A little attention to this class of facts will obviate many difficulties which appear insur mountable to the careless reader.
(5) Change in Meaning of Terms. All living languages are flexible, and in the course of the centuries the meaning of many words has been changed in the English tongue, and hence the value of the Hebrew and Greek texts. In Ps. cxix :147 we read : "I prevented (or preceded) the morning; I hoped in thy word." The Sep tuagint renders this passage: "I arose before it was morning," etc. When King James' version was issued, one of the meanings of "let" was to hinder, as in Romans i :13. And other obsolete terms need examination in order that they may not obscure the meaning.
(6) New Facts, Etc., Mentioned. One writer mentions facts omitted by others. This is es pecially true concerning the Gospels, for in this case we have four different authors, each of whom gives us more or less of the particulars pertain ing to the life of the Christ.
Although these books were written during the first century, it was not until Christianity had been propagated through a great portion of the known world on the testimony of thousands of eye-witnesses to some of the principal facts which these writers record. It was not until many of the followers of Christ had sealed their testimony with their blood, not probably, until after Nero had lighted his gardens with fires made by wrao ping living Christians in garments covered with pitch (about A. D. 64).
file writing of these books by this time be came a necessity in order that the principal events recorded therein might not be perverted by tra dition; and it is certain that they could not have been thus presented to that generation, and ac cepted by those who were cognizant of the great tragedy, either of their own knowledge or that of their personal friends, unless the books had been both genuine and authentic.
The opening verses of the Gospel by Luke in dicate that at that time there were already many incomplete histories of our Lord, and the variety evinced in the work of the four evangelists show that they wrote entirely independent of each other. There is no intimation even of arrangement, and evidently no collusion between these witnesses. Their testimony, therefore, is that which comes under the head of the very best criterion of hu man testimony, viz.: substantial truth under cir cumstantial variety. For instance. John speaks of Mary Magdalene as coming early to the sepul cher (John xx lie does not say that she came alone, but speaks of her as the actor in the events immediately following. Matthew not only
speaks of her, but adds that "the other Mary was with her" (Matt. xxviii:t).
Mark speaks of Mary Magdalene, the "other Mary," mentioned by Matthew, and adds the name of another of the little group (Mark xvi :I). Luke mentions the names of three, and adds that "other women" were with them (Luke xxiv:to). Thus he endorses the testimony of the others and adds to it.
Again Luke speaks of "a certain blind man who sat by the wayside . . . And he cried, saying, 'Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy upon me'" (Luke xviii:35, 38).
Matthew does not mention this incident, but speaks of Iwo blind men who besought him, ap parently on the same day (Matt. xx :3o). The first event occurred according to Luke, when they were approaching Jiricho, while the one which Matthew records took place "as they de parted from Jericho." Cases like the above, and many others, indicate the necessity of studying the connection of the texts under consideration. We also find that Matthew speaks of "a woman of Canaan" who besought Jesus to have mercy upon her daughter (Matt. xv:22), while Mark. in recording the same circumstance, says that the woman "was a Greek. a Syro-Plrnician by na tion" (Mark vii :26). Syro-Phcenicia being at this time a province of the former Greek but now Roman government, and inhabited largely by the descendants of Canaan, all of these statements were undoubtedly true.
Another illustration of the wonderful evidence of substantial truth under circumstantial variety is found in the fact that one writer speaks of the ascension of Christ as if it occurred on "the Mount called Olivet" (Acts 12), while Luke gives us to understand that he ascended from Bethany (Luke xxiv :5o). Both statements arc true because Bethany was situated on the slope of "the Mount called Olivet." Thus we find that a little study solves these problems and shows the wonderful unity of these independent witnesses, some of whom mentioned circumstances which were omitted by the others. No one of the writers of the New Testament claimed to give a full account of the life, death aid resurrection of our Lord. Indeed John dis tinctly states that "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book" (John xx :3o). But the glimpses which we here and there find of the liv ing, loving and glorified Christ arc quite enough to bring us to him, if we live out his teachings to the children of men. E. A. R.