III. 3/ufual Relation and Origin.— ^^ Many portions of the histor}- of Jesus" (remarks Mr. Norton, who has minutely investigated the subject) "are found in com- mon in the first three gospels, others ai'e common to tiro of their number, but not found in the third. In the passages referred to, there is generally a similar- ity, sometimes a ver}^ great similarity, in the selection of particular circumstances, in the aspect under which the event is viewed, and the style in which it is re- lated. Sometimes the language found in different gos- pels, though not identical, is equivalent or nearly equiv- alent ; and not unfrequeiitly, the same series of words, with or without slight variations, occurs throughout the whole or a great part of a sentence, and even in larger portions" (^Gemnwness of the Gospels, i, 240). Jlr. Westcott exhibits the proportion of corresjiond- ences and peculiarities in several numerical tables: " If the extent of all the coincidences be represented Ijy 100, their proportionate distributicm will l>e, IMat- tliew, ]\Iark, and Luke, 53; IMatthewand Luke, 21 ; INIat- thew andMark, 20; Mark and Luke, C. . . . Looking only at the general result, it may be said that of the
GOSPELS
935
GOSPELS
contents of the sj'noptic gospels, about two fifths are common to the three, and that the parts peculiar to one or other of them are little more than one third of the whole.'' He adds, '" in the distribution of the ver- bal coincidences a very simple law is observable ; they occur most commonly in the recital of the words of our Lord or of others, and are comparative!}' rare in the simple narrative. Thus, of the verbal coincidences in Matthew, about seven eighths ; of those in Mark, about four fifths ; and of those in Luke, about nine- teen twentieths, occur in the record of the words of others" {Introduction to the Studi) of the Gospels, p. 179). The following instances may be referred to for illus- tration, Matt, viii, 2, 3 = Mark i, 40, 42 = Luke v, 12, 13 ; Matt, ix, 5, G = Mark ii, 9, 11 := Luke v, 23, 24; Matt. xix, 23, 24 = Mark x, 23-25 = Luke xviii, 24, 25. The amount of agreement, however remarkable, ought not to be overrated ; it occurs chiefly in reporting the words of Christ. Norton gives, as the most striking instance of verbal coincidence in the case of narrative, Luke ix, IG (conip. Matt, xiv, 19 ; Blark vi, 41). Along with the instances of correspondence, there are also many instances of difference. This renders the prob- lem difiicult of solution. No explanation can be sat- isfactory' which does not account for both the coi're- spondences and differences. Sucli is the phenomenon which has provoked so manj' attempts at explanation. The literature of the subject is of vast extent, and the question is regarded as still unsettled. Our aim in the present article is to inquire how near the principal hypotheses which have been proposed approach to a solution of the difficulty.
1. In order to account for this singular relationship between the synoptic gospels, the first supposition is that the evangelists copied from one another, or that one evangelist, used the gospels of his predecessors, making such extracts as he thought necessary, with alterations and additions of his own. It is a curious circumstance, hovvever, that the supposition of any one of tlio evangelists copying from the others is attended with insuperable difficulty. "Whichever of them we suppose to be the original evangelist, and whichever we suppose to be the last, having one or both the oth- ers before him, we are unable in this way to explain the phenomenon. There are six possible ways of put- ting the case, every one of which has had learned ad- vocates, and this variety of opinion itself is a strong argument against the hj'pothesis. Griesbach thought that Mark copied from Matthew and Luke, and this opinion is still held by some; but an opinion in favor of tlie originalit}' of Mark has of late been gaining ground (Thiersch, Mej'er, Weiss). It must, we think, be evident to any one who attentivelj' compares the gospels of Matthew and Mark, that the latter cannot with an}' propriety be called a copy or abridgment of the former. There is an air of originality and fresh- ness in jMark's narrative which proves the work to be anything but a compilation ; and besides, in several important particulars, Mark differs from Matthew. No explanation can be satisfactory which does not ac- count for the want of agreement as well as the agree- ment between the gospels. Indeed, it is not easy to see what object INIark or any other of the evangelists could have in compiling a new gospel out of one or more wliich were acknowledged to be the works of apostles or their companions. "In its simple form, the ' su])plementar or ' dependent' theory is at once in- adeciuate for the solution of the diihculties of the rela- tion of the synoptic gospels, and inconsistent with many of its details ; and, as a natural consequence of a deeper study of the gospels, it is now generally aban- doned, except in combination with other principles of solution" (Westcott, On the Gosjxk, p. 184).
2. We are thus brought to consider Eichhorn"s fa- mous hypothesis of a so-called oriffinal rjospel, now lost. A brief written narrative of tlie life of Christ is sup- posed to have been in existence, and to have had addi-