GOSPEL OF

gospel of, and luke, gospel of), but he has made the largest use of our first gospel. it is also generally allowed that he was acquainted with the fourth gospel, though some think that he used it with a certain reserve. evidence may, however, be adduced which goes far to show that he regarded it, also, as of apostolic authority. there is a good deal of difference of opinion still as to whether justin reckoned other sources for the gospel-history besides our gospels among the apostolic memoirs. in this connexion, however, as well as on other grounds, it is a significant fact that within twenty years or so after the death of justin, which probably occurred _circa_ a.d. 160, tatian, who had been a hearer of justin, produced a continuous narrative of the gospel-history which received the name _diatessaron_ ("through four"), in the main a compilation from our four gospels.[2] before the close of the 2nd century the four gospels had attained a position of unique authority throughout the greater part of the church, not different from that which they have held since, as is evident from the treatise of irenaeus _against heresies_ (c. a.d. 180; see esp. iii. i. 1 f. and x., xi.) and from other evidence only a few years later. the struggle against gnosticism, which had been going on during the middle part of the century, had compelled the church both to define her creed and to draw a sharper line of demarcation than heretofore between those writings whose authority she regarded as absolute and all others. the effect of this was no doubt to enhance the sense generally entertained of the value of the four gospels. at the same time in the formal statements now made it is plainly implied that the belief expressed is no new one. and it is, indeed, difficult to suppose that agreement on this subject between different portions of the church could have manifested itself at this time in the spontaneous manner that it does, except as the consequence of traditional feelings and convictions, which went back to the early part of the century, and which could hardly have arisen without good foundation, with respect to the special value of these works as embodiments of apostolic testimony, although all that came to be supposed in regard to their actual authorship cannot be considered proved. 2. _the internal criticism of the gospels._--in the middle of the 19th century an able school of critics, known as the tubingen school, sought to show from indications in the several gospels that they were composed well on in the 2nd century in the interests of various strongly marked parties into which the church was supposed to have been divided by differences in regard to the judaic and pauline forms of christianity. these theories are now discredited. it may on the contrary be confidently asserted with regard to the first three gospels that the local colouring in them is predominantly palestinian, and that they show no signs of acquaintance with the questions and the circumstances of the 2nd century; and that the character even of the fourth gospel is not such as to justify its being placed, at furthest, much after the beginning of that century. we turn to the literary criticism of the gospels, where solid results have been obtained. the first three gospels have in consequence of the large amount of similarity between them in contents, arrangement, and even in words and the forms of sentences and paragraphs, been called synoptic gospels. it has long been seen that, to account for this similarity, relations of interdependence between them, or of common derivation, must be supposed. and the question as to the true theory of these relations is known as the _synoptic problem_. reference has already been made to the fact that during the greater part of the apostolic age the gospel history was taught orally. now some have held that the form of this oral teaching was to a great extent a fixed one, and that it was the common source of our first three gospels. this oral theory was for a long time the favourite one in england; it was never widely held in germany, and in recent years the majority of english students of the synoptic problem have come to feel that it does not satisfactorily explain the phenomena. not only are the resemblances too close, and their character in part not of a kind, to be thus accounted for, but even many of the differences between parallel contexts are rather such as would arise through the revision of a document than through the freedom of oral delivery. it is now and has for many years been widely held that a document which is most nearly represented by the gospel of mark, or which (as some would say) was virtually identical with it, has been used in the composition of our first and third gospels. this source has supplied the synoptic outline, and in the main also the narratives common to all three. questions connected with the history of this document are treated in the article on mark, gospel of. there is also a considerable amount of matter common to matthew and luke, but not found in mark. it is introduced into the synoptic outline very differently in those two gospels, which clearly suggests that it existed in a separate form, and was independently combined by the first and third evangelists with their other document. this common matter has also a character of its own; it