SYNOPTICS
392
SYNOPTICS
Camus, etc.), have been led to admit a limited use of
written helps by the Synoptists.
B. Mutual Dependence. — The hypothesis of mu- tual dependence assumes that the authora of the Synoptic Gospels used each other's writings, each successive writer avaihng himself of earlier contribu- tions, so that the second Evangehst (in the order of time) borrowed from the first, and the third from both first and second. According to it, the passages which are alike reproduce those of earlier writings; those which are divergent come from the personal memory of the author or from an oral source. This, it is said, is the most natural, as it is the oldest, man- ner of explaining the resemblances and differences of the first three Gospels. It is the most natural, inas- much as if three other writers exhibited such a close resemblance in their works as the Synoptists do, it would readily occur to the reader's mind that the}' are not independent of each other. It is the oldest also, for it goes back to St. Augustine who formulated it in a general way in his "De consensu evangelist arum" (I, ii, 4), and who in describing the order of succession of the Synoptics, naturally followed the one embodied in the canon: Matthew, Klark, Luke. This order of succession has been accepted by many scholars, Catholic (Hug, Danko, Reithmayr, Patrizi, De Val- roger, Wallon, Schanz, Coleridge, Bacuez) and Prot- estant (Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, Credner, Hilgenfeld, etc.). But every other possible order of arrangement has found advocates, in accordance with their respec- tive views concerning the priority and order of se- quence of the Synoptics. The order: Matthew, Luke, Mark, was advanced by Griesbach and has been adopted by De Wette, Bleek, Maier, Langen, Grimm, Pasquier. The arrangement: Mark, Matthew, Luke, with various modifications as to their interdepen- dence, is admitted by Ritschl, Reuss, Meyer, Wilke, Simons, Holtzmann, Weiss, Batiffol, Weizsacker, etc. It is often designated under the name of the "IVIark hypothesis", although in the eyes of most of its de- fenders, it is no longer a hypothesis, meaning thereby that it is an estabUshed fact. Besides these princi- pal orders, others (Mark, Luke, Matthew; Luke, Matthew, Mark; Luke, Mark, Matthew) have been proposed, and more recent combinations (such as those advocated by Calmet, Zahn, Belser, and Bon- accorsi) have also been suggested. As regards the theory of Baur and his school concerning the composi- tion of the Gospels, suffice it to say that it should not really be connected with the hypothesis of mutual de- pendence, inasmuch as its contention as to the origin of the canonical Gospels has nothing to do with the lit- erary process of composition propounded by that hy- pothesis to explain the relationship of the Synoptics.
By itself alone, the theory of mutual dependence cannot be regarded as a full solution of the Synoptic Problem. Whichever order be adopted, there are al- ways narratives where one of the Evangehsts, — at times, St. Mark himself, — is more complete than the one who is given as his source, and consequently is in- dependent of him, so that in all such cases appeal must needs be made either to oral tradition or to non- canonical writings. Again, in any form of the theory, the differences in form of narration, especially where one writer seems irreconcilable with the other, and the differences in arrangement, where the temporal se- quence is very close, remain unaccounted for. Obvi- ously, there is little need to criticize all the forms of this hj-pothesis by bringing forward special instances of the general objections just mentioned. These forms of it, however, which have found most able and numerous advocates, may be briefly considered. Against the form which asserts that St. Mark made use of St. Matthew, and St. Luke made use of both, it may more particularly be urged: (1) that St. Mark bears in the Greek too manifest a stamp of originality that it should be regarded simply as tho work of an
abbreviator of St. Matthew; (2) that the use of both
St. Matthew and St. Mark by St. Luke, even though
we should suppose it to be a fact, is insufficient for ex-
plaining by itself alone the presence in our Third Gos-
pel of an independent genealogy of Christ, the inser-
tion by St. Luke of an altogether new narrative of
Jesus's birth and infancy, his scattering of many of
Christ's sayings grouped by St. Matthew in the Ser-
mon on the Mount, his detailed account of the Pe-
rean journey which Ls absent from both St. Matthew
and St. Mark, etc.
The arrangement advocated by Griesbach, to wit, that St. Luke made use of St. Matthew and St. Mark utilized both, is likewise open to weighty objections. Plainly, the supposition that St. Mark followed and epitomized the other two Synoptics renders it more difficult to account for the freshness and power of his narrative; and in point of fact, it clearly appears that if a direct dependence is to be admitted at all, it is time and again not on the side of St. Mark's rugged style and shorter account of the Galilean ministry, but on the side of the smoother form and larger frame- work of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Again, the de- pendence of St. Luke on St. Matthew alone leaves unaccounted for the additions, transpositions, etc., already referred to. Finally, the following are the principal difficulties urged against the "Mark hy- pothesis". Its supposition that St. Mark is prior to the other two Evangelists, goes against the tra- ditional data which describe St. Matthew's Gospel (in the Aramaic) as written first, and St. Mark's narra- tive as originating independently of any written Gos- pel. Again, the assumed priority of St. Mark to St. Matthew and St. Luke makes it hard to imagine on what principle the later two Evangelists partitioned between themselves practically all the contents of St. Mark's writing. It is also urged that in the "Mark hj'pothesis" neither the simple dependence of St. Matthew on St. Mark alone, nor that of St. Luke on both St. Matthew and St. Mark can account for all the phenomena (additions, inversions, verbal changes, etc.), which are disclosed by an attentive study of the Synoptics.
C. Earlier Documents. — The documentary hypoth- esis is the prevalent theory among non-Catholics. Its general principle of solution of the S^Tioptic Problem is that in the composition of their writings, the first three Evangelists have all made use of earUer written material. The application of this general principle has given rise to a great mmiber of suppositions, the principal of which may be briefly considered. Since Eichhorn (close of the eighteenth century), and espe- cially since Resch (close of the nineteenth), attempts have been made to get behind our Greek Gospels to one or more Semitic documents used in them, and thus to account for the relationship of the Synoptics. This written source, the prinvitive contents and word- ing of which might still be detected, was Hebrew ac- cording to Resch and Abbott, Aramaic according to Aiarshall, Hoffmann, etc. In general, the variation in the words and clauses in our Gospels is accoimted for by the different translations given to the Aramaic or Hebrew words. It is imdoubtetl that the recent ad- vocates of the hj7)othesis of a Semitic source have dis- played great learning and ing<'nuity in pointing out the Semitic expressions which might underlie the di- vers readings noticeable in parallel pa.>;sages of the Synoptics. It is undoubted, too, that the general background of the Gospels is Semitic in thought and forms of expression, and even that Semitic docu- ments (for instance, Christ's genealogies) have been used by their authors.
By itself alone, however, the theory of a Semitic source does not ai)pear a satisfactory solution of the Synoptic Problem. It is not certain that the whole Semitic background of the Synoptics had assumed a written shape before it was utilized by the Ev^gel-
