APPENDIX. No. I. ON THE SOURCES OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS theses stated.—II. Examination of the Hypothesis, that the Evangelists abridged or copied from each other.~ on of the Hypothesis, that the Evangelists derived their information from a primary Greek or Hebrew Docuamination of the Hypothesis, that they consulted several Documents.-V. And of the Hypothesis, that oral the Source of the first three Gospels.-VI. That the only Document consulted by the first three Evangelists hing of our Saviour himself. ospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke should verbal agreement, and yet that there should ng differences as appear in the parallel achree Evangelists when they relate the same ansactions, is indeed a most remarkable cirnce several eminent writers have been induced singular fact with great ability and equal although the testimonies which we have to s and authenticity of the Gospels, are so clear s to leave no doubt in the minds of private t, since various learned men have offered difses to account for, and explain, these phenoor would deem his labours very imperfect, if m to pass unnoticed. bal hypotheses have been offered, to account al similarities and occasional differences bet three evangelists; viz. 1. That one or two = were taken from another;-2. That all three From some original document common to the -3. That they were derived from detached nart of the history of our Saviour, communicated es to the first converts to Christianity;-and, were derived from oral tradition. We shall he arguments that have been offered for and various hypotheses. materials for their Gospels. Busching was of opinion that Matthew and Mark compiled from Luke. Saunier maintains that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, are authentic and independent narratives; that Mark made use of those by Matthew and Luke; and that the passages, not to be found in either of these, were supplied by Peter, under whose direction he wrote. And, lastly, Janssens affirms that the agreement and disagreement between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are sufficiently accounted for, by saying, after the ancient fathers, that Mark composed his Gospel after that of Matthew, and after the preaching of Peter.10 Not to dwell upon the uncertainty of these various hypotheses, all of which differ as to the point which was the original writer, and which of the evangelists were copyists or abridgers, the opinion which they respectively are designed to advocate is contradicted by the following weighty considerations: 1. They could have no motive for copying from each other. others, when their narratives were known, they could not have "For, as each acknowledged the authority and veracity of the been so absurd as to repeat what had been already rightly told. Had they then written successively, with knowledge of each other's writings, it is probable, nay, it is almost certain, that each subse. quent author would have set down only, or at least chiefly, what his predecessors had happened to omit. To repeat in substance, RST and most commonly received opinion has but in different words, what another had sufficiently told, might or two of the first three evangelists had copied have been practised by writers who valued themselves upon their rom the third, or one from the other two. Thus peculiar style of expression, or their own mode of compilation. But to copy the very words of another, whose account we do not mean oured to show that Mark made use of the Gos- to supersede, and to introduce them in the very same manner, is and that Matthew drew from Mark and Luke.' an idle and superfluous task, which no man in his senses would 1, Simon, Calmet, Wetstein, Wolfins, Drs. ever undertake." That the two evangelists, St. Mark and St. larwood, and others, after Augustine, have as- Luke, who were not eye-witnesses of the facts, and heard not the lark was an epitomiser of Matthew. Griesbach2 discourses of Christ pronounced, relate them nearly in the same ason3 have maintained that both Mark and Luke words with those who were actually present, appears to me to à consulted the Gospel of Matthew. Hug has prove that the narratives of all the witnesses perfectly agreed. opinion that Mark had before him the Gospel That what one wrote others had told, and each precisely in the same manner. The witnesses had all taken such care to remem atthew for the Jews dwelling in Palestine, and ber, with minute exactness, the principal discourses of their Lord, ade use of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.5 and the occasions on which they were spoken, and were so often d that Mark translated into Greek and enlarged called upon to repeat them, in making and confirming converts to aldaic Gospel of Matthew; that this Syro-Chal- the faith, that a precision was obtained in relating these particu , enlarged in many places, either by Matthew lars, of which, if no other example occurs in the annals of the by other men worthy of credit, was subsequently world, the reason is, because no other relators of facts and discourses were ever so situated. No other men ever had such to Greek either by the evangelist or some other words and actions to relate; such frequent occasions to repeat that the Greek translator consulted the Gospel them; or so many powerful reasons to relate them with the strictStorr endeavoured to prove that the Gospel of est accuracy, on every possible occasion. From this cause it natuhe source whence Matthew and Luke derived rally arose, that they who wrote as original witnesses, and they who wrote from the testimony of such witnesses, agreed, not only substantially, but almost verbally. The exact and literal truth, without alteration or embellishment, was equally delivered by them; as when several perfect mirrors reflect the same object, the images will be the same in form, at the first or second reflection."12 r die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien (on the Origin ee Gospels), in Gabler's Journal für auserlesene Theologisch 11. stuck 1. p. 1. et seq. , in Kuinoel's, Rupert's, and Velthusen's Commentationes .i. pp. 303. et seq. Griesbach's hypothesis was refuted by ts and Ruperti's Sylloge Commentationum Theologicarum, et seq. Ammon deiended Griesbach's hypothesis, and also Luke made use of the Greek version of St. Matthew's Gos corrected and enlarged. Dissertatio de Luca emendatore anga, 1805. 