The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 11

?? a?t?? as S. Luke and S. Mark call them) on their return to Jerusalem, "found the Eleven gathered together, _and them that were with them_"

(xxiv. 33.) But this was at least as well known to S. Mark as it was to S.

Luke. Instead, therefore, of regarding the designation "_them that had been with Him_" with suspicion,-are we not rather to recognise in it one token more that the narrative in which it occurs is unmistakably genuine?

What else is this but one of those delicate discriminating touches which indicate the hand of a great Master; one of those evidences of minute accuracy which stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable Truth?

(VI.) We are next a.s.sured by our Critic that ?e?s?a? "is unknown to Mark;"

but it occurs twice in this section, (viz. in ver. 11 and ver. 14.) _Another_ suspicious circ.u.mstance!

(1.) A strange way (as before) of stating an ordinary fact, certainly!

What else is it but to a.s.sume the thing which has to be proved? If the learned writer had said instead, that the verb ?e?s?a?, here twice employed by S. Mark, occurs _nowhere else_ in his Gospel,-he would have acted more loyally, not to say more fairly by the record: but then he would have been stating a strictly ordinary phenomenon,-of no significancy, or relevancy to the matter in hand. He is probably aware that pa?aa??e?? in like manner is to be found in two consecutive verses of S. Matthew's Gospel; pa?a???e??, twice in the course of one verse: neither word being used on any other occasion _either by S. Matthew, or by any other Evangelist_. The same thing precisely is to be said of ??a??te??

and ??tap?d?d??a?, of ??t?pa????es?a?, and d?at??es?a?, in S. Luke: of ???st??a? and ??????a? in S. John. But who ever dreamed of insinuating that the circ.u.mstance is suspicious?

(2.) As for ?e?s?a?, we should have reminded our Critic that this verb, which is used seven times by S. John, and four times by S. Matthew, is used only three times by S. Luke, and only twice by S. Mark. And we should have respectfully inquired,-What possible suspicion does ?e?s?a? throw upon the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel?

(3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. But in the meantime Dr.

Davidson hints that the verb _ought_ to have been employed by S. Mark in chap. ii. 14.(277)-It is, I presume, sufficient to point out that S.

Matthew, at all events, was not of Dr. Davidson's opinion:(278) and I respectfully submit that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here _writing about himself_, must be allowed, just for once, to be the better judge.

(4.) In the meantime,-Is it not perceived that ?e?s?a? is the very word specially required in these two places,-though _nowhere else in S. Mark's Gospel_?(279) The occasion is one,-viz. the "beholding" of the person of the risen SAVIOUR. Does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness of such a "spectacle" as _that_ might well set an Evangelist on casting about for a word of somewhat less ordinary occurrence? The occasion cries aloud for this very verb ?e?s?a?; and I can hardly conceive a more apt ill.u.s.tration of a darkened eye,-a spiritual faculty perverted from its lawful purpose,-than that which only discovers "a stumbling-block and occasion of falling" in expressions like the present which "should have been only for their wealth," being so manifestly designed for their edification.

(VII.) But,-(it is urged by a Critic of a very different stamp,)-??e???

?p? a?t?? (ver. 11) "is a construction only found here in the New Testament."

(1.) Very likely; but what then? The learned writer has evidently overlooked the fact that the pa.s.sive ?e?s?a? occurs but _three times_ in the New Testament _in all_.(280) S. Matthew, on the _two_ occasions when he employs the word, connects it with a dative.(281) What is there _suspicious_ in the circ.u.mstance that ?e?s?a? ?p? should be the construction preferred by S. Mark? The phenomenon is not nearly so remarkable as that S. Luke, on one solitary occasion, exhibits the phrase ? f?e?s?e ?p?,(282)-instead of making the verb govern the accusative, as he does three times _in the very next verse_; and, indeed, eleven times in the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in this instance is but copying S. Matthew, who _also_ has ? f?e?s?e ?p? once;(283) and seven times makes the verb govern an accusative. This, nevertheless, const.i.tutes no reason whatever for suspecting the genuineness either of S. Matth. x.

28 or of S. Luke xii. 4.

(2.) In like manner, the phrase ?f????sa? f??? ??a? will be found to occur once, and once _only_, in S. Mark,-once, and once only, in S.

Luke;(284) although S. Mark and S. Luke use the verb f?e?s?a? upwards of forty times. Such facts are interesting. They may prove important. But no one who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pretend that they are in the least degree _suspicious_.-I pa.s.s on.

