Abbildungen der Seite

They who follow Eusebius, and make four passovers in our Lord's ministry, reckon this feast to be a passover. But they who compute his ministry to have lasted only two years, and somewhat more, suppose this to be some other feast, possibly, the feast of tabernacles, next succeeding the passover, mentioned ch. ii. 13. At ch. vi. 4. “And the passover, a feast of the Jews was nigh:”? this, according to different computations, is either the second, or the third passover in our Lord's ministry. The third, or, according to others, the fourth, is that mentioned by all the evangelists, at which our Lord suffered. It is mentioned by St. John, ch. xi. 55, and xii. 1.

3. St. John has omitted the greatest part of those things, which are recorded by the other evangelists: which much confirms the testimony of ancient writers, that the first three gospels were written, and published among the faithful before St. John wrote; that they were brought to him, and that he affirmed the truth of their relations, but said, that some discourses and miracles of our Saviour were omitted by them, which might be usefully recorded.

Indeed, there is little or nothing in his gospel, which is not new and additional, except the account of our Saviour's prosecution, death, and resurrection, where all four coincide in many particulars: though even here also St. John has divers things peculiar to himself. In St. John's gospel is no account of our Saviour's nativity, nor of his baptism by John; though, undoubtedly, it is there supposed, and referred to. He takes no notice of our Saviour's temptation in the wilderness, nor of the call, or names of the twelve apostles, nor of their mission in our Saviour's life time, nor of our Lord's parables, or other discourses of his, recorded by them, nor of our Saviour's journies, of which they give an account, nor any of those predictions relating to the desolations of Jerusalem, which are in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Nor has he any miracles recorded by them, excepting only, that one of the multiplication of small provision for feeding five thousand, with the extraordinary circumstance of the return to Capernaum from the country; where that miracle had been wrought, ch. vi. 46–21. And it is likely, that this miracle was recorded by him, for the sake of the discourses, to which it gave occasion, and which follow there, ver. 22–71.

However, it should be observed, that he has one thing recorded by all the evangelists, Peter's striking a servant of the high priest, and cutting off his ear. Ch. xviii. 10. " Then Simon Peter having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.” Which, as St. Luke informs us, Jesus touched, and healed. ch. xxii. 51. Peter's action is mentioned by all the three evangelists, Matt. xxvi. 51. Mark xiv. 47: Luke xxii. 50. But St. John alone mentions Peter by name, and the name of the servant. I thought proper to take notice of this, though St. John does not particularly mention the miracle of healing

St. John likewise, ch. ii. 14-22, gives an account of our Lord's cleansing the temple at his first passover, when he went to Jerusalem. All the other evangelists have a like account of our Lord's cleansing the temple, at his last passover, Matt. xxi. 12, 13. Mark xi. 15, 16. Luke xix. 45, 46. But I suppose them to be quite different actions, and that our blessed Lord twice cleansed the temple, as already shown,

4. Though the first three evangelists have not particularly recorded our Saviour's several journies to Jerusalem, as St. John has done, but have only given a particular account of his preaching there at his last passover, they were not unacquainted with them.

This may be concluded from divers things in their histories. To those, who came to apprehend him, our Lord said: “I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.” Matt. xxvi. 55. And compare Mark xiv. 49. Luke xxii. 53. And among the accusations brought-against him by the Jewish Rulers before Pilate, they say: “He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee, to this place,” Luke xxiii. 5. * Peter preaching at Jerusalem, soon after our Lord's ascension, says: “ Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs: which God did by him in the midst of you, as yourselves also know,” Acts ii. 22. And at the house of Cornelius, in Cæsarea : “ That word, you know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee," Acts x, 37—And we are witnesses of all things, which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and at Jerusalem,” ver. 39. And it appears from their histories, that our Lord's fame had early reached Jerusalem. Many attended him in Galilee from thence, and from other parts. Says St. Matthew: “And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan," ch. iv. 25. Comp. Mark, iii. 7, 8. Again: “ And the Scribes, which came from Jerusalem, said: He has Beelzebub."Mark in. 22—30. Compare Matt. ix. 34. Luke xi. 14--26. « Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem," Matt. xv. 1. Compare Mark vii. 1. And says St. Luke, ch. v. 17. " And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees, and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.” And in every one of the evangelists we may meet with Scribes and Pharisees opposing our Lord, watching his words and actions, cavilling with him, and reflecting upon him, and his disciples.

