ever has not only made the attempt, but appears in his analysis to have been very fuccessful. And if it be true, that a common Gospel was the bafis of our three first canonical Gofpels, it is hardly credible, that it should not have been committed to writing, fince every Christian, who had once heard fo important a relation, must have wifhed to write down at least the principal materials of it, had it been only to affift his own memory. Befides a mere oral narrative, after it had gone through fo many different mouths in the course of fo many years, muft at length have acquired fuch a variety of forms, that it must have ceased to deserve the title of Evangelium commune: and therefore the fuppofition, that our three firft Gofpels were moulded in one form, is difficult to be reconciled with the opinion of a mere oral Gofpel, which muft neceffarily have affumed a diversity of forms. Another difference between the hypothefes of Herder and Eichhorn confifts in the relation, which our three firft Greek Gofpels are supposed to bear to the common Gofpel: for according to Eichhorn, the text of the common Gospel is fometimes contained with the feweft additions in that of St. Matthew, at other times in that of St. Mark, at other times again in that of St, Luke: but Herder fuppofes that St. Mark's text in general approaches the nearest to that of the common original, and confiders St. Mark's Gofpel as little more than the oral Gofpel committed to writing in Greek. Laftly, Eichhorn ab, folutely rejects the opinion that any one of our three firft Evangelifts ufed the Gofpels of the others: but Herder fuppofes, that St. Luke ufed both the Greek Gofpel

Though Herder has in fo many places pofitively afferted that the Evangelium commune was propagated only by word of mouth, he feems to have been in one place aware of the objections here made; for in p. 378, but in that place alone, he ufes the expreffion Privatfchrift, which fignifies a private writing. But if it was once committed to writing, the propagation of it was not merely oral, however private the copies of it may be fuppofed to have been kept. Pag. 331 339. 414. Pag. 413-415:

Gospel of St. Mark, and the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, which in his opinion was the fame, as that, which was called the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, and of which our first Greek Gofpel is not a close, but a free tranflation with alterations.

CHAP. VII.

STATEMENT OF THE PARALLEL AND COINCIDENT PASSAGES OF THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS. RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: AND AN ACCOUNT OF SEVERAL VERY REMARKABLE PHENOMENA IN THE VERBAL HARMONY OF THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS,

UCH are the various opinions, which are enter

Stained by the learned in respect to the origin of our

three firft Gospels. Each fuppofition has its advantages: but not one of all thefe, in the forms, in which they have been hitherto delivered, anfwers all the purposes, which ought to be answered by an hypothefis, for none of them accounts for all the phænomena, which are obfervable in our three firft Gofpels. The fuppofition, that the fucceeding Evangelifts copied from the preceding, even if it accounts for the matter, which is common to all three Evangelifts, and for the examples of verbal agreement, does not account either for the important matter, which one Evangelift has lefs than the other, or for the examples of apparent difagreement, or for the examples, in which the fame thing is related in different, but fynonymous terms. On the other hand, if we reject the fuppofition, that the fucceeding Evangelifts copied from the preceding, and fuppofe that our three firft Greek Gofpels were derived from the fame Greek document, this hypothefis, even if it ac

counts both for the matter, which the Evangelifts have. in common with each other, and for the matter which they have not in common with each other, and also for the examples of verbal agreement, ftill leaves the numerous examples, in which the Evangelifts relate the fame things in different but fynonymous terms, wholly unexplained. Further, if we adopt the hypothefis, that our three firft Greek Gofpels contain three independent tranflations of the fame Hebrew or Chaldee original, however well we may be able to explain the other phænomena, we shall never be able to account for the numerous and long examples in which fometimes St. Matthew and St. Mark, at other times St.. Matthew and St. Luke agree word for word'. And, if in order to account for their verbal agreement, we fuppofe that the Evangelifts ufed their common document, not in its original language, but only in a Greek tranflation, we shall be at a lofs to explain their frequent ufe at other times, not of the fame, but of fynonymous expreffions. Laftly, if we combine the hypothefis, that the Evangelifts ufed a common Hebrew document, with the hypothefis, that they had recourse likewise, the one to the writings of the other, we fhall find that feveral phænomena, which are explicable by the former hypothefis alone, are rendered inexplicable by its junction with the latter..

