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]

1S7().~ J?o~i;'~ JC8?(8 Cf) ~/t-e ~~~~nj~e~~.s~~. &lf
in 1~ioof of liis posit on tI~at tl~e Divine i~an, instead of being
all ideal creation, ~~as a rea~ity, of ~4~icli each L~vat~gc}ist Jias
given a I)ortrait takei~ f~on~ a soine~vhat differci~t point of
vie NV rcqi~ires J~iii1 to establisli tile fact tl~at a snbstantial nnity
~ndeMics tlie ~lioJe portraitnre; lie proceeds to 5liONV~ ~`itii bis
cliaricteristic f~ilness and coiiclnsiveiiess of ieasoniHg, that tbe
~esns of' tl~e Gospels does present ns Nvith a siibstantial ui~ity
ill atl tlie iiinltiforni aspects in ~vliicli t}ie ~vaiigelists bold Iliin
iip tO C) U 1. VleNV.
Nu\v iii regard to all this, ~ve ~vonld reniarli, 1. TIi~t it is
to l~e regretted that iii connection ~vit1i ~1r. ~ONV~5 n~ctbod of
accunnting fur tlie diversities ~liicli ~e discover in tlie GuspOls, viz., that the5- are the ~vurli of a n~nltiplicity of iiiiiids, lie
inai~cs tlic }inrtfnl cuiieessiun that they contain son~e real diserepancies or inacenracies of historical statcn~ent. lie holds
an iiiisuuiid tlieui'y of inspiration. These eoncessioiis are
inure clc~irly and expressly n~ade in tlie last ehal)ter of liis
buufl- ~vliere lie slio\vs that the Gospels fiilfil the historical
euiiditiuns on ~vliieh they ai~e based. ~ATJiether tlie Synopties
are ~~uinpared Nvith each other or ~vitli the funrtli Gospel, it
can nut he proved that ally stateiiient cuiitaiiicd iii one is really
incoiisistcnt M~ltli any ~-hich is n~ade in the others. 2. There
are ccrtai nly apparent disagreements in tlie foar ii arratives.
it is vemy probahie that there ~-as at first an oral Gospel, bnt
there are other n~etliods fur satisfactorily aeeonnting for these
apparent variations besides the one ~vliic}i tlie antlior ninintaiiis that it is necessary for 115 to adopt. ~Are shonid probably
be ahte to explain niost of them by distingnishing hct~veen
mere jaxtaposition in tlie record, and iinn~ediate ebronological
snecession. 3. ~ir. i~o~v's argament is, that if ~-e assnine
that inaiiy persons Nvere engaged in the prodnetion of tiie Guspels, each acting independently of tlie other, then the fact that
tlie portraitnre in its innltifor~n aspects is a perfe~~t nnity,
proves that it belonged to one ~vlio really existed. ~nt tlie
naity is at least an argnment agailist the ~ny~/~ic tlieoThy ~-liether
tlie Gospels are snpposed really to be tlie work of ninny minds
or not. That theory is, that all tlie parts of the portraitnre
~-ere the creations of the iniagination of an immense nnmber
of ()hrist's delnded followers. As the inventors of the myths
vOL. XLn.-No. iv. 40