The other witness is Papias, who lived during the first quarter of the zd century, and was acquainted, as he tells us, with many of the dis ciples of the Apostles. It appears from his testi mony, as given in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39, that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were well known before the time of Papias.
On the whole, it may be concluded that the historical testimonies in favour of our present Gospels are not merely equal, but far superior to those which can be adduced for any other writings of the same antiquity.
In proceeding to consider the mutual relations and peculiarities of the Canonical Gospels,' we are struck with the many points of resemblance or correspondence among the first three Gospels. In consequence of the combined view and harmony which seems to characterise them, as contra-dis tinguished from the fourth Gospel, they are called the Synoptic Gospels.' Before inquiring how the correspondences among the first three Gospels are to be explained, it will be necessary for us to have a just idea of the pheno menon itself. Many portions of the history of Jesus (remarks Mr. Norton, who has minutely investigated the subject), are found in common in the first three Gospels, others are common to IWO of their number, but not found in the third. In the passages referred to, there is generally a simi larity, sometimes a very great similarity, in the selection of particular circumstances, in the aspect under which the event is viewed, and the style in which it is related. Sometimes the language found in different Gospels, though not identical, is equi valent or nearly equivalent; and not unfrequently, the same series of words, with or without slight variations, occurs throughout the whole or a great part of a sentence, and even in larger portions ' (Genuineness of the Gospels, p. 24o).
Mr. Westcott exhibits the proportion of con e spondences and peculiarities in several numerical tables : If (he says), the extent of all the coincidences be represented by too, their proportionate distn bution will be, Matthew, Mark, and Luke 53, Matthew and Luke 21, Matthew and Mark 20, Mark and Luke 6. . . . Looking only at the general result, it may be said that of the contents of the Synoptic Gospels, about two-fifths are com mon to the three, and that the parts peculiar to one or other of them, are little more than one-third of the vvhole.' He adds, in the distribution of the verbal coincidences a very simple law is observ able; they occur most commonly in the recital of the words of our Lord or of others, and are com paratively rare in the simple narrative. Thus, of the verbal coincidences in St. Matthew, about seven-eighths; of those in St. Mark, about four fifths ; and of those in St. Luke, about nineteen twentieths, occur in the record of the words of others' (Introa'uction to the stua'y of the Gospels, P- 179) The following instances may be referred to for illustration, Matthew viii. 2, 3 = Mark i. 4o, 42 = Luke v. 12, 13; Matthew ix. 5, 6 = Mark ii. 9, = Luke v. 23, 24; Matthew xix. 23, 24 = Mark x. 23-25 = Luke xviii. 24, 25. The amount
of agreement, however remarkable, ought not to be over-rated; it occurs chiefly in reporting- the words of Christ. Norton gives, as the most strik ing- instance of vertral coincidence, in the case of narrative, Luke ix. 16 (comp. Matt. xiv. 19; Mark vi. 41).
Along with the instances of correspondence, there are also many instances of difference. This renders the problem difficult of solution. No explanation can be satisfactory, which does not account for both the correspondences and differ ences.
Such is the phenomenon which has provoked so many attempts at explanation. The literature of the subject is of vast extent, and the question is regarded as still unsettled. Our aim in the pre sent article is to inquire how near the principal hypotheses which have been proposed approach to a solution of the difficulty.
r. In order to account for this singular relation ship between the Synoptic Gospels, the first sup position is, that the evangelists copied from one another, or that one evangelist used the Gospels of his predecessors, making such extracts as he thought necessary, with alterations and additions of his own. It is a curious circumstance, however, that the supposition of any one of the evangelists copying from the othcrs is attended with insuper able difficulty. Whichever of them we suppose to be the original evangelist, and whichever we sup pose to be the last, havin,g one or both the others before him, we are unable in this way to explain the phenomenon. There are six possible ways of putting thc case, every one of which has had learned advocates, and this variety of opinion itself is a strong argument against the hypothesis. Gries bach thought that Mark copied from Matthew and Luke, and this opinion is still held by some ; but an opinion in favour of the originality of Mark has of late been gaining ground (Thiersch, Meyer, Weiss). It must, wc think, be evident to any one who attentively compares the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, that the latter cannot with any pro priety be called a copy or abridgment of the former. There is an air of originality and fresh ness in Mark's narratWe which proves the work to be anything but a compilation ; and besides, in several important particulars, Mark differs from Priatthew. No explanation can be satisfactory which does not account for the want of agreement as well as thc agreement between the Gospels. Indeed, it is not easy to see what object Mark or any other of the evangelists could have in compiling a new Gospel out of one or more which were acknowledged to be the works of apostles or their companions, In its simple form,' says Westcott, the supplemental' or dependent' theory is at once inadequate for the solution of the difficulties of the relation of the Synoptic Gospels, and incon sistent with many of its details ; and, as a natural consequence of a deeper study of the Gospels, it is now generally abandoned, except in combination with the other principle of solution' (Westcott on the Gospels, p. 184).