* PRINCETON, N. J. , 5/5^^ Section k 4^.»....VJ f..>».) Number It THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM THE SYNOPTIC PEOBLEM FOR ENGLISH READERS BY ALFRED J. JOLLEY ILoittion MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK 1893 All rights res&rved Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God : because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby knoAv ye the Spirit of God : every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. 1 John iv. 1, 2. PREFACE The existence and importance of the Syn- optic Problem are ignored by the majority of Englishmen, cleric and lay. Unpre- judiced study of the gospels, on which so much of popular Christianity is based, is surely desirable, and it is hoped may be promoted by this little work. Frank ac- ceptance of its results does not involve, as might be hastily assumed or recklessly asserted, denial of the Divine Nature and Mission of Jesus. The Gospels, though they have promoted, did not originate belief in His Divine Nature. They are not the cause, but an effect, of that belief. VI PREFACE Doubtless the student who, first freeing himself as far as possible from prejudice, compares carefully the Synoptic Gospels, will arrive at some conclusions not usually regarded as orthodox ; but the lover of truth will not be deterred by words or by any fear of consequences. The work is intended for English readers ; and in the version of the Primi- tive Gospel, the text of the Authorised version has, as far as possible, been adhered to. The original Greek has, however, in every passage been care- fully read, the various readings have received due consideration, and it is hoped that the version is not unworthy of the perusal of scholars, and may be suggestive and helpful to the general reader. The Appendices and Indices will facili- tate reference, and may help English PREFACE vii readers to understand not only the true value of the gospels, but the difficulties in the way of a complete and satisfactory solution of the Synoptic Problem. Note. — The Canonical writings known as the gospels according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John are respectively referred to as the first, second, third, and fourth gospels. The abbreviations A.V. for the Authorised Translation of the Bible, RV. for the Revised Version, O.T. for Old Testament, and N.T. for New Testament, also, sometimes P.G. for Primitive Gospel, are used. CHAPTER I That the first, second, and third gospels resemble each other, both in matter and style, much more closely than any one of them resembles the fourth, must be evi- dent to every reader of the N.T. It is equally evident to a careful reader that each of the three clearly exhibits an individuality forbidding the belief that one is a mere copy of another, and sufficiently pronounced to convince him of the fact that, though the title Synoptic is commonly ap- plied to the first three gospels, and is of practical convenience, it is, from a strict etymologist's point of view, indefensible. It has been the almost universal belief of Christians, from the second century to our own time, that the four gospels are divinely 2 -. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM inspired ; and this belief has tended to pre- vent inquiry into the causes of the general resemblance of the Synoptics ; but, doubt- less, even in the early centuries of our era, isolated individuals asked themselves what was the meaning of this similarity, which in some passages extends to the most trivial The details ; and the first who asked himself Problem. this question was the first to state the Synoptic Problem. The most obvious answer, bearing in mind the generally received doctrine of inspiration, was, that Matthew wrote first, Early and that Mark, who wrote next, read and Solutions. in some measure made use of his gospel. This explanation received the support of the famous Augustine, and has been fre- quently repeated down to our own day. It is one of those venerable errors which are regarded with especial favour by the authors of not a few of our modern helps to the students of the Scriptures. That Luke wrote after Mark, and possibly used both his and Matthew's gos]3els, was deemed a satisfactory explanation of the relationship FOR ENGLISH READERS 3 of the Synoptics ; whilst their discrepancies and contradictions were, of course, held to be only apparent. Whilst, however, as above stated, it is highly probable that, in isolated cases, as early as the second century, men asked themselves the meaning of the general re- semblance of the first three gospels, it is only within the last two hundred years that the importance of the Synoptic Problem has begun to be realised, and its solution seriously attempted. As might be expected, many hypotheses Modem have been formulated, been proved to be in some measure erroneous or defective, and subsequently rejected or modified. To even summarise the views of each of the scholars who, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, have striven to solve this problem would require a bulky volume ; and it must suffice here to say, that whilst some have held that an oral tradition preserved in the apostolic circle at Jerusalem would suffice to explain the resemblances between the Synoptics, others have more justly assumed 4 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM the existence of one or more earlier docu- ments wliich were used by the authors of our canonical gospels. Test. There is one statement which it may be well to make, and whose importance deserves emphasis, namely, that no hypothesis which is inconsistent with any one of the facts can be accepted. This is doubtless a self-evident proposition, but it is too often forgotten or ignored by speakers and, less excusably, writers on the gospels. No honest and intelligent man will hesitate to apply this test to any theory, and reject all which fail to satisfy it. It by no means follows that a hypothesis which satisfies this test must be accepted as true ; for it may well happen that two or more divergent hypotheses are consistent with all the known facts ; in such cases, unless there be a strong balance of probability in favour of one of the hypo- theses, judgment must be suspended, independ- It will bc advisablc in the first place to Theory apply this test to the theory that the writers of the Synoptics were under no obligation to earlier documents ; that such resem- FOR ENGLISH READERS 5 blances as their works exhibit are due to the fact that they are records of the same events independently remembered. It is probable that if the various theories as to the relationship of the