A commentary on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark

Front matter

KQk55h fsssS?

nhHHI 8s»3

■hUDB

Preface

When the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1852, expressed a desire that I should prepare a Commentary on the New Testament in the German language, I hesitated for several years to undertake so responsible a work. An evangelical Commentary of an unsectarian character — embodying in a popular form the results of those exegetical works which were written exclusively for the theological scholar, and designed to meet the attacks of the destructive criticism of the rationalistic schools — I knew, indeed, to be a generally and deeply felt want of German Protestants. But the attempt to supply what is needed was a task from which I shrank for six years, partly because of the pressure of other duties, partly in the hope that an abler hand would be induced to undertake it. This hope not being realized, and the demand for such a work becoming more and more urgent from different quarters, I was at last induced to make the attempt, and about ^/fwo years ago I finished the first volume, comprising a General Introduction to the study of the New Testament and an Exposition of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The work met with much favor from the religious press of Germany as well as of this country, and several eminent American divines, who examined it, advised its publication in the English language.

To this encouraging call I have yielded, from the following considerations: First, I have been deeply impressed that a popular Commentary should enter thoroughly into the solution of important critical difficulties, and bring out of the text the doctrines taught by Christ and his apostles as fully as is done in the works of systematic divinity. Very much of theology that ought to be known, and is actually craved both by ministers who have not had the advantage of a classical and theological training, and by laymen in general, is never read by them, because the information sought is scattered over works not within their reach, or written exclusively for the classical scholar. Moreover, it is time that we habituate ourselves, more generally, to learn theology in the order in which it has pleased God to teach it in his written Word, and to examine each doctrine in the light of the context in which it stands in the Inspired Volume. But this is not done when we base our system of belief primarily and chiefly upon the Church creed, and turn to the Scriptures only in quest of proof texts. A second consideration is the growing need of a more intimate acquaintance with the theological works of Germany. English and German theology have their peculiar merits and defects. Each can improve and enrich the other. It is true that the national character of the English and German people and their Church-developments are so different that mere translations of the theological works of the one can never satisfy the wants of the other. But for this very reason there is the more need of efforts to assimilate the theological thought of the prominent standardbearers of Evangelical Protestantism. By these means only can be produced that life-

6 PREFACE.

communion which will work out a theology leading to greater unity of faith among the different evangelical denominations. Moreover, the conflict with infidelity and skepticism is far from being ended. The rejecters of Divine Revelation have changed their method of attack. To meet them on their new ground we must not disdain the weapons afforded by the rich arsenal of the evangelical theology of Germany, which has grappled with this new phase of unbelief, and achieved the most decisive victory. To prepare, therefore, a Commentary especially designed to meet the attacks of rationalistic criticism — giving on the one hand the results of the exegetical researches and philosophic discipline of the Germans, and on the other, the practical character and logical clearness which distinguish the Christian mind of England and America — appeared to me to be a work needed just now by the English as well as by the German Churches of this country.

So much for the reasons which induced me to add another Commentary to those already in existence. In the attempt to reproduce the German original in English, I encountered far greater difficulties than I had anticipated; and hence the delay of the English edition, which was to leave the press early last Summer. The translation, which, from lack of time and a fear of not being equal to the task, I had engaged to be made, failed to do justice to the German original to such an extent that I felt myself compelled to think the whole work over in English, and endeavor to preserve, as far as possible, the strength and beauty of those passages that I quoted from Stier and Lange, whose style I confess myself to have found often too difficult to reproduce in good English.* I discovered also that the comments of Trench on the Parables and Miracles, of which I gave a digest in German, would lose too much by re-translation, and I therefore judged it better to quote them directly and more fully. Moreover, points that needed much consideration in German, I became convinced would be of less interest to the English reader; and so different is the mode of thought in the two nationalities and the genius of their respective languages that one and the same argument, to make the proper impression, requires often to be stated in a different form or from a different stand-point. In addition to this, the work in English has the advantage of such emendations as a revision generally calls forth, and of additions arising from the consultation of works which I had not at hand, when writing the German original.f The greatest modification in the English edition will be found in the General Introduction. In German it is an Introduction to the whole New Testament. But as it is of a prominently apologetical character, I judged it better in the English edition to give only an Introduction to the Gospel records, these being the foundation upon which our faith rests, and against which the attacks of modern criticism are chiefly directed.

