Abbildungen der Seite

chapter xix. 35, "And he that saw it bare record; and his record is true: and he knoweth, that he says true." Here, xxi. 24," This is the disciple, which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." Compare likewise ver. 7, and 20. The last words of the chapter, at ver. 25, are these: "And there are also, many other things, which Jesus did: the which if they should be written every one, I suppose, that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Which clause evidently is from the same person who wrote ver. 30, and 31, of ch. xx. Here the evangelist seems to check himself, and to determine not to proceed any farther. For if he should attempt to commit to writing every thing which Jesus had said and done, he should never come to an end.



Says Dr. Whitby upon ch. xx. 31, Some think, that St. John here ended his gospel, and that the following chapter was written by some other hands. But these words 'give no ground for that imagination: since other apostles, after they seem to have concluded their epistles, add some new matter: as may be seen in the conclusions of the epis'tles to the Romans, and to the Hebrews.' See Rom. ch. xv. and xvi; Heb. xiii. 21–25. I would likewise refer to Mr. L'Enfant's note upon ch. xxi. 24, who also asserts the genuineness of this last chapter.

[ocr errors]


The Question considered, whether any of the first three evangelists had seen the gospels of the others before he


HERE I shall in the first place mention the different sentiments of learned moderns concerning this point. And then I intend to consider the merits of the question.

evangelistæ hoc caput esse adjectum putant. Nam ita clare stylum redolet apostoli, ut, si aliquis alius id adjecisset, non sine imposturâ istud facere potuisset. Neque enim se Joannem vocat, sed more suo discipulum, quem Jesus amabat, ver. 7, 20. Tum hæc addit: Hic est discipulus ille, qui de his testatur, et hæc scripsit, ver. 24. Quæ defendi non possunt a mendacio, si quisquam alius præter apostolum hoc caput adjecisset. Adde, quod diligentissimi circa tales circumstantias patres, Eusebius, Hieronymus, atque alii, non ita plane silentio id involvissent, &c. Fr. Lamp. in Jo. Evang. cap. xxi. tom. III. p. 720, 721. Vid. et Mill. Proleg. num. 249, 250.


Calvin," in the preface to his Harmony of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, declares it to be his opinion, that St. Mark was so far from having abridged St. Matthew's gospel, that he thinks he had never seen it: which he also supposes to have been St. Luke's case.

This likewise must have been the opinion of Basnage. For he supposeth St. Luke's to have been the first written of all the gospels. Consequently this evangelist could not borrow either from St. Matthew or St. Mark.

Mr. Whiston, in P his Harmony of the four Evangelists, called St. Mark the epitomizer of St. Matthew. Mr. Jones, in his Vindication of St. Matthew's gospel, well and largely argued against that opinion.

Mr. Dodwell declared his opinion upon this subject after this manner: That none of the first three evangelists had seen the others' gospels. Otherwise there could not have been in them so many seeming contradictions, which have exercised the thoughts of inquisitive men almost ever since the forming of the canon of the New Testament. Certain➡ ly if St. Luke had seen the genealogy of our Lord, which is in St. Matthew, he would not have published another so very different, without assigning any reason for it.--St. Matthew is the only one of our evangelists who wrote be'fore St. Luke.--St. John did not write till long after. St. Luke, nor did Mark write till after St. Luke, if he wrote his gospel in the same year that he finished the Acts of the Apostles: which seems to me very probable: for the Acts are the second book of the same work, as is evident 'from what himself says, Acts i. 1. St. Luke's gospel

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

n Mihi certe magis probabile est, et ex re ipsà conjicere licet, nunquam librum Matthæi fuisse ab eo inspectum, cum ipse suum scriberet: tantum abest, ut in compendium ex professo redigere voluerit. Idem et de Lucâ judicium facio. Calvin. Argum, in Evangel. &c.

P P. 102.

