The life and teaching of Jesus the Christ 1924

Front matter

Te ae es PRINCIPAL W. R. TAYLOR e) COLLECTION 6) : av

Ae ah a steht ob Ty.

atria anim nh Sa t i, er

Contents

INTRODUCTION THE CriticaL ATTITUDE » - - - pages I-44

The purpose of this work.« The need for it. The authorities for the life of Jesus.

1. The four Gospels. The meaning and value of criticism. The Synoptic problem. The two sources.

Chapter I

PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS, AT THE TIME OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA - - - - - pages 45-93

The beginnings of the Roman Empire. Longing for peace. Virgil’s Messianic Eclogue. His unconscious prophecy. The Jewish attitude. The two ideals.

1. The death of Herod the Great. Accession of Archelaus. Revolts in Palestine. The settlement of Augustus. Reign of Archelaus. His banishment.

ix x CONTENTS

N

. Judaeaa Roman province. The settlement under Quirinius.

The census. Judas the Galilaean. The fourth sect of the — ews.

St *s) Roman procurators. Coponius. Ambibulus. Rufus. Valerius Gratus. The succession of high priests. Annas and Caiaphas. Pontius Pilate. His misgovernment. His banishment.

4. The tetrarchy of Philip. His good . government. The tetrarchy of Antipas. Galilee. Peraea. Character of his rule. Herodias. His banishment. The Decapolis. The neighbouring territories. The Nabataeans. Lysamnias. Parthia.

5. The Rabbinicalschools. The Rabbis. Hillel. His teaching. Shammai. The severity of his rules. Jewish exegesis. Schools of Hilleland Shammai. The value of the teaching.

6. Religion and piety in Israel. The testimony of St. Luke. The songs of the Virgin and of Symeon. The Blessings of the synagogue service.

CHAPTER II THE EDUCATION OF JESUS - - ‘ - pages 94-132 Jesus of Nazareth. His home and family.

1. Galilee. Its fertility. Itsroads. Nazareth. The language of the Gospels. Reminiscences of the country. Agriculture. Animals, wild and domestic. Domestic life. Proof of authenticity. The human characteristics of Jesus.

2. The spiritual environment. Jewish education. Visits to Jerusalem. Reading and writing. The language of Jesus. The religion of Galilee. Thescribes and Pharisees.

The Herodians. The Zealots. Hellenic thought. Apo-- calyptic literature. 3. Intellectual presuppositions of the Gospels. Cosmology. Heaven. Paradise. Hades. Gehenna. Psychology.

The heart. Thesoul. Thespirit. The body. The flesh. |

Angelology. Demonology. Satan.

4. The use of the Jewish Scriptures by Jesus. Methods of interpretation. The legalistic. Midrashic. Allegorical. The spiritual interpretation of Jesus. His theological language that of His own time. The kingdom of heaven.

Messianic titles. The Servant of Jehovah. /

CHAPTER III JOHN THE BapTIstT - - - The expectation of the day of the Lord

I. john the Baptist; his birth, his training, his message, his baptism, his preaching, his expectation of the Messiah.

CONTENTS xi

2. The Baptism of Jesus; its significance. Jesus and John. Jesus as the disciple of John.

3. The imprisonment of John. The dispersal of his disciples. He sends his disciples to Jesus. The death of John.

4. The explanation of John’s ministry. Not-unhistorical. No connection with the Essenes. Not merely eschatological. John as prophet. In what sense Elijah. His witness to Jesus. The significance of his prophetic mission. His place in history.

CHAPTER IV THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY - - - pages 172-208 The Lake of Galilee. Gennesaret. Capernaum.

1. Jesus comes to Capernaum. The call of the disciples. The first day. The Galilaean Ministry. The journeys. The Synagogue. Success.

. Causes of influence. Authority. Sympathy. Mercy.

3. The possessed. The prevailing theory. The casting out of

devils. The attitude of Jesus.

4. Miracles of healing. The evidence. Dependent on faith. The failures. Evidence of spiritual authority. The reserve of Jesus. The purpose of miracles.

5. The opposition. The forgiveness of sins. Association with publicans and sinners. Fasting. The Sabbath. Separation from the synagogue.

