Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

Ver. 44, 48. A further defcription of the torments and mifery of hell.

X. 15. Chrift's declaring, that they who did not receive the kingdom of heaven as little children, fhould not enter into it.

Ver. 32. The disciples afraid, when they were going up to Jerufalem.

Ver. 49, 50. Christ's ordering the blind man to be called, comforting him, his cafting away his garment, and coming to Christ.

XI. 4, 5. A defcription of the place where the colt was found, and the owners demanding the reafon of the two difciples, why they took it away.

XII. 32, 33, 34. The Scribe approves what our Lord had said, repeats it, makes a just and useful remark upon it: our Saviour approves him, &c.

Ver. 37. The common people take pleasure in hearing Chrift.

XIII. 3. The names of the Apoftles, who made the enquiry concerning the deftruction of the Temple.

XIV. 3, &c. Several particulars in the ftory of the woman's anointing our Saviour; fuch as the quality of the ointment, the breaking of the box, the value of the ointment in money, &c.

Ver. 12. The paffover was to be killed on the first day of unleavened bread.

Ver. 54, 67. Peter fat warming himself at the fire.

Ver. 70. Peter faid to be a Galilean.

XV. 7. The crime for which Barabbas was imprisoned.

Ver. 8. The Jews plead their privilege of having a criminal released at the paffover.

Ver. 25. The precife hour, in which our Saviour was crucified.

Ver. 42. The reason why Jofeph of Arimathea came on that day to beg the body of Jefus, viz, because it was the preparation, i. e. the day before the Sabbath.

Ver. 43. The character and office of Jofeph of Arimathea.

Ver. 44. Pilate wonders Chrift was fo foon dead. His enquiring about it.

XVI. 1. The design of Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary, to embalm the body of Jesus, with ointments they had bought for that purpose.

These are some inftances of circumftances, related by St. Mark in his hiftories, and not by St. Matthew: a person, that will be at the pains carefully to compare these Gospels, with this view, will find many more. But these seem to be fufficient for my present purpose, fufficient to evidence, that St. Mark did not defign to abridge or epitomize St. Matthew's Gospel.

CHAP. VIII.

The third Argument, by which it appears, that St. Mark's Gospel is not an Epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. the remarkable Difagreement there feems to be between these two Evangelifts, in feveral Parts of their Gospels. It is first premifed, that all these are reconcileable. Then the particular Inftances of their Difagreement produced.

Arg. III. THE disagreement which there feems to be between thefe two Evangelifts, viz. St. Matthew and St. Mark, in relating several circumstances of their history, is a clear and demonftrative evidence, that St Mark did not abridge. St. Matthew, nor had his Gospel lying before him, when he wrote his. Το go about to collect the difference of these facred writers, to make them appear as many and as great as poffible, may feem very ftrange and unneceffary work in one, who profeffes a value and respect for them. I think it needful therefore to premise, that however great and many the differences may seem to be between these two (or indeed between any of the Evangelifts), yet they have all been happily recon

ciled, by the labours of ingenious and learned men. Of the many that have undertaken this matter, there are none who seem to have been more fuccessful therein, than Auftin2 among the antients, and the learned Frederick Spanheim " among the more late writers. Surprising difcoveries have been made in the laft age in this matter, by a further acquaintance with the customs and manners of the Jews, among whom our Saviour and his Apoftles converfed; difficulties, which seemed to be infuperable, have been fometimes easily folved by the discovery of fome particular custom, that was among the Jews at that time; and thefe difcoveries have been fo many, and our helps of all forts in this matter fo great, that I will not be afraid to affert; that whatever difagreement may feem to be between these two Evangelifts, or either of the other, it is capable of a very satisfying and reasonable folu

tion.

This premifed, I fay the difference between St. Matthew and St. Mark is fo great, and in fo many inftances, as evidences almoft to a demonftration, that St. Mark did not collect his Gospel out of St. Matthew; I do not now regard the difference, that is between them, in respect of the order of time, but in other circumftances.

I fhall not be at the pains to obferve every fmall difference, which there is between these two Evangelifts in their histories. Those which are in the following catalogue, will be fufficient to my present purpose.

A Catalogue of fome inftances, in which the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark do feem to disagree.

