Page images


147 Jalian Pes' for his having written bis Gospel about this time, at the rc. Jerusalem. riod, 4756. quest, and for the use of the converts in that city. It will appear, Valgar Æra, I think, that the internal evidence arising from the Gospel about 43.

itself, and from the concurrent testimony of the fathers of the
Church, unite in affirming this to be the origin and object of
his Gospel ; although, as it will appear, it was not oliicially
committed to the Churches in general, till he was settled at
Alexandria, as the bishop of the Church in that city.

Michaelis has collected, in a very perspicuous manner, the
different circumstances related of St. Mark in the New Testa.
ment. He observes, “it appears, from Acts xii. 11. that St. Mark's
original name was John, the surname of Mark having probably
been adopted by him when be left Judea to go into foreign
countries; a practice not unusual among the Jews of that age,
who frequently assumed a name more familiar to the nations
which they visited, than that by which they had been distin-
guished in their own country. That St. Mark wrote his Gos-
pel in Rome, with the assistance and under the direction of St.
Peter, agrees extremely well with the contents of the Gospel
itself, and may serve likewise to explain several particulars,
whicb at first sight appear extraordinary. For instance, where
St. Peter is concerned in the parration, mention is sometimes
made of circumstances which are not related by the other
Evangelists, as at chap. i. 29–33. ix. 34. xi. 21. xiv. 30. And
on the contrary, the high commendations wbich Christ bestowed
on St. Peter, as appears from Matt. xvi. 17-19. but wbich the
apostle, through modesty, would hardly have repeated, are
wanting in St. Mark's Gospel. At chap. xiv. 47. St. Mark men-
tions neither the name of the apostle, who cut off the ear of the
high priest's servant, nor the circumstance of Christ's healing
it. We know that this apostle was St. Peter, for his name is
expressly mentioned by St. John ; but an Evangelist, who wrote
his Gospel at Rome during the life of St. Peter, would havo
exposed him to the danger of being accused by his adversaries,
if he had openly related the fact. Had St. Mark written after
the death of St. Peter, there would have been nó necessity for
this caution.

“Further, as St. Mark wrote for the immediate use of the Romans, he sometimes gives explanations which were necessary for foreigoers, though not for the inhabitants of Palestine. For instance, chap. vii. 2. he explains the meaning of kavais xepoi: and ver. 11. of coptāv. In the same chapter, ver. 3, 4. ho gives a description of some Jewish customs; and chap. xv. 42. be explains the meaning of mapaoKEUT. At chap. xvi. 21. he mentions that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus, a cir. cumstance not mentioned by the other Evangelists; but to St. Mark's readers the circumstance was interesting, because Ru. fus was at that time in Rome, as appears from Rom. xvi. 13. See also Wetstein's notes to chap. vii. 26. xi. 22.

St. Mark has more Latin words than the other evangelists: and these numerous Latinisms, not only show that his Gospel was composed by a person who had lived among the Latins, but also that it was writton beyond the contines of Judea. That this Gospel was designed principally for Gentile believers (though we know that there were some Jewish converts in the Church at Rome), is further evident from the explanations introduced by the Evangelist, which would have been unnecessary, if he had written for Hebrew Christians exclusively. Thus, the first time the Jordan is mentioned, tbe appellation“ river,” is added to the name, (Mark i. 5.) and instead of the word mammon, he uses the common term χρηματα, “ riches.” Again, the word Gehenna, which in our version is translated bell, (ix. 43.) ori.

Julian Pe- ginally signified the valley of Hinnom, where infants had been Jerusalem.
riod, 4756. sacrificed by fire to Moloch, and where a continual fire was
Valgarðra, aferwards maintained to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As
about 43. this word could not have been understood by a foreigner, the

Evangelist adds the words "unquenchable fire,” by way of ex-
planation. These particularities corroborate the historical
evidence above cited, that St. Mark designed his Gospel for the
use of Gentile Christians.

Lastly, the manner in which St. Mark relates the life of our
Saviour, is an additional evidence that be wrote for Gentile
Christians. His parrative is clear, exact, and concise, and his
exordium is singular; for while the other Evangelists style our
Saviour “the Son of Man,' St. Mark announces him at once as
the Son of God, (i. 1.) an august title, the more likely to en.
gage tbe attention of the Romans; omitting the genealogy of
Christ, his miraculous conception, the massacre of the infants
at Bethlehem, and other particulars, which could not be essen-
tially important in the eyes of foreigners.

