Section ...'
LVUMLUET. Ac deadcacclse
45.B
At ]
\ hod |
vedee
. > |
Rue re ey On
DViston ee merecersctee:
ae |
:
wane
seen ewer
[SS SE A A SR RE SS er Se SS 0 eee
7
x
.
4
’
Z
~
y 2
¢
;
;
: \ - at
‘ : '
4 ‘
P :
‘
x
i ‘
“
A ;
-
i. ‘
:
, ? .
)
«| e 4 a
F a
\
) Ad .
*
* - 7
= ~
F- \
‘
;
;
p a
obit
i :
;
€ t
. we? .
: ‘
< 7 ‘ :
:
Xs ‘ F .
;
:
3
. ; f
ta ae
Fy
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009
https://archive.org/details/chronologyofoursOObens
THE CHRONOLOGY
OF
Our Saviour’s Life,
AN INQUIRY INTO THE TRUE TIME
“
BIRTH, BAPTISM, ann CRUCIFIXION,
OF
JESUS CHRIST.
By THe Reverenn C. BENSON, M.A.
OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
Author of an Inquiry into the Sacrament of Barris.
CAMBRIDGE:
Printed at the University Press ;
AND SOLD BY BALDWIN, CRADOCK & JOY, LONDON.
ALSO BY DEIGHTON, NICHOLSON, AND THORPE, CAMBRIDGE;
AND J. PARKER, OXFORD,
1819
ae a ye dee hee Late od
er, vi ks oe ea os a
fe
im a Gf a an Rehan eae A. i
th Grier: ae Saaaaee
at ae nie a esac Ae
A ga, a 4 7 irs .
¥
> Robe Na a
TO THE
REVEREND JOHN KAYE, D.D.
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY,
AND
MASTER OF CHRIS'‘t’s COLLEGE,
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE,
THE FOLLOWING WORK
IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED
A GRATEFUL MEMORIAL OF ESTEEM AND ADMIRATION
FOR HIS TALENTS AND VIRTUES
BY HIS
MUCH OBLIGED AND VERY SINCERE FRIEND
THE AUTHOR.
ay
-
1F
us
+)
i
'
veep 4
24
ef eri TA
Hin CRA
OE, C9004
\ a 1
7 a.
at
WO
a
coat
*
u z
Sy eit by
a
~ - 1
> M, ae
Te Author begs leave to express his thanks
and acknowledgements to the Syndics of the
University Press for their kindness and li-
berality in undertaking to defray the expence
of printing the following work.
CONTENTS.
CHAP. I. §
Page
NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE INQUIRY. ...... 1
CHAP.. II.
THE VULGAR ERA, AND THE DEATH OF HEROD..... 15
CHAP, Hl;
PROBABLE DATE OF OUR SAVIOUR’S BIRTH. ........--59
SECTION I.
Probable Year of Our Saviour’s Birth. ... 6.2.0... 4... ibid.
SECTION II,
Probable Month of our Saviow’s Birth. .......
84
CHAP IV.
DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING THE PROBABLE DATE OF
OUR SAVIOUR’S BIRTH. ..... 118
SECTION I.
To what Taxing St. Luke, ch. ii. v. 1 and 2, does not
allude. ... . ibid.
>
SECTION II.
To what Taxing St. Luke, ch. ii. v. 1 and 2, does probably
allude, .....
Cre Of 6.0 8 0 0 0 Bae? Dedia O's, 4a (Oe) wi WD) « os eee Vie ® 14.2
yill CONTENTS.
SECTION III.
Page
The Date of the Taxing to which St. Luke, ch. ii. 2. 1
and 2, probably alludes. Si... Woe ccs 2 saa... LOO
SECTION IV.
An Objection to the Correctness of the preceding Calculations
and Dates considered and answered. ......42 0.00 000+ 168
CHAP: iV.
THE PROBABLE DATE OF OUR SAVIOUR’S BAPTISM... 175
CHAP: VI.
DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING THE PROBABLE DATE OF
OUR SAVIOUR’S BAPTISM. . 189
SECTION I.
St. Luke computed the fifteenth year of the Government of
Tiberius from the Date of his Proconsular Empire... .. ibid.
SECTION II.
Pontius Pilate was Governor of Judea in J. P. 4739. .... 222
SECTION III.
Considerations upon John, chap. il. v. 20. ... > Soe
CHAP. VIE
PROBABLE DATE OF OUR SAVIOUR’S CRUCIFIXION. .. 241
SECTIONAL
. ibid.
Duration of our Savtour’s Ministry. wicviecescuanee
CONTENTS. 1x
SECTION II.
: Page
Probable Year of our Saviour’s Crucifixion. ............ 293
SECTION III.
Probable Month and Day of our Saviour’s Crucifixion. .... 299
Ret RUSTON aoc leritiaet the «oe a'r phage. cde Sane eee
CHUEONWOLOGICATY b ABUH 5 oe 8. oP ewerss aah OA eeanO
A List of the principal Works and Editions of Works quoted
OVS NER TOP. Se cao rs a ee ee IAS
eg Aes
‘ vo
uy r
emer te
ry, , *
CHAP. I.
Nature and Importance of the Inquiry.
eee
In opening the volume of the New Testament
to peruse the historical records of our Saviour’s
life, one of the first inquiries we naturally make
is into the period which the gospel history occupies ;
into the true time of the birth, baptism and cruci-
fixion of Jesus Christ. And this is an inquiry to
which we are alike prompted by the curiosity, the
difficulty, and the importance of the subject.
Whatever be the feelings with which we con-
template the rise and progress of Christianity ;
whether we believe the religion of the Gospel to
be true or false, it is impossible to regard its rapid
increase, its continued stability, and the mighty
moral effects which it has every where pro-
duced, without acknowledging it to be a wonderful,
if not a divine thing. That an illiterate peasant,
without the advantages of leisure or education,
should form in his mind the conception of a
A
2
religion, which has been found capable of accom-
modating itself to the manners and customs of the
most distant and dissimilar people, and of flourish-
ing under every system of civil government and
ecclesiastieal polity —of monarchy and republican-
ism, of presbyterianism and episcopacy ;—that this
illiterate peasant should then, without the influence
of rank and power, have been able to plant and
propagate his religion, in direct opposition to the
prejudices of his countrymen, the scepticism of
philosophy and the opinions of mankind ; and that
this religion thus inauspiciously begun should have
triumphed over every other mode of worship and
form of belief, and still continue to maintain its
ground without any visible signs of external danger
or internal decay; these are circumstances so
contrary to the general experience of the world,
that they cannot fail to excite in the most sluggish
minds a mingled feeling of astonishment and ad-
miration, and make every thinking man _ most
anxiously inquisitive into the minutest particulars
connected with the author of so singular a work ;
and of course, in the first place, into the time in
which he lived.
It is more than probable however that if the
critic who makes this inquiry be not animated
with the faith and zeal of a very earnest Christian,
he will either content himself with some loose and
3
inaccurate conclusions, or else feel the ardour of
pursuit checked by the uncertainty of the subject,
and shrink weary and disappointed from the painful
task. So many are the doubts and difficulties
which accompany the investigation of evangelical
chronology. For there are only two authentic
and contemporary sources from which we can
draw any circumstantial information concerning the
precise time and peculiar manner of our Saviour’s
birth; and those are the Gospels of St. Matthew
and St. Luke. In the first two chapters of each
of these we have a detailed account of several
circumstances which ought, if accurate, to deter-
mine the very year in which the founder of
Christianity appeared upon the earth. By a careful
examination of these chronological marks, we may
indeed easily obtain such a general idea of the
commencement of the life of Christ, as is sufficient
for all the common purposes of history. But if we
seek for any thing more than an approximation to
accuracy ; if we endeavour by a laborious compa-
rison of sacred with profane historians, to fix the
exact point of time at which the Son of God con-
descended to assume the form of man, and suffer
for man, we shall meet with several apparent con-
trarities, and in attempting to reconcile the various
authors with each other, have to struggle with real
and unexpected difficulties.
A 2
4
For the resolution of every question in critical
theology we almost instinctively turn to those
numerous and learned writers, who have piously
devoted their lives and talents to the exclusive
consideration of subjects connected with the reve-
lations of God. And if made in the spirit of
humble sincerity, I believe, the appeal will seldom
issue in an unfavourable result. In the instance,
however, which is now before our view, the case
is unfortunately the reverse, and a veil of fatal
obscurity seems hitherto to have hung over the
chronology of the gospels, which many a hand has
attempted, but none been able to withdraw. Upon
the birth, and baptism, and death, upon the
duration of the life and ministry of Christ, there
have been almost as many opinions as writers,
and yet no one has been able to give perfect sa-
tisfaction either to the world or to himself. After
all his labours and all his cares each man has found
his own hypothesis liable to some insuperable
objections, and the means which he had perhaps
successfully adopted to harmonize a variety in one
point, have served but to create a more positive
and decided contradiction in another.
Now this harrassing uncertainty in the subject
itself, and these uniformly unsuccessful efforts to
give a clear and unimpeachable chronology of
our Saviour’s life, are what principally contribute
-
5
to establish the importance of our present in-
quiry.
Perhaps to the real believer and sound Chris-
tian—to the Christian who has been duly instructed
from his earliest youth to be able to give a reason
of the hope that is in him, the great uncertainty
which still prevails respecting the true time of our
Saviour’s birth or death is a matter of very little
consequence. The general and solid arguments
by which he has been already convinced of the
truth of his religion, will most probably support
his faith under all difficulties. But the case is
very different with the unconfirmed Christian, who
is wavering perhaps between Deism and Christi-
anity. ‘The accuracy and soundness of our con-
clusions depend in every thing, but especially in
moral and religious questions, where the passions
exercise so strong an influence over the judgement,
almost as much upon the order of our inquiries,
as upon their nature and the manner in which
they are conducted. Any man, therefore, and
any young man especially who commences his
investigation of the truth of Christianity, by direct-
ing his attention, as is generally the case, to the
doubts with which it has been assailed, and the
difficulties with which it isin many parts attended,
will receive a very improper bias against the
arguments by which it may be maintained. For
6
his first, and therefore strongest impressions,
having been those which teach him the possibility
of the gospels being false, he will be imperceptibly
led to magnify every objection against a system
which he cannot but perceive so unrelentingly
condemns the indulgence of every passion; and
his impartiality being injured by the frequent
contemplation of the weaker parts of its evidence,
its very strongest proofs will afterwards déscend
with less than their due weight into an imagina-
tion irritated and pre-occupied with the habit of
doubt. Thus to him varieties will appear contra-
dictions, and contradictions be construed into
falsehoods, and should he find or fancy the date
assigned by St. Luke for the baptism of Christ to
be absolutely irreconcileable to other historians,
the mistake will seem to his prejudiced under-
standing to involve the genuineness and authen-
ticity of the whole of the New Testament, and
throwing Christianity aside, he will resolve perhaps
never again to trouble himself with the difficulties
of a system, of the falshood of which he will ima-
gine that he has been thoroughly and rationally
convinced.
But whatever be the connection of the present
inquiry with the belief of Christians in general,
there is one part of that belief which it most
materially and undoubtedly affects, and that is
7
the birth of the Saviour from a pure virgin through
the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost.
Upon the difficulty, or as he chooses to consider
it, the impossibility of reconciling the account of
our Saviour’s birth as related by St. Luke with the
account of the same circumstance in St. Matthew
and the ancient profane histories of that period
which still remain, Dr. Priestly* has contrived to
raise his principal argument against the pre-
liminary chapters of St. Matthew, the genu-
ineness of which involves the doctrine of the
immaculate conception of Jesus. In this argument
he has been closely followed by Belsham, the
servile copier of almost all his irregular opinions.
® Hist, of early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ, Vol. 1V. B. il.
c. 20. Ihave observed that Dr. Priestly chooses to consider the
difficulty insurmountable, and the chapters spurious; because
I find that there are occasions upon which he does not choose so
to think. In the “ Observations upon his Harmony,” p. 2, he
seems to have forgotten or given up the spuriousness of the
two chapters in dispute, and considers an opinion he opposes ‘‘ as
evidently out of the question, because according to Matthew our
Lord was born before the death of Herod.” This argument is of
no force except he considered the second chapter of St. Matthew’s
gospel to be genuine. The difference of sentiment thus displayed
is curious indeed, but not unaccountable. The object of the
‘“‘Harmonist” was of course very dissimilar to that of the
‘* Historian of early opinions.” Yet have I not set this down in
malice. The illustrious Philosopher has yielded but to the
general infirmity of human nature. It is the fate of all to be
biassed, perhaps imperceptibly, by preconceived opinions.
8
In the twelfth page of the ‘Calm Inquiry,’” we
meet with the following remark. “From Luke iii. 1.
compared with ver. 23. it appears, that Jesus was
born fifteen years before the death of Augustus,
that is, at least two years after the death of Herod,
a fact which completely falsifies the whole of the
narrative contained in the preliminary chapters of
Matthew and Luke.”’ This is his most prominent
objection to the immaculate conception. ‘The rest
without this are weak and inconclusive, depending
upon this as their original foundation; so that
if we can once fairly account for those contradic-
tions which appear to exist, and harmonize the
relations of the two Evangelists with each other,
» Nothing can be more calculated to mislead the unwary
reader, than the statements of this page. Upon examination
it will appear that St. Luke only informs us that Jesus
was “about thirty,” when he was baptised, (chap. ili. v. 21,
23;) and would seem to imply that he was baptised in the
15th year of Tiberius, (chap. ti. v. 1.). Upon this foundation
Mr. Belsham, begging the question, assumes it as a fact
that Jesus was born ‘‘at least two years after the death of
Herod.” But, even granting the assumed premises of Mr.
Belsham, his sweeping conclusion is by no means justified. An
error in point of time does not necessarily include an error as to
facts, and a writer may be very well acquainted with the circum-
stances attending any transaction without knowing the precise
date of the transaction itself. Though therefore we should admit
that the two preliminary chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke
are at absolute variance with each other upon the tame of Christ’s
birth, we are not logically authorised to conclude that “the whole
narrative contained in those preliminary chapters of Matthew and
Luke is completely falsified.”
9
and with the writers of profane history, we shall
have done something to destroy his frail and feeble
fabric of doubt, and have contributed something to
establish a doctrine which, as it has been generally
opposed by Socinian writers,° may not improperly
© I call them not Socinians from pique or perverseness,
nor with any disrespectful intentions towards any body of
men, but from principle. I should be sorry to quarrel with
any denomination of Christians for the’ sake of a mére name;
but these who believe the simple humanity of Jesus demand the
title of Unitarians as something more than a mere distinctive
appellation, and therefore, though I might act differently in the
courtesy of common conversation, I shall always feel it my duty
to withhold from them that title in every deliberate publication,
so long as I read the following passage in Mr. Belsham’s state-
ment of their opinions. ‘‘'They who believe the proper humanity
of Jesus Christ claim the title of Unitarians, ...... iieevnata Ore
especially because they conceive that they are almost the only
body of Christians who practically maintain the important doctrine
of the divine unity in its full and just extent, and who exclude every
creature without exception from every degree of participation in
those attributes, works, and honours which reason and revelation
ascribe and appropriate to the only God.” Calm Inquiry, p, 455.
It is for this very reason, because they claim it as due to them
alone, that I withhold from them the title of Unitarians ; and
withholding from them fhat, I know not what other to confer
upon them, except the title of Socinians. They may not indeed
agree with Socinus in every point. Without doubt they are far
below him in his exalted notions of the dignity of Christ and the
honour due unto his name. But in the one grand leading charac-
teristic, that Jesus Christ was a human being, and had no exis-
tence previous to his conception as the Son of Mary, they agree,
and in this they differ from every other denomination of Christians.
If however they should prefer the name of Humanitarians, I should
be most happy to acquiesce in the choice of that or any other
distinguishing appellation. But, considering myself to be as
strict
10
be considered as in some measure subversive of
the Socinian scheme.*
strict a believer in the Unity of God as either the Preacher or the
hearers of the Chapel in Essex Street, I should feel it inconsistent
with what I owe to the establishment and to myself to allow to
any set of men the exclusive use and right to the name of
Unitarians,
* That the doctrine of the immaculate conception is in some
measure subversive of the Socinian scheme I should be inclined
to suspect, if for no other reason, yet on account of the uniform
and great anxiety evinced by many writers of that persuasion to
disprove the fact. Dr. Priestly and Mr. Belsham have both
laboured with considerable ingenuity to convince their readers
that the immaculate conception is a mere point of Critical
Theology, and that it has nothing to do with the opinions we form
concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. ‘* The miraculous concep-
tion of Jesus,” says Mr. B. “‘ would no more infer his pre-existence,
than the miraculous formation of our first parents, or the mira-
culous conception of Isaac, of Samson, of Samuel, and of John
the Baptist, would prove that those persons had an existence
before they came into this world, and were beings of a superior
order to the rest of mankind.” Calm Inquiry, p. 14. Here I
would observe, I. That the original creation of our first parents is
not at all a case in point. The whole process of thezr formation
is laid before us, and we have in the language of Scripture
sufficient grounds for determining that they had not any pre-existent
nature, or perhaps, I should rather say, no reason whatever to
suppose that they had. It is exactly the reverse with regard to
our Saviour, in favour of whose pre-eminence and pre-existence
the declarations of the New Testament have seemed to the
majority of Christians for eighteen centuries to speak in a manner
the most distinct and decided.—II. As to the other instances
produced by Mr. B. as analogous to the birth of Christ, it is plain
that the writer has confounded the meaning of the words mira-
culous and immaculate. He first of all erroneously considers
miraculous and immaculate as synonymous terms, and then
compares the miraculous conception of Isaac, of Samson, and of
Samuel
ii
But be this as it may, there are other and inde-
pendent grounds upon which it may be maintained,
that the elucidation of the chronology of the Gospels
Samuel with the immaculate conception of Jesus ; things in reality
very different from each other. For whilst the miraculous con-
ception of Isaac, and of Samuel was effected by the intervention of
natural means, the immaculate conception of Jesus was effected
without that intervention. The one was supernatural, the other
only preternatural, and this difference in the nature of the thing
will make I apprehend a corresponding difference in the conclusion
to which it leads. What then is this conclusion? It must I think
be confessed that the Trinitarians have sometimes pushed too far
the consequences to be drawn from the fact of the immaculate
conception, and have erroneously argued, as if, when that imma-
culate conception was once admitted, the deity of Jesus, the
absolute coequality and coeternity of the Father and the Son
immediately followed. But though the immaculate conception
may not alone afford an irresistible argument in favour of the
complete divinity of Jesus, it is yet tolerably conclusive against
his mere humanity. For if Jesus was a simple man and nothing
more than asimple man, there can be no reason in the world why
he should not also have been a proper man, that is, begotten
according to the common laws and order of generation. His
extraordinary mission and character, like those of Samson or of
Samuel, might be sufficient to account for the extraordinary cir-
cumstances which accompanied his birth, its proclamation by
Angels and annunciation by a Star; but nothing less than an
extraordinary nature can give a satisfactory reason for the
extraordinary method of his conception. If therefore we
insist upon the simple humanity of Jesus, and at the same time
allow the truth of his immaculate conception, we should seem
to throw upon the Deity the imputation of having wrought,
: for no visible purpose whatever, a miracle unique in its kind,
and extremely difficult in its proof, a miracle at once sin-
gular and unnecessary. In one word a different manner of con-
ception indicates a different nature in the being conceived, and if
Jesus was born of a pure virgin he must have been distinct from
every
12
is worthy of all the attention it has hitherto received.
To preserve a general resemblance to the scenes
and period in which the actions they record are
laid, is a quality at once common to the Poet and
Historian, to the writer of fiction and of truth.
The leading features of any time, or place, or
characters, cannot be mistaken, and may easily
be preserved. But to extend the likeness to the
minuter particulars is beyond the power of the
most careful inventor, and intentionally to insert
an apparent contradiction which it would demand
the labour of centuries to remove is more than
can be expected even from the most finished artifice.
every common man. Hence it appears that though the inferences,
to which the doctrine of the immaculate conception leads, are not
so precise as to decide the minor controversy which subsists
between the Arian and Athanasian Creeds, they are quite definite
enough to enable us to determine the great point against the
scheme of the Humanitarians. Resting his opinion upon the
numerous declarations of Holy Writ, the Arian or Athanasian,
may maintain the angelic or divine pre-existence of Christ, even
though he could be proved not to have been conceived of the Holy
Ghost and born of a pure virgin. But when coupled with that
immaculate conception and birth, those deductions obtain addi-
tional weight. The immaculate conception is a collateral and
corroborative argument for the pre-existence of Jesus and his
superiority to the rest of mankind. But whoever maintains the
simple humanity of Jesus, must needs deny this immaculate con-
ception, for in admitting the fact, he admits what is a strong
presumptive argument against the truth of his theory. Humani-
tarianism and the immaculate conception are scarcely compatible
with each other, a different method of conception usually indica-
ting, as I have before observed, a different nature in the being
conceived,
13
Such a proceeding would infallibly defeat the object
of imposture which necessarily aims at wnmediate
success. Whoever therefore shall be able to point
out the method by which the harmony between the
narratives contained in the two opening chapters
of St. Matthew and St. Luke may be clearly esta-
blished, and the dates which they have separately
assigned to the birth and baptism of Jesus be shewn
to correspond with the dates assigned by the
Roman and Jewish historians to the events with
which they are connected, will have conferred an
essential benefit upon Christianity and mankind,
by precluding the use of a very favourite objection
to the accuracy of the Evangelists, and affording
at the same time one of the strongest examples of
minute resemblance and undesigned coincidence.
Animated then by a sense of the united diffi-
culty and importance of the chronology of our
Saviour’s life, I shall now proceed to lay before the
reader the result of inquiries which with many
necessary interruptions have occupied much of
my attention for several years, in the humble hope
of giving some degree of satisfaction to every
Christian, and perhaps of becoming, through the
blessing of God, the instrument of confirming the
fluctuating faith and removing the sceptical pre-
judices of some inexperienced but inquisitive mind.
But should my endeavours to ascertain the true
14
time of the birth, baptism, and crucifixion of Jesus
be found upon examination unfortunately unsuc-
cessful, I shall not after all my labours, and all my
care, feel ashamed to confess that I have failed in
that which so many men of greater talent and
perhaps of greater industry have attempted in
vain.
CHAP. ILI.
The Vulgar Era, and the Death of Herod.
—<—
Tue Vulgar Era, at the 1819th* year of which we
have now arrived, is decidedly wrong, and has
evidently been formed upon partial views and
unsound principles. For by fixing the birth of
Christ to the 25th of December in the 753rd year
of Rome, it can scarcely be made to agree with
any of the other dates with which we have been
furnished either by St. Matthew or St. Luke.
From St. Luke himself it may be probably in-
ferred, and by St. Matthew (ii. 1.) it is both
expressly asserted and circumstantially implied,
that Jesus was born “in the days” and before
the death of “Herod the king ;” and under that
name the Evangelists undeniably referred to Herod
the Great, the duration of whose life and reign it
is impossible to extend beyond the conclusion of
the 751st year of Rome. The truth of this will
* Written in the month of August, 1818.
‘ 16
Ne made satisfactorily to appear in the progress
of the inquiry. But, according to the hypothesis
of the vulgar era, the birth of Christ did not
occur till the conclusion of the 753d year of Rome,
a considerable time after, instead of before the
death of Herod. The inaccuracy of the vulgar
era is therefore sufficiently evident, but it will be
found upon examination to be no easy matter to
correct. the error which has been thus proved to
exist. One thing however is plain, that, if the
two preliminary chapters of St. Matthew and St.
Luke be admitted as genuine, every system of
evangelical chronology which does not regard the
birth of Christ as previous to the death of Herod
is radically and thoroughly defective. For my
own part, convinced as I am after the most mature
deliberation of the genuineness of those chapters,'
I cannot but consider a knowledge of the time of
‘The genuineness of any portion of a work, whether sacred or
profane, is best and most satisfactorily determined by the balance
of external evidence—by the testimony of manuscripts, versions,
and quotations or references in subsequent authors. Internal
evidence ought to be very strong indeed before it is permitted to
countervail a conclusion legitimately drawn from the sources I have
just mentioned; and upon this ground alone, upon the preponde-
rating mass of evidence in favour of the genuineness of the first
two chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, I should steadily
resist the operation of the Socinian pruning knife, It is upon this
ground alone, that 1 John, chap. v. verse 7, can have been given
up by any divines of the established church, and I do not see why
a similar course of reasoning should not apply affirmatively as
well as negatively. ;
14
Herod’s death as the point upon which the whole
question turns, and shall therefore proceed to lay
the first foundation of the following work in as
precise a determination of that much disputed
date, as the nature and difficulty of the case will
permit.
No approximation, sufficiently accurate to be
useful, can be obtained as to the year of Herod’s
death, from estimating his supposed age at the
time. For though it is known that he was
about 70 years old when he died, yet there is a
considerable degree of uncertainty as to the
period of his birth, and after all, our infor-
* | have made many fruitless attempts to remove the uncer-
tainty and ascertain the date of Herod’s birth. The difficulty is
rendered insurmountabie by a false reading in that passage of
Josephus, upon which our conclusions depend. In one place
Josephus informs us that Herod was constituted governor of Galilee
when very young, and in another he limits his expression by stating
that he was then about 15 years of age. Now it is universally
allowed that Herod was appointed governor of Galilee in the con-
sulship of Calvinus and Vatinius vu. c. 707. uv. c. 707 —15=692
and 692+69=761. He was of course therefore, according to
this computation, born about the 692d, and died about the 761st
year of Rome, 10 years later than we should be led to suppose by
every other mode of calculation. To remove this discrepancy it
has been conjectured that we ought to read 25 instead of 15 years
in the preceding passage of Josephus, and thus fix the birth and
death of Herod 10 years earlier than before, his birth about v. c.
682, his death v.c. 751. This new reading may be defended
by many irresistible computations. But still the weight of MS.
testimony is decidedly against it, and it does not therefore follow
B in
18
mation with respect to his age is not sufficiently
definite to yield any precise result.
If any certainty, therefore, is to be gained upon
the subject, it must be derived from a comparison
of the duration of his reign, with the time of its
commencement, as stated by Josephus ; for if once
we give up our reliance upon the authority of that
historian, there is an end to the inquiry, and we
have no longer any solid foundation upon which to
rest a single argument.
Now Josephus expressly informs us® that
Herod began his reign when Calvinus and Pollio
were consuls at Rome, Pollio for the first and
Calvinus for the second time. Upon the authority
of Pagi' and others this consulship may be con-
sidered as beginning on the first of January and
ending on the 31st of Dec. J. P. 4674. Within
that period, therefore, we must seek for the com-
mencement of Herod’s reign.
in the present stage of the argument that it is so undeniably correct
as to be made the basis of other calculations. We must not
presume to say 25 is the true reading, and upon that assumption
proceed to determine the date of connected events. We must
rather first of all determine, by other means, the dates of those
connected events, and from those determined dates deduce the
propriety of the conjectural reading. It is one of the results, not
one of the premises of our argument.
" Antig. Jud. lib. xiv. cap. 26.
‘ Pagi Dissertatio Hypatica seu de Consulibus, p. 192.
19
This period may be still farther reduced, and
ihe commencement of Herod’s reign fixed to the
latter half of the 4674th year of the Julian Period
by a consideration of the circumstances which
occurred between the battle of Philippi and the
nomination of Herod to the kingdom of Judea.
The battle of Philippi was fought in the
October of the 4672d year of the Julian Period.
After that battle Anthony went into Asia and
there conferred upon Herod and Phasael the title
and authority of tetrarchs of Judea. We may
conceive, therefore, that this appointment took
place in the latter part,' say December, J. P. 4672.
In the second year after this event Pacorus the Par-
thian invadedand took possession of Syria, Dec. 4672
+1 = Dec. 4673, which is therefore the earliest date
that can be assigned for this invasion of Syria; but it
most probably took place early in the spring of J.P.
4674, the time universally chosen by the ancients for
the commencement of their military operations.
After the pentecost™ which immediately fol-
lowed that invasion, that is, after the pentecost on
the ninth of June" J.P. 4674, Herod fled from
« Antiq. lib. xiv. cap. 22, 23. compared with de Bell. Jud:
lib. i, cap. 11,
‘Lamy. Appar. Chron. Part I. cap. v. §. 3.
™ Antiq. Jud, lib, xiv, cap. 24, p. 495. A.and B.
“Lamy. App. Chron. Part I. cap. vi. p. 31.
B 2
20
Jerusalem to Rome, where he was appointed king
of Judea by the Senate ; and since we have already
seen from Josephus that his appointment to that
dignity took place zx the year J.P. 4674, it is
evident that the commencement of Herod’s reign
must be dated from some period between the 9th
of June and 31st of December of that year.
Various other circumstances are mentioned which
would enable us to contract these limits still further,
and perhaps to fix with precision the commence-
ment of Herod’s reign to the month of July J. P.
4674° But as the more extended period which
° The circumstances which might enable us to fix the com-
mencement of Herod’s reign to the month of July, J. P. 4674. are
the following, 1. Josephus positively states that Herod began to
reign in the 184th Olympiad, kat 6 pév ottws tTHv Baciretay
maparaynfave tTvy@v avTys Ent THS EkaTOTTHS Kat oysonkoarns
kat reraptns "Odvumiados, vrarevovtos Taiou Aoperiov Ka-
Aovivou To devtepov, Kat Tatov’Acwiov Hwdiwvos. Ant. lib. xiv.
cap. 26. p. 499. F. 2. It is equally certain from the same his-
torian, that Herod did not quit Jerusalem for Rome, where he was
appointed king, until after the Pentecost, J. P. 4674. The Pentecost
took place on the 9th of June and the 184th Ol. ended in July, J.P.
4674. Therefore if these notices of Josephus be correct, Herod was
appointed king about July, J. P. 4674. But the correctness of these
notices has been doubted and even denied by many, who hold it to be
impossible that Herod could have reached Rome, considering the
route he took and the delays he met with, before the month of Sep-
tember. I am staggered but not convinced by theirarguments. Iam
informed by Pliny, N.H. 1. xix. Rodm. that C, Balbillus sailed in
six days from the Streights of Messina to Alexandria, and I find
that I can allow thrice that length of time for the similar voyage
of Herod from Egypt to one of the southern ports of Italy, and
still date the commencement of his reign within the requisite
period, and before the conclusion of the 184th Olympiad.
5)
~
1 have stated above will be found sufficiently
accurate for all the purposes of the present inquiry,
I should be unwilling to detain, and perhaps con-
found the reader by a more particular discussion.
The commencement of Herod’s reign then is
to be dated from the summer or the autumn of
J.P. 4674; and he reigned according to Josephus
37 years’ after he was declared King by the
Senate of Rome, that is, he did not reign less
than 36 nor more than 38 years.
July J.P. 4674, the earliest commencement
of Herod’s reign, + 36 years its shortest duration =
July J.P. 4710. Dec. J. P. 4674, the latest
commencement of his reign, +38 years, its longest
duration=Dec. J. P. 4712. The month of Dec.
J.P. 4712 is therefore the latest period to which
we can assign the death of Herod, and July J. P.
4710 the earliest by the same method of compu-
tation. The former of these conclusions, which
fixes the death of Herod before the end of Dec.
J.P. 4712, has been universally allowed. To the
latter, which upon precisely the same grounds
attributes the same event to a period subsequent
to July 4710, it is strange to say that considerable
opposition has been raised; and simple and unex-
® Antiq. Jud, lib. xvii. cap, 10. de Bell. Jud. lib. i. cap. 21.
p. 773. G.
22
ceptionable as the method of calculation undoubt-
edly is, it is only on account of the authority of
the names by which the contrary opinion has been
supported that I think it necessary to give to their
arguments any minuteness of examination.
It is certain that Herod was alive on the 13th
of March J.P. 4710. This may be undeniably
proved from the testimony of Josephus, combined
with one of the most unequivocal of all chronolo-
gical marks, the astronomical calculation of an
eclipse of the moon.
Herod had erected over the gate of the temple
at Jerusalem a golden eagle. This illegal image
gave great offence to the Jews in general, and to
the Rabbis in particular, two of whom Judas the
son of Sariphzeus and Matthias (the most celebra-
ted teachers of their day) exerted all their elo-
quence to excite the zeal of their scholars to destroy
this abomination. Aided at length by a false report
that Herod was either dying or dead, their persua-
sions prevailed, and a number of young men ven-
tured upon the perilous enterprise of pulling down
the eagle at mid-day. In the midst of their under-
taking they were disturbed by the guards of Herod,
who secured about forty of them, and carried them
before him. Having made himself acquainted
with the circumstances of the case, Herod burnt
23
both them and the Rabbis. “That very night,
adds Josephus, there was an eclipse of the
moon.’’4
This eclipse has been almost universally decided
by the best writers upon the subject to be that
which occurred on the night of the 13th of March
J.P. 4710, and hence it necessarily follows that
on the 13th of March J. P. 4710 Herod was
alive.
The passover of that year is computed to have
fallen on the 11th of April," and it is certain from
the tenor of Josephus’s narrative that Herod died
no long time before some passover. It is also plain,
from the report which prevailed that Herod was
either dying or dead, on the 13th of March J. P.
4710, that his disease had made some progress at
that time. The question therefore to be deter-
mined is, whether Herod’s death took place before
the passover next after the 13th of March J. P.
4710; that is, between the 13th of March and the
11th of April, J. P. 4710; or whether he did not
continue under his disease until a short time before
the passover J. P. 4711 or J. P. 4712. Lardner,
without pretending absolutely to determine the
4 Antiq. Jud. lib. xvii. cap. 8. p. 597. E.
* Lamy. App. Chron. Part I. cap. viii. p. 58. §. 5.
24
point, seems evidently to favour the former opimon,
which, contrary to our calculations correctly formed
upon the express testimony of Josephus, fixes the
death of Herod previous to the passover, J.P.
4710; and as his arguments,’ condensing the whole
of what can be advanced in favour of that opinion,
have been pretty generally relied upon, I shall
give them a full and mature consideration.
Lardner’s first objection to fixing the death of
Herod later than the passover, J. P. 4710, is
founded upon the supposition that “his disease
had made so great a progress’ before the execu-
tion of the Rabbis on the 13th of March, that it is
perfectly incredible he should live a year after
that time; and this idea he rests, Ist, upon the
report which was spread by the Rabbis that
Herod was dying or dead; 2dly, upon the descrip-
tion which Josephus gives of his disease.
In answer to this we may observe, 1. That the
execution of the Rabbis followed very closely upon
the sending off the ambassadors concerning Anti-
pater to Rome,—that it was not till after those
ambassadors were sent off that Herod’s distemper
seized him at all, and that Josephus himself
expressly states that the complaints of Herod did
* Lardner, Credib. Vol. J. Appendix. § 4.
25
not assume a serious aspect, or seize upon his
whole body until after the execution of the Rabbis,
and consequently his disease could not “‘ have made
so great a progress” before that time." 2. That
the report of Herod’s being dying or dead was
false and known to be so by those who propa-
gated it. 3. That popular reports so frequently
arise from the most trivial causes, that in very few
instances indeed do they afford a solid foundation
upon which to build any material conclusion, and
that least of all can they afford it in such cases as
that which is now before us, because the rumour
may here be undeniably traced to the wish of the
Rabbis to promote the idea of Herod’s danger or
death, in order the more easily to induce their
scholars to pull down the golden eagle.
Not much more dependence can be placed
upon the description which Josephus has left us
of Herod’s distemper. Herod indeed almost de-
spaired of recovery from the very first, but that
was on account of his extreme age. I say he
almost despaired of recovery, because it will
afterwards appear" that he did not become en-
tirely hopeless until his return from Callirhoe.
‘ Antiq. Jud. lib. xvii. cap. 8. p. 595. F. p. 597. E.
de Bell. Jud. lib, i. cap. 21. p. 772. G.
" See page 34.
26
He was also brought on a couch to the council,
at which the Rabbis were condemned to death,
and was unable to stand notwithstanding the new
strength he might be supposed to derive from rage.
But Josephus informs us that this inability to stand
or sit upright arose from the nature rather than
the extent of the disease, which made it difficult
for him to breathe when in an upright posture,”
and the very word, which he applies to Herod
when labouring under this disease, intimates
rather a gradual wasting away of the. vital powers,
than the rapid progress of a violent disease.”
2. Lardner observes, in the second place,
that if we suppose Herod did not die till a short
time before the passover, J. P. 4711, then, since
the ambassadors who were sent by Herod to
Rome concerning the conduct of his son Antipater,
were sent off before the execution of the Rabbis,
that is, before the 13th of March, J.P. 4710,
but did not return till a short period before Herod’s
death, that is, upon this supposition before the
passover, J.P. 4711, they must have been at
Y Antig, Jud.» lib.- xvii, cap,,8.: pp. 595, G.. ps 5907 .G.,
mveuypatos Te OpOia evracis, kat ary Mav anoys x.t.€. The word
dp8ia is somewhat ambiguous, but has, I conceive, been rightly
translated by Sir Roger L’Estrange, and referred to Herod's
breathing when he sat upright.
“ De Bell. Jud. lib. i. cap. 21. p.772. B. of rote tov Baoiréa
’ =e , , \ ~ ,
TuvOavomevot Tas abupriars UMEK PEOVTE Kal TH yoo,
©
7
least a year in going from Judea to Rome and back
again upon the most urgent business; which is a
thing altogether incredible.
Lardner has here fallen into a slight mistake.
The ambassadors did not return at all before
Herod’s death. They merely sent letters* con-
taining the judgement of Augustus upon Antipater’s
fate. The objection therefore resolves itself into
an inquiry whether there be any improbability in
supposing the decision of a difficult and important
case to have been deferred for a considerable time
at Rome. Now though the business of the am-
bassadors was urgent and of great consequence
both to their sovereign and themselves, yet it was
by no means so to Augustus. Antipater he knew
was in custody, and whatever he determined would
be executed, whether he determined immediately
or not. Besides to give the power of death toa
father over his son, though a power possessed by
every Roman citizen, was a matter, under the
circumstances of the case and in the situation of
the parties, of such importance as to require the
most serious and mature deliberation. It was not
a point upon which Augustus would be anxious
hastily and carelessly to decide,’ and we may
* De Bell. Jud. lib. i. cap. 21. p. 773. D.
