Chapter IV

CURRENT THEORIES

T does not come within the scope of this book to give

theories that have been advanced as to the mode in which the Gospels came into existence. It is necessary however for the information of those who have not studied the subject to glance briefly at the leading opinions current at the present day.

It should at once be said that hardly any one now maintains that any portion of either of the Synoptic Gospels was copied from either of the others. All attempts to show that Matthew and Luke are amplifications of Mark, or that Mark is an abridgement of the other two have been given up as impracticable. The more the three narratives are compared, the more certain does it appear, that in no case did the author of one borrow from either of the others. Some, indeed, like Alford, contend that neither of the three writers could even have seen either of the other histories up to the time at which he composed his own.

The Oral Teaching Theory

A theory that has many advocates, and which a few years ago was more prevalent than it is now, is that the Gospels are composed either directly or indirectly of the oral teaching of the Apostles. It is assumed that after Pentecost the Apostles were largely occupied in narrating the events of our Lord's life and ministry of which they had been the witnesses, and in

repeating the teaching they had heard from His lips. Their recitals were repeated by others in the instruction of catechumens, or young people who were being prepared for baptism and admission to the Church. The constant repetition of the same facts, nearly in the same words, would deeply impress them on the minds of both speakers and hearers, and, as people's memories are assumed to have been much more retentive at that time than they are now, the lessons in time acquired a settled stereotype shape. By degrees one and another would commit some of the lessons to writing, and some would even try to connect them into the form of a continuous narrative.

At length a time came when the need was felt of a permanent and authoritative history, and Matthew, Mark and Luke, unknown to one another, in different places, and writing each for a different class of readers, set to work to supply that need. They sought out such written documents as were now in circulation, selected such of them as suited the special purpose each had in view, included some unwritten facts that they had heard or which they remembered themselves, and composed the whole into the works bearing their respective names. In this manner the Synoptic Gospels came into existence.

The Gospel of John according to this theory was composed much later, and consisted more exclusively of the Apostle's own recollections. He too was accustomed to tell the story of the life and ministry of Jesus, dwelling however more upon our Lord's doctrinal discourses than upon the miracles and parables which form so large a portion of the earlier histories. It was not until he was advanced in age that he undertook the task of committing to writing what he had so often repeated with his lips, and produced the Gospel, so precious to believers, known by his name.

This view was strenuously maintained by Alford but of late it has seemingly fallen somewhat out of favour.

The Document Theory

The theory that seems to be most generally favoured now is that the Synoptic Gospels are based partly upon an older Aramaic Gospel and partly upon a number of fragmentary records which are supposed to have been in circulation in the early Church. The older Aramaic Gospel referred to may itself have been composed of fragmentary records, and there may have been besides other narratives of less or greater length also composed of similar original fragments. The fragments are supposed to have been the work of various disciples who either were themselves personally acquainted with the incidents and utterances of our Lord's ministry, or were in a position to learn the particulars from others, and who at an early date committed what was remembered to writing. It is thought that it is to some such document or documents that Papias refers when he speaks of the utterances or oracles in the Hebrew dialect composed by Matthew. As the documents were copied and passed about from hand to hand many slight variations would gradually creep in, until, at length, when Matthew, Mark and Luke prepared their narratives, the changes had become considerable.

The three Evangelists collecting independently and in different places the fragments and older Gospel or Gospels, and copying them into their more complete and ordered works, of course reproduced in the latter the variations in the former. Possibly they themselves added some further alterations in translating separately from Aramaic into Greek, and also as some think in making some slight modifications to suit the needs of the class of readers for whom each respectively wrote. In this way the variations in the parallel portions of the Synoptic Gospels are accounted for.

As to the portions that are not parallel, it is easy to understand that some fragments may have been available for one which were not accessible to another; besides which a selection may have been made by each of those which suited the special design of the Gospel he was writing.

The Document Theory is applied only to the Synoptics. But little favour is shown to the idea that John made use of written records in the composition of his work. The assumption appears to be general that the author of the Fourth Gospel wrote from Divinely assisted memory alone.

Many attempts have been made to work out this theory in detail, with all sorts of curious and unlikely combinations, so as to fit it to the literary features of the books. Some of these remind us of the ingenious attempts of astronomers before Copernicus to harmonise the geocentric theory of the universe with the observed movements of the heavenly bodies. Of all such elaborations it is enough to say that they satisfy no one except their respective authors, and that the Document Theory itself is only accepted provisionally in default of anything better.

Chapter V

OBJECTIONS

T is not to be wondered at that the theories which we have

It is not to be in the last to

endeavoured in the last chapter briefly to describe are not accepted with confidence or satisfaction, inasmuch as they are confronted with many insurmountable objections.

One of these is that they utterly fail to account for either of the Problems that require solution. As to the Synoptic Problem, to explain which is the purpose for which they have been specially designed, it should be observed that each Gospel has features peculiar to itself and which plainly belong to the original material of which it was composed, thus proving the independence of the sources.

For instance :

In Matthew there is a tendency to quote spoken words very fully and exactly.

In Mark there are numerous minute details respecting matters of fact.

In Luke there are fewer proper names than in either Matthew or Mark.

Some of the features too of what we have called the Chronological Problem appear to be simply fatal at any rate to the Document Theory.

But there is another and still more serious difficulty. However in some respects the two theories may differ there is one respect in which they, and in fact all current theories, are alike. They are all based upon the assumption that a considerable time elapsed after the termination of our Lord's life on Earth before any written record was made of His