manner the relation of Irenæus may be reconciled with that of other writers, and an ancient controversy relative to St. Mark's Gospel decided. However, I propose this mode of solution as a mere hypothesis: and I am far from considering it as an indisputable fact that St. Mark published his Gospel at Alexandria, because the two Alexandrine Fathers, Clement and Origen, have not mentioned it".

If the hypothesis of a two-fold publication of St. Mark's Gospel, first at Rome and afterwards at Alexandria, were a true one, it might very conveniently be applied to explain a difficulty relative to the twelve last verses of this Gospel, namely chap. xvi. 9-20. Much may be said against the authenticity of this passage, as I have already shewn in my History of the Resurrection": and since I wrote this treatise still more evidence has been produced against the passage. It is wanting in the celebrated Codex Vaticanus, which is perhaps the most important Greek manuscript now extant, and it is probable that it was not acknowledged by Eusebius*: further, a Greek manuscript in the Wolfenbüttel library has a Prologue to St. Mark's Gospel, in which no notice is taken of it. On the other hand, so much may be said in favour of this passage, that it would be difficult to reject it: for it is contained in almost all the Greek manuscripts now extant, there is nothing in its style which particularly distinguishes it from the rest of the Gospel, and we can hardly suppose that St. Mark ended at ver. 8. with spo6svro yap, in the middle of the narration. St. Mark had related, ch. xvi. 1-8. that the women, who went to visit the sepulchre, saw an angel who informed them that Jesus was risen, and commanded them to tell it to Peter and the other dis

a Pag. 179-188.

• See Birch's account in the Orient. Bibl. Vol XXIII. 149.

See the New Orient. Bibl. Vol. II.

P. 141.

p. 146—

༦༠ .

ciples, but that they said nothing to any man because they were afraid. Now if St. Mark ended here, it may be asked by what means did he learn that which he had already related in respect to the sepulchre and the angel, since the women at that time did not report either to Peter, or to any one what they had seen and heard. But this difficulty may be removed if we suppose that St. Mark wrote the twelve last verses as well as the rest of the Gospel: and the doubts which even in ancient times were entertained of their authenticity, may be explained on the supposition that St. Mark, when he composed his Gospel at Rome with the assistance of St. Peter, wrote as far as po¤svтo yap, that his progress was then stopped either by the death or the imprisonment of St. Peter, but that he re-assumed and finished his narration on his arrival at Alexandria. It is true, that this explanation, though it ascribes these verses to St. Mark as their author, deprives them of that historical certainty, which they would have possessed, if written under the immediate inspection of St. Peter and therefore, as I have already said, I propose it as a mere hypothesis. At any rate however, the twelve last verses of St. Mark's Gospel have the appearance of an addition, which does not tally with the preceding part of the discourse. According to ch. xiv. 28. Christ himself had said, 'After that I am risen I will go before you into Galilee,' and according to ch. xv. 7. the very same account was given by the angel at the sepulchre. From an author who had thus prepared his readers to expect a narrative of Christ's interview with his disciples in Galilee, it might be reasonably expected that he would not neglect to relate it: but in the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel, no mention is made of an interview in Galilee, though it had been twice declared that Christ would appear there".

:

SECTION III.

Agreement of the accounts given in the preceding section with the contents of St. Mark's Gospel.

'THAT St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, with the assistance and under the direction of St. Peter, agrees extremely well with the contents of the Gospel itself, and may serve likewise to explain several particulars, which at first sight appear extraordinary. For instance, where St. Peter is concerned in the narration, mention is sometimes made of circumstances, which are not related by the other Evangelists, as at ch. i. 29-33. ix. 34. xi. 21. xiv. 30. And on the contrary, the high commendations, which Christ bestowed on St. Peter, as appears from Matth. xvi. 17-19. but which the Apostle, through modesty, would hardly have repeated, are wanting in St. Mark's Gospel 8. At ch. xiv. 47. St. Mark mentions neither the name of the Apostle, who cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant, nor the circumstance of Christ's healing it. We know that this Apostle was St. Peter, for his name is expressly mentioned by St. John: but an Evangelist, who wrote his Gospel at Rome during the life of St. Peter, would have exposed him to the danger of being accused by his adversaries, if he had openly related the fact. Had St. Mark written after the death of St. Peter, there would have been no necessity for this caution'.

Further, as St. Mark wrote for the immediate use of the Romans, he sometimes gives explanations which were necessary for foreigners, though not for the inhabitants of Palestine. For instance, ch. vii. 2. he explains the meaning of Kowais Xepo: and ver. 11. of

This observation was made by Eusebius: but Jerom and Lardner have overrated it.

Kopẞav. In the same chapter, ver. 3, 4. he gives a description of some Jewish customs: and ch. xv. 42. he explains the meaning of παρασκευη. At ch. xv. 21. he

mentions that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus, a circumstance not mentioned by the other Evangelists but to St. Mark's readers the circumstance was interesting, because Rufus was at that time in Rome, as appears from Rom. xvi. 13. See also Wetstein's Notes to ch. viii. 26. xi. 22.

That St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, and for the use of the Romans, is likewise the reason why he has omitted inany particulars in the life of Christ, which are related by St. Matthew and St. Luke. The The genea logy, for instance, though interesting to the Jews, was not so to the Romans; and the same may be said of Christ's nativity at Bethlehem, a name well known to the Jews, but probably unknown to the Romans. His total omission of Christ's admirable sermon on the mount, which St. Matthew has given at full length, and St. Luke in short extracts, appears at first sight, to be rather extraordinary. But we must recollect that this sermon was in fact polemical, and immediately directed against the false morality of the Pharisees. To understand this sermon therefore, it is absolutely necessary to have a previous knowledge of the Pharisaic doctrines but these doctrines were unknown to the Romans. The unlearned are not only incapable of comprehending this discourse, but are in danger, without the assistance of a learned interpreter, of totally perverting its meaning. It is a known fact, that very erroneous moral doctrines have been deduced from it, and that these doctrines have been applied as objections to the Christian religion. It has been asserted, that Christ totally prohibited the administration of an oath, the repulse of violence, an appeal to a magistrate, or self-defence. For these reasons, St. Peter himself would hardly bave delivered this discourse to the Romans : and for these reasons, St. Mark passed it over in silence. The same motive induced him to give in only a few

6

words, ch. xii. 38-40. another discourse, which Christ directed to the Pharisees, and whch St. Matthew has delivered at full length *.

SECTION IV.

St. Mark derived his information, not only from St. Peter, but likewise from written documents, which ke used in the composition of his Gospel.

FROM the accounts of the ecclesiastical writers, which have been quoted in the second section of this chapter, it appears that St. Mark derived his knowledge of Christ's life and character from St. Peter: and if we judged from these accounts alone, we should conclude that he had no other source of information. But, notwithstanding the silence of the Fathers in respect to any written documents, which were used by St. Mark', it is certain that he made use of other Gospels in the composition of his own. I have already shewn in the third chapter, that St. Mark agrees in his expressions both with St. Matthew and with St. Luke, in such a manner as he would hardly have done, unless the three first Gospels had been connected, either mediately or immediately, with each other. In the choice of his materials he agrees partly with St. Matthew, partly with St. Luke, and omits many material transactions recorded by St. John, but which are not mentioned either by St. Matthew or by St. Luke. And in the arrangement of his facts he sometimes agrees with St. Luke, where the order of time is not observed, and in opposition to St. Matthew, which can hardly be explained by mere accident. Of the truth of this assertion the reader will be convinced by turning to the Table, which I have