the standpoint of the speaker or writer, the occasion, scope, and plan, together with a critical analysis of the details, will usually show that there exists no real contradiction. But when men bring forward hyperbolical expressions peculiar to oriental speech, or instances of Hebraic anthropomorphism, and press them into an assumed literal significance, they simply create the difficulties over which they stumble. Doctrinal and ethical inconsistencies, developed by such a process, are all dissipated by attention to the nature of the scriptural language and a rational interpretation of the

same.

Value of bibli

cies.

Mr. Haley, in his comprehensive and valuable work on the Discrepancies of the Bible,' observes that these discrepancal discrepan- cies are not without a value. They may well be believed to contemplate the following ends: (1) They stimulate intellectual effort, awaken curiosity and inquiry, and thus lead to a closer and more extensive study of the sacred volume. (2) They illustrate the analogy between the Bible and nature. As the earth and heavens exhibit marvellous harmony in the midst of great variety and discord, so in the Scriptures there exists a notable harmony behind all the seeming discrepancies. (3) They prove that there was no collusion among the sacred writers, for their differences are such as would never have been introduced by their design.' (4) They also show the value of the spirit as above the letter of the word of God, and (5) serve as a test of moral character. To the captious spirit, predisposed to find and magnify difficulties in the divine revelation, the biblical discrepancies will be great stumblingblocks, and occasions of disobedience and cavil. But to the serious inquirer, who desires to "know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. xiii, 11), a faithful study of these discrepancies will disclose hidden harmonies and undesigned coincidences which will convince him that these multiform Scriptures are truly the word of God.

1 An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, pp. 30-40. Andover, 1874.

2 "These discrepancies," observes Wordsworth, "being such as they are found to be, are of inestimable value. They show that there has been no collusion among our witnesses, and that our manuscript copies of the Gospels, about five hundred in number, and brought to us from all parts of the world, have not been mutilated or interpolated with any sinister design; they have not been tampered with by any religious sect for the sake of propagating any private opinion as the word of God. These discrepancies are, in fact, evidences of the purity and integrity of the sacred text.”— The New Testament in the original Greek, with Notes and Introductions. Preface to the Four Gospels, p, xxii. Lond., 1859.

1

CHAPTER XXII.

HARMONY AND DIVERSITY OF THE GOSPELS.

The life of Jepoint in human history.

sus a turning

Dan. x, 14),

THE life of Jesus forms a turningpoint in the history of the world. The Old Testament Scriptures show the steady trend of history toward that eventful epoch. The prophets with one voice place the coming of the Christ "in the end of the days" (Gen. xlix, 1; Num. xxiv, 14; Isa. ii, 2; and conceive his advent and reign as the ushering in of a new age. The God of the prophets spoke, in the last days of the old æon, in the person of his incarnate Son, "whom he made heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages" (rovç alwvaç, the cons, Heb. i, 2). The death and consequent exaltation of Jesus were the crucial hour of the world's history (John xii, 23-33), and from that hour there was a new departure in the course of human affairs. After the Gospel of the Messianic kingdom had been preached in the whole Roman world, for a witness to all the nations of the same (Matt. xxiv, 14), the end of that age came. For it was necessary, before the old economy came to its decisive end, that the new Gospel should first obtain a sure standing in the world. The utter overthrow of the Jewish polity and state, and the awful ruin of that wicked city where the Lord was crucified, marked the consummation of that æon. And from that point onward the triumphs of the cross extend. It is but natural, therefore, that the four gospels, being the authoritative records of the life and words of the Lord Jesus, are esteemed the most precious documents of Christianity.

Each of the four gospels presents us with a life picture of the Lord Jesus, and assumes to tell what he did and what he said. But while narrating many things in common, these four witnesses differ much from one another.

The Gospels the chief ground of conflict be

tween faith

How to account for so many differences in the midst of and unbelief. so many coincidences has always been a perplexing study among expositors. In modern times the rationalistic critics have pointed o the apparent discrepancies of the gospels as evidences against their credibility, and these most cherished records of the Church have become the central point of controversy between faith and unbelief. The rationalists all concede that the man Jesus lived and died, but that he rose again from the dead, according to the gospels,

they stoutly deny, and resort to all manner of conjectures to account for the uniform and universal faith of the Church in his resurrection. The common sense of all Christendom logically concludes that if Jesus Christ arose from the dead that miracle at once confirms the credibility of the gospels, and accounts for the marvellous rise, the excellency and present power, of the Christian religion. It proves that its origin was supernatural and divine. But if the miracle of Christ's resurrection be a falsehood, the entire Christian system, which rests upon it, is a stupendous fraud. Well might Paul write: "If Christ has not been raised, vain then is our preaching, vain also your faith, and we are found even false witnesses of God, because we witnessed respecting God that he raised up the Christ" (1 Cor. xv, 14, 15).