6. The organization of the Church. Discipleship. The Twelve. The devout women. The mission of the Twelve.

CHAPTER V THE NEW TEACHING - - ~ - pages 209-241

Jesus asateacher. The ‘Sermon on the Mount 7 in St. Matthew. The “Sermon on the Plain” in St. Luke. The critical problem.

1. The Beatitudes. Contrast with the Old Testament. Who are the poor? Contrast with later Christian teaching. The acts of Paul and Thecla.

2. The New Law and the Old Law. The paradox of Christ’s teaching. The fulfilment which supersedes. External andinternal. Negativeand positive. Thelawoflove. Of loving your enemies. The Jewish rule. The originality of Christianity. The word agape.

3. The Christian ideal. Comparison with the Greek ideal. The ascetic ideal. Christian humanism. The ideal of duty. Is the Christian ideal possible ? Can we love our enemies? The law of non-resistance. Tolstoi. The conduct of the Christian.

xii CONTENTS

4. Religious duties. Almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. _The importance of prayer. The Lord’s Prayer. The religion of the spirit. The story of the Samaritan woman.

5. The purpose of life. The vanity of wealth. Anxiety about worldly things. The trueend. The pursuit of righteousness.

6. The golden rule. The Jewish form. The Christian rule positive not negative. Regards thoughts as well as deeds Righteous judgment.

7. Fundamental principle of the new life. Trustin God. The two ways. The morality of Jesus. How far authentic ? How far original? The criticism of Nietzsche. The Christian principle harmonizes with the reality of the world.

CHAPTER VI THE KINGDOM oF Gop. - - - - pages 242-266

The “‘ Kingdom of God ”’ sums up the teaching of Jesus.

1. A popular religious expression. Derived from the Old Testament. The Davidic kingdom. The Divine Sovereignty. Righteousness. The day of the Lord. The Resurrection.

2. The Jewish expectation. An earthly kingdom. A kingdom of righteousness. The Apocalyptic hope. The sovereignty of God on earth. Whatdid people hope for at the time of our Lord ?

3. The “‘ Kingdom of God ” as used by Jesus. The parables of the kingdom. Why did He speak in parables? The three meanings of the kingdom—the word of God, the Christian dispensation, the final consummation.

4. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. John the Baptist and the kingdom. The kingdom and righteousness. The kingdom and the life to come. The coming of the kingdom. The kingdom and the supremacy of the divine will. Christianity.

5. The kingdom and the Parousia. The purpose of Jesus. One harmonious to His position, consistent with His other teaching, different from later ideals.

6. The golden age. The kingdom the sphere in which God’s will is done. The two aspects of Christianity. The individualistic view and the hope of a future life. The social view and the well-being of mankind. True Christianity transcends both. \

CONTENTS xiii

CHAPTER VII THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY - - ~ pages 267-291 The crisis and its causes

1. The mission of the Apostles. Thechargetothem. Effectof the mission. Herod Antipas hears of Jesus. The return of the Apostles. Retirement of Jesus.

2. The feeding of the multitude. The people would make Jesus King. Voyage on the lake. The walking on the water. The character of the event. The discourse on the Bread of Life.

3. The landing at Gennesaret. Dispute with the Pharisees. The ritual law. The demand for a sign. Dangers of the situation. The retreat of Jesus. Journey to north and return by Decapolis to Bethsaida.

4. Caesarea Philippi. The confession of Peter. Jesus acknowledged as Messiah. His methods. The suffering Messiah and the lesson of suffering.

5. The transfiguration. Jesus prepares for the end.

CHAPTER VIII THE MESSIAH - . - ~ “ pages 292-316, The temptation. The genuineness of the story. Itsimplications.

I. The Jewish expectation of the Messiah. The ideal monarchy. The ideal King.

. The later Jewish hope. The book of Daniel. The Messiah of the tribe of Levi. The bookof Enoch. The Psalms of Solomon. The Jewish conception. Its omissions.

. The titles of Jesus. His claim to be the Messiah. The Son of God. The Son of Man. The servant. The Lord The Son of David.