• Basn. ann. 60. num. xxxi. Sic latuerant in illis terrarum angulis, in quibus scripta fuerant, evangelia, ut ne quidem resciverint recentiores evangelistæ, quid scripsissent de iisdem rebus antiquiores. Aliter foret, ne tot essent vavropavη, quæ fere a primâ usque canonis constitutione eruditorum hominum ingenia exercuerint. Certe S. Lucas, si genealogiam illam Domini in Matthæo vidisset, non aliam ipse, nihilque fere habentem commune, produxisset, ne quidem minimâ consilii tam diversi editâ ratione. S. Matthæus, qui solus e nostris Lucâ erat antiquior, ipse erat αυτοπτης -S. Joannes Lucâ longo erat intervallo in scriptione junior. Junior etiam S. Marcus, si quidem S. Lucas eo scripserit anno evangelium, quo Acta terminavit Apostolorum. Quod ego sane puto verisimillimum. Sunt enim Acta δεύτερος ejusdem operis λογος, cujus πρωτον λογον ipse suum agnoscit evangelium, Act. i. 1.-Ita quo anno scriptum est a S. Lucâ evangelium, secundus fluxerit apostolo Paulo annus captivitatis Romanæ. Eo enim usque Actorum historia perducta est. S. autem Marcus, seu post obitum Petri, seu non multo ante, scripsisse videtur. Dodw. Diss. Iren. i. num, xxxix.

'therefore was written in the second year of the apostle 'Paul's imprisonment at Rome: for so far the history of the 'Acts reaches. But St. Mark seems not to have written ' until after the death of St. Peter, or not long before it.' This then is the order of the four evangelists, according to Mr. Dodwell: Matthew the first, Luke the second, Mark the third, and John the fourth.

[ocr errors]

How Mr. Le Clerc argued on the same side, was' seen formerly.

On the other hand, Grotius says, it is manifest from comparing their gospels, that Mark made use of Matthew.

Mill has spoken largely to this point in his Prolegomena. 'He says, it was not the design of St. Mark, to make an 'abridgment of St. Matthew's gospel, as some have suppos'ed. For he does not always follow St. Matthew's order, as an abridger would have doue: and he is oftentimes more prolix in his histories of the same thing than St. Matthew, and has inserted many additional things, and some of great moment for illustrating the evangelical his'tory. Nay," so far was Mark from intending to abbre 'viate St. Matthew's gospel, that there have been men of great fame, as Calvin, and our Dodwell, who were of opinion, that St. Mark and Luke had never seen Matthew's 'gospel. However, Grotius was of a different opinion. And indeed the great resemblance of the style and com'position of these two evangelists manifests the truth of it.' Of St. Luke Mill says: Nothing is more evident than that he made use of the gospels of Matthew and Mark. For he has borrowed from them many phrases and expres⚫sions, and even whole paragraphs word for word.'

[ocr errors]


But there is not sufficient foundation for such strong assertions, in the account which Mill himself gives of the time See Vol. iv. p. 503, 504.

Usum esse Marcum Matthæi

evangelio apertum facit collatio. Grot. ad Marc. cap. i. ver. 1.

Ipsam evangelii structuram quod attinet, neutiquam Marco institutum fuit, quod nonnullis videtur, evangelium Matthæi in epitomen redigere. Præter quam enim quod servatum a Matthæo ordinem non ubique sequatur, quod sane epitomatoris foret, in ejusdem rei narratione Matthæo haud raro prolixior est, ac plurima passim inserta habet, eaque subinde magni ad elucidandam historiam momenti. Proleg. num. 103. "Imo certe adeo nihil Marco erat in animo de abbreviando Matthæi evangelio, ut haud desint magni nominis auctores, qui existimant, a Marco ne quidem visum fuisse evangelium Matthæi. --Cæterum contrarium evincit, evangelium imprimis Matthæi et Marci quod attinet, istorum phraseos, ipsiusque contextus similitudo. Ibid. n. 107. Certe evulgatum fuisse illud post editionem evangeliorum Matthæi et Marci, ex collatione trium horum inter se luce clarius apparet. Nihil scilicet evidentius, quam D. Lucam evangeliorum Matthæi et Marci ipsas pnouc, phrases et locutiones, imo vero totas pericopas, in suum nonnunquam avroλežei, traduxisse. Ib. num. 116.


of writing the first three gospels: for, according to him, St. Matthew's gospel was published in the year 61, St. Mark's * in 63, St. Luke's in 64, which is but one year later. Nor has Mill made it out, that St. Mark's was published so soon as the year 63. For he owns, that it was not written till after Peter's and Paul's departure from Rome; which could not be till after the year 63. How then could St. Luke make so much use of St. Mark's gospel, as is pretended?

I allege but one author more, relating to this point. Mr. Wetstein says, that' Mark made use of Matthew and of St. Luke he says, that he transcribed many things from Matthew, and yet more from Mark.'

