ART. XI-MISCELLANIES.

[UNDER this title we purpose to publish, from time to time, short articles, either original, or selected from foreign journals, on topics of Biblical Literature and Theology. We shall also admit brief letters, from any who may be disposed to question statements of fact, doctrine, or interpretation found in the pages of this Journal.

I.

Apparent Discrepancies in the Evangelists' Account of Christ's Appearance to Mary Magdalene after his Resurrection.

THE Gospel narratives, (Matt. xxviii, 1-15; Mark xvi, 2-11; Luke xxiv, 1-12; John xx, 1-18,) when carefully adjusted in their several incidents to each other, distinctly indicate that Mary Magdalene was not among the Galilean women who were favoured with the first sight of their risen Master, she having just then left them to call Peter and John; and that Christ afterward revealed himself to her separately. (See Robinson's Greek Harmony of the Gospels, §§. 160-164.) But one expression of Mark, (xvi, 9,) “Jesus . . . . . appeared first (πршτоv) to Mary Magdalene," seems to contradict this arrangement directly. Several methods of reconciling this discordance have been devised, but they are all untenable, as may be seen from a luminous article by Dr. Robinson, in the Bibliotheca Sacra for Feb., 1845, p. 177. Nor is the explanation there adopted and illustrated from Hengstenberg entirely satisfactory. It consists in considering the рTov as put by Mark relatively, to denote the first of the three appearances related by him, the μɛrà τavτa of verse 12 introducing a second appearance, and the vorɛpov of verse 14 as serving to mark the last. Any reader, taking the words in their natural construction, would infallibly understand Mark as meaning to say absolutely, that Christ's first public appearance was made to Mary, and two of his subsequent ones to other persons. The expressions of Paul (1 Corinthians xv, 5-8) and John, (xxi, 14,) adduced to sustain the above interpretation, are not to the point; for they are both strictly true, taken just as they read, without any such relative limitation. Moreover, the question still remains, why does Mark single out this appearance to Mary, rather than the previous one to several women? Let us see if a closer inspection of the facts will not clear up the difficulty, without resorting to any such expedients. Independently of this πртоv of Mark, the incidents, it seems to me, may naturally be arranged as in the following scheme.

By this it appears that Christ's appearance to the other women could not well have preceded that to Mary by much more than a quarter of an hour; and if the time for the other women's return be so lengthened as to make the appearance to Mary precede that to them, the interval in this direction cannot still be made to exceed fifteen minutes, as any one may see by making the corresponding changes in the above table. Now I suggest, whether Mark, in speaking in this general way of Christ's visits, would be likely to distinguish between two appearances so nearly coincident? The very parties who witnessed, or heard them reported, would not themselves have noticed so slight a priority without instituting some such calculation as the above, which they were in no state of mind at the time to make. It appears to me, therefore, that, in the verse under consideration, Mark designs to refer to both these appearances as one, and he mentions Mary's name particularly, because of her prominence in the whole matter, just as he places her first in the list in verse 1, (compare Matt. xxvii, 56, 61; xxviii, 1.) This identification is confirmed by the fact, that none of the Evangelists mention both of these appearances-Matthew and Luke narrating the events just as if Mary had been with the other women at the time of their meeting with Christ, while Mark and John speak of the appearance to her only; yet they all obviously embrace in their accounts the two-fold appearance. Luke also explicitly includes Mary among the women who brought the tidings to the Apostles, evidently not distinguishing her subsequent report from that of the others with whom she at first went out. This idea is, in fact, the key to the whole plan of the Gospel accounts of this matter; the design of the writers being not to furnish each a complete narrative of all the incidents in their exact order, but to show that these Galilean women were, as a company, the first witnesses of Christ's resurrection. In this way the whole difficulty, which has caused so much hypercriticism and okavdahoμóç vanishes, and the vaunted contradiction turns out, as usual, to have existence merely in a misconception of the rationale of Scripture, which expresses facts without any jealous nicety as to minute circumstances. Flushing, L. I.

JAMES STRONG.

[NOTE. According to the astronomical formula, the duration of distinct twilight at that time of the year, in the latitude of Jerusalem, is one hour forty minutes; which would make extreme daybreak occur about four o'clock, as it was near the time of the vernal equinox.]

II.

Quotation of the Prophecy of Christ's Transfixion.-Zech. xii, 10; John xix, 37.

