases, we may remark, first of all, that any phrase occurring in the LXX. forms

5:

part, potentially, of St. Paul's vocabulary, as his Epistles show him to have been perfectly familiar with its phraseology.

The following phrases in the last twelve verses of St. Mark are actually used by St. Paul in his Epistles; and we must not forget that almost any doctrinal phrase would be due to St. Paul. As Archdeacon Farrar remarks, St. Paul to a great extent created the theological phraseology of the Church. οἱ μετ' ἐμου, Titus iii. 15.

καθίζειν ἐν δεξιᾳ του Θεου, Eph. i. 20.

ἐπιτίθεναι χειρας, 1 Tim. v. 22.

λαλεῖν γλωσσαις (peculiar to Luke, Paul, and these verses), 1 Cor. xiv. 18.

πασα ἡ κτίσις (peculiar to Luke, Paul, and these verses), Rom. viii. 22.

κηρυσσεῖν τὸ εὐαγγελίον (peculiar to Luke, Paul, and these verses), 1 Thess. ii. 9.

ἐν τῷ ὄνοματι (of Christ), 1 Cor. v. 4.

μεν οὖν, 1 Cor. ix. 25.

οὐ μή, Gal. v. 16.

κἀκεῖνοι, 1 Cor. x. 6.

πιστευσαι—σωθηναι, Rom. x. 9.

ἐκεινοι (referring to the Apostles preaching the Gospel), 1 Cor. xv. 11.

ἀνελημφθη (ἐν δοξῃ), 1 Tim. iii. 16.

ὁ απ' ἀρχης γενομενος, ὁ μετ' αὐτοῦ γενομενος,

(Mark xvi. 10), μεθ' ὑμων γενεσθαι, Acts xx. 18, Paul's speech;

Mark xvi. 10; nowhere else in New Testament.

οἱ πιστευσαντες, 2 Th. i. 10.

ἐκεινοι μεν οὖν, 1 Cor. ix. 25.

ὁ μεν οὖν, Mark xvi. 19.

There is also a (more or less) close resemblance between the following phrases taken from this section of St. Mark, and passages to be found in St. Paul's Epistles:— μετα το δειπνησαι, . . . . 1 Cor. xi. 25.

μετα το λαλησαι, . . . . Mark xvi. 19.

το εἰαγγελιον κηρισσειν

—πασα ἡ κτισις, το εἰαγγελιον—πας ὁ κοσμος, ἅπας, . . . . .

πορειθεντες εἰς τὸν κοσμον ἀπαντα, κηριξατε τὸ εἰαγγελιον πασῃ τῇ κτισει, . . . . . Col. i. 23. Col. i. 5, 6. Eph. vi. 13. Mark xvi. 15.

| γλωσσαις λαλειν, . . . . . | 1 Cor. xiv. 18. |

| --- | --- |

| αἱ γλωσσαι εἰς σημειον εἰσιν, οὐ τοις πιστευουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοις ἀπιστοις, . | 1 Cor. xiv. 22. |

| σημεία δὲ τοις πιστευσασι ταυτα παρα- κολουθησει, . . . γλωσσαις λαλησουσι καιναις, . . . . . | Mark xvi. 17. |

| Θεου γὰρ ἐσμεν συνεργοι, . | 1 Cor. iii. 9. |

| συνεργοῦντες, . | 2 Cor. xi. 1. |

| του Κυριου συνεργοῦντος, . . . . . | Mark xvi. 20. |

| καθῶς τὸ μαρτυριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐβε- βαιωθῇ ἐν ὑμῖν, . . . . . | 1 Cor. i. 6. |

| ὁ Κυριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστος, ὅς καὶ βεβαιωσει ὑμᾶς ἕως τελοῖς, . . | 1 Cor. i. 7. 8. |

| κατειργασατο Χριστος δὲ ἐμοῦ (Paul), εἰς ὑπακοὴν ἐθνῶν . . . ἐν δυναμῇ σημειῶν, . . . . . | Rom. xv. 18, 19. |

| του Κυριου συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθοῦντων σημειῶν, . . . . . | Mark xvi. 20. |

St. Paul's name has always been intimately associated with the Epistle to the Hebrews. It may be worth while to point out that there is a remarkable parallelism of thought (and indeed of expression) between the concluding verse of this final section of St. Mark (Mark xvi. 20) and one passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. ii. 2-4). του Κυριου συνεργουντος, και τον λογον βεβαιουντος δια των ἐπακολουθουντων σημειων (ver.

20; cf. Acts xiv. 3).

The Epistle to the Hebrews.

ὁ ... λογος ἐγένετο βεβαίος

... σωτηρία, ἥτις ἀρχην λαβουσα λαλεισθαι δια του Κυριου, ὑπο των ἀκουσαντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἑβεβαιωθη, συνεπιμαρτυρουντος του

Θεοῦ σημειοῖς (ch. ii. 2-4).

