and later form. At first (A.D. 1704) he nttnbuterf the dill'erences between the S\noptic (i is])els tc the translati(m of the ]niraitive Gospel by dilferent jiersons (the evangelists themselves ami others), and the verbal similarities to the use in part of the same translations by the evangelists, along with dilferent ones and with the original. But the process here imagined of translation and of the cross use of other translations wa.s felt to be too complicated. It was ditBcult, also, in this way to account for the large amount of the same or closely similar language. This pointed to a common tlreek basis. Acconlingly Eielihorn, in a revised form of his theory, assumed a single translation of the primitive Aramaic Gospel into Greek, and sup- jiosed this Greek document to have received addi- tions and modilications, extending in his imagina- tion the operation of this cause of variations, to make up for that of a multiplicity of translations which he had abandoned.
(c) The common source was supposed to be an oral tradition to which a high degree of fixity had been given. Oral tradition could re.adily account for dilferences. But could it account for tlia strange resemblances ? A theory based on it could claim to be scientific only in so far as it could suggest and render probable the existence of special historical conditions in the case in ques- tion, wliich would make it natural th.at the tradi- tion should be characterized by a fixity of form approximating to that of a written document, though still possessing somewh.at greater pliability. Such a theory seems to have been first conceived, and w.as certainly first clearly set forth, by J. C. L. (lieseler, the celebrated Church historian, in his lUstorisch-kritischer Versuch iiber die Entstfhung iind die fruehesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Eimnqclien (A.D. 1818). Most of those who have found in oral tradition the key to explain the cli.aracteristics of the Synoptic Gospels, have, if tliey have shown any just appreciation of the nature of the problem to be solved, reproduced in the main very closely the features of Gieseler's con- ception and his arguments. There was not room in this case for the same diversitj' as in the forms which could be given to the hypotheses of direct dependence and of common documents. At the same time, even the oral theory has been to some extent elaborated since Gieseler's time to meet a fuller analysis of the phenomena.
The name which must be mentioned ne.xt, in order that the course which investigation into the origin of the Gospels has actually followed may be rightly apprehended, is that of the great Sehlcier- macher. Instead of Eiehhorn's single parent document, he assumed a number of more or less extensive compilations of narratives, the idea of which, and his name for them (Ji?77-iJ(tcis), he took from Lk 1'. This theory, which has been called Diegesentheorie, he put forth in his work on Lk (1817). The view, however, of his whicli h.as exercised a determining influence on suliseciuent criticism is not this, but his interpretation of tlie fragment of Papias concerning Mt, published in .S'A'(1S32). It was to the effect that Matthew put together only a collection of discourses and sayings which was afterwards embodied in our Mt. Ntxt very naturally came the suggestion that this docu- ment was the source also of the matter in the third Gospel which it has in common with the first, and which is not in the second. And we find this view more or less clearly indicated by Credner (1836) in his Einleitung (§§ 87-89 and 91, pp. 201-206). Ha supposes also that the reminiscences of Peter's teach- ing alluded to in the other fragments of I'apias were worked up by another writer into our ^Ik [ih. § 90).
The step most needed, however, in order that any decided progress should be made in solving tht
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
237
Synoptic problem was, tliat a clearer and juster view tlian haU so far prevailed of the relations between Mk and the other two Synoptics should be attained. And the way to this had already been opened by C. Laclimann in his article, ' De Urdine Narrationuin in Evangeliis Synopticis,' in SK p. 570 fl'., 1S35. He contended for tlie 'priority' of Mk, though he left open the question wliether it was prior in tlie sense of represent inj; an earlier form of the oral Gospel than the two others, or as having more simply and fully embodied a document used £}• the other two. C. H. Weisse, in his Ijie Evanrjelische Gcschk-hte (LS38), adopted the latter alternative, and combined witli it the view that, along with this document, Matthew's ' Logia ' was also used both in our hrst and our third Gospel. Here for the first time was that 'two-document hypothesis ' which has since, and especially during the last 40 years or so, found so much favour. In the same year as that in wliich the aliove-n.amed epoch-making book of Weisse's appeared, C. G. Wilke publislied a work on tlie theme, Matthaus oder Alarcux, in which he did good service on behalf of Mk's priority, and of the documentary as against tlie oral hypotliesis.
Nevertheless, the Tubingen School, which was just then rising into importance, and which for a, considerable period held the most prominent place in the world of criticism, so far as Christian Origincs were concerned, had committed themselves to the position that Mt was the first and Mk the last of the Synoptics. Later members of the school gave up the priority of Lk, but not of Mt. In the method of this school, the examination of the simple literary phenomena of the Gospels plaj'ed cnly a very subordinate part. So far as these critics discussed the Gospels themselves and com- pared them, their object was chiefly to show how the several Gospels, by virtue of their individual characteristics, fitted in with and illustrated their own more general theories as to parties among the early Christians, and their tendencies. They en- deavoured to distinguish the bias of each writer which had led him to mould the narrative in a particular way ; and on the ground thereof they assij^ned to each document its a"e and tlie measure of historical importance wliich they were willing to accord it. They insisted in an exaggerated way on the peculiarities of the several Gospels, and drew unwarranted inferences therefrom ; nevertheless, their work may be of use in preventing us from overlooking the individuality of the several Gospels, which in some other speculations is too much ignored.