« ElőzőTovább »
then was it, tha. just principles concerning the way of life and happiness, and the nature and extent of the Gospel, should be infused into the breasts of these sons of Sion, that they might be able to work out their own salvation, and mote that of others; since they were to be the salt of the proearth, and the light of the world; the first preachers of righteousness to the nations, and the instruments of calling mankind to the knowledge of the truth.
"Matthew, therefore, has chosen, out of the materials before him, such parts of our blessed Saviour's history and discourses as were best suited to the purpose of awakening them to a sense of their sins, of abating their self-conceit and overweening hopes, of rectifying their errors, correcting their prejudices, and exalting and purifying their minds. After a short account, more particularly requisite in the first writer of a Gospel, of the genealogy and miraculous birth of Christ, and a few circumstances relating to his infancy, he proceeds to describe his forerunner John the Baptist, who preached the necessity of repentance to the race of Abraham and children of the circumcision; and by his testimony prepares us to expect one mightier than he mightier as a prophet in deed and in word, and above the sphere of a prophet, mighty to sanctify by his spirit, to pardon, reward, and punish by his sovereignty. Then the spiritual nature of his kingdom, the pure and perfect laws by which it is administered, and the necessity of vital and universal obedience to them, are set before us in various discourses, beginning with the sermon on the mount, to which Saint Matthew hastens, as with a rapid pace, to lead his readers. And that the holy light shining on the mind by the word and life of Christ, and quickening the heart by his spirit, might be seconded in his operations by the powers of hope and fear: the twenty-fifth chapter of this Gospel, which finishes the legislation of Christ, exhibits him enforcing his precepts, and adding a sanction to his laws, by that noble and awful description of his future appearance in glory, and the gathering of all nations before him to judgment. Saint Matthew, then, passing to the history of the Passion, shows them that the new covenant, foretold by the prophets, was a covenant of spiritual not temporal blessings, established in the sufferings and death of Christ, whose blood was shed for many, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS (Matt. xxvi. 28.); which it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away. To purge the conscience from the pollution of dead and sinful works required the blood of Him, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God. With the instructions of Christ are intermixed many hints, that the kingdom of God would not be confined to the Jews, but, while numbers of them were excluded through unbelief, would be increased by subjects of other nations. And thus the devout Israelite was taught, in submission to the will and ordinance of Heaven, to embrace the believing Samaritan as a brother, and to welcome the admission of the Gentiles into the church, which was soon after to commence with the calling of Cornelius. And as they suffered persecution from their own nation, and were to expect it elsewhere in following Christ, all that can fortify the mind with neglect of earthly good, and contempt of worldly danger, when they come in competition with our duty, is strongly inculcated."
VIII. The Gospel of Matthew, which comprises twentyeight chapters and 1071 verses, consists of four parts, viz. PART I. treats on the Infancy of Jesus Christ.
SECT. 1. The genealogy of Christ. (i. 1—17.)
SECT. 3. The adoration of the Magi, and slaughter of the
PART II. records the Discourses and Actions of John the Baptist, preparatory to our Saviour's commencing his Public Ministry. (iii. iv. 1—11.)
SECT. 1. The preaching of John the Baptist, and the baptism of Jesus Christ by him. (iii.)
SECT. 2. The temptation of Christ in the wilderness. (iv. 1-11.)
PART III. relates the Discourses and Actions of Christ in Galilee, by which he demonstrated that he was the Messiah. (iv. 12.-xx. 16.)
SECT. 1. Christ goes into Galilee, calls Peter, Andrew, James, and John, and performs various miraculous cures. (iv. 12-25.)
SECT. 2. The sermon on the mount. (v. vi. vii.) showing,
Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 5-7.
§ i. Who only are truly happy (v. 1-12.), and the duty of Christians to be
SECT. 3. A narrative of several miracles, performed by Christ,
SECT. 4. Christ's charge to his twelve apostles, whom he sent forth to preach to the Jews. (x. xi. 1.)
SECT. 5. relates the manner in which the discourses and actions of Jesus Christ were received by various descriptions of men, and the effect produced by his discourses and miracles. (xi. 2.-xvi. 1—12.)
SECT. 6. contains the discourses and actions of Christ, imme-
SECT. 1. The discourses and miracle of Christ in his way to
SECT. 2. The transactions at Jerusalem until his passion.
Sii. On Monday, or the second day of Passion-week.-The barren fig
(a) In the Temple.-The chief priests and elders confuted, 1. By a
§ iv. On Wednesday, or the fourth day of Passion-week, Christ fore.
Sv. On Thursday, or the fifth day of Passion-week.-Judas covenants to betray him (14-16.); the passover prepared, (17-19.)