* There are one or two passages in Josephus which distinctly
state the disinclination of Augustus to give Herod the power of
putting his son to death.
28
therefore suppose that the case would be investi-
gated and considered in all its bearings and at full
length. This could not be done immediately.
Form would occupy a considerable portion of
time, and the other and more important concerns
of the empire might delay to an indefinite period
the decision of the Emperor, however anxious and
pressing either Herod or his ambassadors might be.
For the case involved in it the previous determina-
tion of Acme’s guilt, (the servant of Julia and
accomplice of Antipater,) whose trial would of
course proceed in the regular manner in the regular
courts of law. The conclusion of these prelimi-
nary proceedings must therefore be waited for
before any thing could be done. The case was
also in itself of extreme intricacy, having already
cost Herod the labour of more than seven months
in the collection and arrangement of the accusations
and testimonies. So large and voluminous a mass
of evidence could not be comprehended at a single
glance. It should be remembered also that expe-
rience is in favour of the lapse of a long period of
time before the determination of the case, and
that there is one instance upon record, in the Acts
of the Apostles, of the appeal of a Roman citizen
to the Emperor, in which the appellant St. Paul
was permitted to remain ‘‘two whole years’’ a
prisoner, without a hearing, or at least without any
* Chap. xxviii. verse 30,
29
final decision of his appeal. Granting then that
for the mere purpose of a journey from Judea to
Rome and sending back dispatches from thence,
a year may be too much to allow; still we would
suggest that where business is to be done in any
place, business the completion of which depends
upon others, and not upon ourselves, upon an
individual over whom we have no controul, and
that individual an emperor harrassed by the affairs
of almost all the world, there is no means of
knowing how long these ambassadors might be
detained. If too, as is most probable, there were
many of the forms of courts and of law to be gone
through before the condemnation of Acme could
properly be determined upon and the case obtain
a hearing at all from the Emperor, those who have
heard or know any thing of law in this or in any
country, will be at no loss to think it credible that
Herod did not obtain a decision for more than a
year. Suppose, what would be a similar, though
not perhaps a possible case, that a reference were
made upon some disputed point to the Chancellor
of England, and, oppressed as is that minister, like
the Emperors of Rome, with the united weight
of legal and political business, where would be the
incredibility of a decision not being obtained for a
year, upon a question which had been thus referred
from one of our West Indian settlements? After
this remark, I think, there can be no necessity to
30
press further the usual dilatoriness of the proceed-
ings of Kings and Law. |
3. Lardner says that the mourning of the
Jewish nation for the Rabbis at the passover next
after Herod’s death was very fresh, which it could
not have been if the Rabbis had been dead above
a year before, which they must have been if
executed in J. P. 4710, and Herod did not die
till J.P. 4711.
Now it so happens that in the passage quoted
from Josephus to prove this assertion I read only
that the mourning for the Rabbis was open and
loud, but I perceive not a trace of the freshness
of their grief or of the recent occurrence of the
event for which they mourned. But open and
loud of course their mourning would be, because
it was not the voice of real woe, but the affected
and clamorous lamentation of men aiming at some
revolution in the state,* and making this popular
subject a means of effecting it. It was the
semblance of grief assumed for political purposes,
but which fear had prevented their assuming
before. “The revolutionists’” (as Josephus ex-
pressly states) ‘ took this occasion to lament Judas
7 NewrepiCew T poaipoujreveov, de Bell. Jud, lib. ii. cap. 2.
3l
and Matthias, those teachers of the laws.”” The
loudness and openness of their grief is therefore
no proof of the freshness of the event for which
it was displayed. It was enough that the cause
of it was popular, and whether it had happened
one or two years before, the policy which dictated
the appearance of grief at all would dictate also
the appearance of sincerity—the loudness and
openness with which it was testified. No certain
inference then can be drawn as to the recent
occurrence of the execution of the Rabbis even
from that very passage which Lardner has pro-
duced asa direct proof of the truth of his assertion.
Thus have I endeavoured to shew that the
objections by which Lardner and others have
laboured to prove the z£npossibility of Herod’s
living for any length of time beyond the 13th of
March, J.P. 4710, are at least not perfectly
conclusive.
But at any rate, whether these objections be
valid or no, Lardner seems to think it unnecessary,
and therefore improper, to extend the duration
of Herod’s life beyond the passover J. P. 4710,
because there is a sufficient space of time between
ag. vewTepiaorat roves wept Tov lovdav cat Marbiav €Enyn-
Tas TOY vOLwWY odupdpnevar xk, 7.€. Antiq. Jud. lib, xvii. cap. 11.
p. 602. C,
32
the execution of the Rabbis and that_ passover
for all the circumstances which Josephus has
mentioned concerning Herod’s illness, death and
burial, the execution of Antipater, and the coming
of Archelaus to Jerusalem to take possession.
Now we seem already and undeniably to have
shewn from the testimony of Josephus himself,
that Herod must have lived till the month of
June at least in J.P. 4710. The only legitimate
method of vitiating that conclusion would therefore
be, by proving also from Josephus himself that
the events he has mentioned between the execution
of the Rabbis and the succession of Archelaus
could not possibly have occupied a larger space
of time than is contained between March 13th
and April 11th, J.P. 4710. So far however is this
from being the case, that upon a careful examina-
tion I do really conceive so short a space of time
not to be sufficient for the occurrence of all the
particulars detailed by Josephus.
In supporting my ideas upon this point I have
no arguments of Lardner previously to refute, for
he has advanced nothing but his own bare assertion,
and entered into no calculation of the time requi-
site for the performance of each circumstance ;
which is the more remarkable as the truth of his
opinion depends altogether upon his correctness
33
in this particular. It will only therefore be requi-
site for me to state what these circumstances
were,—the order in which they occurred,—and
the time requisite for the performance of each,
in order to give every one a fair opportunity of
judging which opinion is entitled to most credit.
Between the execution of the Rabbis on the
13th of March and the passover on the 11th of
April, J. P. 4710 there are 28 days complete, and
on the 29th the passover took place. These four
weeks will, I think, be much more than swallowed
up by the following events.°
After the execution of the Rabbis, Josephus
states that Herod’s disease assumed a more serious
© Antiq. Jud. lib. xvii. cap. 8,9, 10,11. De Bell. Jud.
lib. 1. cap. 21. lib, 1. cap. 1, 2.
¢ | have marked the word “after” in italics, in order to meet
by an express contradiction the buld manceuvre of Allix, contend-
ing like Lardner, that Herod died v.c. 750, (which it will
afterwards appear I do not deny,) but decidedly differing from him
in supposing that the various circumstances which I have enume-
rated in the text could have taken place in so short a space of
time as that which intervened between the 13th of March and the
1ith of April; Allix takes upon him to assert that some of the
most important of these circumstances took place before the execu-
tion of the Rabbis on the 13th of March. ‘ Anée illud supplicium
Herodes pene moriens ad aquas calidas a Medicis deducitur Callir-
hoen ultra Jordanum. Cum aquas non posset ferre ipsius infirmum
corpus, illum oleo immergunt; quo facto pene animum exhalat.
; C Despetata
34
aspect,—that he called in physicians, and followed
their various prescriptions,—that at length ‘they
recommended. him to try the warm baths at
Callirhoe,—that in consequence Herod went
thither, but reaped little or no. benefit,—that as
a last experiment he was bathed in’ warm oil,
which had nearly proved fatal, and that he then
returned to Jericho, with no hopes of. recovery,
and ina melancholy state both of body and mind.
After his return to Jericho, Josephus proceeds to
inform us, that Herod, knowing the hatred which
was borne to him by the Jews, sent for the
principal men from all parts of Judea, and left
orders with his sister Salome that they should be
put to déath as soon.as he himself should breathe
his last,,and thus make a compulsory mourning
amongst his subjects at his decease. After these
men had arrived in obedience to his orders, Herod
Desperata salute Hierichuntem reducitur, p. 81, 82. Again p. 94,
he treats the objection deduced from the impossibility of so many
events occurring in so short a space of time, as if it were founded
upon a fallaey, “Peccat in eo objectio quod supponat hec omnia
gesta a die 13 Martii, anni 42 Juliani, (J. P. 4710) quod non
necessariO, supponendum est; verum consequentia rerum, que
exceperunt mortem Herodis, ne quidem patiuntur ut dubitemus
quin hee gesta sunt ab initio Januarit ad tempus Paschatis anni
Jul. 42.” ‘To this arbitrary and unsupported assumption I can
only reply that it is altogether contradicted by the words and the
tenor of the narrative of Josephus. To be convinced of this it is
only necessary to read the 8th chap. of the 17th book of his
‘« Antiquities,” or the 21st chap. of the 1st book of his ‘‘ Jewish
War.”
«pr
I3
received letters from his ambassadors giving him
the power of putting his son Antipater to death,
This intelligence at first revived his spirits, but he
soon again fell into a state of despondency and
endeavoured to put an end to his own life. Anti-
pater understanding he had succeeded in_ his
attempt, offered a bribe to his keeper for his
release, which being repeated to Herod, he ordered
him to be immediately executed. Five days after
the death of Antipater, Herod himself died at
Jericho, and was carried 200 furlongs to Herodium
and there buried with great magnificence. His
son and successor Archelaus mourned for him
7 days, and then, having first given the customary
entertainment to the people, went up to the
temple of Jerusalem. Here a violent sedition
arose, which as the passover was at hand might
perhaps have become dangerous from the vast
multitudes then assembled. Archelaus therefore,
thought it right at once to quell it by force, and
compelled every one to Jeave the feast. He then
set off for Rome.
From this summary of events the following
calculations may be made.
I. Archelaus having buried his Father at
Herodium mourned for him 7 days, and then
having given a very expensive funeral feast to the
multitude he went up to the temple of Jerusalem
Cc 2
36
and made great promises to the people. Here are
eight days at least unequivocally mentioned; of
these Archelaus mourned 7 and then, how soon
after is not stated, but on the 8th at the soonest
he entertained the people, and went up to the
temple. ‘To these 8 days we must I think without
doubt add the time consumed in the extensive and
magnificent preparations for the funeral of Herod ;
for it is sufficiently plain from the following passage
of Calmet, that the mourning did not commence
till after the burial of the deceased. ‘As soon as
the corps is carrred forth, they double the clath on
the floor, fold up his bed-clothes which they leave
on the matt, and place a lighted lamp on the head
board which continues burning during the seven
days of mourning.”* Reckon now, what is incre-
dibly short for a royal funeral,—reckon but two
days for the preparations and suppose that on the
third day Herod was carried and interred at
Herodium, and that the mourning of Archelaus
commenced from that day, and we shall then have
three more days to add to the preceding, 8+3=
11, and we thus obtain 11 days between Herod’s
death and the passover.
II. It was towards the evening of the day on
which Archelaus went up to the temple, that the
*“Calmet’s Dissertation on the Funerals of the Hebrews,
Book iil. Diss. 11.
37
seditious persons before mentioned took occasion
to lament the death of the Rabbis, and_ their
continued and excessive lamentations soon excited
a general tumult. How long this tumult lasted
Josephus has not stated, but his account would
lead us certainly to conclude that it was not imme-
diately quelled. For Archelaus at first endea-
voured to quell it by gentle means, and granted
what they demanded,—both the punishment of
those who had been in Herod’s confidence, and
the removal of the High Priest whom Herod had
appointed,—and also sent several persons in
succession to negociate with and if possible to
satisfy the discontented. But alf his endeavours
failed, and it was evident, says Josephus, that they
would not easily be appeased if they could collect
any considerable multitude.‘ At present. therefore,
there was not any considerable multitude collected
at Jerusalem, but there soon would be and was ;—for
“about that time the feast of the passover being at
hand’ an innumerable multitude from all parts
assembled themselves at Jerusalem for religious
purposes. The ringleaders. therefore, continues
f Opror TE yoav ovk ypeunoovtes ef awdHOous émiaBowTo..
De Bell. Jud, lib, 11. cap. il. p. 776. B.
® Ant. Jud. lib, 17. cap, xi. p. 602. évaTaans d€ Kata Tovde
Tov Kaipdv €optys év 4 "lovéaios aCuna mpotilerOar matpiov.
De Bell. Jud. lib. 11. cap. ii. p- 776. «at 84 THe Tew aCipwy
evoTaons €optys, k. 7.6. The account of this sedition is more fully
related in the ‘ Antiquities” than in the “ Jewish War.”
38
Josephus, collected together in the iemple, where,
having provisions in plenty, they were enabled to
remain." ‘To reduce them to submission Archelaus
sent a small body of men, who were repulsed.
Alarmed at length by the increasing danger, he
resolved effectually to put a stop to the sedition,
and for this purpose employed his whole force,
destroyed three thousand of the rioters, dispersed
the rest, and having by a proclamation commanded
every one to return home, they all departed’ from
Jerusalem, “leaving the feast ;’—which of course
had not been finished even if it had been begun.
It is plain from the preceding narrative that
the sedition was of some duration. It commenced
before the people had arrived in Jerusalem for
the passover, and if we may deduce any general
rule from) what took place at the passover of our
Saviour’s. crucifixion, it was customary for them
to assemble a few days previous to the feast; which
might indeed be naturally expected, as it was
necessary both to purchase and keep their sacri-
fices apart for a short time, in order to ‘see
whether they were possessed of all the qualities
required in the Paschal sacrifice. The only thing
however upon which any certain calculation can
" cusTavTeEs ev Tw iep~ Tpopys Hutopouvea. Antiq. Jud. lib. xvii.
cap. 11. p. 602. C.
39
be built is the observation of Josephus that “about
that time the passover was at hand.” - An expres-
sion somewhat similar to this in the gospel of
St. Luke' intimates that it} wanted: two days to
the passover, and I am therefore inclined to con-
sider this as referring to a similar or: perhaps
longer period.‘
Both these circumstances being taken together,
{ conceive that three days can be thought by no
one too long, but must by most be regarded as
too short a period for the beginning, duration and
end of these tumultuous proceedings of the Jews.
and since from its being mentioned that they left
the feast, it may be concluded that the tumult had
ceased either on or before the day of the feast,
we shall thus have three days more to add to the
i Luke, chap. xxii. verse 1, 2, compared with Matthew,
chap. xxvi. verse 2, 3, 4.
* It might be seven days before.—For Josephus says, de Bell.
Jud. lib, v. aOpotGopévov Tov Aaovd mpos TH TOY GCpwv EopTHy,
dyson S€ jv Zavbixov pyvos, “The people were assembled for the
passover on the eighth day-of the month Xanthicus,”» Now the
month Xanthicus is in Josephus but another name for Nisan,
py te Zavliwo os Nisody rap’ rpiv kaderrax. Ant. lib. 3.
cap. 10. Hence, as the passover was celebrated on the 15th of
Nisan, or Xanthicus, it is evident that the great body of the people
was sometimes collected in Jerusalem seven days before the
passover. Should this be supposed to have been the case on the
year of Herod’s death, it will strengthen; if it need strengthening,
the argument in the text.
40
preceding eleven, that is, upon the-whole fourteen
days between the passover and the death of Herod.
Ill. Herod’s death was concealed some time
by Salome and Alexas. For it was concealed by
them until in Herod’s name they had liberated
those who were imprisoned in the Hippodrome,
and sent them to their own estates. After they
were gone’ the death of Herod was publicly made
known, and then of course, and not before, did
the preparations for his funeral commence.
Suppose then the death of Herod to have been
proclaimed the very day after it took place, and
we have fifteen days between it and the passover.
IV. Herod died on the 5th day after the
execution of his son Antipater." 154+4=19. There
were therefore 19 days between Antipater’s death
and the Passover.
Vv. Antipater was executed at Jericho after
Herod had returned thither from the baths of
Callirhoe. How long after it might not be pos-
sible precisely to determine, but it was evidently
some days after it. For upon Herod’s return to
Jericho he grew so choleric, says Josephus, as to
‘De Bell. Jud. lib, 1, in fine.
= Antiq. Jud. lib. xvii, cap. 10, init.
Al
act like a madman, and though threatened with
present death, yet he commanded all the principal
men of the Jewish nation, wheresoever they lived,
to be called to him.". The whole nation was called,
and death was the penalty attached to a disobedi-
ence of the letters sent for this purpose. Accord-
ingly a great number came, and as soon as they
came were imprisoned in the Hippodrome. A
transaction of this nature could not be done in a
moment. Suppose now, what is the shortest
period that can be allowed for sending dispatches
into all parts of Judea and collecting the principal
men from every village and town ;—suppose that
Herod issued this order the very day after his
arrival at Jericho, and allow three days for their
coming in obedience to it, and these four days,
added to the preceding nineteen, will give us
twenty-three days from the passover to the return
of Herod to Jericho from Callirhoe.
There are still many circumstances to be
mentioned which must necessarily have occupied
a considerable space of time.
"Tovs yap AD ’"EKAZSTHE KQOMHE émeonpous avopas EZ
OAHE IOYAAIAS owayayay cis rov Kadovpevov immodpopor,
€xédevoe ovyxdrcioa, De Bell. Jud, lib. i. cap. 21, pag. 773. C.
ddpiconevwv Tpocraypat: T@ avTov lovdaiwy avopav MNANTOZ
TOY EONOYE OMOY MOTE afiorcywv, woddor dé e'yevovro
ws TOY MANTO= EO@NOYES KATAKEKAHMENOY,
Ant. Jud, lib, xvii. cap. 8. p. 598. B.
A2
The distemper of Herod, it” appears from
Josephus, did not assume any great degree of
severity, or seize upon his whole body till after the
execution of the Rabbis. It would also appear
from the same author, that before that time Herod
had not called in any medical advice. For he
mentions it as one proof of the increase of Herod’s
complaint that he then sent for physicians. They
prescribed to him various remedies, but as he still
continued in the same or perhaps a worse state, he
was carried to the hot baths of Callirhoe, 16 miles
from Jericho. These baths were intended as a
cure, and not as a charm, and to give them a fair
trial in that capacity would require a fortnight or
three weeks at the least. They were tried however,
and found ineffectual. For as a last resource
the physicians recommended the singular experi-
ment of bathing the whole body of the king in
oil. The experiment had nearly proved fatal, for
the king fainted away in the midst of it, and was
thought by all his attendants to be dead. He
survived however, but after this he altogether
despaired of recovery, and resolved to return to
Jericho, which he accomplished, though in such
a melancholy state of health as to threaten his
immediate death.
Of the whole 28 days between the 13th of
March and the 11th of April, there remain but
43
5 or 6 days at most, for all these various events.
For the other circumstances we have perhaps al-
lowed too little, but with respect to these latter I
think it will be universally admitted to be directly
contrary to all probability to attempt to crowd them
‘into so narrow a space. How it is to be effected
I really cannot conceive.
This examination then, instead of leading to
the conclusion of Lardner that Herod died before
the passover on the 11th of April, J.P. 4710,
would seem, if correct, positively to refute that
opinion, and to prove that Herod must have
lived, as before seemed probable, beyond the
passover, J. P. 4710. oa
If this be the case,—if Herod did survive the
passover, J. P. 4710, it would be difficult to
say how long he might survive it. We have
already seen that Herod’s distemper did not in-
crease till after the 13th of March, J. P! 4710.
But how long it might have been after that time
before it began to increase, —how long or gradually
it might continue to increase,—how soon Herod
might be sent to Callirhoe,—or how long he might
stay there, we have I think tio means of determin-
ing.—Since, however, we have ascertained from
the tenor of Josephus’s narrative that Herod must
have died a short time, probably not more than
A4
two months before some passover, and that he
could not have died before the passover, J. P.
4710, we seem authorized to consider the passover
J.P. 4711, as the earliest period at which that
event could have taken place.
It is also the latest; for if we suppose Herod
not to have died till a short time before the pas-
sover, J. P. 4712, it will be impossible to make
Dio’s account of the banishment of Archelaus
agree with Josephus’s account of the duration of
his reign. We gather from Dio Cassius that
Archelaus was banished in the latter part of the
consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius, or the year
J. P. 4719. and Josephus asserts that he
was banished at the earliest in the 9th year of
his reign. But if Herod did not die till a short
time before the passover, J. P. 4712, then
Archelaus, if banished, J. P. 4719, could not
have been banished in the 9th year of his reign,
for 4712+8=4720, and therefore, J.P. 4719,
his 8th year, could not have been completed, and
his ninth begun.
We thus seem compelled as it were, to fix upon
the intermediate passover, J. P. 4711, as the only
one to which the death of Herod can be referred.
° See Lardner’s Credib. Vol. I. Appendix, §. 3.
45
The very same objection, however, applies, accord-
ing to some, to the passover, J.P. 4711, which
has been already urged against the passover, J. P.
4712. ‘If Herod,” say they, “did not die till a
short time before the passover, J.P. 4711, then
Archelaus, if banished, according to Dio, in the
year, J.P. 4719, could not have been banished
as is twice asserted by Josephus in the tenth year
of his reign. For, J.P. 4711+9=4720, and
therefore, J. P. 4719, his ninth year, had not been
completed.”
If Josephus had been uniform in his statement
that Archelaus was banished.in the tenth year of
his reign, this objection would be possessed of
much weight, and I should be the last to contro-
vert the authority of that very excellent historian.
But it happens in this, as in several other cases,
that there is a difference in his calculations of the
duration of Archelaus’s reign; and therefore, until
we have examined and if possible reconciled that
difference, we are not in a condition to be autho-
rised thus broadly to state that, supposing Herod
to have died in the beginning of J. P. 4711, the
calculations and dates of Dio and Josephus cannot
be made to agree.
P Lardner’s Credib. Vol. I. Appendix, §. 4.
46
But more thoroughly to elucidate and more
satisfactorily to remove this difficulty, I would
beg leave to lay before the reader the following
_ series of observations.
It is an extremely fortunate, I know not whether
{ may call it a providential circumstance, that in
the ‘Jewish War’ and in the “ Antiquities’ of
Josephus, we have from the pen of the same
author two distinct histories of the events which
occurred about the time of our Saviour’s appear-
ance upon earth. In chronological inquiries this
is of particular importance, as we are thus enabled
from the expressions. of one to correct any erro-
neous conclusions we might have founded upon
the expressions of the other. If the dates are the
same in both, our inferences are doubly sure.
If they differ, we either account for the difference,
or take the medium between them. Now it will
generally be found. that when Josephus in one of
his histories speaks of an event having taken
place, say 35 years after a former one, in his other
he either speaks of it as having taken place in
the 35th or 36th year after that former one.
From the two expressions compared together, we
are generally enabled to determine whether the
35 years were complete or defective. But in the
instance now before us he varies from his general
47
custom, and whilst in two places’ he informs us
that Archelaus was banished in the tenth year of
his reign, in a third" he asserts that it was in the
ninth year of his reign, and not, as we might have
expected to have found it written, “after he had
reigned nine years.” Instead of examining and
endeavouring to account for this deviation of
Josephus, in the present instance, from his usual
mode, most writers either consider the phrase “in
the ninth year of his reign,’ as equivalent to the
phrase “ after he had reigned nine years ;” or else,
observing that Josephus twice speaks of the tenth,
and once only of the ninth year of Archelaus’s
reign, have concluded without any hesitation that
the truth necessarily is on that side on which there
is what we may call a numerical preponderance of
testimony,—that is to the tenth year. It must be
evident however to any one—first, that “in the
ninth year” cannot naturally mean the same thing
as, “‘after nine years had been completed,” and,
secondly, as to the numerical preponderance of
testimony, it cannot at any rate lead to a sure
inference. If one thing were asserted by an
author fifty times, and an opposite thing only
once, still as long as the contrariety remained
9 Aekaty o€ re THs apyns "Apyeddov, Ant, Jud. lib. xvii.
cap. 15. Bacievovros “Apyedaov to Séxatov. Vita Josephi,
I. p. 998. C.
"Ere: THs dpyns EvvaT@ guyaseverar. De Bell. Jud. lib, ii.
AS
unexplained, we could not positively say which or
whether either of the statements was correct. But
if the present difference observable in the different
works of Josephus can fairly or probably be ac-
counted for by any known principle of calculation
in use amongst the Jews, I should apprehend that
no one would resist the conclusion drawn from
such a principle, whatever it might be. I shall
therefore endeavour to point out that principle,
and to shew that it is highly probable even from
Josephus himself, when thus explained, that
Archelaus was banished in the ninth and not in
the tenth year of his reign. If that can be done
the whole objection will be removed.
The history of the Jewish War was written
by Josephus originally in Hebrew, but he after-
wards translated it into Greek “ for the sake of the
subjects of the Roman Empire.”* It is therefore
naturally to be inferred that when writing for the
subjects of the Roman Empire, he would use such
a mode of calculating the reigns of Kings as was
intelligible and prevalent amongst the subjects of
the Roman Empire. Now the mode of calculating
the years of the reigns of Kings amongst the
Romans was not from any one fixed period of
the year, but from that particular period of the
* Preface to the Jewish War,
49
year at which they respectively commenced their
reigns, whatever it might be. Of this we have
numerous proofs in the Roman historians. When
therefore in the Jewisli War Josephus speaks of
Archelaus as having been banished in his ninth
year, that work being intended for the use and
perusal of the Romans, it would seem only right
to interpret the expression literally, that is, of his
having completed eight years, and entered upon
but not completed his ninth. If this be the case
our next inquiry is, why in the “ Antiquities” and
«his own life’ the same historian should call the
year of Archelaus’s banishment the tenth of his
reign, and upon what principle this latter’ date
may be reconciled with the former. , In answer to
this, we may observe, that in the first chapter of
the Jewish treatise “de principio anni” we meet
with the following passage. ‘‘ Primo die mensis
Nisan, Regum et festorum principium anni est.’’*
In the explanation to be given to this passage the
commentators are uniform, and declare its meaning
to be that the years of the Jewish kings (for
Gentile kings they had a different mode of reck-
oning) were always and in every instance to be
computed from the first day of the first month
Nisan; so that if any king ascended the throne
even so late as the eleventh month, Elul, in any
*Surenhusii Mischna. Pars altera. p. 300,
D
50
year, the second year of his reign would still be
computed as commencing on the first day of the
first month, Nisan, in the succeeding year. If
then we suppose that Josephus as a Jew has fol-
lowed this mode of computation for the reign of
Archelaus in his Antiquities and Life, and the
Roman method in his Jewish War, we shall find
that not only may his own apparently contradictory
statements be reconciled to each other, but also to
the date of J. P. 4719, which Dio has assigned for
the banishment of that prince. For Archelaus,
according to our hypothesis, succeeded Herod
about the month of February, J.P. 4711, and
the -passover, or the 15th of Nisan, in that year,
fell according to Lamy," on the 31st of March.
The second year of Archelaus, therefore, if we
follow the Jewish method of computation, began
on the first of Nisan, or the 16th of March, J. P.
4711. March 16th, J. P. 4711-+8 years = March
16th, J. P. 4719. His tenth year, therefore, began
about that period, J. P. 4719, and ended about
the same time, J.P. 4720. If therefore Archelaus
was banished any time after the month of March,
J.P. 4719, and before the first of January, J. P.
4720, he was banished, according to Dio in the
latter part of the consulship of Lepidus and Arrun-
tius, and, according to the Jewish method of
* App. Chron. Part, I. cap. viii. §. 5.
I
5]
computation, in the tenth year of his reign. But
this, according to the Roman method of computa-
tion, was only the ninth year of his reign. For
February, J. P. 4711+9 years=J.P. 4720. Ar-
chelaus therefore, having been banished before the
conclusion of J. P. 4719, was evidently banished,
speaking literally and after the Roman manner,
in the ninth and not in the tenth year of his reign.
Thus upon the supposition that Josephus uses the
Jewish method of reckoning when he says that
Archelaus was banished in the tenth, and the
Roman when he says that he was banished in the
ninth year of his reign, it is plain that his calcu-
lations may be clearly reconciled both with each
other and the assertions of Dio, and that they
contain no contradiction whatever to the opinion
we have advanced of Herod’s death having taken
place in the beginning of J. P. 4711.
It may perhaps appear to some that instead of
assuming the correctness of Josephus when he
says that Archelaus was banished in the ninth
year of his reign, and endeavouring to reconcile
to that supposed correct statement the other pas-
sages in which he speaks of his having been
banished in the tenth year of his reign ; the proper
way would have been to reverse this order of pro-
ceeding, and assuming his correctness when he
says that he was banished in his tenth, to endea-
D 2
52
vour to reconcile to this the ether passage, in
which he places his banishment in the ninth year
of his reign. This seems to be the proceeding
naturally pointed out by that numerical preponde-
rance of testimony in favour of the tenth year,
of which we have already taken notice,—and I
should have felt myself bound to follow this course
had it been in my power,—had there in fact been
any possible way of reconciling Josephus to him-
self upon this supposition.—But though there és
a method, which I have already pointed out, of
shewing why and how he might assign a greater
number of years to the reign of Archelaus than
actually belonged to it, I know of none by which
it could be explained how or upon what grounds
he could in any instance give to any Jewish reign
a less than its due number of years. The excess
admitting the truth of the lesser number of years
may, but the deficiency assuming the greater
number of years in Archelaus’s reign, cannot be
accounted for, and it is for this reason that I have
adopted the course already laid down, and by that
course, I trust, been enabled at once to reconcile
Josephus to himself, to Dio, and to our date for
the death of Herod.
Such are the answers which I have been
enabled to offer to the several difficulties attending
this most intricate point of chronology. What
53
effect my observations may have upon the minds
of others I cannot tell. But this I think is plain,
i. That Herod could not have died before the
passover, J.P. 4710, because he could not then
have entered upon the 37th year of his reign,
according to the express and reiterated testimony
of Josephus. 2. That he could not have survived
the commencement of the year, J.P. 4712,
because, if he did, Archelaus could not have com-
pleted the 8th year of his reign, when banished in
J.P. 4719. 3. That Herod did die a short time
before some passover, and consequently must have
died a short time before the intermediate passover,
J.P. 4711. The only serious objection to this
date arises from the difficulty which it has been
supposed to create in reconciling the intimations
of Dio and Josephus with regard to the banishment
of Archelaus, and had it not been for the existence
of that imaginary contradiction, I apprehend it
would have received universal approbation. That
stumbling-block I have endeavoured to remove
by a recurrence to the known and simple fact
that in almost every different method of computa-
tion the year commences at a different period.
Whether by that consideration I have satisfac-
torily removed it must be left for others to judge,
I would be permitted, however, in conclusion to
observe, that by the very same inode which
I have adopted of reconciling the apparent
at
variations of historians with regard to the death
of Herod, namely, the different periods at which
they fixed the commencement of the year, the
ingenious and learned author of “‘ L’art de verifier
les Dates” has very satisfactorily accounted for
some seeming contradictions in the annalists, with
respect to the year of the death of Charlemagne, and
has closed his inquiry with the following remark.
“On doit regarder comme suffisamment prouvée
la confusion q’avoient jettée dans les Chroniques
les differens usages de commencer l’année.”’”
* Dissertation sur les dates. vol. I. p. 7.
It is to avoid the confusion springing from this cause, that
I have adopted the Julian Period as the rule of my computations,—
“egregiam hanc periodum ;” says Beverege, “qua nihil unquam in
Chronologia prestantius inventum fuit.” Instit. Chronol. lib. ii.
cap. 9. I cannot forbear justifying and recommending the
practice I have followed by the strong authority of Petavius,
the more to be trusted on the present occasion, because the
Julian Period was the introduction of one whom he constantly
opposed—of Scaliger. ‘‘Magnupere Chronologie tyronibus
auctor sum, uti Julianam hanc periodum ejusque tractationem et
usum seduld condiscant, certoque sibi persuadeant sine héc pra-
_ sidio difficilem et erroribus obnoxiam temporum esse doctrinam ;
e contrario vero tutissimam ac facillimam iniri viam si quis eam
sibi, quam dixi, periodum prescribat. Itaque nos in toto héc
opere nostro non aliter, quam hdc ipsa periodo intervalla compu-
tamus,” Petav. de Doctr. Temp. lib. vii, cap. 8, in fine,
CHAP. III.
THE PROBABLE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH.
SECTION I.
The probable Year of the Natwity.
Taxine the correctness of the arguments in
the preceding Chapter for granted, we conclude
that the death of Herod took place certainly not
later than the passover, J. P. 4711, and certainly
not before the 13th of March, J.P. 4710, and
upon this foundation we must now proceed in our
endeavours to determine the date of the birth of
Christ.
In the Gospels we meet with no dzrect informa-
tion as to the year or period of the year at which
Jesus was born. We are left to gather it from a
comparison of the several circumstances which
have been incidentally recorded or alluded to by
the Evangelists. The only thing we are expressly
told is, that Jesus was born before the death of
Herod, “in the days of Herod the king,” Matth. ii.
1, and consequently before the passover, J.P.
96
4711. But this is vague in the extreme. More
precisely and satisfactorily therefore to settle the
point, we must endeavour to elucidate the follow-
ing questions :
1. How long the birth of Christ must necessa-
rily have preceded the death of Herod.
2. How long it may probably have preceded
if.
3. Whether this probable date corresponds
with the other chronological marks in the New
Testament. If so, it may then fairly be considered
as the true date, or at least as sufficiently correct
for the great purposes of a Christian’s solicitude,
the vindication of his religion from the doubts of
scepticism, and the cavils of infidelity.
I. We are to inquire how long the birth of
Christ must necessarily have preceded the death
of Herod.
When the Magi arrived in Jerusalem from the
Kast to enquire after the King of the Jews, Jesus
was already born, and Herod was yet alive. ‘Two
points are therefore necessary to be determined
before we can ascertain the precise period of
Christ’s birth, viz. how long the birth of Christ
bY
preceded the arrival of the Magi, and how long
the arrival of the Magi preceded the death of
Herod.
Let us first examine how long the visit of the
Magi preceded the death of Herod.
In the settlement of this point we have no data
whatever to guide us, but the actions of Herod
at the time, and as they are stated to us in the
Gospel. Now these as they are recorded by St.
Matthew, chap. 11. would seem to indicate that,
when the Magi arrived, Herod was in a perfect
state of health both as to body and mind. He
was active, he was intelligent. He assembled and
would appear also to have presided with spirit
and without difficulty at a council of the chief
priests and scribes. He privately consulted with
the Magi, and gave them the instructions which
he thought necessary, promising himself to follow
and worship the child ;—a promise which he would
neither have thought of making, nor been able to
perform, had he been in that suffering and ema-
ciated condition to which by his last illness he
was soon reduced. In all this he acted with the
energy of a man in perfect health and the full
possession of the powers of his nature; nor is
there one single hint or expression of any thing
to the contrary. When Josephus relates the exe-
58
cution of the Rabbis, he makes several allusions
to the teebleness of the king, and carefully states
the exertion and difficulty it required for him to
attend the council, examine into the sedition and
pronounce the condemnation of the guilty. The
narrative of St. Matthew on the contrary proceeds
with uninterrupted continuity, and contains no inti-
mation which could impress the mind of the reader
with the idea that Herod was otherwise than he had
ever been ; no symptom of weakness, no phrase to
mark the writer’s astonishment and horror, when
relating the massacre of Bethlehem, that though
its perpetrator was (to use the language of Jose-
phus upon a‘similar occasion) pedayyorwv 70n Kal
povovevxX! avT@ Ti TP OavaTw areiwv, mMpoeKoWev eis
émiBovrnv aBeuirou mpagews.* Such a remark would
have been natural in the mouth of the Evangelist,
had Herod at that time been in a declining state.
But he has not said any thing at all like it, and
hence it would appear highly probable that Herod’s
last illness had not made that progress when the
- Magi arrived which we learn from Josephus that
it had made at the time of the execution of the
Rabbis, on the 13th of March, J. P. 4710. The
Magi therefore had arrived before that period.
Again, it may be recollected that Josephus has
* Josephus de Bell, Jud, lib. i, cap. 21. p. 773.
oD
told us,” that the world at large attributed the
last disease of Herod to the justice of an offended
God visiting him with the most severe and lingering
and extraordinary sufferings in consequence of his
many and unparalleled crimes. Whether this
opinion was right or wrong, I know not. I only
say, that it will be difficult for any one who believes
the Gospel, to suppose that a cruelty, so unprovoked
and excessive as the massacre of Bethlehem, had
not a considerable share in the formation of the
idea, and consequently that this massacre not only
preceded the execution of the Rabbis, but the very
commencement of Herod’s illness. Now the last
illness of Herod did not seize him at all until after
the ambassadors were sent off to Rome with the
evidence which had been collected relative to the
guilt of Antipater, and the departure of those
ambassadors stands in the narrative of the historian
Josephus as one of the events emmediately pre-
ceding the sedition and execution of the Rabbis.
These facts being admitted, and I think they
cannot be denied, it is evident that the disease
of Herod commenced only a short time before
the execution of the Rabbis on the 13th of
March, J.P. 4710. Yet as it certainly had made
considerable progress when that execution took
» Antiq. lib. xvii, cap. 8. p. 597.
* Antiq. lib. xvii, cap. 8. in initio.
60
place, we may be allowed, without being accused of
making undue assumptions and as almost all writers
have done, to suppose it to have commenced about
a month before ; that is about the 13th of February,
J.P.4710. Consequently the Magi having arrived
before the massacre of Bethlehem, and the massacre
of Bethlehem having taken place before the com-
mencement of Herod’s illness on the 13th of
February, J.P. 4710; the Magi also must have
arrived before the said 13th of February, J. P.
4710. 1 place much reliance on the validity of
this reasoning, and can only express my astonish-
ment that amongst all the various writers upon the
chronology of our Saviour’s life, not one, to my
recollection, has bestowed a single thought on the
observations upon which it is founded.
The same source, to which we have applied
with success for the solution of the last question
as to the length of time which must have elapsed
between the death of Herod and the arrival of the
Magi, will help us also, if not satisfy us, with regard
to the length of time which must have elapsed
between the arrival of the Magi and the birth
of Christ.
