numerous in the recital of our Lord's words, but the coincidences in the narrative cannot be rated at more than one-hundredth part of the others. Only one instance of verbal coincidence occurs in the numerous sections common only to St. Mark and St. Luke, and in this the coincidences in the narrative to those in the recitative part are as five to one. In the sections common to St. Matthew and St. Mark alone a different proportion obtains. In these the verbal coincidences in the narrative part are somewhat more than one-third of the whole number; but it is remarkable that in one important section (Mark vi. 17-29; Matt. xiv. 3-12) the only trace of a verbal coincidence occurs in the words ascribed to John the Baptist.

But in order to give these proportions only their due force, account must be taken of the proportion which the narrative and recitative parts of the Gospels bear to one another. Roughly, then, it may be said that the narrative in St. Matthew forms about one-fourth of the Gospel, in St. Mark about one-half, in St. Luke about one-third. If these proportions are combined with the aggregate of coincidences in the several Gospels, and the contents of each Gospel represented by 100, the following table is obtained:

Or, in other words, verbal coincidences are more fre

quent in the recitative than in the narrative portions of St. Matthew, in the proportion (nearly) of 12: 5, of St. Mark, of 4: 1, and of St. Luke, of 9: 1.

The explanation of the concordances must also explain their distribution.

The general harmony and distinctness of the results which have been obtained by these various analyses shows that they must be taken into account in considering the general problem of

the concordances of the Synoptists. There is a marked difference between the composition of the recitative and narrative parts of the Gospels. In the former there is a prevailing unity, in the latter an individual style. The transition from the one to the other is often clear and decided, and the most remarkable coincidences are, in several instances, prefaced by the most characteristic differences. It is evident then that the problem involves two distinct conditions, and a satisfactory solution must account not only for the general similarity which the Gospels exhibit in their construction and contents, but also for the peculiar distribution of their verbal coincidences. Any theory which leaves one or other of these points unexplained must be considered inadequate and untrue.

ii. The differences

respond with their concordances.

The difference in language between the narrative and recitative parts of the Gospels points the way to those characteristic peculiarities by in the Gospels corwhich they are respectively marked, which are, as has been already said, scarcely less striking than their general likeness. The three records are distinct, as well as similar, in plan and incident and style. Each presents the form of a complete whole, whose several parts are subordinated to the production of one great effect. Each contains additions to the common matter, which are not distinguishable externally from the other parts; and the Gospel of St. Mark, which contains the fewest substantive additions, presents the greatest number of fresh details in the account of common incidents. Each is marked by peculiarities of language, which, notwithstanding the limits within which they are confined, penetrate throughout its contents. In many cases, as in the genealogies, and in the narratives of the Passion and the Resurrection, these differences amount to serious difficulties, from our ignorance of all the circumstances on which the accounts depend; and even where it is not so, they are distinct and numerous, and offer as clear a proof of

the actual independence of the Gospels as the concordances offer of their original connection.1

proposed.

Such, in a brief summary, are the peculiarities which the Synoptic Gospels present, and which the (6) The solutions true account of their origin must explain. This explanation has been sought in the application of two distinct principles. One class of solutions rests upon the assumption that the later Evangelists made use of the writings of their predecessors; another supposes that the similarity is to be traced to the use of common sources, either written or oral. To these distinct methods of solution a third class may be added, which consists of various combinations of modified forms of the two others.

dence.

The first class of solutions contains every possible combination of the Gospels. Each in turn has Mutual depen- been supposed to furnish the basis of the others; each to occupy the mean position; each to represent the final narrative. This variety of opinion is in itself an objection to the hypothesis, for it is a case where it might seem reasonable to expect a clear and unquestionable proof of dependence. But it is further evident that the assumption of a mutual dependence, while it may explain the general coincidences between the Gospels, offers no explanation of the peculiar distribution of the coincidences, or of the differences between the several narratives. It appears to be inconsistent with the results of a careful analysis of the language and of the contents of the Gospels. Every attempt to show on this

1 The peculiarities of plan, incident, and language, which characterize the different Gospels, will come under notice subsequently; at present, it is enough to state the results which will be then established. The most minute and valuable contribution to the criticism of the verbal characteristics of the evangelists is that of Gersdorf, Beiträge zur Sprach-Characteristik der Schrift

steller des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1816, which at the same time offers the most striking confirmation of the text of the oldest family of MSS., but it treats the subject grammatically rather than linguistically.

