Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1885-05-15
UNITY IN
The Differences in the Gospel Records
Evidences of the Writers Truthfulness-
How the Four Accounts Wonderfully
Support Each Other.

Evidences of the Writers Truthfulness-
How the -Four Accounts Wonderfully
Support Each Other.
It is an argument familiar to all law
yers, that absence of formal harmony
between witnesses is a stronger proof of
their truthfulness than exact and minute
harmony. Indeed, where the latter
popularity is strongly manifested there
is often room to suspect collision.
If any characteristic is prominent in
the three synoptical evangelists-Mat-
thew, Mark and Luke-it is unstudied
frankness. They relate sometimes COM
mon facts, sometimes independent ones.
In neither case is there the least APP
pearance of eXaggeration. Good and
bad deeds are left to speak for them
selves, and the personality of the his
torian is very seldom obtruded; his
special ideas are predictions never.
The author of the fourth Gospel, writ
ing at least third of a century later,
describes his Master from a different
point of view, and portrays His private
life as non but the beloved disciple
could do. Had some second century
writer attempted the task, as skeptics
pretend, he would have overloaded his
narrative with rhetorical g%eneralities,
as all the writer's 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-
garding the thieves cruclfied with
Christ. The seeming contradictions
are, however, strong proofs of the in
tegrlty OF its writer. Had he been an
impostor, or eve one of those piously
fraudulent authors, who sought to gain
an apostolic authority for his own COM
position, he would carefully have
avoided all dlscordance with the already
accepted Gospels. The supposed dis
crepancy becomes a manifestation of
thorough honesty the moment we dis
cover-as we are sure to do after can
did comparison-that the fourth Gospel
forms a needed sequel to, and in general
thoroughly agrees with, the s%ynoptics.
The honesty Of the four evangelists is
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 a for.
gerry or fraud, was it ascribed not to
Peter, chief Of the apostles, to Philip o.
TO Andrew, but to Matthew, the pub.
!lcan, whose office was so odious to the
Jews? "0
No fair minded reader can study the
evangellsts without being impressed
with their integrity. After COMPARING
their records with the writings of Jews
greeks. Romans and uninspired Chris.
tlans OF their own and adjacent
centuries. he must feel that while max
ing no claims to literary culture or to en-
tenslve requirements, they are in
spirit, tone and temper immeasurahlv
superior to all their Contemporaries:
G has drawn a portrait which no
Jewish or heathen imagination could
suggest, and the unity of the fonr 1;Io'
nesses Is unmistakable. Yet difference
exists between their accounts of tho
same events. The d%iscordance ;s ny
generally important, unless we pres NJ
pose that inspiration involves a mp-
ehanieal copying from divine dictat;on
n has been assumed by intidnIs
deslrous OF magnifying mole hills into
mountains, and too hastily accented NV
theologians of a school now fast pass;ny
away. The inspiration of the Scrints
sres, properly defined, can easily be
established Whether harmonious or not.
they have proved, and may still he
proved the power of God unto the sal.