Some remarks may be expected on the manner in which the author has drawn upon the labors of others. To write in our day a Commentary on the Holy Scriptures is a widely different task from that of the older commentators. When Biblical literature was yet in its infancy, a Commentary was, to a great extent, the original work of one

* The quotations that aro mado from Stier's Words of the Lord Jesus, after the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, the reader will find more direct and more full than those in the forepart of the work. This is owing to my not having heen in possession, before that time, of Rev. William B. Pope's translation of that work, published at Edinburgh.

f It gives me pleasure here to acknowledge my great indebtedness to the Rev. Dr. G. E. Day, of the Lane Theological Seminary, for his kind loan, both from the Seminary Library and from his own private collection, of important English and German works, without the help of which I should have been greatly embarrassed.

PREFACE.

man, but this is in our day no more the case. In the last three centuries the critical study of the Holy Scriptures has been cultivated by scholars of every land and every denomination, each succeeding writer using, with more or less additions, corrections, and modifications, the labors of his predecessors, so that exegetical research has not only reached a high degree of perfection, but its results — being made up by so many contributions as to lose to a great extent their originality — have become the common property of the Church. This last remark, however, does not apply to the exegetical labors of the present school of evangelical divines of Germany which originated with Dr. Olshausen, and whose brightest star appears to us to be the recently-departed Dr. Rudolph Stier, a man of unsurpassed spirituality, raised up by Divine Providence to expound the Scriptures for the unlearned as well as the learned. His immortal work, " The "Words of the Lord Jesus," has, indeed, been translated in England, and deserves to be studied by every theological student who has the means to procure it; but forming eight volumes large octavo, and containing much that moves in modes of thought exclusively German, and that will, therefore, neither interest nor profit the American mind, this precious work will find its way to the study of but few American pastors. And yet it contains doctrinal truths, practical suggestions, and spiritual unfoldings of incalculable value, which, instead of being appreciated only by a few theological scholars, ought to be made the common property of the Church.

The deep conviction of this need was, indeed, my first and strongest inducement to undertake this work. But to return to the question of the comparative amount of originality in our modern English Commentaries, we beg leave to say that even Alford, the professed object of whose Commentary on the Greek New Testament is to enrich exegetical literature with new researches and results, is for the greatest portion of his notes indebted to German works, even where he does not quote them ; and a comparison of the modern popular Commentaries, so far at least as the Gospels are concerned — with perhaps only one exception, that of Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander — will show that their authors have considered it their privilege to abridge, amplify, or modify the researches of their predecessors or cotemporaries. Of the same privilege I have availed myself, though to a larger extent and in a somewhat different mode. Where I found an author, as for instance Trench on the Parables and Miracles, to have said the very best that in my opinion could be said, I have taken the liberty, if no copy-right was infringed thereby, to appropriate his whole comment, giving him proper credit. Nevertheless, I do not think the work deserves on that account to be called a compilation. My aim, at least, has been not simply to select by critical examination, and for a distinct scope, what appeared to me the best in the exegetical works within my reach, but to mold, with a unity of design, the variegated materials into an organic whole. Nor have I confined myself in the most difficult passages to what others have said, but ventured to give my own opinions and to strike out a new path ; as, for instance, in the exposition of the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew. It should also be borne in mind that the amount of quotations is in proportion to the specific aim of this Commentary to combine — to a greater extent than has been attempted before — the edifying element with the discussion of critical, apologetical, and theological questions, and to make these questions intelligible and interesting to the general reader. Had I designed the work only, either for the theological student or for the layman, it would have been reduced to half its size. The largest quotations, taken from other authors, I have made in the Introduction. My

