012. Chapter 10 - The Two-Source Theory

Chapter 10 - The Two-Source Theory

Present Trends

It requires considerable temerity to maintain a position which is contrary to the entire trend of current scholarship. But trends of scholarship are the most fickle factors imaginable and are apt to rest more upon presuppositions and prevailing atmosphere than upon facts. The person who still holds that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were directly inspired of God to write their accounts of the life of Christ may feel rather lonely sometimes when he sees even scholars with the conservative reputation of A. T. Robertson yield to the current skeptical trend and adopt the radical Two-source Theory for the origin of the Synoptic narratives. But when the scholars of this present unbelieving generation are placed alongside those of all preceding Christian centuries, then the present group, whose voices sound like a unanimous chorus today, becomes a very small minority amid the roll call of the ages. The Issue The crucial question is, Does the change of conviction as to the method of composition of the Gospel narratives rest upon newly discovered facts — facts that were unknown to preceding ages? The answer to this is flatly, no. The change of conviction rests upon a change of mental attitude. The facts cited to prove the radical theories as to composite authorship or that the Gospel writers copied from one another or from common written sources are facts which were in the hands of the early Christian writers and those of all succeeding ages. It is the custom of the times to wave aside scholars of preceding generations and especially those of the early centuries with the contemptuous gesture which affirms that they were “ignorant and unlearned men” as compared with the “super-men” of our time. It is true that early Christian writers occasionally advance views which indicate a certain lack of information and insight, but the most extravagant statements available from Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or Eusebius could not possibly compete in a lack-of-intelligence contest with the dizzy statements and theories which are the common product of the super-scholarship of our day. Furthermore, the early Christian scholars were very close to the time of the actual writing of the Gospel narratives; some of them had seen and talked with apostles; others were students under men who had been trained by apostles. They had every conceivable advantage for the ascertaining of the facts in the case, over any person trying to concoct novel theories two thousand years later. The real basis for the whole present trend in Biblical study is not any flood of light from new facts, but simply the application of the theory of evolution to the facts and problems of the Bible. The theory of evolution is the accepted basis of measurement for the “intellectuals” of this generation and everywhere is seen the blind and ruthless rejection or alteration of the facts in order to fit the preconceived hypothesis. A Modern Tower of Babel The varieties and shades of opinion among the radical scholars are so numerous and contradictory that it is well to remember the term “modernist” covers about as much latitude as the word “socialist.” The general trend of present scholarship, however, is so extremely hostile to Christ and the Bible and, in many quarters, even to the very existence of God, that the Christian will do well to examine with care the conclusions of modernists. It is a notorious fact that the modernists themselves are exceedingly impatient with any effort to examine the basis of their conclusions. They urgently demand that Christians shall keep their minds in a fluid state, ready to change any belief or conviction they may have entertained concerning Christ and His teaching. But when someone proposes that they, themselves, halt their endless construction of superstructure, which constantly rises higher with the most amazing and intricate multiplication of adornment and decorative designs, in order to join in the investigation of the foundation of this huge structure, they view such a proposal with resentment and horror. The foundation is pure theory, but they have reiterated the hypothesis so often, they expect assertion to take the place of proof. They view any challenge of the foundation as heresy and announce that “it is unnecessary, at this late date, to discuss such matters” and “the consensus of opinion” has established their theory as “an assured result.” But all of this twisting and turning leaves a theory still a theory — which is quite different from fact and proof.

Damaging Admissions

It is a hopeful sign to see some from among the radical group dare to admit that all of this immense superstructure is really founded on a theory which itself has never been proved. The Dogma of Evolution, published by Professor Louis T. More of the University of Cincinnati, frankly challenges the whole intellectual attitude of the day toward the theory of evolution. The author takes the position that it is still a theory which has not been proved and which, in the very nature of the case, never can be proved. A somewhat similar volume published in 1934 challenges in part the theory on which the radicals base their whole structure of interpretation of the Gospel narratives: The Synoptic Gospels — a posthumous volume from the pen of James Hardy Ropes of Harvard. Both volumes have been like bombshells thrown into their respective fields. Modernists have been affirming and describing from their imagination such sources as “Q,” from which they claim our Gospel narratives were copied, for so many years that it is very disconcerting to hear a famous scholar of their own group push aside their concoction as pure theory. The Synoptics and John’s Gospel

Professor Ropes, of course, does not desert the modernistic position and is unwilling to see the whole radical theory of the composition of the Gospels challenged, but he writes with a modesty and sobriety of judgment very rare among modernists. He assails with vigor some of the fundamental props in the current modernistic view as to the origin of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He frankly admits that some of their most “assured results” are not “assured” at all, but are only theoretical and that the whole amazing product of the skeptical speculation of a century is utterly inadequate to explain the facts. It is not surprising that his book has caused consternation in certain circles. The first line of division made in current study of the Gospel narratives is between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are called “Synoptic Gospels,” and the Gospel of John. Synoptic comes from the Greek “seen together” and is applied to these three narratives because they can, at least in certain sections, be arranged in parallel columns. They show a certain similarity in outline and, at times, in language. John’s Gospel is, however, entirely different from the others. He presents an immense amount of new material even in discussing the same scenes, and, for the most part, devotes his attention to speeches and events to which the others do not refer at all. The Gospel of John has been the particular object of hostility on the part of the critics because he so plainly and strongly affirms the deity of Christ. They attempt to place the date of this Gospel very late and to discard it as unhistorical. They hold that it does not tell facts about Christ as they actually happened or speeches that He actually made, but only the beclouded conceptions of the Christians in the time in which it was written, as they came to deify Jesus and attribute all sorts of marvelous deeds and claims to Him. They claim to discern a clear line of difference between the way Jesus is presented in the Synoptics and in John, both as to the deeds, claims and speeches of Jesus. A typical example of the reckless rejection of John’s Gospel as unhistorical is seen in The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate by Professor B. W. Bacon of Yale. There is perhaps no phase of New Testament criticism upon which radicals are so completely in agreement as in the assignment of the Gospel of John to a late date and the denial of its historical accuracy. There is no similar subject concerning which early Christian writers are in such complete agreement and upon which they write with such strong and impressive affirmations of the certainty of the facts they record, as the declaration that the Gospel of John was actually written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, and published about the year a.d. 90 during his residence in Ephesus. The whole weight of early Christian testimony is against the modernistic view. The internal evidence of the book itself, with its strange omission of the name of John, its use of the titles, “the disciple” or “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” its emphatic declarations that the book is the work of an eyewitness (John 19:35; John 21:24, John 21:25), and the veiled identification of the author in the last chapter make it clear that the apostle John was the author. All of this evidence is so overwhelming that the best the critics are able to do is to attempt to confuse the evidence by admitting that somebody by the name of John wrote the book and then affirming that it was a John, the disciple, a later figure. When pressed for details concerning this person they suppose to be the author, the portrait they present is that of John the apostle with a later date attached. The discovery of a fragment of the Gospel of John which the most competent critics declare to have been written shortly after the close of the first century places in our hands evidence which promises to destroy completely this, the central conclusion of radical criticism of the Gospel narratives. This fragment was discovered by C. H. Roberts, Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, while working through a collection of fragments that had been gathered from rubbish heaps in Egypt during 1920 and sent to the Rylands Library, in Manchester, England. Dr. Roberts, in the monograph which he published concerning his discovery in 1935, says: “On the whole we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which it was most probably written — a judgment I should be much more loath to pronounce were it not supported by Sir Frederic Kenyon, Dr. W. Schubart, and Dr. H. C. Bell, who have seen photographs of the text, and whose experience and authority in these matters are unrivaled.” He argues that the presence of this manuscript in Egypt during the first half of the second century immediately thrusts the composition of the Gospel itself at Ephesus back to the close of the first century. If this dating proves to be correct, then this is the oldest extant manuscript of any portion of the New Testament. It actually dates from almost the very time in which the original document was written. This utterly demolishes the whole structure of radical attack upon the Gospel as of late origin, written by someone who lived in a later period and invented out of his imagination his own extravagant claims that Jesus said He was the Son of God. It is certainly the irony of fate that the critics, after many decades of attack on the Gospel of John, and after declaring repeatedly that they had discredited it as of late second-century origin, should now find themselves face to face with an actual copy of John’s Gospel written shortly after the close of the first century! This fragment is sure to be the object of research and discussion during the next few years. If further study sustains the early date assigned to this manuscript, it will be a most important piece of evidence. The proof from the Gospel of John itself, and from early Christian writers, however, is already so overwhelming that only blind bias could have suggested its rejection. The Two-source Theory

