« ElőzőTovább »
ever the Roman empire had been established, may yet be some presumptive argument that this was translated, as St. Mark's was composed, at Rome. And the coincidence between them in the use of such remarkable words as αγγαρεύσαι, Φραγελλώσαι, κολοβάσαι, and the like, serves equally to render it probable that the translator of the one and the author of the other were the same. Nor is it an improbable conjecture, that this same person, besides being a Jew, and intimately familiar with Judea, might yet be a Roman citizen, or one of the order of Libertini, numbers of whom were resident at Rome. This supposition is in unison with the name of St. Mark, which at least is Roman, and not Jewish. Vol. I.
122-124. That Mark, 'the reputed convert of St. Peter,' and the author of the Gospel, was not the same person as John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, Mr. Greswell regards as decisively certain ; in which opinion he differs from Jer. Jones, Lightfoot, Wetstein, and Lardner. Cave, Grotius, Du Pin, and Tillemont are on his side.
Whoever St. Mark was, and whoever was the translator of St. Matthew's Gospel, the verbal agreement between the translated Gospel of St. Matthew and the original composition of St. Mark, can be accounted for only on one of two suppositions; either that St. Mark had seen, and designedly accommodated his own Gospel to that of the former Evangelist, or that both derived their materials in common from some primary document. The latter is the hypothesis embraced by Michaelis and some of the most eminent German critics; and on a former occasion, opinion was expressed in this Journal, favourable to the general theory. Mr. Greswell maintains, however, that although the verbal coincidences may be accounted for on this hypothesis, it does not account for the supplemental arrangement of facts.' St. Matthew's Gospel being taken in conjunction with St. Mark's, there are clearly omissions in the former, which
are, he contends, as plainly supplied by the latter. Of this description, he enumerates the following, which our readers will be able to verify and estimate by an examination of the passages referred to.
• I. Omissions which concern integral facts : e. g. the first instance of our Saviour's teaching after the commencement of his ministry in Galilee, followed by the miracle on the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum ; the account of a circuit in the neighbourhood of the lake of Galilee; that most important event, the ordination of the twelve apostles t; one additional parable among those which were first de
* Ecl. Rev. Vol. I. Third Series. p. 417. Art. Schleimacher on the Gospel of Luke.
+ This is not omitted by St. Matthew, (See ch. X. 1.) although St. Mark may be thought to be more specific in his account. Mr. Greswell, however, detaches Matt. x. 1. from its connexion, and transposes it as parallel to Mark vi. 7.
livered; two miracles performed at Bethsaida in Decapolis; and three personal manifestations of Our Lord after his resurrection: all which things the Harmony will exhibit in their proper places.
il. Besides those instances, where a concise account of St. Matthew's is expanded into a circumstantial detail by St. Mark, the latter is frequently so accommodated to the other, as to end where he begins, or, vice versa, to begin where he ends. Mark ix. 33–50. concludes where Matt. xviii
. 1–35. begins.—Mark vii. 25. takes up Matt. xv. 24.—Mark vii. 32–37. comes in exactly between Matt. xv. 29. and xv. 30.–Mark viïi. 12. concludes Matt. xvi. 1-4.—Mark viii. 19, 20. follows on Matt. xvi. 10.-And, what is among the most striking instances of all, Mark, xvi, 5-8., in his account of that event, begins precisely where Matthew, xxviii. 6. in his account just before had made an end.
• III. In such cases, and especially where the one narrative continues or is continued by the other, St. Mark, it is manifest, presupposes St. Matthew, and without that supposition would scarcely be intelligible: of which Mark viii. 12. is a remarkable instance ; for it passed altogether in private, after the answer to the demand, as recorded by St. Matthew, xvi. 1–4., had been returned in public. It is clear that the exordium of the narrative at Mark iii. 22. presupposes the fact of a recent dispossession, and, without that, would be utterly inconceivable; yet, this dispossession is related by St. Matthew only, xii. 22.
• IV. Even in their common accounts, something is often supplied by St. Mark, critically explanatory of something in St. Matthew. Mark iii. 21. serves this purpose for Matt. xii. 46. — Mark iii. 22. and iii. 30, ascertaining the fact of a double blasphemy, one against the Spirit, and one against the Saviour, serve it still more so for Matt. xii. 24. and xii. 31-37., which is directly founded on that distinction.Mark iv. 10. explains the circumstances under which Matt. xii. 1823. was delivered. Mark x. 35. compared with Matt. xx. 20., plains Matt. xx. 24., which, without that, would not be so apparent. The same observation would hold good of numerous passages besides, if
my limits would permit me now to cite them.
