presents him to our view in a manner not to be mistaken as a person wholly penetrated by the grandeur of Christ's manifestation; yet do we perceive that he wanted that vastness of susceptibility and spiritual delicacy which we so much admire in St John, although St Matthew, in his turn, surpasses St Mark in fervour. The Christ of St Matthew, truly, is by no means a Messiah according to the vulgar notions of the Jewish nation; on the contrary, the representation made of him by St Matthew appears distinctly antagonist with the false notions which the Jews entertained concerning the Messiah; yet the Son of God, whom St Matthew, together with the rest of the Apostles, naturally acknowledged in Jesus, presents himself to us, after all, according to St Matthew's conceptions, in a Jewish aspect, whereas we behold him, as represented by St John, clad in a garment of heavenly light, so that the form in which the disciple of love introduces the Son of love is as glorified as the holy person itself that is contained within it. As this cannot be said of St Matthew, the ancients were not altogether wrong in terming his Gospel σωματικόν, and that of St John πνευματικόν, a name, which does not intimate that the Gospel of St Matthew was other than apostolical, but as the λóyos appeared in the Redeemer in a opa, so it was in like manner necessary, that whatever was national and temporal in his appearance should be rendered prominent and vivid, both in every presentable aspect of the life of Christ, and in the conception of the spiritual portion of it.

§ 5. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST MARK.

John Mark, frequently called Mark only, was the son of a certain Mary (Acts xii. 12,) who possessed a house in Jerusalem, wherein the apostles frequently assembled. He is known in the New Testament as the companion of Paul, (Acts xii. 25; xiii. 5; xv. 36, &c.) Even during the imprisonment of the apostle at Rome, we behold him in his company (Col. iv. 10; Philem. v. 24), and supposing a second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, we then shall find him associated with him even to the end of his life (2 Tim. iv. 11). The account given by the fathers of the church seems to a certain extent contradictory to this; according to the former, Mark appears in the company of Peter, of which there is only one trace in the New Testament (1 Pet. v.

13), which must be always considered, nevertheless, on such a point, as rather incidental than designed. However, the accounts given by the fathers of the church may be reconciled with the statements of the New Testament, if we assume that Mark, owing to the unhappy circumstances which occurred between Paul, Barnabas, and himself (Acts xv. 37, &c.), joined Peter for a time; on this point the New Testament is silent, because Peter herein appears in a character inferior to that of Paul. At a later period, however, after the former relation had been re-established between Paul and Mark, and Peter moreover, conjointly laboured with Paul at Rome, Mark appears once more in connexion with Paul. But with the account of the connexion of Mark and Peter, which is given in too exact a manner to lead us to doubt its veracity, the fathers inform us at the same time (comp. Euseb. H. E. iii. 39; v. 8; vi. 25. Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 5), that Peter confirmed the Gospel written by his hermeneutic Mark. That the fathers do not quite agree in the additional circumstances under which they give it, can form no ground why the main report should be doubted, since such an occurrence only, can enable us to comprehend the otherwise highly remarkable fact of the Gospel of Mark having been recognised by the church without any contradiction whatever. The authority of this apostolic companion was indeed too insignificant, and his previous relation to the Lord too problematical, for men to have relied upon his personality only when his account of the life of Christ was adopted in the canon. Had it originated at a later period, of course a name more distinguished would have been placed at the head of this work. Had history, therefore, furnished us with no information on this head, we must have been led to a similar supposition, from the fact of the adoption of Mark into the canon. The authority of Peter, with which the Gospel of St Mark was favourably associated, is in fact that which alone explains how individuals of the ancient church could hit upon the notion of using pre-eminently this Gospel, as we find it stated by Irenaeus (iii. 11) to have been so used. The nature of the Gospel itself could not possibly have prompted them to it, since it is possessed of too little that is peculiar in it, in order thereby to have secured their preference; but we may well assume that the disciples or followers of Peter, considering the connexion existing between Mark and their teacher, used exclusively this Gospel, in the same manner as the followers of Paul used that

of St Luke. But whether St Mark experienced at the hands of the Christian followers of St Peter a corruption, similar to that which St Luke sustained from the ultras of the followers of St Paul (the Marcionites) and St Matthew from the Jewish Christians, is doubtful. We know the εὐαγγέλιον κατ' Αἰγυπτίους too little, to be able to state anything certain respecting the relation existing between that and the Gospel of St Peter. With regard to the time and place in which the composition of St Mark took place, as little can be said with certainty and correctness as in the case of St Matthew. Here also we must dwell upon one circumstance, viz. that it was written previous to the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark xiii. 14, &c.) From its relation to St Matthew we may infer, nevertheless, with much probability that it is of a later origin than the Gospel of that Apostle. We shall be nearer the truth in supposing that St Mark wrote his Gospel a few years previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. Concerning the place in which it was written, tradition wavers between Alexandria and Rome. The Latin terms, however, which St Mark has adopted from time to time in his composition speak in favour of the latter city; and as it originated, at all events, in one of the central parts of the ancient Christian church2 (a circumstance to which, among others, must be attributed the rapid propagation of the Gospel), and as the history of St Mark, moreover, is not at variance with the opinion entertained of its having been written at Rome, so we may claim for it the preference.