(VIII.) It is next noted as a suspicious circ.u.mstance that ?p?ste?? occurs in ver. 11 and in ver. 16; but nowhere else in the Gospels,-except in S.

Luke xxiv. 11, 14.

But really, such a remark is wholly without force, as an argument against the genuineness of the pa.s.sage in which the word is found: for,

(1.) Where else in the course of this Gospel _could_ ?p?ste?? have occurred? Now, unless some reason can be shewn why the word _should_, or at least _might_ have been employed elsewhere, to remark upon its introduction in this place, _where it __ could scarcely be dispensed with_, as a ground of suspicion, is simply irrational. It might just as well be held to be a suspicious circ.u.mstance, in respect of verses 3 and 4, that the verb ?p??????e?? occurs there, _and there only_, in this Gospel. Nothing whatever follows from the circ.u.mstance. It is, in fact, a point scarcely deserving of attention.

(2.) To be sure, if the case of a verb exclusively used by the two Evangelists, S. Mark and S. Luke, were an unique, or even an exceedingly rare phenomenon, it might have been held to be a somewhat suspicious circ.u.mstance that the phenomenon presented itself in the present section.

But nothing of the sort is the fact. There are no fewer than forty-five verbs _exclusively used by S. Mark and S. Luke_. And why should not ?p?ste?? be, (as it is,) one of them?

(3.) Note, next, that this word _is used twice_, and in the course of his last chapter too, also _by S. Luke_. Nowhere else does it occur in the Gospels. It is at least as strange that the word ?p?ste?? should be found twice in the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Luke, as in the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark. And if no shadow of suspicion is supposed to result from this circ.u.mstance in the case of the third Evangelist, why should it in the case of the second?

(4.) But, lastly, _the noun_ ?p?st?a (which occurs in S. Mark xvi. 14) occurs in two other places of the same Gospel. And this word (which S.

Matthew uses twice,) is employed by none of the other Evangelists.-What need to add another word? Do not many of these supposed suspicious circ.u.mstances,-_this_ one for example,-prove rather, on closer inspection, to be confirmatory facts?

(IX.) We are next a.s.sured that et? ta?ta (ver. 12) "_is not found in Mark_, though many opportunities occurred for using it."

(1.) I suppose that what this learned writer means, is this; that if S.

Mark had coveted an opportunity for introducing the phrase et? ta?ta earlier in his Gospel, he might have found one. (More than this cannot be meant: for _nowhere_ before does S. Mark employ _any other phrase_ to express "after these things," or "after this," or "afterwards.")

But what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case, as stated by the learned Critic, except that the blessed Evangelist _must be presumed to have been unconscious of any desire to introduce the expression under consideration on any other occasion except the present_?

(2.) Then, further, it is worth observing that while the phrase et? ta?ta occurs five times in S. Luke's Gospel, it is found only twice in the Acts; while S. Matthew _never employs it at all_. Why, then,-I would respectfully inquire-_why_ need S. Mark introduce the phrase _more than once_? Why, especially, is his solitary use of the expression to be represented as a suspicious circ.u.mstance; and even perverted into an article of indictment against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of his Gospel? "Would any one argue that S. Luke was not the author of the Acts, because the author of the Acts has employed this phrase only twice,-'often as he _could_ have used it?' (Meyer's phrase here.(285))"

(X.) Another objection awaits us,-"?te??? also is unknown to Mark," says Dr. Davidson;-which only means that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but not elsewhere in his Gospel.

It so happens, however, that ?te??? also occurs once only in the Gospel of S. John. Does it therefore throw suspicion on S. John xix. 37?

(XI.) The same thing is said of ?ste??? (in ver. 14) viz. that it "occurs nowhere" in the second Gospel.

But why not state the case thus?-?ste???, a word which is twice employed by S. Luke, occurs only _once_ in S. Mark and _once_ in S. John.-_That_ would be the true way of stating the facts of the case. But it would be attended with this inconvenient result,-that it would make it plain that the word in question has no kind of bearing on the matter in hand.

(XII.) The same thing he says of ??pte?? (in ver. 18).

But what is the fact? The word occurs _only twice in the Gospels_,-viz. in S. Mark xvi. 18 and S. Luke iv. 35. It is one of the eighty-four words which are peculiar to S. Mark and S. Luke. What possible significancy would Dr. Davidson attach to the circ.u.mstance?

(XIII.) Once more.-"pa?ta???" (proceeds Dr. Davidson) "is unknown to Mark;" which (as we begin to be aware) is the learned gentleman's way of stating that it is only found in chap. xvi. 20.

Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it _also_ occurs in S. Mark i. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion: but when it has been pointed out that the word _is only used besides in S. Luke_ ix. 6, what _can_ be said of such Criticism but that it is simply frivolous?

(XIV. and XV.) Yet again:-s??e??e?? and ea???? are also said by the same learned Critic to be "unknown to Mark."

S. Mark certainly uses these two words only once,-viz. in the last verse of the present Chapter: but what there is suspicious in this circ.u.mstance, I am at a loss even to divine. He _could_ not have used them oftener; and since one hundred and fifty-six words are peculiar to his Gospel, why should not s??e??e?? and ea???? be two of them?

(XVI.) "??sa ?t?s?? is Pauline," proceeds Dr. Davidson, (referring to a famous expression which is found in ver. 15.)

(1.) All very oracular,-to be sure: but _why_ p?sa ?t?s?? should be thought "Pauline" rather than "Petrine," I really, once more, cannot discover; seeing that S. Peter has the expression as well as S. Paul.(286)

(2.) In this place, however, the phrase is p?sa ? ?t?s??. But even this expression is no more to be called "Pauline" than "Marcine;" seeing that as S. Mark uses it once and once only, so does S. Paul use it once and once only, viz. in Rom. viii. 22.

(3.) In the meantime, how does it come to pa.s.s that the learned Critic has overlooked the significant fact that the word ?t?s?? occurs besides in S.

Mark x. 6 and xiii. 19; and that it is a word which _S. Mark alone of the Evangelists uses_? Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a circ.u.mstance the very reverse of suspicious.

(4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening words of our LORD'S Ministerial Commission to the Apostles are these,-?????ate t? e?a??????? p?s? t?

?t?se? (ver. 15): inasmuch, too, as S. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians (i. 23) almost reproduces those very words; speaking of the Hope t?? e?a??e???? ... t?? ????????t?? ?? p?s? [t?] ?t?se? t? ?p? t??

???a???:-Is it not an allowable conjecture that _a direct reference_ to _that_ place in S. Mark's Gospel is contained in _this_ place of S. Paul's Epistle? that the inspired Apostle "beholding the universal tendency of Christianity already realized," announces (and from imperial Rome!) the fulfilment of his LORD'S commands in his LORD'S own words as recorded by the Evangelist S. Mark?

I desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjecture. But seeing that S. Mark's Gospel is commonly thought to have been written at Rome, and under the eye of S. Peter; and that S. Peter (and therefore S. Mark) must have been at Rome before S. Paul visited that city in A.D.

61;-seeing, too, that it was in A.D. 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford are agreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and wrote it from _Rome_;-I really can discover nothing unreasonable in the speculation. If, however, it be well founded,-(and it is impossible to deny that the coincidence of expression _may_ be such as I have suggested,)-then, what an august corroboration would _this_ be of "the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark!" ... If, indeed, the great Apostle on reaching Rome inspected S. Mark's Gospel for the first time, with what awe will he have recognised in his own recent experience the fulfilment of his SAVIOUR'S great announcement concerning the "signs which should follow them that believe!" Had he not himself "cast out devils?"-"spoken with tongues more than they all?"-and at Melita, not only "shaken off the serpent into the fire and felt no harm,"

but also "laid hands on the sick" father of Publius, "and he had recovered?" ... To return, however, to matters of fact; with an apology (if it be thought necessary) for what immediately goes before.

(XVII.) Next,-?? t? ???at? ?? (ver. 17) is noticed as another suspicious peculiarity. The phrase is supposed to occur only in this place of S.

Mark's Gospel; the Evangelist elsewhere employing the preposition ?p?:-(viz. in ix. 37: ix. 39: xiii. 6.)

(1.) Now really, if it were so, the reasoning would be nugatory. _S. Luke_ also once, and once only, has ?? t? ???at? s??: his usage elsewhere being, (like S. Mark's) to use ?p?. Nay, in two consecutive verses of ch.

ix, ?p? t? ???at? ??-s?? is read: and yet, in the very next chapter, his Gospel exhibits an unique instance of the usage of ??. Was it ever thought that suspicion is thereby cast on S. Luke x. 17?

(2.) But, in fact, the objection is an oversight of the learned (and generally accurate) objector. The phrase recurs in S. Mark ix. 38,-as the text of that place has been revised by Tischendorf, by Tregelles and by himself. This is therefore a slightly _corroborative_, not a suspicious circ.u.mstance.

(XVIII. and XIX.) We are further a.s.sured that pa?a??????e?? (in ver. 17) and ?pa??????e?? (in ver. 20) "are both _foreign to the diction of Mark_."