Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/866

Rh 842 advocated an original Mark as the groundwork of the synoptists; together with a “ Gospel of Peter ” as the basis for the parts common to .latthew and Luke. ltitschl (1851), reeanting his former op- position, and Meyer (1853) became converted to the belief‘ in an " original Mark." Volkmar (1857) and a number of other theolo- gians took the same view ; Weiss (1861) advocated a parity of originality, or rather a common original source, from which Matthew and Mark borrowed equally, while occasionally Matthew borrowed from Mark itself. But the work which most approximates to a proof of the originality of the tradition contained in Mark is IIoltzn1ann's Die b'ynoptischcn 1;'rangclz'en, &c., 1863, from whose summary of the criticism of the first t.hree Gospels (Schcnkel's Bibel-Lexicon, “ Evangelien ") these statements are mainly drawn. The author of Jesus of Nazara, Dr Kcim, of whom, for the sake of that interesting work, we would speak with all respect, was almost alone in defying, in his last work (p. vii. Aus dam Urchristcntlmnz, 1878), the “ mane-shaking of the Mark lion;” but even he, with qualification (it). p. 30). The work of Dr Holtzmann last referred to is of great value; and so are Dr 'eiss's Jllarcusevangelizun (1872) and .l[atlIu'iuscvangeli-um (1876); but it is t.ruly lamentable that nearly a century has passed in the accomplishment of so little. The reason is perhaps to be looked for (1) in the amount of personality which has been intro- duced into discussions of this kind; (2) in the haste with which theories have been erected upon the basis of single causes; (3) in the general absence of attempt t.o classify and concentrate evidence ; (4) in the failure to recognize the distinction between probabilities and certainties, and the amount of labour necessary to attain certainty ; (5) most of all, in the absence of mechanical helps. It is probable that the publication of liruder’s Concordance in the middle of this century has done more than all the rest of the hypothesis inventors, from Augustine to Hitzig, to forward the scientific study of the synoptic Gospels; nor could Dr IIoltzmaun’s valuable work have been written but for the humble assistance of Bruder. It is lamentable to think how much industry, ink, and paper, and occasionally intel- lect as well, might have been saved if there had been in common circulation from the beginning of this century, along with Bruder, a harmony of the Gospels, printed after the manner suggested above (p. 790), from which any one, almost without knowing Greek at all, could have seen at a glance that the “pcdisscquus ” theory of Mark was not for a moment tenable, and that Mark c0ntai7zs—l_»y no means, necessarily, is—the original tradition from which, at least in some places, Matthew and Luke independently borrowed. There are signs that a similar waste of industry is to be appre- hended in the further discussion of the question whether the corn- mon tradition is derived from oral or documentary sources. When, for example, we ﬁnd so able a critic as Dr Holtzmann (Schcnkel, “EvangcIien," p. 21 0) laying stress on the irregular form ¢ii1reKa'n.=¢r'roi9n occurring in the same place in all the three synoptists (Mat. xii. 13; Mk. iii. 5; Lu. vi. 10) as a convincing proof that the copying of documents (and not oral tradition) can alone explain so strange a similarity, we naturally suppose that this irregularity is nowhere else found in the Old or N cw Testament. But so far is this from being the case that the irregular form may be with greater truth said to be the only form current in the Old and New Testament, occurring not only in the three passages above, but also in Mk. viii. 25 (avrexaréwr-n); in Jercm. xxiii. 8; in Exod. iv. 7; in var. inter- pret. Gen. xxiii. 16 [Trommius quotes 3 (1) Esdr. i. 36 (? 33), but Tischendorf reads h1re’a'r-mnu] ; and the only passage in which the regular form is found, Gen. xl. 21,contains a var. lect. &1rexa1-éwmaev, which, no doubt, ought t.o be inserted in the text. This may serve as an example to show how ultimately circuitous the path must be through these attempted short cuts to certainty. The truth is that the question of oral or documentary sources is not to he settled with- out a great deal more of labour and of judgment than the subject has hitherto received. For a statement of the oral hypot.l1csis, which is generally adopted by English scholars, the reader is referred to Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 161-208. It has been pointed out, however, by Dr Sanday (Academy, Sept. 21, 1878) that there ha.s been of late an increasing tendency in the t.hrcc theories-— the Tiibingen or adaptation theory, the documentary Mark theory, the oral tradition theory—to approximate to each other ; so that the tendency theory has given less weight to dogmatic tendencies and more weight to literary considerations. The documentary Mark theory allows the previous influence of tradition, only stipulating for some lost doeumentarylinks between the oral tradition and our Mark ; while the oral theory approaches to the documentary Mark theory in assuming that the oral Gospel is represented most nearly by our present Mark. N cvertheless, says Dr Sanday, between the two last theories (for the Tiibingen theory may be left out of account) “ the struggle has yet to come. The division between these is almost national. In Germany no one of any significance as a critic holds the oral theory. In England none of our prominent writers hold anything else. France is divided. Godct ranges himself on the side most popular in England. Ilévillc was an early supporter of a view similar to that which is gaining the aseendency in Ger- many; and the same is substantially adopted by M. licnan.” GOSPELS It is greatly to be desired that, in this “struggle,” the dis- pntants may illustrate the subject in a somewhat ampler manner than has been hitherto common. Different versions of the same original—tales, histories, ballads—transmitted through docu1nen- tar_v and oral sources should be compared together; and more espe- cially the phenomena of the ante-Jerome versions of the New Testa- ment should receive the most careful study, before even the able-st commentator should allow himself to use the dogmatic tone which unfortunately characterizes Dr 'eiss's rllattlriiusc7:m1gcIz'um in de- ciding against the oral thcory. ’»ut this is a natural characteristic of an author who sees in a single '1epomraA1’1,u. convincing proof of an Aramaic original (see p. 805 above), and to whom a mad £809 settles all critical disputes. 