Mark xv. 21. It was the ordinary Roman custom for criminals to bear their own crosses to the place of execution, whence Furcifer became a term of the most extreme ignominy. As the Redeemer drank to the very dregs, the cup which His Father had given Him, and as He makes an instructive allusion to "taking up the cross," it would appear most probable that His biographers should represent Him in that degraded situation. Nevertheless, without assigning any reason, St. Mark (confirmed in this point by Matthew and Luke) devolves this office upon another-not upon one of the soldiers-not upon any one mentioned as a prisoner, nor an inhabitant even of Jerusalem, but upon 66 one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country." Nor is it mentioned, in order to lend verisimilitude to the story, that he was known or suspected to be a disciple of Christ. One particular indeed is added by St. Mark, which, while calculated to draw the attention of his readers to this person, seems yet nothing at all to his main purposes, this Simon, he tells us, was "the father of Alexander and Rufus." Had he mentioned him as the son of such a one, there would have been nothing singular, for this phrase is extremely common in the Eastern languages, and also in Greek: but why add the names of his children? Either they were persons well known among the ancient Christians or otherwise: If they were well known, here is a tacit appeal to the knowledge which Simon and his family possessed of the death of Christ, and of the prodigies by which it was accompanied. From whence then could this proceed, but from the boldness of conscious truth? But if Alexander and Rufus were unknown, why introduce their names? Such an allusion must then not only have appeared impertinent, but must have naturally led to the question among contemporary persons, who are these individuals spoken of as familiarly known in the Church? we never heard of them.' Hence would have arisen a suspicion little creditable to the Christian history. Upon the whole, I cannot think that a writer anxious to produce rather things probable than things true, would have entangled himself with an allusion so apparently superfluous and inconvenient. 14. No reluctance appears in these historians, to mention the names of persons upon whom miracles are stated to have been wrought. Thus Mark x. 46, "blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus," must, if a real character, have been known to the people of Jericho, and it must also have been known whether his blindness was truly cured. Mary Magdalene, or of Magdala,* is * A well known city beyond the lake of Tiberias. described (Luke viii. 2) as one "out of whom went seven devils :" and John xviii. 10, the man whose ear Peter cut off, and whom Christ restored, is said to be Malchus, a servant of the High Priest: this person must have been known, and his brother is afterwards mentioned, (v. 26) as one who conversed with Peter, when he publicly denied his Master. In all these cases, the mention of names would seem to occasion a needless risk, especially as miraculous relations must more forcibly call the attention of men to the individuals connected with them. 15. Chuza, Herod's steward-Zaccheus, the chief publican at Jericho-Lazarus, and his sisters, who were evidently people of some consequence at Bethany-Joseph of Arimathæa, and Nicodemus, members of the Sanhedrim-Simon the Leper, at Bethany: all these persons were doubtless generally known in their day, and some of them, we must suppose to have been living at the time when the Gospels were written. 16. This particularity extends also to historical facts and persons. In Luke iii. 1, 2, we have a minute enumeration of the districts surrounding the scene of Christ's ministry, and of their civil governors, at the time when John the Baptist began to preach. Herod the great is distinctly and most unfavourably mentioned, in connection with the visit of the Magi to Bethlehem, and with the murder of the innocents. To Herod Antipas is ascribed the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist ;* he is represented also as making remarks upon Christ, as even seeking to slay Him, as pointed out by our Lord under the designation of a Fox:' and, when Jesus was sent to him by Pilate, as mocking Him with his men of war.' Caiaphas the High Priest utters a prophecy concerning Christ,+ and takes an active part in his trial before the Council; indeed from the language of St. Matthew (xxvi. 59) we are led to infer, that he united with the rest of the hierarchy, in seeking false witness against Jesus. Lastly, the wavering, timid, and time-serving conduct of Pontius Pilate is delineated in several vivid portraits. Now the policy of imposture would, surely, have never dictated such allusions as these. They fearlessly hold up to general obloquy, the characters of public and powerful men. If indeed we assume the truth of the History, the publication of such facts was, in many instances, unavoidable; but if they were in any instance false, what could their authors have expected but enquiry and suspicion-if not indignant refutation and punishment? If the personages thus attacked, had left such charges * See Matt. xiv. Luke ix. 7. xiii. 31-2, xxiii. 11. unnoticed, there were enemies enough of the Gospel among the Pharisees and chief priests, who would have been eager to expose their falsehood-and this would have been more probable during the first preaching of the Apostles, at a time when the believing and unbelieving Jews were brought into direct and hostile collision. A writer, conscious to himself of falsehood, or of any sinister view, would have avoided, as much as possible, references-especially those of an invidious nature, to public events or characters. He might venture to be particular indeed where he felt himself to be in safe company, in the bosom of his own party, or among characters of his own creation-but he would shrink from entering the precincts of real life, lest the sober light of truth should at once unmask him. |