Matth. 14: 6-13. Mark 12: 28-35. Matth. 22: 34-41, er passages.

The knowledge he possesses in regard to the persons mentioned in the history and their circumstances is worthy of notice. While Matthew (9: 18) speaks only of an aozov, his name, Jairus, is given in Mark (5: 22) together with his office, is tov agriovrayayov. When Matthew (15: 22) mentions generally a yuvy Xavavaiu, Mark tells us more particularly ἦν δὲ ἡ γυνὴ ̔Ελληνὶς, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει (7: 26.) Matthew (27: 16) designates Barabbas simply as déouov inionMov; Mark (15:7) knew what was his crime, v in orasei góvov. The former tells us merely of a Cyrenian, Simon by name (27: 32;) while Mark informs us that it was Simon, a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus (15: 21.) The one speaks (27: 57) of a rich man, Joseph of Arimathea; the other knew that he was a distinguished member of the council (15: 43–45,) and was acquainted with what passed between him and Pilate, and the inquiry made of the centurion by the Prætor. Concerning Mary of Magdalene, he adds the circumstance (16: 9) αφ' ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. A case of the same kind, as we shall see directly, occurs in 10: 46, respecting the blind man in the road near Jericho. We will add one more example of the minute circumstances stated by Mark: according to Matth. 16: 5, the disciples had forgotten to take bread with them; yet Mark says (8: 14) they had one loaf with them in the ship. It is remarkable, too, that in narrating the occurrence at Gadaris, he observes (5:13) that there were about two thousand swine.

He did not then copy Matthew's book, but made use of it as the basis of his own; conferred greater particularity on Matthew's narrative, (which frequently presents only the outline of an occurrence, neglecting circumstantial detail,) and moulded his predecessor's sketches into the form of complete history. He is not, as some have repeated from Augustine, the epitomist, but the reviser of Matthew; and sometimes his revision is so rigid that he seems positively to contradict him.

Matthew mentions two demoniacs at Gadaris, while Mark (5: 2 seq.) speaks of but one. While Matthew (20: 30) speaks of two blind men healed on the road to Jericho, Mark tells us of but one (10: 46;) and that the narrative of both has reference to the same event is clear as well from the time, as from the similarity of the circumstances and phraseology. In this last case, Mark even sustains his statement in a striking manner, by subjoining something from which it is clear that he was perfectly well informed in regard to the incident; for the name of the man who was healed is stated by him in two languages, the Greek and the Syriac : υἱὸς Τιμαίου, Βαρτίμαιος ὁ τυφλός.

These cases would be indeed real contradictions, if we did not know the aim of Matthew; but when this is considered, they only evince indifference as to things not connected with his purpose. (4.) He wished merely to show from the acts of Jesus that he was the Messiah, and a perfectly accurate chronology was not even consistent with his plan. Minuteness, too, was of no importance to his object. The outline of an event was enough for his argument; and hence he proceeds in so summary a manner that it is evident he did not wish to trouble himself about minute circumstances. This does not prove any deficiency in

point of ability or in point of uprightness and love of truth; and only the want of one or the other of these characteristics, and not a mere indifference as to matters that do not concern his proposed plan, can brand a writer with error and dishonesty.

$28.

The person who is designated by history as Mark's voucher and source of information, and by whose assistance he has furnished us with so many new and important observations on Matthew, is prominently indicated as such in his work. On occasion of the first alteration which he makes in the arrangement of certain acts of our Lord, when he excludes from its position the story of the centurion, and places an incident previously mentioned by Matthew, viz. the cure of the leper, after the visit to Peter's house, he informs us just before this last occurrence that Simon was there with Jesus (Mark 1: 36,) xai xarediwžav avròv ó Zipov xai oi per' avrou. Again, in giving a considerably extended account of the cure of the daughter of Jairus, he expressly adds the circumstance that Jesus admitted only Peter, John and James as witnesses of the whole occurrence. (5: 37.) Matthew (21. 18 seq.) relates the story of the withered fig-tree; Mark (11: 12—15 and 20—27) gives it to us more in detail, and connects some moral instruction with it, particularly a passage from the sermon on the mount. (Matt. 6: 14, 15.) He seems here, too, to substantiate his account by exhibiting Peter, respecting whom Matthew is silent, as the occasion of the dialogue and the instruction annexed. Mark (13: 3) expressly names Peter as one of the persons engaged in the conversation concerning the final fate of the temple and Holy City, while Matthew (24: 3) only mentions it generally without specifying either of the persons concerned in it. Matthew (28: 10) tells us of the command to the women to carry the news of the resurrection to the disciples; Mark (16: 7) expressly adds the name of Peter: τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρα.

