Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4.32 Mb.
Size4.32 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   40

GOODWIN, THOMAS : English independent minister; b. at Rollesby (14 m. e.n.e. of Norwich), Norfolk, Oct. 5, 1600; d. in London Feb. 23, 1680. He was educated at Christ's College and Catherine's Hall, Cambridge (B.A., 1616; M.A., and B.D., 1620), where he was appointed lecturer at Trinity Church in 1828, and vicar in 1832. After an in­terview with John Cotton (q.v.) in 1633 he became an independent, and the following year he resigned his preferments and removed to London. Here he preached till 1639, when, his position having be­come untenable through Laud's vigilance, he went to Holland and became pastor of the English church at Arnheim. Soon after the opening of the Long Parliament (Nov. 3, 1640) he returned to London, gathered an independent congregation at St. Dunstan's‑in‑the‑East, and became one of the most eminent of the independent ministers. He was a member of the Westminster Assembly, allied himself with the Congregational party called the "° dissenting brethren," became their leader, and edited The Reasons Presented by the Dissenting Brethren (London, 1648). He was made chaplain to the Council of State Nov. 2, 1649, and president of Magdalen College, Oxford, Jan. 8, 1'660. He be­came one of Cromwell's chief advisers, served on various important commissions, and attended the Protector on his death‑bed. In 1658, with others, he secured Cromwell's consent to hold a synod for the purpose of drawing up a new confession of faith (see Coxax>eoemloxlnlsTS IIL, 1). On being de­prived of his position at Oxford at the Restoration he returned to London as an independent minister. Of his voluminous writings only his sermons were printed during his lifetime. His Works (5 vo1s., London, 1681‑1704) have been edited, with a memoir, by Robert Hall (12 vole., Edinburgh, 1881­1868). There is also a condensed edition by J. Babb (4 vole., London, 1847‑50).

BIHLIOaaAPHY: Besides the memoir prefixed to his works,

consult: Walter Wilson, Riot. and Antiquities of Diassnh inp Chwdbs in London, id. 214‑21ti, iii. 420, 429‑430, 448‑



447, 4 vols.. London, 1808‑14; D. Neal, Hiat. of the Puri­tans, iv. 172‑173, 4bb‑456, ed. of 1822; A. F. Mitchell, The Westminster Aaaemblg, p. 214, New York, 1883; DNB, xxii. 148‑150.

GOOSE BIBLE: See BIB,•t VER$IdNs, B, IV., § 9.

GORDON, ADONIRAM JUDSON: Baptist; b. at New Hampton, N. H., Apr. 19, 1836; d. at Bos­ton Feb. 2, 1895. He was educated at Brown Uni­versity (B.A., 1860) and Newton Theological In­stitution (1863). In 1863 he became pastor at Jamaica Plain, Maw., where he remained six years. From 1869 until his death he was pastor of the Clarendon Street Baptist Church, Boston, which became, under his leadership, a center of revivals and of philanthropic work. He also established a school for the training of missionaries and pastors' assistants. He described himself as " a prohibi­tionist in temperance reform; a supporter and colaborer with D. L. Moody in his evangelistic move­ment; Low‑church in ecclesiology, and premillen­nial in eschatology." He prepared New Vestry Hymn and Tune Book (Boston, 1872) and wrote In Christ: or, The Believer's Union. with his Lord (1872); Congregational Worship (1872); Grace and Glory (sermons, 1881); Ministry of Healing (1882); The Twofold Life (1884); Ecce Venit: Behold He Cometh' (New York, 1889); The Holy Spirit in Missions (1893); The Ministry of the Spirit (Philadelphia, 1894); and the posthumous Yet Speaking (New York, 1897).

GORDON, CHARLES WILLIAM: Presbtyerian Church of Canada; b. at Indian Lands, Ont., Sept. 13, 1860. He was educated at the University of Toronto (B.A., 1883), and Knox College, Toronto (1887), and pursued postgraduate studies at New College, Edinburgh. He was classical master in the high school at Chatham, Ont. (1883,84) and in Upper Canada College, Toronto (1886‑87), and tutor in Knox College (1884‑87). He was a mis­sionary at Banff, Alberta (1890‑93), and since 1894 has been minister of St. Stephen's Church, Winni­peg. In theology he accepts the modem interpre­tation of Evangelical doctrines. He has written, under the pseudonym of " Ralph Conner," Black Rock (Chicago, 1898); Beyond the Marshes (1899); The Sky Pilot (1899); Ovld Michael (1900); The Man from Glengarry (1901); Glengarry School Days (1902); The Prospector (1904); The Pilot at Swan Creek (London, 1905); Breaking the Record (Chicago, 1905); and The Doctor (1906).

