I now propose making some observations on the different sections in which the verbal resemblance is discernible; but, as Bishop Marsh's observations were made with reference to the theory which he propounded, it will, perhaps, be safer to follow Dr. Davidson in the examples which he has given as quoted above, without, however, losing sight of the learned prelate, particularly with respect to the passages where the verbal resemblance ceases, which did not fall within the province of Dr. Davidson to notice. I append some passages (arranged in harmony), which present any remarkable verbal resemblance. To give in full the whole of the passages referred to would take up too much space : it is hoped, however, that a selection of some remarkable cases of verbal identity, as here given, will assist the reader in following the remarks on each section.

MATT. iii. 1-12; MARK i. 2-8; LUKE iii. 1—18.

In the mission of the Baptist, there appears considerable verbal resemblance. In the third verses of Matthew and Mark, and the fourth of Luke, all differ in the quotation, both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, and all agree in the deviation.

The verbal resemblance with each other in the quotation, where they at the same time differ from the Septuagint, shews that all could not have derived it immediately from the Septuagint, there must have been some common source for the quotation in its present form. Mr. Horne says: "It agrees in sense, though not exactly, with the Hebrew, and also with the Septuagint, probably it was so rendered by the sacred writers themselves;" but the verbal resemblance in like manner prevents our supposing that it was so rendered independently by each of the sacred writers. Mr. Huxtable, in his learned essay having discussed the matter at some length, infers that the quotation was derived from the Septuagint, but that it was a quotation from memory. Now, it will also be observed, that the resemblance in Matt. iii. 6, with Mark i. 5, is in the narrative, which leads to the conclusion that whatever verbal resemblance there may be between any two of the three evangelists in this passage, it cannot be accounted for solely by the supposition that the language was originally Greek; it comes under the second class of phenomena which I noticed, viz., the verbal resemblance where the evangelists spoke in their own persons. Here then we must

admit that they derived their information from the same source, and that not the immediate fountain-head. But that it was not either a written document or stereotyped oral original appears probable from the clauses in Matthew iii. 11, and Luke iii. 16, not being in the same order as in Mark i. 7, 8. The sacred writers must have been ear-witnesses of Peter, or Andrew, or some other of John's disciples, and the quotation from the Old Testament having been from memory leads to the same conclusion.

MATT. viii. 1-4; MARK i. 40-45; LUKE V. 12—16.

In the healing of the leper, here related, the verbal agreement is in the conversation and not in the additional narrative by Mark and Luke. This passage, therefore, is a fair test of the theory with regard to the first and principal class of verbal phenomena, viz., the verbal resemblance in our Lord's discourses.

Now, as we learn from St. Luke that the leper was in one of the cities, it must have been a city where Gentile influence predominated; for it was contrary to the law that a leper should be in one of the cities of Israel (Lev. xiii. 46). Our Lord, moreover, appears to allude to this very leper in his visit to Nazareth (Luke iv. 27); and as he justifies the extension of mercy to him by a similar benefit formerly conferred on a Gentile leper, we may infer that, not only was the city one in which Gentile influence predominated, but that the individual was himself a Gentile. I do not doubt, therefore, that the verbal resemblance in this passage is to be traced to the original discourse having been in Greek.

MATT. viii. 14-17; MARK i. 30-34; LUKE iv. 38-41.

Bishop Marsh finds no verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark in this passage. When Peter and his brother fishermen were first called, the vernacular language among them does not appear to have been Greek-the terms Messias and Cephas (John i. 41, 42) seem to intimate the contrary; hence, we could not account for any verbal agreement in this passage proceeding from that source. The resemblance pointed out by Dr. Davidson between the fifteenth verse of Matthew and its parallels is not in conversation, but narrative; and as Matthew was not an earwitness any more than the others, the resemblance is to be attributed to the same source of information, probably Peter himself.

The quotation in Matthew differing from the Septuagint, but being, according to Moses Stuart, rendered from the Hebrew, is a negative confirmation of the theory proposed.

ISAIAH liii. 4 (LXX).

Οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει

καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται.

MATTHEW viii. 17.

Αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν.

MATT. ix. 1-8; MARK ii. 1-12; LUKE v. 17-26.

The miracle recorded in this section was performed in Capernaum, one of the cities against which the Lord subsequently denounced the woe. And here I must point out a difference which appears in the contrast drawn by our Lord between Capernaum with Sodom, and that between Chorazin and Bethsaida with Tyre and Sidon. These two last were Gentile cities; but the greater fitness to receive the Lord among the Gentiles was not a

66

k But in Samaria we gather from the woman saying, Messias, ... which is called Christ;" that though she styled him Messias, in accordance with the usage of the Jews (as she was addressing one), yet that amongst her people, "Christ" was the more general designation.

When the Samaritans murdered Andromachus (cir. B.c. 33), Alexander hastened from Egypt to Samaria to avenge the murder, and having put to death the guilty parties, he banished the rest of the citizens, and repeopled the place with Macedonians.Quint. Curt., lib. iv.; Euseb. Chron. A., 1685, in Diodat., part i., chap. 2, § 2. After this the Greek language probably prevailed in Samaria.

better moral preparation, but the absence of Jewish prejudice; the contrast, therefore, leads us to infer, that in Chorazin and Bethsaida the Jewish element predominated, and this, according to the theory proposed, accounts for none of the many mighty works which were performed there having been recorded, the Aramaic having been the language which prevailed in those cities. But with regard to Capernaum the case is different; much of what occurred there is recorded; and our Lord, when denouncing the woe, does not compare it with any Jewish or Gentile city then in existence, but with one which had been destroyed because of its moral pollution, implying that the hindrance to his doctrine was not Jewish prejudice, but Gentile dissoluteness. That the Gentile element predominated in Capernaum is, I think, to be gathered from our Lord's address at Nazareth, "Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here." But he justifies his conduct by the example of Elijah, who was not sent to a woman of Israel, but to a Gentile at Sarepta of Sidon; and again, Elisha did not cure a leper in Israel, but Naaman the Syrian (Luke iv. 16-30). As then the Gentile element predominated at Capernaum, so also the Greek language prevailed there. We have, therefore, reason to expect verbal resemblance between the evangelists when recording our Lord's discourses at Capernaum.

It was the solution of this particularity in the gospel history which, I stated above, I had reserved for future examination. The miracle at Bethsaida, recorded by Mark, must not be included in the many mighty works, for it was performed after the woe had been denounced. I have little doubt that Bethsaida of Galilee, "the city of Andrew and Peter," was the denounced place; and we have already seen, from John i. 41, 42, that Aramaic was the language which prevailed there.