learned writer allude?—I will venture to answer the question myself; and
to assert that this is only one more instance of the careless, second-hand
(and third-rate) criticism which is to be met with in every part of Dr.
Davidson’s book: one proof more of the alacrity with which worn-out
objections and worthless arguments are furbished up afresh, and paraded
before an impatient generation and an unlearned age, whenever (_tanquam
vile corpus_) the writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed,
or the Faith of the Church of CHRIST is to be unsettled and undermined.
V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to p. 39, he will
perceive that I have now disposed of every witness whom I originally
undertook to examine. He will also, in fairness, admit that there has not
been elicited one particle of evidence, from first to last, which renders
it in the slightest degree probable that the Gospel of S. Mark, as it
originally came from the hands of its inspired Author, was either an
imperfect or an unfinished work. Whether there have not emerged certain
considerations which render such a supposition in the highest degree
_un_likely,—I am quite content that my Reader shall decide.
Dismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we now to review
those internal evidences, which are confidently appealed to as proving
that the concluding Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel cannot be regarded as
really the work of the Evangelist.
CHAPTER IX.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO
THESE VERSES.
The “Style” and “Phraseology” of these Verses declared by Critics
to be not S. Mark’s.—Insecurity of such Criticism (p. 140).—The
“Style” of chap. xvi. 9-20 shewn to be the same as the style of
chap. i. 9-20 (p. 142).—The “Phraseology” examined in twenty-seven
particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p. 145),—but in
twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reverse (p. 170).—Such
Remarks fallacious (p. 173).—Judged of by a truer, a more delicate
and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably
genuine (p. 175).
A distinct class of objections remains to be considered. An argument much
relied on by those who deny or doubt the genuineness of this portion of S.
Mark’s Gospel, is derived from considerations of internal evidence. In the
judgment of a recent Editor of the New Testament,—These twelve verses
“bear traces of _another hand_ from that which has shaped the _diction_
and _construction_ of the rest of the Gospel.”(240) They are therefore “an
addition to the narrative,”—of which “the internal evidence will be found
to preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark.”—“A difference,”
(says Dr. Tregelles,) “has been remarked, and truly remarked, between _the
phraseology_ of this section and the rest of this Gospel.”—According to
Dr. Davidson,—“The _phraseology and style_ of the section are unfavourable
to its authenticity.” “The characteristic peculiarities which pervade
Mark’s Gospel do not appear in it; but, on the contrary, terms and
expressions,” “phrases and words, are introduced which Mark never uses; or
terms for which he employs others.”(241)—So Meyer,—“With ver. 9, we
suddenly come upon an excerpting process totally different from the
previous mode of narration. The passage contains none of Mark’s
peculiarities (no εὐθέως, no πάλιν, &c, but the baldness and lack of
clearness which mark a compiler;) while in single expressions, it is
altogether contrary to Mark’s manner.”—“There is” (says Professor Norton)
“a difference so great between the use of language in this passage, and
its use in the undisputed portion of Mark’s Gospel, as to furnish strong
reasons for believing the passage not genuine.”—No one, however, has
expressed himself more strongly on this subject than Tischendorf.
“Singula” (he says) “multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.”(242)... Here,
then, is something very like a consensus of hostile opinion: although the
terms of the indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of “Diction and
Construction,”—difference of “Phraseology and Style,”—difference of “Terms
and Expressions,”—difference of “Words and Phrases;”—the absence of S.
Mark’s “characteristic peculiarities.” I suppose, however, that all may be
brought under two heads,—(I.) STYLE, and (II.) PHRASEOLOGY: meaning by
“Style” whatever belongs to the Evangelist’s manner; and by “Phraseology”
whatever relates to the words and expressions he has employed. It remains,
therefore, that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to
substantiate these confident assertions, and ascertain exactly what they
are worth by constant appeals to the Gospel. Throughout this inquiry, we
have to do not with Opinion but with Fact. The unsupported dicta of
Critics, however distinguished, are entitled to no manner of attention.
1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these confident and
often-repeated asseverations have been by no means unproductive of
mischievous results:
Like ceaseless droppings, which at last are known
To leave their dint upon the solid stone.
I observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as the Rev. T. S.
Green(243)) at last put up with them. The wisest however reproduce them
under protest, and with apology. The names of Tischendorf and Tregelles,
Meyer and Davidson, command attention. It seems to be thought incredible
that they can _all_ be _entirely_ in the wrong. They impose upon learned
and unlearned readers alike. “Even Barnabas has been carried away with
their dissimulation.” He has (to my surprise and regret) two suggestions:—
(_a_) The one,—That this entire section of the second Gospel may possibly
have been written long after the rest; and that therefore its verbal
peculiarities need not perplex or trouble us. It was, I suppose,
(according to this learned and pious writer,) a kind of after-thought, or
supplement, or Appendix to S. Mark’s Gospel. In this way I have seen the
last Chapter of S. John once and again accounted for.—To which, it ought
to be a sufficient answer to point out that there is _no appearance
whatever_ of any such interval having been interposed between S. Mark xvi.
8 and 9: that it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred: and
that until the “verbal peculiarities” have been ascertained to exist, it
is, to say the least, a gratuitous exercise of the inventive faculty to
discover reasons for their existence. Whether there be not something
radically unsound and wrong in all such conjectures about
“after-thoughts,” “supplements,” “appendices,” and “second editions” when
the everlasting Gospel of JESUS CHRIST is the thing spoken of,—a confusing
of things heavenly with things earthly which must make the Angels weep,—I
forbear to press on the present occasion. It had better perhaps be
discussed at another opportunity. But φίλοι ἄνδρες(244) will forgive my
freedom in having already made my personal sentiment on the subject
sufficiently plain.
(_b_) His other suggestion is,—That this portion may not have been penned
by S. Mark himself after all. By which he clearly means no more than
this,—that as we are content not to know _who_ wrote the conclusion of the
Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, so, if needful, we may well be content
not to know who wrote the end of the Gospel of S. Mark.—In reply to which,
I have but to say, that after cause has been shewn why we should indeed
believe that not S. Mark but some one else wrote the end of S. Mark’s
Gospel, we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new fact:—but
_not till then_.
2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been lifted up in the
way of protest(245) against the proposed inference from the familiar
premisses; (for the self-same statements have now been so often
reproduced, that the eye grows weary at last of the ever-recurring string
of offending vocables:)—but, with _one_ honorable exception,(246) men do
not seem to have ever thought of calling the premisses themselves in
question: examining the statements one by one: contesting the ground inch
by inch: refusing absolutely to submit to any dictation whatever in this
behalf: insisting on bringing the whole matter to the test of severe
inquiry, and making every detail the subject of strict judicial
investigation. This is what I propose to do in the course of the present
Chapter. I altogether deny the validity of the inference which has been
drawn from “the style,” “the phraseology,” “the diction” of the present
section of the Gospel. But I do more. I entirely deny the accuracy of
almost _every individual statement_ from which the unfavourable induction
is made, and the hostile inference drawn. Even _this_ will not nearly
satisfy me. I insist that one only result can attend the exact analysis of
this portion of the Gospel into its elements; namely, a profound
conviction that S. Mark is most certainly its Author.
3. Let me however distinctly declare beforehand that remarks on “the
style” of an Evangelist are singularly apt to be fallacious, especially
when (as here) it is proposed to apply them to a very limited portion of
the sacred narrative. Altogether to be mistrusted moreover are they, when
(as on the present occasion) it is proposed to make them the ground for
possibly rejecting such a portion of Scripture as spurious. It becomes a
fatal objection to such reasoning that _the style_ may indeed be
exceedingly diverse, and yet _the Author_ be confessedly one and the same.
How exceedingly dissimilar in style are the Revelation of S. John and the
Gospel of S. John! Moreover, practically, the promised remarks on “style,”
when the Authorship of some portion of Scripture is to be discussed, are
commonly observed to degenerate at once into what is really quite a
different thing. Single words, perhaps some short phrase, is appealed to,
which (it is said) does not recur in any part of the same book; and thence
it is argued that the Author can no longer be the same. “According to this
argument, _the recurrence of the same words_ constitutes identity of
style; the want of such recurrence implies difference of style;—difference
of style in such a sense as compels us to infer diversity of authorship.
Each writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of
‘formulæ’ within the range of which he must work. He must in each chapter
employ these formulæ, and these only. He must be content with one small
portion of his mother-tongue, and not dare to venture across the limits of
that portion,—on pain of losing his identity.”(247)
4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to such a method of
judging about the Authorship of any twelve verses of Scripture which can
be named, scarcely requires illustration. The attentive reader of S.
Matthew’s Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is _six times
repeated_ in his viiith and ixth chapters is perhaps only once met with
besides in his Gospel,—viz. in his xxist chapter.(248) The “style” of the
17th verse of his ist chapter may be thought unlike anything else in S.
Matthew. S. Luke’s five opening verses are unique, both in respect of
manner and of matter. S. John also in his five opening verses seems to me
to have adopted a method which is not recognisable anywhere else in his
writings; “rising strangely by degrees,” (as Bp. Pearson expresses
it,(249)) “making the last word of the former sentence the first of that
which followeth.”—“_He_ knoweth that he saith true,” is the language of
the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35. But, “_we_ know
that his testimony is true,” is his phrase in chap. xxi. 24. Twice, and
twice only throughout his Gospel, (viz. in chap. xix. 35: xx. 31), is he
observed to address his readers, and on both occasions in the same words:
(“that _ye_ may believe.”) But what of all this? Is it to be supposed that
S. Matthew, S. Luke, S. John are not the authors of those several places?
From facts like these no inference whatever is to be drawn as to the
genuineness or the spuriousness of a writing. It is quite to mistake the
Critic’s vocation to imagine that he is qualified, or called upon, to pass
any judgment of the sort.
5. I have not said all this, of course, as declining the proposed
investigation. I approach it on the contrary right willingly, being
confident that it can be attended by only one result. With what is true,
endless are the harmonies which evolve themselves: from what is false, the
true is equally certain to stand out divergent.(250) And we all desire
nothing but the Truth.
I. To begin then with the “STYLE AND MANNER” of S. Mark in this place.
1. We are assured that “instead of the _graphic, detailed_ description by
which this Evangelist is distinguished, we meet with an abrupt,
sententious manner, resembling that of brief notices extracted from larger
accounts and loosely linked together.”(251) Surely if this be so, the only
lawful inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, _has_ “extracted
brief notices from larger accounts, and loosely linked them together:” and
unless such a proceeding on the part of the Evangelist be judged
incredible, it is hard to see what is the force of the adverse criticism,
as directed against the _genuineness_ of the passage now under
consideration.
2. But in truth, (when divested of what is merely a gratuitous
assumption,) the preceding account of the matter is probably not far from
the correct one. Of S. Mark’s practice of making “_extracts_,” I know
nothing: nor Dr. Davidson either. That there existed _any_ “larger
accounts” which would have been available for such a purpose, (except the
Gospel according to S. Matthew,) there is neither a particle of evidence,
nor a shadow of probability. On the other hand, that, notwithstanding the
abundant oral information to which confessedly he had access, S. Mark has
been divinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner, some
of the chiefest things which took place after our LORD’S Resurrection,—is
simply undeniable. And without at all admitting that the style of the
Evangelist is in consequence either “abrupt” or “sententious,”(252) I yet
recognise the inevitable consequence of relating many dissimilar things
within very narrow limits; namely, that the transition from one to the
other forces itself on the attention. What wonder that the same phenomenon
should _not_ be discoverable in other parts of the Gospel where the
Evangelist is _not_ observed to be doing the same thing?
3. But wherever in his Gospel S. Mark _is_ doing the same thing, he is
observed to adopt the style and manner which Dr. Davidson is pleased to
call “sententious” and “abrupt.” Take twelve verses in his first chapter,
as an example. Between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i. 9-20, I profess
myself unable to discern any real difference of style. I proceed to
transcribe the passage which I deliberately propose for comparison; _the
twelve corresponding verses_, namely, in S. Mark’s _first_ chapter, which
are to be compared with the twelve verses already under discussion, from
his _last_; and they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as
in Greek:—
(_S. MARK_ i. 9-20.)
(ver. 9.) “And it came to pass in those days, that JESUS came from
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (10.) And
straightway coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the
SPIRIT like a dove descending upon Him: (11.) and there came a voice from
heaven saying, Thou art My beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased. (12.)
And immediately the SPIRIT driveth Him into the wilderness. (13.) And He
was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the
wild beasts; and the Angels ministered unto Him. (14.) Now after that John
was put in prison, JESUS came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the
kingdom of GOD, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom
of GOD is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel. (16.) Now, as He
walked by the sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting
a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (17.) And JESUS said unto them,
Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. (18.) And
straightway they forsook their net’s, and followed Him. (19.) And when He
had gone a little farther thence, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and
John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. (20.) And
straightway He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the ship
with the hired servants, and went after Him.”
