« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
in many particulars: though even here also St. John has divers things peculiar to himself. In St. John's gospel is no account of our Saviour's nativity, nor of his baptism by John; though, undoubtedly, it is there supposed, and referred to. He takes no notice of our Saviour's temptation in the wilderness, nor of the call or names of the twelve apostles, nor of their mission in our Saviour's life-time, nor of our Lord's parables, or other discourses of his, recorded by them, nor of our Saviour's journies, of which they give an account, nor any of those predictions relating to the desolations of Jerusalem, which are in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Nor has he any miracles recorded by them, excepting only that one of the multiplication of small provision for feeding five thousand, with the extraordinary circum stance of the return to Capernaum from the country, where that miracle had been wrought, ch. vi, 4-21. And it is likely, that this miracle was recorded by him, for the sake of the discourses, to which it gave occasion, and which follow there, ver, 22—71.
However, it should be observed, that he has one thing recorded by all the evangelists, Peter's striking a servant of the high priest, and cutting off his ear. Ch. xviii. 10, "Then Simon Peter having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus." Which, as St. Luke informs us, Jesus touched, and healed, ch. xxii. 51. Peter's action is mentioned by all the three evangelists, Matt. xxvi. 51; Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 50. But St. John alone mentions Peter by name, and the name of the servant. I thought proper to take notice of this, though St. John does not particularly mention the miracle of healing.
St. John likewise, ch. ii. 14-22, gives an account of our Lord's cleansing the temple at his first passover, when he went to Jerusalem. All the other evangelists have a like account of our Lord's cleansing the temple, at his last passover, Matt. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15, 16; Luke xix. 45, 46. But I suppose them to be quite different actions, and that our blessed Lord twice cleansed the temple, as already shown.
4. Though the first three evangelists have not particularly recorded our Saviour's several journies to Jerusalem, as St. John has done, but have only given a particular account of his preaching there at his last passover, they were not unacquainted with them.
This may be concluded from divers things in their histories. To those, who came to apprehend him, our Lord said:
"I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me," Matt. xxvi. 55. And compare Mark xiv. 49; Luke xxii. 53. Aud among the accusations brought against him by the Jewish rulers before Pilate, they say: "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee, to this place," Luke xxiii. 5. Peter preaching at Jerusalem, soon after our Lord's asceusion, says: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs: which God did by him in the midst of you, as yourselves also know," Acts ii. 22. And at the house of Cornelius, in Cæsarea: "That word, you know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee," Acts x. 37" And we are witnesses of all things, which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and at Jerusalem," ver. 39. And it appears from their histories, that our Lord's fame had early reached Jerusalem. Many attended him in Galilee from thence, and from other parts. Says St. Matthew: "And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan," ch. iv. 25. Comp. Mark. iii. 7, 8. Again: "And the scribes, which came from Jerusalem, said: He has Beelzebub."- -Mark iii. 22-30. Compare Matt. ix. 34, Luke xi. 14-26. "Then came to Jesus scribes and pharisees, which were of Jerusalem," Matt. xv. 1. Compare Mark vii. 1. And says St, Luke, ch. v. 17, " And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were pharisees, and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present to heal them." And in every one of the evangelists we may meet with scribes and pharisees opposing our Lord, watching his words and actions, cavilling with him, and reflecting upon him and his disciples.
Moreover, in St. Luke, ch. ix. 51-56, is an account of a remarkable incident, when our Lord was going from Galilee through Samaria to Jerusalem, at one of their feasts supposed by some to be the feast of tabernacles, by othersi the feast of dedication, preceding his last passover. See likewise Luke xiii. 22, and xvii. 11.
However, after all, I do not think it was needful, that our Lord should go often to Jerusalem, or that all his journies thither, and discourses there, should be recorded. It was indeed highly expedient, that his ministry should be public: so it might be, without going often to Jerusalem, See Dr. Doddridge's
h Vid. Cleric. Harmon. p. 234, 235. Family Expositor, Sect. 127. Vol. ii. p. 183.