4. The Messiah in Jewish theology. Desire ofa sign. “Signs?

in Jewish literature. Difference of our Lord’s conceptions.

5. Conclusion. Thecredibility of the lifeof Christ. Naturalness

of the miracles. The teaching of Jesus. Its spiritual character. The Messiah.

NOTE ON CHRONOLOGY - - - - - page 317 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE - - - - - eae NOTES ON THE Map - - - - - ee ee INDEX - - > 7 " i ' »» 329

Map OF PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF OUR LORD At end of book

TO THE MEMORY OF THE

MEN OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE

WHO IN THE GREAT WAR

LAID DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR

THAT HOLY LAND WHERE

JESUS LIVED AND TAUGHT AND DIED.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF JESUS THE CHRIST

INTRODUCTION THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE

IT is the aim of this work to give some account of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of Christianity. Such a task may be held to be both unnecessary and presumptuous. It may be pointed out that we have four original books, accessible to all, written by those who were either themselves witnesses of what they described or had lived in the closest intimacy with those who were, that these contain an inimitable account of the life of Jesus, and that nothing can supersede or even supplement them. Every reader has all that can be known before him, and no one can add to or increase our knowledge.

Of course, fundamentally, that contention is true. No one can supersede the four Gospels, and no one wishes to do so. But two grave reasons make a work such as the present one not unnecessary. It is well known that an imposing amount of learned criticism has appeared which has cast grave doubts on the credibility of, at any rate, a portion of these accounts, and there is a natural demand for some estimate of the value of this criticism. And then, also, the documents in question are all of them of a fragmentary character. They were written more than eighteen hundred years ago. ‘he environment in which the life of Jesus was lived is unknown to those who have not studied it. The language and thought of that day were different from our own. Much may be learnt by combining and comparing the various accounts, and interpreting them in the light of all the knowledge that we can accumulate. The Gospels need translation for us, not only in language, but in thought.

If this be so, I think the presumption may be excused, provided that we are prepared to approach our task with fitting humility and reverence. Many others have made the same attempt, and the works that they have produced may be to us both a warning and an encouragement—an encouragement, because I suppose that there is not one of them from which we may not learn something; a warning, because there is not one the inadequacy and imperfection of which is not apparent. They have each served their time in their circle and have passed away. What we may hope is that, if our spirit be right, we too may render some service to our own generation.

The first duty of anyone who would write a baie i is to estimate the extent and value of his authorities. The authorities for the life of Jesus are twofold—primary and secondary. The primary are the four Gospels; to the examination of these the main part of our task must be directed. The secondary are somewhat varied, and, so far as regards the life of Jesus Himself, most fragmentary. They include such information as may be elicited from Josephus,” from Greek and Roman authors and from Jewish tradition.® Then there are the extra-canonical and apocryphal records of our Lord’s life, and such sayings ascribed to Him as have been preserved by Christian tradition.4 More important than these for our estimation of Jesus is the evidence afforded by the opinions held about Him and the character of His influence in the Early Church. If we desire to know

1 The most brilliant account of the attempts to write the life of Christ is that contained in Von Reimarus zu Wrede, Eine Geschichte dey Leben-Jesu-Forschung, by Albert Schweitzer (Tiibingen, 1906), translated into English, under the title of The Quest of the Historical Christ, by W. M. Montgomery, with a preface by F. C. Burkitt.

2 On Josephus, see Schiirer, Geschichie (third.and fourth editions), 1, pp. 77 If 544 Sf.

3 On Jewish tradition, see R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London, 1903.

4 See, on the extra-canonical sayings of Jesus, Alfred Resch, Agvapha in Texte und Untersuchungen, Neue Folge, vol. xv., 3, 4; Lock and Sanday, Two Lectures on the “‘ Sayings of Jesus,” Oxford, 1897.

THE AUTHORITIES 3 what manner of person a man may be, we ask not only what he has done and said, but also what people with whom he came in contact thought of him, what impression he made on his own generation, and what influence he left behind him in the world. All these are important elements in the final picture that we can construct. So it is with Jesus. The Apostolic Church must be accounted for. Not only what it recorded of Him, not only what it thought of Him, although both these are of fundamental importance, but also the fact that it existed. The Christian Church is the great witness to its Founder; and no life of Christ which fails to account for Christianity can be adequate.

