An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists Part 61

176 In Luke, Jesus commands that the people should be made to sit down by _fifties_. In Mark it is said that they sat down _by hundreds and by fifties_. Piscator, and Pearce, in a dissertation at the end of his comment on St. Paul's Epistles, say that they sat an hundred in front, and fifty deep; which very satisfactorily solves the seeming variation. NEWCOME.

177 This seemingly idle inquiry becomes important as a note of veracity in the narrator, when compared with the account of Matthew. John indeed tells us, v. 18, that the wind blew a gale, but he does not state from what quarter. He also says that there were boats from Tiberias, near the place where the miracle of bread was wrought, v.

23, but this does not at all explain the inquiry of the people how Jesus came to Capernaum. But Matthew states that "the wind was contrary," that is, west, Matth. xiv. 22. This fact, and the geographical position of the places, explains the whole. The miracle was wrought near Bethsaida, on the east side of the lake. The people saw the disciples take the only boat which was there, and depart for Capernaum, which was on the west side of the lake, and saw that Jesus was not with them. In the night it blew a tempest from the west. In the morning, the storm being over, the people crossed over to Capernaum and found Jesus already there. Well might they ask him, with astonishment, how he came thither. For though there were boats over from Tiberias, which was also on the west side of the lake, yet he could not have returned in one of them, for the wind would not have permitted them to cross the lake. BLUNT, Veracity of the Gospels, sect. i. 17.

178 Ps. lxxviii. 24. Ex. xvi. 15.

179 Isa. liv. 13. Jer. x.x.xi. 33, seq.

180 Ex. xvi. 15.

181 The truth of the Gospels has been argued from the _confessions_ they contain. On this verse Paley asks, "Was it the part of a writer, who dealt in suppression and disguise, to put down _this_ anecdote?"

_Evid._ 255.

182 The admission of Judas Iscariot into the domestic and confidential circle of our Lord, was the result of profound and even of divine wisdom. It showed that Jesus was willing to throw open his most secret actions, discourses, and views not merely to his devoted friends, but to a sagacious and hardened enemy. If Judas had ever discovered the least fault in the character or conduct of Jesus, he certainly would have disclosed it;-he would not have publicly confessed that he had betrayed innocent blood, and have sunk down in insupportable anguish and despair. See TAPPIN'S Lect. on Eccl. Hist.

ii.

183 The traditions of the elders were unwritten ordinances of indefinite antiquity, the princ.i.p.al of which, as the Pharisees alleged, were delivered to Moses in the mount, and all of which were transmitted through the High Priests and Prophets, down to the members of the great Sanhedrim in their own times; and from these, as the Jews say, they were handed down to Gamaliel, and ultimately to Rabbi Jehudah, by whom they were digested and committed to writing, toward the close of the second century. This collection is termed the Mishna; and in many cases it is esteemed among the Jews as of higher authority than the law itself. In like manner, there are said to be many Christians, at the present day, who receive ancient traditionary usages and opinions as authoritative exponents of Christian doctrine. They say that the preached gospel was before the written gospel; and that the testimony of those who heard it is ent.i.tled to equal credit with the written evidence of the Evangelists; especially as the latter is but a brief record, while the oral preaching was a more full and copious announcement of the glad tidings.

These traditions, both of the Jewish and the Christian Church, seem to stand _in pari ratione_, the arguments in favour of the admissibility and effect of the one, applying with the same force, in favour of the other. All these arguments may be resolved into two grounds, namely, contemporaneous practice subsequently and uniformly continued; and contemporaneous declarations, as part of the _res gestae_, faithfully transmitted to succeeding times. It is alleged that those to whom the law of G.o.d was first announced, best knew its precise import and meaning, and that therefore their interpretation and practice, coming down concurrently with the law itself, is equally obligatory.

But this argument a.s.sumes what cannot be admitted; for it still remains to be shown that those who first heard the law, when orally announced, had any better means of understanding it than those to whom the same words were afterwards read. The Ten Commandments were spoken in the hearing of Aaron and all the congregation of Israel; immediately after which they made and worshipped a golden calf.

