Much has been written regarding the Gospels, but most of it rests on no adequate authority, and is often little better than conjecture. We shall therefore be very brief in our notices of them. MATTHEW. It has always been a prevailing opinion, even from early times, that the Gospel by Matthew was the first written of all the Gospels. A very common idea has been that it was written about eight years after the ascension, or in A. D. 41. Learned men, indeed, differ exceedingly as to the time when it was written. The dates they assign to it vary from A. D. 37 to 64; but of none of the dates assigned to it is there satisfactory evidence (Horne, Introd. iv. 411). Without fixing on any particular year, we think there is some force in the following argument of Lardner in favour of a somewhat late date: There is an expression used by him once or twice intimating that it was some considerable space since the time of the event and his writing about it (xxvii. 8), | 'Wherefore that field was called the field of blood unto this day.' Having related the affair of the soldiers, and the directions given to them by the Jewish council to say that his disciples came by night and stole him away,' he adds, And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day' (ver. 15). Such an expression does not denote any certain period; but one would think that in this case there must be intended a considerable space of time, more than eight, or ten, or fifteen years after his ascension,' the earlier dates assigned to it' (Lardner, Works, vi. 59). It was the general belief in ancient times that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel with a view to the Jewish people. Irenæus, Origen, and Eusebius agree in bearing this testimony, and we are not aware that there is any countertestimony (Horne, Introd. iv. 427). With respect to the language in which it was written, there are early and distinct testimonies to its having been originally in Hebrew-i.e., the Western Aramæan or Syro-Chaldaic dialect, at that time the vernacular language of the Jews in Palestine. On this question critics are much divided, some maintaining a Hebrew original, others as strenuously denying it. Considering the kind of evidence which usually can be brought forward on questions of this kind, we apprehend the evidence of the Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, though not conclusive, is yet considerable, and is not to be lightly or confidently set aside as if it possessed no weight. Indeed, the weight of evidence appears to us to preponderate in favour of it. If it was originally written in Hebrew, the translator of it into Greek is not known, nor the time when the translation was made (Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. B. iii. c. 24; v. 10; Horne, Introd. iv. 416; Lardner, Works, vi. 49, 60; Michaelis, Introd. iii. 116-160; Campbell, Gospels, iii. 2). Lord; but, as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give him a history of our Lord's discourses. Wherefore Mark has not erred in anything by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts' (Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. B. iii. c. 39). Papias is said to have been a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of John. Though Irenæus seems to think it was the apostle John he meant, Eusebius, with greater probability, supposes it was John, who was commonly distinguished from the apostle by the appellation of the Elder or the Presbyter. But whichever it was, the testimony is little, if at all, removed from the apostolic age. Clement of Alexandria and Origen, two of the most learned men of their day, Irenæus and Tertullian, give a similar testimony as to Mark writing his Gospel from the information he received from Peter; and Eusebius repeats the statement. This appears to have been the common belief of antiquity, and it is generally received in modern times. But who the evangelist Mark was, the learned are not equally well agreed. Taking the account now given to be substantially correct, it is natural to conclude that he is the person whom Peter in his First Epistle (v. 13) calls Marcus my son.' It is generally believed that this was the Mark of whom we have repeated mention in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of Paul, who is called John, whose surname was Mark' (Acts xii. 12, 25; xv. 37); and simply John (Acts xiii. 5, 13), or simply Mark (Acts xv. 39; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11); but though we are not prepared to deny this, there is room to question it. In the passages now referred to we read of the connection of John, whose surname was Mark,' with Paul, both in the early part of his ministry and towards its close; but we never read of his being any way connected with Peter. In fact, the accounts given of Paul's attendant and of Peter's interpreter agree in nothing but the name Mark or Marcus, too slight a circumstance to prove the identity of the person, especially when it is considered how common the name was among the Romans, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name (Michaelis, Introd. 