4to. on the Four Gospels, Oxford, 1778, 4to.; or vol. i. of Dr. . pp. 152-185. Dr. Wait's translation having been executed ↑ Storr, Dissertatio de fonte Evangeliorum Matthæi et Lucæ, in Kuinöel's, Ruperti's, and Velthusen's Commentationes Theologica, tom. iii. pp. 140. et seq. Busching, Harmonie der Evangelisten, pp. 99. 108. 118. et seq. Kui nöel's Commentarius in Libros Historicos Novi Testamenti, tom. i. Prolegom. pp. 1-3. Saunier, Ueber de Quellen des Evangeliums des Marcus. Berlin, 1827. 8vo. The above notice of Saunier's hypothesis is given from the Christian Examiner or Church of Ireland Magazine, vol. iv. p. 389. 10 Janssens, Hermeneutique Sacrée, tom. ii. p. 11. Paris, 1828. 8vo. 11 "If I follow another writer, and copy the substance of his account in other words, I make it my own, and become responsible, as a second wit ness; but if I take his very words, my account is resolvable into his, and it is still but one testimony." 12 Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists, pp. 38-35. 385 But, further, "the copying of one book from another is usually the resource either of ignorance or indolence. Of ignorance, when the writer has no knowledge of the facts, except what he derives from the author whom he copies: of indolence, when, though previously informed, he takes the statement of another, which he approves, to save himself the thought and trouble which would be required for forming an original narrative. With respect, then, to the evangelists, above all other writers, we may surely ask, if they knew not of a certainty what they undertook to write, why did they undertake it? But if they knew from their own recollection or inquiries, why should they copy from any other person? If they thought a new narrative was wanted, why should they copy one which was already to be had? If they are supposed to have copied through ignorance, why did they presume to alter even a single word? If they copied through indolence, the very same indolence would doubtless have led them to copy word for word, which is much more easy than to copy with variations, but which it never can be pretended they have done, for many lines together. I know but of one more supposition, which can be made, and that is so dishonourable to the evangelists, that I think no sincere Christian could be induced to make it. It is this. That they copied, indeed, through ignorance or indolence, or both, but inserted slight alterations, as they went on, for the purpose of disguising or concealing their thefts. Should an enemy even presume to say this, for surely no other would say it, to him I would boldly reply, that, if so, they were very awkward and blundering contrivers; for they altered so very little, that copying has been generally imputed to them: and yet sometimes so indiscreetly, that their differences have been, without reason indeed, but hastily, regarded as contradictions." 2. It does not appear that any of the learned ancient Christian writers had a suspicion, that either of the first three evangelists had seen the other Gospels before he wrote his own. They say, indeed, "that when the three first-written Gospels had been delivered to all men, they were also brought to Saint John, and that he confirmed the truth of their narration; but said, that there were some things omitted by them which might be profitably related:" or, "that he wrote fast, supplying some things which had been omitted by the former evangelists." To mention no others, Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea,2 Epiphanius,3 Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jerome, express themselves in this manner. Towards the close of the fourth century, indeed, or early in the fifth, Augustine supposed that the first three evangelists were not totally ignorant of each other's labours, and considered Mark's Gospel as an abridgment of Saint Matthew's; but he was the first of the fathers who advocated that notion, and it does not appear that he was followed by any succeeding writers, until it was revived in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, by Grotius and others. 3. It is not suitable to the character of any of the evangelists, that they should abridge or transcribe another historian. Matthew was an apostle and an eye-witness, and consequently was able to write from his own knowledge; or, if there were any parts of our Lord's ministry at which he was not present, he might obtain information from his fellow-apostles or other eye-witnesses. And, with respect to things which happened before the calling of the apostles (as the nativity, infancy, and youth of Christ), the apostles might ascertain them from our Saviour himself, or from his friends and acquaintance, on whose information they could depend. of things related in them, except a few necessary facts. But there is no certain evidence, either that Mark knew that Matthew had written a Gospel before him, or that Luke knew that the two evangelists had written Gospels before him. If Mark had seen the work of Matthew, it is likely that he would have remained satisfied with it as being the work of an apostle of Christ, that is, an eve witness, which he was not. Nor would Luke, who, from the beg ning of his Gospel, appears to have been acquainted with severa memoirs of the sayings and actions of Christ, have omitted to say that one or more of them was written by an apostle, as Matthew was.