§ vi. On the Passover day, that is, from Thursday evening to Friday evening of Passion-week.
(a) In the evening Christ eats the passover (xxvi. 20-25.), and insti
(b) Towards night Jesus, 1. Foretells the cowardice of the apostles
(d) On Friday morning, 1. Jesus being delivered to Pilate, Judas
(e) Transactions of the third hour.-The vinegar and gall; the cruci-
SECT. 3. The transactions on the Sabbath of the Passover-
SECT. 4. Transactions after Christ's resurrection, chiefly on
§ i. Christ's resurrection testified, first, to the women by an angel (xxviii.
§ ii. The resurrection denied by his adversaries (xxvii. 11-15.), but
opportunity for writing a regular and connected narrative of
these, his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, | is not mentioned by Eusebius or any other ancient writer his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and liis pro- and is contradicted by Jerome, whose expressions seem phecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also won- imply that he died a natural death. derfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his master to the cavils of his adversaries." He is the only evangelist who has given us an account of our Lord's description of the process of the general judgment; and his relation of that momentous event is awfully impressive.
ON THE GOSPEL BY SAINT MARK.
I. Title.-II. Author.-III. Genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel. IV. Probable date.-V. Occasion and scope. -VI. In what language written.-VII. Synopsis of its contents.-VIII. Examination of the question, whether Mark transcribed or abridged the Gospel of Matthew.-IX. Observations on his style.
I. THE TITLE of the Gospel by Saint Mark is, in the Vatican manuscript, ara Mapov, according to Mark. In the Alexandrian MS., the Codex Bezæ, the Codex Regius, 62 (formerly 2862, Stephani »), and some other editions, it is xaтa Maρacy Evazziv, the Gospel according to Mark; and in some manuscripts and editions, To nara Mapacy aziv Eva Av, the Holy Gospel according to Mark, or (as in the authorized English version), the Gospel according to Saint Mark.2 In the Syriac version, in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, it is entitled The Gospel of the Evangelist Mark;" in the Arabic version, "The Gospel of St. Mark the Apostle, which he wrote in the Roman [tongue] by the inspiration of the Spirit of Holiness;" and in the Persian version, "The beginning of the Gospel of Mark, which was written at Rome, in the Latin tongue."
III. That Mark was the author of the Gospel which bears his name, is proved by the unanimous testimony of ancient Christians, particularly Papias,4 by several ancient writers of the first century consulted by Eusebius, by Justin Martyr,6 Tatian, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,10 Ammonius, Origen,12 and by all the fathers of the third and following centuries.13 Though not cited by name, this Gospel appears to have been alluded to by Clement of Rome in the first century;14 but the testimony of antiquity is not equally uniform concerning the order in which it should be placed. Clement of Alexandria affirms that the Gospels containing the genealogies were first written: according to this account, Mark wrote after Luke; but Papias, on the information of John the Presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of the apostles, expressly states that it was the second in order; and with him agree Irenæus and other writers. Satisfactory as is the testimony, to the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospel of Mark, generally, some critics have thought that the last twelve verses of the sixteenth chapter were not written by the evangelist.15 The following is a concise statement of the question. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, has said in his second discourse on the resur Trection, that this Gospel terminates in the more correct copies with the words sporo gap, for they were afraid and Jerome has observed,16 that few of the Greek MSS. which he had seen, contained these verses. But the very concise affirmation of Jerome is greatly restricted by what he had himself said of a various reading in the fourteenth verse, viz. that it is found in quibusdam exemplaribus, et maxime Græcis codicibus. It is evident, therefore, that, in the former passage, he has exaggerated,-which is no unusual occurrence with this writer. With regard to the assertion of Gregory, at this distance of time it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what he meant by the most exact manuscripts. Perhaps he II. This evangelist was not an apostle, or companion of intended MSS. more correctly written, but this merit alone Jesus Christ during his ministry, though Epiphanius and would add nothing to their authority; nor can we now ascerseveral other fathers affirm that he was one of the seventy dis-tain the recension to which they belonged. We must, thereciples. All that we learn from the New Testament concern- fore, examine the evidences which actually exist. The verses ing him is, that he was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col. iv. in question are certainly wanting in the Vatican manuscripts; 10.), and the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at and in Nos. 137. and 138. of Griesbach's notation they are whose house the apostles and first Christians often as- marked with an asterisk; they are also wanting in the canons sembled. (Acts xii. 12.) His Hebrew name was John, and of Eusebius: but, on the other hand, their authenticity is Michaelis thinks, that he adopted the surname of Mark when attested by authorities of the greatest importance. These he left Judæa to preach the Gospel in foreign countries, a verses are extant in the Codex Alexandrinus; the most conpractice not unusual among the Jews of that age, who