Chapter IX (2)

(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase “_is in Mark’s manner_,” says Dean Alford: the plain fact being that it occurs no less than three times in his Gospel,—viz. in chap. viii. 25: x. 16: xvi. 18. (The other idiom, he has four times.(288)) Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to as a note of genuineness _and_ as an indication of spurious origin. What _can_ be the value of such Criticism as this?

(2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt illustration of the precariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our attention. Within the space of three verses, S. Mark has _both_ expressions,—viz. ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ (viii. 23) and also ἐπέθηκε τὰς χεῖρας ἐπί (ver. 25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former, twice.(289) _Who_ will not admit that all this (so-called) Criticism is the veriest trifling; and that to pretend to argue about the genuineness of a passage of Scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of rashness bordering on folly?... The reader is referred to what was offered above on Art. VII.

(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver. 19 and ver. 20) are also declared to be “_foreign to the diction of Mark_.” I ask leave to examine these two charges separately.

(1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark’s Gospel, truly: but then _it occurs only once in S. Luke_ (iii. 18);—only twice in S. John (xix. 24: xx. 30):—in S. Matthew, never at all. What imaginable plea can be made out of such evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?—Once more, I pause for an answer.

(2.) As for ὁ Κύριος being “_foreign to the diction of Mark_ in speaking of the LORD,”—I really do not know what the learned Critic can possibly mean; except that he finds our LORD _nowhere called_ ὁ Κύριος _by S. Mark, except in this place._

But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our LORD anywhere called by S. Mark “JESUS CHRIST,” except in chap. i. 1. Are we, therefore, to suspect the beginning of S. Mark’s Gospel as well as the end of it? By no means, (I shall perhaps be told:) a reason is assignable for the use of _that_ expression in chap. i. 1. And so, I venture to reply, there is a fully sufficient reason assignable for the use of _this_ expression in chap. xvi. 19.(290)

(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our LORD is called Ἰησοῦς Χριστός,—but _only in the first Chapter_ of their respective Gospels. By S. Luke nowhere. The appellation may,—or may not,—be thought “foreign to the diction” of those Evangelists. But surely it constitutes no reason whatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the first, or the second, or the fourth Gospel.

(4.) S. John _three times in the first verse of his first Chapter_ designates the Eternal SON by the extraordinary title ὁ Λόγος; but _nowhere else in his Gospel_, (except once in ver. 14,) does that Name recur. Would it be reasonable to represent _this_ as a suspicious circumstance? Is not the Divine fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and admitted?(291)—Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to have spoken about GOD! When will men learn that “the Scripture-phrase, or _language of the Holy Ghost_”(292) is as much above them as Heaven is above Earth?

(XXIII.) Another complaint:—ἀναληφθῆναι, which is found in ver. 19, occurs nowhere else in the Gospels.

(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which “occur nowhere else in the Gospels:” and this happens to be one of them? What possible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance?

(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. Ἀναληφθῆναι and ἀνάληψις are words _proper to the Ascension of our _LORD_ into Heaven_. The two Evangelists who do _not_ describe that event, are _without_ these words: the two Evangelists who _do_ describe it, _have_ them.(293) Surely, these are marks of genuineness, not grounds for suspicion!

It is high time to conclude this discussion.—Much has been said about two other minute points:—

(XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος “is nowhere found absolutely used by S. Mark:” (the same thing may be said of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:) “but always emphatically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely used.”(294) Another writer says,—“The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11, and 13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is peculiar.”(295)

(1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that an Evangelist who employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in all, should use it “absolutely” in two consecutive verses.

(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves as to _which_ are precisely the offending instances,—(for it is evidently a moot point whether ἐκεῖνος be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,)—we may be excused from a prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the subject in the consideration of the next Article (XXV.)

(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that “in the 10th and 14th verses there are sentences without a copulative: whereas Mark always has the copulative in such cases, particularly καί.” But then,—

(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of S. Mark’s Gospel _resembling the present_,—(I mean, passages in which S. Mark summarizes many disconnected incidents, as he does here,)—is it not plain that such an objection is wholly without point?

(2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), Lachmann and Tregelles read ὔστερον δέ: and the reading is not impossible. So that the complaint is really reduced to this,—That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins Ἐκεὶνη πορευθεῖσα, instead of saying Καὶ ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα. And (it is implied) there is something so abhorrent to probability in this, as slightly to strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the work of the Evangelist.

(3.) Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us: and suppose that he, on being shewn this objection, were to be heard delivering himself somewhat to the following effect:—“Aye. But men may not find fault with _that_ turn of phrase. I derived it from Simon Peter’s lips. I have always suspected that it was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he and ‘the other Disciple’ had many a time rehearsed in the hearing of the wondering Church concerning the Magdalene on the morning of the Resurrection.” And then we should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth Gospel:—

γύναι τί κλαίεις; τίνα ζητεῖς; ἘΚΕΊΝΗ δοκοῦσα κ.τ.λ.

After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all strange, even though it be “without a copulative:”—

ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ἘΚΕΊΝΗ πορευθεῖσα κ.τ.λ.