Many things seem to prove that St. Mark's Gospel was
written, or dictated, by a spectator of the actions recorded.
Chap. i. 20. They left their father in the ship with the bired

i. 29. The names of James and John, omitted by Matt.

viii. 14. are mentioned.
i. 33. The crowd at the door. Comp. Matt. viii. 16.

and Luke iv. 40, 41.
i. 35. His disciples seeking him when Christ had risen

to pray. See Luke iv. 42.
i. 45. The conduct of the leper after his cure. See

Matt. viii. 4. and Luke v, 14, 15.
ii. 2. The cure of the paralytic. See Matt. ix. I. Luke

v. 18, 19.
Mr. Jones, in his work on the Canon, notices many cireum-
ştances omitted by St. Mark, which reflected honour on St.
Pcter. Compare Matt, xvi. 16–20. with Mark viji. 29, 30.
Malt. xvii. 24–28. and Mark ix. 30–33. Luke xxii. 31, 32.
John xiii. 6. and xviii. 10. compared with Mark xiv. 47. See
also John xxi. 7. 15. 18, and 19.

Dr. Towoson too has fully proved, from a variety of minute
incidents not noticed by the other Evangelists, that St. Mark's
Gospel must have been either written, or dictated by an eye-
Chap. iii.5. Christ's looking round on the people. See Matt.

xii. 9-13. Luke vi. 6-11. iii. 17. The names omitted by the other Evangelists are

mentioned. iii. 21. This is peculiar to St. Mark. iv. 26. Parable of the growing corn, so applicable to

the call of the Gentiles, peculiar to St. Mark. iv. 34. Compared with Matt. xiii. 31–34. iv. 36. St. Mark relates the cause of our Lord's sleep in

the ship; that it was after the fatigue of the day. This is omitted Matt. viii. 24–26. Mark

iv. 37, 38. Luke viji. 23, 24. iv. 36. “ Other little ships" with them. iv. 38. He was in the binder part of the ship, asleep on

a pillow, are omitted by the others. Tbe particularities mentioned by St. Mark in his account of the Gadarene dæmoniacs, see Matt. viii. 28–34. Mark v. 119. Luke viji. 26-39.-The number of the swine-the mentioning of the very words which our Lord spake to the daugbter of Jairus, Talitha cumi, (chap. v. 31.)-the blind man casting


149 Jaian Pe- away his garment, (chap. x. 50.)--the mentioning of the names Jerusalem. riod, 4756. of those who came to him privately, (chap. xiii. 3, 4.) all which Valgar Æra, minutiæ could have been known only to a spectator and hearer about 43.

of our Lord's words and actions,

The Gospelof St. Mark contains much internal evidence that it was written at the time when the devout Gentiles were first admitted into the Church. In chap. vii. 14-23. The spirituality of the law is compared with St. Peter's address to Cornelius.

Chap. vii. 24–30. The Syrophenician women received ; a Greek having faith in Christ-so Cornelius was not a Jew, but accepted.

Chap. xii. l-12. The parable of the vineyard, descriptive of the calling of the Gentiles; the event which had now taken place.

Chap. xiii. Prediction of the fate of the temple-the reresult of the rejection of the Jews.

In chap. xiv. 24. is the expression, “My blood, which is shed for many;" which Dr. Lardner refers to the calling of the Gentiles.

Chap. iv. 30–32. The grain of mustard-seed, descriptive of the rapid progress of the Gospel which St. Mark had witnessed.

Chap. xvi. 15. St. Mark, says Dr. Lardner, evidently understood the extent of the apostolic mission.

Dr. Townson observes further, in confirmation of the opinion
that St. Mark wrote for the Christians at Rome. St. Mark
having followed St. Matthew in saying opayemlúoas, (Mark xv.
15.) then speaks of the prætorium : And the soldiers led him
away into the hall, that is, the prætorium. Aúly), and præto-
rium, as here used, are synonymous terms in Greek and Latin,
and denoted the palace of a governor or great man. This is
certainly a better proof that be composed bis Gospel at Rome,
than that he composed it in Latin. For what translator, as
Dr. Mill justly asks, would have rendered the Latin word
“spiculator,” (or speculator,) by S7Ex8dátwp,, which would
so easily have been expressed in proper Greek ? St. Mark
attends to the Roman division of the day in relating our Lord's
prophecy to St. Peter, (xiv. 30.) Verily' I say unto thee, that
ibis, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice.

St. Mark, to explain the meaning of this day, adds, even in
this night; as the prediction was delivered before midnight,
but fulfilled probably between two or three in the morning,
these beivg parts of one and the same day in Judea, but not at
Rome (e).

The testimony of the fathers confirms the internal evidence,
that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, under the inspection
of St. Peter; and that it was even dictated by that apostle, and
might with great justice have been called, as it has actually
been, the Gospel of St. Peter.

Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. ij. c. 15. asserts that the Gospel of St. Mark was composed at Rome, in the reign of Claudius, at the request of the people in that city. He refers to Clemens, 6th book of Institutions, as his authority.

Clement of Alexandria (194,) says, that Peter's hearers at Rome intreated Mark, the follower of Peter, to leave a memorial with them of the doctrine wbich bad boen delivered to them by word of mouth, nor did they desist till they had prevailed with bim ().

Clement states that Mark's Gospel was written at Rome, at the request of the Christians there, who were hearers of Peter.

Julian Pe

Tertullian observes (200,) the Gospel of St. Mark may be Jerusalem. riod, 4756. considered as that of St. Peter, whose interpreter he was. Vulgar Æra, Origen, Peter dictated bis Gospel to him. about 43. Eusebius (315,) Mark is said to have recorded Peter's relation

of the acts of Jesus. And all things in Mark are said to be me.
moirs of Peter's discourses.

The synopsis attributed to Athanasius, fifth century, says, tbc
Gospel of St. Mark was dictated by St. Peter at Rome.

Gregory Nazianzen-Mark wrote his Gospel for the Italians,
or in Italy.

Ebedjesu-the second Evangelist is Mark, who preached (or
wrote) in Latin, in the city of Rome.

Theophylact (1070,) and Euthymius (1110,)-the Gospel of St.
Mark was written at Rome, ten years after Christ's ascension.

These testimonies seem to be sufficient to prove the early date
of St. Mark's Gospel, and that it was probably written at Rome
for the use of the proselyted Gentile converts, under the in-
spection of St. Peter.

There are lwo considerable objections to this early date of St. Mark's Gospel. One that he is said (Acts xii. 25.) to bave gone to Antioch with Saul and Barnabas; the other, the allusion to the progress of the apostles, in the last verse of his Gospel. In reply to the first, it may be said that it is probable he would leave Rome immediately on hearing of the death of Herod, and arrive there at the time when Saul and Barnabas were about to return to Antioch ; which event is placed by Dr. Lardner at this period. It appears from the manner in which ver. 8. of chap. xvi. so abruptly terminates, and the evident commencement of a new sumining up of the evidence, that some extraordinary interruption took place wbile St. Mark was composing his Gospel. The verse terminates with the words époboūvto yàp; and many critics (as I have already shewn in the notes to the eighth Chapter of this arrangement,) have, from the rapid transition to the subject of the following verse, impugned the authenticity of the remaining verses of St. Mark's Gospel. I am inclined to impute this abrupt ending of the eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter, and the subsequent introduction of the contents of ver. 9. to the circumstances I have just related.

In all probability St. Mark returned to Jerusalem after the death of Herod with his unfinished Gospel; that he afterwards accompanied Saul and Barnabas, on their return to Antioch, (Acts xv. 35–37.); and after having attended the latter on his journey, he was finally settled at Alexandria, where he founded a church of great note.

We are told by Jeromo-Mark, at the desire of the brethren at Rome, wrote a short Gospel, according to what he had heard related by St. Peter. Taking with him the Gospel he had composod, Mark went to Egypt, and founded a Church at Alexandria. He died in the eighth year of Nero, and was succeeded at Alexandria by Apianus.

Chrysostom-Mark wrote his Gospel in Egypt, at the request of the believers there.

