The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 13

(xix.) e?a???????,-a word which occurs only in the first two Gospels,-is found twice as often in S. Mark's as in S. Matthew's Gospel: and if the respective length of their Gospels be considered, the proportion will be as three to one. It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15.

(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned to vindicate _the genuineness_ of this section of the Gospel, we should have been a.s.sured that fa?e???s?a? is another of S. Mark's words: by which they would have meant no more than this,-that though employed neither by S. Matthew nor by S. Luke it is used thrice by S. Mark,-being found twice in this section (verses 12, 14), as well as in ch. iv. 22.

(xxi.) They would have also pointed out that s??????a?d?a is another of S.

Mark's words: being employed neither by S. Luke nor by S. John,-by S.

Matthew only once,-but by S. Mark on _two_ occasions; of which ch. xvi. 14 is one.

(xxii.) In the same spirit, they would have bade us observe that pa?ta???

(ver. 20)-unknown to S. Matthew and S. John, and employed only once by S.

Luke,-is _twice_ used by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present section.

Nor would it have been altogether unfair if they had added that the precisely similar word pa?ta???e? (or p??t??e?) is only found in this same Gospel,-viz. in ch. i. 45.

(xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time with a greater show of reason) that the adverb ?a??? (which is found in ver. 18) is another favorite word with S. Mark: occurring as it does, (when the length of these several narratives is taken into account,) more than twice as often in S. Mark's as in S. John's Gospel,-just three times as often as in the Gospel of S. Matthew and S. Luke.

(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation would have been that ??e??, in the sense of "to be," (as in the phrase ?a??? ??e??, ver. 18,) is characteristic of S. Mark. He has it oftener than any of the Evangelists, viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32, 34: ii. 17: v. 23: vi. 55: xvi. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, he employs this idiom twice as often as S. Matthew;-three times as often as S. John;-four times as often as S. Luke.

(xxv.) They would have told us further that ????st?? is another of S.

Mark's favorite words: for that he has it _three_ times,-viz. in ch. vi.

5, 13, and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew has it only once. S. Luke and S.

John not at all.

(xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by them that the conjunction of pe????s? ?a? ??a???s? (in ver. 10) is characteristic of S.

Mark,-who has ??a???ta? ?a? ??a?????ta? in ch. v. 38: ????e?s?e ?a?

??a?ete in the very next verse. As for pe??e??, it is one of the 123 words common to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their two Gospels.

(xxvii.) Lastly, "?ata????? (in ver. 16), instead of ?????, is Mark's word, (comp. x. 33: xiv. 64)." The simple verb which is used four times by S. Matthew, five times by S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at all employed by S. Mark: whereas the compound verb he has oftener in proportion than S. Matthew,-more than twice as often as either S. Luke or S. John.

Strange,-that there should be exactly "xxvii" notes of genuineness discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of "XXVII" grounds of suspicion!

But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage review the progress. .h.i.therto made in this inquiry.

I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing a.s.sertions respecting the "Style" and "Phraseology" of this section of the Gospel which were rehea.r.s.ed at the outset,(301)-are dest.i.tute of foundation. But from this discovery alone there results a settled conviction which it will be found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scripture which has been able to endure so severe an ordeal of hostile inquiry, has been _proved_ to be above suspicion. _That_ character is rightly accounted _blameless_ which comes out unsullied after Calumny has done her worst; done it systematically; done it with a will; done it for a hundred years.

But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. Something _more_ is certain than that the charges which have been so industriously brought against this portion of the Gospel are without foundation. It has been also proved that instead of there being discovered twenty-seven suspicious words and phrases scattered up and down these twelve verses of the Gospel, there actually exist exactly as many words and phrases which attest with more or less certainty that those verses are nothing else but the work of the Evangelist.