-His silence, therefore, is an additional proof that the first three evangelists were totally unacquainted with any previous authentic written history of Christ. 5. The seeming contradictions occurring in the first three Gospels (all of which, however, admit of easy solutions), are an additional evidence that the evangelists did not write by cou cert, or after having seen each other's Gospels. 6. In some of the histories recorded by all these three evan gelists, there are small varieties and differences, which plain show the same thing. In illustration of this remark, it will suffice to refer to and con. pare the accounts of the healing of the demoniac or demoniacs in the country of the Gadarenes (Matt. viii. 28-34. with Mark v. 1-20. and Luke viii. 26-40.); the account of our Lord's transf guration on the mount (Matt. xvii. 1-13. with Mark ix. 1-13. and Luke ix. 28-36.), and the history of the healing of the young man after our Saviour's descent from the mount. (Matt. xvii. 14-21. with Mark ix. 14-29. and Luke ix. 37-42.) In each of the ac counts here cited, the agreeing circumstances which are discovers ble in them, clearly prove that it is the same history, but there are also several differences equally evident in them. Whoever, there that the evangelical historians did not copy or borrow from each fore, diligently attends to these circumstances, must be sensible other. 7. There are some very remarkable things related in Saint Matthew's Gospel, of which neither Saint Mark nor Saint Luke has taken any notice. Such are the extraordinary events recorded in Matt. ii. xxvii. 19. xxvii. 51-53. and xxviii. 11–15.: some or all of which would have been noticed by Mark or Luke, had they written with a view of abridging or confirming Matthew's history. It is also very observ able, that Luke has no account of the miracle of feeding foul lated in Matt. xv. 32-39. and Mark viii. 1-9. The same remark thousand with seven loaves and a few small fishes," which is re is applicable to Luke's Gospel, supposing (as Dr. Macknight and others have imagined) it to have been first written, as it contains many remarkable things not to be found in the other Gospels Now, if Matthew or Mark had written with a view of abridging or confirming Luke's history, they would not have passed by those things without notice. 8. All the first three evangelists have several things peculiar to themselves; which show that they did not borrow from each other, and that they were all well acquainted with the things of which they undertook to write a history. Many such peculiar relations occur in Matthew's Gospel, besides those just cited; and both Mark10 and Luke," as we have already seen, have many similar things, so that it is needless to adduce any additional instances. 9. Lastly, Dr. Mill has argued that the similarity of style and composition is a proof that these evangelists had seen each other's writings. But this argument in Dr. Lardner's judgment is insufficient. In fact, Mill himself allows12 that a very close agreement may easily subsist between two authors writing on the same subject in the Greek language.13 Mark, if not one of Christ's seventy disciples, was (as we have already seen) an early Jewish believer, acquainted with all the apostles, and especially with Saint Peter, as well as with many other eye-witnesses: consequently he was well qualified to write a Gospel; and that he did not abridge Matthew, we have shown by an induction of various particulars. Luke, though not one of Christ's seventy disciples, nor an eye-witness of his discourses and actions, was a disciple and companion of the apostles, and especially of Paul; he must therefore have been well qualified to write a Gospel. Besides, as we have shown in a former page, it is manifest, from his introduction, that he knew not of any authen-critics have attempted to explain the verbal harmony ob tic history of Jesus Christ that had been then written; and he expressly says, that he had accurately traced all things from the source in succession or order, and he professes to write of them to Theophilus. After such an explicit declaration as this is, to affirm that he transcribed many things from one historian, and still more from another, is no less than a contradiction of the evangelist III. The SECOND hypothesis, by which some distinguished servable in the first three Gospels, is that which derives them from some COMMON GREEK OF HEBREW DOCUMENT OF source, which occasioned the evangelists so frequently to adopt the same terms and forms of expression. Le Cler was the first writer to whom this idea occurred; and after it had lain dormant upwards of sixty years, it was revived and 4. It is evident from the nature and design of the first three advocated by Koppe, and has been modified in various Gospels, that the evangelists had not seen any authentic writ-ways by subsequent writers, so that (as it has been severely ten history of Jesus Christ. himself. There can be no doubt but that John had seen the other three Gospels; for, as he is said to have lived to a great age, so it appears from his Gospel itself that he carefully avoided the repetition Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists, pp. 168-170. 