a
igemen
=
Ye : (Na hides εἰ seta Cara cow
4
Uoey. me. x vf
DISSERTATIONS
UPON AN
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.
fi ε"-. a a J ee an - ~ we Aa ue eo « ,» 1 “ - _* “ oe : " ᾿ν ν am - = vs ΩΝ ἊΝ ¥ ' ¢ ΝΕ ’ " ν & . . = dé « ‘
re al esi ra ~Wey 2)
DISSERTATIONS
UPON
THE PRINCIPLES
AND
ARRANGEMENT
OF AN
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.
BY
EDWARD’ GRESWELL, B. D.
FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD.
rr
SECOND EDITION,
IN FOUR VOLUMES.
FOL... 1.
OXFORD, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
MDCCCXXXVII.
ia
; sn a eit ihe ales NLA
PAL
rns ὧν; ia et Psy
᾿ Ὁ ἢ ΠῚ Leas: hI ae URBEKA oT.
ADVERTISEMENT.
In reprinting the Dissertations on the principles and arrangement of an Harmony of the Gospels, published at the University Press in 1830; it has been considered adviseable to adopt a larger type, and to depart from the order of the first edition, so far as to transfer to the Appendix some entire Dissertations, and either to the Appendix or to the notes parts of others, which might be conve- niently removed from their former situation in the body of the work ; and to number the Disserta- tions consecutively through the several volumes, as far as the Appendix ; the Dissertations assigned to which are still separately numbered as before. In other respects, excepting only verbal alterations or corrections of the style, which the Author has freely made, it will be found that little, if any thing, forms a part of the first edition, which is not included in the second.
The contents of the supplementary volume, published at the University Press in 1834, are in- corporated in this Edition; the Dissertations, in the Appendix, and the Notes, in their proper places in the body of the work. Fresh matter has been added to the notes in various instances ; and four integral Dissertations now stand in the Appendix,
a 3
vi ADVERTISEMENT.
which have never before appeared in print—the Supplement to Appendix, Dissertation xi; the Sup- plement to Dissertation xv. and Appendix, Dis- sertation xix; and the two Supplements to Appen- dix, Dissertation xxvii. which conclude the work. For an account of each of these the reader is re- ferred to the synopsis of the Appendix, or to the tables of contents of the third and fourth volumes respectively.
Among the Tables, at the end of the fourth vo- lume, there is one which will shew the order and place of the Dissertations in the first edition, and in the supplementary volume, as they are now ar- ranged in the second; another, which accommodates the references to the first edition of the Disserta- tions, in the Harmonia Evangelica, to the second ; and a third, which does the same for the references to the first edition, or to the supplementary volume, in the Exposition of the Parables, by the same Author, and published in 1834 and 1835.
In the tables of dates, and other chronological statements, references have been added to the places in the Dissertations, where the statements in question will be found to be verified. Each of the four volumes is provided with a much more circumstantial table of contents than before; and the whole with a general index of matters, which, whether as @omplete as it might have been made or not, will be found, it is hoped, sufficiently copious to be useful for all ordinary purposes.
ADVERTISEMENT. Vil
The fourth volume, from the size which it was found to have attained in comparison of the pre- ceding, has been necessarily divided into two parts ; the second part beginning with the Twenty- seventh Dissertation of the Appendix, and the numbering of the pages running on, so that it may still be bound up in one volume with the first part, or separately, as the purchasers of it may prefer.
Lastly ; no pains have been spared to render this second edition as accurate as possible, and as safely to be depended upon as the judgment of the Author was competent to make it. There is no statement in it, from first to last, it may almost be said upon any point, and certainly upon any point of importance, which has not been considered and reconsidered, before it was allowed to stand: there is not a fact alleged, or an authority appealed to, which has not been carefully examined afresh, to satisfy the Author of its truth, or that it would fairly justify the use which had been made of it: there is not a quotation of any kind, which has not been collated with the original; nor a reference, with one or two exceptions, which has not been verified by the Author and Editor of the work himself, as it was passing through the press.
Errors or oversights may possibly have escaped him, notwithstanding all this care to guard against them; but he trusts that they are few, and after this explanation, that, even if detected, they will be entitled to indulgence. And though he has disco-
a 4
Vill ADVERTISEMENT.
vered from experience that much of these pre- cautions was superfluous, and might have been dispensed with, without detriment to the character of the work; he can never regret that they have been taken, or think any degree of labour ill-be- stowed to acquit himself in the most satisfactory manner of the responsibility of the Author, and the duty of the Editor of a work, devoted to a subject, the importance and dignity of which it is not easy to overrate—and emanating from a Press, the well established reputation of which would be compromised by the inaccuracy of any of its productions—and once more laid before the public, through the liberality of its Board of Delegates.
C. C. C. OXFORD, Feb. 20, 1837.
PREFACE
TO
THE FIRST EDITION.
THe advantages of Harmonies of the Gospels have been acknowledged and illustrated even from so re- mote a period as the time of Tatian, the contemporary and reputed disciple of Justin Martyr; so that to expatiate upon them, at the outset of the present work, may justly be considered superfluous. The number of the Gospels, which are four distinct compositions, the community of the subject to which they relate, the vast importance of the Gospel history itself, the very differences, or apparent differences, which exist in the several accounts, seem partly to invite, and partly to require, their comparison and adjustment. No one can study them with that attention which they de- serve, or with that sense of personal interest in them which they are calculated to excite, without endea- vouring to harmonize them, in some manner or other, for himself: he cannot be content to peruse what one of the Evangelists has written, without feeling a wish to contrast his statements with those of another: he cannot consider the general structure and economy of one Gospel, without examining, or desiring to examine, what relation the plan of that one bears to the consti- tution of the rest.
The pains bestowed upon the composition of Har- monies, as well as the zeal and assiduity with which every other department of sacred literature has been cultivated, are, however, almost an exclusive charac- teristic of modern times. The Harmony, or Diates-
x PREFACE TO
saron, of Tatian, and the Canons of Ammonius, are not merely the earliest, but perhaps the only, speci- mens of the kind which appear to have been produced for many centuries after the Christian era; but the number which might be cited as the fruit of modern diligence and application would not fall much short of two hundred. This fact is sufficient to prove both the interest which has been taken in the subject of Har- monies, and the difficulty, not less than the supposed necessity, of such compositions.
It is an obvious inference from the same fact that, with so many in existence, it is scarcely to be ex- pected that another should now be constructed, and by its originality be capable of recommending itself to that fastidious appetite for novelty which, upon ordi- nary subjects, is too apt to reject with disgust the re- petition of what is old or familiar. It is possible, how- ever, that many things may be original, as concerns a particular work, which are not so, perhaps, in them- selves. But upon the subject before us, the desire of change or novelty is least of all things to be gratified from choice, and out of deference to the taste of readers. We cannot be perpetually labouring to frame new systems of Harmonies, and so far overthrowing old, without running the risk of exciting doubts and scruples, which otherwise might never have arisen. The necessity of repeating the same attempt so often would seem, at first sight, to authorize the inference that we cannot even enter upon it with the prospect of success. The difference of opinion which prevails among commentators upon Scripture, the great variety and incompatibility between their several modes of re- conciling the same accounts, would be calculated, with some minds, to operate reflexively against the belief of the truth or the consistency of those accounts them-
THE FIRST EDITION. ΧΙ
selves. This evil is unquestionably liable to result from the multiplication of Harmonies; and it should be some ground of discouragement against any preci- pitate and unadvised endeavour to compile more in ad- dition to those which are already in being.
If, however, it is not in the nature of things impos- sible for the four Gospel narratives to be satisfactorily reduced to one, it is not in the nature of things impos- sible for a perfect Harmony to be composed: but as only one method of reconciling those accounts can be absolutely just and true, so only one Harmony, such as should be founded altogether on the principle of that method, would be absolutely just and perfect. As every method, which should differ from that one, would be false in the principle, so it would necessarily lead to erroneous results in the application ; and every scheme, which should be constructed upon such a principle, would be radically faulty, and unavoidably fail of its effect. Ifa particular harmonist has not been fortu- nate enough to discover the principle in question, it is no wonder that his peculiar system should be defective in itself, though unlike any other; that Harmonies, in short, should be almost infinitely numerous, and yet all more or less imperfect. To (γὰρ) ἁμαρτάνειν πολλα- χῶς ἐστί"... τὸ δὲ κατορθοῦν μοναχῶς.
Perhaps, then, neither the number nor the diver- sity of the Harmonies in circulation is justly to be imputed to the obscurity or the inconsistency of the Evangelical narratives themselves: they are presump- tive proofs of nothing except of this, viz. that many among these systems must differ widely not only from each other, but also from the truth. The renewal of the same attempt by one is but a confession of its failure in the hands of another; for if any Harmony had yet been constructed which the judgment of the
ει PREFACE ΤῸ
learned might have pronounced complete, it must have superseded all the less perfect productions of the same kind which had preceded, and would have left no room for innovation or improvement afterwards. The very number, then, of the Gospel-harmonies in existence may, perhaps, be pleaded in justification of one more: for as long as there is reason to confess that we do not yet possess a correct aud sufficient Harmony, so long it is not only excusable, but perhaps even neces- sary, that we should still continue to frame Harmonies, in the hope that one such may be produced at last. The best apology, however, which 1 can offer in be- half of the present work, is a candid statement of the circumstances out of which it arose. I was previously engaged upon an inquiry of a different nature, though connected, it is true, with sacred literature*, which ne- cessarily required me to examine, more narrowly than I had ever done before, into the relations of time and place, affecting the order and succession of events throughout the different portions of the Gospel history. In the course of this examination, during which I had to consult some of the most popular Harmonies, I could not but observe in them such remarkable inconsis- tencies as were abundantly sufficient to convince my own mind that the principles, upon which they had proceeded, could not be right. The dissatisfaction pro- duced by this discovery determined me to lay them aside, and to take the four original narratives, and nothing more, into my hands, with a view to frame out of them, for myself, a system which, if it possessed no other merit, might at least avoid such difficulties
as had appeared so glaringly and so palpably in the cases alluded to. 4
a The work to which I allude is an Exposition of the Gospel Parables.
THE FIRST EDITION. xii
The result of this endeavour is the ensuing Har- mony, in the shape and form under which it is now submitted to the public; a shape and a form very dif- ferent from that idea of it which its author had con- ceived before he proceeded to the execution of his pur- pose. Had he fully ‘comprehended, indeed, the true nature and extent of his undertaking, and into how wide a field of research and disquisition he would in- sensibly be led, he must have shrunk back from the attempt with a well-founded distrust of his ultimate success: and perhaps he may consider it a fortunate circumstance that he was too inextricably involved in the task, and too deeply interested in its completion, to be able or disposed to recede from its prosecution, when experience had convinced him of its magnitude and its difficulty.
When I conceived the design of the following com- position, I determined to adopt a rule, to which I have rigidly adhered throughout, and for adhering to which I have hitherto had no reason to blame myself. This was that, in discussing any question, or solving any difficulty, which might present itself, I would trust as much as possible to my own researches, and with the help only of the Gospel narratives, and of such other collateral resources as are open to the learned world in general, would endeavour to reason and to decide for myself. For I was persuaded that, with a mind dis- engaged from preconceived opinions or attachment to particular systems, a moderate share of ability would be sufficient to guide an enquirer; nor did I see by what other means, than by carefully avoiding all ad- mixture of borrowed matter, I could compose, upon a subject which has been so repeatedly handled, any thing of an original character.
It is one consequence of this rule, that I have been
XIV PREFACE TO
spared what would have been the most unpleasant part of my task, much dispute and controversy; for there is scarcely an opinion, connected with the ques- tions requiring to be discussed, which has not some adversary or other. It has rarely happened, therefore, that I have openly entered the lists upon any point, or against any opponent; or that, even where I had par- ticular opinions to combat, I have not been satisfied with stating the most competent arguments on my own side of the question, without proceeding to notice what might be urged in favour of the contrary. Had I not done this, I must have enlarged the present work to twice its legitimate extent.
It is another consequence of the same rule, that the following Harmony, and whatever else is prepa- ratory to it, whether they agree or disagree with the opinions already on record upon the same subjects, may equally be called my own. It was not, indeed, to be expected that upon topics like these, which have employed the attention of the learned world for so many centuries, any thing could now be proposed which should possess the recommendation of being al- together new; and I am prepared to find that I may have been anticipated in many things. But, on the other hand, I am also aware that no one has yet written upon the subject of the Gospel Harmony, with whom it will be seen that I agree throughout: and _ there- fore that, regarded as a whole, the Harmony, which I offer to the public, may still be considered unlike any other.
So far, however, as it will be found to have deviated from the principles of former Harmonies, I trust the reader will ascribe the motives of the deviation to no desire of change for its own sake, or disposition to find fault with the labours of my predecessors, whose learn-
THE FIRST EDITION. XV
ing, industry, and services to the cause of religion, de- served rather to be made the fit models of my emula- tion, than the objects of my censure. I have already asserted that the origin of this work was the conse- quence of an undertaking of a different description ; and could J have met with any Harmony which was not apparently fraught with more difficulties than it was intended to remove, most gladly would I have ac- quiesced in its use.
Upon questions indeed which concern profane his- tory or profane chronology, a larger indulgence is due to the freedom of discussion; for the utmost latitude of conclusion, consistent with the nature of historical evidence, may be allowed in such cases. On these points, then, I do not consider an explanation to be re- quisite for differences between myself and others. And with regard to questions of a graver character, if I have asserted any independence of opinion, it has been simply upon matters of fact, and such as directly con- cerned the proper business of a Gospel Harmony; and wherever I have departed from received positions, it has not been without apparent reason at least, nor without a good effect by illustrating more clearly, or establishing more firmly, the truth and consistency of the Gospel accounts. It will be found, too, that such in- stances concern, after all, the number of ἀδιάφορα, upon which, independent of their uses in the above respects, every one may claim an equal liberty of thought and judgment, without any compromise of his orthodoxy.
If, however, it was not everywhere in my power to elicit new truths, I have yet frequently been able to confirm old or doubtful positions by fresh, and perhaps more convincing, arguments; while there are parts of the Gospel history into which I may be admitted to have introduced decided improvements. This is more
XVI PREFACE TO
particularly true of the last, the most interesting, and the most eventful, period of all, viz. the six months of our Saviour’s personal history, prior to the resurrec- tion, or perhaps the ascension. There was no period which had been more confused than this; nor conse- quently where more still remained to be done, with a view to the proper distribution of its contents. In the accounts of the resurrection especially, notwithstand- ing the labour which had been peculiarly bestowed upon them, there was yet one stumblingblock, the re- moval of which, in my opinion, was of the utmost con- sequence to the full proof of the truth and consistency of those accounts; but which no harmonist, so far as I knew, had succeeded in removing. If I had cleared away this remaining difficulty, or shewn in what way it was to be got over, and had thereby placed the foun- dation of that corner-stone of Christianity on a still surer footing than before, I should not think it neces- sary to apologize for the present work: the Christian world would acknowledge that it had not been un- serviceable to the cause of Christian truth.
The same remark will apply to the exposition of the prophecy of the Seventy weeks. I shall not stop to point out here the connexion of that exposition with the business of a Harmony of the Gospels; for that will be seen in due time. I shall observe only that the exposition itself, however new it may appear, and different from the expositions most commonly adopted, possesses at least the merit of being unstrained and inartificial: it is the natural result of the most simple and obvious construction of the prophecy; and it is confirmed by the evidence of as complete and exact a coincidence between the prediction and its fulfilment, as we should have a right to expect from a prophecy which certainly came from God, and was actually veri-
THE FIRST EDITION. xvi
fied by the event. On this subject, then, I shall say no more here, except that the consideration of the pro- phecy in question led me step by step into a much wider range of discussion, than could have been ori- ginally contemplated in a work which professed to be merely a Harmony of the Gospels: for I was obliged to examine the chronology of the whole of the Acts, and (as included within such a review) that of St. Paul’s Epistles. A similar necessity in a former in- stance required me to consider the chronology of the two Epistles of St. Peter; so that, with the exception of the Epistles of St. John, of St. James, and of St. Jude, respectively, and of the book of the Revelations, the proper business of these Dissertations, preliminary to a Harmony of the Gospels, has insensibly involved . me in enquiries relating to the entire canon of the New Testament. The same business in another instance compelled me to discuss, though as briefly as the nature of the case would allow me, the whole of the history of the Old Testament, from the creation to the Exodus from Egypt, and from the Exodus to the re- turn from captivity. ‘That these enquiries, however much like πάρεργα and foreign to my proper purpose they may at first sight seem, were not, under the cir- cumstances of the case, irrelevant to it, every candid censor, I think, will hereafter allow; and, meanwhile, if the results to which they have led are in any degree satisfactory, whether the enquiries themselves were irrelevant or not, I shall never regret that I entered upon them.
As the three volumes are all preliminary to the Harmony, so is the first of the three preparatory in some sense to the two last. The questions which it discusses are certainly connected with the subject of a Harmony—but, in comparison of those which are
VOL. I. b
Xvlll PREFACE TO
treated of in the second and the third volumes, they are only remotely connected with it. Among these questions some there are, which have exercised the in- genuity of learned men, without their arriving at any satisfactory conclusions, ever since the revival of letters: nor am I vain enough to suppose that they have been settled by my own individual attempts. It will not be laid to my charge, however, that what could rea- sonably be expected from the exertions of one person has not been performed to the utmost; that I have not endeavoured to sift every question to the bottom ; that the pains and labour of the investigation have not been commensurate to the difficulty or importance of the end proposed. If I have erred, it has been on the score of an over-anxious diligence to render my Dis- sertations even tediously scrupulous and elaborately minute, rather than leave them perfunctory or super- ficial. Perhaps, too, there are some of these contro- verted instances, in which I may be considered to have approximated to the truth as nearly as, under the cir- cumstances of the case, was practicable; for, if the re- sults of the speculations of learned men upon such questions are not every where final and decisive, the cause must be ascribed to a defect for which no inge- nuity nor industry can compensate, the defect of data. In the course of my researches, it has more than once fallen to my lot to observe that very great names, in every department of sacred literature, have lapsed into mistakes, and mistakes which frequently might have been avoided: nor do I mention this as if to claim any merit to myself for discovering errors into which they had fallen, much less to put myself on a footing of equality with them, but that I may plead the failures of more competent and more learned persons in exte- nuation of my own; and that the reader may see the
THE FIRST EDITION. X1X
reasonableness of extending the same indulgence to the defects of the present work, wheresoever they may be discovered, which its author has always been ready to extend to those of others. ᾿
Before I take my leave of the reader, I am anxious to acknowledge my obligations to the Delegates of the University Press, for their readiness in undertaking the publication of this work.
b2
ΔΕ b i ΠΣ if eo ea «a? oN
,
mek Aus ‘
ἀ 7
. ὶ ἕ Με ἐπὶ} ti τ
SYNOPSIS
OF THE DISSERTATIONS.
a ---.-----
Ir is perhaps an objection to the form of a work, which consists of a series of distinct Dissertations, that it must appear at first sight irregular and unconnected. There is, in reality, an intimate relation between the several subjects of the ensuing treatises, and the order in which one follows or precedes another. But it will facilitate the comprehension of their mutual coherency, and give the reader a clearer perception of the number and variety of the topics hereafter discussed, if we pre- mise, at the outset, a general account of the object or purpose of the Dissertations, both those in the body of the work, and those of the Appendix; independent of the more particular analysis of each which will be pre- fixed in the Tables of Contents.
The general body of the work consists of Forty-three Dissertations ; each of them devoted to some question, or more, directly connected with the proper business of an Harmony of the Gospel history. The first three are subservient to the fundamental principle of the work; which is rested on the truth of the fol- lowing propositions: I. That the last three Gospels are regular compositions: II. That St. Matthew’s Gos- pel is partly regular and partly irregular: III. That each of the Gospels was written in the order in which it stands: IV. That the Gospels last written in every instance were supplementary to the prior. It is the
b 3
ΧΧΙΙ SYNOPSIS OF
object of the first Dissertation to confirm these propo- sitions by a mode of reasoning, which assumes nothing but the existence of the Gospels themselves: of the second, by the consideration of the historical testimony to the times and order of the Gospels: and of the third, by the examination of St. Matthew’s Gospel in detail, compared with the accounts of the rest.
It is the object of the fourth Dissertation to ascer- tain the true date of the Passover, John ii. 13, the most cardinal date in the whole of the Gospel history, by ascertaining the sense of John ii. 20. The verifi- cation of this date gives birth to the fifth and sixth Dissertations: the former intended to determine the rule by which Josephus invariably computes the years of the reign of Herod: and the latter, to shew that neither the evidence of the coin of Herod Antipas, nor the supposed time of the eclipse before the death of Herod, is inconsistent with the date of that death, established in Dissertation v.
The Table of Passovers, or of other Jewish feasts, in the seventh Dissertation, is designed for the sake of reference to the times of such feasts, between certain limits; allusions to which could not but be perpetually recurring in the course of a work like the present.
It is the object of the eighth and ninth Dissertations respectively, to reconcile the testimony of St. Luke, as re- gards the fifteenth year of the ἡγεμονία of Tiberius Ca- sar, or the beginning of the government of Pontius Pi- late, with the cardinal date established in Diss. iv.
The tenth Dissertation determines the interval be- tween the beginning of the ministry of John the Bap-
THE DISSERTATIONS. XXill
tist, and the close of the ministry of Jesus Christ; or the whole length of time embraced by them both in conjunction, as well as the particular duration which must be assigned to each of them separately.
- The eleventh Dissertation proposes to determine the true age of our Lord at his baptisin, by determining the exact import of the words of St. Luke, at iii. 23.
The object of the twelfth Dissertation is substan- tially to confirm the following propositions: That the true year of the Nativity was U.C. 750. B.C. 4: That the time of the year was the spring: That the day yee 00 00000πΆΌΧΛΓΧΓἈΌΆὈ5.....0..- of the Nativity was probably the tenth of the Jewish Nisan, and the fifth of the Julian April.
It is the object of the thirteenth Dissertation to con- firm the conclusions, previously established, by the citation of testimonies from the writings of the most ancient Christians: especially with regard to the time of the year when our Lord was born, to the length of his personal ministry, and to the year of the Roman emperor in which it terminated.
The fourteenth Dissertation has it in view to de- monstrate that the census at the Nativity must have been held when Saturninus was governor of Syria: and thence to deduce the true sense of Luke ii. 2. which assigns it apparently to the presidency of Cyre- nius, Quirinius, or Quirinus.