No one I believe ever read the second chapter
of St. Matthew, unbiassed by the influence of any
preconceived opinion, without considering the
61
arrival of the Magi and the birth of Jesus to have
been proximate occurrences. [ never yet asked
the question of any one without receiving such an
answer; and the language of the Apostle, one
would suppose, could scarce have been so framed
as to produce this general impression unless a
similar impression had been operating upon’ his
own mind. That the birth of Jesus was a recent
event, when the Magi arrived, is indeed evident,
from the specific nature of their question, Tov ear
6 texGeis, “where is he that 2s born?’ from the
peculiar terms of the demand which Herod made
of the chief priests and scribes, émuy@aveto rap
avTov, “rou 0 Xpistos yervara;”” “ he demanded of
them, where ts“ the Christ born?” and from Mary
being still with her child and husband in Bethlehem.
I do not argue so much from the force of any one
of these observations taken singly, as from the
result of the whole when considered together and -
in connexion with the context. The question of
the Magi would imply only their own opinion
* Commentators have in my opinion very needlessly laboured
to prove that yevvara: means or may mean péd\ArAQa yevvacBai,
and mov 6 Xpiotos yevvara, “ where the Christ should be born,”
forgetting apparently that it seems to have been St. Matthew’s
intention to imply by the use of the present term, that these were
the very words which Herod used. He assembled the chief
Priests and Scribes and asked them a question, éruvOavero map’
aitwy. The tenor and terms of the question were these, ov 6
X piers yevvara:; ** Where is the Christ born ?”
62
that Christ was lately born and therefore might
be erroneous ; Herod’s demand was plainly only
a deduction from their statements ; and Mary and
Joseph, and the child might haye been at Beth-
lehem, the place of their family though not of their
residence, at any other period as well as upon the
birth of Jesus. For we know that they came and
brought their son with them to Jerusalem every
year, and Bethlehem was but a six miles, or two
hour’s journey, from the capital. Each observation
therefore is by itself inconclusive; but when
joined, it becomes a very high improbability that
so many characters of a recent occurrence, and so
likely to mislead, should, if fallacious, have all
fallen upon one event, and in the compass of a
page. But the most unequivocal mark of all, is
in the use of the aorist yevyyOévros, together with
the insertion of the word idov, in the first verse.
‘The aorist yevvyOévros if alone would be indefinite,
but when combined with ico’ and compared with
© Mr. Mann, p. 41. considers the argument deduced from the
aorist yevvybévros as of very little importance, and produces
several instances from the New Testament in which the time to
which it refers is quite indefinite. But he appears to have over-
looked its force when in connection with ijov. Iam not aware
that there is any passage in the New Testament in which this
union of idov with an aorist occurs in an indefinite sense. At least
the union most commonly refers to some event which had only
just taken place. It is several times used to express the imme-
diate and instantaneous succession of an event to one already
mentioned. Matth. iii. 17. and xvii. 5,
03
the 13th and 19th verses, it is impossible any
longer to mistake its meaning. Avaywpycavrwy de
avtav (tav Mayer) iWod ayyédos Kupiou aiverat
kar ovap T@ ‘Iwond. Again, Tedevtycavtos dé Tov
“Hpwoov, idov, ayyédos Kupiou kat’ ovap patvera rw
‘Iwonp ev Aiyyrrw. Who ever doubted that the
warning to Joseph to flee into Egypt was given
immediately after the departure of the Magi, or
supposed that the divine command to return from
thence, was not issued so soon after the decease
of Herod, that the intelligence of his death had not
had time to reach their place of habitation by the
ordinary mode of conveyance? Why then should
we needlessly depart from this established rule of
interpretation in explaining the exactly corre-
sponding phrase in the former passage? Why
should we not hold ourselves bound to consider
"Incov ryevynOevros ev BeOAcéu.... LAOY Maryoi azo
‘AvaroXwy TapeyévovtTo, as subject to the same
inference, and implying in the same manner the
quick succession of the visit of the Magi to the
birth of Jesus.. To support us in this deduction
we have the express testimony of one of the most
ancient Fathers and the oldest tradition which
exists upon the matter in the Church. AMA ydp
TO yevunOynva avtov, Maryot am ‘ApaBias maparyevopevor
TpooekU yno ay QuT@. Such is the interpretation
put upon the words of St. Matthew by Justin
64
Martyr‘ about the year a.p.~150, and we may
suppose, from his positive method of speaking,
that the general inference, as well as his own,
from the perusal of the whole account was, that
the birth of Jesus and the arrival of the Magi
were events almost immediately succeeding each
other. It is certain however, that at a later period
this opinion was renounced by many, and the
arrival of the Magi placed nearly two years after
Christ’s birth, under an idea that the change was
imperatively demanded by another passage in the
very chapter under our consideration. The argu-
ment indeed is not of any material consequence
or strength. It is however of sufficient weight to
deserve an investigation.
*“ Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of
the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth
and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old
and under, according to the time which he had
diligently enquired of the wise men.” Matth. 11. 16.
If Herod had so diligently enquired the time,
it is considered extremely improbable that he
should thus unnecessarily send forth and slay all
‘ Dial. cum ‘Tryph, p. 308. He repeats the assertion in p. 315,
an nearly the same words.
65
the children from two years old and under, when
he must have been thoroughly satisfied, had Jesus
been so lately born, that the child he wished to
destroy could not have been more than two or
three months old. ‘To make assurance thus
doubly sure, seems, it is said, a wanton and an
useless, and therefore an incredible act of bar-
barity.
.
In reply to this objection we may observe that
the word ders which is employed by the
Evangelist upon this occasion will certainly bear
a sense, which would confine the murder of the
Innocents to those who had completed their first
year alone, and that it is in fact so used by
Aristotle, and so explained by Hesychius." Having
thus reduced the extent of the cruelty one half,
there is little if any remaining improbability in the
incident; since it would have been difficult if not
impossible for Herod to have fixed upon a period
less comprehensive with any kind of prospect of
attaining his end.
] admit, however, that this answer is not quite
satisfactory or decisive. I allow that the word
®"EvBev rin ov pavetra: dri STE FABov of Mayor, dvo Hv érTaV
¢ mais yeyeunnevos; says Epiphanius Heer, 51. cap. ix. p.431. A.
* Vide Poli Syn. in Matth. ii, 16.
E
60
~
cuetvys is, mn authors both sacred and profane,
almost universally used in the sense in which it
‘has been understood in the authorized version of
the English church, and as far as I know, by
every one of the Christian Fathers. I would there-
fore observe, in the second place, that the time
into which Herod so diligently enquired, was not,
and indeed could not have been, the time of Christ’s
birth, but “the time at which the star appeared =
(Matth. ii. 7.) and that there is no imperative
reason against supposing that the star appeared
io the Magi, either in continuance, or at intervals,
for a considerable time before the birth of Christ
and their.own departure for Judea; during this
time they might be employed and detained in
meditation upon so singular an occurrence, and
in deliberating upon what mode of conduct they
should pursue. That this was really the fact
appears in a great measure confirmed by St.
Matthew, when he says, that Herod extended the
slaughter of the infants to those of two years old
and under, “according to the time which he had
diligently enquired of the wise men.” If his
enquiries were diligent, the answers from the
wnsuspicious Magi would probably correspond in
accuracy, and therefore the inference certainly
seems to be; not that Christ was born, but that
the star had appeared more than a year before the
massacre of Bethlehem.
67
Perhaps to the greater portion of my readers
this second solution of the supposed difficulty will
seem perfectly conclusive and just. I would beg
leave however to add, for the sake of those who -
may not feel themselves entirely convinced, the
two following considerations: The first is, that
Herod might fancy that, as the Magi had already
deceived him in not returning to Jerusalem, they
were not to be relied upon in their account of the
time at which the star appeared ; or that the star
had not appeared till after the birth of Jesus; or
any other notion, however singular and suspicious.
The second is, that, however useless and wanton
the cruelty, it is not in the present instance incre-
dible. There is no incredibility in attributing to
a despot actions which are inconsistent with the
dictates of reason, or to a tyrant those which are
irreconcileable with the principles of humanity.
Herod was both, and besides of a character and
nature which cannot be more correctly pourtrayed
than in the language of Josephus. érréy7o dé te
pow, Kai mpos macav vrovoay éeLeppimiCero moAXous
TE TMV OUK aiTiwy Eidken Eis Bacavous dedotkws py Twa
Tav aitiwy wapadimy.' Upon this timid and suspi-
cious disposition, disappointment was now working
ina high degree. Those fears of losing the pos-
session of histhrone, which the arrival of the Magis
* De Bell Jud. lib. i. cap, 19. p. 766.
E 2
68
had inspired into the mind of Herod, their secret
and unexpected departure had greatly increased ;
and in the emphatic words of the Evangelist he
was ‘‘ exceeding wroth.’’ But ‘wrath is cruel,
and anger is outrageous.”* In the moment and
madness of vengeance, truth, reason, necessity,
consequences, every thing is forgotten. The
whole man ‘is wrapt up in one object, all his
powers bent upon the attainment of one single
~end, and he cares not by what means. Hence it
frequently happens that angry men not only do
what the justice of their cooler moments will
most certainly condemn, but what the wisdom of
their cooler moments will suggest much better
means of accomplishing, and with much less atro-
city, a point which human nature is seldom so
utterly depraved as entirely to neglect and contemn.
Seeing then that Scripture informs us that Herod
was ‘exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew
all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in
all the coasts thereof, from two years old and
under,” that is, describes the murder of the
Innocents, as the immediate consequence of the
only efficient cause of so diabolical a purpose, the
rage and disappointment of an infuriate despot ;
seeing also that itis the characteristic of vengeance
to be but little scrupulous as to the nature of the
Kk Prov, xxvil. 4,
69
means it employs, and seeing that this effect of
passion would be heightened in the present
instance by the peculiar disposition of the man,
we need not consider it at all unnatural, or in any
degree incredible that the fury and forgetfulness
of the moment should induce so irrational a tyrant
as Herod to utter such a comprehensive decree of
cruelty. In the same spirit in which, though told
that the Messiah should be born ix Bethlehem,
he extended the circle of his desolation to “all
the coasts thereof” in point of space ; in the same
spirit he might extend the circle of his desolation
in point of tume, to “two years old and under,”
though fully convinced from the accurate inquiries
he had made, and the accurate information he had
received, that Jesus was probably not at that period
more than fifty days old. In both cases he acted
in perfect conformity with his principles. In both
CASES ToANOUs THY OUK aiTiwy ciAKeEV Eis Bagavous, Sedut-
KOS My TWA TOV alTwV Tapadian, and with the
knowledge we possess of Herod’s excessive and
wanton cruelty upon many other occasions, I
should not have been at all surprised if his command
had reached to five years instead of two. I do
sincerely think therefore that notwithstanding this
objection we may very safely believe, what the
most judicious in every age have believed, that
Jesus was not born any long time before the
arrival of the Magi; whose guiding star, being
dO
sent by God to mark with an extraordinary splen-
dour the rise of so extraordinary a personage, as
him who had of old been designated under the
emblem of the “‘ Star of Jacob,’’! can scarcely with
propriety be placed at a period considerably sub-
sequent to the event which it was to celebrate.
We have now seen that the birth of Jesus
preceded the arrival of the Magi only by a very
short space of time, and that the words of St.
Matthew, chap. ii. ver. 16. afford no real or serious
ground of objection to this opinion. To this
general conclusion we must next add an examina-
tion of those circumstances which may serve more
strictly to define the exaet period of time which
elapsed between the birth of Jesus and the visit of
the Magi.
The opinions of the learned world upon this
question may be reduced to two; that of those
who place the arrival of the Magi a short time
before, and that of those who place it a short
time after the purification of the Virgin Mary in
the temple.
The following are the principal arguments by
which those, who maintain, that the arrival of the
' Numbers, xxiv. 17.
ra
Magi was subsequent to the purification of the
Virgin and the presentation of Jesus, have endea-
voured to support their conclusion.
“The visit of the Magians must have been
after the presentation in the temple. If it had
been before, and if they had presented their gifts,
gold, frankincense and myrrh, mentioned Matth. it.
11. Mary would not have made the lesser offering
for her purification, mentioned Luke il. 23, 24.
Nor could the child Jesus have been safely brought
to Jerusalem or such notice have been taken of
him in the temple, as St. Luke particularly relates,
chap. li. 25, 38, if Herod and all Jerusalem with
him had been just before alarmed by the enquiries
of the Magians. ‘‘ Where is he that is born King
of the Jews”? Matth. ii. 1. 2.’™
I must confess that I am unable to perceive
the force of the second part of this argument.
It may be very true that the child Jesus could not
have been “safely brought to the temple, nor
such notice taken of him, if Herod and all Jeru-
salem with him had just before been alarmed by
the enquiries of the Magians.” But this is no
proof that he was not brought by his parents at
that dangerous period, unless it could be shewn
™ Lardner, vol. VI. p. 149.
12
_
that they were acquainted with the danger. But
it will appear plain to any one who will impartially
consider the 2d chapter of St. Matthew, that they
could not have been acquainted with it. It was
privately that Herod called the Magians unto him,
and enquired of them when they had first seen the
star. It was privately that he sent them to make
an accurate search after the child ; and it was m
the depth of his own heart alone unknown and
unthought of by all, that he entertained the cruel
intention of murdering him when found ;—pretend-
ing in his outward conduct and expressions the
greatest pleasure at the prospect, and the greatest
anxiety to pay him that adoration which was due
to a being whose birth had been so wonderfully
announced. These professions so entirely deceived
the Magi that it appears to have been necessary to
warn them in a dream not to return to Herod to
make the communication he desired, but to take
another route for their journey into their own
country. What then was there in the enquiries
of the Magians to rouse the fears of the mother of
Jesus, or to tell her husband of the danger they
would incur in carrying her son to the temple
for presentation? Of their danger they were not
at all aware until the dream revealed it to Joseph,
and therefore that danger, however great, could be
no reason for their not presenting Jesus in the
temple, even after the yisit of the Magi both to
73
Herod and to themselves. They could not be
influenced by a motive of which they were igno-
rant. The utmost therefore which this consider-
ation proves is, that the presentation did not take
place after the dream in which Joseph was in-
formed of the designs of Herod. Whilst he was
unacquainted with those designs it proves nothing
at all.
But, thus differing with Lardner in the force
of one part of his reasoning, I acquiesce entirely
in the validity of the conclusion which may be
drawn from the first circumstance he has adduced.
The 12th chapter of Leviticus, which appoints the
offerings for the purification of women after child-
birth, does not appoint different offerings for
persons in different ranks of life,—a lamb and a
pigeon or a turtle-dove for the rich, and a pair
of pigeons or turtle-doves for the poor, generically
so called; but it requires a lamb and a pigeon
from every one whether rich or poor, who has it
it her power to offer them, and allows the substi-
tution of two pigeons or turtle-doves in cases of
positive inability alone. “If she be not able to
bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles or
two young pigeons.”’ ver. 8. Now whatever may
have been the value of the presents made by the
Magi to our Saviour, it cannot be possibly con-
ceived that the gold, frankincense and myrrh,
TA
which were things extremely valuable in them-
selves, and which the Magi had thought it their
duty to bring as gifts to royalty from so great a
distance and upon so extraordinary an occasion,
should have been of so trifling a nature and so
small in amount as not to enable his parents to
make a purchase of the larger and proper offering
prescribed by the law. And if these gifts were
sufficient for that purpose it is equally inconceiv-
able that the piety of Mary’s heart and the wonder-
ful circumstances attending the event which she
was celebrating, and which made her more pecu-
liarly bound in gratitude to God, should permit
her to violate that law, and offer to heaven of that
which comparatively speaking would cost her
nothing, when she had it in her power literally
to fulfil the rites of her religion, and every reason
in the world to make her wish to fulfil them.
Under this view of the subject I certainly hold
it as an indisputable fact, that Mary was “not
able to bring a lamb for an offering,” and conse-
quently that the Magi did not arrive in Bethlehem
and make their offerings to Jesus until after his
presentation in the temple.
But whilst I make this admission with regard
to the arrival of the Magi in Bethlehem, I consider
it as equally certain that they had arrived in
Jerusalem before the presentation of Jesus. This
75
appears to me to be evidently implied in the cir-
cumstances which then took place.
If Jesus had been previously presented, the
prophecies of Simeon and Anna must previously
also have come to the ears of Herod, and have
prompted him, even before the arrival of the Magi,
to have called together a council of the chief
priests and scribes—to have put to them the
same questions, which we find he afterwards did,
respecting the place of the Messiah’s birth, and to
have concerted immediate and effectual measures
for putting to death so formidable a rival. All
this he would in that case most certainly and
previously have done. For as he was an Idumean
by descent, and almost an usurper of the govern-
ment, or at least the ruler without the consent of
the Jews," he had no claims of kindred or of
choice to establish his throne and remove his
jealousy. And as he was a Jew by religion, °
he would more certainly credit and be more seri-
ously alarmed by the declaration of an aged
prophet (perhaps priest), and a religious devotee
of his own persuasion, both probably known and
generally believed to be favoured and inspired by
"Vide Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 8. p. 595. G. et alibi.
° “Hpwdov &€ €Ovav katacrnlevtos, mpoondrvVTou Mev TOL YE.
Epiph, Her. v. cap. 22.
76
heaven, than by the unsupported assertions of
some unknown eastern sages, who were commonly
notorious for superstition and astrology. As
therefore he was so grievously troubled by the
arrival of the Magi in search of the King of the
Jews, we may be sure that he never would have
despised “ the notice taken of Jesus in the temple”
had it preceded their arrival and reached his ears.
He would, under that supposition, already have
enquired into the family and birth-place of our
Saviour, and already have decided upon his fate ;
nor would he have displayed that utter ignorance
upon the subject, which we find him shewing
when they afterwards came.
It is possible, however, it may be said, that
though the prophecies of Simeon and Anna had
been uttered before the arrival of the Magi, they
had not before that time been communicated to
Herod. This certainly is possible, though by no
means probable. Granting it however for the
sake of argument, yet still when they did come,
and ‘‘Herod and all Jerusalem was troubled with
him,” and the council of priests and scribes, of
whom this very Simeon would probably be one of
the chief, was called and consulted upon the
subject, there would surely be some one to men-
tion the presentation of Christ and the circum-
stances and wonders attending it. They were
7%
too singular to be forgotten, too impressive and
important not to be canvassed afresh upon the
recurrence of any connected event, even though
they had happened more than a year before.
Now if these things were told to Herod either
before or when the Magi arrived, his conduct as
represented by St. Matthew, is marked by no less
than three absolute inconsistencies.
In the first place, he would never have given
the command: he did give to the Magi to ‘‘ go and
search diligently for the child, and when they
had found him bring him word again,” for it
would have been perfectly unnecessary. He had
only to ask what and who the child was who had
been thus presented and acknowledged, and then,
without the superfluous and horrible cruelty of
slaying the infants of a whole village and its
neighbourhood, he would at once have ascertained
the name, and been enabled to get rid of the
object of his apprehensions by a private emissary.
In the second place, even supposing that his
irresistible passions and habits of callous barba-
rity had tempted him to so unavailing a massacre,
that act could never have been with propriety
attributed to the disappointment he felt at not
seeing the Magi return as its only eause. Yet
18
St. Matthew does attribute it to that one motive
alone, and states very clearly that he regulated its
extent, solely by the enquiries he had made as to
the first appearance of the star. Hence it is irre-
sistibly plain that in the Evangelist’s opinion Herod
knew nothing about the presentation when he gave —
the order for the murder of the Innocents. For
had he been acquainted with it at that time, he
would rather have proceeded upon the more
precise information which might thus have been
obtained, than the uncertain surmises afforded by
the first appearance of the star.
In the third place, the priests and scribes,
when Herod demanded of them where Christ
was born, would never have founded the reason
of the answer which they gave, “In Bethlehem
of Judea,’ upon the interpretation of the words
of Micah, but upon the fact with which they
must have been already acquainted. At least
when they said, “ For thus it is written by the
prophet,” they would have added also “and thus
it has been fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, whose
presentation in the temple has been hailed by the
prophetic salutations of the holy Simeon and
Anna.”
Had then the presentation of Jesus and the
prophecies accompanying it taken place previous
79
to the arrival of the Magi in Jerusalem, they
would have been made known to Herod, either
before or when those Magi came, and if made
known to Herod either before or when the Magi
came, the whole account of St. Matthew is incon-
sistent and absurd. No man in similar cireum-
stances would have acted as Herod is reported to
have done. The consultation with the _ priests,
the answer of the priests, the directions to the
Magi, and the general massacre of Bethlehem,
are in that case unnecessary and incredible. But,
assuming the truth of what I have suggested, and
supposing the Magi to have arrived in Jerusalem
a little before and in Bethlehem a little after the
presentation, every thing in the account of St.
Matthew will be found reasonable. A little before
the presentation of Jesus, the Magi arrived at
Jerusalem in special search for the new-born King
of the Jews. Herod struck with the motive of
their mission, and its coincidence with the general
expectation then entertained of the coming of the
Messiah, enquires of the learned and religious in
what place the Messiah should be born. Having
ascertained this point, he next enquires of the
Magi the probable time of his birth as deducible
from the appearance of the star, (an enquiry
quite needless if he was already acquainted with
the presentation,) and for this purpose he private-
ly and particularly examines them, and commands
80
them, when they~had found the object of their
search, to return and give him information. In
the mean time, perhaps during the very period of
this interview, Joseph brings his wife for purifica-
tion, and his son for presentation to the temple,
and then returns to Bethlehem, a distance of but
six miles. Having receiyed in the evening the
offerings of the Magi, he is warned to fly from
Herod, and sets off with his family for Egypt by
night. In the morning Herod, not finding the
Magi return, in order completely to relieve his
suspicions, sends forth his emissaries to slay every
child within the sphere of his suspicions, both as to
place and time. But learning afterwards, from
the report made to him relative to the transactions
which on the preceding day had attended the pre-
sentation of Jesus, that he was the object of whom
he was afraid, and from the names of the children
destroyed, that he had not been cut off in the
general massacre, he continued seeking the child’s
life (Matth. ii. 20.) to the very day of his death.
Such is the order in which I would arrange
the events subsequent to our Saviour’s birth, the
arrival of the Magi in Jerusalem a little before,—
in Bethlehem a little after the presentation; and
that event of course in the interval between both.
It is in this latter point,—in separating the vise of
the Magi, as it is technically termed, into two
Sl
portions, and inserting the presentation between
them, that the method I have pursued differs, I
believe, from that of every other individual. The
generality of writers consider this visit of the Magi
in the light of a single undivided occurrence, and
make no distinction between their arrival at Jeru-
salem and Bethlehem. Hence those, who perceived
the force of the objections which prove that the
Magi could not have reached Bethlehem and
made their offerings before the presentation, too
hastily concluded that they had not reached Jeru-
salem before that event. Whilst those on the
other hand, who felt convinced that they must
have reached Jerusalem before the presentation,
as rashly conceived that they had before it also
presented their gifts in Bethlehem. Considering
the transaction as a contemporaneous whole, they
vainly endeavoured to extricate themselves from
the dilemma. In this error I remained for a long
time, and necessarily felt the greatest difficulty
in framing a defensible hypothesis. Whichever
alternative [ adopted I threw myself upon a valid
objection, and was compelled to maintain one of
the following absurdities,—either that when the
Magi came Herod heard nothing about the pro-
phecies and presentation of Jesus, although they
had occurred before, or that Mary offered the
lesser gift for her purification after having received
the costly gifts of these oriental sages. It was not
r
82
~~
till after the most mature deliberation that 1 became
aware of the fallacy and perceived the facility of
removing every difficulty by no longer considering
the arrival of the Magi at Jerusalem and Beth-
lehem as contemporaneous events, and by so intro-
ducing the presentation as to make it clash with
neither of the objections.
We must now inquire when the purification
of the Virgin which corresponds with the presen-
tation of Jesus took place. The general opinion
is, that it took place as usual at the expiration of
40 days after the birth of the child, and in this I
perfectly agree. It has been doubted however,
and there are those who say that the language of
the Mosaic law implies only that the purification
of the mother shall not take place before the expi-
ration of 40 days after the birth of a male child, but
does not prevent its being deferred for a longer
period. It really would appear as if there were
some minds so fond of uncertainty and doubt,
that they were unwilling to permit any thing to
pass undisputed; for in the present instance
nothing can be more plain than that if nothing
interfered with the performance of the appointed
rite, it should be performed on the earliest allow-
able day. “When the days of her purifying are
fulfilled for a son or for a daughter, she shall
bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering
33
and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-
offering.’ Levit. xi. 6. I know of nothing in
this case which could prevent the observance of
the command,—I remember the pious disposition
of Joseph and Mary,—I feel convinced of their
desire to continue in all the ordinances of the
Lord blameless, and therefore I cannot for a
moment doubt that they brought Jesus to the
temple at the specified time. I consequently
conclude that the purification took place on the
Alst day after the birth of Jesus, and that the
Magi arrived in Jerusalem a day or two before.
Now we have already shewn that the Magi’
arrived in Jerusalem on or before the 13th of
February, J.P. 4710. Reckoning therefore 40 days
back from that date, we fix the birth of Jesus either
on or before the 3d of January, J.P. 4710, that
is, he must have been born at least one year
before the death of Herod, supposing him to have
died about the beginning of J. P. 4711.
CHAP. III.
SECTION II.
The probable Monra of the Nativity,
We have seen in the last section how long the
birth of Christ must, we are now to endeavour to
shew how much longer his birth may have pre-
ceded the death of Herod.
For any thing that has been hitherto stated,
it is not absolutely requisite to fix the birth of
Christ before the 3d of January, J.P. 4710.
But wherever it is unnecessary, it is improper to
carry back. any date to a more remote period ;
and upon this principle we ought to act in the
present instance. We ought not to throw back
the birth of Jesus without reason. If therefore
we can find out with any degree of probability the
Season of the year at which Jesus was born, we
are authorized to refer it back as far as that
season in the year immediately preceding the 3d
of January, J.P. 4710, before which we have
seen that Christ must have been born, but no
85
farther. In a word, we must seek for it in, and
not beyond, the year comprehended between the
3d of January, J. P. 4710, and the 3d of January,
J.P. 4709; unless some other chronological mark
should occur in the course of the discussion to
require a contrary mode of proceeding. Thus
the season of the year at which Christ was born
appears to be the only question, the determination
of which is still wanting to enable us to fix the
probable date of his birth. 1 shall therefore
examine it with as much diligence and unparti-
ality as are in my power.
Two methods of ascertaining the period of the
year in which Christ was born have been deduced
by chronologers from the characters of that event
which have been left by the Evangelists.
1. Since St. Luke informs us, chap. i. 36. that
the annunciation of the Virgin Mary took place
in the sixth month after the conception of Elizabeth,
it is evident that, if Jesus the son of Mary was
born after the usual period of gestation, he must
have been born between five and six months after
John the Baptist the son of Elizabeth. Conse-
quently if the date of the birth of John the
Baptist can be found, that of Jesus may easily be
calculated.
56
Now it appears from the 24th chapter of the
Ist book of Chronicles, that the Jewish priests
were divided into 24 courses or families, according
to the number of “chief men found among the
sons of Eleazar and Ithamar the sons of Aaron.”
The order in which these courses were to follow
each other was determined by lot, and is there
regularly detailed. From this order it appears |
that the course of Abia to which Zacharias the
father of John the Baptist belonged was the eighth
in the list, and from various passages in Josephus
it may be collected that no motive however strong,
not even the peril of death itself, could induce
any course to forego or depart from its turn in
those holy ministrations in the temple, which passed
in regular and undeviating succession from one
family to another, and continued in each, from
sabbath to sabbath, for the space of seven days.
They adhered with this strictness to the appointed
order from the united sense of gain and of religion;
of gain, on account of the profit they derived from
their share in the almost innumerable sacrifices
that were daily offered; of religion, from the
sacred reverence with which they regarded every
national institution. Now the whole number of
courses of priests multiplied by the number of
days each course officiated, that is, 7 x 24 will
* Joseph, Antiq. lib. vil, cap, 11, p. 248, G.
87,
give 168 days for a complete cycle of these weekly
ministrations. If therefore we can find at what
period of any given year any one of these courses
was in the turn of its ministration, we may—pro-
vided the due order of succession was never disturb-
ed by any unavoidable accident,—from that single
fact, and by a mere arithmetical calculation establish
the period at which the same or any other given
course would enter upon its ministration in any
preceding or succeeding year. Yet after all our
endeavours, we must not expect that the proposed
calculations will enable us, even under the most
favourable circumstances, to settle for ever, and
by their own evidence alone, the controversy with
regard to the month of Christ’s birth. Twice in
every year, and in some years three times, did each
course minister to the Lord. Even then if the
principles upon which we are reasoning be correct,
it is evident that they will always lead to a double
and therefore a dubious result. They will always
fix two seasons of the year, at about six months
distance from each other, at which, in any year,
the Saviour of the world may have been born.
Nevertheless it will still be worth our while to
obtain even this approximation ; and as there have
been several theories propounded, | will consider
them in their chronological order.
No one has made a more happy use of the
88
~
chronological instrument of which we are speaking
than Scaliger’, and his reasoning, or rather hypo-
thesis, is so extremely ingenious that there is no
one but would wish it to be true, though deeming
it not perfectly satisfactory in every point. On
this account it requires a more than ordinary
degree of strictness and scrupulosity m its exami-
nation, because its captivating plausibility is liable
at every turn to blind the judgment and mislead
us into a decision in its favour almost under every
difficulty.
From the reign of David in which they were
first instituted to the days of Judas Maccabeus,
Scaliger admits that the regular succession of the
courses was several times disturbed ; more especi-
ally during the calamity of the Babylonish captivity
and the three years’ profanation of the temple by
Antiochus Epiphanes. He deems it therefore a
vain attempt to form a computation from any facts
with which we may be acquainted within the
limits of that period, and in this he differs from
others whose opinion we shall afterwards investi-
gate. But it is recorded in the 4th chapter of the
ist book of Maccabees, verse 52, that the sanctuary
was cleared from the profanation of Antiochus,
and the daily sacrifice in the temple renewed,
» De Emend. Temp. Notz in Fragm.
89
“on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month
(which is called the month Casleu) in the hundred
forty and eighth year ;” that is on the 22d of
November, WP. 4549. Upon that occasion the
ministrations of the priesthood were of course
renewed, and Scaliger affirms, that from that day
they were carefully continued and uninterruptedly
acted upon till the ruin of Jerusalem brought the
Jewish polity to a mournful and perpetual end.
He maintains this, because there is no evidence to
the contrary, and no event upon record which
could make an interruption necessary. He also
conjectures that, when the celebration of the Mosaic
rites and sacrifices was thus restored by Judas,
the first of the priestly families, the family of
Joarib, would naturally enter first upon the service
of the temple, in consequence of its precedence,
and for the sake of order and regularity. We
have only therefore to find how many revolutions
of 168 days are contained in the interval between
the 22d of November, J.P. 4549, and any sub-
sequent date, and then, whether there be any or
no remainder, we shall immediately perceive which
of the classes of priests was in office at the time.
If there be no remainder, the family of Joarib was
just entering upon its office. If there be a remain-
der, equal to one, two, three, or four, &c. multiples
of seven, then the second, third, fourth, or fifth, &c.
90
~
course was about to enter upon its ministration.
Scaliger, conceiving J.P. 4711. to have been the
year, adopts this method to determine September
as the month in which our Saviour was born.
We have laboured on the contrary to render it
probable that Jesus was born in the year which
elapsed between the 3d of January, J.P. 4709,
and the 3d of January, J. P. 4710. Now Jesus
having been conceived between 5 and 6 months
after John the Baptist, if we add to them 9 other
months for the usual period of gestation, we shall
find that Jesus, if not born out of due course,
must have been born about 14 or 15 months after
his forerunner’s conception; consequently that
ministration of Zacharias, at the conclusion of
which John the Baptist was conceived, must be
sought for at least 14 months before the 3d of
January, J.P. 4710, that is, before the 3d of No-
vember, J. P. 4708, and not more than 14 monihs
before the 3d of January, J. P. 4709, that is, not
before the 3d of November, J. P. 4707. In other
words we must see at what time or times the 8th
class of priests, the family of Abia and Zacharias,
was in service during the year comprehended
between the 3d of November, J. P. 4707, and the
3d of November, J. P. 4708. Now in this interval
the course of Abia entered upon its turn of service
for the first time on the 3d of April, and for the
91
second time on the 18th of September, J. P. 4708:
Hence it follows that reckoning 14 months complete
from each of these ministrations, the birth of Jesus
took place either in the month of June, or in the
latter part of November or the beginning of
December, J. P. 4709.
A very obvious remark in opposition to this
theory of Scaliger is, that one principal fact in his
train of reasoning, namely the commencement of
the renewed celebration of the priestly .offices in
the temple in the days of Judas by the family of
Joarib, is nothing more than a conjecture. But
if the courses were indeed as tenacious of their
rights as they are stated, and may be proved both
from the nature of the case and from Josephus to
have been, it is hardly natural to suppose that
they would consent to the preference shewn to the
family of Joarib. It is a more consistent inference
to suppose that either they resumed their services
at that link in the chain in which it had been
broken off by Antiochus, or else that they proceeded
in the same manner as if their regularity had never
© For the latter of these calculations I am indebted to Petavius,
de Doctr. Temp. lib. xii. cap. 7. To ascertain the former, I
have merely reckoned back one complete cycle of ministration,
or 168 days from the 18th of Sept. J.P. 4708. Lamy has
himself furnished us with the necessary calculations upon his
own theory. For those upon Mann's hypothesis I am myself
responsible,
92
suffered any interruption at all. Lamy has per-
ceived the uncertainty which on account of this
circumstance attends the method pursued by Sca-
liger, and endeavours to avoid its force and esta-
blish his own opinion by another mode of computa-
tion, founded upon the same principles, but
leading to a different result." He takes for the
groundwork of his calculations a passage from the
Talmud, in which it is stated that the destruction
of the second temple at Jerusalem took place, like
that of the first, on the ninth‘day of the month Ab,
“in finem Sabbati, finemque Heptaeridos et Ephe-
meriam Joaribi,’” Now the ninth day of the
Jewish month Ab in that year, in which Jerusalem
was finally taken and destroyed by the Romans,
corresponds to the 4th of August, J.P. 4783,
which was also a sabbath-day. On that day,
therefore, the family of Joarib entered upon their
ministration in the temple, which always began
and ended at the time of the morning sacrifice on
the sabbath ;° and by following up the usual cal-
culations in a retrograde order, the times of service
for the course of Abia in any preceding year may
be found.
The authority of the Talmud, the foundation
~ “Lamy App. Chron. Part I. cap. vill. seet, 7, p- G1,
* Scaliger Nota in Fragm, p. 55.
95
of this theory, is not held in very high repute.
But then the coincidence of the month and day,
on which the first and second temples were
destroyed, has also been remarked as a singularity
by Josephus,’ and this partial confirmation of the
Talmudical legend by such a distinguished writer,
does certainly shed a degree of credibility over the
other circumstances it contains, to which without
that support they would not have been at all
entitled. I cannot however help remarking that
it is as common a fraud to add to marvellous but
acknowledged truth, as it is to fabricate inventions
entirely new. Yet did the conclusions of these
two theories correspond, and fix the services of
the same courses to the same periods, they would
throw mutual light and confirmation upon each
other, and the doubts I have suggested would be
scarcely wortha thought. But unfortunately this is
not the case. According to Lamy the course of
Abia will be found officiating in the temple on the
17th instead of the 3d of April, and on the 2d of
October instead of the 18th of September, J. P.
4708, in other words a fortnight later than they
are placed in the same year by the calculations of
Sealiger. This is not any material variation with
regard to the determination of the season of the
year at which Christ was born; but it is fatal to
‘De Bell, Jud. lib. vii, cap. 10, p. 958, F.
94
the accuracy of one, and renders dubious the
accuracy of both the contending parties.
But we are not yet at the end of the labyrinth.
There is stilla third theory, that of Mann,‘ formed
by an injudicious combination of the premises of
Lamy and Scaliger, and rendered in consequence
both more complicated and more liable to objection.
Mann takes for the basis of his computation the
second alternative proposed in the objection to
Scaliger. He imagines that after the restoration
of the daily sacrifice by Judas Maccabzeus the
priests proceeded in their ministrations in the same
manner as if they had continued through the
whole time of the profanation by Antiochus ; that
course entering upon its service on the 22d of
November, J. P. 4549, to which the turn would
regularly have belonged had their series and suc-
cession never been disturbed. But this is a mere
supposition. Josephus does indeed say" that the
division of the priests into 24 classes continued
down to his days, but he does not say that the
proper period of their several ministrations had
never been changed by any unavoidable cause.
The number and order of the classes he states to
have remained the same, but that proves nothing
8 De annis Christi, cap. xil. p. 86.
» Antiq. lib. vil. cap. 11. p. 249. A.
95
as to the unbroken continuity of their weekly
services, or the manner in which they might act
when any interruption occurred.
Be this however as it may, he assumes and
builds upon it as a fact. He observes that, ac-
cording to Ezra iii. 6. the daily sacrifice in the
temple after the Babylonian captivity, was resumed
on the Ist day of the month Tisri; that is, on the
24th of September, J.P. 4178, and that the temple
was ultimately destroyed by the Romans on the
Ath of August, J.P. 4783, the interval between
which dates amounts exactly to 22092 days, or
1315 cycles of priestly ministration complete.
Therefore, if the family of Joarib entered upon
its ministration at the former period,—and ?/f the
course and series remained undisturbed, notwith-
standing the suspension of their office during the
oppressions of Antiochus,—the same family had
just concluded its service at the latter date. It
is evident how much of this argument is condi-
tional. But that the family of Joarib had just
concluded its service at the destruction of the
second temple he deduces from the testimony of a
Jewish Chronicle called Seder Olam, in which is
the following passage: “Quum prius vastaretur
templum erat extremum Sabbati et rursus extremum
septimi anni erat. Praterea erat septimana sta-
tionis Joarib et nonus dies mensis Ab. Et ita
96
quoque hee omnia fuere in secundo excidio.”’