GORDON, GEORGE ANGIER: Congregation­alist; b. at Oyne (18 ii. n.w. of Aberdeen), Aberdeenshire, Scotland, Jan. 2, 1853. He was edu­cated at Bangor Theological Seminary and Har­vard University (B.A., 1881). He was pastor at Greenwich, Conn., in 1881‑84, and since 1884 has been pastor of the Old South Church, Boston. He was lecturer in the Lowell Institute course in 1900 and Lyman Beecher Lecturer at Yale in the follow­ing year, in addition to being university preacher at Harvard in 1886‑90 and at Yale in 1888‑1901. He has written The Witness to Immortality (Bos­ton, 1893); The Christ of To‑Day (1895); Immor­tality and the new Theodicy (1897); The New Epoch for Faith (1901); and Through Man to God (1906).

GORDON, JOHN: Presbyterian; b. at Pitts­burg, Pa., Mar. 10, 1850. He was educated at the Western University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 1866), Auburn Theological Seminary (1868‑71), and union Theological Seminary, from which he was gradu­ated in 1871. He held successive pastorates at Rensselaerville, N. Y. (1871‑79), the First Presby­terian Church, Lincoln, Neb. (1880‑82), the Fourth Presbyterian Church, Pittsburg (1884‑‑86), and Westminster Church, Omaha, Neb. (1887‑97). He was also professor of ecclesiastical history in Omaha Theological Seminary (1891‑99); president of Tabor College, Tabor, Ia. (1901‑03), and president of How­ard University, Washington (1903‑06). He has written Three Children of Galilee (Boston, 1895).

GORE, CHARLES: Anglican bishop of Bir­mingham; b. at Wimbledon (8 m. s.w. of London), Surrey, Jan. 22, 1853. He was educated at Har­row and at Balliol College, Oxford (B.A., 1875), and was ordained priest in 1878. He was fellow of Trinity College, Oxford (1875‑95), vice‑principal of Cuddesdon College (1880‑83), and librarian of Pusey House, Oxford (1884‑93). His advanced theological views led to his resignation, however, and after being vicar of Radley, Oxfordshire (1893­1894), he was appointed canon of Westminster in 1894. He retained this position until 1902, being also honorary chaplain to the queen in 1898‑1900, and chaplain in ordinary to her in 1900‑01 and to the king in the latter year. In 1902 he was conse­crated bishop of Worcester, and two years later was translated to the see of Birmingham. He was the editor of the famous Lux Mundi (London, 1890), to which he also contributed the chapters on The Holy Spirit and Inspiration, and wrote Leo the Great (London, 1880); The Church tend the Minis­try (1889); Roman Catholic Claims (1889); The Mission of the Church (1891); The Incarnation of the Son of ("rod (Bampton Lectures, 1891); Disser­tations (1896); The Creed of the Christian (1896); The Sermon on the Mount (1897); The Athanasian Creed (1897); Prayer and the Lord's Prayer (1898); The Body of Christ (1901); The Spiritual Efficiency of the Church (1904); The Permanent Creed (1905); and The New Theology and the Old Religion (1907). He commented on Ephesians (London, 1898) and Romans (1899), and edited G. Romanes' Thoughts on Religion (London, 1894); and Essays in Aid of the Reform of the Church (1898).

