FOREWORD

By the Rev. F. B. Clogg, M.A., B.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature in the University of London.

An important part of the Religious Knowledge paper in the new General Certificate of Education is "The Life and Teaching of Christ". The text-book is of course the Gospels themselves, which have been the source of innumerable commentaries written for widely different types of readers. Most teachers of this subject, while they study as many as they can of the commentaries and other books written about the Gospels, will welcome a book written by one who, through his own experience, knows the sort of help which, many of them need.

Most books on the Life and Teaching of Christ combine elements from the Fourth Gospel with the story of the ministry in the Synoptic Gospels. The important differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels make it desirable to have a text-book which treats these two main sources separately. Hitherto no suitable book has been obtainable. My friend and former pupil, Mr. H. A. Guy, is well qualified academically and from practical experience to write such a text-book. I believe his book will be of great value to those teachers who have not been able to specialize in this subject. Even those who have specialized will be grateful for the guidance which it offers. It is in no sense a substitute for the Gospels themselves but a book which, if rightly used, will give both teachers and taught a more lively appreciation of the significance of what the Gospels tell us of the Life and Teaching of Christ. It will be of value to those who are teaching the subject not only with an examination in view, but who are using one or other of the excellent Agreed Syllabuses in Religious Instruction.

I have often been asked by teachers to recommend a text-book. I commend this as the sort of book for which they have been seeking.

F. B. CLOGG.
Top

CONTENTS

THE USE OF THIS BOOK

This book is intended for two types of readers:
(i) Those who wish to make a study of the life and teaching of Christ privately or who wish to have at hand a book for convenient reference to any particular passage. It may thus prove of use to students of all ages, to teachers and to preachers and to any who wish to know more of the story which is the foundation of Christianity.
(ii) Candidates for examinations on the narrative and teaching in the Gospels. These students should make certain, from the regulations and syllabus of their examination, which part or parts they are expected to know.

(a) If they are to read only one of the Gospels, they should refer to the table of sections or the index of passages, to select those sections which deal with this particular Gospel.

(b) If their subject is 'The Life and Teaching of Jesus, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels' only Part I should be studied now. Experience shows that to read the Fourth Gospel narratives at the same time causes confusion in the mind of the student, which is reflected in answers in the examination room.

(c) If their syllabus includes the narrative portions of the Fourth Gospel, Part II should be studied as well.

For all students, the introduction, dealing with the writing of the Gospels and the background of the New Testament, is essential. This may be read either before or after the Gospel passages have been studied.

The actual matter in the Gospels is not printed here. This is of set purpose. The text-book is the New Testament and this book is not intended to take the place of that. It is essential that the New Testament itself should be read and that the student should be able to 'find his way about' the Gospels. The notes in each section are intended only as a guide to a fuller understanding of the contents of the Gospels. It is assumed in these that the English Revised Version of 1881 is being used, but the book may be employed with any English translation of the New Testament. For consulting parallel passages it would be a convenience to have two or three copies.

The matter in the Synoptic Gospels is divided into a hundred and seventy-three sections. This is for purposes of comparison and reference. At the head of each section there are references to all the places where the incident or teaching is to be found. If there is more than one account, the passage which should be read first, if that is desirable, is underlined. Differences which occur in the parallel accounts in the other Gospels are dealt with in the notes and should be looked up.

The advantage of this arrangement is that we can gain a clear idea of each section, in comparative isolation from other matter with which it might be confused. The danger is that we may tend to think of the Gospels as consisting of a number of separate sections or isolated fragments. To counteract this, the student is strongly advised to read through the Gospels first - preferably in the order Mark, Luke, Matthew - or the particular Gospel, if he is studying only one. He will then gain a general impression of the course of the story of Jesus and the contents of his teaching. Then he can turn to the separate sections here, for light on particular passages. After concluding his study he will do well to read the Gospels once again, bearing in mind the notes and suggestions he has found here.

All students of the New Testament will greatly profit by using the translation published in 1961 under the title of The New English Bible.
Top

INTRODUCTION

THE MAKING OF THE GOSPELS

The main part of this book deals with the matter found in the first three Gospels. These are grouped together as the Synoptic Gospels. This is from two Greek words meaning 'seen together' and refers to the fact that parallel passages can be seen thus in a 'Synopsis', when the three accounts are placed side by side. [A convenient synopsis in English is A. Huck: Gospel Parallels] It also means that the three writers look at the life of Jesus from the same 'synoptic' point of view. The three are thus distinguished from the Fourth Gospel, which gives an account differing in chronology, in the presentation of the events narrated, in the style of Jesus' teaching and in the place of most of his public work.

