The Lost and Hostile Gospels: An Essay on the Toledoth Jeschu, and the Petrine and Pauline Gospels of the First Three Centuries of Which Fragments RemainBaring-Gould, S. (Sabine)
History
The Lost and Hostile Gospels: An Essay on the Toledoth Jeschu, and the Petrine and Pauline Gospels of the First Three Centuries of Which Fragments Remain
Baring-Gould, S. (Sabine)
Apocryphal Gospels
they should deceive the very
elect.
xxiv. 23 Then if any man shall xxiv. 26 Wherefore if they
say unto you, Lo, here is shall say unto you, Behold, he
Christ, or there; believe it is in the desert, go not
not. forth: behold, he is in the
secret chamber; believe it
not.
The existence in the first Canonical Gospel of these duplicate passages
proves that the editor of it in its present form made use of materials
from different sources, which he worked together into a complete whole.
And these duplicate passages are the more remarkable, because, where his
memory does not fail him, he takes pains to avoid repetition.
It would seem therefore plain that the compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel
made use of, first, a Collection of the Sayings of the Lord, of undoubted
genuineness, drawn up by St. Matthew; second, of two or more Collections
of the Sayings and Doings of the Lord, also, no doubt, genuine, but not
necessarily by St. Matthew.
One of these sources was made use of also by St. Mark in the composition
of his Gospel.
According to the testimony of Papias:
“John the Priest said this: Mark being the interpreter of Peter,
whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not,
however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord,
for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said,
he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as
occasion called forth, but did not study to give a history of our
Lord’s discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by
writing this and that as he has remembered them; for he was
carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he
heard, nor to state anything falsely in these accounts.”(265)
It has been often asked and disputed, whether this statement applies to
the Gospel of St. Mark received by the Church into her sacred canon.
It can hardly be denied that the Canonical Gospel of Mark does answer in
every particular to the description of its composition by John the Priest.
John gives five characteristics to the work of Mark:
1. A striving after accuracy.(266)
2. Want of chronological succession in his narrative, which had rather the
character of a string of anecdotes and sayings than of a biography.(267)
3. It was composed of records of both the sayings and the _doings_ of
Jesus.(268)
4. It was no syntax of sayings (σύνταξις λογίων), like the work of
Matthew.(269)
5. It was the composition of a companion of Peter.(270)
These characteristic features of the work of Mark agree with the Mark
Gospel, some of the special features of which are:
1. Want of order: it is made up of a string of episodes and anecdotes, and
of sayings manifestly unconnected.
2. The order of events is wholly different from that in Matthew, Luke and
John.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account