19.  It is universally admitted that Matthew wrote his gospel in Palestine.  This fact accounts for the absence of explanatory clauses relating to Jewish usages, such as are not unfrequent in the gospel of Mark.  As to the interpretation of Hebrew words, as “Immanuel” (chap. 1:23); and the words on the cross (chap. 27:46), that belongs to the Greek form of the gospel.  The date of this gospel is doubtful.  According to the tradition of the ancient church it was written first of the four gospels.  Assuming that it originally appeared in Hebrew, we may reasonably suppose that a period of some years elapsed before it was put into its present Greek form.

20.  The integrity of this gospel is unquestionable.  In modern times the genuineness of the first two chapters has been called in question by various writers, but the insufficiency of their arguments has been shown by many, among whom may be mentioned Davidson, Introduction to New Testament, vol. 1, pp. 111-127.  In the words of this writer the chapters in question are found “in all unmutilated Greek MSS., and in all ancient versions;” “the earliest fathers had them in their copies, and received them as a part of the gospel;” “the ancient heretics and opponents of Christianity were acquainted with this portion of the first gospel;” “the commencement of the first chapter is closely connected with something preceding;” and “the diction of these two chapters bears the same impress and character which belong to the remainder of the gospel, proving that the gospel, as we now have it, proceeded from one author.”

III.  MARK.

21.  There is no valid ground for doubting the correctness of the ancient tradition which identifies the author of the second gospel with “John whose surname was Mark” (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37), who is called simply John (Acts 13:5, 13), and Marcus or Mark (Acts 15:39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; perhaps also 1 Peter 5:13).  He was cousin to Barnabas (Col. 4:10, not sister’s son, as in our version), which relationship may explain Barnabas’ earnest defence of him (Acts 15:37-39).  His mother Mary resided in Jerusalem, and it was to her house that Peter resorted immediately upon his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts 12:12).  The intimacy of Peter with Mary’s family must have brought about an early acquaintance between the apostle and Mark.  Ancient tradition uniformly affirms a close relation between Peter and Mark, representing the latter to have been the disciple and interpreter of the former.  See below.

Papias (in Eusebius’ Hist.  Eccl. 3. 39) says, upon the authority of John the Presbyter, “Mark being Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he remembered; not, indeed, as giving in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ.  For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as I said, of Peter, who gave his instructions as