« 前へ次へ »
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 Austina among the antients, and the learned Frederick Spanheim 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 ; difficulties, 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 fo many, and our helps of all sorts in this matter so great, that I will not be afraid to affert ; that whatever disagreement may seem to be between these two Evangelists, or either of the other, it is capable of a very satisfying and reasonable solution.
This premised, I say the difference between St. Matthew and St. Mark is so great, and in so many instances, as evidences almost to a demonftration, 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 sufficient to my present purpose.
A Catalogue of some instances, in which the accounts of St. Mat
thew 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 Saviour wrought, in casting the devils into the herd of swine, in the country of the Gadarenes or Gergesenes. The accounts we
a In his book intitled, De Consensu Evangeliftarum.
In his excellent Differtationsa. which he calls Dubia Evangelica.
haves have, Matth. viii. 28, &c. and Mark v. 1. in which accounts we may observe a disagreement in two particulars.
1. 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 eis the gapar tūv repyoonvwv, in the country of the Gergesenes ; see ch. viii. 28. According to St. Mark, v. 1. and fo St. Luke, viii. 26. it was when our Saviour was come sis an geuszcan Tüv rcdcepovão, inta 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 a some of those cities, which the Jews had destroyed in Syria, he first mentions their coming to répesa, the city of the Gergefenes, and after that redécors, to the city of the Gadarenes. And in the same chapter , mentioning the several cities, that fell upon the Jews, who dwelt in them, he names the radapais 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 regaanvoò the Gergesenes; for there can be no doubt but Γερασινοι and Γεργεσηνοί were the fame perfons. 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 same word, the country of the Gadarenes.
2. They differ, as to the number of persons dispoflefled. 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 Gorpel, in composing his. .,
• De Bell. Judaic. lib. 2. c.18. S. 1.
* Ibid. c. 18. §. 5.
Ibid. Vid. Suid. ad reduce et Tópast, et Lud. Dieu ad Matth. viii. 28.
· Another instance to the fame purpose, is the story of the daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the fynagogue, being restored to life again by our Saviour, told by St. Mark, chap. V. 22, &c. with circumftances very different from those, with which it is told by St. Matthew, chap. ix. 18. For instance, according to St. Matthew's account, the ruler told our Saviour, that his daughter äpps érencúryotv, was already dead, and desired, that he would restore her to life again: but according to St. Mark, the young woman was not dead, when the ruler came to our Saviour ; för he only says, Joyátpsów riou éxáows fxet, my little daughter lieth at the point of death; and afterwards, when our Saviour was going along with him, some of the family came, and tell him, his daughter was actually dead, and therefore it would be needless to give our Saviour any further trouble.
St. Mark, chap. viii. 10. tells us, that, after the miracle of multiplying the loaves and the fishes, our Saviour immediately took ship, and failed into the parts of Dalmanutha ; St. Matthew, chap. xv. 39. tells us, that in this voyage he went to the coasts of Magdala.
St. Mark, chap. X. 35, &c, tells us, that the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, came themselves with a petition to our Saviour, that they might be advanced to the highest places of dignity in his kingdom; that our Lord spoke to them, and reproved them for their ambition : according to St. Matthew, chap. xx. 20. not they, but their mother, came with this petis tion to Christ, and he spake to her..
St. Mark, chap. X. 46. relates the account of our Lord's restoring a blind person to his fight, when he was coming out of Jericho ; St. Matthew, chap. xx. 30, &c. tells the very fame story, with most of the fame circumstances, concerning two blind persons. . · St. Mark, chap. xii. 9. in the parable concerning the letting out of the vineyard, mentions a question of our Lord's, viz. What therefore fall the Lord of the vineyard do? and makes him to answer it himself; on the contrary St. Matthew, chap. xxi. 40. intimates, that our Lord put this question to the Jews, and tells us, ver. 41. that they made him the answer ; VOL. III.
and so those words are a confession extorted from the Jews, and not the words of Christ, according to St. Mark. · St. Mark, chap. xiv. 30, and 68, 72. recites our Saviour's prediction concerning Peter's denial of him, and his actual denying of him, in a very different manner from St. Matthew. Our Lord tells him, ver. 30. Before the cock crow twice, thou jbalt deny. me thrice; and accordingly St. Mark tells us, ver.. 68, &c. that he denied him once, and then the cock crowed ; denied twice afterwards, and the cock crowed again: on the other hand, according to St. Matthew, our Saviour told him (chap. xxvi. 34.) that he should deny him three several times, before the cock should crow at all ; and accordingly, he makes him actually to deny Christ three times, before the cock crew. See ver. 69-74..
St. Mark, chap. xv. 23. tells us, that when our Saviour was upon the cross, they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh; according to St. Matthew (chap. xxvii. 34.), that which they gave him to drink, was vinegar mingled with gall.
St. Mark faith, the superscription on the cross was this, THE KING OF THE JEWS; chap. xv., 26. According to St. Matthew it was thus; THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; chap. xxvii: 37. · St. Mark, chap. xv. 34. gives us our Saviour's dying words upon the cross, all in Syriack or Syro-Chaldaick, viz. Eloi, Eloi, lama Sabaétthani ; which was the language of the country, and that in which our Saviour spake a. On the other hand St. Matthew puts down these words, partly in pure Hebrew, and partly in Syriack, Eli, Eli, lama Sabaetthani ; chap. xxvii. 46.
These are some of those instances, in which these two Evangelifts differ ; there are several other such to be found. But as there is not any one, which will not admit a very reasonable reconciliation ; so I think there is scarce any one of them,
... See the Syriack translation of word Lemono instead of Lama, yet Mark xy. 34. Instead of Eli, Eli, there is no doubt but Lama or Lohe renders it Eloi, Eloi, as it is in mo was a very proper Chaldaick St. Mark. And though he use the , word.
but is of itself fufficient to prove, that neither of these Gospels was transcribed from the other. How can St. Mark be supposed to have had St. Matthew's Gospel lying before him, and to have made that (as Mr. Whifton would have it) his almost only guide, when he differs in so many particulars from him? I desire Mr. Whiston, and those who are of the same opinion with him in this matter, to consider this argument impartially; and to tell us, if it be possible, what those reasons were which made St. Mark differ so much from St. Matthew in his accounts, when he had his Gospel lying before him at the time of his writing. Were not St. Matthew's accounts juft and true, and expressed as they ought to have been? This cannot be supposed. One inspired writer certainly never entertained such thoughts of another. Or did St. Mark make these differences with design to prevent any suspicions men might have, that his Gospel was not his own, but borrowed, and made out of another? Indeed if this had been the case, he could not have taken a better method to have accomplished his end. One would have thought, that such and so many differences, would have effectually screened and protected his Gospel from such a charge. But far be it from us, to have any fuch thoughts of an inspired writer. Until therefore it be shewn, how it could come to pass, that there should be so many different circumstances in the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark, when the latter is supposed to have made use of the Gospel of the former in composing his, I must conclude he did not make use of it at all. I own indeed there is one method fuppofeable, by which we may account for these differences between St. Matthew and St. Mark, though the latter did make use of the former's Gospel. The method I mean, is that which Mr. Whiston has taken to reconcile their disaa greement as to the order of time, viz. Supposing our present coo pies corrupted in all these places, where they differ in other cir. cumstances, as Mr. Whiston does suppose them to be in all these places, where they disagree as to time. But it being certain; that no such corruption ever happened to the sacred text of either St. Matthew or St. Mark, it still remains unaccountable, how these differences should have happened between P 2