The foregoing portions exhibit in a most interesting way several of the features which characterise the Synoptic Gospels. . The few sentences which form the narrative parts differ so greatly as to prove that they were written by three different persons. Mark alone mentions our Lord's entrance into a house and the gathering of the multitude. He is silent respecting the healing of the possessed man, which both Matthew and Luke relate, but in very dissimilar terms. Luke says that the man was dumb; Matthew that he was both blind and dumb. With reference to the slanderous report that was circulated respecting Christ, Matthew attributes it to the Pharisees; Luke simply says some of them said"; while Mark, with the strict accuracy as to fact which is characteristic of the observant Peter, states that it was the scribes which came down from Jerusalem" who set the slander afloat. And yet there is such a manifest similarity in the ensemble of the three portions as proves that they were all in some way moulded by a common influence. In Luke's report we see a result of the confusion in James' manuscripts with which the redactor had to contend. One passage (viii. 19-21-54 Greek words) is located in a dif ferent connection altogether. That it really belongs to the connection in which we have placed it above, is proved by the fact that the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark are so arranged. For it must be admitted that, in a matter of this kind, wherever two Gospels agree their testimony must be final as against the third. Within chapter xi. itself also, three verses (24-26,56 Greek words) are transposed. The transposition of verse 31 (31 Greek words) with verse 32 (24 Greek words) seems less consistent with our theory. But we cannot tell what accidental circumstances may have shortened the contents of a page. In these instances we have not the double evidence of Matthew and Mark to prove that Luke's order is wrong; but, as Matthew's order is confirmed by Mark in the case first mentioned, it is fair to infer that it is right in these cases also. The spoken words of Christ in Matthew and Luke differ from one another rather more than is usual with reports taken at the moment of utterance. Though essentially alike, each report contains words, phrases and even sentences which are absent from the other. One section (33-37) in Matthew is entirely wanting in Luke. Nevertheless, there should be little doubt that the utterances were taken down by Matthew and James as they were spoken. At first sight it looks as if Mark's is not a tautochronistic report; but one made from memory very soon after our Lord spoke. Peter certainly had a good memory, and we know from other examples that he and some of the other Apostles were able to recall spoken words with great accuracy. It seems on closer examination, however, more probable that like the others, it was written while Jesus was speaking. If so, it is the first tautochronistic report that Peter made, and its meagre and fragmentary character may be owing to his want of experience in that kind of work. Even he however secured some words and phrases which both the others missed. It may be that our Lord on this occasion, stung by the infamous accusation which had been made against Him, spoke warmly and more rapidly than usual, and that for this reason, neither of the writers was quite able to keep pace with Him. Possibly however they may purposely have condensed His utterances to some extent. In public speaking a certain diffuseness is often necessary to enable an audience, always more or less inattentive, to grasp the ideas which the speaker desires to convey. Our Lord was a perfect Master of oratory, and if there were in some of His speeches, and not in others, a certain amount of redundancy and repetition, it only shows how well He knew how to adjust His deliverances to the capacity and mood of His hearers. On the other hand the omission of such superfluous words in the written record, is a proof of the ability and good sense of the reporters. The conclusion to which these observations leads us is, that the reported utterances of Jesus were taken down respectively by Matthew, Peter and James as He spake, and that the narrative parts were written, probably in the evening of the same day, by the same men, in conference with the rest of the Apostles. It may here be noticed that Luke mentions the request for a sign at the beginning of his report (verse 16), whereas Matthew records it immediately before our Lord's reference to it (verse 38). This seems to have been a frequent demand of the Pharisees and scribes (Matt. xvi. 1, John vi. 30, 1 Cor. i. 22), and was doubtless repeated several times during the course of what is here related. The final words of Jesus (Matt. xii. 49, 50; Mark iii. 34, 35; Luke viii. 21) were probably not written at the moment but from memory when the rest of the portions were completed. In this connection a difficulty appears for which I am unable to offer any solution. In Matthew ix. 32-34 there is an account of the healing of a dumb possessed man, that agrees so exactly with that above referred to in Luke xi. 14, 15, that it is impossible to doubt that the two passages were written in concert and relate to the same incident. If, in choosing a parallel for Luke xi. 14, 15, we had nothing outside the passages themselves to guide us, we should certainly select Matthew ix. 32-34 in preference to Matthew xii. 22-24, which appears in the example above. MATT. ix. 32-34 And as they went forth, behold, there was brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil. And when the devil was cast out, the dumb man spake and the multitudes marvelled, saying, : MATT. xii. 22-24 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the dumb man spake and And all the multitudes were amazed, and said, Is this the saw. LUKE xi. 14, 15 And he was casting out a devil which was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb man spake; and the multitudes marvelled. But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince It was never so seen in Israel. But the Pharisees said, By the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. son of David? But of the devils casteth he out devils. But then the succeeding portion in Matthew xii. agrees so closely with Luke that we are obliged to admit the parallel here also. However the matter is to be explained, it is difficult to avoid the conviction that both the passages in Matthew, as well as that in Luke, refer to one and the same incident. THE DISCIPLES EXHORTED TO BOLDNESS Matt. x. 24-33; Luke xii. 1-12 I locate the above portions here because I cannot find any other equally suitable place. These utterances may very well have been spoken in continuation of those we have just been considering. THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER AND MANY OTHER PARABLES Matt. xiii. 1-52; Mark iv. 1-35; Luke viii. 4-18; xiii. 18-21 It would seem that our Lord delivered the parable of the Sower, of the Tares, and some others to the multitude, from a boat on the sea of Tiberias, on the morning of the day the proceedings of which are related in the above portions. In the middle of the day He retired to a house for rest and refreshment, and while there the disciples asked and obtained from Him an explanation of the parables of the Sower and the Tares. After some further time, during which some of the disciples were engaged in writing, they again went down to the beach, and Jesus, re-entering the boat, continued for a short while His address to the people. He then with His disciples set sail for the opposite side of the lake. These portions are interesting as affording an illustration of three sorts of reporting. First, there is narrative reporting: that is to say the state ment of fact as observed by different men and recorded by different writers. Next, there is tautochronistic reporting: the report of our Lord's utterances made at the very moment He was speaking. Lastly, there is memory reporting: the report of our Lord's utterances, not written down at the moment, but recorded from memory immediately or very soon after. It is probable that, while Jesus was addressing the people from the boat, Matthew, Peter and James were sitting in a boat also, either the same one or another moored near it, writing down His utterances. The memory reports were written probably in the house immediately after the private conversation between Jesus and the disciples which followed their mid-day meal. The narrative portions up to that point may have been written at the same time, or they may have been added later, after their return from the trip across the lake. To enable us to form a clearer idea of the manner in which the Apostles performed their literary work, let us compare at length a section of each of the above portions, namely the parts that contain the parable of the Sower and its interpretation. |