# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1886_S20
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

20 Proceedings of the eleventh convention

in advance that the holy writers could not be impartial in their reports, especially regarding the death of their Master on the cross. This conception leads consistently to the conclusion that a report from Pilate would have been of greater weight, because he was not so inflamed by passion.

When one now hears how unprejudiced these theologians present themselves and how prejudiced they consider us, it will be advisable to take a somewhat closer look at this scholarly unprejudiced attitude. One will then find that the vaunted unprejudiced attitude is by no means far-reaching. Scholarly unprejudicedness led Schenkel to the assumption that the Gospels arose from an original Gospel (*Urevangelium*) which all the authors of the three synoptic Gospels had used. This view, which has been called the "baby-talk of teething criticism," other scholarly unprejudiced men have rejected as untenable, and have asserted instead that the Evangelists wrote one after another, and that the later always knew the earlier and tried to correct him. But where scholarly unprejudicedness has led here is remarkable. In answering the question which was now the first, which the second, and which the third, six different groupings of the three Synoptists were possible. And how many of these groupings do we find represented? All. Here they are:

1. Matthew the first, Mark the second, Luke the third.

2. Matthew the first, Luke the second, Mark the third.

3. Mark the first, Matthew the second, Luke the third.

4. Mark the first, Luke the second, Matthew the third.

5. Luke the first, Matthew the second, Mark the third.

6. Luke the first, Mark the second, Matthew the third.

After this we shall presumably be more content with our own prejudice.

Unfortunately, however, matters stand no differently in essence with the positive theologians than with the liberal ones. They are all, if one looks closely, prejudiced in this respect, in unbelief. This appears very clearly in Rothe when he writes: "My soul knows nothing of this, that I should want to press those who historically already stand in possession of the revelation to accept its miraculous origin, and that I should make my confidence in their faithfulness depend on this acceptance. It is already something great if only the light of revelation shines for such persons, if the Christian ideas have dawned on them, and the main thing is that in the shining of this sun they walk their way in life. If they stumble over the miracles, I say to them: Friends, I will not force the belief in miracles upon you, beneficia non obtruduntur [benefits are not forced upon anyone]. If you cannot find your way to the miracles, well then, put them aside. You may then see for yourselves how you get along without them with the