IV. And now it is high time to explain that though I have hitherto condescended to adopt the method of my opponents, I have only done so in order to shew that it proves fatal to _themselves_. I am, to say the truth, ashamed of what has last been written,-so untrustworthy do I deem the method which, (following the example of those who have preceded me in this inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The "Concordance test,"-(for _that_ is probably as apt and intelligible a designation as can be devised for the purely _mechanical_ process whereby it is proposed by a certain school of Critics to judge of the authors.h.i.+p of Scripture,)-is about the coa.r.s.est as well as about the most delusive that could be devised. By means of this clumsy and vulgar instrument, especially when applied, (as in the case before us,) without skill and discrimination, it would be just as easy to prove that _the first_ twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are of a suspicious character as _the last_.(302) In truth, except in very skilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead.

Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that "Mark nowhere uses the appellation JESUS CHRIST:" and (ii.) that "e?a??????? ??s?? ???st??" is "_Pauline_"-We should be reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere introduces any of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of "Isaiah"(303) (in ver. 2) is a suspicious circ.u.mstance:-(iv.) that a quotation from the Old Testament is "foreign to his manner,"-(for writers of this cla.s.s would not hesitate to a.s.sume that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part of the Gospel;)-and (v.) that the fact that here are quotations from _two_ different prophets, betrays an unskilful hand.-(vi.) Because S. Mark three times calls Judaea by its usual name (???da?a, viz. in iii. 7: x. 1: xiii.

14), the _unique_ designation, ? ???da?a ???a (in ver. 5) would be p.r.o.nounced decisive against "the authors.h.i.+p of Mark."-(vii.) The same thing would be said of the _unique_ expression, ?? ???d??? p?ta?, which is found in ver. 5,-seeing that this Evangelist three times designates Jordan simply as ???d???? (i. 9: iii. 8: x. 1).-(viii.) _That_ entire expression in ver. 7 (_unique_, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,) ??

??? e?? ??a???-?p?d??t?? a?t??, would be p.r.o.nounced "abhorrent to the style of Mark."-(ix.) t? ??e?a _twice_, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we should be told is never used by the Evangelist absolutely for the HOLY GHOST: but always t? ??e?a t? ????? (as in ch. iii. 29: xii. 36: xiii.

11).-(x.) The same would be said of ?? ?e??s????ta? (in ver. 5) for "the inhabitants of Jerusalem:" we should be a.s.sured that S. Mark's phrase would rather be ?? ?p? ?e??s?????,-as in ch. iii. 8 and 22.-And (xi.) the expression p?ste?e?? ?? t? e?a??e??? (ver. 15), we should be informed "cannot be Mark's;"-who either employs e?? and the accusative (as in ch.

ix. 92), or else makes the verb take a dative (as in ch. xi. 31: xvi. 13, 14.)-We should also probably be told that the ten following words are all "unknown to Mark:"-(xii.) t???e?,-(xiii.) de?at???,-(xiv.) ?sf??,-(xv.) ????de?,-(xvi.) ???,-(xvii.) ??????,(six instances in a single verse (ver. 6): a highly suspicious circ.u.mstance!),-(xviii.) ??pte??,-(xix.) ???,-(xx.) ?p?d?ata, (all three instances in ver. 7!)-(xxi.) e?d??e??,-(xxii.) ?a? ????et? ... ???e? (ver. 9),-unique in S.

Mark!-(xxiii.) apt??es?a? e?? (ver 9), another unique phrase!-(xxiv.) ??

???a??? _twice_, (viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when _S. Mark_ speaks of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41: vii. 34: viii. 11: xvi. 19) he always uses the singular.-Lastly, (xxv.) the same sorry objection which was brought against the "last twelve verses," (that p????, a favourite adverb with S.

Mark, is not found there,) is here even more conspicuous.

Turning away from all this,-(not, however, without an apology for having lingered over such frivolous details so long,)-I desire to point out that we have reverently to look below the surface, if we would ascertain how far it is to be presumed from internal considerations whether S. Mark was indeed the author of this portion of his Gospel, or not.

V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical, more _real_ test than the coa.r.s.e, uncritical expedient which has been hitherto considered of ascertaining by reference to the pages of a Greek Concordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the Gospel is, or is not, used elsewhere by S. Mark. And I suppose it will be generally allowed to be deserving of attention,-in fact, to be a singularly corroborative circ.u.mstance,-that within the narrow compa.s.s of these Twelve Verses we meet with _every princ.i.p.al characteristic of S.