2 See the passages from Eusebius in Dr. Lardner's Works, Svo. vol. iv. pp. 226, 227.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 369. a Ibid. 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 314, 315.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 418. Ibid. 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 511, 512.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 529. Ibid. 8vo. vol. v. p. 93.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 583. See p. 304. of this volume. See pp. 306, 307, of this volume. See p. 311. supra. but not unjustly remarked) "hypothesis has been knocked n the fourth German edition of his Introducning his former opinion that Mark copied ,"attributes the verbal harmony of all three the use of the same documents. But, as he St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, he supposes, hew himself, but his Greek translator, had same Greek document or documents which 1 both by St. Mark and St. Luke; and that he verbal harmony between the Greek Gostthew and the Gospels of St. Mark and St. 1783, intimated rather than enunciated the f a common Hebrew or Syriac document or hence the first three evangelists derived the erials of their Gospels. The hypothesis of subsequently adopted by Berchtold, who at the verbal conformity in the corresponding Our Gospels was produced by the alterations 8.4 SING asserted the hypothesis of a common aldee original, which he supposes to be the ding to the Hebrews, or the Gospel according e Apostles. From this Gospel he imagines (who in his opinion wrote only in Greek), uke, derived the principal materials of their accordingly translated it more or less fully, s closely into Greek. Niemeyer," Halfeld, adopted and improved upon Lessing's notion: ws have been eclipsed. Professor EICHHORN, of whose earlier modifie hypothesis of a primary document, Bishop iven an interesting account. According to mypothesis, as developed in the second edition man) Introduction to the New Testament,10 four copies of the Aramaic Original which basis of the first three Gospels; which with ive translations he thus designates: aic Text of the original doctrine, with some great additions now found in St. Matthew. This rly translated. c Text, with sonie of the greater additions now Luke. Not translated independently. ie Text compounded of A. and B. This forms rk's Gospel, having been either translated by f, or an early translation of it having been reDy him. ic Text, with some of the other great additions Luke, which was also translated early. ew's Aramaic Text, composed out of A. and cept some additions made by St. Matthew himho arranged the whole of the original Gospel e additions chronologically. The translator of nto Greek used the early translations of A. Aramaic Text, composed of B. and D. (except additions peculiar to St. Luke), and translated mself, with the assistance of the existing transof D. B. is thus common to St. Mark and St. but they had no common translation of it." ne, it will be seen, on comparison, does not ly vary from that proposed by LARSH, in his elaborate "Dissertation on the 1 Composition of our first three Gospels." After aratory steps, assigning reasons for the rejection 1. ch. 5. sect. 5. of Bp. Marsh's translation. Michaelis, vol. iii. part 2. p. 186. s to his German translation of Dr. Townson's Discourses. andlungen über die vier Evangelien, vol. i. pp. 221. 290.) ni. part 2. p. 187. Kuinöel, Comment. in Lib. Hist. Nov. olegom. pp. 3, 4. of Berchtold's hypothesis will be found in the Introduction ranslation of Schleiermacher's Critical Essay on the Gospel .xcvi. Xevij. Theologischer Nachlass (Theological Remains), pp. 45-72., arsh, vol. iii. part 2. pp. 187, 188. Conjecturæ ad illustrandum plurimorum N. T. Scriptorum rimordiis Jesu Christi. Halae, 1790. 4to. ommentatio de Origine quatuor Evangeliorum et de eorum ritate. Gottinge, 1794. 4to. troductio in N. T. capita selectiora, quibus in originem, scomentorun Evangeliorum et Actuu. Apostolorum inquiritur. vol. iii. part 2. pp. 181-205. g in das N. T. vol. i. 1820. preceding abstract of Eichhorn's latest hypothesis, the author the learned reviewer of Schleiermacher's Essay on the Gos e in the British Critic and Theol. Review, vol. ii. pp. 346, 317. 6. of other hypotheses, and various forms of this hypothesis, Bishop Marsh proposes his own in the following terms, marking the common Hebrew document, which he supposes the evangelist to have consulted, by the sign s, and certain translations of it with more or less additions by the letters a, B, &c. "Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, and Saint Luke, all three, used copies of the common Hebrew document : the materials of which Saint Matthew, who wrote in Hebrew, retained in the language in which he found them, but Saint Mark and Saint Luke translated them into Greek. They had no knowledge of each other's Gospel; but Saint Mark and Saint Luke, besides their copies of the Hebrew documents, used a Greek translation of it, which had been made before any of the additions a, e, &c. had been inserted. Lastly, as the Gospels of Saint Mark and Saint Luke contain Greek translations of Hebrew materials which were incorporated into Saint Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, the person who translated Saint Matthew's Hebrew Gospel into Greek frequently derived assistance from the Gospel of Saint Mark, where Saint Mark had matter in common with Saint Matthew; and in those places, but in those places only, where Saint Mark had no matter in common with Matthew, he had frequently recourse to St. Luke's Gospel." 1712 The hypothesis thus stated and determined, its author conceives, will account for all the phenomena relative to the verbal agreement and disagreement of our first three Gospels, as well as for the other manifold relations which they bear to each other; and he has accommodated it with great attention to particular circumstances, enumerated by him in the former part of his "Dissertation on the Origin of the first three Gospels," which circumstances, however, we have not room to detail. This document, he thinks, may have been entitled in Greek, ΔΙΗΓΗΣΙΣ περι των πεπλι ροφορημένων εν ημιν πραγμάτων, καθώς παρέδοσαν ημίν οι απ' αρχής αυτίπται και υπηρεται του λόγου, that is, A NARRATIVE of those things which are most firmly believed among us, even as they, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, delivered them unto us. Consequently, if this conjecture be well founded, the document in question is actually referred to by Saint Luke.13 In addition also to this supposed first Hebrew document & and its translations, Bishop Marsh supposes the existence of a supplemental Hebrew document, which he calls 2, and which contained a collection of precepts, parables, and discourses, delivered by our Saviour on various occasions, but not arranged in chronological order. This he terms a Troux, and conceives that it was used only by Matthew and Luke, who had copies of it differing from each other. In order to unite the two hypotheses of Eichhorn and Bishop Marsh, Professor GRATZ supposes that there was a Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic original Gospel for the use of the preachers of the Christian faith in Palestine, from which Matthew composed his Hebrew Gospel. When they began to propagate the Christian doctrines in other countries, this original Gospel was translated into Greek, and enriched with several additions. From this version Mark and Luke composed their books, and hence arose the agreement both as to facts and expressions, which is observable in their respective Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew was also translated into Greek, in executing which version the translator made use of the writings of Mark, whence he also sometimes interpolated Matthew; and this circumstance gave rise to a similarity between them as to matter, in places where Luke differs from them. But the agreement between Matthew and Luke, to the exclusion of Mark, was effected by subsequent interpolations, since these passages were transcribed from the Gos12 Michaelis, vol. iii. part 2. p. 361. 13 Michaelis, vol. iii. part 2. pp. 363. 368. But the absence of the Greek article is fatal to the conjecture of Bishop Marsh, and proves that the supposed document never existed. The force of this objection seems to have struck the inind of that learned writer; for he has candidly left it to others to determine whether his conjecture is not rendered abortive by the want of the article before dizyzow (narrative or declaration) in Luke i. 1. On this topic Bishop Middleton is decisively of opinion that it is rendered totally abortive. With respect to the Greek article, he remarks, that "the rule is, that the title of a book, as prefixed to the book, should be anarthrous" (i. e. without the article); "but that when the book is referred to, the article should be inserted." And he adduces, among other instances, Hesiod's poem, entitled Armis Нpaxλ.sous (Hercules's Shield), which Longinus thius citesεγε Ησιόδου και ΤΗΝ Ασπιδαθετέον (if indeed THB shield may be ascribed to Hesiod). Bishop Middleton on the Greek article, p. 289. first edition. In the two following pages he has controverted the translation of Luke i. 1-4. proposed by the translator of Michaelis. pel of Matthew into that of Luke; and in those places, where the original Gospel has no additions, they all agree in matter as well as harmonize in words.' 1 3 The modifications of the hypothesis that there was an original Aramæan Gospel, proposed by Eichhorn and Bishop Marsh, have been adopted by Kuinoel, Schoell, and some other continental critics; but they have been strenuously opposed, on the continent, by Professor Hug, and in this country by the late Bishops Randolphs and Middleton, Bishop Gleig, the editors of the British Critic, and other distinguished writers, of whose arguments and reasonings the following is an abstract:- 6 ing as well for the harmony as for the discrepancies which we find among the several abridgments made by the first three evangelists But, that the apostles met for such a purpose as this, before they left Jerusalem, has never been supposed; and, indeed, the hypetionable testimonies of the earliest uninspired writers of the chures thesis, had it even been made and supported by the most unexcep would deserve no regard whatever, unless these writers had eat declared, without collusion among themselves, that he had po sessed a copy of the original record. Even then, unless a copy of it were still in existence, from which we might, from internal evidence, decide on its claims to an apostolical origin, we shotis Constitutions, to admit the authenticity of such a record. Te hesitate, after the imposture of the book called the Apostoles! apostles, in a state of persecution, had not the same facilities for 1. Supposing such a theory to be necessary, in order to ac- publicly recording the actions of their Lord, as the ministers of count for the verbal similarities and differences of the first state, called the Scribe