Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

p. 53.)

corrected text); while Mark simply says, anoxatsorán vi reig αυτού, omitting wholly the ως η άλλη.

(8) Matt. 12:25 with Mark 3: 24 and Luke 11:17. (Harm.

Matthew and Luke, πασα βασιλεία [δια] μερισθείσα... έρημούται; but Mark, εαν βασιλεία ... μερισθή, ου δύναται σταθηναι.

(h) Matt. 13: 8 with Mark 4: 7 and Luke 8:7. (Harm. Matthew and Luke, ánévitav; Mark, ovverovečav, (0) Matt. 13: 10 with Mark 4: 10 and Luke 8: 9. (Harm.

p. 62.)

p. 62.)

Matthew and Luke, οι μαθηταί ; Mark, οι περί αυτόν.

(,) Matt. 19:21 with Mark 10: 21 and Luke 18: 22. (Harm. p. 137.)

Here Matthew and Luke, drologei uol %. 1. h.; while Mark adds to this, coas rov oravpov, and then proceeds like the others.

(k) Matt. 21:23 with Mark 11:28 and Luke 20: 2. (Harm. p. 150.)

Matthew and Luke, την εξουσίαν ταύτην κ. τ. λ.; Mark adds öva raðra nous, and then proceeds as the others. In the next verses Matthew and Luke have čowrrow, and Mark επερωτήσω. .

(1) Matt. 24: 7 with Mark 13: 8 and Luke 21: 11. (Harm. p. 163.)

Matthew and Luke, έσονται λιμοι και λοιμοί; Mark, λιμοί και ταραχαί. .

(m) Matt. 24 : 29 with Mark 13: 25 and Luke 21: 26. (Harm. p. 165.)

Matthew and Luke, αι δυνάμεις των ουρανών σαλευθήσονται; Mark, αι δυνάμεις αι εν τοις ουρανοίς σαλευθήσονται.

But I withhold my hand. I have a number of other examples marked, the fruit of a few hours search, and of a like tenor with those produced above.

It is in vain for Mr. Norton to allege, in reply to these instances, that they are of little consequence as to the sense.

I admit this most fully; and I must admit it, and so must he, in other innumerable cases of discrepancy as to diction between the different Evangelists. But the simple question is, whether, in case of coincidence as to matter between the first three Gospels, Matthew has always conformed to the diction of Mark in

preference to that of Luke, where conformity to either, on his part, is at all exhibited. The result of the above examination is, that there is no correctness in the allegation that he has.

I will not say that Matthew in the case supposed, does not oftener agree with Mark than Luke, where the two latter differ from each other; but my examination has led me in some good measure to distrust even so much as this. It happened, I presume, to Bishop Marsh and Mr. Norton, that in their comparisons, pursued perhaps to quite a moderate extent, Matthew appeared to agree mostly, (Bishop Marsh says entirely), with Mark. But it is impossible to pursue this investigation to any great length, and yet retain the belief that such is the exclusive, or (I would even venture to say) the habitual fact. I have opened my Greek Harmony at random throughout; and not one page have I any where examined, without finding facts to contradict the theory of Bishop Marsh and Mr. Norton. It is impossible for me to believe, therefore, that a more extensive examination still will not produce more overwhelming testimony against it.

One other sensation, or persuasion (if this be a better name), has been produced in a manner that I shall never forget ; and this is a deep and thorough feeling, that the discrepancies of style and manner of expression in the Evangelists so immeasurably exceed the identities, that there is not the least probability that they copied each other, or copied any common documents. These diversities, indeed, are not such as can well be presented on paper. They can be learned only by being seen and felt. The reader must take up his Greek Harmony, and spend a few hours in making the most minute comparisons ; and when he has done this, I think I can venture to say, that he never again will open his ears to any charge of plagiarism, or of mere labour like that of copyists or redactors, made against the Evangelists. In the parts where the resemblance between them is strongest of all, the diversity is still such as to leave not the least doubt on my mind of composition original and independent.

The conviction that such is the case springs from the nature of the diversities in question. No earthly motive can be assigned for them, in case either or all of the writers were plagiarists or copyists. They are not corrections, nor emendations, nor addenda; they concern neither the rhetoric nor the sense of the passages in which they stand. They are evidently the

simple differences in modes of expression which are personal and inbred, if not inborn; and differences like to these, are always found, at all times and in all ages, between the modes of expression in different individuals.

Were I not afraid of wearying out the reader, I would now proceed to show how little of correctness there is in the other part of Mr. Norton's theory and that of Bishop Marsh, in relation to the general subject before us, viz., that Matthew and Luke fall into striking coincidences, where they are the only two narrators.

Let the reader turn to p. 16 of the Greek Harmony, and compare the minute history of the temptation of the Saviour, in the two Evangelists. Let him notice not only the difference in style and manner of these narrations, but also the fact that even the order of two of the cases of temptation is reversed in one of these historians.