Such care to insert Peter's name in particular passages, where it was neither required by the circumstances of the event, nor any light was thereby thrown upon the event in itself considered, as in Mark 1: 36. 5: 37. 13: 3. 16: 7, denotes a peculiar motive in the writer's mind. The invariable presence of this apostle, and the mention of him purposely when it contributed nothing to illustrate the narrative, can be intended only to accredit it by his authority. At all events, Mark's anxiety to add Peter's name, without any necessity in reference to the circumstantiality or perspicuity of the occurrence, is perfectly explained by the accounts of the ancients concerning Mark's authority; and these traces in the book agree so well with the accounts as to favor and enhance their claim to credit.

$ 29.

Although in general Mark has carried out Matthew's history into more minute and exact detail than Matthew, yet in some cases he has done the contrary, and condensed Matthew's narrative, sometimes even retaining in part the same language.

or

The reason is most probably this, that at times Mark, who usually is more circumstantial in his narrative, did not consider it necessary, was unable, to add any thing to the account. In such a case it was superfluous to transcribe into his book at length narratives which were sufficiently minute in that of his predecessor; and he therefore contented himself with a concise statement, supposing his readers to be acquainted with the more detailed account.

Perhaps the minuteness of some relations, which left no room for addition on the part of Matthew's reviser, was the reason why he entirely omitted certain occurrences (e. g. Matth. 8: 5-13. 19–21. 11: 1 seq. ;) but more probably this is to be laid to the account of the voucher of his narratives, who did not allow to some occurrences the position which they occupy in Matthew, and did not in the sequel assign them the place which chronologically belonged to them. In fact subsequent investigations will show, that they really occurred in such chronological circumstances as would properly give them a different historical position.

$ 30.

We find but few entirely new events, unmentioned by Matthew, and consequently peculiar to Mark; perhaps there are three in all. One falls at the commencement of Jesus' ministry. (Mark 1: 23.) A demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, acknowledges the superior power dwelling in Jesus, and is healed. The others occurred shortly before the passion. A blind man is brought to Jesus at Bethsaida, and is restored to sight by his spittle and the laying on of his hands. (Mark 8:23-27) The last is the account of the poor woman who cast two lepta into the treasury. (Mark 12: 41-44.)

This fact, likewise, assures us that it was not his purpose to give an independent historical book, for the preparation of which he himself

could not have been deficient in materials, and his voucher still less in abundant knowledge; but that his plan was confined to a revision of the existing work of Matthew.

31.

The result of our investigations as to the mutual relation of the two Evangelists may be briefly presented as follows: Matthew is an original writer, as he was qualified to be, from having been an eye-witness of the occurrences narrated, a friend of the Teacher of whom he writes, and one to whom his future plans were intrusted. This work first saw the light. On account of the object he had in view, he was not anxious about the chronological arrangement of events, and, although he did not always neglect it, he yet often designedly presented together, in one view, certain discourses and actions which he found most suited to his particular purpose. Hence arose frequently a different order from the historical one. To detail the particular circumstances of each event would not have been subsidiary to his purpose, would have been superfluous, and often inconvenient. The incidental considerations presented by an extended narrative, would have diverted the reader from his main object, and distracted the attention which he wished to be directed to a single point, viz. the perception of the fact, that the predictions of the ancients concerning the Messiah were fulfilled in the life of JeMatthew is an historical deduction; Mark is history.

sus.

