together with other imperfections, is pervaded by a spirit of reverence for our existing Gospels, and is frequently saturated with the expressed juices, not only of their general essence, but of their particular contents. It demands therefore, as the indispensable condition of its existence, the pre-existence of the Gospels as we

have them.

In another respect, too, is the theory on which we are remarking unhistorical and unphilosophical. It leaves unaccounted for the unanimity of the Christian churches of the second century in regard to the great outstanding Christological phenomena which constitute the essence of the Gospels. For, while there were manifold diversities of speculation in reference to the interpretation of these phenomena, there was remarkable unity, attested even by the vagaries of heretics and the objections of heathens, in reference to the actual occurrence of the works and words ascribed to our Lord. Indeed, the theory leaves unaccounted for the deeply imbedded unanimity in Christological essentials that underlies all the varied developments of Christian life, Christian speculation, and Christian organization, in all the succeeding centuries. The peculiarities of the present century demand, as part of their sufficient reason, the antecedent peculiarities of the century that preceded. The peculiarities of that preceding century demand for their adequate cause the presence of the antecedent peculiarities of the century that went before. And so the regress continues, until we arrive at the peculiarities of the second century, which demand a sufficient reason for themselves in something that is comprehensive of the antecedent peculiarities of the first. But that sufficient reason can never be found, if the facts that are embodied in the existing Gospels be ignored. And when we get into the sphere of these facts, it would be utterly unaccountable if the Matthew of the first century, who had the full use of his own eyes and ears, and the Mark of that same century, who had the privilege of being associated with probably all the apostles, and certainly with St. Peter, on terms of intimacy, were yet dependent for their narrations on some prior Gospel and connected Supplements, out of which they had painfully to weave the texture of their immortal compositions. The actual coincidences of the synoptics must be sought for in some other cause than in the common possession of an Aramaic Urevangelium, now lost.

What then is this cause? Many of late have looked, or are still

looking for it, in Mark's own Gospel. They suppose that that Gospel has been, either in its present or in some prior form, the original, or archetype, out of which the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke were developed.

This Mark-hypothesis was Storr's theory. He handled it reverently, but immaturely. It slumbered in its immaturity for long after the decease of Storr. But in the year 1838 it woke up in full maturity, and,―strange to say,—in two independent forms.

In that year Wilke published his Urevangelist, and maintained, in an elaborate induction of particulars, and by most vigorous if not rigorous processes of argumentation, that our canonical Mark was the original evangelist, from the fountain of whose narrative both St. Matthew and St. Luke drew almost all their waters. He held however that St. Luke was anterior to St. Matthew, so that St. Matthew had not only the fountain of St. Mark from which to draw, but also the intermediate cistern of Luke.

Weisse again, in the same year, published his still more elaborate Gospel History, critically and philosophically handled,3 in which, with still more comprehensive sweep of minutely detailed criticism, he contended, as zealously as Wilke, for the priority of St. Mark's Gospel, as we have it, to both St. Matthew's and St. Luke's, maintaining at the same time, just as Wilke does, that the compilers of these latter Gospels drew from the storehouse of the former. But, in contrariety to the simpler theory of Wilke, he maintained that both St. Matthew and St. Luke availed themselves, in addition, of the Aramaic Oracles ascribed by Papias to Matthew, the Spruchsammlung of which we have spoken in our notice of the hypothesis of Ewald. He contended, moreover, that St. Matthew and St. Luke wrote quite independently of one another, so that neither of the two made use of the other's cistern. In a subsequent publication, the author, influenced by the representations and reasonings of Ewald, so far modified his theory, retrogressively, as to hold that St. Mark's Gospel, as we now have it, is not so full or rich as it was at

1 Ueber den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis (1786), pp. 274 ff. See also his Prolusio de fonte evangeliorum Matthæi et Lucæ (1794) in Velthusen, Kuinöl, and Ruperti's Commentt. Theoll., vol. iii.; likewise his Opuscula Academica, vol. iii., p. 66.

* Der Urevangelist, oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältniss der drei ersten Evangelien.

Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet. (Zwei Bände.)

the time when St. Matthew and St. Luke unitedly drew from its wellspring.1

Thiersch, in the main, has followed in the wake of Wilke and Weisse, of Wilke in particular.2

So, in a sense, has Smith of Jordanhill; but independently, and by means of self originated research. He supposes, as we have already noted,3 that St. Mark's Gospel is merely St. Mark's translation of St. Peter's original Aramaic Gospel. He holds that it was the Aramaic original, which both St. Matthew and St. Luke made use of; St. Matthew first, and then St. Luke, who had in his hands not merely St. Peter's original document, but also our present canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew, or St. Matthew's Greek translation of his own prior Aramaic Gospel.

