The contributions of the author of the Gospel are more extensive than those of his predecessor. They comprise i, 1-3, 14b-15, 34b, 39b, 45; ii, 15b-16a, 18a, 19b-20; iii, 6-19, 22-30; iv, 10-25, 30-32, 34; v, 43a; vi, 1-13, 15, 16, 30-31, 45-viii, 26, 30b-33a, 33c-35, 38-ix, 1, 9-13, 28-50; x, 2-12, 24, 26-30, 32b-34, 38-40, 45; xi, 11-14, 18-25, 27a; xii, 14b, 32-34a, 38-44; xiii, 3-27, 30-32, 37; xiv, 8, 9, 21, 35b, 38, 41b, 57-59, 62b; xv, 39, 44, 45; xvi, 7b, in all about two hundred and seventy verses or parts of verses.

This leaves to the original writer the following sections: i, 16-34a, 35-39a, 40-44; ii, 1-15a, 16b-17, 18b, 19a, 21-iii, 5, 20, 21, 31-iv, 9, 26-29, 33; vi, 32-34; viii, 27-30a, 33b, 36, 37; x, 1, 13-23, 25, 31-32a, 35-37, 41-44; xi, 15-17, 27b-xii, 14a, 14c-31, 34b-37; xiii, 1-2, 28-29, 33-36; xiv, 1-7, 10, 11, 22-25, 43-46, 48-50, 65; xv, 1-15, 21, 22, 24a, 26-27, 31-32, 34a, 37, in all about two hundred and twelve verses or parts of verses.[62]

Wendling calls the writers of these three strands M1, M2, and Ev. Printing the text of M1 and M2 without rearrangement, but with the omission of all matter assigned to Ev, he finds them to make a continuous story, well connected and without breaks. Whether M1 alone makes such a story, he is in doubt; and therefore as to whether M2 found M1 as a connected discourse, or himself first assembled the sections of it in connection with his own additions, the same doubt exists. The passion-story of M1 by itself seems to be a connected account; it may therefore be assumed that so much of M1 was found by M2 as a whole and in its present order. Further, since the work of Ev in the passion-story is so slight, it is to be assumed that the combination of M1 and M2 in this story was more carefully done than in many other parts, and also that for this part of the gospel history Ev possessed very few traditions which had not already been embodied in M1 + M2. This would agree with the natural assumption that the earliest part of the gospel tradition to be carefully treasured would be that relating to Jesus’ death, and that it was only later that the attempt was made to preserve with equal care the story of his whole public career.

When one remembers the fine-spun analyses of the historical books of the Old Testament, which, long ridiculed for their elaborateness, have finally been accepted by most scholars, one hesitates on this account alone to pronounce an adverse judgment upon Wendling’s theory. Yet his analysis certainly seems over-elaborate. It is a great advantage to be able to distinguish the more obvious work of the redactor from the earlier document upon which he worked. All students will feel this with reference to chap. iv, and the advantage in chap. iii is perhaps only less great. Still more welcome is the assignment of vi, 45-viii, 27, to the redactor. The great stumbling-block of this section is its feeding of the four thousand, so obviously copied from the feeding of the five thousand. That one and the same author should have written both these accounts has seemed strange to many readers. But this duplication is as easily disposed of upon von Soden’s theory as upon Wendling’s. Von Soden’s analysis into two strata (without the assumption of two writers) is much simpler than Wendling’s analysis into three, with three writers. Wendling’s theory is more secure where it goes with von Soden’s, and less convincing where it goes beyond it.

Some distinction has in any case to be made between the final writer of the Gospel and the earliest tradition upon which he worked; and Wendling has indicated the criteria which such a distinction must employ. Von Soden’s division of the Marcan material into a Petrine and a later source amounts to the same thing. The two critics do not differ greatly about the passages they regard as secondary. Von Soden’s Petrine narrative does not differ greatly from Wendling’s M1 + M2. But the line of demarkation between M1 and M2, and Wendling’s reasons for drawing this, are not as self-evident as the line which Wendling and von Soden agree in drawing between the earlier document, or source, and the work of the Evangelist.

CONCLUSIONS OF VON SODEN AND WENDLING COMPARED

A tabulation of the results discloses the following agreements and disagreements between von Soden’s Petrine narrative and Wendling’s M1+M2.

Von Sodeni, 4-11,16-20, 21-39ii, 1-28
Wendlingi, 4-14a, 16-34a, 35-39a, 40-44 ii, 1-15a, 16b-17, 18b, 19b
Von Sodeniii, 1-6, 13-19, 21-35 iv, 1-9, 21-32
Wendling21-28 iii, 1-5, 20,21, 31-35 iv, 1-9, 26-29, 33, 35-41
Von Sodenvi, 6-16viii, 27-38
Wendlingv, 1-42, 43b vi, 14, 17-30, 33-44 viii, 27-30a, 33b, 36, 37
Von Sodenix, 132-40 x, 13-45
Wendlingix, 2-8, 14-27 x, 1, 13-23, 25, 31, 32a, 35-37, 41-52, xi, 1-10
Von Sodenxii, 13-44xiii, 1-6
Wendling15-17, 27b-33 xii, 1-14a, 14c-31, 34b-37 xiii, 1-2, 28-29
Von Soden28-37
Wendling33-36 xiv, 1-7, 10-20, 22-35a, 36-37, 39-41a, 42-56, 60-62a
Von Soden
Wendling63-72 xv, 1-38, 40-42, 46-47 xvi, 1-7a, 8

The comparison shows Wendling’s analysis to be much more complex than von Soden’s. This results from his separation of his groundwork into two strands. It also shows that Wendling assigns considerably more to M1 and M2 than von Soden to his Petrine source. This Wendling can afford to do, since he supposes two documents instead of one. The matter assigned by von Soden to the Petrine source is in part assigned by Wendling to M1 and in part to M2. E.g., i, 4-11, is assigned by von Soden to the Petrine source, and by Wendling to M2; but i, 16-39, is assigned to the Petrine source, and (with the exception of two parts of verses) to M1. The passage ii, 1-28, is assigned by von Soden to the Petrine source, by Wendling to M1 (again with exception of a few parts of verses). Of the one hundred and seventy-seven verses assigned by von Soden to his Petrine source, up to and including xiii, 37 (after which he so assigns nothing), Wendling assigns about one hundred and twenty-four to his M1, and only ten to M2. Tho he assigns some verses to M1 which von Soden does not give to the Petrine source, and omits some (assigning them to the redactor) which von Soden does so assign, up to xiii, 37, the M1 of Wendling agrees very closely with the Petrine source of von Soden. The material assigned to M1 and M2 after xiii, 37, is about equally divided between them. Wendling makes no claims for the Petrine origin of his M1 or M2, but after these are subtracted from the whole Gospel there is a smaller amount left for the work of his redactor than remains after the Petrine source is subtracted. Since Wendling distinguishes between two sources and the work of the redactor, and von Soden only between the Petrine tradition and other matter, this result also is what would be expected.