and the Recorder, possessed in the keg three evangelists (which necessity, however, is by no means dorns of Judah and Israel for writing registers of the deeds of ther admitted), the obvious fault of this hypothesis, in all its modifi-ing to any such record, while the writers of the historical books respective sovereigns; nor do we ever find the evangelists appea cations, is its extreme complexity. of the Old Testament frequently appeal to the annals or chrometes of the kingdom.13 A common record, from which all the evange lists selected the materials of their histories, must, therefore, abandoned as an hypothesis perfectly groundless, notwithstanding all the learning and ingenuity which have been displayed in sup port of that hypothesis." To omit the earlier modifications which have yielded to the schemes of Eichhorn and Bishop Marsh:-According to the former there are an Aramaic original Gospel, which was translated into Greek, and five compilations from it, with various additions. According to the latter there are two Hebrew or Aramaic documents, and several Greek versions, with additions gratuitously supposed, which the algebraical notations, introduced by their author, can scarcely enable the reader to distinguish from each other. To describe the sources of Saint Matthew's Gospel by this method, not fewer than seven marks are employed; viz. N, a, y, A, r1, 2, and г2. Besides these, there are the marks peculiar to Saint Luke or Saint Mark, 6, B, and 8.-in all, ten different signs standing for so many separate documents or modifications of documents; and all these gratuitously supposed without proof for the existence of one among the number. This hypothesis Bishop Marsh considers as simple; but, with every possible deference to such an authority in all matters respecting biblical literature, it is submitted, that few persons will be found to coincide in his opinion. And although he states, with respect to the steps of this hypothesis, that "there is no improbability attending any one of them; they are neither numerous nor complicated:" yet we must observe that, altogether, they are both numerous, and, consequently, by the combinations supposed in their application, they become extremely complicated. Further, though no particular step may be in itself improbable, yet the discovery of ten different sources to certain works, by mere analysis, is a circumstance of the highest improbability, and forms such a discovery as was never yet made in the world, and probably never will be made; because, if not absolutely impossible, it approaches so nearly to impossibility, that the mind can scarcely conceive a distinction.10 2. But if either of these hypotheses would solve, without difficulty or exception, all the phenomena," of every description, which are assumed to exist in the first three Gospels, the TOTAL SILENCE of ecclesiastical antiquity presents a direct and invincible argument against the existence of any such primary document. (1.) To commence with the apostolic age-is it to be supposed that there ever existed a work of such approved excellence, and such high authority, as to become the basis of the first three Gospels, and yet that nothing-not even the memory of it should survive that age?12 Were we indeed as certain, that the apostles, before they separated, had really met for the purpose of drawing up a copious and authentic history of their Divine Master's life and doctrines, as we are that an authentic record was kept at Jerusalem of the reigns of the different kings, the state of religion under each, and the preaching of the prophets, this would be by much the easiest, and, perhaps, the most satisfactory method of account Gratz, Neuer Versuch, die Enstehung der drey ersten Evangelien zu erklären (Tubingen, 1812), cited in Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 83. There is an abstract of Gratz's scheme, with remarks by the translator of Schleiermacher (Introd. pp. Ixxxvi.-xciii.), who considers it "to be not only unwarranted, but contradicted by every memorial we have remain. ing, of the earliest transactions in Christian history." 2 Comm. in Hist. Lib. Nov. Test. vol. i. pp. 7-9. (2.) If we consult the writings of the apostolical fathers, whe were the immediate disciples of the apostles and evangelists, w shall find that the same silence prevails among them; for, although they did not cite by name the various books of the New Testamer (the canon not being completed until the close of the first century, yet in their allusions to the evangelical writings they refer to our four Gospels, and do not so much as intimate the existence of anr other document. Ignatius, who flourished in the beginning of the second century (A. D. 107), is supposed to have mentioned the book of the Gospels under the term "Gospel," and the Epistles under that of "Apostles;"15 but as this point has been controverted b learned men, we shall waive any positive evidence which mai be offered from his writings, observing only that he nowhere alludes or refers to any other books of the New Testament, besides those which have been transmitted to us; and that his silence concernent the existence of any other document affords a very strong sumptive argument against its existence. Let us now consider the evidence of the fathers who were either contemporary with Jena tius, or who lived within a few years of his time. The first witnes we shall adduce is Papias, who flourished A. D. 116, and had co versed with apostolical men, that is, with those who had been the immediate disciples of the apostles. It is remarkable, that the father refers to no primary document