Enough!

As a theory of genetic relationship, this hypothesis is, to the last degree, unlikely. Certainly, it entirely fails to give a sufficient reason for its hop-and-skip principle of transition from the one Gospel to the other. It also equally fails to account for those peculiarities of incident, discourse, and remark, which are found in St. Mark alone. Griesbach says that these occupy in all only about twenty-four verses. But this is utterly unreal, when we add the copious circumstantialities, which besprinkle the Gospel throughout, to the sections which deal with scenes that have no parallels in either St. Matthew or St. Luke.2 The theory likewise fails to account for those characteristic touches of description, which impart vividness, by single flashes, to the scenes depicted, and suggest that the evangelist must be drawing on the reports of some eye-witness, who had the tact of felicitously seizing, in what he saw and heard, points of irradiation and salient items of detail. Then too it entirely fails to account for the thorough homogeneousness, all through the Gospel, of the evangelist's style of composition,— simple, artless, and homely though that style confessedly is.3 If he had been borrowing his matériel, alternately, from the writings of St. Matthew and St. Luke, one would have expected, as the unavoidable result of his double dependence, to find, in alternative sequence, a certain reflection, distinct or dim,— anuancirung' at least, of the two different styles, to which the pendulum of his attention successively turned. But there is no such alternation of reflection or shade. And thus the theory again breaks down; as it also conspicuously does, when one attempts, in consistency with

44

46

se adjunxisse comitem vidimus. Verumtamen cum Matthæum potissimum

sibi elegisset, ad cujus ductum memorabilia Christi scripto consignaret, jam "ad Matthæum suum redit."-p. 375.

1 "Marcus totum libellum suum, si viginti et quatuor circiter commata, quæ "de sua penu addidit, excipias, e Matthæi et Lucæ commentariis compilavit."— p. 369, also p. 380.

* See the detailed evidence in Willes's Specimen Hermeneuticum de iis, quæ ab uno Marco sunt narrata, aut copiosius et explicatius ab eo, quam a cæteris Evangelistis, exposita. There is a summary in pp. 188-192. See also August Knobel de Evangelii Marci Origine, pp. 29–56.

3 "Of all the New Testament writers," says Michaelis, "none appear to "have given themselves less concern, than Mark, concerning elegance of "diction and purity of Greek." (Unter allen Schriftstellern des N. T. scheint keiner um die Zierde der Rede, und um die Reinigkeit des Griechischen weniger bekümmert gewesen zu sein, als Marcus.)—Einleitung, § 147, p. 1076.

it, to account for the many minute diversities which, amid the multitudes of minute coincidences, mottle the representations of St. Mark, and stamp them with a phase that is entirely his own.

The theory is certainly untenable. But as it is positive on the one hand, and completely removed from the region of mystical haze on the other; as it happily stirred the stagnant waters of criticism, and disturbed the old, shallow, self-arrogating hypothesis of St. Mark's exclusive dependence on St. Matthew; as it was wrought out moreover, and propounded, by an author renowned for ability, learning, critical acumen, and independence of judgment; it was, although amid much contention and opposition, extensively espoused. Saunier, in particular, elaborately defended it in a special treatise on The Sources of Mark's Gospel. Sieffert too defended it; though he tried to reconcile it with the testimony of Papias regarding the relationship of the Gospel to the teachings of the apostle Peter. Fritzsche also espoused it zealously, and made it the basis of his Commentary on Mark,—a commentary remarkable alike for scholarly ability and for critical tyranny of tone. It was asserted moreover in the most positive manner imaginable by Evanson, in his Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists. It is contended for by Dr. Davidson; only he postulates, in addition, that the unknown evangelist must have made use of "the primitive Mark, or Petrine Gospel, referred to by Papias." 4 Strauss too accepted it with eagerness as demonstrated." He found it to be subservient to his own ulterior critical aim,-for it is obvious that there could be no place for the mythical theory of the Gospel-History, if St. Mark's Gospel- Writing rested directly on the authority of an actual eye-and-ear-witness, such as the apostle Peter. Strauss therefore, in his later work, persists in his adherence to the theory of Griesbach. Gfrörer also, as might be expected from his kinship of spirit to that of Strauss, accepts it,

1 Ueber die Quellen des Evangeliums des Marcus. (1825.)

2 Prolusio, qua diversæ recentiorum criticorum sententiæ de fontibus Evangelii St. Marci antiquissimæ traditionis ecclesiasticæ ope conciliantur (1829). See also his subsequent Abhandlung über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums (1832), p. 178. The former work is little known even in Germany.

3 He represents Mark's narrative as "compiled entirely of passages copied, "often literally, either from the Gospel called Matthew's, or Luke's "-p. 212 of 1st ed. (1792), or p. 275 of 2nd ed. (1805.)

Introduction, vol. ii., pp. 90-103.

"Ist zur Evidenz erhoben."-Leben Jesu, vol. i., § 12, p. 65, ed. 1835. • Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk (1864), p. 86.

and "holds it for an established fact, that St. Mark not only had "the two other synoptic Gospels lying open before him, but trans"cribed them."1

The underlying principle of the theory, viz. that St. Mark made use of the Gospels of both St. Matthew and St. Luke, had been, at an earlier period, ably and reverently advocated by Dr. Henry Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels (1764). It was accepted as a 'very probable' hypothesis by Harwood; and it has been contended for, or maintained, by many critics since, inclusive of Neudecker, de Wette,5 and Bleek. It is also maintained, under a certain developed phase, by Ferdinand C. Baur,7 Schwegler, Köstlin, and the other adherents of the Tübingen school.