ONE of the most perplexing classes of difficulties experienced by the careful reader of the New Testament, arises from the indefinite manner in which its writers cite the language of the Old Testament, their common formulæ, ¿ç уéуpantai, Iva niş pwdÿ rò pηvév, often leaving us in doubt whether they design to stamp the passages as positive predictions, or mere accommodations to some accidental circumstance. In the quotation referred to, this ambiguity is increased by the peculiar phraseology of

וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר דָּקָרוּ וְסָפְדוּ עָלָיו-: the original, which is as follows

The translator of this portion of the Septuagint version has rendered the passage, evidently with no clear perception of its force, καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ, ἀνθ' ὧν κατωρχήσαντο· καὶ κόψονται ἐπ' αὐτόν, and they will look to me on account of their mockery, and bewail him. John translates and cites it thus, kaì múhiv érépa ypasù λέγει· Όψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. The chief difficulty consists in disposing of the “me," ", as the object of "pierced," (through the relative with, the sign of the determinate accusative,) in such a way as to harmonize with the “him,” 7727,

in the subsequent clause, for whom the people are to "mourn," since Jehovah is obviously the speaker. Several attempts may be seen in Kuinōl, (in loc.,) who can make nothing out of it but a mere general illustration; which does not satisfy the marked character of the incident, nor John's pointed introduction of it. Even Lücke can only say respecting it:-" Die Stelle des Zacharias steht in einem Zusammenhange, dem man den idealen Messianischen Charakter nicht absprechen kann, wiewohl die Messianischen Person darin sehr dunkel und unklar dargestellt ist." (Comment. in loc.)

May I propose the following version and explication ?" They will [in that period of revival] turn their eyes [in penitential prayer] toward Me whom they [will] have pierced [with contumely, by their ungrateful murder of my Son], and they will wail for Him." The term "pierce," 7, has a double meaning, referring directly to the figurative wounding of Jehovah's love, and ulteriorly to the puncture of Christ's side by Jewish agents; and in "Me" there is included the injury done to the Messiah, whom they would earnestly bewail. This is in accordance with the usual two-fold import of such pregnant portions of prophecy. The prophet is describing the conversion of numbers of the Jews in the Messiah's times, under the figure of a deliverance from invaders, (verse 6-9,) which is to be ushered in by a general humiliation for their sins, and prayer for pardon and restoration to the Divine favour, (verse 10-14,) resulting in their absolution and regeneration, (chap. xiii, 1,) and an unprecedented degree of religious knowledge, (verse 2-6.) The chief ingredient in their cup of repentance is to be their unjust treatment of Jehovah in the person of the Messiah, (verse quoted,) and on account of the identity existing between these two, as Principal and Representative, (or more properly, as partners in the Godhead, chap. xiii, 7,) the object him follows in place of Me, without any intimation of the change in person, in conformity with the usual Hebrew style of abrupt transition in the use of pronouns, which does not always specify the precise object to which they refer. (See Nordheimer's Heb. Gram. § 867.) John applies the language in its literal, construction (happily expressing this blending of pronouns by the elliptical idiom, eiç [uè scilicet avròv] ov) to the mortal wound inflicted by Jewish instrumentality upon Jesus's body, (which is, indeed, included in the prophet's meaning,) without reference to the further idea of the remorse to be experienced by the spiritual Israel (that is, Gospel penitents) for their virtual participation in the Redeemer's death. Flushing, L. I.

JAMES STRONG.

III.

Dr. Coke and the Reviewer of Lee's Life.

MR. EDITOR: The Review of the Life of Rev. Jesse Lee, in the Methodist Quarterly for January, 1850 contains certain passages tending so strongly to injure the reputation of Dr. Coke, that I deem a few animadversions therefore necessary. On page 74 the writer says,

"The course pursued by Dr. Coke, as soon as he entered upon his superintendency, gave an earnest of the character of his future administration. Soon after the close of the Christmas Conference, the two Bishops proceeded together to the Virginia Conference. The Doctor was full of zeal, and also full of his new office."

"Full of his new office!" What does this mean, but to slur Dr. Coke, as being imprudently elated with his new office?

On page 76, speaking of Dr. Coke, the writer says: "Yet he came back shorn of his power, and degraded to the condition of a mere Assistant Bishop." This

sentence has the misfortune to be destitute of truth. No such event ever occurred. We never had such an office in the Methodist Episcopal Church "as an Assistant Bishop." Dr. Coke did indeed voluntarily relinquish a small part of his power; but this was no degradation, any more than it would have been for him to resign his office entirely, and for the Conference to accept the resignation.

On the same page, (76,) the writer goes on to say:

"Some years later the last vestige of power was taken from him, (Dr. Coke.) though his name was retained among those of the Bishops, with a note appended, declaring him virtually deposed."