Synoptics, each briefly stated and unsupported by argument or evidence, could be submitted to all " who profess and call themselves Christians," and that every such Christian should record his vote in favour of one of the theories, this of the independence of the Synoptics would receive a majority of the votes. It may therefore with reason claim the title of orthodox : and as it certainly seems less orthodox ^ but inconsistent with the generally received untenable. doctrine of inspiration than most of its rivals, this title -should be the more readily conceded to it. Many scholars, however, of unimpeachable orthodoxy reject it, as, in fact, does every intelligent man who has made more than a superficial examination of the gospels. Let any one who is disposed to doubt Parawe of •^ the Sower. this last assertion read carefully the parable of the Sower, recorded in each of the Syn- optics (Matt. xiii. 1-23; Mark iv. 1-20; 6 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM Luke viii. 4-15); let him remember that Jesus spoke this parable in the language of Palestine, referred to in the N.T. "Hebrew" as " Hebrew/' but considerably different Aramaic. from the old Jewish language to which that name belongs, and more correctly called Aramaic ; let him further remember that the Synoptics were written in Greek, and he will surely find it difiicult to believe that the three accounts, 4:hough presenting slight differences, are independent, and have no closer relation than such as arises from their being accounts of the same address. For it is in the highest degree improb- able that three independent ear -witnesses would relate the incidents of the parable (whose relative position is dictated by no internal necessity), many years after they had heard it, in the same order. In each of the three we have first the seed that fell by the wayside, then that which fell upon stony ground, then that which fell among thorns, and finally, that which fell upon good ground. There are millions of Chris- tians who have heard this parable read FOR ENGLISH READERS 7 in their various places of worship ; and probably the majority could relate from memory the four kinds of ground on which the seed fell ; but how many could accu- rately remember the order in which the first three are named ? This consideration will enable any candid inquirer to estimate the measure of probability that our three Synoptics are independent ; any one who possesses a little Greek, and compares the three narratives in the original, will see that the resemblance is closer than in our A.V., and the probability that the three accounts are not independent, but that there is some kind of literary obligation, will be to him even more clearly evident. Similar phenomena pre- sent themselves in many parts of the Synoptics, and though it would be un- reasonable to attribute this resemblance in every case to the use of an earlier document or documents, no doubt in many, probably in most, this is the true explanation. It would be unreasonable to assert it in every case, because we can well believe that many 8 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM of our Lord's short and pithy sayings impressed themselves vividly upon the memories of His hearers ; and would be repeated from memory, even after the lapse of many years, with little, if any, variation. Miracles in The improbability of the independence of the Synoptics is enormously increased when we compare the miracles which they record ; it is well known that there is much uncertainty as to the chronology of our Lord's ministry ; this uncertainty being evident, not only to every careful student of the gospels, but to any one who, without comparing the gospel narratives himself, examines the results of other students' labours. It is not here a matter of orthodox V. heterodox ; differences obtain amongst both, and with regard to the date of some incidents in our Lord's life, some authori- ties, both orthodox and heterodox, maintain one theory, whilst others defend another. The truth is, that the gospels cannot be regarded as chronologically accurate ; only the third claims (if it does claim, Luke i. 3) to be so. The order of at least several of FOR ENGLISH READERS 9 the miracles is dictated by no internal necessity, nor, as it would appear, did the evangelists profess to know their date. This being so, it is remarkable that the Synoptists agree so closely in the order of the miracles which they record, as the following table shows : • (First verse of each passage is given. ) 1 2 3 Miracles recorded by Mark. Matthew. Luke. Spirit at baptism Temptations Demoniac healed . i. 10 „ 13 „ 23 iii. 16 iv. 1 iii. 22 iv. 1 „ 33 4 Peter's mother-in-law healed „ 30 viii. 14 „ 38 5 6 7 Leper healed Paralytic healed . AVithered hand healed . „ 40 ii. 3 iii. 1 „ 2 ix. 2 xii. 10 V. 12 „ 18 vi. 6 8 storm stilled iv. 37 viii. 23 viii. 23 9 Demoniac healed V. 2 „ 28 „ 27 10 Jairus's daughter healed „ 22 ix. 18 „ 41 11 Woman with issue ,, ,, 28 2"^ „ 43 12 5000 fed . vi. 37 xiv. 15 ix. 12 13 Jesus walks on sea „ 48 „ 25 — 14 Canaanite's daughter healed vii. 25 XV. 22 — 15 Deaf mute healed „ 32 — — 16 4000 fed . viii. 2 XV. 32 — 17 Blind man healed „ 22 — — 18 Transfiguration . ix. 2 xvii. 2 ix. 20 19 Dumb demoniac healed „ 17 „ M „ 38 20 Blind man healed X. 46 XX. 29 xviii. 35 21 Fig-tree blasted . xi. 12 xxi. 19 — 22 Resurrection xvi. 6 xxviii. 6 xxiv. 6 The above table contains all the definite 10 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM miracles (unless some of the incidents at the time of the crucifixion are to be so regarded) recorded in the second gospel, but takes no account of general statements, such as that in Mark i. 34, " He healed many that were sick." It appears, then, that Mark records twenty - two miracles : two of these are peculiar to him (Nos. 15, 17); fifteen are common to the three Synoptics, and of the other five the first gospel records four and the third one. In three instances (Nos. 4, 6, 7) the order of the first Synoptic difi'ers Miracles froui that of tlic sccoud and third ; in every point to De- pendence, other case their order agrees. Of course, the first and third record other miracles not included in the table ; but restricting our- selves to the twenty-two tabulated miracle- records, we cannot avoid the conclusion that an examination of them forbids the belief that three writers relying only on memory or tradition could agree so closely in the order in which they related them. This similarity of order and of matter is almost certainly due either to the use by FOR ENGLISH READERS 11 the three writers of an earlier document ; or to the fact that the