Surely this will not be adduced as a valid contemporaneous exposition of the second commandment. The error of the argument lies in the nature of the subject. The human doctrine of contemporaneous exposition is applicable only to human laws and the transactions of men, as equals, and not to the laws of G.o.d. Among men, when _their own_ language is doubtful and ambiguous, _their own_ practice is admissible, to expound it; because both the language and the practice are but the outward and visible signs of the meaning and intention of one and the same mind and will, which inward meaning and intention is the thing sought after. It is on the same ground, that, where a statute, capable of divers interpretations, has uniformly been acted upon in a certain way, this is held a sufficient exposition of its true intent. In both cases it is the conduct of _the parties_ themselves which is admitted to interpret their own language; expressed, in cases of contract, by themselves in person, and in statutes, through the medium of the legislators, who were their agents and representatives; and in both cases, it is merely the interpretation of what a man says, by what he does. But this rule has never been applied, in the law, to the language of any other person than the party himself; never, to the command or direction of his superior or employer. And even the language of the _parties_, when it is contained in a sealed instrument, is at this day held incapable of being expounded by their actions, on account of the greater solemnity of the instrument. See Baynham _v_. Guy's Hospital, 3 Vesey's Rep. 295. Eaton _v_. Lyon, Ibid. 690, 694. The practice of men, therefore, can be no just exponent of the law of G.o.d. If they have mistaken the meaning of his command from the beginning, the act of contravention remains a sin in the last transgressor, as well as the first; for the word of G.o.d cannot be changed or affected by the gloss of human interpretation.

The other ground, namely, that the testimony of those who heard Jesus and his apostles preach, is of equal authority with the Scriptures, being contemporaneous declarations, and parts of the _res gestae_, and therefore admissible in aid of the exposition of the written word, is equally inconsistent with the sound and settled rules of law respecting writings. When a party has deliberately committed his intention and meaning to writing, the law regards the writing as the sole repository of his mind and intention, and does not admit any oral testimony to alter, add to, or otherwise affect it. The reasons for this rule are two; first, because the writing is the more solemn act, by the party himself, designed to prevent mistake, and to remain as the perpetual memorial of his intention; and, secondly, because of the great uncertainty and weakness of any secondary evidence. For no one can tell whether the by-standers heard precisely what was said, nor whether they heard it all, nor whether they continued to remember it with accuracy until the time when they wrote it down, or communicated it to those who wrote it; to say nothing of the danger of their mixing up the language of the speaker with what was said by others, or with their own favourite theories. And where the witnesses were not the original auditors of what was said, no one knows how much the truth may have suffered from the many channels through which it has pa.s.sed, in coming from the first speaker to the last write or witness. On all these accounts, the law rejects oral testimony of what the parties said, in regard to anything that has already been solemnly committed to writing by the parties themselves, and rejects the secondary evidence of hearsay, when evidence of a higher degree, as, for example, a written declaration of the party, can be obtained.

Now, inasmuch as the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles were penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, why should not the doc.u.mentary evidence of the Gospel, thus drawn up by them, be treated with at least as much respect as other written doc.u.ments? If they were inspired to write down those great truths for a perpetual memorial to after ages, then this record is the primary evidence of those truths. It is the word of G.o.d, penned by his own dictation, and sealed, as it were, with his own seal. If it were a man's word and will, thus solemnly written, no verbal or secondary evidence could be admitted, by the common law, to explain, add to, or vary it; nothing could be engrafted upon it; nor could any person be admitted to testify what he heard the party say, in regard to what was written. The courts would at once reject all such attempts, and confine themselves strictly to the writing before them, the only inquiry being as to the meaning of the language contained in that doc.u.ment, and not as to what the party may elsewhere have spoken.

The law presumes that the writing alone is the source to which he intended that resort should be had, in order to ascertain his meaning. But by calling in the fathers, with their traditions, to prove what Christ and his Apostles taught, beyond what is solemnly recorded in the Scriptures, the principle of this plain and sound rule of law is violated; resort is had to secondary evidence of the truths of our religion, when the primary evidence is already at hand; and the pure fountain is deserted for the muddy stream.

184 Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from the whole structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerous references to the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish readers.-_Paley_. But the explanation here given by Mark is an additional evidence of the fact a.s.serted by Jerome and Clement of Alexandria, that he wrote at Rome, for the benefit chiefly of the converts of that nation.