Throughout the Gospel of St Mark, we do not meet with anything like a clear expression of a positive character on this point. But we soon perceive that St Mark did not write specially for Jewish readers, since he is minute in his explanations respecting the Jewish rites and customs (see Mark vii. 34); but with which of

1 In my Gesch. der Evang. p. 97, sqq. I have refuted in a most decided manner the possibility of a connection among the Gospels of the Egyptians, of St Peter, and of St Mark. According to the general analogy, it is very probable that St Mark, too, may have experienced corruptions, and it is very likely, that one of the writings belonging to the cycle of the Apocrypha of St Peter may have been a corrupted Gospel of St Mark. (Schneckenburger [über das Evang. der Aegyptier. Bern 1834] considers it as a work related to the εὐαγγέλιον καθ' ἑβραίους, and as having been in use among the Ebionites). According to the Gospel of St John published by Münter (Kopenhagen 1828), it has experienced, although only at a later period, many corruptions at the hands of the Gnostics. (Comp. Ullmann in the Studien Jahrg. i. part 4, p. 818, sqq.) 2 Comp. my Gesch. der Evangelien, p. 440.

C

the ancient churches he was especially associated, is not so clear. The Latinisms which we meet with in St Mark are not sufficient in themselves to attribute to the Gospel a Roman character. We should rather consider the characteristic features in St Mark as a proof of the evident carefulness which he has employed in perspicuity of statement. For there is, in the Roman national character, a dexterity in all practical things that cannot be mistaken, and this is reflected in some degree in St Mark. This Evangelist displays an aptness in representing events in a picturesque manner, and in carrying with him, as it were, his readers to the very scene of action. (Comp. particularly Mark v. 1-20, 22—43; vi. 17-29; ix. 14, &c., with the parallels belonging thereto; furthermore Mark vii. 32-37; viii. 22-26, which he has only.) This perspicuity we find predominant in his description of the cures, and among these mostly in the cures of some individuals possessed of devils (Mark v. 1, &c., ix. 14, &c.); in the conception of the internal part of the life of Jesus, especially of his discourses, St Mark falls short in a remarkable manner. Therefore we can by no means consider the perspicuity of representation of St Mark such a talent as to place him above St Matthew. It appears, at the same time, as though St Mark intended to place before the eyes of his readers a graphic picture of the official ministry of Jesus, whence he begins his narrative simply with the baptism of Christ.

§ 6. ON THE GOspel of st luke.

The person to whom tradition attributes the third Gospel is St Luke, the well-known companion of the Apostle Paul, as mentioned in sacred history. His name is the abbreviated form of Lucanus, as Alexas is that of Alexander, and Cleopas that of Cleopatros. That he was a physician is, according to Col. iv. 14, beyond a doubt, and the statement of the fathers of the church, that he came from Antioch, contains nothing improbable. He was a Gentile by birth, which is testified even in Col. iv. 14, comp. with v. 11; and this is confirmed by the apparent design of his work. For, as St Matthew had evidently Jewish Christians in view, so had St Luke the Gentile Christians. To write for these he may have been induced by a sentiment of national fellowship which he cherished for them, as also by the

example of the Gentile Apostle, which produced an influence on the special adaptation of his Gospel. According to the tradition of the fathers of the church (Euseb. h. e. iii. 4, v. 8, vi. 25. Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 5), St Paul, too, is said to have exercised a corroborating influence on the Gospel of St Luke similar to that of St Peter on the Gospel of St Mark-an hypothesis confirmed both by the rapid propagation of the work and by its general adoption by the ancient church. But more than all does the internal peculiarity of the Gospel lead to the inference that it was the result of the supervision of St Paul, and that, on this ground, it was included as such in the Gospel collection. The universal character of the Gospel appears in the tracing back of the genealogy of Jesus as far as Adam, whereas St Matthew goes no farther back than to Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews; and further, in the description of the mission of the seventy disciples as the representatives of all the nations, whereas St Matthew has only twelve Apostles, who are the representatives of the twelve tribes; also in the avoiding of all topics which seem to express something peculiar to the Jews. It may be said, therefore, that if St Matthew represents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, St Luke, on the contrary, represents him as the Gentile one, i.e. as the one in whose person all the most sublime presentiments of the Gentile world had become realised, and who had made them the object of his ministry. With regard to the manner of representation, St Luke has the peculiar power of exhibiting with great clearness of conception and truth (especially in the long account of Christ's journey, from ix. 51, xviii. 14), not so much the discourses of Jesus as his conversations, with all the incidents that gave rise to them, with the interlocutions of those that were present, and with their final issues; so that, accordingly, every one of the Evangelists, so far as his characteristic style is concerned, conducts us to the contemplation of the Redeemer in a different point of view. Hence it was, according to the nature of circumstances, that the ultra-Paulites (as such we must consider the Marcionites) preferred, before all others, this Gospel, in which their own views were expressed in a peculiarly distinct manner, and endeavoured to omit as Jewish additions all those things which did not agree with their exaggerated or misconceived Pauline notions of the law and the Gospel.1

1 That the Gospel of Marcion is a corrupt version of St Luke, has been