ever, as in some cases we have no word which can properly supply its place, as it is very well understood, and by scriptural use as well as antiquity rendered respectable, it ought not, in a translation of the Gospels, to be entirely laid aside; at the same time it must be owned, that when the salutation stands alone, as in this passage, or is not accompanied with some compellation to the persons saluted, its appearance is rather awkward. Our translators have been so sensible of this, as to judge it necessary to insert the word all, to render the expression fuller. But even with this addition it still sounds oddly, and has been rarely copied by later translators, some of whom have preferred the way of circumlocution. I salute you, says one: cold and formal. God save you, says another; which seems to imply some impending danger. To me, the literal translation of the Gr. word appears, in point of propriety as well as simplicity, preferable to any of these methods.

14. "If this come to the procurator's ears," av άxovody rouTo iлì roû nyeμóvos. Wo. and Wa. "If this come to a hearing before the governor ;" that is, to a judicial trial.' That this is the meaning, appears to me highly improbable. In such a public inquiry, it is not easy to conceive how the chief priests and elders could interfere, without betraying themselves and risking every thing. But nothing can be more likely than their promising to use their secret influence with the procurator, to induce him (in case he should hear the report) to overlook it, and thus prevent examination altogether; a promise which, doubtless, they faithfully kept, as it entirely accorded with what they accounted their interest. Dr. Symonds discovers a vulgarity in the phrase, of which I am not sensible. If sound, according to the modern theory, be produced by an undulation of air striking the auditory nerve, we may say, I think, without a figure, that a rumor has come to our ears.' That ingenious writer has not scrupled to say, (page 3,) "If we cast our eye upon the period." Now this expression is, in my judgment, much more exceptionable than the other. There is a real motion from the sonorous object to the ear; but the eyes are never cast upon this object. I may as well speak of casting my ears upon a sounding object, to denote-I listen to it..

2 N.

17. Threw themselves prostrate," пoσɛxúŋoɑv. Ch. 2: 2.

19, 20. "Convert all the nations-teaching them," μadnień, σατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη-διδάσκοντες αὐτούς. Ε. Τ. " Teach all nanations-teaching them." Vul. Ar. Er. Zu. Be. Cal. Pisc. "Docete omnes gentes-docentes eos." Cas. employs the same verb, though in a different form; instead of euntes docete, saying after his manner, "Vadite doctum-docentes eos." The Sy. has preserved the distinction very properly. There are manifestly three things which our Lord here distinctly enjoins his apostles to execute with regard

to the nations, to wit, μαθητεύειν, βαπτίζειν, διδάσκειν, that is, to convert them to the faith, to initiate the converts into the church by baptism, and to instruct the baptized in all the duties of the christian life. Our translators have, after the whole current of La. interpreters, confounded the first and the last, rendering both words by the same Eng. word teach. The foreign translators have not been so implicit followers. Dio. says, "Ammaestrate tutte le genti -insegnando loro." G. F. "Endoctrinez toutes nations-les enseignans." L. Cl. "Faites des disciples parmi toutes les nations -apprenz leur." Beau. with whom Si. agrees, has not expressed with the same distinctness the two parts of the charge; for though the terms he employs are different, they are nearly synonymous," Enseignez toutes les nations-leur apprenant." P. R. and Sa. though they translate from the Vul. where the error originated, have distinguished them better, "Instruisez tous les peuples-leur apprenant." The like variety is to be found in our late Eng. versions, none of which has followed here the common translation. An. Hey. and Wor. say, "Instruct all nations," Dod. "Proselyte all nations." Wy. "Make disciples in all nations." Wa. "Make disciples of all the nations." Sc. and Wes. "Disciple all nations." They all render the beginning of the 20th ver. "Teaching them." The first of these, "Instruct all nations," is certainly too vague and indefinite. If to instruct and to teach be not here entirely synonymous, their significations are so nearly coincident, that were they, in these two verses, to change places, it would not make a sensible difference on the meaning. Wy. in saying "Make disciples," has hit exactly the sense of μantevo; but it is one thing to make disciples in all nations, and another thing to make all nations disciples. Wa. does better in this respect. Sc. and Wes. intended well; but there is no such verb as to disciple in the language. It is found, indeed, in Spenser, who affected obsolete words; but he uses it in a very different sense; for with him it is to punish, or to treat with severe discipline. The version which Dod. has given of this passage appears the least exceptionable. But the verb to proselyte, though sometimes occurring, is so far from being in common use, and has so much the appearance of a learned or technical term, that, in a style so natural and familiar as that of the evangelists, we ought not, without necessity, to recur to it. But there can be no necessity here, as the verb to convert, applied as in this passage, has precisely the same meaning. See the note on ch. 17: 3.

2 "The conclusion of this state," τns ouvreλeias tov aiwvos. Ch. 12:32. N.

3 The "amen," which this Gospel concludes, is wanting in four MSS. and in the Vul. Cop. and Arm. versions.

PREFACE

TO

MARK'S GOSPEL.

