from antecedent sources. The advocates of the theory of interdependency, or the "borrowing"
hypothesis,^887 differ widely among themselves: some make Matthew, others. Mark, others Luke,
the source of the other two or at least of one of them; while still others go back from the Synoptists
in their present form to a proto-Mark (Urmarkus), or proto-Matthew (Urmatthaeus), proto-Luke
(Urlukas), or other fictitious antecanonical documents; thereby confessing the insufficiency of the
borrowing hypothesis pure and simple.
There is no allusion in any of the Synoptists to the others; and yet Luke expressly refers to
many earlier attempts to write the gospel history. Papias, Irenaeus, and other ancient writers assume
that they wrote independently.^888 The first who made Mark a copyist of Matthew is Augustin, and
his view has been completely reversed by modern research. The whole theory degrades one or two
Synoptists to the position of slavish and yet arbitrary compilers, not to say plagiarists; it assumes
a strange mixture of dependence and affected originality; it weakens the independent value of their
history; and it does not account for the omissions of most important matter, and for many differences
in common matter. For the Synoptists often differ just where we should most expect them to agree.
Why should Mark be silent about the history of the infancy, the whole sermon on the Mount (the
Magna Charta of Christ’s kingdom), the Lord’s Prayer, and important parables, if he had Matthew
1–2, 5–7, 13, before him? Why should he, a pupil of Peter, record the Lord’s severe rebuke to Peter
(Mark 8:27–33), but fail to mention from Matthew 16:16–23 the preceding remarkable laudation:
"Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church?" Why should Luke omit the greater
part of the sermon on the Mount, and all the appearances of the risen Lord in Galilee? Why should
he ignore the touching anointing scene in Bethany, and thus neglect to aid in fulfilling the Lord’s
prediction that this act of devotion should be spoken of as a memorial of Mary "wheresoever this
gospel shall be preached in the whole world (Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9)? Why should he, the pupil
and companion of Paul, fail to record the adoration of the Magi, the story of the woman of Canaan,
and the command to evangelize the Gentiles, so clearly related by Matthew, the Evangelist of the
Jews (Matt. 2:1–12; 15:21–28; 24:14; 28:19)? Why should Luke and Matthew give different
genealogies of Christ, and even different reports of the model prayer of our Lord, Luke omitting
(beside the doxology, which is also wanting in the best MSS. of Matthew) the petition, "Thy will
be done, as in heaven, so on earth," and the concluding petition, "but deliver us from evil" (or "the
evil one"), and substituting "sins" for "debts," and "Father" for "Our Father who art in heaven"?
Why should all three Synoptists differ even in the brief and official title on the Cross, and in the
words of institution of the Lord’s Supper, where Paul, writing in 57, agrees with Luke, referring
to a revelation from the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23)? Had the Synoptists seen the work of the others, they
could easily have harmonized these discrepancies and avoided the appearance of contradiction. To
suppose that they purposely varied to conceal plagiarism is a moral impossibility. We can conceive
no reasonable motive of adding a third Gospel to two already known to the writer, except on the
ground of serious defects, which do not exist (certainly not in Matthew and Luke as compared with
Mark), or on the ground of a presumption which is inconsistent with the modest tone and the
omission of the very name of the writers.(^887) Used by recent English writers as a rendering for Benützungshypothese.
(^888) Clement of Alexandria makes no exception, for be merely states (in Euseb. H. E., VI. 14) that those Gospels which contain
the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first, Mark next, and John last.
A.D. 1-100.