An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists Part 60

139 1 Sam. xxi. 1-7.

140 Is. xlii. 1, seq.; Is. xi. 10.

141 There may be an allusion, in these words of the prophet, to an Eastern custom, for those who were grievously afflicted to come to the sovereign for relief or redress, having pots of fire, or of burning straw, or other combustible on their heads, in token of their extreme trouble. Not one of these, the prophet seems to intimate, should go away without redress; he will certainly remove the cause of their complaints, and render truth and justice victorious over falsehood and oppression. 3 CALM. 394.

142 It appears from Mark vi. 7, that the apostles were sent forth by _two and two_ to preach; and this accounts for their being here and in the parallel places named in couples. Luke mentions Matthew first, as being regarded as the senior of Thomas, his companion; but Matthew modestly places his own name last. Mark is less observant of the order of the names, but he alone states that they were thus a.s.sociated. The others give the names in couples, but state no reason for it. This is not the method of false witnesses; such incidental corroborations belong only to the narratives of truth.

143 Thaddeus, Theudas and Judas (or Jude) are probably names of the same signification, the Greek termination being added to different forms of a Hebrew verb. "The Canaanite," Matth. x. 4, is the same with "Zelotes" in Luke. "Cognomen erat Chald. quod Lucas reddidit Zelotem." Wetstein. Thus, Thomas is rendered Didymus, or, the twin; Cephas, Peter; and Silas, Tertius. Some suppose that this name had been given to Simon on account of his religious zeal; or, because he had been of a Jewish sect called Zealots, who were addicted to the Pharisees, and justified themselves by the example of Phinehas, for punishing offenders without waiting for the sentence of the magistrate. NEWCOME.

"Between Matthew (x. 2,) and Mark (iii. 16,) we observe a strict correspondence, but the catalogue in St. Luke (vi. 14,) differs from both the first-mentioned writers, in two particulars. 1, 'Simon the Canaanite,' of Matthew and Mark is introduced as 'Simon called Zelotes.' Now if any difference was admitted in this place, we might expect it to extend no farther than to the order of the names, or the addition of a surname; as, for instance, Matthew calls the 'Thaddeus' of Mark also 'Lebbeus;' but here we have one surname changed for another. It is indeed easy to conceive, that Simon might have been commonly distinguished by either appellative, but this we can only conjecture; neither Evangelist adds a word to explain the point. 2, The other discrepancy, however, appears more serious. The Lebbeus or Thaddeus of St. Matthew and Mark, is entirely omitted in the list of St. Luke, who subst.i.tutes 'Judas the brother of James.'

Here is certainly a marked difference, for it would not seem very probable, that the Apostle in question pa.s.sed by three distinct names. Nor could this be a mere oversight in St. Luke, for, in Acts i. 13, where a catalogue of the eleven is inserted, he mentioned this individual in exactly the same manner. Are we to suppose then that the Evangelist commits a deliberate error in this particular?

We have distinct and satisfactory witnesses to prove that there really was an Apostle, besides Iscariot, who bore the name of Judas.

Both Matthew (xiii. 55,) and Mark (vi. 3,) concur in speaking of James and Jude as the near relations of Christ, and part of this statement is incidentally confirmed by St. Paul, who calls James 'the Lord's brother.' (Gal. i. 19.) But farther, St. John (xiv. 22,) presents us with a remark made by 'Judas not Iscariot;' evidently one of the Apostles; and St. Jude himself, in the first verse of his Epistle, styles himself 'the brother of James.' There is thus amply sufficient evidence, that all the Gospel writers acknowledge an Apostle of this name, though St. Matthew, with his usual simplicity, familiarly mentions him by two of his appellations, omitting that of Judas, and St. Mark sees no occasion to depart from his language, in a matter of such general notoriety. Luke, on the other hand, usually studious of accuracy, distinguishes this Apostle by the name generally current in the Church, when his Gospel was written. This variation then may, upon the whole, convince us how undesignedly the writers of Scripture confirm each other's statements; yet can this only be the result of a minute examination upon our part, and upon the probability of this, a cautious writer would hardly stake his reputation for truth or exactness." See ROBERTS'S "Light shining out of Darkness," pp. 91-93.

