RELATION OF THE GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER.

2

35

several chapters devoted to the report of what I believe to have been his ministry in Perea. But no incident of his ministry in Judea is related by any one of the three. "Had we only their accounts," says Dean Alford, we could never with any certainty have asserted that he went to Jerusalem during his public life, till his time was come to be delivered up." John's Gospel, on the other hand, is chiefly occupied with a narrative of the ministry in Judea. Only in the sixth chapter does he give any account of Christ's teachings in Galilee; only in a sentence does he refer to a ministry in Perea.' The miracles he records as performed in Galilee are, with one exception, not mentioned by the other Evangelists; and the resurrection of Lazarus, the most remarkable of all the miracles, if a comparison can be instituted between them, is narrated only by him. The feeding of the five thousand is indeed narrated by John (ch. 6) in common with the others, but this is apparently only because it was the text to the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum, which John alone reports. Even in the history of the Passion Week, where all the Evangelists narrate substantially the same events, a characteristic difference is observable. Incidents which we should most expect to find in John's Gospel are omitted. He gives no account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, though fully and exclusively reporting Christ's memorable discourse on that occasion, and makes no reference to the agony in Gethsemane, though he describes both Christ's going thither and his arrest there. glance at the tabulated Harmony of the Gospels, given at the end of this Introduction, will further indicate to the reader how small a portion of the fourth Gospel is occupied with the narration of events or teachings given by the other Evangelists. I believe the explanation of this fact to be that John, who undoubtedly wrote after the others, had their narratives before him, and wrote to supply elements and incidents which they had omitted. But this view is by no means universally accepted. It is strenuously resisted by Alford.

3

A

The difference in internal characteristics, between John and the other Evangelists, is even more remarkable. Matthew, Mark and Luke, are historians, John is a theologian; they write simple historical narratives, he with a definite and an avowed doctrinal purpose; they record most fully our Lord's life, he our Lord's teaching and character; they rarely refer to our Lord's divine character and mission, except either by a reference to the fulfillment of ancient prophecy in him, or by the narration of his own teaching respecting himself, John opens his gospel with what is, perhaps, the most explicit declaration to be found in Scripture of Christ's divinity, lingers reverentially over every utterance in which Christ brings to light this truth, hidden, for the most part, from common apprehension during his earthly life, and closes his account by declaring that, from the various signs wrought by Jesus in the presence of his disciples, he has selected those written in this book, "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." 4

The bearing of this contrast between John's Gospel and the other Gospels, on the authority of the former, will be considered hereafter. It must suffice here to state the fact, as one to be constantly borne in mind, in studying the Gospel narratives.

The first three Gospels are commonly known as the Synoptic Gospels, from the fact that, to a large extent, they cover the same ground, so that from a combination and comparison of them, a synopsis of Christ's life, though not a complete or perfect one, may be obtained.

These three Synoptic Gospels, however, by no means duplicate each other. Each contributes its own peculiar element. Referring the student to the sections below on the

1 John 10: 40-42.....2 John 2:1-12; 4: 45-54..... Matt. 1:23; 16: 16-20; 26: 63, 64..... Ch. 21 was probably added by John as an appendix some time after the completion of his Gospel..... 5 See Intro. to John's Gospel.

several Gospels, for a fuller account of their characteristics, we may here sum up the contrasts between them in Bishop Ellicott's brief but admirable note.'

