A ( ;i ispel, in fact, is not a biography. What are
III s.ixiii;: efficacy in the events of our Lord's life
.111- Hi- liirth, death, and resurrection. The fact
'ill lli. went about doing good, and healing all
' 1 1- oppre.ssed of the devil' (Ac W), and
11 I xample .and His moral and spiritual dis-
1 I - I liiew a new light on the relations of men
to (lull tiiiil to one another, this too is of great im-
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
667
portauce; Imt there is not any practical significance whatever in tlie order in wliicli tliis or tliat miracle was performed, or this or tliat discourse spoken. It is not likeljf tliat tlie Apostolic preachers dwelt more on the historical sequence of the works and words of Jesus than do those in modern times ; and in consequence, speaking generally, such sequence would be disregarded, even by original witnesses. The events of any one memorable day might be remembered and repeated exactly in the order in which they had occurred ; and thus we have, no doubt, in Mk 1 an account of the incidents that were indelibly impressed on Peter's mind in con- nexion with the day on which he finally left all and followed Jesus.
8. We are now ready to discuss the question, Is there any instance in the NT of the term ' Gospel ' applied to a toritten document? There are perliaps two such cases.
Before citin;? them, it may be well to premise, (1) that they were written at a time wlien there must have been written accounts of some sort of our Lord's works and words, and whun the term 'Gospel' was unquestionablv applied to oral narratives of the life of Jesus ; and also (2) that in Ignatius (,Phil. 5) • the Gospel' is quite naturally applici I to the Evangelic story, and, being co-ordinated with 'the Apostles' and 'the Prophets,' im- plies that the story was written.
The passages are : Mk 1' ' The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Clirist, the Son of God ' ; and Rev 14" 'I saw another angel flying in mid heaven, having an eternal gospel to proclaim unto them that dwell on the earth.' However visions are to be explained, they are essentially pictures, seen by the eye before they are interpreted by the mind.
This picture of the angel 'having an eternal gospel' plausibly suggests a figure with a scroll or roll ' his hand.
The opening clause of St. Mark's Gospel has indeed been explained as parallel to Ph 4'^, where ' the beginning of the qospel is relative to the person apprehending it' (Grimm-Thayer), as though it referred to the preaching of 'John the Baptist. This interpretation seems to the present writer far-fetched. It is surely more natural to take it as the title of the book, and, as Dr. Sahuon thinks, raodeUed on Hos 1- 'Apx*) Xdvou Kupiou Ei/'fltrije. It is not easy to give reasons why a considerable interval should elapse between the application of the term ' Gospel ' to an oral narrative, and to the same narrative when committed to writing. It may be fairly asked. How would the writer of the Second Gospel have been likely to describe his work ? It is not probable that St. Mark's Gospel, as we have it, was actually the first narrative drawn up. Nor can it be fairly said that the lan- guage of St. Luke, in his preface, proves that he was unacquainted with the terra 'Gospel' in the sense of a document. The use of a Christian teclmical term would have seemed to St. Luke out of place m a section in which he was carefully using what he deemed his best literary style.
9. What has been said in explanation of St. Paul's statement that his knowledge of Gospel facts had been received from the Lord, i.e. from a man inspired by the Lord, a prophet-evangelist, suggests the answer to the question, Ho^o did the Church recognize tlie inspiration of the nar- ratives which she firutlly, and at <r ren/'carli/ date, acquiesced in as authoritatirc Gospels? it was through the double and almost simultaneous action of the original Evangelist or Evangelists, and the judgment of the Church on the sections of the Gospel story delivered on successive Lord's Days, both directed and suggested and controlled by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus.
It is the intention of the writer of the present article to deal with this subject from the stand- point of the Cliristian Church to a greater degree than is usual now among critical writers. The
indignant remonstrance of St. Paul to the indi- vidualistic Corinthians has a certahi relevance to some modern exponents of early Christian litera- ture : ' What ? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?' (1 Co 14^^). One sometimes hears or reads dis- cussions on Christian literature which indicate that for the speaker or writer the Christian Church has no existence. The collection of writings which we call the NT is treated as though it were a fortuitous collection, the selection of wliich was determined arbitrarily, or at least on principles which have now no claim to respect ; as though Christianity were merely a matter of literary or antiquarian interest, so that some new discovery might change our whole conception of Christ's work and words, or alter the value of the Gospels already received. Now the existence of the Chris- tian Cliurc li during the first centuries of our era is a fact ; a f:ut the recognition of which has no con- nexion with any speii.-il views we may hold as to what ou.^ht til he the rdiistitution or organization of the Ciiurch in our oxmi times. It is surely un- philosopliical to ignore a fact which was admittedly one of transcendent importance to the first Chris- tians. The Gospels, as we have them now, are a product of the Church of Apostolic and sub- Apostolic times. It is, to say the least, conceiv- able that some principle determined the Church in her final selection of Gospels ; and any suggestion as to what that principle was cannot be witliout interest, even if it fails to compel assent.