185 Ex. xxii 12. Ex. xxi. 17. Deut. v. 16.

186 Is. xxix. 13.

187 Mark designates the woman by the country where she dwelt; Matthew calls her a woman of Canaan, because of the people to whom she belonged. Thus they do not contradict each other. The treatment of this woman by our Lord has been the subject of remark, as evasive and insincere. But it was far otherwise. He had a twofold object; to call the attention of his disciples to the fact of her being a foreigner, in order to show them that his ministry, though primarily and chiefly to the Jews, was in truth designed for the benefit of the Gentiles also; and to draw out, as it were, the great faith of the woman, in order to teach them the effect of faithful and persevering supplication. To attain these objects, he took the direct and most obvious method. In this instance also, as in those of the centurion, (Matth. viii. 5-13,) and of the Samaritan leper, (Luke xvii. 16-18,) he indicated that the gospel would be more readily received by the Gentiles than by the Jews. See A. CLARKE, _in loc_. NEWCOME, Obs. on our Lord. p. 165. Bp. Horsley's Sermons on this subject, Serm. x.x.xvii. and x.x.xviii. p. 444-464.

188 Cellarius and Lightfoot think that Dalmanutha and Magdala were neighbouring towns. See Calmet, voc. Dalmanutha. It is probable that Dalmanutha and Magdala were in Gaulanitis, towards the south-east part of the lake. See Matth. xv. 21; Mark vii. 24. NEWCOME.

189 Our Lord's words, Matth. xvi. 8, 10, and Mark viii. 17, 20, are the same in substance, though differently modified. The evangelists are not scrupulous in adhering to the precise words used by Christ. They often record them in a general manner, non numerantes, sed tanquem appendentes; regarding their purport, and not superst.i.tiously detailing them. However, in this place, after uttering what Matthew relates, Jesus may have asked the questions recorded by Mark.

NEWCOME.

190 The notice of this circ.u.mstance affords a proof of the veracity of the evangelist; for he barely states a fact having no apparent connexion with any other in his narrative. The reason of it is found in facts stated by the other evangelists. The people of Bethsaida had already witnessed the miracles of our Lord, but these only served to increase their rage against him; and they were therefore abandoned to the consequences of their of their unbelief. Matth. xi.

21.

191 The phrase _three days and three nights_ is equivalent to _three days_, three natural days of twenty-four hours. Gen. i. 5; Dan.

viii. 14. Comp. Gen. vii. 4. 17.

(It is a received rule among the Jews, _that a part of a day is put for the whole_; so that whatsoever is done in any part of the day, is properly said to be done that day. 1 Kings xx. 29; Esth. iv. 16.

"When eight days were accomplished for the circ.u.mcision of the child," &c. Yet the day of his birth and of his circ.u.mcision were two of these eight days. _Whitby_, quoted by SCOTT, on Matth. xii.

40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning the _parts_ of the first and third days for _two days_, by Aben Ezra on Lev. xii. 3.

(In proof that the phrase "_after three days,_" is sometimes equivalent to "_on the third day,_" compare Deut. xiv. 28 with xxvi.

12; 1 Sam. xx. 12 with v. 19; 2 Chron. x. 5 with v. 12; Matth. xxvi.

2 with xxvii. 63, 64; Luke ii. 21 with i. 59.)

St. Luke omits our Lord's sharp reproof of Peter, and the occasion of it; though he records the discourse in consequence of it. Le Clerc's 12th canon is "Qui pauciora habet, non negat plura dicta aut facta; modo ne ulla sit exclusionis nota." Perhaps the disciple and companion of that apostle who had withstood Peter to his face, Gal.

ii. 11, willingly made this omission, as he omits some aggravating circ.u.mstances in Peter's denial of Christ, Luke xxii. 60, though he carefully records the greatness of his sorrow, v. 62. NEWCOME.

192 It has been shown, -- 74, that "_after six days_" may signify on the sixth day. But we are not hence to conclude that the phrase has _always_ such a signification. Here it means six days complete, after the discourse recorded in -- 74. The eight days mentioned by St. Luke include that of Peter's reproof and of the transfiguration; which two days Matthew and Mark exclude. Macknight furnishes us with the following apposite reference to Tacitus: Hist. i. 29. Piso says, _s.e.xtus dies agitur-ex quo-Caesar adscitus sum;_ and yet, -- 48 of the same book, Tacitus speaks of Piso as _quatriduo Caesar_.

Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit, tale est quale c.u.m vulg dicimus _post septimanam circiter. Nam Judaeos octo dies_ appella.s.se id quod ab uno sabbato est ad alterum apparet, Joan. 20, 26, &c. NEWCOME.

193 It is remarkable that Luke a.s.signs no reason for this extraordinary silence; leaving his narrative in this place imperfect and obscure, which an impostor would not have done. It is explained by the command of Jesus, related by Matthew and Mark.