The firft remarkable inftance we find of any difference between them, is in the ftory of the miracle, which our Saviour wrought, in cafting the devils into the herd of fwine, in the country of the Gadarenes or Gergefenes. The accounts we

a In his book intitled, De Confenfu Evangeliftarum.

In his excellent Differtations, which he calls Dubia Evangelica.

have, Matth. viii. 28, &c. and Mark v. 1. in which accounts we may observe a difagreement in two particulars.

I. As to the place where the miracle was wrought.
II. As to the number of perfons difpoffeffed.

1. As to the place or country where the miracle was wrought, according to St. Matthew, it was when our Saviour was landed εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γεργεσηνῶν, in the country of the Gergefenes; fee ch. viii. 28. According to St. Mark, v. 1. and fo St. Luke, viii. 26. it was when our Saviour was come sis The xwear Twv Tadapnyar, into the country of the Gadarenes. Now these were certainly the names of the inhabitants of two different places, as is very plain from Jofephus, who several times mentions them as fuch. So when he is reckoning up " fome of thofe cities, which the Jews had deftroyed in Syria, he first mentions their coming to répara, the city of the Gergefenes, and after that Tadágos, to the city of the Gadarenes. And in the fame chapter ", mentioning the several cities, that fell upon the Jews, who dwelt in them, he names the Tadapsis the Gadarenes; and immediately after, reckoning up the cities, that were kind to the Jews, who dwelt among them, and did not destroy them, he mentions the Tiguano the Gergefenes; for there can be no doubt but Γερασκνοὶ and Γεργεσηνοί were the fame perfons. The old Syriack interpreter, who was perhaps a native of this, or some country near it, perceiving this difference between the Evangelifts, thought it too great a one to be admitted into his Version, and therefore in St. Matthew, as well as in St. Mark, tranflates it by the fame word, the country of the Gadarenes.

2. They differ, as to the number of perfons dispossessed. St. Matthew tells us, they were two, St. Mark mentions only one. Thefe, though they are not circumftances contrary to each other, yet are fo different, that they undeniably prove, that neither of these facred writers could make ufe of the other's Gofpel, in compofing his.

§. 1.

De Bell. Judaic. lib. 2. c. 18,

Ibid. c. 18. §. 5.

Ibid. Vid. Suid. ad radaça et Tipaoa, et Lud. Dieu ad Matth. viii. 28.

Another

Another inftance to the fame purpose, is the ftory of the daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the fynagogue, being restored to life again by our Saviour, told by St. Mark, chap. v. 22, &c. with circumftances very different from those, with which it is told by St. Matthew, chap. ix. 18. For instance, according to St. Matthew's account, the ruler told our Saviour, that his daughter äpti irektúrnow, was already dead, and defired, that he would restore her to life again: but according to St. Mark, the young woman was not dead, when the ruler came to our Saviour; for he only fays, dvɣáτpiór μou éxáτws iXEI, my little daughter lieth at the point of death; and afterwards, when our Saviour was going along with him, fome of the family came, and tell him, his daughter was actually dead, and therefore it would be needless to give our Saviour any further trouble.

St. Mark, chap. viii. 10. tells us, that, after the miracle of multiplying the loaves and the fishes, our Saviour immediately took ship, and failed into the parts of Dalmanutha; St. Matthew, chap. xv. 39. tells us, that in this voyage he went to the coasts of Magdala.

St. Mark, chap. x. 35, &c. tells us, that the two fons of Zebedee, James and John, came themselves with a petition to our Saviour, that they might be advanced to the highest places of dignity in his kingdom; that our Lord spoke to them, and reproved them for their ambition: according to St. Matthew, chap. xx. 20. not they, but their mother, came with this petition to Chrift, and he spake to her.

St. Mark, chap. x. 46. relates the account of our Lord's reftoring a blind perfon to his fight, when he was coming out of Jericho; St. Matthew, chap. xx. 30, &c. tells the very fame ftory, with most of the fame circumftances, concerning two blind perfons.

St. Mark, chap. xii. 9. in the parable concerning the letting out of the vineyard, mentions a question of our Lord's, viz. What therefore fhall the Lord of the vineyard do? and makes him to answer it himself; on the contrary St. Matthew, chap. xxi. 40. intimates, that our Lord put this question to the Jews, and tells us, ver. 41. that they made him the answer; VOL. III.

P

and

« AnteriorContinuar »