(b.) The subject-matter of these verses must have been well known to St. Paul.

The greater part of the Acts—sixteen chapters out of twenty-eight, and these the last sixteen—are devoted to the history of St. Paul's great life-work in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. Hence any of the preceding references which belong to these chapters connect themselves at once, more or less directly, with St. Paul himself. Who could know so much about “going into all the world and preaching the Gospel to every creature” (Mark xvi. 15) as St. Paul, who, from Rome, the centre and capital of the world, writing to the Colossians, referred to “the Gospel, which is come unto you, as it is in all the world” (Col. i. 6), and to “the Gospel which was preached to every creature under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister" (Col. i. 23)? Compare St. Paul's words to his own son in the faith, Timothy, ἐκηρυχθῆ ἐν ἐθνεσιν (1 Tim. iii. 16); and also Acts xxvi. 20; Rom. xv. 18, 19.

What is "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark xvi. 16), but the terse expression of St. Paul's special doctrine of Justification by Faith (Rom. v. 1)—Luther's test of a standing or falling Church? Compare St. Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 21, "It pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching" (το κηρυγμα, St. Paul himself being the κηρυξ, 2 Tim. i. 11) "to save them that believe." Does not the statement in Mark xvi. 16, "Saved—condemned," closely correspond to St. Paul's own words in 2 Cor. ii. 15, "They that are saved—they that perish"?

Who could know so much about speaking with tongues as St. Paul, who wrote to the Corinthian disciples that he was thankful to say that "he spoke with tongues more than they all" (1 Cor. xiv. 18)?

The historian of St. Paul's career in the

Acts more than once mentions his casting out devils (Acts xvi. 18; xix. 11, 12; Mark xvi. 17).

Who could write so naturally about taking up serpents without suffering injury (Mark xvi. 17) as St. Paul, who, after his shipwreck at Melita, when a viper fastened on his hand, "shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm" (Acts xxviii. 3 5)?

And St. Paul, during his stay of "many days" in the house of Philip the Evangelist at Cæsarea (Acts xxi. 8, 10), had, at least, the opportunity of hearing that account of Justus Barsabas and the cup of poison (Mark xvi. 17) afterwards related by Philip's daughters to Papias, as recorded by the Church historian Eusebius. (See above, p. 34.) Who could be so conscious of the Lord working with him (Mark xvi. 20) as St. Paul, who once said, "I laboured more abundantly than they all," i.e., than the Twelve Apostles (1 Cor. xv. 10); and of whom it was said that "the Lord gave testimony to the Word of His grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by Paul's hands" (Acts xiv. 3; xix. 11)? Compare St. Paul's words to Herod Agrippa: "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day witnessing," &c. (Acts xxvi. 22); and to the Corinthians, "We are fellow-workers (συνεργοι) with God" (1 Cor. iii. 9). It may be added, the word συνεργειν is used in these verses of St. Mark, thrice by St. Paul, and besides only once; συνεργος is used twelve times by St. Paul, and besides only once in the New Testament. In the words of the Dean of Chichester ("The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark," p. 162), "'Had not St. Paul himself cast out devils?'—'spoken with tongues more than they all?'—and at Melita, not only 'shaken off the serpent into the fire and felt no harm,' but also 'laid hands on the sick' father of Publius, 'and he had recovered'"? (c.) St. Paul fulfilled the other conditions of Authorship, for he was a Jewish Christian writing in the Apostolic Age to the Gentile Christians at Rome.

(d.) St. Paul, assuredly, had the literary ability.

We may easily satisfy ourselves on this point by a comparatively slight examination of St. Paul's Epistles, with their varying phraseology, structure, substance, and style.

(e.) St. Paul had the motive for writing.

This Gospel of St. Mark, "compiled for Gentile Christians" (Alford), ended, for whatever reason, abruptly at the Resurrection, without giving the least account of the work of the Apostles in fulfilling their mission, and especially without giving any account of the great and successful work of Paul "the Apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom. xi. 13), in the triumphant preaching of the Gospel, in spite of bitter hostility and fierce opposition, far and wide among the heathen. How natural for St. Paul, "the Preacher, Apostle, and Teacher of the Gentiles," "the Prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles,"—how natural for St. Paul, "to whose trust the Gospel had been committed," "to magnify his office," and to write such an account! (2 Tim. i. 11; Eph. iii. 1; 1 Tim. i. 11; Rom. xi. 13). How natural, then, for St. Paul to append to this Gentile Gospel this epitome of doctrine and summary of events, the events of his own life-work, bringing the history and development of the Church down to his own day! How natural, especially when we call to mind the persistent way in which the Judaisers denounced his doctrinal teaching, disputed his Apostolic authority, and disparaged his Evangelistic efforts! (Col. iv. 10, 11; Gal. v. 11; 1 Cor. ix. 1-3). (Cf. texts on title-page.) (f.) St. Paul certainly possessed the necessary materials.

