of these, as well as of other Gospels.' The words Athynois....Xóyou in St Luke's preface may be the translation of the Hebrew title of Aleph. '2. Greek translation of the Hebrew document Aleph' (p. 199).

3. Copies of the Hebrew document Aleph with additions' (pp. 200- -202). In process of time, as new communications from the 5 Apostles and other eye-witnesses brought to light either additional circumstances relative to transactions already recorded in Aleph, or transactions, which had been left wholly unnoticed, those persons, who possessed copies of Aleph, added in their manuscripts such additional circumstances and transactions; and these additions in subsequent 10 copies were inserted in the text.'

'4. Supplemental Hebrew document Beth, which contained a Γνωμολογία (p. 202). 'In addition to the document Aleph, which contained a series of facts, another document was drawn up, containing a collection of precepts, parables, and discourses, which had been deli- 15 vered by Christ, at different times, and on different occasions. In this collection, though many of the facts were noted, which gave rise to those precepts, parables, and discourses, no regard was paid to chronological order. It was not common to all three Evangelists, for it was used only by St. Matthew and St. Luke: and those two Evangelists 20 had not the same, but different copies of it, St. Matthew's copy containing some things which were not in St. Luke's, and St. Luke's copy some things, which were not in St. Matthew's.'

5. St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel' (pp. 203, 204). He gave the sanction of apostolical authority to facts and discourses, which were 25 already recorded. Further, he made many additions, sometimes of particular circumstances, at other times of facts and discourses, which are contained, neither in the Gospel of St. Mark, nor in that of St. Luke. Lastly, he arranged and digested the whole according to his own plan.'

'6. St. Luke's gospel' (pp. 205-207). This copy [an enlarged 30 Aleph] he made the basis of the principal part of his Gospel, and adhered to it throughout even in the arrangement of the facts, not venturing to transpose any of them, as St. Matthew did.' He inserted materials from Beth in that portion of his Gospel which begins with ch. ix. 15, and ends with ch. xviii. 14, a portion which consists almost 35 wholly of precepts, parables, and discourses, the few facts, which are introduced in it, being nothing more than preludes to the discourses themselves.'

7. St. Mark's Gospel' (p. 207). "This copy [another enlarged Aleph] he made the basis of his Gospel, and adhered to it, as St. Luke 40 had done to his copy, even in the arrangement of the facts. But he made no use of the supplemental document Beth; and with the excep tion to [sic] two or three short sections, which are peculiar to his Gospel, the additions, which he himself made, consist in the notation of particular circumstances relative to transactions already recorded.' 45

'8. Greek translation of St. Matthew's Gospel' (pp. 208, 209). 'St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was translated literally into Greek, and this Greek translation is the Gospel, which occupies the first place in

5

ΙΟ

15

20

25

30%

35

40

45

our canon. It was not made till some time after the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke were written: and both of these Gospels were consulted by the translator.' The hypothesis consistent with Warburton's and Whitby's doctrine of inspiration (p. 210).

'Chap. XVI.

The preceding hypothesis tried by the phænomena in the verbal harmony of the Gospels' (pp. 212-230).

'Chap. XVII. The preceding hypothesis tried by the phænomena in the contents and arrangement of the Gospels' (pp. 230-243).

H. Marsh, Illustration of the Hypothesis, p. xx: 'This Dissertation was at first intended only as a portion of the supplemental volume or of Part II. to Vol. III. of Michaelis's Introduction. But being itself an original work, which might be read without Michaelis, a considerable number of additional copies was struck off, to be sold by themselves. In this separate edition the pages of course begin with 1, 2, 3, &c.: and it was my intention that the same numeration should take place also in those copies, which form a portion of the above-mentioned supplemental volume. But through some confusion, which I am now unable to explain, for I did not know it till very lately, the pages in some of those copies begin with 1, while other copies begin with 167, being the number continued from the preceding part of the Volume, which contains Notes.'

Marsh's Course of lectures, pt. VI. Cambr. 1822, pp. 48, 49: 'By an analysis of the three first gospels, I discovered, that the verbal harmony between the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke was of that peculiar kind, that the former did not harmonize with the latter alone, except in those portions of their Gospels, where St. Mark had no matter in common with St. Matthew. This observation suggested the thought, that such verbal harmony would have been occasioned, if the Greek translator of St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel had recourse for assistance to the Gospel of St. Mark, where St. Mark had matter in common with St. Matthew, but that in those portions of St. Matthew's Gospel, where St. Luke only had matter in common with St. Matthew, the translator had recourse to St. Luke... The writers who have objected to my mode of explaining the verbal harmony of St. Mark and St. Luke with St. Matthew, have entirely mistaken the cause which I assigned. . . . The supposition of a written document, communicated by the Apostles to St. Mark and St. Luke, as stated in my Dissertation on the three first Gospels, was made solely for the purpose of explaining the matter, which St. Mark and St. Luke have in common with St. Matthew. And throughout the whole of the Dissertation the supposed document was never applied to the explanation of verbal harmony.'

