them has yet produced an argument which, in some important part of it, is not liable to insurmountable objections. From the frequent instances of verbal coincidence which the three Gospels afford, it seems necessary to infer either that one or that two of them were taken from another, or that all three were derived from a common original: but the supposition of any of the Evangelists copying from the other is irreconcilable with. the smaller quantity of important matter which one Evangelist supplies, compared with another; with the apparent disagreement between them; with the terms at once different and synonymous, in which the same thing is related by them; and with the different places assigned by them to the facts or discourses which they relate. On the other hand, the supposition of a common original, if it be alleged to have been written in the Greek language, leaves this verbal disagreement wholly unexplained; and, if it be stated to have been written in the Hebrew language, it is irreconcilable with their verbal agreement. Under these difficulties, the subject laboured when it engaged the attention of the celebrated German commentator Eichhorn. Mr. Marsh informs us that, in a Dissertation published in 1784. Eichhorn brought together the principal facts common to the three Gospels, and arranged them in 42 sections. poses that these facts related by all the Evangelists were originally contained in a common document in the Hebrew language; that the principal facts related by two Evangelists only, and occupying corresponding places in their Gospels, were additions in the copies of the common document used by those two Evangelists; and that the facts peculiar to one Evangelist were only in his own copy of the original document, or were added by himself from his own information. This hypothesis may account for the matter common to the three Evangelists, for the matter common to two of them, for the matter peculiar to one of them, and for their verbal disagreement: but in explaining their verbal coincidence it wholly fails. He sup Here the subject is taken up by Mr. Marsh. After a concise but pointed view of the state of the question, and of the different systems which have been offered to obviate the difficulties attending it, he proceeds to offer his own. He first presents the reader with a table of parallel and corresponding passages, arranged according to Eichhorn's plan. It consists of four divisions: the first containing examples of verbal agreement in the 42 sections common to all three; the second giving examples of verbal agreement in the sections common only to St. Matthew and St. Mark; the third affording an example of verbal agreement in the section common only to St. Mark and St. Luke; and the fourth displaying examples of verbal agreement " in the sections common only to St. Matthew and St. Luke. He omits those sections which supply no instances of verbal agreement; and of those in which such examples are to be found, he inserts only the parts containing them. Result of the preceding Statement. The preceding statement of parallel and coincident passages from the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, exhibits many very remarkable phænomena, which will be found of considerable use in determining the origiu and composition of our three first. Gospels. But before I point them out, I will propose, partly for the sake of perspicuity, partly for the sake of brevity, the following notation, which may be adopted in the description of these phæno mena. Let denote all those parts of the XLII. general sections, which are contained in all three Evangelists. a denote the additions made to & in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, but not in that of St. Luke. ẞ the additions made to St. Luke, but not in y the additions made to in the Gospels of St. Mark and that of St. Matthew. in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, but not in that of St. Mark.. In the preceding Table of parallel passages, &, with the additions a, B, y, belong to the First Division. A whole sections found in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, but not in that of St. Luke. These belong to the Second Division. B whole sections found in the Gospels of St. Luke, but not in that of St. Matthew. to the Third Division. Mark and St. These belong I whole sections found in the Gospels of St. Matthew and These belong x + x + x +A+r 8 + a + B + A+B λ + B + y + B + r besides those parts which each Evangelist has pe culiar to himself. This notation being adopted, I will now point out the several remarkable phænomena in the verbal agreement and disagreement of our three first Gospels, and arrange them in the order of the four divisions above stated. First Division: containing, with the Additions a, B, y. a). We meet with several examples in which all three very very numerous, and contain in general only one or two, b). The examples of verbal agreement in between St. d). But in no instance throughout does St. Mark fail ). There are frequent instances of verbal agreement in between St. Mark and St. Luke: though they are neither so numerous nor so long, as those between St. Matthew and St. Mark. f). Upon the whole, the examples of verbal disagreement between St. Mark and St. Luke are much more numerous than the examples of agreement: yet through. out all St. Mark never fails to agree verbally with St. Luke, where St. Matthew agrees verbally with St. Luke. 8). In several sections, St. Mark's text agrees in one b). There is not a single instance of verbal coincidence 2. In a St. Matthew and St. Mark agree verbally in several instances, as may be seen on turning to Sect. 1. XIV. XXI. XXXV. XXXVIII. XLI. XLII. On the other haud, in the longest and the most remarkable of all the additions a (Matth. xiv. 3-12. Mark, vi. 17-29.) they relate the same thing throughout in totally different words. 4 3. In ẞ I have discovered only one instance of verbal agreement between St. Mark and St. Luke, and that a very short one, namely, Mark x. 15. Luke xvili. 17. in Sect. xxvi. This is the more remarkable, as the additions B are very 4. numerous. In y the relation, which St. Matthew's Gospel bears to that of St. Luke, is very different from that, which the two Gospels hear to each other in: for in y there are instances of very remarkable verbal coincidence. See Sect. 1. 111. XXXI. • Second Division: containing A. In A, the relation, which St. Matthew's Gospel bears to that of St. Mark, in respect to verbal agreement, continues the same, as it was in and a, as may be seen on turning to the examples quoted in this division. Third Division: containing B. In B, the relation, which St. Mark and St. Luke bear to each other is very different from that, which they bear to each other in &, and is similar to that, which they bear to each other in 8. For among the sections peculiar to St. Mark and St. Luke, these two Evange lists agree verbally in no other place, than a single passage of the first section; and even there, in all that precedes and follows that passage, St. Mark and St. Luke relate the same thing in very different words. • Fourth Division: containing . In F, the relation, which the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke bear to each other, is the very reverse of that, which they bear to each other in, and is similar to that which they bear in y, as may be seen on turning to the examples quoted in the Fourth Division. These facts being admitted, we have a certain criterion, by which we may judge of every hypothesis on the origin of our three first Gospels for it is obvious that whatever supposition be the true one, it must account for all these phænomena; and that a supposition, if it does not account for these phænomena, cannot be the true one.' Mr. Marsh then discusses the supposition that the succeeding Evangelists copied from the preceding; shews the various forms in which this conjecture may be placed; examines the chief of them separately; and exposes its fallacy by convincing arguments. He next in like manner investigates the Proposition of a Common Document; and he manifests that the result is quite unfavourable to that supposition, according to any of the forms hitherto delivered. He then, in the following words, announces his own hypothesis: St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, all three, used copies of the common Hebrew document: the materials of which St. Matthew, who REY. FEB. 1802. N wrote wrote in Hebrew, retained in the language, in which he found them, but The author now proceeds to shew, at length, that the hypo- In this article, we believe that our readers will have found an accurate account of Mr. Marsh's system: but they must be sensible that, on a subject of such a nature, it will not be fair for them to pronounce without having first perused the whole work; and, in order to be completely masters of it, they must afford it a very attentive perusal:- because, though Mr. Marsh treats the subject at length, and in an extremely methodical manner, yet it necessarily happens that the thread of the discussion is often very finely spun. We cannot dismiss these volumes without taking notice of the very indifferent paper on which they are printed. This country has indeed of late experienced an extraordinary scarcity and dearness of that article of manufacture, but we hardly recollect to have seen an English book make so coarse an appear. ance as this work exhibits. *This is the word adopted by Mr. Marsh to express the remarkable circumstances which he is discussing. We do not say that we altogether approve such an application of it. But..r. ARTO |