reproduced in the first and third Gospels, to a great extent unnecessary, as he has explained in his Einleitung, pp. 363, 364. It is only suggested, how- ever, that the third evangelist was mliuenced by ' reminiscences ' of Mt, which is in itself a con- fession that the evidences of dependence are some- what vague and scanty. We believe that we shall have the majority of critics on our side in n-sserting that they are altogether too slight to withstand the case that may be made out, on pure ground« of general probability and apart from any theory of inspiration, against any knowledge of the lirst Gospel by the writer of the third, from the wide divergences between them.
(6) Features peculiar to the Synoptic Gospels severally, and summary with regard to the com- position 0/ each.
As the question of the composition of Mt is the most complex and difficult, we will reserve it till the last, and begin —
(a) With Marie. It will, I believe, be very gener- ally allowed by critics at the present day that the Mark who is referred to in NT had a part of some kind in the composition of our second Gospel ; for the tradition to that effect is too strong to be altogether set aside. But what \\as that part ? It is well known that this Gospel is distinguished by many touches which it is specially natural to attribute to recollection of St. Peter's teach- ing. But did these form part of the work which was used in the composition of Mt and Lk, and were they eliminated by the writers of these Gospels? In other words, was our Mk itself, as we have it, one of the original documents into which the Synoptic Gospels are to be analj'zed ? Or, on the other hand, did Mark himself take a document— the same which was used in Mt and Lk — and revise it, though much more sliglitly, only adding to it traits here and there which lie had derived from his close intercourse with St. Peter! It cannot be said that criticism has as yet even approximated to a decision on this point. If a well-a.ssuied position in regard to it is ever reached, it must be mainly througli a careful examination and weighing of all those individual points in which Mk dillers from the other two Synoptic Gospels in parallel contexts, in order to ascertain whether they can best be explained as the result of alteration in Mk, or revision in the two others. But, in regard to point after point, several con- siderations have to be borne in mind ; there is al-so a possibility sometimes of other explanations of the facts ; and throughout, the biius of each critic is apt to tell in favour of one theory or another, so that it is an exceedingly difficult matter to form a sound general impression.
(i) The question of the authorship and com- position of the third Gospel cannot be separated from that of the Acts of the Apostles. It is generally admitted, on the ground of remarkably plentiful indications of style and other character- istics, that the composition of these two Inwks was the work of the same hand ; and further, that the second of them includes accounts of .some of St. Paul's missionary journeys by one who was himself a companion ol his at the time. But the I question of the authorship is at first sight rendeica ' complex by eviilcnt signs that other sources linve ' been used as well in certain jiarts of both works. It will, however, I lielieve, bia found to be much i simpler than is generally supposed. For those I [wrtions of the Acts, or certain of them, which are allowed to be by a companion of St. Paul are, if I mistake not, marked to an eminent degree by those special words anil expressions which are found ttiroughout the two works, though in many parts I they are scattered sparsely. That is to say, the I man who wrote those memorials of journeys in
242
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
which he himself accompanied the apostle, was tho game who put tojjether accounts, written and oral, wlikli lie obtained from others, of the life and teiuliinj; of Christ and the early history of the Cliurili, and in reproducin" them left upon thcra some marks of his own literary habits. (See Expositor, 1893, pt. i. p. 33Gf.) If, then, the author of the Gospel and the Acts was a companion of St. Paul, it will be readily allowed that he was none other than Luke, who is singled out by tradition.
St. Luke has placed a short introduction at the bej^inning of his Gospel (!''■') which is full of sig- nihcance both as to the metliod in which the knowledge of the life and teaching of Christ was [ireserved generally, and as to tho purpose of his own book. He distinguishes virtually two periods in the history of the transmission of the facts up to the time at which he was writing. First they were delivered orally by those who ' from the beginning were eye - wntnesses and ministers of the word'; then after a time attempts began to be made to write down what had been thus learned, or portions of it. Indi- vidual members of the Church were also more or less fully and carefully instructed in the facts.