4. The candid reader must needs admit that precisely the self-same manner
is recognisable in this first chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel which is
asserted to be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our SAVIOUR’S Baptism
(which occupies the first three verses) the Evangelist passes to His
Temptation, which is dismissed in two. Six months elapse. The commencement
of the Ministry is dismissed in the next two verses. The last five
describe the call of four of the Apostles,—without any distinct allusion
to the miracle which was the occasion of it.... How was it _possible_ that
when incidents considerable as these had to be condensed within the narrow
compass of twelve verses, the same “graphic, detailed description” could
reappear which renders S. Mark’s description of the miracle performed in
the country of the Gadarenes (for example) so very interesting; where a
single incident is spread over twenty verses, although the action did not
perhaps occupy an hour? I rejoice to observe that “the _abrupt
transitions_ of this section” (ver. 1-13) have also been noticed by Dean
Alford: who very justly accounts for the phenomenon by pointing out that
here “Mark appears as _an abridger of previously well-known facts_.”(253)
But then, I want to know what there is in this to induce us to suspect
_the genuineness_ of either the beginning or the end of S. Mark’s Gospel?
5. For it is a mistake to speak as if “graphic, detailed description”
_invariably_ characterise the second Gospel. S. Mark is quite as
remarkable for his practice of occasionally exhibiting a considerable
transaction in a highly abridged form. The opening of his Gospel is
singularly concise, and altogether _sudden_. His account of John’s
preaching (i. 1-8) is the shortest of all. Very concise is his account of
our SAVIOUR’S Baptism (ver. 9-11). The brevity of his description of our
LORD’S Temptation is even extraordinary (ver. 12, 13.)—I pass on;
premising that I shall have occasion to remind the reader by-and-by of
certain peculiarities in these same Twelve Verses, which seem to have been
hitherto generally overlooked.
II. Nothing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tregelles’ admission “that
arguments on _style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_
they prove very little. But” (he proceeds) “when there does exist external
evidence; and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression,
and connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming
a judgment; then, these internal considerations possess very great
weight.”
I have already shewn that there exists _no_ such external evidence as Dr.
Tregelles supposes. And in the absence of it, I am bold to assert that
since nothing in the “Style” or the “Phraseology” of these verses ever
aroused suspicion in times past, we have rather to be _on our guard_
against suffering our judgment to be warped by arguments drawn from such
precarious considerations now. As for determining from such data the
authorship of an isolated passage; asserting or denying its genuineness
for no other reason but because it contains certain words and expressions
which do or do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel of which it forms
part;—let me again declare plainly that the proceeding is in the highest
degree uncritical. We are not competent judges of what words an Evangelist
was likely on any given occasion to employ. We have no positive knowledge
of the circumstances under which any part of any one of the four Gospels
was written; nor the influences which determined an Evangelist’s choice of
certain expressions in preference to others. We are learners,—we _can_ be
only learners here. But having said all this, I proceed (as already
declared) without reluctance or misgiving to investigate the several
charges which have been brought against this section of the Gospel;
charges derived from its PHRASEOLOGY; and which will be found to be
nothing else but repeated assertions that a certain Word or Phrase,—(there
are about twenty-four such words and phrases in all,(254))—“occurs nowhere
in the Gospel of Mark;” with probably the alarming asseveration that it is
“abhorrent to Mark’s manner.” ... The result of the inquiry which follows
will perhaps be not exactly what is commonly imagined.
The first difficulty of this class is very fairly stated by one whose name
I cannot write without a pang,—the late Dean Alford:—
(I.) The expression πρώτη σαββάτου, for the “first day of the week” (in
ver. 9) “is remarkable” (he says) “as occurring so soon after” μία
σαββάτων (a precisely equivalent expression) in ver. 2.—Yes, it is
remarkable.
Scarcely more remarkable, perhaps, than that S. Luke _in the course of one
and the same chapter_ should four times designate the Sabbath τὸ σάββατον,
and twice τὰ σάββατα: again, twice, τὸ σάββατον,—twice, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ
σαββάτου,—and once, τὰ σάββατα.(255) Or again, that S. Matthew should _in
one and the same chapter_ five times call the Sabbath, τὰ σάβββτα, and
three times, τό σάββατον.(256) Attentive readers will have observed that
the Evangelists seem to have been fond in this way of varying their
phrase; suddenly introducing a new expression for something which they had
designated differently just before. Often, I doubt not, this is done with
the profoundest purpose, and sometimes even with manifest design; but the
phenomenon, however we may explain it, still remains. Thus, S. Matthew,
(in his account of our LORD’S Temptation,—chap. iv.,) has ὁ διάβολος in
ver. 1, and ὁ πειράζων in ver. 3, for him whom our SAVIOUR calls Σατανᾶς
in ver. 10.—S. Mark, in chap. v. 2, has τὰ μνημεῖα,—but in ver. 5, τὰ
μνήματα.—S. Luke, in xxiv. 1, has τὸ μνῆμα; but in the next verse, τὸ
μνημεῗον.—Ἐπί with an accusative twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice
exchanged for ἐπί with a genitive in the same two verses: and ἔριφοϋ (in
ver. 32) is exchanged for ἐρίφια in ver. 33.—Instead of ἄρχων τς συναγωγῆς
(in S. Luke viii. 41) we read, in ver. 49, ἀρχισυνάγωγος: and for οἱ
ἀπόστολοι (in ix. 10) we find οἱ δώδεκα in ver. 12.—Οὖς in S. Luke xxii.
50 is exchanged for ὠτίον in the next verse.—In like manner, those whom S.
Luke calls οἱ νεώτεροι in Acts v. 6, he calls νεανίσκοι in ver. 10.... All
such matters strike me as highly interesting, but not in the least as
suspicious. It surprises me a little, of course, that S. Mark should
present me with πρώτη σαββάτου (in ver. 9) instead of the phrase μία
σαββάτων, which he had employed just above (in ver. 2.) But it does not
surprise me much,—when I observe that μία σαββάτων _occurs only once in
each of the Four Gospels_.(257) Whether surprised much or little,
however,—Am I constrained in consequence, (with Tischendorf and the rest,)
to regard this expression (πρώτη σαββάτου) as a note of _spuriousness_?
That is the only thing I have to consider. Am I, with Dr. Davidson, to
reason as follows:—“πρώτη, Mark would scarcely have used. It should have
been μία, &c. as is proved by Mark xvi. 2, &c. The expression could
scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It betrays a Gentile author.”(258) Am
I to reason thus?... I propose to answer this question somewhat in detail.
(1.) That among the Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine, in the days of the
Gospel, ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων was the established method of indicating “the
first day of the week,” is plain, not only from the fact that the day of
the Resurrection is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in
turn;(259) (S. John has the expression twice;) but also from S. Paul’s use
of the phrase in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It proves, indeed, to have been the
ordinary Hellenistic way of exhibiting the vernacular idiom of
Palestine.(260) The cardinal (μία) for the ordinal (πρώτη) in this phrase
was a known Talmudic expression, which obtained also in Syriac.(261)
Σάββατον and σάββατα,—designations in strictness of the _Sabbath-day_,—had
come to be _also_ used as designations of the _week_. A reference to S.
Mark xvi. 9 and S. Luke xviii. 12 establishes this concerning σάββατον: a
reference to the six places cited just now in earlier note establishes it
concerning σαββάτα. To see how indifferently the two forms (σάββατον and
σαββάτα) were employed, one has but to notice that S. Matthew, _in the
course of one and the same chapter_, five times designates the Sabbath as
τὰ σαββάτα, and three times as τὸ σάββατον.(262) The origin and history of
both words will be found explained in a note at the foot of the page.(263)
(2.) Confessedly, then, a double Hebraism is before us, which must have
been simply unintelligible to Gentile readers. Μία τῶν σαββάτων sounded as
enigmatical to an ordinary Greek ear, as “_una sabbatorum_” to a Roman. A
convincing proof, (if proof were needed,) how abhorrent to a Latin reader
was the last-named expression, is afforded by the old Latin versions of S.
Matthew xxviii. 1; where ὄψε σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούση εἰς μίαν σαββάτων is
invariably rendered, “Vespere _sabbati_, quæ lucescit in _prima sabbati_.”
(3.) The reader will now be prepared for the suggestion, that when S.
Mark, (who is traditionally related to have written his Gospel _at
Rome_,(264)) varies, in ver. 9, the phrase he had employed in ver. 2, he
does so for an excellent and indeed for an obvious reason. In ver. 2, he
had conformed to the prevailing usage of Palestine, and followed the
example set him by S. Matthew (xxviii. 1) in adopting the enigmatical
expression, ἡ μία σαββάτων. That this would be idiomatically represented
_in Latin_ by the phrase “prima sabbati,” we have already seen. In ver. 9,
therefore, he is solicitous to record the fact of the Resurrection afresh;
and _this_ time, his phrase is observed to be _the Greek equivalent for
the Latin _“prima sabbati;” viz. πρώτη σαββάτου. How strictly equivalent
the two modes of expression were felt to be by those who were best
qualified to judge, is singularly illustrated by the fact that the
_Syriac_ rendering of both places is _identical_.
(4.) But I take leave to point out that this substituted phrase, instead
of being a suspicious circumstance, is on the contrary a striking note of
genuineness. For do we not recognise here, in the last chapter of the
Gospel, the very same hand which, in the first chapter of it, was careful
to inform us, just for once, that “Judæa,” is “a _country_,” (ἡ Ἰουδαία
χώρα,)—and “Jordan,” “a _river_,” (ὁ Ἰορδάνης ποταμός)?—Is not this the
very man who explained to his readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar
Jewish designation for “Friday,” ἡ παρασκευή, denotes “_the day before the
Sabbath_?”(265)—and who was so minute in informing us (in chap. vii. 3, 4)
about certain ceremonial practices of “the Pharisees and all the Jews?”
Yet more,—Is not the self-same writer clearly recognisable in this xvith
chapter, who in chap. vi. 37 presented us with σπεκουλάτωρ (the Latin
_spiculator_) for “an executioner?” and who, in chap. xv. 39, for “a
_centurion_,” wrote—not ἑκατόνταρχος, but—κεντυρίων?—and, in chap. xii.
42, explained that the two λεπτά which the poor widow cast into the
Treasury were equivalent to κοδράντης, the Latin _quadrans_?—and in chap.
vii. 4, 8, introduced the Roman measure _sextarius_, (ξέστης)?—and who
volunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that αὐλή is only another
designation of πραιτώριον (_Prætorium_)?—Yes. S. Mark,—who, alone of the
four Evangelists, (in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the
Cyrenian was “_the father of Alexander and Rufus_,” evidently for the sake
of his _Latin_ readers:(266) S. Mark,—who alone ventures to write in Greek
letters (οὐά,—chap. xv. 29,) the Latin interjection “_Vah!_”—obviously
because he was writing where that exclamation was most familiar, and the
force of it best understood:(267) S. Mark,—who attends to the Roman
division of the day, in relating our LORD’S prophecy to S. Peter:(268)—S.
Mark, I say, no doubt it was who,—having conformed himself to the
precedent set him by S. Matthew and the familiar usage of Palestine; and
having written τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων, (which he knew would sound like “_una
sabbatorum_,”(269)) in ver. 2;—introduced, also for the benefit of his
Latin readers, the Greek equivalent for “_prima sabbati_,” (viz. πρώτη
σαββάτου,) in ver. 9.—This, therefore, I repeat, so far from being a
circumstance “_unfavourable_ to its authenticity,” (by which, I presume,
the learned writer means its _genuineness_), is rather corroborative of
the Church’s constant belief that the present section of S. Mark’s Gospel
is, equally with the rest of it, the production of S. Mark. “Not only was
the document intended for Gentile converts:” (remarks Dr. Davidson, p.
149,) “but there are also appearances of its adaptation to the use of
Roman Christians in particular.” Just so. And I venture to say that in the
whole of “the document” Dr. Davidson will not find a more striking
“appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians,”—_and
therefore of its genuineness_,—than this. I shall have to request my
reader by-and-by to accept it as one of the most striking notes of Divine
origin which these verses contain.—For the moment, I pass on.
(II.) Less excusable is the coarseness of critical perception betrayed by
the next remark. It has been pointed out as a suspicious circumstance that
in ver. 9, “the phrase ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόνια is attached to the
name of Mary Magdalene, although she had been mentioned three times before
without such appendix. It seems to have been taken from Luke viii.
2.”(270)—Strange perversity, and yet stranger blindness!
(1.) The phrase _cannot_ have been taken from S. Luke; because S. Luke’s
Gospel was written after S. Mark’s. It _was_ not taken from S. Luke;
because _there_ ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτα ἐξεληλύθει,—here, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει
ἑπτα δαιμόνια is read.