GORHAM CASE: ‑A well‑known ecclesiastical litigation which agitated the Church of England in the middle of the nineteenth century. In 1847 the Lord Chancellor presented the Rev. George Cor­nelius Gorham (b. 1787; d. 1857; B.A., Cambridge, 1808; M.A., 1812; B.D., 1820, fellow of Queen's College, 1810‑27) to the living of Brampford Speke, near Exeter. The bishop of Exeter, Henry Phill­potts, a determined High‑churchman, having doubts of Gorham's orthodoxy, required him to sub­mit to a searching examination, and, finding that his views concerning baptismal regeneration were highly Calvinistic and not in accord with those of the Church of England, refused to institute him. Gorham took the case into the Court of Arches (see ARCHFs, COURT OF), which sustained the bishop



in a decision rendered Aug., 1849; he then appealed from the decision of the spiritual court to the ju­dicial committee of the Privy Council, exercising the right of every clergyman of the Established Church in England to appeal from the judgment of an ecclesiastical court to a court of law. On this occasion the court, while essentially a lay tri­bunal deriving its authority solely from .the crown, had for assessors the archbishops of Canterbury (Sumner) and York (Musgrave) and the bishop of London (Blomfield). The decision here, Mar., 1850, was in Gorham's favor, and an order in council demanded its execution. The bishop of Exeter questioned the authority of the .judicial Committee in the courts of Queen's Bench, of Ex­chequer, and of Common Pleas, but without suc­cess. Gorham was instituted by the Court of Arches into the vicarage of Brampford Speke in Aug., 1851. The committee justified its decision by appealing to the fact that " many eminent prel­ates and divines had propounded and maintained " opinions practically the same as Gorham's " with­out ,censure or reproach," thus showing " the liberty which has been allowed of maintaining such doctrine." The judgment also declared that " devo­tional expressions, involving assertions, must not, as of course, be taken to bear an absolute and un­conditional sense."

The case aroused intense interest and something like fifty works were published concerning it. Gorham's sympathizers reimbursed him for the heavy expenses of the litigation by public subscrip­tion. The decision was the first of several which have established the right of a clergyman of the Church of England to express opinions honestly held and have made heresy trials for deviation from traditional interpretations well‑nigh impossi­ble in the Established Church. On the other hand, the High‑church party considered that the judg­ment had struck out what they believed to be an article of the creed, and had asserted afresh, as an inherent right, the supremacy of the crown in mat­ters of faith. The decision was one of the causes leading to Manning's withdrawal from the Church of England.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal documents in the case are: Examination before Admission to a Benefice, by H. Phill­potts, Bishop of Exeter, ed. G. C. Gorham, London, 1848; Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter; a Report of the Arguments before the Privy Council, ib. 1850; Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter; the Judgment of the Judicial Com­mittee of the Privy Council, Mar. 8, 1860, reversing decision of Sir H. J. Fuat, ed. G. C. Gorham, ib. 1850; Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter; Arguments before the Privy Coun­cil, the Court of Queen's Bench the Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of Arches, ed. G. C. Gorham, ib. 1850; G. C. Gorham, The Great Gorham Case, a Hiat. in Five Books, ib. 1850; idem, A Letter on the Recent Judgment, Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter, ib. 1850. Consult also: DNB, xxiii. 243‑245. A partial list of the literature evoked by the case is given in the British Museum Catalogue, under " Gorham, Geoige Cornelius."
GORTON, SAMUEL (SAMUELL): English sec­tary and founder of the Gortonites; b. at Gorton (3 m. e. of Manchester), Eng., c. 1592; d. at War­wick, R. I., Nov. or Dec., 1677. He received a good education from private tutors and learned to read the Bible in the original tongues. When about twenty­five he began business in London on his own account

as a " clothier," i.e., a finisher of cloth after weaving. Being very unconventional in his religious views, he emigrated to America " to enjoy libertie of con­science in respect to faith towards God, and for no other end." He arrived in Boston in Mar., 1636 or 1637. But he did not find what he sought there, and so soon removed to Plymouth, where he did better for a while until what he considered unjust treatment of a servant led him to criticize publicly the magistracy, and in consequence he was, in Dec. of 1638, banished on a charge of contumacy. He then went to Rhode Island. But here again his inde­pendent views on State and Church got him into trouble, and in 1641 he was imprisoned and banished, probably after a public whipping at Portsmouth. He then went to Providence. In Jan., 1643, he and his followers retired to Shawomet, where be bought land of Miantonomi, head sachem of the Narragan­setts, and two undersachems. The latter two were induced by the enemies of Gorton to deny that he had ever bought the land. This involved Gorton with the commonwealth of Massachusetts, to which the alleged misused Indians appealed. Accordingly he was summoned to Boston, Sept. 12, 1643, and because he and his followers refused, they were compelled by force of arms to obey. The general court of Massachusetts condemned him and six of of his followers to imprisonment, Nov. 3, 1643, but on Mar. 7, 1644, they were released and banished. Gorton went to Portsmouth, and in 1646 to England, where he pleaded his cause so successfully that he returned with an order from the earl of Warwick to the Massachusetts magistrates that the Shaw­omet colony should be free from interference. He renamed his colony Warwick. He was held in the highest esteem by his fellow citizens, and was honored by positions of trust.

