The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 14

(_c_) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion with the phrase, p?s? t? ?t?se?, in ver. 15,-(concerning which, the reader is referred back to page 162-3,)-that both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred writers) conspire to use the expression ?p? ????? ?t?se??.(312) S. Mark has besides ?t?se?? ?? ??t?se ? Te?? (ch. xiii. 19); while S. Peter alone styles the ALMIGHTY, from His work of Creation, ? ?t?st?? (1 S. Pet. iv.

19).

VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations as those which precede,-(some of which, I am aware, might be considerably evacuated of their cogency; while others, I am just as firmly convinced, will remain forcible witnesses of G.o.d'S Truth to the end of Time,)-I hesitate not to avow my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence is garnered up within the brief compa.s.s of these Twelve Verses that they are identical in respect of fabric with the rest of the Gospel; were clearly manufactured out of the same Divine materials,-wrought in the same heavenly loom.

It was even to have been expected, from what is found to have been universally the method in other parts of Scripture,-(for it was of course foreseen by ALMIGHTY G.o.d from the beginning that this portion of His Word would be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, reviled, hated, rejected, denied,)-that the SPIRIT would not leave Himself without witness in this place. It was to have been antic.i.p.ated, I say, that Eternal Wisdom would carefully-(I trust there is no irreverence in so speaking of G.o.d and His ways!)-would carefully make provision: meet the coming unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword: plant up and down throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of their Divine Original,-unmistakable notes of purpose and design,-mysterious traces and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to the scornful and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent; yet clear as if written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, the man who "trembleth at G.o.d'S Word."(313) Or, (if the Reader prefers the image,) the indications of a Divine Original to be met with in these verses shall be likened rather to those cryptic characters, invisible so long as they remain unsuspected, but which s.h.i.+ne forth clear and strong when exposed to the Light or to the Heat; (Light and Heat, both emblems of Himself!) so that even he that gropeth in darkness must now see them, and admit that of a truth "the LORD is in this place" although he "knew it not!"

(i.) I propose then that in the first instance we compare the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel with the beginning of it. We did this before, when our object was to ascertain whether the _Style_ of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 be indeed as utterly discordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonly represented. We found, instead, the most striking resemblance.(314) We also inst.i.tuted a brief comparison between the two in order to discover whether the _Diction_ of the one might not possibly be found as suggestive of _verbal_ doubts as the diction of the other: and so we found it.(315)-Let us for the third time draw the two extremities of this precious fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them.

Nothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once more, our attention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve verses (ver. 9-20) of S. Mark's _first_ chapter which exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his _last_ chapter (ver. 9-20) which are the subject of the present volume.

Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides (1) the obvious _verbal_ resemblance, I detect (2) a singular parallelism of _essential structure_. And this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing of the kind was to have been _expected_.

(1.) On the verbal coincidences I do not propose to lay much stress. Yet are they certainly not without argumentative weight and significancy. I allude to the following:-

(a) [apt????, ?pt?sa (a) apt?s?e?? (xvi. 16) (i. 4)-?a? ?apt????t?

(i. 5)-??pt?sa, apt?se?

(i. 8)]-?a? ?apt?s?? (i.

9) (b) [????ss??, ?????ssd (b) ??????a? (xvi. 20) (i. 7)]

(b and c) ????ss?? t? (c) ?????ate t?

e?a??????? (i. 14)-[???? e?a??????? (xvi. 15) t?? e?a??e???? (i. 1)]

(c and d) p?ste?ete ?? t? (d) ?p?st?sa? (xvi.

e?a??e??? (i. 15) 11)-??d? ?p?ste?sa? (xvi.

13)-t?? ?p?st?a?, ???

?p?ste?sa? (xvi. 14)-?

p?ste?sa?, ? ?p?st?sa?

(xvi. 16)-t??? p?ste?sas?

(xvi. 17.)

Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an unmistakable relation of sympathy between the first page of S. Mark's Gospel and the last. The same doctrinal phraseology,(316)-the same indications of Divine purpose,-the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both.

(i.) _A Gospel_ to be everywhere _preached_;-(ii.) _Faith_, to be of all required;-(iii.) _Baptism_ to be universally administered; "one LORD, one Faith, one Baptism:"-Is not _this_ the theme of the beginning of S. Mark's Gospel as well as of the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the two extremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric be identical or not, it were discovered that those extremities are even meant _to clasp_!

(2.) But the _essential_ parallelism between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i. 9-20 is a profounder phenomenon and deserves even more attention. I proceed to set down side by side, as before, what ought to require neither comment nor explanation of mine. Thus we find,-

(A) _in ch._ i. 9 _to_ (A) _in ch._ xvi. 9 _to_ 11:-Our LORD'S 11:-Our LORD'S appearance Manifestation to the to Mary Magdalene (?f???) World (?p?fa?e?a) on HIS after HIS Resurrection "coming up (??aa????) (??ast??) from death: out of the water" of "Thou art My SON, this Jordan: (having been day have I begotten "buried by Baptism," as Thee."

the Apostle speaks:) when the Voice from Heaven proclaimed,-"Thou art My beloved SON in whom I am well pleased."

-12 _to_ 14:-Two other Manifestations (?fa?e????) to Disciples.

(B) -12, 13:-CHRIST'S (B) -17, 18:-CHRIST'S victory over Satan; promise that "they that (whereby is fulfilled the believe" "shall cast out promise "Thou shalt tread devils" and "shall take upon the lion and adder: up serpents:" (as [in S.

the young lion and the Luke x. 19] He had given dragon shalt Thou trample the Seventy "power to under feet.") tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy.") (C) -8:-The Pentecostal (C) -17:-The chief Gift foretold: "He shall Pentecostal Gift baptize you with the HOLY specified: "They shall GHOST." speak with new tongues."

(D) _in ch._ i. 14, (D) _in ch._ xvi. 15, 15:-CHRIST "comes into 16:-He commands His Galilee, preaching the Apostles to "go into all Gospel ... and saying ... the world and preach the Repent ye, and believe Gospel to every creature.

the Gospel." He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

(E) -15: His (E) -19:-S. Mark's record announcement, that "The concerning Him, that "He time is fulfilled, and was received up into the Kingdom of G.o.d is at Heaven, and sat on the hand." right hand of G.o.d" (where He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet.) (F) -16 _to_ 20:-The four (F) -20:-The Apostles'

Apostles' Call to the Ministry, which is Ministry: (which [S. Luke everywhere miraculously v. 8, 9] is miraculously attested,-"The LORD attested.) working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed."

It is surely not an unmeaning circ.u.mstance, a mere accident, that the Evangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his Gospel, so express himself! If, however, it should seem to the Reader a mere matter of course, a phenomenon without interest or significancy,-nothing which I could add would probably bring him to a different mind.

(3.) Then, further: when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am not a little struck by the discovery that the VIth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem (A.D. 348) is found in the one: the Xth Article, in the other.(317) If it be a purely fortuitous circ.u.mstance, that two cardinal verities like these,-(viz. "_He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of _G.o.d"-and "_One Baptism for the Remission of sins_,") should be found at either extremity of one short Gospel,-I will but point out that it is certainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circ.u.mstances.-But in the thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, any talk of fortuitousness at all.

(4.) Allusion is made to the diversity of Name whereby the Son of Man is indicated in these two several places of the Gospel; which const.i.tutes a most Divine circ.u.mstance, and is profoundly significant. He who in _the first_ verse (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint t.i.tle "??s???" and "???st??,"-here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19, 20) is styled for the first and for the last time, "? ?????S"-the LORD.(318)

And why? Because He who at His Circ.u.mcision was named "JESUS," (a Name which was given Him from _His Birth_, yea, and before His Birth); He who at His Baptism became "the CHRIST," (a t.i.tle which belonged to _His Office_, and which betokens His sacred _Unction_);-the same, on the occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the Right Hand of G.o.d,-when (as we know) "all power had been given unto Him in Heaven and in Earth" (S. Matth. xxviii. 18),-is designated by His Name of _Dominion_; "the LORD" JEHOVAH ... "Magnifica et opportuna appellatio!"-as Bengel well remarks.