·V. Closely as St. Mark adheres to St. Matthew, one object is still kept in view by him throughout; to rectify his transpositions, to ascertain what he had left indefinite, and to fill up his numerous circumstantial omissions. No two Gospels, in all these respects, could be more the artictoya of each other; while, in the general outline, they are absolutely αντίστροφα. .
Hac in re scilicet una
Multum dissimiles, at cætera pæne gemelli.” ·VI. The very deficiencies in St. Mark, or the consideration of what St. Matthew possesses, which is not to be found in St. Mark, by implying a tacit reference to the Gospel of St. Matthew, confirm, rather than invalidate the same conclusion. There is one such omission relating to their common accounts of the resurrection and of the manifestations of Christ; the account of the manifestation in Galilee, which is almost the only one related by St. Matthew, and must have been in
tentionally omitted by St. Mark.... But his most regular omissions are in the account of Our Saviour's discourses, where, in a Gospel composed, as his was, for the instruction of Gentile converts, especially in the account of Our Lord's moral discourses, it was a priori to be expected he would have been the most full.
.VII. The verbal coincidences which are found in the text of these two Evangelists, are so numerous, that, in a Harmony duly arranged, they may be discovered in every page. What is most to be observed, they appear in the simple narrative part, as well as in the account of discourses .... It is observable also, that these verbal coincidences are much more perceptible between St. Matthew and St. Mark, than between either and St. Luke; the best proof of which is, that, even where all the three are going along together, St. Mark may still be found adhering verbatim to St. Matthew, when St. Luke departs from both ... Nor can I discover any very striking idiom of St. Matthew, which may not be found also in Št. Mark.'-Vol. I.
24-28. In combating the objections which may be urged against this view of the supplementary character of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, Mr. Greswell adverts to the verbal disagreements, which equally require to be accounted for. Had a later Evangelist seen and transcribed from an earlier, it may be thought that he would have retained what he transcribed, without any verbal alterations. This objection, Mr. Greswell replies, assumes, that a later Evangelist might not be as independent an authority as an earlier ; and that a prior Gospel must have recorded the whole of what was said, exactly as it was said. But, as regards Our Lord's discourses, every account contained in the Gospels, is a translation of what was actually said; and in the terms of a translation, alterations affecting the language, but not the sense, might be freely made.
• If St. Matthew's Gospel was written in the language which Our Saviour spoke, it is possible that it might often have retained the very words which he spoke. But, in the present Gospels, there are only three pure and unmixed instances of which this assertion would hold good :-Talitha cumi (Mark, v. 41); Ephphatha (Mark, vii. 34); and Eli, Eli, lama sabachihani (Matt. xxvii. 46.; Mark, xv. 34). If St. Mark, then, retains the language of St. Matthew in some respects, and deviates from it in others, it must be remembered, that he de. viates from a translation of what was actually spoken; and whether, in so doing, he approaches nearer to, or recedes further from, the original, no one now can undertake to say. The same would be true of St. Luke, who, in such instances, where he differs from St. Mark, differs from St. Matthew also. Yet, among all these examples of occasional verbal differences amidst remarkable verbal agreements, it is easy to discover that, while the sense remains the same, some new beauty, force, or propriety is introduced by the change: in which case, it is hardly to be considered as an objection, that the original, in some minute respects, was not already so perfect, so elaborated ad umbilicum, that it could admit of no improvement from the copy. [After
adducing several examples, Mr. G. adds: ] ‘ By far the greater part of the variations in question are resolvable into the principle of ellipsis, or the supplement of fresh matter; many are purely synonymous ; many, the fruit of mere compendium of speech ; others, on the contrary, of amplification. Even where the difference is greatest in words, there is still an agreement in the sense.' Vol. I. pp. 43, 44.
