The disposition of this school was to proceed to broad generalizations which had neither been reached nor verified by a careful and impartial examination of all the facts. In spite of the great ability of the chief men among them, and the permanent mark which they have left upon the study of early Christian history, their theories have in the main been overthrown, and that lanjely bj- men almost aa ' free ' as themselves from orllioaox prei)osse.ssion.s. And in no respect has this been more sijjnally the case than in regard to their criticism of tlie Synoptic Gospels.
The chief critical work of the last 40 years or so has been the lineal continuation and development of that of Weisso and Wilke. That is, the general tendency of it has been to estnbli.sli more firmly the posiiion that either the three Synoptic Gospels all made large use of a document which is to be seen with fewest additions, omissions, or clianges of any kind in Mk ; or that Mk itself is virtually that document ; and further, that there existed another very early 'source,' a collection mainly of discourses and sayings, to which the matter common to Mt and Lk is to be traced.
Among the large number of critics, however, who would agree in these propositions when stated thus in gcnt-tal terms, there are not un- important diHeienccs. The most considerable, perhaps, is that while (a) many, agreeing with Weisse, suppose that both the first and third evangelist had and used this collection in the same, or substantially the same form, and that the diversity in the mode of the presentation of the common matter in the Gospels is due to the dillerent treatment of the same document by the two evangelists, (;3) there are others who suppose that the collection must have come into the hands of the third in a markedly different form from that in which the first had it. The former view is that which has been most before the world : it is held by H. .J. Holtzmann (Die Stjnoptischen Evangelien, 18G3; Einhitung in XT, 1886), B. Weiss (Marcus-Evang. 1872; Slalt/uius- Evring 1876 ; Lcben Jesu, 1882; Einteitung, 1886), H. Wendt (Lekre Jesu, 1886), and others. But some eminent names may be cited on the side of the second Wew, — Reuss (Hist, of NT, p. 190 U'.), Lipsius (his views on the Synoptic problem are described by his pupil Peine, JB fUr Protest Theol. 1885, pp. 1, 2). Weizsacker may be said to hold an intermediate position (Untersuch. pp. 129-220).
Dillerencea there are, also, among critics of the former of these two groups. One of the chief of these relates to the question whether the ' Logia' is most faitlifully reproduced, especially as to order and arrangement, in Mt or Lk. Holtzmann and Wendt are on the side of Lk, B. Weiss of Mt. There are ditlerences, again, as to the cliaracter and contents of the 'Logia.' Thus Holtzmann traces to it some portions of Lk which are peculiar to that Gosjiel as well as those common to Lk ancl Mt ; while Wei.ss insists that historical circum- stances must have been narrated in it as well as discourses.
Another important subject of controversy relates to the part of Mark, the disciple of Peter, in the composition of our second Gospel. In B. WeLss' view, Mark's Gospel, derived chiefly from his re- miniscences of Peter's teaching, was itself the document used (along with the ' Logia ') by our first and third evangelists. On the other nand, the matter common to the three Synoptics may be supposed to be derived from a document older than any one of them. This only leaves room for Mark toliave introduced touches here and there. Again, li. Weiss sui)i)oses that Mark himself (as well as the first and third evangelists) made use of the 'Logia,' though to a much more limited extent, and that thus the tirst and third used the 'Logia' both directly and also in a measure mediatelj' through Mk. But for this comjilicated theory he has found few adherents. [Kesch (Agrnpha, p. 27 f.) and Titius (Tlfiil. Studien in honour of Weiss, Gottingen, 1897) may be mentioned as adopting it.]
Other critics, again, hold that the third evan- gelist must have known and to some degree made use of our Mt as well as his principal and older sources. Such arguments as may be adduced tor this view have been most fully set forth by E. Simons in his monograph, lint dcr dritic Eran- gcli.it den f:iintjni.i'/irn .Udtt/uius beniitzt ? ISSO.
The endeavuur has also been made in recent times to supphnient the theories as to the relations of the Synoptic Gospels by tracing back varieties of form to dillerent translations of the oldest Hebrew document. This attempt has especially been carried out by A. Uesch in his laborious investigations, in the course of whiih he examines the citations of our Lord's t<'aching in the whole range of early Christian literature, and compares them with parallels in the Gospels. See bii
23S
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
' Agrai'tia' in Tcxte it. I'liti-rsiirh, v. Ileft 4, 1S80 ; anil Anssercanon. Paralleltexle, x. Heft 1 and 3,
In linglnnd the oral theory has been far more widely acrepted than it seems ever to have been in Germany, thonjjh among ourselves also it lias, to a considerable decree, lOSt its hold in recent years. English readers will, however, rightly require that it should be kept in view in any dis- cussion of the problem. The most recent advocate of it is the Rev. A. Wright (see his Composition of the Fmtr Gospels, 1S90 ; Syncpsis of the Gospels, 189G ; and Problems in NT, 1898). He has given to the theory a new development by supposing that the catechetical instruction of Christians in the facts of the Gospel history was carried out in a very systematic manner, and that there existed dillcrent schools of catechists. To the present ■writer it seems that no form of the oral hypothesis can furnish an adequate explanation of the pheno- mena of the Gospels ; yet he believes that the influence of the period of oral teaching needs to be taUen into account, in dealing with the whole problem of the origin of the four Gospels, far more than it commonly is by the adherents of the various documentary hypotheses.