(ver. 9.) "And it came to pa.s.s 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 G.o.d, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of G.o.d 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 a.s.serted to be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our SAVIOUR"S Baptism (which occupies the first three verses) the Evangelist pa.s.ses 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 compa.s.s 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 pa.s.s 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 a.s.sert 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 pa.s.sage; a.s.serting 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 circ.u.mstances 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 a.s.sertions 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 a.s.severation 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 cla.s.s is very fairly stated by one whose name I cannot write without a pang,-the late Dean Alford:-
(I.) The expression p??t? sa?t??, for the "first day of the week" (in ver. 9) "is remarkable" (he says) "as occurring so soon after" ?a sa?t?? (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 t? s?at??, and twice t? s?ata: again, twice, t? s?at??,-twice, ? ???a t??
sa?t??,-and once, t? s?ata.(255) Or again, that S. Matthew should _in one and the same chapter_ five times call the Sabbath, t? s?ta, and three times, t? s?at??.(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 ? d?????? in ver. 1, and ? pe?????? in ver. 3, for him whom our SAVIOUR calls Sata???
in ver. 10.-S. Mark, in chap. v. 2, has t? ??e?a,-but in ver. 5, t?
??ata.-S. Luke, in xxiv. 1, has t? ??a; but in the next verse, t?
??e???.-?p? with an accusative twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice exchanged for ?p? with a genitive in the same two verses: and ???f?? (in ver. 32) is exchanged for ???f?a in ver. 33.-Instead of ????? t? s??a?????
(in S. Luke viii. 41) we read, in ver. 49, ????s????????: and for ??
?p?st???? (in ix. 10) we find ?? d?de?a in ver. 12.-??? in S. Luke xxii.
50 is exchanged for ?t??? in the next verse.-In like manner, those whom S.
Luke calls ?? ?e?te??? in Acts v. 6, he calls ?ea??s??? 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 p??t? sa?t?? (in ver. 9) instead of the phrase ?a sa?t??, which he had employed just above (in ver. 2.) But it does not surprise me much,-when I observe that ?a sa?t?? _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 (p??t? sa?t??) as a note of _spuriousness_?
That is the only thing I have to consider. Am I, with Dr. Davidson, to reason as follows:-"p??t?, Mark would scarcely have used. It should have been ?a, &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, ? ?a t?? sa?t?? 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 h.e.l.lenistic way of exhibiting the vernacular idiom of Palestine.(260) The cardinal (?a) for the ordinal (p??t?) in this phrase was a known Talmudic expression, which obtained also in Syriac.(261) S?at?? and s?ata,-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 s?at??: a reference to the six places cited just now in earlier note establishes it concerning sa?ta. To see how indifferently the two forms (s?at?? and sa?ta) 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 t? sa?ta, and three times as t? s?at??.(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. ??a t?? sa?t?? 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 ??e sa?t??, t? ?p?f?s???s? e?? ?a? sa?t?? is invariably rendered, "Vespere _sabbati_, quae 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, ? ?a sa?t??. 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. p??t? sa?t??. How strictly equivalent the two modes of expression were felt to be by those who were best qualified to judge, is singularly ill.u.s.trated by the fact that the _Syriac_ rendering of both places is _identical_.
(4.) But I take leave to point out that this subst.i.tuted phrase, instead of being a suspicious circ.u.mstance, 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 "Judaea," is "a _country_," (? ???da?a ???a,)-and "Jordan," "a _river_," (? ???d???? p?ta??)?-Is not this the very man who explained to his readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar Jewish designation for "Friday," ? pa?as?e??, 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 spe?????t?? (the Latin _spiculator_) for "an executioner?" and who, in chap. xv. 39, for "a _centurion_," wrote-not ??at??ta????, but-?e?t??????-and, in chap. xii.
42, explained that the two ?ept? which the poor widow cast into the Treasury were equivalent to ??d???t??, the Latin _quadrans_?-and in chap.
vii. 4, 8, introduced the Roman measure _s.e.xtarius_, (??st??)?-and who volunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that a??? is only another designation of p?a?t????? (_Praetorium_)?-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 (???,-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 t?? ??? sa?t??, (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. p??t?
sa?t??,) in ver. 9.-This, therefore, I repeat, so far from being a circ.u.mstance "_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 doc.u.ment 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 doc.u.ment" 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 pa.s.s on.