Gorton stood politically for English law and citi­zenslup in the English colonies, and advocated that, while the latter should purchase their lands from the Indians, they yet should have charters from England. Religiously he stood for the right of private judgment, and maintained the following distinctive views: (1) He denied the doctrine of the Trinity, but declared that Christ was God and the only proper object of worship. (2) He declared against a " hireling ministry," and affirmed that there peas no fitness in a class of men paid for ministerial functions, as each man was his own priest. (3) He would do away with all outward ordinances. (4) He taught a conditional immor­tality wholly dependent on the character of the individual. With such views, which he boldly affirmed, it was no wonder that he had perpetual strife with the clerical and political powers in the colonies. It is claimed that for a hundred years after his death there were adherents of his views, but he did not organize any sect. To do so would have been contrary to his principles.

Gorton published several controversial tracts in advocacy of his political and religious views. The best known is his Simplicities Defence against Seven­Headed Policy (London, 1646, written while there to defend his cause, reprinted as vol. ii. in the Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, 1835, also in Force's Historical Tracts,


Gospel and Gospels


vol. iv., Washington, 1846). But as yet unprinted is his commentary on the Lord's Prayer, preserved in the Rhode Island Historical Society library at Providence, in which, in final form and most fully, his theological views are presented.

BxnmoGRAPHY: An introduction to the Simplicities Do­fence, ut sup., contains much material, in Collections, ut sup.. vol. ii. 9‑20, cf. vol. iv. 89‑92; J. Sparks. Library of American Biography, 2d ser., v. 315‑411, 15 vole., Boston, 1847‑‑55. Consult also: T. Hutchinson, Hist. of Massa­chusetts Bay, i. 117‑124, 549, Boston, 1785; J. Winthrop, Hiat. of New England, ed. J. Savage, ii. 57, 295‑299, ib. 1853; DNB, xxii. 251‑253.

GOSHEN: A region in Egypt generally called the land of Goshen, which, according to J, was given by a king of Egypt at the request of Joseph to his father Jacob and his family as a dwelling­place, and held by his descendants till the Exodus (Gen. xlv. 10; Ex‑ ix. 26). The priestly writer lo­cates the Children of Israel in the " Land of Ram­eses " (Gen. xlvii. 11), and the Elohist places them " among " the Egyptians. The location of Goshen is not definitely given in J, but it appears that the region was in the eastern part of Egypt and was, in contradistinction to the land they had left, a fruitful region. By their occupation as shepherds the Hebrews were debarred from living directly among the Egyptians (Gen. xlvi. 34), and the stretch of country eastward from Bubastis known as the Arabian or Heroopolitan region is almost certainly the region which J had in mind, furnish­ing as it did all the requisite conditions. The translators of the Septuagint, possessing a more exact knowledge of the Nile delta than J had, have fixed more definitely the location. They identify Goshen with " Gesem of Arabia," and place the Hebrews there, and fix also the place where Joseph met his father, viz., at the city of Heroopolia in the land of Ramesea (Gen. xlvi. 28‑29). This city was the capital of a district of lower Egypt which embraced the region of the modern Wadi Tumilat. By the excavations of E. Naville the site of Heroopolis is fixed at the modern Tell el‑Mashkutah in the Wadi Tumilat, not far from the Isthmus of Suez, on the site of an older city the religious name of which was

The Gospels a Single Literature (¢ 1). The Gospels a Prophetic Response (§ 2). Applied to Corporate Needs (§ 3). Causes of the Rise of the Gospels (¢ 4). Papias and the " Logia " (§ 5).

The Gospels are something more than individual

books and can not be treated adequately as inde­

pendent literary units. The Synoptic problem is

the result of a unique literary situation. It straight­

way suggests a set of conditions which must be

made the background for the study of the individ­

ual Gospels. Even the Fourth Gos­

r. The Gos‑ gel, great as are its differences from

pels a Single the Syuoptists, has none the less cer­

Literature. tain fundamental qualities in common

with them. It is necessary, then, to

treat the Gospels as a group of books organically

related, and this on two main grounds. First, from

Pitum, the Pithom (Coptic Petho»a) of Ex. i. 11, on

an arm or canal from the Nile to the Red Sea.