Gospel Har

Many writers, ancient and modern, have undertaken to construct Attempts at a (so-called) Harmony of the Gospels. They have adopted constructing various methods of explaining the several discrepancies, monies. and of constructing one harmonious narrative out of the four different accounts of the life of Christ. Eusebius compiled an arrangement of the gospels in ten canons or tables, according as the different events are related by one or more of the evangelists. Thus, under one head he brought those passages that are common to all the gospels; under another those that are found only in one gospel; in three other tables he exhibited those facts which are common to any three of the gospels, and in five others those that are common to any two. At a later period effort was directed more to the combining of the four gospels into one chronological order, and then the great question arose, Which of the evangelists gives us the true order of events? Some maintained that all four gospels give the events of the Lord's life in their true chronological order, and wherever the events are arranged differently by different writers we should understand that the transactions in question occurred more than once. Others strenuously maintained that chronological order is not observed by any of the evangelists, while others were uncertain which particular evangelist is the best chronological guide, some preferring Matthew's arrangement, others Luke's, inasmuch as he professes to set forth things in their true order (kavens, Luke i, 3). Cartwright follows the arrangement of Mark,

1 The most valuable works on the Harmony of the Gospels are those of J. Macknight (London, 1756), W. Newcome, in Greek (Dublin, 1778), and English (1802), G. Town. send (London, 1825), edited by T. W. Coit (Boston, 1837), E. Robinson, in Greek (Boston, 1845), and English (1846), J. Strong, in English (New York, 1852), and Greek (1854), W. Stroud, in Greek (London, 1853), Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangelica (New edition, Leipsic, 1864), F. Gardiner, in Greek and English (Andover, 1871).

and John's Gospel, having comparatively few things in common with the others, is generally believed to present the true chronological order of the matters it records.

The harmonists have furnished many valuable expositions, together with many solutions of the alleged discrepancies Use of Harmoof the gospels. But as far as they have attempted to nies. combine the four gospels into one continuous narrative, and settle positively the exact chronological order of events, they have rather hindered than helped a satisfactory understanding of these priceless records. Such a process brings these lifelike and independent narratives to a test they were never meant to meet, and assumes a standard of judgment that is both unscientific and unfair. But most of the later harmonists concede that it was no purpose of the evangelists to compose a complete account of the life and works of Jesus, and that all of them record some things without strict regard to the order of time. "The true use of harmonies," says J. A. Alexander, "is threefold: exegetical, historical, and apologetical. By mere juxtaposition, if judicious, the gospels may be made to throw light upon each other's obscure places. By combination-not mechanical, but rational; not textual, but interpretative-harmonies put it in our power not to grind, or melt, or boil four gospels into one, but out of the four, kept apart, yet viewed together, to extract one history for ourselves. And, lastly, by the endless demonstration of the possible solutions of apparent or alleged discrepancies, even where we may not be prepared to choose among them, they reduce the general charge of falsehood or of contradiction, not only ad absurdum, but to a palpable impossibility. How can four independent narratives be false or contradictory which it is possible to reconcile on so many distinct hypotheses? The art of the most. subtle infidelity consists in hiding this convincing argument behind the alleged necessity of either giving a conclusive and exclusive answer to all captious cavils and apparent disagreements, or abandoning our faith in the history as a whole. This most important end of gospel harmonies has been accomplished."1

An intelligent and profitable study of the gospels requires attention especially to three things: (1) Their origin; (2) The Three considdistinct plan and purpose of each gospel, and (3) The erations. marked characteristics of the several gospels. These considerations, leading as they do to a proper understanding of the gospel records, and to the solution of their discrepancies, are really so many hermeneutical principles to be applied in any thorough exposition of these records.

1 Article on Harmonies of the Gospels in the Princeton Review, vol. xxviii, p. 105.

The most cursory examination of the four gospels must show the Origin of the observant critic that they are not, in any proper sense, Gospels. formal histories. Nor do they assume to be complete biographies. There is, really, nothing like them in the whole range of literature. They manifestly sprung from a common source, and they all agree in recording more or less of the life, words, works, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But whether that common source were written documents or oral traditions has long been a matter of controversy. Some have maintained the existence of an original gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic; others an original gospel in Greek; while others have supposed the earlier written gospel was supplemented by apostolical traditions.' But the hypothesis of an oral gospel, embodying the substance of the apostolic preaching, is now very generally held as the principal source of our four gospels. "The hypothesis of an oral gospel," says "is most consistent with the general habit An original Westcott,

oral Gospel.

of the Jews and the peculiar habit of the apostles; it is supported by the earliest direct testimony, and in some degree implied in the apostolic writings. The result of the examination of the internal character of the gospels is not less favourable to its adoption than the weight of external evidence. The general form of the Gospels points to an oral source. A minute biography, or a series of annals, which are the simplest and most natural forms of writing, are the least natural forms of tradition, and the farthest removed from the evangelical narratives, which consist of striking scenes and discourses, such as must have lived long in the memories of those who witnessed them. Nor are the gospels fashioned only on an oral type; they are fashioned also upon that type which is preserved in the other apostolic writings. The oral gospel, as far as it can be traced in the Acts and the Epistles, centered in the crowning facts of the passion and the resurrection, while the earlier ministry of the Lord was regarded chiefly in relation to its final issue. In a narrative composed on such a plan it is evident that the record of the last stage of Christ's work would be conspicuous for detail and fulness, and that the events chosen to represent the salient features of its earlier course would be combined together without special reference to date or even to sequence. Viewed in the light of its end the whole period was one in essence, undivided

1 For an account of the various theories of the origin of the gospels, see Introductions to the New Testament by Eichhorn, De Wette, Bleek, Davidson, etc., and Marsh's Translation of Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 174-216, and the biblical dictionaries and cyclopædias under the word Gospels.