The object of the fifteenth Dissertation is to com- plete the argument in Dissertation tenth, as well as to confirm many other previous conclusions, by the right exposition of the prophecy of the Seventy weeks: the
b 4
XX1V SYNOPSIS OF
consideration of which necessarily involves the question of the chronology of the first twelve chapters of the Acts of the Apostles.
It is the object of the sixteenth Dissertation to ex- plain and to reconcile the two genealogies, on the sup- position that St. Matthew’s is the genealogy of our Lord’s reputed father, and St. Luke’s the genealogy of his real mother.
It is the object of the seventeenth Dissertation to establish such a personal distinction between those who are called in common the ’AdeAdoi of Christ, as will reconcile the Evangelical accounts about them, and no longer leave any difficulty on this point.
The eighteenth Dissertation, which treats of the visit of the Magi, endeavours to prove that the time of this visit was thirteen months posterior to the first ap- pearance of the star, and four months posterior to the birth of Christ; and thence to infer that the star appeared fwice, once at the Incarnation, and again at the Nativity.
It is the object of the nineteenth Dissertation to harmonise and arrange the particulars of the ministry of John: and, preliminary to this, to determine the true nature and design of his ministry itself. This Disser- tation also is connected with the general argument of Dissertation x: and its chief purpose is to establish a necessary, but clear, distinction between the proper office and character of John, in which he agreed with those of Jesus Christ, and the truth of his personal relation to Jesus Christ, in which he differed from him.
THE DISSERTATIONS. XXV
The twentieth Dissertation endeavours to shew that, though St. Matthew’s account of the order of the Temp- tation may be the true, St. Luke’s is not inconsistent with it.
The twenty-first Dissertation carries forward the series of the Gospel history, and at the same time strictly exemplifies the supplementary character of the Gospel of St. John, by shewing that, beginning his narrative precisely where the other Evangelists had left off theirs, he conducts it regularly down to the point of time where St. Luke, in particular, had begun his again. To this Dissertation the twenty-second is attached, with a view to confirm a statement in the Dissertation itself, involving the question of the computation of sab- batic years: one of which is shewn to have actually coincided with the first year of our Saviour’s ministry.
The twenty-third Dissertation, which is divided into four parts, is designed to give a general preliminary or prospective survey of the whole course of our Saviour’s ministry, both in Judza, and out of it. The first part is devoted to the consideration of the ministry in Judea; and its object is to prove that, as St. John alone has given any account of this ministry, so he has given a complete account of it. Each of the last three parts is devoted to a separate year, down to the middle of the third year in particular, where the review will be found to stop short: and the common purpose of all is not merely to give the student of the Gospel history a clear view of the course and connection of his subject before- hand, but to contribute to the general design of the work, by shewing with what facility the Evangelical accounts, duly arranged, may be made to fill up the periods of time allotted to them—to supply in a great
ΧΧΥῚ SYNOPSIS OF
many instances the most distinct proofs of the accom- modation of the later to the prior narratives—and to prepare the way for the discussion of particular ques- tions by a better understanding of the grounds on which they proceed.
The Dissertations, which follow from the twenty- fourth to the twenty-ninth inclusive, are accordingly all devoted to the discussion of such questions: the twenty- fourth being designed to prove the conclusion that the miraculous draught of fishes, in St. Luke, is no T'rajec- tion: the twenty-fifth, that the feast which ensued on the call of Levi is no Anticipation: the twenty-sixth, that the sermons from the mount were distinct, and may be related each in its proper place: the twenty- seventh proposing to reconcile St. Matthew’s account of the time and manner of our Saviour’s interpret- ing the first of his parables with St. Mark’s, or St. Luke’s: the twenty-eighth, to adjust St. Mark’s ac- count of the question concerning eating with unwashen hands to St. Matthew’s: the twenty-ninth, to inves- tigate the proximate cause of the disputes among the disciples concerning precedence, and at the same time to establish a luminous instance of the supplementary relation of St. Mark in particular to St. Matthew.
It is the object of the thirtieth and thirty-first Dis- sertations respectively, to prosecute the subject discussed in the twenty-third ; and to exhibit another clear and decisive proof of the critical accommodation of St. John’s Gospel to the first three Gospels in general, and of St. Luke’s to the first two in particular.
The thirty-second Dissertation has it in view to de- termine the locality of the village of Martha and Mary,
THE DISSERTATIONS. XXVI1
so far at least as to prove that it was not Bethany: and by way of corollary to this disquisition to explain and illustrate the circumstances of the unction at Bethany.
It is the business of the thirty-third Dissertation to compare the account of the dispossession in St. Luke with the similar account of St. Matthew; the result of which comparison is to prove that neither of them is a transposition.
The object of the thirty-fourth Dissertation is to point out the many critical indications of time, which occur in the twelfth chapter of St. Luke, and which all converge upon one and the same conclusion, that the chapter belongs to the last period of our Saviour’s ministry.
The object of the thirty-fifth Dissertation is to render it probable that the destruction of the Galileans, alluded to, Luke xiii. 1. was a recent event, and a consequence of the sedition of Barabbas.
The object of the thirty-sixth is to harmonize the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark, in reference to the question concerning divorce: and the object of the thirty-seventh is, by the simple consideration of later and supplementary accounts, to remove every difficulty connected with the miracles at Jericho.
The business of the remaining Dissertations is to harmonize the several accounts of the Gospel history, from the time of the arrival at Bethany before the last Passover, to the day of the Ascension into heaven. This object is effected through six consecutive Disser- tations, from the thirty-eighth inclusive to the forty-
xxvii SYNOPSIS OF THE DISSERTATIONS.
third inclusive—of which the thirty-eighth ascer- tains more particularly the true date of the arrival at Bethany, and the true date of the procession to the tem- ple: the thirty-ninth, the time of the cleansing of the temple: the fortieth, the order and succession of events on the last day of our Lord’s public ministry, and the time of the unction at Bethany: the forty-first, the time of the last supper: the forty-second, the course and suc- cession of events from the evening of Thursday to the evening of Saturday, in Passion-week : and the forty- third harmonizes the accounts of the resurrection itself. The particular purposes, which each of these Disserta- tions also embraces, are too many and various to be comprehended under any general statement; and will be sufficiently evident from the Table of Contents.
SYNOPSIS
OF
THE APPENDIX.
THE Appendix consists of twenty-seven Disserta- tions, and four Supplements; or thirty-one Disserta- tions in all: each of these Dissertations, with one or two exceptions, being directly connected with some one or more of those which have preceded in the body of the work. The particular object or use of each may be stated as follows:
The first of them supplies an answer to one among other objections to the assumption of those supple- mentary relations of the Gospels, which the Au- thor laboured to establish in his first Dissertation ; that even supposing the Gospels to have been written in the order in which they stand—and the later in point of time to have been intended as supplementary to the earlier—still there was no means of knowing, from their own intimations at least, where the one were defective, and the others were supplementary.
The second Dissertation considers in brief the prin- ciple of classification, on the assumption of which, as the law of narration in the Gospel of St. Luke in parti- cular, it has been attempted to account for the pecu- liarities of its structure, without supposing it written in a regular historical order.
XXX SYNOPSIS OF
In the third Dissertation, a number of facts and tes- timonies are brought together from various quarters ; the joint tendency of which is to imply, that not only Palestine, but almost every other region of Upper or of Lower Asia, which possessed an aboriginal dialect before the introduction of the Greek language among its inhabitants, continued to retain that dialect even after that event. If this point could be sufficiently well established, it seemed to the Author of the pre- sent work a just inference, that a Gospel, like St. Matthew’s, written for native converts belonging to the church of Jerusalem, would be written in the native or vernacular language of Palestine, much more probably than in Greek.
The fourth Dissertation is intended to verify a state- ment of Josephus, alleged in the fifth general Disser- tation, respecting the length of the Maccabzean or As- monzan dynasty, from the first of Judas Maccabzeus to the capture of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius, and the death of Antigonus, the last of the Maccabean princes.
In the fifth Dissertation, the Author has endeavoured to investigate the precise date of the admission of the two adopted sons of Augustus, Caius, and Lucius Ce- sar respectively, to the privilege of being present at the public deliberations in the senate, or at the privy councils of Augustus. The decision of this question is of use in determining the just construction of the lan- guage of Josephus, with regard to that consultation upon the will of Herod, before Augustus, and Caius Cesar, by which Archelaus was confirmed in the go-
vernment of Judzea, not many months after his father’s death.
THE APPENDIX. XXXI
The authority of Dio Cassius has induced many chronologers to place the removal and banishment of Archelaus, U. C. '759, A.D. 6. But Josephus has in- formed us, that sometime before this removal and ba- nishment he was married to the widow of Juba, king of Mauritania; and it is capable of being proved with an high degree of probability, that Juba himself did not die before U.C. 759. The details of this proof are given in the sixth Dissertation. If the statement of Dio is disproved thereby, it will follow that the pre- cise date of Archelaus’ removal cannot be earlier than the latter half of the 37th year from the battle of Ac- tium, the first half of U.C. 760, A.D. 7. The pre- cise date of his accession to the throne, and conse- . quently of his father’s death, as the spring or Pass- over of U.C. 751, B.C. 3: and from that fact, the time of our Lord’s Nativity as the year before, U.C. 750, B.C. 4; may be shewn to follow, as corollaries, from this conclusion, either necessarily or with an high degree of probability.
The perusal of such of the works of Ovid, as were written after his banishment to the Pontus, will shew that at, and after, a point of time, which coincides with U.C. 765, A.D. 12, allusions occur in them not only to the fact of a triumph, celebrated sometime by Tiberius, but to that of his being in possession of a de- gree of rank, authority, or preeminence, acknowledged in all parts of the empire, which virtually placed him on a par with Augustus. Now U.C. 765, A. D. 12, is the date to which, upon other authorities, the fact of Tiberius’ being invested with proconsular authority— from which investiture St. Luke might calculate the years of his ἡγεμονία, supremacy, or government—was
XXXIl SYNOPSIS OF
to be assigned. This argument is drawn out at length, in the seventh Dissertation.
Repeated occasions occurring in the course of the work, on which it was necessary to take into account the rate of travelling in ancient times; and more espe- cially the interval requisite for a communication to pass to and fro, between Judea and Italy; the eighth Dissertation is devoted to this question; and by as large an induction of particulars as may suffice for that purpose, establishes the following conclusion, that not less than six weeks in summer, nor than five or six months in winter, would be necessary for the com- munication in question.
If any means or data could be discovered for decid- ing the controverted question, What was the probable duration of our Lord’s personal ministry ? which would require nothing but the Gospel narratives themselves to supply them, and from the nature of the case might be as easily judged of, and reasoned from, by the most unlearned as the most learned of their readers—such data, it must be confessed, would be of all others the most desirable. Now data of this description are ac- tually furnished by a variety of natural notes of time, incidentally mentioned in the course of the Gospel his- tory. To point these out, and to argue from them se- parately and in conjunction, is the business of the ninth Dissertation: and it is shewn, as the result of this mode of discussing the question, that the length of our Saviour’s personal ministry could not have been less than three years in all, though it might have been more.
The close of the public ministry of John Baptist by
THE APPENDIX. ΧΧΧΗΣ
his imprisonment being placed in the spring quarter of A. Ὁ. 27, the thirteenth of Tiberius Czesar; it is the object of the tenth Dissertation to shew that this date of the imprisonment of John is not inconsistent with the date of the fact to which the Scriptural ac- count of his imprisonment refers that event; viz. the — marriage of Herod and Herodias: as there is every reason to believe, from the most careful consideration of the accounts of Josephus with reference to the same thing, that the contract of marriage between Herod and Herodias was actually formed, and John Baptist, in consequence of his denunciation of it, imprisoned, at this very time, before Herod’s departure to Rome.
The eleventh Dissertation, which must be regarded as strictly supplementary to the twelfth of the general Dissertations, has for its object to render the conclu- sion, respecting the day of our Saviour’s birth, which that Dissertation laboured to establish, still more pro- bable, by making it appear that our Lord was born, in the fulness of time, on the tenth of the Jewish Ni- san and the fifth of the Julian April, B.C. 4, because at the time of the institution of the Passover, and the Exodus from Egypt, the tenth of the Jewish Nisan and the fifth of the Julian April, coincided with the date of the Vernal Equinox: and there were many reasons to render it probable a priorz that the date of the Vernal Equinox would be the date of our Sa- viour’s nativity. The particular year, in which April 5 as truly represented the date of the Vernal Equinox, as March 24 in the year of the nativity, was B.C. 1560: and the ensuing discussion is directed to shew, that B.C. 1560 was the true date of the Exodus from Egypt—that Nisan 10 in that year coincided with April 5; and both with the seventh day of the
VOL. I. Cc
XXXIV SYNOPSIS OF
week; as they had previously been shewn to do in the year of our Saviour’s birth.
The details of this proof in the eleventh Dissertation, involving the chronology of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel; the twelfth Dissertation is devoted to the discussion of this question; and beginning with the first of Rehoboam and the first of Jeroboam, by an in- duction of particular instances through every succes- sive reign, to the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel, it establishes the general principle that the synchronisms of reigns of Judah and Israel with each other are de- termined by one rule, and the actual lengths by another. The whole of the purposes, however, to which this Dis- sertation and the preceding are devoted, cannot well be enumerated in brief; the chronology of the Old Testament, from the Creation to the return from capti- vity, directly or indirectly, coming under review in one or other of them; and there being none of its leading or cardinal dates, and very few of its particular and subordinate ones, which there has not been occasion to consider. )
The chronological value of the note of time at Da- niel x. 13. has never been duly appreciated ; commen- tators, generally speaking, having been content to un- derstand it of x. 2. just before; the last thing, in the opinion of the Author of this work, at least, to which it was intended to refer. The Supplement annexed to Dissertation xii. is designed to vindicate it from this misconstruction ; and to shew that it was always in- tended to be understood of the interval between the death of Belshazzar, and the accession of Darius at Ba- bylon. The importance of this conclusion to the chro- nology of the kings of Babylon is self-evident. In
THE APPENDIX. XXXV
the course of this discussion, the chronology of the Book of Daniel, and the order and connection of his several visions or prophecies, are necessarily called into ques- tion. There is occasion, too, to consider the opinion of Bishop Horsley with respect to the prince of Persia and the prince of Grecia, alluded to in this same chap- ter of Daniel; and in stating the objections to that opinion, to say something of the disclosures of Scrip- ture on the subject of the invisible world ; of the scrip- tural mode of describing and designating the angels ; and of the scriptural doctrine of archon or ruling, in opposition to guardian or tutelar, angels.
The thirteenth Dissertation consists of supplemen- tary matter relating to the opinions and testimonies of the Fathers, produced in the thirteenth general Disser- tation, from the earliest period to the fifth century. Under this head, the reader will find a variety of addi- tional particulars concerning Justin Martyr, Irenzus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus Portuensis, and many others, whose names it is not necessary to specify at present: and lastly, a minute investigation of the probable date of the death of the apostle St. John, and of his age at the time of that event.
Some apology, at first sight, may be thought neces- sary for devoting the fourteenth Dissertation to the discussion of the question of the date of the battle of Pharsalia. Not but that such an inquiry, connected as it is with a variety of classical associations, may justly be supposed to have an interest for classical readers: and if we reflect upon the important conse- quences entailed by this battle, in laying the foundation of the imperial form of Roman government, and pre-
c2
XXXVI SYNOPSIS OF
paring the way for that political state of things in the civilized world, in the midst of which it was always designed by the Divine Providence that Christianity should be ushered into being—it cannot be absolutely destitute of interest even for the student of the Gospel history. But the truth is, the Author of the present work had his attention forcibly directed to the consi- deration of this question, because it involved a diffi- culty very much the same in appearance as that which is connected with St. Luke’s date of the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius. What St. Luke has called the fifteenth, the common reckoning of the years of Tiberius would call the thirteenth. In like manner, what one class or description of testimonies would shew to be the date of the battle of Pharsalia, Septem- ber 22 or 23, another would shew to be August 9. It is possible to reconcile these dates with each other, however much at variance they seem at first sight: and the useful practical inference which we may draw from the fact of such a reconciliation is this, that no two historical statements, each of them resting on a competent authority, however much opposed to each other they may appear, ought hastily to be prejudged as contradictory or inconsistent. St. Luke’s exactness and fidelity are abundantly sufficient to vouch for the fact, that if he asserts U.C. 780 to have been the fifteenth of Tiberius, it was so, in some sense or other; and yet it is equally certain that the same year was his thir- teenth. Instead of pronouncing either of these state- inents inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the other, we ought rather to sit down and inquire whether there might not be two such modes of reckoning the years of Tiberius, that what would be his thirteenth according to the one, would be his fifteenth according to the other; just as with respect to the date of the battle of Pharsalia,
THE APPENDIX. XXXVll
there were two such modes of reckoning it, that what was August 9, according to the one, was September 22 or 23, according to the other.
The subject of the fifteenth Dissertation is the cen- sus orbis at the Nativity ; more especially so far as the fact of some such event seems to be implicitly deduci- ble from the testimony of Suidas. In this recurrence to the subject of that census, and in the additional observations supplied by this Dissertation, the Author has not ventured upon so wide a field of speculation as the probable amount of the population of the empire under Augustus; but he has endeavoured to arrive, if possible, at a just idea of the magnitude and num- ber of the inhabitants of the city of Rome, in his reign, and for some time after it: in order to shew, that as the passage in Suidas is read at present, his numbers are almost as much in excess to represent the results of a census urbis, as they would be in defect for those of a census orbis, in the time of Augustus ; and, therefore, retaining the rest of the passage as it stands, to give a colour of probability to the conjec- tural emendation of its numbers in particular; viz. that of 6, μυριάδες, instead of w’ μυριάδες.
Upon this question, the Author embraces the present opportunity to observe, that as the principal objection to the simple and prima facie construction of Luke il. 1, which implies that the census at the nativity was strictly a census of the empire in general, and not of the small province of Judzea in particular, is taken from the silence of contemporary history about the fact of any such enrolment of the empire in the reign of Augustus; it seemed to him a very satisfactory answer to this ob- jection to shew that a measure, much the same in prin-
c3
XXXVII1 SYNOPSIS OF
ciple, equally complicated in the execution, and alike important both in a public and a private point of view —was begun and completed in the reign of Augustus, about which nevertheless there is the same silence in the general history of the times. He means a geome- trical survey or measurement of the empire; to the fact of which, under the auspices of Augustus, we have the most positive testimony in the Rei Agrariz Auctores, in Cassiodorus, and in others; but not an hint or allu- sion to it, in Dio Cassius, Suetonius, Tacitus; and nothing but the most obscure and indefinite intima- tions of it even in the Geographica of Strabo. The reader will find this testimony in a note to the four- teenth general Dissertation, vol. i. p. 537.
The sixteenth Dissertation exhibits the two princi- pal dates of the Jewish year, the 15th of Nisan, and the 15th of Tisri, in their corresponding Julian dates, through the first eight years of the Jewish war under Vespasian. The accuracy of this calendar is confirmed in repeated instances by various circumstantial coin- cidences: and among the collateral questions arising out of it, besides the chronology of the reigns of Nero, Galba, and Otho, one is the determination of the true date of the death of Vitellius; upon which depends the decision of the question, whether Tisri in the year of his death, and consequently Nisan, consisted of 29 days or of 30. A decision of no slight importance to another question, whether Nisan in the Jewish year consisted always of 29 days or always of 30.
The precise date of the Historia Naturalis of Pliny is of so much importance to fix the true date of the close of the first Jewish war, according to Josephus ; and that date, to the exposition of the prophecy of the
THE APPENDIX. XXXIX
Seventy Weeks; that the Author has judged it worth while to bring all, or nearly all, the notices of its own time, furnished by that work, under one point of view, in the seventeenth Dissertation. In other respects, the interest possessed by this Dissertation, for the classical reader, will perhaps be derived from that part of it which relates to the time of the death of Virgil ; and upon the authority of Pliny, ventures to alter the received date of that event, U.C.735, to one five years later, U.C. 739, or U.C. 740.
Some apology might perhaps be wanted for the eighteenth Dissertation, which treats of the second Jewish war, in the time of Hadrian; if the connexion of this war with the former, and thereby with the exposition of the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, did not, in some measure, justify the introduction of this collateral topic into the same work which has treated so largely of the other. And, indeed, if those coincidences between the circumstances of the two wars, for which the Author contends, are founded in fact ; nothing can more strikingly exemplify the won- derful dealings of Providence in all its dispensations, whether for good or for evil, towards this singular people.
The nineteenth Dissertation of the Appendix is strictly supplementary to the fifteenth general Disser- tation ; being intended to shew that the chronology of the Acts, from the thirteenth chapter to the end, is not inconsistent with that arrangement and distribution of the twelve preceding chapters, which had been already given in explanation of the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. To give a summary of the various purposes to which this Dissertation is subservient, would scarcely
c 4
xl SYNOPSIS OF
be practicable; the whole of the history of St. Paul, froin the time of his second circuit to the Gentiles—the chronology of all his Epistles—and the history of St. Peter, from the point of time when he was last men- tioned in the fifteenth general Dissertation, to his death—and many other questions, connected with these topics, being necessarily comprehended in it.
The Dissertation which follows next in order is added as a Supplement to the nineteenth Dissertation of the Appendix, and the fifteenth of the general work: and like them is devoted to the discussion of the pro- phecy of the Seventy Weeks—having for its object the explanation and confirmation of those principles, on which the proof of the fulfilment of the prophecy had previously proceeded. To enter upon an account of those principles here, would be to anticipate the Dis- sertation itself: It is hoped that the reader will see no reason to disapprove of this resumption of the subject, as foreign to the proper business of a Gospel Harmony —which is more directly concerned in the right un- derstanding of this prophecy, than harmonists in gene- ral seem to have imagined.
The twentieth Dissertation discusses the time of Trajan’s Oriental expedition, because of its connexion with the reputed date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, and of Simon, son of Cleopas; and through that, with the decision of the further question, Who are meant by the ἀδελφοὶ, or brethren of Christ. Subjoined to this Dissertation there is another, upon the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny—a question, arising out of the former, but too minute to have been introduced into the body of the preceding Dissertation. This inquiry will possess an interest for the Christian student, be-
THE APPENDIX. xli
cause it leads to the determination of the probable date of Pliny’s persecution of the Christians of Bithynia.
The twenty-second Dissertation condenses and brings together, under one point of view, the various coinci- dences which have been established in former parts of the work, with respect to sabbatic years ; all conspiring to confirm that system of the chronology of the Old Testament which had been before proposed: and taken in conjunction with the twenty-second Dissertation of the general work, it may be considered to have establish- ed a regular series of sabbatic years, from the year of the division of the lands, to the time of the destruction of the temple. In the course of this discussion, the chronology of the kings of Tyre, from Hiram contem- porary with the building of the temple, to Pygmalion contemporary with the foundation of Carthage—the date of the foundation of Carthage—the date of the first of Darius Hystaspis—the date of the accession of Xerxes—and the degree of authority to which the Ca- non of Ptolemy is fairly entitled—and various other topics, are necessarily brought into question.
A calculation of the population of Judzea in the time of our Saviour, could that be determined with any de- gree of exactness, would serve a variety of useful pur- poses. First, it would conduce to shew among what number of moral] and responsible agents, the brethren of the Son of God according to the flesh, his personal ministry, for the duration of his sojourn with men, was transacted; how many consequently were tried by that ministry; how many were eyewitnesses of his mi- racles; earwitnesses of his discourses; and in the facts of his history had an opportunity of comparing from their own observation the prophecies previously
xl SYNOPSIS OF
on record concerning the Messiah, with their fulfil- ment in the person of Jesus Christ. Secondly, it would enable the reader of the Gospel narrative to enter fully into the force of those descriptions which so repeatedly occur therein, shewing our Saviour, wherever he was, and wheresoever he was going, and even when purposely studious of privacy, to be fol- lowed by multitudes, surrounded by multitudes, disco- vered by multitudes, and often by multitudes in prodi-- gious quantities. Thirdly, it would supply an answer to a question which probably has arisen in reflecting minds, upon reading the accounts of the daily per- formance of miracles by our Lord, and frequently miracles in great numbers, but always miracles of a certain kind, requiring the same description of sub- jects—the sick, the infirm, the possessed of devils, the lunatic, the leprous, the blind, the lame, the deaf, the dumb, the maimed or mutilated—whence could such subjects be supplied in sufficient numbers for such mi- racles every day to be taking place? The dense and crowded population of Palestine, in all parts, during our Saviour’s personal ministry, was competent to sup- ply them. Fourthly, it would also shew, that if the rate of the population of a particular country at different periods of its history is any criterion of the amount of public or private happiness for the same periods, never could the nation of the Jews have enjoyed a larger measure of temporal prosperity, because never was it more populous, than during the period of the Christian ministry. This calculation of its numbers, and the data on which it proceeds, are given in the twenty-third Dissertation.
A short Dissertation is devoted, in the next place, to the consideration of the civil computation of diurnal
THE APPENDIX. xhii
and nocturnal time, among the Romans; both be- cause the same method of dividing the hours of day and night was in use among the Jews at the Gospel era, and also with a view to correct an inaccuracy into which Dr. Townson, when professedly treating upon this subject, if the Author of the present work has not mistaken his meaning, had inadvertently fallen.
The twenty-fifth Dissertation is devoted to the par- ticular consideration of St. Paul’s last journey to Jeru- salem, recorded in the Acts; chiefly because of the objection which has been made to the scriptural ac- count of it—that it could not have been performed within the time supposed. The reader will find the contrary to be the case; and every day satisfactorily accounted for, from the day when St. Paul left Phi- lippi, Monday, March 27, to the day when he was put on his trial before Felix, Sunday, May 21.
The twenty-sixth Dissertation treats of the question of the rate of a day’s journey, or the distance which may be ordinarily supposed to have been travelled over, in the allusion to a day’s journey on foot—both from its connection with other parts of the present work, and more especially with the Gospel account of the last journey of our Lord to Jerusalem, when after crossing the Jordan out of Pera, in the morning of the day, and passing through Jericho—he stopped with Zaccheus for the night, before his arrival at Bethany.
The origin of the twenty-seventh Dissertation may be thus explained. ‘Those who have read the Au- thor’s work, are aware that he places the Passion on
xliv SYNOPSIS OF
the Julian April 5, A. D. 30: which, if correct, implies that the Julian April 5, A. D. 30, coincided with a Friday. But, according to the cycle of the dominical letter, the Julian April 5, A. D. 30, coincided with a Wednesday. In the opinion of the Author of this work, the ἀρχὴ of this cycle is two days behind the truth: in which case, the Julian April 5, A. D. 30, would actually coincide not with Wednesday, but with Friday.
Now among other arguments which may tend to shew that April 5, in the Julian year, A. D. 30, actually fell on Friday, one is, to reason as follows. It appears from independent historical testimony that in such and such years, at a certain distance of time from April 5, A. D. 30, such and such Julian dates of days of the month fell on such and such days of the week. Sup- posing the Julian April 5, A. D. 30, actually to have coincided with Friday, and the computation of time, according to the Julian year, to have gone on uninter- ruptedly ever after, would these things actually be the case ?
The Author has applied this method of reasoning to three cases in point, the Julian date of the martyrdom of Polycarp, the Julian date of the martyrdom of Pio- nius, and the Julian dates of certain of the martyr- doms of the martyrs of Palestine—uniformly with a similar result.
But independent of the final object for which these inquiries were instituted, he feels convinced that none of his readers will be uninterested in such a topic, as that of the time and circumstances of the martyrdom of the apostolical bishop of Smyrna, the venerable Po-
THE APPENDIX. xlv
lycarp. To fix the year of this event with the neces- sary exactness, he has investigated, and as he hopes determined, the order and succession of the Roman presidents of Asia Proper, for the first ten years of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in conjunction with Lucius Verus: chiefly by the help of the extant remains of the sophist of Hadriani or Hadriano -There, and citi- zen of Smyrna, Aristides, a contemporary of Polycarp. By the light too, which these inquiries have contri- buted to throw upon the distinctive character of this whole period, in relation to the history of the church— as a ten years’ period of more or less of suffering from persecution, affecting in a special manner the churches round about Ephesus—he trusts he has cleared up the meaning, and shewn the fulfilment of Revelation ii. 10, in the Epistle to the Church of Smyrna: which commentators heretofore have thought it sufficient to refer to an event more than two hundred years dis- tant when the prophecy was delivered—the great per- secution under Diocletian.
The two concluding Dissertations are both supple- mentary to the twenty-seventh. The first of them arises out of the allusion to the Paschal controversy, which is brought under discussion in the preceding Dissertation; and it has for its object to investigate the rule by which the observance of Easter was regu- lated before the council of Nice—among those Chris- tians more particularly, who agreed therein with the rule of the Jews in the observance of the Passover. It is the effect of this investigation to lead to the infer- ence that the Jewish rule in the observance of the Passover, at this time, was diametrically opposite to the same rule in the time of our Saviour; and so to suggest that it must have been purposely changed
xlvi SYNOPSIS OF
meanwhile. The second is devoted to the question of the coincidences between Julian days of the month, and the corresponding days of the week, and the dis- crepancy, in this respect subsisting, between the indi- cations of the solar cycle, and the conclusions other- wise established in the course of the present work ; and it has for its object the decision of this whole contro- versy, by pointing at once to the true source of the difference in question, the fact of a correction of the style, amounting to two days exactly, which there seems to be almost demonstrative reason to suppose must have been made by the council of Nice; but which has been hitherto overlooked.
The remainder of the Appendix consists of Tables, Indexes, &c. of which it is not necessary to give any particular account in this place. The Author will ob- serve only that some of these tables may be found of use to the readers of Josephus, as well as to the student of the Gospel history ; especially the third, which gives the names and succession of the presidents of Syria, from the time when Syria was reduced to a Roman pro- vince, U. C. 691, B. C. 63, to the close of Josephus’ History of the Jewish War, U.C. 828, A. ἢ. 75: the fourth, which enumerates the Procurators of Judea, from the time of the reduction of Judza to a Roman province, U. Ὁ. 760, A.D. 7, to the close of the Jewish war, as before, U. C. 828, A. D. 75: and the fifth, which exhibits the high priests of the Jews, from the first of the number appointed by Herod, in the first year of his reign, dated from the capture of Jeru- salem, U.C. 717, B.C. 37, to the destruction of the temple, and consequent dissolution of the religious polity of the Jews, U. C. 823, A.D. 70. On each of these tables the Author has bestowed all the care and
THE APPENDIX. xl vil
pains in his power, to render it as exact as pos- sible: yet from the nature of the case, the dates as- signed in repeated instances, though probably not far from the truth, are after all, and must be, only con- jectural™*.
* A list of such editions of to specify, will be found in authors, quoted in the course of |Table XII. among the above. the work, as it was necessary
Works by the same Author.
AN EXPOSITION OF THE PARABLES, AND OF OTHER PARTS OF THE GOSPELS. Five Volumes, in six. Ox- ford, printed by S. Collingwood, printer to the University, for J. G. and F. Rivington, 1834 and 1835.
SUPPLEMENTARY DISSERTATIONS UPON THE PRIN- CIPLES AND ARRANGEMENT OF AN HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. In one Volume. Oxford, at the University Press. 1834.
HARMONIA EVANGELICA, SIVE QUATUOR EVANGELIA GRACE, PRO TEMPORIS ET RERUM SERIE, IN PAR- TES QUINQUE DISTRIBUTA. Editio secunda. Oxonii, 6 Typographeo Academico. MpcCCXXXIV.
JOANNIS MILTONI FABULA, SAMSON AGONISTES ET COMUS, GRACE. Oxonii, excudebat 5. Collingwood, Acade- mie typographus, Mpcccxxx. Veneunt apud J. H. Parker, &c.
THE CONTENTS
OF
THE FIRST VOLUME.
----.....Ὄ-.
DISSERTATION I.
On the regularity of the Gospeis, and on their Supplemental ποτ τ το CIO oy tn scat oo idintearutneonieeniockc’, I—79
NECESSITY of both these questions to a Gospel Harmony—A Gospel regular, which ‘contains no Anticipations or Trajections— πὴ τᾷ τὴς ΠΤ ΡΤ OS I
Regularity of the Gospels distinct from their continuity—Regularity of a particular Gospel to be determined by the comparison of the details of that one with those of the rest—Means of this compa- ὙΠΟ ΡΝ γὴν toe expected. Foy.) e/ssin aca BY SRS I—2
Regularity of each of the Gospels more agreeable to antecedent pro- bability than the contrary—Simple history naturally observant of the order of time—No exception to this rule but for particular reasons—The Gospels not memoirs of Jesus Christ, but histories of the rise and progress of the Christian Dispensation...... 3—4
St. Matthew’s Gospel partly regular and partly irregular—Gospels of St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John, regular throughout—Proof of the first of these assertions—No proper instance of a trans- position in the order of events discernible in St. Mark or
ONS Ere Oe Os Se RE oe OSE Re ESC 4—6
Proof of the assertion with respect to St. Luke's Gospel, a priori— Preface premised to the Gospel—Proposal of the writer to write in
order—Proper signification of παρηκολουθηκότι, ἄνωθεν, and καθεξῆς —Regularity of the Acts, considered as the second part of the
Phe ΓΌΨΨΘ ΘΠ ΡΥ 6—I0
Proof of the assertion, a posteriori—Gospel of St. Luke regular for
VOL. I. d
Ι THE CONTENTS.
an integral portion of its contents—Summing up of the history of the Baptist, though an anticipation, a proof of its regularity—Cases of supposed transposition in St. Luke, after this point of time, on examination seen to be no such thing................1O—12
Distinction of similar and identical accounts—Events liable to be mistaken for the same which are not even similar—Advantages of distinguishing between similar events, to the credibility of the Gospel history—A priori probable that many things in the Gospel history would happen more than once—Events of this description not twice related in the same Gospel—Difficulties attaching to the received methods of reconciling distinct Gospel accounts, sup- posed to be the same—Importance of similar but not identical events, to the filling up of the Gospel history —Much in the Gospels the same, which might be considered distinct .......... I2—I5
Supplemental relations of the Gospels—Order of the Gospels as they stand, uniform, with what exceptions—Probably the order in which the Gospels were written—Internal evidence in St. Mat- thew’s that it was the first, and in St. John’s that it was the iS id bE Pataki Satine Metal toy es Sothys 15—16
Argument of the order of the Gospels, independent of testimony, deducible from their supplemental relations to each other—State- ment of the case, and inference from it—Double conclusion of the method of reasoning in question—Distinct from the argu- ment from verbal coincidences, though leading to the same re- Balt” oe he tee ee ee ee en ene EE ene ee 16—18
Application of the principle to the Gospel of St. John, in its relation fo. the first three ΟΌΒΡΟΙΝ seer as eth ard te ere 18—20
Application of the principle to the Gospel of St. Luke, in its relation to those of St. Matthew and St. Mark................ 20—22
Inference from the argument not to be evaded in the case of St. Luke, while it holds good in that of St. John—Objection that the same relations would apparently hold of St. Luke, though St. Matthew and St. Mark had both written after him—Actual references in St. Luke, to St. Matthew or St. Mark—Circumstantial propriety of the accounts of St. Luke in the most disputed part of his Gospel— An argument of the truth of their position as they stand . . 22—27
THE CONTENTS. li
Application of the principle to the Gospel of St. Mark, in its relation to St. Matthew’s—A priori difficulty of determining whether St. Mark wrote after St. Luke, or St. Luke after St. Mark—Rea- soning of Griesbach on this question inconclusive—St. Mark not the abbreviator of St. Matthew—Omissions in St. Matthew sup- plied by St. Mark, and other peculiarities of their relations, to shew that St. Mark’s Gospel throughout is accommodated to St. Mat- thew's—Onmissions in St. Mark compared with St. Matthew, imply the same thing—Verbal coincidences between St. Matthew and St. Mark much more numerous and striking, than between either and St. Luke—Idioms peculiar to St. Matthew and St. Mark, but Rakai rere terri /d hs 3 Meee lie ehh ly ὧν 27—34
General observations on the preceding statements—Proper force of the argument not perceptible from this mode of stating it—Con- sistency of the conclusions thus obtained with each other, and with other things before or after them..............+0---6- 34—36
Supplementary relations of the Gospels, the best answer to the hypo- thesis of πρωτευαγγέλια, or common documents, anterior to any of the Gospels—Supplementary relations inexplicable upon that principle —Mere statement of the hypothesis, a sufficient proof of its impro- bability—Absurd to suppose the Gospels might be indebted to common documents, and yet not have seen each other—Common documents inconsistent with the inspiration and independent au- ταν obeathy Mics). vu siond. μενα les betuse ste. 36—4o
Objections to the supplementary relations of the Gospels, and answers to them—First; supplementary Gospels would have contained ἐμ εν οι am comimenes τὲ, oe solhoG 0s «katie, aut 2) 40—42
Secondly; supplementary Gospels would have avoided all appearance of contradiction or difference ...............-000-0- 42—46
Thirdly ; supplementary Gospels would have observed the arrange- ments of each, σελ 243010) oid, 0.21528 beech 46—49
Fourthly ; Gospels which had taken any thing from one another would have named their authority ................ 49—5I
Fifthly ; if a later Evangelist had transcribed from an earlier, he would have transcribed without alteration .................-. 51—61 d 2
ln THE CONTENTS.
Specimens of coincidences between passages of St. Luke and passages in St. Matthew, which are recurrences, yet agree almost verbatim together— Various readings of the text of the Lord’s Prayer, in the
timelef.Origen(.si)ocn . coves χεῖρ Ὁ Aa ee 101 55—61
Supplementary relations of the Gospels, an answer to the question why we have four Gospels, and neither more nor less than four —Reasons assigned by the Fathers for this fact fanciful—'This question distinct from the other, why one Gospel might not have sufficed, or why each of the four Gospels was not originally com- plete—Distinct later Gospels both point out deficiencies in pre-- ceding, and supply them—Answer to the further objection, that any Gospel, however defective, combined with oral teaching, might have sufficed for its proper purpose—Oral teaching of con- temporaries by contemporaries, sufficient without any written Gospel at all—Written Gospels a provision against the time when oral teaching should no longer be possible ............ 62—69
General conclusion from the above premises—Relations in question, if matter of fact, either supplementary provisions, designedly made, or resolvable into accident—Supplementary provisions, if designedly made, either made unconsciously to the authors of the Goapels,: or: by themselves) +), 23.2 cjane. oh cee hey ΜῈ 69—71
Verbal coincidences in the Gospels not to be explained on the prin- ciple of supposed oral teaching become habitual, and at length ται πρρῆ tO Writine 4 ho it oe ae eae eine ee γ71--τ 73
Credibility of the Gospels, individually, not impaired by the admis- sion of these relations, and collectively, increased —Gospels alluded to by St. Luke—Canonical Gospels not comprehended in this description—These Gospels distinct from apocryphal, properly so called—Gradual completion of the body of Christian historical evidence—Cumulative testimony resulting from successive supple- mentary Gospels—Principal use of a Gospel Harmony to set forth this testimony—Outline of the Gospel history, so compiled, com- plete and continuous, however deficient the details—Proper basis for a Gospel harmony St. Matthew’s in conjunction with St.
Mark's
THE CONTENTS. li
DISSERTATION II.
Historical investigation of the Times and the Order of the first CORUM TORTION αν νεψονον Boos wots ieee d eects buns oats 80—193
Difference of dates assigned to the four Gospels—Testimony more uniform to the order of the Gospels, than to the times—Order of the Gospels according to the Hypotyposes of Clemens Ale- xandrinus—Hypotyposes probably a spurious work ...... 80—8i
Dates of the Gospels anciently, conjectural—Date of Theophylact for the Gospel of St. Mark a case in point—First three Gospels in being before the destruction of Jerusalem—Limitation of the in- quiry to the dates of these three—Lateness of the Gospel of St. John—Porches at Bethesda might be in being after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem—Tomb of Helena—Age of Pausanias—Tomb of James the Just—Poo] of Bethesda—Past sense of the present ΕΝ ΝΥ ὑπο ΤΣ ΤΣ ΟΣ eee 81— 84
Personal history of the authors of the several Gospels—Neither St. Mark nor St. Luke one of the seventy—Catalogues of the seventy before and after the time of Eusebius—St. Luke not an eyewit- ness, from his use of the word wapnkoAovénkas.........- 84—86
Mark the Evangelist distinct from John Mark, nephew of Barnabas —St. Luke a medicus or surgeon—Surgeons or medici of anti- quity, slaves —St. Luke, whether a freeman or a slave, if a me- dicus, probably a Greek—Examples of medici anciently Greeks or slaves, or both—St. Luke, whether a native of Antioch—St. Luke probably a convert, and certainly a companion of St. Paul—Gospel of St. Luke the Gospel of St. Panl—Coincidences between the Gospel and the Epistles, or other statements, of St. Paul—St. Luke probably converted at Troas—St. Luke not the same with Lucius _of Cyrene—Name of Lucas contracted from Lucanus, not Lucius or Lucilius—Boves Luce or Lucane—Lucanus a Roman cogno- men, Lucilius a Roman nomen—St. Luke probably an inhabitant ἧς of Philippi—Mode of designation applied to Philippi in the Acts —Divisions of Macedonia—Ancient name of Philippi—Title and meaning of πρώτη as applied to cities—Philippi a colony of Julius or Augustus Cesar—Roman names of the Greek inhabitants of Roman colonies—Names of patrons assumed by freedmen—Set- tlers in colonies often composed of libertini—Paul and Silas Ro- man citizens—St. Luke implied to be a Greek by his use of the d 3
“3
liv THE CONTENTS.
phrase οἱ βάρβαροι, of the inhabitants of Melite or Malta—Possible connection of St. Luke with Troas also—Alexandria Troas an-
ciently Antigonia ........- 260s ere ee re tee eens 86—96
St. Mark a Jew, and St. Luke not—St. Luke before his conversion probably one of the εὐσεβεῖς, or devout men, among the Gentiles —St. Luke not ignorant of the ancient SS. in their own lan-
PWARE 2... sind gezime ities VAR WOmEIEES ee oetaame g6—98
Internal evidences of the Gospel of St. Mark that its author was a Jew, and probably a native Jew—St. Mark the young man alluded to in his Gospel, at the time of our Saviour's apprehension—In- ternal evidences of the Gospel, that the writer was a convert of St. Peter, or intimately connected with him .......... g8—102
Uniform ancient testimony that St. Mark’s Gospel was written at Rome, upon occasion of St. Peter’s visit there—St. Mark his com- panion in his previous tour—Question of the date of St. Mark’s Gospel, reducible to that of the time of St. Peter’s first visit to Rome, and both to that of the date of the First Epistle of St. Peter, if Babylon, in that Epistle, be understood of Rome. . 102—103
Investigation of the date of the First Epistle of Peter, on this supposi- tion—Epistle, addressed to Gentile converts as well as to Jews— Peter the same with Cephas—Arrival of Peter, and preaching, at Corinth—Foundation anew of Corinth and Carthage—Corinth the thoroughfare between Asia and Italy—Meeting of Peter and Paul at Antioch—Sense of the words κατεγνωσμένος 7v—Date of the commencement of St. Peter’s evangelical circuit, the spring quarter, A.D. 52—Date of his arrival at Corinth—Date of his arrival at Ome...) jet. 6 Sin τ loge NES Vee ie eee 103—I14
Probable duration of the stay of St. Peter at Rome—Peter no longer at Rome after the middle of Nero—Parallelism of the history of St. Peter and St. Paul—Testimony of Lactantius—Testimony of the Catalogus Pontificum Romanorum—Silvanus with St. Paul be- fore, and with St. Peter after, what time............ 114-117
Traditionary visit of Peter to Rome in the second of Claudius— Traditionary contest of Peter and Simon Magus at Rome—Possi- ble visit of Simon Magus to Rome in the reign of Claudius— Attempts to fly in the reign of Nero—Meeting of Peter and Philo
THE CONTENTS. lv
Judeus at Rome—Motive to these traditions probably what— Christianity by whom introduced into Rome and Antioch first— Christianity at Rome in the seventh of Claudius—Household of Narcissus—Pomponia Grecina .........-..2-0005- I17—I121
Resulting conclusion of the date of the Gospel of St. Mark—Internal evidence of the Gospel, to confirm that conclusion—First sentence and last, of the Gospel—Latin terms or phrases in the Gospel— Σπεκουλάτωρ---Κράββατο---- Ovai—No objection that aGospel written at Rome should be written in Greek—Alexander and Rufus, sons of Simon of Cyrene—Alexander of Cyrene—Catullus, governor of ie Pemiomeheg Lice eae lh. tigi dep nila νων wef. 121—125
Gospel of St. Matthew originally written in Hebrew—Early loss of the Hebrew original—Gospel according to the Ebionites, or ac- cording to the Nazarenes, neither of them St. Matthew’s genuine Hebrew Gospel—Similar uncertainty about the origin of the Greek translation—Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew not likely to survive beyond what time—Objection that St. Matthew's present Greek exhibits no marks of a translation..................125—128
Testimony of Papias—Proves both that St. Matthew's Gospel was ori- ginally in Hebrew, and that a Greek translation had superseded it in his time—Proper sense of épynvedoac— No objection that Papias had not seen the original—Testimonies of later times not resoly- able into this of Papias—Discovery of the Hebrew Gospel in India by Pantenus—Age of Pantenus—Judgment of Eusebius on the capacity of Papias—Founded on a difference of opinion upon the πο δυ δὲ the wnllemmiio εἰς νὴ 5. Soidaid dates wrals ish’ 128—133
Early disappearance of the original Hebrew, prima facie an argu- ment that it never existed—Probable that an Hebrew Gospel would not survive an Hebrew church in Palestine itself—Desola- tion of Judea by the war of Vespasian, and that of Hadrian— Loss of the Hebrew original of St. Matthew’s Gospel only parrallel to that of the littere authentice of the rest of the Christian SS., and of the Hebrew Epistle to the Hebrews ............ 133—135
That Greek might be known or spoken in Palestine, no argument that a Gospel designed for an Hebrew church would not be written in Hebrew-—Greek version of the Old Testament never superseded the Hebrew in Palestine—Hebrew and Greek edition of the War
d 4
lvi
THE CONTENTS.
