MANTLE take care thou art not led aside from thy calling; 'go, and return; think on what I have done to thee.'" Sir John Malcolm says, "Among the Persians, the principal khalifas or teachers consider the sacred mantle as the symbol of their spiritual power. Though the khirke, or mantle, was in general only transferred to a beloved pupil, at the death of his master, some superior saints were deemed possessed of a power, even while living, to invest others with the sacred and mysterious garment. When the khalifa or teacher of the souffees dies, he bequeaths his patched garment, which is all his worldly wealth, to the disciple whom he esteems the most worthy to become his successor, and the moment the latter puts on the holy mantle he is vested with the power of his predecessor." MANTLES, MÍDoyo maataphoth. (Isai. 3. 22.) Roberts considers "the mantles" in this passage, in which many articles of female dress are mentioned, to refer to a loose robe which is gracefully crossed on the bosom. The women of Western Asia, and of Egypt, wear over the gown a sort of long mantle or pelisse, made of cloth, silk, or velvet; this, it is conjectured, may be some such article as the text denotes. See CLOTHES; DRESS. MANURES. Although the Scriptures do not furnish us with many details respecting the state of agriculture in Judæa, yet we may collect from various passages many interesting hints that will enable us to form some idea of the high state of its cultivation. It is not probable that the Hebrews derived their knowledge of manures from Egypt; but they doubtless adopted and preserved the customs which existed among the previous inhabitants of the country. In the parable of the fig-tree which had for three years been barren, and which the proprietor therefore doomed to be cut down, the gardener is represented as praying for delay, until he should "dig about it and dung it." (Luke 13. 7.) To explain this, Lightfoot quotes the following from the Talmud: "They lay dung to moisten and enrich the soil; dig about the roots of trees; pluck up the suckers; take off the leaves; sprinkle ashes; and smoke under the trees to kill vermin." In addition to the various modes of irrigation, the soil was likewise enriched by means of ashes; to which were added the straw in teben, stubble Vp kash, husks, or chaff, i mots, together with the brambles and grass that overspread the land during the Sabbatical year; all being reduced by fire and used as manure. (Prov. 24. 31; Isai. 7. 23; 32. 13.) The burning over the surface of the land had also another good effect, that of destroying the seeds of noxious herbs. Dunghills are mentioned in 1 Samuel 2.8; Ezra 6. 11; Daniel 2. 5; 3. 29, and one of the gates at Jerusalem was called the Dung-gate, from dung being carried out there. (Nehem. 2. 13.) That the soil was manured with dung, we learn from 2Kings 9. 37; Psalm 83. 10; Jeremiah 8. 2; 9. 22; 16. 4; 25. 33; Luke 14. 35. The Israelites had comparatively few horses and few swine, two sources of excellent strong manure. Their animals consisted chiefly of oxen, camels, asses, sheep, and goats. The dung of the cow and camel was used to a considerable extent for fuel, and the dung of the sacrifices was directed to be burned-circumstances calculated to diminish the supply. That salt was used for manure we learn from Matthew 5. 13, and Luke 14. 34,35, and it would appear that salt was sometimes sown by itself on the land, at others mixed in the dunghill to promote putrefaction, and contribute its saline particles to the mass. From the Mishnah Bava Kama we learn that a dunghill in a public place exposed the owner to the payment of whatever damage it might occasion; and any person might remove it as a nuisance. Dung might not during the seventh year be transported to the neighbourhood of the fields intended to be manured. Under certain restrictions it was, however, permitted to fold cattle for the sake of their manure, upon the lands that required it in the Sabbatic year, and it is from this only we learn that the practice existed among the Jews, who would seem more generally to have folded their sheep within walled inclosures, (John 10. 1-5,) the occasional clearance of which must have afforded a principal supply of manure. It would seem that gardens, except a few old rose-gardens, were not allowed within the walls of Jerusalem, on account of the manure they would have required; and "because of the stench," as the Mishnah states, this produced, as well as because of that arising from the weeds thrown out from gardens. From another passage of the Talmud we are informed that the surplus blood of the sacrifices offered in the Temple, that is to say, the blood which was poured out at the foot of the altar, after the altar had been duly sprinkled, was conducted by a subterraneous channel to the outside of the city, and was sold to the gardeners as manure for their gardens; by which we are to understand that the gardeners were allowed to use it on paying the price of a trespass offering, without which it could not be