(II.) Less excusable is the coa.r.s.eness of critical perception betrayed by the next remark. It has been pointed out as a suspicious circ.u.mstance that in ver. 9, "the phrase ?f? ?? ??e???e? ?pta da????a 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_ ?f? ?? da????a ?pta ??e?????e?,-here, ?f? ?? ??e???e?
?pta da????a 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 a??? without any "appendix," in the very next chapter (xv. 16) S. Mark adds, ? ?st? p?a?t?????.-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 ?a??a ? ?a???? t?? ????? ?a? ??s? ?t??; is mentioned with one half of that "appendix," (?a??a ? ??s?) in ver. 47, and _in the very next verse_, with the other half (?a??a ? t?? ?a????.)-I see no reason why the Traitor, who, in S. Luke vi. 16, is called ???da? ?s?a???t??, should be designated as ???da? t?? ?p??a???e??? ?s?a???t?? 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 a.s.surance 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 circ.u.mstance grounds only for suspicion and cavil? ?pa?e.
(III.) Take the next example.-The very form of the "appendix" which we have been considering (?f? ?? ??e???e? ?pt? da????a) breeds offence.
"Instead of ?????e?? ?p?," (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) "Mark has ?????e?? ??."(273)
Nothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark _once_ has ?????e?? ??,(274) and _once_ ?????e?? ?p?. 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 p??e?es?a?, "never used by S. Mark, is three times contained in this pa.s.sage;" (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 p??e?es?a? are common enough in his Gospel. Thus, short as his Gospel is, he alone has e?s-p??e?es?a?, ??-p??e?es?a?, s?-p??e?es?a?, pa?a-p??e?es?a?, _oftener than all the other three Evangelists put together_,-viz. twenty-four times against their nineteen: while the compound p??sp??e?es?a? is _peculiar to his Gospel_.-I am therefore inclined to suggest that the presence of the verb p??e?es?a? in these Twelve suspected Verses, instead of being an additional element of suspicion, is rather a circ.u.mstance 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, pa???s?a, 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 ?a???es?a?, and he has it three times: but all three cases are met with _in one and the same chapter_. S. John alone has ??p?, 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 t??a?t??, no less than fourteen occur in one chapter. The nine occasions when S. Luke uses the word ?? all occur in one chapter. S. John uses the verb ???st??a?
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 t??a?t?? and ?? are unusual words,-admitting of no subst.i.tute in the places where they respectively occur. But I reply,-Unless the Critics are able to shew me _which_ of the ordinary compounds of p??e?es?a? S. Mark could _possibly_ have employed for the uncompounded verb, in the three places which have suggested the present inquiry, viz.:-
ver. 10:-??e??? p??e??e?sa ?p???e??e t??? et? a?t?? ?e???????.
ver. 12:-d?s?? ?? a?t?? ... p??e??????? e?? ?????.
ver. 13:-p??e????te? e?? t?? ??s?? ?pa?ta, ?????ate t? e?a???????;-
their objection is simply frivolous, and the proposed adverse reasoning, worthless. Such, in fact, it most certainly is; for it will be found that p??e??e?sa in ver. 10,-p??e??????? in ver. 12,-p??e????te? in ver.
15,-_also_ "admit of no subst.i.tute 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 t??? et? a?t?? ?e??????? (in ver. 10) is noted as suspicious. "Though found in the Acts (xx. 18) it _never occurs in the Gospels_: nor does the word a??ta? in this pa.s.sage."
(1.) The phrase ?? et? a?t?? ?e??e??? 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 ?? et? a?t??.
(The aorist participle of ????a?, 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 circ.u.mstance,-not at all a ground of suspicion.
(3.) But it seems to be implied that S. Mark, because he mentions t???
a??t?? often elsewhere in his Gospel, ought to have mentioned them here.
(a) I answer:-He does not mention t??? a??t?? 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 ?? a??ta?,-(by which expression S. Mark always designates _the Twelve Apostles_,)-there was a considerable company of believers a.s.sembled together throughout the first Easter Day.(276) S. Luke notices this circ.u.mstance 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 (d??