Moreover, in St. Luke, ch. ix. 51–56, is an account of a remarkable incident, when our Lord was going from Galilee, through Samaria to Jerusalem, at one of their feasts: supposed by a some to be the feast of tabernacles, by others the feast of dedication, preceding his last passover. See likewise Luke xiii. 22, and xvii. 11,

However, after all, I do not think it was needful, that our Lord should go often to Jerusalem, or that all his journies thither, and discourses there, should be recorded. It was indeed highly expedient, that his ministry should be public: so it might be, without going often to Jerusalem. John the Baptist was a man of great reputation, though he never went up to Jerusalem during the time of his showing himself into Israel, that we know of, Lukę i. 80. And it is manifest from the first three Evangelists, as well as from St. John, that our Lord's ministry was very public, and well known in all parts of Judea, and the regions round about, and to men of all ranks therein. In them we find our Lord to have been notified before-hand by John the Baptist. He sent out once his twelve apostles, and then seventy other disciples, “ two by two, to go before him, and prepare men for him, in every city and place where he should come.” In them we find him teaching in synagogues, in cities, and villages, and desert places, crowded by throngs, attended by multitudes of people, and miraculously feeding at one time five thousand, at another four thousand men, beside women and children.

It was fit, that our Lord's ministry should be very public; it is manifest, from all the four evangelists, that it was so; which cannot but be the ground of great satisfaction to us.

5. The genuineness of the twenty-first or last chapter of St. John's gospel ought not to be contested.

Grotius indeed was of opinion, that · St. John concluded his gospel with the words, which are at the end of the twentieth chapter: and that what is in the twenty-first chapter was added after St. John's death by the church of Ephesus. : Against that opinion the general, or even universal consent of manuscripts and versions is a great objection. For it is very probable, that this gospel was published before St. John's death. And if there had been an edition without this chapter, it is very likely, that it would have been wanting in some copies. To which may be added, that we do not find, that any one of the ancient christian writers ever made a question, whether this chapter was composed by St. John, or by another. Finally, the style is St. John's. In 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. Vid. Cleric. Harmon. p. 234, 235.

crediderit, vel sic omnes codices in exhibendo isto capite tam See Dr. Doddridge's Family Expositor. Sect. 127. Vol. i. constanter consentire potuisse? Wolf. in Joh. cap. xxi. in.

• Rejicimus hic sententiam eorum, qui ab aliâ manus quam « Omnino arbitror,

quæ hic sequuntur, conclusionem esse ipsius Joannis Evangelistæ hoc caput esse adjectum putant. totius operis, et ibi finiisse Joannem librum, quem edidit. At, Nam ita clare stylum redolet Apostoli, ut, si aliquis alius id sicut caput ultimum Pentateuchi, et caput ultimum Josuæ, adjecisset, non sine impostură istud facere potuisset. Neque post Mosis et Josuæ mortem additum est a Synedrio Hebræ- enim' se Joannem vocat, sed more suo discipulum, quem Jesus orum; ita et caput, quod sequitur, post mortem Joannis adin amabat. ver. 7. 20. Tum hæc addit: Hic est discipulus ille, ditum ab Ecclesià Ephesina, hoc maxime fine, ut ostenderetur qui de his testatur, et hæc scripsit. ver. 24. Quæ defendi impletum quod de longævitate ac non violentà morte Joannis non possunt a mendacio, si quisquam alius præter Apostolum Dominus prædixerat, &c. 'Grot. ad Jo. XX. 30.