8 PREFACE.

object was to preserve, for the instruction and edification of the Church, those portions of the different works on the genuineness, authenticity, and historic verity of the Gospel records, which after accurate comparison I found to contain the very best that has been written on one or the other point — and to bring the different testimonies within one focus and into a new relation to each other. Such a preservation and combination of arguments — incapable of material improvement — I judge to be far preferable to any attempt to bring out the old arguments in a new dress merely for the sake of imparting to them the appearance of originality. The authors quoted, I am confident, will not complain, because what is quoted from them is only a very small portion of the subject they treat of, and Avill induce those readers that have the leisure to pursue their studies further, to procure those works as far as their means may permit. Besides, the large quotations in the Introduction — with the exception of some extracts from Dr. Schaff's works and from Norton's "Credibility of the Gospels" — are taken from foreign authors, whose works have for the most part not even been republished in this country.

Though the materials of the Introduction have been borrowed to a large extent, I claim to have used them in such a manner as to build up a new and entirely-original argument, and one which I think is imperatively demanded by the change of base on the part of the rejecters of Divine revelation. With regard to the prominently-apologetical character of the Introduction, I beg leave to make a few remarks. Minute and extended as it is, some readers may be disappointed in not finding some of the strongest evidences of the Divine character of the Christian religion. But it must be borne in mind that the Introduction treats only of the documents of revelation, not of revelation itself, and that, for this reason, only so much of the General Evidences of Christianity, as stands in a close connection with the documents themselves, could consistently find a place here. Knowing from my own inward experience that the Sacred Scriptures prove their Divine character to every devout and earnest seeker of truth, and that a living faith in Jesus Christ and his Holy Word is not the work of a logical demonstration to the understanding, but that of an attestation of the Holy Ghost to the conscience and heart, it was for some time a matter of grave and anxious doubt, whether it would be proper and profitable in a work, written for the laity as much as for the ministry, to state in full the various and subtile objections which modern criticism has raised; but on mature reflection I became satisfied that the spirit of the age and the scope of the Commentary required a thoroughly apologetical introduction to the Gospel records- We live in a period when men of inquiring minds are compelled to follow one of three courses — either the rash and skeptical one of renouncing every thing which is not perfectly understood, or the equally easy one of yielding themselves up to blind credence, or, undaunted by the undeniable difficulties which revelation presents, not to rest short of a satisfactory solution. It is not sufficient in our day to state, in general, something like this : " Copies of the Gospels and Epistles were preserved in the Christian Churches. When the author produced his book it was immediately transcribed, and copies were put in circulation among purchasers; others were deposited in the archives of the various Churches. The multiplied copies were checks upon each other's correctness. Of the Gospels and Epistles numerous copies were circulated in Europe, Asia, and Africa within a century after their publication. It was, therefore, impossible that any counterfeit, or any great alteration should come into existence. The very perfect agreement — with the exception of slight mistakes in copying—

PREFACE. 9 of all manuscript copies throughout the world, places beyond all doubt the genuineness of all the four Gospels." This is, indeed, a very complete and reliable summary of the argument. Nevertheless, almost every item of it has been impugned by infidel writers, and their objections are widely disseminated among the masses. Ought not, therefore, the refutation of these objections to be made generally accessible, instead of being locked up in learned works on the " Canon," which no layman and but few ministers possess ? Would not the information they contain be eagerly and generally read, if embodied in a popular Commentary? And would not the simple Christian thus be enabled to answer satisfactorily the cavils of skeptics by which he is often embarrassed?

