Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech: Preface and Introductions | Page 5

to the view that the book is not a
translation, but was probably written in Greek by Matthew himself,
upon the basis of a previously issued collection of "Logia" or
discourses, to the existence of which Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus,
Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all testify.
The date of the Gospel, as we know it, is somewhat uncertain, but the
best critical estimates are included between 70 and 90, A.D. Perhaps,
with Harnack, we may adopt 75, A.D.
The book was evidently intended for Jewish converts, and exhibits
Jesus as the God-appointed Messiah and King, the fulfiller of the Law
and of the highest expectations of the Jewish nation. This speciality of
aim rather enhances than diminishes its general value. Renan found
reason for pronouncing it "the most important book of Christendom--
the most important book which has ever been written." Its aim is
manifestly didactic rather than chronological.
The Good News as Recorded by Mark
This Gospel is at once the briefest and earliest of the four. Modern
research confirms the ancient tradition that the author was Barnabas's
cousin, "John, whose other name was Mark," who during Paul's first
missionary tour "departed from them" at Pamphylia, "and returned to
Jerusalem" (see Ac 12:12,25; 15:37,39; Co 4:1O; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24;
1Pe 5:13). His defection appeared to Paul sufficiently serious to
warrant an emphatic refusal to take him with him on a second tour, but

in after years the breach was healed and we find Mark with Paul again
when he writes to Colossae, and he is also mentioned approvingly in
the second Letter to Timothy.
Scholars are now almost unanimous in fixing the date of this Gospel
between 63 and 70, A. D. There is no valid reason for questioning the
usual view that it was written in Rome. Clement, Eusebius, Jerome and
Epiphanius, all assert that this was so. That the book was mainly
intended for Gentiles, and especially Romans, seems probable from
internal evidence. Latin forms not occurring in other Gospels, together
with explanations of Jewish terms and customs, and the omission of all
reference to the Jewish Law, point in this direction. Its vividness of
narration and pictorial minuteness of observation bespeak the testimony
of an eye-witness, and the assertion of Papias, quoted by Eusebius, that
Mark was "the interpreter of Peter" is borne out by the Gospel itself no
less than by what we otherwise know of Mark and Peter.
In a real though not mechanical sense, this is "the Gospel of Peter," and
its admitted priority to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke affords
substantial reason for the assumption that it is to some extent the source
whence they derive their narratives, although Papias distinctly affirms
that Mark made no attempt at giving a carefully arranged history such
as that at which Luke confessedly aimed.
In spite of the witness of most uncial MSS. and the valiant pleading of
Dean Burgon and others, modern scholars are well nigh unanimous in
asserting that the last twelve verses of this Gospel are an appendix. Yet
less cannot honestly be said than that they "must have been of very
early date," and that they embody "a true apostolic tradition which may
have been written by some companion or successor of the original
author." In one Armenian MS. they are attributed to Aristion.
The Good News as Recorded by Luke
Modern research has abundantly confirmed the ancient tradition that
the anonymous author of the third Gospel is none other than "Luke the
beloved physician" and the narrator of the "Acts of the Apostles" (see.
Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). Even Renan acknowledges this, and the

objections of a few extremists appear to have been sufficiently
answered.
The date is not easy to settle. The main problem is whether the book
was written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, A.D. Not
a few scholars whose views merit great respect still think that it
preceded that event, but the majority of critics believe otherwise. Three
principal dates have been suggested, 63, A.D., 80, A.D., 100, A.D. If
we accept 80, A. D., we shall be in substantial accord with Harnack,
McGiffert, and Plummer, who fairly represent the best consensus of
scholarly opinion.
There is no evidence as to where this Gospel was composed, although
its general style suggests the influence of some Hellenic centre. Its
special characteristics are plain. It is written in purer Greek than the
other Gospels, and is manifestly the most historic and artistic. It has
also the widest outlook, having obviously been compiled for Gentiles,
and, especially, for Greeks. The Author was evidently an educated man
and probably a physician, and was also a close observer.
Eighteen of the parables and six of the miracles found here are not
recorded elsewhere. Those "portions of the