St. Paul had laboured more abundantly than all the other Apostles (1 Cor. xv. 10), and some of the subject-matter of these verses related to his own personal experiences. (Acts xxviii. 3-6, 8, 9). See p. 54.

(g.) St. Paul had the opportunity of writing these concluding verses, and of adding them to the Second Gospel.

The active mind of St. Paul could not be idle—even though his body was chained—during his two years' imprisonment at Rome. He had always regarded Rome as the great goal of his labours, and, so to speak, as the climax of his efforts. "Paulus Romæ apex Evangelii" (Bengel; cf. Renan, "Hibbert Lectures," p. 60). Like John Bunyan in Bedford gaol, or Sir Walter Raleigh in the Tower, St. Paul turned his enforced inactivity to good account, and where he could not make his voice heard, he caused his practised and powerful pen to carry the message. (h.) St. Paul possessed the needful authority.

Who could have had the requisite authority to write such an account for the Gentile Christians, if St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, who had founded almost all the Gentile Churches (1 Cor. iv. 15), had not this authority? As I have elsewhere pointed out, there is a certain analogy between St. Paul and Ezra as regards their position and their influence, as well as their contribution to, and their supervision of, the Scriptures. So great was St. Paul's influence and authority (Gal. ii. 7-9), that nothing could have been added during his lifetime without his sanction to any authorised document circulating among the Gentiles. Those Gentile Christians at Rome who came forth to meet and to greet with so warm a welcome Paul the prisoner on his arrival at Appii Forum (Acts xxviii. 11, compared with Col. iv. 11), how ready would they be to warmly welcome, and to widely circulate, any historic document written by him for their benefit, relating to "that Gospel" which St. Paul had so long "preached among the Gentiles"! (Gal. ii. 2.) Had he not "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. ii. 16)? Was not "the Gospel committed to his trust" (1 Tim. i. 11)? Was he not, with regard to the Gospel, "appointed the Herald, the Apostle, and the Teacher of the Gentiles" (2 Tim. i. 11)? Had not "the Lord given him authority for edification" (2 Cor. x. 8)?

See also "Olshausen on the Gospels," i. p. xli., quoted above, iii. (j), p. 42.

Is it not, then, as the Bishop of Durham, Dr. Lightfoot, says, "worthy of notice that the two Evangelists, St. Mark and St. Luke, are mentioned together?" (Col. iv. 10, 14). St. Mark and St. Luke are thus mentioned together by St. Paul as being associated with him, as being fellow-workers * with him during his imprisonment at Rome. Could any fact be more highly suggestive? Moreover, St. Mark is named in the Acts, and St. Luke, besides using two-thirds of his words, constantly agrees with St. Mark (more or less closely) in those common sections in which St. Mark differs from St. Matthew. Take, for instance, the case of Jairus, mentioned by name (Luke viii. 41; Mark v. 22; Matt. ix. 18), and of the one * St. Paul calls St. Mark his συνεργος (= fellow-worker) εις την βασιλειαν του Θεου (Col. iv. 10, 11). Cf. p. 57.

demoniac of Gadara (Luke viii. 26; Mark v. 1; Matt. viii. 28). "There is not a single instance of a verbal agreement, in the common sections of the Synoptic Gospels, between St. Matthew and St. Luke only" (Westcott, "Int. to the Study of the Gospels," p. 194, note). This weighty fact certainly seems to indicate a close connection between the two Evangelists, St. Luke and St. Mark, the clue to which—bearing in mind that both Mark and Luke write for Gentile readers, while Matthew writes for Jewish readers—is their presence, both together, with St. Paul at Rome. St. Paul, a prisoner at Rome, wrote to his dearly-beloved son Timothy, his own son in the faith, entreating him to come quickly to him, as "the time of his departure"—that is, the time of St. Paul's martyrdom—"was at hand, and only Luke was with him" (2 Tim. iv. 6, 11).