Having satisfied my mind on this point, I entered upon the argument with the conviction that in order to make it answer the wants of our day it must be strictly historical, free from all dogmatical premises, compelling the opponent, by facts which he admits, to confess the unreasonableness of his doubts ; in short, changing the defense of the record of revelation into an attack upon its rejecters by requiring the skeptic to account for the historical facts of Divine revelation, and especially for the personality of Jesus Christ — a problem which no human ingenuity or learning is able to solve on any known natural principle. (See General Introduction, §§ 28, 29.) On this point Dr. Ullmann, in the introductory chapter to his celebrated work, " The Sinlessness of Jesus — an Evidence for Christianity," observes: "In modern times it has become more and more obvious how incalculably important for the proof of historical Christianity is a clear and positive knowledge of the character of its Founder. For the life and character of Jesus is the central point of the whole Christian system. From this all rays of light and all operations of moral power proceed ; and to it all must be traced back, so long as Christianity shall have, on the one hand, a sure historical basis, and on the other, an inward moral excellence The position that we occupy, in an age in which doubt and disbelief so

greatly prevail, is such that in the vindication of Christianity we must go far beneath the surface, and lay the foundation in what appears self-evident and is in need of no external proof. This deepest foundation we find only in the person of the Founder of Christianity." Thus, in apologetics as well as in systematic theology and Christian experience, Christ is all and in all. While the Gospels, if examined by the acknowledged laws of historical criticism, are proved to be trustworthy historical records, the Christ described by the Evangelists could not possibly have been conceived by them, if they had not seen and heard what they record of him ; and if so, his personality is historically proved, as no other is, and it necessarily involves the fundamental fact of the Christian religion, that He was God manifest in the flesh. Being such, his testimony of the Old Testament and his commission to the apostles impress a Divine stamp upon the facts of revelation, recorded both in the Old and in the New Testament.

With regard to the plan of the Commentary, we beg leave to point out its peculiarities : 1. As the present division into chapters is unauthorized and arbitrary, the text has been arranged in sections, each of which forms a coherent whole by itself, be it a narrative or a discourse. Where a discourse is too extended to form conveniently one uninterrupted section, the section has its logical subdivisions. Likewise, where different short narratives — none of them large enough to form a section by itself — succeed each other, as in Mark, so many of them as can be brought under one appropriate head, with proper subdivisions, form one section, of course, without altering in any way their succession in

10 PREFACE.

the text. This arrangement will aid the reader much in understanding the connection existing between the successive portions of a Gospel, like that of Mark, and in perceiving the design of the Evangelist.

2. Wherever it is necessary, the text of a section is preceded by general remarks, the object of which is to clear up peculiar critical or chronological difficulties, or to give explanations which could not be attached to any particular part of the text.

3. The merely linguistical and archaeological notes, parallel passages, and different readings, not affecting the doctrinal exposition of the text, are printed in smaller type at the bottom of the page, in order to leave the exegesis proper uninterrupted.

4. The exegetical notes proper follow the text, the different points to be commented upon being marked by the verse, etc.

5. My design, with regard to the Homiletical Suggestions, in the German edition has been partly to aid young ministers in their preparations for the pulpit, partly to enable those who may not go through the exegetical process to make a practical improvement of the text. They are on this account, in German, added to the exegetical notes in all cases, except where the exegesis and the practical application of a section naturally coincide_, as, for instance, in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount and in the Parables. But in the English edition I have retained but a small portion, partly because I considered them neither needed by, nor adapted to, the American public, and because they would lose too much in the translation; partly because in the second half of the Gospel of Matthew I found the exegesis to be too much interwoven with practical application, and too extensive to make the addition of separate practical reflections convenient. In place of the German Homiletical Suggestions I substituted, where I could, condensed sketches from the Homilist, a work of classic character; and the lack of Homiletical Suggestions in Matthew I found a convenient opportunity to supply in the parallel passages of Mark.

v One more remark. The title of the German original is: A Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. I. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark, with a General Introduction, etc. It is my intention, by Divine permission, to devote the rest of my life to the continuation of this work; and I shall endeavor to adapt it at once to the English as well as the German reader. The plan of the Commentary, however, will be, of course, modified by the peculiarity of each book, as will be perceived by the treatment of the Gospel of Mark. That the Divine blessing may rest upon this effort which has sprung from the ardent desire to contribute something toward promoting a more thorough study of the New Testament by the laity as well as by the ministry, and to lead sincere inquirers after truth to the Savior, is the devout prayer of

THE AUTHOR.

