Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Ix.]

genuineness and veraciousness.

187

ment 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?

66

(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 o.

(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 1), would have familiarly designated the Apostolic body as "avтoîs тoîs ěvdeкa,” in ver. 14. τοῖς The phrase of Sádeka, he uses in proportion far oftener than any other two of the Evangelists. And it is evident that the phrase oi evdeкa 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 See above (Art. II.) p. 152-3.

Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14.

S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.-S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32 : xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.-S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31: xxii. 3, 47.— S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24.

10.20

απ

16.13 13

188

One more note of genuineness.

[CHAP. 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 égeλóvτes. 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. 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."... After many days "they went forth," or "out." S. Mark, (or perhaps it is rather S. Peter,) expressly says so, -¿§eλóvтes. 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

Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,-where the moment of departure from the city is marked: (for observe, they had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also ch. xix. 17,-where the going without the gate is indicated: (for e¿w Tîs múλns érade [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider S. Luke xxi. 37.

[blocks in formation]

Ix.]

Supposed Inconsistencies not noticed:-and why. 189 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 m,) "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

m See above, p. 2.

190

Review of the foregoing Chapter.

[CHAP. IX. 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 a ;-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 army 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

The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of his Nov. Test. (ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.-" Haec lectio in Evangeliariis et Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus. Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur κυριακῇ τῶν μυροφόρων, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως. Tertio, ut éwowòv åvaoráciμov y. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia."-Matthaei had slightly anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.

« PoprzedniaDalej »