HOME | Contents | Luke | Acts - Sources | Gospel Sources I | Gospel Sources II |
I THERE is in each of us a little wholesome scepticism. It is the grain of salt which we apply to every exceptional story we hear. We fancy it is too wonderful to be credible, too good to be true. We say to the teller of it, Who told you? This wondering doubt does not by any means desert us when we are confronted with the Gospel story. We may by-and-by reach the conviction that it is too good to be false; but it is such an amazing story, the "news" it brings is so "good," that the mind in its more secular moods wonders if it can be fact. And of the evangelists also we fain would ask. Who told you? Are you sure that your witnesses can be trusted?
It is not enough to be told that they are the treasures of the well-kept storehouse of early Church tradition, though that is in large measure true. We want to see that tradition precipitating itself in the minds of well-known and credible witnesses. In the case of the first two Gospels this desire can to a large extent be satisfied. The earliest Gospel was written by John Mark. Mark was a son of the house of the Upper Room. Jesus was a friend of the family, in the later days of His ministry. Peter was practically an inmate of this house in the weeks that followed Calvary. Peter was the means of winning Mark for Christ (1 Peter v.13), probably in these weeks. According to a trustworthy tradition which Eusebius quotes from Papias, Mark in later years became Peter's amanuensis and interpreter; and his Gospel is a collection of Peter's reminiscences of his Lord. The weight of Peter's authority lies behind this record, and it is sufficient to satisfy all but the most fastidious minds.
When we turn to the Gospel according to Matthew, two facts at once become apparent. One is that, for the larger part of the narrative, this Gospel is dependent upon Mark's, has indeed engrossed almost all of it, often simply transcribing Mark's words. The second fact is, that the greater part of what remains in Matthew consists of sayings of Jesus - four or five large groups of them, as well as isolated words. When we compare these laws, parables, revelations, denunciations, with similar passages in Luke's Gospel, we learn that both have, for these, relied on a single source, a source which has come to be called the Logia, and which, there is good reason to believe, was compiled by the disciple Matthew. Satisfied about these two authentic witnesses, we do not feel so anxious to enquire who was the editor who joined the two documents together, in this Gospel, which bears the name of the second of them. But there are some stories that are peculiar to Matthew's Gospel alone. The carpenter's hesitation to marry Mary, the coming of the Wise Men from the East, the flight to Egypt, the massacre of the Innocents, the return to Nazareth, and John the Baptiser's reluctance to baptise Jesus, form one group in the early part of the narrative. Peter's attempt to walk on the water, his receiving the power of the keys, his catching of the fish to pay the Temple tax, form another group in the centre of the Gospel. And in Jerusalem during Passion week, there are the stories of the city's commotion when Jesus rode in on the ass, of the children shouting and singing in the Temple courts next day, of Jesus' question to Judas when he -greeted Him in the garden, of Judas and the blood-money, of Pilate's wife's dream, of Pilate's basin, of the resurrection of saints at the crucifixion, of the sealing of the tomb, and of the bribing of the guard. Where did the editor get these three groups of stories - birth stories, "Peter" stories, Passion stories? It is noticeable that each group contains one or more wonder-stories - Joseph's dreams, the star-guided wise men, Peter on the water, Peter and the fish, Pilate's wife's dream, the resurrection of saints. The Passion stories, particularly the last two, suggest that they were current in the early Church in Jerusalem. The "Peter" stories are probably from the same source, and they reflect the prominence of that disciple there in the early days. But the legendary touch about them suggests that they had grown up some time after he was gone from the city. The birth stories, again, gather round the father of the Holy Family, and we are strongly reminded that the second son of the family, James, was also a prominent figure in the early Jerusalem Church. The House of Alphai - the relatives of Matthew, who wrote the diary of the Sayings - held an important place in the Church that gathered round James in Jerusalem. And it is probable that the compilation which we have in the Gospel according to Matthew was effected in Jerusalem or among the Judaean Christians. But it is impossible to determine more precisely to whom these stories are due. Nor does it greatly matter. To feel with a measure of confidence that we have the authority of Peter and Matthew behind the important sections of this Gospel's testimony is to be satisfied here too.
It is with the writings of Luke that we are now to be concerned. He wrote the great history of the early days, The Acts of the Apostles ; he is the author of the Third Gospel. He himself was an eyewitness of a considerable part of the events in the closing chapters of Acts. But for a large part he had to depend on other informants; and of no part of his Gospel story does he claim to give authentic first-hand testimony. He does claim, however, to have got his information from properly accredited witnesses. Who were they?
We ask this question with special interest about his Gospel, because some of the most appealing incidents and parables belonging to the Immortal Story are to be found in the pages of Luke alone. What an impoverishment of our sacred literature it would have meant to be without the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Lazy Neighbour, The Wily Steward, the Unjust Judge, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Pharisee and the Publican, the Lost Coin, and the Prodigal Son. And when we recall the stories of the shepherds, the Twelve-year old in the Temple, the widow of Nain, the sinner-woman who anointed Jesus' feet in Galilee, the peril of Jesus from Herod's designs, Zacchaeus, Martha and Mary, the dying thief, the two on the road to Emmaus - it is of Luke we feel inclined to ask this question most of all, Who told you? He, too, had a copy of Mark's Gospel and Matthew's diary before him. Where did he get these documents? Who told him the stories which he alone retails?
