Semi-weekly south Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1883-1889, 1885-08-28
international Sunday School Lessons.
HOW THEY VARY.

Tho Differences In the Gospel Records
Evidences of the Writers Truthrulness-
How the -Four Accounts wonderfully
support Each Other.
1t is an argument familiar to all law
ycrs, that absence of formal harmony
between witnesses is stronger proof oil
their truihfulness than exact and minute
harmony. Indeed, where the latter
peculiarly is strongly manifested there
is often room to suspect collision.
If any characteristic is prominent il
the three synoptical evangelists-Mat
thew, Mark and Luke it is unstudieG
frankness. They relate sometimes COM
mon facts, sometimes independent ones
In neither case is there the least ap.
pearauce of exaggeratlon. Good and
bad deeds are left to speak for them.
selves, and the personality of the his
torian is very seldom obtruded; hi
special ideas are predictions never
The author OF the fourth Gospel, writ.
ing at least third of century later.
describes his Master from different
POINT OF view. and pUrlrays His privat'
life as none but the beloved disciple
could do. Had some second century
writer attempted the task, rs skcptic:
pretend, he would have overloaded his
narrative with Rhetorical genetalties,
as all the writers of that century do.
Yet he is as simple in his own way as
his predecessors
Moreover, John is in apparent disa-
greement with the synoptics as to the
time OF the last supper, and in one or
two minor points. These differences
are as readily harmonized as those re
Garling the thieves crucllied with
Christ. The seeming contradictions
are, however, strong proofs Of the in
gritty OF lis writer. Had he been IN
impostor or even one of those piouslN
fraudulent authors, who sought to gain
an apostolic authority Tor his own COM
position, he would carefully have
avoided all discordance with the already
accepted Gospels. The supposed dis
crepancy becomes manifestation OF
thorough honesty the moment we dis
over-as we are sure TO do after can.
did comparison that the fourth Gospel
forms II needed sequel to, and in general
thoroughly agrees with, the synoptics.
The honesty of the four evangelisls i,
manifest from their internal character
istics. Neither shows any anxiety to
sustain or get support from the other,
Externally the evidence is equally
strong. Matthew, the Gospel about
which, next to John, there has been the
most cavil, was obviously intended for
jewish readers. Its aim was to con-
vince them that Jesus was The promised
Messiah, Why, then, if it were for
gerry or fraud, was it ascribed not to
Peter, chief of the apostles, to Philip OF
to Andrew, but TO Matthew, the pub.
lcan, whose office was so odious to the
JewsP
No fair minded reader can study the
cvangelists without being impressed
with their integrity. After comparing
their records with the writings of Jews,
Greeks, Romans and uninspired Chris
tians of their own and adjacent
centuries, he must feel that while max
ing no claims to literary culture or to ex-
tcnsiNe requirements, they are in
spirit, tone and temper UNNECESSARILY
super or to all their contemporaries
Each has drawn portrait which nc
Jewisi, or heather Imagination could
Suggest, and the unity of the four like
n ,sses i, unmistakable. Yet difference
exists between their accounts of the
same evcn;s. The discordance is not
generally important, unless we preslip.
pose that Inspiration involves me-
chan cal copying from divine dictation.
This has been assumed by infdels
DESTROYS of lnagnifying mole hills into
mountains, aud too hastily accepted by
theologianS o. II school now fast passing
away. The inspiration of the Script,
ures, propcrly defined, can easily be
established. Watcher harmonious or not
they have proved, and may still be