144 It may be objected that Matthew, in saying that this discourse was delivered sitting on a mountain, is contradicted by Luke, who says, that Jesus was standing on a plain. Luke vi. 17. But Dr. Clarke, on this latter place, has suggested that Jesus "being pressed with great mult.i.tudes of people, might retire from them again to the top of the hill." And Dr. Priestley observes that "Matthew's saying that Jesus was _sat down_ after he had gone up the mountain, and Luke's saying that he stood on the plain, when he healed the sick before the discourse, are no inconsistencies." Harm. p. 83.

The whole picture is striking. Jesus ascends a mountain, employs the night in prayer, and having thus solemnly invoked the divine blessing, authoritatively separates the twelve apostles from the ma.s.s of his disciples. He descends, and heals, in the plain, all among a great mult.i.tude, collected from various parts by the fame of his miraculous power. Having thus created attention, he satisfies the desire of the people to hear his doctrine; and retiring first to the mountain whence he came, that his attentive hearers might follow him, and might better arrange themselves before him. Sacro digna silentio Mirantur _omnes_ dicere. _Hor_. NEWCOME.

The different accounts of the Sermon on the Mount may be reconciled, by considering that Mathew wrote chiefly for the Hebrew Christians; and it was therefore important for him to bring out, in full, the manner in which our Lord enforced the spiritual nature of his dispensation and doctrine, in opposition to the mere letter of the Jewish law, and the teaching and practice of Scribes and Pharisees; which he does particularly and with many examples; while Luke, on the contrary, wrote chiefly for Gentile Christians, to whom the contrast with the Jewish law was of less interest; and therefore he omits those parts of the discourse, and dwells only upon those which were of practical importance to all. ROBINSON. NEWCOME.

145 The Greek word here employed is said to be derived from the Persians, among whom the king's messengers or posts were called _Angari_. These had the royal authority for pressing horses, ships, and even men, to a.s.sist them in the business on which they were sent. The word therefore signifies, to be compelled by violence to do any particular service, especially of the public kind, by the king's authority. And the sentiment is a lesson of patience and gentleness under severe exactions from man. _Lightfoot, apud_ A.

CLARKE, _in loc_. SIR J. CHARDIN'S Travels, Vol. i. p. 238, 257.

146 Calvin says that Matthew, being more brief, introduces the centurion himself as speaking; and that Luke expresses more at large his sending by his friends; but that the sense of both is the same.

_Harm_. p. 124.

(Toinard quotes Exod. xviii. 6, where the words related as spoken by Jethro, were evidently a message sent by him to Moses. _Harm_. 147.) Considering then the sameness of the scene, of the person, of the words, and of the transaction, I cannot but conclude with Grotius, that the miracle is one and the same, related in general by Matthew, and with greater accuracy by Luke. NEWCOME.

147 The nature of our Lord's ministry, as it now appeared, so unlike what John as a Jew expected, may have surprised and perplexed him.

And his own misfortune, coming upon this disappointment and perplexity, would increase his doubt and embarra.s.sment. His faith was shaken;-the question implies no more;-and he sent that his doubts might be removed, and his faith confirmed. Jesus therefore merely referred John to the miracles he was doing, and the prophecies which spake of him, and which were fulfilled by those miracles. Bp. SUMNER, in loc.

148 Is. x.x.xv. 5, seq.

149 Mal. iii. 1.

150 Mal. iv. 5.

151 We here learn that the demoniac was both blind and dumb. St. Luke omits the former circ.u.mstance, but does not contradict it. NEWCOME.

