NOTE

As the foregoing tables of the Parallel Passages only exhibit the synoptical portions of the synoptical Gospels, it will be found convenient, in order to understand the exact nature and amount of the connection between these Gospels, to mark upon the margin of a New Testament, in different coloured lines, the corresponding passages. The corresponding passages in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark may be marked in the margins of each Gospel with a black line. In like manner, the corresponding passages in Mark and Luke may be marked in the margin of each Gospel with a red line; and the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke may be marked in the margin of each Gospel with a blue line.

In a Testament marked thus, the black lines in Matthew exhibit its con nection with Mark-those in Mark its connection with Matthew, and so with the other Gospels.

NOTES ON THE SECTIONS.

SECTION I.

THIS Section, which forms the preface, or rather the title to the Gospel, I suppose, was added by Mark when he translated the memoir; but being peculiar to Mark, it is foreign to my purpose to comment upon it.

SECTION II.

The three accounts are so obviously taken from the same original, that I can scarcely imagine that any inquirer who has studied the subject can explain the agreement upon any other supposition. But admitting this to be the case, there are several modes in which it may be accounted for. First, That proposed by Griesbach, which is, that Mark took his account from those of Matthew and Luke. Second, That of Hug and other later critics, that Mark copied Matthew, and that Luke copied both Mark and Matthew. Third, That Mark's account is the original, and that both Matthew and Luke took their accounts from his. And lastly, The modification of the third hypothesis which I have advanced in the preliminary dissertation, which is, that the second Gospel contains an original memoir written by Peter, and translated by Mark; that it was originally written in the SyroChaldaic or Aramaic, which is termed by the evangelists and fathers Hebrew, but that before it was translated it was used both by Matthew and Luke in the composition of their Gospels, and that St Luke also made use of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew.

Let us now test these different theories by the case before us. The commencement of the narrative in the second Gospel (Mark i. 2) is singularly abrupt, and the order inartificial-natural, indeed, in a person writing with the first intention, and full of his subject. He

S

recognises the fulfilment of prophecy in the mission of John the Baptist, and records his impressions in the order in which they occur to himself, without reference to the manner in which they might impress others. The object of the historian, on the other hand, is to state them in such a manner as to make them readily understood by readers who had no means of information besides that which the history affords. It is obvious, in such a case, that the statement of facts must precede the inferences. In the present instance, the fact is the advent of John; the inference is, that by it prophecy was fulfilled. If we assume that we have the original narrative in the second Gospel, we can easily account for the alteration in the order made by Matthew and Luke, because theirs is the natural order; but if, on the other hand, we suppose that Mark took his account from Matthew or Luke, or both, we cannot account for the inversion in the order of narration. If, therefore, the account in the second Gospel cannot have been taken from both or either of the other Gospels, it follows, first, that their authors must have made use of it, for we find the whole of this section incorporated in St Matthew's account; and the whole of it, with the exception of the details respecting the food and raiment of John the Baptist, in St Luke's account. Second, That it must have been in a different language from the Greek, otherwise we cannot account for the translational agreement which exists between Mark's account and that of Matthew and Luke, the only verbal agreement in this case being the quotation from Isaiah; but that presents no difficulty, for all the three agree verbatim with the Septuagint version, and at all events the verbal agreement can be referred to the Gospel of Matthew. Wherever this is the case, we can account for it by supposing that Mark, in executing his translation, availed himself of the previous translation of Matthew.

In addition to the account of the Baptist given in the second Gospel, and incorporated in the first, we find two very striking passages, the first being the stern rebuke of John to the Pharisees and Sadducees, beginning, "O generation of vipers," (Matt. and Luke, sect. i. p. 224); the second, the description given by John of our Saviour, "Whose fan is in his hand," &c. (ib. sect. ii.) Now we find that both of these passages are adopted into Luke's account, and in both cases in language which is nearly identical. The slight differences are not translational, and it is not possible that so close a verbal agreement can be accidental : one of the writers must have had the work of the other before him in the Greek language; and if it be admitted that the Gospel of St.