4. 202, 204; Campbell, Gospels, iii. 139). The ancient tradition is, that Mark's Gospel was written at Rome; but the date of it is very much matter of conjecture. It would appear from the explanations which the writer introduces, that it was written, in the first instance, for Gentile believers, for Jews could scarcely have required such information. Thus, the first time the Jordan is mentioned the designation the river' is prefixed to it (Mark i. 5). As Gentiles could scarcely be expected to know the customs of the Jews as to washing, there is a somewhat detailed account of their practice (vii. 2-4). Only a few verses further on, when the word corban occurs, it is added, that is to say, a gift' (ver. 11). Other examples of the same kind might be given (Horne, Introd. 4. 436, 437). GOSPELS 267 GOSPELS Of all the Gospels Mark's is the worst Greek. | (i. 41). To Jews explanations of such words It is much characterised by Hebraisms (Michaelis, Introd. i. 112). LUKE. The Gospel by Luke was not designed, in the first instance, for any community, whether Jews or Gentiles, but for a private individualTheophilus; and of the occasion and motives of his writing it he gives a very distinct account (i. 1-4). Theophilus was probably a Gentile believer. But though intended, in the first instance, for him in particular, it was doubtless designed for a wider circle of readers, and was specially adapted for Gentile communities. This was naturally to be expected of one who was so long the friend and companion of the apostle of the Gentiles, and who had witnessed among them the marvellous progress of the gospel. The date of Luke's Gospel cannot be determined. The only thing that can be stated with certainty is, that it was written before (perhaps not very long before) the Acts of the Apostles. Now, the Acts breaks off abruptly, two whole years' after Paul reached Rome, and while he was still a prisoner in that city (Michaelis, Introd. iv. 241. As to the place where it was written, we have nothing but unfounded conjectures (Ib. iv. 248). Of all the Gospels, that of Luke is by much the purest Greek. Though there are numerous Hebraisms in it, yet he has greater variety and power of language than any of the other evangelists; and many of his words and expressions are such as are to be found in the best classical authors (Horne, Introd. iv. 459). The excellence of his style has been generally acknowledged by critics. JOHN. According to the uniform voice of This Gospel contains internal evidence that it In like manner, when there is occasion to men- It is manifestly not without design,' says has unintentionally rendered an eminent service | nearly inspected, additional presumptive evito the Christian cause. For an example, on the contrary, of a fact related by John, but omitted by all the rest, the most striking by far is the resurrection of Lazarus, than which none of our Lord's miracles was greater in itself, or more signalised by the attendant circumstances. At first it appears astonishing that an action so illustrious as the resuscitation of a man who had been four days dead and buried-the most public too, in what may be called a suburb of the capital-in open day-the spectators numerous, as the Paschal solemnity approached, which always drew an immense concourse to Jerusalem-and (which made it still more remarkable) a little before Christ's crucifixion-circumstances so impressive as to render it morally impossible that a fact so memorable should have escaped any Christian historian of the time. But how happily does the circumstance mentioned by Grotius, as suggested in the sequel of the evangelist's narrative, remove every appearance of negligence in the sacred penmen, and account in the most rational manner for the profound silence they had observed on this article. Much people of the Jews,' says John, knowing that Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Lazarus, came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead: But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death, because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus' (xii. 9-11). Consequently, to publish this miracle whilst Lazarus and his sisters lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem was to set up that worthy family as marks to the malice, not of the chief-priests only, but of all the enemies of the Christian name. If we may credit tradition, Lazarus lived after this resurrection thirty years. Within less than twenty Matthew, Mark, and Luke published their Gospels; but it was thirty-two years at least, and consequently after the death of Lazarus, that John wrote his Gospel.* 'I subjoin an observation on the suppression of a small circumstance in another passage, which is similarly accounted for, and deserves notice, because the similarity itself is a presumption of the justness of the account in the solution of both. It has been observed, that all the four mention, that in the slight attempt to resist when Jesus was apprehended the highpriest's servant had an ear cut off, but John alone acquaints us that the disciple who did this was Simon Peter. The fact must have been well known to them all; but the other Gospels were written in Peter's lifetime, this alone after his death, when the mention of that circumstance could nowise hurt him. The uniformity of this caution in the sacred writers appearing in different instances, renders the justice of the reasons assigned the more probable. 'I may add, that from circumstances which, to a superficial view, seem to add improbability to a narrative, there arises sometimes, when These are the years here given by Dr. C., but we have already seen that the dates of the several Gospels are very uncertain. dence of its truth. There is also in these hints what may serve to confirm the traditions and early accounts we have both of the writers of the Gospels and of the time of their composition' (Campbell, Gospels, iii. 335). Besides the four Gospels, there were in the early ages of the church other narratives of the life of Christ. Luke speaks of there being many even before he wrote his Gospel (i. 1), a proof of the early and deep interest which was then taken in the subject. In subsequent times there were numerous other Gospels, as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias; these names being falsely attached to them. There were also others which bore the names of the communities among which they were in use, as the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Gospel according to the Egyptians. The fragments of the Apocryphal Gospels may be found in Jones' Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the N. T. (Michaelis, Introd. iii. 2. 6). GO'ZAN, the name of a river, and of the country adjacent, which the Assyrians conquered, and whither they transported a part of the ten tribes of Israel (Is. xxxvii. 12; 2 Kings xvii. 6), but whether it was the Elon Gozine, near the source of the Tigris, and which Ptolemy calls Gauzanitis (now called Kaushan; Gesenius, 162) in Mesopotamia, or a place in Media, where Ptolemy places the province of Gauzan and the city Gauzania, we cannot determine. GRACE has the general signification of favour, but it has also a variety of special significations, particnlarly in the N. T. The Greek word xápis, which is ordinarily rendered grace, has also other meanings which that word does not express. As, however, both words are highly important, and are of very frequent occurrence in the Scriptures, we shall give a somewhat detailed statement of the senses in which they are used. 1. Favour with others (Gen. xxxix. 4; Esther ii. 17; Luke i 30; ii. 52; Acts ii. 47; vii. 46). 2. Favour to others (Acts xxiv. 27; xxv. 3, 9). 3. Temporal blessings (2 Cor. ix. 8). 4. Beauty, as of person, ornaments, flowers (Prov. iii. 22; iv. 9; xxxi. 30; James i. 11). 5. Agreeableness, acceptableness, as of words or discourses (Ps. xlv. 2; Luke iv. 22). The reference here is probably to both the matter and the manner of our Lord's teaching. 6. A benefit (2 Cor. i. 15). 7. Pecuniary contribution (1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 19). 8. The free and unmerited love of God and of Christ to sinful men (Rom v. 20, 21; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Eph. i. 3-7; Heb. ii. 9; 1 Peter v. 10). 9. The absolute freeness and graciousness of the blessings of salvation to the entire exclusion of works (Rom. iii. 24; iv. 4, 5, 13-16; xi. 5, 6; Gal. v. 4; Eph. ii. 7-9; 2 Tim. i. 9; Titus iii. 7). 10. The favour, goodwill, and blessing of GRASS 'God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.' 11. The gospel, as being one of God's most distinguished gifts to man, and the means of communicating to them the knowledge of his other free gifts (Acts xx. 24; 2 Cor. vi. 1; Gal. i. 6; Titus ii. 11; 1 Pet. v. 12). 12. The office of the apostleship and the qualifications necessary for discharging it (Rom. i. 5; xv. 15, 16; 1 Cor. iii. 10; Gal. ii. 9; Eph. iii. 1-10). 13. Spiritual gifts (Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. i. 47; Eph. iii. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 10). 14. The virtues of the Christian character (1 Cor. i. 4, 5, 7; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 6, 7; 2 Pet. iii. 18). 15. Divine assistance and help (2 Cor. i. 12; xii. 9). 16. The edification or spiritual improvement of others (Eph. iv. 29). 17. Thanks, thankfulness, thanksgiving (1 Cor. xv. 57; 2 Cor. ii. 14; viii. 16; see also 1 Cor. x. 30; Col. iii. 16). 18. On account of, for this cause, because of (Eph. iii. 1, 14; Gal. iii. 19). 