152 An accurate reader will observe that Matt. xii. 22, and Luke xi. 14, show the general occasion of the blasphemy against Jesus; and that Matt. xii. 23, shews the particular occasion of it, the mult.i.tude alarming the Jewish rulers by their question whether Jesus were the Christ. No cause for the absurd and impious insinuation of the Scribes and Pharisees is a.s.signed by St. Mark: however, he suggests an important circ.u.mstance, that they came from Jerusalem to watch the conduct of Jesus. The latter part of Luke viii. 19, shows that his relations were not able to enter the house on account of the press. Thus one Evangelist is wonderfully supplemental to another by notations of time, place, and other circ.u.mstances; and the strictest propriety and agreement result from diligently comparing them.

NEWCOME.

153 The writer of a false narrative would either have omitted to mention the request for a sign, or would have related that it was complied with. He would never have exposed his Master to the suspicion of a want of power. See also, Matt. xvi. 1.

154 Jonah i. 17.

155 Jonah iii. 4, 5.

156 1 Kings x. 1 seq.

157 This omission may seem inconsistent with the character of Jesus, who appears to have generally complied with all the innocent usages of his countrymen; and of course it may be adduced as an objection against the veracity of the Evangelist. Luke simply records the fact, however it may seem to make against the character of his Master, or his own veracity. But Mark, vii. 3-9, in a manner equally incidental and without design, discloses the truth that this washing was superst.i.tious, and connected with the dangerous error of placing the traditions of the elders on equal footing with the commands of G.o.d. Where there was danger of his practice being misinterpreted, our Lord withheld his compliance, even in things indifferent. See Bp. SUMNER on Luke, Lect. 41.

158 Gen. iv. 8; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, seq.

159 The autumnal rains in Palestine come mostly from the west or south-west. ROBINSON'S Biblical Researches, vol. ii. p. 97. The incidental allusion here made to that fact, would hardly have been made by a writer of fiction.

160 Is. vi. 9, 10.

161 Ps. lxxviii. 2.

162 This is made consistent with the other Evangelists, by reading "Gadarenes." If Gergasa was subordinate to Gadara, the metropolis of Perea, as Cellarius and Reland judge, and St. Mark did not write in Judea, what wonder that he chose the more general name, which was best known in the world? But Cellarius from Eusebius takes notice that some esteemed Gergasi, so Eusebius writes it, and Gadara two names of the same city; and this he thinks was the sentiment of the Syriac translator. To this Sir Richard Ellis most inclines, in his "Fortuita Sacra." TOWNSON, p. 72.

In Matthew mention is made of two demoniacs; in Mark and Luke of one only. Here Le Clerc's maxim is undoubtedly true: Qui plura narrat, pauciora complect.i.tur: qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat.

_Harm_. p. 524.

We may collect a reason from the Gospels themselves, why Mark and Luke mention only one demoniac; because, one only being grateful for the miracle, his cure only was recorded by the two Evangelists, who mention this grat.i.tude, and who are more intent on inculcating the moral, than on magnifying our Lord's power. NEWCOME.

163 There is no contradiction here between Matth. and Mark. The demoniacs met Jesus on the sh.o.r.e, as he came out of the ship. Luke viii. 27. The swine were within sight, on the ascending ground, Luke viii. 32, at the side of the mountain, Mark v. 11, which was at some distance from the sh.o.r.e where they stood. Matth. viii. 30.

164 Since swine were held in abhorrence by the Jews, how happened a herd of them to be feeding by the sea of Tiberias? The answer shows the accuracy of the Evangelist and his intimate knowledge of the local circ.u.mstances of Judea; for it appears from Josephus, Antiq. xvii.

11, 4, that _Gadara_ was a _Grecian city_, the inhabitants of which, therefore, were not Jews. BLUNT, Veracity, &c. sect. ii. 6.

165 Here is a reference to an Eastern custom, which affords internal evidence of the truth of the narrative. The master sat on a higher seat, and the scholars sat at his feet. Sitting at the feet, was the posture of a learner; and indicated the reverence and submission due to the teacher. Thus Moses says of the people, to whom G.o.d gave the law from Mount Sinai,-"they sat down at thy feet." Deut. x.x.xiii. 3.