But I take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or could have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to S.

Mark's unfinished Gospel. No inventor of a supplement, I say, _could_ have planted his foot in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my a.s.sertion is twofold:-

(_a_) First, because the present indication that the HOLY GHOST was indeed the Author of these last Twelve Verses is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson and his School, _as a proof of a spurious original_. Verily, such Critics do not recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they _see_ it!

(_b_) Next, as a matter of fact, we _have_ a spurious Supplement to the Gospel,-the same which was exhibited above at p. 123-4; and which may here be with advantage reproduced in its Latin form:-"Omnia autem quaec.u.mque praecepta erant illis qui c.u.m Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt. Post haec et ipse Iesus adparuit, et ab oriente usque in occidentem misit per illos sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae.

Amen."(319)-Another apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of the Thebaic version. It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as follows:-"Exeuntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium in mundo toto, CHRISTO operante c.u.m iis in verbo confirmationem c.u.m signis sequentibus eos et miraculis. Atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in terra tota et in mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum quae exsistunt ab oriente ad occasum." It will be seen that the t.i.tle of _Dominion_ (? ??????-the LORD) is found in neither of these fabricated pa.s.sages; but the Names of _Nativity_ and of _Baptism_ (??s??? and ???st??-JESUS and CHRIST) occur instead.

(ii.) Then further:-It is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a vast number of minute but important facts should be found acc.u.mulated within the narrow compa.s.s of these twelve verses; and should be met with _nowhere else_. The writer,-supposing that he had only S. Matthew's Gospel before him,-traverses (except in one single instance) _wholly new ground_; moves forward with unmistakable boldness and a rare sense of security; and wherever he plants his foot, it is to enrich the soil with fertility and beauty. But on the supposition that he wrote after S. Luke's and S. John's Gospel had appeared,-the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold: for how then does it come to pa.s.s that he evidently draws his information from quite independent sources? is not bound by any of their statements? even seems _purposely_ to break away from their guidance, and to adventure some extraordinary statement of his own,-which nevertheless carries the true Gospel savour with it; and is felt to be authentic from the very circ.u.mstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and put it forth on his own responsibility?

(iii.) Second to no indication that this entire section of the Gospel has a Divine original, I hold to be a famous expression which (like p??t?

sa?t??) has occasioned general offence: I mean, the designation of Mary Magdalene as one "out of whom" the LORD "had cast seven devils;" and _that_, in immediate connexion with the record of her august privilege of being the first of the Human Race to behold His risen form. There is such profound Gospel significancy;-such sublime improbability,-such exquisite pathos in this record,-that I would defy any fabricator, be he who he might, to have achieved it. This has been to some extent pointed out already.(320)

(iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circ.u.mstance must be by all means here insisted upon afresh,) that the designation (found in ver. 10) of the little company of our LORD'S followers,-"t??? et? a?t??

?e???????,"-is another rare note of veracious origin. No one but S.

Mark,-or just such an one as he,-would or could have so accurately designated the little band of Christian men and women who, unconscious of their bliss, were "mourning and weeping" till after sunrise on the first Easter Day. The reader is reminded of what has been already offered on this subject, at p. 155-6.

(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but S. Mark, (or such an one as he(321)), would have familiarly designated the Apostolic body as "a?t??? t??? ??de?a," in ver. 14. The phrase ?? d?de?a, he uses in proportion _far_ oftener than any other two of the Evangelists.(322) And it is evident that the phrase ?? ??de?a soon became an equally recognised designation of the Apostolic body,-"from which Judas by transgression fell." Its familiar introduction into this place by the second Evangelist is exactly what one might have looked for, or at least what one is fully prepared to meet with, _in him_.

(vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to an un.o.btrusive and un.o.bserved verb in the last of these verses which (I venture to say) it would never have entered into the mind of any ordinary writer to employ in that particular place. I allude to the familiar word ??e????te?.

The precise meaning of the expression,-depending on the known force of the preposition with which the verb is compounded,-can scarcely be missed by any one who, on the one hand, is familiar with the Evangelical method; on the other, is sufficiently acquainted with the Gospel History. Reference is certainly made to the final departure of the Apostolic body _out of the city of Jerusalem_.(323) And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein contained a recollection of our SAVIOUR'S command to His Apostles, twice expressly recorded by S. Luke, "that they should _not depart from Jerusalem_, but wait for the promise of the FATHER." "Behold," (said He,) "I send the promise of My FATHER upon you: but _tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem_, until ye be endued with power from on high."(324)... After many days "_they went forth_" or "_out_." S. Mark, (or perhaps it is rather S. Peter,) expressly says so,-??e????te?. Aye, and _that_ was a memorable "outgoing," truly! What else was its purpose but the evangelization of the World?

VII. Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence derived from Internal considerations. But lest it should hereafter be reckoned as an omission, and imputed to me as a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged _Inconsistency_ of certain statements contained in these "Twelve Verses"

with the larger notices contained in the parallel narratives of S. Luke and S. John,-I proceed briefly to explain _why_ I am silent on this head.

1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other words,-what I should propose to myself as the end to be attained by what I wrote. For,

2. What would be gained by demonstrating,-(as I am of course prepared to do,)-that there is really _no inconsistency whatever_ between anything which S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should have proved that,-(a.s.suming the _other_ Evangelical narratives to be authentic, i.e. historically true,)-the narrative before us cannot be objected to on the score of its not being authentic also. But _by whom_ is such proof required?

(_a_) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met with in the Evangelical narratives. In _their_ estimation, _the genuineness of an inspired writing_ is a thing not in the least degree rendered suspicious by the erroneousness of its statements. According to them, the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may yet be the work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but "trifling," and the inaccuracies "minute,"-these "sound Theologians," (for so they style themselves,(325)) "have no dread whatever of acknowledging" their existence. Be it so. Then would it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing _them_ that no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the compa.s.s of these Twelve concluding Verses.

(_b_) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers; who, for want of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the perfect Harmony of the Evangelical narratives in this place. It is only one of many places where a prima facie discrepancy, though it does not fail to strike,-yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them.

Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with themselves somewhat as follows:-"G.o.d'S Word, like all G.o.d'S other Works, (and I am taught to regard G.o.d'S Word as a very masterpiece of creative skill;)-the blessed Gospel, I say, is _full_ of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are observed invariably to disappear under competent investigation. Can I seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on the highly elliptical portion of narrative contained in these Twelve Verses, it would present no exception to a rule which is observed to be else universal; and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark's statements in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be found to be imaginary only?"

This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon a prolonged Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion of _the Principles of Gospel Harmony_,-for which the present would clearly not be the proper place.

VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,-

1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from "Style," (in itself a highly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation.

It has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S. Mark i. 9-20; and therefore, that _it is rendered probable by the Style_ that the Author of the beginning of this Gospel was also the Author of the end of it.

2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument from "Phraseology,"-(in itself, a most unsatisfactory test; and as it has been applied to the matter in hand, a very coa.r.s.e and clumsy one;)-breaks down hopelessly under severe a.n.a.lysis.

Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circ.u.mstances in the Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has been proved (pp. 170-3) that in twenty-seven particulars there emerge _corroborative considerations_.

3. Lastly, I have shewn that a loftier method of Criticism is at hand; and that, tested by this truer, more judicious, and more philosophical standard; _a presumption_ of the highest order is created _that these Verses must needs be the work of S. Mark_.