“(1.) In regard of the external features and characteristics, we are perhaps warranted in saying that (a) the point of view of the first gospel is mainly Israelitic; of the second, Gentile; of the third, universal; of the fourth, Christian: that (b) the general aspect, and, so to speak, physiognomy of the first, is mainly Oriental; of the second, Roman; of the third, Greek; of the fourth, spiritual: that (c) the style of the first is stately and rhythmical ; of the second, terse and precise; of the third, calm and copious; of the fourth, artless and colloquial: that the most striking characteristic of the first is symmetry; of the second, compression; of the third, order; of the fourth, system: that (e) the thought and language of the first are both Hebraistic; of the third, both Hellenistic; while in the second the thought is often occidental, though the language is Hebraistic; and, in the fourth, the language Hellenistic, but the thought Hebraistic. (2.) Again, in respect of subject-matter and contents, we may say, perhaps, (a) that in the first gospel we have narrative; in the second, memoirs; in the third, history; in the fourth, dramatic portraiture; (b) that in the first we have often the record of events in their accomplishment; in the second, events in their detail; in the third, events in their connection; in the fourth, events in relation to the teaching springing from them: that thus (c) in the first we more often meet with the notice of impressions; in the second, of facts; in the third, of motives; in the fourth, of words spoken: and that, lastly, (d) the record of the first is mainly collective, and often antithetical; of the second, graphic and circumstantial; of the third, didactic and reflective; of the fourth, selective and supplemental. (3.) We may conclude by saying that, in respect of the portraiture of our Lord, the first gospel presents him to us mainly as the Messiah; the second, mainly as the God-man; the third, as the Redeemer; the fourth, as the only-begotten Son of God."

II. Origin of the Gospels. Whence did the Evangelists derive their information? Matthew and John were eye and ear witnesses of the events and teachings which they recorded. Doubtless their personal recollection, quickened by the Spirit of God, was one chief source whence they derived their histories. But Luke and Mark were not of the Twelve. Moreover, there is, as already observed, a remarkable correspondence in the narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. Of Mark, nine-tenths; of Matthew, a little more than half; of Luke, a little less than half, is common to the other Evangelists. In some cases the parallel passages are almost identical in language; more generally the resemblance is substantial, not verbal. These facts indicate that the Evangelists employed, at least to some extent, the same sources of imformation, yet wrote independently of each other. To account for the resemblance between them, four hypotheses have been proposed: 1. It has been suggested that the narrators made use of each other's work, and many have endeavored to ascertain which gospel is to be regarded as the first, which is copied from the first, and which is the last, and copied from the other two. But the theory, in its crude form, is in itself most improbable; and the wonder is that so much time and learning have been devoted to it. It assumes that an Evangelist has taken up the work of his predecessor, and, without substantial alteration, has made a few changes in form, a few additions and retrenchments, and then has allowed the whole to go forth under his

name.

2. It has been suggested that there may have been a common original gospel, since extinct, from which the three gospels were drawn, each with more or less modification. But if all the Evangelists had agreed to draw from a common original, it must have been widely, if not universally, accepted in the Church; and yet there is no record of its

1 Ellicott's Life of Christ, p. 46, note.

existence. If the work was of high authority, it would have been preserved, or at least mentioned; if of lower authority, it could not have become the basis of three canonical gospels. Nor is it easy to see why, if the Evangelists were transcribers, they should have made such remarkable modifications in the work from which they copied.

3. It has been surmised that our Lord spoke in the Greek language; that the Evangelists reported him independently, but reporting the same words, naturally repeated each other in many cases. It is true that the most notable verbal agreements in the Synoptists are in their reports of the sayings of our Lord; but that he spoke in Aramaic, is implied by Mark,' and it is almost certain that Aramaic was the language of the common people, to whom he addressed himself. Nor does this hypothesis suggest any explanation of the source whence Mark and Luke derived their knowledge.

4. The fourth hypothesis, the one which is now generally adopted by the most advanced Christian scholars, and which I think the most probable, is that the three Evangelists, in the preparation of their respective Gospels, made use of what is termed an “oral Gospel.” This hypothesis—and the reader must bear in mind it is only thatmay be thus stated : 2