hoc caput adjecisset. Adde, quod diligentissimi circa tales • Cæterum in tanto codicum et versionum consenso, eoque circumstantias Patres, Eusebius, Hieronymus, atque alii, non prorsus universali, cogitari non debebat, caput hoc ab ecelesiâ ita plane silentio id involvissent, &c. Fr. Lamp. in Jo. Evang. demum Ephesina accessisse. Quis enim negare tuto potest, cap. xxi. tom. III. p. 720, 721. Vid. et Mill. Proleg. num. Evangelium Joannis ante ipsius obitum, adeoque ante addi, 249, 250. 'lum boc, quod creditur, supplementum accessisse ? Et quis

p. 183.

should be written.” Which clause is evidently 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 bad 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 epistles to the Romans, and to the • Hebrews.' See Rom. ch. xv. and xvi. Heb. xiii. 21-25. I would likewise refer to Mr. Lenfant's note upon ch. xxi. 24, who also asserts the genuineness of this last chapter.


The Question considered, whether any of the first three Evangelists had seen the Gospels of the

others' before he wrote.

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.

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 ease.

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 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. Certainly 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 before 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 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.

• Mihi certe magis probabile est, et ex re ipsâ conjicere produxisset, ne quidem minimâ consilii. tam diversi edità. licet, nunquam librum Matthæi fuisse ab eo inspectum, cum ratione. S. Matthæus, qui solus e nostris Lucâ erat antiquior, ipse suum scriberet : tantum abest, ut in compendium ex ipse erat AUTOTTIS

-$: Joannis Luca longo erat intervallo professoredigere voluerit. Idem et de Luca judicium facio. in scriptione junior. Junior etiam S. Marcus, si quidem S. Calvin. argum. in Evangel. &c.

Lucas eo scripserit anno Evangelium, quo Acta terminayit. b Basn. Ann. 60. num. xxxi.

c P. 102.

Apostolorum. Quod ego sane puto verisimillimum. Sunt enim a Sic latuerant in illis terrarum angulis, in quibus scripta Acta deUTEpos ejusdem operis acros, cujus ' WOWTON Royov ipse fuerant, evangelia, ut ne quidem resciverint recentiores evan- suum agnoscit evangelium. Act. i. 1.-Ita quo anno scriptum gelistæ, quid scripsissent de iisdem rebus antiquiores. Aliter est a S. Luca-evangelium, secundus Auxerit Apostolo Paulo foret, ne tot essent eyaYTiopary, quæ fere primâ usque annus captivitatis Romanæ. Eo enim usque Actorum historia canonis constitutione eruditorum hominum ingenia exercue- perducta est. S. autem Marcus, seu post obitum Petri, seu rint. Certe S. Lucas, si genealogiam illam Domini in Matthæo non multo ante, scripsisse videtur. Dodw. Diss. Iren, io. vidisset, non aliam ipse, nihilque fere habentem commune,

num, xxxix,

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 supposed. For he * does not always follow St. Matthew's order, as an abridger would have done: and he is often* times 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 ủistory.-- Nay" • so far was Mark from intending to abbreviate 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 composition 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 expressions, and even • whole paragraphs word for word.'

But there is not sufficient foundation for such strong assertions, in the account which Mill himself gives of the time 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.'

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. 33. 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

But may

See Vol. ii.


Matthæi et Marci, ex collatione trium horum inter se luce Usum esse Marcum Matthæi Evangelio apertum facit clarius apparet. Nihil scilicet evidentius, quam D. Lucam collatio. Grot. ad Marc. cap. i. ver. 1.

Evangeliorum Matthæi et Marci ipsas fyrais, phrases et loco· Ipsam evangelii structuram quod attinet, neutiquam tiones, imo vero totas pericopas, in suum nonnunquam autoMarco institutum fuit, quod nonnullis videtur, evangelium NEÇel. traduxisse. Ib. num. 116. Matthæi in epitomen redigere. Præterquam enim quod ser- Proleg. num. 61.

