which was, in fact, the embodiment of their united wisdom
under the illumination of the Divine Spirit. Each evangelist, as well
Mark and Luke who were not apostles, as Matthew who belonged to the
number of the twelve, wrote independently of the other two. The later
writers may, indeed, have been acquainted with the writings of the
earlier, but a bare inspection of the three gospels shows that there was
no labored effort on the part of one evangelist to adjust his work to
those of the others. Hence arise apparent discrepancies, as in the two
genealogies of our Lord, which it is sometimes hard to explain. But
these very difficulties witness to the independent truthfulness of the
writers. Had they written in concert, or borrowed systematically from
each other, such difficulties would not have existed.

Although apostolic oral tradition is thus made the main source whence
the writers of these gospels drew their materials, it is not necessary
to affirm or deny their use, in a subordinate way, of written documents.
That such documents existed in the time of Luke we know from his own
words, chap. 1:1. He does not condemn them, but neither does he rely
upon them. His gospel is not derived from them, but from his own
accurate investigations; "It seemed good to me also, having accurately
traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original Greek means),
"to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." Chap. 1:3. And
if Luke, the companion of Paul, was not dependent for his materials on
any previously existing writings, neither was Mark, the companion of
both Peter and Paul, nor Matthew, who was himself an apostle. Nor can
the incorporation of such writings into the synoptic gospels be shown
with any degree of probability. If it cannot be claimed for this
hypothesis of a primitive apostolic tradition, as the source whence the
writers of the synoptic gospels drew their materials, that it explains
all the phenomena of their mutual relation to each other, it is,
nevertheless, more satisfactory than any other that has been proposed,
and may be regarded as a near approximation to the actual facts in the
case.

Between the _traditions_ of which the apostle Paul speaks (2
Thess. 2:15; 3:6; also, according to the original, 1 Cor. 11:2)
received immediately from his mouth or pen, and the pretended
traditions of later days, handed down from century to century
through a succession of uninspired men, the diff