De Wette gives effect to his opinion on the subject, by arranging his Handbook-Exposition of the Gospels thus: (1) Matthew, (2) Luke, (3) Mark, (4) John. Köstlin, in like manner, in his treatise on the Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels, divides his work into three books or sections, arranged thus: (1) the Gospel according to Matthew, (2) the Gospel according to Luke, (3) the Gospel according to Mark. Although he holds that there was an original Mark, anterior to both St. Matthew and St. Luke, yet he maintains that the canonical Mark was subsequent to these other synoptics, and dug out of their materials.

In addition to the general notion that St. Mark made use of the Gospels of both St. Matthew and St. Luke, the critics of the

1 "Markus die beiden Anderen nicht nur vor sich gehabt, sondern ausge"schrieben hat. Dass Lezteres wirklich der Fall sey, halte Ich wenigstens für eine ausgemachte Thatsache."-Geschichte des Urchristenthums, Band iv., Kap. 9, p. 123.

2 See, in particular, pp. 62-75.

3 Introduction to the Study and Knowledge of the New Testament, vol. i., chap. iv., § 3, p. 135.

♦ Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung, § 32, p. 232.

• Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung, § 94.

Einleitung in das N. T, p. 243. See also his Beiträge zur Evangelien-Kritik, pp. 72-75.

Das Markusevangelium, and Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, pp. 548–561.

• Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter, pp. 456–475.

• Der Ursprung und die Komposition der Synoptischen Evangelien, pp. 310-385.

Tübingen school,-such as F. C. Baur, Schwegler, Köstlin, already referred to, attribute to the evangelist a particular doctrinal aim or tendency,' having a particular relation to the parties that were co-existing, at the time of the composition of the Gospel, within the circle of the churches. St. Matthew is regarded as having had an Old Testament tendency,' on the side of the Judaic party. St. Luke in his 'tendency' is regarded as having been anti-Judaic and Pauline. And St. Mark, coming after both as is assumed, and mediating as it were between them, is looked upon as meeting a more matured condition of the divergent parties,1 when their wisest leaders were wishful to shake hands and agree. His Gospel is therefore 'neutral' and 'irenic.' 2 It is the product,' says Köstlin, of the idea of catholicity.'3

It may, on all hands, be admitted that there is a certain generic element of truth in the representations of the school that surrounded F. C. Baur. St. Mark's Gospel is undoubtedly 'neutral.' It is colourless,' in relation to all grave party questions within the circle of the early churches. It is eminently 'catholic.' It is 'irenic.' It is also, at the same time, as Hilgenfeld represents it, 'Petrinic,' though not in any one-sided, or obtrusive, or sectarian, or anti-Pauline sense. It is Pauline' too, as Michelsen contends, but in no anti-Petrine spirit. It is thoroughly un

sectarian.

5

All this may be admitted, and should be admitted. It is patent, lying on the surface of the Gospel. It wells up from its heart.

Nevertheless, there is not so much as one straw of evidence that the Gospel of Mark occupied a position of mediation, or iren c neutrality, in relation to the other two synoptic Gospels. It is in the mere wantonness of a creative imagination that its penman is depicted as warily steering his critical bark between some Scylla in St. Matthew's representations and some Charybdis in St. Luke's. There is no Scylla in the representations of St. Matthew. It must be invented, if suspected. There is no Charybdis in the

1 Schwegler, Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter, p. 456.

2 Ibid., pp. 474-481. See a shadow of the Tübingen idea cast before, in Owen's Observations, pp. 50, 51.

3 Der Ursprung, p. 373.

Die Evangelien, pp. 125–144.

Het Evangelie van Markus, Inleiding, p. 4. "Our Mark," was written, he says, "door een christen uit de joden, doch niettemin een hevig aanhanger van 66 Paulus."

representations of St. Luke. Neither is there any indication in St. Mark of wary steering, or of some latent aim of destination kept, like sealed orders, under lock and key. There is, in all the Gospels, perfect transparency and simplicity, the simplicity that is in Christ.' It is not needful to mine into profound depths, or to climb into giddy heights, in search of tendency.' No intricate involution, baffling to ordinary eyes, need be suspected. No divining power is required. There may have been, to a certain incidental degree, a desire, as Mill conjectured, to correct apocryphal or erroneous representations,1 that were getting afloat over society. But doubtless the one dominant and overmastering aim would just be that of all the apostles of our Lord, and of all, in all ages, who have imbibed aught of the apostolic spirit; to tell, for the sake of sinful and suffering humanity, the unvarnished but vivifying story of the life-and-death-work of Christ the Saviour. In other words, and in popular phraseology, the aim would be to unfurl the banner of the gospel.'

The peculiar Tübingen theory has been repudiated and opposed by the illustrious Heinrich Ewald, in terms of the most stinging severity. The school from which it emanates is denounced by him as 'mischievous' and 'false.' 2 But in his own theory of the interrelationship of Mark to the other Gospels he formed, as is his wont, such peculiarly vivid conceptions that, to himself, they have started out from the canvas of his imagination, with all the selfevidencing or self-asserting authority of objective historical facts.

He postulates a considerable variety of documents or books, now lost, but more or less incorporated in our existing Gospels. The respective peculiarities of these books are, he conceives, clearly discernible, in the particoloured texture of the synoptic Gospels. And hence, in the first edition of his Translation of the First Three Gospels, the edition of 1850, the respective portions which, as he conceives, had been derived from these prior works, are actually represented to the eye by being printed in nine varieties of type.

He holds, moreover, that there have been three distinct editions of Mark,-Mark a, Mark b, Mark c,-the second much altered from the first, though appearing only about a year later, and the third (which appeared in the second century) still further altered and impoverished. In the second edition, as he supposes, there were

1 Prolegomena, § 111.

• Die drei ersten Evangelien u. d. Apostelgeschichte 1871-72), pp. 2, 3. • Die drei ersten Evv., pp. 77-174.