Images de page
PDF
ePub

ministers of the Word, naturally made use of their writings; but as, according to the above statement, Matthew's Gospel existed in Greek, and Peter's memoir was not yet translated, his connection. with Matthew should be transcriptural, and with Mark, the translator of Peter, translational. Now, the agreements between Luke and the two preceding evangelists are exactly what this view of their origin would lead us to expect.

Matthew, in drawing up his Greek gospel, made use of Peter's memoir, afterwards translated by Mark-hence the agreement between Matthew and Mark is translational, with this exception, that Mark, in translating the original memoir of St Peter, naturally made much use of the previous translation of Matthew, in those portions of Matthew's Gospel which he had taken, without alteration, from the original; hence we should have, in the agreements between them, the phenomena of dependent as well as of independent translation. Now, there is much verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark, arising, I have no doubt, from this

cause.

These phenomena are, in fact, the phenomena of historical contemporaneity: they occur in all true contemporaneous accounts of events, where the actors speak a different language from that of the historians. We meet with them every day of our lives. Critical research is never applied to what is universally known; but if we subject the most contemporaneous of all historical narratives, namely, those given in the newspapers of the day, to the same critical process to which I am subjecting the Gospels, we cannot fail to meet with them all. Let us suppose the scene of the events to be in France. We find, in the different morning papers, independent translations of the French accounts; we find also accounts transmitted to each of the newspapers by their own correspondents-i. e., independent autoptical details; and in the evening papers we find accounts of the same events often agreeing verbatim with those in the morning papers, or the phenomena of transcription. It is almost superfluous to give examples of what every newspaper reader must know to be the case. I shall, however,

take as an example what I find in the newspapers of the day in which I am at present writing, (January 24, 1853.) They contain the speech of the Emperor of the French, announcing his intended marriage. In the Times and Morning Herald, morning

papers, it begins as follows:

TIMES.

"I yield to the wish so often manifested by the country, by coming to announce to you my marriage.

"The alliance which I contract is not

in accord with the traditions of
ancient policy; therein is its

advantage. France, by its successive
revolutions, has ever abruptly
separated from the rest of
Europe. Every wise government
ought to try to make it re-enter
in the pale of the old monarchies.
But this result will be more surely
attained by a more straightforward
and frank policy-by loyalty
in conduct than by royal
alliances, which create a false
security, and often substitute

family interests for those of the nation," &c.

MORNING HERALD.

"I yield to the wish so often manifested
by this country, by coming to announce
to you my marriage.

"The union which I contract is not
in accord with the traditions of
old policy; that is its
advantage. France, by its successive
revolutions, has always roughly
separated herself from the rest of
Europe. Every sensible government
ought to seek to make her re-enter
into the rank of the old monarchies.
But this result will be more surely
attained by a more straightforward
and candid policy, and by good faith
in all transactions, than by royal
alliances, which create false
security, and frequently substitute
family for national interests," &c.

We

The same passages in the Record, an evening paper, of the same date, are word for word the same as those in the Times. have here the phenomena of transcription and translation; who, then, can doubt that there has been a written original, in a different language, to account for the particular species of agreement which subsists between the two morning papers, or that the evening paper has copied from the Times?

Let us now select three independent contemporary historians, recording events to which they stand in nearly the same relation with respect to time and language, as the evangelists did to the events recorded by them.

Sir Archibald Alison, in his History of the French Revolution, relates the events of the Peninsular campaigns at about the same distance of time as St Luke did those recorded in his Gospel.

There is another English historian of the Spanish campaigns (General Napier), who, like St Matthew, relates historically a series of events partly from his own observation, partly from that of other officers who were engaged in them; and there is a third English work, entitled Memoirs of the War in Spain, by Marshal Suchet. This is exactly what I suppose the second Gospel to be; the translation of an autoptical memoir, written by one personally engaged in the transactions. In this last work there is no indication either on the title, or in the work itself, that it is a translation, neither does the author ever mention himself in the first person; yet, even independently of the title, a careful comparison of it with Alison's History would prove-1st, that it was translated from an original memoir in a foreign language; 2d, that it was the production of an eyewitness; 3d, that the original author was no other than Marshal Suchet. In like manner, a comparison of the works of Alison and Napier proves that, before Alison wrote, Napier's History existed in English, and was known and made use of by Alison as one of the authorities alluded to in his preface; and lastly, if we compare Napier with Suchet, it will be evident that he as well as Alison used the work of the latter as an authority.

Before proceeding with the proofs by which those propositions can be established, I would observe that it is much more difficult to make out the connection of modern authors than it is of the evangelists; because, in the former case, a regard to literary reputation tends to prevent verbal adherence to the authorities, except under particular circumstances-but the desire for literary distinction formed no part of the motives which actuated the evangelists. They never scrupled to transcribe or to translate literally, or to make use of previous translations when it suited their purpose.

I now proceed to show, by a comparison of parallel passages, that Suchet's Memoirs was made use of by Alison, and that it must have existed in another language when he used it.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

It is sufficiently evident that we have here two independent translations of the same original.

Let us now compare Alison's History with that of Napier. I select a passage from the account of the battle of Salamanca.

[blocks in formation]

NAPIER, vol. v. p. 176.

Then the changing current of the fight once more set for the British.

The third division continued to outflank
the enemy's left, Maucune abandoned
the French Arapeiles, Foy retired from
the ridge of Calvariza,

and the Allied host righting itself,
as a gallant ship after a sudden gust,
again bore onwards in blood and gloom;
for though the air, purified by the storm
of the night before, was peculiarly clear,
one vast cloud rolled

along the basin, and within it was the battle,
with all its sights and sounds of terror."

ALISON, Vol. XV. p. 65.

the steady courage of the Allies prevailed;

' and the Allied host righting itself,
like a gallant ship after a sudden gust,
again bore onwards in blood and gloom;
for though the air, purified by the storm
of the evening before, was peculiarly clear,
one vast cloud of smoke and dust rolled
along the basin, and within it was the battle,
with all its sights and sounds of terror.""

Had there been no other evidence than the foregoing extracts, they would have conclusively established two points: first, that Alison was acquainted with, and made use of, Napier's History; for there is nothing in Alison's account which is not either expressly mentioned in, or follows by legitimate inference from Napier's-on the other hand, there are many things in it which could not be taken from Alison; and, second, that both accounts were written in the same language, for there is an amount of verbal agreement which can only be accounted for upon that supposition. I shall now give examples illustrative of the connection of all the three historians.

[blocks in formation]
« PrécédentContinuer »