Mark's manner_:-Thus,

(i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gospels, and though to all appearance he often merely reproduces what S. Matthew has said before him, or else antic.i.p.ates something, which is afterwards delivered by S.

Luke,-it is surprising how often we are indebted to S. Mark for precious pieces of information which we look for in vain elsewhere. Now, this is a feature of the Evangelist's manner which is susceptible of memorable ill.u.s.tration from the section before us.

How many and how considerable are the _new circ.u.mstances_ which S. Mark here delivers!-(1) That Mary Magdalene was _the first_ to behold the risen SAVIOUR: (2) That it was _He_ who had cast out from her the "seven devils:" (3) _How the men were engaged_ to whom she brought her joyful message,-(4) who not only did not believe _her_ story, but when Cleopas and his companion declared what had happened to themselves, "_neither believed they them_." (5) The terms of the Ministerial Commission, as set down in verses 15 and 16, are unique. (6) The announcement of the "signs which should follow them that believe" is even extraordinary. Lastly, (7) this is the only place in the Gospel where _The Session at the right Hand of _G.o.d is recorded.... So many, and such precious incidents, showered into the Gospel Treasury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand, must needs have proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from a companion of Apostles. O, if we had no other token to go by, there could not be a reasonable doubt that this entire section is by no other than S. Mark himself!

(ii.) A second striking characteristic of the second Evangelist is his love of picturesque, or at least of striking details,-his p.r.o.neness to introduce exceedingly minute particulars, often of the profoundest significancy, and always of considerable interest. Not to look beyond the Twelve Verses (chap. i. 9-20) which were originally proposed for comparison,-We are reminded (_a_) that in describing our SAVIOUR'S Baptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that "He came _from Nazareth_" to be baptized.-(_b_) In his highly elliptical account of our LORD'S Temptation, it is only he who relates that "He was _with the wild beasts_."-(_c_) In his description of the Call of the four Disciples, S.

Mark alone it is who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of his account to what is found in S. Matthew,) records that the father of S.

James and S. John was left "in the s.h.i.+p _with the hired servants_."(304)-Now, of this characteristic, we have also within these twelve verses, at least four ill.u.s.trations:-

(_a_) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently proceeded from an eye-witness,-"pe????s? ?a? ??a???s?." S. Mark relates that when Mary conveyed to the Disciples the joyous tidings of the LORD'S Resurrection, _she found them overwhelmed with sorrow_,-"mourning and weeping."

(_b_) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is _recorded only there._

(_c_) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples were "going into the country," (p??e??e??? e?? ?????,(305) ver. 12,) JESUS also "went with them"-(s??-ep??e?et?, as S. Luke relates;)-but that it was _as they actually _"walked"_ along_ (pe??pat??s??) that this manifestation took place.

(_d_) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning "them that believe;" what can be imagined more striking than the promise that they should "_take up serpents_;" and suffer no harm even if they should "_drink any deadly thing_"?

(iii) Next,-all have been struck, I suppose, with S. Mark's p.r.o.neness to subst.i.tute some expression of his own for what he found in the Gospel of his predecessor S. Matthew: or, when he antic.i.p.ates something which is afterwards met with in the Gospel of S. Luke, his aptness to deliver it in language entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude, for instance; to his subst.i.tution of ?p?a??? ???a?e (xiv. 72) for S.

Matthew's ???a?se ????? (xxvi. 75);-and of ? t??t?? (vi. 3) for ? t??

t??t???? ???? (S. Matth. xiii. 55).-The "woman of Canaan" in S. Matthew's Gospel (???? ?a?a?a?a, ch. xv. 22), is called "a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation" in S. Mark's (???????, S???f????ssa t? ???e?, ch. vii. 26).-At the Baptism, instead of the "_opened_" heavens of S. Matthew (??e????sa?, ch.

iii. 16) and S. Luke (??e?????a?, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by S.

Mark with the striking image of the heavens "_cleaving_" or "_being rent asunder_" (s?????????,(306) ch. i. 10).-What S. Matthew calls t? ???a ?a?da?? (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as t? ??? ?a?a????? (ch. viii.