THAT the Gospel was written by Mark which is commonly ascribed to him, and that it was the second in the order of time, are points for which the unanimous voice of antiquity can evidently be pleaded. The first authority to be produced in support of both these articles is Papias, to whom, as the oldest witness, and consequently, in a case of this nature, the most important, we are chiefly indebted for what has been advanced in relation to the evangelist Matthew. What he says concerning Mark may be thus rendered from the words of Eusebius,* who quotes him: "This is what was related by the elder, (that is John, not the apostle, but a disciple of Jesus): Mark being Peter's interpreter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered, not indeed in the order wherein things were spoken and done by the Lord; for he was not himself a hearer or follower of our Lord; but he afterwards, as I said, followed Peter, who gave instructions as suited the occasions, but not as a regular history of our Lord's teaching. Mark, however, committed no mistake in writing such things as occur to his memory: for of this one thing he was careful, to omit nothing which he had heard, and to insert no falsehood into his narrative." Such is the testimony of Papias, which is the more to be regarded, as he assigns his authority. He spoke not from hearsay, but from the information he had received from a most credible witness, John the elder or presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and companion of the apostles, by whom he had been intrusted with a ministry in the church.

2. It would be superfluous here to add other testimonies. Suffice it to say, that what is above advanced by Papias, on the authority of John, is contradicted by no person. It is, on the contrary, confirmed by all who take occasion to mention the subject. I shall only subjoin the account given by Irenæus, because it serves to ascertain another circumstance, namely, that the publication of Mark's Gospel, the second in the order of time, soon followed that of Matthew's. After telling us that Matthew published his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, he adds,† "After their

* Hist. Eccl. 1. iii. c. 39.

† Adv. Hær. 1. iii. c. l.

deparure [odov], Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things which had been preached by Peter." The Greek godos, like the English word departure, and the word used in the old Latin edition, excessus, is equivocal; it may either denote death, which is a departure out of this world, or mean a departure out of the city. It is probably in the former of these senses that the word is here used. Yet by the accounts given by some others, Mark's Gospel was published in Peter's lifetime, and had his approbation. But not to insist on matters which cannot now be ascertained, it sufficeth us that we know by whom this Gospel was written, and whence the writer drew his information. Indeed this latter point has, from the earliest times, been considered as so well authenticated, that some have not scrupled to denominate this The Gospel according to Peter. They did not intend thereby to dispute Mark's title to be esteemed the writer, but to express, in a stronger manner, that every thing here advanced had the sanction of that apostle's testimony, than whom no disciple more closely attended our Lord's ministry, from its commencement to its consummation. The Gospel of Mark is said, by some, to be but two years posterior in date to that of Matthew. About this, however, it is in vain to think to arrive at any certainty.

3. But as to the person here named Mark, authors are not equally agreed. Some have thought that it was he of whom mention is several times made in the Acts and some of Paul's Epistles, who is called John, whose surname is Mark, whose mother's name was Mary, Acts 12: 12; and of whom we are likewise told, that he was sister's son to Barnabas, Col. 4: 10. From the little we are able to collect out of the apostolical writings, it appears to me rather improbable that this is he. Of John, surnamed Mark, one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journies, when these two travelled together, Acts 12:25. 13: 5. And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, (for though among good men there may arise differences, as these differences are not imbittered by any malignity of disposition, a reconciliation is easily effected), we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony; Col. 4: 10. 2 Tim. 4: 11. Philem. 24. But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. This is so different from the accounts which the most ancient writers give of the evangelist Mark, that, though they cannot be said to contradict each other, they can hardly be supposed as spoken of the same individual. The evangelist is not said to have derived any part of his information from our Lord himself, or even VOL. II.

20

from any of his apostles, except the apostle Peter,(for no other is ever named), whose disciple he is always represented as having been; and who doubtless speaks of him when he says, Marcus my son saluteth you, 1 Pet. 5: 13. The denomination son was in those times commonly given, by the minister, to every one who by his means had been converted to the Christian faith. But as to the nephew of Barnabas, we have seen how differently he is represented in the Acts, as well as in Paul's Epistles. And if we recur to tradition, (for historical evidence cannot be pretended), it represents him as having been a disciple of our Lord, and one of the seventy whom Jesus in his lifetime sent out to preach the gospel. Besides, no ancient author, in speaking of this evangelist, ever calls him John, but always Mark. In brief, the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark, or Marcus-too slight a circumstance to evince the sameness of the person, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews, in that age, to assume some Roman name when they went thither.

4. Further, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek, is as evidently conformable to the testimony of antiquity, as that Matthew wrote his in Hebrew. Cardinal Baronius is the only person who has strenuously maintained the contrary, affirming that this evangelist published his work in Latin. I know no argument, worthy the name of argument, but one, that he produces in support of his opinion. The external evidence of testimony is clear against him; but something like internal probability may be urged in favor of his sentiment. "This Gospel," says the Cardinal, "was published at Rome, for the benefit of the Romans. Can we then suppose it would be written in any other than the language of the place?" I shall admit that this Gospel was published at Rome; though that is not universally believed, some rather supposing it to have been at Alexandria, after Mark had been entrusted with the superintendence of that church; but, though the design of the publication had been the benefit of those residing at Rome, it would not have been exclusively intended for the natives. Let it be observed, that the ministry of Peter, to whom Paul tells us (Gal. 2: 7), the gospel of the circumcision was committed, was chiefly employed in converting and instructing his countrymen the Jews, who abounded at that time in the imperial city. Now it was customary with such of the Jews as went abroad, (I may say generally with travellers of all nations, especially from the east), to make themselves masters of the Greek tongue, which was become a kind of universal language, and was more used by strangers at Rome than the language of the place. It was with such that the first Christian missionaries were principally concerned. The apostle Paul accordingly wrote to them in Greek, and not in Latin, which would not have been done, if the