(2.) More important is it to expose the shallowness and futility of the
entire objection.—Mary Magdalene “had been mentioned three times before,
_without such appendix_.” Well but,—What _then_? After twice (ch. xiv. 54,
66) using the word αὐλή without any “appendix,” in the very next chapter
(xv. 16) S. Mark adds, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον.—The beloved Disciple having
mentioned himself without any “appendix” in S. John xx. 7, mentions
himself with a very elaborate “appendix” in ver. 20. But what of it?—The
sister of the Blessed Virgin, having been designated in chap. xv. 40, as
Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆ μήτηρ; is mentioned with one half of
that “appendix,” (Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆ) in ver. 47, and _in the very next verse_,
with the other half (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου.)—I see no reason why the
Traitor, who, in S. Luke vi. 16, is called Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης, should be
designated as Ἰούδαν τὸν ἐπικαλούμενον Ἰσκαριώτην in S. Luke xxii. 3.—I am
not saying that such “appendices” are either uninteresting or unimportant.
That I attend to them habitually, these pages will best evince. I am only
insisting that to infer from such varieties of expression that a different
author is recognisable, is abhorrent to the spirit of intelligent
Criticism.
(3.) But in the case before us, the hostile suggestion is peculiarly
infelicitous. There is even inexpressible tenderness and beauty, the
deepest Gospel significancy, in the reservation of the clause “out of whom
He had cast seven devils,” for this place. The reason, I say, is even
obvious why an “appendix,” which would have been meaningless before, is
introduced in connexion with Mary Magdalene’s august privilege of being
the first of the human race to behold the risen SAVIOUR. Jerome (I rejoice
to find) has been beforehand with me in suggesting that it was done, in
order to convey by an example the tacit assurance that “where Sin had
abounded, there did Grace much more abound.”(271) Are we to be cheated of
our birthright by Critics(272) who, entirely overlooking a solution of the
difficulty (_if_ difficulty it be) Divine as this, can see in the
circumstance grounds only for suspicion and cavil? Απαγε.
(III.) Take the next example.—The very form of the “appendix” which we
have been considering (ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια) breeds offence.
“Instead of ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό,” (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) “Mark has
ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ.”(273)
Nothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark _once_ has ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ,(274) and
_once_ ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό. So has S. Matthew, (viz. in chap. vii. 4 and 5): and
so has S. Luke, (viz. in chap. vi. 42, and in Acts xiii. 50.)—But what of
all this? _Who_ sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory?
(IV.) We are next favoured with the notable piece of information that the
word πορεύεσθαι, “never used by S. Mark, is three times contained in this
passage;” (viz. in verses 10, 12 and 15.)
(1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used _elsewhere_ by S. Mark, is
found here three times. But what then? The _compounds_ of πορεύεσθαι are
common enough in his Gospel. Thus, short as his Gospel is, he alone has
εἰσ-πορεύεσθαι, ἐκ-πορεύεσθαι, συμ-πορεύεσθαι, παρα-πορεύεσθαι, _oftener
than all the other three Evangelists put together_,—viz. twenty-four times
against their nineteen: while the compound προσπορεύεσθαι is _peculiar to
his Gospel_.—I am therefore inclined to suggest that the presence of the
verb πορεύεσθαι in these Twelve suspected Verses, instead of being an
additional element of suspicion, is rather a circumstance slightly
corroborative of their genuineness.
(2.) But suppose that the facts had been different. The phenomenon
appealed to is of even perpetual recurrence, and may on no account be
represented as _suspicious_. Thus, παρουσία, a word used only by S.
Matthew among the Evangelists, is by him used four times; yet are all
those four instances found _in one and the same chapter_. S. Luke alone
has χαρίζεσθαι, and he has it three times: but all three cases are met
with _in one and the same chapter_. S. John alone has λύπη, and he has it
four times: but all the four instances occur _in one and the same
chapter_.
(3.) Such instances might be multiplied to almost any extent. Out of the
fifteen occasions when S. Matthew uses the word τάλαντον, no less than
fourteen occur in one chapter. The nine occasions when S. Luke uses the
word μνᾶ all occur in one chapter. S. John uses the verb ἀνιστάναι
transitively only four times: but all four instances of it are found in
one chapter.—Now, these three words (be it observed) are _peculiar to the
Gospels_ in which they severally occur.
(4.) I shall of course be reminded that τάλαντον and μνᾶ are unusual
words,—admitting of no substitute in the places where they respectively
occur. But I reply,—Unless the Critics are able to shew me _which_ of the
ordinary compounds of πορεύεσθαι S. Mark could _possibly_ have employed
for the uncompounded verb, in the three places which have suggested the
present inquiry, viz.:—
ver. 10:—ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αυτοῦ γενομένοις.
ver. 12:—δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν ... πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν.
ver. 13:—πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον;—
their objection is simply frivolous, and the proposed adverse reasoning,
worthless. Such, in fact, it most certainly is; for it will be found that
πορευθεῖσα in ver. 10,—πορευομένοις in ver. 12,—πορευθέντες in ver.
15,—_also_ “admit of no substitute in the places where they severally
occur;” and therefore, since the verb itself is one of S. Mark’s favourite
verbs, not only are these three places above suspicion, but they may be
fairly adduced as indications that _the same_ hand was at work here which
wrote all the rest of his Gospel.(275)
(V.) Then further,—the phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις (in ver. 10) is
noted as suspicious. “Though found in the Acts (xx. 18) it _never occurs
in the Gospels_: nor does the word μαθηταί in this passage.”
(1.) The phrase οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι occurs nowhere in the Acts or in
the Gospels, _except here_. But,—Why _should_ it appear elsewhere? or
rather,—How _could_ it? Now, if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary,
easy, and obvious one,—_wanted_ in this place, where it _is_ met with; but
_not_ met with elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is _not_
wanted;—surely it is unworthy of any one calling himself a Critic to
pretend that there attaches to it the faintest shadow of suspicion!
(2.) The essence of the phrase is clearly the expression οἱ μετ᾽ αυτοῦ.
(The aorist participle of γίνομαι, is added of necessity to mark the
persons spoken of. In no other, (certainly in no simpler, more obvious, or
more precise) way could the followers of the risen SAVIOUR have been
designated at such a time. For had He not just now “overcome the sharpness
of Death”?) But this expression, which occurs four times in S. Matthew and
four times in S. Luke, occurs also four times in S. Mark: viz. in chap. i.
36; ii. 25; v. 40, _and here_. This, therefore, is a slightly
corroborative circumstance,—not at all a ground of suspicion.
(3.) But it seems to be implied that S. Mark, because he mentions τοὺς
μαθητάς often elsewhere in his Gospel, ought to have mentioned them here.
(a) I answer:—He does not mention τοὺς μαθητάς nearly so often as S.
Matthew; while S. John notices them twice as often as he does.
(b) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them five hundred times,
because he had occasion five hundred times to speak of them;—what reason
would _that_ be for his mentioning them here, where he is _not_ speaking
of them?
(_c_) It must be evident to any one reading the Gospel with attention that
besides οἱ μαθηταί,—(by which expression S. Mark always designates _the
Twelve Apostles_,)—there was a considerable company of believers assembled
together throughout the first Easter Day.(276) S. Luke notices this
circumstance when he relates how the Women, on their return from the
Sepulchre, “told all these things unto the Eleven, and _to all the rest_,”
(xxiv. 9): and again when he describes how Cleopas and his companion (δύο
ἐξ αὐτῶν as S. Luke and S. Mark call them) on their return to Jerusalem,
“found the Eleven gathered together, _and them that were with them_”
(xxiv. 33.) But this was at least as well known to S. Mark as it was to S.
Luke. Instead, therefore, of regarding the designation “_them that had
been with Him_” with suspicion,—are we not rather to recognise in it one
token more that the narrative in which it occurs is unmistakably genuine?
What else is this but one of those delicate discriminating touches which
indicate the hand of a great Master; one of those evidences of minute
accuracy which stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable Truth?
(VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that θεᾶσθαι “is unknown to Mark;”
but it occurs twice in this section, (viz. in ver. 11 and ver. 14.)
_Another_ suspicious circumstance!
(1.) A strange way (as before) of stating an ordinary fact, certainly!
What else is it but to assume the thing which has to be proved? If the
learned writer had said instead, that the verb θεᾶσθαι, here twice
employed by S. Mark, occurs _nowhere else_ in his Gospel,—he would have
acted more loyally, not to say more fairly by the record: but then he
would have been stating a strictly ordinary phenomenon,—of no
significancy, or relevancy to the matter in hand. He is probably aware
that παραβαίνειν in like manner is to be found in two consecutive verses
of S. Matthew’s Gospel; παρακούειν, twice in the course of one verse:
neither word being used on any other occasion _either by S. Matthew, or by
any other Evangelist_. The same thing precisely is to be said of ἀναζητεῖν
and ἀνταποδιδόναι, of ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι, and διατίθεσθαι, in S. Luke: of
ἀνιστάναι and ζωννύναι in S. John. But who ever dreamed of insinuating
that the circumstance is suspicious?
(2.) As for θεᾶσθαι, we should have reminded our Critic that this verb,
which is used seven times by S. John, and four times by S. Matthew, is
used only three times by S. Luke, and only twice by S. Mark. And we should
have respectfully inquired,—What possible suspicion does θεᾶσθαι throw
upon the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?
(3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. But in the meantime Dr.
Davidson hints that the verb _ought_ to have been employed by S. Mark in
chap. ii. 14.(277)—It is, I presume, sufficient to point out that S.
Matthew, at all events, was not of Dr. Davidson’s opinion:(278) and I
respectfully submit that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here
_writing about himself_, must be allowed, just for once, to be the better
judge.
(4.) In the meantime,—Is it not perceived that θεᾶσθαι is the very word
specially required in these two places,—though _nowhere else in S. Mark’s
Gospel_?(279) The occasion is one,—viz. the “beholding” of the person of
the risen SAVIOUR. Does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness
of such a “spectacle” as _that_ might well set an Evangelist on casting
about for a word of somewhat less ordinary occurrence? The occasion cries
aloud for this very verb θεᾶσθαι; and I can hardly conceive a more apt
illustration of a darkened eye,—a spiritual faculty perverted from its
lawful purpose,—than that which only discovers “a stumbling-block and
occasion of falling” in expressions like the present which “should have
been only for their wealth,” being so manifestly designed for their
edification.
(VII.) But,—(it is urged by a Critic of a very different stamp,)—ἐθεάθη
ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (ver. 11) “is a construction only found here in the New
Testament.”
(1.) Very likely; but what then? The learned writer has evidently
overlooked the fact that the passive θεᾶσθαι occurs but _three times_ in
the New Testament _in all_.(280) S. Matthew, on the _two_ occasions when
he employs the word, connects it with a dative.(281) What is there
_suspicious_ in the circumstance that θεᾶσθαι ὑπό should be the
construction preferred by S. Mark? The phenomenon is not nearly so
remarkable as that S. Luke, on one solitary occasion, exhibits the phrase
μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπό,(282)—instead of making the verb govern the accusative, as
he does three times _in the very next verse_; and, indeed, eleven times in
the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in this instance is but
copying S. Matthew, who _also_ has μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπό once;(283) and seven
times makes the verb govern an accusative. This, nevertheless, constitutes
no reason whatever for suspecting the genuineness either of S. Matth. x.
28 or of S. Luke xii. 4.
(2.) In like manner, the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν will be found to
occur once, and once _only_, in S. Mark,—once, and once only, in S.
Luke;(284) although S. Mark and S. Luke use the verb φοβεῖσθαι upwards of
forty times. Such facts are interesting. They may prove important. But no
one who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pretend that
they are in the least degree _suspicious_.—I pass on.
(VIII.) It is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that ἀπιστεῖν occurs
in ver. 11 and in ver. 16; but nowhere else in the Gospels,—except in S.
Luke xxiv. 11, 14.
But really, such a remark is wholly without force, as an argument against
the genuineness of the passage in which the word is found: for,
(1.) Where else in the course of this Gospel _could_ ἀπιστεῖν have
occurred? Now, unless some reason can be shewn why the word _should_, or
at least _might_ have been employed elsewhere, to remark upon its
introduction in this place, _where it __ could scarcely be dispensed
with_, as a ground of suspicion, is simply irrational. It might just as
well be held to be a suspicious circumstance, in respect of verses 3 and
4, that the verb ἀποκυλίζειν occurs there, _and there only_, in this
Gospel. Nothing whatever follows from the circumstance. It is, in fact, a
point scarcely deserving of attention.
(2.) To be sure, if the case of a verb exclusively used by the two
Evangelists, S. Mark and S. Luke, were an unique, or even an exceedingly
rare phenomenon, it might have been held to be a somewhat suspicious
circumstance that the phenomenon presented itself in the present section.
But nothing of the sort is the fact. There are no fewer than forty-five
verbs _exclusively used by S. Mark and S. Luke_. And why should not
ἀπιστεῖν be, (as it is,) one of them?
(3.) Note, next, that this word _is used twice_, and in the course of his
last chapter too, also _by S. Luke_. Nowhere else does it occur in the
Gospels. It is at least as strange that the word ἀπιστεῖν should be found
twice in the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Luke, as in the
last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark. And if no shadow of
suspicion is supposed to result from this circumstance in the case of the
third Evangelist, why should it in the case of the second?