He begs Timothy, moreover, to "take Mark and to bring him" also, "for he would be profitable to St. Paul for service" (εἰς διακονιαν, ver. 11), adding that he was to bring, at the same time, "the books, but especially the parchments" (ver. 13). In the second chapter of this same Epistle to Timothy, at the 8th verse, St. Paul refers to the substance of his preaching as "my Gospel." That St. Paul's Gospel was not in all respects necessarily identical with that taught by other teachers—not to mention false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13)—is sufficiently evident from Gal. ii. 2 and 1 Tim. i. 3, 4; and that at this very time St. Paul was revolving in his mind a plan for preserving the Gospel in its purity, after his own day, appears from the 2nd verse of the second chapter of this Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome. When we remember (1) that St. Paul was at Rome with Luke; (2) that Timothy, his own son in the faith, received an urgent summons to attend him; (3) that Mark's personal services were expressly asked for; (4) that books and parchments (not too common in those days) denoting some literary undertaking were specially named; (5) that St. Paul had a presentiment that he had finished his course, and that the day of his death was close at hand;

(6) that St. Paul's mind was exercised as to the best means of preserving, after his own impending death, the Gospel of Grace for the

Gentiles free from corruption by the Judaising party; and when we further call to mind the fact (7) that St. Paul, although a prisoner, debarred from all missionary enterprise, had full liberty (and also undisturbed leisure) "to preach the kingdom of God, and to teach those things which concern the Lord Jesus

Christ" (Acts xxviii. 31); when (8) we recall his own words, that "to him to live was Christ"

(Phil. i. 21), and that "he, the prisoner of

Jesus Christ for the Gentiles" (Eph. iii. 1),

"was set for the defence of the Gospel" (Phil.

i. 17);—when we consider all these converging lines of proof, and remember Bishop Butler's maxim, how can we avoid coming to the conclusion that, at this time, St. Paul carried out the idea he had in his mind by writing, with the help of Timothy, Luke, and Mark, the history of the Rise and Progress of the Kingdom of God, the full account of which (associated

E with the name of St. Luke) is to be found in the Third Gospel and the Acts, and the brief summary, the compendious epitome of which (associated with the name of St. Mark) is to be found in these last twelve verses of the Second Gospel—both for the Gentiles?

Does not this sufficiently agree with the words of Dr. Hort (though I must not, in any way claim his authority)? "An intermediate view, which has found favour with some critics, is that vers. 9-20 are a supplement added by the Evangelist (St. Mark) at a later time to the work previously left for some reason unfinished. This . . . is not altogether inconsistent with the documentary evidence" ("Greek Test.," vol. ii., Appendix, p. 50); only I venture to add that St. Mark did not write these verses proprio motu. Seeing that his influential kinsman, Barnabas, was dead (Col. iv. 10 and Acts xi. 24), St. Mark himself would scarcely have possessed sufficient weight and authority to ensure their reception by the Church. St. Mark did not write these verses proprio motu, but he wrote them at the request and under the supervision, if not at the actual dictation, of the Apostle Paul.

This result, obtained by an analytical, microscopic examination of the facts, does not seriously militate against the concluding words of Dean Burgon (p. 252) when he says, "I have proved that St. Mark must needs be thought to have written them."

To hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Dr. Hort says of this last section of the Second Gospel ("Greek Test," vol. ii., Appendix, p. 51): "Its authorship and its precise date must remain unknown. . . . It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority." I venture, with all due respect, but at the same time with all the confidence inspired by a careful examination of the facts, to challenge these dogmatic statements. I venture to say that these verses can claim Apostolic authority. I venture to say that the place is known, namely, Rome—that the time is approximately known, A.D. 62—and that the author is known, for he is none other than the great Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Paul. VI.

RESULTS.

WHAT then are the results of these researches?

They appear to be as follows, and they certainly seem to be not devoid of interest and importance :—

I. The Gospel according to St. Mark must have been in existence some considerable time before St. Paul's death in the year 64 A.D. (Renau, "Hibbert Lectures," p. 90).

II. The prophecy in St. Mark xiii. as to the destruction of Jerusalem (which event did not take place until the year 70 A.D.) must have been in existence (must have been both written and read) several years—probably ten years at least—before it was fulfilled.

III. St. Mark's Gospel being an abridged adaptation of St. Matthew's Gospel (with which it is constantly in the closest correspondence, though there is ample proof that it is the work of an independent authority and witness), the prophecy in St. Matthew xxiv. relative to the capture of Jerusalem must have been in existence still earlier—that is, this prophecy must have been in circulation considerably more than ten years before the event. In fact, there seems every reason to suppose that St. Matthew's Gospel was in use some years before A.D. 50, the date of the Conference at Jerusalem described in the 15th chapter of the Acts. IV. The contents of St. Mark's Gospel must have received the general sanction and approval of St. Paul.

V. The Gospel according to St. Mark must have been in existence before the Gospel according to St. Luke was written. It follows, therefore, that the three Synoptic Gospels stand in our New Testament in their right and proper order—the order of time—St. Matthew having been the earliest, and St. Luke the latest, to appear. They represent successive interpretations (so to speak) of the same series of events, fresh adaptations of the same narrative (with corrections and additions), put forth to meet the needs of the changed circumstances of the growing and developing Christian Church. (Cf. "Towuson on the Gospels," vol. i. p. 208.) NOTE