The current theory as to the composition of the Gospel narratives is that they were copied from one another or from some common source or sources. The accompanying outline of the Two-source Theory taken from The Life and Teachings of Jesus by Professor C. F.Kent of Yale offers a clear and convenient presentation of the prevailing theory. The sketch is arranged in decades with the names of the reigning emperors in the left column and the pertinent historical events in the right column. In this framework of history, Kent has arranged the Two-source Theory. Two main lines of descent are indicated by the lines drawn: the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost descends into Ur-Mark and then into the Gospel of Mark. Ur is the German word for “early” and by the name Ur-Mark is meant an earlier, shorter document than the Gospel of Mark which we possess. It is held that this earlier document grew by accretions into the Gospel of Mark as we have it today. Another line of descent is from the eyewitnesses who bore testimony to the things which they knew concerning the deeds and words of Jesus. This line proceeds through “brief gospels” into the Gospel of Luke. Preceding in time the formation of Ur-Mark and beginning another line of descent is “Q.” “Q” is the name given another document which they assume. The name comes from the German word “Quella” which means source, the first letter being used to designate the document. It is also called the “Logia” (“words” or “sayings”) because of the supposition that it contained mainly the words of Jesus. Speeches being harder to remember than events, they figure that the first thing to be written down would be some of the declarations and sermons of Christ. They hold that “Q” developed into the Gospel of Matthew as we have it by being combined with the Gospel of Mark or Ur-Mark, at least with generous use of this Gospel for general outline and framework, and with much of the same expression. Luke is held to have used both Mark and Matthew in compiling his narrative. Mark and Luke are also declared to have been influenced by the Pauline Epistles. All of these are held to have contributed to the compilation of John’s Gospel, in which a strong influence of Alexandrian philosophy is supposed to be found. This, in brief, is the current theory. The complexity of the hypothesis and the assurance with which the critics discuss and describe the imaginary documents which are the basis of the theory are little short of astounding to those who meet it for the first time. This is the huge structure whose foundation is to be examined in this chapter. It makes the modernist very indignant to ask for proof of the basic assumptions of this theory. It is simply the consensus of opinion of the scholars of the day, one of “the assured results.” Who has the right to challenge its foundation? The similarity of process and conclusions between this Two-source Theory and the theory of evolution, of which it is the offspring, is evident. A theory is conceived and asserted. Adequate proof cannot be offered to establish the theory as a fact, but repeated declarations that the theory is true are supposed to supply the lack of proof. Thus is the effort made to transmute theory into fact by mere repetition of the theory. Even Professor Ropes shows a touch of this impatience with any demand for proof of the major presuppositions: “It requires at the present day no elaborate explanations to justify the consideration by themselves of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, with the exclusion of the Gospel of John. Nor need I defend the assumption which I shall make that Mark is the source from which Matthew and Luke have drawn much of their material” (The Synoptic Gospels, p. 3). He thinks clearly in the frank admission that the whole proposition as to the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke is an “assumption,” but is it true that this hypothesis is so well established that it needs no defense “at the present day”?

Quotation from Papias The customary statement of the case for the Two-source Theory is that it is proved by the similarities and the differences in the synoptic accounts. In other words, in the passages where Matthew, Mark and Luke are parallel, the accounts are so closely identical that they must have risen from some interdependent relation; in the passages where they are entirely different, there are adequate reasons for any omissions or changes by the person who copied, and omitted and changed as he copied. An effort will be made to test this line of reasoning and some of the data upon which it rests. But another line of evidence which is adduced will first be considered. Two passages from early Christian literature are urged as evidence for the theory. Papias, leader of the church at Hierapolis in Asia Minor and associate of Polycarp and others who had been trained by the apostles, says: “Matthew composed the Oracles (Ta Logia) in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able” (Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. 111. 39). From this declaration they take the name The Logia and suppose it to have been an earlier, shorter work than our Gospel of Matthew. But neither the statement of Papias nor that of any other of the early Christian scholars gives ground for the supposition. Instead of implying that it was a different book, he implies exactly the opposite — that the book was their Gospel of Matthew which now furnished no difficulty of translation since it was in Greek, but which in its first writing was in Hebrew and caused such difficulty. The past tense “every one translated” implies that this was not true of the book at the time he wrote. His whole statement implies that the book was not in circulation in Hebrew at his time or he would not have had cause to inform his readers on the subject. Matthew wrote for Jewish Christians and to the Jewish readers; hence he wrote at first in Hebrew. But he himself doubtless published it in Greek when the early church swiftly took on a world-wide scope. If Matthew also wrote the Greek edition, this would explain the absence of evidence of our Gospel of Matthew’s being a translation from Aramaic. It is a curious quirk that the critics seeking for evidence of an Aramaic original should declare that Mark rather than Matthew furnishes such indications. Ropes declares: “Among the several Gospels, Mark is the one regarding which the claim of a direct Aramaic original has made most appeal to scholars” (The Synoptic Gospels, p. 97). Into the maze of theorizing which critics have wound around this statement of Papias in order to found here in history their theory of “Q,” Professor Ropes casts the following bombshell: “In using the term ‘oracles,’ it is not unlikely that he [Papias] had in mind a book like one of our Gospels, and he was unquestionably interested in reporting a tradition bearing on the origin of our Greek Gospel of Matthew, which was unquestionably known under that title in his day. His fragmentary sentence, detached from all context, has had great influence on the church’s view of the Gospel of Matthew, and must refer to some important fact within the Aramaic phase of early Christian life. But it is not to be taken as the basis for a theory of ‘Q,’ or, indeed, as having any bearing whatever on that pure hypothesis” (The Synoptic Gospels, pp 107, 108). The Apostle Peter and the Gospel of Mark A second statement from Papias has been much discussed: “Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord; he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses” (Eusebius, Eccles. Mist. III. 39). This has been the basis of endless theorizing upon the existence of an earlier form of Mark, called Ur-Mark. Professor Ropes also flatly contradicts this whole effort and declares that the statement of Papias refers to our Gospel of Mark: “A third piece of knowledge relates to Mark and Matthew alone. It is of prime importance, although limited in its bearing, more limited, in reality, than is sometimes thought. At some time before the year 160, perhaps many years before that date, the Christian bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, named Papias, wrote a statement which has been preserved for us in trustworthy form, although most of his book has been lost. He had had the advantage of acquaintances with older men who had themselves known some of the veterans of a still earlier, and even of the first, generation of Christians, and from his own conversation with these older men he reports what they had told him of their intercourse with those veterans. One of them had stated to Papias’ informant that Mark had at some time been in contact with the apostle Peter, and Mark wrote down what he remembered of Peter’s accounts of Christ’s words and deeds. Whether anything beyond this in Papias’ long sentence came to him thus, with only one intermediary, from the veteran, whom he calls ‘the Elder,’ and what Papias means by calling Mark the ‘interpreter’ of Peter, are questions of uncertain answer and are immaterial. There is no question that Papias, writing when he did, meant our Gospel of Mark by the book he refers to” (The Synoptic Gospels, pp. 105, 106). It should be noted in this quotation how Professor Ropes attempts to avoid the admission that Papias was actually trained by the apostle John himself. He attempts to create the impression that another generation intervened between the apostle John and Papias, even while admitting that Papias wrote this famous statement in a.d. 160 and “perhaps many years before that date.” The early Christian writers declare that John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus about a.d. 85. Professor Ropes undertakes to leave room for an intervening generation by underscoring the fact that Papias in this passage speaks of John the Elder instead of John, the apostle. This is the radical theory, to which reference has been made before, that two Johns lived at Ephesus: one the apostle and, succeeding him, a younger man, named John the Elder. All of this is conceived from the title “the Elder” which Papias used concerning the aged apostle John.

Deadly Effect of the Quotations from Papias

Before leaving the external evidence from Papias, it should be noted that the passages strike hard at the Two-source Theory itself.Papias gives no indication whatsoever of any contact or connection between the writing of the two narratives, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. His declaration that Mark was directed or informed by Peter in the writing of his Gospel upsets completely the theory that the author of our Gospel of Mark would need the help of so-called “sources.” Peter had been with Christ from the beginning; if Mark had the information Peter gave, what need had he of more help? Moreover, Papias affirms that the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel. Matthew was with Jesus in person. What need would he have had of “sources”? Who would know better than he himself? Why have to borrow from Mark, who was not an eyewitness, accounts of thrilling events he had himself experienced? Again, take notice of the implication in the affirmation that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. This certainly implies that Matthew’s Gospel was the first to be written; Matthew wrote while the Hebrew element was still strong in the early church. This is death to the Two-source Theory which supposes that Mark was written first and that Matthew copied from Mark. That the above inference from the statement of Papias is correct, may be confirmed from the declaration of Irenaeus, who lived from about a.d. 135 to 200. He, too, had seen Polycarp in his youth and had been instructed by those associated with the apostles. He declares: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had also leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies, III. 1). The Two-source Theory must fly in the face of the testimony of the early Christian writers who had been in touch with the apostles or those instructed by them. The issue is history versus theory, facts versus presuppositions. Thus do the critics hang themselves from the very two passages of Papias upon which they had hoped to suspend their theory.

