On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
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
( Continued from p » 386 . )
That S * . M atthew's arrangement of the events in our Lord ' s Ministry in Galilee should have a general preference over that of Luke , would naturally follow from two considerations : ( 1 ) , That he lived at the time and in the country where they occurred , and was personalty acquainted with many of then ? ; and { 2 ) 9 That he commonly gives , with fewer details of circumstances , more definite notes of time and place than St . Luke does .
On the other hand , the general agreement of Mark and Luke with each other , and disagreement with Matthew , in the portion of the history preceding the return of the Twelve * has operated , in the minds of many harmonists , to induce them to give up the order of events in St .. Matthew's Gospel : and it might present strong ( if not sufficient ) justification for this course , were there not evident indications in the Gospels , themselves that Mark and Luke had some documents in common .
It would be difficult to develope ( without a detail which would be irksome and probably useless ) the various considerations which lead us to , give , on the whole , a , decided preference to the order of Matthew . In . the longcontinued attention we have given , U > the subject , we have never seen reason to relinquish this preference ; but its . reasonableness depends upon an accumulation of evidence , rather than , upon any single consideration . There , is , hawever , one , ( already adverted to in p . 386 , ) which appears- to us sufficientl y decisive : viz . that founded on the connexion of the : application
of Ja'irus with Matthew's feast , which succeeded , at a short interval , his call , to be a constant follower of Christ , * That period must haye b » een very impressive to Matthew ; and his narrative ,, ( ch . vii . i . IB , ix . 26 , ) though commonly very succinct , is too closely connected in its various parts to allow
of the supposition , that it essentially departs from the real succession of events . After recording the stilling of the storm , and the cure of the Gadarene demoniac , he gives a brief account of the cure of the paralytic at Capernaum , and connects with it , in close succession , the circumstances of his own call .. He then speaks of our , Lord ' s being at his table with various other persons , and represents Ja ' irus as making application , to him for his daughter while he was engaged there in conversation , with the disciples of
John 5 and records 'our Lord ' s following Jairus , and on the way to his house restoring the health of the disordered woman . What considerations can authorize the separation , of this application of Ja'irus . from our Lord's visit t <> Matthew , by those who knew what Matthew himself has recorded ? Mark and Luke could not have known , this . In their Gospels ,, the stilling of the storjn , the cure of the Gadareoe demoniacs , the restoration of the woman , and the raising , of Jairus ' s daughter ,, are placed in uninterrupted succession *
after the se lection of the- Apostles . ; and the cure of the paralytic , with the call of Levi , ( i . e . Matthew , ) and , the conversation of our Lord at his table , are e . ntjrely separated fropa the fqrm w series , and placed before the selection of the Apostles . If no probable reason could be assigned for this remarkable agreement with , each other ,, while ; these Gospels are inconsistent , as to the succession Qf , ev $ n , t $ , wHh St . MaUbew ' s still would the difficulty present no adequate reason to relinquish the express testimony of Matthew as to wjhat took place at his own table .
Untitled Article
( 460 >
Untitled Article
ON THE CHRONOLQGY AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE COMPEL NARRATIVES ,
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1831, page 450, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2599/page/18/
-