[ocr errors]

But may I not say, that before Mr. Wetstein asserted such things, he should have given at least some tolerable account of the times when the evangelists wrote, and that St. Mark was prior in time to Luke? Which I do not perceive him to have done. St. Matthew's gospel, indeed, he supposes to have been written in the eighth year after our Lord's ascension. But of St. Luke he observes, that ecclesiastical writers say, he published his gospel at about fifteen, or as others, about two and twenty years after our Saviour's ascension. His account of St. Mark is, that he was with Peter at Babylon. Thence he came to Rome, and was 'with St. Paul during his captivity there, Col. iv. 10; Philem. 23. Then he went to Colosse. Afterwards at the desire of the apostle he came to him thence to Rome, 2 Tim. iv. 11. Where he is said to have written his gospel, abridging St. Matthew, and adding some things which he had heard from Peter.' A very fine character of our evangelist truly! But according to this account of St. Mark's travels, and of the place where his gospel was written, it could not be published before the year 64, or 65. How then could St. Luke make use of it, if he wrote so soon as fifteen or two and twenty years after Christ's ascension? I proceed now to speak more distinctly to the merits of the question.


Proleg. num. 61.

y Ibid. num. 112.

* Ibid. num. 101.

"De Marco, ap. T. Gr. T. I. p. 552.

* Lucam multa ex Matthæo, ex Marco plura descripsisse, ex collatione patet.

De Lucâ, ibid. p. 643.

c Ibid. p. 643.

[ocr errors]

Ibid. p. 223.

d Postea videtur Petro adhæsisse, et cum eo Babylone fuisse, 1 Pet. v. 13. Inde Romam venit, Paulumque captivum invisit, Col. iv. 10; Philem. 23. Inde ad Colossenses abiit, a quibus rogatu Pauli Romam rediit, 2 Tim. iv. 11, ubi evangelium conscripsisse, et Matthæum quidem in compendium redegisse, nonnulla vero, quæ a Petro audiverat, adjecisse dicitur. Ibid. p. 551.


[ocr errors]


1. It does not appear that any of the learned ancient christian writers had a suspicion, that any of the first three evangelists had seen the other histories before they wrote. They say indeed, that when the three first-written gospels had been delivered to all men, they were also brought to 'St. John, and that he confirmed the truth of their narration: but said, there were some things omitted by them, which 'might be profitably related: or, that he wrote last, sup'plying some things, which had been omitted by the former evangelists.' After this manner speak Eusebius of Cæsarea, Epiphanius, & Theodore of Mopsuestia, and hJerom. Not now to mention any others. Augustine indeed, about the end of the fourth century, or the beginning of the fifth, supposeth the first three evangelists not to have been totally ignorant of each other's labours, and considers Mark's gospel as an abridgment of St. Matthew's. But, ask formerly observed, so far as I know, he is the first, in which that opinion is found: nor does it appear, that he was followed by succeeding writers.

[ocr errors]

2. It is not suitable to the character of any of the evangelists, that they should abridge or transcribe another historian.

St. Matthew was an apostle, and eye-witness: consequently, he was able to write of his own knowledge. Or, if there were any parts of our Lord's ministry, at which he was not present, he might obtain information from his fellow-apostles, or other eye-witnesses. And as for other things, which happened before the apostles were called to follow him, concerning his nativity, infancy, and youth; as Augustine says, these the apostles might know from Christ himself, or from his parents, or his friends and acquaintance, who were to be depended upon.

St. Mark, if he was not one of Christ's seventy disciples, was an early Jewish believer, acquainted with all the apostles, Peter in particular, and with many other eye-witnesses: consequently, well qualified to write a gospel. Millm himself has been so good as to acknowledge this.

e See Vol. iv. p. 95. h P. 446.

f P. 189. i P. 502.

* P. 398, 399. k P. 504.

1 P. 501. in Marcus ille, quisquis fuerit, ad evangelium conscribendum abunde instructus accedebat. Si enim filius fuit Mariæ, civis istius Hierosolymitanæ- -ei sane jam a tempore conversionis tam frequens intercesserat, ac plane familiare cum ipsis apostolis commercium, ut vix aliqua ætatis suæ pars ipsorum consortio vacârit: ita ut quotidie ab illis petere licuerit de dictis ac factis Domini Tapadorus, quas conferret in commentarium. Sane, quisquis fuerit hic Marcus, apud veteres plane convenit, fuisse eum D. Petri comitem et interpretem; ipsumque comitatum fuisse Ro


2 H

« ZurückWeiter »