(4.) But I take leave to point out that this substituted phrase, instead of being a suspicious circumstance, is on the contrary a striking note of genuineness. For do we not recognise here, in the last chapter of the Gospel, the very same hand which, in the first chapter of it, was careful to inform us, just for once, that “Judæa,” is “a _country_,” (ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα,)—and “Jordan,” “a _river_,” (ὁ Ἰορδάνης ποταμός)?—Is not this the very man who explained to his readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar Jewish designation for “Friday,” ἡ παρασκευή, denotes “_the day before the Sabbath_?”(265)—and who was so minute in informing us (in chap. vii. 3, 4) about certain ceremonial practices of “the Pharisees and all the Jews?” Yet more,—Is not the self-same writer clearly recognisable in this xvith chapter, who in chap. vi. 37 presented us with σπεκουλάτωρ (the Latin _spiculator_) for “an executioner?” and who, in chap. xv. 39, for “a _centurion_,” wrote—not ἑκατόνταρχος, but—κεντυρίων?—and, in chap. xii. 42, explained that the two λεπτά which the poor widow cast into the Treasury were equivalent to κοδράντης, the Latin _quadrans_?—and in chap. vii. 4, 8, introduced the Roman measure _sextarius_, (ξέστης)?—and who volunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that αὐλή is only another designation of πραιτώριον (_Prætorium_)?—Yes. S. Mark,—who, alone of the four Evangelists, (in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the Cyrenian was “_the father of Alexander and Rufus_,” evidently for the sake of his _Latin_ readers:(266) S. Mark,—who alone ventures to write in Greek letters (οὐά,—chap. xv. 29,) the Latin interjection “_Vah!_”—obviously because he was writing where that exclamation was most familiar, and the force of it best understood:(267) S. Mark,—who attends to the Roman division of the day, in relating our LORD’S prophecy to S. Peter:(268)—S. Mark, I say, no doubt it was who,—having conformed himself to the precedent set him by S. Matthew and the familiar usage of Palestine; and having written τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων, (which he knew would sound like “_una sabbatorum_,”(269)) in ver. 2;—introduced, also for the benefit of his Latin readers, the Greek equivalent for “_prima sabbati_,” (viz. πρώτη σαββάτου,) in ver. 9.—This, therefore, I repeat, so far from being a circumstance “_unfavourable_ to its authenticity,” (by which, I presume, the learned writer means its _genuineness_), is rather corroborative of the Church’s constant belief that the present section of S. Mark’s Gospel is, equally with the rest of it, the production of S. Mark. “Not only was the document intended for Gentile converts:” (remarks Dr. Davidson, p. 149,) “but there are also appearances of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians in particular.” Just so. And I venture to say that in the whole of “the document” Dr. Davidson will not find a more striking “appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians,”—_and therefore of its genuineness_,—than this.