A remarkable approach towards unanimity is to be seen in the views of scholars of various types with reference to what is known as the "synoptic problem," the problem of the origin of our first three gospels occasioned by the perplexing phenomena of their frequent close resemblance and signally frequent striking divergence. Fifty years ago opinions about this question were in a perfectly chaotic condition; indeed, there were about as many opinions as the highest possible arithmetical variation in the mutual relations of the gospels would permit. Some put Matthew first, some Mark, some Luke; and all conceivable theories as to their relation one to another, the use of earlier documents, and the degree of reliance on tradition or on written sources to be detected in their authors found eager advocates. But gradually the turbid waters settled and certain definite, generally accepted ideas were crystallized. In the present day it is almost universally agreed that _Mark_ was written by the man whose name it bears, although when Pfleiderer gave his adhesion to this view such a confession from one who was regarded as a leader of the "left wing" of criticism occasioned some surprise.[41] Further, it is the generally accepted opinion that the bulk of the narrative portion of Matthew--the chief exceptions being the Infancy and Resurrection narrative--is based on Mark, and that the same is true to a considerable extent with regard to _Luke_. There has been much discussion as to whether St. Mark's gospel has undergone revision. But the ripest results of study on this subject are represented by the conclusions of Dr. Abbott who has shown that our _Mark_ is really the earlier edition of the gospel which in a later and slightly modified form, its ruggedness being smoothed, was used in the construction of _Matthew_ and _Luke_. In the second place, it is very generally admitted that the discourses in _Matthew_, which are inserted in five blocks of sayings, like five wedges driven into the narrative as that stands in _Mark_, are the contents of a work consisting of the "oracles," or "sacred sayings," of Jesus which a very ancient church writer, Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis, tells us that Matthew compiled.[42] Thus we get two of our gospels well authenticated, _Mark_ being admitted to be the work of the man to whom it is ascribed and _Matthew_ being acknowledged as in the main a combination of St. Matthew the Apostle's collection of the teachings of Jesus with the standard narrative in _Mark_. The infancy and resurrection narratives must have been derived from other primitive authorities. [41] See Pfleiderer, _Urchristentum_, First Edition (1887). [42] It is interesting to observe that, as Eusebius informs us, Papias's commentary on the _Logia_, or "Oracles of the Lord," was composed in five books. These might correspond to the five sections of the teachings of Jesus in our _Matthew_.