fre- siderable portion of the disputed passage (that is, the seven quently assumed a name more familiar to the nations which first verses) is in the Codex Bezæ, à primâ manu, but the they visited than by that which they had been distinguished remainder has been added by a later hand, and they are exin their own country. From Peter's styling him his son tant in the Greek commentaries of Theophylact. The whole (1 Pet. v. 13.), this evangelist is supposed to have been con- twelve verses are likewise found in the Peschito (or Old verted by Saint Peter; and on his deliverance (A. D. 44, re- Syriac) and Arabic versions, and in those MSS. of the Vulcorded in Acts xii. 12.), Mark went from Jerusalem with gate Latin Version, which are not mutilated at the end Paul and Barnabas, and soon after accompanied them to of the second Gospel; and they are cited by Augustine, other countries as their minister (Acts xiii. 5.); but declining Ambrose, and Leo bishop of Rome (surnamed the Great), to attend them through their whole progress, he returned to who followed this version. But what is of most importance Jerusalem, and kept up an intercourse with Peter and the is, that the manner in which so ancient a writer as Irenæus, other apostles. Afterwards, however, when Paul and Bar- in the second century, refers to this Gospel, renders it highly nabas settled at Antioch on the termination of their journey, probable that the whole passage was read in all the copies we find Mark with them, and disposed to accompany them known to him. His words are these :-In fine autem Evan in their future journeys. At this time he went with Barna- gelii, ait Marcus: Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus bas to Cyprus (Acts xv. 37-39.); and subsequently accom- est eis, receptus est in cœlo, et sedet ad dexteram Dei,17 panied Timothy to Rome, at the express desire of Saint Paul (2 Tim. iv. 11.), during his confinement in that city, whence Mark sent his salutations to Philemon (24.), and to the church at Colosse. (Col. iv. 10.) From Rome he probably went into Asia, where he found Saint Peter, with whom he returned to that city, in which he is supposed to have written and published his Gospel. Such are the outlines of this evangelist's history, as furnished to us by the New Testament. From Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, we learn that Mark, after he had written his Gospel, went to Egypt; and, having planted a church at Alexandria, Jerome states that he died and was buried there in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. Baronius, Cave, Wetstein, and other writers, affirm that Saint Mark suffered martyrdom; but this fact 1 Dr. Campbell on the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 20. Dr. Harwood's Introd. to the New Test. vol. i. p. 176. Bishop Cleaver has an excellent Discourse on the Style of Saint Matthew's Gospel in his Sermons on Select Subjects, pp. 189-205.
2 Griesbach, Nov. Test. tom. i. on Mark i. 1.
The verse here quoted is the nineteenth, and the chapter contains only twenty verses. Hippolytus, who wrote in the early part of the third century, also bears testimony in favour of the disputed fragment, in the beginning of this book I Xaprav. It is further worthy of notice, that there is not a single manuscript containing this verse, which has not also
4 A. D. 116. Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 109. 112.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 38, 339.
A. D. 172. 8A. D. 178. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 158, 159.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 365, 366. 9 A. D. 194. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 211, 212.; 4to. vol. i. 395. 10 A. D. 200. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 257, 258.; 4to. vol. i. p. 420. 11 A. D. 220. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 414, et seq.; 4to. vol. í. pp. 503, et seq. 12 A. D. 230. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 466, 467.; 4to. vol. i. p. 332. 13 See the later testimonies in Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 87-90.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 179, 180.
14 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 31.; 4to. vol. i. p. 294.
15 Michaelis (Introd. chap. iii. sect. 3. vol. 1. pp. 87-97.) has brought for ward some strong objections to the canonical authority of the Gospel of Mark. As his objections apply equally to the Gospel of Luke, the reader is referred to pp. 308, 309. infra; where those objections are considered, 16 Quæst. ad Hedib. Quæst. 3.
* See the passages of these writers in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. and (it is hoped) satisfactorily refuted. pp. 82-84. ; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 176, 177.
17 Adv. Hær. lib. iii. c. 10. (al. 11.)
he whole passage from the eighth to the end: nor is there a single manuscript, in which this verse is wanting, that does not also want the whole. No authority of equal antiquity has yet been produced on the other side. It has been conjectured that the difficulty of reconciling Mark's account of our Lord's appearances, after his resurrection, with those of the other evangelists, has emboldened some transcribers to omit them. The plausibility of this conjecture renders it highly probable: to which we may subjoin, that the abruptness of the conclusion of this history, without the words in question, and the want of any thing like a reason for adding them if they had not been there originally, afford a strong collateral proof of their authenticity. Transcribers, Dr. Campbell well remarks, presume to add and alter in order to remove contradictions, but not in order to make them. The conclusion, therefore, is, that the disputed fragment is an integral part of the Gospel of Mark, and consequently is genuine.