(4.) But, lastly, _the noun_ ἀπιστία (which occurs in S. Mark xvi. 14)
occurs in two other places of the same Gospel. And this word (which S.
Matthew uses twice,) is employed by none of the other Evangelists.—What
need to add another word? Do not many of these supposed suspicious
circumstances,—_this_ one for example,—prove rather, on closer inspection,
to be confirmatory facts?
(IX.) We are next assured that μετὰ ταῦτα (ver. 12) “_is not found in
Mark_, though many opportunities occurred for using it.”
(1.) I suppose that what this learned writer means, is this; that if S.
Mark had coveted an opportunity for introducing the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα
earlier in his Gospel, he might have found one. (More than this cannot be
meant: for _nowhere_ before does S. Mark employ _any other phrase_ to
express “after these things,” or “after this,” or “afterwards.”)
But what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case, as stated by
the learned Critic, except that the blessed Evangelist _must be presumed
to have been unconscious of any desire to introduce the expression under
consideration on any other occasion except the present_?
(2.) Then, further, it is worth observing that while the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα
occurs five times in S. Luke’s Gospel, it is found only twice in the Acts;
while S. Matthew _never employs it at all_. Why, then,—I would
respectfully inquire—_why_ need S. Mark introduce the phrase _more than
once_? Why, especially, is his solitary use of the expression to be
represented as a suspicious circumstance; and even perverted into an
article of indictment against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of
his Gospel? “Would any one argue that S. Luke was not the author of the
Acts, because the author of the Acts has employed this phrase only
twice,—‘often as he _could_ have used it?’ (Meyer’s phrase here.(285))”
(X.) Another objection awaits us,—“Ἓτερος also is unknown to Mark,” says
Dr. Davidson;—which only means that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but
not elsewhere in his Gospel.
It so happens, however, that ἕτερος also occurs once only in the Gospel of
S. John. Does it therefore throw suspicion on S. John xix. 37?
(XI.) The same thing is said of ὕστερον (in ver. 14) viz. that it “occurs
nowhere” in the second Gospel.
But why not state the case thus?—Ὕστερον, a word which is twice employed
by S. Luke, occurs only _once_ in S. Mark and _once_ in S. John.—_That_
would be the true way of stating the facts of the case. But it would be
attended with this inconvenient result,—that it would make it plain that
the word in question has no kind of bearing on the matter in hand.
(XII.) The same thing he says of βλάπτειν (in ver. 18).
But what is the fact? The word occurs _only twice in the Gospels_,—viz. in
S. Mark xvi. 18 and S. Luke iv. 35. It is one of the eighty-four words
which are peculiar to S. Mark and S. Luke. What possible significancy
would Dr. Davidson attach to the circumstance?
(XIII.) Once more.—“πανταχοῦ” (proceeds Dr. Davidson) “is unknown to
Mark;” which (as we begin to be aware) is the learned gentleman’s way of
stating that it is only found in chap. xvi. 20.
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it _also_ occurs in S. Mark
i. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion: but when it has been
pointed out that the word _is only used besides in S. Luke_ ix. 6, what
_can_ be said of such Criticism but that it is simply frivolous?
(XIV. and XV.) Yet again:—συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν are also said by the same
learned Critic to be “unknown to Mark.”
S. Mark certainly uses these two words only once,—viz. in the last verse
of the present Chapter: but what there is suspicious in this circumstance,
I am at a loss even to divine. He _could_ not have used them oftener; and
since one hundred and fifty-six words are peculiar to his Gospel, why
should not συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν be two of them?
(XVI.) “Πᾶσα κτίσις is Pauline,” proceeds Dr. Davidson, (referring to a
famous expression which is found in ver. 15.)
(1.) All very oracular,—to be sure: but _why_ πᾶσα κτίσις should be
thought “Pauline” rather than “Petrine,” I really, once more, cannot
discover; seeing that S. Peter has the expression as well as S. Paul.(286)
(2.) In this place, however, the phrase is πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις. But even this
expression is no more to be called “Pauline” than “Marcine;” seeing that
as S. Mark uses it once and once only, so does S. Paul use it once and
once only, viz. in Rom. viii. 22.
(3.) In the meantime, how does it come to pass that the learned Critic has
overlooked the significant fact that the word κτίσις occurs besides in S.
Mark x. 6 and xiii. 19; and that it is a word which _S. Mark alone of the
Evangelists uses_? Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a
circumstance the very reverse of suspicious.
(4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening words of our LORD’S Ministerial
Commission to the Apostles are these,—κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάση τῇ
κτίσει (ver. 15): inasmuch, too, as S. Paul in his Epistle to the
Colossians (i. 23) almost reproduces those very words; speaking of the
Hope τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάση [τῇ] κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν
οὐρανόν:—Is it not an allowable conjecture that _a direct reference_ to
_that_ place in S. Mark’s Gospel is contained in _this_ place of S. Paul’s
Epistle? that the inspired Apostle “beholding the universal tendency of
Christianity already realized,” announces (and from imperial Rome!) the
fulfilment of his LORD’S commands in his LORD’S own words as recorded by
the Evangelist S. Mark?
I desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjecture. But seeing
that S. Mark’s Gospel is commonly thought to have been written at Rome,
and under the eye of S. Peter; and that S. Peter (and therefore S. Mark)
must have been at Rome before S. Paul visited that city in A.D.
61;—seeing, too, that it was in A.D. 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford are
agreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and wrote it
from _Rome_;—I really can discover nothing unreasonable in the
speculation. If, however, it be well founded,—(and it is impossible to
deny that the coincidence of expression _may_ be such as I have
suggested,)—then, what an august corroboration would _this_ be of “the
last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark!” ... If, indeed,
the great Apostle on reaching Rome inspected S. Mark’s Gospel for the
first time, with what awe will he have recognised in his own recent
experience the fulfilment of his SAVIOUR’S great announcement concerning
the “signs which should follow them that believe!” Had he not himself
“cast out devils?”—“spoken with tongues more than they all?”—and at
Melita, not only “shaken off the serpent into the fire and felt no harm,”
but also “laid hands on the sick” father of Publius, “and he had
recovered?” ... To return, however, to matters of fact; with an apology
(if it be thought necessary) for what immediately goes before.
(XVII.) Next,—ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι μου (ver. 17) is noticed as another suspicious
peculiarity. The phrase is supposed to occur only in this place of S.
Mark’s Gospel; the Evangelist elsewhere employing the preposition
ἐπί:—(viz. in ix. 37: ix. 39: xiii. 6.)
(1.) Now really, if it were so, the reasoning would be nugatory. _S. Luke_
also once, and once only, has ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου: his usage elsewhere
being, (like S. Mark’s) to use ἐπί. Nay, in two consecutive verses of ch.
ix, ἐπί τῷ ὀνόματί μου—σου is read: and yet, in the very next chapter, his
Gospel exhibits an unique instance of the usage of ἐν. Was it ever thought
that suspicion is thereby cast on S. Luke x. 17?
(2.) But, in fact, the objection is an oversight of the learned (and
generally accurate) objector. The phrase recurs in S. Mark ix. 38,—as the
text of that place has been revised by Tischendorf, by Tregelles and by
himself. This is therefore a slightly _corroborative_, not a suspicious
circumstance.
(XVIII. and XIX.) We are further assured that παρακολουθεῖν (in ver. 17)
and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in ver. 20) “are both _foreign to the diction of Mark_.”
(1.) But what can the learned author of this statement possibly mean? He
is not speaking of the uncompounded verb ἀκολουθεῖν, of course; for S.
Mark employs it at least twenty times. He cannot be speaking of the
compounded verb; for συνακολουθεῖν occurs in S. Mark v. 37. He cannot mean
that παρακολουθεῖν, because the Evangelist uses it only once, is
suspicious; for that would be to cast a slur on S. Luke i. 3. He cannot
mean generally that verbs compounded with prepositions are “foreign to the
diction of Mark;” for there are no less than _forty-two_ such verbs which
are even _peculiar to S. Mark’s short Gospel_,—against thirty which are
peculiar to S. Matthew, and seventeen which are peculiar to S. John. He
cannot mean that verbs compounded with παρά and ἐπί have a suspicious
look; for at least _thirty-three_ such compounds, (besides the two before
us,) occur in his sixteen chapters.(287) What, then, I must really ask,
can the learned Critic possibly mean?—I respectfully pause for an answer.
(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence goes,—(and it
certainly goes a very little way, yet, _as far as it goes_,)—it is a note
of S. Mark’s authorship, that within the compass of the last twelve verses
of his Gospel these two compounded verbs should be met with.
(XX.) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious circumstance, that
(in ver. 18) the phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι ἐπί τινα occurs; “instead of
χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι τινι.”
(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase “_is in Mark’s manner_,” says Dean
Alford: the plain fact being that it occurs no less than three times in
his Gospel,—viz. in chap. viii. 25: x. 16: xvi. 18. (The other idiom, he
has four times.(288)) Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to
as a note of genuineness _and_ as an indication of spurious origin. What
_can_ be the value of such Criticism as this?
(2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt illustration of the
precariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our
attention. Within the space of three verses, S. Mark has _both_
expressions,—viz. ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ (viii. 23) and also ἐπέθηκε τὰς
χεῖρας ἐπί (ver. 25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former,
twice.(289) _Who_ will not admit that all this (so-called) Criticism is
the veriest trifling; and that to pretend to argue about the genuineness
of a passage of Scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of
rashness bordering on folly?... The reader is referred to what was offered
above on Art. VII.
(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver. 19 and ver. 20)
are also declared to be “_foreign to the diction of Mark_.” I ask leave to
examine these two charges separately.
(1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark’s Gospel, truly: but then _it
occurs only once in S. Luke_ (iii. 18);—only twice in S. John (xix. 24:
xx. 30):—in S. Matthew, never at all. What imaginable plea can be made out
of such evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the last
Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?—Once more, I pause for an answer.
(2.) As for ὁ Κύριος being “_foreign to the diction of Mark_ in speaking
of the LORD,”—I really do not know what the learned Critic can possibly
mean; except that he finds our LORD _nowhere called_ ὁ Κύριος _by S. Mark,
except in this place._
But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our LORD
anywhere called by S. Mark “JESUS CHRIST,” except in chap. i. 1. Are we,
therefore, to suspect the beginning of S. Mark’s Gospel as well as the end
of it? By no means, (I shall perhaps be told:) a reason is assignable for
the use of _that_ expression in chap. i. 1. And so, I venture to reply,
there is a fully sufficient reason assignable for the use of _this_
expression in chap. xvi. 19.(290)
(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our LORD is called Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός,—but _only in the first Chapter_ of their respective Gospels. By
S. Luke nowhere. The appellation may,—or may not,—be thought “foreign to
the diction” of those Evangelists. But surely it constitutes no reason
whatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the
first, or the second, or the fourth Gospel.
(4.) S. John _three times in the first verse of his first Chapter_
designates the Eternal SON by the extraordinary title ὁ Λόγος; but
_nowhere else in his Gospel_, (except once in ver. 14,) does that Name
recur. Would it be reasonable to represent _this_ as a suspicious
circumstance? Is not the Divine fitness of that sublime appellation
generally recognised and admitted?(291)—Surely, we come to Scripture to be
learners only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to have
spoken about GOD! When will men learn that “the Scripture-phrase, or
_language of the Holy Ghost_”(292) is as much above them as Heaven is
above Earth?
(XXIII.) Another complaint:—ἀναληφθῆναι, which is found in ver. 19, occurs
nowhere else in the Gospels.
(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which “occur
nowhere else in the Gospels:” and this happens to be one of them? What
possible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance?
(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. Ἀναληφθῆναι and ἀνάληψις are words
_proper to the Ascension of our _LORD_ into Heaven_. The two Evangelists
who do _not_ describe that event, are _without_ these words: the two
Evangelists who _do_ describe it, _have_ them.(293) Surely, these are
marks of genuineness, not grounds for suspicion!
It is high time to conclude this discussion.—Much has been said about two
other minute points:—
(XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος “is nowhere found absolutely used by
S. Mark:” (the same thing may be said of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:)
“but always emphatically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely
used.”(294) Another writer says,—“The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11, and
13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is peculiar.”(295)
(1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that an Evangelist
who employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in
all, should use it “absolutely” in two consecutive verses.
(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves as to
_which_ are precisely the offending instances,—(for it is evidently a moot
point whether ἐκεῖνος be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,)—we may be excused
from a prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the
subject in the consideration of the next Article (XXV.)
(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that “in the 10th and 14th
verses there are sentences without a copulative: whereas Mark always has
the copulative in such cases, particularly καί.” But then,—
(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of S.
Mark’s Gospel _resembling the present_,—(I mean, passages in which S. Mark
summarizes many disconnected incidents, as he does here,)—is it not plain
that such an objection is wholly without point?
