covered. Scholars are studying all these writings carefully, and through the increase of material are able to understand them better than in former days. They are highly valued, not because they reveal the future to us, but because they show what the general Jewish thought about the future was in the first century. For we know that apocalyptical books were very popular and influential in Palestine, and that from them were drawn the current ideas concerning the being and advent and work of the Messiah, and the nature of his Kingdom. In general their teaching was that in a time of stress and trial the Messiah would suddenly appear as a superhuman being, though not divine, who would crush all foes by his miraculous power, and set up a kingdom of marvellous plenty and glory.

Now when Jesus began his work-so the sceptic would say he found himself everywhere confronted with these eschatological ideas and expectations, and, doubtless, to a large extent he shared them himself. Accordingly, when he undertook to teach his countrymen the simple but precious truths of the Kingdom of Heaven, he used increasingly the popular apocalyptic forms of thought concerning the Messianic Kingdom, and presently adopted the titles and claims of the apocalyptic Messiah. Whether the Messianic rôle was one he voluntarily assumed, or whether it was forced upon him by his followers, may be disputed; but in neither case did he really claim to be divine, for both

to him and to his Jewish followers such a claim would be blasphemous. What is meant by The Son of Man, which was his own favorite title, and The Son of God, which was the title others delighted to give him, can be understood only by studying their meaning in the apocalypses. And all his teachings about his present and future power and mission should be interpreted by the same means. Of course, the teachings in the gospel of John are to be rejected as a later development when these Jewish eschatological ideas came into contact with Greek thought.

To discuss this way of interpreting the teachings of Jesus about himself is beyond our present purpose. That apocalyptical ideas prevailed in his day, is undoubtedly true; and a recognition of that fact may throw new light upon his words and work. For example, the temptation in the wilderness becomes intelligible, if we bear in mind the popular expectation, gained from apocalypses, of how the Messiah would use his miraculous power. It was generally thought that when the Messiah appeared he would work miracles to accomplish at least three objects, (1) to prove beyond doubt that he was the Messiah, (2)' to provide his followers abundantly with material, sensuous blessings, and (3) to overthrow his foes and seat himself upon the throne of universal empire. Out of Jesus' natural desire to draw men to himself arose the temptation to use his power as the Son of God to work

miracles that would meet these expectations. In symbolical form he describes it as the temptation (1) to descend from the pinnacle of the temple borne by angels, (2) to turn the very stones of the wilderness into bread for the hungry, and (3) to bow down to Satan. Such temptations confronted him not only at the outset but all through his ministry, and their origin was in the eschatological ideas that filled the minds of those who thronged about him wondering if he really could be the expected Messiah.

It is one thing, however, to recognize that in his work Jesus was constantly confronted with apocalyptical ideas, and quite another thing to hold that he shared or even adopted those ideas. For this latter opinion there is little evidence. When we consider the character of his ministry, the difficulty with which men grasped his teachings, the bitter opposition he aroused, and the slowness with which even the twelve recognized him to be the Messiah, it seems evident that he was far from fulfilling the popular Messianic expectations. And if the apocalyptical writings were the source of those expectations, they certainly cannot be used to explain the teachings of Jesus about himself.

In the use of the first three gospels for a life of Christ, a recognition of the synoptic problem and its generally accepted solution ought to bear fruit in various ways. For example, if these gospels make use of a common source, the fact that an incident is given

by all three does not increase its trustworthiness except as strengthening the evidence that it was in the common source and not added later. And if the details of an incident vary in the three, such variations are to be treated no longer as those of different eye-witnesses but as those of different writers using a common source. Above all, the common sources, if they can be restored, are the real authority. The synoptists used themwhether faithfully or not critics must determine: and certainly present day writers are as competent as the synoptists to quote their statements or arrange their facts. The difficulty, of course, is in recovering the sources; and, despite all toil of critics, the results thus far are indefinite—at least, they have borne little fruit in the lives of Christ. The biographer of Jesus who undertakes to go behind the synoptics does not differ very much from his brother of fifty years ago: he may make a far more elaborate display of scholarship, and talk much more about Ur Marcus and Q and Evangelia infantia and Jewish-Christian apocalypses, and the like; but when he comes to reconstruct the story, he usually follows pretty consistently his own prejudices for or against the miraculous and divine in deciding what to include and what to omit.

If the gospels are taken as trustworthy records, there still remains the problem how they are to be used. Two methods of treatment are possible. On the one hand they may be looked upon as brief biographies,

written from the stand-point of an historian. In this case, we construct from them a chronological outline, and fill this in with the various recorded events. There are evident gaps in the record, and there are sometimes apparent duplicates of events; what Jesus did, e. g., in the period between his return from the two days' sojourn in Samaria and the beginning of his work in Galilee after John's imprisonment, must remain unknown, and whether he was rejected in Nazareth once or twice is an open question. But a careful study of the gospel record ought to result in a fairly definite and complete history which will trace the progress of Jesus step by step from the baptism to the ascension.

On the other hand, the gospels may be considered as memorabilia of what Jesus was and taught, preserved by the disciples for guidance in fashioning their own lives after his example, for light upon the truths most important in their thought, and for use in persuading others that he was indeed the Saviour of the world. If such is the character of the gospels, it is impossible to gain from them a chronological history; they do not contain it. As well try to gain a history of Socrates from Xenophon's "Memorabilia." Some chapters can be reconstructed: a general idea may be gained of the progress of events that led to the creation of apostolic faith and also to the culmination of Jewish hostility; but a biography of Jesus is beyond attainment. The most recent lives of Christ are fashioned according to