of the narration brings us still nearer Peter, for it appears in the description of events which were only originally known to three of the apostles--namely, to Peter, James, and John: such are the events which took place in the house of Jairus, and in the house of Peter. Strauss, after adverting to the circumstantiality of the details on these occasions, asks, or rather ironically abstains from asking, whether the author who describes these events was one of these three apostles, and whether the original narrator committed his account to writing? I answer both questions in the affirmative. But I proceed a step farther, and infer from the narrative, not only that the author was one of the three, but that he was neither James nor John. In the account of the cure of Peter's mother-in-law in the house of Peter, all the three must have been present, but only James and John are mentioned, and they were merely spectators, taking no part in the transactions. Why, then, are they mentioned at all, and why is Peter not mentioned? The answer is, that such notices are characteristic of the style of an eyewitness, and the omission of Peter's name can only be explained on the supposition that he was the original author of the account. With regard to the style of the second Gospel, it is animated and picturesque, as every narrative is which is written truthfully and circumstantially, by an eyewitness who is strongly impressed by the events. It is that of a vigorous but uncultivated mind, little accustomed to composition, writing with the first intention, and while the impressions are still strong upon him. It abounds with repetitions, and with details of circumstances which have no Napier's account of the battle of Busaco. I have no reason to suppose he was present but one-the autopticity of his description. Who can read his "sparkling" account of the charge of the light division without the conviction that it is that of an eyewitness? His work is avowedly historical; he intentionally refrains from recording the achievements of particular regiments, yet he records a circumstance which certainly did not influence the result of the combat: A poor orphan Portuguese girl, about seventeen years of age, and very handsome, was seen coming down the mountain and driving an ass loaded with all her property through the midst of the French army."-Vol. iii. p. 334. This circumstance made an impression on the author, and illustrated the chivalrous spirit of the combatants, for "no man on either side was so brutal as to molest her," just as the loss of the young man's garment illustrated the violence of the people. other connection with the main fact than juxtaposition of time. and place. Its general character, as well as its particular details, agree perfectly with the supposition that the apostle Peter was the original author. It will naturally be asked, Can we trace any resemblance between the style of this Gospel and the acknowledged writings of St Peter? To this I would reply, that the style of a simple narrative and of a didactic composition differ so essentially that much resemblance is not to be expected, especially where the circumstances in which the author was placed were so completely changed. Peter, one of the leaders of a great movement, accustomed to public speaking, and writing with weight and authority, would use a very different style from the fisherman recording from day to day a simple narration of the transactions in which he was engaged. There is, however, an illustration in the second epistle that points to the author of the Gospel as its writer. We see with what accuracy and precision the effects of a tornado (Maîλay) are described in the second Gospel :* now, in the second epistle, the tornado is used as an illustration of the effects of the passions on those who yield to them-they are likened to "clouds driven. by a tornado" (vepéλai iñò daídaños éλavvóμevai, ii. 17)—an image which a fisherman would very naturally make use of. The nautical word Maîλay is only used by Peter, by the author of the second Gospel, and Luke, who takes his account from the original of that Gospel, and whose familiarity with nautical language would lead him to retain that expression. We must also remember that, though the matter of the second Gospel be Peter's, the language is Mark's, and that we cannot, therefore, expect to be able, by peculiarities of style alone, to identify the authors of the Gospel and the epistles. What I have said will, I trust, have put the reader sufficiently in possession of my general views, to enable him to follow me in the minute and detailed examination of the corresponding passages of the first three Gospels, to which I now proceed, and remove * See Note on Section xxviii. p. 285. some of the difficulties which he might otherwise have felt in agreeing with my conclusions. It is, after all, by such an examination that a theory which claims our assent must be tested. It now only remains for me to describe the next portion of this work, in which this detailed examination is conducted. In comparing the corresponding passages of the first three Gospels, there are seven classes of passages to be considered1. Passages occurring in Matthew alone; 2. Passages occurring in Mark alone; 3. Passages occurring in Luke alone; 4. Passages occurring in Matthew and Mark alone; 5. Passages occurring in Mark and Luke alone; 6. Passages occurring in Matthew and Luke alone; 7. Passages occurring in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The method which I adopted for making the comparison, after much consideration, is the following:-I arranged the whole of the Gospel of St Mark, in its own order, in a central column; on one side I arranged the corresponding passages of the Gospel of St Matthew; and, on the other, those of St Luke, omitting, however, such passages as are clearly derived from independent. sources. This arrangement gives us in juxtaposition all the passages of the 2d, 4th, 5th, and 7th class. In the next division I have printed, in parallel columns, all the passages of the 6th class-viz. those which occur in Matthew and Luke alone, following the order of St Luke's Gospel. For passages of the 1st and 3d class, I must refer to the Greek Testament. The particular mode of arrangement to be followed, depends very much on the object with which the arrangement is made. In comparing three authors who have written in succession, and each of whom has made use of the writings of his predecessor, we may with advantage, according to our object, make the first or the third author the central member, arranging the others on either side. In the one method, we see how the earliest authority has been used by the later; in the other method, we see how the latest has used his authorities. The third possible arrangement, or that in which the writer second in point of time should be made the central member, would evidently be much less instructive than either of the other methods. The second method is that which I followed in my former work. But, in the present investigation, it soon appeared to me that the key to the mystery of the connection. of the first three Gospels was to be found, if anywhere, in the connection between the Gospel of St Mark and those of Matthew and Luke. If Mark was the translator of an original, from which Matthew and Luke had also made independent translations -if that original was the true " Protevangelium"-then, by placing Mark in the centre, I could see at a glance in what way it had been made use of by each of the others; and in this work I have accordingly followed the first method. This arrangement, with the arrangement which follows, of the corresponding passages of Matthew and Luke, gives us the means, although somewhat imperfectly, of investigating the manner in which St Luke has made use of the two of his authorities with which we are acquainted. For a complete and minute investigation of this interesting subject, an arrangement of the corresponding passages, according to the second method-i. e., making Luke the central member-would be requisite. I have been deterred from inserting such an arrangement by the great additional increase of volume which it would have occasioned in this work. On the page opposite the Greek I have arranged, in the same order, the English authorised translation of the same passages; and in the preliminary notice I have explained how, by means of the italics, the English reader may, in some degree, follow my observations on the verbal agreements and differences of the several Gospels. In the last portion of the work, which is entitled "Notes on the Sections," will be found the detailed results of the examination; and to this I must refer my readers for the justification of my conclusions. |