This is confirmed by the Coptic version of Gen.

xlvi. 28. The Land of Rameses, in which Hero­

opolia lay, is shown also to be the same as a dis­

trict Tkw, identical with the Succoth of Ex. xii.

37 or a district of it. To the Greeks the Arabia in

which Gesem was located was the entire region be­

tween the valley of the Nile and the desert, under

the protection of the god Silt, the chief city of

which is called in the cuneiform Piaaptu. This dis­

trict has been identified with the Arabian nome

whose capital was Phakouesa, and again with Ge­

sem, while the god‑name Sgt is preserved in the mod­

ern Saft al‑Henneh. Of all this J knew nothing:

it is the result of the desire of the translators of

the Septuagint to identify more closely the Goshen

of Genesis and Exodus. The attempt of Ptolemy

to connect Phakouselt, the chief city of " Arabia "

and the later Fakus, with Gesem, is shown by

Naville's researches to be impossible; the only rec­

onciliation is that in the course of time the name

was changed. Phakouasa was doubtless a later

capital northeast of Saft al‑Henneh. Undoubtedly

under the influence of the Septuagint, Arabic and

Christian tradition located Goshen in this region.

On the other hand, the Arabic author Makrizi 1o­

caked Goshen north of Cairo, at the junction of the

caravan routes from the East to Egypt. Saadia

and Abu Said locate Goshen at Sadir, placed by De

Sacy between Belbeis and Salihieh, to the east of

the delta, while Quatremert; locates this at the en­

trance of the Wadi Tumilat. But these later de­

terminations present so little of worth that not

much more can be said than that Goshen was east

of the delta and westward from the Isthmus of

Suez. (G. STE1Nnoltirir.)
BMLIOG13APIFY: The two important works are: E. Neville, Goshen and the Shrine o/ 8aft ebHenneh, and The Store City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus, the 5th and lot memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Fund, London, 1887, 1885. Consult further: A. Dillmsnn, in SBA, 1885, pp. 889 eqq.; idem, Genesis, vol. ii., Edinburgh, 1897; idem, Exodus urd Leviticus, ed. V. Ryeeel, Lcipaio, 1897. Also C. R. Gillett, in S. M. Jackson, Concise Dic­tionary, Appendix, New York, 1898, and see Earn.


The Missionary stimulus (§ s). Mark's Gospel (§ 7). Luke's Gospel (¢ 8). Matthew's Gospel (§ 9). Gospel According to the Hebrews

Background of Fourth Gospel (§ 11). Character of Fourth Gospel (§ 12). Authorship, Date, and Place of Fourth Gospel ($ 13). Conclusion (¢ 14).

the literary side. In the field of comparative lit­erature the Synoptists are unique. They must be treated, not only as single books found within the canon of the Scriptures, but as together constitu­ting a single book. There is no great literature where the common life behind the books is more necessary to their understanding. The second ground is from the aide of introduction. The very existence of the Synoptic problem indicates an ex­traordinary literary method underlying them. The closest parallel is the Pentateuchal problem. But even this parallel is not wholly sufficient. In the Pentateuch are found literary strata; the Synop‑


tics are books that have distinct individualities while they are indissolubly connected. They are three, yet one. The more intimate our knowledge, the more compelling becomes the problem, and the less easy of solution certain elements in it. To make the outstanding facts more certain, to put the unsolved questions in the best light, the Gospels must be treated as a single literature.

To the student reasonably acquainted with lit­erature as a whole, the Synoptics suggest a kind of authorship deeply differing from that now prevail­ing. They possess a remarkable impersonality;

