SECTION I

the phenomenon of the four gospels

At the head of the books of the New Testament stand four narratives, which in their relation to literature, to the civilization of the world, to history, to the Bible, to Christianity, and to each other, form but one single phenomenon.

Considered merely as literary productions, they appear as compositions announcing, in a few pages, events, ideas, and doctrines which, as the principles of the Christian Church, were henceforth powerfully to affect, to animate, and to transform the world; compositions in which the humblest pens depict the mightiest matters in clear, simple, and effective strokes, and which have become the centres of a vast, an ever-increasing, and most noble, universal literature.

Secular literature has a thousand times entered into competition with these books in the matter of style, and has, in many instances, exhibited greater distinctness of character, more correct models of narrative, of reflection, of poetry, of discourse. But there is a nobility in the naturalness of the Gospel style, which preserves it in perpetual vigour, while many more refined forms of literature have already become, as far as concerns their original power, obsolete; e.g., the descriptive narrative, the Ciceronian declamation, the machinery of gods and goddesses in poetry. The style of the Gospel narrative is everywhere more distinguished for wonderful conciseness than for copiousness; while with respect to its moral tone, we find ardent zeal manifested with such tranquillity, admiration expressed with such moderation, a sharp and determined opposition to all evil powers, and even to the devil himself, waged with a dignity so noble, that we can easily conceive how these pages have, even in their style, upheld to the world’s end the credit of the New Testament.

The relation in which the four Gospels stand to secular history is an harmonious one, since they narrate facts which are not only recognized as historically true in their general features, but also fill up a blank, which, but for their presence, would exist in the midst of universal history, and involve every part of it in obscurity. Not only Josephus, but also the Roman historians who depict the times of Christ, know of His life, His world-famed death—the crucifixion, and its great result—the incipient formation of His Church. Of the inner relations of the life of Jesus, however, of its supernatural elements, they could of course, from their point of view, know nothing.

The four Gospels occupy in the Bible a position midway between the prophetic writings and apostolic Epistles, and are indissolubly connected with both. They form a key to the Scriptures, the loss of which would render them but a closed sanctuary. When a contradiction is sought between the spirit of the Gospels and that of the prophets, or a discrepancy between the Pauline Christ and the evangelic Christ, the judgment must, in either case, have been warped by dwelling too much upon details. Christ, and the everlasting Gospel in Him, is the deep point of union towards which the prophets tend, from which the apostles proceed. The representation of the life of Jesus in the Gospels is in entire accordance with both the theocratic and the apostolic spirit.¹ The apostolic Epistles appear in all their parts as developments, in which the historic Christ of the Gospels is made, by His Spirit, the life of mankind; and it is from them that we learn to appreciate the genuine and thorough Christianity of the four Gospels. The Evangelists, indeed, are not identical with Christ. They are not perfect. Their communications may be inexact and uncertain in details, as appears from comparing and testing their accounts. But their individual deficiencies are cancelled by the fulness of their totality. They bring forward in their narratives and representations nothing that is unchristian or inconsistent with the general effect of Christianity, though they have been most stringently tested and reviewed in this respect. The accusations which have been brought forward—as, for instance, the history of the Gadarene swine, the cursing of the fruitless fig-tree, and the like—have only served as proofs that the sublimity and refinement of the apostolic feeling for genuine Christianity has not been attained by those who make such accusations. What if Jesus, e.g., had forbidden the devils to enter the herd of swine? Would it not have been said that He thereby assumed an unusual authority in the land of the Gadarenes?² (Comp. Strauss, Leben Jesu, vol. ii. p. 42.) The primitive Christianity of the Gospels is exhibited not only in their abstinence from the fancies of apocryphal fictions, but also in their positive contents. The Evangelists had the courage to testify in the world to that great reality of which they were themselves assured. They are Christian because they simply exhibit Christ, the miraculous life in the centre of the world, and because the several miracles appear to them as but its natural result, the slender branches of the strong tree of that divine-human life. But their Christianity appears also in the fact, that they not only preserved His high deeds, but also His deep sayings. Thousands of pious souls would have feared to deliver these mighty sayings, pure and undiluted; e.g., the sayings, ‘Love your enemies;’ ‘If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out,’ &c. But the heroic stature of their minds caused them to appreciate the vigour, power, and purity of such wonderful teaching; and trusting to the interpreting Spirit, they despised the pretended offence of the uninitiated, and proved the maturity of their own Christianity by faithfully transmitting them in all their Christian fulness.

