GOSPEL OF.
It is now generally recognized that the °Two Document" theory gives plausible answer to most of the questions involved in the "Synoptic Problem," and consequently scholars are rest ing on it with increasing unanimity and confi dence. At the same time there is no such general agreement as to details in the appli cation of the theory. (1) While the majority would say that Mark in its present form, or a document practically indistinguishable from it, was used in the composition of the first and third Gospels, yet there are such difficulties in the way of this view it has been strongly urged that the authors of Matthew and Luke must have had access to the Marcan material only in forms which had come in the process of transmission to vary widely from each other, or even, as has already been noted, that we must conceive that Mark issued his Gospel in no less than three quite variant editions. (2) It is still fur ther asserted that the Marcan source cannot be explained wholly independently of Q, but that some traces of the latter should be recognized as existent in the former. (3) This suggests, again, the uncertainty which still prevails as to the extent of Q, and even as to its character, that is, as to whether it consisted exclusively of discourse material, or included narrative matter as well. Such uncertainty in regard to these points at least still reigns that it may perhaps be doubted whether, even if, as seems most probable, the "Two Document" theory should permanently maintain itself, it is also reasonable to expect that it will be possible, with the material which we possess, to find satisfactory answer to the questions which arise in its application. Uncertainty as to the exact form in which the sources were at hand for the composition especially of Matthew and Luke is increased by the recognition of the fact, on which emphasis has lately been freshly laid, that the authors of the Gospels were not mere copyists who felt bound exactly and without modification of form to reproduce all the material which was accessible to them, their work consisting merely in piecing it together, but that they were, rather, authors who without doing injustice to their materials, might and very possibly actually did select, arrange and even, to some extent at least, rewrite them in accordance with their own purposes. Thus, for example, the fivefold arrangement of the discourse material in Matthew might be due, not to some source which lay before him, but to the final author himself.
Aftitr the acceptance of the Docu niletit" theory, question still remains as to the ultimate origin of a certain amount of rial, relatively small on the whole, which seems to some to stand outside the natural scope of both Q and the Marcan source. One example is the apocalyptic discourse of Jesus, which, to be sure, is found in all the Synoptics. The criticism which separates this from the Marcan source is, however, wholly subjective and the assumption that Jesus cannot have uttered such a discourse has been fairly styled °purely gra tuitous?' As to the "Infancy" chapters in Matthew and Luke the case stands quite differ ently and for this material special sources must be sought. It has been suggested with great
plausibility that the matter in this section of Luke was obtained from the daughters of Philip the evangelist, or, even more plausibly still, from Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward. In the latter case it may reasonably be believed that the large section of matter in Luke without parallel elsewhere (Lk. ix, 51–xviii, 14) was due to the same source.
The Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Other Three.— Most of the difficulties con nected with the fourth Gospel relate simply to the book taken by itself, and the discussion of them has no place in an article concerned only with what belongs to all the Gospels or to several of them (see article JOHN, GOSPEL or). One important and difficult problem, however, grows out of the contrast which appears in many ways between the fourth Gospel (John) and the other three. Their unlikeness is so great that it is scarcely surprising that some have felt that they were positively inconsistent, that if the Synoptics are accepted as authentic, the unauthenticity of John must follow. But on more careful study many of the superficial unlikenesses lose their apparent significance. For example, the mention of three passovers in John and of but one in the other Gospels might seem to give an irreconcilable contradiction as to the length of the ministry of Jesus, but it is very possible that the Synoptics simply failed to mention the occurrence of passovers not con nected with the events which they described, and there is good reason to hold that the ministry as recorded in those Gospels requires a duration of much more than a year. Most of the events in the active ministry of Jesus as recorded in John occurred in Judea, while the scene of the synoptic reports is laid in Galilee, but the ministry is not so reported by either as to forbid the acceptance of the other. It is needless to multiply examples. Some diffi culties remain unsolved, as to find in harmony with the synoptic reports a place for the rais ing of Lazarus, but it is to be remembered that both sets of reports are exceedingly frag mentary and that fuller information, could we obtain it, might relieve the situation. If it is found impossible to reconcile the statements of John and the Synoptics as to the day of the crucifixion, whether the 14th or the 15th of the month (not All critics are sure that there is a clear contradiction), it remains to be settled whether the statements in John may not have been written with the definite purpose to cor rect the synoptic reports. While it is now recognized that °harmonizing," i.e., the fitting together in their order of all the events re corded, is less easy and certain than was for merly thought, because of the fragmentary char acter of all the reports, yet the same frag mentariness makes it less easy to assert with confidence that John and the Synoptic Gos pels are contradictory or even inconsistent.