THE task which lies before us in this part of our work is to present as clear a picture as possible of the teaching of Jesus on the basis of the Synoptic Gospels. The account of his teaching which is preserved in the fourth Gospel is so different in form from that contained in the Synoptics that it requires a separate treatment. In connection with the study of the fourth Gospel, the two types of tradition will be brought into frequent comparison.

Jesus did not commit his teaching to writing. He spoke his message and did his work, and left the recording of his words and deeds to those whose lives had been deeply impressed with their divine significance and value. How long a time passed before the first disciples began to make written memoranda of the Lord's life we cannot say, but, probably, several years. At first there would be no occasion to write narratives of his sayings and acts, since they were vividly photographed upon the memories of all his followers. The leading events of his life and his most characteristic sayings were preserved in oral tradition, and

were constantly rehearsed, in a more or less stereotyped form, in the preaching and teaching of the apostles. As time passed on, however, it became necessary to compose written narratives of the Lord's words and deeds. The gradual dispersion of the Christian community from Jerusalem, the addition of new members to the company who required definite instruction, and the passing away of some of the eye and ear witnesses, would be among the motives which would prompt to the writing of these narratives. The prologue of Luke's Gospel (i. 1-4) is very instructive in this connection. Luke says that before he wrote his Gospel many narratives (dinynoes) of the Lord's life had been written.1 He implies that these were, in general, fragmentary and insufficient; that he was acquainted with some of them, and proposed to use them in constructing his own fuller account of Jesus' life. These numerous writers (Tooí) of primitive Gospels, as we may call them, had written, Luke says, in accordance with the tradition of the Lord's words, which had been handed down from the beginning (of his ministry) by those who had seen and heard him (aυTÓTTα). These earlier writers to whom Luke refers were not themselves apostles or immediate disciples, but they were acquainted, at first hand, with the primitive tradition of the Lord's words and deeds as it had been preserved among the eye and ear witnesses. That original tradition may have been oral, or written, or both; these writers had access to it, and based their narratives upon it, and Luke, in turn, had access to their work, besides possessing independent knowledge, derived from carefully tracing the course of events from the very beginning (avo0ev) of the Master's life. Moreover, in dedicating his book to a certain Theophilus, probably a man of noble birth who had recently become a convert and who was, perhaps, the author's patron, Luke dis

1 The so-called Logia of Jesus, recently discovered in Egypt, are of interest as illustrating the existence, in the second century, of a hitherto unknown collection of reputed sayings of Jesus. Even if unauthentic, they illustrate the many, if not the earlier, efforts which were made to preserve the Lord's words in writing.

closes to us one of the first uses of the written Gospels the instruction and confirmation in faith and cer tainty of those who were dependent upon the testimony of others for accurate knowledge of Jesus' teaching and work.

Have any of these primitive Gospels to which Luke refers been preserved to us? The Gospel of Mark is probably one of them. A critical comparison of Mark and Luke shows that Luke has freely used our second Gospel in the construction of his narrative. Moreover, the earliest tradition which has been preserved to us, the testimony of Papias,1 recorded in Eusebius,2 respecting the origin of Mark's Gospel, agrees strikingly with Luke's description of the earlier Gospels, which he knew and used. Papias testifies that Mark was known as the interpreter of Peter; that he wrote down with accuracy, but not in chronological order, the events of Jesus' life; but that he did this from information given him by Peter, because he was not himself an eye-witness. This would accord exactly with what Luke says: He drew up a narrative in accordance with knowledge which had been delivered to him by an eye-witness (Peter). It is one of the best attested results of New Testament criticism that Mark's Gospel is the earliest of our three Synoptics, and that it supplied the framework on which the Gospel of Luke is constructed.

But Mark was one of the "many" to whom Luke refers. He was not an apostle nor was he a personal follower of Jesus. Does there still remain to us any specimen of the tradition which the first disciples who personally accompanied Jesus preserved? Have we any written narrative

1 Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, and died about 163. According to Irenæus (d. about 202) he was a disciple of the apostle John. Against Heresies, Bk. V. ch. xxxiii. 4. He composed a treatise in five books (now lost) entitled, Interpretation of the Lord's Oracles, Moylwv κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις (or, ἐξηγήσεις).