Eusebius also relates of St. Mark, that he went into Egypt,
and first preached there the Gospel he had written, and planted
there many Churches. And in another chapter he says, that in
the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first Bishop of Alexandria,
after Mark, the apostle and evangelist, took upon him the care
of that Churcb (g).

The accounts are so brief, tbat the exact period of bis leaving
Barnabas, and residing at Alexandria, cannot be ascertained.
The last verse of St. Mark's Gospel, which contains an allusion



Julian Pe-

Antioch. riod, 4757, Volgar&ra, The Converts at Antioch, being forewarned by Agabus, about 44. send relief to their Brethren at Jerusalem, by the hands

of Barnabas and Saul.

to the progress of the Gospel, is supposed to be of a later date
than the rest of the history, which has given rise to a doubt as
to the authenticity of the last twelve verses; but if we suppose
the Gospel was first published at Rome, and completed at Alex-
andria, and the last twelve verses added there, we can have no
difficulty in accounting for this difference of date.

The conclusion to which Dr. Townson has arrived, after con-
sidering the evidence in favour of the early date of St. Mark's
Gospel, does not materially differ from that which I bave been
dow advocating. He supposes that St. Mark's Gospel was pub-
lished in Italy; but that St. Mark came to Rome by himself, studiod
the state of the Church there, returned to Asia, and in conjunc.
tion with St. Peter, drew up his Gospel for the benefit of the
converts in that city. Dr. Townson has adopted this perplexed
theory, to avoid the opinion that St. Peter came to Rome in the
reigo of Claudius. Lord Barrington assigns to St. Mark's Gos.
pel the date I have now adopted.

After considering the whole evidence respecting the Gospel of St. Mark, I cannot but conclude that it was written at a much earlier date than has been generally assigned to it by Protestant writers. The Gospel of St. Matthew was written in the first persecution, when the tidings of salvation were preached to the Jews only. The Gospel of St. Mark was published during the second persecution of the Christian Church, when the devout Gentiles, such as Cornelius, were appealed to. Both were mercifully adapted to these two stages of the Church's progress. The Gospel of St. Luke was addressed to the Gentiles of Asia; and tbat of St. John was the supplement to the rest, and completed and perfected the canon of the New Testament. Each was fitted to the condition of the Church at the time of their respective publication; and they now form unitedly one sublime and perfect system of truth, the immoveable foundation of the temple of God.

(a) Bishop Burgess' Inquiry into the Origin of the Christian Church ; reprinted in the Churchman armed against the Errors of the Times, vol.i. p. 319. (6) Wetstein in loc. and Kuinoel in lib. N. T. Hist. Comment. vol. iv. p. 419. (c) Clem. Strom. lib. vi. p. 636. Cave's Historia Literaria, tom. i. p.

5. Grabes Spic. tom. i. p. 67. Ap. Lardner, vol. iii. p. 167-8. (d) That St. Peter was certainly at Rome, is fully proved by the learned Pearson, in his Dissertation de Serie, et successione Primorum Romæ Episcoporum, Diss. i. cap. vii. Romæ fuisse S. Petrum probatur veterum Testimoniis, p. 33. Cave, however, remarks upon the theory of his going to that metropolis upon the present occasion-Quod vero de hoc Romam adventa somniant, gratis omnino dictum est. Altum de eo apud veteres silentiam. Silet imprimis historia apostolica, quæ de hoc aliove adventu ne verbulum habet, &c. &c.-See Cave, Historia Literaria, vol.i.p. 8. Bishop Burgess quotes with approbation the opinion of Bishop Stillingfleet, which is founded on a passage in Lactantíus, that St. Peter was never at Rome till the period of his martyrdom. Stillingfleet's Origines Britannicæ, fol. edit. p.48.-Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, folio edit. p. 83. (e) See Bishop Marsh's Michaelis, vol.iii. part i. p. 212.; and vol. i. chap. iv. sect. x. p. 163.-Dr. Campbell's preface to Mark, vol. ii. p. 82, 83.-Horne's Critical Introduction on Mark. -Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. p. 151. 163. ($) Ap. Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 177. vol. ii. p. 552. and vol, iii. p. 170. (9) Euscb. Eccles. Hist. lib. ii. cap. 16 and 24.-Ap. Lardner's Supplement to the Credibility.

« EelmineJätka »