To all this we must add the picture that we are able to form of the circumstances in which Jesus lived. To paint that picture needs a full acquaintance with the life and literature of the times; and it is certainly remarkable that He should have lived in the great days of the Roman Empire—a period in the history of the ancient world when from literary remains, from inscriptions, from antiquities, and from the fact that that Empire summed up in a remarkable way the history of the past, our knowledge is so ample. Let us remember, also, that for studying the contemporary life and thought of Judaism we have a rich store of material

-which is only gradually becoming known. We have the books of Josephus; we have the great body of apocryphal and pseudonymous Jewish literature, on which so much has been done in recent years and particularly in Oxford; we have the works of Philo; and we have the Jewish tradition embodied in the Targums, the Mishna, and the rest of the Talmud, the Midrash and later literature.2 In all these directions there is full opportunity for research and discovery, and there is still much to be learned towards illustrating, directly or indirectly, the life of Jesus.

1 This has been collected together for English readers in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigvapha of the Old Testament in English, edited by R. H. Charles (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, ror 3).

* The fullest information on all these points may be found in Schirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zettalter Jesu Christi, third and fourth editions (Leipzig, 1898-1907). There is an En glish translation of an earlier edition.

I

We turn now to our primary authorities, the four Gospels, and the criticism of them which has grown up in the last hundred and fifty years.

Let me begin by saying one word of what we mean by “ criticism,” or, as it is often called, to distinguish it from textual criticism, “‘ higher criticism,” and what is its purpose. It is sometimes spoken of as if it were in itself wrong and dangerous. It is, of course, nothing of the sort. It means the application of everything that we know of the history of a document—external criticism—and of everything that we can learn by an examination of its contents—internal criticism—towards discovering as much as possible about its origin, its authorship, and its historical value. There is no more fascinating question that we can ask than this: How did the Gospels grow up? Under what circumstances were they written? There is no more important question that we can ask than whether they contain true history. These are the two main questions with which critics of the New Testament are concerned, and it must be recognized that not only in regard to our study of the life of Jesus, but also in relation to the foundation of Christian doctrine and life, they are of transcendent importance.

But how far is criticism equal to the task ? Let me give you an instance of this higher criticism. You know that Sir Walter Scott originally published the Waverley Novels anonymously, that they were an extraordinary success, and that naturally the question who was their author roused the greatest interest. Now Scott was already well known as a poet, the author of vigorous and romantic poems dealing with Scottish history, and an able and ingenious work was written proving that Scott, the author of the Lay of the Last Minstrel and the Lady of the Lake, was also the author of Waverley. The writer examined the external circumstances, the style, the subject-matter, the personal tastes and interests of the two authors, and showed strong grounds for believing that they were the same person.’ Here we

1 See Letters to Richard Heber, Esq., containing Critical Remarks on the Series of Novels beginning with ‘‘ Waverley,” and an Attempt to ascertain tts Author (London, 1821). The author was John Ley-

THE FOUR GOSPELS 5 have an instance of a careful and intelligent higher criticism which was found to be correct. The same methods have been pursued in many varied fields of literature, often in a way to carry conviction. The problems of the New Testament are for many reasons peculiarly difficult, since the literature is unique in character, but there is no reason for doubting that a careful and painstaking enquiry may ultimately teach us a good deal about the composition of the documents of which it is made up.

With this amount of preface let me turn to the Gospels, and attempt to put before you, so far as I can, what appear to me to be the assured results of criticism as applied to them. I cannot hope to give you anything original, but it is necessary that, as an introduction to the study of our Lord’s life, our critical attitude should be defined.}

It is well known that the four Gospels may be divided into two groups. The first three—those known as St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke—have marked resemblances to one another and certain marked differences from St. John, and, because they give a common picture of our Lord’s life, are known as the Synoptic Gospels. If you read them carefully you cannot help noticing that they have a large amount of matter in common, but that each also has its own special features. It is the need for explaining these resemblances and differences which forms what is called the Synoptic problem, and on this an imposing amount of thought and work has been expended during the last century and a half.

