Page images
PDF
EPUB

Scott, During nearly two hundred years our translation has been extant, and persons of various descriptions have made new translations of the whole, or particular parts; and scarcely any writer on these subjects, fails to mention alterations which he supposes to be improvements. It may then be asked, How can unlearned persons know that the authorized version may be depended on? Let the inquirer, however, remember, that Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Calvinists, and Arminians, who maintain eager controversies with each other, all appeal to the same version, and in no matters of consequence object to it; and in fact, if all different readings, and all their alterations were adopted, the rule of duty and the articles of faith would continue the same they now are."

SECTION III.

On the Character and Qualities of the Gospels.

"Now Matthew among the Hebrews published also a written Gospel in their own language; Peter and Paul preaching at Rome, and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter himself, also delivered to us in writing what was preached by Peter: and Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John the disciple of the Lord, the same who leant upon his breast, he also set forth a Gospel, residing at Ephesus." Such is the testimony of Irenæus, who might receive his information from his master Polycarp, who was himself the disciple of St. John; and with him the other fathers agree, that the Gospels were written in the order in which they now stand, and rest upon the authority of Apostles; since those of Mark and Luke may be fairly considered as the Gospels of Peter and Paul. The precise date, however, of none can be ascertained. That of Matthew's has been much discussed, which is placed by some as early as A. D. 37. and by others as late as A. D. 64. Some of the ancients maintain that it was written in the eighth year after our Lord's ascension, and Townson argues in favour of its early composition; but though ingenious, I conceive he has not made out his case, and the evangelist's re

* Ο μεν δε Ματθαίος εν τοις Εβραιοις τῇ ίδια διαλεκτῳ αυτών και γραφην εξηνεγκεν ευαγγέλιον του Πέτρου και Παύλου εν Ρώμη ευαγγελιζομενων και θεμελιούντων την εκκλησίαν μετα δε των τούτων εξοδον Μαρκος ὁ μαθητης και

.

E

marks, that "Aceldama" is "so called unto this day;" and that the Jews of his time believed the report spread by the guard, concerning the Saviour's body, can hardly be reconciled with this opinion. Luke, we know, spent two years with Paul at Cæsarea, A. D. 61. in the country for the use of which Matthew wrote: and I can hardly imagine, that if then in circulation, supposing his own not yet written, it could have escaped his notice; or if he had read it, that he would have expressed himself as he has done in his introduction.

[ocr errors]

The language in which he wrote, is also a subject of dispute, and distinguished names are ranked upon both sides of the question. The ancients unanimously declare for a Hebrew original. Their testimony was first called in question by Erasmus. Almost all its opponents have been Protestants, and Campbell assumes that they have been biassed by party feelings. The Council of Trent having declared the Vulgate to be the standard of appeal, those who argued against the authority of a version, were sensible that the Romanists would retort, that in this instance they must depart from their principle; and therefore he concludes, that to silence this objection they argued for a Greek original. A third opinion has been maintained by Townson and Bishop Gleig, that there were two originals; the consent of antiquity pleading strongly for a Hebrew original, and the internal evidence for the Greek. Nor is this opinion improbable; we have ourselves two originals, one in Latin and the other in English, of the thirty-nine Articles of our Church, and also of Sir Isaac Newton's Optics. Eusebius says, that Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews, delivered to them, when he was preparing to depart into other countries, his Gospel composed in their native language, that his writing might supply the loss of his presence; and we can easily conceive, that he would afterwards be willing to render the same service to Gentile Christians. The subsequent disappearance of the Hebrew text is easily accounted for, by its being so corrupted by the Ebionites, that it lost its authority; and also by the prevalence of Greek, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew was a Galilean, a publican or a tax-gatherer,

Ερμηνευτης Πετρου και αυτός τα υπο Πέτρου κηρυσσομενα εγγράφως ήμιν παραδέδωκε. Και Λουκάς δε ο ακολουθος Παύλου το υπ' εκείνου κηρυσσομενον ευαγγελιον εν βιβλίω κατεθετο επειτα Ιωάννης ο μαθητης του κυρίου ο δε και επι το στήθος αυτου αναπεσων και αυτος εξέδωκε το ευαγγελιον εν Εφεσῳ της Ασίας diargibar. I insert the original because Townson, I think unsuccessfully, endeavours to give a new turn to it, rendering svayyeλCousvav, Peter and Paul being the preachers at Rome, instead of, while they were preaching.

and collected the customs upon the imports and exports at Capernaum. While employed in his profession, Jesus called upon him to become his disciple, and "immediately he left all, and followed him." Mark, in the parallel passage, calls him Levi; Matthew, therefore, was probably a name which he assumed according to a practice common, it should seem, in his age. Thus we find John, Barnabas's relation, called Mark, and Saul called Paul. Of Matthew's subsequent history we are ignorant; Socrates, an historian of the fifth century, relates that he preached the Gospel in Ethiopia; and he appears to have died a natural death, but when or where is unknown.

We have the strongest internal evidence, that his Gospel was composed by a Jew, for the use of his countrymen; for every circumstance that has a tendency to conciliate them is pointed out, and none is introduced that would obstruct its reception. He begins, therefore, with a genealogy; and those passages in the prophets which either foretel the birth or character of the Messiah, or will bear an allusive application to him, are carefully noticed, because the fulfilment of prophecy was the most convincing argument that could be addressed to the Jews.

