Advocates of the oral theory have asserted that St. Luke treats the written accounts to which he refers as no longer possessing import- ance. They find this meaning in the aorist iire- X(lfn)aav. But the force of the aorist will be fully recognized if we regard it as emphasizing the diffi- culty of the task and the tentative character of the ett'orts to perform it. Unquestionably, bis aim was to supply something more adequate. But there is nothing in his language inconsistent with the supposition that he was prepared to make use of any suitable WTitten material that came to his hand, as well as of ti-aditions orally delivered. Anil it is in every way most natural to suppose that he would do this.
If the arguments described above (i. (3)) be sound, the record which is most nearly represented in Mk, or that Gospel itself, was one of the chief docu- ments that he used. He may besides this have had another document, whence mainly he derived that subject-matter which is common to bini with Mt — a document where it was arranged to a great extent in a manner ditferent from that in which we find it in the first Gospel. Or, again, he may have obtained it by an independent labour of collection, by himself transcribing short pieces which had been early committed to writing, or by making e.xtracts from longer accounts, such as those to which he seems to refer in his preface, and also by writing down some things immediately from oral tradition. In one or other of these w ays, also, he acquired those additional parables, pieces of teaching, and incidents, special to his Gospel which he introduces into the SjTioptic outline, including them more particularly in the long insertion between Christ's departure from Galilee (9") and His final ascent to Jerusalem (19^'), the point at which Lk again begins to run parallel to the other two Synoptic Gospels. His account of the birth of John the Baptist, and the birth and early years of our Lord, may very probably have been taken from some special written narrative. It has a peculiarly Aramaic colouring and other features of its own. It would have been a very congenial occupation to a man such as from his two works we know the author of the third Gospel to have been, 1 o make notes of information that he received concerning the life and work of Jesus, to copy out and keep precious pieces of His teaching. He may have begun to do this long before ne set forth the material he had amassed in his Gospel, or even thought of doing so ; and visits to Pales-
tine, as on the occasion when St. Paul was seized at Jerusalem and imprisoneil at Ca-sarea, would give hira very favourable opportunities lor going on with this work.
(r) The question as to tho composition and authorship of the Jirst Gospel is reinlered specially complicated by the fact that there is a strong and unwavering earlv tradition that the Apostle -Mat- thew wrote in Hebrew, while the relations of oui Mt with the other Synoptics, and especially with Mk, which are evidently through the Greek, are of a kind to preclude the idea that, as it stanils, it is a mere translation. The manner in which these facts are recognized and dealt with by such an eminent advocate of the oral theory as West- cott is very instructive. ' The parts,' he w rites, 'of the Aramaic oral Gospel which were adoi)led by St. Matthew already existed in the tiieek counterpart. The cliange was not so much a version as a substitution ; and frequent coincidence with common parts of St. Mark and St. Luke, which were derived from the same oral Greek Gospel, was a necessary con8e<^uence ' (Introd. p. 228 n. ). It is, however, very difficult to conceive how the process suggested could have been carried out in such a way as to produce the actual phenomena. It is much simpler to suppose that, with the view of supplementing a Greek document which existed already (viz. Mk or the document most nearly represented by it), he translated from a Hebrew (or Aramaic) Gospel, which may well have been composed by, or may at least in .some way have been connected with the teaching of, the Apostle Matthew. But we seem to have no means of deciding whether such a work contained other portions corresponding to the matter in Mk. It may have done so, ana the touches peculiar to Mt and that Hebraic tone and disposition to empha- size the connexion between the new dispensation and the old, which are more or less noticeable in it as a whole, may be thence derived. The manner also in whicli tlie subject-matter taken from the different sources has been combined in the Greek Mt may have been influenced by the order in the Hebrew work. For although Papias' descrii)tion of St. Matthew's work as ' The Oracles,' as well as the nature of the matter which there is most reason to suppose taken from it, make it highly probable that it was specially characterized by the records it "ave of Christ's teac/iing, its con- tents need not liave been strictlj' conlinud to this. Some light might be thrown on these points if we knew more of the Gospel accorUiii;/ to the Hebrews ; for it is not unnatural to surmise that this heretical Gospel may have been ba.sed upon, or have borne some similarity to, the Hebrew Mt. Unfortunately, our knowledge of this work also is .so scantythat no conclusions can be safely drawn from it. (All that is known respecting tlia Gospel according to the Hebrews has been recentli^ put to'.'utlier and reviewed by Harnack, Chron. u p. 62.-) ir. ).