two latest (which- ever they may have been) read the work of the earliest, and embodied in their own gospels much of his language, as well as the order in which he recorded certain events in the life of Jesus. In short, the examination of the miracles recorded in the Synoptics leads to the same result as the examination of the parable of the Sower (p. 6), and justifies the assertion that no intelligent man who has made more than a superficial examination of the Syn- optics will dispute their dependence, either of the later upon the earlier, or of all upon one or more earlier documents. Dependences-literary obligation of some Nature and Extent of kind — is obvious and indisputable ; the exact Depend- ence, nature of this dependence, however, is by no means easy to ascertain. If we can decide which of the Synoptics is the earliest we shall have advanced a little way towards the solution of this im- portant and interesting problem. Let the following passages, which contain matter 12 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM common to the Synoptics, be read and compared : Mark i. 29-34. Matt. viii. 14-17. Luke iv. 38-41. „ ii. 13-22. ix. 9-17. „ V. 27-39. „ iii 1-6. xii. 9-14. „ vi. 6-11. „ vi. 14-29. „ xiv. 1-12. „ iii. 19,20. „ ix. 7-9. 'Editorial improve- ment ; John's im- •< prisonment here related in its pro- - per order. „ xi. 1-11. „ xxi. 1-11. Luke xix. 29-38. „ xi. 27-xii. ( xxi. 23-27 : 17 ) ^'"1 33-46. „ xxii. 15-22. „ XX. 1-26. A careful perusal of the above passages, even in the A.V., suggests that Mark is, in these passages, the original which has been reproduced more or less closely by the other two. The original Greek indicates this relation- pa^rtie ship still more clearly ; and, in fact, there can be no question that in the above, and in many other passages, the text of the second gospel is earlier than, and was read and used by the authors of, the first and third. It by no means necessarily follows that Mark's text in many FOR ENGLISH READERS 13 the second gospel is earlier than the others ; is Mark the • . . 1 p , 1 • 1 1 earliest ? it IS, unless lurtner evidence can be pro- duced, possible to maintain, as in fact some very able men have maintained, that the second gospel is the latest of the three ; and that the admitted fact that many passages in it are in an earlier form than the parallel passages in the other two, is due to the closer verbal reproduction in our second gospel of passages from an earlier work which was read and used by the authors of all the Synoptics. Some scholars go so far as to name this primitive hypothetical earlier work Primitive Mark ; and speak of it as confidently as though its reality were indisputable. The existence of this assumed Primitive Mark is not attested by any ancient authority or by any external evidence ; and if the facts which a careful study of the Synoptics reveals can all be explained without it, then sober students of the Syn- optic Problem will not hamper themselves in their efforts towards the solution of that problem, with an assumption which at best 14 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM is unverifiable, and has proved to be im- probable. The No fair-minded person will deny that Matt, and the fact (admitted by all scholars, and Luke read , ^ , . , , i • and used proved, SO lar as a literary hypothesis can Mark. be proved), that in some passages the second gospel preserves a text which was read and used by the authors of the first and third, establishes a presumption in favour of the hypothesis that the second gospel is earlier than the others, and that strong evidence may reasonably be de- manded in support of any other position, individu- A further presumption in favour of the unity of priority of the second gospel arises when it is read carefully through as a whole : a unity of style, an individuality, is evident. This, again, is much more obvious in the Greek than in our A.V., though even in the latter it is sufficiently striking. Perhaps two or three illustrations of this assertion of the individuality of the second gospel, and of its being more obvious in the original Greek than in our A.V.,maynot be out of place. Mark. FOR ENGLISH READERS 15 There is a word very characteristic of the second gospel, which occurs ten times in the first chapter. Seven of the ten instances of its use are pecuhar to this gospel ; in three it is found (in two of the three in a slightly different form) in the parallel passages in one or both of the other Synoptics ; yet this characteristic of the second gospel is less obvious in our A.V. than in the original Greek, because the translators have rendered it in four different ways. This Greek word is translated in Mark i. 10, 18, 21, "straightway"; in Mark i. 12, 28, 42, ''immediately"; in Mark i. 29, 43, "forthwith"; in Mark i. 30, "anon"; whilst in Mark i. 23 it is omitted from the Received Text, though, according to the oldest manuscripts and the opinion of leading textual critics, it ought to be read in that verse. From a literary point of view it may be an advantage to have this one Greek word translated by four different English ones ; but for one who has realised the importance of the Synoptic Problem, and whose ignor- 16 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM ance of Greek restricts him to translations (Authorised or Revised) in his efforts to solve it, this literary gain is more than counterbalanced by the fact that one of this evangelist's most striking characteristics is in some measure hidden from him. Another word, a verb, occurs, both in the singular and plural, much more freely in the second than in the other Synoptics ; in our A.V. (in Mark) it is uniformly rendered ''began": ^'he began," "they began," we repeatedly read. In several of the passages in which it occurs, it sounds, even in the English translation, somewhat out of place : compare, for instance, Mark v. 17 with Matt. viii. 34 ; the direct statement in Luke ix. 2 with Mark vi. 7 : '' And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth." In the account of James and John's request for precedence (Mark x. 35-45), note verse 41: " And when the ten heard it they began to be much displeased with James and John." In these, and more than a dozen other passages, this same word is used in a manner FOR ENGLISH READERS 17 which justifies the assertion that this gospel has a unity and individuality of its own ; and therefore strengthens the presumption against the Primitive Mark hypothesis (p. 13). It is universally admitted that the Greek Greek of second of this gospel is less refined than that of gospeiiess pure than the others, though all are, of course, far from that of first . . . and third. being written in classical Greek ; even in the third gospel many evidences of Aramaic (p. 6) influence are discernible, whilst in the second they are very marked, both in the words and the structure of the sentences. It is the second gospel that records for us, in a few instances, what purport to have been the actual words of Jesus : Mark iii. 17, Boanerges ;- V. 41, Talitha cumi (or coum) ; vii. 11, Corban ; vii. 34, Ephpha- tha ; XV. 34, Eloi, Eloi, lama (or lema) sabachthani (compare Matt, xxvii. 