sentations in the two gospels in respect to Joseph's abode at Bethlehem and Nazareth.

One point discussed in the Introduction to Mark, is the relation of this gospel to Peter. "It may be inferred from the varying notices of some of the fathers, with some degree of probability, that Peter was not with Mark when the latter undertook to write the gospel." "If the gospel contain a faithful abstract of Peter's discourses, the writer having been exceedingly careful to omit nothing of what he had heard from the lips of his spiritual master, and to set down nothing falsely, as John the presbyter assures us, we may safely rely on it as ultimately based on apostolical authority." The integrity of the last eleven verses of the gospel is discussed at considerable length, and the conclusion is adopted that they were added by another person after Mark's death. We think, however, that this decision is not borne out by the facts, and that the preponderance of arguments is in favor of the genuineness. Dr. D. says that "on the whole the external arguments in favor of the paragraph outweigh those on the other side." In our opinion, they greatly outweigh them. The passage is found in all the existing Greek MSS., except B, in all the ancient versions, the Syriac of Jerusalem included, in all the Evangelistaria and Synaxaria, and is sanctioned by nearly all the fathers. There is some reason to suppose that the objections to the passage had their origin in exegetical difficulties. Some of the internal arguments alleged against it, seem to us to have but little weight; e. g. "the desire of the miraculous is too great for Mark, vs. 17, 18. The kind of miracles indicated, and the power of performing them attributed to all believers, are adverse to the supposition of the evangelist being the writer." But was this promise more comprehensive, or has it an air of greater strangeness than the performance? Thus Acts 5: 15,

"They brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them." Acts 2: 4, "And they were all (believers) filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues." So from Acts 5: 17, it would seem as if the great body of the Samaritan believers received the power of working miracles. The same general diffusion of miraculous power, we infer from the first epistle to the Corinthians. Again, the words "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, are very suspicious. They remind us of the post-apostolic period when a greater efficacy was attributed to baptism than it was intended to have." But has the insertion of this second condition in this place, an aspect more strange than Peter's summons, Acts 2: 38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you," or than our

1849.].

Gospels of Luke and John.

363

Lord's declaration that men must be born of water and of the spirit? "The style of the whole piece is unlike that of the gospel. Its manner resembles that of brief notices, extracted from larger accounts and loosely linked together." But it has to our mind no more of this fragmentary and summary manner than other passages in Mark, e. g. 1: 9-21, where four or five important events are crowded into a few verses. “Instead of ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό, Mark uses ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ.” Yet he does this only in one place, 7: 26. o zúgos is used in the 19th and 20th verses, instead of 'Inoous. Mark nowhere employs this appellation." But perhaps it was natural to apply the term Lord to Jesus after his resurrection, as before his crucifixion, Jesus had applied it to himself as recorded in Mark. On the whole, though there is weight in some of the internal objections, yet they do not throw so much doubt over the passage as to outweigh the strong external testimony in its favor. The introduction of a number of anaş heyóμeva into a passage would not be a circumstance so extraordinary as the abrupt closing of the gospel at ch. 16: 8.

The author comes to the conclusion that Luke's gospel is not of canonical authority because of the special influence which Paul had upon it. Its credibility and authority must be placed on another basis equally secure. That it fully deserves its present position among the gospels is unquestionable; but it does not deserve it by virtue of any truth in the ancient tradition." The internal objections against the authenticity of Luke, viz. in the matter of the census, 2: 12, and in the alleged false chronology in regard to Lysanias, 3: 1, are examined, and shown to be capable of fair, if not of perfectly satisfactory explanation. The integrity of Luke seems to be unimpeachable. Vv. 13, 14 of chap. 22, have been assailed, but without adequate reason.

On John's gospel our author lays out his strength, as it has been pertinaciously assailed and with not a little acuteness by numerous recent critics. The time and place in which this gospel was written are uncertain. The place was probably Ephesus. The early external evidence establishes the apostolic origin of John's gospel. Yet it has been assailed by various writers on historic grounds. A recent critic, Lützelberger, ("The Church Tradition on the apostle John, 1840") has produced a work which Bleek characterizes as the most important attack made upon the gospel in modern times, and which has had no little influence on the later productions of Baur and Schwegler. It has been assumed as an indisputable fact that John the apostle lived and labored in Asia Minor during the latter part of his life. Lützelberger attempts to destroy the credit of the ecclesiastical tradition on which the fact rests. The acute reasonings and

plausible conjectures of this writer are met and rebutted with great ability by Dr. Davidson. "How impotent," he concludes, "do these objections appear! How unlike the statements of men simply desirous of arriving at truth. If the bad cause they resolved to espouse did not appear desperate in their eyes, they have resorted at least to desperate weapons."

