Christ. Speaking generally, we may say that, while the First Gospel sets forth Christ’s life and teaching with reference to the past, as the fulfil-
ment of the OT, the Gospel of St. Mark exhibits that life in the present, as a manifestation of the activity and power so congenial to the Roman mind; St. Luke, as a Greek, depicts it in its catholic and comprehensive character, as destined in the future to embrace within its saving influence all the kindreds of the Gentiles; while the Fourth Gospel represents it in its absolute perfection, as it is related to the Father in eternity.
With regard to the authorship of the Gospels, it is a remarkable fact that two of them do not bear the names of apostles but of companions of apostles (Mark and Luke), and that, of fie other two, only one bears the name of an apostle of eminence (John) — which is so far a confirmation of their genuineness. With regard to the First Gospel, there is no reason to doubt the tradition of the ancient Church, beginning with Papias in the first half of the 2nd cent., which assigns it in its original form to St. Matthew. But whether it was origin- ally written in Heb., as stated by Papias, and how far it has been altered by recension, are ques- tions which have not yet been determined. See MATTHEW (GOSPEL OF). With equal unanimit the testimony of the Fathers, beginning wit Papias, ascribe the Second Gospel to St. Mark, whe
NEW TESTAMENT
NEW TESTAMENT 527
is said to have embodied in it the
reaching of St. Peter. This view is strongly confirmed by the tone and character of the book, which is generally regardvd us containing, in a more or less modified form, the earliest cycle of apostolic teaching. See art. MARK. With regard to the authorship of the Third Gospel, there is substantial unanimity. Tra- dition has always ascribed it to St. Luke, the friend and companion of the Apostle Paul, at the same time assigning to the latter a in its production somewhat similar to that which St. Peter is believed to have borne in relation to the Gospel of Mark— 8 view supported to a certain extent by the char- acter of the Gospel itself, which forms an excellent historic groundwork for the doctrine of salvation by grace that was characteristic of St. Paul’s preach- ing. See art. LUKE. Until the close of the 18th cent. the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel was never seriously challenged. In some respects it has stronger external testimony in its favour than any of the others; and the whole tone of the book gives the impression that it was written by one as was familiar with the inner life of Christ and His apostles, as well as with the topography of Jerusalem and the ideas and customs prevalent among the Jews before the destruction of their capi Moreover, the spiritual elevation of the book is vastly superior to anything we find in the sub-apostolic age, and the Johannine authorship is attended with fewer difficulties than any other that has been suggested. If it was written in Ephesus about A.D. 85 (which is in accordance with the earliest tradition), an interval of more than half a century had elapsed since the death of Christ, during which Christianity had spread into many lands and furnished subjects for reflexion to many minds. In these circumstances it was in- evitable that the truths of the Gospel should be viewed in new lights and assume more speculative forms ; and in Ephesus, as the great meeting-place of Oriental mysticism and Greek’ philosophy, the deeper questions and more theological aspects of the new religion would naturally claim a large measure of attention. See, further, art. JOHN (GOSPEL OF).
2. The Book of Acts.—This invaluable document, which is our chief authority on the history of the Chureh for nearly a generation after Christ’s death, is evidently from the same pen as the Gospel of Luke, to which it is intended to be a sequel. The writer conceives of Christ as still carrying on His work in virtue of His resurrection and ascension, and seeks to trace the gradual ex- pansion of the Church from its first beginning, as a seeming phase of Judaism, to its full development as a Catholic communion, free alike to Jew and Gentile. Although the author does not speak in his own name till he reaches the point in his narrative at which he joined St. Paul’s company at Troas, and was evidently dependent in the earlier part of his work on a variety of sources, oral and written, yet the book has a natural unity of diction and style, which forbids us to assign it to more than one author; and its several parts are so interlaced by corresponding observations and allusions as to lead to the same conclusion. Recent investigations have enhanced the reputation which the work had previously enjoyed for histori- cal worth and accuracy ; and the belief is becoming
eneral that it must have been written by a
istorian of the first rank. Regarding its date of composition, no conclusion has been reached be- yond what may be inferred from the fact that it was written by a contemporary and companion of the Apostle Paul, at some time subsequent to his first imprisonment at Rome (A.D. 63). See art. AcTs.