Dilemma of Pseudo-conservatives The Two-source Theory arose in a period when the critics assigned the Gospels to a late date in the second century. Radical scholars of the nineteenth century held that the Gospels were written late by unknown “editors” who knew nothing at first hand of the facts of Jesus’ life and had to draw on ancient “sources.” They supposed these writers used the names of apostles to give authority and credence to their publications. Two monstrous inconsistencies now face the proponents of this theory. On the one hand, there is the group of writers who are ordinarily considered conservative, but who have adopted this theory. You can scarcely pick up a magazine or book commenting on the Gospel narratives but you will find this theory staring you in the face: Mark wrote first, Matthew copied, etc. When men of conservative reputation such as A. T. Robertson adopt and expound the Two-source Theory (A Harmony of the Gospels, p255), here is the ridiculous situation which results. They still hold that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew who was with Jesus during His ministry and yet that he did not have such ordinary intelligence as to be able to record facts in the life of Jesus which he saw and heard without copying from Mark who was not present. Truly, the structure of Christian faith can not be made to fit on the warped and wobbly foundation of nineteenth-century infidelity. If our Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who were immediately in touch with eyewitnesses, then what need of “sources”? The Early Date of the Gospels The dilemma of the more radical scholars is not less embarrassing. They have on their hands a theory which was specially constructed to fit the theory of a late, second-century date for the Gospel narratives and, now that the evidence has become overwhelming, they have had to surrender the question of late date and move the books up into the first century. Professor Torrey, of Yale, declares there is not a scintilla of evidence to sustain the supposition of a late date (second century) for the Gospels. Professor Ropes frankly admits the fact that the Gospels must have been written in the first century: “From these circumstances it is a secure conclusion that about the year 125 after Christ, all the Gospels were already relatively ancient books, associated with an earlier generation. This certainly carries us back to a date not later than about the year 100” (The Synoptic Gospels, pp. 104, 105). Thus he finds himself in the embarrassing position of admitting that the Gospel of John was written at a time when the early Christian writers declare the apostle John was still alive and yet denying that it is accurate history written by the apostle! In casting doubt upon the Fourth Gospel, he must contradict the whole body of early Christian literature. He confesses himself “baffled in any effort to determine how much credible historical knowledge can be drawn from John” (The Synoptic Gospels, p. 91), after affirming it was written in the very period when the apostle John, an eyewitness, was still alive, according to the whole historic testimony of the period. The radical scholar feels that he must by all odds continue to deny the historic value of the Gospel of John because it is so powerful in affirming the deity of Christ, but how he can maintain this denial, while admitting the early date of the book, is a predicament which is indeed baffling. The Time Element of the Theory The critical need of the Two-source Theory, as of its parent — the theory of evolution — is time. Hear the evolutionist as he conjures up a sonorous and unending array of figures - thousands of years, millions of years, billions of years. He must have unlimited time on which to weave the intricate threads of his theory. So with the current, skeptical theory of the composition of the Gospels. Now that the facts force the date of writing of the Gospel narratives back into the first century, how in such a compressed space is it possible to maintain any longer an extended development from source to source? Professor Ropes places the Synoptics between a.d. 70 and 100. This comes within one or two decades of the time which conservative scholars have always assigned to these narratives (probably 50-60, and certainly before a.d. 70). How could it be possible that during the short period of forty years, myths should grow up and be published as historic facts while hundreds of eyewitnesses of these events in the life of Christ, which are presented as astounding miracles, were still alive? How could it he possible, when the date of the Gospels is admitted to he at a time well within the probable lifetime of the apostles, that the writers should have to fumble with “sources” and copy from one another, if they themselves saw and heard or had immediate access to the eyewitnesses who had a leading part in the events recorded? The clinching question is: how could it be possible for the Gospel of Matthew, which was a “relatively ancient” document by a.d. 125 and quite evidently known and revered in the church during the closing years of the first century, to be a forged document — a pseudonymous writing — to which the name of the apostle Matthew had been attached under the very eyes of those still living who had been associated with him? If it is admitted that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name, the Two-source Theory becomes ridiculous, for what need would an eyewitness of even ordinary intelligence have of copying such matter as the critics hold the author of Matthew’s Gospel copied from Mark? A scholar less acute in his reasoning or less conscientious in his writing might be unable to see or unwilling to admit this critical dilemma. Not so with Professor Ropes. He both sees and admits the difficulty and that he can not solve it. He starts his whole series of lectures with the declaration that he is building on an “assumption” in declaring Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. Then he uses this “assumption” to deny that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel bearing his name. One assumption is thus proved by another assumption! But he at least sees that he must deny the apostolic authorship of the Gospel of Matthew to maintain his theory. “Now it is inconceivable that one of the twelve, such as the apostle Matthew, should have been so dependent as the author of the First Gospel shows himself to have been on an informant (Mark) whose opportunities for knowledge of the events were incomparably inferior to his own. Consequently the conclusion seems inevitable that the author of the First Gospel, the so-called Gospel of Matthew, was not the apostle Matthew. What led to the name, which this Gospel has borne from the earliest times, what relation Matthew the apostle may have had to our Gospel or to one of its sources, can merely be the subject of conjecture, and, as a matter of fact. conjectures on this question have proved elusive and futile” (The Synoptic Gospels, p. 38). What a confession! It sounds like a person who finds himself driven into a corner and forced to throw up his hands. He has no explanation as to how this Gospel could have arisen at such an early time and have been attributed to Matthew the apostle, when it was not written by him. The Two-source Theory was built by the skeptics of the nineteenth century on the assumption that the Gospels are late, second-century documents; it simply does not fit into the admitted facts today that the Gospels were written far back in the first century.

“Q” the Mythical

One of the features of the Two-source Theory which has been most confidently affirmed is that back of Matthew is an earlier document, “Q.” Thousands of pages have been written describing this document. A. T. Robertson says in A Harmony of the Gospels: “The criticism of the Synoptic Gospels has been able to reach a broad general conclusion that is likely to stand the test of time. The reason for this happy solution lies in the fact that the processes and results can be tested. It is not mere subjective speculation. Any one who knows how to weigh evidence can compare Mark, Matthew and Luke in the English, and still better in the Greek. The pages of the present harmony offer proof enough. It is as plain as a pikestaff that both our Matthew and Luke used practically all of Mark and followed his general order of events. For this reason Mark has been placed first on the pages where this Gospel appears at all. But another thing is equally dear and that is that both Matthew and Luke had another source in common because they each give practically identical matter for much that is not in Mark at all. This second common source for Matthew and Luke has been called Logia because it is chiefly discourses. It is sometimes referred to as ‘Q.’ . . Unfortunately we do not have the whole of the Logia (Q) before us as in the case of Mark” (p 255). This flamboyant affirmation of “Q” comes from the supposedly conservative Professor A. T. Robertson, of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Now let us hear Professor Ropes, radical scholar of the Unitarian Harvard University, as with sledge hammer blows he smashes into bits this theoretical structure “Q.” “It is commonly held that Matthew drew much of his matter from an earlier compilation of Jesus’ sayings also used by Luke and nowadays sometimes dubbed ‘Q.’ But of such a book no ancient seems ever to have heard, and the grounds on which its existence is inferred by modern scholars are far less secure than is commonly represented or supposed” (p 37). Again he says: “The hypothesis is usually accepted that there was in existence at the close of the first century a book containing an extensive record of Jesus’ sayings, from which both Matthew and Luke drew, but which, having been largely reproduced in their Gospels, was thereafter lost. This supposed book was often termed the ‘Logia’ by scholars of the last century. In the present generation it is more commonly known by the symbol ‘Q.’ Matthew, as can be observed by anyone, has combined this material of Jesus’ sayings into his large unified discourses and blocks of connected paragraphs. Luke has it distributed in smaller portions, mainly in two long sections of his Gospel. Now, in view of these plain facts it is a necessary conclusion, that if Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels independently, such a common source, ‘Q,’ must have once existed. However, in the discussion of this matter — which of late has reached enormous proportions and attained to bewildering perplexity — the fundamental assumption that Luke and Matthew were independent has been but lightly treated, and often the critical significance of this question for the problem does not seem to have been present to the critics’ minds. There is, however, an alternative; namely, that Luke drew these sayings from Matthew, and in the present state of the investigation it ought not to be excluded from consideration. That this alternative is still open renders unsatisfactory a great deal of current discussion of these Gospels and their sources, and makes even more futile the various inconclusive attempts to determine the limits, contents, purpose, and ideas of ‘Q,’ the hypothetical ‘second source’ of Matthew and Luke. The third possibility, that Matthew is dependent upon Luke for these sayings, may, for a variety of reasons, be dismissed, although the idea is sometimes advanced. In any case, it ought to be repeated that ‘Q,’ if it ever existed, is a pure inference, a strictly hypothetical document. No ancient writer known to us appears to have so much as heard of it, to say nothing of knowing it by personal inspection.

