It appears then that, so far as there is an order in the Synoptic
Gospels, the normal type of that order is to be found precisely in
St. Mark, whom Papias alleges to have written not in order.

But again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the form in which it has come down to us, is not original but based upon another document previously existing. When we come to examine closely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, its normal character is in the main borne out, but still not quite completely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together against Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew and Luke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middle term which unites the other two. But still there remains a not inconsiderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in combination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a not quite exact and yet somewhat elaborate computation [Endnote 149:1] are these; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684 particulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew and Luke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributed pretty evenly over the whole of the narrative. Thus (to take a case at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. xii. 1-8, Mark ii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbath day), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) common to all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and Luke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. In the next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty points are found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and Luke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and Luke. Many of these coincidences between the first and third Synoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the last section referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11), one is the insertion of the article [Greek: taen] ([Greek: sunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek: sou] ([Greek: taen cheira sou]), two the use of [Greek: de] for [Greek: kai], and one that of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In the paragraph before, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke are made up thus, two [Greek: kai aesthion] (=[Greek kai esthiein]), [Greek: eipon] (=[Greek: eipan]), [Greek: poiein, eipen, met' autou] (=[Greek: sun auto]), [Greek: monous] (=[Greek: monois]). But though such points as these, if they had been few in number, might have been passed without notice, still, on the whole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally unimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic, such phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikon autou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and be absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek: alla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous]. In the account of the healing of the bloody flux the important word [Greek: tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two Evangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek: kai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more important clause [Greek: lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon … en haemera … ae tae polei ekeinae]: in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. xiv. 1) Herod's title is [Greek: tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek: basileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek: hoi ochloi aekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek: to perisseuon (-san)] are wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy of the Passion it has [Greek: apo] where the other two have [Greek: hupo], and [Greek: meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek: tae tritae haemera]: in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits the noticeable [Greek: kai diestrammenae]: in the second prophecy of the Passion it omits [Greek: mellei], in the paragraph about offences, [Greek: elthein ta skandala …ouai…di hou erchetai]. These points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it to say that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the second Gospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to the normal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain its primary character throughout. The theory that we have in the second Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is not tenable.

No doubt this is an embarrassing result. The question is easy to ask and difficult to answer—If our St. Mark does not represent the original form of the document, what does represent it? The original document, if not quite like our Mark, must have been very nearly like it; but how did any writer come to reproduce a previous work with so little variation? If he had simply copied or reproduced it without change, that would have been intelligible; if he had added freely to it, that also would have been intelligible: but, as it is, he seems to have put in a touch here and made an erasure there on principles that it is difficult for us now to follow. We are indeed here at the very crux of Synoptic criticism.

For our present purpose however it is not necessary that the question should be solved. We have already obtained an answer on the two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel is written in order; it is not an original document. These two characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape the document to which Papias alludes.

Does his statement accord any better with the phenomena of the first Gospel? He asserts that it was originally written in Hebrew, and that the large majority of modern critics deny to have been the case with our present Gospel. Many of the quotations in it from the Old Testament are made directly from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew. There are turns of language which have the stamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come in through translation. But, without going into this question as to the original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method will be to ask whether it can have been an original document at all? The work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the very same investigation which shows that our present St. Mark was not original, tells with increased force against St. Matthew. When a document exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two other documents, and those two other documents agree together and differ from it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be little doubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviated from the original, and that it is therefore secondary in character. It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stage than St. Mark: it has preserved the features of the original with a less amount of accuracy. The points of the triple synopsis on which Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; those on which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in other words, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly as three to one. In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater— as much as five to one.

This is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the first Gospel is a secondary composition. An original composition would be homogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first two chapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from the rest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the Old Testament quotations. Those which are common to the other two Synoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from the Septuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to the reflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly the influence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seen to be a recension of another original document or documents and not an original document itself.

Again, if our St. Matthew had been an original composition and had appeared from the first in its present full and complete form, it would be highly difficult to account for the omissions and variations in Mark and Luke. We should be driven back, indeed, upon all the impossibilities of the 'Benutzungs-hypothese.' On the one hand, the close resemblance between the three compels us to assume that the authors have either used each other's works or common documents; but the differences practically preclude the supposition that the later writer had before him the whole work of his predecessor. If Luke had had before him the first two chapters of Matthew he could not have written his own first two chapters as he has done.

Again, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistent with the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events. Those graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel, and come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wanting in the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of the paralytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the five thousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; there are features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistorical and due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way of reduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative in order to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. For instance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum, but, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the same time modifying the language in which he describes this latter incident after the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of the healing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had passed over the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similar nature is the adding of the ass's colt to the ass in the account of the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayings repeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a later editor piecing together different documents and finding the same saying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawing upon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would be Matt. v. 29, 30 (= Matt. xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt. v. 32 (= Matt. xix. 9) divorce, Matt. x. 38, 39 (= Matt. xvi. 24, 25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others.

These characteristics of the first Gospel forbid us to suppose that it came fresh from the hands of the Apostle in the shape in which we now have it; they also forbid us to identify it with the work alluded to by Papias. Neither of the two first Gospels, as we have them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them.

* * * * *