4

The apostles were chosen by Christ to be his companions while he lived, in order to be the personal witnesses of his life, his death, and his resurrection. Almost immediately after his ascension they were scattered abroad. Driven out from Jerusalem by the Providence of God, they went forth, we are told, "preaching the Gospel." This preaching of the Gospel was not with them, as it is with us, the unfolding of a system of truth, or its application to the heart and life of believers. It was just what the original words signify, a heralding of good tidings. The early disciples went forth as witnesses to the fact that the Messiah had come; and their preaching at first consisted chiefly in a simple description of the life, death, and resurrection of their Lord, a simple narration of the mighty works by which he had authenticated his divine mission, and to which the apostles especially were personal witnesses. This historic character of their preaching is illustrated by the few glimpses of it which we obtain in the Book of Acts, and is further indicated by the fact that when the history to which they had been witnesses had become generally accepted, their mission appears to have come to an end. Of them all, John and Peter alone appear in subsequent New Testament history, as either theologians or ecclesiastical organizers. The result of their witness-bearing, taken up and repeated by others, would be, in a brief space of time, a generally accepted belief in respect to the fundamental facts, and the more important teachings of Jesus Christ. But this belief, though widespread, would not be systematized. Different localities and different churches would become possessed of different fragments of the whole, and in forms more or less diverse. When at length, however, the church began to spread from Judea into Greece, and Asia,. and Africa, both the churches and the apostles would become sensible of the need of some more permanent record of this oral Gospel, this good news, and the demand and the supply would spring up together. Those less adapted to the work of oral teaching would reduce the current traditions to writing. And gathering their information from this common source, we should expect to find in their accounts a certain similarity in sub

' Mark 5: 41; 7: 34, notes.. 2 For a fuller exposition and defence of it, consult Alford's Greek Testament, Prolegomena, and Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels......3 Acts 8:4; 11: 19–21.

↑ The same cardinal events which are described with the greatest fullness in the written Gospels are noticed with the most minute detail in the speeches in the Acts: the betrayal (2; 23); the condemnation by the Sanhedrim (13: 27); the failure of the charge (13: 28); the condemnation by Pilate (3 : 13), and by Herod (4 : 27); the choice of Barabbas (3:14); the urgency of the people and rulers at Jerusalem (13 : 27, 28); the crucifixion (4: 10; 5: 30; 10: 39); by the hand of Gentiles (4 : 27, 28); the burial (13; 29); the resurrection on the third day (10 : 40) ; the man festation to fore-ordained witnesses (10: 41), for many days (13: 31), who did eat and drink with him after he rose (10: 41); the charge to the apostles (10: 42); the ascension to the right hand of God (2 : 33; 3: 21).” Westcott on the Study of the Gospels.

stance, indicative of their common means of information, and certain discrepancies of form, indicative of the differences in the respective writers and in the different phases of the current faith to which they had access. If we were to suppose that this oral tradition was not embodied in written narratives till after the death of the apostles, we might consider the authority of the Gospels questionable. But if, as I believe, our Gospels were all of them written by contemporaries of our Lord, two of them by his life companions, the third (the Gospel of Mark) partially under the guidance of an apostle (Peter), and all of them under the inspiration of God, there is nothing in this supposition of common origin in an oral Gospel to weaken, in the least, their credibility. Their authenticity is further assured by the consideration that after they were written and were current in the churches, John wrote his Gospel, and could and presumably would have corrected any material errors if they had contained any.

The following considerations render this hypothesis a reasonable and probable one. It is the customary method of preparing history or biography. The conscientious modern biographer visits the most familiar friends of the subject of his work, gains by conversation with them the various incidents in the life to be described, and the traits in the character to be portrayed, and, even if himself a companion and friend, enlarges and corrects his own knowledge by such an examination of oral tradition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this customary method may be presumed to have been pursued by the Evangelists. It best explains the verbal discrepancies and substantial harmony of the three Synoptic Gospels, and accords with their broken, unchronological, and fragmentary character. It accords with Luke's explicit statement of the sources of information whence he derived his own Gospel.' The early post-apostolic writers refer to such an oral tradition as one of the sources of information in their own day. Thus Irenæus distinctly states that the great outlines of the Life of Christ were received by the barbarous nations, without written documents, by ancient tradition; and Papias similarly refers to his personal research among the traditions of his own day respecting the apostles and their teachings. The existence and importance of such a body of tradition appears thus to be well authenticated.

I believe, then, with Dean Alford, "that the Synoptic Gospels contain the substance of the apostles' testimony, collected principally from their oral teaching current in the church, partly also from written documents embodying portions of that teaching; that there is, however, no reason from their internal structure to believe, but every reason to disbelieve, that any one of the three Evangelists had access to either of the other two Gospels in its present form; " to which I add that in their use of this "oral Gospel" the Evangelists were aided either by their own personal recollections, as in the cases of Matthew and John, or in part by that and in part by the personal recollections of one or more of the apostles, as in the case of Mark, and perhaps of Luke; that they wrote and published during the lifetime of the apostles, and when therefore any errors, if there had been any, would have received correction; and, finally, that John's Gospel was written some time after the three Synoptic Gospels, with the knowledge of their contents, and in part to supply elements which were wanting in them, and which were necessary to a full comprehension of Christ's character and mission.