the author hardly appears. Even a. The the Fourth Gospel, though it is ex‑

Gospels a tremely self‑conscious, is nevertheless

Prophetic anonymous and the individual author

Response. seems to count for very little. The

Gospels require for their explanation an authorship which is in some sense corporate. The deepest element for the understanding of their pe­culiar genius is found in the fact that they are the literary products of a prophetic community. St. Peter preaching on Joel (Acts ii.) introduces the situation. Our Lord has founded a society in which prophetic power inheres as an intrinsic qual­ity. The new prophetism differs from that of the old dispensation in that prophetic inspiration no longer belongs to certain gifted individuals, but to the entire community (cf. Paul in I Cor. xii. and xiv.). The literary history of a community is, therefore, the object of study. To use a distinction drawn by literary critics, the literary study of the Gospels is not the history of a literature, but a lit­erary history of a great community which uses cer­tain individuals as its instrumenta. The closest literary parallel is the Periclean age. Greater than the individual Athenians who wrote the classic books is the great Athenian community, the podia or Church‑State, whose extraordinary civic and corporate qualities made the individual genius pos­sible. But the parallel is imperfect; the individual author is full‑grown in Athens, he hardly exists in the field of the Gospels. Corporate consciousness and the corporate mood are all‑controlling. An indication of this state of things is found in the title of the Gospels. They are entitled the Gospel according to Mark, etc. The meaning of kata is in part identical with the same prepositions in the editions of Homer put forth by famous editors. But there is more at stake. The kata carries the mind back from the second century into the pro­phetic age, when the Gospel was a corporate mood and a corporate message and the book‑gospel of the second century was not thought of.

Here is found the explanation of the style of the Gospels, their noble and sustained simplicity, and their extraordinary adaptability for translation. While their style is molded by the Old Testament and by the Aramaic language and mind, the soul

of it is the genius of a supreme commu­3. Applied nity. The Gospels are, like Homer, the to Corporate creations of an age, and of conditions

Needs. where the bookish habits of our time

were wholly lacking. The Homeric singer was one with his audience, and the poem was lived before it was written. So with the Gospels.

The individual author was one with his audience, and the Gospel was lived before it was written. Hence, also, the relations between the Gospels. One of the solid results of criticism is the conclu­sion that the text of the Gospels took fixed form slowly and that, while it was fixing itself, it was played upon by the unwritten Gospel. This is the truth within the abandoned theory of an oral Gospel. In its original form this theory has be­come impossible, for the reason that a text formed by the natural memory, without the help of books, resists change far more successfully than a written text. The text of the Gospels, while forming, was for a long time plastic, and the living memories of a prophetic age which was far larger than its literature played upon the text and molded it. A corporate mood controlled the Gospels; consequently, in one sense they have a corporate author. Put in an­other way, this means that the Gospels constitute a literature which in its origins and in the forces and motives leading to publication closely resembles law. Law, in its deeper moments, is free from academic processes and motives. The literary individual plays an exceedingly small part. Law is the expression of the community's needs, hence it travels no faster than it is driven. But the lit­erary individual is more or less detached from cor­porate needs. He writes for the pleasure of ex­pression, and seeks a systematic, theory for his own mental satisfaction. But law is forced into ex­pression and publication by the needs of the cor­porate life. Similarly the Gospels, in a very real sense, were published as law is published. They were built up with and shaped within the Apostolic Church.

There are two main conditions for the rise of the Gospels. First, the Christian Church from the first day had a Bible under its hand‑it inherited the Hebrew Scriptures. Second, it was a prophetic community, inspired with creative hope and moral passion, and, consequently, the process of gospel­building was entirely free. The need of new Scrip­tures was not consciously felt. The 4. Causes of law of the new community was the the Rise of Old Testament plus the Savior's words, the Gospels. the Logia of Jesus the Messias (Acts vii. 38, logia zonta). As late as I. Clement (90‑95 A.D.?) this situation continues. The eschatologic passion which dominated the Apostolic Age‑the intense and vivid belief in the speedy return of the Savior (see MmL&NARIANIBm, MI7•IzIsmuM), and in the triumph of his commu­nity‑hindered the growth of the Gospels. But this passion was chastened by the knowledge of the Christ of history and sobered by the growing gov­ernmental responsibilities of the Church. It may be supposed that small and imperfect collections of the saving words appeared at a fairly early date. The Jewish‑Christian community, as it began to come under strain, had to prove its right to exist. It was inevitable that it should do this by the ar­gument from Prophecy, by searching the Scriptures (John v. 39; Acts xvii. 2‑3, 11), by proving that the life of Jesus tallied with the Messianic oracles of the Old Testament. It was equally inevitable that, in order to know its own mind so far as that

Gospel and Gospels


mind contained anything that transcended Juda­ism, the Jewish‑Christian community must study the mind of Jesus: Hence the tendency to assem­ble the saving words was instinctive.