Did this quotation bear out his assertion (which
it does not) yet the book is according to Allix
even of less authority’ than that quoted by Lamy ;
so that after all, Mann’s hypothesis rests upon the
same unstable foundation as that of Scaliger,
namely, a conjecture, that after the interruption of
the Babylonian captivity the order of ministration
was recommenced in the family of Joarib, the
first upon the list. But this is not the only fault
of this theory. It is equally unsatisfactory in its
results, as in its origin, and, by differing from
both, only serves to increase the difficulty and
confusion which the two former had created.
For by placing the final destruction of the temple
of Jerusalem at the conclusion of the ministration
of the course of Joarib, instead of the beginning,
according to Lamy ; it fixes the two ministrations
of the course of Abia in J. P. 4708, one week
earlier than that chronologer, and one week later
than Scaliger; namely on the 10th of April and
the 25th of September. Whether Mann or Lamy
be right I deem it impossible to say. The pas-
sages they have quoted only inform us that the
temple was destroyed during the service of Joarib’s
family. The day of the destruction was indeed a
sabbath-day, and therefore of course either the
| Allis, ip. 50.
97
first or the last day of their service; but which,
{ consider as utterly indeterminable. I rather
incline to the side of Lamy.
In consequence of these variations in the three
hypotheses, it would now seem to be our duty
separately to examine the arguments in favour or
depreciation of each, and by this means determine
which has the best claim upon our attention and
support. But we are spared the necessity of so
laborious a task by those other difficulties which
lie at the root of every theory which either has
been or can be framed upon the subject.
I consider the eighth chapter to be one of the
most impartial and judicious in Allix’s work upon
the natal year of Christ. Yet he cannot at any
time long forbear advancing some strange and
indefensible opinion, and consequently we find
him at the conclusion maintaining that py éxros
in St. Luke i. 26, does not mean, as it has appeared
to every commentator who has taken the trouble
of comparing the 26th and 36th verses together
to mean, the sixth month after the conception of
Elizabeth, but the sixth month, the month Elul of
the Jewish year. This conjecture he can only
have hazarded, because its admission would be
favourable to his idea, that the birth of Jesus took
place in spring. But if it be necessary to bolster
G
98
up that date by such untenable assertions, I should,
for my own part, be content to resign it altogether.
The body of the chapter is however less objec-
tionable. After considering Scaliger’s theory as it
has been stated above, and shewing that though
he makes it subservient to the establishment of the
month of September for the nativity of Christ, it
is equally favourable to those who wish to fix the
nativity in spring, he proceeds to state those ob-
jections which tend to invalidate his conclusions,
as well as those of every other writer.
The first objection to. any perfect accuracy
upon this point is deduced from Nehemiah, chap.
xii. The prophet in verse 1, 2, &c. recounts only
22 and not 24 priests as the chief of the priests
who went up to the temple with Zerubbabel ; and
from this Allix concludes that it is at least proble-
matical whether all the 24 courses of priests
returned to Jerusalem after the captivity of
Babylon, or whether only 22 being mentioned,
we are not bound to suppose that two had failed
or perhaps remained behind in Babylon. Again,
the prophet, verse 12, 13, &c. mentions.only 21
priests as chiefs of the fathers in the days of
Joiakim. From this circumstance compared with
that which has been stated above, Allix infers
that the number of families or courses of priests
had changed in the interval between Zerubbabel
99
and Joiakim, and consequently that any calcnlation,
formed upon the supposition of their number con-
tinuing always the same, must not and cannot be
depended on.
The whole force of this objection rests upon
the assumption, that there were no more families
than there are chiefs of the priests or families spe-
cified by Nehemiah. But this is positively contra-
dicted by the 17th verse, in which Nehemiah
places the name of Piltai as chief of two families,—
those of Miniamin and Moadiah. Hence it is evi-
dent that, though only 21 chiefs of families are
specified in the days of Joiakim, there were still
22 families or courses. Consequently Allix’s
objection cannot be relied on. The number of
families was the same in the days of Zerubbabel
and Joiakim, and it is not therefore certain that
only 22 families returned after the captivity,
because only 22 chiefs of families are mentioned
as having gone up with Zerubbabel. It is pro-
bable that 22 chiefs may in this latter instance
have presided over 24 families, as it is certain that
21 did over 22 in the former. The existence of
24 courses to the very last is indeed testified both
by Josephus and the Talmud.« Josephus states
that the distribution of the priests remained un-
* Antig. lib. vii, cap, 11, p.249. A. Lamy App. Chron, i. 8.7.
G 2
100
changed in his time, and the Talmud accounts for
it by remarking that, although only four of the
original families returned from the captivity, they
were subdivided, as before, into 24 classes.
Allix contends, secondly, that these theories
are uncertain, because their accuracy depends
not only upon there being 24 families of priests,
but also upon each family ministering for one
week in succession. This he asserts cannot be
allowed. If several families were united under
one chief, those united families would be counted
only as one, and would therefore minister only one
week, instead of several. I acknowledge that
there is considerable force in this remark, and
am inclined to allow that it throws such a degree
of uncertainty upon all the computations, as to.
make them unsafe to be relied upon with implicit
credit. Itis needless however to insist upon them
any further. For without taking into consideration
the dubiousness of the premises of these theories,
there is one circumstance which will always render
their conclusions indefinite and therefore useless
to a certain extent. When I observed that Jesus
was born between 14 and 15 months after the
conception of John the Baptist, I assumed as a
necessary condition that he was born after the
usual period of gestation. But this does not
appear to have been universally admitted amongst
10]
the ancient Christians. We have the testimony
of Epiphanius' to the existence of an opinion
which stated that Jesus was born into the ‘world
at the expiration of the seventh or in the middle
of the tenth month from the day of his conception.
That these opinions are neither absurd in themselves
nor inconsistent with experience, the evidence of
the celebrated Dr. Hunter™ is a sufficient proof;
1 = , ? ‘ t e \ © ‘ >
Twwv EYOVTWY é€v Tapadoce, ws Str ia EMTA BHVOV
eyevvyOn. Her. 51, cap. xxix. pag. 451. A. And a little after-
wards, tives 8€ Paciv.essseee WS ElvaL Evvea pyvas, Kal pEepas
dexamévre, Kat Wpas Téoocapas.
It is possible that the idea of our Saviour’s birth after a seven
month’s conception may have originated in some superstitious
notions with regard to the luckiness of that period of gestation.
ris yap ou oidev, says Philo Judwus, (Nop. iepwv ’AAAnyopiov,
lib.i. p, 45. ed. Mangey,) dr: trav Bpepav ta pev emrapnuaia
youpa k.7.é€. But for the latter opinion no similar reason can,
I believe, be assigned.
™ Query. ‘* What is the usual period for a woman’s going with
child? What is the earliest time for a child’s being born alive,
and what the latest ?”
Reply 1. “The usual period is nine calendar months, but
ihere is very commonly a difference of one, two, or three weeks,”
2. “A child may be born alive at any time from three
months ; but we see none born with powers of coming to manhood,
or of being reared, before seven calendar months, or near that
time. At six months it cannot be.”
3. “I have known a woman bear a living child, in a perfectly
natural way, fourteen days later than nine calendar months, and
believe two women to have been delivered of a child alive, in a
natural way, above ten calendar months from the hour of
conception,”
This
102
and it is difficult to account for their origin in the
present case, except upon the supposition of some
actual deviation from the course of nature in the
event to which it alludes. If then we admit the
truth of this tradition, (and we can never posi-
tively demonstrate that it ought not to be believed)
we must remove the date we have already derived
from the supposed time at which Zacharias was
ministering in the temple, and fix the birth of
Jesus either two months earlier or nearly one
month later in the spring or autumn; but yet
without any certainty that we are acting right in
making the alteration.
Upon the whole then it would appear that we
are unable from the succession of the courses of
the priests to determine with accuracy and without
hesitation the season of the year at which either
Jesus or his precursor the Baptist was born. The
mode of calculation is too questionable and the
conclusion to which it leads too indeterminate to
be relied upon in any matter of real difficulty and
importance.
2. That there were shepherds abiding in the
This opinion would almost seem to have been framed to meet
the question as to the possibility of the traditions recorded by
Epiphanius,
103
fields by night," that there was a general census
of the inhabitants of Judea, and that shortly after
the purification of the Virgin the parents of Jesus
were commanded by God to go into Egypt, are
facts which form the substance of the second
argument by which it is attempted to demonstrate
the period of the year at which Christ was born.
The end however to which these circumstances
are capable of being applied is not so much to
decide affirmatively in favour of any one particular
hypothesis, as to determine negatively against the
common date by which the nativity is placed in
the calendars of all modern churches in the middle
of winter, and on the 25th of December. But
"Luc. cap. i. ver. 8. “ Quippe de nocturnis excubiis non
dicit Evangelista. Interpretes quidem verbum aypaview reddunt
vegilare, vel excubare. Sed melius vertas, sub dio agere. Proprie
vero, ut origo indicat, notat év a@ypw dudiferOax. Id vero non
diurno minus tempori convenit quam nocturno.” Vossius de
Natali Christi. p. 81. How could so learned a man have fallen
into so egregious an error? Had he never read the words of
St. Luke? Toiméves joav év tH yapa TH avTH dypavdowTes Kat
pu\accovres pudacas THE NYKTOS-~ Keeping watch over their
flocks by night.” I have not made this remark so much for the
sake of finding fault with Vossius, as of shewing that it is very
possible, by trusting too implicitly to the treacherous impressions
of memory, to make mistakes which are almost unaccountable,
and hence to infer with regard to some similar mistakes of Irenzeus
and Epiphanius which will be afterwards noticed, that they most
probably sprung from a similar cause, a dependence upon memory,
and not from their quoting from copies of the New Testament,
different from those which are now in use.
104
even upon this limited application of the argument
the opinions of writers are extremely various.
By Scaliger and Allix they are held to be de-
structive of the commonly received date; by
Petavius and Lamy they are treated as frivolous
and unimportant. These are authoritative names
and opposed to each other, and their difference
makes it a duty, even at the hazard of prolixity, to
give a statement of the bearings of the question,
and thus enable the reader to judge for himself.
That the shepherds could not have been
abiding in the fields by night in the middle of
winter has been repeated from mouth to mouth
with a sort of triumphant confidence, which is by
no means justified by the loose and scanty infor-
mation we possess with reference to the habits of
the pastoral life in Palestine. It is certain from
the testimony of several travellers that some of
the wandering Arabian tribes dwell in their tents
in the open plains (the very meaning of the Evan-
gelist’s term a-ypavdotvyres) both in winter and
summer.’ On the other hand, it is probable, that
St. Luke did not allude, under the word zoméves,
to any pastoral tribes, but to the herdsmen of the
neighbouring village of Bethlehem. Now it was
° Harmer’s Observations, vol. I. chap. 2. p. 77. To judge
properly of this question the reader should examine the Ist and 2d
chapters both of the Ist and 3d volumes.
105
not customary to turn out their flocks to pasture
until a short time before the period of shearing,
or in March. This is the opinion of Harmer ;?
and Volney® divides the land of Palestine into two
climates, that of the mountains and the plains ;
in the former of which he declares that even as far
as Jerusalem (in the immediate neighbourhood
of which Bethlehem was situated on very high
ground,) the snow usually continues from Novem-
ber to March. If this be correct, it is impossible to
despise the objection, though not quite conclusive.
The improbability of a Roman edict or officer
appointing a general census of all the inhabitants
of Judea, and requiring the immediate and simul-
taneous presence even of the sick, the infirm, and
the pregnant in the cities to which they respectively
belonged at the most inclement part of the year
is another argument very strongly urged against
fixing the nativity to the 25th of December. I
should have had more dependence upon this argu-
ment, did I always find governments consulting
the ease and comfort of the subjects for whom they
legislate, or had Judea been situated in a latitude
where the climate was more ungenial and severe,
or had I not known that one of the principal feasts
® Observy. vol. III. p. 41.
1'Travels in Syr. and Pal. vol. I. p, 291.
106
of the Jews, the festival of the dedication, was
annually celebrated in December.’ I will not
however disguise from the reader that I have
found one instance in which the execution of a
somewhat similar measure was deferred by the
constituted authorities of Judea upon the very
ground which we are now considering, the incle-
mency of the winter season. When Ezra upon
the return of the Jews from the Babylonian cap-
tivity found that there were many, even amongst
the priests and Levites as well as the people at
large, who had violated the Mosaic law and married
foreign wives by whom they had children, he
commanded them to remove the pollution by im-
mediately separating themselves from the strange
women and their families... This was in the ninth
Jewish month, and the twentieth day of the month.
Those who had been guilty of this transgression
confessed their fault, and expressed their readi-
ness to remedy it as far as lay in their power.
‘‘ But forasmuch as they that had transgressed in
this thing were many, and it was winter, and a time
of much rain, so that they could not stand without,
and it was not a work of a day or two,” they re-
quested that “the rulers of the people might stay,
* John x. 22.
* Compare Ezra, chap, x, and Ist of Esdras, chap. ix, with
Josephus Antig, lib. xi, cap. 5. p. 370.
10%
and let all them which had taken strange wives
come at appointed times with the elders of every
city, and the judges thereof.” This was complied
with, and the inquisition, which was begun on the
first day of the tenth month, was continued, in
consideration of the severity of the winter and
the inconvenience which would necessarily arise
from a compulsory edict demanding the immediate
presence of all the wives, and children, and elders,
and judges at that inclement season, until the first
day of the first month. This is a case exactly in
point, and may be applied with great propriety to
the decree for a general census in Judea, which
was much more extensive in its operation,—for it
comprehended the whole of the inhabitants of the
land ;—and yet not half so pressing and important
in its nature,—for it involved no violation of their
religion or law. It would therefore, if taken in
December, have occasioned more difficulty and
misery in its execution, without having the same
excuse to justify a departure from the principles
of prudence and humanity.
The third part of this objection, which states
the incredibility of the Deity sending Joseph and his
wife and child into Egypt, is not of much weight.
The journey did not commence till more than forty
days after the birth of Jesus. Consequently if he
was born on the 25th of December the spring would,
108
in that southern climate, have made some ad-
vances before they set out.
The preceding remarks will, I trust, have pretty
clearly determined the value of the arguments to
which they refer, and shewn that no method of
reasoning which has hitherto been attempted by
learned men is sufficiently precise or satisfactory
to determine our opinion either for or against
any particular hypothesis respecting the season
of the year at which our Saviour was born.
Tradition is the only remaining mode of solving
our doubts, and to that we must in the last
place direct our attention, and weigh the pre-
valence and antiquity of the traditions which
have reached us in such an even balance as
may shew on which side the scale should prepon-
derate.
An ancient tradition of the oriental church
fixed the nativity to the 6th of January, and that
opinion prevailed amongst the Greeks until the
Ath century, when the authority of Chrysostom
and the growing ascendancy of the Roman see,
gave its decisions a more than ordinary degree of
consequence, and brought its hypothesis into ge-
neral repute. Since that period the 25th of
December, which differs so slightly from the other
that they may be considered as equivalent, has
109
prevailed almost exclusively in Christendom, and
been externally acquiesed in, though not perhaps
internally approved by believers of every denomi-
nation for the space of more than 1400 years.
On this account the history of its origin and pro-
gress is a curious and interesting subject of specu-
lation, and we have fortunately a fertile source of
information in the Homily which Chrysostom has
expressly dedicated to its consideration.’ A critical
discussion of the day of Christ’s birth certainly
seems a singularly unedifying subject for an epis-
copal exhortation to an assembly of Christian
worshippers. In modern times it would scarce be
tolerated even in an University pulpit, in-any other
form than as a ‘“‘ Concioad Clerum.’’ But formerly
it was otherwise, and we should be thankful,—
thankful that, for our use, the curious and subtle
spirit of the Greeks delighted in such barren spe-
culations, and still more so, that the temper of the
present times demands from the preacher something
more intimately connected with the practice of
piety, and the moral wants and happiness of
mankind.
How long the opinion that Christ was born on
the 25th of December had prevailed in the West",
* Oper. vol, V. Serm. 31. in Christi natalem.
* Sulpicius Severus, about a. Dp. 401, is said to be the first
who
110
before it was introduced into Constantinople its
Bishop has not been enabled to say. He merely
observes that it was of long standing and general
reception. But whatever was its credit and anti-
quity at Rome, it had only been very lately trans-
ported across the Mediterranean, nor could it
boast of a more than two years’ residence in the
East. These two circumstances, its novelty in the
East and its long continuance in the West, natu-
rally gave rise to two opposite parties in the
church, some rejecting it on account of its late
importation amongst the oriental, and some em-
bracing it on account of its early admission amongst
the occidental Christians. In consequence of these
differences and doubts Chrysostom proceeds to state
the three proofs by which he conceives its certainty
may be established.
His first argument is extremely weak. It is
the rapid progress of the opinion, and the general
acquiescence of the oriental Christians ; an argu-
ment which he defends by the language of
Gamaliel,—“ If this counsel had not been of God
it would have come to nought.”
who mentions it. Hist. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. 39. “ Christus natus
est, Salino and Rufino Consulibus, 8 Kalend. Januarias.” It 1s
plain however, that he speaks of it as generally admitted—He is
positive, ‘‘ Natus est.”
_
Lit
His second argument appears to have a better
foundation, but after all will be found defective.
It rests upon the time and records of the general
census during which our Saviour was born. After
having quoted the well-known passage of St. Luke‘
which mentions the taxing of Cyrenius, he justly
observes that it is evident from hence that Jesus
was born during the first taxing, and then proceeds
in the following terms: Kata TH TpPwOTHY amor papny
éréy On. Kal TOLS apXatots Tors Sypocia Ketmeévow Kwoueu
émt THS Pons efeoTw EVTVXOVTA, Kal TOV Kalpoy TIS
atoypapys pwabovra, axpifsas eidévar Tov Povdopevor.
Tt ouv T™pos NMS, nat, TovTO TOUS OUK OVTAS EKEL OUTE
Taparyevouevous ; aX’ akove Kal pa) aria Tet OTL Tapa TOV
axpiBas TavTa EWoTwY, Kal THY TOdW EKElWNY OLKOVVTwY
mapery payuev Tv yuépav ot yap KEL var pifsovres,
avodev kal ex maracas ILAPAAOSEQS avtiy émitedovv-
TES, AUTOL VUY aUTAS Huw THY Yyvwow), Suerréuvavro. 1
have quoted this passage at length, because there is
something ambiguous and rather sophistical in its
construction. After having stated that our Saviour
was born in the days of the taxing, and that the
documents relative to that birth or taxing might
be inspected by any one in the archives at Rome,
he very naturally introduces one of his audience
as objecting that, having never been in Rome, he
had no opportunity of searching the records in
’ Chap, il. 1, 2, &e,
112
question. In answer to this remark, Chrysostom
observes that they ought not to require ocular
proof, but rely upon the fidelity of those Romans
from whom they had received the account, and
who were well acquainted with the fact. Having
made this assertion we might have expected that
he would have gone on to rest the proof of the
credibility of these Romans upon their personal
inspection of the boasted records. Instead of this
it is curious to observe that he altogether omits
this very natural ground of belief, and builds their
claim to accuracy alone and entirely upon their
being residents at Rome, and having inherited
that ancient éradition, of which they had at length
condescended to give the benefit to the East.
From this it is pretty clear that the records in
question did not then exist at Rome, and _ that,
after all, the opinions in favour of the 25th of
December were grounded only upon general tra-
dition, and not upon any established and admissible
documents. Indeed it is scarcely conceivable that
the public documents of the census, however ac-
curate, would mention the very day of Jesus’s
birth, with which they had nothing to do. They
might insert his name, and the time at which the
census was taken might be marked, but that is
the utmost we could expect.
Chrysostom’s third reason, and that upon which
13
he has dwelt the longest, is a deduction from
the erroneous supposition that Zacharias, being
high priest, saw the vision, which announced
the birth of John the Baptist, in the sanctuary
on the tenth day of Tisri, the seventh. Jewish
month. It is unnecessary to follow him through
his copious observations upon this error; but
{ must be allowed positively to assert that he
never hints at it as the foundation of the opinion
he was recommending, but only as a_ proof,
though indeed a powerful one and of a most
convincing nature, capestépay Kal ryvwpipwrépav
arodcéw. I have thought it necessary to enter
this caution, because several writers‘ have boldly
assumed that the date of the Latin church was
founded solely upon the error of Zacharias being the
high priest. That this erroneous supposition was
maintained even from the fourth century I admit,
and that it was used as a strong confirmation of
that hypothesis which fixed the nativity on the
25th of December; but I deny that the hypothesis
in question originated from the error. I rather
consider the error to have been adopted to
defend the opinion which had previously been
formed.
Irom the above statement it is clear that the
“ Mann, Allix, &c,
H
114
25th of December has a long and widely spread
tradition in its support as the day of our Saviour’s
nativity, and notwithstanding the difficulty under
which it labours I should not feel incli-
ned to reject its great though. unknown an-
tiquity, unless I could produce other opinions
of which the authority is greater, and the
antiquity is known. But it so happens that
such opinions do exist in the writings of one
of the oldest and most respectable of the Chris-
tian Fathers. In the midst of that collection of
miscellaneous matter which bears the title of the
Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus,* he has de-
voted one portion of his work to the discussion of
the year and the month in which our Saviour was
born, and states it, apparently as his own opinion,
that there were between the birth of Jesus and
the death of Commodus, 194 years, one month,
and thirteen days. The numbers being in this
passage principally expressed by words instead of
literal signs leave no room for that doubt respecting
the accuracy of the reading which is so serious a
difficulty in the settlement of his other computa-
tions. We have only therefore to count back
194 years from the 31st of December, J. P. 4905,
and we get to the 31st of December, J. P. 4711,
one month and 13 days before which, or about the
« Lib, i, p. 406,
115
middle of November it is the declaration of
Clemens that Jesus was born. With the year
which he assigns for this event I have now nothing
to do, and it has already been sufficiently demon-
strated to be false. The day and the month are
at present our only object, and I certainly could
have wished that this Father had left us his own
sentiments alone upon record. For living, as he
did, amongst the Egyptians, who were a people
curious and learned in their enquiries into Chro-
nology,’ and presiding over the acadamy of Alex-
andria, the earliest and most celebrated of all the
Christian schools, and where, if any where, the
true tradition was likely to be found, his statements
are entitled to a more than ordinary degree of
deference. But he was too honest to disguise
from his readers the fact that his own was not the
universal opinion, and that there were others who
pretended to have been most laboriously accurate
in their investigation of this date, who differed
from him altogether in their results, and fixed the
birth of Jesus, some to the 25th of the Egyptian
month Pachon, or in May, and some to the 24th
or 25th of the month Pharmuthi, or in April.
These then are the most ancient and authentic
¥ « Movit me illud quod Egyptii pre gentibus aliis temporum
fuerunt gnari, et illorum que ad tempus natalitium pertinent
curiosi,” Vossius de Natali Christi, p. 81.
H 2
116
traditions upon the question we are now agitating,
and they fix the birth of Christ respectively to the
spring or the autumn of the year. Which then
are we to prefer, for they are both contemporary /
There could be no doubt in my mind as to the
propriety of bowing to the authority of Clemens
himself, were it not for one circumstance. The
season of the year at which Clemens fixes the
birth of Jesus will, if adopted, throw us into a
difficulty which has before been stated, that of
making the flight into Egypt take place in the
very middle of winter. In this point of view it
is more objectionable even than the 25th of
December. Upon this account -I had rather fix
‘my choice upon the month of April or of May,’
which so far as I can see are free from every
positive objection, and will afterwards appear to
have still further claims upon our attention.
As the ultimate conclusion therefore of this
very long discussion, we arrive at J.P. 4709
as the year, and April or May as the month in
which the blessed Saviour of the world was most
probably born. In other words he may have
* We know in fact that a general assessment was afterwards
made in Judea in spring by Cyrenius after the banishment of
Archelaus, J. P. 4720.—“ Et sane illa Egyptiorum opinio non
facilé respuenda, partim ob antiquitatem ejus, partim quia gens
in annorum ' doctrini esset exercitata, taliumque curiosa, ?
Vossius de Nat. Christi, p. 80.
117
‘been born about two years before the death of
Herod which took place in the beginning of J. P.
4711, and to confirm this conclusion we have the
testimony of Epiphanius in the third century.
Epiphanius relates it, apparently as the general
opinion of the primitive Christians, that Joseph
and Mary remained in Egypt somewhat less than
two years." Now as we have endeavoured to shew
that they went into Egypt only about forty days
after the birth of Jesus, continued there not quite
two years, and most certainly returned from thence
upon the death of Herod, it necessarily follows
that Jesus was born about two years before the
death of Herod.
*"Iwongp, says Epiphanius, (Her..51, cap. ix. vol. I. p. 431,)
dmodipacKe Gua TH Mad Kal TH MNnTpl avrou eis “Avyyrov, Kal
GAXa bvo Eryn Toe Exeioe. It is the expression a@AAa dvo érn,
‘other two years,” which proves them not to have been complete
years; for he is comparing these years with those two imperfect
years,’ which, in his erroneous opinion, intervened between the
birth of Christ, and the arrival of the Magi. Therefore they also
were imperfect years.
{18
CHAP. IV.
DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING THE PROBABLE DATE
OF THE NATIVITY.
SECTION LI.
To what Taxing St. Luke, ch. ii. v. 1 & 2,
does not allude.
We have already determined the probable period
of our Saviour’s birth, and fixed it to the spring of
J.P. 4709, that is, about two years before the
death of Herod. A third question, which we pro-
posed for discussion, still remains to be considered,
and it is this ;—-whether this probable date corres-
ponds with the other chronological marks which
are to be found in the New Testament. -
St. Luke is the only one of the sacred historians
who has deemed it necessary to furnish his reader
with any statement of those chronological marks
_ which might determine the period of the principal
transactions of our Saviour’s life; and his second
119
and third chapters are interspersed with such a pro-
fusion of these dates as to a casual observer would
seem calculated to set the question at rest for ever.
It is otherwise,—there is scarcely one of these de-
signations of time which has not afforded to the
adversaries of the Gospel a ground of cavil, and
to its defenders a task of difficulty.
The present chapter will be occupied in the
examination of the only date and the only difficulty
deducible from these recorded marks of time in the
Gospel of St. Luke, which regards the probable
period of our Saviour’s birth, when sige: as
unconnected with his baptism.
Evyévero o€ év Tats ypepais éxeivats, €&mOe Soypa
mapa Kaicapos Avyovotou aroypapecOa macay THv
oixoupevyv. AvTn Dy amorypapy TPWTH éryeveTo nYys-
povevovTos THs Xupias Kupyviov.
«« And it came to pass in those days, that there
went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all
the world should be taxed. And this taxing
was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria.”
Such is the authorized English translation" of
* The proper translation of Luke ii, 2. is ‘This first taxing
took place, Cyrenius being governor of Syria;” and so it has
uniformly
120
the first and second verses of the second chapter
of St. Luke; and it then proceeds to state, that
during this taxing our Saviour was born. Now
this is an absolute contradiction not only to that
date which we have assigned for the nativity of
Jesus, but to that of every other writer, and
equally to the vulgar era itself. The vulgar era
begins J. P. 4713, but Cyrenius was not sent into
Syria as governor until J. P. 4720, seven years at
least after the commencement of the vulgar era,
and eleven years after the birth of Jesus, J.P.
4709. A contradiction therefore there certainly
is, and where are we to look for a solution? There
are but four causes to which it can be attributed.
ist, An error in the translation. 2d, A corrup-
tion in the reading of the passage. 3d, The
uniformly been understood by the Christian Fathers, and in the
more ancient versions, the Syriac, &c. That the writers in those
early ages should have gone on from one to another in ignorance of
the difficulty which is now universally admitted to exist, and that
those acute adversaries of the Gospel, Celsus and Julian, should
never have discovered the inconsistency, might astonish us more,
were we not acquainted with the egregious errors which in former
days were frequently committed by all sorts of writers upon
subjects of Chronology and History. The absurdities of ‘Tacitus
when speaking of the Jews are too well known to require a repe-
tition, and Justin Martyr, “regnasse ait Herodem in Judea,
quando Ptolomeus Philadelphus libros legis vertendos curavit:
qui tantus est sive prochronismus sive metachronismus ut oculis
meis, cum illa lego vix credam.”
Casaub. Exercit. ad Bar. i. 26. p. 112.
121
mistake of the writer. 4th, Our own ignorance
of the means of reconciliation.
ist. The present translation was for a long
time universally admitted, and a fault was never
discovered until a difficulty was felt. Since that
time grammatical distortions and forced interpre-
tations have been multiplied without number, and
I am sorry to say also without advantage ; for the
translation of our English Bibles, or at least one
very similar to it, is the only one which the words
in their present form seem capable of bearing, and
all the proposed improvements are liable to some
insuperable objection, and in strict consistency
with the rules of grammar and the genius of the
Greek language are altogether inadmissible. For
if you examine them narrowly, you will find that
they are the rude and awkward attempts of men
of ingenuity pressed by difficulties, and ready to
catch at any means of relief; that, though they
remove the historical, they place a grammatical
stumbling-block in the way of still greater magni-
tude; in short, that they are nothing more than
the bare assertions of their various inventors,
unsupported by any parallel instances either in
sacred or profane authors.
Beza seems to have been the first ; Casaubon?
a ixercit, ad: bar, 1, ol,
122
is the most earnest of those who have endeavoured
to reconcile the statement of St. Luke with that of
other historians and the real fact, by supposing
that Cyrenius was sent into Judea with an extra-
ordinary power and commission for the purpose
of making the assessment, and that the word
nryepovevovtos refers to that extraordinary commis-
sion, and not to the regular office of president of
Syria which he afterwards filled; but if we follow
this suggestion, and translate the passage accord-
ingly,—“ This first enrolment was made by Cyre-
nius when governing Syria with extraordinary
powers,” we not only make St. Luke use the word
nryeuovevovros in a sense of extreme ambiguity, but
also in one directly contrary to the use he has
decidedly made of the same word and form of
expression in the first verse of the very next
chapter. “H-yeuovevovros Tovriov TiAarou ris ’Lov-
datas has always and most justly been understood
of the actual government of Pontius Pilate; and a
deviation from that meaning in the case of Cyre-
nius could only be justified upon the hypothesis of
the author’s being ignorant that he afterwards
became the ordinary governor of Syria. It would
therefore admit the truth of a fact, which is almost
all that the most strenuous opposers of Christianity
have ever contended for,—an historical mistake
on the part of St. Luke.
123
If on the other hand we adopt the explanation
sanctioned by Lardner, and say, that the genuine
meaning is, that this was the first taxing of Cyre-
nius the governor of Syria, taking »-yenovevovros
for an official designation, in the same manner as
we might speak of the actions of the Protector
Cromwell, although speaking of a period previous
to his attainment of that situation, we remove
indeed the above-mentioned objection, but sub-
stitute in its place one still more insurmountable.
Lardner in support of this interpretation has pro-
duced a variety of passages to shew that the Greek
authors frequently made use of participles, when
speaking of titles or dignities, a fact which I
believe no one will deny, provided the article or
some substantive, as avyp, be prefixed, which is
universally the case in the instances quoted by
this author TQ Bacirévovr. Madpxw Ouyatépes meév
éryévovto mAciovs. The article here is absolutely
necessary, and the meaning I apprehended would
have been completely different had 7» been omitted,
and the words BaowAévovts Map only expressed.
‘Autos dé Ure TOY ris ywpas rryeuovevovtos debeis.
Josephus. Kai 7v ouodoyoupéves 0 Ovapos Baciiuxod
ryévous, Eryryovos Loéuov TOY cepi AiBavov retpap-
xovvros. The article is here again an essential
part of the sentence, and therefore inserted. The
© Credibility, vol. I. p. 319.
124
only passage in which the article is actually omitted
is one from Dionysius,’ which however Lardner
has very justly considered as not particularly ap-
propriate ; and upon which he has consequently,
by placing it in the margin, shewn that he did not
lay much stress :—it runs thus, —"’Ovoua 6é xowov ot
ovmravTes ovro. Aativoe exrnOncav ex ANAPOS
duvacrevovTos Tav TOrwy Aativov. Let this be trans-
lated as Lardner proposes,—“ The Latins were so
called from Latinus a king of that country ;”
still it is not a parallel instance, nor of the slightest
advantage to the case in point, because there is
an evident and decided difference between using
the participle cuvacrevwr, absolutely and without any
adjunct, in the sense of a king, and using it in
that sense when joined to an article or the sub-
stantive avjp, as is here done; at any rate, the
arrangement of the Greek text of St. Luke posi-
tively forbids our taking his words in this sense.
In their present position, and without the article
prefixed, jryeuovevovros Kupyviov, must necessarily be
either a genitive absolute, or depend upon the
preposition éx! understood, ‘‘ either of which” (as
Lardner says,”) ‘does as fully express Cyrenius’s
being president of Syria, as any form of expression
can do.”
If, lastly, we coincide with the opinion of
* Antiq. Rom, lib, i. p. 76. * Credib. vol. I. p. 317.
125.
Herwart, and translate the passage thus,—‘ This
was the first taxing made before that by Cyrenius
governor of Syria, we must of course take rpwry
in the sense of priority as to time, a sense which
it certainly bears in one or two instances. Many
of the examples produced in proof of this usage of
aporos are not to the purpose, and many of them
have been shewn to be capable of other and
perhaps better interpretations. Lardner‘ there-
fore has reduced, and I think justly, to the number
of four those which have any pretensions to justify
the suggested translation of St. Luke. 1. [po rév
dvTws OvTwY Kal TwV dAwWL apyav err Oeos eis, mpwros
kal Tov mpwTou Oeov kai Baciréws ;* but perhaps in
this instance the word zpéros ought to be ex-
plained rather with a reference to pre-eminence
in point of dignity, than priority in point of time,
and if so the example is irrelevant. 2. éoyatn trav
viv 1 BYTHP hei? 3. Kal Tpw@Tos éaTepavovTo
Tov add\wv;' but these two latter instances differ
from that of St. Luke, inasmuch as zpéros refers,
in both, to a priority over many, and not over one
only, and expresses therefore a comparison between
many, and not between two; according to the
rule of Ammonius, rpwros yap émi roAd@v, TpOTEpos
oé éxt ovo. They differ therefore from the
" Credib. vol. I. p.312. * Jamblich. de Myster. §. 8. cap. 2,
" 2 Maccab, vii. 41. ‘Dion. Halic. H.R. lib. iv. eap. 3.
“ Lardner, Credib, vol, I. p, 305,
126
Evangelist, and are only analogous to that expres-
sion, exyaTy mavrwy, in St. Mark, xii. 22, which is
explained by St. Matthew in the corresponding
passage, xxil. 27, by the phrase tcrepov mavtwv.
4. wati ove édorvyicOn o Aoryos pov mpwTds por TOV
‘Tovda emorpéwa tov Bacidéa euoi;' Of all the
examples produced this complex construction has
the best right to be considered a confirmation of
Herwart’s opinion. ‘The resemblance however
both here and in the passages before cited is defec-
tive in one material circumstance, the genitive in all
these cases is the genitive of a substantive, which
may be distinctly referred to mpéros, and cannot
indeed possibly admit of any other regimen, or any
other sense. Insert the participle, read écyarn, Tav
Vio ntyeuovevovTwv, 1 pytyp éTerevTyoev, and ambi-
guity and obscurity is the immediate result, and the
same in each of the other passages. The idea ofa
genitive absolute is necessarily forced upon the ima-
gination; and I apprehend that, had a participle
agreeing with the substantive been found in any of
these quotations, there would have been the same
doubt about them which there is about the passage
of St. Luke, and no one would have ventured to in-
terpret them in the sense they now bear, except
compelled to it by some difficulty which he could not
otherwise remove. Therefore the verse under our
12 Sam. xix, 43.
127
present consideration in order to be parallel ought
to have been written as follows :—airy 4 aroypapy
mpwTn eryévero THE™ (aroypadis) nryenovevovTos Tis
Svpias Kupnviov; and though I would not positively
decide in a point confessedly so intricate, yet I can
scarce allow that TpwTN NYEMovEevovTos, K.T. €. can
with propriety be rendered ‘before Cyrenius was
governor of Syria.” It labours besides under this
disadvantage, that though it was originally pro-
pounded by a writer, who is deservedly held in such
high estimation as Scaliger, it was after mature
deliberation resigned and rejected by its author as
untenable and unsound."
2. Since then the contradiction cannot fairly
be ascribed to the mis-conception of St. Luke’s
translators, it may perhaps reasonably be regarded
as arising from some corruption in the text itself,
to rectify which we must examine the various
emendations which have been proposed by learned:
men; but from these I am afraid we shall derive
very little satisfaction. To substitute Sarupvivov
or KowriAtov for Kupnviov, is to cut, rather than
™ Would there be any great objection to the insertion of zn,
into the text? The codex Beza reads the passage thus, abr 7
aroypaghy eyevéero mpwTn ryepovevovtos THs Lupias Kupnviov,
and after the ry in mpwrn the eye of the copyist might easily
have omitted the word rye, and passed on to sfyepovevovros.
" Casaub, Exercit, ad, Bar. i, 32,
128
untie, the knot, and that too in the rudest manner
imaginable. To read azpo trys with Whitby for
apwry would be to make the sentence extremely
awkward, and to adopt the bungling conjecture
of Michaelis (rpwrn mpo ztys) would be, in the
words of his learned translator,° to make “ the
Greek of the passage really too bad to have been
written by St. Luke, and the whole construction
to savour neither of Greek nor Hebrew.” Every
attempt then to reconcile the passage with histo-
rical truth having failed, we must either leave it in
its original state, or else strike out some new
means of solving the difficulty; and as to be
unsuccessful amidst so many great names can at
Jeast be no disgrace, I feel the less hesitation in
offering the following conjecture to the judgment
of the learned.
Amongst the various instances brought forward
to prove that zparos is sometimes taken in a sense
of priority, is the following from 2 Sam. xix. 43.
apwrdtocos éyo*H ov. Now if there is any part
of the verse in question in which 7 might naturally
be conceived to have been omitted, and to which
if it be restored, the construction will be easy, and
the meaning unexceptionable, it will at least be a
probable argument for supplying it in that place,
° Bishop Marsh.
129
and supposing it to have been inadvertently left
out By some careless transcriber. But it is evident
that nothing could be more easy than the omission
of the particle 7 between éryevero-and NTYEMOVEVOVTOS,
because the latter word beginning with the same
letter the eye of the copyist might inadvertently
glide from the one to the other without his ever
stopping to consider the meaning of what he wrote :
nay, had he even paid the deepest attention to the
sense of his author, he might nevertheless, with the
very best intentions, have purposely made the
alteration; for there is no necessity for supposing
a transcriber to be perfectly acquainted with the
history of the period to which the work he was
copying related. Perceiving therefore that the
expression was peculiar and uncommon, and
perhaps considering from this peculiarity that it
was erroneous,—perceiving also that by the omis-
sion of the single letter a sense perfectly plain
and obvious would be obtained,—and considering
that, as the following word began with the same
letter », it might possibly have been added by the
former transcriber,—perceiving and considering,
{ say, all these things, it is by no means unnatural
to suppose, that some early copyist intentionally
omitted the particle to avoid the peculiarity.
These arguments will acquire additional force if
we adopt the reading of the Cambridge manuscript.
In that MS. the arrangement of the words is this :—
I
130
avTH n aTroTypady EYEVETO TPWTN NY EMOVEVOVTOS, K.T. >
where every one must perceive that zpwry ending,
and »yenovevovros beginning with an y, had a third
n been inserted between these two, nothing could
have been more easy than fora careless transcriber
to have passed it unobserved, or for an ignorant
or conceited one to have considered it an interpola-
tion. Having now proposed one of the slightest
possible alterations, and, slight as it is, having
produced several circumstances which render it
not altogether incredible, I shall next proceed to
shew, that, presuming it to be as just as it is
necessary, it fully resolves every doubt, and gives
to the passage a sense easy and unembarrassed,—
avTn 1 amoypacy. pwn éryéeveTo Pi (aroypapy 7 erye-
veTo) yryeuovevovtos THs Xupias Kupyviov.—< This
taxing took place before that which took place
when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.’’ Such,
assuming the proposed emendation, is the form and
translation of the passage under consideration ;
and it is evident that it is in sufficient conformity
both in construction and meaning to zpwrdroKos
eyo 7 ov, to be justified by the resemblance. It
may chance to be objected, however, that the
ellipsis is awkward, and that the phrase which is
to be supplied is too long: but the ellipsis is of
the simplest form, that which is by grammarians
called zeugma, an omission only of words which
have before been used; and in this case had
1st
St. Luke repeated the same or even somewhat differ-
ent words, he would have been guilty of tautology,
without throwing any additional light upon the
meaning of the sentence. Thus, by an alteration
of the most trivial nature, may the whole be made
at once consistent with historical truth. What
reception the conjecture (for it is only a conjec-
ture,) may meet with I cannot tell. If the Evan-
gelist had been a mere human and unaided his-
torian, I believe few scruples would have been
entertained as to admitting the corruption of the
passage, and endeavouring to restore it to its purity
by a plausible emendation. Yet the serious Chris-
tian must always feel an awful difference between
the treatment of a common and a canonical work.
There is a respectful deference which is due to the
text, as well as to the authority of a sacred writer,
and it is no unreasonable opinion to think that
God, by the intervention of his providence, has
secured the transmission, in all its requisite purity,
of that revelation which his abundant kindness has
condescended to bestow. This, however, admits
of some latitude: it is not on this account abso-
lutely necessary that the Old or the New Testament
should be free from every error, but only from
every material error,—from every error which
might affect the faith or practice of the disciples
of Jesus. The distinction is perhaps a nice one,
and extremely difficult to reduce to any intelligible
12
132
or practical rules: but it has been admitted in all
ages, and however nice, can create no doubt
whatever as to the admissibility. of the modest
exercise of critical emendation in the present
case, for the passage is merely historical, and, if I
may so speak, only parenthetically historical ;
inserted altogether ‘ex abundanti’ by the writer,
and if removed or lost, would never have been
regretted.” If therefore at any time a conjectural
P St. Luke, chap. ii. ver. 2. is so completely parenthetical
and superfluous, and has so much the air of a later insertion, that
perhaps, after all, the most reasonable conjecture would be, to
suppose it either altogether or in part to be spurious; and in con-
firmation of this opinion, I feel much pleasure in being permitted
to lay before the reader the following note of a learned Friend,
whose name, if mentioned, would bear with it very high authority.
‘‘No satisfactory account has yet been given of the difficulty
arising from Luke, chap. il. ver. 2. Valckenaer supposes it to be
an interpolation, and thinks that he finds a confirmation of his
opinion in Gregory Nazianzen, Oration ix. T. I. p. 136. where
the first and fourth verses are quoted without the second; but
the fact is, that Gregory quotes only what is necessary for his
own purpose, so that no argumeut can be founded on the omission.
I am myself inclined to think that the words s/yenovevovtos ris
Zvpias Kvpnviov are an interpolation, confessing, however, that the
external testimony is against me. Justin Martyr twice mentions
Cyrenius as governor of Syria at the time of our Saviour’s birth ;
but whether he took this fromm St. Luke’s gospel, or the gospel
was interpolated from his writings may be disputed.”
To this I would beg leave to add, that there is no improbability
whatever in supposing Justin Martyr to have made the mistake,
though there is much in attributing it to St. Luke. Of Justin’s
ignorance of the chronology of the period about our Saviour’s
birth, we have given a very pregnant instance in a former
note.
138
reading be admissible, it is here. If conjectural
emendations were not unpractised even by the most
judicious of the Christian Fathers themselves,—
if Jerome and Epiphanius have both proposed al-
terations in the text of the New Testament, and if
the former has not scrupled to assert, that through
the fault of the transcribers errors have in several
places been introduced,’ we surely cannot be con-
demned for any want of reverence in the proposi-
tion we have made.
3. I confess then, that without an alteration
I cannot reconcile the statement of this passage
with the historical records which remain to us of
that age; but there may be those who will deem
this mode of solution to be equally, if not more
objectionable, than those distorted translations
which we have ventured to condemn. We must
therefore see whether there is any reason to
suppose that the writer himself was under a
mistake.
To settle this matter at once in the negative,
and give an answer which may not only apply to
the present, but also to every other similar diffi-
4 « Nos nomen Esaiz putamus additum, scriptorum vitio, quod
et in aliis locis probare possumus.” Jerom as quoted by Casaubon,
2
Exercit. ad Bar. i. 28. p. 116. Comment, in Matth. c. iii. v. 3.
‘
134
culty, it may be useful and sufficient to observe,
that the dates of St. Luke are of such a character
as to preclude the possibility of our supposing
that the Evangelist was either an impostor by
design, or mistaken through ignorance. It is the
custom with deceivers to dwell upon broad and
general facts alone, to take those leading and
universally acknowledged characters and dates
which every one will perceive, and no one doubt.
This they do because, as I have before observed,
their object is tmmediate success, which would be
checked rather than promoted by a contrary mode
of proceeding. Examine then the Gospel of St.
Luke by this rule, and mark the difference. Instead
of loosely stating that it was in the reign of Tiberius
that the word of the Lord came unto John, he dis-
criminates the very year of that reign, and leads
us to the very portion of the year by coupling it
with the government of Pontius Pilate ; instead of
recording only who was the Roman Emperor at the
time, of which no one could be in ignorance, he
adds the insignificant tetrarchy of Lysanias and
Abilene, a ruler and a- dominion which it has
demanded the scrutinising enquiries of learning
to elicit from the scanty documents of the history
of that age." Instead of contenting himself with
one undisputed fact, he has drawn together several
‘ Casaub, Exercit, at Bar, xin. 3.
135
from different sources, and of different kinds. But
ihe most unequivocal mark of his veracity is in the
notice which he has taken of two Jewish High
Priests. That there was one, and one only, in
every period of the Jewish commonwealth, who
was in the actual possession of that high and
important office, is notorious to every reader of
the Holy Scriptures, yet St. Luke has bestowed the
title equally upon two.— Why he has done so it is
not my present purpose to decide; but I ask,
whether, if his intention had been, like that of
every impostor, to conciliate the belief of his
readers, he could haye ventured upon the assertion
of such an anomalous fact, even though aware
that the statement was perfectly correct. Would
he not have feared the prejudice, which the doubts
of those who were ignorant of the propriety of ‘the
appellation being applied both to Annas and
Caiaphas, would necessarily create in the minds of
many? Or had he purposely given the title of
apxsepevs to both, from an affectation of superior
accuracy, would he not have endeavoured to stamp
the authenticity of the proposition by some hint as
to the sense in which the word was to be accepted,
and the limitations which were necessary to recon-
cile it with the actual state of things? But St. Luke
has simply stated the circumstance with the confi-
dence of a man at once acquainted with the truth,
and conscious of his own honesty; and by that
136
proceeding has established his claims, with every
candid mind, to the title of a contemporaneous and
faithful historian. There is a similar singularity
in the writings of Josephus, capable of being
made conducive to a similar conclusion. Who
does not know that there was but one Roman
governor of Syria? Yet Josephus speaks of two,
and gives to both the same denomination of yn-yéuer.*
A forgey of a history of that period would never
have ventured upon such a statement; or, had he
inserted it, would have carefully distinguished
between the powers of Volumnius and Saturninus
by a corresponding difference of designation.
Hence I conclude, that in both passages the true
method of solution is, by giving to the words
apxLepeus and HYEMOY, as: applied to Annas and
Volumnius, an interpretation subordinate to their
highest and proper significations ; and feel con-
vinced, that in both cases the writers were faithful
men, writing for the information of others, accord-
ing to their own belief, and without any intention
whatever to deceive.
if St. Luke was not an intentional deceiver, he
was not an ignorant writer. What is the declara-
tion of his preface? That he had enquired dili-
gently into the subject of his history. This, under
* Antiq. lib, xvie cap..16. p. 576. E.
137
our present hypothesis, is the testimony of an honest
man; and we know that he had opportunities
enough of obtaining all the knowledge he wanted
or might wish. Itisnot therefore lightly to be sup-
posed that he would immediately proceed to falsify
his declaration by collecting a multiplicity of dates
of the correctness of which he was not thoroughly
aware. It is not easily to be believed that he had
made such imperfect examinations into the chrono-
logy of the events he records, as to be mistaken in
those designations of time upon which he evidently
depended for instructing his reader in the periods
of such an important life as that of the author of
his religion and his hopes. Whether there are to
be found in his Gospel any of those errors ‘‘ quas
aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura,”
is another question, to be resolved only by an
inquiry into the extent of his-inspiration. I lay
that at present entirely out of consideration, and
looking upon him only as an unassisted historian,
I say that to imagine St. Luke to have been igno-
rant of the time and nature of the transactions he
relates, or inattentive to the acquisition of the best
information in his power -upon a circumstance so
_ intimately connected with the subject of which he
was treating, is, from the reasoning’s already. in-
sisted upon, the most improbable, and therefore
the last: supposition we should embrace. ‘The
138
taxing of Cyrenius was too recent, and, from
several memorable and calamitous causes, too
deeply imprinted upon the mind of every Jew-to
be forgotten or mistaken. It is therefore infinitely
more probable that both the present and every
other difficulty, with which his Gospel is clogged,
should there be any to be found which are abso-
lutely irreconcileable with other writers, are irre-
concileable rather on account of our ignorance
than his. ‘The loss of historical documents, and
the imperfect records which have reached us of
those times, are much more likely causes of the
apparent contradictions which may (I will not say,
do) exist, than any presumed inattention, or want
of information on the part of the Evangelist him-
self. It is having much too high an opinion of our
own knowledge of ancient history to suppose,
that what we cannot harmonize must be absolutely
false.
4. The fourth method of solution is now the
only one remaining to us, and to that we must in
the last place apply. We must account for the
apparent contradiction by our own ignorance of
the mode of reconciliation, and so conclude that
St. Luke did not originally mean to declare that
Jesus was born under the taxing made by Cyre-
nius, after the banishment of Archelaus, but under
139
some other and previous aroypady, ‘This is not a
conclusion to which we are driven only from the
impossibility of finding any other resource, though,
under the circumstances of the case, it would even
in that point of view be entitled to much consi-
deration. It is in fact an inference which, to all
appearance, is very strongly fortified by the autho-
rity of Tertullian, who certainly seems to have
either read or understood St. Luke in a different
manner from that in which he is now read and
understood.
In his fourth book against Marcion the heretic
and the 19th chapter, Tertullian has made the
following remark. ‘Census constat actos sub
Augusto tunc in Judea per Sentium Saturninum.”
Now whatever explanation we may choose to give
to the words “per Sentium Saturninum,”’—whether
we suppose them to mean that this census was
taken under the presidency of Saturninus, a sense,
which is both false in fact, and, though sanctioned
by Casaubon, yet too harsh even for the rough
pen of Tertullian, or whether we more naturally
and literally interpret the phrase as implying that
Saturninus was the agent in it’s execution; in
both these cases it is evident that the writer could
not have supposed St. Luke in chap. ii. ver. 2, to
be speaking of that taxing which was made upon
the banishment of Archelaus. That taxing was
140
made not only under the government of Cyrenius,
but also by Cyrenius, and could not therefore in
any sense be said to be taken ‘per Sentium
Saturninum.” Iam far from thinking with some
that Tertullian read Zarovpyivoy where we now
read Kupyviov in St. Luke, or maintaining that he
was right in imagining that Saturninus had any
thing to do with the aroypapy which took place
at our Saviour’s birth. It will afterwards appear
probable that Saturninus was at that time in
Rome. What I would maintain is simply this,
that Tertullian would never have boldly asserted
that the azoypapy at our Saviour’s birth was
taken “per Sentium Saturninum,” had he read
and understood the passage of St. Luke in the
same manner in which we now read and under-
stand it, as referring to that aroypapy which was
made under the government of Cyrenius. He
might be ignorant or mistaken with regard to
the person by whom the census was really taken,
but he would never have ventured to assign it
to one particular individual in direct contradiction
to the testimony of an Evangelist. Hence it is
highly probable that the difficulty which we now
experience from the mention of Cyrenius in St.
Luke’s Gospel, did not then exist, though whether
from a different reading or interpretation of the
passage we cannot tell. The objection therefore,
so far as it affects the accuracy of St. Luke is
L41
removed, and we must be content to confess,
that it arises from our ignorance of the proper
mode of solution,—our ignorance either of the
true reading, or the true interpretation of his
text.
142
SECTION II.
To what Taxing St. Luke, ch. ii. v. 1 & 2,
probably alludes.
ie
I Ave endeavoured in the preceding section to
prove from various considerations, that it is highly
zmprobable that an honest and well-informed
historian like St. Luke should have confounded
the taxing under the government of Cyrenius,
with the azroypady which took place at our Saviour’s
birth ;—that it is highly probable that Tertullian
did not read or understand the second verse of the
second chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke in the
same manner in which we now read and under-
stand it ;—and that we are consequently authorized
to infer that the difficulty which is now created by
that verse did not then exist, though whether we
are to attribute its present existence to a corruption
in the reading, or to a mis-conception of the
meaning of the passage, I do not presume to say.
1 am rather inclined to refer it to the former cause,
and to suspect that the verse is in part at least, the
interpolation of some later transcriber. I shall
143
next endeavour to point out that aoypady to
which St. Luke most probably did allude, and to
shew that, by its correspondence in point of cir-
cumstances and time, it sufficiently confirms—
confirms as much as it could reasonably be expected
to do—the date we have by an induction of parti-
culars already assigned for the nativity of Jesus.
Suidas* under the word azoypagn relates, that
Augustus sent out twenty men throughout the
empire to make an assessment of persons and
estates. But besides the error which he afterwards
commits of supposing this to have been the /irst
census, so little is known of the compiler of the
Lexicon of Suidas, except that he lived and wrote
after the 975th year of the Christian era, that no
dependence is to be placed upon his testimony,
except when confirmed by some more ancient and
credible historian. In this case indeed a confir-
mation has been supposed” to exist in a passage
of Dio, who observes that Augustus éepyev addous
arn Td TE Tov WiwTeY Kal Ta THY TOAewWY KTHMATA
arorypawapevovs. Butthis refers exclusively to atrans-
action connected with a tax upon Roman citizens
alone, whereas the aroypagy of St. Luke compre-
* Lardner. Credib. vol. I. 521,
* See Casaubon Exercit, i. 31, by whom the argument is
urged, and Lardner vol. I, 249-50, by whom it is refuted,
144
hends all the inhabitants of Judea, whether Romans
or not. ‘The same objection holds with regard to
identifying St. Luke’s taxing with any of the three
Roman censuses which Augustus is known to
have completed in the 28th and 8th years before,
and in the 14th year after, the Christian era. We
may therefore confine our attention to those traces of
aroypapai during the reign of Herod and Augustus,
which embraced in their operation, either all the
subjects of the Roman empire, or at least all the
land of Judea, a more limited signification of the
expression racav Tv oixovpévyv, which is fully jus-
tified by another passage® of St. Luke, in which
it is evident from the arguments of Lardner,’ and
the circumstances and context, that it cannot be
explained without absurdity in a more extended
sense.
Now in the 17th book of the Antiquities of
Josephus there exists a passage to the following
effect,°,—‘* When the whole Jewish nation took an
oath to be faithful to Caesar, and the interests of
© Acts xi. 28. ‘
4 Lardner, vol. I. 240-46, with the notes. The discussion affords
one of the most favourable specimens of Lardner’s prolix manner;
but I wish he had embodied the notes in the text. They are quite
as essential, and in their present situation only break the train of
reasoning and distract the reader’s attention.
* Antigq. lib, xvii. cap, 3, p. 585-6.
145
the King, the Pharisees to the number of above
six thousand refused to swear. The King having
jaid a fine upon them, the wife of Pheroras paid
the money for them.”
Lamy has alluded to this transaction. Allix
has insisted upon it, and Lardner,‘ by pursuing it
through all its various ramifications, has created,
rather than discovered, some fanciful points of
resemblance between it and the taxing of St. Luke,
which have a tendency to weaken an argument
which is naturally calculated to convey light and
strength to the narrative of the Evangelist. 1
shall select those marks of correspondence which
appear to be well founded, and add such other
observations as have occurred in the course of the
examination. ;
That the Cesar mentioned by Josephus was
Augustus, and Herod the King, needs no proof.
This is the first circumstance of similitude between
the oath of Josephus and the azoypady of St. Luke.
The second is, that the oath of Josephus, like the
taxing of St. Luke, occurred in the latter part of
Herod’s reign; and the third, that both applied to
all the inhabitants of Judea who were of the seed
‘Lamy. App. Chron. Part I. cap. 10. p. 83. Alllix. eap. 3,
Lardner. Credib. lib. ii, cap. 1.
K
146
of Abraham,—zavres rot "lovdaixot. Joseph. wacav
TH otxoumeryv. Luc. ‘The fourth is, that the oath
indisputably involved an universal aroypagdy® or
enrolment of names ; for it would have been impos-
sible without such an enrolment to have ascertained
whether the whole nation had or had not taken
the oath. Fifthly, in order to ascertain this point,
some arrangement must have been made to prevent
deception and error, and that could only be by indi-
viduals taking the oath in the places of their resi-
dence, or the cities and villages in which their
birth and pedigree were entered. With the usual
customs of the Jews the latter is much more con-
sistent, and therefore more probable, and in more
strict correspondence with the Evangelist. Again,
it does not appear that taking the oath of fidelity
was the whole of the transaction. Josephus does
not say—‘‘ When a decree was made, that the
whole Jewish nation should take an oath,’”’ but
simply— When the whole Jewish nation took an
oath.”’ ‘There is nothing in this to contradict the
supposition that a regular edict might have been
issued for a taxing or aoypagy, and the oath have
been required at the same time, as being a more
favourable opportunity for the execution of such a
purpose. A decree therefore might haye gone
forth “that all the land should be taxed,’’ or en-
® eroypady 1 anapOunots. Suidas.
147
rolled according to St. Luke; and on the same
occasion, “all the Jewish nation might have taken
an oath,” according to Josephus. Sixthly, whether
the decree was for an assessment, in its proper
sense, or only for an enrolment, for the sake of
the oath, it must have proceeded from Augustus,
as is stated by St. Luke. That Herod would, by
his own decree, unnecessarily risk the little hold
he had on the affections of his subjects, or ex-
press thus publicly and needlessly his subordination
to Cesar by requiring the Jews to declare their
allegiance to the Romans, of which they abhorred
the very name, is altogether incredible. But that
it should be done by Augustus, in the present
juncture of Herod’s affairs, when, as has been
shewed by several learned men, he was in a state
of suspicion and degradation at Rome, is highly
probable. Both these inferences are strengthened
by the nature and terms of the oath itself. They
did not swear to be faithful to the King and to
Cesar, which would have been the natural style
of Herod; but to Casar and the King, and the
precedence in order seems to mark the source of
the command. Again, they swore to be faithful
to the person of Cesar, but only to the interests
of the King, rots BacAéws mpaypaor, thus merging
their loyalty to his person in their attachment to
his affairs, which were of course the affairs of the
nation at large. Neither did they mention the
K 2
148
name of Herod at all in their oath,—they swore
only to be faithful to the interests of the King,
that is, the King of the Jews, whoever he might
be. This branch of the oath being coupled with
an acknowledgment of their submission to Cesar
seems to me to imply an oath of fidelity to any
person whom the Emperor might choose to sub-
stitute in the room of Herod, as well as to Herod
himself, and thus marks in a most distinct manner
the humiliating situation in which he stood. In
the English oath of allegiance, before the revolu-
tion, there was a similar ambiguity, which is now
removed by our swearing allegiance not only to
the King, as formerly, but exclusively to King
_ George. 'The demand of such an oath must have
been the Emperor’s act, and this is still further
evidenced by the trivial penalty inflicted by Herod
upon the recusants. ‘Those, who know any thing
of Herod, know that he was not accustomed to
permit a disobedience to Ais commands, more
especially when it implied any tendency to rebellion.
against his sovereign authority, to be passed over
without dreadful retribution. In this case more
than six thousand refused to swear, and he merely
fined them; and the fine was so slight, that the
wife of Pheroras was willing and able immediately
to discharge it. Was such a fine an adequate
punishment for so formidable an example of re-
sistance to the King’s own decree, or sufficient to
149
deter others from throwing off their allegiance ?
Had Herod considered this oath in the light of an
oath of fidelity to himself and his government, or
had it been issued in his own authority and name,
their punishment would have been death, or at
any rate much more severe than a fine; and they
would have deserved it. Ifit came from Augustus,
Herod, in his present state, after Augustus had
declared that for the future he would treat him not
as a friend, but as a subject, was of course com-
pelled to appear at least to resent the disobedience
of the Pharisees, whilst by his lenity he displayed
how little he was in reality affected by it. The
demand of such an oath was treating Herod as a
subject, and a decree for that oath could have
proceeded from no one but Augustus, and without
a decree it never could have been demanded at all.
The decree for the oath therefore, like the decree
for the avoypadpy, proceeded from “Cesar Au-
gustus.”’ This is a strong point of resemblance.
But, seventhly, whilst the mildness of the punish-
ment for a refusal to comply with the demand,
shews that Herod disliked the thing, it also shews,
that between the decree and its execution the anger
of Augustus had somewhat abated; for without
that he would not have ventured, however desirous,
to be so lenient. And this was actually the case;
for the oath was not taken till after the council at
Berytus, before which Augustus had become more
150
reconciled to Herod. Eighthly, Josephus mentions
the fact because it was connected, and necessary
to render what followed intelligible, and St.
Luke mentions it for the same reason. Josephus
merely mentions it, and without any comment,
probably because Nicholas of Damascus, from
whom he copied, had done the same, being
anxious, in his friendship for Herod, to take as
little notice as possible of a transaction which
reflected no honor upon the King, and was a
disagreeable recollection to every Jew. St. Luke
enters somewhat more into particulars, because
he could not otherwise have given a satisfactory
account of the’ presence of Joseph and Mary at
Bethlehem. These circumstances are in my
opinion decisive, though they have not been pro-
perly attended to. Lastly, this, according to
Josephus, is the first transaction of the kind
which took place in Judea, and it is styled TTPQTH
aroypady, by St. Luke.
The sequel to the passage which I have al-
ready quoted will be found equally useful. It runs
nearly thus,—‘‘ The Pharisees, in requital for the
kindness of Pheroras’s wife, in paying their fine,
foretold (for they were supposed by their intimacy
with God to have attained the gift of foreknowledge)
that, God having decreed to put an end to the
government of Herod and his race, the kingdom
15]
would be transferred to her, and Pheroras, and
their children. Salome, who was ignorant of none
of these things, came and told the King of them,
and assured him likewise, that many of the court
were corrupted by them. Then the King put to
death the most guilty of the Pharisees, and Bagoas
the eunuch, and one Carus the most beautiful
young man about the court, and the great instru-
ment in the King’s unlawful pleasures. He likewise
slew every one in his own family who adhered to
those things which were said by the Pharisees.
But Bagoas had been elevated by them in that he
should be called father and benefactor of the King
who was to be appointed according to their pre-
diction, (for all things would be in his power,)
being to give him a capacity of marriage, and of
having children of his own.”’
Nothing has ever more surprised me than the
observations of Lardner? upon this part of the
incident. He seems in this instance to have de-
parted so completely from the usual judgment and
caution of his character, that I cannot account for
his hallucinations by any of his known habits or
principles. That he believed his inferences to
be true is not to be disputed. There is a fulness
and open simplicity about his style which always
* Ubi supra.
15z
evince his sincerity: yet his opinions have in
this case so little solid foundation, that, had they
proceeded from any other writer of less credit, I
should have felt authorized to pass them over in |
total silence. But I look with such unfeigned
respect upon every crzéical conclusion of Lardner,
that I dare not omit the statement of their nature
and proofs,—I shall do it as briefly as possible.
In one word then, Lardner imagines that the
whole account of this transaction in Josephus ts
little more than a disguised, perhaps an intention-
ally disguised, and absurd narration of what oc-
curred in Jerusalem upon the arrival and question
of the Magi. ‘“ Josephus’s account is a perfect
comment upon St. Matthew.’’ The prediction of
the Pharisees, he says, was in fact the prediction
produced by the council of priests and scribes out
of Micah, in answer to Herod’s question, ii. 4, 5,—
“Thou, Bethlehem,—out of thee shall come @
Governor that shall rule my people Israel.” He
conceives, also, that it may have some allusion to
the prophecies of Simeon and Anna, and that the
putting to death the Pharisees, Bagoas the eunuch,
and several of his own family was only a part of
the Bethlehem massacre, and took place at the
same time.—T°o give some colour of proof to this
idea, and create the semblance of identity between
transactions so dissimilar in the persons to whom
153
they refer, he half conjectures that Josephus has
introduced the care and cautions of Salome to
Herod by way of jest, —that the promise to Bagoas
was his own invention, or an old piece of hackneyed
wit,—that he speaks of the affair in a very inde-
cent way,—that he justifies and triumphs in these
terrible executions,—and that he banters the
Pharisees, under their very heavy sufferings, for
pretending to the gift of foreknowledge. As to
what Lardner says about Bagoas and Salome,
they are merely conjectures, without one shadow
of a defence,—as to the indecent way in which
Josephus writes, I never could find it out,—and
as to his “being so merry in the main passage,”
I think the merriment is all of Lardner’s own
making. I have often read the passage with a
smile at the recollection of his very curious
comments, but I never remember its having
created the smallest tendency to laughter before
I became acquainted with the “ Credibility.” But
Lardner seems to rest his main defence on the
following argument,—that Pheroras or his wife,
or any one issuing from them, was the chief
subject of the Pharisees’ prediction, he will not
believe, “ because it is inconsistent with the rest
of Josephus’s story.” The inconsistency is first
in Pheroras, or his wife, or his children not being
punished, &c.; but what ground was there for
punishment? Josephus states that the Pharisees
154
had uttered these predictions, but says nothing
as to any steps having been taken by those to
whom they referred. He states however, that
Herod put to death “all of his own family who
adhered to those things which were spoken by the
Pharisees.”” Pheroras and his wife, therefore, not
having been put to death, may be supposed not to
have been known to have adhered to those things.
Why then should it be strange that they were not
punished without a crime? As to Antipater’s
treating them with confidence after the utterance
of these predictions, I can only wonder that
Lardner, who had read Josephus with care, could
have forgotten for a moment that intimate connec-
tion in wickedness which subsisted between them,
and their joint efforts against Herod’s life. But,
secondly, he says the prophecies are in themselves
contradictory ; even if they were, it is nothing to
the purpose. Doubtless the Pharisees were suffi-
ciently versed in the fabrication of false prophecies
to know, that the more marvellous the better; and
sufficiently acquainted with human nature to know,
that the more completely an imagination deviates
from the common operations of the human under-
standing, the more liable are the vulgar to attribute
it to supernatural communication. I cannot, how-
ever, think there is any absurdity. The prediction
first states, that the kingdom is to be transferred
to Pheroras, his wife, and their issue. It then
155
speaks of one King, in whose power all things
would be. Interpret this only in common fairness
of latitude, and it evidently means, that one of the
issue of Pheroras, to whom the kingdom was to be
transferred from Herod and his race, should be
that great King, who was then generally looked
for. Such captious cavilling might, and indeed
has been made subservient to the eliciting contra-
dictions from the sure word of prophecy itself.
It appears, therefore, that Lardner has discovered
none of those inconsistencies of which he speaks,
“as a certain sign that an historian has indulged
his fancy or his passions, and gone into fiction.”
On the contrary, I look upon the whole passage as
containing a piece of grave and faithful history ;
detailing circumstances which actually occurred,
and which are distinct from the prophecies relative
to the birth of Jesus, whether uttered in the
council by the chief priests and scribes, or in the
temple by Simeon and Anna. I hold that the
Pharisees did utter their predictions in favour of
Bagoas, Pheroras, his wife and her family, most
probably in the hope that, like many other predic-
tions, they might have the merit of working out
their own fulfilment, by exciting the people to a
general insurrection for the accomplishment of
the object foretold. That the Pharisees were
punished by Herod’s orders with death for their
presumption is undeniable, These facts being
156
admitted, | am now to shew how they confirm
the transactions at our Saviour’s birth and presen-
tation; and prove the taxing of St. Luke to be
the same in point of fact with the oath of
Josephus.
The leading observation which the transaction
suggests is, the very different measure of punish-
ment which was dealt out to these prophesying
Pharisees, and to those who refused to take the
prescribed oath. The latter were fined only,
though resisting an oath of allegiance to Herod,
as the then king of the Jews,—the former were
put to death neither for seditious actions nor sedi-
tious words, but for idle and absurd predictions
of evil. Why the former were treated with such
lenity we have already seen. That this gentleness
should have now been changed into such extreme
and unrelenting severity, can be attributed, I think,
only to some intermediate occurrence which had
rendered Herod peculiarly sensible to any allusion
to the expected and triumphant King who should
rule over his own kingdom of Judea or Israel.
Now there is no circumstance whatever upon
record, which could or did produce such effects
upon Herod’s mind, except the arrival of the
Magi,—none which was so likely to suggest such
predictions to the imagination of the Pharisees,—
none which was so likely to make those predic-
157
tions of serious and dangerous consequence,—
none by which Herod’s jealousy was so effectually
roused. Suppose then that the Magi arrived after
the taking of the oath, and that the Pharisees
uttered these predictions shortly after their abrupt
departure and the declarations of Simeon and
Anna, and consequently during that period of
Herod’s life in which he is described by the
Evangelist as seeking the life of the child Jesus,
and all the importance which he attributed to the
marvellous declarations of the Pharisees about the
future King and Bagoas, and all the severity with
which he avenged their ravings, are easily ac-
counted for. They drew the substance of their
prophecies from the questions of the Magi, and
the words of Simeon and Anna, knowing that at
that moment every thing connected with that
subject would be greedily listened to; and this
accounts for the similarity between the two pre-
dictions. Herod punished them with death,
because his recent disappointment made him
tremblingly alive to any new alarms of a prophe-
tic nature upon that subject; and this accounts
for the faint resemblance which these executions
bear to the massacre of Bethlehem. Hence I
conceive that the visit of the Magi had intervened
between the oath and the predictions and punish-
ment of the Pharisees, and thus we gain another
very strong presumptive proof of the identity
158
of the taxing of St. Luke and the oath of
Josephus.
The whole argument in favour of their
identity may be briefly summed up in the following
terms :
1. In every leading point, the oath mentioned
by Josephus very strongly resembles the azoypagy)
mentioned by St. Luke.
2. There is not one single circumstance in
which they can be said to be absolutely and irre-
concileably dissimilar.
It would therefore seem to be by no means
improbable to suppose that they mzght be the
same.
fad
3. The azoypagy mentioned by St. Luke,
and the massacre of Bethlehem, were events
which followed very closely upon one another.
The oath mentioned by Josephus, and the
execution of the Pharisees, &c. were also events
which followed very closely upon one another.
4. The visit of the Magi intervened between
the dzoypad) mentioned by St. Luke, and the
massacre of Bethlehem.
159
The visit of the Magi appears also to have
intervened between the oath mentioned by Jo-
sephus, and the execution of the Pharisees &c.'
Hence it would seem highly probable that the
oath mentioned by Josephus, and the azoypady
mentioned by St. Luke were the same.
* The massacre of Bethlehem and the execution of the Pha-
risees, &c. might also, by a similar process of reasoning, have
been concluded to be the same, had not the subjects of the two
been absolutely dissimilar. In fteme they probably corresponded
very nearly to each other, but the persons put to death in each
were different,—innocent infants in the one case; Bagoas, Carus,
the Pharisees, and the guilty part of Herod’s own family in the
other.
160
SECTION III.
The Date of the Taxing to which St. Luke,
ch. i. v. 2, probably alludes.
——<—
Fortiriep by the various negative and positive
arguments, which form the substance of the pre-
ceding section, I feel myself authorized to regard
Josephus as speaking under the term oath of the
same transaction as that of which the Evangelist
speaks under the term aroypady. Now it was
during this aroypagpy or oath that our Saviour was
born. Our next effort must therefore be directed
to gather from the pages of the Jewish historian
the date of the oath or aroypady, and by that date
either refute or confirm the conclusion of the
last chapter with regard to the date of our Lord’s
nativity.
It has been observed that the taking of the
oath, like the birth of Jesus, occurred towards
the end of Herod’s life and reign ; but this is not
sufficient; we want something more precise. Now
the execution of the Rabbies on the 13th of March,
161
J.P. 4710, will be found invaluable upon this, as
upon many other occasions. It is a fixed point
from which with perfect security we may reckon
either backwards or forwards. Let us therefore
adopt it for that purpose now, making a retrograde
calculation to the time of the oath, which preceded
it by a considerable space.
From the execution of the Rabbies to the
sending off the second set of deputies to Rome
relative to the case of Antipater, is, as we have
before seen, about a month. That brings us to
the middle of February, J. P. 4710. Now between
the taking of the oath and this last-mentioned
date Josephus places the following events, and in
the following order:
_ istly, The punishment by death of the prophe-
sying Pharisees: this has already been determined
to have been inflicted a little more than forty days
after the taking of the oath; for it took place a
little after the arrival and departure of the Magi,
which was forty days after the taxing or oath.
2dly, ‘‘ Herod, having punished the Pharisees,
summons a council, and lays an accusation against
the wife of Pheroras.’* For these two circum-
* Antiq. lib, xvii. cap. 3. p, 586.
L,
162
stances together we shall not perhaps be far wrong
if we allow about fifty days.
3dly, Antipater, alarmed by this proceeding
towards his accomplice, and beginning to suspect
his father’s intentions towards himself, “writes to
his friends in Rome, enjoining them to write to
Herod, that he would send Antipater as quickly as
possible to Cesar; which being done, Herod did
send Antipater.’ Now this matter was one of
despatch ; quickness, readiness in the execution
of every part was required and used. I cannot
therefore grant the interval between the accusa-
tion of Pheroras and the departure of Antipater for
Rome to have been more than six weeks or two
months; consequently, by adding the above-men-
tioned fifty days to these six weeks or two months
it appears, that Antipater set off for Rome a little
more than three months after the taking of the
oath.
Athly, Shortly after Antipater’s departure
poison was administered to Pheroras by his wife,
and he died. “This,” says Josephus, ‘‘ was the
beginning of evils to Antipater, who was already
sailed for Rome.” He had not therefore long
sailed, and a fortnight seems full time enough
* Antiq. hb. xvii, cap. 5.
163
to place between Antipater’s departure and the
death of Pheroras.
5thly, The investigations, which Herod was
induced to enter into as to the cause and authors
of the death of his brother Pheroras, led to the
discovery of Antipater’s designs and guilt,—that
having prepared a deadly poison he had given it
to Pheroras, with an injunction to administer it to
his father during his absence.’’ Herod pursued
the enquiry with great diligence, collecting or
forcing information from every quarter, During
the whole of this period not one word of these
interesting proceedings was communicated to
Antipater at Rome, although they occupied a
period of more than six months; so much was
he hated, and so strictly were all the means and
avenues of communication closed.—“It is re-
’
markable,’’ says Josephus, ‘ that though in the
course ‘of the seven preceding months so many
things had been agitated against him, with not
one of them had he been made acquainted.’’°
6thly, While the scrutiny into his conduct and
conspiracy was in progress, Antipater employed
various artifices to exasperate Herod against others,
and “wrote himself a letter to his father’ with the
* Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. 6. p. 589. F.