whatever; but, on the cas trary, he bears a most express testimony to the number of the G pels, which were only four, in his day.16 Four-and-twenty yeas afterwards lived Justin Martyr, whose evidence is still more ex plicit:—for instead of quoting any such source, under the name AMVHMONSUMATE THE A, or "Memoirs of the Apostles," he Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, and, in short, every subsequen expressly declares that he means the Gospels. Tatian, Ireneus ecclesiastical writer of antiquity, is equally explicit as to the nam ber of the Gospels, and equally silent as to the existence of any source whence the evangelists derived the materials of their Gos pels.18 3. The incongruities and apparent contradictions, which (as we have seen) form a strong objection against the stiphosition that the evangelists copied from each other, form an objection no less strong against the supposition that they all copied from one and the same document." For if, as this hypothesis requires, they all adhered to their do cument, no difference could have arisen between them; but they 13 See, among a variety of such appeals, 1 Kings xvi. 19. and 1Chrea xxvii. 24. 14 Bp. Gleig's edition of Stackhouse's History of the Bible, vol. iii p. 103. 15 On this topic, see Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo, vol. ii. p. 51. ; 4to ver i p. 322. 16 See the testimony of Papias in Dr. Lardner's Works, Sro. vol. pp. 107-110.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 337, 338. In his first apology for the Christians, which was delivered to ** Emperor Antoninus Pius (c. 66.), Justin gives the following reason for ti celebration of the Lord's supper among the Christians:-" For the apost in the Memoirs (nouveμovize) composed by them, which are co $ GOSPELS (* *22:21 ETATI EAIA), have thus assured us, that Jesus or Dr. Randolph in his "Remarks on Michaelis's Introduction, Svo. vols.dered them to do it; that he took bread, gave thanks, and then said, 'īts iii. and iv." London, 1902. On the Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp. 286-291. 7 In his valuable edition of Stackhouse's History of the Bible, vol. iii. pp. 103-112. Brit. Crit. vol. xxi. (O. S.) p. 178. et seq. Brit. Crit. and Theological Review, vol. ii. pp. 347-350. Particularly Mr. Veysie, in his "Examination of Mr. Marsh's Hypothe. sis," 8vo. London, 1808, and Mr. Falconer, in his Bampton Lectures for 1810. p. 105. et seq. See also the Christian Observer for 1808, vol. viii. pp. 623-628., and the late Dr. Milner's Strictures on some of the Publications of the Rev. Herbert Marsh, D.D. Lond. 1913, Svo. in Brit. Crit. vol. xxi. (O, S.) p. 180. Mr. Veysie has instituted a minute examination of Bishop Marsh's statement of the phenomena observable in the first three Gospels, in which ne has shown its incompetency to explain those phenomena. As this in vestigation is not of a nature to admit of abridgment, we refer the reader to Mr. V's "Examination," pp. 12-50. 12 On the subject here necessarily treated with brevity, see Mr. Falconer's Bampton Lectures for 1810, pp. 115-120. do in remembrance of ine; this is my body that in like manner he tor 18 See the references to the individual testimonies of these fathers m the Index to Dr. Lardner's Works, voce Gospels. See also the Bri Critic and Theological Review, vol. ii. pp. 347-350. for some forcible objec tions against the existence of any primary document. greed in relating the same thing in the same man- gene 389 other Gospels were in circulation; that the translator made great use of them, frequently copying their very words where they suited his purpose; that, however, he made most use of Mark's Gospel, having recourse to that of Luke only when he could derive no assistance from the other; and that where he had no doubt, or perceived no difficulty, he frequently translated for himself, without looking for assistance from either Mark or Luke.4 ference to that of Bishop Marsh. That it accounts for all the Such is the hypothesis proposed by Mr. Veysie in prephenomena, which have, in Germany, been supposed to involve so many difficulties, we have no inclination to controvert; for, as he observes of his lordship's hypothesis, " being framed by a man of genius and learning, principally with a view to explain the phenomena which the author had RD hypothesis, which has been offered, to observed, it may reasonably be expected to answer, in every verbal similarities and disagreements in the point of importance, the purpose for which it was intended." pels, is that of A PLURALITY OF DOCUMENTS. We are even ready to grant, that it answers this purpose esis there have been two modifications:-one -. Mr. Veysie, the other by Professor Schleier-chaelis, of which, therefore, it may be considered as an immore completely than that of the learned translator of Migenius as to invent. Both, however, are mere hypotheses, provement; but to improve requires not the same effort of rejects them cannot by argument or testimony be compelled or rather complications of various hypotheses, which he who to admit; while both appear to us to detract much from the authority which has hitherto been allowed to the first three Gospels. gives the following description of his hypoostles, both in their public preaching and in e conversations, were doubtless accustomed instruct and improve their hearers by the me action or discourse of our blessed Saviour. ious Christians, unwilling to trust to memory Le preservation of these valuable communicating their Redeemer, were induced to commit he preaching of the apostles while it was fresh nory. And thus at a very early