The History Of The Christian Church Volume 1, Philip Shaff 1819-1893

CHAPTER XII THE NEW TESTAMENT 285 the famous Urevangeliumshypothese of the learned Pro- very freely with the Synoptists, resting his faith chiefly fessor Eichhorn (1794, 1804, 1820), adopted and modi- on John. fied by Bishop Herbert Marsh (1803), Gratz (1809), and Ewald (1850) independently carried out a similar Bertholdt (who, as Baur says, was devoted to it with “car- view in fierce opposition to the “beastly wildness” of the nal self-security”).

Tübingen school. He informs us with his usual oracular But there is no trace of such an important Gospel, self-assurance that Philip, the evangelist (Acts 8), first either Hebrew or Greek. Luke knows nothing about it, wrote a historical sketch in Hebrew, and then Matthew although he speaks of several attempts to write portions a collection of discourses (the λόγιαof Papias), also in of the history. To carry out his hypothesis, Eichhorn was Hebrew, of which several Greek translations were made; forced to assume four altered copies or recensions of the that Mark was the third, Matthew the fifth, and Luke the original document, and afterwards he added also Greek ninth in this series of Gospels, representing the “Höherecensions. Marsh, outgermanizing the German critic, bilder, die himmlische Fortbewegung der Geschichte,” increased the number of recensions to eight, including which at last assumed their most perfect shape in John. a Greek translation of the Hebrew original. Thus a new Köstlin, Wittichen, and Scholten likewise assume recension might be invented for every new set of facts ad a number of precanonical Gospels which exist only in infinitum. If the original Gospel was an apostolic com- their critical fancy. position, it needed no alterations and would have been Renan (Les Evang., Introd., p. vi.) distinguishes three preserved; or if it was so defective, it was of small account sets of Gospels: (1) original Gospels of the first hand, and unfit to be used as a basis of the canonical Gospels. taken from the oral tradition without a previous written Eichhorn’s hypothesis is now generally abandoned, but text: the Hebrew Matthew and the Greek proto-Mark; in modified shape it has been renewed by Ewald and oth- (2) Gospels partly original and partly second-handed: ers. See below. our canonical Gospels falsely attributed to Matthew, 2. The Gospel “according to the Hebrews,” of which Mark, and Luke; (3) Gospels of the second and third some fragments still remain. Lessing (1784, in a book hand: Marcion’s and the Apocryphal Gospels. published three years after his death), Semler (who, howV. The theory of a common Oral Tradition (Tradiever, changed his view repeatedly), Weber (1791), Paulus tionshypothese). Herder (1796), Gieseler (who first fully (1799). But this was a heretical or Ebionitic corruption developed it, 1818), Schulz (1829), Credner, Lange, Ebof Matthew, and the remaining fragments differ widely rard (1868), Thiersch (1845, 1852), Norton, Alford, Westfrom the canonical Gospels. cott (1860, 6th ed., 1881), Godet (1873), Keil (1877), and 3. The Hebrew Matthew (Urmatthäus). It is supposed others. The Gospel story by constant repetition assumed in this case that the famous Logia, which Matthew is re- or rather had from the beginning a uniform shape, even ported by Papias to have written in Hebrew, consisted in minute particulars, especially in the words of Christ. not only of a collection of discourses of our Lord (as True, as far as it goes, but must be supplemented, at least Schleiermacher, Ewald, Reuss, I., 183, explained the in the case of Luke, by pre-canonical, fragmentary docuterm), but also of his deeds: “things said and done.” But ments or memoranda (διηγήσεις). See the text. in any case the Hebrew Matthew is lost and cannot form VI. The Tendency hypothesis (Tendenzhypothese), or a safe basis for conclusions. Hug and Roberts deny that it the theory of Doctrinal Adaptation. Baur (1847) and the ever existed. See next section.

Tübingen school (Schwegler, Ritschl, Volkmar, Hilgen4. The canonical Mark. feld, Köstlin), followed in England by Samuel Davidson 5. A pre-canonical proto-Mark (Urmarkus). The last (in his Introd. to the New Test., 1868, revised ed., 1882). two hypotheses have already been mentioned under the Each Evangelist modified the Gospel history in the insecond general head (II. 3). terest of the religious school or party to which he beIV. The theory of a number of fragmentary docu- longed. Matthew represents the Jewish Christian, Luke ments (the Diegesentheorie), or different recensions. It the Pauline or Gentile Christian tendency, Mark oblitis based on the remark of Luke that “many have taken in erates the difference, or prepares the way from the first hand to draw up a narrative (διηγ́ ησιν concerning those to the second. Every individual trait or characteristic matters which have been fulfilled amongus”(Luke1:1). feature of a Gospel is connected with the dogmatic anSchleiermacher (1817) assumed a large number of such tithesis between Petrinism and Paulinism. Baur regardwritten documents, or detached narratives, and dealt ed Matthew as relatively the most primitive and credible