269 GRASS, that well-known plant which decks our fields, and upon which sheep and cattle and other animals feed (Ps. civ. 14). In Egypt, Canaan, and some other warm countries, grass grows to the height of a man, but though it grows so high it is liable to be burnt up by the heats of summer; hence it is employed in the Scriptures as an emblem of the shortness of human life: As for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field so he flourisheth: for GREECE and being in an elevated place, exposed to the Under the name of xópros (E. T. grass) our GRASS'HOPPER. The word which is thus It GREECE (in Hebrew, Javan), a country tent at different periods, and was divided into in the south-east of Europe. It varied in exnumerous small states. Anciently its chief divisions were the Peloponnesus, Greece proper, Thessaly, and in later times Macedonia. writers, both Greek and Latin, often distinguish may be observed, however, that the profane between Greece and Macedonia, and so also does Luke (Acts xx. 1-3; Parkhurst, Gr. Lex. 213). After the dissolution of the Achæan League senate into two provinces, viz.,-that of MaceGreece was divided by a decree of the Roman donia, including also Thessaly, and that of Achaia, including all the other states of Greece. To this division of the country there is obvious reference in Acts xviii. 12; xix. 21; Rom. xv. In the N. T. Achaia is always to be understood 26; 2 Cor. ix. 2; xi. 9, 10; 1 Thess. i. 7, 8. in this sense. Taones), a name which obviously comes from the Hebrew. They seem to have first settled in the west of Asia Minor. Numbers in very early times passed from thence into Europe, and settled in Greece; but many of these, or of their descendants, came back and formed Greek states in Ionia and other parts of Lesser Asia-Ionians, Eolians, and Dorians. The father of the Greeks was Javan, the the wind passeth over it, and it is gone, and the fourth son of Japheth; his sons were Elishah, place thereof shall know it no more' (Ps. ciii. Tarshish, Chittim, and Dodanim (Gen. x. 2, 4, 15, 16). All flesh is grass, and all the goodli-5); his posterity were anciently called 'Idoves ness thereof is as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the The very people is grass' (Is. xl. 6, 7). affecting images of Scripture which compare the short existence of man to the decay of the vegetable creation are scarcely understood in this country. The verdure is perpetual in England. It is difficult to discover a time when it can be said the grass withereth;' but let the traveller visit the beautiful plain of Smyrna, or any other part of the East, in the month of May, and revisit it towards the end of June, and he will perceive the beauty and force of these allusions. In May an appearance of fresh verdure and of rich luxuriance everywhere meets the eye; the face of nature is adorned with a carpet of flowers and herbage of the most elegant kind. But a month or six weeks subsequently, how changed is the entire scene! The beauty is gone; the grass is withered; the flower is faded; a brown and dusty desert has taken the place of a delicious garden. It is doubtless to this rapid transformation of nature that the Scriptures compare the fate of man' (Hartley, Res. 236). Grass which grows on the flat roofs of houses in the East is used as an emblem of speedy destruction. Such grass is short and feeble, In the O. T. Javan sometimes comprehends of Javan, whether Greece, Ionia, and the neighall the countries inhabited by the descendants a country, the name occurs in Is. lxvi. 19; bouring parts of Asia Minor, or other parts. As Ezek. xvii. 13; Zech. ix. 13 (E. T. Greece). In Daniel's vision of the ram and the he-goat, the latter is said by the angel Gabriel to signify the king of Javan' (viii. 21; E. T. Grecia), Alexander the Great of Macedonia being plainly meant; and in xi. 2 the prophet speaks of one of the kings of Persia (Xerxes) who, by his strength through his riches, shall stir up all against the realm of Javan' (E. T. Grecia). In Joel iii. 6 we also read, 'The children of Judah Grecians). In some of these passages Javan have ye sold to the sons of the Javanim' (E. T. appears to refer specially to Greece; in others In the N. T. the references to Greece are it may have a more extended signification. used as a generic name for Gentiles (Rom. i. 16; ii. 9, 10; iii. 9; x. 12; Gal. iii. 28). 3. Greeks by race who had embraced Judaism ; Greek proselytes. Such, probably, were the Greeks who had come up to Jerusalem to worship at the feast of the Passover (John xii. 20; and also those mentioned in Acts xiv. 1; xvii. 4; xviii. 4, as worshipping with the Jews in their synagogues. more numerous and more definite. Most of them are in connection with the labours of the apostle Paul. After preaching in Cilicia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Galatia, he came to Mysia in the west of Asia Minor, and sailing from Troas he proceeded on to Macedonia. He was thus perhaps the first to plant Christianity in Europe. Here he preached the word, and raised up churches in Philippi, in Thessalonica, and in Berea. From thence he travelled The Jews of Palestine and Syria, with those to Athens, the chief city of Attica, and the most who lived in Babylonia, spoke kindred dialects celebrated city of ancient times for its schools of of the same language, the Aramaan. They inphilosophy, for the fine arts, and for its taste and terpreted the Scriptures through the Targums refinement. He next visited Corinth, the chief or Chaldee Paraphrases, and in the N. T. they city of Achaia, and