"What man shall there be of you, that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man of more value than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day." Mark and Luke omit these words and record His answer respectively as follows:-"Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save life, or to kill ?" "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to destroy it?" The account of the actual healing is substantially alike in the three; but Luke first describes Jesus as "looking round about upon them all"; and Mark more fully as "looking round about upon them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart."

Refer lastly to the receiving and blessing of the children (Matt. ix. 13-15; Mark x. 13-16; Luke xviii. 15-17). It will be seen that in the three Gospels the first two verses of the section reporting this incident are nearly, but not exactly, alike. Then follows in Mark and Luke this verse, identical in both, "Verily, I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein." This ends Luke's account; but Matthew goes on to say, "And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence"; and Mark at greater length, "And he took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them."

Similar peculiarities will be observed all through the Synoptic Gospels, wherever the same fact is recorded by more than one. In a large degree the very same words are used, proving that the narratives are in some way related or governed by some common influence. And yet mingled with these are such distinct diversities, both in fact and phraseology, as to make it certain that the narratives could not have been in any case copied one from another. How is it to be accounted for that these three Gospels are so like and yet so unlike? How is this dependent independence to be explained? This is the Synoptic Problem.

The Chronological Problem

It is only necessary to glance at any one of the numerous Harmonies to be painfully convinced that in at least two of the Gospels very great confusion exists. Not only does the historical order of the first three Gospels disagree; but utterances of Christ are in many instances placed in one Synoptic in a quite different connection from that in which they are found in another. In several cases we are forced to admit, either that in one Gospel portions of a discourse have been violently torn from their context and located elsewhere, or else that in another Gospel utterances spoken on a variety of distinct occasions have been arbitrarily brought together so as to present them as one deliverance. Incidents again, which according to one Gospel occurred on widely different occasions, are grouped together in another. And even where portions of considerable length in the main agree, short sections will be found in one of them most curiously and unaccountably transposed.

Thus the Sermon on the Mount is presented in Matthew as one consecutive discourse; in Luke it is distributed through various parts of the book. And many miracles and parables which appear in Luke before the delivery of the first part of the Sermon are recorded in Matthew several chapters later.

It is this curious want of agreement in the arrangement of the three Synoptic Gospels that constitutes what is here called the Chronological Problem.

Chapter III

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

O discover how the Gospels originated we are dependent almost entirely upon the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves. Of external evidence it is not too much to say that there is nothing in which we can place implicit confidence. Although it has been inferred from Luke's introduction that there were in his time many writings in circulation besides those contained in the New Testament, none have been preserved, and the more ancient writings following that time which are still in existence, though invaluable as showing that the authenticity and Divine authority of the four Gospels was in an early age recognised in the Church, throw little or no light upon the manner in which they were composed.

Papias' Testimony

The only evidence that seems to deserve serious attention is the testimony of Papias, who lived early in the second century, and in his youth took special pains to learn all that could be known about the Apostles. He wrote a book in five volumes which has long since been lost, but was extant in the time of Eusebius, who flourished in the latter part of the third and the beginning of the fourth century, and who in his Ecclesiastical History (Bk. III., c. 39) quotes three extracts. These are as follows:-Extract 1. "But I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpretation also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received it from the Elders, and have recorded it in order to give additional confirmation to the truth by my

testimony. For I have never like many delighted to hear those that tell many things, but those that teach the truth; neither those that record foreign precepts, but those that are given from the Lord to our faith, and that came from the truth itself. But if I met with anyone who had been a follower of the Elders anywhere, I made it a point to enquire what were the declarations of the Elders; what had been said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any of the disciples of our Lord; what was said by Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord; for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as by the living voice of those that were still surviving."

Extract 2. "And John the presbyter also said this: Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not however in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard or followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord's discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing; not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts."

Extract 3.

"Matthew composed the utterances (rà λóyia) in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated them as he was able."

The last of these extracts gave rise to the belief which was expressed by many subsequent writers that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, or rather in Aramaic, for Papias and other ancient writers, in common with the New Testament, applied the term "Hebrew" to the Aramaic language current in Palestine in the time of Christ. The opinion that Matthew's Gospel was written by the Evangelist in Aramaic, and that the Gospel as we have it is a Greek translation made by some unknown person, was pretty generally received until recent times, but is now discarded.

It is by no means certain that

Papias himself intended to say this, and there has been much discussion as to what he meant by the term "utterances," or, as some would render it, "oracles.”

Papias' statement that Mark acquired from Peter the facts recorded in his Gospel has been generally accepted as correct, there being indications in the Gospel itself which tend to the same conclusion.