EON.
The following questions relative to harmonies de- mand attention ; and in treating them, we avail our- selves chiefly of the art. on the subject in Kitto's Cyclo- jja'dia, s. V.
1. Have all or ani/ of the evangelists obser\-ed chro- nological arrangement in their narratives? It was the opinion of Osiander and his followers that all the evan- gelists record the focts of the Saviour's history in their true order. When, therefore, the same transactions are placed in a different order by the writers, they were supposed to have happened more than once. It was as- sumed that they took place as often as they were dif- ferently arranged. This principle is too improbable to require refutation. Instead of endeavoring to solve dif- ficulties, it boldljr meets them with a clumsy expedient. Improbable, however, as the hypothesis is, it has been adopted by Macknight. It is our decided conviction that all the evangelists have not adhered to chronolog- ical arrangement.
The question then arises, have all ner/kcfed the order of time? Newcome and many others espouse this view. " Chronological order," says this writer, " is not precise- ly observed by any of the evangelists; John and Mark obser\'e it most, and jNIatthcw neglects it most." Bish- op Marsh supposes that jNIatthew probably adhered to the order of time, because he was for the most pait an eye-witness of the facts. The others, he thinks, neg- lected the succession of events. The reason assigned by the learned prelate in favor of jNIatthew's order is of no weight as long as the inspiration of ^lark, Luke, and John is maintained. If they were infallibly directed in their compositions, they were in a condition equally fa- vorable to chronological narration.
A close inspection of Mattliew's Gospel will show that he did not intend to mark the true succession of events. He gives us no definite expressions to assist in arrang- ing his materials in their proper order. Veiy frequent- ly he passes from one occurrence to another without any note of time; sometimes he emploj-s a tote, sometimes tv rnlc t'lfiepaig tKilvatg, iv tKtiv({t niJ Kaiptp, or tv tKtivy r:j i6p(Ti. Rarely is he so minute as to use juQ' yjitpac fK (xvii, 1). In short, time and place seem to have been subordinated to the grand object which he had in view, viz. the lively exhibition of Jesus in his person, works, and discourses. In pursuing this design, he has often brought together similar facts and addresses. Although, therefore. Kaiser founds upon the phrases we have ad- duced a conclusion the very reverse of ours, yet we believe that JIatthew did not propose to follow chrono- logical order. Tlie contrarj' is obviously implied.
IMark, again, is still more indefinite than Matthew. Even the fjeneral expressions found in the first gospel are wanting in his. The facts themselves, not their true succession, ivere the object of his attention. Chro- nological order is not observed in his gospel, except in so far as that gospel agrees with Luke's. Yet Cart-
wright, in his TIarmony, published about IfioO, make* the arrangement of Mark his rule for method.
With regard to Luke, it is probable that he intended to arrange everything in its true place, because at the beginning of his work he employs the term KuQt^i)Q. This word is often referred to succession of events, with- out involving time; but it seems clearly to imjily ch-o- nolofjicul succession (compare Acts xi, 4). Although, therefore, Grotius and many others oppose the latter view, we cannot but coincide with Beza when he says : " In harmonia Evangelistarum scribenda, rectiorem or- dinem servari putem si in iis qua; habent commiuiia, reliqui ad Lucam potius accommodcntur, quam Lucas ad cffiteros" (comp. also Olshausen, Lie Echlheit der vier Canon. Eramj. etc., i, 82-3, 3d ed.). We may therefore conclude that this evangelist usually follows the cliro- nological order, especially when such passages as iii, 1 and iii, 23 are considered, where exact notices of time occur. But as the gospel advances, those expressions which relate to time are as indeterminate as Matthew's and Mark's. Frequently does he pass from one transac- tion to another without any note of time ; and again, he has fiiTu ravra, h> fu^ rCov iimpCav. In consequence of this vagueness, it is ver\' difficult, if not impossible, to make out a complete harmony of the gospels accord- ing to the order of Luke, because we have no jirecise data to guide us in inserting the particulars related by Matthew and Mark in their proper places in the third gospel. All that can be determined with any degree of probability is that Luke's order seems to have been adopted as the true, chronological one. AMiethcr the wTiter has deviated from it in any case may admit of doubt. We are inclined to believe that in all minute particulars chronological arrangement is not observed. The fjeiieral body of facts and events seems to partake of this character, not every special circumstance noticed by the evangelist. But -we are reminded that the as- signment of dates is distinct from chronological arrange- ment. A WTiter may narrate all his facts in the order in which they occurred, without specifying the particu- lar time at which they happened ; or, on the other hand, he may mark the dates without arranging his narrative in chronological order. But attention to one of these will naturally give rise to a certain opinion with regard to the other. The more indeterminate the notification of time, the less probable is it that time was an clement kept before the mind of the writer. If there be a few dates assigned with exactness, it is a. presumption that the true arrangement is observed in other parts where no dates occur. In the succession of events Luke and Mark generally agree.