III. Harmony of the Gospels.-No one of the Gospels gives a connected and chronological life of Jesus Christ. They are not biographies, but biographical memorabilia; not connected histories, but collections of the teachings and the events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. No one of them follows a chronological order; no one of them gives a single date. Even the years of Christ's birth and death are left uncertain. Their

1 Luke 1: 1-4.

records are in these respects exactly what their origin, an oral Gospel, and the inspiration of their writers, moral, not verbal, would lead us to expect.'

3

There are, consequently, numerous discrepancies between the Gospel narratives. These are of several descriptions. Sometimes one Evangelist simply omits events recorded by another. Thus Mark gives no hint of the Sermon on the Mount, and no one of the Synoptists mentions the resurrection of Lazarus. Sometimes the order indicated in one narrative is different from that indicated in another. Thus if we only had Matthew's Gospel we should presume that the healing of the leper was performed immediately after the Sermon on the Mount, while Mark indicates another and a more probable time.2 Sometimes the discrepancy is only apparent, not real. Thus Luke mentions the ordination of the twelve apostles in connection with the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew gives their names in connection with the subsequent commission to preach the Gospel throughout Galilee. A careless or casual reader might easily imagine the accounts to be discrepant, though they are so only in appearance. Sometimes the difference is simply one of language. Thus the four accounts of the inscription over the cross differ in phraseology, as do the three accounts of the stilling of the tempest in their reports of the language of the disciples in awakening our Lord, and of his language in reply. Sometimes the discrepancy is such as would naturally arise from a difference in the point of view of the observers. Thus the variations in the four accounts of the arrest of Jesus Christ are just such as would naturally arise in reporting such a scene of confusion. Again, the accounts of the birth of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke are entirely different, but not inconsistent, one Evangelist recording one class of incidents, the other a different class. There are a few discrepancies which, with our limited knowledge, it is difficult or perhaps impossible completely to remove. Such is the apparent difference between John and the Synoptists as to the true occasion of the Lord's Supper. There are others which were formerly a serious stumbling-block to the Christian, but in which a fuller knowledge has discovered singular evidences of the truthfulness of Scripture. Such is the seeming geographical discrepancy in the narrative of the miraculous cure of the demoniac, which Matthew describes as performed in the "land of the Gergesenes," and Mark and Luke in the "land of the Gadarenes.” 5 A careful comparative study of the four Gospels may not afford a satisfactory solution of all these apparent discrepancies, but it will conduct the conscientious and unprejudiced student to the conclusion of Dean Alford, who gives, indeed, undue weight to these natural variations in the Evangelists' narratives, but who says: We e may be sure that if we knew the real process of the transactions themselves, that knowledge would enable us to give an account of the diversities of narration and arrangement which the Gospels now present to us.”

4

In conducting such an investigation the following principles are to be borne in mind by the student :

1. The true chronological order of Christ's life is not to be found in any one Gospel, but is to be ascertained, if at all, by a comparison of the four accounts. It must often be only a matter of surmise.

2. No one of the Evangelists ordinarily gives a literal report of the language used. The habit of ancient authors was to embody in dramatic forms the substance of the incilent narrated. Of this literary habit not only the ancient histories, as Cæsar and Sallust, but the Old Testament also, furnish many examples. Where a modern historian, narrating the stilling of the tempest, would say, "The disciples awoke Christ and reproached

6

2 See Matt. 8: 1, note... 3 See Mark 4: 35-41, notes.

* See note on the Lord's

1 See above pages.. Supper, Matt. 26: 12, 13, 30.... 5 See for explanation of this discrepancy Matt. 8: 28, note.

• Thus,

999

"God said, 'Let there be light. To whom should he say it? This is evidently simply a dra matic and graphic portraiture of the act of divine creative will. So throughout the O. T. history the conferences are given, not in the manner of a modern historian, but in a dialogue form.