'ith this dogmatism the tone of Canon 'estcott’s remarks on the oral Gospel contrasts zulvantageously. N cverthclcss, it will probably be hereafter found that the pheno- mena of our present synoptists are due not to one, but to all, of the causes advocated by the various dispntants of the 18th eentury. Tradition, documents, theological tendencies, literary modifications, misunderstanding of metaphorical parable, misumlerstauding of eucharistic language, misunderstanding of spiritual Ianguagc—all these causes will be found to have contributed t.o produce the pre- sent. synoptie result; and it will not irnprobably be found, as Dr Samlay shrewdly suggests, that early documents have been much more modified, and early oral traditions much less modified, than modern associations might have led us to suppose. Future investigations will receive a considerable _stirnulus and help, as soon as a harmony of the synoptists showing the Triple Tradition as well as t.hc double traditions (pp. 795-800 above) becomes a recognized text-book for all students of the Gospels. It will also be a useful c.hcck, if no demonstration of different dociuncnts (in Luke, for example) be recognized as sound until it has been tested by application to other authors. For example, the proof from mu’, 86', re, eT1re, 7o.="ye1, 7a7eT, 'IepomraA1'],u., Kriptos, 2’:/o51rLov, o.=1’2915s‘, Kai 15017, is by no means to be despised ; but it requires expression in a (-lea‘ picturesque way by the well-known means of curves; and no proof of this kind ought to be accepted until it (or co1'1'espo11ding proof) has been applied,—first (a) negatively, to several passages recognized as genuine productions of the same author (Plato, for example), and then (I:), positively, to several passages, some of which are recognized as gcnuine,othcrs as spurious. In the first case (a) the curves will exhibit no ﬂuetuations; in the second ((2) the curves will exhibit ﬂuetuations corresponding to the fluctuations in Luke; and this will be a strong and clearly intelligible proof (even t.o those who know no Grcek—for the same illustrative proof might be deduced from the application of the t.est t.o Titus A7ul'rom'cus and to Ilamlet) that. the fluctuations of the curves are caused in each case by the incoming of (lifferent documentary strata. But perhaps, to do this thoroughly, it would be necessary t.o do it four or five times over for each of the four or ﬁve principal ancient MSS. (nor ought, perhaps, cve11 varieties of spelling, and certainly not varieties of form, such as mag», &c., to be neglected, as possibly pointing to the incoming of different documents); and the labour is so great that, even with the avoidance of all broaching of hasty theories and all personalities, a single worker could hardly accomplish it with the devotion of a life,—at least that is the conclusion to which the present writer has been forced after devoting some years to this labour. Yet, in any case, one signal advanta 0 will result from our keeping before ourselves a high standard of ( cmonstratiou, viz., that, although we may bring forward theories for discussion, we shall draw a very distinct line between what is proved and not proved, and shall shrink with a just horror from short cuts to knowledge. The C1‘iticis7n of the Fourth Gospel.-—No criticism of a systematic kind, says Dr Iloltzmann (Schenkel’s Iiibcl-Lc.rico7L), began till the publication of Bretschneidcr’s I’7'obabilia (1820), which provoked so much opposition that the author retracted it. 'l‘l1capost.olie author- ship was supportcd by Sehlcicrmacher, and by Credner (1836), even while admitting that the Gospel could not be regarded as a purely objective work. Similarly De Vettc, after some doubt and hesita- tion (1837), and Reuss (1840-64) decided for the J ohannine author- ship,—thc former being influenced by a comparison of the Fourth Gospel with the other works of the 2d century. The attack of Strauss, in his Life of Jesus, being passed over (as indicating no attempt, or possibly ability, t.o appreciate the depth of the spiritual doctrine in the Fourth Gospel, in spite of the suggestiveness and occasional accuracy of his method), we come to Baur (1847), who pronounced the Gospel to be a religious ideal poem, composed in the 2d century. A great number of writers accepted this theory; among them, Zcllcr and Hilgcnfeld, and Schcnkcl and Keim in their lives of Christ, together with lté-ville (1864) and Scholten. In the meantime an hypothesis of “ partial authorship ” had been suggested, some (Vcisse in 1838, and F reytag in 1861) believing that the discourses, others, as Rcnan (1863), believing that the historical narratives, were genuine; while some wished to detach the Judrean from the Galilean portion of the Gospel, as being distinct in authorship and origin. Lnckc, Ewald, Br'uckner, and W ittiehcn, ado ting in various forms the view of a divided authorship,-recognized in t re Gospel a framework of historical fact, but noted also the promi- Critic OH" 1 UOSIIG