In the March issue of the Testimony, “J.B.” drew attention to what has the appearance of an obvious discrepancy between the accounts commencing Matt. 9: 18, and Luke 8: 41, which record the raising from the dead of the Ruler’s Daughter ; the account in each case being interrupted by the healing of the Woman who had suffered from an Issue of Blood 12 years. The point was that the latter miracle being found in each account would seem to be clear proof that in recording the miracle of the Ruler’s Daughter, Matthew and Luke were dealing with the same event. Consequently, the diversities of detail found between the two accounts of the latter miracle, constitute the “discrepancy” mentioned.
The matter arose out of the article The Christ of Luke, by Fred Bilton, in the November issue, p. 346, where the writer, after outlining the points of difference in the two accounts, advanced the view, based upon those very points of difference, that we have there independent records of two separate events. To the objection by J.B. that the interrupting miracle, which is common to the two accounts, would seem to prove they dealt with the same things, F.B. replied in the March issue, page 95, that although performed in response to requests made apparently about the same time, on the same journey, by rulers, each with a daughter, who was raised from the dead, which work was in each case interrupted by a woman having the same complaint, for the same number of years—yet, in spite of that formidable array of coincidental circumstances, we were to understand that other circumstantial differencies, which he outlined, strongly suggest, if they do not compel, the belief that there were two women healed on this journey in peculiarly parallel circumstances. This would leave us free to understand there were two Ruler’s Daughters raised also, as the accounts in that case could be understood as not being of the same events, and their differences would thus cease to be “discrepancies.”
As a footnote to the discussion of this Problem, we should like to remark that however unlikely, even extremely so, such a duplication of a “double miracle,” presenting such nearly parallel features, may be, the mind convinced by so many infallible proofs of the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, will still be prepared, in face of all balance of probabilities against it, to accept such a reasonable, if surprising, statement of the case, which indicates a way in which two Scripture passages can be understood harmoniously, rather than to retain a view which followed to its logical consequence, reduces the Gospels to ordinary, fallible human records, contradictory in detail and consequently utterly valueless and fraudulent—which position would present far more problems than we should care ever to be faced with in this Section ! The miracles of unbelief would tax our credulity infinitely more than the reception of one case of duplicated double miracle.
Upon the possibility of such a duplication of events, which seem unlikely almost to the point of incredibility, we should like to direct the attention of readers to the account of an actual case in the life of Dr. Thomas, and to an obscure reference to the matter by Robert Roberts which had every appearance of error, and yet was true to fact ! The bearing of this upon alleged discrepancies in Scripture is remarked upon by our contributor Islip Collyer in his article Dr. John Thomas (XXII.) in this issue, p. 99, the appearance of which whilst this matter was before us, itself constitutes something in the nature of a remarkable coincidence.
The Solution