Division the Third. B. In B, the relation which Mark and Luke bear to each other is very different from that in, and similar to that in B. For in all B, they only agree verbally once: and then all that precedes and follows is in very different words. Division the Fourth. T. In T, the relation which Matthew and Luke bear to each other, is the exact reverse of that in, and similar to that in 7. Since then we find the Evangelists agreeing in this remarkable manner, not only in the substance of their narrations, but frequently in the very words, can we suppose them to have been entirely independent of each other? Many critics have imagined not; but they are not agreed whether the succeeding Evangelists copied from the preceding, or whether all three used a common document, or documents. It is the object of the present essay to examine both of these opinions. The first, that succeeding Evangelists copied from the preceeding, may be resolved into nine forms, according as we assume one or another Evangelist to have written the first, which is a disputed point. 1. First, then, Matthew used Mark, and not Luke. s. Matthew used both Mark and Luke. 4. Mark copied from Matthew and not from Luke. 1. The first hypothesis leaves the examples of verbal agreement between Mark and Luke unexplained. Besides, though Matthew and Mark agree so verbally and so frequently, yet none of those sections which have a different arrangement in Matthew to that in Mark, exhibit a single instance of verbal agreement. If Matthew therefore used Mark's Gospel, and wrote in Greek, as he must now be supposed to have done (for otherwise the hypothesis will not account for the verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark), the circumstance, that throughout all these sections Matthew has no verbal agreement with Mark, cannot be ascribed to an accidental or causeless neglect of Mark in that part. We must suppose that he did it purposely, or from necessity. There is no reason for the former, for he has the same matter, though in a different order, and the change of arrangement by no means rendered it necessary to change the words. and Mark agree in some parts, therefore those parts were easy: again, because Mark (or Matthew) and Luke differ in the same parts, therefore they were difficult, which is impossible! therefore the explanation is not sufficient. But Semler "remarks that the verbal harmony may be caused by the alterations of later transcribers." But they had not the power to make alterations only in those where we now find a verbal harmony, unless, what no one can suppose, they made such an analysis of the Gospels, as has been made above; since without this they could not have confined their alterations to places of such a nature, as is noted above. Lastly, the passages quoted by critics as examples of independent translation (see Eichhorn Allg. Bib. vol. v. p. 832-848, &c.), prove only that, if our three first Gospels contain translations of a common Hebrew document, the translators, in those particular instances, were independent of each other. But we must not convert this partial inference into a general rule. The leading features of the hypothesis of a common Hebrew document, whatever shape it assumes in other respects, are the following: 1. Before our Gospels existed, an account of Christ's Acts, &c. had been written in Hebrew, which contained all that is common to all three Evangelists. 2. To this in various transcripts, various additions were made, both in particular circumstances and whole sections. 3. Three separate copies, each differently modified and enriched, formed the respective bases of the three first Gospels. No. 1. then, according to the notation formerly adopted, may properly be represented by. The Hebrew document may however have contained more than is common to all the three Evangelists, And further, wherever two Evangelists agree in their additions to, the copies belonging to both must have had that addition: therefore Matthew's copy had a and y, Mark's a and ẞ, and Luke's ẞ and y. Again, since the sections A are inserted in Matthew and Mark in the same places (with only one exception, to be considered hereafter), and also the sections B are inserted in the same parts of Mark and Luke, it follows that the sections A were contained in Matthew's [and Mark's] copy, and the sections B in Mark's and Luke's. Of r some sections are inserted in corresponding, but most in different places: and therefore the sections I must be divided into two classes; of which the former, I', must be supposed to have been contained in Matthew's and Luke's copies. But as we cannot make the same supposition of the other, I, we will agree with Eichhorn that these sections were derived from a document detached from. This supplemental Hebrew document may be denoted by 1.-The notation used to represent the contents of our three first Gospels, being thus adapted to the Hebrew document, with its several additions, we may represent the three copies of that common Hebrew document, which served as the bases of the three Gospels, in the following manner : contents of Matthew's copy. contents of Luke's copy. THE VARIOUS FORMS OF THE ABOVE GENERAL HYPOTHESIS, TRIED BY THE VERBAL PHENOMENA. Matthew wrote in GREEK. Matthew's Gospel on this supposition contains a Greek translation of the Hebrew document, enriched with the additions a, y, A, I', Luke's Gospel, of another copy with the additions, ß, y, B, r', Mark's of a 3d copy with the additions a, ß, A, B.-We may therefore suppose 1. "That they were independent translators of the Hebrew." Which supposition has been refuted already. 2. "They all translated from the Hebrew, but in many passages copied one another's translations." But it has been shewn that the hypothesis, that one Evangelist copied from another, does not explain the phænomena in the verbal harmony of the three Gospels. And therefore does not answer the purpose, for which it is united with the hypothesis of a common Hebrew document. 3. "They used Greek translations only."