(4.) For after all, the _only_ question to be asked is,—Will any one pretend that such a circumstance as this is _suspicious_? Unless _that_ be asserted, I see not what is gained by raking together,—(_as one easily might do in any section of any of the Gospels_,)—every minute peculiarity of form or expression which can possibly be found within the space of these twelve verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as an incorrigible coarseness of critical fibre, that every slight variety of manner or language should be thus pounced upon and represented as a note of spuriousness,—in the face of (_a_) the unfaltering tradition of the Church universal that the document has _never_ been hitherto suspected: and (_b_) the known proclivity of all writers, as free moral and intellectual agents, sometimes to deviate from their else invariable practice.—May I not here close the discussion?

There will perhaps be some to remark, that however successfully the foregoing objections may seem to have been severally disposed of, yet that the combined force of such a multitude of slightly suspicious circumstances must be not only appreciable, but even remain an inconvenient, not to say a formidable fact. Let me point out that the supposed remark is nothing else but a fallacy; which is detected the instant it is steadily looked at.

For if there really had remained after the discussion of each of the foregoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of suspiciousness, _then_ of course the aggregate of so many fractions would have amounted to something in the end.

But since it has been proved that there is absolutely _nothing at all_ suspicious in _any_ of the alleged circumstances which have been hitherto examined, the case becomes altogether different. The sum of ten thousand nothings is still nothing.(296) This may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the only charge which remains to be examined.

(XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs εὐθέως and πάλιν,—(both of them favourite words with the second Evangelist,)—has been pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance. Let us take the words singly:—

(_a_) The adverb εὐθέως (or εὐθύς) is indeed of _very_ frequent occurrence in S. Mark’s Gospel. And yet its absence from chap. xvi is _proved_ to be in no degree a suspicious circumstance, from the discovery that though it occurs as many as

12 times in chap. i; and 6 times in chap. v; and 5 times in chap. iv, vi; and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv; and 2 times in chap. vii, xi; it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv; while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi.

(b) In like manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as

6 times in chap. xiv; and 5 times in chap. x; and 3 times in chap. viii, xv; and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii; and 1 times in chap. iv, v; occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.(297)

(1.) Now,—How can it possibly be more suspicious that πάλιν should be absent from _the last twelve_ verses of S. Mark, than that it should be away from _the first forty-five_?

(2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters of this same Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the ist, vith, ixth, or xiiith chapter,—(for the sufficient reason that _neither word is wanted in any of those places_,)—what possible “suspiciousness” can be supposed to result from the absence of both words from the xvith chapter also, where _also_ neither of them is wanted? _Why_ is the xvith chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel,—or rather, why are “the last twelve verses” of it,—to labour under such special disfavor and discredit?

(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,—“I am well aware that arguments on _style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_ they prove very little: but when there does exist external evidence, and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment; then these internal considerations possess very great weight.”(298)—For all rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,—(_a_) But when there _does not_ exist any such external evidence: what then? Next, he is reminded (_b_) That whether there does, or does not, it is at least certain that _not one_ of those “proofs as to style,” &c., of which he speaks, has been able to stand the test of strict examination. Not only is the precariousness of all such Criticism as has been brought to bear against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 excessive, but the supposed facts adduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them _mistakes_;—being either, (1) demonstrably without argumentative cogency of any kind;—or else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory circumstances: indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by S. Mark,—_not_ that it is probably the work of another hand.

And thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion vanishes out of sight: fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and nugatory; and _thirteen_, more or less clearly witnessing _in favour_ of the section.(299)

III. Of these thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent in their witness. I am saying that it is impossible not to be exceedingly struck by the discovery that this portion of the Gospel contains (as I have explained already) so many indications of S. Mark’s undoubted manner. Such is the reference to ἡ κτίσις (in ver. 15):—the mention of ἀπιστία (in ver. 14):—the occurrence of the verb πορεύεσθαι (in ver. 10 and 12),—of the phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (in ver. 17),—and of the phrase χεῖρας ἐτιτιθέναι ἐπί τινα (in ver. 18):—of the Evangelical term for our LORD’S Ascension, viz. ἀνελήφθη (in ver. 19):—and lastly, of the compounds παρακολουθεῖν and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in verses 17 and 20.)

To these Thirteen, will have to be added all those other notes of identity of authorship,—such as they are,—which result from recurring identity of phrase, and of which the assailants of this portion of the Gospel have prudently said nothing. Such are the following:—

(xiv.) Ἀνίσταναι, for rising _from the dead_; which is one of S. Mark’s words. Taking into account the shortness of his Gospel, he has it thrice as often as S. Luke; _twelve times_ as often as S. Matthew or S. John.

(xv.) The idiomatic expression πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν, of which S. Matthew does not present a single specimen; but which occurs three times in the short Gospel of S. Mark,(300)—of which ver. 12 is one.

(xvi.) The expression προί (in ver. 9,)—of which S. Mark avails himself six times: i.e. (if the length of the present Gospel be taken into account) almost five times as often as either S. Matthew or S. John,—S. Luke never using the word at all. In his first chapter (ver. 35), and here in his last (ver. 2), S. Mark uses λίαν in connexion with προί.

(xvii.) The phrase κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (in ver. 15) is another of S. Mark’s phrases. Like S. Matthew, he employs it four times (i. 14: xiii. 10: xiv. 9: xvi. 15): but it occurs neither in S. Luke’s nor in S. John’s Gospel.

