SECTION XXXI.

CHRIST REJECTED AT NAZARETH.

Accounts of our Lord's rejection at Nazareth are given by all the three evangelists. That of St Luke is the fullest, but being independent of either of the others, cannot be classed amongst the documentary parallel passages; the other two accounts are evidently taken from the same original-Matthew's, as usual, being the most concise.

SECTION XXXII.

THE APOSTLES SENT FORTH.

St Matthew here retrospectively gives the list of the apostles, and adds, verses 12 and 13, words of our Lord. St Luke also adds in ver. 2, that the apostles were to preach as well as to cure. He gives great neatness to the original expression, "there abide till ye depart from thence," by rendering it, "there abide, and thence depart."

SECTION XXXIII.

HEROD DESIRES TO SEE JESUS.

St Luke adds that Herod wished to see Christ, and Matthew that it was to his servants that Herod addressed his observations; otherwise, the agreement is translational.

SECTION XXXIV.

JOHN BAPTIST IMPRISONED AND BEHEADED.

It is sufficiently clear that in Mark we have the original memoir. The verbal agreement arises probably in part from Mark's having, to a certain extent, availed himself of the previous translation of Matthew.

U

SECTIONS XXXV.-XXXVI.

THE RETURN OF THE APOSTLES, AND THE MIRACLE of feeding FIVE THOUSAND.

These two sections follow each other in all the three Gospels. The former may be accounted the introduction to the latter. Luke and Matthew, writing historically, leave out the circumstantial details given by Mark. The reading in Luke, which has been adopted by Tischendorf, states in general terms that our Lord, taking the apostles, journeyed to Bethsaida, not to "the desert of the town of Bethsaida," as in the received text. According to this reading, the miracle was wrought in the desert place to which our Lord invited the disciples to “rest a while," and probably to take their meal, which the crowd of comers and goers prevented, Mark, vi. 31. We thus get quit of the difficulties of supposing that Luke meant one Bethsaida, and Mark another.

SECTION XXXVII.

CHRIST WALKS ON THE SEA.

In the relation of this miracle, we find, as in the stilling of the tempest, Matthew's attention drawn to the waves, Mark's confined to the winds; the one mode of viewing the event characteristic of a landsman, the other of a seaman. St Matthew clears up an ambiguity, according to Mark, v. 54, "When they were come out of the ship, they knew him;" but we are not told who knew him, and none are previously mentioned but the disciples. St Matthew informs us that it was the men of that place," ver. 35.

SECTION XXXVIII.

JESUS REPROVES THE PHARISEES.

We have here what I consider to be an editorial addition, by St Mark, to the original memoir explaining Jewish customs, evidently meant for Gentiles; and which, not being in the original, does not occur in St Matthew's account.

SECTION XXXIX.

CURE OF THE SYROPHENICIAN WOMAN'S DAughter.

Matthew's account is partly taken from Mark, but part of it is independent.

SECTION XLI.

FOUR THOUSAND FED WITH SEVEN LOAVES, &c.

Independent translations of the same original, with the characteristic addition by St Matthew, that there were women and children besides the men. Dr Davidson cites this section as a proof of the untenableness of the hypothesis that one evangelist made use of the work of another, (Introd. to N. T., i. p. 400,) but has not stated his reasons with respect to the examples adduced. I can see none.

SECTIONS XLII.-XLIII.

THE PHARISEES SEEK A SIGN, AND THE LEAVEN OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES.

Translations of the same passage by Matthew and Mark. Matthew omits the purely autoptical circumstance mentioned by Mark, viii. 14, that there was only one loaf in the ship, and inserts words spoken by our Lord in verses 2, 3, and 11.

SECTIONS XLV.-XLVI.

PETER CONFESSES JESUS IS THE CHRIST, AND JESUS FORETELLS HIS SUFFERINGS. Translations from the same original. Luke omits the rebuke to

Peter.

SECTION XLVII.

THE TRANSFIGURATION.

"Here again, Matthew and Mark's accounts seem to have one and the same source. They have deflected from it, and additional particu

lars have found their way into our text. Luke's account is from a
different source. If we might conjecture, Peter has furnished the
accounts in Matthew and Mark: this latter has been retouched, per-
haps, by himself."-Alford. The italics are Mr Alford's. I am glad
to quote this critic, because, starting with an adverse theory, his own
sagacity is continually forcing him to adopt what I conceive to be the
true explanation. Luke's account is unquestionably in part indepen-
dent of the other two, evidently derived from an eyewitness, and, if I
may be allowed to conjecture, "delivered" to him by John, which may
account for the omission of an account of it in his Gospel. If the
retouching be by Mark, he must be the least original of the two,
(Matthew and Mark.) To me it appears that the omission of the
homely comparison of the brightness of our Lord's raiment to the
whiteness produced by a fuller, by Matthew and Luke, indicate that
the retouching was on their part.

SECTION XLVIII.

CHRIST'S DISCOURSE AFTER THE TRANSFIGURATION.

Matthew continues to adhere to the original. His improvement of
the arrangement, by postponing the notice of our Lord's sufferings, is
obvious, as well as the reason of his omission of the private opinion of
the apostles respecting the resurrection.

SECTIONS XLIX.-L.

CHRIST CASTS OUT A DEAF and dumb Spirit, and FORETELLS HIS SUFFERINGS.

The accounts of Matthew and Luke are concise and historical. Where
they tally with Mark, and with each other, the connection is transla-
tional. Luke, as in the case of the ruler's daughter, states that the
child was an only son: this is probably indicated in Matthew and Mark
by the article, or it may be the result of his own research.

SECTION LI.

THE DISCIPLES CONTEND WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST.

Both Matthew and Luke are concise and historical. Matthew's inser-
tion, verses 3 and 4, are words of our Lord, and therefore important.

SECTION LII.

JESUS ENTERS JUDEA, AND IS QUESTIONED ABOUT DIVORCES.

The arrangement in the two accounts differs, but the matter is the
same. Matthew's arrangement is the most regular. He first states the
facts, and then the inferences—an improvement on Mark's, and, there-
fore, last written.

SECTION LIII.

There is more verbal agreement between Mark and Luke in this than
in any other section. It is not probable that the one who wrote last
was ignorant of the work of his predecessor, and may have been influ-
enced by his recollections of his translation; although I do not suppose
he made intentional use of it, as he did of Matthew.

SECTION LIV.

CHRIST'S ANSWER TO THE RICH YOUNG MAN.

Matthew's addition, xix. ver. 28, consists of words of our Lord. Mark,
x. 24, is peculiar to that Gospel; but it is a repetition of what occurs in
the preceding verse, and in ver. 26. We can see, therefore, a good rea-
son for its omission in Matthew and Luke.

SECTION LV.

CHRIST AGAIN FORETELLS HIS SUFFERINGS.

Luke treats this section historically, avoiding the repetitions. Thus,
it is unnecessary to say they were going up to Jerusalem, at the com-
mencement of the narrative, for our Lord himself mentions it in ver. 31.

SECTION LVI.

THE AMBITIOUS REQUEST OF THE SONS OF ZEBEDEE.

Mark does not inform us that the request was originally made
through their mother; but, in the first place, it is obvious that our Lord