MARSH’S ILLUSTRATION 
‘were made in the several transcripts 
‘which were taken of it, and these addi- 
~ tions may have been added in the copy 
used by the Evangelist, or by the Evan- 
igelist himself.. With respect to the lan- 
rane in which the original document 
was written, he is. decidedly of opinion 
‘that it-;was Hebrew or Chaldee. A third 
‘class of critics have united both these 
hypotheses: Bolten, at Altona, in the 
year 1792, and Herder, at Riga, in 
1797. Bolten supposed that the Hebrew 
gospel of Matthew was the ground- 
work of our three first gospels: Herder, 
that the common document was oral. 
They both agree, amongst many points 
of difference, in maintaining that the 
‘Evangelists had recourse to each other’s 
pospel in composing their own. 
Bor not oneal ae hypotheses which 
had been hitherto framed, was:sufficient 
‘of itself to account for all the pheno- 
‘mena that occur in the three first gos- 
pels. . The supposition that the suc- 
ceeding Evangelists copied from the 
-preceding,-even if it accounts for the 
matter which is common to all the three 
Evangelists, and for the example of ver- 
-bal apreement, does not account either 
for the important matter which one 
Evangelist has less than another; or for 
«the examples of apparent disagreement; 
vor for the examples. in which the same 
‘thing is related in different, but synony- 
smous, terms. On the other hand, if 
‘we reject the supposition that the suc- 
ceeding Evangelists copied from the pre- 
ceding, and suppose that our three first 
Greek -gospels were derived from the 
ssame Greek document; this hypothesis, 
seven if it accounts both for the matter 
which the Evangelists haveim commen 
wwith each other, and for the matter 
ewhich they have not in common with 
seach other, and also for the examples 
of verbal agreement ; still leaves the 
‘mumerous examples, in which the Evan- 
lists relate the same things in different 
ut synonymous terms, wholly unex- 
Yplained. Further, if we adopt the hy- 
pothesis that our three first Greek ges- 
»pelsicontain three independent transla- 
tions of the same Hebrew or Chaldec 
eriginal, however well we may be able 
eal the other phenomena, we 
never be able to account for the 
\ 
a rous and long examples, in which 
imes St. Matthew and St. Mart, 
other times St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
word for word. And if, in order 
} ount for their verbal agreement, 
| 9We suppose tha tthe Evangelists used 
if 
OF THE HYPoTHesis, Ke. 13k 
their common document, not in its ori- 
ginal language, but only in a Greek 
translation; we shall be at a loss to ex- 
plain their frequent use, at other times 
not of the same, but of synonymons, 
expressions. Lastly, if we combine the 
hypothesis, that the Evangelists used a - 
common Hebrew document, with the 
hypothesis, that they had recourse like- 
wise the one to the writings of the other, 
we shall find that several phenomena, 
which are explicable by the former hy- 
pothesis alone, are rendered inexplicable 
by its junction with the latter. 
Such was the state of the controversy, 
when Mr. Marsh, as he informs us, sat 
down not to write, but to read; he 
examined all that had been written 
on every side, and found ‘no opinion 
that had been delivered tenable ; ‘he 
determined therefore to try whether new 
data might not be discovered, which 
might lead to something determinaté. 
With this view he formed a Greek har- 
mony of the three first gospels, divided 
‘into classes, and containing only such 
parallel passages as are delivered in the 
same, or nearly the same words. Hav- 
ing formed this table, the next step was 
to analyse it; and the result was the 
discovery of many very remarkable 
phenomena in the verbal harmony of 
the gospels, which till that time were 
totally unknown. 
He found, as Eichhorn had, that 
there were forty-two general sections 
contained in all the Evangelists ; that in 
these there are several examples, in 
which all the three gospels verbally coin- 
cide, but only for two or three sentences 
together ; that there are many very lon 
and very remarkable instances of verba 
agreement between Matthew and Mark, 
but only when the sections occupy the 
same place in each gospel; that Mark 
invariably agrees with Matthew, where 
Luke agrees also with Matthew. He 
likewise found, that inthese general sec« 
tions there are frequent instances of ver- 
bal agreement between Mark and Luke, 
though the instances of disagreement 
are more numerous; but that Mark in- 
variably agrees verbally with Luke,where 
Matthew agrees verbally with Luke. He 
discovered too that in several sections, 
Mark’s text agrees in one place with that 
of Matthew, and in another with that 
of Luke: and therefore appears at first 
sight a compound of both; but that 
there is not a single instance of verbal 
coincidence between Matthew and Luke 
only ; and, consequently, that no such 
K 2 