(xviii.) The same _words_ singly are characteristic of his Gospel. Taking the length of their several narratives into account, S. Mark has the word κηρύσσειν more than twice as often as S. Matthew: three times as often as S. Luke.

(xix.) εὐαγγέλιον,—a word which occurs only in the first two Gospels,—is found twice as often in S. Mark’s as in S. Matthew’s Gospel: and if the respective length of their Gospels be considered, the proportion will be as three to one. It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15.

(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned to vindicate _the genuineness_ of this section of the Gospel, we should have been assured that φανερουσθαι is another of S. Mark’s words: by which they would have meant no more than this,—that though employed neither by S. Matthew nor by S. Luke it is used thrice by S. Mark,—being found twice in this section (verses 12, 14), as well as in ch. iv. 22.

(xxi.) They would have also pointed out that σκληροκαρδία is another of S. Mark’s words: being employed neither by S. Luke nor by S. John,—by S. Matthew only once,—but by S. Mark on _two_ occasions; of which ch. xvi. 14 is one.

(xxii.) In the same spirit, they would have bade us observe that πανταχοῦ (ver. 20)—unknown to S. Matthew and S. John, and employed only once by S. Luke,—is _twice_ used by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present section.

Nor would it have been altogether unfair if they had added that the precisely similar word πανταχόθεν (or πάντοθεν) is only found in this same Gospel,—viz. in ch. i. 45.

(xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time with a greater show of reason) that the adverb καλῶς (which is found in ver. 18) is another favorite word with S. Mark: occurring as it does, (when the length of these several narratives is taken into account,) more than twice as often in S. Mark’s as in S. John’s Gospel,—just three times as often as in the Gospel of S. Matthew and S. Luke.

(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation would have been that ἔχειν, in the sense of “to be,” (as in the phrase καλῶς ἔχειν, ver. 18,) is characteristic of S. Mark. He has it oftener than any of the Evangelists, viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32, 34: ii. 17: v. 23: vi. 55: xvi. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, he employs this idiom twice as often as S. Matthew;—three times as often as S. John;—four times as often as S. Luke.

(xxv.) They would have told us further that ἄῤῥωστος is another of S. Mark’s favorite words: for that he has it _three_ times,—viz. in ch. vi. 5, 13, and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew has it only once. S. Luke and S. John not at all.

(xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by them that the conjunction of πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι (in ver. 10) is characteristic of S. Mark,—who has κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας in ch. v. 38: θορυβεῖσθε και κλαίετε in the very next verse. As for πενθεῖν, it is one of the 123 words common to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their two Gospels.

(xxvii.) Lastly, “κατακρίνω (in ver. 16), instead of κρίνω, is Mark’s word, (comp. x. 33: xiv. 64).” The simple verb which is used four times by S. Matthew, five times by S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at all employed by S. Mark: whereas the compound verb he has oftener in proportion than S. Matthew,—more than twice as often as either S. Luke or S. John.

Strange,—that there should be exactly “xxvii” notes of genuineness discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of “XXVII” grounds of suspicion!

But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage review the progress hitherto made in this inquiry.

I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing assertions respecting the “Style” and “Phraseology” of this section of the Gospel which were rehearsed at the outset,(301)—are destitute of foundation. But from this discovery alone there results a settled conviction which it will be found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scripture which has been able to endure so severe an ordeal of hostile inquiry, has been _proved_ to be above suspicion. _That_ character is rightly accounted _blameless_ which comes out unsullied after Calumny has done her worst; done it systematically; done it with a will; done it for a hundred years.

But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. Something _more_ is certain than that the charges which have been so industriously brought against this portion of the Gospel are without foundation. It has been also proved that instead of there being discovered twenty-seven suspicious words and phrases scattered up and down these twelve verses of the Gospel, there actually exist exactly as many words and phrases which attest with more or less certainty that those verses are nothing else but the work of the Evangelist.

IV. And now it is high time to explain that though I have hitherto condescended to adopt the method of my opponents, I have only done so in order to shew that it proves fatal to _themselves_. I am, to say the truth, ashamed of what has last been written,—so untrustworthy do I deem the method which, (following the example of those who have preceded me in this inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The “Concordance test,”—(for _that_ is probably as apt and intelligible a designation as can be devised for the purely _mechanical_ process whereby it is proposed by a certain school of Critics to judge of the authorship of Scripture,)—is about the coarsest as well as about the most delusive that could be devised. By means of this clumsy and vulgar instrument, especially when applied, (as in the case before us,) without skill and discrimination, it would be just as easy to prove that _the first_ twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are of a suspicious character as _the last_.(302) In truth, except in very skilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead.

Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that “Mark nowhere uses the appellation JESUS CHRIST:” and (ii.) that “εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” is “_Pauline_”—We should be reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere introduces any of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of “Isaiah”(303) (in ver. 2) is a suspicious circumstance:—(iv.) that a quotation from the Old Testament is “foreign to his manner,”—(for writers of this class would not hesitate to assume that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part of the Gospel;)—and (v.) that the fact that here are quotations from _two_ different prophets, betrays an unskilful hand.—(vi.) Because S. Mark three times calls Judæa by its usual name (Ιουδαια, viz. in iii. 7: x. 1: xiii. 14), the _unique_ designation, ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα (in ver. 5) would be pronounced decisive against “the authorship of Mark.”—(vii.) The same thing would be said of the _unique_ expression, ἐν Ἰορδάνη ποταμῷ, which is found in ver. 5,—seeing that this Evangelist three times designates Jordan simply as Ἰορδάνης (i. 9: iii. 8: x. 1).—(viii.) _That_ entire expression in ver. 7 (_unique_, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,) οὖ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανος—ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ, would be pronounced “abhorrent to the style of Mark.”—(ix.) τὸ Πνεῦμα _twice_, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we should be told is never used by the Evangelist absolutely for the HOLY GHOST: but always τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον (as in ch. iii. 29: xii. 36: xiii. 11).—(x.) The same would be said of οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται (in ver. 5) for “the inhabitants of Jerusalem:” we should be assured that S. Mark’s phrase would rather be οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων,—as in ch. iii. 8 and 22.—And (xi.) the expression πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῷ (ver. 15), we should be informed “cannot be Mark’s;”—who either employs εἰς and the accusative (as in ch. ix. 92), or else makes the verb take a dative (as in ch. xi. 31: xvi. 13, 14.)—We should also probably be told that the ten following words are all “unknown to Mark:”—(xii.) τρίχες,—(xiii.) δερματίνη,—(xiv.) ὀσφύς,—(xv.) ἀκρίδες,—(xvi.) μέλι,—(xvii.) ἄγριος,(six instances in a single verse (ver. 6): a highly suspicious circumstance!),—(xviii.) κύπτειν,—(xix.) ἱμάς,—(xx.) ὑποδήματα, (all three instances in ver. 7!)—(xxi.) εὐδοκεῖν,—(xxii.) καὶ ἐγένετο ... ἦλθεν (ver. 9),—unique in S. Mark!—(xxiii.) βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς (ver 9), another unique phrase!—(xxiv.) οἱ οὐρανοί _twice_, (viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when _S. Mark_ speaks of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41: vii. 34: viii. 11: xvi. 19) he always uses the singular.—Lastly, (xxv.) the same sorry objection which was brought against the “last twelve verses,” (that πάλιν, a favourite adverb with S. Mark, is not found there,) is here even more conspicuous.

Turning away from all this,—(not, however, without an apology for having lingered over such frivolous details so long,)—I desire to point out that we have reverently to look below the surface, if we would ascertain how far it is to be presumed from internal considerations whether S. Mark was indeed the author of this portion of his Gospel, or not.

V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical, more _real_ test than the coarse, uncritical expedient which has been hitherto considered of ascertaining by reference to the pages of a Greek Concordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the Gospel is, or is not, used elsewhere by S. Mark. And I suppose it will be generally allowed to be deserving of attention,—in fact, to be a singularly corroborative circumstance,—that within the narrow compass of these Twelve Verses we meet with _every principal characteristic of S. Mark’s manner_:—Thus,

(i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gospels, and though to all appearance he often merely reproduces what S. Matthew has said before him, or else anticipates something, which is afterwards delivered by S. Luke,—it is surprising how often we are indebted to S. Mark for precious pieces of information which we look for in vain elsewhere. Now, this is a feature of the Evangelist’s manner which is susceptible of memorable illustration from the section before us.

How many and how considerable are the _new circumstances_ which S. Mark here delivers!—(1) That Mary Magdalene was _the first_ to behold the risen SAVIOUR: (2) That it was _He_ who had cast out from her the “seven devils:” (3) _How the men were engaged_ to whom she brought her joyful message,—(4) who not only did not believe _her_ story, but when Cleopas and his companion declared what had happened to themselves, “_neither believed they them_.” (5) The terms of the Ministerial Commission, as set down in verses 15 and 16, are unique. (6) The announcement of the “signs which should follow them that believe” is even extraordinary. Lastly, (7) this is the only place in the Gospel where _The Session at the right Hand of _GOD is recorded.... So many, and such precious incidents, showered into the Gospel Treasury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand, must needs have proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from a companion of Apostles. O, if we had no other token to go by, there could not be a reasonable doubt that this entire section is by no other than S. Mark himself!

(ii.) A second striking characteristic of the second Evangelist is his love of picturesque, or at least of striking details,—his proneness to introduce exceedingly minute particulars, often of the profoundest significancy, and always of considerable interest. Not to look beyond the Twelve Verses (chap. i. 9-20) which were originally proposed for comparison,—We are reminded (_a_) that in describing our SAVIOUR’S Baptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that “He came _from Nazareth_” to be baptized.—(_b_) In his highly elliptical account of our LORD’S Temptation, it is only he who relates that “He was _with the wild beasts_.”—(_c_) In his description of the Call of the four Disciples, S. Mark alone it is who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of his account to what is found in S. Matthew,) records that the father of S. James and S. John was left “in the ship _with the hired servants_.”(304)—Now, of this characteristic, we have also within these twelve verses, at least four illustrations:—

(_a_) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently proceeded from an eye-witness,—“πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι.” S. Mark relates that when Mary conveyed to the Disciples the joyous tidings of the LORD’S Resurrection, _she found them overwhelmed with sorrow_,—“mourning and weeping.”