10.)-In place of S. Matthew's ??? Sadd???a??? (ch. xvi. 6), S. Mark has ??? ???d?? (ch. viii. 15.)-In describing the visit to Jericho, for the d?? t?f??? of S. Matthew (ch. xx. 29), S. Mark gives ???? ??a???

?a?t?a??? ? t?f??? ... p??sa?t?? (ch. ch. 46.)-For the ???d??? of S.

Matth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch. xi. 8) has st???da?; and for the other's p???

????t??a f???sa? (xxvi. 34), he has p??? ? d?? (xiv. 30.)-It is so throughout.

Accordingly,-(as we have already more than once had occasion to remark,)-whereas the rest say only ? ?a t?? sa?t??, S. Mark says p??t?

sa?t?? (in ver. 9).-Whereas S. Luke (viii. 2) says ?f? ?? da????a ?pt?

??e?????e?,-S. Mark records that from her ??e???e? ?pt? da????a.-Very different is the great ministerial Commission as set down by S. Mark in ver. 15, 16, from what is found in S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.-And whereas S. Luke says "_their eyes were holden_ that they should not know Him," S.

Mark says that "He appeared to them _in another form_." ... Is it credible that any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark's narrative after S.

Luke's Gospel had appeared, would have ventured so to paraphrase S. Luke's statement? And yet, let the consistent truthfulness of either expression be carefully noted. _Both_ are historically accurate, but they proceed from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly side, (G.o.d's side), the Disciples' "eyes" (of course) "_were __ holden_:"-viewed on the earthly side, (Man's side), the risen SAVIOUR (no doubt) "_appeared in another form_."

(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many expressions into his Gospel which confirm the prevalent tradition that it was _at Rome_ he wrote it; and that it was with an immediate view to _Latin_ readers that it was published. Twelve such expressions were enumerated above (at p.

150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most unmistakably is the phrase p??t? sa?t?? in ver. 9.-It is simply incredible that any one but an Evangelist writing under the peculiar conditions traditionally a.s.signed to S. Mark, would have hit upon such an expression as this,-the strict equivalent, to Latin ears, for ? ?a sa?t??, which has occurred just above, in ver. 2. Now this, it will be remembered, is one of the hacknied objections to the genuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel;-quite proof enough, if proof were needed, of the exceeding _improbability_ which attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who have considered this question the most.

(v.) The last peculiarity of S. Mark to which I propose to invite attention is supplied by those expressions which connect his Gospel with S. Peter, and remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient Church that S. Mark was the companion of the chief of the Apostles.

That the second Gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed out; never more interestingly or more convincingly than by Townson(307) in a work which deserves to be in the hands of every student of Sacred Science. Instead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to ill.u.s.trate my meaning, I will mention one which has perhaps never been mentioned in this connexion before.

(_a_) Reference is made to our LORD'S sayings in S. Mark vii, and specially to what is found in ver. 19. _That_ expression, "purging all meats" (?a?a?????(308) p??ta t? ??ata), does really seem to be no part of the Divine discourse; but the Evangelist's inspired comment on the SAVIOUR'S words.(309)

Our SAVIOUR (he explains) by that discourse of His-ipso, facto-"_made all meats clean_." How doubly striking a statement, when it is remembered that probably Simon Peter himself was the actual author of it;-the same who, on the house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that "G.o.d _had made clean_" (? Te?? ??a????se(310)) _all_ His creatures!

(_b_) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on a memorable occasion be considered:-"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the LORD JESUS went in and out among us, _beginning from the Baptism of John_, unto that same day that _He was taken up_ (??e??f??) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His Resurrection."(311) Does not S. Peter thereby define the precise limits of our SAVIOUR'S Ministry,-shewing it to have "begun" (????e???) "from the Baptism of John,"-and closed with the Day of our LORD'S Ascension? And what else are those but the exact bounds of S. Mark's Gospel,-of which the ???? (ch. i. 1) is signally declared to have been _the Baptism of John_,-and the utmost limit, the day when (as S. Mark says) "_He was taken up_ (??e??f??) into Heaven,"-(ch. xvi. 19)?