of Josephus, as designed for the two classes of his countrymen— Meaning of the term Hellenist, to describe a Jew of the Disper- sion, in opposition to the Jews of the Mother Country—Hebrew generally known and studied by the Jews of the Dispersion—Dia- lect of Galilee as such, and dialect of Judza as such—Native languages in the East never superseded by the Greek. . .. 135—141
Hypothesis of a double edition of his own Gospel by St. Matthew
in Hebrew and in Greek, gratuitous—Contradicted by the internal evidence of the Gospel itself. .................... 141 —143
Date of St. Matthew’s Gospel, eight years after the ascension—Coin-
cident with the conversion of Cornelius—Time of the composition of the first Gospel necessarily connected with the question of the time when the Apostles would first quit Judea—Limits within which that time must be fixed—None of the Apostles but Peter and James and John left in Judea after A.D. 42; and none but James after A.D. 52—Traditional division of countries among the Apostles, when preparing to quit Judea—Roman empire in parti- cular, assigned to whom—Testimony of various kinds to the scenes of the labours of the Apostles, their deaths, or the like—Date of the final departure from Judea, of Peter—Date of the departure of the other Apostles previously—Reputed time of the death of the Virgin Mary 42.0 coon Hae gn Rea: 143—152
Resulting date of the Gospel of St. Matthew—Testimony of Irenzus
—Difficulty connected with its prima facie construction—Means of solving it to suppose that St. Matthew’s Gospel was translated into Greek, and published at Rome, along with his own, by St. Mark—Advantages of this supposition both to explain what there is peculiar in either Gospel, and to account for the accommodation of the one to the other, as well as in other respects... .152—157
Resumption of the hypothesis that St. Peter’s First Epistle was
written from Rome—Objections to this hypothesis—Allusions to the First Epistle in the Second—Time of the Second Epi- 5 eee iS oe ye 88D tie fe Lae ee
Babylon, in the First Epistle, Rome, a purely gratuitous supposition—
Babylon in the Epistle, not Babylon in Mesopotamia—State of Babylon in Mesopotamia, in the time of St. Peter—Babylon in the Epistle, Babylon in Egypt—History of Babylon in Egypt before
THE CONTENTS. lvii
and after the time of St. Peter—Conclusion in question confirmed by tradition, with respect to the history of St. Mark—Mark the first bishop of Alexandria—Date of his death in that capa- ΠΣ Mri de eat. τ hhintisd γον elt held eet ac 160—165
Christianity in Egypt in the time of Apollos—Number of Jews of Egypt—St. Mark constituted bishop of Alexandria by St. Peter— Time when the Apostles began to consecrate bishops, the close of their ministry—Confirmation of these conclusions by various ον νον. π΄, πο οτος Yd eerbeke 165—168
Time and order of the Gospel of St. Luke, independent of historical testimony, as deducible from its internal evidences— Az’ ἀρχῆς--- Apocryphal Gospels—Personal, antecedent history of St. Luke— No proof that he was with St. Paul during his imprisonment— ‘Present at Cesarea at the close of it—Probable mode of his em- ployment meanwhile—Gospel written at the same time with the Acts—No part of the Acts written before the reign of Nero—De- signation of Cesar, as applied to the emperor absolutely—Contem- porary characters, alluded to in the Acts—Gallio the oldest of the family of Seneca the Father—Names of Gallio before and after his adoption—Date of his death and Seneca’s—Lucan the poet— Gallio the father or orator—Banishment of Seneca, and dates of some of his treatises—Theophilus in the Gospel and Acts, a real personage—Name of Theophilus in common use anciently—Ab- surdly confounded with the high priest Theophilus, son of Annas —Geographical peculiarities of the Gospel and Acts, a proof that they were written for one a stranger to Judza, but well acquainted with Italy—Gaza and its history, before and after the time of St. Luke—Synagogue of the Jews at Thessalonica—Proseucha, or oratory at Philippi—Rivers near Philippi—Resort of the Jews to the sea-shore, or to river sides, for the purpose of prayer—Cesarea Philippi, or Neroneas 50: . 3 -stdegeaiiia 24's as aoa). fo, BOB B2
Theophilus probably a freedman of Nero, and a recent convert— Geographical allusions in the account of the voyage of St. Paul to Rome—Melite—Islands or places of that name—Melite of St. Paul, the modern Malta, not the ancient Melita—Direction of the wind which assailed St. Paul—H Svpris—Name of the wind, and various readings—Cycles or divisions of the winds, anciently—Eipa- κύλων analogous to etpdvoros—Writers and authorities on the sub- ject of winds—Proper name of the wind in question, Cecias or
Ἰν πὶ THE CONTENTS.
Hellespontias—Setting in of that.wind, what—'Aépias, as applied tothe Mediterranean ...... 20.0.2 0505 0 Se eee 182—188
Allusions to places in the neighbourhood of Rome—Appii Forum, and Tres Taberne—Relative position of these places—Tres Ta- berne in the time of Constantine—Journey of Horace from Rome to Brundisium—Canal through the Pomptine marshes, and mode of travelling along it from Tarracina to Appii Forum, or vice versa —Lucan’s description of Cesar’s approach to Rome—Pomptine marshes paved -by Drajatr ss 1055: torte eee eee 188—190
Remarkable terms in the Acts, σουδάρια and oyscxiv6ca—Resulting conclusion of the date and place of the Gospel of St. Luke—Va- riety of opinions on the latter point—Tradition that it was written in Achaia—Traditionary history of St. Luke after the composition of his Gospel—Translation of the bones of St. Luke and others from Achaia to Constantinople—Paintings of our Lord and the Virgin ascribed to St. Luke—Theophilus, whether governor of Achaia —Epaphroditus, the friend of Josephus—Gospel of St. Matthew quoted by St. Peter, and Gospel of St. Luke, by St. Paul. . rgo—193
DISSERTATION III. On the irregularities of St. Matthew’s Gospel ...... 194—238
Course and succession of events in St. Matthew’s Gospel, from the beginning, to the time of the passage of the Lake to Gadara— First seven chapters regular—Cure of the leper regular—Cure of the Centurion’s servant regular—Identity of this miracle in St. Matthew with that in St. Luke—Classical use of mats—Circum- stances of difference in the two accounts explained .. .. 194—198
First instance of irregularity, the cure of Peter's wife’s mother, and miracles of healing. the same day ............8. 0800... 198—199
Course of events from the time of the passage of the Lake, to the time of the return to Capernaum—lIncidents on the way to the Lake, peculiar to St. Matthew—Similar incidents on record else- where in St. Luke—Probable that these incidents happened more than once, rather than that they are related out of their place by either—Profession and rank of Scribe among the Jews—Command to let the dead bury their dead, supposed to have been addressed oa ibe eae ith WW Ol. De ee ey peice ee 199—203
THE CONTENTS. lix
Passage of the Lake in St. Matthew regular as to what goes before— Identity of this passage in each of the accounts—Motive of our Lord to the passage—Storm on the Lake—Miracle on the other side of the Lake—Nature of the eastern coast of the lake—Graves or tombs in caves or rocks—Site of Tiberias—Monuments or tombs the resort of demoniacs—Circumstances which identify the mira- cle in each of the accounts—Peculiar character of this case of possession—Probable final end of the permission to the devils to δι δ τ ὙΠ ΡΠ ΡΟ ΜΝ 203—206
Reconciliation of the accounts of the passage in the three Evangelists —Reconciliation of the accounts of the miracle—Peculiar charac- teristic conciseness of St. Matthew—Country of the Gergesenes, as contradistinguished to that of the Gadarenes—Various reading of Gergesenes, Gerasenes, Gadarenes—Testimony of Origen to the existence and site of Gergesa—Number of demoniacs in the seve- ral accounts—Why St. Mark’s or St. Luke’s might be confined to one of the number—Distinction of the subjects of the miracle explains the language ascribed to the demoniacs in the different greaunnie ews best. yi Uh, 3G AG te eu) oO. 206—211
Cure of the paralytic—Identity of this miracle in the several accounts —Second instance of irregularity in St. Matthew's Gospel, the cure Ra eRe PI hac os cig <b eak-odirne abinnewat wl enh ΜΗΝΟΕ 0, ». 21I—213
Course of events from the time of the return to Capernaum to the time of the mission of the T'welve—Sitting at meat after the re- turn regular—Raising of the daughter of Jairus regular—Recon- ciliation of the accounts of this miracle—Application of Jairus to our Lord not made on the sea side—Terms of the address of Jai- rus to Jesus in St. Matthew and St. Mark respectively—Made up in St. Matthew of the words actually used by Jairus, and of the message received by the way—Terms of the address in St. Matthew accommodated from the first to the change in the nature of the miracle, produced by the death on the way—Pipers at funerals among the Jews—Circumstantiality of St. Mark’s account 213-217
Events next in succession in St. Matthew regular—Circuit of Galilee regular—Mission of the Twelve regular—Identity of the mission in each of the accounts—Communication of miraculous power to the Twelve now first made—Limited to miracles of a peculiar de- scription—Power so communicated ever after retained 217—220
Ix THE CONTENTS.
Charge which preceded the mission—Division of the account in St. Matthew—lIdentity of the first of these divisions with the account in St. Mark and St. Luke—First portion of the charge limited to the occasion of the present mission, the second not—Probable that the whole was delivered at once, as recorded by St. Matthew, but such parts as were not intended to apply to the first mission of the Apostles, were purposely omitted by St. Mark and St. Ltteotsiads. co brcikd ont BAe as. Sa ae 220—227
Third instance of irregularity in St. Matthew's Gospel, the message of John—Identity of this message with that in St. Luke—Compa- rison of the accounts—Miracle of the widow’s son implicitly re- cognised previous to the message, even in St. Matthew—Death of John Baptist after the message, yet before the mission of the Twelve—Hearing of Jesus by Herod the tetrarch—Retirement of Jesus to Bethsaida, and its place relative to the news of the death of John, and to the return of the Twelve from their mis- MOMs. al). Jo.auepae. ef eben eae ΧΗΣ 227—232
Remainder of the Gospel of St. Matthew, with what exceptions regu- lar—Sunmary of the preceding survey—Strictly irregular portion of St. Matthew, what—To what causes this irregularity is due— Reasons which might have produced the irregularity in each of these Ὡς oo. secessionists nt op ous wee oe --- :ἴ-
Use and design of the two chapters interposed between the strictly irregular and strictly regular division of the Gospel—Comprehen-- sive division of St. Matthew’s Gospel, founded upon these distinc- tions—Double ἀρχὴ of the Gospel, and double law of narration so resuiting—Intimated by its own evidence ..........235—236
General observations—St. Matthew's Gospel not safely to be assumed as the basis of an Harmony—Order of St. Matthew not necessarily regular, because that of an eyewitness—Irregular Gospel a pre- sumptive argument of an early Gospel—Principle of classification more applicable to St. Matthew than to St. Luke—Structure of all | the Gospels anecdotal—Especially so in St. Luke and St. John— Memorable epochs or events in the history of our Saviour’s minis- try, specified by St. Matthew with more precision than by the
ENG εν kL sf aVh a Ui wi/p ἐνῶ «irate Tdeepi εἰ Sept alee Naan ree ee ἢ 236—238
THE CONTENTS. Ixi
DISSERTATION IV. On the date of the Passover, John ii. 152.... «οὐ ννννος 239—246
Sense of the words John ii. 20. and date of the passover deduc- ible from it—Understood by Chrysostom, apparently, in that
Date of the commencement of the rebuilding of the temple by Herod, oi ae CW) a ream 240—241
Calculation of the 46 years in question, from the date of the rebuild- ing of the temple to the Passover, John 1.13 ..........-. 241
Corollary from this conclusion, that our Saviour was baptized in the first half of the thirteenth of Tiberius Cesar ........ 242—243
Explanations of the text by the ancient commentators—Admission of Origen of the difficulty presented by it—Building of the first temple, by David and Solomon—Reference of the text by He- racleon, and the Evangelium Nicodemi, to the first temple— By Methodius, to the second—Erroneous account of Eusebius of the building of the second temple—Exposition of Theo- dorit, Theophylact, Chrysostom, Julius Pollux, and Augustin— Mystical reference of the text to the numeral value of Adam in Greek—Simplicity of the true explanation in comparison of all the above—A forty-six years’ interval between the beginning and com- pletion of the second temple, directly at variance with the truth of the fact—Interval recognised by Josephus only twenty-five years—Interval in question appears first in Christian writ- ΡΥ RO IR el ον ta oe Ae MN ene 243—246
DISSERTATION V. Verification of the Date of the Passover, John i. 13 ..247—282
Nicety required by the calculations necessary for this verification—
Double date of Josephus for the beginnning of the reign of He- Date uniformly followed by him the later of the two, B.C. 37, not the earlier, B. C. 40o—Proofs............... 247—260
rod
Dates of the duration of the Asmonean dynasty—H νηστεία or éop- τὴ Tis νηστείας, absolutely, to be understood of what—Nnyoreia of the Tarentines—Capture of Jerusalem by Pompey—Length of the
Ixn THE CONTENTS.
siege by Herod and Sosius—Marriage of Herod and Mari- ἜΠΟΣ ΠΌΣΟ ΤΑ ι΄ τ | holed 9 Pe ee en 248—250
Date of the interval from the appointment of the first high priest by Herod, to the destruction of the temple—Ananelus—Aristobulus, brother of Mariamne—Lysanias—Armenian expeditions of Antony —Date of the appointment of Aristobulus .......... 250—251
Battle of Actium—Years of Herod dated from the spring ....251
Date of the foundation of Cesarea, referred to the years of Herod’s reign—Date of its completion—Proper sense of the word προθε- opia—Prefects of Egypt—Cornelius Gallus, Avlius Gallus, Petro- nius—War of Petronius and Candace—Arabian expedition of félius Gallus—Ancyran monument—Embassy of Candace to Au- gustus at Samos—Precise duration of the Arabian expedition of Gallus—Allusions to Augustus’ eastern expeditions in the poets— Resulting conclusion of the order of the first three governors of Egypt—Date of the administration of Petronius, as deducible from Josephus—Droughts and other physical calamities from the thir- teenth to the seventeenth of Herod—Coincidence of this period with a Sabbatic year—Petronius governor of Egypt during the period of greatest pressure—Rise of the Nile in the administration of Petronius—Ordinary rise of the Nile—Cubits on the coins of Egypt—Resulting conclusion of the true date of the building and completion jO8 Cassaren 2m i055, σάν τ ἀν ΦΡΉ ΔΤ ὑ (ὡς, oie 251—258
Date of the rebuilding of the temple in the 18th of Herod so deter- mined—Date of the War in the 15th—Confuted by the context of the War itself—Date in question, an average statement of the time of Herod's principal works:.. ..%.0.'..0.2'..'. τος τ 258-260
Inversions of facts in these two chapters of the War—Numerical or other statements in the Antiquities and the War in general, at va- riance with each other—Mistake, in reference to Hyrcanus Second —Birth and death of Herod, and his age U. C. 707—Phasaélus —Marriage of Herod and Doris—Marriage of Antipater and Cy- prus—Trrue year of the birth of Herod ............ 260—263
Years of Herod dated by Josephus from the spring—Current years reckoned by Josephus as complete—Reigns of the kings of Israel traditionally referred to Nisan or the spring ........ 262—264
THE CONTENTS. Ixiii
Completion of the ναὸς of the temple in 18 months, and coincidence of the completion with the anniversary of Herod’s appointment to be king—Investigation of the date of that fact ........ 264
Invasion of the Parthians, U.C. 714, and departure of Herod to Rome—Misconstruction of the sense of yewwavos—Czsar and Antony at Rome—Peace of Brundisium—Time of this peace— Journey of Horace from Rome to Brundisium—Not referable to proceedings in U. C. 717, and not in U. C. 714—Determination of the time of the presence of Cesar and Antony at Rome, after the peace—Resort of the ancients to Baiz, in the spring of the year—Disturbances at Rome over, before the arrival of Herod— Feast of Tabernacles U. C. 714 and U.C. 735, coincident with the date of Herod’s appointment.................. 264—269
Objection to the above conclusions, from the silence of Josephus on more than two winters or campaigns, between Herod’s appoint- ment and his capture of Jerusalem—Second of these winters, next after the siege of Samosata—Investigation of the date of that Oe VALS ae Pe Fee ee ΝΎ ΡΥ 269—271
Motions of Antony from U. C. 714 to U. C. 716—Victories of Ven- tidius over the Parthians, U. C. 715, and U. C. 716—Fragments of Cornelius Gallus—Date of the defeat and death of Crassus— Arrival of Antony, and siege of Samosata—Winter after that, the third year of Herod’s appointment—Return of Herod to Judea fn sete; ibe sprang, OF Cte be i a ee, 5 nn sag ph x Tbid.
Date of the capture of Jerusalem, U. C. 716—Motions of Antony, U.C. 716 to U.C. 718—Antony at Antioch, on his way into Parthia, U. C. 718—Antigonus put to death by him there—Tes- timony of Africanus, in unison with the above statements—Olym- minds, of Africanus; Weap Yeats, ΣΡ 0 1 τὴ spss 28s © 271 —273
Date of the death of Herod, and length of his reign deducible from the above premises—Consistency of these conclusions with every other note of time to be met with in Josephus—Age of Herod at his death, about the Passover—Census of Quirinus, and its date in the years of the battle of Actium—Different statements of the length of the reign of Archelaus, and mode of reconciling them— Difference in the number of ears of corn in the dream of Arche- laus, to be explained on the same principle—Date of the death of
Ixiv THE CONTENTS.
Philip the tetrarch, and first of his reign, deducible from it— Foundation of Cesarea Philippi, and era of that event as determined from its coins—Philip at Rome, at the time of the decision on the will of his father—Disturbances in Judea, and suppression of them by Varus—Era of the coins of Cesarea, the first year of Philip—Coins of Ascalon, and double date exhibited by them— Rarity of double dates on coins—Disposal of Ascalon, before and after the death of Herod—Enmity of the people of Ascalon, to the Jews—Reference of the double date in question, both to the year of the death of Herod, and to the time of the presence of Gabi- nian Syria} ΤΠ: C2696 oF ὅδ 14 BE). ἃ POR 273—281
Calculation of the interval anew, from the date of the rebuilding of the temple, to the date of the Passover, John ii.13 ........ 282
DISSERTATION VI.
On the time of the deposal of Herod Antipas, and on the eclipse before the death of Herod ..............000. 283—314.
Description of the coin of Herod Antipas, bearing date in the forty- third of his reign—Question of its date, restricted to U.C. 792 UNG ΤΟΣ το Geen ec Me kaa te oe tee 283, 284
Date of the banishment of Herod Antipas, determinable from the date of the appointment of Herod Agrippa by Caius to his te- trarchy—Length of the reign of Herod Agrippa according to Jo- sephus—Part, spent under Caius, and part, under Claudius—Do- minions of Herod Antipas conferred upon him four years before his death—Agrippa, according both to Philo and Josephus, in possession of the tetrarchy of Antipas in the last year of Caius, ER OB |: Denar ba μή eta aA ΡΥ χΓῸ 284—286
History of the journey of Herod Antipas to Italy, which led to his banishment—Return of Herod Agrippa to Judza, in the summer or autumnal quarter of U. C. 791—Envy of Herodias, wife of An- tipas, at the good fortune of Agrippa—Preparations of Herod Antipas, and departure to Rome— Mission of Fortunatus, freed- man of Agrippa, to defeat the object of Antipas—Caius at Baie, at the 41e ΟἹ unc alrival Of both... 2)... e en ree ee 286—287
Investigation of the times when Caius might be found at Baie— Death of Drusilla—Birthday of Drusilla—Family of Germanicus
THE CONTENTS. Ixv
and Agrippina, and order and times of their birth—Bridge of Caius from Puteoli to Bauli—Visit of Caius in the spring of U.C. 792, too early for the arrival of Antipas: visit in the summer of U.C. 793, too late—Possible that Herod Antipas would not arrive in Italy before the end of summer, U.C. 792; nor Fortunatus be able to leave for Judea, before the spring of U. C. 793. . 287-292
Reasons, notwithstanding, for supposing that Herod was deposed at Lugdunum in Gaul, not at Baie in Campania—Caius at Lugdunum, Jan. 1, U.C. 793—Gallic or German expedition of Caius—Caius at Rome, at the birth of his son by Cessonia—Instances of extant coins struck within short periods of time—Arrival of Herod Agrippa in Italy, after his appointment to the dominions of Antipas—Enmity of Herod Antipas and Vitellius—Attempt of Caius to erect his statue in the temple at Jerusalem—Petronius, governor of Syria—Reconcilia- tion of Philoand Josephus—Accounts of Josephus take up the thread of the history, where the narrative of Philo broke it off—Proceedings in Judea with Petronius—Particulars of the account in Philo— Time of the mission of Philo from Alexandria to Rome—Proceed- ings before the emperor at Puteoli—Arrival of Agrippa—Letter of Agrippa to Caius—Proceedings in Josephus laid at Ptolemais: in Philo, at Sidon—Caius in Campania, U. C. 792, according to Suetonius and Pliny also—The remora or sucking fish—General conclusion from the above premises................292—302
Argument for the date of the death of Herod, from the lunar eclipse supposed to have preceded that event—Impossible for the events to have come to pass, which are recorded between the eclipse and the death of Herod, if that was the eclipse, March13,U.C.750. . 303~305
True date of the commencement of the sickness of Herod, the time of the conviction of Antipater—Time necessary for a communica- tion to pass to and from Judza and Rome in the summer or the win- ter season—Cases in point in proof of this assertion, in the time taken up by the receipt of the letter of Petronius, and the arrival of the last orders of Caius in answer to it, an interval of five or six months—Resulting conclusion of the true date of the time when Herod wrote to Augustus, and of the true time when he received RIP A@EBWER 92 2b κων AR eo ον δε suk BBS angeg
Attempt on the eagle, an event in the early stages of Herod’s sick- ness—Date of the attempt could not be later than December or VOL, I. e
Ixvi THE CONTENTS.