“This theory of a second written source, devised to explain the resemblances of Matthew and Luke, seems to have occurred to the mind of man, or at least to have been published to the world, just one hundred years ago. In the present state of our knowledge, whether such a document ever existed must be regarded as uncertain” (The Synoptic Gospels, pp. 67, 68). Repeatedly Professor Ropes attacks the assurance with which radical scholars conjure up “Q.” “That Mark, in substantially its present form, was drawn on by Matthew and Luke for the greater part of their narrative of events and incidents, can be regarded as an achieved result of Synoptic criticism, and can be used without scruple as the basis for modern study. But it is surprising, and a little mortifying to scholarship, to have to admit that this fundamental conclusion is the only assured result of the vast amount of incessant labor which has been expended upon the so called Synoptic problem in the whole of the past one hundred years and more. As to the other main question for the examination of which the material is directly open to students, that presented by the great mass of sayings common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark, agreement among scholars is less than it was forty years ago. The widespread idea of a common source, now lost, for these two Gospels — the theory of ‘Logia’ or ‘Q’ — has tended to be modified, refined, and complicated to such a degree as, for that reason if for no other, to arouse doubts of its validity. There is a simpler, competing possibility; namely, that Luke drew these sayings from our Gospel of Matthew, which has never been shown to be impossible. If this could be made a probability, the hypothesis of ‘Q’ would lose at least its main ground of support” (The Synoptic Gospels, p 93). Thus, after one hundred years of discussion and endless speculation in which the towering structure of “Q” “has reached enormous proportions and attained to bewildering perplexity,” it is frankly admitted that its foundation is mere shifting sand and the evident doom of the theory clearly presaged. Did Luke Use Matthew? But what of the alternative which Professor Ropes offers — the theory that Luke copied directly from Matthew? Forced to yield the theory “Q” after all the years of toil spent in constructing it, he urges the possibility that Luke copied from Matthew. But this theory also has been thoroughly discredited. The famous English scholar Alfred Plummer has achieved a monumental work in his commentary on Luke. It is modernistic, in some positions advanced, but it stands in the sharpest contrast with other commentaries of the International Critical Series on the Gospel narratives. Allen’s Commentary on Matthew is devoted almost completely to a defense of the Two-source Theory and as a commentary is a most pathetic failure. Any meager grains of wheat are hopelessly lost in the chaff. But Plummer devotes himself to a careful exegesis of the text as would be expected of a commentator. However, he pauses ever and anon to point out the improbability of the theory that Luke copied from Matthew. Moreover, it is exceedingly interesting to notice that he holds that Luke did not even have Mark before him. He accepts rather the theory of Ur-Mark as a source of the three. “The early narrative (itself perhaps not primary), of which all three Synoptists make use, and which constitutes the main portion of Mark’s Gospel, was probably already in writing when Luke made use of it. Luke may have had the Second Gospel itself, pretty nearly in the form we have it, and may include the author of it among the polloi (Luke 1:1). But some phenomena are rather against this. Luke omits (Luke 6:5) ‘the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath’ (Mark 2:27). He omits the whole of Mark 6:45-56; Mark 7:1-37; Mark 8:1-9, which contains the digression into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and the incident with the Syrophoenician woman, which is also in Matthew (Matthew 15:21-28). And all of this would have been full of interest to Luke’s Gentile readers. That he had our First Gospel is much less probable. There is so much that he would have been most likely to appropriate if he had known it, that the omission is most easily explained by assuming that he did not know it. He omits the visit of the Gentile Magi (Matthew 2:1-15). At Luke 20:17 he omits ‘Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof’ (Matthew 21:43). At Luke 21:12-16 he omits ‘And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations’ (Matthew 24:14; comp. Mark 13:10). Compare the omission of Matthew 17:6, Matthew 17:7 at Luke 9:35, of Matthew 17:19, Matthew 17:20 at Luke 9:18; and see the section “Did Jesus Speak Greek.” Both to Luke and his readers such things would have been most significant. Again, would Luke have left the differences between his own Gospel and that of Matthew as they are, if he had been aware of them? Contrast Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15 with Luke 2:39; Matthew 28:7, Matthew 28:10, Matthew 28:16 with Luke 24:49; and generally mark the differences between the narratives of the Nativity and of the resurrection in these two Gospels, the divergencies in the two genealogies, the ‘eight days’ (Luke) and the ‘six days’ (Matthew and Mark) at the transfiguration, and the perplexing phenomena in the Sermon on the Mount. These points lead us to the conclusion that Luke was not familiar with our First Gospel, even if he knew it at all. But, besides the early narrative, which seems to have been nearly coextensive with our Second Gospel, Matthew and Luke used the same collection,or two similar collections, of ‘Oracles’ or ‘Sayings of the Lord’; and hence the large amount of matter, chiefly discourses, which is common to Matthew and Luke, but is not found in Mark. This collection, however, can hardly have been a single document, for the common material is used very differently by the two evangelists, especially as regards arrangement. A Book of ‘Oracles’ must not be hastily assumed.

“In addition to these two main sources, (1) the narrative of events, which he shares with Matthew and Mark, and (2) the collection of discourses, which he shares with Matthew; and besides (3) the smaller documents about the infancy incorporated in the first two chapters, which are peculiar to himself — Luke evidently had (4) large sources of information respecting the Ministry, which are also peculiar to himself” (Commentary on Luke, Introduction, pp. 23ff.).

Independence of Luke’s Gospel This compact citation from Plummer which is crammed to the limit with points of evidence and cross currents of the Two-source Theory, probably is enough to give the untrained reader an insight into what the learned Harvard professor was moved to call “enormous proportions” and “bewildering perplexity” of the Two-source Theory. Plummer advances some twenty-two points of evidence in the paragraphs quoted above. And some of these items of proof he offers to show that Luke did not have Mark before him in its present form, as well as Matthew. Thus that which Professor Ropes argued as absolutely assured (that Luke copied from our Mark) and the theory which he urged (that Luke copied from our Matthew) are both assailed. Those who will have the patience to look up in Plummer’s Commentary the various passages he cites in his introduction will find that the argument is powerful. Take, for instance, his elaboration of the omission by Luke of the entire narrative found in Matthew and Mark of the events from the feeding of the five thousand to the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. If Luke copied from Mark and Matthew, why did he omit the thrilling scene when Jesus walked on the water, when he had just recorded, as did the others, the feeding of the five thousand? What conceivable reason can any person give for such an omission, if he were copying from narratives which contained it? Why omit all the immensely interesting series of events up to Caesarea Philippi? Plummer, like Professor Ropes, tries desperately to ding to the Two-source Theory, but all that is left, when it collides with the facts, is unintelligible fragments. After noting this strange series of omissions by Luke, Plummer says, “can he have seen either Matthew or Mark? So also here: both the others mention that the incident (confession of Peter) took place near Caesarea Philippi, on the confines of heathenism. Luke mentions no place. It is a desperate expedient to suppose with Reuss that the copy of Mark, which Luke knew, chanced to omit these sections” (Commentary on Luke, p 246). In addition to this, he points out the immense amount of new material which is found only in Luke. “According to one calculation, if the contents of the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 sections, of these 172, Luke has 123 (3/4), Matthew 112 (2/3), and Mark 84 (1/2); and of these 172, Luke has 48 which are peculiar to himself (2/7), Matthew has 22 (1/8), and Mark has 5 (1/37).” Now how can anyone explain all of this original material in Luke and the other Synoptics if Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, and Luke also from Matthew? Plummer tries to explain that there was a large number of sources from which Luke copied. But the Two-source Theory ceases to be “Two-source” and tends to become manifold and then infinitesimal. Thus the whole theory breaks up. This gives further significance to the admissions of Professor Ropes and his patient effort to try to turn back and collect the fragments of the theory and put them back again into a two-fold container (Mark and Matthew). The “bewildering perplexity” of the theory as the skeptical writers go round and round in their endless attempt to explain on a purely rational basis the similarities of the Synoptics makes the reader dizzy.

