simply the unconscious development naturally arising from the combined recollections of a number of earnest Jews, whose sincerity was beyond question, but who had been trained in all the beliefs of Judaism, and whose conceptions of the nature and teaching of Jesus were more or less influenced by that training.

CHAPTER V

IF it be admitted that a hypothesis which explains all the facts has at least a strong presumption in its favour, then the following is presumably a true account of the genesis of the Synoptic Gospels; and, unless Genesis of some more probable explanation of known facts is suggested, or some new facts are discovered inconsistent with it, may be (sSee also accepted as accurate.

For more than thirty years after our Lord's death no written record of His life and teaching existed; or if anything of the kind did exist, it must have had a very restricted circulation, and every trace of it has disappeared.

Synoptics

Appendix

A).

Gospel

About the beginning of the war which Earliest ended in the siege and destruction of was P.G. Jerusalem A.D. 70, some one (possibly St.

66-68 A.D.

Matthew) who was well known to and respected by the Christians of Jerusalem, embodied in an Aramaic Gospel, which was soon afterwards translated into Greek, an account of the life and teaching of Jesus, from His baptism to the anointing which took place shortly before His crucifixion. This gospel was a version of the Saviour's words and deeds in accordance with, if not Embodying based on, the recollections of such of the teaching apostles and hearers of the Messiah as had perhaps remained in Judæa. It was written mainly collections as an exhortation to the Christians of (See also p. Judæa to prevent apostasy and strengthen

Apostolic

and

personal re

94).

faith, and called special attention to the prophecies which Jesus had uttered, foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem and denouncing woes on the Jews who had rejected Him. That this Primitive Gospel P.G. had a served its purpose of preventing the relapse into Judaism of Jewish Christians, and leading many, if not all of them, to flee, before it was too late, from the doomed city, seems certain.

temporary

Such a gospel, though its record of the

restricted

words and some of the miracles of Jesus possessed a special value, was not likely to attain more than a local and temporary And circulation. Isolated copies might be found circulation. in widely distant Jewish Christian communities, but the fact that it contained no history of the Birth, the Passion, or the Resurrection of the Messiah would inevitably lead to its supersession by gospels containing accounts of those events.

Peter, as we have seen (p. 97), was, after the murder of James the son of Zebedee, only a rare visitor to Jerusalem, and it is probable that his representation of the life and words of Jesus differed, at least in minor details, from that current in Judæa. The author of our second gospel, probably Mark Mark, was certainly familiar with Peter's Petrine teaching, was himself a Jew by birth, and traditional was the first to write a gospel containing an account of the Passion and Resurrection.

He was acquainted with the P.G., which he freely used, though relying mainly on that knowledge of the Messiah's life and work which he had derived directly from

contains

and other

teaching and matter

from P.G.

Written

after Peter's death.

St. Peter.

This Petrine character of the

second gospel is universally admitted and sometimes exaggerated. That the gospel was written during the lifetime of the apostle is improbable, and it is possible that its author, whilst relying mainly on his knowledge of St. Peter's teaching, and borrowing freely from the P.G., made a fuller use than is generally supposed of other traditional information. His abrupt and graphic style gives to some of his second or even third hand narratives quite the air of being told by an eye-witness.

We have seen (p. 23) that our first and third gospels are mutually independent. That they were written at different places at nearly the same time; for if a long period had elapsed between their composition, it is scarcely conceivable that the author of the later would not have known and used the earlier. As a matter of fact, however, there is the strongest reason for believing that neither author was acquainted with, much less made use of, the other's work.

Taking them in the order in which they