46) ; in each case adding the translation. In addition to the certainty that the aiso uses 1 /-N 1 Latin second gospel is written m such Greek as words. might be used by a Jew (as was Mark), there are traces of Latin words, indicating c 18 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM that the author lived, or had lived, amongst people who spoke that language ; and this again accords with the ancient tradition that the second gospel was composed at Rome.^ In the account of the beheading of the Baptist, the word rendered in the A.V. '^ executioner " (Mark vi. 27), or more correctly, as in the margin, " one of his guard," is a very slightly altered Greek form of a Latin word. The same is true of the word translated " farthing '' in Mark xii. 42 ; this Grseco-Latin word is also used in Matt. V. 26, whilst in the parallel passage, Luke xii. 59, a true Greek word, translated in the A.V. " mite," is substituted. The word Praetorium (Mark xv. 16) is, of course, Latin, and occurs in the original text in nearly the same form, whence it has been copied (if we may anticipate so far) into Matt, xxvii. 27, where however our A.V. renders it " common hall," or in margin " 2fovernor's house." The word " centurion " o ^ Too much importance must not be attached to this or any of the other traditions about the publication of the gosi)els. FOR ENGLISH READERS 19 (A.V.) in tlie parallel verses, Mark xv. 39, Matt, xxvii. 54, Luke xxiii. 47, is a trans- lation of two different words ; that in Mark being Grseco - Latin, wliilst in the other gospels the correct Greek equivalent is used. There are other evidences that the writer of the second gospel had mixed with Latin- speaking people,^ but the foregoing may suffice to confirm the belief in the indi- viduality of the second gospel, and to strengthen still further the presumption that it is not dependent on the others ; for whilst it is conceivable that the authors of the first and third gospels read and used the second, and that not a few of their verbal diff"erences from Mark's text are due Mark not .,..,. , , . dependent to editorial improvements, to the substitu- onMatt. tion of more accurate and refined expres- sions for his abrupt ones ; it is scarcely possible that the opposite position can be correct, namely, that Mark read the first ^ Doubtless some Latin words acquired currency over the ' whole Roman empire, more especially military terms and names of coins ; traces of such occur in the other gospels, but not to such an extent as in the second. 20 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM and third gospels, selected and combined portions of their narratives, and substituted for their more accurate language his own rougher style, so plentifully disfigured both with Grseco - Latin words and Aramaic idioms. But one It will uow be clear that there is a mass sources, of cvidence tending to support the belief that our second gospel was read and used by the authors of the first and third. There is no external evidence to support, and internal evidence does not demand, the hypothesis of a Primitive Mark, which may accordingly be dismissed ; and the only alternative, viz. that Mark was read and used by the authors of the other Syn- optics, may be accepted as being as nearly certain as anything of the kind can be. See Appendix B. CHAPTEE II An examination of the Synoptic Gospels Danger of 111 -1 IT one-sided directed solely, or mainly, to the discovery study of gospels. of resemblances, will almost certainly lead to misapprehension and more or less errone- ous conclusions. To understand the true nature of these gospels, and prepare the way for a satisfactory solution of the Synoptic Problem, it is necessary to study their discrepancies and contradictions. That there are discrepancies" between the narratives is freely admitted, and many apologists whose orthodoxy is above suspicion have laid stress on this fact ; and have, with justice, insisted that these discrepancies do not affect the veracity of the writers or the Their dis- . r ^ ' crepancies substantial accuracy oi their accounts. It is, of course, well known to all students of secular history, and is equally familiar to 22 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM any one who has paid many visits to courts of justice, that when several witnesses of a given series* of events attempt to describe those events, it is in the highest degree improbable that any two will describe them in exactly the same way. Without in any way doubting the sincerity or veracity of the witnesses, an impartial observer per- ceives, under general agreement, discrep- ancies of detail. When orthodox apologists assert that we ought not to be surprised at finding the same phenomena presented by the Synoptic Gospels, we may at once agree with them ; but there is a necessary and obvious consequence of this admission which very few apologists are prepared to accept. If in respect to certain details of passages common to the three gospels we find such discrepancies as make it certain that in two And at least, and possibly in all three, there is a i uf 6 1*6 H C 6 s therefrom, proportiou, howcvcr Small, of error, due to what is by some divines called the " human element," a presumption arises that in those other passages which, being found only in one of the gospels, cannot be so compared FOR ENGLISH READERS 23 and tested, similar errors may likewise be present. Though the presence of discrepancies in Their con- , . - . . tradiotions. the gospels is admitted and obvious, there are many worthy people who are loath to recognise the existence of contradictions. Yet contradictions there assuredly are, and no one can hope to understand these gospels unless he recognises and examines them. Let any one read carefully the narrative of the events immediately preceding and fol- lowing the birth of Jesus preserved in the first gospel. Let him then read the narrative Matt, and in the third gospel with equal care. It will pendent. surely be evident to him that the two accounts are independent ; that the man who wrote one had neither seen nor heard of the other. ^ It is easy to say that the tw^o gospels are independent, except in so far as they are based upon one or more earlier docu- ments ; and that in their accounts of the stonei or Jesus' Redeemer's ])irtli they relied upon tradi- birth. ^ If one had read the other he paid no heed to it, and there- fore did not believe it. 24 ^ THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM tions, which, so far as they went, were accurate, but erred by defect; and that if we would form a true picture of the incidents attending the birth of Jesus we must com- bine the two accounts. This explanation, though plausible, is only possible if we reject at least a part of one or the other of these traditions ; and if we begin to tamper with the gospel texts and reject portions of them, it is by no means easy to give a satisfactory reason for rejecting only those parts which decline to accommodate themselves to the harmonist's scheme. Both gospels say that Jesus was born at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke ii. 4-6) ; the first, without positively asserting it, implies that Joseph and Mary lived there. That the writer believed this to be the case is evident from the concluding verses of the second chapter, in which it is stated that on leaving Egypt they proposed returning to Judaea, and that it was not until Joseph had been warned "in a dream " that they passed on " into the parts of Galilee.'' The FOR ENGLISH READERS 25 third gospel, on the contrary, plainly asserts that Joseph and Mary lived "in a city of Galilee named Nazareth" (Luke i. 26); and that their being in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was due to the " taxing:" (ii. 1-4) ; also note, ii. 39, "their own city, Nazareth." Again, in the first gospel we read that certain " wise men " came to Jerusalem to see the newborn king of the Jews (Matt. ii. 1-2) ; they visit the king, Herod, who being " troubled'^ (v. 3) summons the chief priests and scribes, demanding of them where the Christ shall be born ; they answer, in Beth- lehem (v. 5) whither Herod sends the "wise men." On their arrival they worship the infant Jesus {v. 11), and the next day (having been warned " in a dream ") they depart " into their own country another way" {v. 12). The next (?) night Joseph is instructed by the angel of the Lord " in a dream" to "flee into Egypt." It is not asserted, but it is surely no exaggeration to say that it is implied, that the following night (v. 14) Joseph, Mary, and the Infant 26 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM set out for Egypt, and remain there " until the death of Herod." How long a period elapsed between the flight into Egypt and the death of Herod is not intimated. Contrast with this the narrative in the third gospel. No reference to wise men or flight into Egypt ; on the contrary, at " eight days " old the child is circumcised (Luke ii. 21) ; at forty days old {v, 22 ; comp. Leviticus xii. 1-4) "when the days of her," A.V. (more correctly "their" as R.V.), "purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord " in the temple ; where the aged Simeon sees the child [vv. 25-32), as does also Anna, a widow (u 37), who, with the amiable weak- ness so characteristic of widows, afterwards took pains to spread the report of these wonderful occurrences {v. 38). Now, though this narrative is so strikingly diflerent from the other, it is possible for any one who wishes to do so to maintain that the circum- cision and presentation in the temple took place before the visit of the wise men to able FOR ENGLISH READERS 27 Herod, recorded in Matt. ii. 1 ; for it is clear that Matt. ii. 11 does not assert that the " young child " was newly born ; and if it be assumed (an assumption certainly not justified by the general tone of the narrative in Matt, ii.) that the infant was seven weeks old at that time, the two traditions may be combined. Before this combination can be accom- irreconcn- plished, it will be necessary to reject Luke ii. 39 ; for it is evident that if, desiring to accept as far as possible both traditions, we assume the infant Jesus to have been seven weeks old at the time of the events recorded in Matt. ii. 11, then Joseph and Mary must, after the presentation in the temple, have returned to Bethlehem ; but Luke ii. 39 explicitly asserts that " when they had per- formed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." It is surely futile to pretend that there is no contradic- tion between these narratives. It is possible for any one to believe that he believes both accounts ; but it is impossible for any one text 28 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM who has carefully stuclieel and compared them to deny or even to doubt that there Unless we are contradictions or, if the expression be tamper with the preferred, irreconcilable discrepancies be- tween them, and that in order to harmonise them it is necessary to reject at least one verse of one of the narratives ; but why should that verse (Luke ii. 39), which forms an integral part of the third gospel, and is in complete accord with what precedes and follows it, be rejected? If it be admitted that in this verse the author has made an erroneous statement, have we any guarantee that he has not fallen into error in other parts of his narrative where we have no opportunity of testing his accuracy ? It is, moreover, noteworthy that this verse is not a record of words spoken, which might have been misunderstood or misinterpreted, nor does it involve any abstruse doctrinal question ; it is a simple statement of fact which he had no conceivable motive for making, except his belief that it was true. The same may be said of the appearances FOR "ENGLISH READERS 29 of Jesus after His resurrection, recorded in similar T 1 'AT 1 T 1 • phenomena Luke XXIV. JN o one could nave written m the ^ ^ ^ accounts of vv. 49-53 wlio knew tiiat the appearances the post- „ - . . . resxirrec- 01 the risen baviour were not restricted to tion appear. Jerusalem and the immediate neighbour- hood ; and since Matt, xxviii. 