Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

Ji
xiv. 1—12.
THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND
heard of Jesus, came ia the press behind,
and touched his garment."
Moreover, the whole account contained
in verses 29—33 is in Mark only.
vi. 14—20.
Account of the execution of John the The whole narrative is given in Mark
Baptist by Herod.
with much more minuteness and vivacity.
Such a difference in the style of narration runs throughout
Matthew and Mark ; and it cannot well be denied that at first
view there is something surprising in it. But careful examination
of the object of the two G-ospels plainly shows whence this different
manner of narration in Matthew and Mark takes its rise, and thus
does away with all the inferences which have been deduced therefrom
in opposition to the apostolic origin of Matthew. The reason
why Mark describes the outward relations of our Lord's life in so
vivid and graphic a manner is, that it was his special design to por-
tray Christ's performance of the outward functions of his office.
Hence, all which related to that, he details very carefully ; while
whatever did not pertain thereto, he either entirely omits, as, e. g.,
the history of the childhood of Jesus, or communicates very briefly,
as, e. g.,miinj of our Lord's larger discourses, Matthew, on the con-
trary, makes it his chief object to communicate our Lord's dis-
courses. He commonly makes use of events only as points of sup-
port for the discourses ; to which he, like John, directs special
attention. If it be considered, moreover, that the graphic nature
of style is, in great part, owing to peculiar talent, such as is not bestowed
alike on all men, and such as was by no means requisite in
every one of the apostles, there remains not a shadow of reason, why
the want of vivacity, which is certainly exhibited in Matthew's
Gospel, should become a motive for denying its genuineness. In
truth, moreover, there is no period at which a forgery of the Gospel
in Matthew's name is even conceivable. For it is demonstrable
from the book itself that it must have been composed a few years
before the destruction of Jerusalem, and hence about sixty-six
years after the birth of Christ. Now we find Matthew in use in the
church before the close of the same century, at a time when John
the Evangelist had but just died, and many disciples of the apostles
were living and labouring in all parts of the world. How was it
possible, in such circumstances, to introduce a work forged in the
name of Matthew into so general currency, that not the very slight-
est opposition should ever have been raised against it ?
From what has been said it will have been inferred that the genuineness
of Mark is not at all disputed. His graphic, lively mannei
has even been made to afford occasion for assailing the genuineness
of Matthew. Nor, in truth, was there in ancient times the least