2 Ecclesiastical History, III. 39.

3 The testimony of Irenæus is to the same effect: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Against Heresies, Bk. III. ch. i. 1.

A.

which emanates directly from an apostle or other eyewitness? Turning again to the section of Eusebius just cited, we find this quotation from Papias: "Matthew composed the Oracles (rà Xoyta) in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted them as he was able." Irenæus confirms this assertion.1 If this ancient testimony is correct, we have here a trace of a primitive, apostolic, written

source.

Numerous perplexing questions now arise concerning this writing which Papias calls the Oracles, or Logia, into which I cannot here enter at length. For a discussion of them I must refer the reader to treatises on New Testament Introduction. It is, at present, the general belief of scholars that this tradition is trustworthy, and that the (Hebrew Logia of Matthew is the principal literary basis of our first Gospel. In my own judgment this is a second secure result of New Testament criticism. The Xoyia of Matthew would be an example of the tradition (Tapádoσis; ef. Tapédoσav) of the eye-witnesses (avтóπтai) upon which the many (Toλλoí) mentioned by Luke had based their narratives (dinyńoes; Lk. i. 1–4). It is probable that the Logia consisted mainly of sayings and discourses of Jesus connected together by brief historical narratives; that this writing was early translated into Greek, and incorporated into our first Gospel by another hand than that of Matthew. We thus get the elements of the "two-source theory" of the Synoptics now common among scholars. It may be (stated thus: Mark, the oldest of our Synoptics in their present form, is, according to Papias, based primarily on the testimony of Peter. Other sources were probably open to him; Weiss holds that Matthew's Logia was one of (these, but this view is disputed by other scholars. Mark was freely used by both the first and third evangelists. These two writers also freely used Matthew's Logia, each combining this writing with Mark in his own way. Their common, but independent, use of the Logia goes far to explain their agreement in places in which they are inde

1 "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect," etc. Against Heresies, Bk. III. ch. i. 1.

pendent of Mark.

Thus Mark and the Logia are the "two sources" referred to in this theory.1

It cannot be said, in general, whether the first or the third evangelist has more faithfully preserved the apostolic source. Now one, now the other, gives its narratives in greater fulness or in more natural connections. From the way in which the Logia material is distributed in the first Gospel, it has happened that many sayings have fallen out because they found no point of connection with the Mark narrative, which Luke, by his method of using the former, has preserved. It is, therefore, probable that the original order of the Logia material is better preserved in Luke. In the first Gospel the sayings are more frequently grouped together on the principle of internal kinship, without regard to their original connection. On the question whether there is a direct interdependence between the first and third Gospels, specialists are divided. Holtzmann and Wendt hold that Luke knew and used our first Gospel; Weiss is of the contrary opinion.

It will thus be seen that according to the view which I adopt as probable, our first Gospel is not, in its present form, the work of the apostle Matthew. The traditional designation of it as "The Gospel according to Matthew is, however, justified, since it is an amplification of Matthew's Logia. For convenience I shall use the name "Matthew" when I refer to the book which bears his name, in the same way as I do "Mark" and "Luke."

1 It must, however, in fairness, be mentioned that a considerable number of scholars doubt the correctness of the Papias tradition, and call in question theories based upon the supposition of a Matthaic Logia. It may happen that the "two-source theory" will be modified by later criticism, or even supplanted. It cannot be claimed that, in itself, it presents a final solution of the Synoptic problem. It should, therefore, be held, not as a demonstrated truth, but as a working hypothesis - the best which criticism has, thus far, attained. I have used it as such. The substance of my portrayal of the teaching of Jesus would not be materially affected by its modification. I cannot doubt that the elements which entered into the formation of our Gospels were so numerous, and their combination so complicated that no theory is capable of fully explaining all the facts. The truth of such theories should be regarded as approximate, and their evidence as probable only.