Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

INTRODUCTION. 153
true, partly by its position in tlie Gospels, partly Ly its internal
character; but the character of the Evangelists' narrative, who
commonly leave time and place undetermined, admits of our bringing
neither all the separate incidents recorded of the Saviour,
nor his discourses, into precise chronological connexion. We,
therefore, take the Gospel-history as it is given to us, following the
chronological order as far as the Evangelists enable us to discover it
plainly, but nowhere bringing it out violently and artificially where
it has not been given. According to the synopsis of Dc Wetfc and
Lucl'c, which we take as the foundation of our exposition, we shall
first treat of the history of the childhood of Jesus and his baptism ;
and, last, of the narrative of his sufferings, resurrection, and ascen-
sion (combining John's description of these latter circumstances) ;
but with respect to the intermediate materials of the Gospel-history,
we shall chiefly follow Matthew, incorporating with his narrative
where they appear to us most probably to belong—those portions
contained only in Mark and Luke, or in either one of them. The
editors of the synopsis have, indeed, treated this part in such a
manner, as to give the whole matter three times over according to
the order of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A threefold exegetical dis-
cussion of this part would certainly have secured no small advantages
; they had, however, to be sacrificed, as requiring too much
space.
§ 8. Ox THE Credibility of the Gospel-History.
The description given above of the origin of the Gospels from
separate memoirs, whose authors are unknown, the character of the
Gospel-history itself, through a large portion of which we can trace
no chronological arrangement, and lastly, the distinct discrepancies
discoverable in various events, j)articularly in the composition of
the discourses—are all circumstances which seem to endanger
the credibility of the Gospel-history, especially in such events
as lay without the immediate knowledge of any one of the narrators,
as, for instance, the childhood of Jesus. The Gospels seem in this
way to acquire the appearance of an unarranged aggregate of se-
parate and uncertain accounts, which neither agree precisely with
each other, nor even, in each individual Gospel, stand in strict connexion.
The older theology was apprehensive that, by a view such
as modern criticism has established, the sacred character of the Gos-
pel-history would be entirely taken away. Starting from the literal
inspiration* of the sacred writers, they laboured to force a harmony,
* I distinguish literal inspiration from verbal, and maintain the latter, while I deny
the former. The distinction between them docs not lie, as I think, in the essence and the
form (for the forvi, too, is ncccs.sary in one aspect), but in the essential and the unessenmU
form. But the question, "Where is the essential in the form separated from the unes-
•
—