“ καὶ ἦν ἐκβάλλων δαιμόνιον” (xi. 14) ; “ τῶν δὲ ὄχλων ἐπαθροιζομένων” (xi. 29); “ ἦν δὲ διδάσκων ἐν μιᾷ τῶν συναγωγῶν ev ev Tois σáßßao" (xiii. 10); etc., etc. On the whole, we think the intention of this evangelist is sufficiently clear, namely, to give towards the conclusion of our Lord's ministry in Galilee a summary of the most memorable discourses which he had uttered during that ministry; or, in other words, we may say that chaps. iii.-x. record chiefly the external, x.—xvii. the internal, history of his teaching and life in Galilee. But though this is the general character of this portion of the gospel, a certain slow progress is made by it in the chronological history also. The chief statements of the latter nature interspersed in the unchronological chapters are (chap. x.), 1. The mission of the seventy, sent "by two and two before his face into every city and village whither he himself would come." (From these preparations we should infer that his last journey from Galilee southward would be of a peculiarly solemn kind, purposely slow and circuitous, in order to enable him to give a final and emphatic warning to all who had listened to his ministry during the two and a half years preceding. And herewith accords our next statement,) 2. "Kai dieπOρEVETO KATÀ πόλεις καὶ κώμας διδάσκων, καὶ πορείαν ποιούμενος εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ” (xiii. 22). 3. “ Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ αὐτὸς διήρχετο διὰ μέσου Σαμαρείας καὶ Γαλιλάιας " (xvii. 11). These two passages probably refer to one and the same journey. The order in which the two regions through which he passed are named-Galilee being postponed to Samariamight suggest a conjecture that this latter was a different journey,-one undertaken with Peræa or Ephraim for its starting point, and terminating perhaps with the visit to Jericho, in which the cure of Bartimeus was performed. But looking at the fact that the following chapter of Luke records passages in our Lord's history which undoubtedly took place during his residence in Peræa, we think it more probable (though the balance of probability varies but slightly in the weighing of such bare conjectures as these) that Samaria was mentioned first simply because the cure of the Samaritan leper was the uppermost subject in the evangelist's mind. And the journey thus doubly described was, we have little doubt, that one whose existence we suspected from John xi. 22, and learnt more clearly from Matt. xix. 1, and Mark x. 1; the one, namely, in which our Lord took his final departure from Galilee, and came up to Jerusalem to attend the feast of the dedication. (4) 'EyéveTO δὲ ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὑτοὺς καὶ αὑτὸς ἐισῆλθεν εἰς κώμην τινά, etc. (x. 38). The village we know aliunde to have been Bethany, and the incident which follows has reference to the different modes of serving him, shewn by the two sisters Martha and Mary. It is evidently inserted without reference to the timeorder in Luke's gospel, and on the occasion of what visit to Jerusalem it occurred it is impossible now to determine. We may remark, however, that all the other allusions to the little household at Bethany are connected with a very late period of our Lord's ministry. At chap. xviii. 15, after the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, St. Luke falls again into the same track with the two first evangelists. Chap. xviii. 16-34, narrates with more brevity most of these incidents of our Saviour's residence in Peræa, which occupy Matt. xix. 3; xx. 17; and Mark x. 2-32. Verses 35-43, contain the account of the cure of the blind man, as it appears, before entering into Jericho (one of those discrepancies of detail between the evangelists of which it is hopeless now to look for the explanation). Chap. xix. 1-28, the incident of Zaccheus's eagerness to see Christ and the parable of the nobleman and his servants, both of which are peculiar to this evangelist. After this, follows the account of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem,. in which we have nothing particular to note, save that Luke, like Mark, mentions the neighbourhood of Bethphage and Bethany as the point of departure on that occasion. We have now completed our survey of the four narratives of the last year of our Lord's ministry, and may briefly exhibit the results as follows: ABIB. (Feeding of the four thousand). (1st mo.) 1. Journey into the Coasts of Tyre and Sidon, and return through the Coasts of Decapolis (Matt. xv.; Mark vii.) TISRI. (7th mo.) (Feeding of the four thousand). 2. Passage across the Sea of Tiberias to the regions of Dalmanutha (Matt. xv.; Mark vii.) 3. Journey to the villages of Cæsarea Philippi (Matt. xvi.; Mark viii.) (Transfiguration). 4. Secret and rapid journey to Jerusalem, where he arrived in the midst of the feast of tabernacles (John vii. 2; Luke ix. 51: ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως avτov (?); Mark ix. 30 (?)). 5. Return to Galilee (mentioned by none of the evangelists: hinted at by John's words, “ ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολυμόις,” x. 22, and agreeing with Luke's description of a double journey in the opposite direction). CISLEU. 6. Journey to Jerusalem in time for the feast of the dedication (9th mo.) (Luke xiii. 22, and xvii. 11). ABIB. 7. Retreat from Jerusalem to the scene of John's earliest baptisms in Peræa (John x. 40; Matt. xix. 40; Mark x. 1: the two latter evangelists amalgamating this journey with No. 6). 