This is the situation that explains the first pub­lished Gospel. Up to a short tune ago this Gospel was confidently called the Logia, the name being taken from Papias' account of Matthew's work. So many difficulties have besieged this fragment

and the utterances pf Papias are so 5. Papias confused that in the last few years an

and, the increasing number of scholars have

"Logic." either put it to one side or cashiered

it. In place of the " Logic " they would put "Q" (¢uelle, "source "). They assume, what must be conceded, that the Agrapha or ex­tracanonical sayings of Jesus can not materially help and that the only other Gospel which might have helped (the Gospel according to the Hebrews) has practically perished. So, the interpreter of the origin and relations of the Gospels is shut up to the Gospels as they are. Hence as a measurable quan­tity the investigator must seek the literary source (Q) of that text of the saving words which under­lies our Synoptists. But Papias can not yet be wholly abandoned: the beat possible must be made of his statement. It may be supposed that Mat­thew assembled and published a collection of the saving words. This edition of the Logia may have had a slight thread of narrative in it, but the nar­rative could not have been primary. The motive was to state the law of the new life and hope as Jewish Christians sought to live it. This could be done only by making clear to Christians the mind of Jesus. The cause of publication is utterly un­like that given by the Fathers, namely that St. Matthew was about to leave the Holy Land (Ruse­bius, Hist. eccl., III., xxiv.6). The true explanation has already been given. The new community Pub­lishes its law, the ground and obligation of its cor­porate existence and aim. The place of publica­tion, if any credit is due to Papias, must have been Jerusalem. The causes , And motives of gospel­building were necessarily strongest and clearest at the center of Christian life. The congregation of Jerusalem was the mother church of the new re­ligion. Matthew, by assembling and publishing the Logia, gave to that great congregation a deeper understanding of itself and a clearer conception of its calling. The date of publication can not be de­termined. But it may well have been between the death of James (627) and the flight of the church of Jerusalem to Pella (677).

But the strongest motives for gospel‑building were found not inside, but outside Palestine. The converts from Judaism were, in terms of religion, rich before they came to Christ (Ram. ix. .4‑5). The converts from heathendom, on the contrary, being polytheists, were paupers (I Cor. xii. 2; Eph.

ii. 11). Jewish Christians inheriting 6. The Mis‑ a complete equipment of religion and sionary discipline, came slowly into the con­Stimulus. scious recognition of governmental

needs. Gentile Christians were out­posts of Christ, besieged by a vast heathen world. As a result, Gentile Christianity very soon felt a


compelling need for clear knowledge of the Savior

(Luke i. 4). The period when the Gospels, appeared

is a distinct epoch in the history of the Church

(68P 95?). The Christian communities were rap­

idly becoming self‑conscious; Judaism pressed

upon them from the one aide, from the other the

Roman empire. The persecutions under Nero and

under Domitian forced them into close coherence.

The Christian community, under pressure, needed

to know the reason for its being. A clear and con­

tinuous view of Christ became a necessity. The

publication of the Gospels corresponds in part to

that need in the life of nations which leads to the

writing of histories and still more , closely to those

arises in the existence of great communities which

bring about the publication and codification of law.

