Gospels. The word euangelion, which in classical Greek originally meant 'the reward for good news' (Odyssey, xiv. 152; comp. 2 Sam. iv. 10, LXX.), but afterwards simply 'good news' (Plutarch, Lucian, Appian), has from Anglo-Saxon times been rendered by the word Gospel (Godspell—i.e. story of God [Christ]). In the New Testament it is always used in the singular, and means 'the good news of the kingdom' as proclaimed by Christ and his apostles. Perhaps, however, in Mark i. 1 there is some trace of the technical sense, as denoting a written narrative of the life and utterances of Jesus, which it had fully acquired by the end of the 2d century (Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 66: 'the memoirs of the apostles . . . which are called gospels'). The gradual rise of the historical portion of the New Testament (belonging for the most part 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 before 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 was ecclesiastically settled, it has been the unvarying 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.
Of the four, that of John is distinguished by peculiarities which give it a unique place among the New Testament writings, and will most conveniently be treated in the separate article. The first 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 'combined view' or 'synopsis,' from which circumstance 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 resemblance 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 preserve the same discourses. They are silent also on the same points; two, for example, give the woe pronounced upon Chorazin and Bethsaida, but no one of the three has anything precise to say about the occasion that called it forth. Various attempts have been made to represent in tabular and graphic form the amount of material coincidence between the synoptics; 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 representing the facts. Of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and Luke, 130 in common with Mark, 184 in common with Luke, and 370 peculiar to himself. Of Mark's 662 verses, 406 are common to all three synoptists, 145 common to Mark and Matthew, 60 common to Mark and Luke, and 51 (on a liberal estimate) peculiar to himself. Luke out of 1151 verses shares 390 with Matthew and Mark, 176 with Matthew, 41 with Mark, and has 544 peculiar to himself. (2) They often agree in a remarkable manner in the order in which they give the events they relate, even where the events themselves are only loosely connected; thus, in Matt. ix., Mark ii., and Luke v., the miraculous healing of the paralytic, Matthew's call and feast, the discourse on fasting, follow one another; in two gospels the last-mentioned discourse is immediately followed by the incident in the cornfield, which again, in all three, is followed 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 reference must be made to the text-books. (3) In many instances they use identical language. This circumstance would be striking enough even if it were observable only in cases where discourses are reported, when it is remembered that these discourses 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 parenthesi 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. Doubtless 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 access to 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, because 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 numerous 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 Matthæi, 1782) of the traditionally received view, first started by Augustine, 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, Schleiermacher, Gieseler, De Wette, Lachmann, Baur, Ewald, Bleek, Ritschl, and others too numerous to mention. In the course of the investigation three broad lines of explanation were attempted. (1) The 'Benutzungs-hypothese,' or borrowing 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 mathematically 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 'Ur-evangeliums-hypothese' sought to establish the existence of a primitive written gospel, no longer extant, to which, however, all the evangelists had access, and of which they each made independent use. (3) The 'tradition-hypothesis' was that each evangelist drew his matter independently of the others from an oral apostolic tradition which had become stereotyped.
The result of the discussion has been to make it plain that no one of these theories is by itself sufficient to cover all the facts of the case. The borrowing hypothesis may account for the coincidences, but it leaves the discrepancies unexplained and inexplicable. The same remark applies to the assumption of a primitive gospel or gospels; it has been found necessary by its advocates to assume a multiplicity of lost documents in a manner that raises difficulties, historical and other, quite as great as those which it seeks to remove. The oral tradition theory, again, might serve to account for the discrepancies, but when it is sought to explain the immense amount of coincidence by means of it, the improbability of a stereotype tradition of such mass, confining itself so closely to the same incidents, told in so nearly the same order and in language so little varying, is seen to be very great. But, on the other hand, it is now more or less generally admitted that all three theories contained important elements of truth. (1) In connection with the oral tradition hypothesis it seems tolerably clear that for at least a generation after the death of Christ no important attempt was made to commit to writing any record, however brief, of the leading facts of his life or the main elements of his preaching. This was no doubt partly due to the widespread belief that his second coming and the end of the world were close at hand. The epistles were, as has already been said, the earliest