Cincinnati, April 4, 1864.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL RECORDS.

Part I. The Genuineness Or Integrity Of The Sa- Cred Text

PAGE.

§1. Introductory Remarks 15

Chapter I. The History Of The Text

§ 2. The Change of the Original Text with regard

to its Outward Appearance 16

§ 3. Some General Remarks on the Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament 17

§ 4. A Consideration of the Variety of Readings presented by the Manuscripts of the New Testament 19

Chapter II

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF SUCCESS IN AN ESSENTIAL MUTI- LATION OR CORRUPTION OF THE GOSPEL RECORD.

§ 5. Argument from the Agreement of the Respective Copies of the Four Gospels 21

§6. Argument drawn from Other Considerations 24

Part II

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS. §7. Introductory Remarks 28

CHAPTER I.

THE OUTWARD HISTORICAL TESTIMONIES.

§8. The Testimony of the Apostolical Fathers 28

§ 9. The Testimony of the Fathers in the Sub-Apostolical Age, from A. D. 120-170 31

§ 10. The Formation of a Canon of the Universallyacknowledged Books of the New Testament at the Close of the Second Century 36

§11. The Early Versions of the New Testament 39

§12. The Testimony of Heretical and Apocryphal

Writings 41

§13. The Testimony of Heathen Adversaries 52

CHAPTER II.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCES.

§ 14. The Peculiar Dialect of Greek in which the

Evangelists have written 53

§15. Some other Characteristics of the Style in which

the Gospel3 are written 59

§16. §17. §18.

PAGE.

The Frequent Allusions of the Evangelists to the History of their Times 60

The Relation of the Four Gospels to Each Other and to the Acts of the Apostles 69

The Authenticity of the Gospels — a Postulate of Reason, as it alone accounts for the Existence of the Christian Church, and for some of Paul's Epistles, whose Authenticity is universally admitted 71

The Absurdity of the Mythical Theory 76

Part III

THE HISTORIC VERITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS. §20. Introductory Remarks „.„ 84

CHAPTER I.

A CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN

RAISED AGAINST THE CREDIBILITY OF THE

EVANGELISTS.

§ 21. The Alleged Discrepancies or Contradictions in

the Four Gospels 84

§ 22. The Assumption that Miracles are Impossible

and Unsusceptible of Proof. 86

§ 23. The Alleged Lack of Sufficient Testimony by

Profane Writers 92

CHAPTER II.

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.

§24.

§25.

The Evangelists were in a Condition to inform themselves accurately and thoroughly concerning the Things which they record 94

The Evangelists exhibit in their Narratives no Symptoms of Mental Derangement which might have made them Victims of Delusion... 94 § 26. The Evangelists can not be charged with having had any Motive or Design to impose upon the World a report of what, if it did not take place, they must have known to be false.

CHAPTER HI.

THE DIVINE SEAL STAMPED UPON THE GOSPEL HISTORY BY ITS SUBJECT THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST.

§ 27. The Verity of the Gospel History best accredited by the Personality of Jesus Christ 97

§ 28. The admitted outer Conditions of the Life of Jesus — leaving its astounding Results, as well

CONTENTS.

as the unlimited Scope of the Mind of Jesus and the perfect Symmetry of his Character, utterly inexplicable, without the admission

of a Supernatural and Divine Element

29. The Sinlossness of Jesus — the Idea of which could not have been conceived by the Evangelists, if they had not seen it actualized in his Life — incontestably proving that he was

not a mere Man 107

The Miracles wrought on and performed by Jesus, the Natural and Necessary Outflow of his historically-proved Personality, and, at the same time, the Ground and Warrant of all other true Miracles preceding and succeeding his Appearance on Earth 120

:30

Part IV

THE ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM ON THE IN- SPIRATION OP THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

§ 31. The Relation which the Authenticity and Credibility of the Gospel Records bear to their Inspiration 126

£33.