In particular let us remember that much able and scientific work has been produced in Oxford, under the inspiration of the late Dr. Sanday. Many of the contributions thus made are of real value, and in particular the researches of Sir John cester Adolphus of St. John’s College, Oxford (see Dictionary of National Biography, sub voc.). The work is referred to favourably in the Introduction to the Fortunes of Nigel.

1 The best single work to which the reader may be referred is, I think, Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (Cambridge: The University Press, 1903-1920). A very full account of opinion on the subject will be found in Moffatt, An Intvoduction to the Literatuve of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 191 Tt}.

Hawkins have been accepted in the world of scholars as of supreme importance in establishing results which may be considered certain.! They are patient, cautious, and methodical. They attack a problem limited in scope with completeness, and within the sphere outlined arrive at conclusions which have been accepted. ‘‘It is inypossible,”’ writes Professor von Harnack, ‘“‘ to overrate Hawkins.”’

As I do not wish to go over ground which has been sufficiently worked, it will be enough to state shortly what may be considered to be agreed on as to the composition of the first three Gospels. Let me take the summary given us by Dr. Stanton.2 It may be recognized, he says, that the resemblances between the three Synoptic Gospels are so great as to imply a common Greek source, and greater than can be explained by the influence of oral tradition. Neither did St. Matthew make regular use of St. Luke, nor St. Luke of St. Matthew; they are almost if not completely independent of one another. It is, moreover, almost universally agreed that either St. Mark’s Gospel or a record virtually identical with it was used by the First and Third Evangelists. It is further agreed that they had a second common source which contained a record of the words of Jesus. This is by many writers called ‘Q,” a designation selected as quite neutral, and not implying any theory. It is the initial letter of the German word Quelle, which means “source.” I propose to call it The Discourses. The practical result is that we must accept the priority of St. Mark’s Gospel and recognize that it was used by St. Matthew and St. Luke, and that there was also a second early source common to these two Gospels.

I do not think that I need labour the arguments which have convinced critics of the priority of St. Mark. Anyone

1 See Studies in the Synoptic Problem, by Members of the University of Oxford, edited by W. Sanday (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), and Hovae Synopticae, by the Rev. Sir John C. Hawkins, Bart., second edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909).

2 See Stanton, op. cit., ii., chap. i., pp. 1-60.

3 It may be convenient to state here that I use the names St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John without committing myself to any opinion as to the correctness of the traditional attribution.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS 7 who will can test the matter for himself. Let him compare the three Gospels together, and he will find that the greater part of St. Mark is contained in the other two Gospels, and for the most part in the same order; and that while St. Matthew and St. Luke—especially St. Matthew—occasionally differ from the Marcan order, they never agree in their differences. Further, let him compare the individual narratives together. He will see that whereas St. Matthew and St. Mark agree together against St. Luke, and St. Luke and St. Mark agree together against St. Matthew, it rarely happens that St. Matthew and St. Luke agree together against St. Mark in these common narratives, and hardly ever in any important point.!_ The reason for believing in a second common source is that if we eliminate from St. Matthew and St. Luke all the matter they share with St. Mark, there is still a considerable amount that they have in common with one another, and the resemblances are in Many cases so close as to demand that this common source should be literary. ~

Only on one point may it be considered that there is stil] room for some difference of opinion. St. Luke omits a considerable portion of St. Mark, and it has been held (as, for example, by Dr. Stanton) that he had before him an earlier edition of that Gospel which omitted certain passages which might be held to be interpolations.2. But I think that the arguments on the other side, given by Sir John Hawkins, are fairly conclusive. They are first of all the unity of style exhibited by the whole of the second Gospel, and, secondly, the fact that adequate reasons harmonizing with the literary habits ot St. Luke may be found for his omission of these sections. St. Luke is careful to avoid repetitions; and it will be found that generally, when he omits matter contained in St. Mark, it is because it appears to be a repetition of what occurs elsewhere in his Gospel.

* The most recent discussion on this point will be found in The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920, by Cuthbert H. Turner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920), p. 36.

* Stanton, op. cit., pp. 150 ff.