Marsh's Reply to Dr. Milner's Strictures, Append. pp. 21-24: As the controversy on this subject has given notoriety to the Hypothesis, while few men know what it really is, I will give a brief statement of it. ... The Hypothesis consists of two distinct parts; first, that a common Hebrew document was used by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke; and secondly, that the Greek translator of St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel derived assistance from St. Mark's Gospel, when he observed,

that St. Mark had matter in common with St. Matthew, and from St. Luke's Gospel, when St. Luke had matter in common with St. Matthew, and St. Mark had not. This second part of the Hypothesis, though the most important part, has been entirely overlooked by the various writers, who have attempted to confute the Hypothesis. 5

'In the verbal harmony of the three first Gospels, there are some very extraordinary coincidences, which no one had observed, till I gave an account of them in the Dissertation, printed in 1801. I proved, by Tables of parallel and coincident passages, first, that the examples, in which all three Gospels (namely, in Greek) verbally coincide were very 10 few, and those very short; 2dly, that the examples of verbal agreement between the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark were very numerous and very long; but, 3rdly, that this verbal agreement ceases throughout all those sections of St. Matthew's Gospel where St. Mark's arrangement is different from that of St. Matthew; 4thly, that in the matter, 15 which is common to all three Gospels, St. Mark's Gospel never fails to agree verbally with St. Matthew's, when St. Luke's Gospel agrees verbally with St. Matthew's; 5thly, that in the matter, which is common to all three Gospels, St. Matthew's Gospel never agrees verbally with St. Luke's, except when St. Luke's agrees verbally with 20 St. Mark's; 6thly, that in the matter, which is common only to St. Matthew and St. Luke, there is a very great verbal agreement between the two Gospels. These are very remarkable facts, which no one had observed before; and I endeavoured to discover what might be the probable cause of them. If we attempt to explain them by the 25supposition, that the Evangelists were verbally inspired, we can discover no reason why their inspiration should have been verbal in one place, and not verbal in another, and certainly none for their being verbally inspired according to those particular rules. If we attempt to explain them on the supposition, that the Evangelists copied from each other, 30 we shall still be at a loss for a reason, why they copied verbally in some places but not in others; and it is moreover impossible on this supposition to account for the very peculiar kind of verbal agreement. Another difficulty is, that St. Matthew must then be supposed to have written in Greek, whereas we have the strongest historical evidence, 35 that he wrote in Hebrew.......

'Having explained that part of the Hypothesis, which is the most material part, though no one seems to have attended to it, I will now explain the part, which has so much occupied the attention of Dr. Milner, and other controversialists. Both Origen, in his first Homily 40 on St. Luke's Gospel, and Theophylact, in the Preface to his Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, observe, that there was a work, called Evayyéλov Tŵv dúdeкa. And the preface to St. Luke's Gospel itself, on which they were then commenting, speaks of Διήγησις περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, καθὼς παρέδοσαν οἱ ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς 45 αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου. Now whether St. Luke here alluded to any particular Athynois, or whether this title is meant to apply to all the narratives composed by the wool, of whom he speaks in his Preface, is a question which I shall leave undecided, as

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the Hypothesis itself has no dependence on it. That a Gospel, called the Gospel according to the Apostles, really existed, whether St. Luke alluded to it or not, is attested by the ancient fathers, especially by Jerom, who speaks of the Evangelium secundum Apostolos, in his third book against the Pelagians. Further, it appears from an analysis of the three first Gospels, that, if we separate the materials, which each has peculiar to itself, and take the matter, which is common to all three, we shall have a document, containing a uniform and perspicuous narrative of our Saviour's ministry, beginning with His baptism by John, and ending with His death and resurrection. This suggests the thought, that such a document might have existed; and since there is nothing more probable in itself, than that the Apostles should be anxious to commit to writing the transactions of their divine Master, as soon as possible after His resurrection, it is very credible that they did so. But we know, that the earliest of our canonical Gospels was not written till several years after the resurrection. It is a supposition therefore very credible in itself, that before any of our canonical Gospels was composed, the Apostles drew up a short narrative containing the materials, which are common to the three first Gospels; that the document itself was neglected and lost, when its materials had been incorporated into three more complete Gospels; but that the remembrance of its title was preserved, and gave rise to the names of Evangelium secundum Apostolos, and Εὐαγγέλιον τῶν δώδεκα.

