SYNOPTICS
393
SYNOPTICS
ists, for countless instances of Semitic forms of
thouglit and expression may equally well be accounted
for tlirough the direct use of oral tradition, to which
source, as a matter of fact, Papias refers the origin of
St. Mark's Gospel. Again, the differences between
the parallel passages of the first three Gospels are very
often such :i3 to point directly to the use by the
Synoptists of the same Greek sources, so that in large
portions of their works, it is much more natural to ac-
count for such ditTerences by tlie individual literary
taste, general purpose, etc., of the Evangelists, than
by an appeal to the collateral use of a Semitic orig-
inal, or a multiplicity of versions of it, the very ex-
istence of which is doubtful, and the knowledge of
which by the Synoptists is still more questionable.
A more plausible form of the documentary hypothe- sis goes back in substance to Schleiermacher (1817). It maintains that, at an early period, many evangeli- c;il fragments, Greek as well as .•Vramaic, were scat- tered tliroughout the Churches, — traditions floating about of which written accounts had been made. These the three Synoptists worked in their Gospels, together with materials which each had himself col- lected; and in tliis manner the coincidences and the differences of the Synoptics may be accounted for. This theory of a plurality of primitive documents, — which in certain of its modifications is combined with that of a dependence of later, on earher, canonical Gospels, — is admitted by many scholars (Renan, Wrede, Schmiedel, Loisy, etc.). This form of the documentary hypothesis does not necessarily go against the insiured character of the Synoptic Gos- pels. The actual use of certain primitive documents, notably by St. Matthew and St. Luke, may also be readily granted. But tradition ascribes to St. Mark's Gospel a very different origin from the one supposed by this theory, and a careful study of the contents and the style of that Gospel has r<-cently convinced sev- eral prominent scholars that the work is not a compil- ation from written sources. Again, it is not proved that because St. Matthew and St. Luke employed WTitten documents, they exclusively confined them- selves to the use of such sources. In their day, oral tradition was certainly much alive. At that time, the difference between or.al tradition and a document was not great in many cases where it had easily become stereotyped by frequent repetition. And it is not a safe position to deny the use of this tradition by St. Luke, in particular, that is, by a WTiter who would naturally utiUze every source of information at his dispo.sal. Finally, a constant appeal to new docu- ments, the contents, extent, and very existence of which cannot, many a time, be ascertained, gives to this theory an air of artificiality which recommends it little as an exact description of the actual manner in whi(;h the Synoptic Gospels were composed.
The last general form of the documentary hypothe- sis which remains to be examined is the "Two Docu- ment theory", according to which two large works form the main sources of the Synoptics. One work like our Gospel of St. Mark, if not identical with it, is the source of the narratives common to the first three Gospels, and the other, containing the Sayings of Jesus, is the source of the didactic matter common to St. Matthew and St. Luke. Modified in various ways, this solution of the Synoptic problem has had, and has yet, numerous .advocates chiefly among Prot- estant scholars. In tlie eyes of all such critics, the theorj' of only two main written sources is especially commendable for its simplicity and plausibility. The contents of the Synoptics comprise two cla.s.se8 of parallel sections: the one consists of narratives of ac- tions and events found in all tliree Gospels; the other consisting of Christ's teaching appears only in St. Matthew .and St. Luke. Now, a.s in the selection of mjiterial, the arrangement, and the language of sec- tions parallel in all three, St. Matthew constantly
agrees with St. Mark against St. Luke, and St. Luke
with St. Mark against St. Matthew, but St. Matthew
and St. Luke scarcely ever agree against St. Mark, the
simplest supposition is that St. Matthew and St. Luke
made independent use of St. Mark as we have it, or of
a Gospel hke it (Ur-Marcus). The fresliness and
power of St. Mark's narrative go also to prove its pri-
ority to that of the other two Evangelists. Thus far
of the material common to the first three Gospels.
The great bulk of the additional matter found only in
St. Matthew and St. Luke consists mainly of the
words and discourses of Jesus, and although it is very
differently given as to historic connexion and group-
ing, yet it is pervaded by such similarity of thought
and expression as to suggest forcibly the hj'potliesis of
a single main source as its natural explanation. The
"Two Document theory" is also claimed to explain
the peculiar phenomenon of "doublets" in St. Mat-
thew and St. Luke. Finally, it is said to be sup-
ported by tradition rightly interpreted. Pajiias,
speaking of books about Christ written by St. ^Iat-
thew and St. Mark, says: "Mark, being the inti^rpre-
ter of Peter, wrote carefully, though not in order, as
he remembered them, the things spoken and done by
Christ". "Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew
language, and every one translated them as he was
able". These statements seem to point to two books
as the fountains of evangelical WTitten tradition. One
can be distinctly named; it is practically our second
Gospel. The other, acconliiig to Harnack, Wcllhau-
sen, Stanton, can still be nconstiiictt d; it is a record
of Logia chiefly embodied in o>ir first Gospel (Ur-
Mattheus) and also utilized liy St. Luke.
The "Two Document theory" is advocated by many prominent critics (H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, Wendt, Wernle, Soltau, Jiilicher, Hawkins, etc.). Yet, is is not an adetiuate solution of the Synoptic problem. It leaves its defenders hopelessly divided on points of considerable importance, such as the compilatory character of St. Mark's Gospel; the ex- tent and exact nature of the Logian document (Q) utilized by our finst and third Evangehsts; the man- ner of its use by St. Matthew and St. Luke, respect- ively; the question whether it was used by St. Mark also; the number of the sources employed by St. Mat- thew and St. Luke besides St. Mark and Q; etc. A greater difficulty sometimc-s urged against this theory, regards the priority of St. Mark, which its advocates treat as a point altogether settled. Tradition has it that St. Matthew's Gospel existed in a Semitic form before it was rendered into (Jreek, that is before it as- sumed the only form now available for a comparison, with St. Mark's narrative. Hence, it is claimed that St. Matthew's dependence in the Greek on our sec- ond Gospel is one arising from the fact that its Greek translation was made with the aid of our second Gos- pel, and leaving intact the priority of the earlier Semitic form of St. Matthew's Gospel to the composi- tion of St. Mark's writing. Among other difficulties against the "Two Document theory" may be men- tioned: (1) its inherent tendency to appeal to sub.sid- iary wTitten sources, the extent and nature of which cannot be determined ; (2) its general disregard of the influence of oral tradition in the composition of the Synoptics; (.3) its common, but very improbable, de- nial of St. Luke's dependence on both St. Matthew and St. Luke.
From the foregoing rapid survey of the .attempts at solving the S>Tioptic Problem, it is plain that none of them has been really successful. The yirolilem is very intricate; the historical information concerning the origin of our first three Gospels, incomplete; and every theory, one-sided. The satisfactory hypothesis, yet to be formulated, mu.st be a combination hypothesis g.athering and uniting, in due proportions, all the truths presentcfl by the various opinions, and also a more thorough theory taking fully into account both