January, before Herod’s death—Tenth of Tisri, which preceded the attempt—Attempt not made at the time of any feast—Herod in Jerusalem at the time of the attempt, not at Callirrhoé or Je- ere foc Noo. Sask ΝΗ ce steal wees 309—311
No mention of any eclipse in the War—2¢aAyara of Josephus, and case in point, in his account of Mithridates, king of Parthia... .. 311,312
Eclipse in U. C. 750, the year before, and U. C. 752, the year after the death of Herod—Kclipse of U.C. 752 altogether such as Josephus would imply to have followed the execution of the so- phists—Date of the eclipse U. C. 752, ΩΝ be confounded by Josephus with ἢ]. ©. 7g. 20.3 seat. Silat (δὲ κεν NZ1g,AT4
DISSERTATION VII. Computation of Jewish passovers, or other feasts. 315—333 Feast of the Passover restricted to the same time of the year, and the same time of the month—Passover restricted to the fourteenth of Nisan—Fourteenth of Nisan preceded the full of the moon— Testimonies—Philo Judeus, Josephus, the Agathobuli and Aristo- bulus—Age of Aristobulus—Limits of the fourteenth of Nisan, with respect to the fourteenth of the moon, as so determined... 3 15-320
Neomenia of Nisan, determinable neither by the physical conjunc- tion, nor by the phasis, exclusively—No νυχθήμερον of a Jewish month divisible between two months—Months of the Jews cavi and pleni alternately—Nisan cavus, or a month of twenty-nine days —Solemnity of the new moons restricted to the first of the month—Greek & καὶ νέα or τριακὰς, inapplicable to Jewish months—Tricesima sabbata of Horace—Definition of the Neome- nia by Philo—Phasis of the moon in Judea, within eighteen hours of the conjunction—Rule of the Jews, founded on this fact —Testimony of Horapollo to the same fact in Egypt—Book of Enoch, and division of a day and night into eighteen parts, impli- citly founded on'thetS@me ........ 0.005009. 00 8. 320—324
Rule by which the Neomenia of Nisan admitted of being regularly determined—TIllustration of this rule by the testimony of Philo, aoe tar-Laber Enoch. oi... ons). ve ee ee 324—327
Time of the year to which the Passover was restricted, the vernal equinox—True date and Julian date of the vernal equinox at the
THE CONTENTS. ; Ixvil
birth of Christ—Egquinoctial and tropical points placed in octavis par- tibus of their respective signs—Dates of the Passover in the acts of Pilate—Paschal terms or limits, March 18 and April 16... 327-329
Construction of a table of feasts, on the principles thus laid down— Paschal full moon, the full moon between March 18 and April 16. —Pentecost and Tabernacles both determinable from the Pass- over—Eclipses before and after the birth of Christ, calculated by Pingre—General accuracy of the conclusions in question—Import- ant Passovers only what—Table of feasts in question. . 329—333
DISSERTATION VIII. On the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cesar ...........-- 334—344
Difficulty arising from the literal construction of Luke iii. 1. and Luke ill. 23—Hyepovia of Tiberius Cesar not necessarily his sole and undivided supremacy—Difiiculty removed, if it can be proved that Tiberius was bona fide associated in the empire with Augustus, two years. before his death—Fifteenth of Tiberius, dated from that association, could not be called by St. Luke, his thir- πε τω πο Se Cae aes wha ee oie ples σον μον Se Ὶς
Investigation of the date of the association in question—Date of the proconsular empire of Tiberius connected with the date of his triumph—Course and particulars of events from the adoption of Tiberius, June 27, U. C. 757, to the date of the triumph, Ja- puny, 16, UC. ΟΝ Ὃς joie tiem Pades ΘΗ ΗΝ ἀν. pA BIO
Campaigns of Tiberius in Germany, U. C. 757 to U. C. 760—Revolt of Pannonia, and campaigns U. C. 760 to U. C. 762—Date of the destruction of Varus, and time of the year, U. C. 762—Campaigns in Germany, U. C. 763, 764—WDecree of the senate, investing Ti- berius with proconsular empire, according to Paterculus before the triumph, Jan. 16, U. C. 765—Law of the consuls, investing Tiberius with proconsular empire, according to Suetonius, after it— Reconciliation of this difference, by considering the decree preli- minary to the law, and the law the final or complete act—Date of this law, U.C. 765, spring or summer..............336—341
Confirmation of the above conclusions by circumstantial evidence of τον τή τι Ἀπ Oss PORE eater grate ccs. ks oe a 3. SAE
Commendation of the senate to Tiberius, by Augustus, U. C. 765— e2
Ixvin THE CONTENTS.
Games or festivities U.C. 765, out of course—Tiberius recog- nised as equal to Augustus, by the senate, U.C. 766—Tiberius proved to be already Princeps, U. C. 765, by a comparison of Sue- tonius, Pliny, Seneca, and Tacitus—Coins of Antioch, which give Tiberius the title of Augustus two years before Augustus’ death— - Computations of the reign of Tiberius, which recognise it as of more than twenty-two or twenty-three years’ length. . .. 341—344
DISSERTATION IX. On the beginning of the government of Pontius Pilate.
345-352 Procurators of Judea, appointed by Tiberius—The first year of ΡΙ- Inte the thirteenth of ‘Tiberius. . ..:.°.\... .'v -.seeisuate crm eres
Arrival of governors in their provinces, under ordinary circumstances the spring or summer quarter of the year—Rule of Tiberius— Rule of Claudius—Date of the arrival of Gratus—Date of the ar- rival of Pilate—Pilate already in office, when John entered on his MAIBETVE Cin. 77 On me Ds BO. PE ΑΝ 345—347
Length of the administration of Pilate, and date of his removal from office—Oversight of Dr. Lardner, in fixing his removal to the twenty-first of Tiberius—Transactions in the East, between Vitel- lius and Artabanus, and place in the accounts of Josephus, rela- tively to the removal of Pilate—Rescript of Claudius respecting the pontifical robes, and mistake of Josephus in reference
ΓΟ τος Ag a PVP ERED CYS AL. AN AN: SE De tae 347—350
Procurators of Judea, from U. C. 760—767, and average time of the office of each—Rufus continued one year after the death of Au- gustus, why—Time of Pilate’s administration not less than ten years—Time when the Samaritan deputies would find Vitellius at Antioch—Pilate, if removed in the autumn, would not arrive at Rome until the spring, when Tiberius would be dead... 350—352
DISSERTATION X.
On the united, and the separate, duration of the ministry of John the Baptist, and of Jesus Christ .......0+++ 353—306 The mission and ministry of John, subordinate to those of Jesus Christ—Hence the commencement of the latter, either actually or virittally the iclose of the former «.\.. ΣΝ eri) 353—354-
THE CONTENTS. lxix
Proofs of the position that the true date of the beginning of the min- istry of Jesus Christ is the true date of the termination of that of ΠΕΣ Se eee ee ec ee Te RN tte eae CR, 54 5 τό.
Double commencement of the ministry of our Saviour, first in Ju- dea, and again in Galilee—True date of its commencement, the former, at the Passover, John ii. 13—True date of the close of the ministry of John, consequently, the same ........ 356—359
Corollary from this conclusion—Beginning of the ministry of John the feast of Tabernacles, in the thirteenth of Tiberius preceding— Confirmed by the fact that the ministry of John, whensoever it began, was destined to be only of six months’ duration—Beginning of John’s ministry critically determined by the date of Pilate’s ad- ministration before it, and the age of the temple, after it. . 359-361
Collateral arguments in support of the same conclusion—Incon- sistent with the subordination of John to Christ, to suppose his personal ministry as long as that of Christ—Incredible that John’s ministry could have gone on, unmolested, three years or upwards—Deputation of the sanhedrim, as one of the last events ia his public ministry, inconsistent with a three years’ duration previously—Details of the ministry of John inadequate to fill up a period of three years or more—History of our Lord and John six months asunder in other respects—A personal ministry of John and of Jesus Christ of three years and an half, but no more, necessary to the fulfilment of prophecy—A duration of three years and an half implied by the parable of the fig-tree—Tradition of the Jews with reference to the shechinah—Three years and an half a stated period, in the language of prophecy, for events con- nected with the Christian economy, &c.............361—366.
DISSERTATION XI. On the age of our Lord at his baptism .........+... . 367—380
Construction and rendering of Luke iii. 23—Definition of the age thereby intended, whether under thirty or above—Idiom of St. Luke in the use of ὡσεὶ, to express something under rather than above a given limit—Measure of the defect in the present in- stance, probably less than a fourth part of ayear ..... 367—369
Age of our Lord at his baptism not more than three months, though es
Ixx THE CONTENTS.
it might not be less than two months before he was thirty—Testi- monies of the ancients to this construction—Time of the year when he was baptized, thence resulting—Agreeableness of this conclusion to ancient tradition, which places the baptism in the month of January—Date of the baptism according to Basi- Wades sy ονυϊον ov. a. νηΐ Sa ee ees Bae
Answer to the objection, that the baptism is thus placed in the win- ter—Ministry of John providentially cast in the autumnal and winter quarter of the year, which was the rainy season in Judea— Baptism in Judea practicable at all times of the year—Severity of the winter restricted to what period—Mildness of the rest of the winter season, and forwardness of the productions of nature in Judea accordingly...) 6. ores en ety. Ssuiditn. 371 —374
Age of John at the commencement of his ministry, resulting from these premises—Commencement of the ministry of John forecast with reference to the subsequent one of Christ’s—True character of John the Baptist not that of a Levite but a priest—Essential dis- tinction of priests and Levites among the Jews—Age of office, originally prescribed for the Levites, thirty—Subsequent prescrip- tion of twenty-five, not inconsistent with that—Age of office of the Kohathites, for their peculiar duty—The tabernacle, a type of the body of Christ—Age of office of the priests, necessarily im- plied in that of the Levites—Ages of high priests in later times no just ground of objection to this rule................374-—377
᾿Ακμὴ, or maturity of human nature, fixed by the ancients to the age of thirty—Testimonies—Age of thirty recognised in the same capacity among the Jews—Age of our Lord, at the commencement of his ministry, thirty, as essential to the integrity of his human nature, as to the fulfilment of legal righteousness—Resulting con- clusion, that his age at his baptism must have been a little under thirty, because his age at the commencement of his ministry was te be “exactly ‘thirty. tne ΕΑ se ee του 377—380
DISSERTATION XII.
On the time of the year when our Lord was horn. 381—437.
Conclusion resulting from the above premises, of the time of the year when our Lord was born...... ΠΡ REP A Soha Stave 381
THE CONTENTS. Ixx1
Recent introduction of the vulgar or common date of the Nativity into the Greek church, in the age of Chrysostom—Grounds on which its reception is placed, and the fallacy of each—Date of the Nativity in the Greek church previously, what........ 381—383
Course of Abia in office, U. C. 748. B. C. 6, between the sixth and thirteenth of Tisri—Divisions and rotation of the courses of the priests—Regularity of the succession of courses from U.C. 748 to U.C. 823—Resulting date of the time of the return of Zacha- rias home, and the probable conception of John....... 383—385
Objection to the vulgar date of the Nativity, from the fact of shepherds tending their flocks by night at the time—Vulgar date at the middle of winter, not so wide of the truth, as the date of the autumnal equi- nox—Feast of tabernacles distinguished by no preeminence in the analogy of the Christian history —Ceremony of the day of atonement not so applicable to the analogy of the Christian sacrifice, as that of the Passover—Circumcision and the Passover, both institutions prior to the law, and both institutions which have survived the law— Requisition peculiar to the daily sacrifice, and to the sacrifice of the fourteenth of Nisan, to be made with a lamb of one year old, and why—Proper sense of ἀμνὸς in Greek—Tenth of Nisan the day prescribed for taking up the lamb for the Passover, probably because it was destined to be the day of our Saviour’s birth— Resulting period of the birth of John, the tenth of Tisri pre- Ge@menuiiecxt S's Ge ial ete rte τὰ Α και wes). oe), BBG 300
Coincidences of various kinds, leading to the presumption that our Saviour either was or would be born in the spring season of the year—Custom of the Jews, with regard to the taking up and turn-
| ing out of flocks—Arrival of the Magi—Length of the residence in Egypt, and analogy of that fact to the sojourn of the Israelites in the same country, from the descent to the Exodus—Analogy of the birth of Moses—Analogy of the birth of Samuel—Other ana- logies of remarkable things or persons in the Old Testament—Isaac —Pharez—Deliverance of the Israelites—
The material tabernacle —Saul—David—Solomon—Rebuilding of the temple . . 391-396
Visit of our Lord to Jerusalem at the Passover, Luke 11. 42, an ar- gument that he was born just at or before the Passover, rather than any other feast—Age of puberty among the Jews—Ceremony undergone by children, at twelve years old, among the Jews, ana-
e 4
Ixxn THE CONTENTS.
logous to confirmation—That Jesus was taken up for that purpose, proved by the circumstances of the account—Age of Samuel, when he began to prophesy—Date of the visit to Jerusalem in question Argument of the probable year of the Nativity from the recorded age of Anna at the time—Age of marriage of females, from four- teen to seventeen—Coincidence of the widowhood of Anna with the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey, B. C. 63, and probability that her husband perished at that time.............. 3960—401
Julian date of the tenth of Nisan, in the assumed year of the Nati- vity, B. C. 4. April 5 or April 6—Precise time of the Nativity, the evening or midnight... ....0.. βιὸς ων 20s 2) OTH =403
Julian dates of the tenth of Nisan in the three years of our Saviour’s ministry, A. D. 27, A. Ὁ. 28, A. Ὁ. 30: and coincidences between his nominal or his real birthday, and remarkable facts in the Christian. history—The day of the Passion—The day of the pro- cession to the temple—The first cleansing of the temple—The day of Pentecost—The first miracle of feeding—The birth of Christ, and his resurrection—The circumcision—The presentation in the temple—The birth of John Baptist—The beginning and the length of his ministry—The visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve ears 61. δ εἶς; πόλεος μοι has. ee a eae
Confirmation of the above conclusions by other similar coincidences— Date of the Passover, U. C. 823—Date of the cessation of the daily sacrifice, U. C. 823——Date of the conflagration of the tem- ple, U. C. 823—Date of the destruction of Jerusalem, U. C.
B29) fl RR ἐς προς SE RE ae ST nA eS
Hypothesis on which these conclusions proceed, that April 5, U.C. 783, fell upon Friday—Place of the same day according to the solar cycle—Tables of this cycle liable to errors of excess or de- fect—Hypothesis of Mr. Mann—Errors of the Passovers calculated by him—Coincidence between the destruction of the first temple and the second—Ninth of Ab an erroneous date for the destruc- tion of either—Date of the desecration of the temple, B. C. 168, by Antiochus Epiphanes, and date of the dedication of the altar, by Judas Maccabeus, B. C. 165—Capture of Jerusalem by Pom- pey, and assertion of Dio that it was taken on the Sabbath— Tenth of Tisri, U. C. 691, a Friday—True date of the destruction of Jerusalem, U..C. 823....... otk 1. τε ΝΑ wet, « 413—422
THE CONTENTS. Ixxiil
Details of the expedition of Cestius Gallus against Jerusalem, U. C. 819, and proof therefrom that Hyperbereteus 25, or Hyperbere- teus 24, fellon the Saturday, October 3 or October 2. . 422—430
Dates of Josephus’ History of the War, which agree with the above assumptions—Proceedings in Cesarea and Jerusalem, U.C. 819 —-The Xylophoria—Seizure of Jerusalem by Manahem—Death of Ananias—Capture of the Roman garrison—Death of Manahem— Errors in the numbers of Josephus—Siege of Jotapata—Capture of Gamala and Gischala, U.C. 820................430—434
Correction of the calculation when Abia was in office, U. C. 748, the year before the birth of John—Joarib in office, Saturday, Au- gust 12, and Abia, Saturday, September 30, U. C. 748. . 433—-437
Table of Errors and Corrections of the solar cycle, from U.C. 748— Reena t. Oee: Se BPR FORE HOO) 437
DISSERTATION XIII.
On the opinions of the most ancient Christians upon the BM TE oe aia ἘΤ dd ache as Gain ng apie 438—465
Nativity placed by the early Christians at one of the seasons, the vernal equinox, or the vulgar era—Duration of our Lord’s ministry repeatedly fixed at one year—Peculiar to that year, to be the fifteenth or sixteenth of Tiberius—Consequent probable origin of the opin- ion, the testimony of St. Luke, taken along with that of the acta πους ἐν ΚΟ ΤΟΝ ΡΟ οτος ἜΣ owes Oe Oa 2 4 95 sg
Application of the prophecy of the acceptable year of the Lord, to the same fact—Disputed existence of the acta of Pilate—Forged acta in the time of Diocletian's persecution—An implicit argument of the existence of true—Date of the Passion according to these spurious acta—Acts or proceedings of governors in the provinces transmitted to the emperors—lInstitution of the public post—Tes- timonies to these facts—Acta of Pilate recognised by Justin Mar- tyr, Tertullian, Epiphanius, &c.— Motion of Tiberius, founded on the report of the acta concerning Christ—Tertullian misconstrued by Eusebius—Testimony of Melito, bishop of Sardis... 439—444
Failure of the motion of Tiberius traditionally ascribed to the oppo- sition of Sejanus—IIl-will of Sejanus to the Jews, according to
lxxiv THE CONTENTS.
Philo—Treatise of Philo, Adversus Flaccum—Date of the persecu- tion of the Jews of Egypt by Flaccus Aquilius, and length of his administration previously—Goveruors of Egypt from the death of Augustus to the death of Tiberius, Rectus, Strabo, Vetrasius Pollio, Severus, and Flaccus—Vetrasius Pollio the husband of the sister of Helvia, mother of Seneca—Date of the downfall of Seja- nus—<Acta of Pilate in the above tradition implied to be prior to the downfall of Sejanus—Anachronisms of Eusebius on this sub- ject—Designs of Sejanus against the Jews, recognised by Philo, De Virtutibus—Implicit testimony of Seneca to the same fact— Juventa of Seneca, what—Rescript of Tiberius in favour of the Jews after the downfall of Seyjanus—Dedication of the shields at Jerusalem by Pilate—Family of Herod, and which of them then alive and present in Jerusalem—Letter of Herod Agrippa to
an NTE SL MERE Nats eee ote Be tle a Ree A ae es 444-45¢
Passage of Josephus relating to Christ—Place in his history an argument that the ministry of Jesus Christ was believed to belong
to what period of the government of Pilate.......... 450—451
Testimonies of Christian writers—lI. Ignatius and Melito. . 451—452
II. III. Justin Martyr—Date of the first Apology........ 452—453 IV. V. VI. Ireneus, Origen, Epiphanius, and Tertullian—Date of
HE AG ΠΡΟ, τς sia ere ew sie. wee ee eee 453—455 Wi Clenteus Miexandiaus oo ss ora kote weenie a ere oe 455
VIII. Tertullian, Lactantius, Augustin, Prosper—Various readings of Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem, with respect to the age of our Lord at the Passion—Dates of the Adversus Judzos, and Mar- οἰ δα FESPOMUIVEIN ten ie ee a nas ee es We 455—458
1X. Origen—Change of his opinions on the length of our Saviour’s ministry—Date of the Contra Celsum..............458—459
X. Apocryphal letters of Christ and Abgarus—Name of the kings of Edessa—Abgarus a real contemporary character. . .. 459—460
XI. Computus Paschalis, ascribed to Cyprian—XII. Julius Africa- nus—Creation placed by the ancient Christian and Jewish chro- nelopers i ἘΠΕ spriae πὰ Στ τ See eee et 460—461
THE CONTENTS. Ixxv
XIII. Hippolytus Portuensis—Acta of Romanus, apud Prudentium— XIV. Apollinarius Laodicenus, Prosper, and Jerome—XV. Epi- νοοῖ», ΣΙ ac A a are 461—463
XVI. Sulpicius Severus—XVII. Quintus Julius Hilario, Chrysostom, and) Rhkopley lant: ..i0a ices ρρολρινοθέ, va eww dda κὶ ede 463—465
DISSERTATION XIV.
On the census of Cyrenius, or the meaning of Luke ii. 2.
466—549 True date of the Nativity resulting from the conclusions establish- ee ee ee ee ee eae eT ee atom st ces as om eens 466
Consequent length of our Lord’s ministry, and date of the Passion— Eclipse of Phlegon—No proof that according to Phlegon himself, this eclipse was reported to have happened at the full of the moon —Testimonies—Epistle to Polycarp of Dionysius the Areopagite— Eclipse of Phlegon probably that of Sept. 12, A. D. 33... 467—469
Tradition of the closing of the temple of Janus at the Nativity— Closings of the temple on record—Third closing by Augustus doubtful—General tranquillity of the period from U.C. 748 to U.C. 752—Hiatus in the history of Dio for this period—Expedi- tonvet Cains Cesar, UIC. 759 caisli kee ands <> - Je 468—471
Date of the census before the Nativity, U. C. 749—Analogy of the census of Quirinus, U. C. 760—Place of the census in the account of St. Luke—Supplemental relation of the accounts of St. Luke to those of St. Matthew—Census going on when the holy family were at Bethlehem—Arrival of the decree in the province pro- bably in the autumn, and the execution probably in the ensuing
Sn νον τα το PIPER oe RE RE NY δὰ 471—473
Inductive proof from Josephus, that something lke a census was already in contemplation in Judea at the feast of Tabernacles, U. C. 749, by tracing back the course of events from the death of Herod, March, U. C. 751, to the proceedings, September or Oc-
πο O24 i ee ee ee a eee ace ΤΣ 473—477
Quinctilius Varus president of Syria at the time of the trial of Anti- pater, September, U.C. 750—President of Syria before Varus, U.C. 749, C. Sentius Saturninus—Census at the Nativity ascribed Py ας χλοον ΟΝ OY OUUUTTIN ON ae Ck ee ss be ee 477—478
Ixxvi THE CONTENTS.