John the Baptist was a man of great reputation, though he never went up to Jerusalem during the time of his showing himself unto Israel, that we know of, Luke i. 80. And it is manifest from the first three evangelists, as well as from St. John, that our Lord's ministry was very public, and well known in all parts of Judea, and the regions round about, and to men of all ranks therein. In them we find our Lord to have been notified before-hand by John the Baptist. He sent out once his twelve apostles, and then seventy other disciples," two by two, to go before him, and prepare men for him, in every city and place where he should come." In them we find him teaching in synagogues, in cities and villages, and desert places, crowded by throngs, attended by multitudes of people, and miraculously feeding at one time five thousand, at another four thousand men, beside women and children.
It was fit, that our Lord's ministry should be very public; it is manifest, from all the four evangelists, that it was so; which cannot but be the ground of great satisfaction to
5. The genuineness of the twenty-first or last chapter of St. John's gospel ought not to be contested.
Grotius indeed was of opinion that St. John concluded his gospel with the words which are at the end of the twentieth chapter: and that what is in the twenty-first chapter was added after St. John's death by the church of Ephesus.
Against that opinion the general, or even universal consent of manuscripts and versions is a great objection. For it is very probable, that this gospel was published before St. John's death. And if there had been an edition without this chapter, it is very likely, that it would have been wanting in some copies. To which may be added, that we do not find, that any of the ancient christian writers ever made a question, whether this chapter was composed by St. John, or by another. Finally, the style is St. John's. In
* Omnino arbitror, quæ hic sequuntur, conclusionem esse totius operis, et ibi finisse Joannem librum, quem edidit. At, sicut caput ultimum Pentateuchi, et caput ultimum Josuæ, post Mosis et Josuæ mortem additum est a Synedrio Hebræorum; ita et caput, quod sequitur, post mortem Joannis additum ab ecclesiâ Ephesinâ, hoc maxime fine, ut ostenderetur impletum quod de longævitate ac non violentâ morte Joannis Dominus prædixerat, &c. Grot. ad Jo. xx. 30. ' Cæterum in tanto codicum et versionum consensu, eoque prorsus universali, cogitari non debebat, caput hoc ab ecclesià demum Ephesinâ accessisse. Quis enim negare tuto potest, evangelium Joannis ante ipsius obitum, adeoque ante additum hoc, quod creditur, supplementum accessisse? Et quis crediderit, vel sic omnes codices in exhibendo isto capite tam constanter consentire potuisse? Wolf. in Joh. cap. xxi. in.
Rejicimus hic sententiam eorum, qui ab aliâ manu, quam ipsius Joannis
chapter xix. 35, " And he that saw it bare record; and his record is true: and he knoweth, that he says true.' Here, xxi. 24, "This is the disciple, which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." Compare likewise ver. 7, and 20. The last words of the chapter, at ver. 25, are these: "And there are also many other things, which Jesus did: the which if they should be written every one, I suppose, that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Which clause evidently is from the same person who wrote ver. 30, and 31, of ch. xx. Here the evangelist seems to check himself, and to determine not to proceed any farther. For if he should attempt to commit to writing every thing which Jesus had said and done, he should never come to an end.
Says Dr. Whitby upon ch. xx. 31, Some think, that 'St. John here ended his gospel, and that the following chapter was written by some other hands. But these words 'give no ground for that imagination: since other apostles, after they seem to have concluded their epistles, add some
new matter: as may be seen in the conclusions of the epis'tles to the Romans, and to the Hebrews.' See Rom. ch. xv. and xvi; Heb. xiii. 21-25. I would likewise refer to Mr. L'Enfant's note upon ch. xxi. 24, who also asserts the genuineness of this last chapter.
