GOSPEL. Rom. i. 1-3. 0, K!; Pliil. i. 5. 12; ii. 22; iv. 3). In the lattr bouks the term is used sometimes in a technieal sense, denoting the historie.il record of this salvation message (e.g. Mark i. 1), or even the message itself as an article of faitli and confession (e.g. Rev. xiv. G). This technical sense was fully acquired by the end of the sec- ond century. The folhnving article naturally' confines itself to the term as denoting the historical records of the Gospel message — the Kew Testjiment books conmionly known as the Gosjjels. Of these Gos- pels, the first three (JIatthew, Jlark, Luke) coer practieallv the early portion of Jesus' life — i.e. His niinistiy in Galilee and the north — to- gether with the close of His life in Jerusalem, re- cording largely the same events and reproducing hirgcly the same teachings. For this reason they are technically known as the Synoptic Gos- pels, and the question of their literary relation to one another and to common and specific sources is known as the Synoplic Problem. Their origin dates within generally the same period: say from A.D. 0.5 to SO. The fourth Gospel ( John ) covers the later portion of .Jesus' life — i.e. His ministiy in .Iuda>a and .Jerusalem, not only on the occasion of His visits to the city during Ilis Galilean min- istn'. but especially during the closing ministry in that city and region — recording events and reproducing teachings largely different from those given in the Synoptic Gospels. For this reason the literary relation of the fourth Gospel to the Synoptic Gospels constitutes in itself a S])ecific problem known as the Johnnnine Prob- lem, or the Prolilcm of the Fourth Gospel. The origin of the fourth Gospel dates from a period much later than those of the Synoptists; say about ,.D. no. The discussion of these two prob- lems has enlisted the interest of most New Testa- ment scholars, and has really gathered around itself the most significant New Testament work which has been done in the last fifty years. More definitely stated, these problems are as follows: I. Synoptic PRORLEJt. Our first three Gospels present such striking identities in their order of narrative, and, in their use of word, phrase, and continued statement, and at the same time such striking difi'erences in these respects, that we are compelled to ask what theory of their origin will account for these phenomena. The follow- ing theories have been propounded : ( a ) The Sue- rrssive Depc/idctice Theory: viz. that the ev.ange- lists made use of one or more of the Gospels al- ready written, so that one of the Gospels is the first and original Gospel. A second writer used the first, and the third used one or both of his predecessors. This is the oldest view, having Iiractically originated with Augustine, and has been worked out into every possible modification, (b) The Documentary Theory ; viz. that all three Gospels to some extent made use of a preexisting written source. This theory came from ideas stiggested by Le Clere (1716). and was later taken up by Priestley (1777). and finally definite- ly fornnilated by Lessing (1778). This also has received many modifications, according to the view held as to the character of the original document, and also according to the way this theory was combined Avith the first. (c) The Oral Theory; viz. that all three Gospels made nse of the common oral tradition, which had be- come fixed bv use. This was first sngsested by Herder (1797) and Eckermann (ISOC), but Vol. IX.— 5. 59 GOSPEL. fully formulated by Giesclcr (KS18). It has also been variously modified according as there have been held to enter into the oral sources written sources as well, or as the GosjKds have been held to use each other along with tlic common sources, or as the common tradition has been held t<) have undergone various recensions which the (Jospels have used in varied combinations. The conclu- sions most generally accepted by critics to-day lie within the general sphere of the Documentary Theor}', though they involve elements of each of the others. In substance they are, that behind our present chronological Gospels lay two funda- mental written sources — one a collection of the sayings of Jesus, known as the Loyia of Matthew, and represented most conspicuously, if not ex- clusively, in our first and third Gospels; the other a narrati'e of the event.s of Jesus' minis- try, which is practically, if not absolutely, iden- tical with our second Gospel. Besides these main sources, it is held that the writers of the individual Gospels had access to special sources peculiar to themselves, while the writer of the third Gospel made use directly of the first as well as the second. Quite recently the theory has been advanced in Germany that the two main documents referred to above are not primary in character, btit composite results of nniltii)le sources whose origin is often, if not always, im- possible to trace. II. The Problem of the FotTiTn Gospel. There is such a radical difference between the discourses of .Jesus as given in the Synoptic Gos- pels and in the fourth Gospel that we are forced to ask whether they both can have come alike from .Jesus. This difference lies in the following facts: (a) The Smoptists present the discour.ses as simple talks on the level of cvery-day siieech; the fourth Gospel as involved discourses beyond the range of ordinary speech, (b) The Synoptists give the discourses largely in the form of parable, as The Sower, The Lost Sheep. The Prodigal Son; the fourth Gospel gives them largely in the form of allesorv. as The Water of Life, the Light of the World. The Good Shepherd, (e) In the Spioptic Gospels the subject of the dis- courses is. generally speaking, the varied and practical topics of religious living, as in the Sermon on the Mount ; the qualities of the Chris- tian life and character; or as In the great Parable Discourse, the nature and growth of the King- dom of God. In the fourth Gospel to an al- most exclusive extent, Jesus Himself is made the subject of the discourses, and this self-subject is treated almost wholly from the point of Jesus' transcendental relations to the Godhead. To account for these facts, the theory has been wide- ly held that the peculiarities, of the fourth Gos- pel discourses are due to the personal reflections of the author of the Gospel, who was not the Apostle John, but a disciple of his school, who presents in these discotirses. not the actual t<?acli- ings of Jesus, but the late first century, if not the post- Apostolic, theology of the Church. In recent years, however, there has been a growing tendency to account for these peculiarities as possible in the genuine teachings of .Jesus, through the fact that they were delivered by .Jesns in surroundings and to audiences different from those in and to which the Synoptic dis- courses were delivered, while they were repro- duced by an apostle whose religious personality itself and spiritual intercourse with Jesus were