6 Ibid. num. 101. vatum a Matthæo ordinem hon ubique sequatur, quod sane

h Jbid. num. 112. epitomatoris foret, in ejusdem rei narratione Matthæo haud i De Marco ap. T. Gr. T. I. p. 552. raro prolixior est, ac plurima passim inserta habet, eaque *Lucam multa ex Matthæo, ex Marco plura descripsisse, subinde magni ad elucidandam historiam momenti. Proleg. ex collatione patet. De Lucâ ibid. P.

643. num. 103.

1 Ibid. p. 223.

m Ibid.


043. d Imo certe adeo nihil Marco erat in animo de abbreviando n Postea videtur Petro adhæsisse, et cum eo Babylone fuisse. Matthæi evangelio, ut haud desint magni noininis auctores, 1 Pet. v. 13. Inde Romam venit, Paulumque captivum qui existinant, a Marco ne quidem visum fuisse Evangelium invisit. Col. iv. 10. Philem. 23.

Inde ad Colossenses abiit, a Matthæi. ... Cæterum contrarium evincit, Evangelium im- quibus rogatu Pauli Romam rediit, 2 Tim. iv. 11, ubi Evanprimis Matthæi et Marci quod attinet, istorum phraseos, gelium conscripsisse, et Matthæum quidem in compendium ipsiusque contextûs similitudo. Ibid. n. 107.

redegisse, nonnulla vero, quæ a Petro audiverat, adjecisse Certe evulgatum fuisse illud post editionem Evangeliorum dicitur. Ibid. p. 551.

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.

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 Jerom. 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. Matthews. But, as 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.

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. Mill" himself has been so good, as to acknowledge this.

St. Luke, if he was not one of Christ's seventy disciples, nor an eye-witness, was a disciple, and companion of apostles, especially of Paul, as is universally allowed: and he must therefore have been well qualified to write a gospel. Moreover, 'as has been shown, it is manifest from his introduction, that he knew not of any authentic history of Jesus Christ, that had been yet written. And he expressly says of himself

, “ that he had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” and he professeth “ to write of them to Theophilus in order.” After all this to say, that he transcribed many things from one historian, and yet more from another, so far as I am able to judge, is no less than a contradiction of the evangelist himself.

3. The nature and design of the first three gospels manifestly show, that the evangelists had not seen any authentic written history of Jesus Christ.

This is one of the observations of Le Clerc relating to this point. • Wek can scarcely doubt, whether St. John had seen the other three gospels. For as he is said to have lived to a great age, so it appears from his gospel itself, that he took care not to repeat things related by them,

except a few only, and those necessary things. But I do not see how it can be reckoned ..certain that Mark knew of Matthew's having written a gospel before him: or that Luke knew,

that they two had written gospels before him. If Mark had seen the work of Matthew, it is ..likely that he would have remained satisfied with it, as being the work of an apostle of Christ, « that is, an eye-witness, which he was not.' And what there follows.

I must enlarge upon this observation. I forbear to insist now on the genealogies, which are in St. Matthew, and St. Luke only.. But I say, that the writings of all and each one of these three evangelists contain an entire gospel, or a complete history of the ministry of Jesus Christ: or, to borrow St. Luke's expressions, Acts i. 1, 2. a history of “ all that Jesus both did and

[ocr errors]

* See Vol. ii. p. 369.

• P. 418. • P. 529.

d P. 553. e P. 583. fP. 584.

P. 582, 383. , 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 licue

rit de dictis ac factis Domini Topadoceis, quas conferret in commentarium. Sane, quisquis fuerit bic Marcus, apud veteres plane convenit, fuisse eum D. Petri comitem et inierpretem; ipsumque comitatum fuisse Romam usque-- adeo ut ex Apostoli xm, puogojevous acceperit necesse sit plenissimam et exactissimam historiæ totius evangelicæ cognitionem. Mill. Proleg. n. 102.

See before, p. 156, 157. k See Vol. ii. p. 584.

« ZurückWeiter »