If we accompany him on his travels after he had become a follower of Christ, we may learn - in part at least. Like his fellow-practitioner in Browning's story, he, too, was "a picker-up of learning's crumbs." That he had set himself to glean details and to make memoranda of all he heard, his writings themselves betray. For nearly half the course of his history of the Apostolic days, our attention is arrested by his frequent use of the word "we." He is reminding us that he himself was an eyewitness. Indeed, from this personal note, and from the extraordinary vividness of the narrative, in which we can still catch the glow and excitement of the events, as though his heart beat fast while he wrote, we feel that he is making a practically verbatim copy from the notes of his journal. Hamack says: "They have about them the character of a diary." May we not infer that besides his notes of events he actually experienced, he made notes of other people's stories?
When friends meet, the first events of the past they recall are the immediate ones. As the interview prolongs itself, they dip back further and further into the past. As Luke met with this one and the next, he would listen first to their connection with the happenings of Apostolic days, and then, by-and-by, if these friends happened to have been followers" of Jesus, he would listen to their reminiscences of those celestial nights and days. We will follow the same order, only instead of mingling a strand of Apostolic history with a strand of Gospel story in alternate order, we will listen to the Apostolic history as we company with Luke, and then retrace the road and listen to the fragments of the Gospel story that some of these friends had to tell.
Paul was ill when he first reached Antioch of Pisidia, and a medical man was called in. It was the supreme moment in Dr. Luke's career. The tender-hearted physician was deeply impressed by the burning, dauntless spirit of the little Jew, and in the synagogue which this Gentile proselyte attended, he heard him tell on Sabbath his exciting tale of the advent of Him whom that race had long expected. It satisfied Luke's restless spirit, and he was won. He gave thanks to God that he had been "ordained to eternal life." (Acts i.48). Yet only when Paul came to Antioch on his second journey did Luke join him as a companion. But from this point onward, he would be tireless in his questioning of all who came his way, as to how the Divine story began. Clearly he was in contact all the time with witnesses of the Apostolic deeds, and we need do little more than record the names. There may be doubt concerning the portions of the story each was responsible for, but there can be none about the men themselves. Naturally Paul would tell him of the ecstatic moment on the road to Damascus, when the holy light of the eternal Truth first dawned and shone about him brighter than the noon-day sun. Then he would tell how, in the city, Ananias the disciple had given him his commission. There, amid growing hostility, he bore his earliest testimony to Christ. After a time he went up to the Holy City, and was introduced to some of the disciples. Courageously he bore his testimony on the scene of his persecuting zeal. Again his life was in danger, so he left the city; and for eleven years he was lost to the Church in the seclusion of Tarsus (ix.1-31).
When Luke questioned him about the days of his persecuting activities, he was silent, and begged Silas, his associate on this journey, to proceed. From Silas Luke would learn the story of the first Christian martyr, who by his advocacy loosed the Truth of Christ from the trammels of ancient Judaism, testifying finally with his blood. Painfully he would tell of the part Paul had played in that deed of blood (vi.1-viii.3).
Then comes Paul's story, which we have already had before us. T hose who were scattered abroad in that time of persecution had come to Antioch in Syria, and proclaimed the message there with much success. Barnabas was sent down from Jerusalem to visit the new community of Christians, and stayed on to encourage them. By-and-by he came all the way to Tarsus to entice Paul to join them in the work. It was the opportunity for which he (Paul) had been longing, and he greedily snatched it, dedicating himself to a life-long atonement for his crime. The first important piece of work in which he was associated with Barnabas was the conveying of famine-relief to the brethren in Judaea. In Jerusalem he had stayed with Barnabas' relatives, the family of John Mark. From them he heard the excited story of the slaying of James of Zabdai, of the imprisonment of Peter, and of his amazing escape, when he appeared in the dead of night at the door, and startled those who were gathered there in anxious prayer.
Barnabas and he returned to Antioch, when their errand was completed, taking John Mark with them. Soon they were sent out on their first campaign. Mark accompanied. As the terrors of the journey loomed more and more menacing ahead, Mark's spirit failed him and he fled. We have already listened .to the tale thus far (xi.19-i.13). But it is Luke himself who tells how Barnabas and Paul had come to Pisidian Antioch alone. Well he might remember their coming. It was the birthday of his soul.
It was not till he was on the way up to Jerusalem with Paul on his last visit to the city that Luke began to hear fragments of the still earlier Apostolic story. When they landed at Caesarea they stayed some nights in the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the famous Seven, and once more the questioning began. The tragic ending of his friend Stephen's career had been the beginning of days for Philip too. A marked man because of his association with Stephen, he had fled from the capital to Samaria, and in that city preached the word with power. So great was his success that Peter and John came down from Jerusalem to see the work. But as usual trouble arose, and he travelled south towards Gaza in the desert, encountering the Ethiopian eunuch on the way. Afterwards he preached among the cities of the Shephelah (viii.4-40).
When Paul's company set out from Caesarea, they came, apparently, at the end of the first day's journey to Lydda, where the old disciple Mnason entertained them. The Cross had had its triumphs in that place. There was Peter's visit to the town to tell about; his subsequent experiences in Joppa; and something also of his experiences among the Gentiles in Caesarea (ix. 32-xi. 18). But Luke was to hear more of this directly.
Reaching Jerusalem with Paul, he joined at length the company of some of the first disciples and followers of Jesus, and here the earliest chapter of the Church's story would be told. Peter and John are associated together in one of the stories; from their lips he doubtless heard it. Going up together to the Temple one day they had healed a lame man at the gate. A crowd collected, and Peter preached to them in Solomon's porch. Five thousand souls were won. The two disciples were arrested and at their trial next day, when they were enjoined not to preach any more in this Name, they answered, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." They were dismissed, and returned to the Upper Room, where, in response to the ecstatic prayers of the company, the Holy Spirit fell. A great time followed. Rich believers shared their possessions with the poor. There was the solemn fate of Ananias and Sapphira to recall, and the growing power of Peter and the apostles with the crowd, as in Solomon's porch they continued to witness to Christ (iii.1-v.16).
A story lies embedded in this narrative, which is thought by some to be another version of the same facts. It was evidently given to Luke by someone who remembered first and chiefly the spiritual excitement of the Upper Room, the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. It tells of the phenomenon of tongues, of Peter's sermon in the open, and of the winning of three thousand souls. It also tells of the community of possessions, of the imprisonment of the apostles, of the arraignment, of Peter's retort "We must obey God rather than men," of Gamaliel's counsel, of the dismissal of the Apostles and the continuance of their propaganda (ii.1-47, v.17-42). It was told to Luke, perhaps by John Mark or some other frequenter of the Upper Room, someone with a more naive and less orderly mind. And others of the disciple-circle would carry their reminiscences back behind these days, and tell of the long waiting in the Upper Room, in the interval between Calvary and Pentecost (i). Peter must have repeated the account of his visit to the seaboard lands, and his experience in Cornelius the centurion's house in Caesarea.
But Luke had but brief time in which to pursue his investigations. The storm, which had long been brewing against Paul, broke out fiercely before they were many days in Jerusalem. And ere they could realise what had happened, Paul's long imprisonment had begun. Luke accompanied him to Caesarea by-and-by. He had got together most of his notes for the earlier part of the history; and we can see him beguiling the tedium of the sad years, while he waited near his friend, and between the interruptions of journeys to Antioch to interview Paul's old friends for him, by arranging the material of these notes in a first tentative draft of a narrative of the great moving of the Spirit in the hearts of men.
And the first thing he would do would be to compare and adjust them with the notes of the diary he had kept during all the time he had companied with Paul on his last adventurous journeys which had ended in this imprisonment at length. Let us look over his shoulder while he glances through the notes of this second part of the story. The first entry is his own story. It is his account of the visit of Paul and Barnabas to the town of Antioch in Pisidia. There is a very full note of the sermon Paul preached, and of the result for him and many others (i.14-52).
He had never got a very full account of the rest of that journey of Barnabas and Paul. But now that he was in touch with Antioch, Paul seemed to be anxious to see Barnabas again. And Luke would be the go-between. Between the two, the whole journey and the events that followed would be cleared up at last. He himself could add a note about Paul's passing through Antioch on his return journey (xiv.1-28).
After this journey, the trouble about the Gentile converts became acute, and the story of the great Council in Jerusalem, as we have it in Luke's history, was possibly told him by Barnabas, for Paul's own account is not quite so conciliatory (Gal.ii.). No doubt he had heard a good deal about it before he left the Holy City, something at least of the speeches which Peter, and James, the brother of the Lord, had made in support of Paul's main contention; and he may have got a sight of the letter containing the decrees (xv.1-33).
Luke would next hunt out the notes he had of the second great mission-journey of the Apostle. It was Silas, Paul's associate on this journey, who had given him these, and now that he had seen Paul and Barnabas reconciled, and had heard something of the dispute from their own lips, he would be able to put the tale in order. Paul and Silas journeyed over the old ground first, delivering the decrees. It was on this journey that Paul took young Timothy into his company (xv.35-xvi.5).
Then once more Luke is an eye-witness. It is the story of how Paul was induced to come to Europe, but Luke had modestly suppressed the part he himself played in the transaction - soliciting so earnestly all along the road from Antioch, that Paul felt the Spirit closing door after door against his inclinations - the road to Asia, and the road to Bithynia, until at last he is in Troas, and the debate is settled by a dream. Philippi becomes the scene of his first planting of the Cross in Europe (xvi.6-24). It was probably Silas who told Luke the story of what happened in the Philippian prison to Paul and Silas (xvi.25-40).
During the next part of Paul's activities he was a good deal alone. Luke himself had stayed behind in his native Philippi, and did not rejoin him for five or six years. To Paul therefore he must have been indebted for the reminiscences that follow - Paul's journey from Philippi through Macedonia to Achaia, his experiences in Thessalonica and Beroea, his disappointing visit to Athens, where his attempt to approach them along the line of philosophy resulted mainly in ridicule and failure. He left for Corinth, resolving all along the road not to know anything among them save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Then follows the romantic story of his meeting with Priscilla and Aquila. Certain turns of phrase strongly suggest that Paul was the teller. Luke seems for example to have put down on his note-book once a fragment of the direct speech of Paul when he "reasoned with them out of the scriptures opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus whom I preach unto you, is Christ." Clearly it was from Paul that the story of his sojourn in Athens came. For Paul was alone in Athens, and the phrase "his spirit was stirred within him," could only have come from Paul. Here again we read that he "disputed in the synagogue," and a similar phrase occurs in the account of his doings at Corinth, "he reasoned in the synagogue." The expression "Paul was pressed in spirit," and again the direct speech in the following verse, and the account of his dream in Corinth, all bear out the impression that Paul himself was the narrator (xvii.1-xviii.11). Timothy and Silas had rejoined him at this point, and possibly they recounted the episode before the Roman Gallic (xviii.12-17).
Then Paul parted from the brethren once more, and crossed to Ephesus with his new friends Priscilla and Aquila. Partly from Paul himself, partly from these two, when Luke met them either on the way up to Jerusalem or a few years later, he may have got some of the details of the Apostle's experiences in Ephesus. Paul did not stay long there at this time, and certainly the story which follows, of the appearance of Apollos in Ephesus, and of the half-formed Christians whom he left behind - scarcely more than followers of the Baptist - seems almost certainly to have come from Priscilla and Aquila (xviii.24-xix.7). But the account of Paul's brief visit (xviii.18-23) and the long story of his subsequent visit to Ephesus, come apparently from the Apostle himself. The personal note (xviii.21, xix.21), and the statement about Paul's own desire to speak to the mob in the theatre (xix.30), betray the teller. It is Paul's account of what he afterwards described as "fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus" (xix.8-41).
The rest of the book of the Acts is practically all from the diary of Luke, who shortly after the Ephesian visit was the constant companion of the Apostle. It is the story of the ascent to Jerusalem, of the uproar in that city, of the imprisonment of the Apostle, of his appeal to Caesar, of the long and exciting voyage and tempest and shipwreck - vividly related - and of his reception in Rome (xx-xxviii). Particulars here and there throughout the whole book may have been added by various individuals - such as Gains and Aristarchus of Macedonia, and Epaphras of Colossae, and Titus, who was probably Luke's own brother, and Nicolas the proselyte of Antioch, and other leaders of that city's church.
Whether we are right in all the allocations of the various parts of the narrative to these different eye-witnesses or not, we need have no hesitation in accepting Luke's claim that his narrative was received from eye-witnesses, - and these the men here named.
It is for his Gospel that Luke makes his express claim to have sought out eyewitnesses. And it is about the Gospel that we most eagerly ask who these were. Who were the men and women with whom he had had opportunity of associating on his Gospel-journeyings, who could tell him about the events in Jesus' lifetime? Let us re-traverse the journey in his company once again.
For the critical discussion on which the views here put forward are based, the writer may be permitted to refer to certain articles on The Passion Journey of Jesus, which appeared in the Expositor (January to May, 1919). We would tell the tale quite simply here. Nearly all that is peculiar to Luke's Gospel is found in this section of his Gospel (ix.51-xviii.14). There are a number of details in the Passion Story as Luke records it. There are also the birth narratives, some of the details of the Baptiser's addresses to the people, some information about the Nazareth address, the story about the draught of fish at the time of the calling of the fishermen disciples, the parable about the preference of old wine to new, the raising of the widow of Nain's son, and the story of the anointing in Galilee. All these latter, with a few other details, are in the earlier chapters. It is for this body of special information that we have to find eyewitnesses.
When Luke joined Paul, on his last missionary journey, at Pisidian Antioch, it was Silas who was Paul's chief associate. Silas was one of the deputation of two which had been sent down to the Gentile Churches with the decision of the Jerusalem Council. He was the broader-minded of the two; his mind was of the fervently spiritual, not the coldly legal type; prophetic, not preceptual. He favoured, we may assume, Paul's point of view. The second century ecstatics, known as the Montanists, claim him as their spiritual ancestor. His prophetic and evangelistic gift must have appealed to Paul. And when Paul broke fellowship with Barnabas - and it was not merely a quarrel over the unfortunate Mark; it was a difference of outlook as well (Gal.ii.13) - he invited Silas to join him. That fact is in itself a testimony to the religious outlook of Silas. He was no doubt a powerful and moving speaker; and Luke may have listened with particular attention when he spoke. What would specially awaken Luke's interest was the fact that in Silas' addresses he would often hear him say; "I heard the Lord speak these words." For Silas, who was reckoned a "chief man among the brethren," must have been so for the usual reason in the Jerusalem Church: he belonged to the believers of the beginning, he had been a follower of the Lord. Tradition, with some appearance of probability, makes him one of the Seventy. For he seems entitled to the designation "Apostle " (1 Thess.ii.6) - one of those who had "seen the Lord."
It seems to us that somewhere on this missionary journey Luke heard Silas give a powerful address on the last things, and that he made notes of it. It consisted largely of words that Jesus had said to His disciples on the way up to Jerusalem - in one of the Peraean towns we may suppose. The notes of such an address - or rather the quoted words of the Lord in it - still bearing some of the traces of having been an address, are to be found in Luke's Gospel (xvii.22-xviii. 8). There is a sermonic expansion among the sayings (xvii.31-33). And the parable of the Unjust Judge with which it ends, was only quoted here by the speaker as a proof of the need for constant prayer in view of the serious nature of the times. Jesus doubtless related it on another occasion. The two verses with which it ends here in Luke are apparently the preacher's expansion. Silas belonged to the circle of the disciple John, and these words are reminiscent of the book of Revelation, which came from that circle, perhaps even from Silas himself. Luke would naturally question one who thus showed that he had followed Jesus, and from him he may have got some of the special sayings that are recorded in his Gospel. This parable of the Unjust Judge is kin to others of an Ebionitic tendency - parables cherished by the Jewish-Christian party in Jerusalem. Silas was a Jew, and, with all his prophetism, not without reverence and love for the old Jewish Scriptures. Parables like the Rich Man and Lazarus, in which Moses is honoured, even the Wily Steward, may have come from Silas. And while he, too, may have remembered the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-gatherer, he would also cherish the word about the old wine being better than the new. The evangelical character of the parables of the Pharisee and the Taxgatherer, the Duty-bound Slave, the Lost Coin, and the Prodigal Son would point to the same source - Silas the evangelist, who had been so long associated with Paul, and who preached the Gospel after the same manner. To Silas we may, perhaps, assign these special fragments of the Gospel tradition (xvii.22-xviii.14, xvi.l9-3i, xvi.1-9, v.39, xvii.7-10, xv.8-32). It is noticeable that all except one occur close together in Luke's Gospel.
Of course, from Paul too he would have heard fragments of the Gospel tradition, but Paul was hardly an eyewitness. At the same time, with this equipment, Luke would be able himself to relate much of the Gospel story, when he spoke for Christ throughout the Churches. Already he must have begun to collect the reminiscences of Jesus. For it is likely of Luke that Paul spoke when he said, "his praise in the Gospel is all over the Churches." And this referred to the days of his witnessing in Philippi and the Greek Churches. It was the memorable journey up to Jerusalem, however, that gave Luke his best opportunity.
For, when they landed at Caesarea, they stayed a few nights with Philip the evangelist, another of the Seventy, not impossibly the disciple of that name. Philip's interest was in the Samaritans among whom he laboured; and when he spoke his reminiscences of Jesus, it would be Jesus' interest in the Samaritans he would recall. Telling of his own summons to service first - "Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead," a word which tradition says was spoken to "Philip" - he would tell next of the sending of the Seventy, of their joyful return, and of the great promise about power to tread on scorpions and over all the power of the enemy and over spirits, - a promise which he had seen fulfilled in his desert experiences, in his fight with Simon Magus, and in his successful contest with unclean spirits as he preached the kingdom and the Name (Acts viii.5-40). It was doubtless he from whom Luke got the parable of the Good Samaritan; the story of the Samaritan village that refused to take Jesus in, and of the gentle forbearing spirit of Jesus in the face of this hardness of heart; and the incident of the cleansing of the ten lepers, one only of whom returned to give thanks to Jesus, and he a Samaritan (xvii.11-19). But the greater part of his story is recorded all together in Luke (ix.5l-x.37).
It may be, too, that Philip's daughters had some reminiscences to give of the women believers. Jesus did not always receive a cold and hostile reception, and the story that follows immediately upon the narrative of Philip, the story of Martha and Mary, may be a recollection of theirs (x.38-42).
When at length Paul's company set out from Caesarea for Jerusalem, they made it a two-days journey, and halted the first night at the house of Mnason, "a disciple of the beginning" - that is, probably, a follower of Jesus - settled now, very likely, in the town of Lydda. It was a long day's journey; friends had come with him to introduce him to the host, and it must have been late at night when they knocked at the door of Mnason. When they excused themselves for their untimely intrusion, this old disciple, with his lamp lit and his loins girded, would smilingly pardon their lateness, and proceed to excuse himself for having so little to set before them, recalling Jesus' parable about the friend who had to borrow three loaves at midnight to tide over the unexpected visit of a late-arriving guest. This parable is recorded immediately after the narrative of Philip and his daughters. Then, as he bustled about to serve his guests, he would make light of it, recalling the Master's own promise that He would gird Himself to serve the servants whom He found faithful when He returned. As they talked together of what they had heard from the lips of Philip about the sending of the Seventy, Mnason would add some details of Jesus' instructions to them when they were sent forth, and from him, as it seems to us, would come the striking parables of Jesus' farewell address to the Galileans as He set out for Jerusalem. The word about the girded loins and the burning light recalls the parable of the Ten Virgins. There is also a word about the tenderly careful justice that will discriminate between the ignorantly and the deliberately neglectful, in the apportionment of punishment. Possibly from this rich man, too, comes the episode of the man who interrupted with the request that Jesus should become an arbitrator in a property dispute between brothers. He would tell how Jesus thrust the request aside with the brusqueness of one preparing for a tragic adventure, and recalled His hearers to the stern realities of the moment by the grim story of the Rich Fool.