(_b_) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is _recorded only there._

(_c_) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples were “going into the country,” (πορευόμενοι εἰς ἀγρόν,(305) ver. 12,) JESUS also “went with them”—(συν-επορεύετο, as S. Luke relates;)—but that it was _as they actually _“walked”_ along_ (περιπατοῦσιν) that this manifestation took place.

(_d_) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning “them that believe;” what can be imagined more striking than the promise that they should “_take up serpents_;” and suffer no harm even if they should “_drink any deadly thing_”?

(iii) Next,—all have been struck, I suppose, with S. Mark’s proneness to substitute some expression of his own for what he found in the Gospel of his predecessor S. Matthew: or, when he anticipates something which is afterwards met with in the Gospel of S. Luke, his aptness to deliver it in language entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude, for instance; to his substitution of ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (xiv. 72) for S. Matthew’s ἔκλαυσε μικρῶς (xxvi. 75);—and of ὁ τέκτων (vi. 3) for ὁ τοῧ τέκτονος υιος (S. Matth. xiii. 55).—The “woman of Canaan” in S. Matthew’s Gospel (γυνὴ Χαναναία, ch. xv. 22), is called “a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation” in S. Mark’s (Ἑλληνὶς, Συροφοίνισσα τῷ γένει, ch. vii. 26).—At the Baptism, instead of the “_opened_” heavens of S. Matthew (ἀνεῷχθησαν, ch. iii. 16) and S. Luke (ἀνεῳχθῆναι, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by S. Mark with the striking image of the heavens “_cleaving_” or “_being rent asunder_” (σχιζομένους,(306) ch. i. 10).—What S. Matthew calls τὰ ὅρια Μαγδαλά (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as τὰ μέρθ Δαλμανουθά (ch. viii. 10.)—In place of S. Matthew’s ζύμη Σαδδουκαίων (ch. xvi. 6), S. Mark has ζύμη Ἡρώδου (ch. viii. 15.)—In describing the visit to Jericho, for the δύο τυφλοί of S. Matthew (ch. xx. 29), S. Mark gives υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτίμαιος ὁ τυφλὸς ... προσαιτῶν (ch. ch. 46.)—For the κλάδους of S. Matth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch. xi. 8) has στοιβάδας; and for the other’s πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (xxvi. 34), he has πρὶν ἢ δίς (xiv. 30.)—It is so throughout.

Accordingly,—(as we have already more than once had occasion to remark,)—whereas the rest say only ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων, S. Mark says πρώτη σαββάτου (in ver. 9).—Whereas S. Luke (viii. 2) says ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ ἐξεληλύθει,—S. Mark records that from her ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.—Very different is the great ministerial Commission as set down by S. Mark in ver. 15, 16, from what is found in S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.—And whereas S. Luke says “_their eyes were holden_ that they should not know Him,” S. Mark says that “He appeared to them _in another form_.” ... Is it credible that any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark’s narrative after S. Luke’s Gospel had appeared, would have ventured so to paraphrase S. Luke’s statement? And yet, let the consistent truthfulness of either expression be carefully noted. _Both_ are historically accurate, but they proceed from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly side, (God’s side), the Disciples’ “eyes” (of course) “_were __ holden_:”—viewed on the earthly side, (Man’s side), the risen SAVIOUR (no doubt) “_appeared in another form_.”

(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many expressions into his Gospel which confirm the prevalent tradition that it was _at Rome_ he wrote it; and that it was with an immediate view to _Latin_ readers that it was published. Twelve such expressions were enumerated above (at p. 150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most unmistakably is the phrase πρώτη σαββάτου in ver. 9.—It is simply incredible that any one but an Evangelist writing under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to S. Mark, would have hit upon such an expression as this,—the strict equivalent, to Latin ears, for ἡ μία σαββάτων, which has occurred just above, in ver. 2. Now this, it will be remembered, is one of the hacknied objections to the genuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel;—quite proof enough, if proof were needed, of the exceeding _improbability_ which attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who have considered this question the most.

(v.) The last peculiarity of S. Mark to which I propose to invite attention is supplied by those expressions which connect his Gospel with S. Peter, and remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient Church that S. Mark was the companion of the chief of the Apostles.

That the second Gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed out; never more interestingly or more convincingly than by Townson(307) in a work which deserves to be in the hands of every student of Sacred Science. Instead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to illustrate my meaning, I will mention one which has perhaps never been mentioned in this connexion before.

(_a_) Reference is made to our LORD’S sayings in S. Mark vii, and specially to what is found in ver. 19. _That_ expression, “purging all meats” (καθαρίζων(308) πάντα τὰ βρώματα), does really seem to be no part of the Divine discourse; but the Evangelist’s inspired comment on the SAVIOUR’S words.(309)

Our SAVIOUR (he explains) by that discourse of His—ipso, facto—“_made all meats clean_.” How doubly striking a statement, when it is remembered that probably Simon Peter himself was the actual author of it;—the same who, on the house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that “GOD _had made clean_” (ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε(310)) _all_ His creatures!