The question of the relationship between the first three Gospels is called the Synoptic Problem. There are many books which deal with this in detail. All that can be given here is a summary of the conclusions which the great majority of Protestant scholars throughout the world have reached:

(i) Before the composition of the written Gospels, stories about Jesus and sayings of his were told orally by the Christians. People in the East have extraordinarily good memories and this was and still is a common method of passing on information and teaching. These stories circulated in the Church mainly as separate units, often detached from particulars of time or place.

(ii) These stories have been classified according to their contents and form.

(a) Some stories end with a pronouncement of Jesus and were remembered for the sake of the saying. See, for example, the account of Jesus and the outcasts (Section 22), Jesus and the Sabbath (24), Jesus' true family (29), Jesus and the children (94), the rich man (95), the question of tribute (140), the question of the inheritance (in), the coming of the Kingdom of God (128).

(b) Stories which told of Jesus' miracles and healing-acts, to illustrate his power and authority. See, for example, the leper (20), the Gerasene madman (66), the daughter ofJairus (67), the epileptic boy (85), the widow's son (62).

(c) Stories about Jesus or about people who lived with him were told as short biographical sketches. See, for example, Jesus' boyhood (10), the baptism and temptation (13 and 14), the visit to Nazareth (70), Caesarea Philippi (83), the transfiguration (84). Sketches of other people include: the call of the disciples (15), the sinful woman (63), Martha and Mary (104), the meeting with. Zacchaeus (152).

(d) Sayings of Jesus were told similarly. Probably the sayings and parables were collected together and written down before the stories.

(iii) These separate units were gathered together by the early Christians and were used by the writers of our Gospels. They connected the stories by links consisting of editorial notes and sometimes grouped the sayings to form a connected discourse. The writers of our Gospels were thus not biographers or authors in the modern sense, but were mainly compilers and editors, selecting their material in accordance with their purpose.

The work of examining the early traditions in the forms which they took, before they were written down, is called Form-Criticism or Form-History. This is to be distinguished from Source-Criticism, the study of the written documents used by the evangelists, with which the following paragraphs deal.

(iv) We find that the first three of our written Gospels are very similar in many ways - in the general order of events and, in parallel passages, often in the very wording. From a close study of the three books and of every such passage, it has been concluded that the first to be written was the Gospel of Mark. Ninety-five per cent of Mark's matter is found in Matthew, while at least fifty-five per cent of Mark is given also in Luke. For typical passages see the healing of the paralytic (Section 21), the call of Levi (22), Jairus' daughter (67), the question ofJesus' authority (137).

Mark's book was thus the first attempt to make a connected account of the early stories and sayings of Jesus. This Gospel was used by the other two writers and incorporated in their work. This was quite a common practice in the first century.

(v) This accounts for over half of Matthew and over a third of Luke. These two writers have in addition other passages where they are very similar. Here we conclude that they used another document besides Mark, a collection of Jesus' teaching, which is now lost. This document is called Q, (from the German word Quelle, meaning source). For typical Q, matter see the teaching of John the Baptist (Section 12), the mote and the beam (55), the two foundations (60), would-be followers (100).

This accounts for about a half of the non-Markan matter in Matthew and just under a third of the non-Markan matter in Luke.

(vi) There is matter found only in Matthew. This consists mainly of teaching of Jesus and is called for convenience M. Matter found only in Luke consists of teaching and narratives and is called L.

The following diagram (adapted from B. H. Streeter's The Four Gospels) makes clear the relationship between the Gospels.

THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS

The following is a summary of the conclusions of most present-day scholars on the characteristics, authorship and date of the four Gospels.

MARK

(a) The style of Mark's Gospel is a vivid one. There is an impression of speed and urgency. The language, in the original Greek, is rugged and sometimes harsh. Transition from one paragraph to another is often abrupt.

The aim of the writer was to present 'the good news of Jesus Christ' (1:1). Mark was writing for those within the Christian Church who desired to have a written record of familiar matters. His first readers were probably Gentiles, for he takes the trouble to explain references to Jewish customs and words. He is particularly interested in the deeds of Jesus. He portrays him as a man of authority and action and as the Messiah and Servant of God. There are not many sections of the teaching of Jesus in Mark.

(b) The book was probably written by John Mark, who is mentioned in Acts 12:12, 12:25, 13:5, 13:13, 15:37-39; Colossians 4:10; Philemon verse 24; 2 Timothy 4:11. According to tradition. Mark relied on the reminiscences of Peter, and there are places where we think we can see Peter behind the narrative. He probably used also written accounts of some of the incidents and one collection or more of Jesus' sayings.