-Now since was contained in all the three copies, whether Hebrew or Greek, either, (1) the three Greek copies, assumed in the present case, must have contained the same translation X, or (2) two contained the translation X, and the other a different one Y, or (3) one contained the translation X, another the translation Y, and the third the translation Z, or (4) one or more of them contained a mixture of X and Y, or of X and Z, or of Y and Z, or of X, Y and Z. (1) The first cannot be true, because then the principal materials of the three Gospels would be drawn from the same Greek source, which has already been disproved. (2) Nor can the second, (3) nor the third, because neither explains the examples of verbal agreement between all the three first Evangelists. The fourth therefore alone remains, of which the forms are too numerous to mention, and therefore let it suffice to say that not one will account for the various phænomena in the verbal harmony of the Gospels. 4. “All three Evangelists used both Hebrew and Greek copies." Now the Greek copies may be classed as in the former case. The first form is not true, because if the Evangelists translated the Hebrew in some places, and transcribed from a translation X in others, Matthew and Luke must sometimes have copied from X where Mark did not, as well as Matthew and Mark where Luke did not, and Mark and Luke where Matthew did not. But where Matthew and Luke agree in &, Mark always agrees with them. Nor are the second or third cases possible, for they do not account for the verbal harmony between all these Evangelists. 5. The hypothesis "that two Evangelists used both Hebrew and Greek, while the third used Hebrew alone;” or “that two used Hebrew alone and the third used Hebrew and Greek,” does not account for the verbal harmony in all three. 2 C VOL. II. 6. The supposition" that one Evangelist used the Hebrew alone, and the others translations alone," or "one Evangelist used translations alone, and the other two the Hebrew alone," is attended with the same difficulty. 7. "One used a Greek translation only, the others an Hebrew original and Greek translation." To this the same argu ments may be applied as to Nos. 3 and 4. It appears therefore that the hypothesis of a common Hebrew document cannot account for the phænomena in the verbal harmony of the Gospels, if Matthew wrote in Greek; it remains therefore to examine the forms of this hypothesis, if Matthew wrote in Hebrew. 1. "Mark and Luke, as well as Matthew, used copies of the Hebrew original only." But in this case Mark and Luke would have been two independent translators, which has already been disproved. 2. "Mark and Luke used copies of the Hebrew original, but at the same time the successor used the Gospel of his predecessor." See No. 2 of the former part. 3. "Mark and Luke used Greek translations only." The same mode of reasoning may be applied here as in No. 3 of the former part. 4. "Mark and Luke used the Hebrew document, and different translations." But here the verbal agreement remains unexplained. 5. "One used the Hebrew alone, the other a Greek translation alone." The same reason makes this also inadmissible. None of these hypotheses therefore are sufficient for the purpose. BISHOP MARSH'S HYPOTHESIS. But there is another form which seems to promise a solution of all our difficulties, which is briefly this: "All three Evangelists used copies of an Hebrew document, which Matthew retained in Hebrew; but Mark and Luke translated into Greek, and used besides a Greek translation, made without the additions a, ẞ, y. Lastly the translator of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel used Mark's Gospel where Mark had matter in common with Matthew; and in other places, and in those only, he had frequent recourse to Luke. Besides the Hebrew document, which contained facts, Matthew and Luke used different copies of a supplemental document, containing a Tvwpoλoyia, from which were derived the sections r2." This hypothesis Bishop Marsh conceives will account for all the phænomena in the verbal harmony of the Gospels, as follows: In &, a.) Verbal agreement in all three Gospels is neither frequent nor of long continuance, because it required the co-operation of *We have not given Bishop Marsh's words, but think it is a correct view of the subject in a concise form. three distinct causes, which could not happen frequently. For both Mark and Luke must have copied from, and again Matthew's translator from Mark, in that very place. b.) The examples of verbal agreement between the Greek Gospel of Matthew and that of Mark are numerous and long, because Matthew's translator used Mark's Gospel, whenever they both related the same thing. c.) But in the sections in which Mark's arrangement differed from that of Matthew, the translator, not readily finding the matter in Mark, gave his own translation. d.) Where Luke agrees verbally with Matthew, Mark always does, because Matthew's translator did not use Luke's Gospel, where he could derive assistance from Mark; and therefore Matthew and Luke could never coincide in except through the medium of Mark. e.) Mark and Luke frequently agree verbally in &, because they transcribed in those places from the same translation. But Mark and Luke do not agree so often as Mark and Matthew, because the former required two distinct causes, the latter only one. f) Hence Mark and Luke more frequently disagree than agree verbally. But Mark always agrees with Luke where Luke agrees with Matthew, because the agreement between Matthew and Luke must have been made through the medium of Mark. g.) In several of the forty-two general sections, Mark agrees verbally partly with Matthew and partly with Luke, because in one place Matthew's translator copied from Mark, and in another both Mark and Luke copied from . h.) Throughout Matthew never agrees with Luke, except where both agree with Mark. (see d.) i.) Hence Matthew nowhere in agrees partly with Mark, partly with Luke, nor Luke partly with Matthew, partly with Mark, because throughout, Matthew's Greek text never agrees verbally with that of Luke's alone. 2. In a, Matthew and Mark often coincide for the same reason as in ; for Matthew's translator perceived no difference between and a, but copied from both indiscriminately. But in the following instances they disagree, because Mark's translation of the Hebrew document, is here too free to be adopted by the literal translator of Matthew. |