* Hawkins, Three Limitations to St. Luke’s Use St. of Mark’s Gospel in Horae Synopticae, PP. 29-94.

There are one or two other literary habits of his which also influence him, such as the adapting of his Gospel to the needs of his Gentile readers, and consequently the omission or curtailment of what would not concern them—for instance, detailed references to Jewish customs and the Jewish law. Personally I am fairly certain that St. Luke had our St Mark before him pretty much as we have it.

II

Our first business, then, will be to find out all that we can know about St. Mark’s Gospel.

To begin with, it is a literary unit. It is a book with a style of its own, and is not a compilation, and this style is found throughout the whole Gospel. This unity, of course, does not mean that the author may not have had sources out of which he constructed his work, just as the other Gospels had, but it does, I think, mean that we should have a good deal of difficulty in discovering them. This point we shall discuss later. Again, this unity is quite compatible with some clumsiness of construction. Not all writers are very skilful at constructing a book. What is implied, I think, is that the author had a definite purpose before him which he carried out fairly consistently, and that he had a clear conception of the work and life of our Lord.

I would ask you now to study with care the life of Jesus as presented in this Gospel, and to assist you in doing that I would refer to a brilliant exposition of it by Dr. Burkitt in his book on The Gospel History and tts Transmission. He discusses the two questions: “ Does the story of Jesus Christ, as given by St. Mark, approve itself as an adequate historical outline of the main events ?” and ‘Does the story of Jesus Christ fit into general history ?” To both questions he gives an affirmative answer, and he gives, as I think, adequate grounds for doing so.

He points out how the Gospel begins by describing the impression which the preaching of Jesus first made: His power, His authority, and His popularity. Then comes

1 The Gospel History and its Transmission, by F. Crawford Burkitt (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1906), pp. 65-104.

ee CE ae ee EE en ee a

Sp er Sa aH site — tie

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK 9 the early opposition from the constitutional authorities, and for a time we have on the one side a growing popularity, on the other an increasing opposition. The result is a breach with the synagogue. That naturally leads to the organization of the new community apart from official Judaism. At first Jesus preaches in the synagogues; later we find that He does not do so except on one occasion at Nazareth. So He chooses His apostles, the first step in the organization of the Christian Church. The second result is more serious. John had been beheaded, and Herod Antipas learns about Jesus. That means that henceforth His life is in danger. But His work is not accomplished; His time has not yet come; a prophet cannot perish except in Jerusalem. So Jesus for a time avoids danger. The next period of ministry is one of retirement, and, as seems probable, the private instruction of His disciples. The district which is dangerous for Jesus is the territory of Herod Antipas. So we find Him at Bethsaida, or travelling in the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, or at Caesarea Philippi, or in the Decapolis. It is a period of retreat. Its culmination is the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. Then comes the final journey to Jerusalem with the conscious expectation of the end.

We shall work out this in greater detail when we come to our history. I have only sketched it here, as it bears on the historical character of St. Mark. That Gospel gives, - as I believe, a coherent and intelligible, but by no means a complete, account of our Lord’s ministry, and one which harmonizes with the political circumstances of the time. It _has the appearance of being authentic history. That is the point for which Professor Burkitt contends, and I believe that his contention is sound.

And now I will ask you to turn to what we can learn from external sources about the Gospel. We have a well-known statement of the early Christian writer Papias, who lived in the first half of the second century, often quoted and often commented on:

“Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was said or done by Christ.

For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, attended Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to’set down any false statement thereon.’’!

Apart from the criticisms which were, perhaps, intended to contrast St. Mark with the systematic account of our Lord’s teaching given by St. Matthew, and the chronological framework of Jewish feasts given by St. John, the important point that we learn from this is that the Gospel was written by St. Mark, and that it gives us, so far as the writer remembered them, the substance of St. Peter’s instructions on the life of our Lord.

To this we may add a statement of Irenaeus, who lived in the latter half of the second century, that after the death of Peter and Paul, ‘‘ Mark, who was the disciple and interpreter of Peter [whose knowledge of Greek it is implied had been imperfect], handed down to us in writing the preaching of Peter.’”?