(c) The usual date assigned to Mark is the sixties of the first century. Some think it was written when the Christians in Rome were being persecuted by the emperor Nero (AD 64-65). Some scholars, however, date it about the time of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

MATTHEW

(a) This is a typically Jewish Gospel. There is a great interest in the Old Testament, from which many quotations are given (especially from the prophets) and other Jewish features. Matthew wrote to portray Jesus as the Son of David, the Jewish Messiah. In his teaching Jesus is shown as the new Lawgiver. His sayings are arranged in five discourses or books. Matthew has also a greater interest than the other Synoptic writers in eschatology (teaching about the Last Things) and in the miraculous element in the story. He wrote for the Christian Church and sought to consolidate its fellowship.

(b) The author was a Jewish Christian, with an outlook like that of the scribes. He was not an apostle or eye-witness of the life of Jesus, for the basis of his book is Mark's Gospel, not personal reminiscences, and his own special matter is sometimes historically improbable. The book was attributed to Matthew the apostle probably because of the words of an early second-century writer (Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor), who said that Matthew wrote 'the sayings' in Aramaic. This (whatever it was) may have been used by the author of our Gospel of Matthew, but his book is really a revised edition of Mark, with matter from Q,and M added.

[c) The book is generally dated about AD 85 or later, and the place was possibly Antioch in Syria or further east, in northern Assyria.

LUKE

(a) This is the most literary of the Gospels. It is written in good Greek style and is perhaps the first attempt to write a proper biography of Jesus. It was penned, together with the Acts of the Apostles, for a Roman official, Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4 and Acts I:1). The writer's approach to the story of Jesus is that of a Gentile. He presents him as the universal Christ. He shows great interest in outcast people (sinners, tax-collectors, Samaritans), in the work of women, in the subject of prayer and in Jesus' teaching about the Spirit.

(b) The author is probably to be identified with Luke, who is mentioned in Colossians 4:14; Philemon verse 24; 2 Timothy 4:11. From these references we gather that he was a doctor, a companion of Paul and a Gentile. There are also passages in Acts where the writer uses the first person plural. These 'we-passages' tell us that the author accompanied Paul on journeys in Greece and later to Rome.

(c) Some think that Luke wrote first a book or a draft of a book, with material from Q and L. This would be about AD 58. Later he incorporated Markan matter, to complete his account. The usual date assigned to the completed Gospel (and Acts) is AD 75-80.

JOHN

(a) In many ways this is very different from the Synoptics. The subject matter has only five narratives in common with the other Gospels, excluding the Passion story; it is difficult, if not impossible, to fit into the Synoptic account the special matter in this Gospel. Jesus here speaks in long discourses and in allegories, instead of pithy sayings and parables. The book is written in the same Greek style, which appears to be that of the author himself. The teaching given seems in many places to represent the developed theology of the Church towards the end of the first century.

There are, however, points of contact with the Synoptic story and the usual conclusion is that the writer knew and used Mark and Luke. He wrote to reinterpret the familiar story. He gave a new presentation to almost everything he touched, whether narrative or the teaching of Jesus. His primary aim seems to have been that his readers might 'believe' and 'have eternal life' (20:31). But he had also in mind some Jewish opponents of the Church and certain false views of Christianity. He was a philosopher and a theologian and told his story in terms of current Greek thought.

(b) The traditional view was that the author was the apostle John, who was thought to be referring to himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. Few New Testament scholars of repute now assign the book to the apostle. Some think it was written by the man who penned the short books in the New Testament known as 2 and 3 John, who calls himself 'The Elder'. This may have been an elder or presbyter of Ephesus named John, a later leader in the Church. If the 'beloved disciple' ('Jesus' favourite disciple', as Moffatt translates) was intended to be John, his figure was probably idealized by the writer, so that in the book he stands for the true disciple of Jesus.

The writer was acquainted with educated Jewish and Greek thought, especially with the type of philosophy associated with Alexandria. He was probably a Hellenistic Jew, although acquainted with Palestine and Jerusalem.

(c) The usual date assigned to the Gospel is AD 95-105.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE LIFE OF JESUS

(a) The historical background of the Gospels

In order to understand and to be able to appreciate any great man of history, we must know something of the people among whom he lived and from whom he came - not only their situation in his own time but their history for a long period before. This is no less true of Jesus.

