gospels.  The first three gospels contain indications that Jesus must have visited Judea before the close of his life.  They give no hint, however, of the time or circumstances of such earlier Judean labor.  In giving the emphasis they do to the work in Galilee, they present a one-sided picture.  When, therefore, we find in John a narrative of work in Judea, confirmed by hints in the other gospels, we may justly assume that the arrangement which fills out the ministry of Jesus by inserting at the proper places in Mark’s record the events found in John is essentially true.

41.  The consideration of the one-sidedness of Mark’s narrative simplifies the problem of harmony, but it does not solve all of the perplexities.  Matthew and Luke have much matter, some of it narrative, which Mark has not, and for which he suggests no place.  Where shall we put, for instance, the cure of the centurion’s servant (Matt. viii. 5-13; Luke vii. 1-10), or John the Baptist’s last message (Matt. xi. 2-19; Luke vii. 18-35)?  It would simplify matters if we could take Luke’s statement that he had “traced the course of all things accurately from the first” (Luke i. 3), as indicating that he had arrived at exact certainty concerning the order of events of Jesus’ life.  It is probable, however, that his statement was simply a claim that he had carefully gathered material for a record of the whole life of Jesus, from the annunciation of his birth to his ascension.  While we may believe that some trustworthy tradition led him to give the place he has to many of the incidents which he adds to Mark’s story, it seems impossible to follow him in all respects; for instance, in severing the account of the blasphemy of the Pharisees (xi. 14-36) from the place which it holds in Mark (iii. 19-30).

42.  Still more uncertainty exists concerning the historic connection of teachings of Jesus to which Matthew and Luke give different settings; for example, the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. vi. 9-15; Luke xi. 1-4), and the exhortations against anxiety (Matt. vi. 25-34; Luke xii. 22-31).  We have seen that much of the teaching common to these gospels is probably derived from the collection of the “oracles” of the Lord made by the apostle Matthew.  Everything that we can infer concerning such a collection of oracles indicates that, while some of the teachings may have been connected with particular historic situations (compare Luke xi. 1), many would altogether lack such introductory words.  A later example of what such a collection may have been has come to light recently in the so-called “Sayings of Jesus,” discovered in Egypt and published in 1897.  In these the occasion for the teaching has been quite lost; the sole interest centres in the fact that Jesus is supposed to have said the things recorded.  If Matthew’s book contained such “logia” or “oracles,” it is probable that the original connection in which most of them were spoken was a matter of no concern to the apostle, and consequently has been lost This