the great emporium of are called Hebrews. Many of the Jews, howGreece a city distinguished for its commerce, ever, had removed to other countries where the its wealth, its luxury, and its licentiousness. Greek language was spoken, to Egypt, to Asia He then returned to the west of Asia Minor, Minor, to Greece, and other parts of the West. visited Ephesus, its chief city; and though he | These settlements began with Alexander's conthen stopped but a short time, he returned to it quests, and were extended under his successors. afterwards, and laboured there two years or Alexandria in Egypt may be said to have been more. He now went again to Macedonia and their capital. They used the Septuagint translaAchaia; and in proceeding from thence to Jeru- tion of the O. T.; indeed it was made specially salem for the last time he once more touched for their use. They were commonly called 'EXat various places in the west of Asia Minor. | Anvioral (Hellenists; E. T. Grecians). Between He also wrote epistles, which now constitute these two classes there was not only a difference a large part of the N. T., to the churches in of language, but a considerable difference of Thessalonica, in Philippi, and in Corinth, in opinion; and hence there arose feelings of hosEphesus, in Colosse, and perhaps in Laodicea, tility in the one to the other. This, perhaps, nearly all of which had been planted by himself. was the foundation or original spring of the disIn the Book of Revelation we also find solemn satisfaction which manifested itself in the church messages from Christ Jesus sent by his servant at Jerusalem regarding the distribution of eleeJohn to the seven churches of Asia-in Ephesus, mosynary aid: And in those days, when the in Smyrna, in Pergamos, in Thyatira, in Sardis, number of the disciples was multiplied, there in Philadelphia, and in Laodicea. These are arose a murmuring of the 'EXAŋviorúv (Hellenthe chief notices which we have in the N. T. of ists; E. T. Grecians) against the Hebrews, the countries of Javan: the whole taken to- because their widows were neglected in the gether shew how early and how extensively daily ministration' (Acts vi. 1). We are Christianity was introduced among that branch also told that Paul, on coming to Jerusalem after of the family of man. It still subsists in Greece, his conversion, spake boldly in the name of in Asia Minor, and in other parts of the Turkish the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the 'EXA empire; but is only as the shadow of a name. vorás (Hellenists; E. T. Grecians); but they Its adherents are numerous, but they are sunk went about to slay him' (ix. 29), a design quite in gross ignorance, error, superstition, and in correspondence with the Jewish character of idolatry; and even as regards morals they are that period. The only other passage in which represented as worse than the Mohammedans the word occurs in the N. T. is in xi. 19, 20; themselves. Between the Greek Church and the but there appears to be here a contradiction, Romish Church there is in most things a striking for they who were scattered abroad' are first resemblance, except only that the former does said to preach the word to none but unto the not yield subjection to the Pope of Rome. In- Jews only,' and yet it is stated immediately after deed, it is remarkable how much the corruptions that some who came from Antioch spake unto of all the ancient churches resemble each other. the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.' This single fact shews how early the Christian some of our best modern critics-as Griesbach, Church must have become corrupt, since all its Scholtz, Lachmann, De Wette-agree in thinking branches shew so much the same corruptions. that in this passage the true reading is Ἕλληνας (Greeks), not EXλnviorás (Grecians). Should this be admitted, the apparent contradiction would be entirely removed (Conybeare, i. 12). GREEKS, GRECIANS. These words, as used in the N. T., are not, as many suppose, synonymous. Greeks (EXXnves) is the name of natives of Greece, or rather of Greeks by race: Grecians (Envioral) is the name given to Jews who speak the Greek language. To mark the distinction more plainly, it would have been well if the latter word had been rendered Hellenists. The word "EXλnves (Greeks) is used in the following senses in the N. T. 1. Greeks as opposed to ol Bápßapoi (barbarians), under which term were included all who were not of the Greek race (Rom. i. 14). 2. Greeks as opposed to ol 'Lovdato, the Jews (Acts xvi. i. 3; xix. 17; 1 Cor. i. 22-24); often But GREYHOUND. Perhaps what we render greyhound, an animal 'comely in going,' ought to be rendered a riding or war horse (Prov. xxx. 31; Gesenius, 253). GRIND, to bruise small, as meal is bruised in a mill. Anciently they had only hand-mills for grinding their meal; women and slaves— such as Samson was at Gaza, and the Hebrews at Babylon, and the Chaldæans under the Persians were usually the grinders; and they performed their work in the morning, singing loud, and grinded but what sufficed for that |