GOSPELS
GOSPELS
239
conditions nnder which this group at least was doinj; its work, and the intluence which a few of the stronger cliaracters woald exert, to;,'ether with the simplicity of mind and want of general educa- tion of the early disciples, would tend to establish and contirm a habit of telling the story in a particular way common to them all.
Now, the "eneral mode of presenting the life and work of Jesus Christ in the Synoptic Gospels corresponds to that which has just been described. In otlier words, it is such as we might have expected, if the characteristics of the oral method of communicating the facts most needful to be known came to be imprinted on the written narra- tive. The form of the common record is not that which would have been naturally adojitcd by a writer who approached his subject and made use of his materials in the spirit and manner of a chronicler or biographer.
The range of the parallelism between the Synoptics must be considered in this connexion. The fact that it begins with the ministry of the Baptist may well be accounted for by all three having used a document which be^an thus. But even so, the cause of this being made the starting- |)oint in such a document seems worthy of con- siileration, especially wlien we observe how that of the apostolic preaching as described in Acts was wont to be the same (cf. Ac 1- 13'"- "). We can understand that it was a natural one for those who had such an aim as has been above suggested. The mj'stery of Christ's birth could not be freely spoken of at lirst to the unconvinced. On the other hand, the testimony of His great predecessor, whose work had made such a wide impression, afforded a fitting point of departure for commend- ing Jesus to the faith of men. In this respect also, then, the habits of the period of oral teaching seem to have left their mark.
Considerations which are in part analogous may help also to explain why the parallelism between the Synoptics terminates where it does in the midst of the evidences of the resurrection. All three describe in a very similar manner the visit of the women to the tomb, and the appearance of the angel (Lk two angels) to them. After this point they dili'er widely. The assumption that they used a common document, which ended abruptly here, will go far to account for this. Still it is remarkable that it should have terminated in this fashion, and also that the dilTerence in the con- cluding narratives .should be so wide as it is. The early history of the preaching of the gospel may possibly again furnish a clue to the right explana- tion. At first the apostles were mainly occupied with bearing testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. They were themselves profoundly convinced of this ^eat fact, and they called upon men to believe it on their word. They did not care to enter upon an elaborate tabulation of all His aip[iearances ; such would not be demanded of them. They would speak now of one, now of another. Subsequently, as we have said, the need for some account of the life and teaching and death of Josus arose. The two things were in a measure distinct, and might for a time be kept so. Moreover, a certain method of narration might, nnder the conditions which we have indicatcil, have been commonly observed in the latter case, such as may never have existed in regard to the testi- mony to His resurrection.
The correspondences between the Synoptics in words and phrases show that they are connected by derivation from common sources of information, which were in Greek. This, however, does not of itself put the oral theory out of court, though it baa sometimes been supposed to do so. For wlicn we remeiu'-er that the .-Vramaic-speakinc territory
in Palestine was surrounded by a belt of Greek- speaking districts, and also that many Hellenists yearly visited Jerusalem, we can see that from very early days — from the moment, indeed, that the Church began to expand — an oral tradition in Greek must have arisen, corresj)onding to that in Aramaic.
The resemblance, however, between the three Synoptic Gospels e.xtends far beyond those broad features of which above we have so far been speaking. If the additional matter in Mt and Lk be omitted, there will be found remaining in each of them, with, comparatively speaking, very few exceptions, the contents of ilk given in ex- actly the same order, — the same sequence being maintained not merely in respect to events which stood in close historical connexion, but also in respect to sections which do not appear to have been so united. This seems clearly to point to the use of a common document. It is specially difficult to understand how, after insertions, some- times of considerable length, the common thread could again and again have been taken up in the first and third Gospels exactly where it had been dropped, solely under the operation of tradition. But it is exactly what would happen if the writers had a document before them.
A comparison of the language, the words, the succession of clauses, the structure of sentences and paragraphs in the Synoptic Gospels, leads to the same conclusion. The extent of the element common to all three is remarkable. But, in order that the evidence bearing on the question at issue may be appreciated, it is necessary that attention should be fixed, not so much on this, as on the resemblance of Mt and Lk separately to Mk. Between these pairs, and especially between Mt and Mk, there will be found to be close similarity, amounting frequently to identity, saving a few words here and there, in sentence after sentence and passage after passage. Moreover, the char acter of the resemblances should be noted. We can understand that even in oral tradition striking sa3"ing3 should have been preserved in a fixed form ; and there would be special reason for fidelity in repeating all the teaching of the Lord. But there is al.so in the Synoptic Gospels an amount of close agreement in ordinary narration which is very diiticult to explain by oral transmission, because there could be no sufficient motive for the care necessary to secure it.