Holtzmann too supposes that all the three synoptics are compositions at second hand. At the basis of them all is an original Mark, or Urmarcus, of which however very special advantage was taken by the canonical Mark, and hence the transmission of the name; while the canonical Matthew and Luke had the advantage of using another important evangelical document, a Greek version of the Oracles which, in its original Aramaic form, was ascribed by Papias to the apostle Matthew. This Collection of the Oracles of the Lord constituted, says Holtzmann, the original Matthew, or Urmatthäus, and was freely used by both the canonical Matthew and the canonical Luke, but to a greater extent by the latter than by the former. The canonical Mark had not, it seems, the advantage of being acquainted with the work, and hence that comparative paucity of the words of the Saviour which is characteristic of his Gospel.

More recent investigators are still out at sea, and refuse to follow in the wake of either Wilke, Weisse, or Holtzmann.

6

Klostermann, for example, abjures the idea of an original Mark now lost. He believes that the canonical Mark is the Mark of

1 Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwärtigen Stadium (1856), pp. 156 ff.

* Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter und die Entstehung der neutestamentlichen Schriften (1858), p. 102.

3 Pages xxvii., xxxi.

Die Synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (1863).

Die Synoptischen Evangelien, pp. 128, 162, etc.

• Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte (1867).

Papias. But he maintains its dependent or secondary relationship to St. Matthew.

In this last particular he treads in the footsteps of Augustine in ancient times, as also of Hilgenfeld in modern times, who, in a long series of consecutive treatises, maintains that St. Mark made use of St. Matthew, while he still more emphatically and persistently maintains, in opposition to Griesbach and F. C. Baur, that he did not make use of St. Luke.

Volkmar too, like Klostermann, though belonging to a totally different school, abandons the idea of an original or chrysalis Mark; though he holds that it is not unlikely that the canonical Mark made use of the canonical Luke, while it is certain, he supposes, that he made use of four of Paul's epistles, as also of 'the bitterly anti-Pauline Apocalypse.'1

Michelsen of Holland, on the other hand, contends confidently for a succession of Marks. He is certain indeed that both St. Matthew and St. Luke had before them the two editions. St. Matthew however, as he conceives, more frequently followed Mark the First, while St. Luke in general gave the preference to Mark the Second.2

Scholten followed Michelsen, and is equally positive that there was an original Mark, the precursor of the canonical. Indeed it must have been, as he represents it, of a very humble chrysalis character. It was, however, one of the chief sources of Matthew. But then, be it remembered, there were three successive Matthews: Matthew the First (i.e. the Oracles); Matthew the Second (drawn from Mark the First, and the Oracles, and another original Gospel now lost); and Matthew the Third, or our canonical Gospel according to Matthew (containing, in addition to the three constituent elements specified, some pieces or patches of anecdote unknown to Luke).3

A far more reverent spirit is that of Dr. Bernhard Weiss, who has devoted himself to the study of this question for a long series of years, and published in 1872 an elaborate work on Mark.1

1 Die Evangelien, oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien, nach dem ältesten Text, mit historisch-exegetischen Commentar (1870), p. 646.

3 Het Oudste Evangelie, critisch onderzoek naar de samenstelling, de onderlinge verhouding, de historische waarde en den oorsprong der evangeliën naar Mattheus en Marcus (1868), pp. 70-72, etc.

♦ Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen. (1872.)

He turns back

He has, however, a complicated theory of his own. to the testimony of the fathers,' and believes, in accordance with the general tradition, that St. Mark's Gospel was inspired by the direct teaching of the apostle Peter. So far good. But running,

too artificially as we conceive, in the groove of the Mark-hypothesis, he also believes that the Gospel, as thus inspired by the chief of the original apostles, 'lies at the basis of the other two synoptic Gospels, and gave rise to 'their entire inner economy.' But he believes, still further, that the problem of the inter-relationship of the three Gospels can never be solved, unless we postulate, with Holtzmann, that there was a still earlier apostolic document, which was made use of by all the three evangelists, viz. a Greek translation of that original Aramaic writing of Matthew which is spoken of by Papias, the Oracles of the Lord. It was because this was largely absorbed in the first canonical Gospel, that occasion was given to the name, the Gospel according to 'St. Matthew.' This earliest of all the evangelical documents is, as Weiss holds, 'the missing link,' after which the hands of Lessing, Eichhorn, Marsh, and their followers, were anxiously groping, but which, unhappily for the success of their critical researches, eluded their grasp.

We cannot say that we are satisfied with the 'Mark-hypothesis' in any of its forms, or with any of the other hypotheses which we have passed under review. They are all too artificial, and most of them too subtle.

The problem is in some respects insoluble.

A witness in a court of law, if he has a long story to tell twice, will produce a minglement of coincidences and variations, which postulate, as their factors, conditions which it might baffle the most judicial and judicious to unravel and enumerate.

Even the same author, if not trusting to a stereotypical memory, will be, perhaps unconsciously, the subject of different factors of representation, when, at different times and in different circum stances, he presents the story of his experience or information. Witness, for example, the apostle Paul's accounts of his apprehension' by the Saviour on the road to Damascus, as given, the one to the people of Jerusalem while he stood on the stair of the castle Antonia (recorded in Acts xxii.), and the other in the presence of King Agrippa at Cæsarea (recorded in Acts xxvi.). Compare, moreover, both of these accounts with that of Luke in the ninth chapter of the Acts, an account no doubt furnished to the faithful historian