appropriated to any common use after having been dedicated at the altar. In ancient Egypt, Sir John Gardner Wilkinson tells us that "Corn, and those productions which did not stand in need of constant artificial irrigation, were sown in the open field, as in other countries; but for indigo, esculent vegetables, and herbs which required to be frequently watered, the fields were portioned out into square beds like our salt pans, surrounded by a raised border of earth to keep in the water, which was introduced by channels from the shadoof, or poured in with buckets. Sometimes, as we are informed by Pliny, they used a dressing of nitrous soil, which was spread over the surface; a custom continued to the present day: but this was confined to certain crops, and principally to those reared late in the year; the fertilizing properties of the alluvial deposit answering all the purposes of the richest manure. Its peculiar quality is not merely indicated by its effects, but by the appearance it presents; and so tenacious and siliceous is its structure, that when left upon the rock, and dried by the sun, it resembles pottery, from its brittleness and consistence. Its component parts, according to the analysis given by Regnault, in the Memoires sur l'Egypte, are,— 11 Water 9 Carbon 6 Oxide of iron 4 Silica 4 Carbonate of magnesia 18 Carbonate of lime 48 Alumen 100 The quantity of silica and alumen varying according to the places whence the mud is taken, which frequently contains a great admixture of sand near the banks, and a larger proportion of argillaceous matter at a distance from the river. "Besides the admixture of nitrous earth, the Egyptians made use of other kinds of dressing for certain produce; and in those places where the vine was cultivated on alluvial soil, we may conclude they found the addition of gravel beneficial to that valuable plant,—a secret readily learnt from its thriving condition, and the superior quality of the grape in strong soils; and some pro duce was improved by a mixture of sand. Nor were they neglectful of the advantages offered by the edge of the desert for the growth of certain plants, which, being composed of clay and sand, was peculiarly adapted to such as required a light soil; and the cultivation of this additional tract, which only stood in need of proper irrigation to become highly productive, had the advantage of increasing considerably the extent of the arable land of Egypt." See AGRICULTURE; HUSBANDRY. MAON, Sept. Mawv, was a city in the tribe of Judah not far from Mount Carmel. (Josh. 15. 55; 1Sam. 25. 2.) It was the residence of Nabal, and near to it was a wilderness in which David for a season made his abode. Gesenius says, "there is still a place in these regions called Mâân," which has been confirmed by the recent researches of Dr. Robinson. MAONITES, a people mentioned in Judges 10. 11,12 with the Amalekites, Sidonians, Philistines, and others, as having oppressed the Israelites. They are probably the same with the y Mihaammonim, which our version renders "other besides the Ammo nites," who came against Jehoshaphat, (2Chron. 20. 1,) and with the Mehunim, (2Chron. 26. 7,) who were subdued by King Uzziah. In this last passage they are mentioned with the Arabians. MARAH, (Exod. 15. 23; Numb. 33. 8,) was a place in the desert of Arabia, so called from the bitterness of its waters. When the Israelites came out of Egypt, on their arrival in the wilderness of Etham, they found the water so bitter that neither themselves nor their cattle could drink it; on which account they gave to this encampment the name of Marah, or Bitterness. Most travellers assert that there are several bitter fountains not far from the Red Sea; and Dr. Shaw fixes these waters at Corondel, a place where there is a small rill, which, unless when diluted by dews and rain, still continues to be brackish. A later traveller, Mr. Carne, who visited this region a century after Dr. Shaw, in describing these waters, observes, "The Pool of Marah is of a circular form, about sixty feet round; it gushes forth from a rock at the foot of a barren mountain, and one or two palm-trees spread their shade over it. This pool, the only one found for a great distance around, in spite of its clear and tempting appearance is brackish and bitter to the taste, offering one of the greatest disappointments to the weary traveller, whose thirst indeed may be quenched, though the hope of a sweet and delicious draught is baffled." From Ain Mousa (the Wells of Moses) near that part of the sea where Niebuhr supposes that the passage was made, Burckhardt travelled in fifteen hours and a quarter, (a distance sufficiently great to occupy a body of people like the Israelites three days,) to a well called Howara, the water of which is so bitter, that men cannot drink it; and even camels, if not very thirsty, refuse to taste it. "The name," Lord Lindsay observes, "in the form of Amarah, is now borne by the barren bed of a winter torrent, a little beyond which is still found a well, bearing the name of