So far we have spoken in general terms of the re- semblances between the first three (iospels. But, in theclosorstudy of thefact, resemlihinces between pairs of them have also to be taken into account. The two most important groups of iihenonicna are in fact (a) the resemblances of Mk with Mt and Lk, either together or sejiarately, and (A) the wholly additional matter common to Mt and Lk, but not contained in Mk.
[a) With regard to the former, it is to be observed that by far the larger number of the narratives and pieces of discourse contained in .Mk are given also in hoth Mt and Lk, and nearly all in either one or the other. Also that for the mo.st part the order of narrative is the .same in all three ; so that we may s|ieak of a Synoptic out line. Tiie except ions are somewhat more con.siderahle in Lk than in Mt; but it is noteworthy that they are almost entiiciv different in the two. Further, the same mcule of relating incidents, conversations, and savings is frequently to be observed in all three, to the extent even of the same sequence of clau.ses, the same words and phrases being adopted ; but, e' en where this is not the case, there is very frequently similar close parallelism between Mk and one of the others ; and, as before, this holds most often between Mt and .Mk.
(i) The additional matter, referred to above, which is common to Mt and Lk, consists for the most part of discourses and sayings. In a consider- able portion of it the resemblance even in laiigun.-i' is very (jrreat ; in other jiart-s of larger total extent the similarity of form is noticeably less, though
236
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
the substance is the same. In place, however, of that simihirity of onlor whicli we remarked upon in the ease of the relations of Mt and Lk with Mk, we find in that of the matter now under considera- tion a great diversity of arran^'ement. In Mt we eeeni to see a disposition to mass it in discourses of some lengtli, while in Lk various portions of it are given as helonging to various occasions. Again, they (-oinbine it very dillerently with the Synoptic outline.
Besides the features which have been mentioned, there are some others that are less strongly marked, of wliich it will be most convenient to defer the not ice till we have occasion to speak of the attempts which have been made to explain them, and which have served to lix attention on them. It is, indeed, true of tliose broader characteri'^tics also, wliich have been described, that the clear and accurate observation of them has progressed hand in hand witli the discussion of their causes. And it is one of the most certain gains to be expected from the study of the problem before us, that (whether we succeed in solving it or not) we cannot fail, through framing and testing our hypotheses, to become better acquainted with the actual contents of the Gospels, and to have both their common .substance and tlieir individual traits imprinted more deeply upon our minds.
We will [iroceed to take a rapid snn'ey of the theories that have been devised to account for the phenomena.
(2) The theories that have been propounded. — Explanations of three kinds may be employed, while the jirinciples involved in each may also be in various ways combined. The three chief kinds were all in one way or another tried within the first 30 years, from the time when, rather more than a century ago, active speculation on the subject began.
[ft) Direct dependence of one or of two of our present Gospels on the third, or of one on both the other two, might be assumed. This was the simplest kind of explanation of resemblances between them that could be given, and that which therefore lay most ready to hand. It had been em|ilo}-ed by Augustine long before in one of the earliest examples of an interest, which was but momentary, in the literary criticism of the Gospels {Dc I'unsensu Einttgelistarum, i. 2). He .speaks of Mark as the ' pedisequus et breviator ' of Matthew. When, however, towards the latter part of the IStli cent, the critical study of the relations of the Gospels to one another began in earnest, the theory w.as also put forward that Mk's was the original Gospel, which the others had expanded, while some even claimed this position for Lk. But the most celebrated theory of this period was Gries- bach's, according to which Mk was regarded as a com|>ilation from both Mt and Lk (Co7»)«cn/'7<M gild Mm-ci cvangcliuin tutum e Mntthtci et Lucee ciiinincntariis deseriptum, esse monstratur, A.D. 17H0-!I(1).
('/) llesemblances might be traced to the use of cimimon documents, and more room was left in this way than bj' the last kind of explanation for the ditlerences between the Gospels to have arisen, whidi are remarkably intermingled with their resemblances. Eichhom, whose twofold hypo- thesis was for a long time the most notable one of the type which we are now considering, made special elforts to account for the differences. He Bujiposed that there was one chief document, an Urevanrjelium, or primitive Gospel, to which various additions, derived from oral teaching, were made as time went on. The sections common only to two Gospels wert explained by two evangelists having used the same copy. These were the governing ideas of his theory, both in its earlier