Independence of Matthew’s Gospel The peculiar gyrations of which the critic is capable in the effort to maintain this theory is abundantly illustrated in Allen’s Commentary on Matthew. He attempts to explain differences in Matthew from the account of Mark, from which he supposes that Matthew copied, by arguing the growth of the idea that Jesus was the Son of God and the dislike of the author of Matthew’s Gospel for any mention of human emotions on the part of Jesus. For example, in the section selected above for illustration to show the absolute independence of Luke from both Matthew and Mark (the events from the feeding of the five thousand to the scene at Caesarea Philippi), there is the strong evidence that Matthew also wrote entirely independent of Mark, to be found in the omission by Matthew of the healing of the deaf stammerer (Mark 7:31-37). Allen claims that the reason that “the editor of Matthew” did not copy from Mark this miracle and that of the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26) is that they were both private and in both the method of Jesus was peculiar! “The editor of Matthew” did not like the idea that Jesus used “physical contact or material means,” or sighed; the people disobeyed Christ, or that recovery of the sight was gradual! This shows the absurd extremities to which the advocates of the Two-source Theory are forced. Questions to be considered in regard to this are: (1) Is it true that Matthew does not record miracles in which Jesus touched the person healed? Cf. Matthew 8:3, Matthew 8:15; Matthew 9:29; Matthew 20:34. (2) Is it true that Matthew gives greater emphasis to the “immediacy” of Christ’s miracles? (3) Is it true that Matthew avoids attributing “emotion and effort to Christ”? (Note Jesus’ weeping over Jerusalem in Matthew and not in Mark!) (4) Is it true that Matthew avoids admitting that people disobeyed His injunctions? (5) Is it true that Matthew avoids picturing Jesus as “asking questions as though He had not absolute knowledge”? Notice how the account of Matthew generalizing on the work of Jesus here verifies, by a double reference to the dumb being caused to speak, the record of Mark that it was the healing of a deaf and dumb man which caused the most excitement. This incident is only one of a whole multitude of citations which could be offered to show that the assumption of the modernists that Matthew copied from Mark simply can not stand the test of the facts.

Independence of John’s Gospel

It can be clearly established that one of the Gospel writers had seen the other Gospel narratives before he wrote his account. The Gospel of John was written so much later (a.d. 85-90) than the other Gospel accounts (a.d. 50-60) that everyone agrees that the writer must have been familiar with the contents of the Synoptics. That being the case, this should be the ideal book on which to test the whole theory that the Gospels arose out of a process of interdependence, through copying from one another or from common sources. No one can absolutely prove that either Matthew, Mark, or Luke, who wrote in the same period, was familiar with the work of the other two. Now no one denies that the author of the Fourth Gospel knew the three narratives that had already been written. The test question then is, Does the Gospel of John bear evidence of the author’s having copied his narrative from the other three? Kent affirms that this is true, as indicated by the lines on his sketch. But there is not the slightest evidence to sustain his declaration. A cursory reading of the four books will immediately show that any effect which the preceding narratives had upon John was purely negative. Instead of copying from the others, he deliberately avoided repeating what they had recorded and devoted himself to writing down events and sermons which had not been mentioned. In the whole ministry of Jesus, he only records one miracle which the other three record (excepting, of course, the resurrection of Jesus): the feeding of the five thousand. And in this miracle he gives an entirely fresh and original presentation of setting, details, and results. A. T. Robertson claims that the Two-source Theory must be true because “the processes and results can be tested.” But here we see that the theory fails under the most elementary and indubitable test which can possibly be made. In the one case where the test is clear-cut and inescapable, the answer is plainly in the negative: John did not copy from the other three. Modernists attempt to break the force of this by a continuous attack upon the historical merit of John and by insisting that the Synoptic problem must be kept in an entirely different compartment from the problem of the Fourth Gospel. But here are the four narratives in our New Testament. If Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke from Mark and Matthew, if that is the way in which the accounts grew up, then why did not John copy from all three? According to the logic of the theory, Professor Kent had to affirm that John copied from the others. But the facts in the case prove exactly the opposite.

Declaration of Purpose and Method by Luke

Two of the narratives contain direct assertions as to the purpose and methods which directed the writing: Luke and John. The prologue of Luke’s Gospel has been frequently quoted as evidence for the Two-source Theory. But a close examination of its contents will show that it offers absolutely no support to the supposition that he copied his narratives from preceding ones. He affirms exactly the opposite. “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed” (Luke 1:1-4). It was natural and inevitable that immediately after Pentecost, Christians in Jerusalem would be moved to write to their relatives and friends in Joppa, Caesarea or elsewhere, and explain to them the wonderful things which had transpired. Such brief accounts would naturally be passed about. Luke refers to such efforts and does not condemn them. Martin Luther translated “many have presumed” to draw up a narrative, but Luke does not condemn the efforts of those who had written as presumptuous. The universal command had been to preach the Word. Luke does imply that the “many” were not eyewitnesses or had not had his opportunities for knowledge, or had not gone back to the beginning; had not been entirely accurate or orderly in their narratives or at least had been inadequate and incomplete. Luke evidently does not refer to the works of Matthew and Mark. These were authoritative narratives, the one by an eyewitness and apostle; the other, written under the guidance of the apostle Peter. The following free paraphrase will assist in gathering the full meaning of Luke as added phrases give the shading of the Greek words and syntax and the implications of the context: “Since many have been attempting to write an account of the life of Christ as enacted in the midst of those of us who are now Christians, using the information which the apostles and other eyewitnesses who were with Jesus from the beginning and who also have been ministers of the word and fully tested its power and their devotion to the divine message, have been delivering in sermons and interviews unto us, who are not eyewitnesses, it seemed entirely proper for me also, since I have interviewed the available witnesses with the greatest care and traced the course of events to the very start, to write unto you a narrative drawn up in orderly fashion, so that you, most excellent Theophilus, might be absolutely assured of the exact facts concerning Christ which you have already learned by oral instruction.” Now instead of this passage giving even the slightest ground for saying that Luke used the writings of those who had preceded him, exactly the opposite is true. He pushes aside the efforts to write a narrative about Christ which he refers to as utterly inadequate, and places his own work in the sharpest contrast with them. If he knew of the narratives of Matthew and Mark, he certainly does not include them in his reference, but he also did not use them in his writing for he deliberately declares that his document is based upon firsthand interviews with the eyewitnesses. Instead of copying from other writings, he investigated for himself.