Mark begins the series. The priority of Mark is

a strong probability. The evidence is not merely

the lively coloring which is said to indicate the eye­

witness. That might be otherwise explained, e.g.,

as due to the temperament and ability of the re­

porter. Nor is the primary evidence found in

Mark's possession of inside knowledge, which might

in fact be secondary. The primary evidence is

found, first in the literary relationship

7. Mark's between the Synoptics. Practically

Gospel. the entire text of Mark is found in

Matthew and Luke. The theory

broached long ago by Augustine that Mark is an

epitomator becomes, in the light of the mental and

literary conditions of the Apostolic Age, a sheer im­

possibility. The only alternative seems to be the

use of Mark by Luke and Matthew. Secondly, the

primary evidence is found in the way the story fife

into the times and in its contrast at this point with

Matthew and Luke. Mark gives the picture of

Christ in his time and place. Jesus' primary

question is his relation to the popular Measianiam

of Galilee. He is the Messiah, yet he avoids Mes­

sianic titles. At a very early day he adopts a pol­

icy of silence regarding his claims (Mark i. 34), and

consistently pursues it to its end. His primary re­

lations are with the crowd. He walks across Pales­

tine a man of his time in the fullest sense of the

word, whereas in Matthew and Luke other and later

motives come into the portrait. The literary and

historical arguments together give a very strong

probability of priority. The story of Mark is char­

acterized by fine narrative qualities. The story

is not delayed by the massing of Logia as in Mat­

thew, nor is its continuity ever threatened as in

Luke by detailed accounts of Jesus' relations with

all sorts and conditions of people. The story goes

steadily forward and is a narrative of noble simplic­

ity and movement befitting its supreme object.

There is no reason for doubting the tradition that

it was published in Rome. Mark satisfied the Gen­

tile Christians' craving for an enkindling story of

the Savior's life. It was probably published in the

years immediately following the Neronian persecu­

tion (66‑68?). As with the Logic, so with Mark,

its publication was in close connection with the in­

tense life of a great congregation. To the Roman

Church, as to the Church of Jerusalem, pressure and

persecution had given superior coherence and deep­

ened its conscious needs. In the Gospel of Mark it


found a reason for its existence and a ground for its motives and aims.

Luke opens with a prologue of large interest and value. The dedication to Theophilus clearly indi­cates that the writer is an educated Gentile; the

style of it is thoroughly Greek, the

8. Luke's sentence being highly articulated and

Gospel. rhetorically developed (contrast the

Aramaic type of sentence in the other

Gospels). The writer knows of other attempts to

write the life of Christ and they do not content him.

He tells his readers that he has gone to first sources

and consulted the eye‑witnesses. In every way he

bears himself as an educated Gentile, consciously

devoting himself in a literary way to the historian's

task. Yet he is not an apologete (contrast Mat­

thew). He betrays no dogmatic motive. Hence

he exercises far less control than Matthew over the

materials. Coming from the Greek world into Pal­

estine, he cares little for local coloring. While he

is careful to make connections with the chronology

of the Empire (iii. 1), he is careless of the connec­

tions in the Savior's life, following Mark less care­

fully than does Matthew. Like Mark, his Gospel

is, in the best sense, unconstrained, neglecting what

it does not need. Thus Jesus' relations to popular

Messianism are neglected or casually treated. The

" Herodians," more than once in evidence in Mark

(Mark iii. 6, xii. 13), are not in evidence. The Sa­

vior's policy of silence is not consistently developed.

Luke's Gospel was for a long time called Pauline, a

term which does not do justice to its breadth. His

mind is controlled by forces deeper than a conscious

Paulinism. He represents the emotional needs of

the Gentile churches recruited for the most part

among the lower classes and the socially disin­

herited. The Savior, in Luke's story, is in saving

touch with women and with the folk outside the

pale of rigorous Judaism. Luke's sources seem to

be Mark, the Logia, and springs of tradition still flow­

ing among the Jewish Christians of Palestine. There

are distinct veinings in his Gospel (Jesus' dealings

with women, vii. 37 sqq., viii. 2‑3,19 sqq., 43 sqq.,

x. 38 aqq., xi. 27, xxiii. 49‑55, xxiv. 22 sqq.; a lean­

ing toward Ebionism, vi. 20, xiv.13‑21, xvi. 20sqq.,

xxi. sqq.). Some of his sources are thoroughly

localized (the " Perean Gospel," containing much

material found elsewhere in mark and Matthew,

but some original and local matter: the Jerusalem­

itic Gospel of the Resurrection; contrast the Gali­

lean Gospel in Mark and Matthew). Evidently he

kept the promise made in his prologue; original

sources deeply color his report of the Savior's life

and words and are reflected much more clearly than

in Matthew. The person of Christ stands out more

distinctly than in Mark. Forgiveness of sins is

based upon love of his person (vii. 47). Luke

shares with Matthew the great Logion " No man

knoweth the Father " (Luke x. 22; Matthew xi.

27). Though it be true that he takes this froft the

Logia (or Q), yet his choice of it is significant. None

of our Gospels is shaped by a process of mechan­

ical incorporation; all keep close to vital motives

and corporate needs. The outstanding person of

Christ (cf‑ the persistent use of Kurios as a title for

Jesus) answers the demand of Gentile Christians

Download 4.32 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   40

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page