The Peculiar Agreement and Disagreement of the first three Evangelists in their Narratives, and the Various Explanations of this Singular Phenomenon 12V

A Consideration of the Inspired Character of the Synoptical Gospels on the Ground of their being chiefly the Result of the Oral Teaching of the Apostles 134

Part V. Preliminary Remarks On The Gospel History

ji 34. The Condition of the World, Jewish, Greek,

and Roman, at the Advent of Christ 142

\ 35. The Chronology and Harmony; of the Gospel

Narratives 147

A. The Date of the Birth of Christ 148

B. The Duration of our Lord's Ministry and

the Date of his Death 150

C. A Synoptical Table of the Gospel History.. 152

D. A Table for finding any Passage in the

Synopsis of the Gospel History 173

TO THE

GOSPEL EECOEDS

Part I

THE GENUINENESS OR INTEGRITY OF THE SACRED TEXT. §1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

It is to be regretted that nearly all English writers on the Evidences are in the habit of using the words "genuine" and "authentic" as synonyms, and sometimes even of attaching to the word "authentic" the popular sense of "true" or "credible," by which the whole argumentation is obscured. A book is to be called genuine, if it has remained in all material points the same- as it was when it proceeded from its author. It is authentic, if it has proceeded at all from the person whose name it bears, or, where the name of the author was not assigned with certainty at the time of its origin, if it originated at the time and under the circumstances it professes to have done. A book may be genuine and authentic, and yet its contents may lack credibility.

"We propose, in the order named, to inquire into the genuineness, the authenticity, and the credibility of the Gospel records, and then to consider their inspired character. The object of this chapter is to show that the text of the four canonical Gospels has been preserved in its integrity — is genuine or uncorrupted. "What we have to say on this point applies to all the books of the New Testament, and will, therefore, not be repeated in the special Introductions to the other books. The investigation into the genuineness or integrity of the inspired writings is legitimate and of great importance. For though we may have the most satisfactory proofs that they proceeded at first from the apostles or evangelists whose names they bear, they may have been so altered since that time as to convey to us very false information with regard to their original contents. It is admitted on all hands that the original manuscripts disappeared at a very early time, owing to the frailty of the material on which the apostles wrote, and to the frequent use which was made of them by being read in the Churches and constantly transcribed, and that, in common with all other ancient writings, the original text of the New Testament has been exposed to the accidents to which all works preserved by transcription are liable. "We will, therefore, consider, first, the history of the text, as the German writers call it — that is, the changes to which the original was unavoidably subjected in the process of transcription — and then prove that all these changes have not impaired the integrity of the original.

OHAPTEE I.

THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT. § 2. The Change op the Original Text with regard to its Outward Appearance.

Inasmuch as our present mode of publishing books is very different from that of ancient times, we can not but expect that the outward appearance of the original text underwent great changes by being transcribed from century to century, and a consideration of these external changes claims our attention first. The following points are of general interest:

1. The authors of the New Testament used the charta — 6 ^apr-qr;, 2 John, 12 — paper made of layers of the papyrus, a plant that was very common in Egypt. Of this paper there Avere, in the apostles' times, several kinds in use, differing from each other in strength and durability. Of the existing manuscripts, however, none are written on papyrus, but on vellum or on paper of later origin. Yellum was the most durable, but also the most costly material. Not more than six manuscript fragments on vellum are known to be extant. All manuscripts on paper are of a much later date, those on cotton paper being posterior to the seventh century, and those on linen still later.