2 Compare Marsh's Dissertation, etc. pp. 172 ff. The exceptions which he notices have been removed. Cf. Reuss, Die Gesch. d. Neuen Testaments, § 180.

hypothesis why a later Evangelist has omitted details which are noted by an earlier one; why he adopted his language up to a certain point, and then suddenly abandoned it; why he retained in some sentences nothing more than a remarkable word, and in others the fulness of an entire answer, has always failed. Nor is this an inconsiderable objection. If the coincidences of the Gospels are due to mutual use, the divergences cannot but be designed. Such a design, however, as would satisfy this hypothesis is not discoverable in the Gospels. The true purpose which may be traced in the writing of each Evangelist is naturally explicable on very different principles from those which are involved in the minute criticism and elaborate reconstruction of former works. The superficial incongruities. and apparent contradictions which are found in the different Gospels are inconsistent with the close connection which the hypothesis requires; and the general notion is as foreign to the spirit of the Apostolic age as it is to the current of ecclesiastical tradition. In its simple form, the "supplemental" or "dependent" theory is at once inadequate for the solution of the difficulties of the relation of the synoptic Gospels and inconsistent with many of its details; and, as a natural consequence of the deeper study of the Gospels, it is now generally abandoned, except in combination with the other principle of solution.

ii. Common sour

This second principle consists in the recognition of one or more common sources from which our present Gospels are supposed to have been derived. But the principle admits of very varied application. The common sources may have been

1 This principle is stated by Epiphanius in general terms: Har. l. 6. οὐχὶ ἑκάστῳ ἐμέρισεν ὁ Θεὸς ἵνα οἱ τέσσαρες εὐαγγελισταί . . . τὰ μὲν συμφώνως καὶ ἴσως κηρύξωσιν, ἵνα δειχθῶσιν ὅτι ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς πηγῆς ὥρμηνται, τὰ δὲ ἑκάστῳ παραληφθέντα (1. παραλειφ

ces.

θέντα), ἄλλος διηγήσεται (1. -ηται) ὃς ἔλαβε παρὰ τοῦ πνεύματος μέρος τῆς ἀναλογίας. But he does not further explain what he understands by “the same source,” though his words evidently suit better an oral than a written source.

a. Written.

written or oral, and thus two distinct theories arise, which have in turn been subjected to various modifications. The simplest form in which the hypothesis was first distinctly brought forward consisted in the recognition of certain original Greek documents, which were supposed to have furnished the foundation of the synoptic Gospels, and then to have passed out of use.1 A closer examination of the synoptic Gospels showed the inadequacy of this supposition to explain the phenomena which they present; and the historical difficulties which it involved were even greater than those of the "supplemental" hypothesis. The changing limits of coincidence and variation, together with a general identity of plan, remained still unexplained; and the loss of a Greek Protevangelium necessarily appeared inconceivable. In a short time a new theory was proposed. An Aramaic document was substituted for the Greek one; and it was argued that the various Greek translations of this original text might be expected to combine resemblances and differences like those which exist in the Gospels. This opinion was not exposed to some of the most obvious objections which were urged against a Greek original, and it carried the explanation of the partial coincidences of the Evangelists one step further; but it was in detail scarcely more tenable. Though the loss of an Aramaic text is in itself not unlikely, yet the absence of all mention of the existence of such a document is a serious objection to its reality; and the translation of a common original would not explain the peculiar distribution of the verbal coincidences of the Gospels which has been pointed out. In addition to this, the existence of any single written source would leave the phe

1 J. D. Michaelis (Introd. 4th Ed.). The idea was first cursorily expressed by Le Clerc (1716). Cf. Marsh, pp. 184 ff. Schleiermacher afterwards revived the opinion in his Essay on St. Luke, 1817.

3

2 Lessing (1778); Semler (1783); Niemeyer (1790), etc. Cf. Marsh, p. 186 ff. 3 Some endeavored to obviate this objection by identifying the Aramaic Gospel with "the Gospel according to the Hebrews," or the Hebrew St. Matthew. Cf. De Wette, Einl. § 84 A.