IV. Although the genuineness and authenticity of Mark's Gospel are thus satisfactorily ascertained, considerable uncertainty prevails as to the time when it was composed. It is allowed by all the ancient authors that Mark wrote it at Rome; and many of them assert that he was no more than an amanuensis or interpreter to Peter, who dictated this Gospel to him, though others affirm that he wrote it after Peter's death. Hence a variety of dates has been assigned between the years 56 and 65; so that it becomes difficult to determine the precise year when it was written. But as it is evident from the evangelist's own narrative (Mark xvi. 20.), that he did not write until after the apostles had dispersed themselves among the Gentiles, and had preached the Gospel every where, the Lord working with them and confirming the words with signs following; and as it does not appear that all the apostles quitted Judæa earlier than the year 502 (though several of them laboured among the Gentiles with great success), perhaps we shall approximate nearest to the real date, if we place it between the years 60 and 63.
V. Saint Peter having publicly preached the Christian religion at Rome, many who were present entreated Mark, as he had for a long time been that apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter had delivered, that he would commit the particulars to writing. Accordingly, when Mark had finished his Gospel, he delivered it to the persons who made this request. Such is the unanimous testimony of ancient writers,3 which is further confirmed by internal evidence, derived from the Gospel itself. Thus, the great humility of Peter is conspicuous in every part of it, where any thing is related or might be related of him; his weaknesses and fall being fully exposed to view, while the things which redound to his honour are either slightly touched or wholly concealed. And with regard to Christ, scarcely an action that was done, or word spoken by him, is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and with such minuteness of circumstance as shows that the person who dictated the Gospel had been an eye-witness of the transactions recorded in it.4
xpzra, "riches." Again, the word Gehenna, which in our version is translated hell (ix. 43.), originally signified the valley of Hinnom, where infants had been sacrificed to Moloch, and where a continual fire was afterwards maintained to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this word could not have been understood by a foreigner, the evangelist adds the words, "unquenchable fire" by way of explanation. These particularities corroborate the historical evidence above cited, that Mark designed his Gospel for the use of Gentile Christians.
Lastly, the manner in which Saint Mark relates the life of our Saviour, is an additional evidence that he wrote for Gentile Christians. His narrative is clear, exact, and concise, and his exordium is singular; for while the other evangelists style our Saviour the "Son of man," Saint Mark announces him at once as the Son of God (i. 1.), an august title, the more likely to engage the attention of the Romans; omitting the genealogy of Christ, his miraculous conception, the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, and other particu lars, which could not be essentially important in the eyes of foreigners.
VI. That this evangelist wrote his Gospel in Greek is attested by the uninterrupted voice of antiquity; nor was this point ever disputed until the cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine, and, after them, the Jesuit Inchofer, anxious to exalt the language in which the Latin Vulgate version was executed, affirmed that Mark wrote in Latin. This assertion, however, not only contradicts historical evidence, but (as Michaelis has well observed) is in itself almost incredible: for, as the Latin church, from the very earliest ages of Christianity, was in a very flourishing state, and as the Latin language was diffused over the whole Roman empire, the Latin original of Mark's Gospel, if it had ever existed, could not have been neglected in such a manner as that no copy of it should descend to posterity. The only semblance of testimony, that has been produced in support of this opinion, is the subscription annexed to the old Syriac version, that Mark wrote in the Romish, that is, in the Latin language, and that in the Philoxenian version, which explains Romish by Frankish. But subscriptions of this kind are of no authority whatever: for the authors of them are unknown, and some of them contain the most glaring errors. Besides, as the Syriac version was made in the East, and taken immediately from the Greek, no appeal can be made to a Syriac subscription in regard to the language in which Mark wrote at Rome. The advocates for the Latin original of this Gospel have appealed to a Latin manuscript pretended to be the autograph of the evangelist himself, and said to be preserved in the library of Saint Mark at Venice. But this is now proved to be a mere fable: for the Venetian manuscript formerly made part of the Latin manuscript preserved at Friuli, most of which was printed by Blanchini in his Evangeliarum Quadruplex. The Venice manuscript contained the first forty pages, or five quaternions of Mark's Gospel; the two last quaternions or sixteen pages are preserved at Prague, where they were printed by M. Dobrowsky, under the title From the Hebraisms discoverable in the style of this Gos-of Fragmentum Pragense Evangelii S. Marci vulgo autographi. pel, we should readily conclude that its author was by birth and education a Jew: but the numerous Latinisms it contains, not only show that it was composed by a person who had lived among the Latins, but also that it was written beyond the confines of Judæa: That this Gospel was designed principally for Gentile believers (though we know that there were some Jewish converts in the church of Rome) is further evident from the explanations introduced by the evangelist, which would have been unnecessary, if he had written for Hebrew Christians exclusively. Thus, the first time the Jordan is mentioned, the appellation "river" is added to the name. (Mark i. 5.) Again, as the Romans could not understand the Jewish phrase of "defiled or common hands," the evangelist adds the parenthetical explanation of "that is, unwashen." (vii. 2.) When he uses the word corban, he subjoins the interpretation, "that is, a gift" (vii. 11.); and instead of the word mammon, he uses the common term