But the main subject of the talk in Mnason's house that night would be concerning the unbreakable determination of his chief guest, Paul, to go up to Jerusalem, in spite of all the warnings he received, and Mnason would recall how Jesus also sternly set His face to go on a similar journey. Bonds and imprisonment awaited Paul. Was it not on Jesus' Passion Journey that He described life as a road leading to a judgment-seat? And when Mnason heard Paul vehemently repeating his determination to go on, in spite of the kind hearts that sought to keep him back, it would be this old man, eagerly waiting for his Lord's return, who recalled the words of sublime daring spoken by the Master in similar circumstances:
"I am come to throw fire on the earth. Would it were already burning! ... I have a baptism to be baptised with! How am I straightened till it be accomplished! (xi.5-8, .2-9, i.1-21, 35-59).
Next day they arrived in the Holy City, and were introduced to James the brother of the Lord, and the Apostolic circle. How rich the opportunity that here presented itself to Luke! Here are the very men who companied most closely with the Lord through all His ministry.
It seems likely that he obtained one or two priceless possessions in Jerusalem; he may have seen Matthew's diary, and received a copy of the first rough draft of it for himself. The genealogy of Jesus he may have got from the Holy Family. But it could not have been till he reached Rome that he obtained Mark's Gospel: for it was not written until some years after that.
But here in Jerusalem he was at the very heart of things, and how full the closing pages of Luke's Gospel are of details of those tragic closing days! May it not be Matthew or Matthew's friends who recalled the story of Zacchaeus, another taxgatherer like himself, who was won by the Master down in Jericho on the eve of His setting out up that steep road that was to lead to Calvary (xix.1-10)? Here in Jerusalem he may have heard the definite prediction about the fall of the City repeated (xix.41-44). But the main body of the special facts recorded by Luke in this part of his Gospel seem to point in one definite direction for their source. It is Luke who names the two disciples who were sent to prepare the Upper Room (x.8); and there are added facts about the Last Supper (x.15f., 24-27, 28f., 31f., 35-38); there is a word in Gethsemane (x.53), there is the Lord's look on Peter in Caiaphas' judgment hall (x.61) and the details of the accusation (xi.2); there are words spoken from the Cross ("Father forgive them," xi.34), and to the dying thief (xi.39-43); there is Peter's visit to the empty tomb (xxiv.12). To these we may add the suppression of the ambitious request of Salome and her sons. Do these things not all point to Peter and John and their circle as the probable informants? In "Ye are they who have continued with me in my temptations," we have the recalling of a magnanimous word, which seems to counterbalance the dubious note in "Can ye drink of my cup?" Similarly we may set against the rebuke of "To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give," the word, "I appoint unto you a kingdom" which a heart, sore about this rebuke, would fondly cherish. "I am among you as he that serveth," recalls the washing of the disciples' feet that is recorded in John's Gospel alone. "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired you," must have come from the inner circle of the two or three who were Jesus' immediate companions on the way to Gethsemane. And who would remember that look in the house of Caiaphas but Peter, or John, who was also an onlooker? Who could repeat the words from the Cross but one who stood by? Surely the witness who often spoke about Jesus' "hour" and "the power of darkness" (Fourth Gospel) would be the one who remembered the word He spoke in the garden to the mob. From John, too, Luke may have got some of the sayings of the Baptiser. Had not John been a disciple of the prophet?
But there are tales which women would have a special interest in remembering - the adulteress in the Temple court (a Lucan fragment possibly, though preserved only in the Fourth Gospel), the weeping women on the way to Calvary; or in forgetting - Salome's false step in her eagerness about her sons. These suggest that Luke may have had interviews with those ministering women, some of whom no doubt were still with the first followers in Jerusalem - Salome, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Susanna, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward; the latter two are named by Luke alone. The consistent tradition of the Church has been that the woman who anointed Jesus' feet in Galilee was Mary Magdalene. If Joanna was the wife of the courtier whose son Jesus raised from dangerous illness, would she not have an interest in preserving the hearsay about His doings at Nain, an incident not unlike her own experience? But above all, from whom would he get the entrancing stories of Jesus' infancy and boyhood, if not from this same circle who gathered about the mother of our Lord? They are just the stories women would remember, and Mary is the central figure in them. Indeed some of them seem to come from Mary's own lips. Who but the weak and happy mother, her mind all wrapped in holy dreams about her infant's future, and all the wide and starry sky outside the stable peopled for her with angels that night, would have cherished the story of the simple shepherds who came in to see her babe? Who but she would have treasured the tale of the Twelve-year-old in the Temple? Does not Luke almost in so many words tells us they came to him from her? Whether directly or indirectly matters not. That twice repeated word: "But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart" is the plainest possible indication of their source.
