Collected Essays, Volume V | Page 7

"even about the
door" on a certain occasion at Capernaum. And it is surely hard to
believe that "Mark" should have failed to recollect occurrences of
infinitely greater moment, or that he should have deliberately left them
out, as things not worthy of mention.
b. The supposition that "Matthew" was acquainted with "Luke," or
"Luke" with "Matthew" has equally grave implications. If that be so,
the one who used the other could have had but a poor opinion of his
predecessor's historical veracity. If, as most experts agree, "Luke" is
later than "Matthew," it is clear that he does not credit "Matthew's"
account of the infancy; does not believe the "Sermon on the Mount" as
given by Matthew was preached; does not believe in the two feeding
miracles, to which Jesus himself is made to refer; wholly discredits
"Matthew's" account of the events after the crucifixion; and thinks it
not worth while to notice "Matthew's" grave admission that "some
doubted."
IX. None of these troublesome consequences pursue the hypothesis that
the threefold tradition, in one, or more, Greek versions, was extant
before either of the canonical Synoptic Gospels; and that it furnished
the fundamental framework of their several narratives. Where and
when the threefold narrative arose, there is no positive evidence;
though it is obviously probable that the traditions it embodies, and
perhaps many others, took their rise in Palestine and spread thence to
Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt and Italy, in the track of the early
missionaries. Nor is it less likely that they formed part of the
"didaskalia" of the primitive Nazarene and Christian communities.[6]
X. The interest which attaches to "Mark" arises from the fact that it
seems to present this early, probably earliest, Greek Gospel narrative,

with least addition, or modification. If, as appears likely from some
internal evidences, it was compiled for the use of the Christian
sodalities in Rome; and that it was accepted by them as an adequate
account of the life and work of Jesus, it is evidence of the most
valuable kind respecting their beliefs and the limits of dogma, as
conceived by them.
In such case, a good Roman Christian of that epoch might know
nothing of the doctrine of the incarnation, as taught by "Matthew" and
"Luke"; still less of the "logos" doctrine of "John"; neither need he have
believed anything more than the simple fact of the resurrection. It was
open to him to believe it either corporeal or spiritual. He would never
have heard of the power of the keys bestowed upon Peter; nor have had
brought to his mind so much as a suggestion of trinitarian doctrine. He
might be a rigidly monotheistic Judæo-Christian, and consider himself
bound by the law: he might be a Gentile Pauline convert, neither
knowing of nor caring for such restrictions. In neither case would he
find in "Mark" any serious stumbling-block. In fact, persons of all the
categories admitted to salvation by Justin, in the middle of the second
century,[7] could accept "Mark" from beginning to end. It may well be,
that, in this wide adaptability, backed by the authority of the
metropolitan church, there lies the reason for the fact of the
preservation of "Mark," notwithstanding its limited and dogmatically
colourless character, as compared with the Gospels of "Luke" and
"Matthew."
XI. "Mark," as we have seen, contains a relatively small body of ethical
and religious instruction and only a few parables. Were these all that
existed in the primitive threefold tradition? Were none others current in
the Roman communities, at the time "Mark" wrote, supposing he wrote
in Rome? Or, on the other hand, was there extant, as early as the time at
which "Mark" composed his Greek edition of the primitive Evangel,
one or more collections of parables and teachings, such as those which
form the bulk of the twofold tradition, common exclusively to
"Matthew" and "Luke," and are also found in their single traditions?
Many have assumed this, or these, collections to be identical with, or at
any rate based upon, the "logia," of which ecclesiastical tradition says,

that they were written in Aramaic by Matthew, and that everybody
translated them as he could.
Here is the old difficulty again. If such materials were known to
"Mark," what imaginable reason could he have for not using them?
Surely displacement of the long episode of John the Baptist--even
perhaps of the story of the Gadarene swine--by portions of the Sermon
on the Mount or by one or two of the beautiful parables in the twofold
and single traditions would have been great improvements; and might
have been effected, even though "Mark" was as much pressed for space
as some have imagined. But there is no ground for that imagination;
Mark has actually found room for four or five parables; why