(_b_) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on a memorable occasion be considered:—“Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the LORD JESUS went in and out among us, _beginning from the Baptism of John_, unto that same day that _He was taken up_ (ἀνελήφθη) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His Resurrection.”(311) Does not S. Peter thereby define the precise limits of our SAVIOUR’S Ministry,—shewing it to have “begun” (ἀρξάμενος) “from the Baptism of John,”—and closed with the Day of our LORD’S Ascension? And what else are those but the exact bounds of S. Mark’s Gospel,—of which the ἀρχή (ch. i. 1) is signally declared to have been _the Baptism of John_,—and the utmost limit, the day when (as S. Mark says) “_He was taken up_ (ἀνελήφθη) into Heaven,”—(ch. xvi. 19)?

(_c_) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion with the phrase, πᾶσῃ τῇ κτίσει, in ver. 15,—(concerning which, the reader is referred back to page 162-3,)—that both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred writers) conspire to use the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.(312) S. Mark has besides κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισε ὁ Θεός (ch. xiii. 19); while S. Peter alone styles the ALMIGHTY, from His work of Creation, ὁ κτίστης (1 S. Pet. iv. 19).

VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations as those which precede,—(some of which, I am aware, might be considerably evacuated of their cogency; while others, I am just as firmly convinced, will remain forcible witnesses of GOD’S Truth to the end of Time,)—I hesitate not to avow my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence is garnered up within the brief compass of these Twelve Verses that they are identical in respect of fabric with the rest of the Gospel; were clearly manufactured out of the same Divine materials,—wrought in the same heavenly loom.

It was even to have been expected, from what is found to have been universally the method in other parts of Scripture,—(for it was of course foreseen by ALMIGHTY GOD from the beginning that this portion of His Word would be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, reviled, hated, rejected, denied,)—that the SPIRIT would not leave Himself without witness in this place. It was to have been anticipated, I say, that Eternal Wisdom would carefully—(I trust there is no irreverence in so speaking of GOD and His ways!)—would carefully make provision: meet the coming unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword: plant up and down throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of their Divine Original,—unmistakable notes of purpose and design,—mysterious traces and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to the scornful and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent; yet clear as if written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, the man who “trembleth at GOD’S Word.”(313) Or, (if the Reader prefers the image,) the indications of a Divine Original to be met with in these verses shall be likened rather to those cryptic characters, invisible so long as they remain unsuspected, but which shine forth clear and strong when exposed to the Light or to the Heat; (Light and Heat, both emblems of Himself!) so that even he that gropeth in darkness must now see them, and admit that of a truth “the LORD is in this place” although he “knew it not!”

(i.) I propose then that in the first instance we compare the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel with the beginning of it. We did this before, when our object was to ascertain whether the _Style_ of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 be indeed as utterly discordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonly represented. We found, instead, the most striking resemblance.(314) We also instituted a brief comparison between the two in order to discover whether the _Diction_ of the one might not possibly be found as suggestive of _verbal_ doubts as the diction of the other: and so we found it.(315)—Let us for the third time draw the two extremities of this precious fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them. Nothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once more, our attention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve verses (ver. 9-20) of S. Mark’s _first_ chapter which exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his _last_ chapter (ver. 9-20) which are the subject of the present volume.

Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides (1) the obvious _verbal_ resemblance, I detect (2) a singular parallelism of _essential structure_. And this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing of the kind was to have been _expected_.

(1.) On the verbal coincidences I do not propose to lay much stress. Yet are they certainly not without argumentative weight and significancy. I allude to the following:—

(a) [βαπτίζων, βάπτισμα (a) βαπτισθείς (xvi. 16) (i. 4)—καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο (i. 5)—ἐβάπτισα, βαπτίσει (i. 8)]—καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη (i. 9) (b) [κηρύσσων, ἐκήρυσσδ (b) ἐκήρυξαν (xvi. 20) (i. 7)] (b and c) κηρύσσων τὸ (c) κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (i. 14)—[ἀρχὴ εὐαγγέλιον (xvi. 15) τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (i. 1)] (c and d) πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ (d) ἠπίστησαν (xvi. εὐαγγελίῳ (i. 15) 11)—οὐδὲ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 13)—τὴν ἀπιστίαν, οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 14)—ὁ πιστεύσας, ὁ ἀπιστήσας (xvi. 16)—τοῖς πιστεύσασι (xvi. 17.)

Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an unmistakable relation of sympathy between the first page of S. Mark’s Gospel and the last. The same doctrinal phraseology,(316)—the same indications of Divine purpose,—the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both. (i.) _A Gospel_ to be everywhere _preached_;—(ii.) _Faith_, to be of all required;—(iii.) _Baptism_ to be universally administered; “one LORD, one Faith, one Baptism:”—Is not _this_ the theme of the beginning of S. Mark’s Gospel as well as of the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the two extremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric be identical or not, it were discovered that those extremities are even meant _to clasp_!

(2.) But the _essential_ parallelism between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i. 9-20 is a profounder phenomenon and deserves even more attention. I proceed to set down side by side, as before, what ought to require neither comment nor explanation of mine. Thus we find,—

(A) _in ch._ i. 9 _to_ (A) _in ch._ xvi. 9 _to_ 11:—Our LORD’S 11:—Our LORD’S appearance Manifestation to the to Mary Magdalene (ἐφάνη) World (ἐπιφανεία) on HIS after HIS Resurrection “coming up (ἀναβαίνων) (ἀναστάς) from death: out of the water” of “Thou art My SON, this Jordan: (having been day have I begotten “buried by Baptism,” as Thee.” the Apostle speaks:) when the Voice from Heaven proclaimed,—“Thou art My beloved SON in whom I am well pleased.” —12 _to_ 14:—Two other Manifestations (ἐφανερώθη) to Disciples. (B) —12, 13:—CHRIST’S (B) —17, 18:—CHRIST’S victory over Satan; promise that “they that (whereby is fulfilled the believe” “shall cast out promise “Thou shalt tread devils” and “shall take upon the lion and adder: up serpents:” (as [in S. the young lion and the Luke x. 19] He had given dragon shalt Thou trample the Seventy “power to under feet.”) tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy.”) (C) —8:—The Pentecostal (C) —17:—The chief Gift foretold: “He shall Pentecostal Gift baptize you with the HOLY specified: “They shall GHOST.” speak with new tongues.”

(D) _in ch._ i. 14, (D) _in ch._ xvi. 15, 15:—CHRIST “comes into 16:—He commands His Galilee, preaching the Apostles to “go into all Gospel ... and saying ... the world and preach the Repent ye, and believe Gospel to every creature. the Gospel.” He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (E) —15: His (E) —19:—S. Mark’s record announcement, that “The concerning Him, that “He time is fulfilled, and was received up into the Kingdom of God is at Heaven, and sat on the hand.” right hand of GOD” (where He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet.) (F) —16 _to_ 20:—The four (F) —20:—The Apostles’ Apostles’ Call to the Ministry, which is Ministry: (which [S. Luke everywhere miraculously v. 8, 9] is miraculously attested,—“The LORD attested.) working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed.”

It is surely not an unmeaning circumstance, a mere accident, that the Evangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his Gospel, so express himself! If, however, it should seem to the Reader a mere matter of course, a phenomenon without interest or significancy,—nothing which I could add would probably bring him to a different mind.

(3.) Then, further: when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am not a little struck by the discovery that the VIth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem (A.D. 348) is found in the one: the Xth Article, in the other.(317) If it be a purely fortuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like these,—(viz. “_He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of _GOD”—and “_One Baptism for the Remission of sins_,”) should be found at either extremity of one short Gospel,—I will but point out that it is certainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances.—But in the thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, any talk of fortuitousness at all.

(4.) Allusion is made to the diversity of Name whereby the Son of Man is indicated in these two several places of the Gospel; which constitutes a most Divine circumstance, and is profoundly significant. He who in _the first_ verse (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title “Ἰησοῦς” and “Χριστός,”—here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19, 20) is styled for the first and for the last time, “Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ”—the LORD.(318)

And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was named “JESUS,” (a Name which was given Him from _His Birth_, yea, and before His Birth); He who at His Baptism became “the CHRIST,” (a Title which belonged to _His Office_, and which betokens His sacred _Unction_);—the same, on the occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the Right Hand of GOD,—when (as we know) “all power had been given unto Him in Heaven and in Earth” (S. Matth. xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of _Dominion_; “the LORD” JEHOVAH ... “Magnifica et opportuna appellatio!”—as Bengel well remarks.

But I take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or could have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to S. Mark’s unfinished Gospel. No inventor of a supplement, I say, _could_ have planted his foot in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my assertion is twofold:—

(_a_) First, because the present indication that the HOLY GHOST was indeed the Author of these last Twelve Verses is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson and his School, _as a proof of a spurious original_. Verily, such Critics do not recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they _see_ it!

(_b_) Next, as a matter of fact, we _have_ a spurious Supplement to the Gospel,—the same which was exhibited above at p. 123-4; and which may here be with advantage reproduced in its Latin form:—“Omnia autem quaecumque praecepta erant illis qui cum Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt. Post haec et ipse Iesus adparuit, et ab oriente usque in occidentem misit per illos sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae. Amen.”(319)—Another apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of the Thebaic version. It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as follows:—“Exeuntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium in mundo toto, CHRISTO operante cum iis in verbo confirmationem cum signis sequentibus eos et miraculis. Atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in terra tota et in mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum quae exsistunt ab oriente ad occasum.” It will be seen that the Title of _Dominion_ (ὁ Κύριος—the LORD) is found in neither of these fabricated passages; but the Names of _Nativity_ and of _Baptism_ (Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός—JESUS and CHRIST) occur instead.

(ii.) Then further:—It is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a vast number of minute but important facts should be found accumulated within the narrow compass of these twelve verses; and should be met with _nowhere else_. The writer,—supposing that he had only S. Matthew’s Gospel before him,—traverses (except in one single instance) _wholly new ground_; moves forward with unmistakable boldness and a rare sense of security; and wherever he plants his foot, it is to enrich the soil with fertility and beauty. But on the supposition that he wrote after S. Luke’s and S. John’s Gospel had appeared,—the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold: for how then does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information from quite independent sources? is not bound by any of their statements? even seems _purposely_ to break away from their guidance, and to adventure some extraordinary statement of his own,—which nevertheless carries the true Gospel savour with it; and is felt to be authentic from the very circumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and put it forth on his own responsibility?

(iii.) Second to no indication that this entire section of the Gospel has a Divine original, I hold to be a famous expression which (like πρώτη σαββάτου) has occasioned general offence: I mean, the designation of Mary Magdalene as one “out of whom” the LORD “had cast seven devils;” and _that_, in immediate connexion with the record of her august privilege of being the first of the Human Race to behold His risen form. There is such profound Gospel significancy;—such sublime improbability,—such exquisite pathos in this record,—that I would defy any fabricator, be he who he might, to have achieved it. This has been to some extent pointed out already.(320)

(iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circumstance must be by all means here insisted upon afresh,) that the designation (found in ver. 10) of the little company of our LORD’S followers,—“τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις,”—is another rare note of veracious origin. No one but S. Mark,—or just such an one as he,—would or could have so accurately designated the little band of Christian men and women who, unconscious of their bliss, were “mourning and weeping” till after sunrise on the first Easter Day. The reader is reminded of what has been already offered on this subject, at p. 155-6.

(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but S. Mark, (or such an one as he(321)), would have familiarly designated the Apostolic body as “αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἔνδεκα,” in ver. 14. The phrase οἱ δώδεκα, he uses in proportion _far_ oftener than any other two of the Evangelists.(322) And it is evident that the phrase οἱ ἕνδεκα soon became an equally recognised designation of the Apostolic body,—“from which Judas by transgression fell.” Its familiar introduction into this place by the second Evangelist is exactly what one might have looked for, or at least what one is fully prepared to meet with, _in him_.

(vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to an unobtrusive and unobserved verb in the last of these verses which (I venture to say) it would never have entered into the mind of any ordinary writer to employ in that particular place. I allude to the familiar word ἐξελθόντες.

The precise meaning of the expression,—depending on the known force of the preposition with which the verb is compounded,—can scarcely be missed by any one who, on the one hand, is familiar with the Evangelical method; on the other, is sufficiently acquainted with the Gospel History. Reference is certainly made to the final departure of the Apostolic body _out of the city of Jerusalem_.(323) And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein contained a recollection of our SAVIOUR’S command to His Apostles, twice expressly recorded by S. Luke, “that they should _not depart from Jerusalem_, but wait for the promise of the FATHER.” “Behold,” (said He,) “I send the promise of My FATHER upon you: but _tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem_, until ye be endued with power from on high.”(324)... After many days “_they went forth_” or “_out_.” S. Mark, (or perhaps it is rather S. Peter,) expressly says so,—ἐξελθόντες. Aye, and _that_ was a memorable “outgoing,” truly! What else was its purpose but the evangelization of the World?

VII. Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence derived from Internal considerations. But lest it should hereafter be reckoned as an omission, and imputed to me as a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged _Inconsistency_ of certain statements contained in these “Twelve Verses” with the larger notices contained in the parallel narratives of S. Luke and S. John,—I proceed briefly to explain _why_ I am silent on this head.

1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other words,—what I should propose to myself as the end to be attained by what I wrote. For,

2. What would be gained by demonstrating,—(as I am of course prepared to do,)—that there is really _no inconsistency whatever_ between anything which S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should have proved that,—(assuming the _other_ Evangelical narratives to be authentic, i.e. historically true,)—the narrative before us cannot be objected to on the score of its not being authentic also. But _by whom_ is such proof required?

(_a_) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met with in the Evangelical narratives. In _their_ estimation, _the genuineness of an inspired writing_ is a thing not in the least degree rendered suspicious by the erroneousness of its statements. According to them, the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may yet be the work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but “trifling,” and the inaccuracies “minute,”—these “sound Theologians,” (for so they style themselves,(325)) “have no dread whatever of acknowledging” their existence. Be it so. Then would it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing _them_ that no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the compass of these Twelve concluding Verses.

(_b_) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers; who, for want of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the perfect Harmony of the Evangelical narratives in this place. It is only one of many places where a primâ facie discrepancy, though it does not fail to strike,—yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them. Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with themselves somewhat as follows:—"GOD’S Word, like all GOD’S other Works, (and I am taught to regard GOD’S Word as a very masterpiece of creative skill;)—the blessed Gospel, I say, is _full_ of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are observed invariably to disappear under competent investigation. Can I seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on the highly elliptical portion of narrative contained in these Twelve Verses, it would present no exception to a rule which is observed to be else universal; and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark’s statements in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be found to be imaginary only?"

This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon a prolonged Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion of _the Principles of Gospel Harmony_,—for which the present would clearly not be the proper place.

VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,—

1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from “Style,” (in itself a highly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation.

It has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S. Mark i. 9-20; and therefore, that _it is rendered probable by the Style_ that the Author of the beginning of this Gospel was also the Author of the end of it.

2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument from “Phraseology,”—(in itself, a most unsatisfactory test; and as it has been applied to the matter in hand, a very coarse and clumsy one;)—breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.

Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances in the Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has been proved (pp. 170-3) that in twenty-seven particulars there emerge _corroborative considerations_.

3. Lastly, I have shewn that a loftier method of Criticism is at hand; and that, tested by this truer, more judicious, and more philosophical standard; _a presumption_ of the highest order is created _that these Verses must needs be the work of S. Mark_.