2:42). Reverence would forbid them to vary from it; and yet no single individual, not even Peter
or John, could take in the whole fulness of Christ. One recollected this, another another part of the
gospel story; one had a better memory for words, another for facts. These differences, according
to varying capacities and recollection, would naturally appear, and the common tradition adapted
itself, without any essential alteration, to particular classes of hearers who were first Hebrews in
Palestine, then Greek Jews, proselytes, and Gentiles.
The Gospels are nothing more than comprehensive summaries of this apostolic preaching
and teaching. Mark represents it in its simplest and briefest form, and agrees nearest with the
preaching of Peter as far as we know it from the Acts; it is the oldest in essence, though not
necessarily in composition. Matthew and Luke contain the same tradition in its expanded and more
matured form, the one the Hebrew or Jewish Christian, the other the Hellenistic and Pauline type,
with a corresponding selection of details. Mark gives a graphic account of the main facts of the
public life of Christ "beginning from the baptism of John unto the day that he was received up," as
they would naturally be first presented to an audience (Acts 1:22). Matthew and Luke add the
history of the infancy and many discourses, facts, and details which would usually be presented in
a fuller course of instruction.
Written Documents.
It is very natural that parts of the tradition were reduced to writing during the thirty years
which intervened between the events and the composition of the canonical Gospels. One evangelist
would record for his own use a sketch of the chief events, another the sermon on the Mount, another
the parables, another the history of the crucifixion and resurrection, still another would gather from
the lips of Mary the history of the infancy and the genealogies. Possibly some of the first hearers
noted down certain words and events under the fresh impressions of the moment. The apostles were
indeed unlearned, but not illiterate men, they could read and write and had sufficient rudimentary
education for ordinary composition. These early memoranda were numerous, but have all
disappeared, they were not intended for publication, or if published they were superseded by the
canonical Gospels. Hence there is room here for much speculation and conjectural criticism.^898
"Many," says Luke, "have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which
have been fulfilled among us."^899 He cannot mean the apocryphal Gospels which were not yet
written, nor the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark which would have spared him much
trouble and which he would not have dared to supersede by an improved work of his own without
a word of acknowledgment, but pre-canonical records, now lost, which emanated from "eye-witnesses
and ministers of the word," yet were so fragmentary and incomplete as to justify his own attempt
to furnish a more satisfactory and connected history. He had the best opportunity to gather such
documents in Palestine, Antioch, Greece, and Rome. Matthew, being himself an eyewitness, and
Mark, being the companion of Peter, had less need of previous documents, and could rely chiefly,
oil their own memory and the living tradition in its primitive freshness. They may have written
sketches or memoranda for their own use long before they completed their Gospels; for such(^898) In such conjectures Eichhorn, Marsh, Schleiermacher, Ewald, Volkmar, Wittichen, and Renan have shown great ingenuity,
and accumulated a vast amount of docta ignorantia.
(^899) Luke 1:1: πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν (indicating the difficulty of the undertaking and probably also the insufficiency of the
execution) ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων.
A.D. 1-100.