A group of internal objections are next considered, viz. diversity in regard to the scene and duration of Jesus' public ministry, the diversity relating to the description of his person, and that which belongs to his discourses. John's peculiar temperament, his intimacy with his Master, the fact that he wrote at a later day, probably in Asia Minor, and for a different class of readers, may account for some of these diversities. Again, there are great resemblances between him and the Synoptists. All which is taught in the gospel of John may be found in the other gospels or in the epistles. It is not necessary to trace his doctrine of the Logos to Philo or to any extra-Palestinian source. The germs of it are in the Old Testament. The geographical and archaeological difficulties in John have never been proved to be insuperable. E. g. Bethabara may be the true reading for the town called Bethany at the Jordan, or there may have been two Bethanies. The Synoptists place the principal scene of Christ's ministry in Galilee, John places it in Judea; they appear to limit its duration to one year, he alludes to several passovers. They, however, intimate that the Saviour's ministry was not confined to Galilee, and their speaking only of his last journey to Jerusalem does not exclude similar journeys. In order that we may obtain a comprehensive view of the Messiah's person, the descriptions of all the evangelists must be combined. Xenophon's delineation of Socrates does not exclude that of Plato. That Jesus' discourses, as recorded by John, are different both in matter and form from those found in the other gospels is obvious, but it remains to be proved that the one class is inconsistent with the other.

After discussing the immediate occasion and object of the gospel, that its special object was not polemic, and that it was not designed, except in a subordinate sense, as a supplement to the Synoptists, the author considers briefly the characteristics of the gospel, in manner and style, and then discusses at some length the question of the genuineness of chap. 21, of the two last verses in this chapter, of chap. 7, v. 51, 8: 11, and of 5: 3, 4.

ume.

We have thus referred to a few of the topics in this instructive volThe first and the decided impression which the reader receives is, that the author has mastered his subject, has patiently threaded his way through the toilsome labyrinth of German research, and has

1849.]

Character of the Work.

365

clearly presented the main questions relating to the gospels in the light of the latest and most thorough investigations. Painful as it must be in some respects for a believer in the gospels to explore the cavils and objections of modern skepticism, yet the author has not shrunk in the slightest degree from his task. The inquiry is not only thorough and extensive, but embraces the most recent literature. So far as we can judge, the author has allowed nothing of importance to escape him. We are also struck with the general candor and impartiality of the discussion. If an objection has apparent weight, it is not summarily dismissed. If the arguments of the friends of revelation appear to be more specious than solid, the author has independence enough to say so. An evident desire to arrive at the truth, without fear or bias, pervades the volume. Though this honesty of purpose may occasionally lead to results which will surprise the unreflecting reader of the gospels, yet, in the final result, the authenticity of the gospels is placed on a firm basis. One rises from the perusal of this volume with the deepest conviction, that he is not following cunningly devised fables, or honestly devised myths. A fundamental discussion like that of Dr. D's, is attended with an excellent moral effect. The sharper the scrutiny to which the evangelists are subjected, the more intelligent and the profounder is the faith which one feels in them. Thus a scientific discussion, if conducted with seriousness and dignity, becomes a means of grace, prompts to faith in God's word, and to love towards the Saviour.

This Introduction is not designed to be popular in the common acceptation of that word. It is not composed in a style which will be attractive to the mass, perhaps, of educated men. The author is very

sparing of ornament, makes no popular appeals, indulges in very few stirring descriptions. The style is direct and perspicuous, and the entire method is scientific. Occasionally, it seems to us there is a little unnecessary dryness. E. g. the enunciation of the topics at the beginning of the discussion on each gospel, might be less formal and skeleton-like, and when the author is considering the characteristics of the gospels, there might have been more pleasant descriptions and a greater outflow of feeling without injury to the scientific aspect of the treatise. Still, the book is, in this respect, substantially as it should be, a systematic and exact exhibition of the subject. The study of it ought not to be confined to a few biblical scholars and clergymen. It treats of a subject which surpasses every other in interest, the records of the life and atoning death of our Lord. All clergymen, all who are called to defend the gospel in these days when it is attacked from so many quarters, will here find armor on which they can rely.

ARTICLE VIII.

NOTES ON BIBLICAL GEOGRAPHY.

By E. Robinson, D. D. Professor at New York.

I. THE A'WAJ, THE SECOND RIVER OF DAMASCUS. In the Number of this work for Nov. 1848, p. 760 sq. there are extracts from a letter of the Rev. Wm. M. Thomson of Beirût, describing some antiquities on the route to Damascus. At the close he spoke of having on his return traced to its sources the river Awaj (the crooked), probably the ancient Pharpar; and held out the hope of further information in respect to it. The following letter relates chiefly to that journey. I subjoin a few notes, comprising former notices of this stream, and the reasons for regarding it as the Pharpar of 2 Kings 5: 12.

Beirût, Nov. 29, 1848.

"You were pleased to express a desire for the remainder of my hurried journey to and from Damascus; and if I had supposed that the latter half led me over the region least known and therefore most interesting, I would have been more particular at the time in my observations, and more prompt in writing.

"I will dismiss the city of Damascus with one or two remarks; as it is well known and visited by all travellers. There are more extensive remains of antiquity in it, than is generally supposed. Not far from the site of the great church of St. John, (in which also are large antique columns and foundations,) are the remains of an immense building, constructed of heavy stones and evidently very ancient. It is at present about fifty-three paces long on the west side; and, on a stone about twenty feet from the ground, is a long Greek inscription, which I copied.-The great castle is built of stones having a bevel somewhat like the Phenician. It is, however, evidently Saracenic; and has smooth cut stones mingled with the bevelled. At the place where the Barada breaks through the mountain into the plain of Damascus, is a long Cufic inscription, thirty-five or forty feet high up in the perpendicular face of the mountain. I have got a splendid fac-simile of this curious relic of early Mohammedan times; the only one of the kind I have found in all my rambles. I may send a copy of this beautiful inscription, with a translation, at some future time. -Now for the ride home.