consists mainly of pieces of discourse. the form in which it is given in the two gospels is in several passages so nearly identical that we must suppose these pieces at least to have been derived immediately or ultimately from the same greek document. in other cases there is more divergence, but in some of them this is accounted for by the consideration that in matthew passages from the source now in question have been interwoven with parallels in the other chief common source before mentioned. there are, however, instances in which no such explanation will serve, and it is possible that our first and third evangelists may have used two documents which were not in all respects identical, but which corresponded very closely on the whole. the ultimate source of the subject matter in question, or of the most distinctive and larger part of it, was in all probability an aramaic one, and in some parts different translations may have been used. this second source used in the composition of matthew and luke has frequently been called "the logia" in order to signify that it was a collection of the sayings and discourses of jesus. this name has been suggested by schleiermacher's interpretation of papias' fragment on matthew (see matthew, gospel of). but some have maintained that the source in question also contained a good many narratives, and in order to avoid any premature assumption as to its contents and character several recent critics have named it "q." it may, however, fairly be called "the logian document," as a convenient way of indicating the character of the greater part of the matter which our first and third evangelists have taken from it, and this designation is used in the articles on the gospels of luke and matthew. the reconstruction of this document has been attempted by several critics. the arrangement of its contents can, it seems, best be learned from luke. 3. one or two remarks may here be added as to the bearing of the results of literary criticism upon the use of the gospels. their effect is to lead us, especially when engaged in historical inquiries, to look beyond our gospels to their sources, instead of treating the testimony of the gospels severally as independent and ultimate. nevertheless it will still appear that each gospel has its distinct value, both historically and in regard to the moral and spiritual instruction afforded. and the fruits of much of that older study of the gospels, which was largely employed in pointing out the special characteristics of each, will still prove serviceable. authorities.--1. german books: _introductions to the new testament_--h. j. holtzmann (3rd ed., 1892), b. weiss (eng. trans., 1887), th. zahn (2nd ed., 1900), g. a. julicher (6th ed., 1906; eng. trans., 1904); h. v. soden, _urchristliche literaturgeschichte_, vol. i. (1905; eng. trans., 1906). books on the synoptic gospels, especially the synoptic problem: h. j. holtzmann, _die synoptischen evangelien_ (1863); weizsacker, _untersuchungen uber die evangelische geschichte_ (1864); b. weiss, _das marcus-evangelium und seine synoptischen parallelen_ (1872); _das matthaus-evangelium und seine lucas-parallelen_ (1876); h. h. wendt, _die lehre jesu_ (1886); a. resch, _agrapha_ (1889); &c.; p. wernle, _die synoptische frage_ (1899); w. soltau, _unsere evangelien, ihre quellen und ihr quellenwert_ (1901); h. j. holtzmann, _hand-commentar zum n.t._, vol. i. (1889); j. wellhausen, _das evangelium marci_, _das evangelium matthai_, _das evangelium lucas_ (1904), _einleitung in die drei ersten evangelien_ (1905); a. harnack, _spruche und reden jesu, die zweite quelle des matthaus und lukas_ (1907). 2. french books: a. loisy, _les evangiles synoptiques_ (1907-1908). 3. english books: g. salmon, _introduction to the new testament_ (1st ed., 1885; 9th ed., 1904); w. sanday, _inspiration_ (lect. vi., 3rd ed., 1903); b. f. westcott, _an introduction to the study of the gospels_ (1st ed., 1851; 8th ed., 1895); a. wright, _the composition of the four gospels_ (1890); j. e. carpenter, _the first three gospels, their origin and relations_ (1890); a. j. jolley, _the synoptic problem_ (1893); j. c. hawkins, _horae synopticae_ (1899); w. alexander, _leading ideas of the gospels_ (new ed., 1892); e. a. abbott, _clue_ (1900); j. a. robinson, _the study of the gospels_ (1902); f. c. burkitt, _the gospel history and its transmission_ (1906); g. salmon, _the human element in the gospels_ (1907); v. h. stanton, _the gospels as historical documents_: pt. i., _the early use of the gospels_ (1903); pt. ii., _the synoptic gospels_ (1908). 4. synopses.--w. g. rushbrooke, _synopticon, an exposition of the common matter of the synoptic gospels_ (1880); a. wright, _the synopsis of the gospels in greek_ (2nd ed., 1903). see also the articles on each gospel, and the article bible, section _new testament_. (v. h. s.) footnotes: [1] for the only two that can be held to be such in the first half of the 2nd century, and the doubts whether they refer to our present gospels, see mark, gospel of, and matthew, gospel of. [2] the character of tatian's _diatessaron_ has been much disputed in the past, but there can no longer be any reasonable doubt on the subject after recent discoveries and investigations. (an account of these may be seen most conveniently in _the diatessaron of tatian_, by s. hemphill; see under tatian.)