literary productions of Christianity, and these were all called forth by occasions much more definite than any that had as yet presented themselves for writing memoirs of Christ. But the life and words of Christ were the continual subject of the preaching and catechising of the apostles and their converts, a subject they naturally expounded in connection with the Old Testament scriptures. These he had perfectly and completely fulfilled, and Christ was therefore sought in the Old Testament prophecies in a way that made the early Christians feel little need of a written gospel. That this traditional preaching and catechising would tend to become stereotyped within each apostolic circle is manifest; but that it was also capable of taking different forms in different circles is shown (to take obvious examples) by the want of correspondence between the narratives of the nativity and of the resurrection as given in Matthew and Luke respectively. (2) As regards a primitive gospel (or Ur-evangelium, as Eichhorn first called it), specialists are becoming more and more at one in recognising two relatively primitive documents embodied wholly or in part in the existing synoptists. These consist (a) in the gospel according to Mark, or an earlier draft thereof; (b) in a so-called 'logia' document, composed mainly of sayings and discourses of the Lord—a document which was largely drawn upon by the authors of the first and third gospels for much of what they have in common with each other apart from Mark. The reasons for abandoning the ancient view of Mark's dependence on Matthew, and for now regarding him as the earliest of our existing gospels, depend largely on considerations as to his language, style, and general point of view which cannot be even indicated here, nor does space allow mention to be made of the various minute points which have led many acute scholars to distinguish between an original Mark (Ur-Marcus) and the present form of the second gospel. The designation of the 'logia' document is taken from a much discussed fragment of a very early author,
Papias, preserved by Eusebius, to the effect that 'Matthew composed ta logia [the oracles, or the discourses of our Lord] in the Hebrew [i.e. Jewish-Aramaic] dialect, and each one interpreted them as he could.' Schleiermacher was the first to point out the importance of this passage in its possible bearings on criticism. (3) The borrowing hypothesis, in the sense that the authors of the first and third gospels knew and very freely used the earlier work of Mark, is by no means a violent one, and seems in many cases to afford the true explanation of the facts.
The drift of current opinion among specialists may perhaps be stated somewhat as follows: When after the lapse of a generation or so it began to be seen that probably the end of all things was not yet quite at hand, and that in all likelihood the church had still before her a prolonged period of work in the present world, it was felt to be a fitting thing that the most important utterances of the Lord, which the apostles had been in the habit of quoting as supremely authoritative for all Christians, should be preserved from the risk of perversion, interpolation, or oblivion. Thus came to be written down, by some apostolic man—very likely by the apostle Matthew himself, a practised scribe—a collection of discourses, parables, predictions, and aphorisms, not improbably in somewhat loose connection, yet at the same time not without some incidental notice of the circumstances which occasioned a given utterance, or some notes of the dialogue which led up to the weighty aphorism. This collection was (as has been seen) written in Aramaic. About the same time, Mark, the 'interpreter' of Peter, as ancient tradition calls him, was arranging in Greek his fragmentary recollections or memoirs of what he had heard Peter tell of the incidents of the period of his own personal converse with Jesus. These he would not scruple to supplement with matter drawn from other sources, so long as he knew it to be trustworthy. Both the above documents obtained wide currency, the former was translated into Greek more or less inadequately, the two were seen to be mutually complementary, and it was inevitable that an attempt should be made to combine them. This was successfully done by the author of the first gospel, a writer in Greek, who had in view in the first instance Jewish Christians, and sought to bring into all possible clearness the organic development of Christianity out of the Old Testament dispensation of symbol, prophecy, and promise. After the destruction of Jerusalem, when Rome had become one of the most important centres of Christianity, there was edited in that city the present form of the second gospel, specially adapted for the apprehension and acceptance of Gentile Christians. At a somewhat later date, and possibly in Rome also, was compiled the third gospel in dependence chiefly on the 'logia' document and on Mark, but not without some knowledge of the first gospel, and with important additions from oral or written sources which cannot now be traced, but which probably represented a Judaean tradition.
Thus it appears that each of the three theories enumerated above has something real to contribute by way of explanation of the origin of the synoptic gospels. Primitive documents are embodied in them; they contain an element of ancient oral tradition; and they are not independent one of another. But no one of them is a primary document in the sense of having been written in its present form from direct personal knowledge; and it is obvious that each succeeding evangelist, in availing himself of the labours of his predecessor, did so with a feeling of perfect freedom, not claiming for himself, nor according to his fellow, nor expecting for either from the church any title to authority as infallible.
