809 



if predestination. (',]) The priest who reads th 

 I in ili-- cniiiiniinn.il -i-r\ iff of the Church of 

 Kngland, standing on the imiili side of tin- altar. 



4iOs|M*l*. I''' 1 ' word I'liui/f/f/iuH, which in claHsi- 

 cal deck originally meant 'tin- reward for good 

 ne\\s ' (H,/i/.i.iei/, xiv. 152; comp. '2 Sam. iv. 10, LXX.), 

 Inn at i ei \\anls simply 'good news' (Plutarch, 

 l.iician, Appi.-ui), has from Anglo-Saxon times Keen 

 rendered by (In- word ii'iixjH'/ (Godspell Le. story 

 nl (iod [< 'lirist ]). In tin- New Testament it is 

 always used in the singular, and means 'the good 

 news of the kingdom ' as proclaimed ly Christ and 

 his apostles. Perhaps, however, in Mark i. 1 

 then- is some trace of the technical sense, as denot- 

 ing a written narrative of the life and utterances of 

 .! MIS, which it had fully acquired by the end of 

 tin- -Jd century (.Justin Martyr, Anol. I. 66: 'the 

 memoirs of the apostles . . . which are called 

 v, --pels'). The gradual rise of the historical por- 

 tion of the New Testament (belonging for the most 

 pan to a later period than the Epistles, which are 

 the earliest extant documents of Christianity) has 

 already been briefly traced in the article BIBLE 

 ( Vol. II. p. 124), where also the fact of the fixation 

 of the four-fold gospel canon l>efore the close of the 

 2d century has been stated ; see also separate 

 articles on MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, and JOHN. 

 Here it is enough to say that, since the canon 

 \\.i- ecclesiastically settled, it has been the un- 

 \ar\ing belief of the church in all its branches 

 that these four gospels are to be received as clothed 

 with apostolic authority Matthew and John as 

 written by apostles, Mark and Luke as written by 

 companions of apostles. 



Ol the four, that of John is distinguished by 

 peculiarities which give it a unique place among 

 tlie New Testament writings, and will most con- 

 veniently be treated in the separate article. The 

 lirM three, on the other hand, have very much in 

 common ; in fact, they present such a similarity 

 in matter and form that they readily admit of 

 being brought under one and the same 'com- 

 bined view or 'synopsis,' from which circum- 

 stance they have since the time of Griesbach ( who 

 coined the phrase ) been commonly designated the 

 'synoptical gospels (see the Harmonies, such 

 as Tischendorf's Synopsis Evangelica). The re- 

 semblance is both in substance and in language. 

 (1) They give the same general outline of the 

 life of Jesus, and to a large extent select the 

 same incidents for detailed treatment. Thus, they 

 relate, on the whole, the same miracles, and pre- 

 serve the same discourses. They are silent also on 

 the same joints : two, for example, give the woe 

 pronouncec upon Chora/in and Bethsaida, but no 

 one of the three has anything precise to say about 

 the occasion that called it forth. Various attempts 

 hftve I.een made to represent in tabular and graphic 

 form the amount of material coincidence between 

 tin- -vnoptics; but it is probably impossible to do 

 so with absolute exactness. The following estimate, 

 however, the result of a recent somewhat careful 

 examination, may be taken as approximately repre- 

 enttng the facto. Of a total of 1071 verses, 

 Matthew has ;W7 in common with Mark and Luke, 

 in common with Mark, 184 in common with 

 . and 370 peculiar to himself. Of Mark's 662 

 s, 406 are common to all three synoptists, 145 



'""' " to Mark and Matthew, IM) common to 



Mark ami Luke, and 51 (on a liberal estimate) 

 Mvuhar to himself. Luke out of 1151 verses shares 

 H) with Matthew and Mark, 176 with Matthew, 41 

 wall Mark, and has 544 peculiar to himself. (2) 