'But, though it is credible, that such a document existed; though it was worthy of being used by our Evangelists; though the use of it could not preclude that inspiration, which prevented the Evangelists from falling into error, yet the question, whether they did use such a document, is not to be decided by an appeal, either to St. Luke's Preface, or to Origen's Homily on it, or to Theophylact's Preface to his Commentary on it. As in the other part of the Hypothesis, so in this part of it, the question depends on its ability to explain what it is assumed to explain. The other part of the Hypothesis was assumed to explain the peculiarities in the verbal harmony of the Gospels; this part of the Hypothesis was intended to explain the peculiarities in the contents of the Gospels. The two parts are perfectly consistent with each other; and, when taken together, they explain every thing, which we want to explain. The facts themselves, which we want to explain, were stated at full length in the Dissertation; as far as I know, no one has attempted to disprove them; and as for denying them without an examination of them, such denials are entitled to no attention. But if the facts themselves are true, the Hypothesis must be tried, by inquiring, first, whether it will account for those facts; secondly, whether any other Hypothesis can account for those facts. Now I know that my Hypothesis docs account for them; and I have never seen any other Hypothesis that will do the same.'

Simon, Literatur d. Theologie, Lpz. 1813, p. 17, calls the Dissertation 'excellent' ('in seiner trefflichen Abhandlung').

Eichhorn, who in his Einleitung in das N. T. Lpz. 1820-7, 5 vols. 8vo. very frequently cites Marsh (see index to vols. III. and v.),

generally agrees with his criticisms (e. g. I. 150, 249, 250, 319; in pp. 375-387 he states the hypothesis of the 'learned and acute' Marsh, but does not abandon his own in its favour; 457; V. 191, 232-235, 256, 272, 301. Cf. Bertholdt, Einleitung (Erl. 1812-19) III. 1240 seq.; Hug., Einleitung (Tüb. 1826), I. 81 seq.; Kredner, Einleitung 5 (Halle, 1836), 41, 45; De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T. Berlin 1848, Pp. 142-145; Guericke, Gesammtgesch. d. N. T. (Lpz., 1854) 18; Ebrard, Wissenschaftl. Kritik d. evang. Gesch. (Fr. a. M., 1842), pp. 6, 7. T. H. Horne's Introduction, ed. 10, IV. 647 seq.

10

Introduction....Vol. IV. 1801. pp. xx., errata one page, and 544. Second ed. 1802; 3rd 1819; each 4 vols. in 6 parts. Fourth and last ed. Lond. Rivington. 1823. 4 vols. in 6 parts. In this edition the Dissertation is paged as part of vol. III. There is no boast of improvement in the title page of the later editions, but Marsh was not idle, see II. 852, ed. iv.: Thus far I had written in the first edition of these 15 notes: but since that time I have accurately collated the Complutensian text, and have seen with my own eyes that Griesbach's opinion is well founded. I have examined the Complutensian edition throughout whole books, and have found that the readings of ancient manuscripts, which are not at the same time contained in modern manuscripts, are 20 not contained in the Complutensian edition.' See other additions, 11. 563, 572, 573, 616, 700, 701, 734, 767.

Rosenmüller's additional notes are cited I. 466; yet it appears e. g. from II. 624-5, that Marsh did not revise the later editions throughout; therefore Rosenmüller's translation is still a valuable 25 adjunct to the English original. Marsh allowed himself to rearrange the matter of Michaelis, to omit what was elsewhere accessible in English or Latin, and what was of trifling value (see e. g. 1. 363, 385, 403, 469, 516, 521, II. 865, 877, III. pt. 2, 108, 124, 155).. For his additions he used not only other works of Michaelis (III. pt. 2, 5, 86, 30 120 etc.), and all other printed materials, but the help of friends, e.g. of Paulus for the Syriac version (II. 540-544, 560), of Eberhard and Schulze for the Syrian liturgy (11. 560, cf. I. 472); of a friend for the Cod. Claromont. (II. 727, 728). He cites with perfect impartiality writers of all schools; c.g. A. A. Sykes, (I. 471, 473-478, 490), 35 Gilb. Wakefield (1. 448), J. S. Semler (1. 360: 'who has made a more particular study of ecclesiastical history perhaps than any man that ever lived;' ibid. 516: 'I have taken the liberty to abridge this paragraph, as our author's remarks, with respect to Dr. Semler, breathe rather a spirit of personal enmity, than that of cool and critical enquiry. 40 This is not the place to examine Dr. Semler's principles of criticism; it is sufficient to observe that they are held in high esteem by the best judges.' II. 640, 641: Our author is here totally silent in regard to the merits of the immortal Semler, who was the first critic that ventured to call into question the opinion of Wetstein, and to defend 45 the Codices Græco-Latini against the charge, which Wetstein had laid to them. . . . . The original genius of this great critic and divine, permitted him in no case to be a blind follower of the opinion of others, he ascended constantly to the source itself, examined with his own