The Jesus of the Evangelists: His Historical Character Vindicated; or, an Examination of the Internal Evidence for our Lord's Divine Mission, with reference to Modern Controversy. By the Rev. C. A. Row, M. A. [pp. 586-612]

0)10 Low's Je~~t~ (7) lAe W~'U2~J(c7I8P. [()cTo~E~,
the ~iffeiei~t Ev~nge1isfs, tinited, as t}iey fieqneiitly aIC ~vitIi
tile etosest verbal ~ ~reen~ ei~ ts. Tii e vari'iti oils ~vere jntr~~~1 iced
iii the ecurse 0f the tr~nsiiiissi'o~i. " Tlie vast aiiiouiit of diver
sity~" he sqys, "` wl~ich our ~~~~~}~ present 115 ~~it1i, both in
theh' foi'in and aspect, coiistitutes a proof ~vhicli is absolutely
irres~sti}~le, that they are tiie ~vork of a u~u1tipli~~ity of fl~iil(l5.
No
sinole in in 4 nor cv cii sever~l iiiinds, could ii ave constrneted
four hi~tories, ~` hich could ii ave coi~tained tlie agreen~ents
uu~l disagrecinen ts, tiie saincuesses and variations, ~~hicli are
presented by our ~osi~cls."
Tile argument then is, that if ~e bud that the portraiture of
the Jesus is a perfect unity in all the aspects iii ~vhich it is de1~icted, then, inasniuch as it is the ~~ork of a niultipticity of
miiids acting without coiieei't, this unity proves flie truthfuln~ss
of' tlie portraiture, or that it is the portraiture of ouc wlio liad
an lii storical existence. Vn der such cirenuistanees, tli c assumptioii of its truthfuhiess is absolutely necessary to account for
its oneness, whereas its oiiencss cannot possil~ly be explained
if a multitude of inen working without concert ~flVcfltC(/ it.
Tlie advocates of tI~e ~uytbic theory as to tiie origin of tlie
poi'trait, also postulate a niultitude of persons for its produc
tioii, but they have no ~vay of explaining its unity, for they
dei~ry its trutbfii]ness. They may indeed contend tI~at ilicre
was no unity iii tlie various coiiceptions of tlie original por
trayers of tlie lEvangelical Christ but on the contrary irreconcilable diversihes, and they niay insinuate iliat when the four
Lvat~~elists undeftook to write their narratives they effaced
tlie diversities and imparted to the Jesus a certain degree of
unity. ~at tlie answer to this is, that tiie unity underlying
all and the niinutcst ptirtions of the narratives is of such a
character as to show that it was inherent in tlie nunicrous fictions out of which tlie ~4ospcls were composed, and if this was
tiic case they`vei'e not fictions.
~~s, then, tlie nature of ~Ir. Row's argument in this chapter
* In the October number of this Review, for 1848, there is a vory interesting
nrt.cie from the pen of nr. J. A. Alexander entitled. "The Gospel History." In
tlie course of the article lie gives the hypotheses of Elobborn, Schleierma&~er,
Uiesler, and Hug ofFreyburg, by means of whidi fl~ey attempt to account for the
resemblance and difference of the Gospels without denying the veracity of either,