our own want of appreciation of those facts, a want of appreciation only too aptly illustrating our constant forgetfulness of the abiding truth enshrined in the quaint words of an old Poet': "Yet all these were, when no man did them know; 1 Spenser, Faery Queene, Introd. to Book II. CHAPTER II. THE DISPLACED SECTION OF S. LUKE. THE mere assertion that all the four Gospels can be brought into perfect accord by the rectification of a single error in one of them, implies that this error must be of a highly exceptional character, and that from the circumstances of the case-there being three correct narratives by which to test the one supposed to have been tampered with it must be possible to produce an amount of evidence, shewing that the error either was or was not made, which shall be overwhelmingly strong. The motive for the supposed displacement of the text was, as will be shewn, to avoid an appearance of contradiction between S. Mark and S. Luke, an object which would be at once attained by taking what now stands as Luke xi. 14-xiii. 21 out of its original position before Luke viii. 22 (see Table, p. xiv.), and inserting it, as a sort of Appendix, after what was probably regarded as the end of the Galilæan Ministry, i.e. after what now stands as Luke viii. 22— xi.-13. It may be well to mention here parenthetically that the idea of S. Luke's Gospel having consisted of three parts, the first part ending with the Galilæan Ministry, and the second consisting of an appendix to the first, was suggested many years ago, so that, supposing it should be possible to prove the real nature of the original error, it would be interesting to note how closely students have for years been as it were upon its track. In his Ordo Saclorum (p. 638) Mr Brown says, "I regard this portion of S. Luke's Gospel-Luke xi. 1-xviii. 14— in the light of an appendix, or episode, in which, at the close of the detailed history of the ministry in Galilee, the Evangelist brings together a number of incidents, conversations, and discourses, some perhaps belonging to the time of that journey, others certainly to earlier occasions, connected however throughout by a unity of purpose, which seems to consist in a prevailing allusion, symbolical or prophetical, to the mystery of the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles." Now if for Luke xi. 1–xviii. 14 Mr Brown had written Luke xi. 14—xiii. 21, his suggestion would simply be that S. Luke had himself designedly done that, which our contention is has indeed demonstrably been done by some one, but which must have been done either by a copyist or by revisers, inasmuch as, for reasons which will be stated, it could not by any possibility have been done by S. Luke himself. It may also be well here to remind the reader of the fact, that no portion of the Gospel history has given rise to anything like the number and variety of 'theories' which have been suggested in explanation of the difficulties and contradictions, which this part of S. Luke's Gospel, as it stands now, admittedly involves. The extent to which this statement is true may be illustrated by the single fact, that one of the most recent and exhaustive critical commentaries on the Gospels, that of Mr Mc Clellan, discusses no fewer than ten chief 'schemes,' all supported by many honoured names, by which it has been thought that one only out of many 'groups' of these 'difficulties' may be, if not disposed of, at least minimized. One other consideration, tending to shew the primâ facie probability of the existence of some fundamental error in the text not attributable to S. Luke himself, may also be fairly adduced, viz. this, that, save in the portion of his Gospel affected by the error suggested, S. Luke is in absolute and uniform accord with S. Mark and S. John, the uniformity stopping at Luke viii. 21 and recommencing at Luke xiii. 22, the exact limits within which the two sections in question are comprised. On the other hand, it is an equally demonstrable fact, that, the suggested error being corrected, the section of S. Luke's Gospel which lies between these points no longer proves any exception to this otherwise invariable. agreement. Or, to put the same fact somewhat differently, let the supposed displacement be corrected, and not only do all difficulties in S. Luke disappear, but his own express declaration as to an 'order'-presumably chronological order being the main characteristic of his Gospel, is found to be exactly and literally fulfilled; whilst his design of testifying to the "truthfulness of the Gospels" in which Theophilus was instructed becomes no less conspicuous. But, however desirable the correction of the suggested error may thus seem to be, we have still to bear in mind the very startling fact, that the correction must affect, not only about one-fourth of the whole of S. Luke's Gospel, but, directly or indirectly, considerably more than half of the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark; whilst the effect which it produces on S. John's Gospel, though not so wide. reaching, is scarcely less important. Under these circumstances let us try to imagine what would be an amount of evidence which would be sufficient to leave no reasonable room for doubt, in the mind of any impartial critic, as to the certainty of the error having been. made, and the consequent necessity for rectifying it, and then see whether, or how far, such evidence is really forthcoming. Let it then be required to prove 1. That the text affected by the displacement is, as it now stands, a falsification of S. Luke's promise to write ' in order,' and that it constitutes the only exception to his fulfilment of this promise. 2. That, according to a literal interpretation of his preface, S. Luke proposes to write 'in order' for the special purpose of clearing up certain apparent inaccuracies in those Gospels in which Theophilus had been instructed, presumably those of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. John, and that this purpose is exactly fulfilled throughout the greater part of his Gospel, and would be fulfilled by the whole of it were this displacement rectified. 3. That, by the received arrangement of his text, S. Luke is made to contradict himself. 4. That a sufficient cause to account for the alleged displacement is to be found in the flagrant contradiction which S. Luke's text, as ex hypothesi it originally stood, would at first sight appear to present to that of S. Mark. H. G. g |