Our limits will not allow us to detail the whole of the ingenious criticisms and reasonings which are adduced in support of the Author's hypothesis. That St. John's Gospel is of a supplemental character, will be readily admitted; and if so, he must have been acquainted with the preceding ones, although he does not specifically refer to them as authorities. The silence, then, of St. Mark with regard to the first Gospel, and of St. Luke with respect to those of Matthew and Mark, is no objection. The Gospel of St. John consists entirely of independent matter; and 'what St. Mark possesses akin to St. Matthew's, abounds in so much ‘ more of detail, compared with that, that even in their common
narrations it may be said to go along by itself.' Yet, had the later Evangelists seen the writings of their predecessors, it may be urged, that they would have avoided all appearance of contradiction or discrepancy. Mr. Greswell replies to this objection, that the existence of such discrepancies is a gratuitous assumption; that the appearance of contradiction has, in many instances, been produced by confounding together distinct, though similar transactions; in which case, the blame attaches not to the ambiguity of the Evangelist, but to the hallucination of the critic; and that, admitting the supplemental character of the later Gospels, ' what appears to be contradiction, is seen to be really ex
planation, and, instead of confusing and perplexing, clears up and ascertains.'
· The writers of these common accounts were too well aware of their mutual agreement and consistency, to be afraid of the effects of collision: they neither apprehended it themselves, nor supposed it would be imputed to them by others. In all such instances, they either borrow light, or they communicate it; they are as critically adapted to each other in what they omit, as in what they supply ; sometimes presupposing the circumstances already on record, preliminary to their own accounts; at other times, connecting, separating, or defining the old by additional particulars. That they have done this without professing to be doing it, ought to be no objection. Vol. I. p. 38.
Account for it as we may, Mr. Greswell remarks, there are transpositions in St. Matthew's Gospel, 'from which a later Evangelist would be at liberty to depart, which may be ad
mitted without injury to the credibility of St. Matthew, but which cannot be denied without the utmost danger to the au
thority of St. Mark or of St. Luke. It is no more necessary to assume, that, because a prior Evangelist was an eye-witness or
ear-witness of what he records, he would give an account of it in strict chronological order, than to suppose that one who was not an eye-witness would do the contrary. But, if St. Matthew's immediate object, and the structure of his Gospel, did not require him to observe chronological exactness, it is the more probable that those who came after him, and whose object was to set forth the facts relating to the life and ministry of Our Lord “in order”, would be found to deviate from his inexact order; nor is it likely that they would depart from it with sufficient reason and evidence. The following remarks claim transcription.
“ In short, it cannot be denied, that the Gospel of St. Matthew exhibits the evidence of two facts; one, of great scantiness of detail in the purely narrative parts; the other, of great circumstantiality in the discursive. In the former, then, there was clearly room for supplementary matter; but, in the latter, except on one supposition—that much of what had been so minutely related by him once at a certain time and place, came over again at another—there was little or none. Now, in favour of this supposition, it is a remarkable coincidence, first, that all those parts, or nearly all, in the Gospel of St. Luke, about whose identity with corresponding parts in St. Matthew's a question is commonly raised, are the accounts of discourses as such : secondly, that they all, or nearly all, occur in parts of the Gospel of St. Luke, the corresponding periods to which in the Gospel of St. Matthew, are total blanks. Now where was matter omitted by St. Matthew from its resemblance to what he had recorded before, so likely to have been omitted as here? And what reason was so likely to have produced the blanks in his Gospel as this—because it did occur, and might best be omitted, here? Where, on the other hand, was a supplementary Gospel so likely to abound in fresh matter as here also ?" Vol. I. pp. 45, 6.
The reader will perhaps have to complain, on this and other occasions, of a want of clearness in Mr. Greswell's style; and this fault is rendered more conspicuous by the defective punctuation. With regard to the conclusiveness of his reasonings, we reserve our decision, till we shall have brought under the reader's notice, the application of the Author's principles to the text of the Evangelists, in the Harmony itself. This must be reserved for a future article. In the mean time, we may remark, that Mr. Greswell's hypothesis has at least this great advantage in its favour; that it satisfactorily accounts for our having four Gospels, and only four. “Admit that, on any account, St. Matthew's
Gospel was not a complete history of the Christian ministry, “and we explain the origin of St. Mark's: admit that even both
were not sufficient, and we assign a reason for St. Luke's: ad“mit that all the three contained omissions, and we account for • the addition of St. John's. But why, it may be asked, was the first Gospel left so incomplete? It seems to us, that Mr. Greswell would have strengthened his argument, had he shewn that
VOL. IX. - N.S.