GOSPELS
GOSPELS
238
Further than this the external evidence by itself will not take us ; nevertholcHs, it furnishes an im- portant element for the sohition of the problem.
There are two or three more circumstantial traditions in regard to the composition of the Gospels which need to be mentioned, because they have, as we shall presently see, served to suggest or been used to confirm some of the chief theories designed to explain the internal phenomena of tlie Gospels. The most important are contained in two fragments, preserved in Euscbius' HE (iii. 39), of a work of Papias whicli may probably liave been written about A.I). 140. Often as they have been quoted, it may be well to give them here. The first relates to a writing by Mark —
' Tliia also the preabjter used to eay : Mark having become the inten>reter (iVt*r»iuTr,c yi»cfuyot) of Peter, wrote douii accur- ately— not, however, in order (ra Jii>— as many aa he remembered of the thin^ either spoken or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor attended on Uun, but afterward.-^, as 1 said, (attended on) Peter, who used to give his instructions according to what was required, but not as giving an orderly expositi<in (fu*TgtZi*) of the Lord's words. So that Mark made no mistake in writing down some tilings as he recalled them. For he paid heed to nne point, namely, not to leave out any of the things he had heard, or to say anything false in regard to them.'
Tlie second fragment is as follows —
' .Matthew, however, wrote the Oracles in the Hebrew tongue, and every man interpreted them as he was able.'
The presbyter, on whose authority the former of these statements is made, was named Jolm ; and though he is to be distinguished from the apostle of that name, lie was a companion of apostles and .t I'lisonal follower of the Lord. Papias himself li:i.l conversed with this man, as we learn from illicit her fragment {i/j. ). And from what we are told in tliat fragment as to the means by which Papias g:tlhered information, it is reasonable to suppose that his statement as to Matthew's record was derived from the same or a similar source.
The more extreme critics of the earlier part of tlie present century used to argue that these accounts could not refer to our second and first Gospels. It is, however, coming to be admitted verj- widely among students of early Christian history that the statements in question would, at least at the time when Papias was writing, be connected with our Mt and Mk ; for it is hard to imagine that the.se could in the interval be- tween that time and the third quarter of the 2nd cent, have been substituted for other works bearing tlie same names, and could have completely ex- pelled such predecessors. This, however, does not Sreclude the possibility that there may have been illerences greater or less between the writings to which Papias referred the traditions preserved by him and the works concerning which the state- ments under consideration had been originally made. There was more particularly room for dillerence between the GreeK Gospel according to Mt and the Hebrew work spoken of, which would not be readily detected owing to the general ignorance of llihrcw among tJreck-speaking Cliris- tians. The discription i^iven of the work seems to point to a reconl in which discourses and .sayings of Jesiis decidedly predominated over mere narra- tive. The word xiryia, indeed, means ' oracles ' and not ' discourses.' Hut while the term ' the oracles ' might well from the first have been applied to our Lord's words, it is Ijanlly likely that it should so early have been applied to a writing of the NT as such. Moreover, even when the inspiration of the NT had come to be as clearly recognized aa that of the or, the tenn ' //ic orncles ' wouhl not have been a fitting one for a single work, simply on the ground that it formed part of the collection.
Passing by Lk, concerning the composition of wkich tradition has nothing very signilicant to tell ns, we subjoin an interesting statement regarding
Jn. Clement of Alexandria relates {ap. Euseb. HE vi. 14), as a tradition handed down from the ehlers of former times, ' that John last of all, per- ceiving that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, being urged on by his friend.s and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel.'
11. Internal Phenomena.— Thus far we have spoken of the evidence supplied by tradition. It remains to be seen to what extent this confirms or is confirmed by the characteristics of the Gospels themselves. We proceed, therefore, in the fir.st place, to consider the signs of relationship between the first three Gospels and the manner in which these are to be accounted for, or in other words the Synoptic Problem.
i. The Synoptic Problem — (1) The facts to he ex- plained. On comparing the first three Gospels, we observe in them a remarkable amount of similarity, both in the substance, the general arrangement and the precise order of their narratives, and the actual words and phrases employed. The general view of the course of events given in these Gospels is almost exactly the same, from the ministry of the IJaptist onwards, the subject with which Mk opens. Not only so, but to a great extent they omit the same and record the same deeds and discourses and incidents. This common character becomes specially noticeable when we compare them with Jn, the contents of which are widely different ; and the suitability of the name Synoptic, which ha.s been given to the first three, comes home to us with special force when that contrast with the Fourth is borne in mind. Nevertheless, even had we pos.sessed the first three onlj-, the amount of agreement between them would have called for explanation. I''or they are very brief accounts of a very full though comparatively short life. Moreover, they all make summary references to joumeyings, periods of preaching and teaching, the working of many miracles of whicli they relate no details. The /act that out of all this possible material they preserve so largely the same selection, and that they deliver it so nearly in the same form, must be due to some cause or causes.