HARMONIES OF THE GOSPELS.—Compilations of this nature, designed to facilitate comparison and mutual illustration of the different narratives, and to bring out their essential agreement and consistency in seeming divergence, began to be made at an early date. The earliest known is the Diatessaron of Tatian (q.v.). Jerome also makes allusion to the work of a certain Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, toward the close of the 2d century, who had left a monument of his ingenuity by 'fitting together into one whole the things said by the four evangelists.' Eusebius tells us that in the middle of the 3d century a certain Ammonius of Alexandria also constructed a diatessaron, taking Matthew as his basis, and placing side by side with him the parallel passages in the other three gospels. This work suggested to Eusebius himself the plan of his own Sections and Canons. In this each gospel is divided separately into sections which are numbered continuously, and, further, there is a table of ten canons each containing a list of passages. The first canon, in four columns, exhibits all the passages which are common to the four gospels; the second, third, and fourth, in three columns, show the passages which are found in any three; the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth, those which are common to any two; and the tenth, in four separate lists, the passages peculiar to a single evangelist. This work of Eusebius, which was afterwards adapted to the Vulgate by Jerome, continued to be used as a key to the concordance of the gospels, down to the 16th century. Of post-Reformation harmonies, the earliest is the Harmonia Evangelica of Osiander (1537), whose doctrine of inspiration led him to believe that each evangelist must have written in strict chronological order, and that therefore, wherever there is the slightest divergence as to time, place, or circumstance between any two evangelists in any given narrative, it is necessary to assume the events thus differently related to have been distinct. On these principles he is compelled to make out that Peter denied his Lord nine times. Calvin's Harmonia ex tribus Evangelistis Composita (1553) represents a much more moderate view. The number of works bearing the title of Harmonies or Synopses that have appeared during the last three centuries is very great. The best and most popular of them—such as those of Clericus (1700), Macknight (1756), Griesbach (1776), Robinson (1845) Wiesel (1843), Anger (1852), Stroud (1853)—are enumerated by Tischendorf in his own Synopsis Evangelica, the latest and most convenient of them all (5th ed. 1884).
LITERATURE.—For the older literature on the synoptic gospels, reference must be made to the handbooks of Biblical Introduction and Church History, and to the more recent commentaries. Among these last that of Alford in his Greek Testament (7th ed. 1874-77) retains an honourable place. See also the Speaker's Commentary. Of translations from the German, the commentaries of Meyer and Lange claim special mention; of the former, which is the less homiletical and more scientific of the two, the latest (7th) German edition is by B. Weiss (1883-85). Keil's Commentary on Matthew appeared in 1877, and that on Mark and Luke in 1879. In the new Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament the synoptics are ably treated by H. J. Holtzmann (1889). Ewald's Die drei ersten Evangelien übersetzt u. erklärt (1871) is still of value. See too Reuss, Histoire Évangélique (1876); and compare the bibliographies under BIBLE and JESUS. For the apocryphal Gospels, see APOCRYPHA.
On the synoptical problem the fullest and latest statements are to be found in Holtzmann, Einführung in das Neue Testament (2d ed. 1886), and B. Weiss, Einführung in d. Neue Test. (2d ed. 1889). The latter has been translated into English, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament (1887). Both these writers recognise a 'logia' document, and the priority of Mark to both the first and the third canonical gospel. Weiss, however, thinks that the logia document contained a very considerable number of incidents also, and that Mark had access to it. The fullest discussions by English scholars are those of Dr E. A. Abbott in the art. 'Gospels' in vol. x. of Ency. Brit. (1880), and by Professor Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testament (4th ed. 1889). Dr Abbott seeks to disentangle the original 'triple' tradition borne witness to by the three synoptics; he finds that Mark is of earlier date than Matthew, and contains the earliest Greek tradition, itself a translation of the very early Aramaic tradition. Dr Salmon argues for a form of the Ur-evangelium hypothesis; he thinks the theory of a common Greek original is required by the verbal coincidences, and by the common citations of the Old Testament. Mark's gospel represents the original source most fully, but was probably latest in publication, and certainly not copied either by Matthew or by Luke. Dr Westcott in his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (1851; 7th ed. 1888), which unfortunately has not been brought down to date, argues for the oral hypothesis. This theory is also that of Alford. Of the borrowing hypothesis the latest and ablest exponent is Dr Pfeiderer, who in his Urchristenthum (1887) shows the priority of Mark, but thinks that Matthew depended chiefly on Luke. For detailed study of the relations of the synoptics, Rushbrooke's Synopticon (1880), which gives all the textual facts with graphic completeness, may be characterised as indispensable. Compare also Rushbrooke and Abbott's little manual entitled Common Tradition of the Synoptical Gospels in the Text of the Revised Version (1884).