tions made to it at different periods. Various copies of this original gospel, with these additions, being ex- tant in the time of the evangelists, each of the evan- gelists is supposed to have used a different copy as the basis of his gospel. In the hands of bishop Marsh, who adopted and modified the hypothesis of Eichhorn, this original gospel becomes a very complex thing. He supposed that there was a Greek translation of the Aramaean original gospel, and various transcripts with alterations and additions. But when it is considered that all these suppositions are entirely gratuitous, that they are made only to meet the emergencies of the case as they arise, one cannot help feeling that the li- cense of hypothesis is carried beyond just bounds. The grand objection to this original gospel is the entire want of historical evidence for its existence. If such an original gospel ever had existed, it must have been of the very highest authority, and, instead of being tampered with, would have been carefully preserved in its original form, or at least in its Greek translation. The alterations and additions supposed to have been made in it are not only inconsistent with its sacred and authoritative cliaracter as the original gospel, but also with the habits of the Jews. Even if this hypothesis did adequately explain the phenomena presented in the first three gospels, it is far too artificially contrived to be true; but it fails of its aim. The original work, supposed to consist of the sections common to tlie tliree gospels, cannot be made out ; and the individuality of character belonging to each of the evangelists is irre- concilable with the supposition that several different writers contributed materials. Notwithstanding the identity of subject among tlie three gospels, each writer is distinguislied by his own characteristic style. It is remarkable that Dr. Weiss, of Konigsberg, has cjuite recently (Stud. it. Kritil: ISGl, i, iv) propounded a the- ory of explanation very much akin to that of Marsh. He supposes that the first evangelist, the writer of Matthew's Gospel, as well as Luke, used a copy of Clark's Gospel, and, along with this, a second more an- cient, perhaps immediately apostolic written source, which Mark also had already made use of in the com- position of his gospel. In this way he thinks all the phenomena are simply and easily explained. He en- deavors to establish his view by a detailed examina- tion and comparison of the three synoptic gospels, and holds that these results of criticism are confirmed by the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, while there is no trace of the Hebrew gospel itself. Tlie conclusion is that the Hebrew gospel of Matthew must have been displaced at an early period by another containing its essential contents, but richer and more generally accessible in its Greek form. Hence the later Greek gospel was held to be the work of ]Matthew the apostle, the more ancient Hebrew one having been really the apostle's work. This revival in the present day of what is substantially the hypoth- esis of Eiclihoru and Marsh is significant of the still unsettled state of the question.
3. That our present gospels are to be traced mainly to the oral teaching of the apostles as their source, was the opinion of Herder and Gieseler, and more recentl}' of De Wette, Guericke, Norton, Westcott, and others. " They have correctly apprehended" (says De "\\'ette) "the spirit of Christian antiquity who regard tlie oi-al tradition of the gospel (the oral original f/ospel) as the basis and source of all the Christian gospels, and who endeavor to apprehend the history of the origin of the latter in a definite relation to the former" (Introd. to N. T., sec. 87). Tlie gospel was published orally be- fore it was committed to writing, and the preaching of the apostles must, from the nature of the case, have consisted chiefly of a narration of the facts recorded in our present gospels. It is naturally supposed that very soon a certain agreement or uniformit}' of narra- tive would be the result, and that we have a transcript, as it were, of this type or form of narrative in the first
GOSPELS
936
GOSPELS
three gospels. The verbal coincidences in the gospels are found especially in those cases in which it might h:ive been expected that the first preachers of the gos- l)el would be exact, namely, tlio recital of tlie words of Christ, and (luotations from the O. T. This account of the probable origin of the gospels is not only in ac- cordance with the character of the period as an age of oral tradition rather than of writing, but is also sub- stantiall}' the same as that which Luke gives in tlie preface to his gospel (Luke i, 1—1). Wliile Luke re- fers to written accounts of tiie ministry of Clirist in the possession of some Christians at that time, he mentions that these accounts were founded directly or indirectly upon the oral accounts of the apostles {KaOaig irapeSo- aav iijuv oi air' cipx7)Q avToiTTUi Kai VTrijoirat jtvu- fievoi Tou Xoyo(i). The statement of Papias respect- ing the origin of Mark's Gospel is, that it was derived from the preaching of Peter, and we have alreadj' quoted the important testimonj'- of Irenaius to tlie same effect. To prevent misapprehension, however, it ought to be observed that our written gospels date from the latter half of the first century, and that, "so long as the first witnesses survived, so long the tradition was confined within the bounds of their testimony; when the}' passed away it was already' fixed in writing" (Westcott, p. 192). The theory of the oral origin of the gospels, while it lias much evidence in its favor, cannot be accepted as a complete solution of the prob- lem. It does not explain the striking instances of vertial coincidence in the narrative portions common to the three synoptists, or to two of them ; nor the in- stances in which either two or all the three evangelists agree with each other in their quotations from the Sept., and at the same time differ from the Sept. itself (Matt, iii, 3; Mark i, 3; Luke iii, 4; compared with Isa. xl, 3, Sept., and Matt, iv, 10 ; Luke iv, 8, com- pared with Daut. vi, 13, Sept.). De Wette would combine '• the two hypotheses of a common oral source, and of the influence through writing of one evangelist on another."