8. Visit to Bethany (raising of Lazarus) and withdrawal to Ephraim (John xi.) Very shortly after this (ver. 55), (1st mo.) 9. Final journey to Jerusalem by way of Jericho, and triumphal entry (narrated by all the four evangelists). One word in conclusion. An enquiry of this kind will seem to many persons dry and profitless enough; in fact, one of the mere husks of the gospel narrative: yet by the Baconian test, fructus, it will not, we think, be wholly condemned, in so far forth as it supplies a practical comment on the words "The Son of Man had not where to lay his head." To follow his wanderings step by step, imprints more forcibly on the mind the remembrance of the weary wayside life which he led for our sakes; and if in this age of ease and comfort the word of old holds true of too many hearts, "Because they have no changes, therefore they fear not God," it may be well that we should be reminded of that ever-living witness, against earth-bounded hopes and earth-engrossed desires, which was borne alike by Abraham in his tent on the plains of Mamre, and by Abraham's seed sitting tired and wayworn by the well of Samaria. Of him as of them we may in all reverence say that he confessed himself by his life, to be "a stranger and a pilgrim on the earth," desiring a better country, that is, a heavenly; and looking forward to that city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. T. H. A CHAPTER ON THE HARMONIZING GOSPELS. By the late DUKE OF MANCHESTER.a ANY careful student of the evangelical history must have observed certain remarkable features in the harmonizing gospels. Sometimes the same events are recorded in two, or in all three of the gospels, but we also find matter equally important reported by only one, and omitted by another; we have even intimations of many mighty works which are mentioned by none of the three; there are indications again that our Lord's labours were extended through Judea as well as Galilee, and yet the records are chiefly confined to events that occurred in peculiar localities of Galilee. Sometimes, when in the narratives we find identity of subject, there is only equivalence of expression; but at other times we have not only "words and phrases alike, but even rare and singular expressions are identical" (Davidson). Again, there seems something capricious in the use made by the evangelists of the Old Testament,-sometimes apparently the Septuagint, sometimes the Hebrew original, having been preferred. was. These phenomena have been made the subject of much ingenious conjecture. There is sufficient verbal resemblance to mark some common Greek original; there is also sufficient historical independence to make it difficult to say what that common origin What was the rule for the selection of matter? If the gospels were supplemental to each other, why so much repetition? If substitutionary, why so many omissions? What common original could there have been, sufficiently fluctuating to account for the variations and apparent discrepancies of independent historians, and yet so stereotyped as to preserve the minutest verbal peculiarities? Why should the less important field of Galilee be selected in preference to Judea and its capital? And when we come to the all-absorbing events occurring at the close of our Lord's ministry at Jerusalem, why is the peculiar verbal phenomenon so much less prominent? Why in the quotations should the Messianic passages be chiefly from the Hebrew, and yet in some of our Lord's arguments, should the force of the quotation rest upon words found only in the Septuagint? It is not my purpose to refute, or even to state, the hypotheses which have been proposed; no one theory can be very generally thought satisfactory, because up to this moment each a This paper was privately printed in 1854, and was intended for publication in this journal by the late Duke of Manchester before his death. It is now reprinted by permission of the present Duke, with a few corrections of the author. has had equally clever and ingenious advocates. As hypotheses they all seem defective, inasmuch as that they do not attempt to account for all the phenomena. But there is one point upon which I must make a passing remark,—they are not only unsatisfactory and insufficient, they all appear more or less derogatory to the integrity of the evangelical histories, the effect of which, I think, is plainly seen in the very different feeling with which the gospels are approached now, from what was the case a very few years ago. If the hypothesis elaborated by Bishop Marsh be adopted, that from some original anonymous document, different copies had been made, to which different anonymous additions and interpolations had been annexed, and that from those the various gospels were compiled, it will be scarcely possible to estimate their historical value very highly. The theory of an oral traditional original is perhaps somewhat better, for its origin is admitted to be apostolic; but if it be supposed to account for the verbal resemblance, I cannot conceive how the traditional gospel could have been stereotyped in the reciters' memories, first in Aramaic, and then in Greek, as long as there were any eye- or ear-witnesses of the events described still alive, for their reminiscences would have constantly disturbed the monotonous uniformity. Could the relaters of the oral gospel have so constantly reiterated, as to produce great verbal similarity, such a passage as, "Woe unto thee, Cho- . razin," etc., without any one of the many mighty works which had been done in Chorazin ever having been brought to mind? But if we suppose so late a date for the composition of the gospels as this theory would necessitate, I fear we should go far towards admitting their mythical origin. If, according to the supplemental theory, one evangelist wrote with a previous gospel before him, there would be apparently either collusion or contradiction; in fact, we avoid the suspicion of collusion, by admitting the charge of apparent contradiction; but if one gospel was written with cognizance of another, then the contradictions become more than apparent, they amount to corrections, they are no longer the discrepancies incident to independent authorities; the succeeding evangelist stamps the narrative of his predecessor with error. Hug, by no means an irreverent writer, while he maintains that Mark wrote with Matthew's gospel before him, does not disguise the result to which this hypothesis leads: Mark "is not, as some have repeated from Augustine, the epitomist, but the reviser of Matthew; and sometimes his revision is so rigid, that he seems positively to contradict him." (Hug, part ii., chap. i., § 27). |