L 2
164
same view.’ Herod, in returning an answer, con-
cealed his discoveries and anger, and requested
him “not to loiter on his journey.”” “This letter
Antipater met with in Cilicia,” being thus far on
-his return to Judea. After some slight hesitation
he resolved to proceed immediately, and having
reached Jerusalem, was summoned to take his
trial the very next day before Herod and Quin-
tilius Varus, “who had been sent as successor to
Saturninus in the government of Syria. His_
guilt was decided the same day, “and the following
day Varus departed for Antioch. Herod zmmedi-
ately put his son under confinement ; and having
imprisoned him sent off letters and a deputation
3
to Cesar about him.’ These circumstances I
conceive to be included in the seven months
mentioned in the previous paragraph : but if they
are not to be considered as a portion of that
period, it is evident they could not extend more
than a week beyond it. But though I am so
strongly inclined to the first idea, yet the addition
of this single week will make so slight a difference
in my ultimate conclusion, that I shall not omit it
im my calculation.
7thly, These were the first letters and messen-
gers which Herod sent. Immediately after their
* Antiq. hb. xvil, cap. 7.
165
departure’ Herod made some further discoveries,
which induced him to despatch a second deputa-
tion for the same purpose, and with similar accu-
sations and requests. This brings us to the com-
mencement of his illness, about the middle of
February, (the 13th) J.P. 4710, and these are
all the circumstances which occurred according to
Josephus between the taking of the oath and that
date. It is very remarkable that, in this part of
his history, there are more numerous, and more
distinct and unequivocal marks of time than I
remember to have met with in any other portion
of equallength. Let us now see how they corres-
pond with our opinion respecting the identity of the
oath and the taxing or birth of Christ, which we
have assigned to the spring of J. P. 4709.
Now in the first place it is evident, that we
have accounted for nine complete months between
the oath and the 13th of February, J. P. 4710,
three from the oath to the departure of Antipater
for Rome, and szx for the time occupied in col-
lecting the evidence relative to his guilt. To
these we must add that portion of the seventh
month which is not specified, but which was also
occupied in the collection of evidence; a similar
* Antiq, lib, xvii, cap, 7. p. 595.
166
excess above the three months which elapsed
between the oath and the departure of Antipater
for Rome ; a week between sending off the first
and second letters and deputation; and perhaps
a week between the completion of the collection
of the evidence, and the arrival of Antipater
and his trial at Jerusalem. These fractions
may altogether amount to somewhat more than
a month, which, added to the other nine, gives
a little more than ten months, as the utmost pe-
riod which intervened between the oath and the
commencement of Herod’s illness on the 13th of
February, J. P. 4710. Hence it appears, that the
oath took place a little more than ten months
before the 13th of February, J. P. 4710. Nowthe
13th of February, J. P. 4710 — 10 months= 13th of
April, J.P. 4709. This computation, therefore,
assigns to the oath the very same date which our
previous and independent reasonings have con-
cluded to be the most probable date of our Saviour’s
nativity. ‘Therefore the oath and the taxing being
the same, and Christ being born during the taxing,
that conclusion is confirmed. Yet is the compu-
tation not absolutely adverse to those who would
place them either in May or March ; a little more
or a little less time than we have allowed for
might have been easily consumed in the events
which succeeded each other, and our computation
167
may not therefore be free from all inaccuracy.
But of this I feel tolerably secure, that the error,
as to any important purposes to which we may
wish to apply the date, will be found altogether
immaterial. It will still fix the nativity of Jesus
to the early part of J. P. 4709.
168
SECTION IY.
An Objection to the Correctness of the preceding
Calculations and Date considered and an-
swered.
—>-
I am aware of only one objection which can be
fairly urged against the correctness of the pre-
ceding calculations, and it may be stated in the
following terms.
When Antipater was sent to Rome by his
father, Josephis states that ‘together with Anti-
pater there went to Rome Sylleus the Arabian,”
who was accused of several things by Antipater
and Aretas. Josephus then proceeds to relate the
origin of these accusations, and mentions: Corin-
thus and two other Arabians, accomplices of Syl-
l2us, who had been seized and examined ‘afd
confessed themselves guilty before Herod.—Herod
had informed Saturninus of every thing, and “so
Saturninus,” (says Josephus,) “upon Herod’s dis-
covering the whole to him, sent them to Rome.”*
* Joseph, Antiq. lib. xvii, cap. 4. p. 586, 587. See also de
Bell. Jud, lib, i, cap. 18. p. 764.
169
{t is argued from this passage that Saturninds
was actually President of Syria when Antipater
set off for Rome, because his name is mentioned
by Josephus after this departure —But, according
to our calculations, Antipater did not leave Judea
for Rome until about three months after the
taking of the oath, that is, until about the month
of June, J.P. 4709, at which time Varus,” and
not Saturninus, was President of Syria. Our cal-
» Chronologers have entertained very different sentiments about
the period at which Varus became President of Syria, but the
question has been set at rest for ever by Pagi, who has fixed the
year by a careful comparison of some coins of Varus with others
of Tiberius, from the latter of which he has determined, with a
precision and certainty that are irresistible, the true commencement
of the Antiochian era.
1. There are in existence some coins of Varus, as President
of Syria, which bear date in the 25th year of the Antiochians, and
this is the earliest date that has been found upon any of his coins.
Hence it may be concluded that he was made President in, and
not before, the 25th year of that era, because the commencement
of the government of Kings and Presidents was usually marked by
the honour of an immediate coinage. ‘The treatises upon coins
contain some rather curious effects of the extreme haste of the
masters of the mints to celebrate the accession of a new ruler,
more especially in the provinces. These effects consist in joining
the reverse of a preceding reign to an obverse bearing the head of
the new-raised Governor. It is therefore td be supposed that
the 25th year of the Antiochians was the first of the Presidency
of Varus, because the first coins of Varus are dated in that year.
2. There are coins in existence which prove, beyond the pos-
sibility of a doubt, that the era of Antioch began on the day of the
battle of Actium, that is, Sept. 2, J.P. 4683.—Now J. P.
_4683425=J.P, 4708. Therefore Varus became President of
Syria
170
culations, therefore, it may be said, are incorrect,
because they contradict the statement of J osephus,
by making Varus instead of Saturninus President
of Syria at the time of Antipater’s departure for
Rome.
The following remarks will, I think, entirely
remove this objection:
1. We may observe that the word them, under
which Josephus comprehends all those who were
sent by Saturninus to Rome, refers only to Corin-
thus and the two other Arabians, the accomplices
of Syllzeus, and by no means includes Sylleus
himself. ‘Those accomplices might therefore have
been sent to Rome by Saturninus some time before
Sylleus accompanied Antipater. I very much
question indeed whether Saturninus could, under
any circumstances, have had the power of thus
disposing of Sylleus. Sylleus had been the prin-
cipal minister of Obodas the late king of Arabia,
and would seem by that office to have been com-
pletely out of the jurisdiction of the President of
Syria.
2. Though the circumstance of these ac-
complices of Sylleus having been sent to Rome
Syria before the 2d of Sept. J. P. 4708, and after the 2d of Sept.
J.P. 4707. See Pagi Appar. Chronol, in Bar. p. 33, and Crit.
in Bar, p, 14.
171
by Saturninus, when President of Syria, is related -
by Josephus after the departure of Antipater for
Rome, it does not follow that they were actually
sent off after the departure of Antipater. The
circumstance is related to account for Sylleus
having accompanied Antipater to Rome. It is
stated as the cause of his going, and the foundation
of the accusations which were laid against him.
It must therefore necessarily have taken place
some time before, and consequently by no means
proves that, when Sylleus followed those accom-
plices to Rome, Saturninus was still the President
of Syria. Saturninus might have quitted his official
situation, as President of Syria, in the mterval
between the departure of these accomplices and
the subsequent departure of Sylleus and Anti-
pater.
3. That Saturninus had actually quitted the
administration of affairs in Syria a considerable
time before the departure of Sylleus and Anti-
pater for Rome, in June, J. P. 4709, seems pretty
clearly deducible from the very statements of
Josephus himself. Josephus, when speaking of
what Antipater did before he went to Rome with
Syllzus, says, “ He* remitted large sums of money
to his father’s friends at Rome, that he might gain
* Joseph. Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. 1, p. 582.
172
~ their good will, and especially to Saturninus, the
Governor of Syria.” The remark of Lardner’ —
upon this passage is perfectly just. ‘“Saturninus
is not here called Governor of Syria, because he
was then actually in that post, for he is manifestly
at Rome; but to distinguish him from others of
that name, of which there were many.”. The truth
of this observation is sufficiently borne out by the
phraseology of Josephus. He speaks of Satur-
ninus as TON trys Zupias emmedntyy, plainly indi-
cating by the insertion of the definitive article*
that he meant the phrase the “Governor of Syria”
to be understood rather as a titular distinction, than
any mark and proof of his actual possession of
that office at the time.
These remarks will, I trust, satisfy every re-
flecting mind that there is no necessity whatever
for supposing the language of the Jewish histo-
rian to imply that Saturninus was actually. Pre-
sident of Syria, when Antipater, in the month
of June J. P. 4709, departed with Sylleus for
Rome, and hence it appears, that, notwithstanding
this objection, the oath of Josephus may be fairly
regarded as corresponding with the taxing at our
Saviour’s birth, both in point of circumstances and
* Credib. b. ii, cap. 3. p. 219.
* See cap. vi. sect. 1. of this Enquiry.
173
time. By a comparison they have been proved to
possess very marked and peculiar characters of
resemblance,—by a separate examination they
have both been traced to the spring of J. P.
4709, as the most probable period of their occur-
rence. This is as nearly a demonstration of their
identity as can be; and the passages in which
they are recorded may henceforth be very fairly
considered as reflecting mutual light and confirma-
tion upon each other. Our conclusion that Jesus,
who was born during St. Luke's taxing, was born
also in spring, perhaps in April J. P. 4709,
follows of course. It follows also, that, as
Saturninus was succeeded by Varus in the go-
vernment of Syria before the 2d of September
J. P. 4708, the aroypadpy at our Saviour’s birth
in J. P. 4709 was taken under the presidency of
Varus, and not under that of Saturninus. When
therefore Tertullian says “census constat actos
tune in Judea per Sentium Saturninum,” he must
be supposed to speak literally (if he was not alto-
gether mistaken in his assertion, which is not very
improbable,) and to mean that it was taken by
Sentius Saturninus, who might perhaps have been
sent from Rome into Judea for that purpose, under
an idea that the knowledge he had acquired of the
affairs of that province during his government of
Syria would enable him to execute such a com-
mission better than either a perfect stranger, or
174
one, who like Varus had but lately entered upon
his presidency, and might be already too much
occupied by the transaction of the ordinary busi-
ness to afford leisure for such an additional un-
dertaking. In the future part of this Enquiry
I shall therefore assume it as an established fact,
and endeavour to accommodate the dates of all
the other parts of our Saviour’s life, his baptism,
his ministry, and his crucifixion, to this, as toa
common and necessary foundation.
CHAP. V.
THE PROBABLE DATE OF OUR SAVIOUR’S BAPTISM.
i
Arter mentioning the Baptism of our Saviour
in the 21st and 22d verses of the third chapter,
St. Luke in the 23d verse has added the following
remark, Kat avrés qv 0 "Inoots woet érav TpidKkovTa
apxopevos. ‘ And Jesus himself began to be about
thirty years of age.”
It was the custom with computists of former
ages to make this remark the foundation of their
theories relative to the period of our Saviour’s
birth, and it is to this inauspicious beginning that
we may in a great measure attribute the universal
failure of their attempts to solve the difficulties
with which the subject is surrounded. Their
argument ran thus: John the Baptist entered
upon the discharge of his office in the 15th year of
Tiberius. Amidst the multitudes who flocked to
his baptism Jesus also arrived, being about thirty
years of age. Therefore Jesus was about thirty
176
years of age in the 15th year of Tiberius. This
conclusion labours under several disadvantages.
First, it takes for granted that, as John began
to baptize, Jesus also was himself baptized in the
15th year of Tiberius, an inference which, though
very reasonable, is not absolutely certain without
other and better proof. 2d, It takes for granted
that St. Luke reckoned the years of Tiberius from
the death of Augustus, a mode of reckoning which
is not altogether necessary or sure. 3d, As the
expression of St. Luke is wae! érév rpiaxovra, “about
thirty years of age,” and has been decided by so
good a judge of the Greek language as Justin
Martyr to be somewhat indeterminate, and_ to
imply not exactly thirty years, but thirty years more
or less, —rpraxovra étTn 7 TAElovah Kal éddooova;*
each writer has taken the full liberty which this
ambiguity allows, and decided that Jesus was from
twenty-five to thirty-five years of age, according
as it best suited his own preconceived opinion.
On all these accounts it is no wonder that the
theories of Chronologers should have been in such
a fluctuating state, and never during the course
* Almost all the Fathers subsequent to Justin Martyr have
deserted the moderation which he has observed, and asserted that
the phrase Woet érwv Tpictkovra means that Jesus was’ ess than
thirty years of age when baptized. They were led to this conclu-
sion by their other erroneous opinion, that our Lord was only
thirty when crucified, and consequently less than thirty when
baptized.
177
of so many ages have made any nearer approach
to unanimity and truth. Decker, if we may trust
the intimations of Petavius,” was the first who
endeavoured to make the period of Herod’s death,
as deducible from the history of Josephus, subser-
vient to the purpose of ascertaining the chronology
of our Saviour’s life; and since that time I think
we may safely say that the writings of every suc-
ceeding computist have made a nearer approxima-
tion to that degree of accuracy which is all that
need be desired or is practicable. The quotation
which stands at the head of this chapter is now
therefore justly considered only as a subordinate
instrument in the settlement of the dispute ; a sort
of reflective argument by which a date for the
birth of Christ, already rendered highly probable,
may be confirmed, and the time of his baptism be
more easily settled, when viewed in connexion
with that date. In this manner I regard it on the
present occasion, and shall agitate the question of
its meaning, not as one of paramount and essential
importance to the establishment of what has been
already advanced, but as one to be regulated in
some measure by our previous conclusions, and
to be made to bend a little if necessary to mect
them. .
» Animady, in, Epiph, Her. 51, p. 119.
M
178
In the prosecution of such an argument mode-
ration is requisite in proportion to the licence
which may be assumed. The phrase is indefinite—
that is granted; and a determined theorist might
almost prove a most erroneous system by a skilful
adaptation of its ambiguity to his own purposes.
For this very reason a partisan of any system
should guard against the self-deception originating
in his own wishes, and carefully examine the most
natural and reasonable interpretation of the words,
as they stand; for though a vague expression may
be in fact capable of bearing several explanations,
there will always be some more reasonable than
others, and generally one most so. He should
also see whether his interpretation and conclusions
be consistent with all the other dates and circum-
stances with which the subject is connected. To
these rules I shall adhere. If the date for the
baptism of Jesus, to which we are directed by the
most appropriate meaning of St. Luke’s words
and the evidence of external considerations, be
found to correspond with the date already assigned
to his birth, it will not only verify that date, but be
itself confirmed, and establish a new epoch in our
Saviour’s life, the epoch of his baptism.
1. “Hv 6€ 6 "Inoots woel érav TpidKkovTa ap-
xouevos.—Why the Evangelist should use the
word zpukovra, if Jesus was at the time of
179
which he speaks either less than twenty-nine or
more than thirty-one years of age, I cannot
conceive. The only reason he could have for
making any allusion at all to his age, (which is
somewhat incidentally introduced,) must have
been to give his reader information. Why then,
if he knew him to be twenty-eight or thirty-one
years of age, should he choose to mislead the
reader by using the word thirty, when he might
with equal ease have said that he was either about
twenty-nine or thirty-one years of age, as the
case might require? The first idea, therefore,
which crosses the mind upon perusing the passage,
is, that Jesus, at the time of his baptism, had lived
not less than twenty-nine, and not more than
thirty-one years. Consequently, every scheme of
gospel chronology, which deviates from these
limits, is not perhaps necessarily false, but cer-
tainly is less probable than another, in which
they are not transgressed. In drawing this infer-
ence I presume of course that St. Luke’ was ac-
quaited with the precise period of our Saviour’s
birth; if he was not exactly informed upon that
point, it only renders the phrase a little more
indefinite, and makes it more necessary for us,
in determining the date of his baptism, to be
guided by other and independent considerations.
2, Having advanced thus far, any farther
M 2
180
approximation to accuracy must be deduced from
the nature and meaning of the construction of
the passage. Now this construction has been con-
ceived to depend upon the preposition azo under-
stood :—Hy dé 6 ‘Inaovus apxopevos® eivac woet AILO
etav tpiaxovta. If this be allowed, it can scarce
be said to mean any thing else than that Jesus was
beginning to be from, or above, or more than
thirty years of age; and in this sense the prepo-
sition is frequently used with reference to time.
‘Aro deirvov means a cénd vel post cenam; and
still more analogously, azo addy implies a pue-
ritia vel post etatem pueritie. Therefore the
verse at present under our consideration, if an
instance of a similar construction, signifies not
being under, but above thirty years... Now 4709 +
° Many commentators would separate d@pycmuevos from any
comnection with érwv tpidkovra, and translate the passage, thus :
‘« Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his ministry.”
“Placet,” says Petavius, ‘¢ verbum e@pyeo8a: ad initium preedicati-
Onis, oikovopias, vel rHs émipaveias referre,” and he is followed by
Lamy and Lardner. I prefer the authority of Epiphanius, who
has removed all doubt as to the manner in which he understood
the passage. *Hv d¢ Iycous, says he, Her. 30, 29,—apyopevor
% et ’ ~ ’ ” eN e ’ , >’ ’
EVAL WS ETWY TPIAKOVTA, WV ULOS, WS EvopiCeTo, Iwong.
4 Viger. p. 580.
* There is an argument very commonly insisted upon by
writers to prove that our Saviour at his baptism was more than
thirty years of age, which I have entirely omitted in the text, It
is deduced from the supposed sacerdotal age amongst the Jews.
The
18
30=4739, consequently Jesus being born in
April J. P. 4709, and baptized when above thirty
and less than thirty-one years of age,—we must
date his baptism between the month of April
J.P. 4739 and the month of April J. P. 4740.
3. It may be inferred from the Gospels and
the character and conduct of Jesus, that he strictly
observed the ordinances of the Mosaic law, and
generally attended the various feasts of the pass-
over, the pentecost, and tabernacles. From St.
John! it is pretty evident that he was at Jerusalem
The Levites, it is said, did not enter upon the discharge of their
office before the completion of their 30th year, and Numbers,
ch, iv. is referred to as a proof of the assertion. But really the
passage appears to me to be quite irrelevant. 1. It does not refer
to the priestly office at all, nor to the Levites in general, but only
to a particular family,—the sons of Kohath. 2. The office of
the Kohathites was to bear the ark—and the holy things,—the
curtains,—the covering,—and all the instruments of their service.
Numb. iv. ver. 15, 19, 25, 26. And this office they were ap-
pointed to discharge ‘from thirty years old and upward, until
fifty years old.” ver.23. Most probably, because the burden might
be too laborious for those under thirty or above fifty years of age.
What possible argument can be deduced from this humane regula-
tion with regard to the period at which our Saviour entered upon
his spiritual ministry I cannot perceive.’ If it was the custom
amongst the Jews that no one should assume the office of a
teacher before the age of thirty, that is another question, and I do
not think our Lord would needlessly violate such a custom. But
I do not think it has any foundation in the preceding passage of
Scripture.
‘Chap. ii.
182
at the first passover subsequent to his baptism,
and manifested himself and his office to the Jews
by the authoritative and prophetic act of cleansing
the temple from the pollutions of those buyers
and sellers, by whose iniquitous traffic it was
perverted from its legitimate end as the house of
God and prayer. If then we can find out by pro-
bable calculations what period of time elapsed
between the baptism of Jesus and his first passover,
these calculations will satisfactorily establish the.
season of the year at which he was baptized ; and
that year having already been determined to be
J.P. 4739, that will be sufficient for every
purpose.
“It came to pass,’ observes St.. Mark, ‘ that
Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was
baptized of John in Jordan..... And immediately
the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness, and he
was there in the wilderness forty days tempted of
Satan.”* Some time after his temptation (but
how long is not stated,) and the very day after
the Jews had sent a message unto John, request-
ing to know whether he was or was not the
Messiah," “John seeth Jesus coming unto him,
and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh
® Chap. 1. ver. 9, 12, 13.
» John, chap. 1. ver. 29, &c.
183
away the sins of the world.” And the next day
after “ John stood and two of his disciples, and
looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold
the Lamb of God.” “The day following Jesus
would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip,
and saith unto him, Follow me.” After this Philip
findeth Nathanael and bringeth him to Jesus,
and Jesus entered into a conversation with him,
which produced his immediate conversion, and
ranked him amongst the number of his disciples.
Whether this took place after the return of Jesus
into Galilee is not stated. If it took place before,
only forty-three days complete are accounted for
between the baptism of Jesus, and the first pass-
over in his ministry.
“And the third day there was a marriage in
Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was
there. And Jesus was called and his disciples to
the marriage.”' It is difficult to say whether this
was the third day after the conversation with
Nathanael, or the third after the return of Jesus
into Galilee, or the third day from the commence-
ment of the marriage feast, which usually lasted
for seven days. Lamy* contends very strongly
and plausibly for the latter mode of interpretation.
‘John ii. ver, 1, 2, &c.
“Comment, in Harm. lib, ii, cap. 10.
184
If we adopt his opinion, the passage will of course
be of no use to us in a chronological point of
view. If we follow either of the former explana-
tions, it will give us nearly fifty days from the
baptism of Jesus to the “first miracle which he
wrought in Cana of Galilee.” After this, and
probably not long after this first miracle, ‘‘he
went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and
his brethren, and his disciples ; and they continued
there not many days. And the Jews’ passover
was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.”
There is only one other place in the whole New
Testament in which we meet with the phrase of
““not many days,” and that is in the first chapter
of the Acts of the Apostles, where it undoubtedly
implies a period of ten days. We may also
suppose that our Saviour went up to Jerusalem
a few days before the Paschal feast, for we know
that he did so at the passover of his crucifixion :
if therefore we add fourteen or sixteen days to the
preceding fifty, we shall have distinctly and incon-
testably proved that Jesus was baptized more
than two months before the first passover in his
ministry. In other words, having before shewn
that Jesus was baptized between the spring J. P.
4739, and the spring J.P. 4740, it is evident
that the passover J.P. 4740, was the first of his
ministry; consequently Jesus was baptized more
than two months before the passoyer, that is, he
1s5
was baptized before the month of February, J. P.
4740: how much before it, is our next enquiry.
In the preceding calculations the reader will
observe that there are several periods of the dura-
tion of which we are ignorant or doubtful, and
upon which, therefore, it is impossible to speak
with any certainty or precision. 1. There is an
unknown interval between the end of our Saviour’s
temptation and the day on which he was pointed
out by the Baptist to his disciples as the Lamb of
God. 2. There is an unknown interval between
the call of Philip and his finding Nathanael and
bringing him unto Jesus. 3. There is a doubtful
interval between the conversation with Nathanael
and the marriage in Cana of Galilee. 4. There is
an unknown interval between the marriage in
Cana of Galilee and the return of Jesus and his
brethren to Capernaum. 5. The expression of
“not many days” is too loose and ambiguous in
itself, and occurs too seldom in the New Testament
to furnish the possibility of our determining with
any degree of accuracy the period which it was,
intended to signify. This indeed we may affirm
without hesitation, that not less than sixty or
seventy days elapsed between our Saviour’s baptism
and the passover in J.P. 4740; but we are quite
unable to decide upon the additional number of
days, or weeks, or months, which the omitted
186
periods might occupy. ‘To obtain any satisfaction
upon this subject we must apply, as in the question
of the nativity, to tradition and the Fathers, an
application which will here be attended with little
difficulty.
In considering the various traditions relative to
our Saviour’s berth, we observed, that those ex-
isting amongst the Egyptians were from several
causes entitled to more credit than those amongst
any other body of Christians. It fortunately
happens that their opinion upon the period of our
Saviour’s baptism has been preserved by Epipha-
nius, and fixes it to the month of November.
Barriabévros avtov Kar’ ‘Avyurrious, ws Ebyuer, AOvp
SwdexaTn mpo e& 'Ewav NoeuBpiwr.' Now this date
is not only uncontradicted by any other tradition
of equal authority and importance,” but has also a
positive recommendation in its favor, which cannot
be more clearly stated than in the words of Lamy,
by whom the remark, which is equally solid and
ingenious, was originally made. After urging with
considerable force the improbability of John’s
baptizing in the middle of winter, as a powerful
' Her. 51, 16.
"It would be difficult to point out the origin of the vulgar
opinion which fixes the baptism of our Saviour to the 6th of
January. That day was celebrated by some in commemoration
of the nativity, as well as baptism of our Lord.
187
objection to the baptism of our Saviour in the
month of January, and shewing that there is no
objection whatever to the Egyptian tradition and
the month of November, he proceeds to give
additional strength to his conclusion in the fol-
lowing terms:— Dum hee scribo mentem subit
argumentum non contemnendum, quo probari
potest, Jesum baptizatum ante mensem Janua-
rium. Eo tempore, quo quadraginta dierum jeju-
nium Dominus complevit, quod inchoaverat statim
post baptismum, tunc hibernum tempus, quo
scilicet terra nullum cibum ministrat his qui in
deserto vivunt, fuisse ex eo conjicio, quéd tunc
esurierit Dominus; et hac occasione usus Demon
non illi obtulerit cibos, sed lapides in panem mu-
tandos ; et ubi discessit Damon, accesserint Angeli
ministraturi cibum, qui nempe non parabilis erat
eo tempore et eo in loco. Si Christus baptizatus
fuisset sexta die Januarii, post expletos quadraginta
dies jejunii, jam proximum fuisset vernum tempus,
in quo presertim in Judea tellus sese aperit ; ut
Diabolus non suasisset Domino, quem videbat
omni alimento egentem, vertere in panem lapides.
Olera occurrent in fine Februarii, quibus solis
primi homines feré vescebantur. Vertm si bap-
tizatus est Dominus in mense Novembri, expleti
sunt quadraginta dies jejunii mense Decembri
jam mulitm promoto, quo tempore sevior est
188
hiems, et omni re que manducari possit tellus
exuitur.”’"
I would therefore strongly incline to the month
of November, J.P. 4739, as the most probable
date of our Saviour’s baptism, because in the first
place it accurately corresponds with St. Luke’s
designation of his age at the time, because in the
second place it is favoured by an ancient and
approved tradition of the Church, and lastly
because it gives an easy solution to a circumstance
which all the Evangelists have noticed in their
accounts of the forty days’ temptation in the
wilderness.
* Appar. Chron. Part I. cap. vii. sect. 1. p. 204.
189
CHAP. VI.
DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING THE PROBABLE DATE OF
OUR SAVIOUR’S BAPTISM.
St. Luke computed the 15th Year of the Government
of Tiberius from the Date of his Proconsular
Empire.
Ir Jesus was baptized by John zm the month of
November J.P. 4739, the word of the Lord,
which directed John to take upon himself the
office of baptizing, must have come to him before
the month of November J. P. 4739.
If Tiberius succeeded to the empire on the
death of Augustus, that is, on the 19th of August
J.P. 4727, the fifteenth year of his reign did not
commence until the 19th of August J. P. 4741.
Therefore, according to this computation, the
word of the Lord, which came to John before
190
November J.P. 4739, came to him nearly two
years before the commencement of the 15th year
of the reign of Tiberius on the 19th of August
J.P. 4741.
But St. Luke expressly and unequivocally de-
clares that the word of the Lord came to John
wm the fifteenth year of Tiberius: “ Now i the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cesar... .
the word of God came unto John the son of
Zacharias in the wilderness.”* Consequently
either the Evangelist or our calculation with regard
to the baptism of Jesus is incorrect.
The only possible way of obviating this difficulty
and reconciling our opinion to the statement of
St. Luke is, by supposing him to have computed
the years of Tiberius from some other and earlier
period than the death of Augustus. To establish
the propriety of this supposition, and become
entitled to avail ourselves of the means it affords
of meeting the objection, we must endeavour to
prove the three following propositions :
1. The existence of some other and earlier
commencement of the reign of Tiberius.
2. The date of that earlier commencement of
his reign.
* Chap. iii. ver. 1, 2.
19]
3. The probability of St. Luke’s computing
from that date.
If each of these points can be fairly made out
and be found to agree with the date we have
assigned for our Saviour’s baptism, I apprehend
there will not only remain no serious objection to
that date, but it will be allowed by all to be con-
firmed, as far as the nature of circumstances will
permit, by its strict correspondence with the
statement of the Evangelist. But before I pro-
ceed to the consideration of these questions it will
be but right to remark that the subject has already
been so copiously treated by Pagi and Lardner,
that my only task and labour will be to give to
their arguments and illustrations a more formal
arrangement, to point out with more precision the
inferences to which they lead, and perhaps to
supply and correct one or two omissions and errors
which have escaped from their pen.
1. The existence of a commencement of the
Imperial power of Tiberius, earlier than the death
of Augustus, may be proved by the strongest evi-
dence of which any historical fact is capable. It
may be proved both by example and by testi-
mony.—Titus was admitted to a participation in
the empire during the life-time of Vespasian, and
in consequence of that participation is addressed
192
by the title of “Imperator” in the dedication of
the Natural History of Pliny, and equally with
Vespasian called avroxpatwp by Josephus.” The
same honors and the same titles were conferred
upon Trajan by Narva, and have been distinctly
related by the younger Pliny... These are the
examples by which the circumstance is rendered
probable. ‘The testimonies by which it is made
certain are equally clear and irresistible. Sueto-
nius* observes that “there was a law made that
Tiberius should govern the provinces jointly with
Augustus, and make the census with him.”
Paterculus® says that “‘at the desire of Augustus
a law was passed by the Senate and people of -
Rome, that Tiberius might have equal power with
him in all the provinces and armies.”' ‘Tacitus
informs us that “Tiberius was made colleague in
the empire (with Augustus,) taken into partner-
ship with him in the tribunician power, and re-
commended to all the armies; and Dio,’ after
stating the same partition of the tribunician power,
remarks, that the title of avroxoatwp, or emperor,
had been decreed to Tiberius amongst the rest,
but that he declined assuming or making use of it.
From these quotations it is undeniable that, during
the life and reign of Augustus, Tiberius was ad-
» De Bello Jud. cap. 7. « Paneg. cap. 8.
4 Tib. cap. 20. “Lib. 1, cap. P21:
" Ann, lib, i. cap. 3. * Lib, lvii. p. 802.
193
mitted to a participation in the supreme power,—
possessed equal authority in the provinces and
armies and the tribunician power at Rome, and
was on those accounts styled his colleague in the
empire, and might, if he had chosen, have adopted
the same title and dignity.
2. There is somewhat more difficulty in
settling the precise year of the commencement of
this joint or subordinate reign of Tiberius; and
the difficulty arises from a supposed contradiction
between the statements of Suetonius and Pater-
culus, in consequence of which it has been doubted
by learned men, whether Tiberius became colleague
in the empire two or three years before the death
of Augustus. [I consider this contradiction to be
entirely imaginary, and shall endeavour to shew,
by a careful comparison of the passages in which
it is conceived to exist, that both the historians are
in strict harmony with each other, when the words
which they have used are properly pointed and
understood.
Paterculus unquestionably asserts that the law,
which constituted Tiberius the colleague of Au-
gustus in the empire, was passed before his return
from Germany and the triumph to which he was
entitled for his successful exertions. His words
are so plain that they cannot admit of a doubt.
N
194
“Concussis hostium viribus classicis peditumque
expeditionibus, cum res Galliarum maxime molis
accenseque plebis Viennensium dissensiones co-
ercitione magis quam poend mollisset, et senatus
populusque Rom. (postulante patre ejus) ut equum
ev Jus in omnibus provincias exercitibusque esset,
quam erat isi, decreto complexus esset......
(Tiberius) in urbem reversus,.... ..ex Pannoniis
Dalmatisque egit triumphum.’’" Such is the testi-
mony of Paterculus. On the other hand it has been
supposed that the date, which Suetonius has as-
signed for this law decreeing equal power to
Tiberius, assigns it to a period subsequent to his
triumph, and consequently that he differs from
Paterculus. Did this or any difference really
exist between them, 1 should have no hesitation
whatever in giving an immediate and positive de-
cision in favour of Paterculus, who was not only
the contemporary historian, but the companion of
Tiberius, and one who bore a principal share in
the transactions he records. According to every
rule of just criticism then, he is a credible and
satisfactory witness. In all human probability he
could not be ignorant of the facts which he narrates,
and to his statements it should be our first endeavour
io reconcile the words of every other writer: but
in fact | conceive, that upon a fair examina-
» Lib. ii, cap. 12K.
195
tion it will appear that there is. not any kind
of disagreement whatever. The words of Sue-
tonius' are these :—‘ A Germania in urbem post
biennium regressus, triumphum quem distulerat
egit.....Ac non multo post, —lege per Coss. lata
ut provincias cum Augusto communiter adminis-
traret simulque censum ageret,—condito lustro in
Illyricum profectus est.” Now, the only way in
which this can be construed to imply a contradic-
tion to Paterculus is by omitting (as Lardner has
done) the comma after ‘post,’ and so referring
the words “‘ac non multo post” to “lege lata,”
&c. a reference which is, I apprehend, directly
contrary to the intentions of the author. His
object was, I think, to unite “non multo post”
exclusively to “ condito lustro,”’ and to place “lege
per Coss. lata, &¢.—censum ageret” in a parenthe-
sis; for if that had not been his intention, he ought
not, and would not, as I conceive, have written
“‘condito lustro,” but “conditogue lustro.’” The
sense therefore is not, that a law was not long
after his triumph passed to make him a colleague
in the empire and in the taking of the census,
but that a law having been passed to that effect,
he not long after his triumph took the census and
departed for Ilyricum. “ Ac non multo post (lege
lata ut provincias cum Augusto communiter admi-
' Tiber. cap. 20.
N 2
196
nistraret simulque censum ageret) condito lustro
in Illyricum profectus est.’’ “ And, a law having
been passed that he should govern the provinces
jointly with Augustus, and together with him take
a census, he not long after departed for Ilyricum.
the census being completed.” That the words are
capable of this sense is indubitable,—that, this
sense being admitted, the imaginary difficulty is
perfectly removed is equally clear ; for the passage,
thus interpreted, determines nothing further than
the simple fact of such a law having been passed,
without deciding any thing as to the time; and
that we ought to adopt this sense no one can for
a moment hesitate to grant who considers the pre-
ceding observations which we have made upon
the superior authority of Paterculus, whose state-
ment, without this explanation, the words wouk
decidedly contradict. It is mdeed astonishing tha.
men of learning, and candour, and judgment, as
Pagiand Lardner, and others, who have employed
so much labour and ingenuity in the useful task of
reconciling the apparent contrarities of the Evan-
gelists, should, immediately upon leaving the sacred
writers, lose sight of that admirable rule of criti-
cism, which declares that every difference is not a
contradiction, and the moment they enter upon the
consideration of profane authors or profane history,
conclude that every little disagreement in different,
197
or even the same writer, is an error either of one
or the other, or both.
Having reconciled the seeming opposition be-
tween Paterculus and Suetonius, we are now ina
condition to calculate the period at which we ought
to fix the commencement of the Proconsular empire
of Tiberius. Suetonius informs us that Tiberius
returned from Germany, and enjoyed his triumph
after a two year’s absence from Rome. It was
during his absence that the law was passed which
made him equal with Augustus in the provinces;
consequently his proconsular empire must be dated
sometime within two years before his return and
triumph. Our attention must therefore be directed
to find out, in the first place, the period at which
Tiberius was sent into Germany. The period of
his triumph will then be ascertained, and the ex-
treme limits, within which the date of his procon-
sular empire lies, will follow as a matter of course.
Now Pagi* has demonstrated, beyond all contra-
diction, that the loss of Varus and his legions took
place, J. P. 4722. In the following year, that is,
J.P. 4723, Dio' informs us that Tiberius dedi-
cated the temple of Concord ; and Suetonius™ that
he was sent into Germany. Now Ovid" states that
« Critic. in Bar. A. cap, x. p. 6. ' Lib. 56.
m Tiber. cap. xviii. ; » Fasti, lib. i. v. 637.
198
the dedication of the temple of Concord took place
on the 16th of January. It must therefore have
been after the said 16th of January J.P. 4723
that Tiberius went into Germany. He most pro-
bably left Rome zmmediately after, in order to
reach the armies before the usual time of opening
their military campaigns in spring. In Germany,
as we have already been told by Suetonius, he
remained about two, years, and then returned to
Rome to enjoy his triumph. Spring J.P. 4723
+2=Spring, J.P. 4725; consequently Tiberius
returned to Rome at the latest in the spring of
J.P. 4725 ; and between that period and the spring
of J.P. 4723 is the commencement of his pro-
consular empire to be dated.
The same date may be deduced from another
mode of calculation, upon which Pagi and Lardner
have spoken at much length. The former they
have merely touched upon, being checked in their
progress by the difference which they supposed to
exist between Suetonius and Paterculus.
Lucius Piso, it appears from Tacitus,’ died in
J.P. 4745, after having been prefect of Rome
for twenty years, “viginti per annos.” J.P.
A745 —-20=J.P. 4725; therefore Piso was ap-
° Ann, lib. vi, cap. 2.