But

1 Semler in his Remarks on Townson's Discourses, Vol. I. P. 222. 223. removes at once all difficulty on this head by attributing the verbal harmony of the Evangelifts to later alterations made by tranfcribers of the Gofpels. But it will appear hereafter that the verbal harmony of our three firft Gospels is of fuch a particular description, that it lay not within the power of transcribers to have produced it.

k The author of the Attempt to illuftrate the Canon,' adopts this opinion, Vol. II. p. 152. Alfo Profeffor Vogel at Altorf in his Commentatio de conjecturæ ufu in crifi Novi Teftamenti (Altorfii, 1795, 4to.), p. 14. where he speaks of the hypothefis of a common Hebrew or Chaldee document, fays, Si libro ufi funt in Evangeliis fuis confcribendis, Græca ejus verfione ufos effe patet ex rarioribus verbis et dicendi formulis, quas in una re defcribenda finguli adhibent.

But fince the hypothefis of a common Hebrew or Chaldee original may be reprefented in a great variety of forms, and is capable of being combined with various other fuppofitions, it is not impoffible, that fome form and fome combination, hitherto not made, may folve the phænomena of every defcription. In the following inquiry therefore an attempt will be made to discover, if poffible, fuch a form and fuch a combination, as will answer the propofed end. For this purpose it will be neceffary to ftate, in the firft place, all the parallel paffages of our three firft Gospels, in which there is a verbal agreement, to analyse these paffages, and to reduce the manifold phænomena in the verbal agreement and difagreement of our three firft Gofpels to certain claffes. We fhall then have a very accurate touchstone, by which not only any general hypothefis, but each particular form of it may be tried. That is, if we apply to it the hypothefis, that the fucceeding Evangelifts copied from the preceding, we fhall be able to judge of each particular cafe of that general fuppofition. And if we apply to it the hypothefis, that a Hebrew or Chaldee document was the bafis of our three firft Gofpels, we fhall be equally well able to judge of the validity or invalidity of each particular form, in which this general fuppofition may be reprefented. We shall be able to determine, whether it is poffible that our three firft Gospels contain three tranflations from a Hebrew document made independently of each other: and, if it fhall be found that they do not, we shall be able further to determine even the particular connexion, which fubfifted between them. We shall be able to decide on the queftions, whether the Evangelifts themselves used copies of the fuppofed Hebrew document, or whether they had only Greek tranflations of it; whether one of them ufed the ori ginal, and the other two a tranflation, or whether one only used a tranflation, and the other two the original,

with many others of the fame kind'. For the phænomena in the verbal harmony of the Evangelifts, as will appear hereafter, afford fo fevere a teft, that no other affignable caufe, than that by which the effects were really produced, can be expected to account for them. And if it fhall appear on actual trial, that only one among the numerous forms of the general hypothefis anfwers our purpofe, we may be certain that none of the others can be true. But whether that, which does explain the phænomena in the verbal agreement and difagreement of the Evangelifts, is itfelf the true one, depends again on the question, whether it accounts for the contents and arrangement of the Gofpels.

m

In the following Table of parallel and coincident paffages, the statements will be made according to the fections adopted by Eichhorn". It will confift of four divifions in the firft of which will be contained the fections which are common to all three Evangelists, in the second the fections which are common only to St. Matthew and St. Mark, in the third the fections common only to St. Mark and St. Luke, and in the fourth divifion will be contained the fections, which are common only to St. Matthew and St. Luke. as the defign of the following Table is to reprefent at one view the parallel paffages, which have a verbal agreement, all thofe fections will of courfe be omitted, which furnish no examples of verbal agreement, and in the fections, which furnifh fuch examples, thofe examples

But.

1 Even Eichhorn, who has difplayed fo much critical ability and penetration in his Analyfis of our three firft Gofpels, leaves these queftions undecided for want of fufficient data. The only determinate pofition which he affumes is, that the three tranflations were made independently of each other. See page 784.

m By verbal difagreement' I understand the ufe of different words in relating the fame things.

"Several fections however will be added to the catalogue of those, which are common only to St. Matthew and St. Luke.