"THE WORD, the artificer of all things, who sits upon the [four] Cherubim, holding together all things, being manifested to men, gave to us the FOUR-formed Gospel, actuated by one spirit." So said Irenæus in the middle of century second, reckoning from the Lord's ascension. Earlier than he, Tatian had formed a Harmony, titled the DIATESSARON, or Through the Four. And still earlier than he, Justin Martyr, Tatian's own teacher, tells us what "the apostles in the memoirs by them which are called GOSPELS," said. And those Gospels, he tells us, were in his day publicly read as of sole and unique authority in the churches, as the Old Testament wits in the synagogues. So that it is beyond rational question from these and other proofs, that between the death of St. John and the time that Justin wrote, the FOUR GOSPELS had, by silent and spontaneous consent of the holy martyr Church, arisen to a universal, unquestioned, unrivalled authority. It was not by decrees of council, or any arbitrary authority, but by unanimous catholic concurrence, that the evangelical Canon was adopted.

      But there was a Gospel, that is a gospel-matter, a gospel-history, before there were the four written Gospel-books. Our Saviour's deeds, words, death, and resurrection, being the very essence and substance of the Gospels, existed in the minds and memory, in the heart and soul of the living Church with great fulness and completeness before the four evangelists wrote. The twelve apostles had been by Jesus chosen as his eye and ear witnesses; and after his death they were the official rehearsers of the narratives. "Beginning at Jerusalem," where the works and words of Jesus were well known, endued with power from on high, they repeated the story of Jesus and him crucified. This oral gospel the Church accepted from these first eye-witnesses; and it formed the complete body of the Christian faith. Hearers and spectators would sometimes commit to parchment memoranda of particular sayings, discourses, or doings of Jesus. And these would be of various authenticity, arrangement, and extent. In time, more extended and completer, yet imperfect narratives, would be composed, and come into the possession of many private Christians and most of the Churches. Thus there existed an oral and documentary gospel-matter before the four Gospel-books.

      This living oral Gospel had a peculiar power to it during the time when its utterances came from the original inspired apostolic lips, and though in a less degree from the reports of those who had heard the apostles. Even after tile written Gospels had come into existence, and until late toward the close of the second century, a feeling of interest in behalf of the oral tradition over the recorded letter pervaded many hearts. "I do not think," says Papias, soon after the close of the first century, "that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those who are still surviving." His preference was this: "If I met with any one who has been a follower of the elders," (the apostles and their contemporaries,) "I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders; what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; what Aristion (Luke?) and the presbyter John, disciples of our Lord, relate." In an age where reading and writing little prevail, such oral traditions are conveyed by memory with great accuracy of form. The Jewish succession of Rabbis claimed to transmit, by tradition, an entire unwritten law, without addition or subtraction. Repetition of the same narratives by the same apostolic narrators, often in each other's hearing, would result in a great sameness of expression; and the narrative would finally assume something of a stereotype form. The wonderful deeds and holy words of Jesus, had no writing existed, might have been mentally preserved with great accuracy for more than one generation.

      But as the authoritative written letter alone could preserve above suspicion a gospel intended for ages, so the great Head of the Church took providential care that the record should come from responsible hands. Two books from original apostles, and two from apostolic contemporaries under apostolic sanction, and with general sanction of the apostolic church, have come down to these and future ages. Of these the three first (which, from. their strong likeness, are commonly called the Synoptic Gospels) contain the authentic transcript of the oral gospel, as it existed in varied stereotype forms in the apostles' [593] preaching; while the fourth contains the independent personal narration of the apostle who was nearest and deepest in the heart of Jesus. As these gospels took their place in the archives of the Churches of the widespread Christendom already existing in different quarters of the globe, Asia, Africa, and Europe, and were read to the congregation (as the oral had been delivered) from Sabbath to Sabbath, the oral gospel was gradually superseded, until scarce a trace of it remains to our day. Of the nature of the verbal identities and variations between the three Synoptic Gospels, the following comparative passages, as specimens, will convey some idea:

      The verbal relations between the three Gospels are thus well described by Alford: "First, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical; then as many wholly distinct; then two classes or more, expressed in the same words, but differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical; then a clause not wholly distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth, with recurrence of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions."

      These agreements and variations cannot be explained on the theory held by some writers that one evangelist copied from another. Neither can they be explained on the assumption that the Gospels are translated from a common original document. Nor would they appear in the style of several perfectly separate and independent narrators of the same transactions. The only solution, as the best biblical scholars now agree, is to be found in the statement given above. Our Gospels are the record of the oral narratives and written memoranda of the apostolic eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses, naturally falling into these mingled uniformities and varieties.

      Of the general comparison of the Gospels, the following are a very few of the interesting results:

      I. Two, Matthew and Luke, have a proper beginning, middle and end, namely: 1. The Early Life of Jesus to his Ministry; 2. His Ministry; and 3. His Suffering, Resurrection, and Ascension. The other two, Mark and John, with the beginning nearly omitted, have only the middle and the end. All are full till toward the end, as if the Redeemer's sufferings were by all held as the supreme point of interest.

