Ministry, John the Baptist, the Baptism, the Temptation, CHAP. III. the return to Galilee, the preaching in Galilee, the journey to Jerusalem, the entrance into Jerusalem and the preaching there, the Passion, the Resurrection-such is the common outline which they all present, and the same relative order of the subordinate incidents is always preserved by St Mark and St Luke, and also by St Matthew with the exception of some of the earlier sections. The most remarkable differences lie in the presence of a long series of events connected with the Galilæan ministry, which are peculiar to St Matthew and St Mark', and a second series/ of events connected with the journey to Jerusalem, which is peculiar to St Luke'.

Nor is the obvious similarity of the synoptic Gospels 2. In incident. confined to their broad outlines. The incidents with which their outlines are filled up are often identical and always similar. The absolute extent of this coincidence of incident admits of a simple representation by numbers; and though the relations which are given are only approximately true, they convey a clearer notion of the nature of the phenomenon than any general description. The proportion may be exhibited in several modes, and each method places the truth in a new light.

If the total contents of the several Gospels be represented by 100, the following table is obtained3:

From this it appears that the several Gospels bear almost exactly an inverse relation to one another, St Mark

CHAP. III and St John occupying the extreme positions, the propor

tion of original passages in one balancing the coincident passages in the other. If again the extent of all the coincidences be represented by 100, their proportionate distribution will be':

Or if we follow another principle of comparison and take the whole number of distinct sections in the synoptic Evangelists as 150 approximately, the peculiarities and concordances of the Gospels may be thus exhibited:

The relations thus obtained harmonize on the whole with the former, but it appears that in regard to their mutual connexions the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark have a much greater similarity of subject, and those of St Matthew and St Luke a somewhat greater similarity in the mere extent of coincidence, than conversely. Other interesting combinations might be obtained from an examination of the range of greatest coincidence and most distinctive peculiarities; but looking only at the general result it may be said that of the contents of the synoptic Gospels about two-fifths are common to the three, and that the parts peculiar to one or other of them are little more than onethird of the whole. In St Mark there are not more than four and twenty verses to which parallels do not exist in St Matthew or St Luke, though St Mark exhibits every

1 Compare Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, 1. 373 ff.

where traits of vivid detail, which are peculiar to his CHAP. 111.

narrative.

guage.

It is not, however, enough to consider general coin- 3. In lancidences of substance and subject. Such a view conveys a false and exaggerated view of the likeness between the Gospels. In spite of their general resemblance they are severally distinct in style and effect. The identity of range is combined with difference of treatment: peculiarities of language with unity of scope. The verbal coincidences between the different Gospels, while in themselves sufficiently remarkable, are yet considerably less than might appear from the popular statement of the facts. The passages common to St Matthew and some other of the synoptic Gospels form a little more than four-sevenths of the whole, but the corresponding verbal coincidences are less than one-sixth. In the other Gospels the proportion of verbal coincidences is still less. Those in St Luke form about one-tenth, and in St Mark about one-sixth of the whole Gospels, while the general coincidences form respectively about two-fifths, and thirteen-fourteenths'. Thus the approximate relation between the general and verbal coincidences of the Gospels may be represented tabularly:

tion of verbal

peculiar.

Nor is this all: in the distribution of the verbal coin- The distribu cidences a very simple law is observable. They occur coincidences most commonly in the recital of the words of our Lord or of others, and are comparatively rare in the simple narrative. Thus of the verbal coincidences in St Matthew about seven-eighths, of those in St Mark about four-fifths, and of those in St Luke about nineteen-twentieths occur in the record of the words of others.

If again these verbal coincidences are further analyzed several interesting results are obtained. In the passages

1 For these proportions I am indebted to Mr Norton, l. c.

CHAP. III.

common to all these Evangelists about one-sixth consists of verbal coincidences, and of these one-fifth occurs in the narrative, and four-fifths in the recitative parts. In the same sections the additions common to St Matthew and St Mark contain five-sixths of their verbal coincidences in the recitative portions; and those common to St Mark and St Luke', and St Matthew and St Luke, with two unimportant exceptions, present no verbal coincidence except in such portions2. In the sections common to two Evangelists a similar law prevails. The verbal coincidences between St Matthew and St Luke are very numerous in the recital of our Lord's words, but the coincidences in the narrative cannot be rated at more than one-hundredth part of the others. Only one instance of verbal coincidence occurs in the numerous sections common only to St Mark and St Luke, and in this the coincidences in the narrative to those in the recitative part are as five to one. In the sections common to St Matthew and St Mark alone a different proportion obtains. In these the verbal coincidences in the narrative part are somewhat more than one-third of the whole number; but it is remarkable that in one importan section (Mark vi. 17-29; Matt. xiv. 3-12) the only trace of a verbal coincidence occurs in the words ascribed to John the Baptist.

But in order to give these proportions only their due force, account must be taken of the proportion which the narrative and recitative parts of the Gospels bear to one another. Roughly then it may be said that the narrative in St Matthew forms about one-fourth of the Gospel, in St Mark about one-half, in St Luke about one-third. If

1 The most remarkable similarities of fact and differences of language occur in Mark v. 3 ff.; Luke viii. 27 ff.

2 One important observation was made by Marsh (Michaelis, Introd. to New Testament, v. 317), that when

St Matthew and St Luke verbally agree in the common sections St Mark always agrees with them also. There is not a single instance of a verbal agreement in these sections between St Matthew and St Luke only.

these proportions are combined with the aggregate of co- CHAP. III. incidences in the several Gospels, and the contents of each Gospel represented by 100, the following table is ob

Or, in other words, verbal coincidences are more frequent in the recitative than in the narrative portions of St Matthew, in the proportion (nearly) of 12: 5, of St Mark, of 4: 1, and of St Luke, of 9: 1.

tion of the

must also

distribution.

The general harmony and distinctness of the results The explana which have been obtained by these various analyses shews concordances that they must be taken into account in considering the explain their general problem of the concordances of the Synoptists. There is a marked difference between the composition of the recitative and narrative parts of the Gospels. In the former there is a prevailing unity, in the latter an individual style. The transition from the one to the other is often clear and decided, and the most remarkable coincidences are, in several instances, prefaced by the most characteristic differences. It is evident then that the problem involves two distinct conditions, and a satisfactory solution must account not only for the general similarity which the Gospels exhibit in their construction and contents, but also for the peculiar distribution of their verbal coincidences. Any theory which leaves one or other of these points unexplained must be considered inadequate and untrue.

ences in the

respond with

The difference in language between the narrative and (8) The differrecitative parts of the Gospels points the way to those Gospels corcharacteristic peculiarities by which they are respectively their con marked, which are, as has been already said, scarcely less striking than their general likeness. The three records are distinct as well as similar in plan, and incident, and

cordances.