The Supernatural in the New Testament, Possible, Credible, and Historical / Or, An Examination of the Validity of Some Recent Objections Against Christianity as a Divine Revelation

by C. A. Row

But the variations in the discourses require a further notice. When variations occur in highly important discourses, it is open to the suspicion that they have originated in the deliberate purpose of giving a different doctrinal meaning to the words. But when we closely examine those in the Gospels, although they are very numerous, we find them of a purely incidental character, exerting a very inconsiderable influence on the sense. I am aware that attempts have been made to show that [pg 498] some few of these variations have originated in design; but these attempts only prove the straits to which those who make them are driven. Thus in the account of the Sermon on the Mount as we read it in St. Matthew, the passage runs: “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” In the corresponding passage in St. Luke it runs: “Blessed are ye poor,” i.e. the poor people who were our Lord's disciples, for the Evangelist expressly tells us that these words were addressed, not to the multitude generally, but to them. The supposition that this variation indicates the presence of something resembling communistic views in the author of St. Luke's Gospel is too absurd to be worthy of serious discussion. Taking them as a whole, these discrepancies create no appreciable difference in the teaching of Jesus as reported by the different Evangelists.

One thing respecting them is clear—they bear the strongest testimony to the historical character of the writings which contain them. It is simply inconceivable that the authors of the Gospels made them deliberately. They must have found them in the sources from which they drew their information. They form one of the strongest proofs that neither a forger, nor an accommodater of facts for the purpose of making them fit in with particular doctrinal theories, has had any hand in originating them. In simple changes in grammatical structure, purpose or design is inconceivable.

But the variations in narratives, such as those above referred to, are even more important as constituting an attestation of their historical reality than variations in discourses. Four separate versions of a fictitious incident fail to clear up one another's obscurities. But the ability to do so is the distinctive [pg 499] mark of imperfect narratives of facts, told by different witnesses. When two things of a complicated mechanical construction exactly dovetail into each other, it is a proof that they have originated in the same mind. In a similar manner, when a number of distinct narratives, each of which is more or less incomplete, exactly fit into each other, this constitutes a proof, that they did not originate in a fiction but in a fact.

An illustration will aid in showing the force of this reasoning. The early history of Rome is unquestionably of a highly legendary character. We have two versions of it, one by Livy, and another by Dionysius. These writers do not give us direct accounts of the primitive legends, but their narratives are compiled from authors of a much earlier date, who first reduced them to writing. Still these historians may be viewed as substantially accurate reporters of the legendary history, as it was compiled by the earlier writers. An important question therefore arises, does the twofold account which we possess of these legends, after all the efforts made by Livy and Dionysius to weave them into a consistent whole, bear the smallest analogy to the narratives contained in four Evangelists? It is clear that great disagreements existed among the original authorities. Let us take any account of the supposed events of three years—do the variations in the two accounts bear the smallest resemblance to the singular phenomena which we find in the Evangelists? Will they dovetail into one another? Will the small additions in one throw light on the obscurities of the other? Do the speeches present any indications of being copies of a common original? All these questions must be answered in the negative. Whence then comes this difference between the narratives of the [pg 500] Evangelists and the legendary accounts of the origin of the Roman power? I answer, because the one is founded on fact and the other on fiction.

It is not my intention to discuss the innumerable theories that have been propounded as to the origin of the Gospels, for the purpose of accounting for the common narrative, its variations, and the additions peculiar to each. Many of these theories violate the principle of common sense; and if the contrary were not known to be the fact they would suggest the idea that their authors had never practised the art of literary composition. Among them I shall only notice the theories which suppose that the Evangelists had before them one common document when writing their Gospels; or that one of them had before him the Gospel of another; that they deliberately copied the common words and phrases, and no less deliberately made the alterations, additions, and transpositions which the common narrative presents. Let us take for an illustration the supposition that the author of Mark's Gospel had that of Matthew before him, or the converse. In the one case he must have deliberately retained all the common words and phrases, after making the most capricious variations and suppressions. Next, he must have inserted all the little additions which distinguish the Gospel of St. Mark from that of St. Matthew, and made the requisite transpositions. But what is still more remarkable, he must also have taxed his invention to insert in the midst of its impersonal narrative all those graphic descriptions which impart to Mark's Gospel the appearance of ocular testimony. Besides all this he must of set purpose have omitted nearly all the discourses in which Matthew's Gospel is so full, or have placed them in a different context. If, on the other hand, we suppose that Mark's Gospel is the original [pg 501] and Matthew's the copy, the whole process must be reversed, and above all the author must have deliberately struck out the graphic portions of Mark, except in one or two instances, when he has added some of his own. All theories which are founded on the supposition that the authors of either Gospel used a common document and deliberately altered it, or that one of them formed his Gospel out of that of another by a number of additions and subtractions axe simply incredible.

But the common narrative exists with the identities of expression interwoven with its variations. How are we to account for this remarkable fact? The identities of expression must have had a common origin. But what do the variations prove? Evidently that the narrative had passed through a period of oral transmission. No other theory can adequately account for them.

Such variations would naturally spring up in the course of oral transmission. We have already seen that the circumstances of the Church rendered such a mode of transmission necessary, as details of our Lord's life must have formed regular portions of Christian instruction. In doing this, variations would inevitably arise. After a while they would assume a distinctive type in different Churches. If then the Synoptic narratives are three versions of an oral Gospel handed down in as many Churches, and put together with additions by their respective authors, this affords a reasonable explanation of the phenomena which the common narrative presents. In this case the only thing which involves a difficulty is the large number of identities preserved by the Evangelists. This proves the strong hold which the words must have had on the minds of the members of the different Churches.

The existence of a traditionary narrative is still further proved by the fourth Gospel. No one can deny [pg 502] that this is an independent record, and that its origin must have been wholly different from that of the other three. Yet in those portions which cover common ground with the Synoptics we meet with phenomena of a similar order, all proving that there must have been a narrative in existence which had impressed itself indelibly on the mind of the Church; so much so that an entirely independent writer fell into the same mode of expression when his subject led him to narrate incidents common to the other three.

Every consideration which can be brought to bear on this subject tends to prove the existence of a traditionary narrative of the actions and teaching of Jesus which was handed down in the Churches prior to the publication of either of the Synoptic Gospels, and that their common matter must have passed through a period of oral transmission. It follows therefore that our three Synoptics are three different versions of the same oral Gospel modified in the course of transmission and supplemented by additional information introduced by their respective authors. We know as a fact that a traditionary narrative maintained its place in the Church far into the second century. Papias deliberately expressed his preference for it as compared with written records; and the writings of other Fathers show their acquaintance with it.

It is clear therefore that a number of traditionary narratives existed in the Church; and that if a number of persons had set themselves to reduce these accounts to writing, they would have presented phenomena analogous to those of the Synoptic Gospels. I have also shown that these Gospels present all the phenomena which distinguish this species of narrative. The substantial agreement of the three, both as to facts and as to the discourses, is a guarantee that the actual traditions [pg 503] of the Church have been accurately reported. Their diversities also afford the strongest proof that these reports were composed in perfect independence of each other.