Investigation of the time when Saturninus came in and went out of office—Saturninus not yet president at the time of the restitution of the standards—I nvestigation of the timeof this restitution. . 478-479
Restitution of the standards distinct in point of time from the sur- rendry of the hostages by Phraates, coupled with it—Reduction of Armenia by Tiberius, coincident with the restitution, but not the surrendry of the hostages—Allusions to the former of these to- pics in the contemporary poets, Horace, Propertius,Ovid. . 479-482
Standards restored to Augustus in person at Antioch, hostages delivered up to Titius—Motive to the surrendry of the hostages, according to Velleius Paterculus—Armenian expedition of Tibe- rius—Allusions to it in the contemporary poets—Succession of kings of Armenia, according to Tacitus, the Ancyran monument, and other authorities—Motive to the surrendry, according to the Ancyran monument—Motive, according to Josephus—History of Thermusa and Phraates—Date of the death of Phraates, and suc- cession of subsequent kings down to Vonones—Coin of Augustus, which ascertains the date of the surrendry of the hostages to be U. C. 746—Subsequent history of the hostages, shewing it does not admit of an earlier date—Vonones, Phraates, ‘Tiridates, Meherdates—Hostage from Phraates, U.C. 724—Hostage brought by Tiridates, U. C. 731—Allusion in Horace to this or contem- porary events—Coin of Augustus above mentioned, not referable to the elildren ‘ef ΘΟ απ Ποιόν 48 I—490
Saturninus in office, at the time of the council of Berytus—Investi- gation: of the date of this council... ὑπο εν 489—490
Marriage of Herod and Mariamne—History of Aristobulus and Alexander, their children—Date of their marriage, the year before the visit of Agrippa to Jerusalem, U.C. 739 ........490—492
Offspring of each of these marriages—Order and dates of the birth of the children of Aristobulus and Bernice—Age of Herodias the youngest, when betrothed in marriage soon after her father’s death —Age at. which females were espoused or married anciently— Resulting conclusion of the date of the death of her father, U.C.
ἜΠΗ ΤΥ hailey ins t's ENE = Se 2 > ee 492—494
Arrangement of intermediate events, between the marriage of Herod's
THE CONTENTS. Ixxvil
two sons, U. C. 738, and their death, U. C. 74g—Mission of An- tipater to Rome, U.C. 740—First visit of Herod to Rome, U.C. 741 —Dedication of Cesarea, U.C. 742—Rescripts from the fifth to the sixth chapter of Antiquities xvi. and their dates—Titius in office as president of Syria, U. C. 745—Second visit of Herod to Rome, U.C. 746—Movements of Augustus to and from Rome, U.C. 737 to U.C. 741, and U.C. 744 to U.C. 746—Quarrel of Herod and Sylleus, U. C. 746—Rupture with Augustus thence arising, and course of proceedings connected with it, U. C. 747 and U. C. 748—Resump- tion of the history of Herod’s two sons, and reconciliation of Au- gustus to Herod, U. C. 748—Letter of Augustus, authorizing the council of Berytus, U. C. 748 exeunte—Council of Berytus, and condemnation and death of Herod’s two sons, U.C.749. . 494—504
Duration of the term of office, allowed by Augustus to the gover- nors of provinces—KRule of Augustus with respect to the interval between serving the office of consul or pretor at Rome, and the government of a province abroad—Division of the governors of provinces—The κληρωτοὶ or proconsular, commonly annual ; the αἱρετοὶ or imperial, not—Speech of Mecenas to Augustus, U.C. 725 —Term of office under Augustus, from five years to three—Proofs of the existence of this rule, by cases in point, of procurators of Egypt, procurators of Judea, and presidents of Syria .. 505—511
Resulting conclusion from these premises, that Saturninus would succeed to Titius, U. C. 746, and Varus to Saturninus, U. Ὁ. 750—Coins ascribed to Varus, which militate against that con- clusion—Coins in question cannot shake either of the conclusions established, that Titius did not go out of office, nor Saturninus come intoit, before U. C. 746; and that Saturninus was president at the time of the council of Berytus................-.-. 5 1I—514
Proof from Josephus that Saturninus was actually in office, not only at the time of the council, U.C. 749, but at the beginning of U. C. 750—Details of the seven months’ interval, between the mission and return of Antipater to and from Rome, U. C. 750— Place of St. Matthew's narrative of the visit of the Magi, in this ΒΕ na ene SoA Aan Ue ΗΝ 514—518
Eras of the coins of Antioch—Aira Seleucidarum—Zira Cezesarea, and Aira Actiaca—Date of the battle of Pharsalia—Nominally
Ixxvill THE CONTENTS.
Sept. 22, really August 9—Alra Cesarea the true era of the coins of Antioch— ira Actiaca began and expired with Augustus —/Era Actiaca not yet adopted befure U. C. 734 .... 518—524
Coins of Varus, referred to the proper AZra of Antioch, the Aira Cesarea, would bear date from U. C. 729, to U.C. 731 or 732— Proof from Josephus, in the history of the grant of the tetrarchy of Lysanias or Zenodorus to Herod, that Varro was president of Syria between these years— Name of Varro capable of being confounded with Varus—Probability thence resulting that the supposed coins of Varus are really coins of Varro—Presidents of Syria from U. C. 723 to U.C. 727—Didius, Messala Corvinus, and Varro—History of Messala in particular, and testimonies from Tibullus—Varro not necessarily superseded by the mission of Marcus Agrippa into the East, U. C. 731—Testimony of Eckhel to the difficulties sometimes presented by coins ........ 524—534
Resumption of the census at the Nativity—Providential coincidence of the event itself—Date of the grant of the censorian power to Augustus, and of subsequent renewals of it—Censuses held by him—Chasm in the history of Dio, from U. C. 747 or U. Ὁ. 748— Probable allusion to the census in Suidas—Objection to the fact of the census, from the silence of contemporary history, equally applicable to the fact of a measurement of the empire under Au- gustus—Proofs of this measurement from various testimonies— Census of the empire naturally connected with a geometrical survey ΠΕ Πρ ΠΡΘΙΌΒΗΡ GE 10 ΣΟ δον ot. scitin eat oe eee es 534—540
Census at the Nativity not confined to Judza, but general over the empire—Proper sense of oixovyévy—Census at the Nativity not a proper Roman census—Distinction of ἀπογράφεσθαι and ἀποτι- pao Oa.—Census at the Nativityan enrolment per capita, but nothing more—Census of Quirinus or Quirinius, U. C. 760, the first pro- per Roman census to which the East had yet been sub-
Os ὅς oh ah a che eggs tn atl we eng le τ τον τ ον, 539—544
Possible versions of Luke ii. 2—Objection to that which would make it the first of Cyrenius—Objection to that which supposes it to have first come to pass under Cyrenius—History of Quirinus be- fore and after U. C. 749—Expedition of Caius Czsar—M.
THE CONTENTS. xxix
Lollius — Lepida— Census at Apamea by Quirinus, U. C. hai a as aig EE ANE 4 3 ag ate nl Tae OMe rg a a 544—546
True construction of Luke ti. 2, what—Use of the superlative for the comparative in Greek—Especially of πρῶτος for πρότερος----Πρῶτος, adverbially for πρὸ or mpérepov—Requires the participle of the verb of office with the article—Examples of these construc-
ὃ ἐπ τον EE OP Pa 549—549
ap SAS ar. se %,
Bis Pees : Sage
=
Ὁ nd
Estoril ae
= we
; pn, Ι te ξ No x 5» ge . . TA a ave? 3 ΡΝ OAS ih Mr ay ν πον, ely Abie ty 8 RT ΡΝ me, ἢ v roe Ms ἮΝ ἊΝ » ABs ee ᾽ν ΦΥΎΡΝΙ ἌΝ ΜΩ͂Ν Vids ae ἵνα γὼ». ἀν να... + ve ἢ Pb gr OA A ἭΝ deur - fails PS xy eee! SLY Sah, Be a oO ee Ae ἢ : ἘΠ ἕ aes re, ee ee a es eR nn Set Sh ἢ d in a . is ae ; » ὁ 41] i τὸ aes : ee oe ee ae 3 i segs AL ag Sr 0 iOS. a ἈΚΕΝ » ie); ᾿ 2 St ie a oor ὧν “ . ἡ ms ΕΝ ΑΣΑ © ͵ ' ‘i Pee ρον She Ae es SX: aan πιο » % ων δὰ "- 7 a ἘΩ͂Ν a ae fc ῳ : y Peeks Δα 4 8 eh es ae, ee el an ἂν a νὰ ἀγρίων τ ΜΕ να oo Sane ir a, 3 free Ch ara saab aaa neal Bang
am sae ws 2g A : 7 ᾿ a Εν τ ne tt “Vee ἜΝ Ὁ Wie” MEY Aa Ἀν Ψ ΚΣ Pua ul ray eae | at ἐᾷ Were ve δος finer’ pa ἐμάς: ᾿
’ ‘. a 4 Aare a “ we pee St-,/' +S see os pe yea on) ὟΝ ‘oases rs: uted
. ; Υ <i. i ἐν "-- ve a κἡ “one a 4 ἘΝ ee. it μὰ Ὑ i Sa ΤΣ
a ME OE be on BT a poe ᾿ igh OO, TAAL, eee eet ae aT 1 Saget AT * Sie Line aya men νὰ; ri shia: ᾿ 2
τ᾿ oh CRUE a τ νος, ON ΩΝ ey eating tri ὦ = = yee i°o 4" πη: egy iy i von Ἢ we ΡΝ Pat am Por yt τ ᾿ ἐξ ὙΜΩ͂Ν ’ ee pins = ἄκρων
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.
DISSERTATIONS.
DISSERTATION I.
On the regularity of the Gospels, and on their supplemental relations to each other.
'THERE are two questions which necessarily concern the Harmony of the Gospels, and therefore will deserve to be considered at the outset of the present work ; one, how far any of the Gospels is a regular history—and the other, how far any one of them is supplemental to the rest.
Now, any of the Gospels would be regular which should contain no transpositions in the order of events; but every transposition must be either an Anticipation, or what I shall hereafter call, by way of distinction, a Trajection, of something: and these terms are the re- verse of each other. An Anticipation is the relation of a fact before its proper time and place; and a Trajec- tion is the relation of a fact after them.
The first observation, therefore, which we may make is this; that the regularity of any of the Gospels in this sense, does not concern either its integrity or its con- tinuity; for regular order is not necessarily uninter- rupted or continuous ; and an history may be defective in parts, that is, may exhibit omissions in the detail of
TOR. T. B
Ὁ Dissertation First.
intermediate events, which yet relates nothing out of its order upon the whole. If the regularity of the Gos- pels were not to be thus distinguished from their con- tinuity, not one which we possess could be considered a regular account.
In the next place, the regularity of a particular Gos- pel concerns the details or succession of a certain nar- rative at one time, compared with the details or suc- cession of the same narrative at another. It might not then be possible, by the help of that single Gospel, to determine whether its order were regular or not; for unless it had itself premised to each of its accounts such notes of time, or of sequence, as would infallibly have ascertained their relation to the whole or to each other, no one could have undertaken to decide what parts were given out of their place, and what were not. It is, consequently, by a comparison with the rest of the Gospels that this regularity is to be determined con- cerning one of them: a comparison, however, which is not practicable, except when that one goes along with some one or more of the rest, and their several accounts coincide.
Now this coincidence, to a greater or a less extent, was naturally to be expected from them; for as they all begin upon the whole alike, and all end with the same point of time, and all profess to give an account of what was transacted between these extremes, their general outline must be the same; and they could scarcely fail to contain much common matter, or to touch upon nu- merous passages in the same succession of events: and the more complete or continuous any one of them might be in itself, the more frequently would it be likely to coincide with the rest. In all these instances, the order of one is necessarily a check upon the order of another; and the inversions of one, if any such exist, are ren-
Regularity of the Gospels. 3
dered both liable to be discovered, and capable of being rectified, by the more precise and definite arrangements of another.
Thirdly, though the regularity of none of the Gos- pels is to be determined by ὦ prtort considerations, but solely by the examination of its own structure, and by the juxta-position of the rest, yet, I think, it will be ad- mitted, that antecedent probability, independent of any such examination and comparison, is entirely in favour of the presumption that every one of the Gospels will be found upon inquiry to be a regular account. ‘They cannot be regarded in any light but that of simple histories; and no history as such, whatever be the subject to which it relates, can, consistently with its own nature and purposes, disregard the order of time. It would be altogether a false conception of the nature of the Gospels, to consider them as mere memoirs of the life and actions of our Saviour: or though they might be so considered, yet the antecedent expectation would not be invalidated thereby; for simple bio- graphy is still a species of history, and is, or should be, naturally as observant of regularity as history.
There may be exceptions to this rule in each depart- ment; that is, occasions when, for particular reasons, both biographists and historians may choose to excuse themselves from the strict observance of order in their accounts; which is the case with the Lives of the Ceesars by Suetonius, and with the Roman History by Florus. No such writer, however, could do this as matter of course, or without acknowledging the gene- ral rule, even when he was deviating from it; much less could he be at liberty to deviate from it, if he had ex- pressly promised, and so far bound himself, to observe it. Of Suetonius at least, and of Florus, it is the fact that they do not allow themselves the liberty in question,
B2
4. Dissertation First.
without apprising their readers beforehand of the plan which they propose to adopt—and as it were apolo- gizing for 108.
On what principle, however, can the Gospel ac- counts be regarded as simple memoirs of Jesus Christ, two of which, St. Mark’s and St. John’s, contain not a word of his personal history before the last three years of his life? and a third, St. Luke’s, for a considerable part of the whole, may just as reasonably be considered a memoir of the life of John the Baptist? The truth is, they are each what their name of Gospels, or Kvay- γέλια, implies them to be—an history of the rise and progress of the Evangelical, that is, the Christian, dis- pensation—which each supposes to have been first for- mally begun by the ministry of John the Baptist, and each carries forward through the ministry of Jesus Christ, and all conduct downwards to the ministry of the apostles. Nor is any one of them, even in this sense, a separate or independent account; but, like the subject to which they each relate, they are so connected together, that the entire history of this one entire scheme, is that which is made up of them all.
These considerations being premised, I affirm that the Gospel of St. Matthew is partly regular and partly irregular, but that the part which is regular, is more than seven times as great as the part which is not so; and that the Gospels of St. Mark, of St. Luke, and of St.John are regular throughout. The proof of the first assertion, which maintains the irregularity of one of these Gospels, though only in part, is so far the most important; but as it cannot be fully made out, except by a long and elaborate examination of St. Matthew’s Gospel, I have reserved it for consideration by itself. The proof of the second, which affirms the regularity of the
a Suet. Aug. 9. Florus, i. Procem. 5. Cf. ii. 19, 5.
Regularity of the Gospels. 5
remaining Gospels, would be supplied by the inspection of the Harmony merely; to which I might conse- quently refer.
But with regard to the first of the number, St. Mark’s, I shall here observe that, if any instances which appear like deviations from regular order, are to be found in his accounts, these, as it may be shewn, are either no such deviations, or justified by the necessity of the case. The most remarkable, if not rather the only examples of this kind, are the account of the death of the Baptist, and the account of the unction at Bethany; neither of which is properly a transposition. There is not in general much, which this Evangelist relates in- dependently of St. Matthew or of St. Luke; and even that is so connected, by proper notes of time and of succession, with what goes before or follows after it, as to leave no doubt concerning its position. It is in par- ticulars, not in generals, that he differs most from the other two; so that the question of his regularity is seldom to be distinguished from the question of theirs : and yet, with a view to the determination of this ques- tion under any circumstances, it is much oftener that we must have recourse to St. Mark, than to either St. Matthew or St. Luke. Indeed, so definite, exact, and regular is he throughout, that, but for the com- parative defect in the outline which his Gospel exhibits, none could more deservedly be assumed as the basis of arrangement for the rest.
The same kind of remark may be made upon the Gospel of St. John; the order of which being affirmed or distinctly implied all along, there can scarcely be a shadow of reason to dispute its regularity from first to last. The account of the unction at Bethany is the only point on which a question can be raised, whether it is regular or not: and if that account is irregular in
B 3
6 Dissertation First.
the other Evangelists, it must be regular in St. John. If, then, this Evangelist is not so fitly to be selected for the basis of an Harmony, as some one of the rest, it is owing to the peculiarity of his Gospel in a very dif- ferent respect; the nature of which is to be discovered from its supplemental relations to the rest.
With regard to the Gospel of St. Luke, as there is no Gospel, not even St. Matthew’s, which has been and is still more generally reputed to be irregular, I shall enter upon the proof of my former assertion, somewhat more at large: stating both such reasons as may tend to raise the presumption of its truth ὦ priori, and such as contribute to confirm this presumption ὦ posteriori ; the former, shewing what was to be expected from the Gospel in question; and the latter, appealing to what is actually the case with it.
I. The Gospel of St. Luke possesses a preface, which is not the case with any other of the Gospels; and that a preface strictly so called—a model of concise- ness, and yet of sufficiency; asserting, in the most compendious form, whatsoever an introductory admo- nition might be expected to assert—the motive which induced the author to undertake his work—his own qualifications for its execution—the method which he proposed to observe in the details of it—and the end which he had in view by it. Now prefaces of this kind are not commonly premised except to regular histories ; and if St. Luke’s Gospel is seen to agree at the outset with any formal and methodical history, this is some ar- gument that it will be found to agree with such an history, in the subsequent arrangement and distribution of the work.
II. It is his own declaration that he proposed to write 7 order, and, consequently, to observe the course of time and succession in the detail of events;
Regularity of the Gospels. 7
for I know not what other meaning can be put on the words in question: ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν
πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλεὃ--- which may be rendered literally as follows: It hath seemed good to me also, who have carefully attended to the course of all things from the beginning, to write of them in order for thee, most excellent Theophilus *.
* As far as concerns the pre- sent argument, the important terms in this text of St. Luke are, παρηκολουθηκότι, ἄνωθεν, and καθεξῆς : upon the last I shall speak by and by, and on the first, in the next Dissertation. But, as to the middle term, it occurs thirteen times in the New Testament, (vide Schmidtii Concordantiam,) and never in more senses than one of these two, either of from above, in the sense of from heaven; or of Jrom above, in the sense of from the top, from the first, from the extreme point, or beginning, of any thing; in which last it 15 almost synonymous with ἀπ᾽ dp- χῆς. The instances of its use in the former sense are, John iii.31. xix. 11: James i. 17. i. 15, 17. No one will suppose that St. Luke's use of ἄνωθεν here, is to be classed among this number : his junction of it with the verb παρακολουθῆσαι, in the sense of to go along with any thing, to investigate a subject, to conduct or prosecute an inquiry, must effectually bar this construction. The instances of the latter sense, under which I class what is hardly to be distinguished from it, the sense of afresh or anen, are Matt. xxvii. 51. Mark xv.
38. Jolin six. 23. 11..3.7. Gal. iv. 9. Acts xxvi. §. and this of Luke i. 3. The instance at Acts XXV1. 5. is exactly a parallel in- stance to this ; προγινώσκοντές pe ἄνωθεν, Which was expressed just before by τὴν... βίωσίν μου τὴν ἐκ νεότητος, τὴν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς γενομένην ἐν τῷ ἔθνει wou: and it is so much the more important, because it is an instance of the use of the’ word in such a sense there, by the same writer who uses it here.
I have noted repeated exam- ples of its occurrence in a simi- lar manner in Josephus—out of which I shall produce only these three: ἣν ἔσχον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἄνωθεν οἱ κρατοῦντες : A, ΧΥΪ. V1. 1-τὅτιε πάσης τιμῆς ἄνωθεν ἐπιτυγχάνοντες: A. xvi. vi. 8—évdpas ἄνωθεν φί- λους αὐτῷ, or perhaps, αὑτῷ: A. Xvi. vill. 3. So also, in other writers of this period: οὐ χθὲς καὶ πρώην, GAN ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὖσαν: Aristides, Orat. liv. 673. 1. 17.— rel... συγκεκληρωμένον ac- πεν ἄνωθεν ἔχομεν. Ibid. 691. 8— ἀλλ᾽ ai περὶ θεῶν δόξαι, ἀρξάμεναι ἄνωθεν, διὰ πάσης φιλοσοφίας ἦλθον: Maximus Tyrius. Diss. x. 3.
In all these cases, it has only one and the same meaning, that of marking out some extreme point backward; the furthest
¢ Chap. i. 3.
B 4
8 Dissertation First.
These words, it is true, have been often cited, and as often considered decisive, or not decisive, upon the question at issue, as the opinions of harmonists have previously espoused this or that side of the debate; but their natural and obvious construction, apart from such prejudices, is clearly to convey the promise of a re- gular account. No account, however, can be considered a regular, that is, a methodical and orderly account, which contains such transpositions as have been freely supposed in St. Luke’s Gospel; transpositions consist- ing of anachronisms, and ὕστερα πρότερα or the con- trary, of every possible extent; and instead of order and method, exhibiting only confusion and perplexity. The assertion of the writer’s personal qualifications for his undertaking, which appears in the same decla- ration, was doubtless intended to prepare the reader for the expectation of a regular account. One who had thoroughly investigated a certain subject, was eompetent to write upon it in order; for he must have investigated it in order: and, if the subject was his- torical, it would be as natural and as easy to trace things down from their source, as up to it. The me- thod of the historian would be only the reverse of the method of the inquirer, and the one as regular as the other.
The use of the terms ἑξῆς and καθεξῆς is peculiar to St. Luke, in whose Gospel and in the Acts, conjointly, each of them occurs five times, sometimes as descriptive of the course and succession of time—at other times of
point at which it is necessary to begin, and to pursue thencefor- ward, any series or course of things: it means, therefore, not only, from the first, as such, or, from the beginning, simply, but, from the first, and thencefor-
ward ; from the beginning down- ward. In order to describe the course of an historical investiga- tion, this is its most natural and appropriate sense ; and in this sense it is, as I think, used by St. Luke in his preface.