      II. There are but about twenty-five verses in Mark which have no parallel in Matthew or Luke; yet Mark is often more full and fresh in his narrative that either of his parallels, and it is curious to note that Matthew and Luke never both present a passage but Mark presents it also. Matthew and Luke never alone coincide without Mark intermediately coinciding with both.

      III. Matthew and Mark furnish, as their peculiar contributions, (not found in either Luke or John,) a most important mass of the Lord's Galilean history, (Matthew xiv. 22; xvi. 12; Mark vi. 45, viii. 26.) On the other hand, Luke's peculiar contributions are particulars of John's and Jesus' birth. (chap. i.,) and a full but apparently unchronological account of the Lord's ministry in Perea and eastern Judea; (ix. 51; xviii. 14.) This last Lukean contribution contains some of the most brilliant gems of the Lord's teachings.

      IV. Let the entire contents of the Gospels be estimated as 100, and the following table will give an idea of their various peculiarities and agreements:

      V. There is a great difference between those parts which recite discourses or utterances of the Lord, or other person, and those which narrate facts. In the former there is a prevailing unity in the latter diversity. Thus:

      VI. Each Gospel, notwithstanding, presents the most explicit marks of a single authorship running through its single whole. How much soever of document, quotation, or compilation there is, the author's individual peculiarities of mind and style are unquestionably traceable throughout. Favorite words, texture of style, peculiar general plan and purpose, are obvious to a very slight observation. Hence of each gospel-book there is a single responsible author. The phrase, "The Gospel according to Matthew," means, The common Gospel-matter as embodied in a book by the inspired official eye-witnessing Apostle Matthew."

      The question what language was spoken in Palestine in the time of our Saviour, has been, and still is, a matter of interesting discussion among scholars. The Jews of Palestine were, no doubt bilingual--that is, they spoke two languages, the Aramaic and the Greek. During the Babylonish captivity, the Jews lost the use of their primitive Hebrew, and learned to speak the vernacular of Babylon, which was the Chaldee or Aramaic, a sister dialect to the Hebrew. Yet, so unintelligible had their ancestral tongue become, that, when, upon their return, their old Hebrew law was read in their hearing, it revealed, alas! no meaning to their ears. In consequence or this, their doctors prepared for them certain Aramaic or paraphrases, or versions, which they called TARGUMS, that is, Interpretations. It was through these that the returned Jews popularly learned in their own tongue the Mosaic law. [595]

      Yet, meantime, the conquests of Alexander, and the brilliancy of Grecian genius, had spread the Greek language over the civilized world. In Alexandria, the splendid metropolis of Egypt, the Jews had risen to eminence in Greek composition. Under the patronage of the royal Ptolemies, the Old Testament was translated into Greek. This Greek translation, from its being supposed to have been made by seventy translators, is called Septugainta, the SEPTUAGINT; that is, the Seventy. A large number of quotations from the Old Testament in the New are unquestionably made from the Septuagint translation. Both the Greek of the Septuagint and the Greek of the New Testament could, doubtless be read by the people, especially of the cities of Palestine, better than the Aramaic; otherwise, the New Testament would have been written in Aramaic. But the Greek of the New Testament, as scholars agree, is strongly tinged with a Hebrew influence. It is, therefore, not what is called pure classic Greek. And this was providentially right. Under the guidance of God, the Greeks had been prepared to furnish the most wonderfully flexible and beautiful of all human languages, and to spread it over the earth; and he had also trained the Hebrew race to furnish the religious truth and spirit. These blended together furnished a Hebraized Greek, a style most perfect for expressing a divine revelation, and for conveying to the world a universal religion.

      It is very important, in appreciating the truths of the Gospels, to remember that a large share of the Epistles of Paul were written earlier than the Gospels. The Epistle to the Romans was written before the Gospel of Luke. And two points are here important. First, the entire Epistles of Paul presuppose the same story of Jesus' birth, miracles, ministry, death, and ascension, as the Gospels. Every ordinary Christian reader very well knows that St. Paul and St. Luke held forth, not a different, but the same Christ. Second, skepticism itself is obliged for very shame to admit the authenticity of several of Paul's epistles. The Epistle to the Romans contains the undoubted Christ of Luke, and the Epistle to the Romans is by all pronounced authentic. So that in Paul we have a fifth gospel of the strongest kind, corroborating the other four.

      The following list will present the dates of the New Testament books, mostly according to the reckoning of Ebrard:

      33. Ascension of Jesus.
      45. Publication of Matthew's Gospel in the Aramaic dialect. Dispersion of the Apostles from Jerusalem.
      51-54. Publication of Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians.
      55-57. Paul's Epistles to Galatians, to Timothy, Titus, Corinthians.
      58. To Romans.
      58-60. Paul imprisoned at Cæsarea.
                  Gospel of Luke published.
      61-64. Paul's imprisonment in Rome. Epistles to Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians.
      64. Death of Paul. Death of Peter.
            John goes to Ephesus.
            Gospel of Mark published. Matthew (Greek) before 70.
      95-96. Banishment of John to Patmos.
                  Gospel of John, his Epistles and Apocalypse.
      100. Death of John. [596]

[AINT 593-596]