Declaration of John

John is the other narrator who frankly states his plan of writing. He solemnly claims to have been an eye-witness of the events he records: “And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe” (John 19:35). He claims to have had at his command an almost inexhaustible amount of information as to events and sermons of Jesus which he does not record: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name” (John 20:30, John 20:31). “This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:24, John 21:25). This collides squarely with the fundamental assumption of the modernists that the Gospel writers copied from one another because they had only very scanty information available and that they wrote everything they knew. A Collection of Suppositions

W. B. Hill in his Introduction to the Life of Christ gives an interesting review of the history of speculation concerning the relation of the Gospel narratives and offers a series of arguments to sustain the Two-source Theory. The reader will discover, where he is describing the process by which the Gospels arose as writers copied from one another, that he uses such words as “perhaps,” “doubtless,” “very probable,” “may explain,” “more likely,” “supposing,” “supposes,” “apparently,” “many think,” about twenty-two times in the compass of two pages. This is characteristic of the foundation of sand on which the theory rests. William Jennings Bryan once counted such words on the pages of a so-called scientific book advocating evolution and after reciting the hundreds of times that such words were used, uttered one of the greatest epigrams of modern times.” ‘We may well suppose’ is not a sufficient substitute for ‘Thus saith the Lord.’

Similarities to Be Expected The argument is advanced by Professor Hill that if the Gospels were written independently we should expect them to be “made up of different selections and have little in common” since all three Synoptics are very brief and give only a few of the deeds and sayings of Jesus out of a great mass. A sufficient rejoinder to this is found in the fundamental assumption of Professor Hill which is exactly the opposite of what should be affirmed. If the Gospels were written independently, we should expect them to be similar and to record many of the same great scenes, miracles, and sayings: to have much in common. Even if one follows the purely rationalistic basis for explanation of the relation of the narratives and disregards completely their inspiration, it still follows that the sermons and events which had impressed most profoundly one witness would also impress another and would appear in these narratives. This becomes especially clear when we remember that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are the very center of the gospel as it was the great purpose of His coming into the world. About one-half of the Gospels is devoted to the events of the last week, especially the trial, death, burial, and resurrection. Thus it is to be expected and was absolutely necessary that they should tell the same things much of the time.

Differences Are Unexplained A further statement of this argument from Professor Hill is as follows: “Mark has comparatively few of the teachings of Jesus, but gives various important incidents in His life, from the imprisonment of John the Baptist down to the resurrection. Now these same incidents, often arranged in the same order and told sometimes in almost identical words, form the main part of the narrative in Matthew and Luke” (Introduction to the Life of Christ, p 104). Notice the words “often,” “sometimes,” “almost.” In contrast with this, the reader will find that Matthew and Luke are very different from Mark in the early sections. And in the latter half of their narratives, where they describe the tragic climax of Jesus’ ministry, each continually introduces new facts and sayings which the others do not record. This is true of the whole record. This also is to be expected. The same great events and sermons would appeal to various witnesses, but different details and angles would at times impress different men. The differences in the Gospel accounts are so startling that one hundred and fifty years ago the skeptics were directing their whole attack to the proposition that the Gospel narratives contradict one another hopelessly. Now they have swung to the other extreme and argue that they are so much alike that the writers must have copied from one another or from common sources! As a matter of fact, both positions are false and the arguments advanced for each help to destroy the other. Professor Hill admits the weakness and inadequate character of Synoptic criticism when he admits the distinct character of the Gospels. “If we add John, and thus make a harmony of the four Gospels, the peculiarity of the Synoptics becomes still more evident, for John has very little in common with the other three; and parallel columns are usually impossible. In fact, there is nowhere else in biographical literature an instance of three books so similar and yet distinct. Each relates or omits certain incidents and sayings not related or not omitted by one or both of the other two; and in a passage common to two or to all three the phraseology may be identical for a little ways, and then vary without any apparent reason. Each book has its individual character, its own way of treating a topic, and its special purpose; there is no possibility of identifying one with another” (Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 105). “When we seek to determine which Gospel was first, and which was second or third, serious difficulties arise. For example, Matthew is much longer than Mark: then evidently — according to this theory — (that each succeeding Gospel was copied from the preceding) if it was written later, it is an enlargement of Mark: or if it was written earlier, it is condensed in Mark. But if it is an enlargement, why does it omit some important portions of Mark? Or, if Mark is a condensation, why does Mark give some of the common facts in much fuller form? And in either case, why should the copying be in one place very exact and in another place full of alterations? There may be a measure of truth in this theory of mutual dependence; but it does not fully solve the Synoptic problem. This is shown by the fact that scholars who adopt it can not agree as to the order of writing of the Gospels, or their relation to one another. Each of the three Gospels has been given a first or second or third place in time, and each has been supposed to be dependent upon one or both of the other two; and yet none of these arrangements has fully solved the problem” (Introduction to the Life of Christ, pp 107, 108). Could any more damaging admissions be imagined? Radical scholars using exactly the same data in the Gospel narratives come to exactly opposite conclusions as to which Gospel was written first and who copied from whom!

Bewildering Array of Theories

A. B. Bruce, the great Scotch scholar, points out this weakness in the whole theory of interdependence: “Theoretic critics tell, each one in turn, their own story very plausibly, but it helps to deliver simple readers from the spell of their enchantment, to compare the results at which they respectively arrive. Such a comparison does not inspire confidence in the methods and verdicts of Tendenz-Kritik as practiced by the experts. This may be illustrated by placing side by side the views of Baur and Pfleiderer respecting the Synoptical Gospels. Take first the order in which these Gospels were written. Baur arranges them thus: Matthew, Luke, Mark; Pfleiderer simply reverses the order, so that it runs: Mark, Luke, Matthew. With reference to the historic value of the Gospels the two masters are equally divergent in opinion. In the esteem of the earlier critic, Matthew is entitled to the highest measure of credit; for the latter he possesses the least” (Apologetics, pp. 450, 451). It is most surprising to hear Bruce, after such a statement as this, agree with the present critical conclusion that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke. After warning others that the whole method was without rational foundation, he had to fall into the pit from which he warned others. Some idea of the contradictory views advanced on the question as to which Gospel came first and which was used as a source by the others can be gained from the following array of theories which have been advanced by various scholars: (1) Matthew wrote first; Luke and Mark used Matthew (Luke also used Mark). (2) Mark, Matthew and Luke: from Mark came the Hebrew edition of Matthew and also Luke; the Greek edition of Matthew made use of both. (3) Mark, Luke, Matthew (written in this order, the latter two copying from Mark and the last from the second). (4) Luke, Matthew, Mark. (5) Luke, Mark, Matthew. The fact that the Two-source Theory, which is the popular radical view at the present time, places Mark first and affirms Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke from both, is not based upon any new facts. It is simply the prevailing view. World-famous scholars using the same facts have arrived at all the various views indicated above.