period, before anonical Gospels were written, believers were -n of many narratives of detached parts of the esus;-drawn up, some in the Hebrew lanothers in the Greek. Of the Hebrew narraost important was soon translated into Greek, -fit of the Greek Christians, to whom they were le in the original, and vice versa." -se detached narratives Mr. Veysie is of opinion t three canonical Gospels were principally comthe authors of these Gospels, he thinks that as one was an eye-witness, he alone could write mal knowledge of the facts which he recorded; en he did not judge it expedient to draw excluhis own stores, but blended with these deratives such additional facts and discourses as Spirit brought to his remembrance. Mark, our ther thinks, had no knowledge of Matthew's nd having collected materials for a Gospel, he hem numerous explanations in order to adapt he use of the Gentile converts, together with cumstances, the knowledge of which he probaed from Peter. And he is of opinion also, that piled his Gospel from similar detached narray of which were the same as had been used by evangelists, though some of them had been by different persons, and perhaps from the of other apostles; and that Luke, being diligent uiries and researches, was enabled to add greatly amber. Matthew, Mr. V. thinks, wrote in Hethe other two evangelists in Greek. "But ng a plain unlettered man, and but meanly skilled eek language, was, for the most part, satisfied very words of his Greek documents, and with literal version of such as he translated from the Whereas Luke, being a greater master of the nguage, was more attentive to the diction, and y expressed the meaning of his documents in re words, and a more elegant form. Only he more closely to the very expression of his docuwhen he came to insert quotations from the Old ent, or to recite discourses and conversations, and ly the discourses of our blessed Saviour. Both nd Luke adhered to the arrangement which they those documents which contained more facts than The documents themselves they arranged in chroal order. All the evangelists connected the docuone with another, each for himself and in his own Our author also conjectures that Matthew's Gos5 translated into Greek some time after the two To this author's detached narratives the same objections seem to lie which he has so forcibly urged against the very existence of Bishop Marsh's documents, and which have been already stated. Some of these narratives must have been of considerable length; for some of the examples of verbal agreement, which they have occasioned between Matthew and Mark, are very long and remarkable. They must likewise have been deemed of great importance, since they were translated from Hebrew into Greek for the benefit of the Greek Christians; and appear, indeed, from this account of them, to have furnished the whole matter of Mark's Gospel, except the explanation of some Jewish customs and names, and some circumstances acquired from Peter. Such narratives as these are exactly Bishop Marsh's documents, and one of them his document & an entire Gospel, of which not even the memory survived the apostolic age.5 2. of The hypothesis of Professor Schleiermacher, who is one of the most distinguished classical scholars in Germany, is developed in his "Critical Essays on the Gospel of Saint Luke."6 He supposes that there existed, at a very early period, detached narratives of remarkable incidents in the life of Jesus Christ, of his miracles, and discourses; which were collected by different individuals with various objects. From these minor collections Dr. Schleiermacher conceives that the works now called Gospels might be framed; and he is of opinion that Saint Luke formed his Gospel by the mere juxta-position of these separate narratives, without any alteration whatever on the part of the compiler, except the addition of copulative particles. The result of the examination which he institutes in support of his hypothesis is, that the evangelist "is neither an independent writer, nor has made a compilation from works which extended over the whole life of Jesus;" and that "he is, from beginning to end, no more than a compiler and arranger of what he found in existence, and which he allows to pass unaltered through his hands." The only difference between this hypothesis and that of Mr. Veysie is, that the latter supposes the first Christians to have made memoranda of what they heard in the public preaching and private conversation of the apostles; while, according to Professor Schleiermacher, the meino randa of the Christians were collected by various persons, as chance or inclination directed them. On the continent, his hypothesis has been attacked by Fritsch, Plank, and Gersdorf; and in this country it has been examined and refuted at great length by the learned author of the critique upon his essay in the British Critic and Quarterly Theo • Examination of Mr. Marsh's Hypothesis, pp. 100, 101. British Critic, vol. xxxiv. (O. S.) p. 114. An hypothesis similar to that Mr. Veysie was offered by a learned writer in the Eclectic Review (vol. viii. part i. pp. 423, 424.); but as it is liable to the same objections as Mr. V's, this brief notice of it may suffice. A Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke, by Dr. Frederick Schleiermacher, with an Introduction by the translator, containing an account of the controversy respecting the origin of the first three Gospels since Bishop Marsh's Dissertation. London, 1825. 8vo. The original German work was published at Berlin, in 1817. 1 Schleiermacher, p. 313. British Critic and Theol. Rev. vol. ii. p. 354. |