« 前へ次へ »
Another instance to the fame purpose, is the story of the daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, being restored to life again by our Saviour, told by St. Mark, chap, v. 22, &c. with circumstances 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 ap-n mhnnvn*, 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; for he only fays, §vyu.T(iot pav t^a-ra; Hxt>, my little daughter lleth 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 petition 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. i •
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 /hall 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. P and 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 shalt 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 mould 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 galh
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 Sabafltbani; 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 Sabactthani; chap, xxvii. 46.
These are some of those instances, in which these two Evangelists 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 xv. 34.. Instead of Eli, Eli, there Is no doubt but Lama or Lobe 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 sussicient 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. Whiston 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 fame 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 just 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 cafe, 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 such 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 fupposeable, 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 difagreement as to the order of time, viz. Supposing our present copies corrupted in all these places, where they differ in other circumstances, as Mr. Whislon does suppose them to he in all these places, where they disagree as to time. But it being certain* that no such corruption ever-Happened to the facred text of either St. Matthew or St. Mark, it still remains unaccountable, how these differences should have happened between P a them, them, supposing the one to have made use of the other's Gospel. Hence it was justly argued by Mr. Dodwell1; "That "the later Evangelists did not fee the writings of the former; ** for if they had, it is impossible there should have been so *' many seeming contradictions, which have exercised the "minds of learned men almost ever since the first constituw tion of the Canon." To the same purpose fays Mr. Le Clerc b; " It is not credible that Mark or Luke had seen the "Gospel according to St. Matthew, who otherwise would u have avoided—all seeming clashings."
The fourth Argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel is not an Epitome of St. Matthew's, via. because it has a great many Hifiories, which are not in St. Matthew. A Catalogue of them. The fifth Argument, viz. that it wants several remarkable Hisioriis.
Arg. IV. Q T. Mark's Gospel is not art epitome of St.
O Matthew's, because he hath related several very considerable hislories, of which there is not the leasl mention made by St. Matthew. I have already provedb, that he does, for the most pare, add many more particular circumstances to his stories, than St. Matthew. I shall now shew, that he relates several entire histories, which St. Matthew does not; not only a few additions which St. Peter informed him of (as Mr.Whtston d supposes)f but many remarkable and useful stories. This
• —Ut ne quidem resciverint ingenia exercuerint. Dissert. 1. in
recentiorcs Evangeiistæ, quid icrip- Iren. §. 39. (issent de iisikm rebus antiquiores f b In his third Dissertation, con
aJiter foret, ne tot esstnt iVfriopav?, • cerning the Four. Gospels, annexed
qua; fere a prims iii'que Canonis to his Harmony, •onftitutiune truditoruin hominuin c Ch.?.
observation observation will be sufficiently supported by the following instances.
A Catalogue ossome histories in St. Mark's Gospel, which are not in St. Matthew.
Chap. I. 21, &c. The history of our Saviour's casting the unclean spirit out of the man, in the synagogue at Capernaum.
Ver. 35, &c. The account of our Lord's retiring to a solitary 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 choosing his twelve disciples; their names, commission, ossice, &c.
Ch. IV. 26, &c. The parable of the kingdom of heaven coming without observation.
Ch. VI. 12, 13. The Disciples going out to preach, casting out devils, recovering many that were sick, by anointing with oil.
Ver. 30, &c. The Apostles' report of their success, &c.
Ch. VII. 2, &c. The Pharisees observe our Lord's Disciples eating with unwastten 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 sight at Bethfaida.
Ch. IX. 14, 15. The Disciples' dispute with the Scribes, and Christ's enquiry into it.
Ver. 33, &c. The Disciples' dispute among themselves by the way, who should be the greatest.
Ver. 38, &c. The story of John's forbidding a person to cast out devils in the name of Christ, with Christ's discourse to John thereupon.
Ch. X. 10, &c. The Disciples' enquiry about the business of divorce.
Ch. XII. 41, &c. Our Saviour's observing the money cast into the treasury, the widow's mite, See.
P 3 Ch.