Isaiah, speaking of Abraham, who was taught of G.o.d, says "he called him to his foot." Is. xli. 2. Mary "sat at Jesus's feet and heard his words." Luke x. 39. Paul was brought up "at the feet of Gamaliel;" Acts xxii. 3; studied law with him. And the restored maniac sat down at Jesus's feet, in the posture of a humble learner, desiring no other wisdom than to be taught of him.

166 Both Mark and Luke state that this was in Matthew's own house; and Luke calls it a great feast, made in honour of Jesus. The omission of this fact by Matthew, not only shows his modesty and humility, but adds much to the weight of evidence in his favour, both as a man, and as a witness. See BLUNT'S Veracity of the Gospels, sect.

i. 4.

167 Hos. vi. 6; 1 Sam. xv. 22.

168 Neither of the Evangelists expressly mentions the death of Joseph; yet from all four of them it may indirectly be inferred to have happened while Jesus was yet alive. Comp. Luke viii. 19, John ii.

12, and xix. 25-27. Such harmony as this could not have been the effect of concert. See BLUNT'S Veracity, &c. sect. i. 7.

169 Commentators have noted two inconsistent circ.u.mstances in this section. In Matthew, _shoes are_ forbidden; in Mark the Apostles are commanded to be shod with _sandals_. But the true solution seems to be this, that the Apostles should not furnish themselves with spare garments, and should wear the simplest covering for their feet. "Non vult ullis rebus studiose comparatis onerari." Beza. See Newcome, in loc.

170 The synagogues were used, not only for divine service, but for holding courts of justice, especially for ecclesiastical affairs; and the lesser punishments, such as whipping, were inflicted in the synagogue, immediately after sentence, as the burning in the hand was formerly inflicted in England, upon praying the benefit of clergy. JENNINGS, Ant. p. 376. Such an allusion as this would not be likely to have been found in a work of fiction.

171 Mic. vii. 6.

172 Matth. xiv. 2, _unto his servants_. Matthew alone mentions, and without any apparent reason for such minuteness, that Herod addressed his remark to his _servants_ it. Luke, in the parallel pa.s.sage, says he _heard of all that was done by him_; but by referring to Luke viii. 3, and to Acts xiii. 1, we find that Christ had followers from among the household of the very prince, with whom Herod was likely to converse on a subject in which they were better informed than himself. BLUNT, Veracity, &c., sec. i. 8.

173 Here is a very natural pa.s.sing allusion to what we learn from Josephus was a settled custom in the family of Herod; namely, the making of a feast on his birth-day, at which the officers of his government were guests. JOSEPHUS, Ant. xix. vii. -- 1.

174 Mark incidentally mentions the great mult.i.tude coming and going, and the purpose of Jesus to withdraw _awhile_. The occasion of this great mult.i.tude of _travellers_ is stated in the like incidental manner by John, vi. 4, that the _pa.s.sover_ was nigh at hand; and hence, if Jesus withdrew awhile, the throng would be drawn off towards Jerusalem. These undesigned coincidences tend to verify both the narratives. Blunt, Veracity, &c. sect. i. 13.

175 Why Jesus addressed this question to Philip, and why John mentioned so unimportant a fact, is not here explained. Nor does Luke indicate any reason for his own statement of the place where this miracle was wrought, namely, near Bethsaida. But John, in another place, (ch. i.

44,) with apparently as little reason, gratuitously states that Philip was of Bethsaida; and this fact renders both the others intelligible and significant. Jesus, intending to furnish bread for the mult.i.tude by a miracle, first asked Philip, who belonged to the city and was perfectly acquainted with the neighbourhood, whether bread could be procured there. His answer amounts to saying that it was not possible. These slight circ.u.mstances, thus collected together, const.i.tute very cogent evidence of the veracity of the narrative, and evince the reality of the miracle itself. See Blunt, Veracity, &c. sect. i. 13.