Finally, when we consider the relation borne by the four Gospels to each other, we behold a mystery at which criticism has hitherto toiled in vain, and which cannot be fully solved until it is perceived that complete inspiration is so entirely one with perfect freedom of individuality, that the union of various witnesses in testifying to the truth of the Gospel, imperatively requires the most distinct individual diversity in their respective testimonies. This wonderful relation of diversity and unity is expressed in the title of the Gospels: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, &c. (The Gospel according to Matthew, &c.) In each book we have the same Gospel according to a different individual view. In times when the Christian mind is in a natural and candid frame, the unity of the Gospel will be the prevailing subject of contemplation. It is thus that unprejudiced Christian feeling always deals with the Gospels. In times of more careful examination, diversities will be more closely observed. In times of unbelief, the delusion will be entertained that the diversity is so great as to destroy the unity. It is a very important matter to the military pedant, whether the heroes who are sent into the field wear gaiters of equal length or not! The unity of the Gospels is most strikingly manifested in the fact that even St Mark and St John, the Evangelists who differ the most widely from each other, do yet most evidently announce but one Gospel; their diversity in the fact that even St Matthew and St Mark, who the most closely resemble each other, maintain their respective originality. It has, indeed, been recently asserted of St John, that his Gospel does not so much exhibit the Christ of John as John the Christian.³ But in making this assertion, due allowance has not been made for those dynamic relations which prevail everywhere, and especially in the kingdom of God. If it were true that in the fourth Gospel St John had made himself more prominent than his Master, he would be no disciple of Christ, but an apostate, though an unconscious one, and the founder of a sect of his own. In this case, it might be said of him, in modern language, that he had gone beyond Christ. If St John conceived a more ideal Christianity than Christ, the latter must be degraded into his mere forerunner, and both, to be consistent with truth, must announce this fact. But when St John confesses to finding the whole originality of his Christianity in Christ, it is doing him injustice to discredit his assertion. If, then, Christ is the originator of his views, his representation of the life of Jesus does not essentially differ from that of St Mark. St Mark indeed forms, together with St Matthew and St Luke, a decided contrast to the Gospel of St John: they have a common tone, from which that of the latter is very different. But yet in this contrast the unity of the Gospel is unmistakable. On one side, we have the Son of man, the genuine formation of the Divine Spirit; on the other, the Son of God, the perfect manifestation in the flesh of human nature. There, the works of Christ manifested in rich abundance as the effects of His word; here His words appearing as the great deeds of His life and deciding His fate. There, the light-bringing day; here, the sacred light. The Sermon on the Mount points in truth to the same way of salvation as the discourse with Nicodemus; and the resurrection of Lazarus ranks as the highest fact of the kind with the raising of Jairus’ daughter, and of the widow’s son at Nain. How identical in all essential respects is Christ’s conflict with Judaism in the first three Gospels and in that of St John! If we turn our glance for a moment from the single to the synoptic Gospels, we behold the Christ of St John instituting the Lord’s Supper, while in St John’s Gospel, e.g., in the purification of the temple, we recognise the Christ of the Synoptists. Diversity is, however, quite as apparent as unity. The Synoptists have a peculiar manner of expression very different from that of St John. They relate, partially at least, the history of Christ’s childhood, while St John is occupied with His eternal existence before the world was; and two of them, viz., St Mark and St Luke, narrate His ascension, while St Matthew and St John suffer the Redeemer’s person to disappear in a final manifestation of His glory.⁴ The narratives of the Synoptists are rich in accounts of miracles, while St John relates such only as are most deeply important as demonstrations of the truth of the Gospel history. The former report such discourses of Christ as cast a light upon the ways of the world⁵ and the way to the Father, or the laws and relations of the kingdom of God in its development; St John, on the other hand, preserves those which relate to the centre of the kingdom of God, the personality of Christ, or the significance of His personality in its relations to God, to the world, and to believers. The synoptic Evangelists narrate the Lord’s more public agency and works, the scene of which was chiefly Galilee,⁶ and hence for the most part Galilean events: St John relates more especially the prominent features in the development of the Lord’s life, and those conflicts, both outward and spiritual, with pharisaic Judaism which were the occasion of His death; hence mostly scenes in Judea. While the former contemplate chiefly the history, the office, the work of Christ, His ministry and His sufferings in His work, St John collects those incidents in which the spiritual perfection, the abounding love, the kingly glory of Christ are most significantly displayed. Hence his peculiarity not only of form, but also of matter, results from an inward principle, while the difference of matter must also have been increased by the circumstance that John, according to ecclesiastical tradition, had regard to the three former Gospels in the composition of his own.⁷