Matthew is distinguished for the clearness with which he narrates parables and moral discourses. Of these, the sermon on the mount, and his illustrations of the nature of the kingdom of heaven, are examples. The matter peculiar to him, is, his history of our Saviour's infancy; John's reluctance to baptize him; the observation that Galilee was to be the chief theatre of his miracles, in fulfilment of Isaiah's prediction; his first circuit of Galilee; the sermon on the mount; the miracles of the two blind and one dumb man; Peter's walking on the lake; the miraculous payment of the tribute money; the parable of the labourers in the vineyard; and of the two sons; the account of Judas's death; Pilate's washing his hands; his wife's dream; the dead rising out of their graves after the resurrection; and the history of the guard at the tomb. Besides what is peculiar to him, wherever he has matter in common with the other Evangelists, he and each has additional, and occasionally contradictory circumstances, as any harmony will shew; so that it is only by bringing together the particulars, than we can make out a complete statement.

All that we learn concerning Mark, from the New Testament, is, that he was the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the Apostles often assembled, (Acts xii. 12.) and that she was sister to Barnabas, Col. iv. 10.

His Hebrew name was John, and he probably assumed that of Mark, when he left Judea as a missionary. From Peter's calling him his son, (1 Epis. v. 13.) he is supposed to have been converted by that Apostle. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas upon their first mission to the Gentiles, but left them abruptly in Pamphylia, and returned home. He afterwards went to Cyprus with Barnabas, (Acts xv. 37.) and subsequently came with Timothy to Rome, (2 Epis. iv. 11.) at the express desire of St. Paul, whence he sent his salutation to Philemon, (ver. 24.) and to the church at Colosse, (iv. 10.) From Rome he probably went into Asia, where he found St. Peter, and returned with him to Rome; he is said to have died at Alexandria."

Papias, our earliest authority, A. D. 110. informs us that Mark being Peter's interpreter wrote whatever he remembered, but not in the order of time; because he was not himself a follower of our Lord. And Jerome tells us that being requested by the brethren at Rome, he wrote a short Gospel, according to what he had heard Peter relate, who approved it, and delivered it to be read in the Church. Chrysostom speaks of its being written in Egypt, but the general consent of antiquity, even of the Egyptian writers, decides in favour of Rome; and it may be remarked, in corroboration, that mentioning Simon the Cyrenean, (xv. 21.) he adds, that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, a fact, which would be interesting only where they were known; and we learn from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, (xv. 1.) that they were members of the church there. Internal evidence confirms the tradition that Mark wrote under the direction of St. Peter; for scarcely any action or conversation is mentioned by him, at which Peter was not present; the weaknesses and fall of that apostle are brought into full view, while whatever redounds to his honour is slightly touched, or wholly omitted; less is said of his speedy repentance and bitter tears, than by Matthew and Luke; and the benedictions and promises made to him are left out.

From the Hebraisms of his style, which is the least classical of any of the inspired authors, we conclude that he was a Jew, and from his Latinisms, that he had lived among the Romans. Cardinal Baronius maintains that he wrote

*A variety of dates between 56 and 65 have been assigned to this Gospel, and all that can be affirmed with certainty is, that it was not written till the Apostles had gone forth and preached every where, Mark xvi. 10. The testimony of Irenæus already quoted, is ambiguous, for sodos may be translated decease or de◄ parture.

in Latin, and that the Greek is a translation; but so little can be said in favour of his assertion, that I should not even have alluded to it, had not the notion of a Latin origin, not only of this book, but of the whole New Testament, been lately brought before the public. The advocates of of this opinion forget that the Roman Christians were principally Jews, and consequently more conversant with Greek than Latin, and that the former was generally understood by most of Gentile extraction, who had any education. The Gospel itself shows that it was written out of Judæa, and for the use of Gentiles; for terms intelligible only to Jews, it either avoids or explains, thus, instead of Mammon, he uses the common word "riches," xenuara; to Jordan, he adds "river:" and to defiled, or common hands, "unwashen," (vii. 2.) To Corban, (vii. 11.) he subjoins the interpretation," that is, a gift." Gehenna, which we translate "hell," is literally the valley of Hinnom, where infants had been burnt to death, in honour of Moloch, and where afterwards a perpetual fire was kept up, to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this application of the term would not have been understood by a foreigner, he adds to it," unquenchable fire."

From the striking coincidence of Mark's Gospel with that of Matthew, Augustine asserted that he was his epitomizer; but this hypothesis, contradictory, as we have seen, to the most ancient testimony, though supported by some eminent moderns, is untenable; for Mark deviates from Matthew no less than thirteen times in his arrangement of facts, and has twenty-three additions: he has likewise omissions which it would be difficult to account for on this theory. A mere abridger would also have avoided every appearance of contradiction; but Mark calls Matthew, Levi; speaks (x. 46.) of one blind man, where the other mentions two; and makes Peter twice interrogated by the same maid, (xiv. 69.) instead of once by two, (Matt. xxvi. 71.) According to Matthew, Christ crossed the lake the day after the sermon on the mount, but according to Mark, he then retired to a desert, (Matt. viii. 28-35. Mark i. 35.) We therefore conclude, that though he may have seen Matthew's Gospel, he is an original author.

Simplicity and conciseness are his characteristics; he details miracles and abridges discourses. The only parable peculiar to him, is that of the imperceptible growth of corn; and he has two miracles, recorded by no other evangelist, of a deaf and dumb man, (vii. 32.) and of a blind one, (viii. 22.) cured, not instantaneously, but gradually,

« PreviousContinue »