This point has been made the subject of more discussion and
speculation, within the last fifty years, among the critical
and exegetical theologians of Europe, than any other subject
connected with the New Testament. Those who wish to see the
interesting details of the modes of explaining the coincidences
between the three first evangelists, may find much on this
subject in Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, and
especially in the translation by Bishop Marsh, who, in his notes
on Vol. III. of Michaelis, has, after a very full discussion
of all previous views of the origin of the gospels, gone on
to build one of the most ingenious speculations on this point
that was ever conceived on any subject, but which, in its very
complicated structure, will present a most insuperable objection
to its adoption by the vast majority of even his critical
readers; and accordingly, though he has received universal
praise for the great learning and ingenuity displayed in its
formation, he has found few supporters,――perhaps none. His
views are fully examined and fairly discussed, by the anonymous
English translator of Dr. F. Schleiermacher’s Commentary on
Luke, in an introductory history of all the German speculations
on this subject with which he has prefaced that work. The
historical sketch there given of the progress of opinion on the
sources and materials of the three first gospels, is probably
the most complete account of the whole matter that is accessible
in English, and displays a very minute acquaintance with the
German theologians. Hug is also very full on this subject,
and also discusses the views of Marsh and Michaelis. Hug’s
translator, Dr. Wait, has given, in an introduction to the
first volume, a very interesting account of these critical
controversies, and has large references to many German writers
not referred to by his author. Bertholdt and Bolten, in
particular, are amply quoted and disputed by Wait. Bloomfield
also, in the prefaces to the first and second volumes of his
critical Annotations on the New Testament, gives much on the
subject that can hardly be found any where else by a mere
English reader. Large references might be made to the works
of the original German writers; but it would require a very
protracted statement, and would be useless to nearly all
readers, because those to whom these rare and deep treasures
of sacred knowledge are accessible, are doubtless better able
to give an account of them than I am. It may be worth while
to mention, however, that of all those statements of the facts
on this subject with which I am acquainted, none gives a more
satisfactory view, than a little Latin monograph, in a quarto
of eighty pages, written by H. W. Halfeld, (a Goettingen
theological student, and a pupil of Eichhorn, for whose views
he has a great partiality,) for the Royal premium. Its title
is, “Commentatio de origine quatuor evangeliorum, et de eorum
canonica auctoritate.” (Goettingen, 1796.) The Bibliotheca
Graeca of Fabricius, (Harles’s edition with notes,) contains, in
the chapters on the gospels, very rich references to the learned
authors on these points. Lardner, in his History of the Apostles
and Evangelists, takes a learned view of the question, “whether
either of the three evangelists had seen the others’ writings.”
This he gives after the lives of all four of the evangelists,
and it may be referred to for a very full abstract of all the
old opinions upon the question. Few of these points have any
claim for a discussion in this book, but some things may very
properly be alluded to, in the lives of the other evangelists,
where a reference to their resemblances and common sources, will
be essential to the completeness of the narrative.