Only one last group of fragments of the special traditions of Luke's Gospel remain to be accounted for, those which gather round Herod and his court. Joanna, the wife of Chuza, would have access to the gossip of the court; but was there no one else to whom Luke might have been indebted? When Luke left the holy city with the prisoner Paul, he came to Caesarea; and there, during Paul's long and tedious confinement, Luke seems to have been his attendant. Many a coming and going between Paul's friends in Antioch and the prison in Caesarea there must have been. And it is quite obvious that Luke was very specially acquainted with the great leaders in this circle of Paul's old friends. The book of Acts affords frequent proof of this. When he gives a list of the Seven whom the Apostles appointed to look after the interests of the widows of the Hellenists, there is one whose native place he mentions: "Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch." Luke never describes a man without a reason. And in many cases it is because they are among the eye-witnesses on whom he was dependent for the facts. In this case it seems probable, however, that it was for details of the story of Stephen he has to thank Nicolas. Nicolas gave his name afterwards to a very libertarian view of Christianity. He himself may not be responsible for the extreme conduct of the Nicolaitans; but his way of putting things may have given rise to the sect. Cherishing far-reaching views of Christian liberty, he would no doubt be an ardent follower of Stephen, and to him Luke may have been indebted for the very full account of Stephen's speech.
But there are two other words in Acts which may help us in our search.
"Now they who were scattered abroad upon the persecution which arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word to none but to Jews only. But some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spoke to the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus, and the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord " (xi.19).
And later we read:
"Now there were in the church that was in Antioch certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul " (Acts i.1).
From Barnabas and from Simeon Niger (if he was Simon of Cyrene) Luke may have heard fragments of the Gospel story. But to one of the names Luke here attaches a statement of extraordinary interest - Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch. Here is one of the leading Christian teachers in the Church at Antioch, who in his younger days was foster-brother to the Herod who was contemporary with Jesus. A young lad, brought up in the royal palace of Herod the Great as playmate and companion to young Antipas, and now a Christian teacher - surely a romance full of wonder must lie hidden in the reference here! How does Luke know about him? Did he meet him, and hear his story from his own lips, in Antioch or Caesarea? It must be to him we are indebted for most of the special information Luke has to give about the court of Antipas. For it is not merely outward facts that are given here, but information as to Herod's feelings and wishes such as only an intimate companion would have known. When the rumour of the doings of Jesus disturbed the palace, Herod, thinking it was the ghost of John the Baptist, "was perplexed" (ix.7); and "he desired to see Jesus" (ix.9). Then during the trial in Jerusalem we are told that "Herod was exceeding glad (relieved) when he saw Jesus," and "he set Jesus at naught, and mocked" (xi.8, 11). We are reminded there also, that "Herod had been at enmity with Pilate and they were now made friends." This picture of the craven, ghost-haunted creature who "wished to kill" Jesus in Galilee (i.31), leering now with relief writ all over his debauched face when he sees the prisoner, bound and scourged, standing in silence before him in Jerusalem, is to be found only in Luke's Gospel.
What, then, of Manaen? Can we find the clue to his story?
When Herod the Great, father of the Tetrarch, was a boy, he was met one day on the street by a member of the Essenes, that remarkable group of ascetics who fraternised as a colony in the Jordan valley. The holy man laid his hand on the princeling and predicted that he would become king of the Jews. The prophecy came true, and the monarch, whose vanity had been gratified, sought to honour and befriend the seer. Josephus, the historian who tells the story, says the man's name was Manaen. It must be this man to whom the Talmudic legend refers, which says that Menahem (the Hebrew form of the name) a leading rabbi, entered the household service of the king. Does it not seem likely that it was this Manaen who had procured some younger relative of his, bearing the same uncommon name, as a foster-brother for Herod the Great's young son?
