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
To vindicate oar general prefeteftce of Ataftbew ' s order aver Luke % in that portion of the history where there is rear disagreement , it tteemar suffix cient to shew , as we have done , that the latter , ro a striking series of occurrences , is dtreGtly opposed to the former ; and that , from the ctreomstatfces of the case , the accession of events , as given by Matthew , most be that of actual occurrence : *
The diversity between St . Mark * * order and that of Matthew , wottfe ! ^ of itself , cause n <> difficulty in selecting the latter as the basis . The succesti&n of events , ( without reference to omissions , J is , in some parts , accordant with that of Matthew .. Tkis is the case m eh . i . 16 , n . 22 ( wfciv the exception of the cure < rt Peter's Wife's Mother ) ; in ch « iv . 35 , w 43 ; aodro the poftfott onward from vk , t 4 k Bat m the portion preceding' the death of John and the retofiv of tl > e Aposttes * taken as a whole , there is an obvious want of cohererft swce&kreftess ; and , except where Mark expressly connects events together , by notes of time or place , we should feel no hesitation in leaving
• The analysis given at the close of our last article , of the third leading division Cp . 382 ) &f St . Lake ' s Gospel—respecting the Ministry of Christ in Galftee— assist 3 i * i accounting for the ovder of evetYCS atUiaUy adopted irt that divisi 5 n ; though Wfc in no way rely upon it for a > vindication' of our general preference of Matthew ' a order , as the bask of a chronological arrangement . We consider that division as itself composed of separate portions , some of which were founded upon documents . common to Mark and Luke . And it is a fact of
some consequence , that , in each separate portion , the order of events ( without regard to omissions ) nearly corresponds to that of time , as determined by the arrangement of St . MattheW- Where Luke nad & common document as his guide , be won Id naturally adhere to its order , unless he had better means of knowledge . Where he gained his information from oral accounts , or from other sources independent of those which Mark had' in common with him , he would natural ] y arrange the facts he learnt , in the order of eveuts as far as known to him . And the Separate portion he woul d' arrange in whar appeared ^ the order of time . 1
In ali-this ; we presume that thia admirable historian would have in viewto mam tain the real succession of events as far as he could ascertaiu it . From the internal evidence , which our analysis presents , we think it not improbable that he pursued some such course as the following , in the compilation of this third leading divisiou of his' Gospel . The snort record , exclusively given by himof the rejection of Christ at Nazareth ,, before his public preaching began—of course
formed the introduction to this division ; and as our Lord went thence to Capernaum , the first" portion , a common document ^ begiuuingr with events wh i ch commenced his public preaching , would naturally take its place immediately after the record of his rejection at Nazareth . This first portion ends with the selection of the Apostles . The tuird ' portion , also a coinmou document ,, may have began with the Parable of the Sower ; and if so , whatever occurrences St . Luke ascertained to liave taken place before the delivery of this Parable , he would naturally place be - tweeu these two common documents , forming thereby a second portion of his record ' of Christ ' s Ministry iu Galilee .
It must , however , be added , that tliis arrangement brings the record lie had olitaitied of the Sennbu on the Mount , Into such cldse contiexidn with the last fact iu the first common document , viz . the selection of the Apostles , ( see p . 385 , ) that it is * most prnbable Stl Luke considered that discourse dS delivered immediately after it . ff the record he had of It , began ( cb . vl . 20 ) without introduction— «« Jesus lifted un bis eves tfrion his disciplea" ^ c—and Sr . Luke kueW that it was delivered afte r
a series of great miracles , and when multitudes frbin all parta were collected tbgether ; We would naturally plate it ? wbere he bar dotie . The interval between the Sermou on the Mount and the selection of the Apostles , did not ( as we estimate ) exceed three weeks j atld the previous circumstances nearly corresponded in botU eases . —* That tlio record in Luke is of the' Discourse recorde < r by Matthew , we deem certain : the records begin and end alike , and in each case we find the discourse followed by the cure of the centurion ' s servant . In saying this , we Have not lost sight of IVlr . G res weirs fine-spun » r £ U njenfcj against iheir identity *
Untitled Article
On eke C&ronafogy and Arrangement of ike Gospel Narrative * 451
Untitled Article
2 k 2
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1831, page 451, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2599/page/19/
-