The Question considered, whether any of the first three evangelists had seen the gospels of the others before he
HERE I shall in the first place mention the different sentiments of learned moderns concerning this point. And then I intend to consider the merits of the question.
evangelistæ hoc caput esse adjectum putant. Nam ita clare stylum redolet apostoli, ut, si aliquis alius id adjecisset, non sine imposturâ istud facere potuisset. Neque enim se Joannem vocat, sed more suo discipulum, quem Jesus amabat, ver. 7, 20. Tum hæc addit: Hic est discipulus ille, qui de his testatur, et hæc scripsit, ver. 24. Quæ defendi non possunt a mendacio, si quisquam alius præter apostolum hoc caput adjecisset. Adde, quod diligentissimi circa tales circumstantias patres, Eusebius, Hieronymus, atque alii, non ita plane silentio id involvissent, &c. Fr. Lamp. in Jo. Evang. cap. xxi. tom. III. p. 720, 721. Vid. et Mill. Proleg. num. 249, 250.
Calvin," in the preface to his Harmony of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, declares it to be his opinion, that St. Mark was so far from having abridged St. Matthew's gospel, that he thinks he had never seen it: which he also supposes to have been St. Luke's case.
This likewise must have been the opinion of Basnage. For he supposeth St. Luke's to have been the first written of all the gospels. Consequently this evangelist could not borrow either from St. Matthew or St. Mark.
Mr. Whiston, in P his Harmony of the four Evangelists, called St. Mark the epitomizer of St. Matthew. Mr. Jones, in his Vindication of St. Matthew's gospel, well and largely argued against that opinion.
Mr. Dodwell declared his opinion upon this subject after this manner: That none of the first three evangelists had seen the others' gospels. Otherwise there could not have been in them so many seeming contradictions, which have 'exercised the thoughts of inquisitive men almost ever since the forming of the canon of the New Testament. Certainly if St. Luke had seen the genealogy of our Lord, which is in St. Matthew, he would not have published another so very different, without assigning any reason for it.--St. Matthew is the only one of our evangelists who wrote be'fore St. Luke.---St. John did not write till long after St. 'Luke, nor did Mark write till after St. Luke, if he wrote
his gospel in the same year that he finished the Acts of the Apostles: which seems to me very probable: for the Acts are the second book of the same work, as is evident from what himself says, Acts i. 1. St. Luke's gospel
" Mihi certe magis probabile est, et ex re ipsà conjicere licet, nunquam librum Matthæi fuisse ab eo inspectum, cum ipse suum scriberet: tantum abest, ut in compendium ex professo redigere voluerit. Idem et de Lucâ judicium facio. Calvin. Argum, in Evangel. &c.
• Basn. ann. 60. num. xxxi.
P P. 102.
Sic latuerant in illis terrarum angulis, in quibus scripta fuerant, evangelia, ut ne quidem resciverint recentiores evangelista, quid scripsissent de iisdem rebus antiquiores. Aliter foret, ne tot essent variopavn, quæ fere a primâ usque canonis constitutione eruditorum hominum ingenia exercuerint. Certe S. Lucas, si genealogiam illam Domini in Matthæo vidisset, non aliam ipse, nihilque fere habentem commune, produxisset, ne quidem minimâ consilii tam diversi editâ ratione. S. Matthæus, qui solus e nostris Lucâ erat antiquior, ipse erat αυτοπτης-S. Joannes Lucâ longo erat intervallo in scriptione juJunior etiam S. Marcus, si quidem S. Lucas eo scripserit anno evangelium, quo Acta terminavit Apostolorum. Quod ego sane puto verisimillimum. Sunt enim Acta δευτερος ejusdem operis λογος, cujus πρωτον λογον ipse suum agnoscit evangelium, Act. i. 1.-Ita quo anno scriptum est a S. Lucâ evangelium, secundus fluxerit apostolo Paulo annus captivitatis Romanæ. Eo enim usque Actorum historia perducta est. S. autem Marcus, seu post obitum Petri, seu non multo ante, scripsisse videtur. Dodw. Diss. Iren. i. num. xxxix.