(.•nee more, however, it is difficult to conceive in a simple manner how the Greek Mt could have been translated from a Hebrew original, even in those parts where it is not parallel with Mk ; for its observed relations with Lk have also to Ije taken into account. How does there come to be in these two Gospels that singular combination of parallel passages whose verbal similarity is such that they could not have been obtained through independeni translation, with others sufficiently different to be so accounted for? We maj-, perhaps, get a hint of the circumstances under which this re.sultcd from Papias' reference to a time when there was no received representative of Matthew's Hebrew work, but each translated it as he could. Such a state of things may well have led to the trans.
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
243
lation of difVerent portions h.ivin;; been >\Titten down at (lillerent times. Some of tliese translated fragments may have become current lie fore otliers, and so have been embodied in both Mt and Lk.
Finally, it is to be observed that, in sjiite of the difficulties which we have discussed in regard to the connexion between our Greek Mt and a Hebrew source, it is marked by features which fully justify us in ref;arding it as that settinf; forth of the Gospel history in (Jrcek which kept closest both in sjiirit and in form to the mode of presentinj; the Gospel in the Aramaic-speaking Church.
ii. The Fourth Gospel, especially in its rela- tion to the Synoptic Gospels. — It is impossible to review licre the whole .subject of the author- ship and historical character of the Fourth (jospel, and many jioiiits connected therewith may be more naturally treated in the article specially devoted to this tiospol. In a genenil article on the Gospels, however, it will be suitable, and even necessary, that we should compare the tirst three Gospels as a class with the fourth, and consider some of the questions raised by the contrast which they present. Some of the chief difficulties felt in regard to the genuineness and authenticity of Jn are in point of tact due to, while others have been mainly suggested and are emphasized by, its ditt'erences Irom the Sj'noptics. It is also not less true, though it has been less commonly noticed, that there are features in the Synojitlc (iospels which are not easily understood when thej- are viewed in the light of Jn ; for the sujierior credibility of the respective accounts is by no means always on one side.
We will tlierefore touch on the main respects in which the representations of the life and work and person of Christ in Jn and the Synoi)tic Gospels need to be examined in relation to one another, and then discuss briefly the problem how the subject as a whole should have come to be presented in these two ways, and whether it is consistent with the truth of each, and with the traditional authorship of the Fourth Gospil.
(1) The iiifirrk of events, manner in vliirh Christ's person ami office were rmtnifcstcd, and inrthml and ejf'i'cts of /lis iiiini.itrij. — That Synoptic outline, to which allusion has already been made, is of a simple character. Immediately after the baptism of Jesus and His temptation in the wilderness have been recorded, it proceeds to the opening of His ministry in (Salilee, and is entirely occupied with His works and teaching in that (lislrict and the nciglil)c)uring parts to the east and north, till His liiial departure therefrom. It .seems then to conduct Him continuously to Jerusalem for that Pa.ssover at which He sulPred, though it does so by more or less protracted and circuitous journey- ings, in the course of which He is still seen engaged in His work of teaching and healing. For anything the Synoptic Gospels say, we niiglit suppose that .Icsns jiiud no visit to .Icnisalem duruig His ministry till that time when He was cnicilied. Further, wo note that between the two limits, the tirst proclamation of the gospel in Galilee and His crucilixion, not one of them gives chronological marks projicrly so calleil. They •carcely even note the iiassing of the seasons. (There is an indication of tiie occurrence of a spring- time, Mt l'2' = jMk '2^ = 1^ G', and there are one or two allusions to observances which were connected with particular times of year). It is true that the more carefully wo study the Sj'no|itic Gospels, the more clearly do we [lerceive in our Lord's work lus they rcjircsent it <'ertaiii stages and turning-iioints which follow one another according to a very natural order of development. And we nuiy con- clude that their arrangement of His words and
deeds corresponds in the main to succe-ssive periods in His life. Hut these periods can be ascertained only by a study of the internal i horacter of the narrative.
In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, the flight of time during Christ's ministry i.s marked, not indeed by ordinary chronology or references to events of external history, but by the mention of several Jewish feasts. I'his Gospel is in fact cliielly taken up with records of what happened during the visits of Je.sus to Jerusalem on the occasion of these feasts. In a word, the centre of interest in the Synoptic Gospels i» Galilee, in the Fourth it is Jerusalem and Juda'a.