On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
It will at once be evident that the arrangement of events by Matthew , and the arrangement by Luke , cannot both be in the order of time ; that from the miracle of the Five Thousand ( Matt . § . 33 ) the arrangement and the substance of Mark ' s Gospel accords with Matthew ' s ; and that before that
period the arrangement of events in Mark closely accords with that in Luke , while , nearly in the same degree with Luke ' s , it leaves that of Matthew . We have nothing but internal evidence , and the consideration of the respective circumstances of the Evangelists , to guide us in the choice of our general authority for determining the succession of events .
Partly from the expression employed by Luke ( ch . 1 . 3 ) declaring his purpose to write to Theophilus in order ; xaSref ?^ , and partly from the exclusive accordance of Mark ' s arrangement of events with his , in the portion of the history preceding the miracle of the Five Thousand , most Harmonists , it appears , have fixed upon Luke ' s arrangement as their basis . It is admitted that this expression in order would be a reasonable ground for adhering strictly to his arrangement , if we had no other authority ; for the caution ,
skill , and accuracy , displayed in his other admirable history , would afford a presumption that one possessed of such advantages for knowing the reality of things as he had , and endowed with such abilities and judgment , would employ that arrangement which was best adapted for his purpose . We might , however , not have seen reason for the assured belief that the order he proposed to follow was the order of time , or that , in the circumstances in which he compiled his Gospel , he could always have attained it . To supernatural
aid he lays no claim ; and till some evidence is given besides theological hypothesis , we shall not hamper ourselves with the opinion that either he or any other of the sacred historians had such aid in the recording of facts . If not , it is reasonable , a priori , to expect a greater accordance with the order of time in that Evangelist who was a personal witness of the history he rerecords . ' St . Matthew ( says Sir Isaac Newton ) was an eye-witness of what he relates , and so tells all things in due order of time , which St . Mark and
St . Luke do not . " * More complete and detailed examination , however , might have led our great philosopher to make a less unqualified statement ; but the general principle is a solid one , and deserves our adhesion , unless cause be shewn to the contrary . It might have been the fact , as Mr . Veysie maintains ,- ) - that St . Matthew intentionally departed from the order of time to give his Gospel a more forcible bearing on the great purpose of it ; but
while we admit the possibility of this , we must add , that we see abundant reason to conclude that he did not knowingly depart from the order of time , in some cases where his arrangement entirely differs from that of Mark and Luke . For instance—he could not have placed the cure of the Leper immediately after the sermon on the mount , when he knew that it occurred at a different period , merely for the sake of aryument , and at the same time
* See Marsh ' 8 Michaelis , Vol . III . Translator's Notes , p . 10 . i * In pp . 74—78 of his * ' Examination of Mr . Marsh's Hypothesis respecting the Origin of our three first Canonical Gospels . " We do not know whether this ahle treatise has undergone the critical scrutiny of the Bishop of Peterborough ; but we think that Mr . Veysie gave him abundant reason either for refuting him or for
abandoning his own Hypothesis ; for he has shewn that it neglected various opposing phenomena . We recommend the cautious and generally judicious investigations of the Examination to all of our readers who study the Hypothesis . On a recent review of the former we were interested in perceiving how nearly we had come , by independent study , to the same general conclusions with Mr . Veysie on the original sources of the first three Gospels .
Untitled Article
310 On the Chronology and Arrangement of the Gospel Narratives .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1831, page 310, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2597/page/22/
-