Howara, whose bitter waters answer to this description. Camels will drink it; but even the thirsty Arabs never drink of it themselves; and it is the only water on the shore of the Red Sea which they cannot drink. This, when first taken into the mouth, seems insipid rather than bitter; but when held in the mouth a few seconds, it becomes extremely nauseous. This well rises within an elevated mound surrounded by sand hills, and two small date-trees grow near it." Professor Robinson says, "Leaving Suez, we took our course around the head of the gulf, the better to observe the features of the country. We pitched our tent at night over against Suez, but somewhat lower down, not far from the place where the Israelites probably came out upon the eastern shore. Here, at our evening devotions, and near the spot where it was composed and first sung, we read and felt in its full force the magnificent triumphal song of Moses: 'The Lord hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he hath thrown into the sea!' A desert plain extends along the eastern shore of the gulf for nearly fifty miles, bounded on the east by a range of hills or mountains twelve or fifteen miles from the coast. At three hours and a half from the northern end are the brackish Fountains of Moses (Ayûn Mûsa); and then for eighteen hours, or about forty-five miles further, no water is found. This is probably the desert of Shur or Ethan, in which the Israelites journeyed for three days without water. Then occurs the bitter fountain Hawara, corresponding to the ancient Marah; and two hours further is the Wady Ghŭrundel, probably Elim, where are still water and a few palmFrom opposite this point a ridge of chalky mountains, Jebel Hămmâm, runs along the sea for some distance, and cuts off all passage along the shore. The Israelites must therefore of necessity have passed by the present road inside of these mountains, to the head of Wady Tayibeh, and so down this wady to the gulf, where they next encamped by the Red Sea.' Hence they would seem to have followed the lower road to Mount Sinai, through the Wadys Mukatteb and Feirân; but the stations are mentioned so indefinitely, that no hope remains of their ever being identified.” trees. The waters of Marah were sweetened by the branch of a tree, which Moses by Divine direction cast into them, perhaps from some natural quality in the tree; for Forskal, who travelled with Niebuhr as botanist, mentions a plant which possesses such a quality, and which was known in the East Indies; and this supposition is favoured by the Sacred Record: The Lord showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet." See ALVAH. In Roberts observes, "This water which was bitter or brackish, (Dr. Shaw says the latter,) was thus made sweet by the casting in of the tree. Some suppose it was a bitter wood, such as quassia, which corrected the water. Water is often brackish in the neighbourhood of salt pans or the sea, and the natives in India correct it by throwing in it the wood called perru nelli (Phylanthus emblica). Should the water be very bad, they line the well with planks cut out of this tree. swampy grounds, or when there has not been rain for a long time, the water is often muddy and very unwholesome. But Providence has again been bountiful by giving to the people the teatta marum (Strychnos potatorum). All who live in the neighbourhood of such water, or who have to travel where it is, always carry a supply of the nuts of this tree. They grind one or two of them on the side of an earthen vessel; the water is then poured in, and the impurities soon subside." MARBLE granular, crystalline, and of a colour varying from pure white to gray and yellowish. It is sometimes found in irregular masses, or beds, or large nodules, with little or no appearance of stratification; more generally, however, it is regularly stratified, and these strata alternate with other rocks, and are of all varieties of thickness. The texture varies from a highly crystalline, of a larger or finer grain, to a compact and even earthy. Other substances are sometimes combined with the simple rock, which modify its appearance and texture, such as mica, quartz, hornblende. It is never found in veins, except in the form of regular crystals, and, in this respect, it exactly resembles quartz. There is considerable difficulty in drawing the line of distinction between the primary and secondary limestones, where the latter do not happen to contain organic remains. In the primary limestone, strictly speaking, no organic remains have yet been discovered. With one or two exceptions, and as a general rule, it may be said, they, like the primary schists, are almost destitute of organic bodies. Like the strata which it accompanies, beds of limestone are often bent and contorted, evidently from disturbance below. The colours vary from a pure white, which constitutes the statuary marble, to various shades of gray, brown, black, and green. These tints are derived from a carbonaceous matter or oxide of iron, or an admixture of other minerals. The variety of stones mentioned in Esther 1. 6, as forming the pavement of the palace at Shushan, refers most probably to marble of different colours. The bahat; Sept. oμapaydɩīns, “red marble," was, Gesenius thinks, the verde-antico, or half porphyry of Egypt. The 7 dar; Sept. πivvivos Xilos, pearl stone, or "blue marble," is probably mother-of-pearl. Gesenius remarks, there is a sort of alabaster called perlenmutterstein, mother-of-pearl stone. Bochart, however, gives examples from descriptions of Asiatic luxury where pearls are said to have been used for inlaying the floor. The sochereth; Sept. IIapivos Milos, is likewise mentioned, as "black marble," with the other kinds of marble for forming a pavement. Gesenius says, perhaps tortoise-shell. Others, from the rendering of the Syriac, think it refers to black marble. The pavement in the palace of Ahasuerus was no doubt of mosaic work, the floors of the apartments being laid with painted tiles, or slabs of marble; in the same way as Dr. Russell describes the houses of the wealthy in modern times. In these a portion of the pavement of the courts is of mosaic, and it is usually that part which lies between the fountain and the arched MARESHA, TN (Josh. 15. 44,) was a fenced city in the plain of the tribe of Judah, near which Asa routed the Ethiopians. (2Chron. 14. 9.) Jerome and Eusebius call it Morasthi, and state that it was two miles from Eleutheropolis. During the Captivity, and for some time after, it was possessed by the Idumæans, but the victories of the Asamonean princes restored it to Judæa. It afterwards fell into ruin, and was repaired by Gabinius, the Roman president of Syria (B.C. 57-54), but its site is now uncertain. MARINER, п mellach. (Ezek. 27. 9; Jonah 1. 5.) In the passage in the Book of Jonah, (1.5,) it is said, "Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them; but Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay and was fast asleep." Roberts says, "There never was a more natural description of the conduct of a heathen crew in a storm than this. No sooner does danger come, than one begins to beat his head, and cry aloud, Siva, Siva; another piteously shrieks, and beats his breast, and says, Vishnoo; and a third strikes his thigh, and shouts with all his might, Varuna. Thus do they 'cry to their gods,' instead of doing their duty. More than once have I been in these circumstances, and never can I forget the storm, the heathen mariners always conclude that there horror and helplessness of these poor idolaters. In a is some one on board who has committed a great crime, and they begin to inquire, Who is the sinner? Some time ago, a number of native vessels left the roads of Negapatam, at the same hour, for Point Pedro, in the island of Ceylon; they had not been long at sea before it was perceived that one of them could not make any direction; but the other vessels went on beautifully way; she rolled and pitched, and veered about in every before the wind. The captain and his crew began to look at the passengers, and at last fixed their eyes upon hold. a poor woman, who was crouched in a corner of the 'Let down the canoe,' was the order, and take this woman ashore;' in vain she remonstrated, she was compelled to enter, and was soon landed on the beach. After this, as they thought, the vessel sailed as well as any other. When the storm rages, they make vows to alcove on the south side that is thus beautified. See place, another will perform a penance, and a third will their gods; one will go on a pilgrimage to some holy HOUSE. MARCH. The word tsiadah, which occurs in Psalm 68. 7, “ When thou didst march through the wilderness," is also applied to a short chain mentioned in Isaiah 3. 20, with which the Oriental women fasten the bracelets of one foot to the other in order to make short gentle steps. By the prophet Jeremiah another word is used: in ch. 46. 22 it is said, "The voice thereof shall go like a serpent, they shall march with an army." Here the Hebrew word is halach, to go, walk, proceed. That the soldiers in the ancient Egyptian and Hebrew armies marched to the sound of music, especially to that of the trumpet, is evident from the paintings on the monuments of the country of the former. See ARMS, ARMOUR, ARMY. MARCUS. See MARK. make a valuable present to his favourite temple. The offering of a sacrifice is generally done when they get offered cocoa-nuts and other articles with the greatest safe to shore; but I have been on board when they have earnestness. To interfere with them is not always prudent; because were it not from the hope they have from such offerings, they would cease to work the vessel." MARK, Mаρкоя, Marcus, or John Mark, the writer of the second Gospel, was the nephew of Barnabas. This Evangelist was not an Apostle or companion of our Lord during his ministry, though Epiphanius and several other Fathers affirm that he was one of the seventy disciples. All that we learn from the New Testament concerning him is, that he was "sister's son to Barnabas," (Col. 4. 10;) and the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the Apostles and first Christians often assembled. (Acts 12. 12.) His Hebrew name was John, and Michaëlis thinks that he adopted the surname of Mark when he left Judæa to preach the Gospel in foreign countries,-a practice not unusual among the Jews of that age, who frequently assumed a name more familiar to the nations which they visited, than by that by which they had been distinguished in their own country. From St. Peter styling him his son, (1 Peter 5. 13,) this Evangelist is supposed to have been converted by St. Peter; after whose deliverance he went from Jerusalem with Paul and Barnabas, and soon after accompanied them to other countries, (Acts 13. 5;) but declining to attend them through their whole progress, he returned to Jerusalem, and kept up an intercourse with St. Peter and the other Apostles. Afterwards, however, when Paul and Barnabas settled at Antioch on the termination of their journey, we find Mark with them now disposed to accompany them in their future journeys. At this time he went with Barnabas to Cyprus, (Acts 15. 37-39,) and subsequently accompanied Timothy to Rome, at the express desire of St. Paul, (2Tim. 4. 11,) during his confinement in that city, whence Mark sent his salutations to Philemon (24,) and to the church at Colosse. (Col. 4. 10.) From Rome he probably went into Asia, where he found St. Peter, with whom he returned to that city, in which he is supposed to have written and published his Gospel. From Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, we learn that Mark, after he had written his Gospel, went to Egypt; and having planted a church at Alexandria, Jerome states that he died and was buried there in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. Baronius, Cave, Wetstein, and other writers affirm that St. Mark suffered martyrdom; but this is not mentioned by Eusebius or any other ancient writer, and is contrary to the statement of Jerome, which seems to imply that he died a natural death. MARK, GOSPEL OF ST. This book, the second of the New Testament, has come down to us with some variety of title. Thus it is entitled in the Vatican Manuscript Kara Mapкov, "According to Mark;" in the Alexandrian Manuscript, the Codex Beza, the Codex Regius 62, and some other editions, it is styled Το κατα Μαρκον Ευαγγελιον, “The Gospel according | to Mark;" and in some manuscripts and editions, To κατα Μαρκον ἁγιον Ευαγγελιον, " The Holy Gospel according to Mark," or, as in the authorized English version, "The Gospel according to St. Mark." In the Syriac version, in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, it is entitled, "The Gospel of the Evangelist Mark;" in the Arabic version, "The Gospel of St. Mark the Apostle, which he wrote in the Roman (tongue), by the inspiration of the Spirit of Holiness;" and in the Persian version, "The beginning of the Gospel of Mark, which was written at Rome in the Latin tongue." That St. Mark was the author of the Gospel that bears his name is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of ancient historians, particularly Papias, by several writers of the first century consulted by Eusebius, by Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Ammonius, Origen, and by all the Fathers of the third and following centuries. Though not cited by name, this Gospel appears to be alluded to by Clement of Rome in the first century; but the testimony of antiquity is not equally uniform respecting the order in which it should be placed. Clement of Alexandria affirms that the Gospels containing the genealogies were first written; according to this account, Mark wrote after Luke; but Papias, on the information of John the Presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of the Apostles, expressly states that it was the second in order; which is also supported by Irenæus and other writers. Some authorities have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it "The Gospel according to St. Peter;" by which title they did not mean to question St. Mark's right to be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the sanction of St. Peter's name. The following passage in Eusebius appears to contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this Gospel that we think it right to transcribe it:-" The lustre of piety so enlightened Peter's hearers at Rome, that they were not contented with the bare hearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they earnestly requested St. Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant upon St. Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist till they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the writing of that Gospel, which is called 'according to St. Mark; and they say that the Apostle being informed of what was done, by the revelation of the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorized the writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this account in the sixth book of his Institutions; and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, bears testimony to it." Jerome also says, that St. Mark wrote a short Gospel from what he had heard from St. Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome, which, when St. Peter knew, he approved and published it in the Church, commanding the reading of it by his own authority. Though the testimony to the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospel of St. Mark is so satisfactory, yet some critics have thought, from their absence from certain manuscripts, that the last twelve verses of the sixteenth chapter, which give a brief account of Our Lord's appearance to Mary Magdalene and his disciples after his resurrection, his charge to his Apostles, and his ascension into heaven, were not written by the Evangelist. The question may be thus briefly stated: Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, has said in his second discourse on the resurrection, that this Gospel terminates, in "the most exact manuscripts," with the words coβουντο γαρ, “ for they were afraid,” with which the eighth verse of the chapter concludes, and Jerome has observed that few of the Greek manuscripts which he had seen contained these verses. But the very concise affirmation of Jerome is greatly restricted by what he had himself said of a various reading in the fourteenth verse, that it is found in some copies, and especially in Greek manuscripts. It is evident, therefore, that in the former passage he has exaggerated, which is no unusual occurrence with this writer. With regard to the assertion of Gregory, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what he intended by "the most exact manuscripts." Perhaps he merely meant manuscripts more correctly written, but this merit alone would add nothing to their authority; nor can we now ascertain the recension to which they belonged. We must, therefore, examine the evidences which actually exist. The verses in question are certainly wanting in the Vatican manuscripts; and in numbers 137 and 138 of Griesbach's notation, they are marked with an asterisk, as doubtful; they are also wanting in the canons of Eusebius; but on the other hand, their authenticity is attested by authorities of the greatest importance. These verses are extant in the Codex Alexandrinus; the most considerable portion of the disputed passage, (that is, the first seven verses,) is in the Codex Bezæ, à prima manu, but the remainder has been added by a later hand, and they are extant in the Greek commentaries of Theophylact. The whole twelve verses are likewise found in the MARK, GOSPEL OF ST. Peschito (or Old Syriac) and Arabic versions, and in those manuscripts of the Vulgate Latin version which are not mutilated at the end of the second Gospel; and they are cited by Augustine, Ambrose, and Leo, bishop of Rome, (surnamed the Great,) who followed this version. But what is of most importance is, that the manner in which so ancient a writer as Irenæus in the second century refers to this Gospel, renders it highly probable that the whole passage was read in all the copies known to him. His words are:-"But at the end of the Gospel Mark says, 'And when the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."" Hippolytus, who wrote in the early part of the third century, also bears testimony in favour of the disputed fragment, in the beginning of his book Пepi XapioμaTwv. There is likewise not a single manuscript containing the above verse, which has not also the whole passage from the eighth to the end; nor is there a single manuscript in which this verse is wanting, that does not also want the whole. No authority of equal antiquity has yet been produced on the other side. It has been conjectured that the difficulty of reconciling St. Mark's account of Our Lord's appearances after his resurrection with those of the other Evangelists, has emboldened some transcribers to omit them. The plausibility of this conjecture renders it highly probable; to which we may subjoin, that the abruptness of the conclusion of this history, without the words in question, and the want of anything like a reason for adding them if they had not been there originally, afford a strong collateral proof of their authenticity. Dr. Campbell remarks, "Tran"Transcribers presume to add and alter in order to remove contradictions, but not in order to make them. The conclusion, therefore, is, that the disputed fragment is an integral part of the Gospel of St. Mark, and consequently is genuine." That the original language of this Gospel was Greek, is attested by the unanimous voice of antiquity; nor was this point ever disputed until the Cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine, and after them, the Jesuit Inchofer, anxious to exalt the language in which the Latin Vulgate version was executed, affirmed that St. Mark wrote in Latin. This assertion, however, not only contradicts historical evidence, but is in itself almost incredible; for, as the Latin church, from the very earliest ages of Christianity, was in a very flourishing