Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

that of Papias, who states that he was designated by John the Presbyter as "Mark, the translator of Peter," (ap. Euseb. H. E. iii. 39); and in this designation Irenæus, Tertullian, and others of the Fathers concur; but if Mark be the translator of Peter, we can see good reason why the original should have been used by the historians Matthew and Luke.

The first, and indeed the only difficulty I have to contend with, in establishing the point at issue, is the title which this Gospel bears. It will naturally be asked, If Peter be the author, how comes it that the less important name of Mark has prevailed over the more important one of Peter? Why was not the title "the Gospel according to Peter?" The answer to these questions is, that anciently it was called the Gospel of Peter. Jerome, in his Life of Peter, after mentioning his epistles, adds, "The Gospel according to Mark, who was his (Peter's) hearer and translator, is called his." * Eusebius, in citing the authority of Mark regarding the transactions of Peter, calls it the Memoirs of Peter. His words are "Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things from Mark are said to be memoirs (arounμove úμara) from the conversations of Peter."+ Tertullian, speaking of the difference in importance of the testimony of actual witnesses, and subsequent authorities, places the Gospel of Mark on a par with Matthew and John. He says, "If it be admitted that the earliest accounts

:

Therefore it was the same. Irenæus and Papias were contemporaries, for both of them knew Polycarp. Was the Mark of Papias different from the Mark of Irenæus? Had the critic, instead of reasoning upon the extract from Papias, as it is usually quoted, taken the trouble of looking into Eusebius, who has preserved it, he would have seen that it was "Mark who wrote the Gospel" that Papias alluded to. This is expressly stated by Eusebius; and it is a point upon which he could not be mistaken, with the work of Papias before him. Περὶ Μάρκου τοῦ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον γεγραφότος ἐκτέθειται διὰ τούτων καὶ τοῦτο ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτής Πέτρου γενόμενος όσα ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, ου μέντοι τάξει κ. τ. λ." He (Papias) mentions a tradition concerning Mark, who wrote the Gospel, in these words: The presbyter (John) also said this, Mark being the translator of Peter, what he recorded he wrote with accuracy, but not in exact order,'" &c.-H. E., iii. 39.

* "Sed et evangelium juxta Marcum qui auditor ejus (Petri) et interpres fuit, hujus dicitur."-De Vir. Illust., c. i.

† “ Πέτρος δὲ ταῦτα περὶ ἑαυτῶν μαρτυρεῖ, πάντα γὰρ τὰ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τῶν Πέτρου διάλεξεων εἶναι λέγεται ἀπομνημονεύματα.”Demonst. Evang., iii. 5.

must be the truest, that those from the beginning are the earliest, and that the apostles were from the beginning, it follows that the Gospels which are by apostles such as John and Matthew must be the truest accounts. The same may be said of the account which Mark published, which is said to be Peter's, Mark being his translator." We have here not only the assertion that the connection. of Mark with Peter was that of translator and publisher, but reasoning which would be of no value unless the original had been the composition of an apostle. Of a still earlier date than Tertullian, we find Justin Martyr actually quoting the second Gospel as the memoirs (aroμmμoveúμara) of Peter-" as it is written in his (Peter's) memoirs" (yeуpápßai év tois átoμvnpoveúμaow avтôv, p. 333)—giving it the same title as Eusebius did, which is equivalent to saying that the words he quotes (ő éσtiv vioì ßpovtñs—“ which is, the sons of thunder," iii. 17) are in Peter's Gospel, for he says elsewhere that the terms Memoirs and Gospels are synonymous. Commentators, anxious to explain away what was inconsistent with their preconceived opinion of the originality of Mark as an author, suppose that Justin meant to quote the second Gospel as "the Gospel of Christ," who is also mentioned in the preceding passage; but such a construction is not only at variance with the plain and obvious meaning of the passage, but with the constant practice of Justin, who invariably, in speaking of the memoirs, refers to their authorship, and not to their subjects: thus in another passage, speaking of the Son of God, he adds, "As is written in the memoirs of his apostles."+ Bishop Pearson is justified in saying, in his Vindicia Ignatianæ, that "the ancients believed the Gospel of Mark

[ocr errors]

* "In summa si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis. Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum cæteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis quæ proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus; Joannis dico et Matthei. Licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur cujus interpres Marcus.”—Ad Marcion, iv. 5.

† “ Καὶ ὑιὸν Θεοῦ γεγραμένον αὐτὸν ἐν τοις ἀπομνημονεύομασι τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ.”. Dial. cum Tryphe, p. ii. p. 327. Mr Norton, in his work on the genuineness of the Gospel, i. 131, observes, " By his 'memoirs, according to Justin's constant use of language, we must understand memoirs of which Peter may be regarded as the author." Commentators have endeavoured to evade the plain and obvious meaning of Justin by conjectural emendations in the text; but in such a case conjectural emendations are worthless.

to be nothing else than Peter's memoirs"-Marci evangelium credebant veteres nihil aliud fuisse quam Petri áoμvμovúμata.—(p. 297.)