(2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), Lachmann and
Tregelles read ὔστερον δέ: and the reading is not impossible. So that the
complaint is really reduced to this,—That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins
Ἐκεὶνη πορευθεῖσα, instead of saying Καὶ ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα. And (it is
implied) there is something so abhorrent to probability in this, as
slightly to strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the
work of the Evangelist.
(3.) Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us: and suppose that he, on
being shewn this objection, were to be heard delivering himself somewhat
to the following effect:—“Aye. But men may not find fault with _that_ turn
of phrase. I derived it from Simon Peter’s lips. I have always suspected
that it was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he and ‘the other Disciple’
had many a time rehearsed in the hearing of the wondering Church
concerning the Magdalene on the morning of the Resurrection.” And then we
should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth Gospel:—
γύναι τί κλαίεις; τίνα ζητεῖς; ἘΚΕΊΝΗ δοκοῦσα κ.τ.λ.
After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all strange, even
though it be “without a copulative:”—
ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ἘΚΕΊΝΗ πορευθεῖσα κ.τ.λ.
(4.) For after all, the _only_ question to be asked is,—Will any one
pretend that such a circumstance as this is _suspicious_? Unless _that_ be
asserted, I see not what is gained by raking together,—(_as one easily
might do in any section of any of the Gospels_,)—every minute peculiarity
of form or expression which can possibly be found within the space of
these twelve verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as an
incorrigible coarseness of critical fibre, that every slight variety of
manner or language should be thus pounced upon and represented as a note
of spuriousness,—in the face of (_a_) the unfaltering tradition of the
Church universal that the document has _never_ been hitherto suspected:
and (_b_) the known proclivity of all writers, as free moral and
intellectual agents, sometimes to deviate from their else invariable
practice.—May I not here close the discussion?
There will perhaps be some to remark, that however successfully the
foregoing objections may seem to have been severally disposed of, yet that
the combined force of such a multitude of slightly suspicious
circumstances must be not only appreciable, but even remain an
inconvenient, not to say a formidable fact. Let me point out that the
supposed remark is nothing else but a fallacy; which is detected the
instant it is steadily looked at.
For if there really had remained after the discussion of each of the
foregoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of suspiciousness, _then_ of
course the aggregate of so many fractions would have amounted to something
in the end.
But since it has been proved that there is absolutely _nothing at all_
suspicious in _any_ of the alleged circumstances which have been hitherto
examined, the case becomes altogether different. The sum of ten thousand
nothings is still nothing.(296) This may be conveniently illustrated by an
appeal to the only charge which remains to be examined.
(XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs
εὐθέως and πάλιν,—(both of them favourite words with the second
Evangelist,)—has been pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance. Let
us take the words singly:—
(_a_) The adverb εὐθέως (or εὐθύς) is indeed of _very_ frequent occurrence
in S. Mark’s Gospel. And yet its absence from chap. xvi is _proved_ to be
in no degree a suspicious circumstance, from the discovery that though it
occurs as many as
12 times in chap. i;
and 6 times in chap. v;
and 5 times in chap. iv, vi;
and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv;
and 2 times in chap. vii, xi;
it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv;
while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi.
(b) In like manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as
6 times in chap. xiv;
and 5 times in chap. x;
and 3 times in chap. viii, xv;
and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii;
and 1 times in chap. iv, v;
occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.(297)
(1.) Now,—How can it possibly be more suspicious that πάλιν should be
absent from _the last twelve_ verses of S. Mark, than that it should be
away from _the first forty-five_?
(2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters
of this same Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the ist, vith, ixth, or xiiith
chapter,—(for the sufficient reason that _neither word is wanted in any of
those places_,)—what possible “suspiciousness” can be supposed to result
from the absence of both words from the xvith chapter also, where _also_
neither of them is wanted? _Why_ is the xvith chapter of S. Mark’s
Gospel,—or rather, why are “the last twelve verses” of it,—to labour under
such special disfavor and discredit?
(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,—“I am well aware that arguments on
_style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_ they prove
very little: but when there does exist external evidence, and when
internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and connection,
are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment;
then these internal considerations possess very great weight.”(298)—For
all rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,—(_a_) But when there _does
not_ exist any such external evidence: what then? Next, he is reminded
(_b_) That whether there does, or does not, it is at least certain that
_not one_ of those “proofs as to style,” &c., of which he speaks, has been
able to stand the test of strict examination. Not only is the
precariousness of all such Criticism as has been brought to bear against
the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 excessive, but the supposed facts
adduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them
_mistakes_;—being either, (1) demonstrably without argumentative cogency
of any kind;—or else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory
circumstances: indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by S.
Mark,—_not_ that it is probably the work of another hand.
And thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion
vanishes out of sight: fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and
nugatory; and _thirteen_, more or less clearly witnessing _in favour_ of
the section.(299)
III. Of these thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent in their
witness. I am saying that it is impossible not to be exceedingly struck by
the discovery that this portion of the Gospel contains (as I have
explained already) so many indications of S. Mark’s undoubted manner. Such
is the reference to ἡ κτίσις (in ver. 15):—the mention of ἀπιστία (in ver.
14):—the occurrence of the verb πορεύεσθαι (in ver. 10 and 12),—of the
phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (in ver. 17),—and of the phrase χεῖρας ἐτιτιθέναι
ἐπί τινα (in ver. 18):—of the Evangelical term for our LORD’S Ascension,
viz. ἀνελήφθη (in ver. 19):—and lastly, of the compounds παρακολουθεῖν and
ἐπακολουθεῖν (in verses 17 and 20.)
To these Thirteen, will have to be added all those other notes of identity
of authorship,—such as they are,—which result from recurring identity of
phrase, and of which the assailants of this portion of the Gospel have
prudently said nothing. Such are the following:—
(xiv.) Ἀνίσταναι, for rising _from the dead_; which is one of S. Mark’s
words. Taking into account the shortness of his Gospel, he has it thrice
as often as S. Luke; _twelve times_ as often as S. Matthew or S. John.
(xv.) The idiomatic expression πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν, of which S. Matthew
does not present a single specimen; but which occurs three times in the
short Gospel of S. Mark,(300)—of which ver. 12 is one.
(xvi.) The expression προί (in ver. 9,)—of which S. Mark avails himself
six times: i.e. (if the length of the present Gospel be taken into
account) almost five times as often as either S. Matthew or S. John,—S.
Luke never using the word at all. In his first chapter (ver. 35), and here
in his last (ver. 2), S. Mark uses λίαν in connexion with προί.
(xvii.) The phrase κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (in ver. 15) is another of S.
Mark’s phrases. Like S. Matthew, he employs it four times (i. 14: xiii.
10: xiv. 9: xvi. 15): but it occurs neither in S. Luke’s nor in S. John’s
Gospel.
(xviii.) The same _words_ singly are characteristic of his Gospel. Taking
the length of their several narratives into account, S. Mark has the word
κηρύσσειν more than twice as often as S. Matthew: three times as often as
S. Luke.
(xix.) εὐαγγέλιον,—a word which occurs only in the first two Gospels,—is
found twice as often in S. Mark’s as in S. Matthew’s Gospel: and if the
respective length of their Gospels be considered, the proportion will be
as three to one. It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15.
(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned to vindicate _the
genuineness_ of this section of the Gospel, we should have been assured
that φανερουσθαι is another of S. Mark’s words: by which they would have
meant no more than this,—that though employed neither by S. Matthew nor by
S. Luke it is used thrice by S. Mark,—being found twice in this section
(verses 12, 14), as well as in ch. iv. 22.
(xxi.) They would have also pointed out that σκληροκαρδία is another of S.
Mark’s words: being employed neither by S. Luke nor by S. John,—by S.
Matthew only once,—but by S. Mark on _two_ occasions; of which ch. xvi. 14
is one.
(xxii.) In the same spirit, they would have bade us observe that πανταχοῦ
(ver. 20)—unknown to S. Matthew and S. John, and employed only once by S.
Luke,—is _twice_ used by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present
section.
Nor would it have been altogether unfair if they had added that the
precisely similar word πανταχόθεν (or πάντοθεν) is only found in this same
Gospel,—viz. in ch. i. 45.
(xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time with a greater
show of reason) that the adverb καλῶς (which is found in ver. 18) is
another favorite word with S. Mark: occurring as it does, (when the length
of these several narratives is taken into account,) more than twice as
often in S. Mark’s as in S. John’s Gospel,—just three times as often as in
the Gospel of S. Matthew and S. Luke.
(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation would have
been that ἔχειν, in the sense of “to be,” (as in the phrase καλῶς ἔχειν,
ver. 18,) is characteristic of S. Mark. He has it oftener than any of the
Evangelists, viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32, 34: ii. 17: v. 23: vi. 55:
xvi. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, he employs this
idiom twice as often as S. Matthew;—three times as often as S. John;—four
times as often as S. Luke.
(xxv.) They would have told us further that ἄῤῥωστος is another of S.
Mark’s favorite words: for that he has it _three_ times,—viz. in ch. vi.
5, 13, and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew has it only once. S. Luke and S.
John not at all.
(xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by them that the
conjunction of πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι (in ver. 10) is characteristic of S.
Mark,—who has κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας in ch. v. 38: θορυβεῖσθε και
κλαίετε in the very next verse. As for πενθεῖν, it is one of the 123 words
common to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their two Gospels.
(xxvii.) Lastly, “κατακρίνω (in ver. 16), instead of κρίνω, is Mark’s
word, (comp. x. 33: xiv. 64).” The simple verb which is used four times by
S. Matthew, five times by S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at
all employed by S. Mark: whereas the compound verb he has oftener in
proportion than S. Matthew,—more than twice as often as either S. Luke or
S. John.
Strange,—that there should be exactly “xxvii” notes of genuineness
discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of “XXVII” grounds of
suspicion!
But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage review the progress
hitherto made in this inquiry.
I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing assertions
respecting the “Style” and “Phraseology” of this section of the Gospel
which were rehearsed at the outset,(301)—are destitute of foundation. But
from this discovery alone there results a settled conviction which it will
be found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scripture which has
been able to endure so severe an ordeal of hostile inquiry, has been
_proved_ to be above suspicion. _That_ character is rightly accounted
_blameless_ which comes out unsullied after Calumny has done her worst;
done it systematically; done it with a will; done it for a hundred years.
But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect
of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. Something _more_ is certain than
that the charges which have been so industriously brought against this
portion of the Gospel are without foundation. It has been also proved that
instead of there being discovered twenty-seven suspicious words and
phrases scattered up and down these twelve verses of the Gospel, there
actually exist exactly as many words and phrases which attest with more or
less certainty that those verses are nothing else but the work of the
Evangelist.
IV. And now it is high time to explain that though I have hitherto
condescended to adopt the method of my opponents, I have only done so in
order to shew that it proves fatal to _themselves_. I am, to say the
truth, ashamed of what has last been written,—so untrustworthy do I deem
the method which, (following the example of those who have preceded me in
this inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The “Concordance test,”—(for
_that_ is probably as apt and intelligible a designation as can be devised
for the purely _mechanical_ process whereby it is proposed by a certain
school of Critics to judge of the authorship of Scripture,)—is about the
coarsest as well as about the most delusive that could be devised. By
means of this clumsy and vulgar instrument, especially when applied, (as
in the case before us,) without skill and discrimination, it would be just
as easy to prove that _the first_ twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are of
a suspicious character as _the last_.(302) In truth, except in very
skilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead.
Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that “Mark nowhere uses the
appellation JESUS CHRIST:” and (ii.) that “εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” is
“_Pauline_”—We should be reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere
introduces any of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of
“Isaiah”(303) (in ver. 2) is a suspicious circumstance:—(iv.) that a
quotation from the Old Testament is “foreign to his manner,”—(for writers
of this class would not hesitate to assume that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part
of the Gospel;)—and (v.) that the fact that here are quotations from _two_
different prophets, betrays an unskilful hand.—(vi.) Because S. Mark three
times calls Judæa by its usual name (Ιουδαια, viz. in iii. 7: x. 1: xiii.
14), the _unique_ designation, ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα (in ver. 5) would be
pronounced decisive against “the authorship of Mark.”—(vii.) The same
thing would be said of the _unique_ expression, ἐν Ἰορδάνη ποταμῷ, which
is found in ver. 5,—seeing that this Evangelist three times designates
Jordan simply as Ἰορδάνης (i. 9: iii. 8: x. 1).—(viii.) _That_ entire
expression in ver. 7 (_unique_, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,) οὖ
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανος—ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ, would be pronounced “abhorrent to the
style of Mark.”—(ix.) τὸ Πνεῦμα _twice_, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we
should be told is never used by the Evangelist absolutely for the HOLY
GHOST: but always τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον (as in ch. iii. 29: xii. 36: xiii.
11).—(x.) The same would be said of οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται (in ver. 5) for “the
inhabitants of Jerusalem:” we should be assured that S. Mark’s phrase
would rather be οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων,—as in ch. iii. 8 and 22.—And (xi.) the
expression πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῷ (ver. 15), we should be informed
“cannot be Mark’s;”—who either employs εἰς and the accusative (as in ch.
ix. 92), or else makes the verb take a dative (as in ch. xi. 31: xvi. 13,
14.)—We should also probably be told that the ten following words are all
“unknown to Mark:”—(xii.) τρίχες,—(xiii.) δερματίνη,—(xiv.) ὀσφύς,—(xv.)