Regularity of the Gospels. 0
the course and succession of events—yet always as descriptive of a direct, continuous, and orderly succes- sion only. There is one instance, in particular, where he employs the word, as in his preface, to describe the course of a certain narrative, which is plainly a regu- lar one: ἀρξάμενος δὲ ὁ [Πέτρος ἐξετίθετο αὐτοῖς καθεξῆς“, Nor can the import of the term in either case be better illustrated than by the parallel passage from Thu- cydides; γέγραφε δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ὁ αὐτὸς Θουκυδίδης ᾿Αθη- ναῖος ἑξῆς, ὡς ἕκαστα ἐγένετο, It seems, then, that to write -ἑξῆς, and to write ὡς ἕκαστα ἐγένετο, in the estima- tion of Thucydides, were synonymous phrases. Why not, therefore, in the estimation of St. Luke * ?
III. The regularity of the Acts of the Apostles, con- sidered as the second part, or the continuation, of the same history of which the Gospel is the first part, and
the commencement. This connection between the two
* Cf. also Thucydides, ni. 1 γέγραπται Se ἑξῆς ws ἕκαστα ἐγί- γνετο. Numerous examples of the use of the synonymous term
μικρὸν, πρὸς ἕκαστα τῶν κατηγορη- μένων ἀπολογήσωμαι: Ae schines, Orat. 11. 26---οὐδὲν παραλείπων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφεξῆς ἅπαντα ὑπομιμνήσκων:
ἑξῆς or ἐφεξῆς, might be pro- duced from classical writers, shewing that it always denotes order, regularity, continuity, and the like. Thus, δηώσοι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν ἐφεξῆς, that is, as it follows immediately after, ξυνε- χῶς: Xen. Hell. iv. vi. 4. 5—n μὲν πρώτη Ta τῶν βασιλέων, ἑπτὰ γενομένων, ἔργα, ἐφεξῆς ἅπαντα ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, ὡς ἐγένετο: Appian, Pref. ad Histor. 14---εἰ τόν τε χρόνον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, καὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τῆς πόλεως ἐφεξῆς διέλθοιμεν : Isocra- tes, Orat. iv. 26---τίνος πρώτου μνησθῶ, καὶ ποίου δευτέρου" τὸ yap ἐφεξῆς με λέγειν διαπέφευγεν : Id. Orat. xv.148—ir’ ἐφεξῆς, καὶ κατὰ
ς Acts xi. 4.
Id. Ibid. 28—ri πρῶτον δεῖ ποιεῖν τοὺς ἀντιδεδωκότας, καὶ τί δεύτερον, καὶ τἄλλα δ᾽ ἐφεξῆς : Demosthenes, Orat. xl. 1---- μετὰ δὲ... ἐπεξῆς πα- σέων πειρᾶσθαι: Herodotus, ii. 111---πρὸς τοὺς ἐφεξῆς τῶν λόγων, καὶ συνεχεῖς, καὶ δὴ τρέψομαι : Ari- stides, Orat. xiii. 230. 1. 23— ἐπωάζει δὲ ov κατὰ TO ἑξῆς, ἀλλὰ παραλιπὼν δύο ἡμέρας : peep, de Natura Animalium, v.32. Lastly, οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι τὰ shies ἐπιδεῖ- ξαι ὡς ξυνέβη ἕκαστον, οὕτως ἀπαγ- γέλλουσι, τὸ πρῶτον, πρῶτον, καὶ τὸ δεύτερον, δεύτερον" καὶ τἄλλα ἐφεξῆς ὁμοίως: Dio Chrysostom, Orat. σε 4 10.+ 255
d Lib. v. 26.
10 Dissertation First.
is ascertained by the preface, prefixed to the Acts also; which is not merely addressed to the same Theophilus, but expressly refers to the Gospel, as the first part of a continuous account. If the Gospel, already written, is thus called the first part, the Acts, about to be written, must be the second. Now the Acts are a regular his- tory ; so much so, that no ingenuity of criticism would be able to establish the fact of a single transposition therein. On the principle, then, that there should be an unity of plan and execution, where there is evidently an unity of subject and design, the same regularity which predominates in the second, is clearly to be ex- pected from the first part of the same work: unless it should be contended, that the history of our Saviour’s ministry did not admit of an orderly narration, while the history of that of the apostles did; or that St. Luke had reasons for regarding the course of time and suc- cession in the latter—contrary to those which com- pelled him to disregard it in the former.
IV. For an integral period of the Christian history, ἡ and through an integral portion of its own contents, the Gospel of St. Luke is regular, and consistent with the professions contained in the preface. For first, proposing to deduce that history from its earliest point of time, he begins with the conception and the birth of the Baptist, and afterwards passes to the conception and the birth of Jesus Christ; that is, he begins with the private history of each, before he proceeds to the public. Secondly, as far as was practicable, without actually violating the order of events, he manifests a strict anxiety to separate the private history of the Baptist from the private history of Christ. There were some circumstances connected with the concep- tion, which preceded the birth of Christ, but followed upon the conception of John: these he has related, as
Regularity of the Gospels. 11
historical precision required, between the two. But after the birth of John, when there was nothing in his private history any way connected with the private history of Christ, he dispatches that history once for all; summing up ina single sentence—The child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel°—the substance of thirty years, before he proceeds to the account of the birth of Christ. Why was this done, except that the course of the history might be left free to begin, and to continue, in like manner the account of the birth, the infancy, and the domestic privacy of Christ? all which are next related, and in a strictly methodical order.
Again, being arrived at the point of time when the public ministry of both the Baptist and Jesus Christ was about to commence, he begins with the ministry of John, and dispatches, as before, the ministry of John, before he says a word about the ministry of Christ: of which distinction there cannot be a clearer proof than that, after a regular account of the preaching, the teaching, and the testimonies of John, he concludes the whole by the history of his imprisonment, before he re- lates even the baptism of Christ. This was to introduce an anachronism of probably four months in extent ; but it is manifestly an anachronism introduced on pur- pose, to keep the unity of his next and his principal subject unbroken; that so the history of our Saviour’s ministry might begin and be continued from his bap- tism forward, without any admixture of the history of John. In this case, then, the exception, instead of weakening, serves rather to confirm our assertion.
V. From the time of the commencement of the history
e Chap. i. 80.
a\
10 Dissertation First.
of this ministry, to the end of the Gospel of St. Luke, there is no instance of a supposed transposition, which, upon a fair and dispassionate examination, will not turn out to be quite the contrary. The merits of the examination in all these cases, I must leave to the judg- ment of others; but if the argument in each of them can be sufficiently made out, it will manifestly be deci- sive upon the present question. There can be nothing irregular in this Gospel, if what has been hitherto re- puted so, is in reality no such thing.
I will observe, however, that the eviction of such a conclusion upon one occasion, becomes the ground of some presumption in its favour upon another; and its eviction in a plurality of instances, by determining so far the character or plan of the work, amounts to a moral certainty of its general truth. Hence even the more doubtful examples might be defended by appeal- ing to the implied testimony of the more unimpeach- able; for the better it has been ascertained that trans- positions have never occurred, the less likely it must be considered that they will still be found to occur.
Nor ought it to be objected, that by introducing distinctions like these, we multiply the number of iden- tical events; for, in the first place, no two events can be identical, which are not exactly the same; and many may be similar, which yet are really different. We need not have recourse to the principium indiscernibi- lium ; however true it may be, that if two things agree in. ninety-nine points, and yet disagree in one, they can- not be absolutely the same: especially as the very re- verse of this supposition is more frequently the case ; viz. that the things in question, about whose identity we are inquiring, differ in ninety-nine points, and agree, perhaps, in one.
This leads me to observe in the next place, that
Regularity of the Gospels. 13
some of these events are falsely reputed to be the same, and are not even similar: others are proved by the testimony of the same Gospel to have happened more than once: and as to them all in common, it is better, far better, on every principle, that, whether ac- tions or discourses, they should be considered to have occurred again, provided they can thereby be kept dis- tinct, than that the Gospel historians should be set at variance, and their mutual credibility be seriously en- dangered, by obstinately pronouncing such accounts to be the same. There is no risk of any mischievous con- sequence, and but little antecedent imprebability, in the former case, while there is the utmost hazard to the cause of Christian truth in the latter. In a ministry of three years’ duration, every day of which, upon the whole, was similarly employed, it must be allowed that a great deal of historical matter. might, and even would, come over again: the same incidents in general would frequently transpire; similar, and almost identi- cal miracles would often be performed; the same dis- courses, in the way either of general or of special admo- nition, would be repeatedly delivered. It will be allowed too, that any one Evangelist, who had recorded such things in one such instance of their occurrence, might pass them over, for that very reason, in another; while a different Evangelist, who had not mentioned them before, might think fit to relate them afterwards. And this is precisely the state of the case in respect to such supposed identical events; that they are not found twice over in the same Gospel, nor at corresponding points of time in different Gospels. But we cannot conceive that inspired historians should differ so widely in their account of the same things, as, on a contrary supposition, they must differ—and yet retain their title to inspiration, and consequently to infallibility. The
“eX gy
14 Dissertation First.
most gratuitous assumptions are necessary upon this principle, to explain away their differences, and to recon- cile them with each other; assumptions, which are war- ranted by no rules of sound and sober interpretation ; and which, in any other case, where the question might concern the authority of profane historians, would ap- pear revolting to men’s common sense, and would not be tolerated for a moment; assumptions, consequently, which must be received with blind submission, or, if any one presumes to call them in question, which no one will be able to establish.
I trust that when I am making these remarks, 1
pis shall not be suspected of being actuated by any ambi-
tion of novelty, any supercilious disdain of received opinions, or absurd affectation of paradox. Much less would I be suspected of a desire to deal precipitately and rashly with so grave and important a subject as the credibility of the Gospel history; which depends upon the fidelity and mutual consistency of the Gospel historians. I am but expressing that which, to my own feelings and apprehensions, appears the real state of the case; that, according to most of the received systems of harmonizing the Evangelists, a man must surrender up his powers of judgment and discrimination, before he can be satisfied with their results. Nor does this im- ply any reflection on the Evangelists themselves ; who ought not to be made responsible fer the mistakes of those who may have dealt injudiciously with them ; and whose separate or common authority, instead of being impaired, may in reality be further strengthened and confirmed, by pursuing a different course. If such and such parts of their respective narratives are not actually the same, it is in vain to attempt to make them so, without submitting these several accounts to a kind of torture like that of the bed of Procrustes. The wisest
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 15
and safest proceeding is to give up what is unten- able, and to stand only upon what admits of defence. There is sufficient, in all such instances, justly to im- ply that the subjects of comparison are different from each other, but there is far from sufficient to prove that they are the same; there is not that agreement which we should have a right to expect to meet with in the account of identical events.
Besides, it is not duly remembered in these cases, that the Gospel history, as we possess it, is at the utmost a very incomplete history, and far from being adequate to fill up the period which it must be supposed to have occupied. By distinguishing between merely similar events, we contribute to remove this defect; but by confounding those which were really distinct, we abridge still more what was previously too short. Nor yet, while I contend that there is much in the Gospels, really difierent, which may appear to be the same, would I contend, on the principle of Osiander, that nothing is the same in them, which might be thought to be distinct. St. Matthew’s Gospel exhibits ir- regularities, which I am entirely disposed to admit: yet even these will not be found to constitute four chapters out of twenty-eight; and still less will the order of nar- ration, even in these, be found affirmed to be the order of succession. And having said thus much, at present, on the question of the regularity of the Gospels. I shall proceed to that of their supplemental relations to each other.
We possess the Gospels arranged in a determinate order, which, having been from time immemorial the same, it may be presumed was not originally adopted, except for sufficient reasons. The only deviation from the general rule is in the order of the Italic versions, and of one Greek manuscript, the Codex Beza, which
16 Dissertation First.
in other respects bears an affinity to those versions. If the Gospels were written by the authors whose names they bear, this arrangement could not have been produced by any personal regard to the authors themselves, as partly apostles,-and partly apostolical men; for in that case the two middle Gospels would necessarily have fol- lowed after the two extreme ones—as they do, and most probably for this reason, in the instances of exception just mentioned. Nor yet could the same arrangement have been determined, as the order of the Epistles may, in some measure, have been determined, by any like regard to the parties for whom they were written; because, not being addressed, except in the case of St. Luke’s Gospel only, to any person or persons in particular, the Gospels would not appear to be designed but for the Christian world in general. The most pro- bable supposition, therefore, is, that the order, in which they have been always arranged, is the order in which they were originally written: and, independent of ex- ternal testimony to the truth of this conclusion, it is so far confirmed by internal evidence, that St. Matthew’s Gospel, the first of the number, exhibits plain indica- tions that it was composed expressly for an Hebrew community of Christians, and in Palestine, and very probably, early in the Christian history; while St. John’s, the last of the number, shews that it was writ- ten neither for Jews, nor in Judea, nor until late in the same history: and with regard to the intermediate two, there is similar evidence that neither of them was written for Jews, or among Jews—-nor so early in the Gospel history as St. Matthew’s, though earlier than St. John’s.
These indications I shall point out, as they fall in my way hereafter; and waiving for the present, the consideration of the historical testimony either to the
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 17
dates or to the order of the Gospels, I shall confine my attention to a single argument, applicable in some de- gree both to their times and to their order conjointly, but more especially to their order; which it is in the na- ture of an harmony to bring more immediately into view, and of the most perfect harmony, to exhibit most ef- fectually. This argument is the simple statement of what one Evangelist is seen to have done in the way of supplying, connecting, or filling up another. If it appears that wherever the accounts of one were imper- fect or defective, there the accounts of another come in with additional matter, and so far fill up the omission ; and if this adaptation of one to another is perceived to hold good not merely here and there, orin single instances, but almost every where, and through the whole of a Gospel; and not in parts of each, where both or where all possess any thing in common, only, but then more especially when the supplemental Gospel, and that which it supplies, in other respects stand most alone, and detached from each other; I think every one must allow that the supplemental Evangelist wrote not only after, but with an express relation to the more defec- tive; and, therefore, that he had seen and was ac- quainted with his Gospel. It is utterly inconceivable that in four distinct and independent histories, each of which was composed apart from the rest, any such clear and decided coincidences should be found to hold good: nothing but design and the direct accommoda- tion of one, and consequently a later, to another, and consequently a prior account, could be adequate to produce them. This method of reasoning, therefore, demonstrates a double conclusion; viz. not merely which Gospels were later than which, but which Gospels were written with the knowledge of which: and it is manifestly different from that other mode of argument VOL. I. Cc
18 Dissertation First.
with a view to the same result, which does not proceed upon the collation of one Gospel with another, or of large and integral portions of one with those of an- other, both being considered in respect to the order of the narrative, or to the succession and connection of the particulars recorded in each—but upon the com- parison of detached and isolated passages, tending to the eviction of verbal coincidences between them, and consequently relating to the letter of the accounts. Nor is it merely a different mode of reasoning from that, but, for reasons which will appear elsewhere, perhaps a stronger and more conclusive also; though even those verbal coincidences, where they are too numerous, too close, and too continuous, to be ex- plained on any principle but that of design, would so far lead to the inference that one Evangelist must even have transcribed another. Both the modes of argument, it is true, coincide together in one result, as well as with the direct conclusion presumptively de- ducible from the order of the Gospel-arrangement: and whatever weight the latter in particular may possess, an harmony, which necessarily brings most of those parallel passages into juxta-position, and enables every one to judge of them for himself, has a natural tendency to exhibit that weight also in its full force.
To begin, therefore, with that Gospel, which has always been the last in the order of arrangement, the Gospel of St. John: and to specify its adaptation to the rest.
I. From the time of the commencement of the per- sonal ministry of the Baptist, to the time of the bap- tism of Jesus Christ, when John first became acquainted with the person of Christ—there was little or no hiatus in the former accounts; but from the time of that bap- tism to the commencement of the ministry in Galilee, posterior to the termination of the ministry of John, if
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 19
we except only the forty days’ fast, there was. The extent of this hiatus I shall endeavour to determine in its proper place; and I hope to shew it to have been so critically filled up by St. John, that his account be- gins where the former accounts had left off, and leaves off for a time, where those had been resumed.
II. After the commencement of the ministry in Gali- lee, a casual expression, even in the former Gospels, might have intimated that a passover was just over, and that Jesus had probably been up to Jerusalem in attendance upon it. But St. John’s Gospel alone ascer- tains the allusion, relates the visit, and determines the time of the passover in question to the beginning of our Lord’s second year.
III. Each of the former Evangelists had given an account of the first instance of the miraculous feeding: but none had specified the time when it happened, nor the particulars of the memorable discourse to which it gave occasion. St.John has specified both.
IV. The course of events, as recorded by these Evan- gelists, from the time of that miracle to the next event after the last return of our Lord to Capernaum which they mention, will establish the fact of an hiatus in the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark, of six months at least in extent, and in St. Luke’s, of four; which four, if they are supplied at all, are supplied entirely by St. John, and with the same critical adaptation both to the point where all three had left off, and to the point where St. Luke in particular had begun again, as was before inentioned under Article I.
V. From the period of the arrival at Bethany, before the last passover, to the time of the resurrection; and from this time, to the conclusion of the Gospel history ; it is capable of proof that St. John’s Gospel is alto- gether supplemental to the rest, and no where more so
C2
20 Dissertation First.
than in the account of the celebration of the last sup- per, and in that of the proceedings on the morning of the crucifixion.
Now in these five Articles the whole of this Gospel is comprised; and all these being supplementary, it fol- lows that the whole of this Gospel is supplementary ; it has scarcely an integral sentence, and certainly con- tains no integral fact or discourse in general, which is not embolimaic ; which does not stand by itself, while it connects and supplies the rest. The proof of our po- sition, then, with regard to the last in the order of the Gospels, is complete and satisfactory. Let us now ap- ply the same criterion to the next to that, St. Luke’s: the Gospels prior to which would be St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s.
I. Each of these Gospels had omitted the private history of John the Baptist before the commencement of his public: St. Mark’s had omitted the private his- tory of Christ before the same period; and St. Mat- thew’s had related no more of it than what may be proved to have been subsequent to the third or fourth month after the conception, and not later than the return from Egypt; that is, no more than was com- prehended within six months before, and twelve months after the nativity. Each of these omissions, as far as it is supplied by any Gospel, is entirely supplied by St. Luke’s.
II. Neither St. Matthew nor St. Mark had specified the time when the Ministration of the Kingdom was begun by the first appearance of John; nor the age of our Lord at his baptism; both which were points of importance, and both are defined by St. Luke. St. Mat- thew had not given the natural genealogy of our Lord, a point of still greater importance; and St. Mark had
given no genealogy at all: St. Luke has supplied this defect.
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 21
III. Neither St. Matthew nor St. Mark had men- tioned the first visit to Nazareth; though this might have led in its consequences even to the choice of Ca- pernaum, which the former does mention: St. Luke has supplied this omission.
IV. St. Matthew and St. Mark had related the call of the four individuals, Andrew and Peter, James and John, to be disciples; but not the miracle which pre- ceded their ordination to be apostles. This also is supplied by St. Luke.
V. St. Matthew had omitted altogether both the or- dination of the Twelve, and the sermon which ensued upon it; St. Mark had related the former, but omitted the latter: St. Luke has related both.
VI. St. Matthew and St. Mark had each omitted the second general circuit of Galilee; an omission of some months in extent: St. Luke has filled it up.
VII. St. Matthew and St. Mark, after the last return to Capernaum which they record, had not resumed the thread of their accounts, until Jesus, in the course of his final journey to Jerusalem, was passing out of Pe- rea into Judza; an omission, as I stated before, of at least six months in extent. St. Luke has largely sup- plied this defect; beginning with the commencement of that last progress, and conducting it up to Jerusalem through a period of probably two months, and a part of his Gospel which reaches from ix. 51. to xviii. 14. (that is, through almost one half of the whole) entirely by itself.
VIII. After the reunion of the three accounts, which is on the way from Jericho to Jerusalem—the miracle on one blind man before the entrance into Jericho; the visit to Zacchzus; the parable of the mine; many circumstances in Passion-week, before the last supper ; many circumstances at that supper; at the agony in the garden ; at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim ;
Cc 3
99 Dissertation First.
at his examination before Pilate; on the way to Cal- vary; on the morning and evening of the day of the resurrection; are peculiar to St. Luke, and include large and integral portions of his account. ‘The same argument then, which applied so strongly to St. John, is proportionably applicable to St. Luke: for, if all which his Gospel possesses independent of St. Matthew and of St. Mark, were to be collected together by itself, it would amount to more than two thirds of the whole.
Nor is it possible to evade this reasoning with re- spect to St. Luke, while it is acknowledged to hold good with respect to St.John. It might be said, per- haps, that if St. Matthew and St. Mark had both writ- ten after St. Luke, and had both purposely omitted all those particulars of his narrative, which consisted of mat- ter not found in them, his Gospel would still have ap- peared, in all these respects, as supplementary to their’s as before: and this argument would admit that St. Mat- thew and St. Mark must each have seen and each have written after St. Luke, though St. Luke had not seen, or not written after them. If the argument, however, were of any avail to prove that St. Matthew and St. Mark had both written after St. Luke, it must also prove that St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, had all written after St. John; for the cases are precisely parallel; and if the argument is palpably absurd as applied in the latter case, it ought to be considered no better as ap- plied in the former. It was even more probable, a priori, that the three first Evangelists, writing after St. John, would purposely omit almost every thing re- corded by St. John, than that St. Matthew and St. Mark, writing after St. Luke, would omit so much of what was recorded by St. Luke. The particulars contained in the Gospel of St. John might have been omitted, without inconvenience, by a subsequent Gos-
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 23
pel. The Gospel of St. John is altogether independent of the rest, and relates almost entirely to scenes and occasions in our Saviour’s ministry, to which there is nothing correspondent in them. But the very reverse is the case with the subject matter of the three first Gospels respectively. The accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark are every where interwoven by some proper community of relation, with the accounts of St. Luke; so that they could not be, without great violence to them all, detached asunder.
The supposition itself, however, especially when con- trasted with the state of the case in reference to St. Mat- thew’s Gospel, is preposterous and unnatural. It is di- rectly contrary to the ordinary course of improvement, which under all circumstances is to advance, and not to retrograde; to proceed from less perfect to more so; and particularly in a second, as opposed to an original attempt; where a certain model of excellence being al- ready before the mind, it is not necessary both to con- ceive and to execute for the first time. It was conse- quently possible and probable, that a later Gospel might be found to improve on a former, and to introduce order instead of disorder, completeness instead of defi- ciency, if such blemishes were perceptible in prior ac- counts ; but, if it was not impossible, it was highly im- probable, that it would be found to do just the reverse : which yet St. Matthew, and even St. Mark, must have done, if they wrote after and with the knowledge of St. Luke; substituting perplexity for orderly arrange- ment, obscurity for clearness, defectiveness and indis- tinctness for fulness and precision.