The ancient Fathers also concur in calling Mark "the translator of Peter,” ἑρμηνευτής Πέτρου. Here also commentators, for the same reason, have attempted to explain away the plain meaning of the word "épuηVEUтns." By some it is supposed to mean "ex“ ἑρμηνευτής. positor," a sense which no doubt it is capable of; but there is no exposition in Mark's Gospel: by others it is rendered "secretary" or amanuensis; but no instances have been adduced of such ;* meanings having been attached to the word. The noun "punevтnS ἑρμηνευτὴς” occurs only once in the Greek Scriptures, but it is in a passage which very clearly marks the meaning attached to it. In the Septuagint version of the history of Joseph, where the interpretation of dreams is spoken of, the verb σvypívw is used; but where an interpreter of language is spoken of, it is épμnvEUTns; thus the text, "We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it,” is thus rendered by the Seventy-Ενύπνιον ἔιδομεν, καὶ ὁ συγκρίνων οὐκ σTW autó.—Gen. xl. 8: but the text, "He spake unto them by an interpreter," xlii. 23, thus-'0 yàp épμŋvévτǹs ȧvà péσo vairŵv hv. The cognate noun depunevтns also means an interpreter of languages (1 Cor. xiv. 28), and the verbs épμnveów and diepμnveúw, “to translate." I understand, therefore, that the designation of ¿pμnνευτής Πέτρου meant the translator of Peter.

But if Mark was so called, and his Gospel called Peter's, or Peter's Memoirs, it will be asked, How did it at last receive the title of the Gospel according to Mark? The title, "the Gospel according to Mark" does not necessarily imply authorship: the preposition Karà, "according to," implies an intimate connection. with the work, but nothing more; thus there existed, in ancient times, Gospels according to the Hebrews, the Egyptians, &c. Mark had an intimate connection with this Gospel, being not only the translator, but I believe the continuator, for the last

κατὰ,

"A unanimous tradition of the ancient Christian writers represents him (Mark) as the 'interpreter' of Peter-i. e., the secretary or amanuensis, whose office it was to commit to writing the orally-delivered instructions and narrations of the apostle."-ALFORD'S Gr. Test., Prolegomena, p. 28.

twelve verses have all the appearance of being a continuation, bringing the narrative down to the time of writing and as it was published after the death of Peter, the name of a living and responsible editor was necessary as a guarantee to the Church of its authenticity; and the name of Mark, the son and chosen follower of Peter, fulfilled the condition which our law considers. indispensable in the proof of ancient documents, and showed that it came from the proper custody. The importance of such a guarantee will be obvious, when we remember the number of spurious and heretical Gospels which were circulated at an early age of the Church, bearing the names of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and others.*

The patristic evidence which ascribes the matter of the second Gospel to Peter is clear and explicit; not so as to the manner in which it was communicated to Mark by Peter. A very general opinion appears to have prevailed that the communication was oral, not written-that Mark wrote from his recollection of Peter's discourses. The tradition that it was so appears to be traceable to Papias, who gives, as his authority for the origin of this Gospel, John the Presbyter. John could not be mistaken as to the fact that Mark's Gospel rested on the authority of Peter, although he might as to the manner in which it was communicated to Peter; or he might have been misapprehended by Papias, or Papias himself may have been misapprehended by subsequent writers. I am indebted to a learned reviewer of my former work+ for showing that this last supposition is more than a possibility—that Papias did not mean to say, as I formerly understood him, that “Mark was the translator of Peter, and he wrote accurately the things which he (Mark) remembered" (p. 219), but that he meant to say that "Mark wrote what Peter recorded." He thus expresses his reasons:

"In the dissertation on the sources of the writings of St Luke, Mr Smith has laboured, and we think successfully, to prove that the Gospel of St Mark is an apostolically authorised translation from a memoir written many years before, by St Peter, in the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldee dialect. The only diffi

* See Euseb., H. E. iii. 25.

The Rev. James Bandinel.

[ocr errors]

culty which Mr Smith meets with in the way of this conclusion-a difficulty which we think will vanish upon a more careful investigation-is, that Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias which our author gives thus, Kaì raûta ¿ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε, Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου καὶ ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν; and which he renders, The Presbyter (John) said this: Mark was the translator of Peter, and he wrote accurately the things which he remembered.' We, however, entertain no doubt but that Peter is the subject of eurμóvevoev, and Mark of ἔγραψεν ; nor should we hesitate to render ἐμνημόνευσεν, “ recorded ; 'Mark wrote what Peter recorded.' The sense is still clearer as it stands in the text of the Cambridge edition (the last, we believe, of Eusebius), 'Mápкos μεν ἑρμηνευτής Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, —which we would give thus: Mark, being the translator (or interpreter) of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he (Peter) recorded.'"*

I agree entirely with the reviewer that unμóvevσev may be translated "recorded," and if so, must be referred to Peter; for we cannot suppose that Papias would tell us that Mark" wrote what he recorded." Let us now see how a translator, who has no theory to establish, renders the passage. Dr Cruse, in his translation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, thus renders it :"And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy."-(P. 152.)

Such is the external evidence connecting the Gospel of Mark with the apostle. Before stating the internal proofs which the comparison of the different Gospels has suggested, I shall give the clear but concise statement of Mr Greswell :

"There are numerous indications in the Gospel of St Mark which imply a closer connection between the writer of this Gospel and St Peter, than between him and any other of the apostles. His mention of the name of Simon

in a peculiar manner, as at i. 16, 29, 30, 36—the absence, in his narrative, of the name of Peter, until it was actually bestowed upon him at his ordination as an apostle-the modest and indirect way in which he is placed at the head of the apostolic catalogue-the place assigned in this catalogue to the name of his brother Andrew, which is after James and John-the circumstantiality of all those details at which Peter was obviously present (as the cure of the demoniac at Gadara; the raising of Jairus's daughter, preceded by the miracle of the issue of blood; the cure of the epileptic demoniac after the

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsæt »