332 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



" Introduction to the New Testament/' by Dr. Salmon, who, like 

 Prof. Huxley, is a Fellow of the Royal Society, and who became 

 eminent as one of the first mathematicians of Europe before he 

 became similarly eminent as a theologian. I am content here to 

 let Prof. Huxley's assumptions pass, as I am only concerned to 

 illustrate the fallacious character of the reasoning he founds upon 

 them. He tells us, then, that — 



there is now no doubt that the three synoptic Gospels, so far from being the work 

 of three independent writers, are closely interdependent, and that in one of two 

 ways. Either all three contain, as their foundation, versions, to a large extent 

 verbally identical, of one and the same tradition ; or two of them are thus closely 

 dependent on the third ; and the opinion of the majority of the best critics has, of 

 late years, more and more converged toward the conviction that our canonical 

 second Gospel (the so-called "Mark's" Gospel) is that which most closely repre- 

 sents the primitive groundwork of the three. That I take to be one of the most 

 valid results of New Testament criticism, of immeasurably greater importance 

 than the discussion about dates and authorship. But if, as I believe to be the 

 case beyond any rational doubt or dispute, the second Gospel is the nearest extant 

 representative of the oldest tradition, whether written or oral, how comes it that 

 it contains neither the " Sermon on the Mount" nor the "Lord's Prayer," those 

 typical embodiments, according to Dr. Wace, of the " essential belief and cardinal 

 teaching " of Jesus ? 



I have quoted every word of this passage because I am anxious 

 for the reader to estimate the value of Prof. Huxley's own state- 

 ment of his case. It is, as he says, the opinion of many critics of 

 authority that a certain fixed tradition, written or oral, was used 

 by the writers of the first three Gospels. In the first place, why 

 this should prevent those three Gospels from being the work of 

 " three independent writers " I am at a loss to conceive. If Mr. 

 Froude, the late Prof. Brewer, and the late Mr. Green each use 

 the Rolls Calendars of the reign of Henry VIII, I do not see that 

 this abolishes their individuality. Any historian who describes 

 the Peloponnesian War uses the memoirs of that war written by 

 Thucydides ; but Bishop Thirlwall and Mr. Grote were, I presume, 

 independent writers. But to pass to a more important point, that 

 which is assumed is that the alleged tradition, written or oral, 

 was the groundwork of our first three Gospels, and it is, therefore, 

 older than they are. Let it be granted, for the sake of argument. 

 But how does this prove that the tradition in question is " the 

 oldest," so that anything which was not in it is thereby discredit- 

 ed ? It was, let us allow, an old tradition used by the writers of 

 the first three Gospels. But how does this fact raise the slightest 

 presumption against the probability that there were other tradi- 

 tions equally old which they might use with equal justification 

 so far as their scope required ? Prof. Huxley alleges, and I do 

 not care to dispute the allegation, that the first three Gospels 