Even the three first Gospels, with all their essential unity and similarity, manifest distinct originality in their composition and statements. Each displays its peculiarity in the choice and treatment as well as in the position of incidents. Thus, in every respect, each preserves its independence, its own free and fresh view of the subject. Their similarity, however, in matter, form, and expression is so very evident, that a reader seeking only the religious impression they produce, always thinks he is reading but one writing, one Gospel.

By these remarkable relations have the four Gospels accredited themselves to His Church in all ages, as four great and independent testimonies, strengthened by their very peculiarities, to the life and miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ.

───♦───

Notes

The relations borne by the four Gospels to each other have come under our notice in the present section, though the relations of the Gospels to the Evangelists have not yet been treated of. This subject, as also the distinctive characteristics of the several Gospels, will occupy us when we treat of the criticism of the Gospels. We are here only concerned with what is more immediately evident, viz., that an unprejudiced acquaintance with the Gospels confirms the following general conclusions concerning their mutual relation: 1. That with regard to their matter, they all form but one Gospel; 2. That with regard to their form, each Gospel must be considered as a distinctly original composition.

1) They who distinguish the religion of Jesus from the religion of the apostles, and again recognize diversities of religion among the apostles themselves, might much more easily discover differences of religion between one town and another, between one village and another, in the province of Rationalism,

2) The cursing of the fig-tree has been censured as a sort of trespass in the wood. In this case, the words of the curse must be regarded as an axe or some such tool. Göthe somewhere says, ‘I do not conceal that I curse the people,” No one, however, withers away in consequence; therefore no blame attaches to him, But this withered tree is brought up against Christ as if He had destroyed it, contrary to the law of the land, (Comp. Strauss, Leben Jesu, vol. ii. p. 256.)

3) Compare Weisse, Die evang. Gesch., vol. i. p. 111; [and so, in effect, Renan, Vie de Jésus, p. 24, &c., of the Introduction. For a thorough refutation of this opinion, see Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 299.—ED.]

4) The aim of St Matthew, in the conclusion of his Gospel, is to depict the Lord, as the Prince of the kingdom of heaven, in contrast to his former delineation of the Crucified One, The conclusion of St John's Gospel concerns the Apostles Peter and John. Hence neither had special occasion to relate the ascension, which they viewed as involved in the resurrection,

5) [What Augustine calls ‘dicta quae ad informandos mores vitæ preesentis maxime valerent,’ De Consens, Evang. i. 5.—ED.]

6) Hence arise those historical inaccuracies which are a result of the real motive of the composition,

7) Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccles. c. 9. [Jerome’s words are : ‘Sed et aliam (besides the intention of John to refute Cerinthus and the Ebionites) causam hujus Scripture ferunt : quod quum legisset Matthsei, Marci, et Luce volumina, probaverit quidem textum historia, et vera eos dixisse firmaverit ; sed unius tantum anni, in quo et passus est, post carcerem Johannis, historiam texuisse. Prætermisso itaque anno, cujus acta a tribus exposita fuerant, superioris temporis antequam Johanues clauderetur in carcerem, gesta narravit, sicut manifestum esse poterit his qui diligenter quatuor Evangeliorum volumina legerint.’ But see Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament, i. 320 ff.—ED.]