« 前へ次へ »
A Catalogue ossome other instances, in "which St. Mark adds more circumstances to his relations, than St. Matthew.
Chap. i. 45. The leper's publishing what Christ had done for him, after his cure.
III. 20, 21. The multitudes following Christ, his friends laying hold on him, and charging him with distraction.
IV. 30. The disciples asking our Saviour the meaning of the parable of the sower, when he was alone.
Ver. 36. Several Jhips accompanying pur Saviour in his voyage.
VI. a. Our Lord's preaching on the Sabbath-day in his own country.
Ver. 5. The particular work our Saviour did in his own country, viz. healing some sick.
Ver. 6. His wondering at their unbelief.
Ver. 7. The manner of fending forth the Apostles, viz. by
two and two.
Ver. 37. The disciples' unwillingness to go to buy bread for the multitude, and the sum it would cost.
Ver. 40. The manner of the multitudes sitting down to be fed by Christ.
VII. 24. Our Saviour's desire to be concealed, but could not. •
VIII. 3. Some of our Lord's disciples came from far.
fishes, mentioned as done distinctly and separately; St. Matthew joins the blessing the loaves and fishes both together. Ver. 14. The disciples had but one loaf.
IX. 10. The three disciples questioning one with another, what our Lord meant by rising from the dead.
Ver. 32. The rest of the disciples at a loss in the fame particular, and afraid to ask Christ.
Chap. vi. 14—30. There are the history of John's death, which several particular circumstances in are not mentioned by St. Matthew.
Ver. 44, 48. A further description of the torments and misery of hell.
X. 15. Christ's declaring, that they who did not receive the kingdom of heaven as little children, should not enter into it.
Ver. 32. The disciples afraid, when they were going up to Jerufalem.
Ver. 49, 50. Christ's ordering the blind man to be called, comforting him, his casting away his garment, and coming to Christ.
XI. 4, 5. A description of the place where the colt was found, and the owners demanding the reason of the two disciples, why they took it away.
XII. 32, 33, 34. The Scribe approves what our Lord had laid, repeats it, makes a just and useful remark upon it: our Saviour approves him, &c.
Ver. 37. The common people take pleasure in hearing Christ.
XIII. 3. The names of the Apostles, who made the enquiry concerning the destruction of the Temple.
XIV. 3, &c. Several particulars in the story of the woman's anointing our Saviour; such as the quality of the ointment, the breaking of the box, the value of the ointment in money, &c.
Ver. 12. The passover was to be killeS on the first day of unleavened bread.
Ver. 54, 67. Peter fat warming himself at the fire.
XV. 7. The crime for which Barabbas was imprisoned. Ver. 8. The Jews plead their privilege of having a criminal released at the passover.
Ver. 25. The precise hour, in which our Saviour was crucified.
Ver. 42. The reason why Joseph of Arimathea came on that day to beg the body of Jesus, viz, because it was the preparation, i. e. the day before the Sabbath,
Ver. 43. The character and ossice of Joseph of Arimathea.
Ver. 44. Pilate wonders Christ was so soon dead. His enquiring about it.
XVI. 1. The design of Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary, to embalm the body of Jesus, with ointments they had bought for that purpose.
These are some instances of circumstances, related by St. Mark in his histories, and not by St. Matthew: a person, that will be at the pains carefully to compare these Gospels, with this view, will find many more. But these seem to be sussicient for my present purpose, sussicient to evidence, that St. Mark did not design to abridge or epitomize St. Matthew's Gospel.
The third Argument, by which it appears, that St. Mark's Gospel is not an Epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. the remarkable Disagreement there seems to be between t%efe two Evangelists. , in several Parts of their Gospels. It is first premised, that all these are reconcile able. Then the particular Instances of their Disagreement produced.
