DISSERTATION

ON THE

ORIGIN AND CONNECTION OF THE GOSPELS.

In the writings of the evangelists we possess the works of four independent historians, narrating, without concert, events of which they were either eyewitnesses, or of which they derived their knowledge immediately from those who were. Viewed merely as literary productions, without reference to the titles assigned to them by tradition, the Gospels of Mark and John bear all the characters of autoptical memoirs-that is, of the memoirs of eyewitnesses, or what the French term, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire." The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are more or less regularly composed histories of the life and transactions of our Lord; that of Matthew, notwithstanding the conciseness of the narration, exhibiting internal proofs that its author was also an eyewitness of many of the events which it relates. The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, is avowedly drawn up, from personal investigation, by an author in possession of the communications of eyewitnesses actually engaged in the transactions.

When we compare with attention different accounts of the same series of transactions, two very distinct kinds of agreement will generally be found to present themselves-the one arising from the identity of the events related, the other from the identity of the authorities made use of. The first may be termed autoptical agree

A

ments, or the agreements of independent witnesses-the latter, documentary agreements, or those produced by the use of the same original authorities.

It follows from this statement that there can be no documentary agreement between autoptical memoirs; but between histories-taking the word history in its limited sense-which record the same events, we ought to expect to meet with such agreements; and also between histories and memoirs written previously to their composition, but not between them and subsequent memoirs.

Autoptical agreements, or the agreements of independent witnesses, require no elucidation. I shall, therefore, content myself with pointing them out, when they occur, in the Notes on the different Sections of the annexed synopsis confining myself, in the following Dissertation, to an inquiry into the nature and causes of the documentary phenomena which we meet with in the writings of the evangelists. Documentary phenomena may be divided into two classes-namely, the phenomena of transcription, and the phenomena of translation, according as the authorities made use of are in the same or in a different language from that of the historians to save circumlocution, I term them transcriptural and translational agreements. Translational phenomena may again be divided into those of independent or dependent translation; the former occur in cases where the translator is ignorant of, or makes no use of, previous translations—the latter, in cases where he does.

To one or other of the above enumerated kinds of agreement may all those we meet with in the Gospels be referred. In themselves, they are exceedingly simple; but when we meet with them in the works of independent historians, such as the authors of the Gospels, they become extremely complicated, and we cannot expect to be able in every case to distinguish them from each other; for independent translators not unfrequently render short and simple sentences into the same words, producing a verbal agreement which is neither the effect of transcription nor of dependent translation. On the other hand, a transcriber may, for the purpose of improving the style, make such alterations on the lan

guage of his authority as to give it the appearance of independent translation. Even in the case of independent narratives of the same events, short verbal agreements occasionally occur. These, however, are exceptional cases, not sufficiently frequent to prevent us from ascertaining with confidence the conditions of agreement which subsist between each of the Gospels.

These conditions differ in the different Gospels. Thus, when we compare the parallel passages peculiar to Luke and Matthew, we find the agreement, generally speaking, to be transcriptural ; in those peculiar to Luke and Mark, the agreement is that of independent translation; in those peculiar to Matthew and Mark, the agreement is partly that of independent translation, and partly of dependent translation; whilst in the cases where John narrates the same events as the other evangelists, the agreements are autoptical, or those of an independent witness.

These well-marked distinctions in the nature of the agreements between the writers, can neither be accidental, nor ascribed to one general cause there must have been special causes which produced them. If we wish to ascertain what were the causes in question, we must, in the first place, observe with care, and report with accuracy, all the facts upon which our reasoning is founded. We may, indeed, lend plausibility to a hypothesis which is only partially true, by selecting such phenomena as are calculated to support it, and passing over in silence, or explaining away, snch as are adverse to it. Thus Eichhorn, observing the phenomena of translation in the writings of the evangelists, attributes all the agreements to a supposed Aramaic or Hebrew protevangelium; Hug, observing those of transcription, supposes that each succeeding evangelist made use of the writings. of those who preceded him. Both theories are to a certain

extent true; and it is only when, led away by the love of generalisation, they have attempted to reduce the most inconsistent phenomena under one general law, that their reasoning fails. Schleiermacher, speaking of the theories of Hug and Eichhorn, says truly enough, that "they combat each other with great mutual success.

He might have said, with equal truth, that each defends his own. theory with success. They are the knights of the gold and silver shield: each takes a one-sided view of the question, and exhausts his ingenuity in defending it.

In arranging the parallel passages, I have not attempted chronological order. I do not believe that it is possible to construct a regularly chronological harmony; at all events, I have not made the attempt. I have given the whole of the Gospel of Mark in its own order, not from any preference of that order, but because the greater portion of the parallelisms may be referred to Mark, and because I consider that it is in an especial manner in the connection of this Gospel with the others that the key of the mystery of their connection is to be found. I have divided it into sections, arranging the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke on each side; never, however, inverting the order of any of the evangelists in order to make the agreement more striking, but leaving vacant spaces, with references to the corresponding passages in the other Gospels. I have, in this respect, deviated from the practice of Archbishop Newcome, Mr Greswell, and other harmonists; but these inversions are phenomena which must be kept in view-for it will be found that they throw no inconsiderable light on the order of the Gospels. Take, for instance, the accounts of the Temptation in the Wilderness, given in Matthew and Luke (Sec. iii. p. 226), where the difference in the order cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition that St Luke wrote last. See note, p. 302.

In those parts of the synopsis which contain the Gospel of Mark, we have every case where all the three Gospels coincide, as well as every case where there are corresponding passages in Mark and Matthew, and in Mark and Luke; the only other cases which can occur are those between Matthew and Luke. These I have given in a separate series of sections, in the order of Luke.

In order that my reasoning may be more clearly understood, I shall, in the first place, state very shortly the conclusions which I have been led to, from the evidence furnished by the writings of

the evangelists, and other ancient writers, respecting the origin and connection of the Gospels. They are as follow:

1st. Several of the apostles, including Matthew, Peter, and John, committed to writing accounts of the transactions of our Lord and his disciples in the language spoken by them, i. e., Syro-Chaldaic or Aramaic, known in the New Testament and the works of the Fathers as Hebrew.

2d. When the apostles were driven by persecution from Judea, a history of the life of our Lord was drawn up from the original memoirs, in Hebrew and in Greek, by the apostle Matthew, for the use of the Jewish converts-the Greek being the same as the Gospel according to Matthew.

3d. St Luke drew up, for the use of Theophilus, a new life of our Lord, founded upon the authority of eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word-including the Hebrew memoir of Peter, and the Greek Gospel of Matthew.

4th. After Peter's death, or departure from Rome (godov), St Mark translated the memoir, written by Peter, into Greek.

5th. John, at a still later period, composed his Gospel from his own original memoirs, omitting much that was already narrated by the other evangelists, for reasons assigned by himself—(xxi. 25.)

By adopting this theory of the origin of the Gospels, we can easily explain the phenomena in question. I do not, however, propound it as a probable conjecture, calculated to afford an explanation, but trust I shall be able to substantiate every part of it by adequate proof.

Assuming it to be established, we ought to expect that the phenomena of agreement would be exactly what we find them to be. St John writing entirely from his own observation, and subsequently to the other evangelists, there can be no documentary agreement between his writings and theirs. When, therefore, he narrates the same events, the agreements with the other evangelists ought to be independent, which is precisely what we find them to be. Luke writing subsequently to Matthew and Peter, and drawing up his gospel from the accounts of eyewitnesses and