ἀκρίδες,—(xvi.) μέλι,—(xvii.) ἄγριος,(six instances in a single verse
(ver. 6): a highly suspicious circumstance!),—(xviii.) κύπτειν,—(xix.)
ἱμάς,—(xx.) ὑποδήματα, (all three instances in ver. 7!)—(xxi.)
εὐδοκεῖν,—(xxii.) καὶ ἐγένετο ... ἦλθεν (ver. 9),—unique in S.
Mark!—(xxiii.) βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς (ver 9), another unique phrase!—(xxiv.) οἱ
οὐρανοί _twice_, (viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when _S. Mark_
speaks of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41: vii. 34: viii. 11: xvi. 19) he always uses
the singular.—Lastly, (xxv.) the same sorry objection which was brought
against the “last twelve verses,” (that πάλιν, a favourite adverb with S.
Mark, is not found there,) is here even more conspicuous.
Turning away from all this,—(not, however, without an apology for having
lingered over such frivolous details so long,)—I desire to point out that
we have reverently to look below the surface, if we would ascertain how
far it is to be presumed from internal considerations whether S. Mark was
indeed the author of this portion of his Gospel, or not.
V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical, more
_real_ test than the coarse, uncritical expedient which has been hitherto
considered of ascertaining by reference to the pages of a Greek
Concordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the
Gospel is, or is not, used elsewhere by S. Mark. And I suppose it will be
generally allowed to be deserving of attention,—in fact, to be a
singularly corroborative circumstance,—that within the narrow compass of
these Twelve Verses we meet with _every principal characteristic of S.
Mark’s manner_:—Thus,
(i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gospels, and though to
all appearance he often merely reproduces what S. Matthew has said before
him, or else anticipates something, which is afterwards delivered by S.
Luke,—it is surprising how often we are indebted to S. Mark for precious
pieces of information which we look for in vain elsewhere. Now, this is a
feature of the Evangelist’s manner which is susceptible of memorable
illustration from the section before us.
How many and how considerable are the _new circumstances_ which S. Mark
here delivers!—(1) That Mary Magdalene was _the first_ to behold the risen
SAVIOUR: (2) That it was _He_ who had cast out from her the “seven
devils:” (3) _How the men were engaged_ to whom she brought her joyful
message,—(4) who not only did not believe _her_ story, but when Cleopas
and his companion declared what had happened to themselves, “_neither
believed they them_.” (5) The terms of the Ministerial Commission, as set
down in verses 15 and 16, are unique. (6) The announcement of the “signs
which should follow them that believe” is even extraordinary. Lastly, (7)
this is the only place in the Gospel where _The Session at the right Hand
of _GOD is recorded.... So many, and such precious incidents, showered
into the Gospel Treasury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand,
must needs have proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from a companion
of Apostles. O, if we had no other token to go by, there could not be a
reasonable doubt that this entire section is by no other than S. Mark
himself!
(ii.) A second striking characteristic of the second Evangelist is his
love of picturesque, or at least of striking details,—his proneness to
introduce exceedingly minute particulars, often of the profoundest
significancy, and always of considerable interest. Not to look beyond the
Twelve Verses (chap. i. 9-20) which were originally proposed for
comparison,—We are reminded (_a_) that in describing our SAVIOUR’S
Baptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that “He came _from Nazareth_” to
be baptized.—(_b_) In his highly elliptical account of our LORD’S
Temptation, it is only he who relates that “He was _with the wild
beasts_.”—(_c_) In his description of the Call of the four Disciples, S.
Mark alone it is who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of his
account to what is found in S. Matthew,) records that the father of S.
James and S. John was left “in the ship _with the hired
servants_.”(304)—Now, of this characteristic, we have also within these
twelve verses, at least four illustrations:—
(_a_) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently proceeded from
an eye-witness,—“πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι.” S. Mark relates that when Mary
conveyed to the Disciples the joyous tidings of the LORD’S Resurrection,
_she found them overwhelmed with sorrow_,—“mourning and weeping.”
(_b_) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is _recorded only
there._
(_c_) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples were “going
into the country,” (πορευόμενοι εἰς ἀγρόν,(305) ver. 12,) JESUS also “went
with them”—(συν-επορεύετο, as S. Luke relates;)—but that it was _as they
actually _“walked”_ along_ (περιπατοῦσιν) that this manifestation took
place.
(_d_) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning “them that
believe;” what can be imagined more striking than the promise that they
should “_take up serpents_;” and suffer no harm even if they should
“_drink any deadly thing_”?
(iii) Next,—all have been struck, I suppose, with S. Mark’s proneness to
substitute some expression of his own for what he found in the Gospel of
his predecessor S. Matthew: or, when he anticipates something which is
afterwards met with in the Gospel of S. Luke, his aptness to deliver it in
language entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude, for
instance; to his substitution of ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (xiv. 72) for S.
Matthew’s ἔκλαυσε μικρῶς (xxvi. 75);—and of ὁ τέκτων (vi. 3) for ὁ τοῧ
τέκτονος υιος (S. Matth. xiii. 55).—The “woman of Canaan” in S. Matthew’s
Gospel (γυνὴ Χαναναία, ch. xv. 22), is called “a Greek, a Syrophenician by
nation” in S. Mark’s (Ἑλληνὶς, Συροφοίνισσα τῷ γένει, ch. vii. 26).—At the
Baptism, instead of the “_opened_” heavens of S. Matthew (ἀνεῷχθησαν, ch.
iii. 16) and S. Luke (ἀνεῳχθῆναι, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by S.
Mark with the striking image of the heavens “_cleaving_” or “_being rent
asunder_” (σχιζομένους,(306) ch. i. 10).—What S. Matthew calls τὰ ὅρια
Μαγδαλά (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as τὰ μέρθ Δαλμανουθά (ch. viii.
10.)—In place of S. Matthew’s ζύμη Σαδδουκαίων (ch. xvi. 6), S. Mark has
ζύμη Ἡρώδου (ch. viii. 15.)—In describing the visit to Jericho, for the
δύο τυφλοί of S. Matthew (ch. xx. 29), S. Mark gives υἱὸς Τιμαίου
Βαρτίμαιος ὁ τυφλὸς ... προσαιτῶν (ch. ch. 46.)—For the κλάδους of S.
Matth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch. xi. 8) has στοιβάδας; and for the other’s πρὶν
ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (xxvi. 34), he has πρὶν ἢ δίς (xiv. 30.)—It is so
throughout.
Accordingly,—(as we have already more than once had occasion to
remark,)—whereas the rest say only ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων, S. Mark says πρώτη
σαββάτου (in ver. 9).—Whereas S. Luke (viii. 2) says ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ
ἐξεληλύθει,—S. Mark records that from her ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.—Very
different is the great ministerial Commission as set down by S. Mark in
ver. 15, 16, from what is found in S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.—And whereas
S. Luke says “_their eyes were holden_ that they should not know Him,” S.
Mark says that “He appeared to them _in another form_.” ... Is it credible
that any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark’s narrative after S.
Luke’s Gospel had appeared, would have ventured so to paraphrase S. Luke’s
statement? And yet, let the consistent truthfulness of either expression
be carefully noted. _Both_ are historically accurate, but they proceed
from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly side, (God’s side),
the Disciples’ “eyes” (of course) “_were __ holden_:”—viewed on the
earthly side, (Man’s side), the risen SAVIOUR (no doubt) “_appeared in
another form_.”
(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many expressions into
his Gospel which confirm the prevalent tradition that it was _at Rome_ he
wrote it; and that it was with an immediate view to _Latin_ readers that
it was published. Twelve such expressions were enumerated above (at p.
150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most unmistakably is the phrase
πρώτη σαββάτου in ver. 9.—It is simply incredible that any one but an
Evangelist writing under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to
S. Mark, would have hit upon such an expression as this,—the strict
equivalent, to Latin ears, for ἡ μία σαββάτων, which has occurred just
above, in ver. 2. Now this, it will be remembered, is one of the hacknied
objections to the genuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel;—quite
proof enough, if proof were needed, of the exceeding _improbability_ which
attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who have considered this
question the most.
(v.) The last peculiarity of S. Mark to which I propose to invite
attention is supplied by those expressions which connect his Gospel with
S. Peter, and remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient
Church that S. Mark was the companion of the chief of the Apostles.
That the second Gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed
out; never more interestingly or more convincingly than by Townson(307) in
a work which deserves to be in the hands of every student of Sacred
Science. Instead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to
illustrate my meaning, I will mention one which has perhaps never been
mentioned in this connexion before.
(_a_) Reference is made to our LORD’S sayings in S. Mark vii, and
specially to what is found in ver. 19. _That_ expression, “purging all
meats” (καθαρίζων(308) πάντα τὰ βρώματα), does really seem to be no part
of the Divine discourse; but the Evangelist’s inspired comment on the
SAVIOUR’S words.(309)
Our SAVIOUR (he explains) by that discourse of His—ipso, facto—“_made all
meats clean_.” How doubly striking a statement, when it is remembered that
probably Simon Peter himself was the actual author of it;—the same who, on
the house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that “GOD _had made
clean_” (ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε(310)) _all_ His creatures!
(_b_) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on a memorable
occasion be considered:—“Wherefore of these men which have companied with
us all the time that the LORD JESUS went in and out among us, _beginning
from the Baptism of John_, unto that same day that _He was taken up_
(ἀνελήφθη) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His
Resurrection.”(311) Does not S. Peter thereby define the precise limits of
our SAVIOUR’S Ministry,—shewing it to have “begun” (ἀρξάμενος) “from the
Baptism of John,”—and closed with the Day of our LORD’S Ascension? And
what else are those but the exact bounds of S. Mark’s Gospel,—of which the
ἀρχή (ch. i. 1) is signally declared to have been _the Baptism of
John_,—and the utmost limit, the day when (as S. Mark says) “_He was taken
up_ (ἀνελήφθη) into Heaven,”—(ch. xvi. 19)?
(_c_) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion with the phrase,
πᾶσῃ τῇ κτίσει, in ver. 15,—(concerning which, the reader is referred back
to page 162-3,)—that both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred
writers) conspire to use the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.(312) S. Mark
has besides κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισε ὁ Θεός (ch. xiii. 19); while S. Peter alone
styles the ALMIGHTY, from His work of Creation, ὁ κτίστης (1 S. Pet. iv.
19).
VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations as those which
precede,—(some of which, I am aware, might be considerably evacuated of
their cogency; while others, I am just as firmly convinced, will remain
forcible witnesses of GOD’S Truth to the end of Time,)—I hesitate not to
avow my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence is
garnered up within the brief compass of these Twelve Verses that they are
identical in respect of fabric with the rest of the Gospel; were clearly
manufactured out of the same Divine materials,—wrought in the same
heavenly loom.
It was even to have been expected, from what is found to have been
universally the method in other parts of Scripture,—(for it was of course
foreseen by ALMIGHTY GOD from the beginning that this portion of His Word
would be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, reviled,
hated, rejected, denied,)—that the SPIRIT would not leave Himself without
witness in this place. It was to have been anticipated, I say, that
Eternal Wisdom would carefully—(I trust there is no irreverence in so
speaking of GOD and His ways!)—would carefully make provision: meet the
coming unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword: plant up and
down throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of
their Divine Original,—unmistakable notes of purpose and
design,—mysterious traces and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to the
scornful and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent; yet clear as if
written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, the man who
“trembleth at GOD’S Word.”(313) Or, (if the Reader prefers the image,) the
indications of a Divine Original to be met with in these verses shall be
likened rather to those cryptic characters, invisible so long as they
remain unsuspected, but which shine forth clear and strong when exposed to
the Light or to the Heat; (Light and Heat, both emblems of Himself!) so
that even he that gropeth in darkness must now see them, and admit that of
a truth “the LORD is in this place” although he “knew it not!”
(i.) I propose then that in the first instance we compare the conclusion
of S. Mark’s Gospel with the beginning of it. We did this before, when our
object was to ascertain whether the _Style_ of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 be indeed
as utterly discordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonly
represented. We found, instead, the most striking resemblance.(314) We
also instituted a brief comparison between the two in order to discover
whether the _Diction_ of the one might not possibly be found as suggestive
of _verbal_ doubts as the diction of the other: and so we found
it.(315)—Let us for the third time draw the two extremities of this
precious fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them.
Nothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once more, our
attention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve
verses (ver. 9-20) of S. Mark’s _first_ chapter which exactly correspond
with the twelve verses of his _last_ chapter (ver. 9-20) which are the
subject of the present volume.
Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides (1) the obvious
_verbal_ resemblance, I detect (2) a singular parallelism of _essential
structure_. And this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing
of the kind was to have been _expected_.