1 Griesbach, Comm. Crit. in Text. Nov. Test. Particula 1. p. 199. Dr.
Several of these Latinisms are specified in Vol. I. p. 29.
VII. The Gospel of Mark consists of sixteen chapters, which may be divided into three parts; viz. PART I. The transactions from the Baptism of Christ to his entering on the more public part of his Ministry. (ch. i. 1— 13.)
PART II. The Discourses and Actions of Jesus Christ to his going up to Jerusalem to the fourth and last Passover. (i. 14. -x.)
SECT. 1. The transactions between the first and second pass-
Dr. Campbell's Pref. to Mark, vol. ii. pp. 82, 83.
The history of the pretended autograph manuscript of St. Mark is briefly as follows. There was, at Aquileia, a very ancient Latin MS. of the four Gospels; two quaternions or sixteen pages of which the emperor Charles IV. obtained in 1534, from Nicholas, patriarch of Aquileia, and sent them to Prague. The remaining five quaternions the canons of the church at Aquileia, during the troubles which befell that city, carried to Friuli, together with other valuable articles belonging to their church, A. D. 1420. and from the inhabitants of Friuli the Venetian Doge, Tomaso Macenico obtained these five quaternions, which were subsequently passed for the original autograph of St. Mark. (Alber, Hermenent. Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 238.) There is a particular account of the Prague Fragment of St. Mark's Gospel, by Schopflin, in the third volume of the Historia et Commenta tiones Academiæ Electoralis Theodoro-Palatina, Svo. Manheim, 1773.; in which a fac-simile is given. The account is abridged, and the fac-simile copied in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1778, vol. xlvi. pp. 321, 322.
SECT. 2. The transactions between the second and third passovers. (ii. 23-28. iii.-vi.)
SECT. 3. The transactions of the third passover to Christ's going up to Jerusalem to the fourth passover. (vii.-x.) PART III. The Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. (xi.-xvi.)
SECT. 1. The first day of Passion-week or Palm Sunday-
SECT. 3. The transactions of the third day, or Tuesday§i. In the morning. (xi. 20-33. xii.)
§ ii. In the evening. (xii.)
SECT. 4. The transactions of the fourth day, or Wednesday. (xiv. 1-9.)
SECT. 5. The transactions of the fifth day, or Thursday. (xiv. 10-16.) SECT. 6. The transactions of the Passover-day, that is, from Thursday evening to Friday evening of the Passion-week; including the institution of the Lord's Supper, Christ's agony in the garden, his being betrayed by Judas, his trial, crucifixion, and burial. (xiv. 17-72. xv.) SECT. 7. The transactions after the resurrection of Christ. (xvi.)
VIII. From the striking coincidence between the Gospel of Mark and that of Matthew, several learned men have imagined that Mark compiled his Gospel from him. Augustine was the first who asserted that Mark was a servile copyist (pedissequus) and epitomizer of Matthew, and his opinion has been adopted by Simon, Calmet, Adler,1 Owen, Harwood,
In the year 1782, Koppe published a dissertation, in which he has proved that this hypothesis is no longer tenable, and Michaelis has acquiesced in the result of his inquiries. The following observations are chiefly abridged from both these writers.
The assertion, that Mark abridged the Gospel of Matthew, contradicts the unanimous voice of antiquity, which states that Mark wrote his Gospel under the inspection and dictation of Peter; and, although there is a coincidence between these two evangelists, yet it does not thence necessarily folow that he abridged the Gospel of Matthew. For, in the first place, he frequently deviates from Matthew in the order of time, or in the arrangement of his facts, and likewise adds many things of which Matthew has taken no notice whatever. Now, as Matthew was an apostle, and eyewitness of the facts which he related, Mark could not have desired better authority; if, therefore, he had Matthew's Gospel before him when he wrote his own, he would scarcely have adopted a different arrangement, or have inserted facts which he could not have found in his original author.
