trines to suit his aim, and ascribes them to Jesus with no authority for so doing. Yet this Gospel, ascribed to John, one of the Sons of Thunder who appears in actual history, is full of deep religious feeling and thought,—in this its value consists, not at all in its report of matters-of-fact.
We come to the Synoptics; it is by no means clear when they were written, by whom, or with what documentary materials of history: most conflicting results are rested in by different scholars. Fact and fiction are mingled together in all these three Gospels as in the Apocryphal. Calling them by the names of their alleged Authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, the first seems to be the oldest of all; Luke appeals to come next in order; while Mark mediates between the two. But some critics place Mark before Luke in time
These three follow the same general tradition respecting the life, actions, and doctrines of Jesus, wherein they differ widely and irreconcilably from John. But the individual differences between the accounts of Matthew and Luke are equally remarkable and irreconcilable. In Matthew Jesus forbids his disciples to visit the Gentiles or the Samaritans, while in Luke he does miracles in Samaria; and the model of Christian excellence was found in that despised land. Luke relates the story of the Good Samaritan, and the Prodigal Son,—both probably founded on facts well known at the time,—which Matthew fails to report, and which Mark also neglects to copy into his compromising Gospel. If these two grand lessons of Religion came from Jesus, as there seems no reason to doubt, then what can be said for the historic fairness, or the competence, of the two biographers who omit such important facts? Either that they were grossly ignorant of his doctrines, or else culpably unjust. If Luke invented these noble passages, then the blame rests on him for violating the truth of history by putting their beauty and sublimity upon one who had no claim thereto.
These facts show the difficulty of reconstructing the doctrines of Jesus; for if one Gospel be taken as the historic standard, then much of the others must be thrown away. The results attained will depend on the subjective peculiarities of the inquirer, and so have the uncertainty of mere opinion, not the stability of historic knowledge.