194 The original word is _didrachma_, denoting, not tribute or tax in general, but a specific and particular offering which every Jew paid to G.o.d. See Josephus, Ant. xviii. x. -- 1. This minute accuracy of the evangelist is worthy of note, as an indication of veracity.

195 The twelve apostles and the seventy disciples were commissioned and sent forth at different times. Hence the person here alluded to may, for aught that appears, have been one of the seventy, not personally known to John and to those who were with him. _Letters on Evil Spirits_, p. 39.

196 Here Jesus says, He that is not against us is for us; but in Matth.

xii. 30, he says, He that is not with me is against me. Grotius regards both as proverbial sayings;-Proverbia in utramque partem usurpata, veritatem suam habent pro materia cui aptantur;-and alludes to similar forms in Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. NEWCOME.

197 2 Kings iv. 29.

198 This was near the pa.s.sover; when Jesus, going to celebrate it at Jerusalem, plainly indicated that men ought to worship _there_; contrary to the practice of the Samaritans, who, in opposition to the Holy City, had set up a temple at Gerazim. Hence the cause of their hostility to him as well as to all others travelling in that direction _at that season_. This account perfectly harmonizes with the respectful deportment of the Samaritans towards him at the time of his interview with the woman at Jacob's well, John iv. 1-42; for he was then coming _from_ Judea, and it was not the season of resorting thither for any purposes of devotion. John iv. 35. BLUNT, Veracity, &c., sect. i. 16.

199 Lev. xii. 3.

200 On this day, which was one of great joy and festivity, it was the custom of the Jews to fetch water from the pool Siloam, some of which they drank with loud acclamations of joy and thanksgiving; and some they brought to the altar, in commemoration of the miraculous relief of their forefathers, when thirsting in the wilderness; and some they brought as a drink-offering to G.o.d, to pray for rain against the following seed-time. See BENSON'S Life of Christ, p.

412. JENNINGS, Ant. p. 495. The existence of this custom, thus remotely alluded to, gives great truthfulness to the narrative.

201 Isa. lv. 1, and lviii. 11, and xliv. 3. Zech. xiii. 1, and xiv. 8.

202 Ps. lx.x.xix. 4, and cx.x.xii. 11. Mic. v. 2.

203 It is apparent, from various incidental allusions in the Evangelists, that it was the habit of our Lord at this period to spend his days in Jerusalem, in teaching the people and healing the sick, and his nights in the Mount of Olives, in prayer. Yet it is nowhere directly a.s.serted; and the manner in which it is slightly mentioned or alluded to by the sacred writers, is worthy of particular notice, as a proof of their veracity, never met with, in works of fiction. Compare Matth. xxiv. 3, and xxvi. 30; Mark xiii.

3, and xiv. 26; Luke vi. 12, and xxi. 37, 38, and xxii. 39; John viii. 1, 2, and xviii. 1.

204 Lev. xx. 10. Deut. xxii. 21.

205 The Romans, in settling the provincial government of Judea, which they had conquered, deprived the Jewish tribunals of the power of inflicting capital punishments. John xviii. 31. The law of Moses, however, condemned adulterers to be stoned to death. "This woman had been caught in the very fact. Jesus must therefore determine against the law, which inflicted death; or against the Romans, who suffered them not to put any body to death, and who would still less have permitted it for such a crime as adultery, which was not capital among them.-If he condemned not the adulteress _to death_ when he was alone with her, he hereby teaches us to submit to the civil laws of the places where we live." BASNAGE, _Hist. Jud_. lib. v. c. -- 2.

206 When one was condemned to death, those witnesses, whose evidence decided the sentence, inflicted the first blows, in order to add the last degree of certainty to their evidence. DUPIN, Trial of Jesus, p. 7. SALVADOR, Histoire des Inst.i.tutions de Moise, &c. Liv. iv. ch.

ii. p. 76.

207 John vii. 28, is consistent with John viii. 14. "Ye both know my transactions among you, and whence, as a man, I derive my descent; (ch. vi. 42,) and yet there is a sense in which ye know not whence I am, as I came not," _&c. Kai_ is used in the same manner, Matth. ix.

19. _And yet wisdom_, &c. See also John ix. 30. In this latter sense (ch. viii. 14,) the Jews knew not whence Jesus came, knew not his divine mission, and that he would return to the Father at his ascension. NEWCOME.

208 Deut. xvii. 6, and xix. 15.