Again, although there are several parts of Matthew's Gospel, which an evangelist, who wrote chiefly for the use of the Romans, might not improperly omit-such as the genealogy -the healing of the centurion's servant at Capernaum-Christ's argument to John's disciples, to prove that he was the Messiah the sermon on the mount-some prophecies from the Old Testament and the narrative of the death of Judas Iscariot;-yet, on the other hand, there are several relations in Matthew's Gospel, for the omission of which it is very difficult to assign a reason, and which therefore lead to the conclusion that his Gospel was not used by Mark.See particularly the discourses and parables related in Matt. viii. 18-22.; x. 15-22.; xi. 20-30.; xii. 33-45.; xiii. 1-39.; xviii. 10—35.; xix. 10-12.; xx. 16.; and xxii. 1-14.5
Lastly, Mark's imperfect description of Christ's transactions with the apostles, after his resurrection, affords the Prof. Adler's hypothesisis, that Mark first epitomized the Gospel of Matthew into Greek, omitting those topics which the heathens (for whom he wrote) would not understand; such as the Genealogy, the Discourse delivered on the Mount, the 23d chapter, which was addressed to the Pharisees, some references to the Old Testament, and a few parables. After which he imagines (for the hypothesis is utterly destitute of proof) that the whole was translated into Greek, for the use of the Greek or Hellenistic Jews.
strongest proof that he was totally unacquainted with the contents of Matthew's Gospel. The latter evangelist has given us a very circumstantial description of Christ's conversation with his apostles on a mountain in Galilee, yet the former, though he had before related Christ's promise that he would go before them into Galilee, has, in the last chap. ter of his Gospel, no account whatever of Christ's appearance in Galilee. Now, if he had read Matthew's Gospel, this important event could not have been unknown to him, and consequently he would not have neglected to record it.
Michaelis further observes, that if Mark had had Matthew's Gospel before him, he would have avoided every appearance of contradiction to the accounts given by an apostle and an eye-witness. His account of the call of Levi, under the very same circumstance as Matthew mentions his own call, is at least a variation from Matthew's description; and this very variation would have been avoided, if Mark had had access to Matthew's Gospel. The same may be observed of Mark x. 46., where only one blind man is mentioned, whereas Matthew, in the parallel passage, mentions two. In Mark's account of Peter's denial of Christ, the very same woman, who addressed Peter the first time, addressed him likewise the second time, whereas, according to Matthew, he was addressed by a different person; for Mark (xiv. 69.) uses the expression adion, the maid, which, without a violation of grammar, can be construed only of the same maid who had been mentioned immediately before, whereas Matthew (xxvi. 71.) has ann, another maid. Now, in whatever manner harmonists may reconcile these examples, there will always remain a difference between the two accounts, which would have been avoided if Mark had copied from Matthew. But what shall we say of instances, in which there is no mode of reconciliation? If we compare Mark iv. 35. and i. 35. with Matt. viii. 28-34., we shall find not only a difference in the arrangement of the facts, but such a determination of time as renders a reconciliation impracticable. For, according to Matthew, on the day after the sermon on the mount, Christ entered into a ship, and crossed the lake of Gennesareth, where he encountered a violent tempest: but, according to Mark, this event took place on the day after the sermon in parables; and, on the day which followed that on which the sermon on the mount was delivered, Christ went, not to the sea-side, but to a desert place, whence he passed through the towns and villages of Galilee. Another instance, in which we shall find it equally impracticable to reconcile the two evangelists, is Mark xi. 28. compared with Matt. xxi. 23. In both places the Jewish priests propose this question to Christ, vode our Taura Tus; alluding to his expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the temple. But, according to what Saint Mark had previously related in the same chapter, this question was proposed on the third day of Christ's entry into Jerusalem; according to Matthew, it was proposed on the second. If Mark had copied from Matthew, this difference in their accounts would hardly have taken place.7
Since, then, it is evident that Saint Mark did not copy from the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the question recurs, how are we to reconcile the striking coincidences between them, which confessedly exist both in style, words, and things? Koppe, and after him Michaelis, endeavoured to account for the examples of verbal harmony in the three first Gospels, by the supposition that in those examples the evangelists
The whole difficulty, in reconciling this apparent discrepancy between the two evangelists, "has arisen from the vain expectation that they must always agree with each other in the most minute and trivial particulars: as if the credibility of our religion rested on such agreement, or any reasonable scheme of inspiration required this exact correspondency. The solution, which Michaelis afterwards offered in his Anmerkungen, affords all the satisfaction which a candid man can desire. After stating that Matthew had said 'another maid,' Mark 'the maid,' and Luke another man, (Tspos), he observes, the whole contradiction vanishes at once, if we only attend to John, the quiet spectator of all which passed. For he writes (xviii. 25.), They said unto him, Wast thou not also one of his disciples?' Whence it appears that there were several who spake on this occasion, and that all which is said by Matthew, Mark, and Luke may very easily be true. There might probably be more than the three who are named; but the maid, who had in a former instance recognised Peter, appears to have made the deepest impression on his mind; and hence, in dictating this Gospel to Mark, he might have said the maid." Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 285. first edition.
Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 220. Koppe (ut supra, pp. 57-59.) has given seve⚫ ral additional examples of seeming contradictions between the two evangelists, proving that Mark could not have copied from Matthew. On the subject above discussed, the reader will find much important information in Jones's Vindication of the former part of Saint Matthew's Gospel from Mr. Whiston's Charge of Dislocations, pp. 47-86., printed at the end of his third volume on the Canon: and also in the Latin thesis of Bartus van Willes, entitled Specimen Hermeneuticum de iis, quæ ab uno Marco sunt narrata, aut copiosius et explicatius, ab eo, quam a cæteris Evangelistis exposita. 8vo. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1811.
retained the words which had been used in more ancient Gospels, such as those mentioned by Luke in this preface. But there does not appear to be any necessity for resorting to such an hypothesis: for, in the first place, it contradicts the accounts given from the early Christian writers above cited; and, secondly, it may be accounted for from other causes. Peter was, equally with Matthew, an eye-witness of our Lord's miracles, and had also heard his discourses, and on some occasions was admitted to be a spectator of transactions to which all the other disciples were not admitted. Both were Hebrews, though they wrote in Hellenistic Greek. Peter would therefore naturally recite in his preaching the same events and discourses which Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and the same circumstance might be mentioned in the same manner by men, who sought not after "excellency of speech," but whose minds retained the remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them, even without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural guidance.2
IX. Simplicity and conciseness are the characteristics of Mark's Gospel, which, considering the copiousness and majesty of its subject-the variety of great actions it relates, and the surprising circumstances that attended them, together with the numerous and important doctrines and precepts which it contains-is the shortest and clearest, the most marvellous, and at the same time the most satisfactory history in the whole world.3
ON THE GOSPEL BY SAINT LUKE.
is of opinion that he was a Gentile, on the authority of Paul's expressions in Col. iv. 10, 11. 14. The most proable conjecture is that of Bolton, adopted by Kuinüel, viz. that Luke was descended from Gentile parents, and that in his youth he had embraced Judaism, from which he was converted to Christianity. The Hebraic-Greek style of writing observable in his writings, and especially the accurate knowledge of the Jewish religion, rites, ceremonies, and usages, every where discernible both in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles, sufficiently evince that their author was a Jew; while his intimate knowledge of the Greek language, displayed in the preface to his Gospel, which is composed in elegant Greek, and his Greek name Acunas, evidently show that he was descended from Gentile parents. This conjecture is further supported by a passage in the Acts, and by another in the Epistle to the Colossians. In the former (Acts xxi. 27.) it is related that the Asiatic Jews stirred up the people, because Paul had introduced Gentiles into the temple, and in the following verse it is added that they had before seen with him in the city, Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. No mention is here made of Luke, though he was with the apostle. Compare Acts xxi. 15. 17., where Luke speaks of himself among the companions of Paul. Hence we infer that he was reckoned among the Jews, one of whom he might be accounted, if he had become a proselyte from Gentilism to the Jewish religion. In the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 11. 14.) after Paul had written the salutations of Aristarchus, Marcus, and of Jesus, surnamed Justus, he adds, "who are of the circumcision. These only," he continues, "are my fellow-workers (meaning those of the circumcision) unto the kingdom of God." Then in the fourteenth verse, he adds, "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, salute you." As the apostle in this passage opposes them to the Christians who had been converted from Judaism, it is evident that Luke was descended from Gentile parents.
I. Title.-II. Author.-III. General proofs of the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel.—1. Vindication of its genuineness from the objections of Michaelis in particular-Testament, is in his own history of the Acts of the Apostles. The first time that this evangelist is mentioned in the New 2. Genuineness of the first two chapters, and of chapters viii. 27-39., and xxii. 43, 44.-IV. Date, and where written. -V. For whom written.-VI. Occasion and scope of this Gospel.-VII. Synopsis of its contents.-VIII. Observations on this Gospel.
