fluidity inseparable from oral tradition due to defective memory, and of course in part also by the peculiar tastes, aims and indi- vidualities of the respective evangelists. This hypothesis has been chiefly in favour among English scholars, though it can likewise boast of influential supporters among continental critics, such as Gieseler and Godet. It points to a vera causa, and cannot be wholly left out of account in an endeavour to explain how written records of the evangelic tradition arose. There was a time doubt- less when what was known of Jesus was on the lip only. How long that primitive phase lasted is matter of conjecture; some say from 30 to 60 a.p. It seems probable that the process of trans- ferring from the lip to the page began considerably sooner than the later of these dates. When Luke wrote, many attempts had been made to embody the tradition in a written form (Lukei. 1). This points to a literary habit which would naturally exert its power withort delay in reference to any matter in which men took an absorbing interest. And when this habit. prevails writers are not usually content to remain in ignorance of what others have done in the same line. They want to see each other’s notes. The pre- sumption therefore is that while oral tradition in all probability was a source for our evangelists, it was not the only source, probably not even the chief source There were other writings about the acts, and words, and sufferings of Jesus in existence before they wrote ; they were likely to know these, and if they knew them they would not despise them, but rather use them so far as serviceable. In Luke’s case the existence of such earlier writings, and his acquaintance with them, are not mere presumptions but facts; the only point on which there is room for difference of opinion is how far he took advantage of the labours of his predecessors. That he deemed them unsatisfactory, at least defective, may be inferred from his making a new contribution; that he drew nothing from them is extremely improbable. Much can be said for the view that among these earlier writings known to Luke was our Gospel of Mark, or a book substantially identical with it in contents, and that he used it very freely.
5. The last observation naturally leads up to the second hypo- thesis, which is that the authors of the synoptical Gospels used each other’s writings, each successive writer taking advantage of earlier contributions, so that the second Gospel (in time) borrowed from the first, and the third from both first and second. Which borrowed from which depends of course on the order of time in which the three Gospels appeared. Six permutations are possible, and every