Arg. III. CJ"HE disagreement which there seems to be between these two Evangelists, viz. St. Matthew and St. Mark, in relating several circu/nstances of their history, is a clear and demonstrative evidence, that St Mark did not abridge. St. Matthew, nor had his Gospel lying before him, when he wrote his. To go about to collect the difference of these facred writers, to make them appear as many and as great as possible, may seem very strange and unnecessary work in one, who professes a value and respect for them. I think it needful therefore to premise, that however great and many the differences may setm to be between these two (or indeed between any of the Evangelists), yet they have all been happily recon
ciled, by the labours of ingenious and learned men. Of the many that have undertaken this matter, there are none who seem to have been more successful therein, than Austin1 among the antients, and the learned Frederick Spanheimb among the more late writers. Surprising discoveries have been made in the last age in this matter, by a further acquaintance with the customs and manners of the Jews, among whom our Saviour and his Apostles conversed; dissiculties, which seemed to be insuperable, have been sometimes easily solved by the discovery of some particular custom, that was among the Jews at that time; and these discoveries have been so many, and our helps of all forts in this matter so great, that I will not be afraid to assert; that whatever difagreement may seem to be between these two Evangelists, or either of the other, it is capable of a very fatisfying and reasonable solution.
This premised, I fay the difference between St. Matthew and St. Mark is so great, and in so many instances, as evidences almost to a demonstration, that St. Mark did not collect his Gospel out of St. Matthew; I do not now regard the difference, that is between them, in respect of the order of time', but in other circumstances.
I shall not be at the pains to observe every small difference, which there is between these two Evangelists in their histories. Those which are in the following catalogue, will be sussicient to my present purpose.
A Catalogue of some instances, in which the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark do seem to disagree.
The first remarkable instance we find of any difference between them, is in the story of the miracle, which our Saviou* wrought, in casting the devils into the herd of swine, in the country of the Gadarenes or Gergescnes. The accounts we
"In his book intitlcd, De Con- b In his excellent Dislirtations^ frns'i Evangelist arum. which he calls Dubie Evangelica.
have^ have, Matth. viii. 28, &c. and Mark v. 1. in which accounts we may observe a difagreement in two particulars.
I. As to the place where the miracle was wrought.
II. As to the number of persons dispossessed.
1. As to the place or country where the miracle was wrought, according to St. Matthew, it was when our Saviour was landed slg x^xti1TM Tipyiainn, in the country of the Gergejenes; fee ch. viii. 28. According to St. Mark, v. 1. and so St. Luke, viii. 26. it was when our Saviour was come tit -int x"Zav T"* TaouwZv, into the country of the Gadarenes. Now these were certainly the names of the inhabitants of two different places, as is very plain from Josephus, who several times mentions them as such. So when he is reckoning up * some of those cities, which the Jews had destroyed in Syria, he first mentions their coming to V'^aca, the city of the Gergefenes. , and after that raJa'jou, to the city of the Gadarenes. And in the fame chapter b, mentioning the several cities, that fell upon the Jews, who dwelt in them, he names the r«o«f£i? the Gadarenes; and immediately after % reckoning up the cities, that were kind to the Jews, who dwelt among them, and did not destroy them, he mentions the r^xaw the Gergesenes; for there can be no doubt but Ttfus-wi and r'tfyimni were the fame persons. The old Syriack interpreter, who was perhaps a native of this, or some country near it, perceiving this difference between the Evangelists, thought it too great a one to be admitted into his Version, and therefore in St. Matthew, as well as in St. Mark, translates it by the fame word, the. country of the Gadarenes.
2. They differ', as to the number es persons dispossessed. St., Matthew tells us, they were two, St. Mark mentions only one. These, though they are not circumstances contrary to each
.other, yet are so different, that they undeniably prove, that neither of these facred writers could make use of the other's Gospel, in composing his.
• DeBell. Judaic, lib. 2. c. 18. « Ibid. Vid. Suid. ad Taiafx t. 1. et Tffcara, et Lud. Dieu ad Matth.
'Ibid. c. 18. §. 5. viii.Vg.