Single-source Theory A variation of the theory is seen in the view that all the Synoptics sprang from a single source — a Gospel which has been lost. Professor Hill points out that the critics who have advanced this view disagree as to whether this lost document was written in Greek or in Hebrew. Some argue it must have been written in Greek (in order to explain the similarities of the Synoptics); others hold it was in Aramaic or Hebrew (in order to explain their differences). Both fail to explain the facts for these theorists have been compelled to suppose the lost Gospel appeared in various editions and that each evangelist used a different edition! But how could such a book have existed for so long a time as to have appeared in a variety of widely different editions and to have exercised such a profound influence upon the church and the history of the world, and have been lost without trace, never to be mentioned or heard of except in the imagination of modern skeptics? Moreover, the early date of the Gospels is absolutely fatal to the whole theory of a long development of a source document which is supposed to have passed from one edition to another and ruled the conviction of the church for decades and then suddenly disappeared without leaving the slightest trace or direct quotation in all early Christian literature. The Gospels and the Eyewitnesses The admission that Luke, the physician, wrote our Gospel of Luke is as fatal to the radical theory of development as the citations from Papias. Both the Gospel of Luke and Acts have been the center of furious controversy, but the extended discussion has brought forth repeated admissions from radical scholars, such as Harnack, that these books are the work of Luke, the companion of Paul. The opening sentences of Acts show clearly that the same person wrote both books and directed them both to the same destination; and that the Gospel had been written sometime previous to the Book of Acts. “The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began to do and to teach . . “ (Acts 1:1; cf. Luke 1:3). The manner in which the Book of Acts closes with the reader in breathless suspense as to what became of Paul imprisoned at Rome and without the slightest indication as to whether he was released or beheaded can only be explained by the publication of the book at the close of Paul’s two years in prison there. This settles the date of Acts at about a.d. 63. It immediately forces the date of Luke earlier by some years. Matthew and Mark were evidently written still earlier. And if these Gospels were written in the period between a.d. 50 and 60, there was only a short space of about twenty-five years separating the writers from the events. Matthew was an eyewitness. Other eyewitnesses abounded with whom Mark and Luke would be in immediate contact. What necessity would these writers have for written sources? The testimony of the early Christian writers forms a sort of unbreakable chain joining our present text of the New Testament which dates at least back into the middle of the fourth century, to the original documents written by Matthew, Mark and Luke. This living chain of witnesses includes Polycarp, who lived from about a.d. 50 to 155; Papias, who was born about a.d. 70; Clement of Rome, who died in a.d. 101 after having written his famous Epistle about six years earlier; Justin Martyr, who was at his prime in a.d. 140; Irenaeus, who flourished in a.d. 180 and whose experience reached back to join the later first century Christians. The chain broadens with a wider stretch of links as we come to the close of the second century. The whole weight of this evidence sustains the documents which we possess in the New Testament as the original and the actual work of the apostles or those associated with them. The radical theory of development rests upon the presupposition of a late date for the Gospel narratives which now must be abandoned.

Theory of Stereotyped Oral Tradition A further development of the theory is that this lost Gospel, which the radicals presuppose, was never written, but was merely an oral Gospel. This comes very near to yielding the whole theory of common sources for the narratives, because the Christian who believes the Gospel writers were divinely inspired also believes that Peter and the other apostles who preached the first sermons established the faith of the early Christians and exercised a profound influence on the things which were preached and emphasized in the early church. The statement of Papias that Peter was the source from whom Mark secured his information fits entirely with the view that the preaching of Peter had a great influence upon the things believed and proclaimed about Christ in the early church. But if Mark had heard Peter preach and talked with him or even written under his immediate direction, what need would he have had of a written source such as Ur-Mark? The same principle applies that Matthew himself would have had a great influence by his preaching upon the faith of the early church. Guided by the same Spirit, he would have emphasized the same things. But what need would he have had to copy from Mark? The critics who hold that there was a stereotyped oral tradition which served as a definite source of the Synoptics are compelled to face the same dilemma as their comrades in supposing a late date for our Gospel narratives, such a date as the radicals themselves have had to surrender. Moreover, other critics object to the “oral Gospel” theory on the ground that such an early Gospel must have been in Aramaic and thus fails to explain the similarities of the Greek texts of the Synoptics. And if the Gospel was so fixed by oral tradition, how account for the many differences? For instance, why does Mark fail to record so many incidents found in Matthew or Luke or both, or vice versa?

Divine Inspiration of the Writers

There can be no doubt but that in the early preaching of the apostles and other eyewitnesses certain facts and teachings received universal and powerful emphasis. This is to be expected since they were all guided by the Holy Spirit. This same choice and emphasis would reveal itself in the spoken and in the written word. But it is not so much a matter of influence by an “oral Gospel” as it is influence by the Holy Spirit who guided both the speech and the writing. Do the critics respond that such a statement does not explain the close similarities in our Gospel narratives? That all depends upon the power of the Holy Spirit to guide the writers and whether one believes in such a being as God and in such a thing as a miracle. The whole radical school absolutely discards and denies such a thing as the unique inspiration of the Scriptures. They are purely human books. This makes all the more impossible the situation of a conservative scholar who attempts to combine his belief in a supernatural religion such as the New Testament proclaims, with a purely naturalistic theory of the origin of the biographies of Jesus. Moreover, have the radicals been able by all their theorizing to explain in any fashion the facts which they face in the Gospels? Read again their “mortifying” admissions that after one hundred years of prodigious effort they still find themselves unable to offer a rational explanation of the similarities and differences of the Gospels. The Christian views the documents as inspired by the Holy Spirit. What a confirmation of his faith is found in the futile efforts of the skeptics to explain them on a purely natural basis! Verily the wisdom of God still exceeds that of men and both His Word and His deeds furnish the unbeliever with problems he can not explain. If the Gospel narratives are inspired of God, we should expect them to be unique. Such is the case even in the matter of their similarities and differences. Hear again the confession of Professor Hill: “In fact, there is nowhere else in biographical literature an instance of three books so similar and yet distinct.” There are many other ways and much more important ways in which these books are unlike any others in biographical literature. The individuality of the human writer is evident in each of these narratives, but the superhuman guidance of the Spirit of God — mysterious and inscrutable — is also apparent.