It is also to be remembered that the Gospels are not so much connected histories, as reminiscences of events and teachings, with but little regard (sometimes an utter disregard) to their chronological order. Neither Gospel is, of itself, any approach to a connected history from Christ’s birth to his ascension. The events, so far as known to us, are to be gathered from them all. Mark begins with the Baptist at the river Jordan, and John at about the same time. It is not to be inferred that they knew nothing of the infancy, or childhood, or young manhood of Jesus. Matthew omits the presentation at the temple, the vision to the Shepherds, and other incidents; and Luke omits the visit of the Wise men, the slaying of the children, the flight into Egypt, and other incidents. But in so doing, neither contradicts the other; nor does Josephus, by his silence concerning these events, contradict the Evangelists. He may have been ignorant of some of these events, for he was not born until the year 37, and, being a Jew and not a Christian, he might not choose to mention those which had come to his knowledge.
Luke’s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence relating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance), and the same is true of the First and Second Gospels. It is no impeachment of their credibility. Every historian makes such use of materials that he deems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the less trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it is of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be traced in our Gospels, or either of them. Such writings had an ephemeral existence, never came into general use, and the Four Gospels and no others were the accepted Gospels in all the churches. Whatever literature of the kind preceded them perished so early that it cannot be told when it disappeared, or what was its character or completeness.
The Evangelists give every mark of honest witnesses. Their story is simple, straightforward and unimpassioned, even under circumstances calculated to arouse resentment. They seem intent upon nothing but the giving of a truthful narrative, not sparing themselves or extenuating their own faults. Their frequent incidental allusions to matters of government, custom, nationality, etc., and minuteness of detail, are such as would never be found in false witnesses. “A false witness,” says Mr. Greenleaf, “will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is danger of being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts equally circumstantial.”
It would detract nothing from the credit of the Evangelists, if, in the multitude of their incidental references, error should be found in a few of them, for some error is inseparable from all human productions; and their inspiration may not have been so circumstantial as to exclude immaterial errors.
With such differences as show most convincingly that the Evangelists are independent witnesses, there is such unity in the character and life of Christ, as exhibited by them, as shows the same original for the likeness. This essential unity of the Gospel is evidenced by the fact that not a single church or communion exists, that does not accept all the Gospels, if either.
From internal evidence, it is extremely probable that the Synoptics were written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke was certainly written before Acts, and the history in Acts is not carried later than the year 62, eight years before that event. As the four undisputed Epistles were all written before the year 60, the logical order will be to present the testimony of Paul to the Resurrection before that of the Evangelists.
[1] President Bartlett believes that notwithstanding its long line of exposure, the outer historical difficulties seem reduced to the solitary question of the taxing under Cyrenius. (The Princeton Review for January, 1880, p. 44.) Aside from any question of inspiration, it is improbable that Luke made a mistake. Justin Martyr, who wrote at a very early period, in his Apology to the Roman Emperor, refers to this taxing as a well known event (Ap., c. 34). He again refers to it in his Dialogue (c. 78) as being the first census taken in Judea under Cyrenius. Celsus, who was not wanting in skill or inclination to attack at all points, found no occasion here. It may well be that a person holding the office which Cyrenius held at the first enrolment was called a “procurator.” Or Luke in speaking of this enrolment may have referred to Cyrenius by the title which he afterwards bore; or Cyrenius may have been in the office twice. President Bartlett also concludes with Warrenton that there is not any instance of a really inapposite quotation from the Old Testament, although the quotations are sometimes inaccurate. He also concludes that the instances of alleged contradictions may be reduced to five, and that there is no insurmountable difficulty in reconciling them. But, for reasons stated in the text, the inquiry is not material to our argument.
[2] Many suppose that the “we” are the Elders at Ephesus. But if so, why did they not sign? The “we” preceded by the unmistakable reference to John and followed by the first person singular, in the closing verse, is as likely to have been John.
[3] “Synoptics”—a word often used by writers at the present day to designate the first three Gospels.