be quite another matter, and it should need no argument to convince any one that the Apostles, whose accomplishment of fast writing had been previously applied to business purposes only, could not do so. Hence a division of labour became necessary, and either tacitly or by agreement it came to be understood that those who wrote readily in Aramaic should report the Lord's utterances in the one tongue, and that the one who was at home in Greek should report His discourses in the other.

It appears then that to unlock the Chief Problem of the Gospel Question both the Master Key and this First Special Key are needed. The two propositions stand or fall together. If it be true that our Lord used two languages, and that Matthew, Mark and Luke contain almost exclusively His Aramaic, and John His Greek utterances, there is no escaping the conclusion that the Gospels are based upon contemporary and verbatim reports of what our Lord did and taught. the other hand, sufficient has been said to prove that, if the records are not vague reminiscences, modified by the mental bias and standpoint of the writers, but faithful and accurate reports of what He really said and did, the addresses in the Synoptics and the discourses in John were respectively spoken in different languages, one of which must have been Aramaic and the other Greek.

On

All the attempts hitherto made to account for the contrast in form and substance between Matthew, Mark and Luke on the one hand, and John on the other, have been failures. The most usual explanation has been that each evangelist had a special and distinct design in the Gospel which he wrote, or that he intended it for a certain class of readers, and selected his materials accordingly. But this, even if it were so, would go but a short way towards solving the problem. There is nothing, however, to warrant the supposition that the writers of the Gospels had any other design than to give as faithful an account as they were able of the facts of our Lord's life. They write with the simplicity of men whose desire is to let their

story speak for itself, and who never dream of twisting it to suit their own views. Their own opinions never appear except it may be in occasional comments which are kept carefully apart from the narrative itself. The theory of design or of doctrinal bias is but a sort of forlorn hope to cope with a question that seemed to defy criticism.

The true solution is a very simple and prosaic one, namely, that it passed the skill of the disciples to write quickly in two totally dissimilar languages, expressed in different characters, running in reverse directions.

Part IV

THE SECOND SPECIAL KEY

THAT THE RECORDS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS LARGELY CONSIST OF THE UNITED TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES GIVEN AT THE TIME IN COMPANY AND SEVERALLY REPORTED BY THE WRITERS

יז

Chapter I

BRIEF STATEMENT

F it is probable that some of the Apostles made a practice of recording the sayings. and doings of Christ, it is also probable that those who did so obtained the help of their colleagues in that undertaking. For they were certainly inexperienced in work of that character; and, although for reporting a speech verbatim their inexperience might be a matter of little moment (provided they could write fast enough), for relating facts, and for reporting sayings which they did not take down at the moment of utterance, they would find their want of practice a serious inconvenience. It is highly probable that some who were expert in writing did not possess in so large a degree as some of the others either the faculty for observing and remembering facts, or the command of language necessary for describing them. Those therefore who undertook the task of writing from time to time a narrative of our Lord's sayings and doings needed all the assistance their fellow-Apostles could afford.

The Twelve on our theory did precisely what under the cir

L

cumstances it was most likely and most natural that they would do. One of the first things that occurred to them, after being called and set apart to their distinguished office, was the necessity of making a record of the acts and utterances of Christ their Master. They began by enquiring who among them were most ready with the pen, and fixed their attention on four who, by reason of their former occupations or otherwise, were known to be expert writers. These however had each a keen sense of his insufficiency for the task. True, they could in their business jot down quickly notes of their dealings; but work of the description now called for they had never done. They were not literary men, and what was now required was literary work. But the others encouraged them to try. "In reporting the Master's addresses you will have but to write just what He says; and for the rest we will all help you as best we can." So it was arranged that, whenever convenient, tautochronistic reports of our Lord's addresses should be made by one or more of the four; and that on suitable occasions the Apostles should unitedly review the events that had recently occurred, and that reports of those events, based upon the conversations which took place on those occasions, should then be written.

The four who thus undertook to write what may be called the Apostolic journals or chronicles were Matthew, John, Peter, and, I think, James the son of Zebedee. Matthew and John speak for themselves, and Peter is named by ancient tradition and general consent as the original author of the records of Mark. My reasons for assuming that James was the writer of the notes which form the substance of the greater part of the third Gospel will be stated in our next Part, when considering the Third Special Key-the Key which unlocks the Chronological Problem.

At present it is impossible to say for certain to what extent John availed himself of the help of his brethren when he wrote the notes of which his Gospel is composed. In some places there are indications that he knew what the others were writing; but in others there are strong indications that he did

not.

The probability is that he was generally present at the conferences when Matthew, Peter and James wrote, but that, as the conversation at such times was in Aramaic and he wrote in Greek, he himself as a rule wrote by himself alone.

The principal portions of the first three Gospels consist then in part of separate tautochronistic reports of our Lord's utterances, and in part of reports, also tautochronistic and severally made, of the testimony of the Apostles given in conference. When writing the latter the writers also revised and finished off -perhaps re-wrote the former, and arranged the manuscripts in order.

The proof that the Synoptic narratives were for the most part written in the way described will be found to be convincing by those who will take the trouble, patiently and without bias, to compare, section by section and word by word, the parallel portions of Matthew, Mark and Luke. An attempt is made in the final Part of this book to assist the reader in this undertaking. Meanwhile, in the hope of bringing home to his mind the manner in which, as I believe, the original authors of the Synoptic narratives did their work, I will try to describe their proceedings during a given period. In this attempt I scrupulously follow the letter of the Gospel stories, and my inferences are always those which are, in my opinion, naturally suggested by the text.

The following are the portions chosen :-Matthew xx. 17–34; Mark x. 32-52; Luke xviii. 31-34, xxii. 24-30, xviii. 35-43, xix. 1-27. They relate the doings of two days of the time occupied in the last journey of Christ to Jerusalem. (The reason for the displacement of parts of Luke's narrative will be given in Part V.)

Thanks to the learning and research that have been devoted to the subject by commentators, we are able to fix, almost to a certainty, the dates upon which the events here recorded took place. My reasons for believing that the "City called Ephraim" (John xi. 54) was situated near the east bank of the Jordan, and was the starting point of this journey, will be found in Part VII.