But with all their similarity in matter and style, each of the Gospels, above all the fourth,
has its peculiarities, answering to the personal character of its author, his special design, and the
circumstances of his readers. The several evangelists present the infinite fulness of the life and
person of Jesus in different aspects and different relations to mankind; and they complete one
another. The symbolical poesy of the church compares them with the four rivers of Paradise, and
with the four cherubic representatives of the creation, assigning the man to Matthew, the lion to
Mark, the ox to Luke, and the eagle to John.
The apparent contradictions of these narratives, when closely examined, sufficiently solve
themselves, in all essential points, and serve only to attest the honesty, impartiality, and credibility
of the authors. At the same time the striking combination of resemblances and differences stimulates
close observation and minute comparison, and thus impresses the events of the life of Christ more
vividly and deeply upon the mind and heart of the reader than a single narrative could do. The
immense labor of late years in bringing out the comparative characteristics of the Gospels and in
harmonizing their discrepancies has not been in vain, and has left a stronger conviction of their
independent worth and mutual completeness.
Matthew wrote for Jews, Mark for Romans, Luke for Greeks, John for advanced Christians;
but all are suited for Christians in every age and nation.^876 The first Gospel exhibits Jesus of Nazareth
as the Messiah and Lawgiver of the kingdom of heaven who challenges our obedience; the second
Gospel as the mighty conqueror and worker of miracles who excites our astonishment; the third
Gospel as the sympathizing Friend and Saviour of men who commands our confidence; the fourth
Gospel as the eternal Son of God who became flesh for our salvation and claims our adoration and
worship, that by believing in him we may have eternal life. The presiding mind which planned this
fourfold gospel and employed the agents without a formal agreement and in conformity to their
talents, tastes, and spheres of usefulness, is the Spirit of that Lord who is both the Son of Man and
the Son of God, the Saviour of us all.
Time Of Composition.
As to the time of composition, external testimony and internal evidence which modern
critical speculations have not been able to invalidate, point to the seventh decade of the first century
for the Synoptic Gospels, and to the ninth decade for the Gospel of John.
The Synoptic Gospels were certainly written before a.d. 70; for they describe the destruction
of Jerusalem as an event still future, though nigh at hand, and connect it immediately with the
glorious appearing of our Lord, which it was thought might take place within the generation then
living, although no precise date is fixed anywhere, the Lord himself declaring it to be unknown
even to him. Had the Evangelists written after that terrible catastrophe, they would naturally have
made some allusion to it, or so arranged the eschatological discourses of our Lord (Matt. 24; Mark
13; Luke 21) as to enable the reader clearly to discriminate between the judgment of Jerusalem and
the final judgment of the world, as typically foreshadowed by the former.^877(^876) This characterization is very old, and goes back to Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen 33, where he enumerates the books of the
New Test., and says;
Ματθεῖος μὲν ἔγραψεν Ἑβραίοις θαύματα Χριστοῦ,
Μάρκος δ̓ Ἰταλίῃ, Λουκᾶσ Ἀχαιίδι
Πᾶσι δ’ Ἰωάννης κήρυξ μέγας , οὐρανοφοίτης.
(^877) See on this subject Fisher’s Beginnings of Christianity, ch. XI.: "Water marks of Age in the New Test, Histories," pp. 363
sqq., especially p. 371.
A.D. 1-100.