state, and as the Latin language was diffused over the whole Roman empire, the Latin original of St. Mark's Gospel, if it had ever existed, could not have been neglected in such a manner as that no copy of it should descend to posterity. The only semblance of testimony that has been produced in support of this opinion, is the subscription annexed to the old Syriac version, that St. Mark wrote in the Romish, that is, in the Latin language, and that in the Philoxenian version, which explains Romish by "Frankish." But subscriptions of this kind are of no authority whatever; for the authors of them are unknown, and some of them contain the most glaring errors. Besides, as the Syriac version was made in the East, and taken immediately from the Greek, no appeal can be made to a Syriac subscription in regard to the language in which St. Mark wrote at Rome. The advocates for the Latin original of this Gospel have appealed to a Latin manuscript, pretended to be the autograph of the Evangelist himself, and said to be preserved in the library of St. Mark, at Venice; but this is now proved to be a mere fable: for the Venetian manuscript formerly made part of the Latin manuscript preserved at Friuli, most of which was printed by Blanchini, in his Evangeliarum Quadruplex. The Venice manuscript contained the first 825 forty pages, or five quaternions of St. Mark's Gospel; the two last quaternions, or sixteen pages, are preserved at Prague, where they were printed by M. Dobrowsky, under the title of Fragmentum Pragense Evangelii S. Marci vulgo autographi, 1778, in 4to. Simplicity and conciseness appear to be the characteristics of St. Mark's Gospel, which, considering the copiousness and majesty of its subject, the variety of great actions it relates, and the surprising circumstances that attended them, together with the numerous and important doctrines and precepts which it contains, is the shortest and clearest of any history ever given to the world. Different dates have been assigned to this Gospel; but from an almost unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any ancient authority for supposing that St. Peter was in that city until A.D. 64, we are inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about A.D. 65. St. Mark having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from peculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons. Quotations from the ancient prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs, are, as much as possible, avoided; and such explanations are added as might be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome; thus, when Jordan is first mentioned in this Gospel, the word "river" is prefixed; (1. 5;) the Oriental word "corban" is said to mean a gift, (7. 11;) "the preparation" is said to be the day before the Sabbath, (15. 42;) and “defiled hands" are said to mean unwashed hands, (7. 2;) and the superstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large than it would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem. Some learned men, from a collation of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's Gospels, have pointed out the use of the same words and expressions in so many instances, that it has been supposed St. Mark wrote with St. Matthew's Gospel before him; but the similarity is not strong enough to warrant such a conclusion, and seems no greater than might have arisen from other causes. St. Peter would naturally recite, in his preaching, the same events and discourses which St. Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and the same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who sought not after "excellency of speech," but whose minds retained the remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them, even without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural guidSt. Mark's imperfect description of Christ's transactions with the Apostles after his resurrection, affords strong proof that he was unacquainted with the contents of St. Matthew's Gospel. The latter Evangelist has given us a very circumstantial description of Christ's conversation with his Apostles on a mountain in Galilee, yet the former, though he had before related Christ's promise that he would go before them into Galilee, has, in the last chapter of his Gospel, no account whatever of Christ's appearance in Galilee. Now, if he had read St. Matthew's Gospel, this important event could not have been unknown to him, and consequently he would not have neglected to record it. Michaëlis observes that "If St. Mark had had St. Matthew's Gospel before him, he would have avoided every appearance of contradiction to the accounts given by an Apostle and an eye-witness. His account of the call of Levi, under the very same circumstance as St. Matthew mentions his own call, is at least a variation from St. Matthew's description; and this very variation would have been avoided, if St. Mark had had access to St. Matthew's Gospel. The same may be observed of Mark 10. 46, where only one blind man ance. |