Collected Essays, Volume V | Page 6

If the
Gospels were the work of totally independent writers, it would follow
that there are three witnesses for the statements in the first tradition;
two for each of those in the second, and only one for those in the third.
V. If the reader will now take up that extremely instructive little book,
Abbott and Rushbrooke's "Common Tradition" he will easily satisfy
himself that "Mark" has the remarkable structure just described. Almost
the whole of this Gospel consists of the first component; namely, the
threefold tradition. But in chap. i. 23-28 he will discover an exorcistic
story, not to be found in "Matthew," but repeated, often word for word,
in "Luke." This, therefore, belongs to one of the twofold traditions. In
chap. viii. 1-10, on the other hand, there is a detailed account of the
miracle of feeding the four thousand; which is closely repeated in
"Matthew" xv. 32-39, but is not to be found in "Luke." This is an
example of the other twofold tradition, possible in "Mark." Finally, the
story of the blind man of Bethsaida, "Mark" viii. 22-26, is peculiar to
"Mark."
VI. Suppose that, A standing for the threefold tradition, or the matter
common to all three Gospels; we call the matter common to "Mark"
and "Matthew" only--B; that common to "Mark" and "Luke" only--C;
that common to "Matthew" and "Luke" only--D; while the peculiar
components of "Mark," "Matthew," and "Luke" are severally indicated
by E, F, G; then the structure of the Gospels may be represented thus:
Components of "Mark" = A + B + C + E. " "Matthew" = A + B + D + F.
" "Luke" = A + C + D + G.
VII. The analysis of the Synoptic documents need be carried no further
than this point, in order to suggest one extremely important, and,
apparently unavoidable conclusion; and that is, that their authors were
neither three independent witnesses of the things narrated; nor, for the
parts of the narrative about which all agree, that is to say, the threefold

tradition, did they employ independent sources of information. It is
simply incredible that each of three independent witnesses of any series
of occurrences should tell a story so similar, not only in arrangement
and in small details, but in words, to that of each of the others.
Hence it follows, either that the Synoptic writers have, mediately or
immediately, copied one from the other: or that the three have drawn
from a common source; that is to say, from one arrangement of similar
traditions (whether oral or written); though that arrangement may have
been extant in three or more, somewhat different versions.
VIII. The suppositions (_a_) that "Mark" had "Matthew" and "Luke"
before him; and (_b_) that either of the two latter was acquainted with
the work of the other, would seem to involve some singular
consequences.
a. The second Gospel is saturated with the lowest supernaturalism.
Jesus is exhibited as a wonder-worker and exorcist of the first rank. The
earliest public recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus comes from an
"unclean spirit"; he himself is made to testify to the occurrence of the
miraculous feeding twice over.
The purpose with which "Mark" sets out is to show forth Jesus as the
Son of God, and it is suggested, if not distinctly stated, that he acquired
this character at his baptism by John. The absence of any reference to
the miraculous events of the infancy, detailed by "Matthew" and
"Luke;" or to the appearances after the discovery of the emptiness of
the tomb; is unintelligible, if "Mark" knew anything about them, or
believed in the miraculous conception. The second Gospel is no
summary: "Mark" can find room for the detailed story, irrelevant to his
main purpose, of the beheading of John the Baptist, and his miraculous
narrations are crowded with minute particulars. Is it to be imagined that,
with the supposed apostolic authority of Matthew before him, he could
leave out the miraculous conception of Jesus and the ascension?
Further, ecclesiastical tradition would have us believe that Mark wrote
down his recollections of what Peter taught. Did Peter then omit to
mention these matters? Did the fact testified by the oldest authority
extant, that the first appearance of the risen Jesus was to himself seem

not worth mentioning? Did he really fail to speak of the great position
in the Church solemnly assigned to him by Jesus? The alternative
would seem to be the impeachment either of Mark's memory, or of his
judgment. But Mark's memory, is so good that he can recollect how, on
the occasion of the stilling of the waves, Jesus was asleep "on the
cushion," he remembers that the woman with the issue had "spent all
she had" on her physicians; that there was not room