16, 17 records an appearance of Jesus to His disciples in Galilee, it is evident that there is a contra- diction between the two evangelists. It may be true that Jesus did appear to His followers both in Judsea and Galilee, but it is obvious that Luke (whether rightly or wrongly is by no means easy to decide) supposed that the appearances of Jesus between His Kesurrection and Ascension were restricted to Judsea. These and other contradictions, together with the numerous discrepancies which a careful comparison of the first and third gospels reveals, establish a strong presumption in favour of their mutual independence. This presumption Matt, and •^ ^ , Luke inde- is strengthened by certain differences of pendent: ^ , » mutually style and vocabulary in the Greek text of the two gospels ; and it thus becomes in the highest degree improbable that the author 30 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM of one read or used the other, and almost certain that such common passages as Though prove literary obligation are due to the both used i i i n t n an earlier usc by both 01 ouc or morc earlier docu- document or docu- ments. ments. We have already seen the probability, the almost certainty, that the second gosjDcl was read and used by the authors of the first and third (p. 20). That they did not place implicit confidence in all its statements is evident from the Discrep- fact that there are discrepancies between ancies between thcmsclves and Mark, as obvious as those Matt, and Luke on the wliicli obtaiu bctwecn such of their own one hand, and Mark narratives as are based on independent on the other. traditions. An examination of these discrepancies will throw light on the motives or reasons which led the two later evangelists to modify or even contradict statements con- tained in a work which on the whole they valued and freely reproduced. Such an examination, though in itself profoundly interesting, would have no direct bearing on the matter in hand, and it must FOR ENGLISH READERS 31 suffice here to give two examples of the discrepancies without discussing their origin. In Mark iii. 1-6, Matt. xii. 9-14, Luke vi. 6-11, we have the original, and two repro- ductions of the narrative of a miracle of healing performed in a synagogue on a a sabbath Sabbath. Of course, in describing; Matt, xii. 9-14 and Luke vi. 6-11 as reproduc- tions of Mark iii. 1-6, it is not implied that the authors of the two later versions had no knowledge of the event apart from the account in Mark. It is, on the contrary, quite probable that they had a traditional knowledge of the miracle, but finding it recorded in a document which they in many parts, if not in all, valued, they have relied rather on the, written than on the oral version of the story : their own versions being reproductions of the Mark version, combina- slightly modified by traditional influences. Mark and 11 tradition. In reading the three passages, let the words attributed by the evangelists to Jesus be specially noticed, namely, in ]\Iark iii. 3, 4, 5 ; in Luke vi. 8, 9, 10 ; in Matt, xii. 11, 12, 13. That the three accounts 32 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM General agree ill the main is as obvious as that they agreement . , , i- • -i present not unimportant discrepancies : the question which, according to Mark and Luke, was asked by Jesus was, according to Matthew, asked by the bystanders (see But Matt. xii. 10 : there are slight verbal differ- differences . , ., , " , ., , . of detail, cnccs) ; whilst the words attributed m Matt. xii. 11, 12 to Jesus are not recorded by the others. It would be absurd to ex- aggerate the importance of these discrep- ancies, but they at least show that we cannot always be sure that words attributed Errors in by an cvangelist to Jesus were really used Jesus' by Him ; or that they have in all cases accurately reported the substance of His remarks. Another As a sccoud cxamplc we may refer to the narrative of Jesus walking on the stormy sea to His disciples, and entering their boat — an event not recorded in the third gospel, but related by the other Syn- optics and in the fourth gospel, as having taken place after the feeding of the five thousand. (Compare Mark vi. 46-52, Matt, xiv. 23-33.) It is evident that only a few FOR ENGLISH READERS 33 persons were in the boat, possibly none but Jesus and the twelve ; that they were amazed at what they had seen is surely natural enouo^h ; but the author of the second gospel, besides recording their amazement, adds an expression of surprise and indignation that they even yet failed to realise the divine nature of Jesus, despite the displays of miraculous power which they had witnessed; he says (verse 52), " For Audits effects, they considered not the miracle of the according *o Mark loaves, for their heart was hardened. The author of the first gospel, after recording the same incidents, tells us that the effect on the minds of those in the boat was exactly opposite. He says (Matt. xiv. And -> ^ ^ . Matthew. 33), " Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." Will any candid reader deny that Matt. xiv. 33 con- tradicts Mark vi. 52 ? The fact that the Synoptics present dis- veracity of , , 7 Evangel - crepancies and contradictions in no way ists. justifies doubt as to the veracity of their authors, though it unquestionably justifies T) 34 ' THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM doubt as to the accuracy of their state- ments. No one who studies the gospels can entertain the slightest doubt of the sincerity and candour of the evangelists ; but it is no less evident that the earlier document or documents which they read, and the traditions with which they com- The spirit bined them, were treated in a spirit essen- tially different from that of a modern critical historian ; nor can we hope to understand either the contents of the gospels or the problem of their origin unless we bear this And object coustautly in mind. The object of the work. evangelists was religious rather than his- torical ; and we should always remember, what so many modern writers and speakers about the gospels forget, that they lived in the first century, not the nineteenth, and that their work may reasonably be expected to display many first - century prejudices, just as modern books display (though their authors are often loath to admit it) nine- teenth-century prejudices. A careful study of the gospels may reasonably be expected to reveal in them FOR ENGLISH READERS 35 not only the influence of the generally current beliefs of the apostolic and sub- apostolic age, but also the light in which each evangelist regarded the work and nature of Jesus. i'ar CHAPTER III Results so Having seen how highly probable it is that the second is the oldest of the Synoptics, and that it was read and used by the authors of the first and third ; having further seen the probability that the authors of the first and third were ignorant of each other's work, which must therefore have been written at different places, but prob- ably nearly at the same time, we are ready to advance a step towards the solution of the Synoptic problem. It is evident that the first and third contain a large amount of common matter over and above what they can have derived