Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/734

 681

Problem began, it was seen that this fiew could 122;SalmondinHast./'DiGt. of the Bible", III, 261; not exijain the faots, and it was abandoned. The Piummer, ''Gospel of Matthew'* (1909), p. xi; Stan- dependence of Mark's Qospel upon MattiieVs, how* ton, "The Gospels as Historical Documents" (1909), ever, though not after the manner of a compen- 30-37; Jackson, *' Cambridge Biblical Essays" (1909), dium, is still strenuously advocated. Zahn holds 455.

that the Second Gospel is dependent on the Aramaic Yet, notwithstanding the wide acceptance this Matthew as well as upon Peter's discourses for its theory has gained^ it may be doubted whether it can matter, and, to some extent, for its order; and that enable us to explam all the phenomena of the first two the Greek Matthew is in turn dependent upon Mark Gospels; Orr, "The Resurrection of Jesus" (1908), 61- for its phraseology. So, too,Belser (^'Einleitungindas 72, does not think it can, nor does Zahn (Introd., U, N. T.', 1889) and Bonaccorsi (** I tre primi Van^eli ", 601-17), some of whose arguments against it have not 1904). It will be seen at once that this view la m ao- yet been grappled with. It offers indeed a ready ex- cordance with tradition in regard to the priority of planation of the similarities in language between the Matthew, and it also explains the similarities in the two Gospels, but so does Zahn's theory of the depend- first two Gospels. Its chief weakness seems to the ence of the Greek Matthew upon Mark. It helps also present writer to lie in its inabilitv to explain some of to explain the order of the two Gospels, and to account Mark's omissions. It is ver^ hard to see, for instance, for certain omissions in Matthew (cf . especially Allen, why, if St. Mark had the First Gospel before him, he op. cit., pp. xxxi-xxxiv). But it leaves many differ- omitted all reference to the cure of the centurion's enoes un^cplained. Why, for instance, should Mat- servant (Matt., viii, 5-13). This miracle, by reason thew, if he had Mark's Gospel b^ore him, omit refer- of its relation to a Roman officer, ought to have had ence to the singular fact recorded by Mark that Christ very special interest for Roman readers, and it is ex« in the desert was with the wild beasts (Mark, i, 13)7 tremel^r difficult to account for its omission by St. Why should he omit (Matt., iv, 17) from Mark's sum- Mark, if he had St. Matthew's Gospel before him.' mary of Christ's first preachmg, ''Repent and believe Again, St. Mdtthew relates that when, after the feed- in the Gospel " (Marie, i. 15), the very important words ing of the five thousand, Jesus had come to the disci- ** Believe in the Goqsel", which were so appropriate to pies, walking on the water, those "whg were in the the occasion? Why should he (iv, 21) onut dXfyoy boat "came and adored him, saying: Indeed Thou and tautologically add "two brothers" to Mark, i, 19, art [the] Son of God" (Matt., xiv, 33). Now, Mark's or fail (tv, 22) to mention "the hired servants" with report of this incident is: " And ne went up to them whom the sons of Zeb^ee left their father in the boat into the ship, and the wind ceased: and they were ex- (Mark, i, 20). especially since, as Zahn remarks, the ceedingly amazed within themselves: for they imder- mention would have helped to save their desertion of stood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was their father froin the appearance of being unfilial. blinded" (Mark, vi, 51-52). Thus Mark makes no Why, again, should he omit viii, 28-34, the curious reference to the adoration, nor to the striking con- fact that though the Gadarene demoniac after his cure fession of the disciples that Jesus was [the] Son of (jod. wished to follow in the company of Jesus, he was not How can we accoimt for this, if he had Bilatthew's permitted, but told to go home and announce to his report before him? Once more, Matthew relates friends what great things the Lord had done for him that, on the occasion of Peter's confession of Christ (Mark, v, 18-19). How is it that Matthew has no near Csesarea Philippi, Peter said: "Thou art the reference to the widow's mite and Christ's touching Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt., xvi, 16). comment thereon (Mark, xii, 41-44) nor to the num- But Mark's report of this magnificent confession is ber of the swine (Matt., viii, 3-34; Mark, v, 13), nor to .merely: "Peter answering said to him: "Thou art the the disagpeement of the witnesses who appeared Christ" (Mark, viii, 29). it appears impossible to ac- against Christ? (Matt., xxvi, 60; Mark, xiv, 56, 59). count for the omission here of the words: " the Son of It is surely strange too, if he had Mark's Gospel be- the living God", words which make the special glory fore him, tliat he should seem to represent so differ- of this confession, if Mark made use of the First Gos- ^tly the time of the women's visit to the tomb, the pel. It would seem, therefore, that the view which situation of the angel that appeared to them and the makes the Second Gospel dependent upon the First is purpose for which they came (Matt., xxviii, 1-6; not satisfactory. A somewhat detailed criticism of Marie, xvi, 1-6). A^^ain. even when we admit that the view will be found in Stanton, "The Gospels as Matthew is grouping m chapters viii-4x, it is hard to Historical Documents " (1909), part II, 38-42. see any satisfactory reason why, if he had Mark's Gos- The prevailing view at present amon^ Protestant pel before him, he should so deal with the Marcan ao- scholars and not a few Catholics, in America and Eng' count of Christ's earliest recorded miracles as not only land as well as in Germany, is that St. Mark's Gos^mI to omit the first altogether, but to make the third and is prior to St. Matthew's, and used in it as well as in second with Mark respectively the first and third with St^ Luke's. Thus Gigot writes: "'The Gc«pel accord- himself (Matt., viii, 1-15; Mark, i, 23-31;40-45). Al-


 * xx._ ^ __j .-xii.._-j i___xL_ .1^ _, - , .X .. .V .. ts an explana-

rersion m the

, convmcmg.

pears that the narrative material of Matthew is simfuy For other difficulties see Zahn, " Introd.", II, 616-617.

'^ ' * - - - regard

estab-

, . . . J is op-

(Introd. to the N. T., 1905, 186-89). Allen, art. " Mat- posed to all the early evidence for the priority of Mat- thew" in ''The International Critical Commentary", thew. The question is still sub judice, and notwitb- speaks of the priority of the Second to the other two standing the immense labour bestowed upon it, fur- S3rnoptic Gospels as ** the one solid result of literary ther patient inquiry is needed, criticism"; and Buridtt in "The Gospel History^' It may possibly be that the solution of the peculiar (1907), 37, writes: "We are bound to conclude that relations between Matthew and Mark is to be found Mark contains the whole of a document which Mat* neither in the dependence of both upon oral tradition thew and Luke have independently used, and, further, nor in the dependence of eitiier upon the other, but in that Mark contains very little else beside. Tliis oon- the use by one or both of previous documents. If we elusion is extremely important; it is the one solid oon- may suppose, and Luke, i, 1, gives ground for the sup- tribution made by the scholarship of the nineteenth position, that Matthew had access to a document century towards the solution of the Synoptic Prob- written probably in Aramaic, embodying the Petrine lem". See also Hawkins, "Hone Synopt." (1899), tradition, he may have combined with it one or more