I. THE TITLE of this Gospel in manuscripts and early editions is nearly the same as that of the Gospel by St. Mark. In the Syriac version it is called "The Holy Gospel, the preaching of Luke the evangelist, which he spoke and published (or announced) in Greek, in Great Alexandria:" in the Arabic version, it is "The Gospel of St. Luke the physician, one of the seventy, which he wrote in Greek, the Holy Spirit inspiring [him]:" and, in the Persian version, "The Gospel of Luke, which he wrote in the Egyptian Greek tongue, at Alexandria."
II. Concerning this evangelist, we have but little certain information: from what is recorded in the Scriptures, as well as from the circumstances related by the early Christian writers, the following particulars have been obtained.
We there find him (Acts xvi. 10, 11.) with Paul at Troas; thence he attended him to Jerusalem: continued with him in his troubles in Judæa; and sailed in the same ship with him, when he was sent a prisoner from Cæsarea to Rome, where he stayed with him during his two years' confinement. As none of the ancient fathers have mentioned his suffering martyrdom, it is probable that he died a natural death. and of his history of the Acts of the Apostles, are confirmed III. The genuineness and authenticity of Luke's Gospel, by the unanimous testimonies of the ancient writers.-The Gospel is alluded to by the apostolical fathers, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, and Polycarp. In the following century it is repeatedly cited by Justin Martyr,10 by the martyrs of Lyons," and by Irenæus.12 Tertullian, at the commencement of the third century, asserted against Marcion which were admitted to be canonical by himself and Christhe genuineness and integrity of the copies of Luke's Gospel, tians in general, and for this he appealed to various apostolical churches. Origen, a few years after, mentions the Gospels According to Eusebius, Luke was a native of Antioch, by third of which he says, "is that according to Luke, the Gosin the order in which they are now generally received; the profession a physician, and for the most part a companion of the apostle Paul. The report, first announced by Nicephoras pel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile Callisti, a writer of the fourteenth century, that he was a the pseudo-Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, converts." These testimonies are confirmed by Eusebius, painter, is now justly exploded, as being destitute of foundation, and countenanced by no ancient writers. From his ignorant of the name of the other disciple, which Dr. Gleig understands to attending Paul in his travels, and also from the testimony of be Luke himself, and thinks that he concealed his name for the same rea some of the early fathers, Basnage, Fabricius, Dr. Lardner, Origin of the first three Gospels, in Bp. G.'s edition of Stackhouse's Hisson that John conceals his own name in the Gospel. (Dissertation on the and Bishop Gleig have been led to conclude that this evan-tory of the Bible, vol. iii. pp. 89-93., and also in his Directions for the gelist was a Jew, and Origen, Epiphanius, and others have Study of Theology, pp. 366-377.) But this hypothesis, which is proposed supposed that he was one of the seventy disciples; but this and supported with great ability, is opposed by the facts that the name of the evangelist is NOT Jewish; and that since Jesus Christ employed only appears to be contradicted by Luke's own declaration that he native Jews as his apostles and missionaries (for in this light we may con was not an eye-witness of our Saviour's actions.4 Michaelis sider the seventy disciples), it is not likely that he would have selected one who was not a Hebrew of the Hebrews, in other words, a Jew by descent Pott's Sylloge Comment. vol. i. pp. 65-69. Michaelis, vol. iii. pp. 214, from both his parents, and duly initiated into the Jewish church. Besides, the words v-among us (i. 1.) authorize the conjecture that he had 2 Pritii, Introd. ad Lectionem Nov. Test. p. 179. Bishop Tomline's Ele- resided for a considerable time in Judæa: and, as he professes that he ments of Christ. Theol. vol. i. p. 319. derived his information from eye-witnesses and ministers of Jesus Christ, this circumstance will account for the graphic minuteness with which he has recorded particular events.
3 Blackwall's Sacred Classics, vol. i. p. 293.
Bishop Gleig, however, has argued at great length, that the construction of Luke i. 2. leads to the conclusion that he was himself an eye-witness and personal attendant upon Jesus Christ; and that, as he is the only evangelist who gives an account of the appointment of the seventy, it is inost probable that he was one of that number. He adds, that the account of Christ's commencement of his ininistry at Nazareth (iv. 16-32.), which is only slightly referred to by Matthew, and is related by none other of the evangelists, is given with such particularity of circumstances, and in such a inanner, as evinces that they actually passed in the presence of the writer and, further, that, as he inentions Cleopas by name in his very particular and interesting account of all that passed between Christ and the iwo disciples on the road to Emmaus, we can hardly suppose him to be
Lardner's Supplement to his Credibility, chap. viii. Works, 8vo. vol. viii. pp. 105-107.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 187, 188.
6 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 15.; 4to. vol. i. p. 285.
8 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 55.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 307, 308.
• Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 93.; 4to. vol. i. p. 328.