Jesus was a Jew and lived in Palestine. That statement supplies at once the key to much that is found in the Gospels. The story of his people - the Hebrews - is told in the Old Testament. This is the historical background of the New Testament. That history must be studied in the Old Testament itself and in the Apocrypha, which tells of the events between the Old Testament and the New. There are numerous books available today for those who wish to read about this. The following list of nine historical periods of Hebrew history may be useful:

More important even than the facts of their history is the religion of the Hebrews. This progressed, in the course of hundreds of years, until the height of their thought about God and man was reached in the time of the Exile.

Both the history and the religion are taken for granted in the New Testament. The first disciples were Jews, as were also the authors of the Gospels, with the exception of Luke. There are many references to Old Testament books in them, some direct and others incidental. The climax of Old Testament religion was the belief in one God, who desired righteousness and love from his worshippers. This is called ethical monotheism and was the result of the teaching of the prophets. This position could be taken for granted by Jesus. It was assumed both by himself and by his hearers that there was but one God and that he asked for a high standard of conduct from men. Jesus was able to use this as a foundation, on which to raise the structure of his own teaching.

(b) The religious situation at the time of Jesus

The Jews in the Roman Empire were allowed to keep their own religious beliefs and practices. The Romans were generally tolerant in such matters, provided the religious enthusiasm of subject peoples did not lead to public disturbance or attempts to revolt.

Judaism by the time of the first century AD had become one of the chief legalistic religions of the world. This means that its observance consisted mainly in certain religious duties. The man who observed these and carried out the Law was a pious man, blessed by God and respected by his fellows. The man who neglected them was an outcast, from both human and divine society.

For strict Jews there were certain private or semi-public observances. These included fasting - twice a week was the usual practice - almsgiving, which included the paying of tithes to the priests and the giving of charity to beggars, and prayer, at set hours of the day, either in private or in the company of other people.

There was also worship. The usual place was the synagogue, where services were held not only every Sabbath but during the week as well. The name simply means a gathering or assembly, and synagogues probably started during the Exile in Babylon, when sacrificial worship was impossible owing to the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem. By the first century there were numerous synagogues, wherever Jews lived, in Palestine or elsewhere. The building was a simple one, square in shape. There was no altar, but a platform, a reading-desk and a cupboard or curtained-off place where the rolls of the Old Testament books were kept. The service also was simple - prayers, the chanting of Psalms, readings from the Law and the Prophets, the recitation of Hebrew passages and an address, often followed by a discussion. The service was conducted by a Rabbi or by one of the elders (or rulers) of the synagogue - a committee of prominent local men who managed the affairs of the synagogue.

Quite distinct from this was the Temple, in Jerusalem. The Temple in Jesus' time was the third. The first was Solomon's, which had been destroyed by the Babylonians when they took Jerusalem in 586 BC. The second had been built in 520 BC after the return of the Jews from Exile. The third had been started by Herod the Great in 20 BC. He did not complete it, and it was indeed not finished until AD 65, five years before it was destroyed by the Romans. The Temple building itself was entered only by the priests, and the innermost shrine, the Holy of Holies, was entered only by the High Priest and by him only on one day in the year, the Day of Atonement. Surrounding the Temple was a Court of the Priests, where there were altars on which the priests offered sacrifice. Outside this were two courts into which only Jews were allowed to go - the inner Court of the Men of Israel, where only men were permitted, and the Court of the Women, into which any Jews might go. Surrounding these courts was the Court of the Gentiles, where anyone was allowed, and this had around it covered porticos.

The Temple was a place for sacrifice, not a place of congregational worship like the synagogue. It was associated in particular with the great religious festivals, such as the Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Jews from all over the Roman world would visit Jerusalem then, as a religious duty and joy.

The Jews who wished to be particularly strict in their religion belonged to one of the religious parties. These must not be thought of as separate 'denominations', for all acknowledged the same Law, worshipped in the synagogues and sacrificed in the Temple. But there was often strife between them because of their differences in outlook.

The PHARISEES are the best-known. The name means 'separate' and was probably adopted to stress the differences between Jews and Gentiles. Unfortunately the Pharisees themselves became 'separate' from the majority of their fellow-Jews, who were not so strict as they were.

Many of the Pharisees were middle-class laymen - business men and shopkeepers. Their great interest was in the Law and the business of the synagogue. They believed fervently in the Old Testament and accepted also the 'oral traditions' - amplifications and interpretations of the Law which had been made by scribes and Rabbis of former generations. They believed in a future resurrection of dead people, after a stay in Hades; after this would come a Judgment by God. They believed that God himself would set up his Kingdom. Their task was to help by observing the Law. They held to the hope of a Messiah, who would be God's agent in setting up and ruling his Kingdom. They disliked the rule of the Romans, but took no steps to revolt against it. They held that when God was satisfied with the nation of Israel, when they kept his Law perfectly, he himself would deliver them.

No doubt many of the Pharisees were sincere worshippers of God, who were trying to please him. Such a one was Saul of Tarsus. But their insistence on the keeping of the Law and the traditions led them to be very stern towards people who did not come up to their own high standard. They despised the common people and held themselves aloof from all disreputable folk and 'outcasts'.

The SADDUCEES were possibly called after Zadok, a priest of Solomon's time. Their members were mostly priests and aristocrats from noble Jewish families. They accepted the written Law but rejected the oral traditions of the Pharisees. Consequently they did not believe in a future resurrection or a Messiah. They owed the security of their position to the Romans, so they supported the conqueror's rule.

In the Gospels we find the Pharisees opposing Jesus, in Galilee. It was not until he came to Jerusalem that the priests and Sadducees began to take notice of him. In the Acts the Sadducees are the enemies of the disciples in Jerusalem.

The ZEALOTS were, as their name implies, an extreme religious and political party. They were the fanatical nationalists and developed from a movement started by Judas of Galilee, who rose against a Roman census in AD 6 (see Acts 5:37). They were responsible for the rebellion of AD 65-70, which resulted in the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Jewish nation. They believed that God's Kingdom could be set up on earth by force.

The SCRIBES were not a separate religious party, but were a professional class. Originally they were the men who copied the manuscripts of the Old Testament books. From their acquaintance with these writings they became the acknowledged teachers and interpreters of the Law. Most of them probably belonged to the Pharisee party, but some were Sadducees.

Most of the ordinary people of Palestine did not ally themselves with any of these parties or classes. They had not the leisure to study the Law minutely, to apply it diligently and exactly, and so did not join the Pharisees. They were not priests, so would not become Sadducees. They disliked the Romans but were not prepared to rise in active revolt, so they were not Zealots. 'Sheep without a shepherd' well describes them. These were the people to whom Jesus appealed.

(c) The political situation

The overlords of Palestine in the first century were the Romans. In 63 BC Pompey had entered Palestine with his army and captured Jerusalem. The country became part of the Roman Empire and was incorporated in the province of Syria.

The Romans often allowed native kings or chiefs to have power over their own territories. Herod the Great (whose family were originally not Jews) was permitted, from 37 BC, to call himself king of the Jews. He was a thoroughly worthless man. He worked with the Romans and was frequently hated by the Jews. He began the new Temple mentioned in the previous section.

On the death of Herod, in 4 BC, his kingdom was split up among three of his sons. Herod Archelaus was given the southern portion, Judea and Idumea. In AD 6 he was deposed by the Romans, because of the complaints of the people, and a Roman procurator was appointed to look after this territory. The fifth procurator was Pontius Pilate, from AD 26-36. Herod Philip was given Iturea, north-east of the Jordan. He died in AD 34. Herod Antipas was given Galilee, in the north, and Perea, east of the Jordan valley. He married the daughter of the king of Damascus but, attracted by Herodias, the wife of a half-brother, he divorced his own wife and married her. In AD 39 he asked the Romans for the title of king (his own official title was tetrarch, or ruler of a fourth part); he was deposed and sent into exile by the Romans.

The three parts into which the territory of the Jews was divided in the time of Jesus are shown on the map on page 16. Judea included also the district of Samaria. This was inhabited by descendants of Assyrian colonists, who had been imported into the northern kingdom when Samaria fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC They had mingled with the Israelites who remained after the leading people had been taken to Assyria. The Samaritans adopted the worship of Yahweh, the Hebrew God, and on the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon to Judea they offered to help in rebuilding the Temple at Jerusalem (520 BC). Their help was refused, so for a long time they tried to hinder the fortification and building of the city. Eventually they built their own rival Temple on Mount Gerizim in Samaria. This was destroyed by a Jewish king in no BC. There was great bitterness between Jews and Samaritans, and they generally avoided one another as much as possible.

In AD 39 Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, was made king of Judea (see Acts 12:1-2 and 12:20-23). On his death in AD 44, he was succeeded by his son, Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13-27), who was the last of the Jewish kings. In AD 65 a revolt against the Romans broke out in Galilee. This spread and became a general rebellion. The Romans sent the general Vespasian to put it down, and when he went to Rome to be Emperor in AD 69 his son Titus carried on the war. In AD 70 he captured Jerusalem, after a terrible siege, and destroyed the city and the Temple.
Top