Dr. Coke never was virtually deposed. I was an eye-witness to the whole transaction. No fault was alleged against him. There were other reasons for the Note to which the writer refers. Dr. Coke had addressed a circular letter, signed with his own hand, to all the members of the General Conference, stating certain embarrassments he was under, on account of which he could not return to America, except on one condition. If the General Conference would accept that one condition, he offered to return and labour in the Church for life. The General Conference did not see fit to agree to that condition. This was one reason of the act of the General Conference on that subject. Another reason was, that the British Conference had requested that Dr. Coke might remain in Europe. The following is the note referred to, bound Minutes, vol. 1, page 154:

"Dr. Coke, at the request of the British Conference, and by consent of our General Conference, resides in Europe. He is not to exercise the office of superintendent among us, in the United States, until he be recalled by the General Conference, or by all the Annual Conferences respectively."

This note shows on the face of it, that this act was done in compliance with the request of the British Conference, and by the consent of the General Conference; and to those who were present, it was well known also, that it was done in compliance with an implied request of Dr. Coke himself; and that, therefore, it was neither taking from the Doctor the last "vestige of his power," nor declaring him “virtually deposed." If the General Conference intended in any sense to depose him, why did they reserve the right to recall him? If they intended to take from him the last "vestige of his power," why did they reserve the right of the Annual Conferences to recall him, in case that by death there should be no other Bishop in this Church. See a statement of the whole matter in Dr. Bangs' History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, pp. 211–220. The writer says, in a quotation from another author, "it was thought best for Dr. Coke to be no longer considered a Superintendent of the Methodists in the United States." It might have been so thought by one individual, perhaps by several; but it was never so declared by the General Conference, and probably never thought so by a majority of that body.

It is a lamentable thing, after all the great services rendered by Dr. Coke to the Methodists in Europe and America, and in the foreign missions; after the almost universal conviction of those that knew him, that he was a man of God, and a man of distinguished zeal and talents in the cause of Christ; that anything should now be published to the world concerning him, calculated to lessen the respect the Church entertains for his character.

If it is wrong needlessly to speak against a living brother, is it not worse, needlessly to speak against a departed brother? And why, after that blessed man has been in heaven "thirty-five years," should a Methodist preacher try to raise a dust to soil his memory? WESLEY.

IV.

Interpretation of Mark ix, 49, 50.

WINCHESTER, Ky., March 6, 1850.

MR. EDITOR:-Permit me to call your attention to the interpretation of Mark ix, 49, 50, given by the Rev. R. Watson, in his Exposition in loc. I think you have done Mr. Watson injustice, in your sweeping declaration at the close of the fine article in your January number on this difficult passage. Your interpretation, " modified from the German," is certainly clear and satisfactory; but Mr. Watson's, if not so clearly expressed, is, I think, substantially the same. W. C. D.

V.

On the "Condition of the Dead."

MR. EDITOR:-It is sometimes the case that even able theologians, aiming to avoid erroneous conclusions drawn by others, run into opposite errors. This I believe to have been the case with the author of the article on the "Condition of the Dead," contained in the Quarterly for January, 1850.

To avoid the idea that the soul dies with the body, "he assumes that the threatening, Gen. ii, 17, 'In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,' had not reference to the entire man, but simply to the body." But certainly the address was made to the intellectual man, and not to the body; and hence we think the soul was meant chiefly. It is clear that both soul and body suffered in consequence of the violation of the precept, “of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat." But it does not follow that death works the same result upon the soul as upon the body. The body might become lifeless, while the soul might die a spiritual death, which is not a sleep, and perhaps only in one respect anything like the death of the body. The doctrine has been advanced, that death temporal-the death of the body -was no part of the penalty incurred by Adam. And this view seems both more plausible and more Scriptural than that propounded in the article referred to. Possibly some might ask, Did not temporal death follow the transgression of the law violated by Adam? It did. But that might be the case, and yet temporal death might form no part of the penalty of the law. Temporal death, together with the afflictions of life,-disease, pain, weariness, disappointment, &c.,-are the things referred to by Paul, Rom. viii, 20, &c., where he says, "The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope," etc. These resulted from the sin of Adam, but not as parts of the penalty of the law. They form, on the contrary, a part of the great remedial scheme.

The separation of the soul from God, which, if man is not saved, will be eternal, is the death threatened-this is the penalty of the law: death temporal not being included here. The death of the body is not the death meant, but the death referred to in Ezekiel, where he says, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." Possibly our friend may ask, Why embrace the man entire, if the death spoken of spends its principal force on the soul? Our answer is, the body is embraced, just as the soul would be, if the body was principally concerned. Such is the intimate connexion between the spiritual and the material nature of man, that they suffer from each other's ills. Though we believe the soul chiefly is concerned, yet the whole man is embraced. The examples referred to by your correspondent to prove that the body only is meant, when the man is spoken of, do not support his position; even allowing the body in those cases to be principally intended. His reference to Gen. ii, 7, does not exclude the soul, because the man was not created