 Ihey often agree in a remarkable manner in the 

 "If i in which they give the events they relate, even 

 where the events themselves are only loosely con- 

 nected ; thus, in Mutt. ix.. Mark ii.,'and Liike v., 

 the miraculous healing of the paralytic, Matthew's 



call and fea-i . the discourse on fasting, follow one 

 another ; in two gospel* the last-mentioned dis- 

 course is immediately followed by the incident in 

 the cornfield, which again, in all three, is fol- 

 Inueil by the healing of the withered hand. In 

 Matthew and Mark the death of the Baptist 

 is introduced at the same point and in the same 

 way, but out of its chronological order. For 

 full discussion of these and other instances refer- 

 ence must In- made tx> the text-lxmks. (3) In many 

 instances they use identical language. This cir- 

 cumstance would be striking enough even if it 

 were observable onl^ 1 in cases where discourses are 

 reported, when it is remembered that these dis- 

 courses were almost certainly spoken in Aramaic ; 

 but its significance is vastly increased when it 

 occurs in narrative passages (Matt. xiv. 19, 20; 

 Mark, vi. 41, 42; Luke, ix. 16, 17; Matt. xvii. 5; 

 Mark, ix. 7 ; Luke, ix. 35 ; Matt. ix. 1-8 ; Mark, 

 ii. 1-12; Luke, v. 17-20 where observe the paren- 

 thesis common to all three, ' then saith he to the 

 sick of the palsy '), when it is shown in the use of 

 rare words or expressions, or when all coincide in 

 quoting the Old Testament in a way that differs 

 both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint text. 



It is only in modern times that such phenomena 

 as these in the synoptic gospels have attracted 

 serious attention or received critical study. Doubt- 

 less they had been often noticed before, but the 

 fact of so large a degree of coincidence was not 

 felt to be at all surprising. All three gospels were 

 held to be first-hand narratives, and primarily all 

 by the same author, the inspiring spirit of God. 

 The resemblance, therefore, was only what might 

 have been expected. Were further explanation 

 pressed for, it was enough to suggest that Mark 

 had copied from Matthew, and Luke had acce>- ! 

 both, and this assumed dependence of the later on 

 the earlier evangelist was not felt to affect in any 

 way their importance as really independent, lie- 

 cause immediately inspired. More embarrassing 

 were their apparent divergences and even seeming 

 contradictions in narrating what purported to be 

 the same events (e.g. the resurrection and the 

 post-resurrection appearances of Jesus), and their 

 discrepancies of language in relating what seemed 

 to be the same discourses. The reconciliation of 

 these discrepancies and divergences (which were 

 held to be apparent only ) was the object of numer- 

 ous compilers of 'Gospel Harmonies.' 



The so-called ' synoptical problem ' took shape in 

 Germany towards the close of the 18th century. 

 The discussion began in a refutation by Koppe 

 (Marcus non Epitomator Matthtei, 1782) of the 

 traditionally received view, first started by Augus- 

 tine, that Mark in writing his gospel had merely 

 followed Matthew and abridged him. Important 

 contributions towards the advancement of the 

 question were made in succeeding decades by such 

 men as Lessing, Eichhorn, Griesbach, Schleier- 

 macher, Gieseler, De Wette, Lachmann, Baur, 

 Ewald, Bleek, Hitschl, and others too numerous to 

 mention. In the course of the investigation three 

 broad lines of explanation were attempted. ( 1 ) The 

 'Benutzungs-hypothese,' or Imrrowing hypothesis, 

 sought to explain the facts by supposing that the 

 second evangelist in order of time (whoever he was) 

 borrowed from the first, and that the third borrowed 

 from either or both of his predecessors. Of this 

 theory numerous forms are logically and mathe- 

 matically conceivable, and almost all of these have 

 in the course of a century's discussion found able 

 advocates. Perhaps the most popular form has 

 been the ' combination ' theory that Mark is a 

 combination of Matthew and Luke. (2) The 

 4 Ur-evangeliums-hypothese ' sought to establish the 

 existence of a primitive written gosj>el, no longer 

 extant, to which, however, all the evangelists had 



