It is impossible to say whether this hypothesis of the origin of the gospels be really the correct one of not; all we need to say is, that it seems to possess more probability in itself than any hypothesis of a common written source, from which they were respectively borrowed, and which has disappeared. It fits, moreover, into the facts of the case.—Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 189.
According to this view of the origin of the gospels, that of St. Mark, if not the oldest in composition, is yet probably the most direct and primitive in form. In its lifelike simplicity and comparative unconsciousness of aim, it represents most immediately the apostolic preaching; it is the testimony delivered by St. Peter, possibly with little adaptation. Historical evidence, as we have already said, is uniform as to the associa tion of Mark and Peter: Mark is everywhere interpres Petri. The gospels. of St. Mat thew and St. Luke, again, "represent the two great types of recension to which it May be supposed that the simple narrative was subjected. St. Luke represents the Hellenic, and St. Matthew the later Hebraic form of the tradition, and in its present shape the latter seems to give the last authentic record of the primitive gospel." A common oral gospel seems also to present the most natural explanation of the accordances and variations of the three synoptic gospels. The words of the Lord, which present in all such a marked uniformity, would necessarily assume a more fixed char acter in such an oral tradition, while the narrative surrounding them would remain comparatively free. Single phrases of a peculiar and important character would be closely retained: there woald be, exactly as we find, a uniform strain of hallowed lan guage mingeng with variations in detail—a unity of tone, and even of speech, with variety of modulation and emphasis.
The development of the famous Tubingen theory of the origin of the gospels, by F. C. Baur (q. v.), marked an important epoch hi critical study. He sought the cause of the differences between the several gospel's, not in vague myths or the fantasy of indi viduals, but in the dominant spiritual tendencies of the apostolic age. He -gavb greater scope to the influence of such tendencies 'by adopting the view that the latest of the gospels, John's, was not written till about 170 A.D. The most characteristic thought of Bluff's criticism was that the, gospel of John is not a historical record, but a designedly dogmatical work, in which the historical element is but the transparent envelope of the theological truths, and is used as the artistic for a body of profound religious thought. The three synoptic gospele, of which Baur assumed Matthew's to he the earliest, are much freer from dogmatic presupposition, though in Matthew a Judaical, and in Luke a Pauline influence is traceable.
Since Banes time, all critics are either his supporters or his opponents. The litera ture is most. voluminous. The chief recent names are Bleck, Weisse, Ewald (against Baur). WeizsScker, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, and Reins. The orthodox view is well repre sented by Westcott's introduction to the Study of the Gospels, and Tischendorf's }Vann zee rden -unsere Ecangelien verfasst 7 (Eng. trans. 1867).