St. Peter, in telling him of his danger, and that he prayed particularly for him, that his faith might not fail, is omitted by St. Mark, but related Luke xxii. 31, 32. IV. St. Peter's remarkable humility above the rest of the apostles, expressed in an unwillingness that Christ should wash his feet, which none of the rest did express, with Christ's particular discourse to him, &c. John xiii. 6, &c. is omitted by Mark. V. The instance of St. Peter's very great zeal for Christ, when he was taken, in cutting off the high priest's servant's ear, John xviii. 10. is not mentioned by St. Mark in particular, but only told in general of a certain person that stood by, Mark xiv. 47. VI. St. Peter's faith, in leaping into the sea to go to Christ, John xxi. 7. is not mentioned by St. Mark. VII. Christ's discourse with Peter, concerning his love to him, and his particular repeated charge to him to feed his sheep, John xxi. 15. is omitted by St. Mark. VIII. Our Saviour's predicting to Peter his martyrdom, and the manner of it, John xxi. 18, 19. is not related by St. Mark. These are some instances of things tending to St. Peter's honour, recorded by the other evangelists, none of which are so much as hinted at by St. Mark. I add also, that there is not any one single instance in all his Gospel, like to those mentioned, or which tends to advance the honour and prerogative of Peter above the rest of the apostles; all which cannot be accounted for by any way more probable, than supposing that the apostle did not publish those circumstances which were so much in his favour. In this remark I have the pleasure to join with Eusebius, and the learned Doway professor, Estius, whose words are to this purpose: "Why," says he, "St. Mark "should omit in his Gospel those great and honourable pro"mises made to St. Peter, which we read Matt. xvi. may be 66 seen in Eusebius, Demonstr. Evang. lib. 3. c. 7. St. Peter's humility would not suffer him to tell these things to St. Mark, "when he was writing his Gospel. It is remarkable that the "three other evangelists relate those things, which tend to ad"vance the honour and prerogative of St. Peter; only St. Mark, 66 "who wrote his Gospel according to what he heard from St. "Peter, hath omitted them; which evidences the great modesty of the apostle *." 66 Dr. Hammond has another argument, by which he endeavours to prove the truth of the account, given by the ancients, of St. Mark's writing under the direction of Petery. After he had produced the account, he adds; "And of this there be "some characters discernible in the writing itself, as that, set"ting down the story of Peter's denying Christ with the same "enumeration of circumstances, and aggravations of the fault, "that Matthew doth, when he comes to mention his repent"ance, and tears consequent to it, he doth it, as became the "true penitent, more coldly than Matthew had done, only σε ἔκλαιε, he wept; whereas Matthew hath ἔκλαιε πικρῶς, he rept bitterly." 66 7. It is no small proof that the ancients' account of St. Mark's writing his Gospel under the direction of, or from Peter is true, that the Gospel went under the name of Peter, and was styled the Gospel of Peter, being thought to be wrote by him. This we are expressly told by Tertullian 2, and not obscurely by Justin Martyra, as I shall shew hereafter. 8. If the word Babylon, 1 Pet. v. 13. be put for Rome, as is generally thought by the ancients b, all the popish writers, and many protestants; we have then hence a further confirmation of the truth of the ancients' account of the occasion of St. Mark's writing, viz. his writing from Peter's direction at Rome; viz. it will hence appear, that St. Mark was with Peter at Rome, and that he made use of him in the service of the Gospel, because he calls him his son-The words are, The church which is at Babylon [at Rome], elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Mark my son, (or assistant in the Gospel-work.) * In difficil. Script. loca, in Marc. viii. 29. y Annot. on the title of Matthew. z Evangelium, quod Marcus edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Mar cus. Adv. Marcion. 1. 4. c. 5. a Dialog. cum Tryph. Jud. p. 333. b Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 15. Hieron. Catalog. Vir. Illustr. in Marco, et alii passim. CHAP. VIII. Concerning the language in which St. Mark wrote his Gospel. The arguments of Baronius and Bellarmine, to prove that he wrote in Latin, refuted. Concerning the time of St. Mark's writing. Two different opinions proposed. St. Peter was at Rome. When he came first thither; viz. not till the ninth or tenth of Nero, or the year of Christ, 63. or 64. THUS I have given the best account I can of the original of St. Mark's Gospel, and added such remarks as appear to me illustrating and confirming of it. I proceed now to consider, II. In what language this Gospel of St. Mark was written. Besides Baronius and Bellarmine, and a few zealous papists who have followed them, I know no one but subscribes to the common report of antiquity, that St. Mark wrote in Greek. These cardinals pretend he wrote in Latin; but nothing can be pretended upon more weak arguments: all their reasoning may be reduced to the three following heads, which I shall briefly refute; 1. They urge, that St. Mark, writing his Gospel at Rome, must be supposed to write it in the language which was most in use there at that time; i. e. in Latin. But it is easy to reply, (1.) That the Greek language was very much known and in use at Rome when St. Mark wrote. This was the universal language, as Cicero, Seneca, and other writers of that time, assure us; and even the very women at Rome spake in that language d. (2.) The converts at Rome were, for the most part, of the Jews, (as they also were in other countries,) and these generally understood Greek, and made use of the Greek Bibles. Grotius's words are as remarkable as true f; "The Jews, who c Orat. pro Arch. Poet. §. 