ing it down. Especially, what shall we say of the numerous passages common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark: were they part of the oral tradition; and if so, why did Mark omit them? Moreover, there are indications that some written source was used by the synoptists. As an example of this, note how each account of the healing of the paralytic (Matt. 9:6, Mark. 2: 10, Luke 5: 24) has the same parenthetical explanation inserted in the midst of Jesus' words in a manner that is awkward even in a written account, and would be almost unintelligible in an oral account. These and other objections have caused most scholars to abandon the oral theory, though a few still advocate it.

The theory most popular at present is called the double source or two-document theory; and it possesses the strong points of both the preceding theories. It is based upon a passage in Eusebius which gives us two quotations from Papias, who wrote somewhere between A. D. 130 and 160:

"Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatever he remembered of the things said and done by Christ. For he had neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him; but afterward, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who used to suit his teachings to the needs of his hearers without attempting to give an orderly arrangement of the Lord's words, so that Mark cannot be blamed

for thus having written down some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he was careful-to omit nothing of what he had heard, and to state nothing falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. And about Matthew he says as follows: Matthew wrote [or compiled] the Logia in the Hebrew language; and each one translated [or interpreted] them as he was able" ("Church History, " 3:39).

The word Logia means sayings, and is often used for divine utterances, i. e., oracles; it may have been the term chosen for the utterances of Jesus as suited to their divine character. In the present discussion it may be left untranslated and used as a proper name.

We have already noted that the first things to be written concerning Jesus would be his sayings-both because they are not so easily remembered as his deeds, and because it is important to preserve their exact form. Matthew's early training as a tax-collector would accustom him to make memoranda: and it is very probable that, either when he was with Jesus or afterward, he made such a collection of sayings, and naturally they would be in Hebrew-i. e., Aramaic, the language in which they were spoken. Whether this Logia of Matthew contained simply the sayings of Jesus (like the papyri recently unearthed in Egypt), or whether some sayings were prefaced by accounts of the cir

cumstances that called them forth, is disputed. The latter seems more likely, as often a saying would lose its force or its meaning apart from the circumstance. So far as we can judge, the sayings seem to have been arranged in groups, each related to some practical topic of Christian life, and intended for the use of Christians who wished to know and follow the teachings of Jesus on that topic. Perhaps these groups were circulated separately, as little manuals of Christian teaching, before they were brought together in one collection. In any case the Logia was not a gospel, but only a collection of Christ's sayings; it cannot, therefore, be identified with our Gospel of Matthew. However, the fact that it was written in Hebrew may explain the early and universal tradition that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew; for that gospel in its present Greek form bears little indication of being a translation from a Hebrew original.

The book which Papias describes as written by Mark would be a gospel, and practically a reproduction of the oral gospel. It was the story of Jesus as Peter used to tell it for evangelistic purposes-such a story as that which he told Cornelius: indeed, the outline of Peter's story, given in Acts 10:37-41, would serve as an outline of Mark's gospel. Mark doubtless added to it details gained from other sources; in fact, the question most strongly discussed at present is, How far did Mark reproduce Peter's direct testimony? Whether

this book was our present gospel according to Mark, as Eusebius and Papias apparently believed, or was an earlier work of which our present gospel is a revision, is another question over which scholars dispute. Many think that the synoptic problem is more easily solved by supposing an earlier work-an Ur-Marcus; but others are disposed to accept the gospel in its present form as the original. Thus we account for one of the three synoptics, and give Mark special value as being the earliest of all our gospels.

The theory next supposes that these two documents -the Gospel of Mark and the Logia of Matthew (the latter, perhaps, already translated into Greek)—were used as the main sources of our other two gospels. The person who wrote the present Gospel of Matthew had come into possession of the two documents, and had also gathered, from either written or oral sources, other important facts about Jesus. It was natural that he should bring them together into one book. He was not trying to write a biography of Jesus; and he liked to arrange his material topically rather than chronologically. So in his book we find chapters devoted to the sayings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables by the Lake, and other chapters devoted to the deeds of Jesus, such as the group of miracles in chapters eight and nine. There was no feeling on his part that the documents he was using were sacred; so, as he copied, he changed the

order or the wording to suit his purpose. Nor was there the feeling that when he used the words of another he must make it evident, or else be guilty of plagiarism. In that age, as we see from other books, the sin of plagiarism was not recognized: an author felt at liberty to use as much of another's production as he wished without any acknowledgment. Who the writer of the First Gospel was, we never shall know. Possibly it was Matthew himself. More probably it was a later author; and the name of Matthew was given to the gospel because it was considered to be simply an amplification of Matthew's Logia.

The theory also assigns a similar origin to the Gospel of Luke. In early days, all scholars supposed that the author of this gospel was Paul's companion, "the beloved physician," Luke. This is questioned by many recent critics, but all agree that he was the person who wrote the Book of Acts, and that he had more of the modern historian's spirit than any other evangelist. His preface states the care with which he collected his material; and his book shows an attempt to arrange it in something of a chronological order. His main sources, like those of Matthew, were the Gospel of Mark and the Logia; but he has drawn more from other sources than did the author of Matthew. He, too, follows Mark's order in his general arrangement of incidents, but he tries to put Jesus' sayings in an historical rather than a topical setting.