The contents of the latter are not, in general, new. We very seldom find in him narratives untouched by his predecessor. He composed his history from the materials furnished him by the latter, which are the basis of his production; and he aimed only at the merit of greater minuteness and accuracy. It was now specially incumbent on him to follow historical order, from which his predecessor had often deviated on account of his didactic aim. Then, too, exact historical representation was his duty; he could not be so careless and indifferent as to the detail of particular circumstances and incidental matters which would impart perspicuity or vividness to the occurrences narrated. These obligations he fulfilled by means of the information he received from one of the earliest and most beloved disciples of Jesus. On the other hand, when the narrative of his predecessor made further detail unnecessary or impracticable, he became concise, and the reader was from the nature of the case referred to the previous history. Some events he wholly passed over; probably because his authority left him in uncertainty as to their true historical position. Mark's production may be regarded both as a history and a critical treatise.

$32.

Further; as it is necessary that such minute circumstances and such a number of accessary observations, even when ascertained and accurately taken from the mouth of eye-witnesses, should have been immediately noted down, and preserved in writing in order to prevent their being lost or confounded in the mind; and as, moreover, the circumstances of Mark's life, the attestation of history and internal evidence in

the production itself designate Peter as the source of the peculiar information and the particularity of narrative which we find in this Gospel, there can be no doubt of the correctness of the assertion made by the ancients that Mark noted down in writing the public discourses of Peter, and has communicated their contents to us; and I conceive the origin of Mark's Gospel to have been as follows:

The Gospel of Matthew having been published, while the apostles were teaching at Rome, (§ 16) this first biographical account of their exalted Master was carried thither to them, through the agency of Matthew himself perhaps, or that of others. From the novelty of the thing and its importance in respect to the condition and prospects of Christianity in Palestine, this would happen very speedily through the many messengers who came to them from zealous churches, or the Jews who left their country on account of the war,1 and through the active communication which, on the same account, was kept up between Rome and Judea. For the common benefit of believers it was read in their assemblies, and Peter, who was peculiarly qualified for the purpose, explained and commented on it. Mark availed himself of these explanations and secured them by written notes, in which he was assisted by his close intimacy with the apostle. The expositions of the work of an eye-witness given by one who was himself an eye-witness of the acts of Jesus, and a coadjutor or companion in them, were of extraordinary value for the confirmation and instruction of believers, and they requested Mark to make his notes of general advantage and present them in a separate work. Hence his Gospel was called znovĝis Térov, the preaching of Peter, and he himself Peter's interpreter.

These relations between the voucher and the historian explain the reason why he has been still more concise than Matthew in relating certain occurrences in which Peter bore a part, when we might expect him to be more copious; e. g. Matth. 14: 28-32. 16: 15-20. For any parts of the narrative which respected Peter personally, and of which he was the principal subject, would naturally be concisely treated and rapidly passed over by him in his discourses. His modesty led him to comment very little on himself and his actions, and at the mention of his frailties he could not suppress the embarrassment and shame of a virtuous mind.2

In conclusion, we will endeavor to ascertain definitely the precise time at which these occurrences probably took place. When Nero went to amuse himself in Achaia with his disgraceful pursuits, Vespasian accompanied him thither. Meanwhile the rebellion broke out in oppressed Palestine, and Vespasian obtained commission to chastise that country. It was still winter when Nero sailed to Rome, Titus to Al

3

1 These emigrations had already commenced, under Albinus, before the rebellion broke out. Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. II. Ed. Haverc. c. 14. n. 2. and Ed. Basil. c. 24. p. 738. and Antiq. L. XX. c. ult.

2 What Eusebius says (Demonstr. Evang. L. III. p. 78, 79. Ed. Rob. Steph.) in comparing Matth. 16: 15-20, with Mark 8: 29, 30, deserves to be noticed. Tocovτων εἰρημένων τῷ Πέτρῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ ̓Ιησοῦ, ὁ Μάρκος μηδὲν τούτων μνημονεύσας, ὅτι μηδ' ὁ Πέτρος ταῦθ', ὡς εἰκὸς, ἐν ταῖς αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίαις ἐξηγόρευσεν διὸ καὶ Μάρκος αὐτὰ παρέλιπεν.

3 Sueton. in Vespas. c. 4. Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 1.

...