23. Senec. Consolat. ad Helv. c. 6. d See Du Pin's Canon of the New Test. ch. 2. §. 4. p. 42. • See above, Vol. I. Part I. Ch. II. p. 23. f Græce autem scripsit Marcus, quanquam in gratiam præcipue Roma norum, sicut et Paulus ad Romanos Epistolam Græca scripsit lingua; quia Judæi qui Romæ agebant, plerique Latini sermonis ignari, longa per Græciam et Asiam habitatione Græcam linguam didicerant, et Romanorum vix quisquam erat non Græce intelligens. Annot. in Titul. Marci. "dwelt at Rome, were for the most part ignorant of the Latin "tongue, but by means of their long abode in Asia and Greece, "had learnt the Greek; and of which language there were "scarce any of the Romans ignorant.” (3.) Hence St. Paul, writing an Epistle to the Romans, wrote it in Greek, and not in Latin. 2. It is urged, that there are several Latin words made Greek in St. Mark's Gospel, and thence concluded, that the whole Gospel was wrote in Latin. What can be more absurd? The argument proves nothing, unless it be the directly contrary to what it is brought for. He who was translating out of Latin into Greek, can never be supposed to put Latin words for Latin words. Accordingly Dr. Mill has justly made this an argument to prove St. Mark wrote first in Greek 5; and there are Latin words in each of the evangelists, as well as Mark. 3. It is urged, that the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions affirm St. Mark to have wrote in Latin. To which I answer, (1.) That these epigraphs, or postscripts, at the end of these versions, are of very uncertain authority. (2.) That the Arabic and Persic versions are generally agreed, by those who have examined them, to be made out of the Syriac version; and Lud. de Dieu has, by a very ingenious and solid criticism on the epigraph at the end of the Arabic version of Mark, proved that version to be very late. (3.) That the epigraph of the Syriac version does not affirm Mark to have wrote in Latin, as is generally taken for granted, but only saith, that he spoke and preached in Latin at Rome; the words are, ∞ √ He spake his Gospel, and preached it. As to the testimony of Eutychius Alexandrinus, urged by Baronius, to prove St. Mark to have wrote in Latin, I think there is nothing needful to be said, he being so late a writer; and besides, Mr. Selden h has largely shewn that the Arabic word Romana, may be very well taken to denote the Greek language, and then Eutychius's testimony will be, that Prolegom. in Nov. Test. §. III. Comment. in Eutych. Orig. Alex. p. 152. Mark wrote in Greek. Concerning this whole matter, see Father Simon's Crit. Hist. of the New Test. part 1. ch. 11. III. It remains that some inquiry be made into the time when St. Mark wrote his Gospel. In this matter it is exceeding difficult to come to any clear determination. That which occasions the difficulty, is the uncertainty we are under as to the time when St. Peter came to Rome. Some have absolutely denied that he ever was there; and as they endeavour from scripture to shew, that during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius, he was either at Jerusalem, Samaria, or Antioch; so from St. Paul's Epistles, which were written from Rome, and that which was written to Rome, all of them in the reign of Nero, they finding no salutations sent to Peter, nor from Peter, they conclude, that he never was at Rome. But these seem to be arguments too weak to counterbalance the universal testimony of antiquity: there is scarce any fact which is more generally attested; so that for my part, I know not how to deny St. Peter's having been at Rome, without asserting at the same time, that the most universal concurrence of the primitive Christians in relating a fact, is not to be depended upon. The question therefore before us now is, When St. Peter was at Rome? I shall briefly lay down the differing opinions, and then what appears more probable. 1. The popish writers generally assert, that St. Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, or the year of Christ 44k. This is well known: the foundation of their opinion is, that Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History 1, saith; "Peter, by "the direction of Providence, came to Rome in the reign of "Claudius, to contend with, and overcome Simon Magus;" and in his Chronicon, that "after he had been at Antioch, he "went to Rome, in the second year of Claudius," i. e. the year of Christ 44. Those who are of this opinion, suppose the Gospel of St. Mark to be written at this time, as Eusebius seems also to have thought; and so it is asserted at the end of the Arabic version m, and of many ancient manuscripts of this i See Bunting's Itinerar. tot. Script. in English, p. 496. * Vid. inter alios Dionys. Petav. Rationar. Tempor. par. 1. lib. 5. c. 3. et Achill. Primiin. Gassar. Epit. Hist. et Chronic. Mundi, p. 93. ult. 1 Lib. 2. c. 14. m Vid. Lud. de Dieu in Marci cap. |