Moreover, there are references in St. Luke’s Gospel to some prior one, which must have been either St. Mat- thew’s or St. Mark’s: and there are similar references in St. John’s throughout to all these three—and in one
c 4
24 Dissertation First.
instance particularly there is a reference, which can scarcely be disputed, to St. Luke’s. Nor is it a greater objection to this last Evangelist, that he omits much of what is related by the other two, than it would be to St. John, that he omits almost every thing supplied by the former three. Besides which, for all these omissions in St. Luke a very sufficient reason may be discovered ; viz. either that he knew the same particu- lars would come over again, where he proposed to re- cord them; or that they resembled what he had re- corded elsewhere already; or that they expressly. con- cerned the Jews, and did not interest the Gentiles; or that they implied something derogatory to the apostles ; or that they had been related, and amply related, by his predecessors. Of these reasons, the most uniform are the first and the last, one of which will account for almost every instance of his omissions; and the last is as certain as the first : since even where he goes along with St. Matthew and St. Mark, it is still a character- istic of St. Luke to be more concise than the latter, but more circumstantial than the former.
The references in question will be occasionally pointed out hereafter ; at present I shall specify no more than two, one of them reflexive, and the other prospective ; the former to St. Matthew’s Gospel, the latter to St. Mark’s; but each of them, as it seems to me, a cri- tical reference, and capable of standing with such a re- lation, only where St. Luke has placed it. The first is, Luke xvii. 4. and the second, Luke xii.41,42. In the former our Lord alludes to the question of St. Peter at Matt. xviii. 21. and in the latter declines to answer the very question, which he virtually answers at Mark xiii. 37. It will be allowed at least, that Mark xiii. 37. furnishes exactly the answer to the question which was asked at Luke xii.41. And what confirms the
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 25
ἦν
supposed coincidence in each of these cases, is the prox- imity of the time, as well as the agreement of the sense ; for Matt. xviii. 21. was less than six months prior to Luke xvii. 4. and Luke xii. 41. was only a few weeks earlier than Mark xiii. 37. Nor could we infer that St. Mark’s Gospel was posterior to St. Luke’s, because the answer is found in the former and the question in the latter, any more than that St. John’s Gospel was later than St. Luke’s, because the reference to the mi- racle at Capernaum is found in St. Luke, at iv. 23. but the account of the miracle only in St. John, at iv. 46-54. All this period in the Gospel history of St. Luke is a blank in that of St. Matthew and St. Mark.
There is another prospective allusion in St. Luke to both St. Matthew and St. Mark in conjunction, which also deserves to be mentioned. The parable of the - barren fig-tree, found in his Gospel, chap. xiii. 6-9. but omitted in theirs, serves to prepare the way for the account of the malediction judicially inflicted on a - similar tree, and for a similar fault, which they do record ; St. Matthew, xxi. 18, 19. and St. Mark, xi. 13, 14. These different accounts mutually illustrate each other; for the moral of the parable, which is a pro- phetical allegory, and the end of the malediction in- flicted upon the tree, which was purely symbolical, it might be shewn, conspire together, and are in fact the one the completion of the other. The fig-tree on mount Olivet, and the fig-tree in the parable, bear the same typical relation; and the curse pronounced upon the former is but the execution of the sentence, which had been already passed upon the latter, and only for a time suspended.
We should do an injury to the most perfect charac- ter which ever existed, were we to doubt whether the conduct of our Saviour was uniformly wise and con-
26 Dissertation First.
sistent ; whether he could do or could say at one time, what would better have been said or done at another. We should expect thus much under any circumstances even from ordinary wisdom and prudence; much more from such wisdom and such prudence as his. Now these qualities of his conduct are discoverable only from the corresponding qualities of his actions; and those qualities of his actions are to be judged of only from their place in his history; that is, from their reference to times and occasions. It has been often remarked that our Lord’s actions or discourses were frequently determined by particular conjunctures of circumstances which had transpired already: it may be said with equal truth that they were as frequently determined by conjunctures still to come. In all these cases it would produce equal confusion to detach either of the two things from its proper correlative; to place that first in the order of arrangement, which should come last in the order of succession; or the reverse. It is essential also to the ὁμοιοπάθεια of his common na- ture, that when he was placed in circumstances calcu-’ lated to excite certain feelings or emotions, he should have felt, and acted under his feelings, as another man would have felt and acted.
In no part of the Gospel history do these incidental references to times and occasions, and these traits of nature and propriety, appear more strikingly or with an happier effect, than in the portion comprehended be- tween Luke ix. 51. and xviii. 14: yet there is none which the dubious arrangements of harmonists have more disordered and obscured. If each of these particu- lar narratives is regarded as it stands, and simply in its relation to another, and to the course of events before and after it—I would challenge any one to point out a position where any of them would have appeared so natu-
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 27
ral and appropriate, as where St. Luke has already placed them: and I urge this manifest congruity of the parts, as the best argument of the right chronological dispo- sition of the whole. Next to positive indications, which admit of no question, it is to these indirect notices, which are scarcely less satisfactory than the positive, that every harmonist ought to attend. His duty would consequently be very inadequately discharged, who should not observe and should not profit by them; though even his merit, who should do both, would be the merit only of an accurate observer, and of a faithful reporter of his observations. The business of an har- monist, in these respects, is much like that of one who has to arrange a cabinet of pictures: the qualities of the pictures in all situations will be the same, but the due perception of those qualities will not be possible, except from their proper point of view. The taste and the judgment of the arranger are legitimately called into exercise here: it is his duty to find out this pro- per point of view, and to dispose of his pictures accord- ingly. |
With regard to the second Gospel, it would be much more difficult to decide whether St. Mark’s Gospel was written before St. Luke’s, or vice versa, if each were to be referred to the other only, than as both admit of being referred to St. Matthew. But the evident ac- commodation of St. Mark’s to St. Matthew’s, proofs of which will be pointed out by and by, demonstrates that St. Mark had seen St. Matthew’s; and the evident ac- commodation of St. Luke’s to both demonstrates that he had seen both: for such is the accommodation in the former case, that St. Luke could not have been supple- mentary to either without being supplementary to the other. The mode of reasoning, therefore, which has been adopted by Griesbach, and by others after him ; as
28 Dissertation First.
the result of which, by an elaborate comparison of these three Evangelists together, it is intended to shew that St. Mark does not contain more than twenty verses which he might not have taken either from St. Mat- thew or from St. Luke—though, for argument’s sake, we were to concede its premises—would still be insuf- ficient to warrant the conclusion which is grounded upon them. It is impossiblethat St. Mark’s Gospel should agree with St. Luke’s, where St. Luke’s also does not exhibit any symptoms of agreement with St. Mark’s; and this appearance of agreement between them would be pro- duced alike, whether St. Luke copied from St. Mark, or St. Mark copied from St. Luke. The question then which concerns their order must be determined on very different principles.
Again, it would be a great mistake to regard St. Mark as the mere abbreviator of St. Matthew, though this mistake would concede the question of time: for, not to mention what he supplies independent of St. Matthew, his original and his equal authority as an historian, appears from his rectification of the order of St. Matthew, where that was inverted and irregular; from the changes, omissions, additions, explanations, allusions, which are discoverable even in their common accounts, in reference sometimes to things, sometimes to persons, sometimes to words; all which distinguish his narrative from St. Matthew’s, and all, or most of them, are adapted to a very different class of readers. How little the character of a mere abbreviator applies to him is placed beyond a question by a predominant and palpable mark of discrimination, which runs through the whole of his Gospel, and which any one may judge of, at first sight; viz. that where St. Mat- thew, the supposed original, is notoriously concise and defective, St. Mark, the supposed abbreviator, is al-
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 29
ways the most plenary and diffuse, and vice versa. Nothing of this kind would be characteristic of an abridgment.
Again, St. Matthew’s Gospel being taken in conjunc- tion with St. Mark’s, there are clearly omissions in the former which are as plainly supplied by the latter. Of this number, I shall specify the following.
I. Omissions which concern integral facts; as the first instance of our Saviour’s teaching, after the com- mencement of his ministry in Galilee, and followed by the miracle on the demoniac in the synagogue at Ca- pernaum ; the account of a circuit, in the neighbour- hood of the lake of Galilee; that most important event, the ordination of the twelve apostles; one additional parable, among those which were first delivered; two miracles performed at Bethsaida, in Decapolis; and three personal manifestations of our Lord alive, after his resurrection: all which things the Harmony will exhibit in their places hereafter.
II. Besides those instances where a concise account of St. Matthew’s is expanded into a circumstantial de- tail by St. Mark, the latter is frequently so aceommo- dated to the other as to end where he begins, or, vice versa, to begin where he ends. Mark ix. 33-50. con- cludes where Matt. xviii. 1-35. begins: Mark vii. 25. takes up Matt. xv. 24. Mark vii. 32-37. comes in ex- actly between Matt. xv. 29. and xv. 30. Mark viii. 12. concludes Matt. xvi. 1-4. Mark viii. 19, 20. follows on Matt. xvi. 10. and, what is among the most strik- ing instances of all, Mark xvi. 5—8. in his account of that event, begins precisely where Matt. xxviii. 6. in his account just before, had made an end.
ITI. In such cases, and especially where one of the narratives continues or is continued by the other, that one, it is manifest, presupposes the accounts of
40 Dissertation First.
the other, and without that supposition would scarcely be intelligible; of which Mark viii. 12. is a remarkable instance; for it passed altogether in pri- vate, after the answer to the demand, as recorded by St. Matthew, xvi. 1-4. had been returned in public. It is clear that the exordium of the narrative at Mark ili. 22. presupposes the fact of a recent dispossession, and without that would be almost inconceivable; yet this dispossession is related by St. Matthew only, xii. 22.
IV. Even in their common accounts, something is often supplied by St. Mark, critically explanatory of something in St. Matthew. Mark iii. 21. serves this purpose for Matt. xii. 46. and Mark iii. 22. and iii. 30. by ascertaining the fact of a double blasphemy, one against the Spirit, and the other against our Saviour, serve it still more so for Matt. xii. 24. and xii. 31-37. which last is directly founded upon that distinction. Mark iv. 10. explains the circumstances under which Matt. xill. 18—23. was delivered; and Mark x. 35. compared with Matt. xx. 20. explains Matt. xx. 24. which without that would not be so apparent. The same observation would hold good of numerous pas- sages besides, if my limits would permit me now to cite them.
V. Closely as St. Mark adheres to St. Matthew, one object is still kept in view by him throughout; viz. to rectify his historical transpositions; to ascertain what he had left indefinite ; and to fill up his numerous cir- cumstantial omissions. No two Gospels in all these respects can be more the ἀντίστοιχα of each other, while in the general outline they are absolutely ἀντί- στροφα:
REDE, ΕΙ hac in re scilicet una Multum dissimiles, at cetera pene gemelli ἢ;
f Hor. Epp. i. x. 2.
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 31
VI. The very deficiencies in St. Mark, or the consi- deration of what St. Matthew possesses which is not to be found in St. Mark, by implying a tacit reference to the Gospel of St. Matthew, confirm, rather than invali- date, the same conclusion. ‘There is one such omission relating to their common accounts of the resurrection and of the manifestations of Christ, viz. the account of the manifestation in Galilee; which is almost the only one related by St. Matthew, and must have been inten- tionally omitted by St. Mark. In preparing for this manifestation, up to a certain point they go along with each other, which is sufficient to prove that St. Mark was aware of the fact of it, as much as St. Matthew; and, consequently, that his silence as to the ultimate re- sult, is not to be resolved into ignorance. The fact of the manifestation itself is all which is wanting to complete the account of it in St. Mark. St. Matthew has added this, St. Mark has omitted it, clearly for no reason so probably as because it might be known from St. Matthew.
But his most regular omissions are in the account of our Saviour’s discourses ; in which a Gospel, composed as his was, for the instruction of Gentile converts, and especially in the account of our Lord’s moral discourses, it was, a priori, to be expected would have been the most full. There are numerous occasions upon which he specifies the fact that our Saviour taught the people; there is not one, if we except the teaching in parables, which was itself a deviation from the ordinary mode of his teaching, upon which he specifies what was taught. On two occasions, a comparison first with St. Matthew, and again with St. Luke, will shew that, unless he had purposely avoided it, the course of the narrative alone must have led him to give more or less in detail an account of instances of teaching more solemn and
32 Dissertation First.
more instructive than usual; which were the two ser- mons from the mount, one at the close of the first cir- cuit of Galilee, the other at the ordination of the apo- stles: both, events related in their place by St. Mark. Perhaps his omission of this second sermon might be excused on account of its omission in St. Matthew also, to whom, in the general outline of his narrative, he adheres throughout. But no reason can account for the omission of the first, except that it had been re- corded by St. Matthew, and that St. Matthew’s Gospel would go along with St. Mark’s; in which case, to have repeated so large a portion of what had been fully related in that, would have been absolute tauto- logy. There are similar omissions in the history of the teaching in parables; of the apostolic charge; and of the prophecy on the mount; besides many others which might be pointed out; all defensible on the same principle, but on that only. There is one re- markable occasion when, as St. Matthew shews, St. Mark stopped short on the verge of a long and in- teresting parable, subjoined by our Lord in explana- tion of that very sentence, which is the last thing he does record 8.
VII. The verbal coincidences which are found in the text of these two Evangelists, are so numerous, that in an harmony duly arranged they may be disco- vered in every page; and were I to exhibit them now in detail, I must transcribe almost the whole of St. Mark, and more than half of St. Matthew. What is most to be observed, they appear in the simply narra- tive part, where, a priori, they were least to be ex- pected ; as well as in the account of discourses, where there was greater likelihood of their occurrence. T'wo persons, giving an account of what was said or spoken.
g Mark x. 31. Matt. xx. 1.
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 33
by another, might be expected to fall more or less into the same phraseology; but in merely historical parti- culars, the very same things substantially might have been recorded, though not a word of the accounts had been the same. Yet the mind of St. Mark was so thoroughly imbued with the sentiments and the lan- guage of St. Matthew, that he falls into his ideas and his expressions, as matter of course, almost every where. It is observable also, that these verbal coinci- dences, as a general characteristic of any two of the Gospel accounts, are much more perceptible between St. Matthew and St. Mark, than between either of them and St. Luke; the best proof of which is, that even where all three are accompanying each other, St. Mark may still be found adhering verbatim to St. Matthew, when St. Luke departs from both. Among the number of words and phrases, peculiar to the Gospels or not pe- culiar, novel or familiar, which constitute the material of their respective compositions, (if any one, by the help of a good concordance and a careful perusal, will take the trouble to examine them in detail,) such as are common to St. Matthew and St. Mark will be found to be many times as considerable in amount, as those which are common to St. Matthew and St. Luke. Nor can I discover any very striking idiom of St. Matthew, which may not be found also in St. Mark. The use of καὶ ἰδοὺ is one such idiom; but it occurs once in St. Mark; and ἰδοὺ, without the «ai, occurs ten times. Kai ἰδοὺ, it is true, is repeatedly to be found in St. Luke. But, on the other hand, ἴδε, which is more peculiar than ἰδοὺ, occurs six times in St. Mark, and four times in St. Matthew; but not once in St. Luke. The use of εὐθέως in rather a singular and redundant manner, is reckoned a peculiarity of St. Mark: but this use of it is not perceptible after the first two chapters; and as WO. 1, D
34 Dissertation First.
to the employment of the term ἁπλῶς, though St. Mark has it forty times, St. Matthew has it fifteen; and even St. Luke, who is as much attached to the use of παραχρῆμα instead of it, has it eight. It is a common idiom too of St. Matthew and St. Mark, which is far from being equally predominant in St. Luke, to em- ploy in historical narration the present tense; and not the past. They say, Jesus calleth, where St. Luke says, Jesus called; or Jesus saith, where he has, Jesus said ; and so in numberless instances. It is another, that they are found to use phrases which are not classically pure, promiscuously with others of like kind, which are; whereas St. Luke is more uniformly correct. Thus, ov μὴ τελέσητε---οὐ μὴ ἀπολέση---οὐ μὴ τιμήση----οὐ μὴ ἔσται---- οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται---οὐ μὴ ἀπαρνήσομαι, occur indifferently in them; but in St. Luke the same construction is, οὐ μὴ γεύσονται----οὐ μὴ ἀπολέσει----οὐ μὴ ποιήσει--- 4 the like. It is true, the same promiscuous usage is observ- able also in St. John: but surely these, and the other circumstances which I have mentioned, must establish the fact of a closer verbal connection between St. Mat- thew and St. Mark, than between either and St. Luke: and, perhaps, even for this connection a reason may be assigned hereafter, which will make it cease to appear surprising.
I am well aware that the inference deducible from these analogies, as I am obliged to state them at pre- sent, does not come with half the force which the na- ture of the premises would warrant. It depends upon minute comparisons ; on critical accommodations of one text to another; on nice and delicate points of omis- sion and supplement, indefiniteness and definiteness, implication and statement; which can never be fully appreciated until they are exhibited in their proper place, and with their mutual relations, by the text of
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 35
the Gospels themselves. The reader, therefore, is at liberty to suspend his judgment, with respect to the above assertions, until I can unfold my proofs of them more particularly.
It must be observed, however, once for all, that in most of these instances, whatever be the point under discussion, the conclusions at which we arrive, over and above their connection with that point, and besides the proper arguments by which they are established, are confirmed also by some relation, reflexive or pro- spective, to something else; by their agreement with other conclusions, before established or coming to be afterwards established; which yet it is not always in my power to point out. This general argument in fa- vour of the whole, resulting from the mutual harmony and congruity of the parts, must be observed and ap- plied by the reader, as he goes along, for himself: and, notwithstanding it must be thus collected, it is among the most decisive criterions of truth. It is impossible that in a merely artificial system, which was not found- ed in truth, any such congruity of distinct and distant particulars should every where hold good: we might as reasonably expect that the atoms of Epicurus, by mutual collision, would be shaken up into organized worlds, as that the parts of the four Gospels, through a period of three or four years’ duration, should by any arbitrary arrangements be made so consistent with each other, that no flaw nor disproportion would be visible in the integrity and symmetry of the whole. The cri- terion of a just hypothesis is to solve all the pheno- mena to which it can be applied; to account for the least things as well as for the greatest: and no har- mony can be perfect which is not consistent with itself from first to last; or with a general appearance of con- sistency, will not bear the test of a particular exa-
D2
36 Dissertation First.
mination. The cement which consolidates the materials of a building is as important to its strength and its in- tegrity as the stones or the bricks; and in the distribu- tion of the parts of an harmony, the minuter and less prominent analogies are those which must ultimately connect and confirm the whole.
It is this supplementary relation of the three first Gospels to each other, which furnishes the best and most fatal objection to a favourite hypothesis of the German school; an hypothesis invented principally to account for the verbal coincidences between the Gos- pels; assuming the existence of some πρωτευωγγέλιον, or primary document, whence, though unknown to each other, the authors of them all derived the materials of their histories incommon. The reception of this hy- pothesis might account for verbal agreements; but it would not account for the supplemental arrangement of facts. The material relations might have held good, even though the verbal coincidences had not existed ; and, on the same principle, the material relations are not necessarily explained, even when those coincidences are accounted for. It would be a moral impossibility that St. Mark, compiling an independent Gospel from any document, though the same might have been used by St. Matthew, should be found in the choice and collocation of his facts to be thus exactly accommo- dated to St. Matthew; or that St. Luke, while doing the same, should be thus critically accommodated to either. No combination of chances, no random or lucky coincidences, nothing but premeditation and design, could have produced this conformity. The use of com- mon materials would account for no instance of mate- rial agreement, which was not an absolute and an en- tire agreement; and of such absolute and entire agree- ment there is not an instance in any two out of the
Supplemental Character of the Gospels. 37
four Gospels. Detached passages in St. Mark are not identical with detached passages in St. Matthew, but at the utmost only similar and supplementary to them; and supplementary relations, while they necessarily possess some agreement with prior and defective, pos- sess necessarily some disagreement also. Nor is it the parts only which are supplementary to the parts; but the wholes which are supplementary to the wholes: which while it enhances the degree of the coincidence, increases in the same proportion the difficulty of account- ing for it on any principle but that of design.
Yet the supposition of this πρωτευωγγέλιον is but an inadequate contrivance, even for the purpose which it was intended to serve. I will state the theory of the most in- genious among its advocates, the translator of Michae- lis; not with a view to controvert it, but to exhibit the shifts and expedients to which, before his system is re- duced to a feasible shape, its author is obliged to have re- course. After demonstrating the insufficiency of every other supposable case to explain the phenomena both of congruity and of incongruity in the three first Gospels, he proceeds to subjoin an hypothesis of his own, which he conceives would be capable of accounting for every thing".
He supposes, Ist, an original Hebrew document, con- taining solely a narrative of facts; which he denomi- nates x. 2dly, A version of this document into Greek ; which he denotes by x. 3dly, The same Hebrew docu- ment, but with additions either to the circumstances of its former accounts, which he distinguishes by δ τα Ἐβ. Ὑ: or of entirely new accounts, which he calls 8+A+B4+T; or of both incorporated with each other; the various forms of which conjunctions cannot be otherwise expressed than by the various combinations of α- βἘ Ὑ andA+B+I with x. 4thly, A supple-
t Michael. Introd. Dissertation on the Origin of the three first Gospels, chap. xv.
Ds
38 Dissertation First.
mentary Hebrew document, which he denotes by 3, called a Τνωμολογία : that is, a narrative no longer re- stricted to facts, but containing a collection of Precepts, Parables, and other Discourses: and of this document also he supposes a double edition, each comprising some things peculiar to itself, besides what they both had in common. All these documents, it 1s necessary to as- sume, existed before the composition of a single canon- ical Gospel; the two first, 8 and δ, both in Hebrew and in Greek; the last, by a singular anomaly, though very essential to the author’s argument, in the Hebrew only, and not in the Greek. I call this a singular ano- maly; for if the document x, by itself, was speedily translated into Greek, the same document, with the supposed additions, however many those might have been, ought to have been as speedily translated also. But this would not serve for the hypothesis of the au- thor, which requires that St. Luke and St. Mark should have something to translate for themselves from He- brew into Greek; and should not merely copy or tran- scribe from the existing Greek.
These several documents put together, it is easy to conceive, might exhibit the whole of the facts, and the whole of the discourses, which the Gospels possess in common. Yet even these assumptions are purely pre- liminary; they provide the materials only for the fu- ture Gospels. It still remains to shew how St. Matthew, using exclusively the Hebrew; St. Mark and St. Luke, independent of each other, embodying in their narra- tives the Greek; the translator of