(1.) On the verbal coincidences I do not propose to lay much stress. Yet
are they certainly not without argumentative weight and significancy. I
allude to the following:—
(a) [βαπτίζων, βάπτισμα (a) βαπτισθείς (xvi. 16)
(i. 4)—καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο
(i. 5)—ἐβάπτισα, βαπτίσει
(i. 8)]—καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη (i.
9)
(b) [κηρύσσων, ἐκήρυσσδ (b) ἐκήρυξαν (xvi. 20)
(i. 7)]
(b and c) κηρύσσων τὸ (c) κηρύξατε τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον (i. 14)—[ἀρχὴ εὐαγγέλιον (xvi. 15)
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (i. 1)]
(c and d) πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ (d) ἠπίστησαν (xvi.
εὐαγγελίῳ (i. 15) 11)—οὐδὲ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi.
13)—τὴν ἀπιστίαν, οὐκ
ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 14)—ὁ
πιστεύσας, ὁ ἀπιστήσας
(xvi. 16)—τοῖς πιστεύσασι
(xvi. 17.)
Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an unmistakable
relation of sympathy between the first page of S. Mark’s Gospel and the
last. The same doctrinal phraseology,(316)—the same indications of Divine
purpose,—the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both.
(i.) _A Gospel_ to be everywhere _preached_;—(ii.) _Faith_, to be of all
required;—(iii.) _Baptism_ to be universally administered; “one LORD, one
Faith, one Baptism:”—Is not _this_ the theme of the beginning of S. Mark’s
Gospel as well as of the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the
two extremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric
be identical or not, it were discovered that those extremities are even
meant _to clasp_!
(2.) But the _essential_ parallelism between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark
i. 9-20 is a profounder phenomenon and deserves even more attention. I
proceed to set down side by side, as before, what ought to require neither
comment nor explanation of mine. Thus we find,—
(A) _in ch._ i. 9 _to_ (A) _in ch._ xvi. 9 _to_
11:—Our LORD’S 11:—Our LORD’S appearance
Manifestation to the to Mary Magdalene (ἐφάνη)
World (ἐπιφανεία) on HIS after HIS Resurrection
“coming up (ἀναβαίνων) (ἀναστάς) from death:
out of the water” of “Thou art My SON, this
Jordan: (having been day have I begotten
“buried by Baptism,” as Thee.”
the Apostle speaks:) when
the Voice from Heaven
proclaimed,—“Thou art My
beloved SON in whom I am
well pleased.”
—12 _to_ 14:—Two other
Manifestations
(ἐφανερώθη) to Disciples.
(B) —12, 13:—CHRIST’S (B) —17, 18:—CHRIST’S
victory over Satan; promise that “they that
(whereby is fulfilled the believe” “shall cast out
promise “Thou shalt tread devils” and “shall take
upon the lion and adder: up serpents:” (as [in S.
the young lion and the Luke x. 19] He had given
dragon shalt Thou trample the Seventy “power to
under feet.”) tread on serpents and
scorpions, and over all
the power of the Enemy.”)
(C) —8:—The Pentecostal (C) —17:—The chief
Gift foretold: “He shall Pentecostal Gift
baptize you with the HOLY specified: “They shall
GHOST.” speak with new tongues.”
(D) _in ch._ i. 14, (D) _in ch._ xvi. 15,
15:—CHRIST “comes into 16:—He commands His
Galilee, preaching the Apostles to “go into all
Gospel ... and saying ... the world and preach the
Repent ye, and believe Gospel to every creature.
the Gospel.” He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved.”
(E) —15: His (E) —19:—S. Mark’s record
announcement, that “The concerning Him, that “He
time is fulfilled, and was received up into
the Kingdom of God is at Heaven, and sat on the
hand.” right hand of GOD” (where
He must reign till He
hath put all enemies
under His feet.)
(F) —16 _to_ 20:—The four (F) —20:—The Apostles’
Apostles’ Call to the Ministry, which is
Ministry: (which [S. Luke everywhere miraculously
v. 8, 9] is miraculously attested,—“The LORD
attested.) working with them, and
confirming the word by
the signs that followed.”
It is surely not an unmeaning circumstance, a mere accident, that the
Evangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his
Gospel, so express himself! If, however, it should seem to the Reader a
mere matter of course, a phenomenon without interest or
significancy,—nothing which I could add would probably bring him to a
different mind.
(3.) Then, further: when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of
Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am not a little struck by
the discovery that the VIth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem
(A.D. 348) is found in the one: the Xth Article, in the other.(317) If it
be a purely fortuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like
these,—(viz. “_He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of
_GOD”—and “_One Baptism for the Remission of sins_,”) should be found at
either extremity of one short Gospel,—I will but point out that it is
certainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances.—But
in the thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, any talk
of fortuitousness at all.
(4.) Allusion is made to the diversity of Name whereby the Son of Man is
indicated in these two several places of the Gospel; which constitutes a
most Divine circumstance, and is profoundly significant. He who in _the
first_ verse (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title “Ἰησοῦς” and
“Χριστός,”—here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19, 20) is styled
for the first and for the last time, “Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ”—the LORD.(318)
And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was named “JESUS,” (a Name
which was given Him from _His Birth_, yea, and before His Birth); He who
at His Baptism became “the CHRIST,” (a Title which belonged to _His
Office_, and which betokens His sacred _Unction_);—the same, on the
occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the Right Hand of
GOD,—when (as we know) “all power had been given unto Him in Heaven and in
Earth” (S. Matth. xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of _Dominion_;
“the LORD” JEHOVAH ... “Magnifica et opportuna appellatio!”—as Bengel well
remarks.
But I take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or
could have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to S.
Mark’s unfinished Gospel. No inventor of a supplement, I say, _could_ have
planted his foot in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my
assertion is twofold:—
(_a_) First, because the present indication that the HOLY GHOST was indeed
the Author of these last Twelve Verses is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson
and his School, _as a proof of a spurious original_. Verily, such Critics
do not recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they _see_ it!
(_b_) Next, as a matter of fact, we _have_ a spurious Supplement to the
Gospel,—the same which was exhibited above at p. 123-4; and which may here
be with advantage reproduced in its Latin form:—“Omnia autem quaecumque
praecepta erant illis qui cum Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt. Post haec
et ipse Iesus adparuit, et ab oriente usque in occidentem misit per illos
sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae.
Amen.”(319)—Another apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of
the Thebaic version. It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as
follows:—“Exeuntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium
in mundo toto, CHRISTO operante cum iis in verbo confirmationem cum signis
sequentibus eos et miraculis. Atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in
terra tota et in mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum
quae exsistunt ab oriente ad occasum.” It will be seen that the Title of
_Dominion_ (ὁ Κύριος—the LORD) is found in neither of these fabricated
passages; but the Names of _Nativity_ and of _Baptism_ (Ἰησοῦς and
Χριστός—JESUS and CHRIST) occur instead.
(ii.) Then further:—It is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a
vast number of minute but important facts should be found accumulated
within the narrow compass of these twelve verses; and should be met with
_nowhere else_. The writer,—supposing that he had only S. Matthew’s Gospel
before him,—traverses (except in one single instance) _wholly new ground_;
moves forward with unmistakable boldness and a rare sense of security; and
wherever he plants his foot, it is to enrich the soil with fertility and
beauty. But on the supposition that he wrote after S. Luke’s and S. John’s
Gospel had appeared,—the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold: for how
then does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information from
quite independent sources? is not bound by any of their statements? even
seems _purposely_ to break away from their guidance, and to adventure some
extraordinary statement of his own,—which nevertheless carries the true
Gospel savour with it; and is felt to be authentic from the very
circumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and
put it forth on his own responsibility?
(iii.) Second to no indication that this entire section of the Gospel has
a Divine original, I hold to be a famous expression which (like πρώτη
σαββάτου) has occasioned general offence: I mean, the designation of Mary
Magdalene as one “out of whom” the LORD “had cast seven devils;” and
_that_, in immediate connexion with the record of her august privilege of
being the first of the Human Race to behold His risen form. There is such
profound Gospel significancy;—such sublime improbability,—such exquisite
pathos in this record,—that I would defy any fabricator, be he who he
might, to have achieved it. This has been to some extent pointed out
already.(320)
(iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circumstance must be by all
means here insisted upon afresh,) that the designation (found in ver. 10)
of the little company of our LORD’S followers,—“τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ
γενομένοις,”—is another rare note of veracious origin. No one but S.
Mark,—or just such an one as he,—would or could have so accurately
designated the little band of Christian men and women who, unconscious of
their bliss, were “mourning and weeping” till after sunrise on the first
Easter Day. The reader is reminded of what has been already offered on
this subject, at p. 155-6.
(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but S. Mark, (or such
an one as he(321)), would have familiarly designated the Apostolic body as
“αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἔνδεκα,” in ver. 14. The phrase οἱ δώδεκα, he uses in
proportion _far_ oftener than any other two of the Evangelists.(322) And
it is evident that the phrase οἱ ἕνδεκα soon became an equally recognised
designation of the Apostolic body,—“from which Judas by transgression
fell.” Its familiar introduction into this place by the second Evangelist
is exactly what one might have looked for, or at least what one is fully
prepared to meet with, _in him_.
(vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to an unobtrusive
and unobserved verb in the last of these verses which (I venture to say)
it would never have entered into the mind of any ordinary writer to employ
in that particular place. I allude to the familiar word ἐξελθόντες.
The precise meaning of the expression,—depending on the known force of the
preposition with which the verb is compounded,—can scarcely be missed by
any one who, on the one hand, is familiar with the Evangelical method; on
the other, is sufficiently acquainted with the Gospel History. Reference
is certainly made to the final departure of the Apostolic body _out of the
city of Jerusalem_.(323) And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein
contained a recollection of our SAVIOUR’S command to His Apostles, twice
expressly recorded by S. Luke, “that they should _not depart from
Jerusalem_, but wait for the promise of the FATHER.” “Behold,” (said He,)
“I send the promise of My FATHER upon you: but _tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem_, until ye be endued with power from on high.”(324)... After
many days “_they went forth_” or “_out_.” S. Mark, (or perhaps it is
rather S. Peter,) expressly says so,—ἐξελθόντες. Aye, and _that_ was a
memorable “outgoing,” truly! What else was its purpose but the
evangelization of the World?
VII. Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence derived from Internal
considerations. But lest it should hereafter be reckoned as an omission,
and imputed to me as a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged
_Inconsistency_ of certain statements contained in these “Twelve Verses”
with the larger notices contained in the parallel narratives of S. Luke
and S. John,—I proceed briefly to explain _why_ I am silent on this head.
1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other words,—what I
should propose to myself as the end to be attained by what I wrote. For,
2. What would be gained by demonstrating,—(as I am of course prepared to
do,)—that there is really _no inconsistency whatever_ between anything
which S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should
have proved that,—(assuming the _other_ Evangelical narratives to be
authentic, i.e. historically true,)—the narrative before us cannot be
objected to on the score of its not being authentic also. But _by whom_ is
such proof required?
(_a_) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met
with in the Evangelical narratives. In _their_ estimation, _the
genuineness of an inspired writing_ is a thing not in the least degree
rendered suspicious by the erroneousness of its statements. According to
them, the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may
yet be the work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but “trifling,” and
the inaccuracies “minute,”—these “sound Theologians,” (for so they style
themselves,(325)) “have no dread whatever of acknowledging” their
existence. Be it so. Then would it be a gratuitous task to set about
convincing _them_ that no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable
within the compass of these Twelve concluding Verses.
(_b_) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers; who, for
want of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the
perfect Harmony of the Evangelical narratives in this place. It is only
one of many places where a primâ facie discrepancy, though it does not
fail to strike,—yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them.
Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with themselves somewhat
as follows:—"GOD’S Word, like all GOD’S other Works, (and I am taught to
regard GOD’S Word as a very masterpiece of creative skill;)—the blessed
Gospel, I say, is _full_ of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are
observed invariably to disappear under competent investigation. Can I
seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on
the highly elliptical portion of narrative contained in these Twelve
Verses, it would present no exception to a rule which is observed to be
else universal; and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark’s
statements in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be
found to be imaginary only?"
This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon a prolonged
Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion of _the Principles
of Gospel Harmony_,—for which the present would clearly not be the proper
place.
VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,—
1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from “Style,” (in itself a
highly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation.
It has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the style of S. Mark
xvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S. Mark i. 9-20; and therefore,
that _it is rendered probable by the Style_ that the Author of the
beginning of this Gospel was also the Author of the end of it.
2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument from “Phraseology,”—(in
itself, a most unsatisfactory test; and as it has been applied to the
matter in hand, a very coarse and clumsy one;)—breaks down hopelessly
under severe analysis.
Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances in the
Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has been proved (pp. 170-3) that in
twenty-seven particulars there emerge _corroborative considerations_.
3. Lastly, I have shewn that a loftier method of Criticism is at hand; and
that, tested by this truer, more judicious, and more philosophical
standard; _a presumption_ of the highest order is created _that these
Verses must needs be the work of S. Mark_.
