well as the Gospel according to St. Mark. This theory is most
appropriately called the _theory of the mutual dependence of the
documents_.

(2) The three Synoptic Gospels put down in writing different, but
closely similar forms of an oral tradition concerning the teaching of
our Lord. It is thought that the statements made by the apostles about
Christ were repeated by them and occasionally added to, and treasured
up in faithful memories. {21} The idea of a _literary_ connection
between the Gospels is dismissed, and it is held that the methods of
teaching employed among the Jews, and the probable existence of a
school of trained catechists, will account sufficiently for the fixed
form of the tradition. According to this hypothesis the differences
between the Synoptic Gospels are to be explained by the necessity of
teaching different aspects of the truth among different classes of
inquirers, and by the fluctuating memories of the teachers. This
theory is known as the _oral theory_.[3]

(3) The three Synoptic Gospels are based upon one original Gospel
written in the Aramaic language. A large number of verbal variations
can thus be accounted for. They might have sprung from different
renderings of the same Aramaic original, and various passages derived
from oral tradition might have been added to the original Gospel when
it was translated. It has been held by some that there was at least an
Aramaic document behind Mark, if there was not an Aramaic original
employed by all the Synoptics. The different forms of this hypothesis
can be described as the _theory of an Aramaic original_.

It is now generally believed that the three evangelists did not employ
one original Aramaic Gospel. The agreement between the Greek words of
the Synoptic Gospels is too close to be explained by the use of an
Aramaic original. The real controversy, therefore, lies between the
scholars who support theory (1) or theory (2).

[Sidenote: Probable conclusions.]

On the whole, it appears that a general agreement is being arrived at.
It is becoming evident that the theory of the mutual dependence of the
documents and the oral theory are _both_ partly true, and that neither
of them can be held in an extreme form. In the first place, the
resemblances between the first three Gospels make it extremely probable
that St. Matthew and St. Luke {22} employed the work of St. Mark. In
England, Germany, and France the opinion of scholars seems ste