ページの画像
PDF
ePub

and fo those words are a confeffion extorted from the Jews, and not the words of Chrift, 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 fbalt 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 Chrift 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.

C

St. Mark faith, the fuperfcription 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 Sabatthani; which was the language of the country, and that in which our Saviour spake. On the other hand St. Matthew puts down these words, partly in pure Hebrew, and partly in Syriack, Eli, Eli, lama SabaƐtthani; chap. xxvii. 46.

These are some of those inftances, in which thefe two Evangelifts differ; there are feveral other fuch to be found. But as there is not any one, which will not admit a very reasonable reconciliation; fo I think there is scarce any one of them,

See the Syriack tranflation of
Mark xv. 34.
Inftead of Eli, Eli,
he renders it Eloi, Eloi, as it is in
St. Mark. And though he use the

word Lemono instead of Lama, yet there is no doubt but Lama or Lomo was a very proper Chaldaick word.

but

but is of itself sufficient 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 fo many particulars from him? I defire Mr. Whiston, and those who are of the same opinion with him in this matter, to confider this argument impartially; and to tell us, if it be poffible, what those reasons were, which made St. Mark differ fo 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 just and true, and expreffed as they ought to have been? This cannot be supposed. One inspired writer certainly never entertained fuch thoughts of another. Or did St. Mark make thefe differences with defign to prevent any fufpicions men might have, that his Gospel was not his own, but borrowed, and made out of another? Indeed if this had been the cafe, he could not have taken a better method to have accomplished his end. One would have thought, that fuch and fo many differences, would have effectually fcreened and protected his Gospel from such a charge. But far be it from us, to have any fuch thoughts of an infpired writer. Until therefore it be fhewn, how it could come to pass, that there should be so many different circumftances 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 compofing 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 thefe differences between St. Matthew and St. Mark, though the latter did make use of the former's Gofpel. The method I mean, is that which Mr. Whifton has taken to reconcile their difagreement as to the order of time, viz. Suppofing our prefent copies corrupted in all these places, where they differ in other circumftances, as Mr. Whiston does fuppofe them to be in all these places, where they difagree as to time. But it being certain, that no fuch corruption ever. Happened to the facred text of either St. Matthew or St. Mark, it ftill remains unaccountable, how these differences fhould have happened between

[blocks in formation]

them, fuppofing the one to have made ufe of the other's Gofpel. Hence it was justly argued by Mr. Dodwell; "That "the later Evangelifts did not fee the writings of the former; ❝ for if they had, it is impoffible there should have been so

many feeming contradictions, which have exercised the "minds of learned men almoft ever fince the first conftitu❝tion of the Canon." To the fame purpose says Mr. Le Clerc ;"It is not credible that Mark or Luke had seen the "Gospel according to St. Matthew, who otherwise would « have avoided—all feeming clashings.”

CHAP. IX.

The fourth Argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel is not an Epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. because it has a great many Hiftories, which are not in St. Matthew. A Catalogue of them. The fifth Argument, viz, that it wants feveral remarkable Hiftories.

Arg. IV.S Matthew's, because he hath related feveral very

T. Mark's Gofpel is not an epitome of St.

confiderable hiftories, of which there is not the least mention made by St. Matthew. I have already proved, that he does, for the most part, add many more particular circumftances to his ftories, than St. Matthew. I fhall now fhew, that he relates feveral entire hiftories, which St. Matthew does not; not only a few additions which St. Peter informed him of (as Mr.Whiston fuppofes), but many remarkable and ufeful stories. This

Ut ne quidem refciverint recentiores Evangeliftæ, quid fcripfiffent de iifdem rebus antiquiores; aliter foret, ne tot effent ivartiopar, quæ fere a prima ufque Canonis Conftitutione eruditoruin hominum

ingenia exercuerint. Differt. 1. in Iren. §. 39.

b. In his third Differtation, concerning the Four Gospels, annexed to his Harmony.

. Ch. 7.

P. 102

obfervation

observation will be sufficiently fupported by the following inftances.

A Catalogue of fome hiftories in St. Mark's Gospel, which are not in St. Matthew.

Chap. I. 21, &c. The hiftory of our Saviour's cafting the unclean spirit out of the man, in the fynagogue at Caper

naum.

Ver. 35, &c. The account of our Lord's retiring to a folitary place to pray, and Peter and many others following him. Ch. III. 13, &c. Our Saviour's going up to a mountain to pray, there first choofing his twelve disciples; their names, commiffion, office, &c.

Ch. IV. 26, &c. The parable of the kingdom of heaven coming without obfervation.

Ch. VI. 12, 13. The Difciples going out to preach, cafting out devils, recovering many that were fick, by anointing with oil.

Ver. 30, &c. The Apostles' report of their success, &c.

Ch. VII. 2, &c. The Pharifees obferve our Lord's Difciples eating with unwashen hands, and the custom of the Jews in this matter, ver. 3, 4.

Ver. 32, &c. The miracle of the deaf and dumb person being restored to his hearing and speech.

Ch. VIII. 22, &c. The history of a blind person restored to his fight at Bethfaida.

Ch. IX. 14, 15. The Difciples' difpute with the Scribes, and Chrift's enquiry into it.

Ver. 33, &c. The Disciples' difpute among themselves by the way, who fhould be the greatest.

Ver. 38, &c. The ftory of John's forbidding a person to caft out devils in the name of Chrift, with Chrift's difcourse to John thereupon.

Ch. X. 10, &c. The Difciples' enquiry about the business of divorce.

Ch. XII. 41, &c. Our Saviour's obferving the money caft into the treafury, the widow's mite, &c.

[blocks in formation]

Ch. XIV. 51, 52. The account of the young man, that appeared naked with a linen cloth about his body, at the time when our Saviour was taken.

Ch, XVI. 9, &c. Chrift's first appearance, after his refurrection, to Mary Magdalen,

Ver. 12. His appearing to the two Difciples, on the road. Thefe feveral hiftories (befides a great many particular circumftances already mentioned) are in St. Mark, and not in St. Matthew; which certainly never would have been, if he had defigned his Gospel only for an abridgment of St. Matthew's. It is a thing unusual; nay, I believe I may venture to say, it is a thing which never has been known, for an epitomizer to make fuch large additions to the hiftory, which he abridges. St. Mark's Gospel therefore is not an epitome of St. Matthew's.

Arg. V. Perhaps, on the other hand, it may add to the improbability of St. Mark's Gospel being an epitome of St. Matthew's, that there are feveral things wanting in it, and not fo much as hinted at, which are in St. Matthew. He that undertakes to epitomize a history, ought not to omit any confiderable part of it. Now it is evident, that St. Mark has not the leaft remote regard to many of the parts of St. Matthew's Gospel. As near as I can guess, St. Matthew is about one fourth part larger than St. Mark, and those things in which he is larger are some sermons and discourses of our Lord, especially the Sermon on the Mount; befides, St. Mark entirely omitteth the genealogy, and the birth of Chrift with all its circumftances. There are also two or three miracles, mentioned by St. Matthew, and not by St. Mark. Now if St. Mark had St. Matthew's Gospel lying before him, and defigned to make an abridgment of it, it is strange he should entirely omit, and not fo much as flightly mention these things. He could not think that, which an inspired writer had penned, not worthy his notice; if therefore he had had St. Matthew by him when he wrote, it is reasonable to fuppofe he would have mentioned these things, though he had omitted some circumftances, and done it more briefly. If any person wère now to make an epitome of St. Matthew, and were in this

respect

« 前へ次へ »