from the second gospel. Does that common matter justify the assertion that it, or any part of it, was derived from a written source ? Or is it possible that all which Are Matt, and Luke THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 37 they have in common, over and above what Based on another they may have derived from the second document gospel, may have been transmitted orally ? to Mark ? To these questions it must be replied that there are a number of our Lord's sayings which are recorded in slightly dif- ferent forms, and which, being short and impressive, might well be derived from the memory of ear-witnesses ; but that there are also a considerable number of longer sayings, whose verbal similarity, both in our A.Y. and in the original Greek, is so close as to Yes ; on an forbid the belief that they were drawn from Greek any other source than an earlier Greek writing ; for it is inconceivable that different hearers of our Lord's Aramaic utterances should, thirty ar forty years later, render (see Appcn those sayings into another language, whose grammatical forms are so widely different, in identical words. If it be admitted that certain passages are inexplicable, save on the hypothesis that the authors of the first and third gospels used, in addition to the second, another Greek document, it l)ecomes not unreason- 38 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM , able to suspect that other passages where the relationship is not so certain may also be based on that document ; and if we have any reason to suppose that the docu- Eariier mcut had bccn written before the second used'by, gospcl, it bccomcs possiblc that the author of the second, like those of the later Syn- optics, made use of it. There are certain passages, notably in Mark xiii., which be- come clearer if we make this assumption ; and a careful comparison of the parallel passages in the Synoptics gives good reason for the assertion that an earlier Greek writ- ing was used by the authors of each of our Synoptic gospels. Can it be Whether it be possible to exactly repro- restored? ^ ^ . 7 . duce from our canonical gospels this primi- tive document may be open to doubt. It may, however, be justly urged that it is easy to exaggerate the difficulties in the way of a substantial restoration of it. Such a restoration, based on the work of Dr. B. Weiss, and carefully and repeatedly tested in every passage, is here given, as nearly as possible, in the words of the A.V. FOR ENGLISH READERS 39 That a Greek document, not very differ- Yes ; f, .-,. -, approxi- ent from this, was faminar to, and more or mateiy. less used by, the authors of our Synoptics, is almost certain. It is hoped that by a perusal of it as a whole, and a detailed com- parison of it verse by verse with the Syn- optics, English readers may gain clearer notions of the genesis of our gospels than have hitherto been possible.^ 1 The most important various readings, and the Aveight of critical opinion in favour of one or other, are readily access- ible to English readers in Eyre and Spottiswoode's Variorum Teachers' edition of the Holy Bible. PEIMITIVE GOSPEL Compare Matt. iii. 1-3 Mark i. 2-4 Luke iii. 2-4 Matt. iii. 7-10 Luke iii. 7-9 Matt. iii. 11, 12 Mark i. 7, 8 Luke iii. 16, 17 See Ajp2oendices C and D, and Index I There was John that baptized in the wilder- ness and preached, saying, Eepent. As it is written in Esaias the prophet. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Then he said to those that came to be baptized of him, generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance ; and think not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham to our father ; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid at the root of the trees ; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. And he preached, saying, I indeed baptize you with water ; but he that Cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear ; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with p. G. ch. ver. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 41 Compare Matt. iii. 16, 17 Mark i. 10, 11 Luke iii. 21, 22 Matt. iv. 1-11 Mark i, 12, 13 Luke iv. 1-13 fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Now when all the people were being baptized, it came to pass that, Jesus also being baptized and praying, the heaven was opened, and the spirit, like a dove, descended upon him, and lo, a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I am well pleased. And straightway the spirit driveth him into the wilderness, and when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And the tempter came and said unto him. If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said. It is written, man shall not live by bread alone. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city and setteth him on a pin- nacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be God's Son cast thyself down ; for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee ; and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou slialt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again the devil taketh him up and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them ; and saith unto him, All these p. G. ch. ver. i. 7 10 11 13 42 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM Coiiii)are Matt. Luke V. 3 vi. 20 4 G 21 7 11 22 12 23 17 IS xvi. 17 10 things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan ; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And it came to pass after these things that Jesus taught his disciples saying: Blessed are the poor ; for theirs is the kingdom of God. Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek ; for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which hunger ; for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful ; for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers ; for they shall be called the sons of God. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and say all manner of evil against you for my sake. Eejoice and be exceeding glad ; for, behold, your reward is great in heaven for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets : I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whoso- ever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of God, p. G. ch. ver. i. 14 ii. 1 2 FOR ENGLISH READERS 43 Compare Matt. V. 20 •21 27 28 33 35 3(5 but whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of God. For I say unto you that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteous- ness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of God. Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, and whoso- ever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment : but I say unto you whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother Kaca shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire. Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery : but I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths : but I say unto you. Swear not at all ; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne ; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool ; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great kiug. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be. Yea, yea : Nay, nay : for whatsoever is more than p. G. cli. ver. ii. it 10 11 13 44 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM Compare Matt. Luke V. 38 39 vi. 29 30 28 35 32 33 36 37 38 41 42 these Cometh of evil. Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ; but I say unto you that ye resist not evil ; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also : and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said. Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy : but I say unto you, Love your enemies and pray for them which persecute you : that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven ; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them that love you what reward have ye ? Do not even the publicans so ? And if ye do good to your brethren only, what do ye more than others ? Do not even sinners the same ? Be ye merciful as your Father also is merciful : and judge not that ye be not judged for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you. And why beholdest thuu the mote that is in tliy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye ? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let p. G. cli. ver. ii. 14 Compare Matt. Luke 43 45 44 4«; 40 FOR ENGLISH READERS 45 me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and behold a beam is in thine own eye ? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye ; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles ? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. For a good tree cannot bear evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good ; and an evil man out of the evil bringeth forth that which is evil : for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall- know them. And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say ? Therefore whosoever heareth my sayings and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock ; and the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and fell upon that house ; and it fell not for it was founded upon a rock. And everyone that lieareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a P.O. ch. ver. ii. 20 21 •23 24 46 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM Compare Matt. Luke vii. 27 A-i.49 28 vii. 1 viii.l, 2 V. 12 3 13 4 14 (Also Mark i. 40-45) .5 vii. 1 2 6 9 7 10 9 foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house ; and it fell ; and great was the fall of it. And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings, that great multitudes followed him ; and be- hold, there came a leper kneeling to him and saying, If thou wilt thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand and touched him, saying, I will ; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded for a testimony unto them. And when he was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion beseeching him and saying, Lord, my boy lieth at home sick of the palsy. Jesus saith to him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof; but speak the word only and my boy shall be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, having soldiers under me ; and I say to this one. Go, and he goeth ; and to another. Come, and he cometh ; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, in no p. G. ch. ver. FOR ENGLISH READERS 47 Compare Matt. viii. 13 Luke vii. 10 Matt. ix. 18-26 Mark v. 22-43 Luke viii. 41-56 Matt. xi. 2-6 Luke vii. 19-23 Matt. Luke ,\i. 7 vii. 24 one have I found so great faith in Israel. And to the centurion he said, Go thy way ; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his boy was healed in that hour. And behold there came a ruler saluting him and saying, My daughter died even now ; but come, lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. And Jesus arose and followed him. And behold, a woman which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him and touched the fringe of his garment. But he turned and looking upon her said ; Daughter thy faith hath saved thee. And when Jesus came into the ruler's house and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, he said unto them, Give place : for the maid is not dead but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, he went in and took her by the hand, and the maid- arose. And wlien John had heard in prison of the works of Jesus, he sent by his disciples, saying. Art thou he that should come, or are we to look for another. Jesus answered and said unto them. Go and show John those things which ye do hear and see ; the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who shall not be offended in me. And as they p. G. ch. ver. iii. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ICi 18 48 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM Compare Matt. Luke xi. 8 vii. 25 9 26 10 27 11 28 13 xvi. 16 12 vii. 31 16 32 17 18 33 19 34 3-i XV. 3 departed, Jesus began to say unto the multi- tudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see ? A reed shaken with the wind ? But what went ye out for to see ? A man clothed in soft raiment ? Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But why went ye out ? To see a prophet ? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written. Behold, I send my messenger be- fore thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you. Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist : not- withstanding he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. And he said. The law and the prophets were until John ; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And he said, whereunto shall I liken this generation ? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, which calling unto their fellows, say. We have piped unto you and ye have not danced ; we have mourned and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say. He hath a devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine- bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her cliildren. And he spake this parable unto them say- P. G. ch. ver. iii. 10 FOR ENGLISH READERS 49 Compare Matt Luke XV. 4 2