In this Commentary on the Synoptical Gospels I give to the public the fruit of studies carried on for many years. These Gospels have taken a more powerful and abiding hold of me than any other part of the Scriptures. I have learnt much from them concerning Christ in the course of these years ; not a little since I began to prepare this work for the press. ] have done my best to communicate what I have learned to others. I have also laid under contribution previous com- mentators, ancient and modern, while avoiding the pedantic habit of crowding the page with long lists of learned names. I have not hesitated to introduce quotations, in Latin and Greek, which seemed fitted to throw light on the meaning. These, while possessing interest for scholars, may be passed over by English readers without much loss, as their sense is usually indicated.
In the critical notes beneath the Greek Text I have aimed at making easily accessible to the reader the results of the labours of scholars who have made the text the subject of special study; especially those contained in the monu- mental works of Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort. Readers are requested to peruse what has been stated on that subject in the Introduction, and, in using the com- mentary, to keep in mind that I have always made what I regard as the most probable reading the basis of comment, whether I have expressly indicated my opinion in the critical notes or not.
In these days one who aims at a competent treatment of ‘the Evangelic narratives must keep in view critical
viii PREFACE
methods of handling the story. I have tried to unite some measure of critical freedom and candour with the reverence of faith. If, in spite of honest endeavour, I have not suc- ceeded always in realising this ideal, let it be imputed to the \ack of skill rather than of good intention.
I rise from this task with a deepened sense of the wisdom and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. If what I have written help others to a better understanding of His mind and heart, I shall feel that my labour has not been in vain.
I enjoyed the benefit of Mr. MacFadyen’s (of the Free Church College, Glasgow) assistance in reading the proofs of the second half of the work, and owe him earnest thanks, not only for increased accuracy in the printed text, but for many valuable suggestions.
The works of Dr. Gould on Mark and Dr. Plummer on Luke, in the /nternational Critical Commentary, appeared too late to be taken advantage of in this commentary.