199
pointed preefect of Rome sometime in J. P. 4725:
but it appears from Pliny’ and Suetonius" that
Piso was selected for the office of prefect by
Tiberius after he became prince, and during the
correction of the public morals. Now he became,
as we have before seen, the colleague of Augustus
in the empire, and was appointed to take the census
by a decree of the Senate, which is to be dated
before his return to Rome. He returned to Rome
in the early part of J.P. 4725, and after celebra-
ting his triumph, would of course proceed to the
business of the census, to which he had been |
already nominated by a law, and which was not
finished, according to the Ancyran Marble, until
J.P. 4727. If therefore the word “ Prince,”
which is used by Pliny, be equivalent to the phrase
“colleague in the empire;” and the “correction
of public manners,” which is spoken of by Sueto-
nius, be the same as the act of taking the census,
it is plain that Piso, having been appointed prefect
according to Tacitus in J. P. 4725, was appointed
after Tiberius became Prince, and during the cor-
rection of the public morals. That the census and
the correction of the public morals are the same
may be argued from the known fact, that a census
involved, as a necessary part of its business, the
censure of the manners of the Roman people, and
? Nat. Hist, lib. xiv. cap. 22. 4 Tiber, cap, 42,
200
from the express words of Dio,’ who asserts the
same thing :—Ex dé Tod Tiyuntevew, Tovs Te Bious Kat
Tos TpoTous nuwv eLEeTACovaL, Kal amorypadds ToLovy-
ra,—and that the word “ Prince” is equivalent in
this case at least to the title of “ colleague in the
3
empire,” and refers to that equal and proconsular
authority which wasallotted to Tiberius, is evident
from two considerations. First, there is no other
known circumstance in the life of Tiberius which
could have given rise to the name. Secondly,
it has been already observed that Titus and Ves-
pasian were colleagues in the empire, and by
Capitolinus® they are both and without any dis-
tinction called “‘ Principes.” Avus Annius Rufus,
iterum consul et prefectus urbi, adscitus in patri-
cios a principibus Vespasiano et Tito censoribus.”’
Hence I conceive we are fully justified in re-
garding “prince” and “colleague in the empire”
when applied to Tiberius, as the same, and the
“correction of public morals” to be the Roman
census ; and thus are enabled to confirm the date
we have previously given for the proconsular
empire of Tiberius, namely, that it began previous
to the commencement of the year J.P. 4725. An
objection has indeed been made to the very foun-
dation of this whole argument. Cardinal Noris
* Lib. hin. p. 508.
>In Mare, Anton. Philos, sub initio.
201
objects that the only power, which Tiberius pos-
sessed in J. P. 4725, was derived either from his
censorial, tribunician, or proconsular authority.
But his proconsular authority was confined to the
armies and provinces, his tribunician simply to the
right of intercession, and his censorial to the pe-
culiar business of the census ; consequently, in the
year J. P. 4725, Tiberius was not in possession of
any office in virtue of which he could have ap-
pointed a prefect of Rome. From this and other
circumstances, he seems to think that he ought
to adopt the conjecture of Lipsius, and read ten
instead of twenty years in that passage of Tacitus
in which he speaks of the duration of Piso’s pre-
fecture, thus fixing his appointment by Tiberius
to that office in the year J.P. 4735, and not
J.P. 4725. But in answer to this it has been
remarked that the proposed alteration in the text
of Tacitus is totally without foundation, and con-
trary to every manuscript ; and as to the incapacity
of Tiberius to appoint a prefect of the city, I
think it is quite sufficient to observe that Suetonius
is a much better judge of what Tiberius did, and
was able to do, than Cardinal Noris, and that, as
the method of making such appointments was a
matter of private arrangement between the two
colleagues, it is impossible for any one to say what
powers were or were not entrusted to Tiberius by
Augustus. From his public situations and offices
202
he might not be entitled to appoint or remove a
prefect of the city, but by a priate understanding
with Augustus he might have the power of selec-
tion‘ or nomination to this and many other dig-
nities absolutely entrusted to his care. Since
then it appears from Tacitus, that Piso was made
prefect of Rome J. P. 4725, and from Suetonius,
that he was appointed by Tiberius, whilst he was
taking the census and after he had received the
proconsular power, it follows that the commence-
ment of that power must be dated before the
commencement of J. P. 4725, as we have before
determined.
Our next step towards accuracy must be drawn
from the statements of Paterculus. He, as well as
the other historians, informs us, that after the
destruction of Varus, that is, as we have before
proved, in the spring J.P. 4723, Tiberius was
sent into Germany, confirmed. the allegiance of
the Gauls, vanquished his enemies, and being suc-
cessful in every undertaking put his troops into
winter quarters,—Mittitur ad Germaniam, Gallias
confirmat —— ultra Rhenum_ transgreditur ——
* Pliny does not say that Piso was appointed, but only selected
for the office by Tiberius,—‘“Credidere L. Pisonem urbis Romz
cure ab eo delectum quod biduo duabusque noctibus perpotationem
continuasset apud ipsum jam principem, Plin. Nat. Hist. lib, xiv.
cap. 22.
203
fundit obvios, maximaque cum gloria in hyberna
revertitur.”""" This brings us to Nov. J. P. 4723.
He then proceeds in the very next chapter to say
that the same good conduct and good fortune
attended Tiberius in the following season or
year :— Kadem et virtus et fortuna subsequente
tempore* ingressa animam imperatoris Tiberii
fuit, que initio fuerat.’”” This I consider as al-
luding to the transactions of the second year’s
campaign in Germany, that is, J. P. 4724. Having
stated this, Paterculus adds in the same chapter
and even sentence, that, when Tiberius had com-
pletely accomplished. the object for which he was
sent and settled the affairs of Gaul, and Augustus
had requested and the Senate agreed to confer
upon him, as some reward for his services, a power
and authority in the armies and provinces equal to
those which were possessed by Augustus himself,
he returned to Rome. ‘‘ Cum res Galliarum max-
ime molis accenszeque plebis Viennensium dissen-
siones.,..mollisset, et senatus populusque Ro-
manus (postulante patre ejus) ut aquum ei jus In
" Lib, ii, cap. 120.
_* “ Subsequenti tempore” in the following year. The word
tempus is most unequivocally used in the same sense as “annus”
in the subjoined quotation from the Commentaries of Cesar,
lib. 5, c. 7. where, speaking of the West wind, he says,—“* Magnam
partem omnis temporis in his locis fluere consuevit.” It usually
blows in these places a great part of every year.
204
omnibus provinciis exercitibusque esset, quam
erat ipsi, decreto complexus esset—in urbem re-
versus est.” The law follows immediately after
the relation of his success, and his return is placed
after both. This law, therefore, must have been
passed about the conclusion of the second year's
campaign in Germany, that is, about the conclusion
of the year J. P. 4724.
3. To the probability of St. Luke’s computing
the years of Tiberius from the date of his procon-
sular government two very serious objections
have been made, and as thisis, after all, the most
important point to be determined, I will state
them fully and fairly :
It has been objected, in the first place, that
Tiberius has not been called Emperor by any |
Latin historian, and that not one of the Latin
historians has given the slightest hint of any other
commencement of his reign than that which is
dated from the death of Augustus on the 19th of
August J. P. 4727.
To this I answer that it is perfectly true, but
not quite unaccountable, therefore not quite de-
cisive against the probability of such a compu-
¥ Lib. 1, cap. 121.
205
tation having been adopted by St. Luke. That
the Roman historians have never called Tiberius
‘Imperator,’ though Pliny, and Josephus, and
Philostratus have, each in his turn, bestowed that
title of supremacy upon Titus before the death of
Vespasian, is a singularity which may be traced to
the different degrees or rather extent of power
possessed respectively by Tiberius and Titus, when
colleagues in the empire. Of Titus, Philostratus’
affirms that he was ‘AvappnOcis avroxpatwp év TH
PQMH.... icopoipyjowy THs apyns TH TaTpi,—“~ de-
clared Emperor in Rome, and having an equal
share in the government with his father,’ without
confining that equality of power to any particular
part of the empire. Of Tiberius it is only said
that he was admitted to an equal degree of autho-
rity “in the provinces and armies.”” Not one of
the passages which have been quoted in the course
of this discussion carries his participation in the
imperial power to the city or territory of Rome.
All the authority he possessed there was in right .
of the tribunician power which he had long held,
or from the concessions of Augustus in whose
name, of course, he must have acted both in Rome
and the Roman states. It isno wonder, therefore,
that the Roman historians, who of course were
accustomed to that computation only which was
* Vit, Apollon, lib, vi. cap, 30, quoted by Lardner.
206
acknowledged in Rome, should never have calcu-
lated the years of his reign from any other epoch
than the death of Augustus. And this limitation
of the imperial power of Tiberius, when the col-
league only of Augustus, would naturally induce
them to withhold from him the title of Emperor,
as well as prevent their reckoning the years of his
reign from his participation in a joint and subor-
dinate empire. The same remark will apply to
Josephus, who was so conversant with the Romans,
and more especially with the affairs of Titus, whom
he has styled avroxpatwp at a time when we know
that he was only Vespasian’s colleague. But the
same remark does not apply to St. Luke, who was
a provincial writer, an inhabitant of one of those
provinces in which the authority of Tiberius was
equal to that of Augustus, from the very moment
in which the decree of the Senate constituted him
hiscolleague. St. Luke, therefore, might, though
Josephus and the Roman historians have not com-
puted the years of Tiberius from the commence-
ment of his proconsular empire.
2. But it is further objected, that the compu-
tation of the years of Tiberius from the com-
mencement of his proconsular empire was as
much unknown in the provinces as in Rome,—
that it was in fact not admitted in the city of An-
tioch, which has usually been considered as the
207
birth-place and residence of St. Luke himself,—
and that it may be reasonably supposed that St.
Luke would follow the computation in use at
Antioch. |
This isa strong fact, and is undeniable. There
are most certainly two Antiochian medals, the ob-
verses of which bear the head of Tiberius, and
the reverses of. which are respectively marked
with the first and third years of his reign, and the
forty-fifth and forty-seventh years of the era of the
Antiochians, which began on the 2d of Sept. J. P.
4683, the day of the battle of Actium. Now
4683 +44=4727 and 4683 +46=4729; conse-
quently it is absolutely certain from these medals
that the first and third years of Tiberius are to be
dated as commencing respectively in the 4727th
and 4729th years of the Julian Period, that is,
they are to be considered as the first and third
years of his reign from the death of Augustus, who
died on the 19th of August J.P. 4727, and not
from the proconsular empire of Tiberius.
It is easy to perceive how formidable this ob-
jection is, both in appearance and reality ; and
I can scarcely think it an ingenuous proceeding
on the part of Pagi and Lardner, that they should
have passed it over in silence, as if unimportant.
Neither of them could be ignorant of its existence.
208
Pagi* has made, upon another occasion, a most
excellent use of these very medals, and argued for
the commencement of the Antiochian era from the
day of the battle of Actium, expressly upon the
ground of their containing the dates of the first
and third years of the sole empire of Tiberius.
Lardner, also, it is plain, had read Lamy, and
Lamy’ has insisted upon these medals as an in-
vincible proof of the improbability of St. Luke’s
computing from the proconsular empire of Tibe-
rius. It is not, however, by omitting difficulties
that the cause of truth or the gospel is to be pro-
moted. We must meet the objection fairly ; and
in doing so, I will confess that, but for the follow-
ing reasons, I should regard it as unanswerable.
It is evident that these medals do not necessarily
contain the opinion of the Antiochian people, but
only of the Antiochian mint. Now Lardner‘
observes, that “Tiberius seems to have taken
pains to obliterate the date of his proconsular
government, inasmuch as he was unwilling to have
it thought that he owed his greatness to the adop-
tion of Augustus, or the intrigues of his mother
@Critic. p. xiv. a. p. 14. In his App. Chron. p. 37, he
quotes a similar medal of the Seleucians.
» App. Chron. Part II. cap. 1. J. P, 4727. p. 106.
© Credib, b. ii, cap. 3. p, 204,
209
Livia, but would have it ascribed solely to the free
choice of the people after Augustus’s death.”
And in proof of this he refers to passages in 'T'a-
citus‘ and in Dio.* If this was really the case,
it sufficiently accounts for the Antiochian mint,
to which the instructions or even wishes of the
Emperor would be a law, not having made use of
the date of the proconsular empire of Tiberius.
With regard to other Emperors, they certainly
did sometimes date from other periods than the
commencement of their sole empire. ‘‘ Pagi men-
tions a medal which has this inscription,—Jn the
11th new sacred year of the Emperor Titus
Cesar Vespasian Augustus. Now Titus reigned
alone afer his father’s death but a little above two
years.’ It is also certain that this new sacred
era is not to be computed from any one common
period, as the building or dedication of a temple,
because the numbers answer exactly to the years
of the Emperors Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, and
Nerva, upon whose coins alone it is to be found.
Is it then an impossible supposition that the mint
of Antioch may in this instance have had parti-
cular directions upon the subject, or that St. Luke,
_ a writer, careless or perhaps ignorant of the wishes
of the emperor, and unconnected with the affairs
¢ Ann, lib. i. cap. 8. © Lib. 57. pv 6038.
‘ Lardner. Credib. book ti. eap. 3. p. 261.
O
210
of state, should have followed some other mode,
and dated from the commencement of some other
period than the death ef Augustus. Had St. Luke
indeed declared positively that it was in the 15th
year of the sole empire of Tiberius that the word
of God came unto John, or had he used the word
reign or empire at all, I should not have ventured
to defend the position which I am now advocating.
‘But the word of the Evangelist, though translated
reign in the authorized English version, does not
imply a sole, or supreme, or independent sove-
reignty. St. Luke does not say 'Ev ére wevrexade-
Kat Tis Bacielas, OY THs apyis, but ris HTEMO-
NIA TiBepiov. Now, though the word y-yepnovia
itself is not to be found in any other passage of the
New Testament, the cognate words yyeuovedw and
nryenov are frequently to be met with, and wherever
they do occur, they imply universally, and without
any exception whatever, a subordinate and not a
supreme authority. Whenever a supreme and
independent magistrate is spoken of, his title is
always Bactde’s, which has been explained to us as
clearly as any word can be explained by two of
the Apostles themselves.—Tw Bacirer ws YILEPE-
XONTI, says St. Peter’—ér éBacirevoe Kupios o
Oeds o TANTOKPATOP, says St. John." The term
Bacirevs is also on one occasion particularly applied
6.1 Pep. a1. " Apoc. xix. 6.
211
fo the Roman Emperor, ovx éyouev Baoidéa ci fay}
Kaicapa.' Lastly, there is a distinction made
between yryenwr and Bacirevs both by St. Matthew“
and St. Mark;' the nature of which distinction is
carefully and clearly pointed out by St. Luke, the
author now under our consideration. Paul was
summoned to defend himself before Agrippa the
King, and Festus the Governor of Judea. Agrippa
was in his dominions a supreme and independent
monarch. Festus held his authority under the
Roman Emperor. After St. Paul had made his
address, St. Luke observes that “the King and the
Governor rose up,” avéorn o Bacidevs Kal 0 nryenov,™
thus placing between the words Baoire’s and
nyeuwv the same difference which subsists between
a supreme and a subordinate power. The same
distinction is, as far as I have observed, very
scrupulously adhered to by Josephus. Baoirela or
apxn is the term he applies to an Emperor or
King ; 7yevovia and its cognates always refer to a
power held under another as its supreme source,
to a governor and government. From_ these
remarks I think it is very highly probable that
St. Luke did not, when speaking in the third
chapter of his Gospel of the 15th year of Tiberius,
intend to date from the commencement of his sole
* John xix. 15. * Chap. x. 18.
* Chap. xiii. 9. ™ Acts xxvi. 30,
212
and independent empire, but of some subordinate
and dependent government. Had he meant his
sole empire, he would have employed the word
Bacieta and not yyenovia. This is still further
rendered probable by a difference between the
expression of St. Luke and that on the Antiochian
medals. In the inscription upon those coins we
read ZEBAZTOY Kaicapos, which necessarily im-
plies that at the time at which they were struck
Tiberius had assumed or permitted the title of
Augustus to be bestowed upon him; but before
the death of Augustus he never received that title;
consequently we are compelled to fix the date of
these medals after the death of Augustus, and in
the sole empire of Tiberius. But we do not find
this word YeBacrov in the Evangelist. His words
are T:Bepiov Kaicapos alone, and though the omis-
‘sion of SeBacrov is not decisive, yet it is so far
favourable to our views that it does not oblige us
to suppose him speaking of a period subsequent to
the assumption of that title by Tiberius.
Upon the whole then, though the word “reign,”’
which is the translation of yyenovia in the autho-
rised English version, be not absolutely incorrect,
the word “‘ government” appears to be much more
proper and much more consistent with the meaning
of the cognates of yexovia in every part of the
New Testament; and on this account I think it
213
ought to be substituted and preferred. We ought
to read,—“‘ In the fifteenth year of the government
of Tiberius Caesar the word of God came unto
John in the wilderness ;’’ and with that necessary
alteration it will no longer seem so incredible to
suppose that St. Luke was referring to the procon-
sular government rather than the sole and imperial
reign of Tiberius. The proconsular authority
conferred upon him nothing more than a subor-
dinate government, an yyeuovia in the strict though
highest sense of the word; but his sole empire,
after the death of Augustus, was a BacwWea, and
could not be rightly designated by any term of
inferior import. If, therefore, the Evangelist be
speaking of that supreme power, he speaks some-
what carelessly, to say the least of it, when he calls
if an ny EHOvIA.
I have now said all that I can in answer to the
objections which have been urged, and I am ex-
tremely anxious (I will not disguise it) that these
answers should be deemed satisfactory. It remains
for me to vindicate the opinion from the charge of
novelty, and to shew that, though Herwart is gene-
rally considered as the author of this method of
computing the 15th year of Tiberius from the com-
mencement of his proconsular empire, he was in
fact, without being aware of the circumstance,
perhaps, only reviving, amongst the moderns, a
244
notion which had been entertained and acted upon
by the majority of Christian writers from the very
promulgation of the Gospel.
The Christian Fathers, from the earliest times
and almost with one consent, declare, that Jesus
suffered death for mankind in the 15th year of the
sole empire of Tiberius, the two Gemini being
consuls; and assign for the duration of his minis-
try, or in other words place between his baptism
and his crucifixion, a period of more than a single
year. But if the word of God came to John in
the 15th year of the sole empire of Tiberius and
before the baptism of Jesus, such an opinion
would never have been formed or followed ; for it
is certain that these Fathers had before them, as
we have, the Gospel of St. Luke, and that they did
read in that Gospel, as we also now read, that
Jesus was not baptized until after the commence-
ment-of the 15th year of the government of Ti-
berius. Is it not therefore probable, is it not
almost demonstrable from hence, that they did noé
think that the 15th year of the government of
Tiberius, mentioned by St. Luke, referred to his
reign, as sole and supreme Emperor ?—Had that
been their interpretation of the Evangelist’s words,
they would and must have concluded that our
Saviour was crucified after and not wn the 15th
year of the reign of Tiberius. I[t is plain then,
215
from their forming a different conclusion, that they
conceived the government of Tiberius, according
to the Evangelist, to have preceded his reign in
the common acceptation of that word; but this is
not only a deduction from their general opinions,
it is also a fact, which, as it regards some indivi-
duals at least, is rendered undeniable by the testi-
mony of Clemens Alexandrinus.—Some, says he,"
suppose that Tiberius reigned twenty-two years,
but others twenty-six years, six months, and
nineteen days. With the accuracy of these dates
{ am not at present concerned,—I merely produce
them to prove that there were different modes of
computing the duration, and therefore the com-
mencement of the reign of Tiberius :—now it ts
absolutely certain that Tiberius did not reign
twenty-six years from the death of Augustus.
This date must consequently have been reckoned
from some previous commencement, which is all
that it is necessary to our purpose to contend for.
Taking it then for granted as probable, though
not perhaps as demonstrated for certain, that the
years of Tiberius in St. Luke are the years of
his proconsular empire, and that this proconsular
empire began about the conclusion of J. P. 4724,
J shall now proceed to examine whether, according
" Strom, lib, 1. p. 406.
216
to this opinion, the word of God came to John in
the fifteenth year of his government, that is,
between the conclusion of J.P. 4738 and J.P.
4739.
We have determined the baptism of Jesus to
November J. P. 4739, as its most probable date.
If, therefore, the word of the Lord did not come
to John more than ten or twelve months before
the baptism of Jesus, it did come to him in the
15th year of the proconsular government of Tibe-
rius. The length of time by which this revelation
to John preceded the actual baptism of our Saviour
becomes therefore a necessary preliminary to the
elucidation of the difficulty.
What we either know or can gather from the
Gospels relative to the duration of the Baptist’s
ministry previous to the baptism of our Saviour
is extremely scanty and dubious.
1. St. Luke° says, that ‘‘ the word of God
came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wil-
derness ; and he came into all the country round
about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins.” The connecting par-
ticle “and” is quite indefinite, and is used in the
* Chay. ali..2, 3.
Gospels to signify various periods of greater or less
duration, but from the manner in which it here
connects the revelation to John with the commence-
ment of his preaching, no unprejudiced person
could possible suppose that they did not awnmedt-
ately follow each other. I think, therefore, that
no interval, or at least a very short one, elapsed
between those two events.
2. John went, as we have seen above, into all
the countries round about Jordan, preaching the
baptism of repentance, and his success was such,
that, according to St. Matthew? and St. Mark?
all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan,
and they of Jerusalem went out unto him, and
were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confess-
ing their sins.” This travelling into all the
country round about Jordan, and preaching there,
may have occupied several months, and would not
probably occupy more.
3. It was during this period, “then,” as we
are informed by St. Matthew ;" ‘in those days,”
according to St. Mark ;* and “ when all the people
were baptized,” or ‘ whilst they were baptizing,”
P Chap. iu. 5, 4 Chap. 1. 5.
' Chap. iii. 13. ‘Chap. i. 9.
218
as we learn from St. Luke,' that Jesus also came
from Galilee to John, and was baptized of him in
Jordan. The baptism of Jesus, therefore, occur-
red at an interval of several months from the period
at which the word of God came to John in the
wilderness of Judea.
4. How many months elapsed between the
revelation to John and the baptism of Jesus may
be gathered with some appearance of accuracy
from the subject of John’s preaching. He preached
“the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins.” Winter does not seem a very fit or natural
time for beginning to promulgate a doctrine which
exacted the baptism of all its converts, that is,
according. to the general practice of those days,
the complete immersion of the whole body of the
disciple in the open river. It would seem much
more reasonable on this account to suppose that
the word of God, directing John to preach and
baptize, was communicated to him in the summer
or spring, or in other words, about four or six
months before the baptism of Jesus in November.
* Chap. ili, 21. "Eyevero d€¢ ev to BartisOnva: anavta Tov
Aadv. The authorised version *‘ when all the people were baptized”
seems rather inaccurate. In Luc. c. x. v. 38. éyevero 0€ €v TH
mopevesOai avtous, is very properly translated, “ It came to pass
as they went,” and the similar phrase above-mentioned ought in
common consistency to have been rendered *‘ whilst all the people
were baptizing” or being baptized.
219
5. That these inferences are not incorrect,—
that the ministry of John had only occupied a
short space of time before the baptism of Jesus
may also be argued from the Gospel of St. John.
From his first chapter it appears that on a certain
day the priests came to ask John who he was,
and received their answer. On the very next day
John again bore witness to Jesus, whom he saw
walking, mentioning what had taken place at his
baptism. From this account we may easily collect
that this enquiry could not have been made previous
to our Lord’s baptism, because the Baptist speaks
of that as a thing already past." Neither could it
have taken place before the temptation of Jesus ;
because St. Mark asserts that his temptation began
immediately after his baptism, whereas the con-
tinuity and regularity of St. John’s narrative pre-
cludes its having taken place at all, if it did not
take place before this mission of the Levites to
the Baptist. This enquiry then must have been
made more than 40 days after the Baptism of our
Saviour. Having established this, we shall easily
perceive that our Saviour’s baptism must have
happened very early in the ministry of his fore-
runner; for it is natural to suppose that the
general expectation of the Messiah then enter-
tained would make the Jews very anxious to
“Vers 32.
220
ascertain both who and what the Baptist was;
and almost the first accounts of John’s extraordi-
nary character, and actions, and mode of life
would induce them to make the necessary en-
quiries. Had then John been baptizing for the
space of ten or twelve months before our Saviour
went to him, and been all that time upon the
banks of the Jordan, it is in the highest degree
probable, I would almost say, certain, that a formal
and official enquiry into his pretensions would have
been made by the Priests and Levites at’ Jerusalem
long before, instead of forty days after the baptism
of Jesus.
Thus it appears that, if we fix the commence-
ment of the Baptist’s ministry about szx months
before the baptism of Jesus in November J. P.
4739, we place it as early, and if we place it
one month before the baptism of Jesus in Nov.
J.P. 4739, we place it as late as the circumstances
which are recorded in the New ‘Testament will
permit. Nov. J. P. 4739—6 months= May J.P.
4739, which is therefore the earliest, and Novy.
J.P. 4739,—one month=Oct. J. P. 4739, which
is therefore the latest period at which the word of
God came to John, and corresponds exactly to
the 15th year of the proconsular government of
Tiberius, which comprehends at least the greater
part of J. P. 4739, being to be dated, as we have
221
shewn, from the latter end of J. P. 4724;. to which
if we add 15 years we shall arrive at the latter end
of J, P. 4739, as the final limit.
From all that has been said it follows that,
supposing St. Luke to have computed the years of
Tiberius from the date of his association to the
empire, the propriety and period of which compu-
tation we have laboured by various considerations
to establish, —‘‘ the word of God which came as we
suppose to John the son of Zacharias in J.P.
4739, came to him in the 15th year of the govern-
ment of Tiberius Cesar.’’ In other words, our
calculations most accurately agree with the state-
ment of the Evangelist, as far as this circumstance
is concerned.
SECTION II.
Pontius Pilate was. Governor of Judea,
JP -AZ39:
Tuere is some doubt about the fact which the
title of this section asserts,—Pontius Pilate was
dismissed from his government by Vitellius, and
ordered to go to Rome after having passed ten
years in Judea, and before he reached Rome the
Emperor Tiberius was dead. All these circum-
stances, as well as the quotations which I shall
introduce in the course of this investigation, may
be found in the 6th chapter of the 18th book of
the Antiquities of Josephus. Now from the
statement, that before Pilate reached Rome the
death of Tiberius had taken place, it is inferred
with considerable plausibility, that Pilate had not
been removed by Vitellius above two months
before Tiberius died, March 16th J.P. 4750,
and January J. P. 4750-10 years = January
J.P. 4740. Therefore Pilate entered upon the
government of Judea about January J.P. 4740.
223
if this were admitted as true, it would com-
pletely overturn both our opinion as to the time at
which the word of God came to John, and also
our method of computing the years of Tiberius.
For St. Luke positively declares that when, in the
15th year of the government of Tiberius, the
word of God came unto John, Pontius Pilate was
governor of Judea. But if the word of God came
to John, as we suppose, in May or October J.P.
4739, Pontius Pilate was not then, according to
the above computation, the governor of Judea.
Lardner* has taken this objection and difficulty
into his particular consideration, and given it a
very large and copious answer. It is not neces-
sary to follow him through all his reasonings.
The very chapter of Josephus upon which his
answer is founded contains an irrefragable proof
that Pilate was governor of Judea in the spring
of J.P. 4739. I shall therefore pass over his
lengthened arguments, which are not perhaps
perfectly conclusive, and insist only upon this
shorter solution of the difficulty which he has
most unaccountably left unnoticed and neglected.
The Senate of Samaria sent to Vitellius prefect
of Syria an accusation against Pilate for what
* Credibility, b. ii. cap. 3, §. 3.
224
they deemed the murder of some of their country-
men. Vitellius, in consequence of their complaints,
sent his friend Marcellus to supersede Pilate, whom
he ordered to go directly to Rome, to answer before
Cesar the accusations which had been laid against
him. “Thus Pilate having remained ten years
in Judea, at the command of Vitellius whom he
durst not disobey, returned to Rome, but Tiberius
died before he got thither. Afterwards Vitellius
went to Judea, and arrived at Jerusalem at the
time of the celebration of the feast of the Pass-
over.” This Passover,” it is evident, was the first
which occurred after the removal of Pilate. Was
it also the first after the death of Tiberius?
Because it is said by Josephus “ that Tiberius
died” before Pilate reached Rome, it is inferred
that it was. From the subsequent tenor of the
narrative of Josephus | think it may be clearly
demonstrated that it was not. The tenor of the
historian’s narrative to which [I allude is this:
At the first Passover after Pilate’s removal,
Vitellius remitted to the inhabitants of Judea the
tribute of fruit,—restored to the temple the sacer-
dotal robes,—deposed the high priest Joseph,
surnamed Caiaphas,—substituted in his room Jo-
nathan the son of Ananus, and then returned to
® Josephus, ubi supra.
225
Antioch.—* And now Tiberius sends letters to
Vitellius commanding him to form a friendly alli-
ance with Artabanus King of the Parthians.” This
was after Vitellius’s return to Antioch; whence
it is highly probable that Tiberius was then alive.
But it is not absolutely certain, because these
letters, though written before, might not be re-
ceived by Vitellius till after the death of Tiberius,—
We must therefore proceed.
In consequence of these letters from Tiberius,
Artabanus and Vitellius met together at the
Euphrates for the purpose of. settling the condi-
tions of the treaty.—The terms were fixed, and
“not long after Artabanus, together with many
presents, sent his son Darius as an hostage to
‘Tibertas: .3. Then Vitellius returned to Antioch,
and King Artabanus te 8abylon.”—When Vitel-
lius sent his dispatches to the Emperor with an
account of his success in these negociations,
““ Cesar signified to him, that he was acquainted
with the whole affair from Herod before.”—
Vitellius was much chagrined at this circumstance,
and conceived a great dislike to Herod in conse-
quence, which however “he carefully concealed
until Catus obtained the empire.” Tiberius,
therefore, it is evident, was not only the Emperor
to whom Vitellius sent his dispatches, but also that
Cesar who in his answer signified to him that he
P
226
was acquainted with the whole affair from Herod
before. ‘Tiberius therefore was living subsequently
to these negociations with Artabanus, that is, he
was alive a considerable time subsequent to the
first Passover after Pilate’s removal.—Hence it
is clearly demonstrable that the first Passover after
Pilate’s removal was not the first after the death
of Tiberius, but some Passover before it. Conse-
quently whatever difficulty we may experience in
accounting for Pilate’s not reaching home until
more than a year after his removal from the go-
vernment of Judea,—a difficulty, however, which
the dilatory character of Tiberius, and the natural
repugnance of Pilate to appear before him, render
not altogether unexplicable,—we are bound to
adhere to the plain testimony of facts, and not
permit ourselves to be driven from the belief of a
truth which may be proved by an objection which
may be deduced from our ignorance of the reasons
of a particular circumstance. !
To proceed, we have seen that the first Pass-
over after Pilate’s removal was some Passover
before the death of Tiberius. What Passover it
actually was is now to be determined, and for
this purpose we must go on with our quotations
from Josephus.
About this time, that is, after the termination
227
of the affair with Artabanus and Aretas King of
Arabia Petreea, an engagement took place, in
which the whole army of Herod was defeated, and
Herod immediately dispatched letters to Tiberius,
(another proof of that Emperor being still alive,)
who commanded Vitellius to make war upon
Aretas ; and Vitellius in obedience to the order,
having collected a considerable force, began his
march towards Petra, and arrived at Ptolomais.
As it is evident from the preceding part of
the historian’s narrative, which we have already
epitomised, that a considerable portion of the
Summer which succeeded the removal of Pilate
must have been employed in the negociations
with Artabanus, and it does not appear that the
defeat of the Jewish troops had then taken place,
we must conclude that Herod did not write to
Tiberius, nor Tiberius send orders to Vitellius,
until after the conclusion of the treaty with Arta-
banus, and the return of the prefect of Syria to
Antioch.—This was probably about the latter end
of the year, or at least so late as to prevent our
supposing that the collection of the troops and
the other necessary preparations for war could
have been made in sufficient time to permit Vi-
tellius to march towards Arabia before the fol-
lowing Spring.—The expedition against Aretas
-and the arrival of the Roman army at Ptolomais,
P 2
228
on its road to Petra, may therefore with most
propriety be dated in the second Spring after the
removal of Pilate. M
Now Josephus informs us “that, as Vitellius
was about to march his army through Judea, the
chief’ men met him, entreating him not to go
through their country ; he complied with their
request, and having ordered his army to take
their route through the great plain, he himself,
with Herod the tetrarch and their friends, went
up to Jerusalem, to worship God, a feast of the
Jews being at hand.” This, therefore, was evi-
dently either the Passover or Pentecost in the
second year, that is the second Passover or the
second Pentecost after Pilate’s removal. Vitellius
“was received by the people of the Jews with
great respect. Having been there three days,
he took away the High Priesthood from Jonathan,
and gave it to his brother Theophilus.—And on
the fourth day after his arrival, receiving letters
which brought an account of the death of Tibe-
rius, he took an oath of the people to Caius.”
This feast of the Jews, at which Vitellius was
present in Jerusalem, whether a Passover or a
Pentecost, was evidently the first Passover or the
first Pentecost after the death of Tiberius, because
Vitellius then first of all received intelligence of
229
that event; intelligence which could not be de-
layed above a few months in its passage from
Italy into Asia. It was also, as we have seen,
the second Passover or Pentecost after Pilate’s
removal by Vitellius. The first Passover therefore,
after Pilate’s removal must have been the /irst
Passover before the death of Tiberius, that is,
the Passover J.P. 4749; for Tiberius died on the
16th of March J.P. 4750. Now Pilate was
removed after having been Governor of Judea
for ten years. J. P. 4749—10=J. P. 4739.
Consequently Pilate was appointed Governor of
Judea before the Passover J.P. 4739, and was
therefore undoubtedly the Governor of Judea, as
St. Luke observes, when “ the word of God came
unto John” in the Spring of that year. I deem
this a sufficient solution of the difficulty, and would
refer to the pages of Lardner those who are
desirous of a more enlarged view of the objection.
230
SECTION If
Considerations upon John, chap. ii. ver, 20.
Ar the first Passover in his ministry Jesus was
present at Jerusalem, and standing in the midst
of the temple, he said, “ Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews,
Forty and six years was this temple in building,
and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”
Almost all, if not all the modern Protestant
commentators conceive this assertion of the Jews
to relate to those repairs and alterations which
Herod made in the temple of Jerusalem, and
which he commenced, according to Josephus,*
in the eighteenth year of his reign; but they have
felt considerable difficulty in reconciling this opi-
nion with the actual fact. The first Passover in
our Saviour’s ministry was, according to our cal-
culations, the Passover J. P. 4740. The eighteenth
* See upon the subject of the present section Antiq. lib. xv
cap. 14, and lib. xx. cap. 8.
23)
year of Herod’s reign, reckoning from his decla-
ration as King by the Senate of Rome, corres-
ponds to J. P. 4692, to which if we add 46 years,
it will bring us to J. P. 4738;—two years before
the time at which the words were spoken. Again,
the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign, reckoning
from the death of Antigonus, corresponds to J. P.
4694, to which if we add 46 years, it will exactly
bring us to J.P. 4740, the time at which the
words were spoken. In the former case, therefore,
the assertion is not accurate. But the latter date
is that usually preferred by learned men, in order
to harmonize the taunt of the Jews with truth.
And that date certainly will effect the purpose for
‘which it is produced; but I very much question
whether the Jews had in view the alterations and
repairs of Herod in the temple at all, and the
following are the grounds of that opinion.
Ist, I conceive that the Jews did not mean by
saying “that the temple was 46 years in building,”’
to assert that the temple ‘“ began to be built 46
years before, and afterwards received continually
till that time some additional ornament,’’? because
the words of the Evangelist do not appear capable
of bearing such an interpretation. The expression
which St. John puts into the mouth of the Jews
» Le Clerc’s Harmony, Dissert. 1. §. 2.
232
is this tecoapaxovra Kat 6€ érecw wKodouyOyn 0 vaos
ovros, and nothing can be more exact than the
translation of the authorized English version,
“‘ Forty and six years was this temple in building,”
that is, this temple, when it was built, occupied
the space of forty and six years in building; a
sense which by no means’ corresponds with that
which is attempted to be assigned to the passage
by Le Clerc. In order to make it bear that sense,
it should have been translated thus,—‘‘ Forty and
>
six years has this temple been building,” a trans-
lation to which the tense and meaning of pxodeunOn
is directly adverse. ,
2dly, If the Jews did not mean that the temple
had been building for the space of 46 years, they
must have meant that, when built, it was built in the
space of 46 years. This, as we have seen, is the only
proper sense of their words; but it is asense in which
they cannot with any truth or propriety be applied
to the operations of Herod. ist, The temple itself
was not built by Herod at all, he only repaired it.
“« Josephus observes that Herod durst not presume
to enter into the Holy Place himself; because not
being a priest, he stood prohibited by the law;
but that he committed the care of this part of the
work to the Priests themselves: from whence it
plainly appears that the Holy Place was not
pulled down, but only some alterations made
233
in it.”* So much for the fact. With regard to
the time occupied in making these alterations, it
is distinctly upon record that what was done to
that part of the temple, into which none but Priests
could enter, was finished by them in one year and
six months. 2d, The galleries and the outer
inclosures were certainly rebuilt, but as certainly
rebuilt in e¢ght years. 3d, The completion of the
whole undertaking did not take place until the
reign of Nero. I have my doubts, however,
whether the whole of the intermediate time was
occupied in the actual process of repairs, because
Josephus states, that what was done in Nero’s
time was in consequence of the sinking of the
foundations. But this is not a matter of much
importance. It is plain from the above remarks,
that to whichever of the three circumstances we
apply the words of the Jews, whether to the re-
pairs of the temple itself by the Priests, or to the
rebuilding of the walls and galleries,—or to the
final completion of the whole in Nero’s reign,
it cannot be said in any way to have been built
in 46 years. The consequence to be deduced
from this conclusion is, that the Jews in all pro-
pability did not intend to refer to the alterations
of Herod in the temple.
© Beausob. Introd. p. 17
234
3d, That the Jews did not intend to refer to
Herod’s alterations will be still further evident, if
we consider that neither the Jews, nor the Scriptures
ever regarded Herod’s temple as distinct from that
of “ Zerubbabel.”—The Jews never make men-
tion of any more than ¢wo temples, looking upon
Herod’s only as “Zerubbabel’s repaired.” So
says Beausobre.* And in Scripture we certainly
find the same opinion. “ The glory of this latter
house shall be greater than that of the former,
saith the Lord of Hosts,” (Haggai ii. 9.) that is,
by being honoured with the presence and preach-
ing of the Messiah; for in other respects it was
greatly inferior. If, however, Herod’s operations
are to be considered, not merely as improvements,
but as a renovation of the whole building; if they
are to be looked upon in short as constituting a _
third temple, the words of Scripture were not ful-
filled. The glory of the second temple was in
that case not superior to the glory of the first, but
far inferior to it; and it was the glory of the third
which was superior to the glory of the two former.