These two foster brothers grew to manhood, and in course of time Herod Antipas became tetrarch, a strange, lustful creature, crafty, cruel, capricious, effeminate, treacherous, ostentatious, cowardly, vain aping foreign culture, building cities like Tiberias after a Greek model, pretending to be religious, or at least interested in the Jewish religion, barbarous, untamed, superstitious to the core. We wonder sometimes what influence Manaen had upon him, or he on Manaen. Did the lad from the strict Jewish family influence the king for good, or did Antipas corrupt Manaen? Was Manaen present in the palace gardens when the shaggy man with the cloak of camel's hair and the leathern girdle stalked in and confronted the king, and with outstretched rebuking finger said, "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife"? Was it Manaen's hand that was the restraining hand working against the influence of Herodias, when the king arrested the Baptiser, but feared at first to put him to death? Was it Manaen's influence that made the king's conscience tender so that he sought interviews with John in prison, in a vain endeavour to find peace for his guilty soul? Whether through the healing of the courtier's son (recorded in the Fourth Gospel) or in some other way, the influence of the new "Prophet" had reached the precincts of the royal palace in Tiberias, compelling idle, light-minded aristocrats to chatter. Herod had by this time succumbed to the wiles of Herodias, and destroyed John. We can see him wandering about the palace in Tiberias, shuddering at the winds that moaned along its corridors; wandering in his garden, and starting at every dark bush, as though it were that hairy-mantled prophet confronting him once again; shrinking before the gloating eyes of the triumphant Herodias; sitting down to his meals abstracted, preoccupied, while the gay courtiers prattled their light table-talk. And one day it was Jesus who was the subject of their witticisms. Some stray word had arrested the taciturn monarch's attention. They were trying to account for this Jesus in their indifferent way. "A new prophet," said one. "One of the old prophets," contradicted another. "Which?" asked a third. "Elias," suggested a fourth. Then, after a pause someone capped the guessing with a random jest: "John the Baptist risen again!" Suddenly they were all startled by a cry from the head of the table. At once all eyes were riveted on the king. He must have looked the picture of terror - straining eyes, lips drawn and twitching, nostrils quivering and dilated, the blood fled from his cheeks, as clutching the table he shouted: "He whom I murdered? ... John! ... Yes, it is he! - risen from the dead. And the powers of evil are urging on their attack on me through him." So the rank superstition of the King translated the horrible dreams of a troubled conscience that had vexed his midnight slumbers.
"In the night, in the night When thou liest alone, Ah! the ghosts that make moan From the days that are sped: The old dreams, the old deeds, The old wound that still bleeds, And the face of the dead, In the night."
And to some intimate he expressed a wish to kill Jesus. There can be little doubt it was Manaen. But Manaen was troubled too. All his uneasiness at the contrast between the stern ascetic life of the Pharisees and Essenes, to whom his family belonged, and the luxury and debauch of the palace, had come to a head through the influence of this great Soul of purity who was making His presence felt in all the cities round the Lake. He called some of his Pharisee friends, and sent them with a secret message to Jesus, bidding Him begone for His life from the neighbourhood of Tiberias (Luke i.31). His interest in the prophet had previously prompted him to try to deter him from going up to Jerusalem, and the menace that was threatening there (i.1f.). But this was a more imminent danger still. Jesus, however, treated it with fearless contempt. Manaen had been terrified by Jesus' stern insistence on repentence, when he heard Him talk (Luke i.2-5). The parable of the fig tree that was a cumberer of the ground had stung him to the quick (i. 6-9). Yet he had witnessed also the compassion of Jesus (i.10-17), and had taken courage and hope from the parables of the grain of mustard seed and the leaven; for his soul was like that leaven - in a state of upheaval and ferment (i.18-21). Nevertheless he had heard Him say that the need for entering in at the narrow gate was inexorable, else some day he might find himself standing outside a closed door, vainly seeking entrance on the heavenly life he had spurned (i.22-30). And now, when this daring answer had come back to the palace concerning Herod's threat, it was a wholesome breath blowing into the foetid air of the place. The great Teacher and Healer with the tender heart feared not the face of man. Greater than John the Baptist - in His own right, this man was a king! Manaen was faced with a stern alternative. Either he must live on in the company of his awakened conscience, or cut himself forever free from all the luxury and debauchery of the palace. He came to the only right decision, and his soul reached peace.
He entertained the Rabbi in his house beyond the confines of the city, perhaps at the hot springs of Hamath, near the royal baths. It was he who related to Luke Jesus' table talk (xiv.1-24). And then, when Jesus had set out upon the road again, he heard and answered the great call to decision (i.25-27). And very probably it was from him Luke heard the parables about counting the cost - those vivid pictures of the derelict, half-built house, and the monarch with the ill-equipped armies setting out for war. Though the end of his life in the royal palace had come, he may have been present to witness the insults of the mocking king when his new Master stood on trial at the last. In a few brief weeks Herod, the self-styled king, received a crushing defeat at the hands of the Arab king, the father of the wife he had wronged; and his ancient stronghold on the Dead Sea shore was sacked and burned with fire. But Manaen had heard another call to war:
"The Son of God goes forth to war, A kingly crown to gain; His blood-red banner streams afar; Who follows in His train?"
And Manaen had exchanged his allegiance. He was taking part in the founding of the Gentile church at Antioch when Herod set out on his ill-fated journey to Rome. Cringing there abjectly before Caesar's throne, the wretched Herod had begged for the very title, which he had flung at Christ in mockery. Refused and banished into exile - thrown up to rot on the rocks of time - he must have realised at last - too late - that the voice that had troubled his conscience was not John's voice, but God's. As for Manaen, he had the supreme joy of witnessing the kingdom of God growing from a grain of mustard seed to be a mighty tree. Brought up in a royal palace, accustomed to a soft, luxurious mode of life, he had nevertheless laid it all aside, and gone out to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. He had become a fearless advocate of the Crucified One, on the streets of a morally corrupt city, one of the four largest and vilest in the world. He had joined the Salvation Army, counting the cost.