CHAPTER X.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO
THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary
antiquity (p. 195).—Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the
Gospels, by an appeal to the Fathers (p. 198).—In this Lectionary,
(and also in the Lectionary of the West,) the last Twelve Verses
of S. Mark’s Gospel have, from the first, occupied a most
conspicuous, as well as most honourable place, (p. 204.)—Now, this
becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their favour
(p. 209.)
I have reserved for the last the testimony of THE LECTIONARIES, which has
been hitherto all but entirely overlooked;(326)—passed by without so much
as a word of comment, by those who have preceded me in this inquiry. Yet
is it, when rightly understood, altogether decisive of the question at
issue. And why? Because it is not the testimony rendered by a solitary
father or by a solitary MS.; no, nor even the testimony yielded by a
single Church, or by a single family of MSS. But it is _the united
testimony of all the Churches_. It is therefore the evidence borne by a
“goodly fellowship of Prophets,” a “noble array of Martyrs” indeed; as
well as by _MSS. innumerable which have long since perished_, but which
must of necessity once have been. And so, it comes to us like the voice of
many waters: dates, (as I shall shew by-and-by,) from a period of
altogether immemorial antiquity: is endorsed by the sanction of all the
succeeding ages: admits of neither doubt nor evasion. This subject, in
order that it may be intelligibly handled, will be most conveniently
approached by some remarks which shall rehearse the matter from the
beginning.
The Christian Church succeeded to the Jewish. The younger society
inherited the traditions of the elder, not less as a measure of necessity
than as a matter of right; and by a kind of sacred instinct conformed
itself from the very beginning in countless particulars to its
divinely-appointed model. The same general Order of Service went on
unbroken,—conducted by a Priesthood whose spiritual succession was at
least as jealously guarded as had been the natural descent from Aaron in
the Church of the Circumcision.(327) It was found that “the Sacraments of
the Jews are [but] types of ours.”(328) Still were David’s Psalms
antiphonally recited, and the voices of “Moses and the Prophets” were
heard in the sacred assemblies of God’s people “every Sabbath day.”
Canticle succeeded to Canticle; while many a Versicle simply held its
ground. The congenial utterances of the chosen race passed readily into
the service of the family of the redeemed. Unconsciously perhaps, the very
method of the one became adopted by the other: as, for example, the method
of beginning a festival from the “Eve” of the preceding Day. The
Synagogue-worship became transfigured; but it did not part with one of its
characteristic features. Above all, the same three great Festivals were
still retained which declare “the rock whence we are hewn and the hole of
the pit whence we are digged:” only was it made a question, a controversy
rather, whether Easter should or should not be celebrated _with the
Jews_.(329)
But it is the faithful handing on to the Christian community of _the
Lectionary practice_ of the Synagogue to which the reader’s attention is
now exclusively invited. That the Christian Church inherited from the
Jewish the practice of reading a first and a second Lesson in its public
assemblies, is demonstrable. What the Synagogue practice was in the time
of the Apostles is known from Acts xiii. 15, 27. Justin Martyr, (A.D. 150)
describes the Christian practice in his time as precisely similar:(330)
only that for “the Law,” there is found to have been at once substituted
“the Gospel.” He speaks of the writings of “_the Apostles_” and of “the
Prophets.” Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two Lessons) in one
of his Homilies.(331) Cassian (A.D. 400) says that in Egypt, after the
Twelve Prayers at Vespers and at Matins, two Lessons were read, one out of
the Old Testament and the other out of the New. But _on Saturdays_ and
_Sundays_, and the fifty days of Pentecost, both Lessons were from the New
Testament,—one from the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; the other,
from the Gospels.(332) Our own actual practice seems to bear a striking
resemblance to that of the Christian Church at the earliest period: for we
hear of (1) “Moses and the Prophets,” (which will have been the carrying
on of the old synagogue-method, represented by our first and second
Lesson,)—(2) a lesson out of the “Epistles or Acts,” together with a
lesson out of the “Gospels.”(333) It is, in fact, universally received
that the Eastern Church has, from a period of even Apostolic antiquity,
enjoyed a Lectionary,—or established system of Scripture lessons,—of her
own. In its conception, this Lectionary is discovered to have been
fashioned (as was natural) upon the model of the Lectionary of God’s
ancient people, the Jews: for it commences, as theirs did, _in the
autumn_, (in September(334)); and prescribes two immovable “Lections” for
every _Saturday_ (as well as for every Sunday) in the year: differing
chiefly in this,—that the prominent place which had been hitherto assigned
to “the Law and the Prophets,”(335) was henceforth enjoyed by the Gospels
and the Apostolic writings. “Saturday-Sunday” lections—(σαββατοκυριακαί,
for so these Lections were called,)—retain their place in the “Synaxarium”
of the East to the present hour. It seems also a singular note of
antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday succeeding it do as it were
cohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week takes its name—_not_
from the Sunday with which it commences,(336) but—from the
Sabbath-and-Sunday with which _it concludes_. To mention only one out of a
hundred minute traits of identity which the public Service of the
sanctuary retained:—Easter Eve, which from the earliest period to this day
has been called “μέγα σάββατον,”(337) is discovered to have borne the
self-same appellation in the Church of the Circumcision.(338)—If I do not
enter more minutely into the structure of the Oriental Lectionary,—(some
will perhaps think I have said too much, but the interest of the subject
ought to be a sufficient apology,)—it is because further details would be
irrelevant to my present purpose; which is only to call attention to the
three following facts:
(I.) That the practice in the Christian Church of reading publicly before
the congregation certain fixed portions of Holy Writ, according to an
established and generally received rule, must have existed from a period
long anterior to the date of any known Greek copy of the New Testament
Scriptures.
(II.) That although there happens to be extant neither “Synaxarium,” (i.e.
Table of Proper Lessons of the Greek Church), nor “Evangelistarium,” (i.e.
Book containing the Ecclesiastical Lections _in extenso_), of higher
antiquity than the viiith century,—yet that the scheme itself, as
exhibited by those monuments,—certainly in every essential particular,—is
older than any known Greek MS. which contains it, by _at least_ four, in
fact by full _five_ hundred years.
(III.) Lastly,—That in the said Lectionaries of the Greek and of the
Syrian Churches, the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark which are the
subject of discussion throughout the present pages are observed
_invariably_ to occupy the same singularly conspicuous, as well as most
honourable place.
I. The first of the foregoing propositions is an established fact. It is
at least quite certain that in the ivth century (if not long before) there
existed a known Lectionary system, alike in the Church of the East and of
the West. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 348,) having to speak about our LORD’s
Ascension, remarks that by a providential coincidence, on the previous
day, which was Sunday, the event had formed the subject of the appointed
lessons;(339) and that he had availed himself of the occasion to discourse
largely on the subject.—Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, makes it plain
that, in the latter part of the ivth century, the order of the lessons
which were publicly read in the Church _on Saturdays and Sundays_(340) was
familiarly known to the congregation: for he invites them to sit down, and
study attentively beforehand, at home, the Sections (περικοπάς) of the
Gospel which they were about to hear in Church.(341)—Augustine is express
in recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for Festival
days;(342) and that an innovation which he had attempted on Good Friday
had given general offence.(343)—Now by these few notices, to look no
further, it is rendered certain that a Lectionary system of _some_ sort
must have been in existence at a period long anterior to the date of any
copy of the New Testament Scriptures extant. I shall shew by-and-by that
the fact is established by the Codices (B, א, A, C, D) themselves.
But we may go back further yet; for not only Eusebius, but Origen and
Clemens Alexandrinus, by their habitual use of the technical term for an
Ecclesiastical Lection (περικοπή, ἀνάγνωσις, ἀνάγνωσμα,) remind us that
the Lectionary practice of the East was already established in their
days.(344)
II. The Oriental Lectionary consists of “Synaxarion” and “Eclogadion,” (or
Tables of Proper Lessons from the Gospels and Apostolic writings daily
throughout the year;) together with “Menologion,” (or Calendar of
immovable Festivals and Saints’ Days.) That we are thoroughly acquainted
with all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the viiith, ixth and xth
centuries,—is a familiar fact; in illustration of which it is enough to
refer the reader to the works cited at the foot of the page.(345) But it
is no less certain that the scheme of Proper Lessons itself is of much
higher antiquity.
1. The proof of this, if it could only be established by an induction of
particular instances, would not only be very tedious, but also very
difficult indeed. It will be perceived, on reflection, that even when the
occasion of a Homily (suppose) is actually recorded, the Scripture
references which it contains, apart from the Author’s statement that what
he quotes _had_ formed part of that day’s Service, creates scarcely so
much as a presumption of the fact: while the correspondence, however
striking, between such references to Scripture and the Lectionary as we
have it, is of course no proof whatever that we are so far in possession
of the Lectionary of the Patristic age. Nay, on famous Festivals, the
employment of certain passages of Scripture is, in a manner,
inevitable,(346) and may on no account be pressed.
2. Thus, when Chrysostom(347) and when Epiphanius,(348) preaching on
Ascension Day, refer to Acts i. 10, 11,—we do not feel ourselves warranted
to press the coincidence of such a quotation with the Liturgical section
of the day.—So, again, when Chrysostom preaches on Christmas Day, and
quotes from S. Matthew ii. 1, 2;(349) or on Whitsunday, and quotes from S.
John vii. 38 and Acts ii. 3 and 13;—though both places form part of the
Liturgical sections for the day, no _proof_ results therefrom that either
chapter was actually used.
3. But we are not reduced to this method. It is discovered that nearly
three-fourths of Chrysostom’s Homilies on S. Matthew either begin at the
first verse of _a known Ecclesiastical Lection_; or else at the first
ensuing verse after the close of one. Thirteen of those Homilies in
succession (the 63rd to the 75th inclusive) begin with _the first words of
as many known Lections_. “Let us attend to this delightful section
(περικοπή) which we never cease turning to,”—are the opening words of
Chrysostom’s 79th Homily, of which “the text” is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e.
the beginning of the Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday.—Cyril of Alexandria’s
(so called) “Commentary on S. Luke” is nothing else but a series of short
Sermons, for the most part delivered on _known Ecclesiastical Lections_;
which does not seem to have been as yet observed.—Augustine (A.D. 416)
says expressly that he had handled S. John’s Gospel in precisely the same
way.(350)—All this is significant in a high degree.
4. I proceed, however, to adduce a few distinct proofs that the existing
Lectionary of the great Eastern Church,—as it is exhibited by Matthaei, by
Scholz, and by Scrivener from MSS. of the viiith century,—and which is
contained in Syriac MSS. of the vith and viith—must needs be in the main a
work of extraordinary antiquity. And if I do not begin by insisting that
at least one century more may be claimed for it by a mere appeal to the
Hierosolymitan Version, it is only because I will never knowingly admit
what may prove to be untrustworthy materials(351) into my foundations.
(_a_) “Every one is aware,” (says Chrysostom in a sermon on our SAVIOUR’S
Baptism, preached at Antioch, A.D. 387,) “that this is called the Festival
of the Epiphany. Two manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both
of which _you have heard this day S. Paul discourse in his Epistle to
Titus_.”(352) Then follows a quotation from ch. ii. 11 to 13,—which proves
to be the beginning of the lection for the day in the Greek Menology. In
the time of Chrysostom, therefore, Titus ii. 11, 12, 13 formed part of one
of the Epiphany lessons,—as it does to this hour in the Eastern Church.
What is scarcely less interesting, it is also found to have been part of
the Epistle for the Epiphany in the old Gallican Liturgy,(353) the
affinities of which with the East are well known.
(_b_) Epiphanius (speaking of the Feasts of the Church) says, that at the
Nativity, a Star shewed that the WORD had become incarnate: at the
“Theophania” (_our_ “Epiphany”) John cried, “Behold the Lamb of GOD,” &c.,
and a Voice from Heaven proclaimed Him at His Baptism. Accordingly, S.
Matth. ii. 1-12 is found to be the ancient lection for Christmas Day: S.
Mark i. 9-11 and S. Matth. iii. 13-17 the lections for Epiphany. On the
morrow, was read S. John i. 29-34.
(_c_) In another of his Homilies, Chrysostom explains with considerable
emphasis the reason why the Book of the Acts was read publicly in Church
during the interval between Easter and Pentecost; remarking, that it had
been the liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier age.(354)—After such an
announcement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that Augustine also
(A.D. 412) should be found to bear witness to the prevalence of the same
liturgical arrangement in the African Church.(355) In the old Gallican
Lectionary, as might have been expected, the same rule is recognisable. It
ought to be needless to add that the same arrangement is observed
universally to prevail in the Lectionaries both of the East and of the
West to the present hour; although the fact must have been lost sight of
by the individuals who recently, under pretence of “_making some
advantageous alterations_” in our Lectionary, have constructed an entirely
new one,—vicious in principle and liable to the gravest objections
throughout,—whereby _this_ link also which bound the Church of England to
the practice of Primitive Christendom, has been unhappily broken; _this_
note of Catholicity also has been effaced.(356)