Let him next turn to the Sermon on the Mount (p. 40 seq.) and see what striking diversities there are in the narrations there. Then let him cast his eye on the history of the healing of the Centurion's servant, p. 47; where the diversity is so great, that even contradiction has been not unfrequently alleged against it. Go next to the conference between Jesus and some of John's disciples (p. 49), and, if we except the words of Jesus as repeated by both Evangelists, how little of exact coincidence shall we find! And thus might I proceed until I should point out every section of the Gospel history which is peculiar to these two writers. The whole amount, however, is but comparatively small.

I do not, therefore, and I cannot, after such an examination as I have made, admit at all the statements in question of Bishop Marsh and Mr. Norton. Facts do not support them. Of course I cannot admit that any of the deductions which Mr. Norton draws from them, are at all substantiated on this ground.

I have only one more remark to make on this already protracted topic. This is, that the very reasoning which Mr. Norton bas employed with so much power and success in overthrowing the general theory of a Protevangelium, may be employed against his own view of what the Greek translator of Matthew must be supposed to have done. Nothing can be more certain to my mind, than that the characteristics of the present Gospel of Matthew do not admit of the idea, that a iranslator reduced this book to its present form, by partly adopting Mark, partly leaning upon Luke, and then again depending on himself. My own belief as to the style of the book, is, that it is such as not even to admit the supposition of its being a version at all. But of this more in its proper place.

As to some other allegations made by Bishop Marsh, and stated by Mr. Norton in a Note on p. clxxiv., viz., that the proportional coincidence is greater between Matthew and Luke, when they are the sole narrators, than exists elsewhere in case all three are the narrators; that in those portions of Matthew's Gospel which “occupy different places” from the corresponding ones in Mark, there is no verbal coincidence between them; and that in portions common only to Mark and Luke there are but two instances of verbal agreement between them ; Mr. Norton himself doubts the first and last. I can only add here, that I do not think there is any good foundation for either of the three assertions; and if in any particular case the facts be as stated, they arise from a cause very different from that stated by the Bishop

Mr. Norton next goes into an examination of the questio verata respecting the discrepancies in the chronological order of events as slated by the Evangelists. He speaks familiarly here, as I observe with regret, of mistakes and misarrangements of Luke and Mark, in some well known cases where they differ from Matthew in the respect just mentioned. The general principle for solving the difficulty in question Mr. Norton thinks to be, the fact that Luke and Mark only heard oral accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus, where like things were naturally often grouped together; while Matthew, being an eye and earwitness of the whole, followed an arrangement that comports with the order in which every thing actually took place.

But how, I ask, comes it on this ground, that Matthew, more than any other Evangelist, should have grouped together discourses evidently delivered at different times ? For example ; the parables contained in chap. xiii. of his Gospel. According to many critics, the Serinon on the Mount, Matt. v-vii., is made up in the same way; and although I doubt this, yet I cannot but admit that in many cases Matthew has grouped events in a matter not usual in the other Gospels. The contrary of this must have happened, if Mr. Norton is right in his conjectures.

My own apprehension of this whole matter is indeed quite different, it would seem, from that of Mr. Norton. The first

question which presents itself to my mind, in the investigation of this subject, is, whether the Evangelists ever intended to give a narration of events in the life of Jesus, in such a manner (as to arrangement) as that in which biographical narrations are mostly conducted in modern times, i. e. following the chronological series of events? That they did not design this, I am fully persuaded, from the fact that it would have been easy to accomplish such a task at the time when the Gospels were written, inasmuch as many eye-witnesses, and apostles among these, were still living. But they were more occupied with the sayings and doings of Jesus, than with the exact order of them.

Why need this be accounted strange? There are four books extant, respecting the sayinys and doinys of the greatest moral philosopher that the heathen world has ever produced ; and these were written too by a consuinmate master of rhetoric and history; yet these partake, in no degree, of a regular and chronological arrangement. I refer to the Memorabilia of Xenophon. Would it add any thing important to this peculiarly interesting book, if it were all digested according to the rules of chronology? I think every discerning reader will say: Nothing.

Such then was the fashion, if any please so to name it, of writing in ancient times, among men of the most cultivated minds and enlightened understanding. Should this offend us, when we meet with it among the Jewish writers ?

There are, indeed, some circumstances in every case of this nature, which will not bear an arrangement that is not chronological. Such are the occurrences of birth and early life, and also of death. It could be only a perverted taste, which would interminyle these with an account of what was done and said in the midst of active life. But when the period of action is so short as that of Jesus-only about three and a half yearswhen this was a period of unintermitted preaching and benevolent action and miraculous cures; when an account of this is given simply for a religious and moral purpose; when nothing of the effect to be produced by the narration depends on exact chronological arrangement, but simply on the evidence and truth of facts themselves ; and particularly when all these circumstances meet and combine in any particular case; why should we be stumbled by the fact, that a narration is not in keeping with our modern and occidental maxims of criticism with respect to writing biography.

That Matthew naturally followed the general tenor of events Vol. XI. No. 30.

43

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »