that St. Luke, who was not an eye-witness to the fact, was in this instance mistaken. In a subsequent part of this Introduction, where I treat of St. Luke's Gospel in particular, I shall take notice of several examples of this kind, and observe that the most material contradictions, which I am unable to reconcile, are between St. Luke and those two Evangelists, who were eyewitnesses to the facts, which they have recorded. Whether St. John has corrected in an indirect and delicate manner the faults of his predecessors is a question, which I shall reserve for that part, where I especially examine the Gospel of that Evangelist. SECTION V. Examination of the different degrees of importance in the different kinds of contradiction observable in the Four Gospels. THE contradictions observable in the four Gospels, even such as may be shewn to be real, are of very different degrees of importance, which ought to be particularly noted, though they have hitherto engaged but seldom the attention of the harmonists. In the first place, if a contradiction exists between the twelve last verses of St. Mark's Gospel and the other Gospels, it is of no importance whatsoever, and affects not even the question of divine inspiration: for that these twelve verses proceeded from the hand of St. Mark is more than any one can prove. In the sequel I shall treat of them more at large. Secondly, a contradiction between either St. Mark or St. Luke, who were neither Apostles nor eye-witnesses, and St. Matthew and St. John, who were both, proves nothing more than that they were not inspired. In a disagreement of this kind, it is reasonable that we' should be guided by the authority of the eye-witnesses. Thirdly, a contradiction between the Gospel of St. Luke and the two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel is of still less importance, because it may be doubted, whether these two chapters were written by St. Matthew. Even if we admitted therefore that what is written by St. Luke', ch. ii. 51. were not to be reconciled with the account given in St. Matthew's Gospel of the coming of the wise men from the East, and the flight of Jesus into Egypt, which however in my opinion is very possible, we should still have no reason to doubt the truth of the Christian Religion, and of the New Testament at large, but only either of the two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, which in other respects abound with difficulties, or the relation which is given by St. Luke. Fourthly, real contradictions between St. Matthew and St. John, which are wholly incapable of reconciliation, prove nothing more, than that the Apostles were not inspired in historical matters. But as I have already observed, these contradictions may be ascribed to the Greek translator of St. Matthew's Gospel. Fifthly, the contradictions of the greatest importance, if we except Mark xvi. 9-20. are those which have been observed in the history of the resurrection, because the truth of this history, and the testimony of those persons, who are alleged as witnesses of its reality, determine in a great measure the truth of the Christian Religion. Notwithstanding the pains which have been taken to reconcile these contradictions, I am of opinion, that our endeavours have not been so successful as we commonly believe; though on the other hand, I have fallen sometimes, as it were by accident, on satisfactory solutions, where after the most studied and anxious attempts I have failed of success. This is not the place to introduce the result of my inquiries, which I must reserve either for my public lectures, or for my notes. on the four Gospels if I should live to publish them 2. Thus far I had written in the year 1777, and I purposely leave it unaltered in the present edition, that the public may be convinced, it is not my intention to suppress the difficulties, which I feel. The Fragments, as they were called, which were published by Lessing in that very year, in the fourth number of the Contributions to history and literature, from the treasures of the ducal library at Wolfenbüttel,'' in which an anonymous writer attacked the Christian Religion, and particularly the history of the resurrection, induced me to renew my inquiries, the result of which I published in the year 1783, in a work entitled, Exposition of the history of Christ's burial and resurrection, according to all four Evangelists,' and which I leave to the examination of the reader 5. SECTION VI.. An account of the principal Harmonies. I WILL now proceed to an account of those writers, who have endeavoured to reconcile the four Evangelists, and to reduce their history to chronological order; which will afford likewise an opportunity of making some remarks on several explanations relative to the Gospels. But it is far from my design to mention all the writers who have written harmonies: a tolerably complete list of them, in alphabetical order, may be seen in Fabricii Bibliotheca Græca', Lib. iv. Cap, v. 20, and a more entertaining historical description of them is contained in E. D. Hauber's Life of Jesus Christ', p. 1-1 4. To begin with the ancient harmonies, it is well known that Tatian of Syria, and Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, wrote harmonies as early as the second century. A work supposed to be the Harmony of Tatian was published by Ottomar Luscinius, in 1523; and in the following year 1524, Michael Member published another harmony, which was attributed to Ammonius of Alexandria *. But though these works are of great antiquity, it is doubted whether they are genuine 5. See Fabricii Codex Apocryphus N. T. p. 378. The real Diatessaron (diarioσapwv) of Tatian, or his Arrangement of the transactions of Christ according to the four Evangelists is no longer extant: but the circumstance of his having written a work of that kind deserves to be remembered, because it is of some importance in ecclesiastical history. It is supposed that this is the work, which we find sometimes quoted in ancient writers by the name of the Syrian "." Eusebius has composed a very celebrated Harmony of the Gospels. He has divided the evangelic history into ten canons, or tables, which are prefixed to many editions and versions of the New Testament. In the first canon he has arranged according to the ancient chapters those parts of the history of Christ, which are related by all four Evangelists. In the rest he has disposed the portions of history related by 2. St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. 6. St. Matthew, and St. Mark. 7. St. Matthew, and St. John. 9. St. Luke, and St. John. 10. Only one of the four Evangelists". It is evident from a bare inspection of these tables, that they are nothing more than indexes to the four Gospels, and that they by no means form an harmony, of the nature of those, which have been written in modern ages, and which are designed to bring the several facts recorded by the Evangelists into chronological order, and to reconcile contradictions. I shall not detain the reader any longer either with these ancient harmonies, or with those of the middle ages, as they are very little used, and men of learning content themselves with being able to enumerate their titles, without ever consulting the works themselves. But there are two in particular, which I cannot pass over without mentioning at least their names, Ludolphus de vita Jesu Christi, and Gerson 10 Monotessaron de concordantia evangelistarum. The celebrated Andreas Osiander published the first edition of his Harmony of the Gospels in 1537. He adopted the principle, that the Evangelists constantly wrote in chronological order, and that the same transactions and discourses took place twice or thrice in the life of Christ. From this alone we may judge of the merits of the work itself. Osiander is the head and leader of those harmonists who undesignedly render the Gospel history not only suspicious, but incredible. It must be acknowledged however that he has not gone so far as his successors, and that he sometimes deviates from his general principle. Cornelii Jansenii commentaria in concordiam evangelicam, published" in 1571, is at the same time an exposition of the four Gospels. Martin Chemnitz wrote a very ample harmony of the Gospels, which was continued by Polycarp Leyser, and John Gerhard. The first edition of it appeared in 12 1593, and the last edition was published at Hamburgh in 1704. It consists of three volumes folio, and is not only a harmony, but likewise a learned commentary on the Gospels: but the author has too closely followed Osiander 13. Samuel Craddock's Harmony of the Evangelists, which is also a learned and entertaining exposition of the Gospels, was published in London in 1668 in folio 14. Craddock has drawn up the Gospel history in an explanatory paraphrase in English, and has added short but useful notes in Latin. Sandhagen published his Introduction to the harmony of the Gospels in 1684. However great the merits of this author are in respect to the sacred writings in general, I cannot bestow much praise on this work in particular, for the principle, which I censured in Osiander, is carried here to a still greater length. |