It is therefore much more natural to imagine that
the Jews were speaking of the time which the
temple of Zerubbabel had originally occupied, or
at least was generally supposed to have occupied
in building.
“ Ubi supra.
235
4th, If we apply to the first book of Ezra for
information as to the time in which the temple was
rebuilt by Zerubbabel, it certainly does not at first
sight bear out the assertion of the Jews.—The
decree of permission to “ go up to Jerusalem which
is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God
of Israel, (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem,”
was issued in the first year of Cyrus.° The earliest
period which can be assigned to this decree is
the year J.P. 4176, the year in which Cyrus
conquered Babylon, in right of his dominion over
which city it was that he issued the decree. But
the usual, perhaps more accurate, date is J.P.
4178. We read in the 6th chapter of the first
book of Ezra, that after several interruptions
“this house was finished on the third day of the
month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the
reign of Darius the King,” the son of Hystaspes,
that is, about the month of February J.P. 4198
or 4199. But, taking the utmost limits here
pointed out, 4199—4176=only 23 instead of 46
years.—The assertion therefore of the Jews, if it
referred to the original building of the second
temple, was undoubtedly very flagrantly incorrect.
But, notwithstanding this inaccuracy, I still think
that they spoke of Zerubbabel’s temple, because
I find in the Christian Fathers some very distinct
© 1 Ezra, chap. 1.
236
traces of the existence of a tradition that the
building of Zerubbabel’s temple did last for 46
years.— And if such an opinion can be proved to
have existed amongst the Jews, it will be sufficient
for our present purpose. For we are not bound
to shew that the opinion was true, but only that
the Jews who uttered it thought it true. The
Evangelist is merely recording what they said,
and if we can make out the sense in which they
said it, it is a matter of little consequence whether
it was correct or false.
Now we meet in the first book of the Stromata
of Clemens Alexandrinus with some considerations
upon the celebrated prophecy of Daniel. — In
Daniel, ch. ix. 25, are the following predictions:
«Know therefore and understand that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and
to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince
shall be seven weeks and threescore and two
weeks: the street shall be built again, and the
_wall, even in troublous times.” The seven weeks
of years Clemens refers to the building of the wall
and the street in troublous times, and the building
of the wall and of the street he interprets of the
rebuilding of the temple by Zerubbabel; and of
this rebuilding of the temple he says, or: mév ovy ev
EDTA ¢Bdouacw wKooounOn 0 vads, TOUTO Ppavepov Eat,
237%
kat yap év TO” Eodpa yéeyparta.' “‘ Now it is evi-
dent that the temple was built in seven weeks,
(that is within seven weeks,) because it is so re-
corded in the book of Esdras.’’—But when we turn
to the book of Esdras, we find, as has been
already shewn, that he says no such thing,—
The idea must therefore have arisen from some
erroneous interpretation of that writer.— Now
what this erroneous mode of interpretation was,
we are distinctly told in a treatise which impro-
perly goes under the name of Cyprian,’ and has been
inserted with others in his works. ‘That ancient
author says,—“ Templum....destructum... . ite-
rum per 46 annos est edificatum.”’ Again, a little
after, he observes,—“ Restitutum est ergo templum
....annis 46.....Cum a die illo quo reversus
est in terra sua Judzorum populus regnavit Cyrus
Persarum annis 31. Post quem Cambyses annis 9,
et impleti sunt 40.—Post annos autem 40 regnat
Smerdis Magus mensibus septem, .qui menses a
nobis non computantur.—Quare? Quoniam in sep-
timo mense Cyri fundamenta Templi posuerunt, et
‘ Strom. lib.i. p. 394.
£ In another tract, entitled ‘de Montibus Sina et Sion,” and
falsely inscribed to Cyprian, there are several remarks on the
mystical meaning of the number 46, among which is the fol-
lowing: Vel quia Salomon quadraginta sex annis templum Deo
fabricaverit. Op. Cypr. ed. Rigalt. p. 461. This passage affords
an additional proof that the interpretation, which refers John ii, 20,
to the repairs made by Herod, was not then known,
238
exinde usque ad annum secundum Darii opus in
eo non confecerunt. Tum prophetant Aggeus et
Zacharias, per quos exhortatus est eos Dominus et
unanimes accesserunt et in quadriennio residuum
opus Templi consummaverunt. Quod ipsum quidem
in primo libro Esdrz manifeste demonstratur, quod
sexto anno Dari Templum Dei sit per omnia con-
summatum. Ad 40 adjiciamus Darii 6 et fient 40
et 6.”" From this statement we perceive that the
error, which led both Clemens and this anonymous
writer to suppose that 46 years had been employed
in rebuilding the temple, was a false computa-
tion of the years of Cyrus, and supposing that
the first year, in which Ezra says he sent forth
his decree permitting the restoration of the temple,
was the first year of his reign as King of Persia
alone, whereas it was in fact more than twenty
years later, namely, the first of his reign after the
conquest, and as King of Babylon.—This error
also appears to have been so generally followed,
that Clemens says it is quite evident that the
temple of Zerubbabel was about seven weeks of
years in rebuilding.—Such then was the common
opinion in the second century after Christ, and
hence I think we may very reasonably conjecture
that it prevailed also in our Saviour’s time amongst
» Appendix ad Cypr. Opera. p. 68. edit. Amstelod, 1691.
in tract. ‘¢de Pascha Computus,” where there is much more to
the same purpose,
239
the Jews, and was the opinion alluded to by those
who addressed him and said, “ Forty and six
years was this temple in building.”’
I do not introduce this interpretation of the
words of St. John as new, though I have no where
met with the illustrations which I have here given.
{t was indeed the universal mode of solution so
late as the times of Sigonius, in whose work “De
Republica Hebreorum”’' it is distinctly stated —
The history of its subsequent rejection is rather
curious.—Casaubon,* so far as I have observed,
was the first ‘to renounce it, but for no better
reason, as it would appear, than because it was an
opinion of the Catholics, and patronized by Mal-
donatus.' Arguments against its propriety he has
produced none. Beausobre"™ next treats it with
the same supercilious contempt, and Lardner, by
omitting altogether any mention of it in his Cre-
dibility,- has almost obliterated it from the remem-
brance- of the learned. On this account I have
produced the preceding considerations which |
leave with the reader, as my ground for
‘Cap. v. p. 81, 82. Sigonius died a. D. 1584.
k Exercit. in Baron. xiii, xxiii, p. 247.
1 « Maledicus ille Maldonatus ’ is the mild and elegant epithet
he bestows upon him.
™ Introd, p, 18.
’
240
thinking that John, ch. ii. 20, cannot be made
subservient to the establishment or refutation of any
system of chronology with regard to our Saviour’s
life-—The Jews, I conceive, meant to say that the
temple “was 46 years in building,” when first
erected by Zerubbabel, and therefore the verse is
of no use in a chronological point of view. But
those who differ from me upon this subject may
reconcile it to my hypothesis by following the
method, which I have borrowed from Lardner
and stated in the commencement of this section.
241
CHAP. VII.
PROBABLE DATE OF OUR SAVIOUR'’S CRUCIFIXION.
SECTION I.
Duration of our Saviour’s Ministry.
Hap chronologers been contented to be guided
in their decisions by the plain and positive decla-
rations of the Evangelists without endeavouring,
by the transposition of chapters and conjectural
emendations of the text, to compel the New
Testament to confirm their preconceived and pre-
determined theories, there could have been no
serious difficulty in settling the duration of our
Saviour’s ministry. St. John is supposed to have
written his Gospel after all the other Evangelists,
and to have composed it, as we learn from the
traditions of the church, with the double view of
supplying the omissions of his precursors, and
meeting the heresies and temper of the times in
which he lived; now there is no point in which
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke are more
Q
242
particularly obscure than the dates of the events
which they have recorded in the ministry of our
Lord, and the order in which those events suc-
ceeded each other. St. Luke and St. Mark very
frequently pursue the same arrangement, but that
of St. Matthew is materially different. In con-
firmation therefore of the supposed intention of
St. John in the composition of his history, we
find nothing in which he is more clear and precise
than the orderly succession of the circumstances
he relates. He seems to have made it his peculiar
care to elucidate the darkness of the other Evan-
gelists upon this subject, by giving an account of
the actions of Jesus in a regular series; and I do
not at this moment recollect a single instance
either of anticipation or retrospection throughout
the whole course of his narrative. Now St. Jchn
has distinctly noticed three several Passovers in
our Saviour’s ministry, a first, a second, and a
third after his baptism, the last of which he plainly
designates as the Passover of the crucifixion,
without giving any hint, or making use of any
expression which would intimate that he left any
Passover unnoticed. It would seem therefore to
have been the opinion of St. John, and his opinion
ought to be held decisive, that our Saviour’s
ministry, reckoning its duration from the period
of his baptism to his death, did not continue quite
three years. If, as we have agreed in the pre-
243
ceding chapters, our Lord was baptized in the
month of November, it may be estimated at
about two years and a half. Such also is the
opinion of some very ancient and respectable
Christian writers: it is certainly the opinion of
Epiphanius, perhaps also of Tertullian, and at the
conclusion of his life, and in his most celebrated
and judicious work, of the learned Origen: it is
likewise asserted by the composers of the Har-
monies attributed to Tatian and Ammonius; by
the author of the second epistle of Clement to the
Romans; and by the compilers of the Apostolical
Constitutions,* and of the interpolated Epistles of
Ignatius. It is right however to observe, that
there is a great and irreconcileable difference of
opinion amongst several of the Fathers upon the
subject ; a difference, therefore, which leaves us
at full liberty to draw our own conclusions from
the Sacred Writings themselves, without endea-
vouring to make our calculations correspond with
the fanciful or incorrect notions and prejudices of
each various author. With this remark I would
very gladly have dismissed the subject, and relying
upon the authority of St. John, as before stated,
have proceeded to deduce the date of the crucifix-
ion from that statement; but I am precluded from
* Cotelerii Patr. Apostol. vol. I. p. 197.
» Epist, ad Trall.
Q 2
244
thus quitting the difficulty by the objections of
those who have framed a different hypothesis,
and attempted to prove, from the Gospel of St. John
itself, that the number of Passovers ought to be
either extended to more, or confined to fewer
than three.
I. There are some who would extend the
number of Passovers in our Saviour’s ministry
to four or five, and the number of years to some-
what more than three or four. To accomplish
this object they maintain that, besides the three
Passovers already enumerated, there is another
to be found in the first verse of the fifth chapter
of St. John: “ After this there was a feast of the
Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.”
1. It is a first and obvious remark upon this
verse, that the passage cannot be considered as
decisive in favour of the opinion which it is pro-
duced to support, because it does not assert what,
in order to answer the end desired, it ought to
assert, that this feast was a Passover: it merely
states, that ‘“‘after this there was a feast of the
Jews,” and whether it was or was not a paschal
feast, is a legitimate subject of doubt and enquiry.
Now that this feast was not a Passover would
appear probable from the tenor of the Evangelist’s
245
narrative. St. John relates that our Saviour’
remained in Judea after the first Passover in his
ministry until he “knew how the Pharisees had
heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples
than John.” He then* “left Judea and departed
again into Galilee.’ In his passage through
Samaria it was that he met and conversed with the
woman of Sychar at Jacob’s well, and converted
many of the Samaritans. Two days after this*
“he departed thence and went into Galilee,’ and
there healed the son of the nobleman of Caper-
naum. “After this,” observes the Evangelist,
“‘there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went
up to Jerusalem.” It is therefore natural to
imagine that this was a feast of Pentecost or of
Tabernacles, rather than a Passover, because there
is nothing necessarily to imply the lapse of so
great a space of time, as intervened between Pass-
over and. Passover.
On the other hand, however, it has been argued
that this was a Passover from what Jesus said to
his disciples whilst at Sychar in his journey through
Samaria. “Say notye, There are yet four months
and then cometh harvest.’' From this expression
they imagine that it wanted four months to the
© Chap. iv. 1. ONG oy
* Ver. 43. ‘Chap. iv. 35.
246
time of harvest, that is, it was about four months
before the Passover or Pentecost, or rather a time
between the two, when our Saviour uttered this
remark ; consequently the next of the three great
feasts of the Jews which would demand our
Saviour’s appearance at Jerusalem was the Pass-
over. Now as he had so lately left Judea for
fear of the Pharisees, nothing but one of the
great feasts would, it is supposed, so soon have
carried him thither again. Therefore they con-
clude that the feast mentioned in ch. vy. 1, must.
have been a Passover. This inference would-have
been entitled to much respect, had it been at all
certain that our Saviour meant to designate by the
expression in question the distance between the
time at which he was speaking and the time of
harvest: but it is the opinion of some of the best
commentators, and now I believe the opinion most
generally received and deduced from the form of
the sentence itself, that our Saviour in these words
merely alluded to a proverbial phrase, or a common
idea current amongst the Jews, that between the
seed-time and harvest there usually elapsed a
period of four months; for an expression
somewhat similar in St. Matthew’s Gospel® 7s
applied to a prevailing proverb. That it did not at
the time want four months to harvest, that is, that
* Chap. xiv. 2.
247
it was not then the middle of Winter, or about
January, is further inferred from the extreme
weariness of our Saviour, to which the heat is
supposed to have much contributed, from his
sitting down at the well to wait the return of his
disciples with meat, instead of accompanying them
into the city, as, if it had been Winter, he would
most probably have done, and from what he
himself immediately adds in the very same verse,—
“Behold, 1 say unto you, Lift up your eyes
and look on the fields, for they are white already
to harvest.” This last assertion has much more
the appearance of being derived from the contem-
plation of the actual face of the country, as it was
then spread before him, than the one before men-
tioned, and would almost seem to. determine the
period at which it was made to have been in the
midst of the harvest, instead of four months before
it. Certainly it is to be allowed that in these
words our Saviour’s principal reference was to
the spiritual harvest which his disciples might
gather into the garner of their Lord from the
ready-minded and believing Samaritans; but it is
also equally natural to suppose that our Saviour
was led to the use of this peculiar metaphor by the
existing appearances of Nature around him, which,
throughout his ministry, were the general source
of his language and instruction. Now had this
incident occurred four months before the harvest,
\
248
that is, in the middle of Winter, the desolation of
the surrounding scene could scarcely have recalled
to his mind the beauties and the riches of the fields,
ripe and ready for the reapers’ labours. Such an
allusion would have surely been unnatural at such
a season, and therefore contrary to the simplicity
of our Lord, who seldom strayed to a distance for
his illustrations, but drew them in the fulness of
his wisdom from the most appropriate and imme-
diate objects which presented themselves to his
view, knowing that by this means he would render
himself most intelligible to his hearers, and produce
the deepest impression both upon their hearts and
memories. Hence we are led to conceive that
the words “behold, lift up your eyes and look on
the fields,’ were spoken, as their very sound and
dramatic earnestness would appear to intimate,
at a time when the fields were in reality white
already to the harvest,” or in other words between
the Passover and Pentecost, the season of the
harvest throughout the whole of Judea. If this
be admitted, it is a most probable inference, that
the feast at which our Saviour next went to
Jerusalem, that is, the feast mentioned, John v. 1.
was either a feast of Pentecost or of Tabernacles,
because these were the next ensusing feasts at
which his presence was required by the Mosaic
law. The history therefore of this portion of our
Lord’s ministry is as follows: At his first Passover
249
he went up to Jerusalem, and continued in Judea
for two or three weeks after it, baptizing, ‘“‘ though
he himself baptized not, but his disciples.’’" His
rapid and extensive success having excited the
observation of the Pharisees, he thought it prudent
to quit Judea, and passing through Samaria in the
midst of the harvest impressed upon his disciples
the readiness of the Samaritans to receive his
doctrines by an illustration very beautifully drawn
from the scenes and operations which were passing
before their eyes. He then continued his journey
into Galilee,’ and after remaining there for a few
weeks returned again to Jerusalem, according to
Cyril and Chrysostom, to celebrate the feast of
Pentecost, or, according to others, at a somewhat
later period to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles.
2. That the feast mentioned John v. 1, was
not a Passover may further be argued from the
manner in which the Evangelist has expressed
himself:
Mera ravra, says St. John, nv copTn (not 7 €opT7)
tov ‘lovdaiwy,—~ After this there was a feast (not
» John iv, 2.
* It was but a three days’ journey from Jerusalem to Galilee,
and consequently there is no improbability in supposing our
Saviour to have gone thither, and returned again to the feast of
Pentecost or Tabernacles,
250
the feast) of the Jews.’’ Now there is no part of
the New Testament in which éop77 without the
article is ever known to be unequivocally used to
express the feast of the Passover; nor is the
article ever prefixed to éopr7 when it signifies a
feast different from the Passover without the
immediate addition of some explanatory phrase,
to prove that. the Passover was not meant:
St. John, ch. vii. 2, where he speaks of the feast
of the Tabernacles as ‘H éop77 tev ‘lovdaiwy, he
very carefully subjoins the words 4 oxyvornyia, to
prevent any confusion or mistake. Nay more,
even in all those passages in which the Passover
is distinctly spoken of by name, as té zacya, or
eopTy Twv aCiuwv, the article is’ still in every
instance inserted as a sort of necessary adjunct :
whilst on the other hand there are several passages
in which 7 éop77 alone implies the Passover, without
the addition of ro Taoxa or Tar acum. When
I make these assertions, I am fully aware that
from each of the first three Evangelists a passage
has been produced in which éopry, without the
article, does most certainly refer to the Paschal
-feast, and therefore may be supposed to controvert
the preceding canon: but I apprehend that upon
an impartial examination the alleged instances
will not be found to bear at all upon the present
question. In St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke,
the phrase alluded to is precisely the same, and is
251
applied also to the same circumstance,‘ so that one
investigation will suffice for the whole, and de-
termine the question either in the negative or
affirmative. I shall quote and argue upon the
verse as it stands in St. Matthew: Kard dé éopryy
cider 0 nryeuov amovew Eva TH OXAM décmor, ov
nOedov. “ Now at that feast the governor was
wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom
they would.” Such is the version of the passage
in our English Bibles, which, though perfectly
correct in point of sense, does not appear to
convey with exactness the idiom of the original.
Ka’ éoprjv is an idiomatical phrase, similar and
equivalent to xav’ éros,' the construction of which
depends upon was or ékacros understood. In this
manner we are taught to supply the ellipsis by
St. Luke, who, when he tells us that the prophets
were read in the synagogues every sabbath-day,
uses the expression cata wav caBBarov." Kal’
coptnv therefore means xatd racav coptjv, or feast
by feast, in the same manner as KaT €Tos means
year by year, or every year, (kata wav éros;) and
as the propriety and meaning of the phrase, kav’
eros would be destroyed by the insertion of the
article ro, so to render the phrase xa@’ coprnv ana-
logous in its construction, it was necessary that
* Matth. xxvii. 15. Mark xiv. 2. Luke xxiii. 17.
! Luke ii, 42, ’ ™ Acts xili, 27.
252
the Evangelists should here also drop the article
before éopryv, which we consequently find that
they have done. This being the case, I cannot
regard the phrase xa6’ éopriv as containing any
objection whatever to the general truth of the
remark before laid down with regard to the defeat
of the article, or as justifying us in considering
coptj When alone to refer, in any instance or
author, to the great feast of the Passover ; for,
as far as my observation and remembrance reach,
I do not recollect that I have met with any devia-
tion from the rule, even in the writings of Jose-
phus. Josephus, I believe, as well as the sacred
writers, always distinguishes the Paschal from
other feasts by the use of the definitive article.
If the preceding arguments be correct, it is
evident that those, who still choose to maintain
that John v. 1, refers toa Passover, must change
the reading of the passage, and substitute » éop77
for copry in the text. This is the course pursued
by Macknight, who upon the strength of a few
_ later manuscripts, or depending perhaps upon the
authority of Theophylact, has actually made the
proposed alteration, and founded all his reasonings
upon the assumption of its correctness, without
even hinting to his reader that it was neither the
best, nor the commonly received reading. This
is very unfair. “It is true” (as Bishop Marsh
253
observes)" ‘that several Greek MSS. (but noi
the printed text) have » éopr7, with the article, as
if the grand festival of the Passover was meant,
kar e€oyyv, but Griesbach in his note to John vy. 1.
says, that the quotation of Origen axactly agrees
with our common text, which is a strong argument
in favour of its authenticity. The article is
likewise omitted in the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex
Vaticanus, and Codex Beza, and many others,
indeed most of the Greek MSS.” To this we may
add, that even Irenzus himself, who erroneously
interprets the verse, as if it alluded to a Passover,
gives us no reason to suppose, from the manner in
which he speaks of it, that the article existed in the
copy which he used; but as the passage in which
he touches upon the subject is now only to be
found in a Latin translation, we cannot of course
speak with so much certainty as we might have
done had the original itself remained. Compare
now the weight of testimony in favour of the in-
sertion or omission of the article, and | think there
will be no hesitation in saying on which side the
balance preponderates. The three most ancient
and respected manuscripts, confirmed by the older
and weightier testimony of Origen, are ignorant of
its existence. On the other hand several less
authoritative and more modern manuscripts, sup-
" Michaelis vol. III, Notes, p. 60.
254
ported by the later and weaker testimony of Theo-
phylact, have inserted it. Even thus the argument
is decidedly for its rejection; but when we con-
sider, that, after the fourth century, the idea of
jour Passovers in our Saviour’s ministry most
generally prevailed, and that those later manuscripts
were produced and those later Fathers wrote under
the influence of that opinion, it isno unnatural sup-
position to conjecture that the insertion of the ar-
ticle was the result of their preconceived hypothesis,
and, therefore that their testimony is but of little
comparative value, when found to be opposed by
unbiassed writers. Hence I conclude that the
autograph of St. John most probable contained
‘ éoprn without the article, and that éoo77 without
the article is most naturally and properly inter-
preted, when it is interpreted of some Jewish
feast distinct from the great solemnity of the
Passover.
3. The idea of four Passovers in our Saviour’s
ministry was totally unknown to the Christian
Fathers of the first three centuries. Eusebius of
Cesarea in the fourth century, was, as is gene-
rally allowed, the first who gave currency, if not
its original introduction, to this extended period,
the source and grounds of which opinion I will
now endeavour to trace.
255
Phlegon of 'Tralles in the second century has
recorded a remarkable eclipse which took place in
the 202d Olympiad, and seems, though there
is some doubt on the point,° to have fixed it to the
Ath year of that Olympiad. This eclipse many of
the early Christians mistook, or wished to be ac-
knowledged, for the preternatural darkness at our
Saviour’s crucifixion. It seems therefore most
probable, says Whiston, that “the determination
of the death of Christ to the 4th year of the 202d
Olympiad and the 19th of Tiberius was directly
taken from the testimony of Phlegon by Eusebius
and others, and that the other observations from
the number of Passovers or years of our Saviour’s
ministry, as more uncertain, were fitted to it.’
But this is a mere conjecture, and seems to be
positively contradicted by Eusebius himself, who
assigns two other and separate reasons for his
opinion.
° The words of Phlegon as given us by Eusebius are these:
To A érer ras €f3 'Odupmiados eyévero Exrernis rAiov peyiorn Twv
Eyvwpicpevav mpotepov. ‘In the fourth year of the 202d Olym-
piad, there was an Eclipse of the Sun the greatest of any known
before that time.” Kepler however suspects that the particle dé
but was mistaken for the numeral letter . four and ought to be
translated “ in.the year of the 202d Olympiad,” that is, in the
first year of that Olympiad, or the year in which it began.—See
Syker’s Dissertation on the Eclipse mentioned by Phlegon.”
Lond. 8vo. 1752.
® Testimony of Phlegon vindicated, p, 37.
256
In his history, Eusebius asserts that ovd odos
TET PAaETNS ATOOELKVUTAL THS TOU TWTHPOs yue@v dwacKa-
Nias xpoves, and endeavours to establish his con-
clusion by a consideration of the succession of the
Jewish High Priests. Scripture, he says, informs
us that the ministry of our Saviour took place
when Annas and. Caiaphas were High Priests,
meaning to intimate that it occupied the space
of time which elapsed between their respective
priesthoods, beginning in that of Annas and ter-
minating in that of Caiaphas. Such is the singu-
lar and forced interpretation which he gives to the
expression em! apyiepewy "Avva cai Kaiadpa in St.
Luke. Having laid down these premises, he then
proceeds to observe, that in those unsettled times
few, if any, of the Jewish High Priests were per-
mitted by the Roman governors to retain their
office for more than a year ; that Josephus enume-
rates four individuals who held the office between
Annas and Caiaphas, and that consequently the
duration of our Saviour’s ministry did not extend
to quite four years—ovxouv o TUUTAS OVO dAOS, K. T-A-
How unsound this conclusion is, how lamely borne
out, even by the untenable premises which he
assumes, it is unnecessary to observe, and without
any better foundation his opinion would scarce be
deserving of a moment’s thought. But he has
Aas. 1.70. LO.
257
given us another reason for his assertion in his
“ Demonstratio Evangelica,”” namely, a prophecy
of Daniel and the Gospel of St. John. The ground
upon which he conceives St. John to have men-
tioned four Passovers in our Saviour’s ministry
are the same as those which we have already con-
sidered. The prophecy of Daniel which he con-
ceives to predict the same number is ch. ix. 27.
“He shall confirm the covenant with many for
one week, and in the midst of the week he shall
cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”
The half week here spoken of he considers to be
a prediction of the duration of our Lord’s ministry,
and therefore fixes it at three years and a half.
" Had I considered mystical interpretations of the prophetic
passages in Holy Writ as admissible proofs of historical
facts, it would have been. no difficult matter to have de-
monstrated that our Saviour’s ministry could not have lasted
guite three years. —‘“ Our Saviour himself” (says Fleming
in his discourse on the Rise and Fall of Papacy, p. 19.)
Sopa su calls the years of his ministry days, saying, J do cures to-
day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Luke xiii.
32.—But all such modes of reasoning I deem inadmissible, until
the facts to which they refer have been established by other and
independent evidence.—History is the interpreter of prophecy, and
it is a most unsafe method of proceeding to make prophecy the
interpreter of any doubtful point in history.—On this account
I have throughout this Dissertation upon the chronology of our
Saviour’s life avoided every allusion to the seventy weeks of
Daniel.—Of the errors, into which their preconceived notions
about the meaning and explanation of that prophecy have led
both Eusebius and Mann, no one can be ignorant.
R
258
The whole argument is thus shortly summed up
by him: —‘Ioroperrat O€ 6 Tas THS OwacKaNlas Kal Tapa-
dakorroilas Oo“ov Tou LwTHpos ymev Xpovos TPLoVv Huiov
ryeryovws eTGv, Orép ext EBdomados Yuicv' TOUTS TAs
‘Iwavyns 0 Evayyeduorys acpi Bas eprotactw avtov Tw
‘Evayyediv mapastyce.® Yet the very wording of the
passage shews how dubious he was of the accuracy
of his position : and whilst the insertion of zws, quo-
dammodo, in some measure, proves the little depen-
dence he had upon his mode of interpreting St.
John, ch. v. 1., the addition of axpiBws edpiotacw
seems to mark that the interpretation was confined
to a chosen, and, as he styles them, an intelligent
few.
Such then are the arguments in defence of the
hypothesis of a four year’s ministry of our Savi-
our, but I cannot persuade myself that any one
will be satisfied of its truth, whether they deduce
their opinion from the tradition, or the reasoning
upon which it is built. The tradition is late and
scanty ~the reasoning obscure and inconclusive.
If. If the ministry of our Saviour cannot
with propriety be extended to four, still less can it
be extended to five Passovers; and though this
unauthorized number. is defended by names so
* Dem. Ev. Lib. vill. p. 400,
259
celebrated as those of Scaliger and Sir I. Newton,
I shall not trouble myself with any further refuta-
tion than that which may be derived from a short
and simple statement of its origin. I enter upon
this statement the rather because the reasons of
this hypothesis seem not to be generally under-
stood.'
In the sixth chapter of his Gospel, St. Luke
informs us that ‘it came to pass on the second
sabbath after the first that he (Jesus) went
through the corn-fields, and his disciples plucked
the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in
their hands. And certain of the Pharisees said
unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful
to do on the sabbath-day?’’ The same circum-
stance, the same act on the part of the disciples,
and the same accusation on the part of the Pha-
risees is related by St. Matthew in ch, xii, and
St. Mark in ch. ti. I will not here enter into any
disquisition as to the precise meaning of caBarov
devtepompwrov, because it is unnecessary to the
*« Others again, of whom Macknight is one, have aug-
mented the number (of Passovers) to five, the reason of which I
have not been able to discover.” Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. III.
Notes, p. 61.—Sir Isaac Newton has distinctly pointed out the
grounds upon which he embraced this hypothesis, and they are
the same as those mentioned by Petavius.—See his Obs. on
Daniel, ch. ix.
R 2
260
validity of the inference to be drawn. If we
adopt the opinion of Scaliger, which Lamy" de-
tails and perhaps justly approves, this incident
occurred within a few days after the Passover.
But it is at any rate evident first, that it must have
taken place during harvest, and therefore before
the feast of Pentecost, because at no other period
of the year could they have met with corn in the
fields ; and secondly, that it must have taken place
after the feast of the Passover, because before that
festival it was not permitted to the Jews to pull
ears of corn on any day. Before the sheaf had
been offered to God, as the first-fruits of the
harvest on the second day of the feast of unlea-
vened bread, it was unlawful to reap any corn at
all. Had therefore this incident occurred before
the Passover, the censure passed upon the disci- —
ples would not only have been for violating the
law of the sabbath by plucking ears of corn on
that holy day of rest, but also for violating the
law of Moses in another point, by plucking, which
they deemed equivalent to reaping, ears of corn,
at a time when it was forbidden by a specific ordi-
“« Ne teram tempus diversas opiniones confutando : qua mihi
verisimilior videatur, paucis dicamm. Ergo opinor cum Scaligero,
sabbatum secundo-primum illud esse quod incidebat in primam
ex his septem hebdomadibus, qua ab oblato manipulo nove
fragis, altera die post Pascha, numerabantur usque ad diem Pen-
tecostes.”
Lamy, App. Chron, Part II, ch, 6. p. 201,
261
nance of their religion. We have here, therefore,
in every one of the first three Gospels the most
distinct and unequivocal traces of one Passover
at least between the baptism and death of our
Saviour, besides that at which we know he was
crucified. Now it is supposed, as we have before
remarked, that St. John composed his Gospel to
supply the omissions of the former Evangelists. But
if the Passover here alluded to be one of those
mentioned by St. John, he did not in this instance
supply an omission, but confirm a_ statement
which had before been made. Upon this very
weak foundation those writers conceived that
the Passover alluded to in the first three Gospels
must be different from any of the four, which
they imagined to have been recorded by St. John,
and consequently they held that the number of
Passovers in our Saviour’s ministry amounted alto-
gether to five. Such is the account given of the
rise and reason of this hypothesis by Petavius in
the following passage, which may be deemed of
itself a sufficient confutation.—‘“‘ Horum (that is
of those who maintain four or five Passovers in
our Lord’sministry,) est vis omnis in Joannis, v. 1.
posita; quod ibi dies festus concipiatur, quem
negant alium videri posse, quam Pascha. Ab eo
verd quod capite vi. 4. sequitur omnino distingu-
endum videtur. Ex quo tria ante 70 cTravpwotmov Con-
ficiunt. Rursus illud Pascha, quod Joannis vi.. 4.
262
commemoratur et ante quod millia hominum quiti-
que totidem panibus saturata sunt, ab eo diversum
est, quod a tribus reliquis Evangelistis tacite signi-
ficatur, quando Christum per sata iter habuisse
scribunt. Id enim per azymorum ferias. contigit.
Nam illa per segetes ambulatio, Matth. xii., Mare.
ii. 22. Luce vi. narratur. Secundum quam mira-
culum illud saturate plebis, Matth. xiv. Marci vi.
Luce ix. describitur. Igitur cum Sabbatum Deu-
teroproton per quod sata perambulata sunt Pas-
chate posterius sit, panum vero miraculum Pas-
chate prius, duo esse, distinctaque necesse Paschata
...- Nihil igitur habent quarti quintivé Paschatis
authores, quo nos in suam sententiam cogant.’’
Ill. There are some who, instead of extending,
would limit. the number of Passovers in our Sa-
viour’s ministry to two, and confine its duration to
one year and a half. As the Gospel of St. John
at present stands it is quite inconsistent with such
an hypothesis. In ch. vi. ver. 4, we have distinct
mention of a third Passover, and if that verse be
left in its present state, and that chapter in its
present position, the difficulty is insurmountable.
To remove this difficulty it has been proposed to
remove ch. vi. and place it before ch. v. and then
either to elide verse 4 altogether, or else to correct
* De Doctr, Temp. lib. xu. cap, 17. p. 447.
263
it in such a manner as to avoid the inference to
which the common reading tends. Such being the
preliminary steps which are on all hands allowed to
be absolutely necessary to the reception of this
contracted view of our Lord’s ministry, it will
only be necessary for us, in order to overturn it,
to shew that these steps are quite unauthorized by
antiquity, and by no means established by the
course of reasoning which has been adopted for
their proof.
If we look to the writings of the Fathers, and -
to the existing manuscripts and versions of the
New Testament, we shall find no traces whatever
of any transposition of chapters in St. John. Yet
it is certainly to be imagined, that, if such a
change in the arrangement of the parts of his
Gospel had taken place in later times, there would
in some of these various transcripts and quotations
have been some hint of the dislocation which they
had suffered. So strongly does one learned writer”
appear to have been embarrassed with this objection
to the change of order in the chapters, that, being
unable to attribute the transposition with any
degree of probability to the carelessness of tran-
seribers, he boldly imputes it to the original
* « Doctissumus Petitus” as Mann styles him, de annis Christi,
p. 170.
264
mistake of the author himself, and supposes the
error to have existed in the very autograph of
St. John. Such a conjecture can only rest upon
its own merits, and powerful indeed ought to be
the indications of its truth before it can be entitled
to the slightest attention or respect. We are
necessarily therefore compelled to an enumeration
of the supposed internal signs of a derangement
of the chapters in question.
Now the following have been alleged as in-
trinsic marks of the supposed transposition. “The
last words of chap. v. are mentioned as spoken by
Jesus in Jerusalem, and the words immediately
following them in chap. vi, without any introduc-
tion or preparation whatever, represent him passing
out of Galilee to the eastern side of the sea of Ti-
berias; but this is an easy sequel of the fourth
chapter which left him in Galilee. Again, the
end of the fifth chapter has the same easy con-
nection with the beginning of the seventh, that the
end of the fourth has with the beginning of the
sixth. For in ch. v. verses 16 and 18, Jesus, in
Jerusalem, is. reasoning with the Jews, who were
seeking to kill him;* and the seventh chapter
opens with an account of his going into Galilee,
because the Jews sought to kill him.” But these
* Priestley Observ, on Harm. p. 42.
265
circumstances only shew that the transposition
might be made without any injury to the con-
nection of the Evangelist’s narrative. They do
not prove that it ought to be made. They do not
prove that the present arrangement is improper,
or attended with any of that absurdity which, as
Mann would seem to intimate, is inconsistent
with the common order and division of the chapters.
So far, therefore, the reasoning must at least be
regarded as inconclusive. To render it, however,
somewhat more decisive, they remark in addition,
that “as the chapters stand at present, the 6th
represents Jesus teaching at Capernaum in Galilee,
and yet the seventh begins with these words,—
‘After these things Jesus walked in Galilee,’ as
if he had been just arrived from some other
territory.”
Had this last observation been well-founded, it
would have carried with it much weight. But
though it sounds perfectly correct when we read
only the English translation of the verse, yet
when we turn to the Greek original itself, we
shall be led to form a very different conclusion.
The words of the Evangelist are these : Kai repie-
mate. o*Iycovs peta Tavita ev TH Tadsdaig. The
sense of the passage is, “that after these things
Jesus continued walking in Galilee ;” for zepte-
mater is in the imperfect tense, a tense which, as
266
every one knows, is used to express the continu-
ance of an action. So far therefore is the begin-
ning of the seventh chapter from leading us to
suppose that Jesus had “just arrived in Galilee
from some other territory,’ that it would rather
induce us to imagine that he had been there some
time. So far, therefore, is it from forming an
easy and proper sequel to the fifth chapter,
which requires the former supposition, that it is
absolutely adverse to any such connection, and
agrees only with the sixth chapter, of which it
will be found to be a regular continuation. The
sixth chapter leaves Jesus in- Galilee, and the
seventh begins by marking his continuance there.
I shall afterwards have occasion to make a more
particular use of this passage of the Evangelist :
at present I only produce it to shew that the pro-
posed transposition of the chapters is as much
refuted by internal as external evidence. Let us
next proceed to examine the suggested alterations
in the text.
In ch. vi. 4. St. John thus alludes to the second
Passover in our Lord’s ministry:—"Hy de éyyus ro
TaoXa €opTH THD ‘Tovoaiwy. If the integrity and
genuineness of this verse be allowed, it makes,
with the Passover of the crucifixion, the whole
number in our Lord’s ministry to be three. To
invalidate its testimony Vossius has mentioned a
267
conjectural omission of the words 76 wacya, which
is entirely unsupported ‘by any ancient version or
manuscript. Neither would this conjecture, even
if admitted, effect the purpose for which it has
been made. The expression 7 éop77), with the
article prefixed, would still remain, and secure the
meaning of the verse almost as satisfactorily as if
the words +d wacxa had been subjoined. Such
however as the emendation is, it has been sancti-
oned both by Priestly and Mann, who, together
with several other writers, have incorrectly de-
clared it to have derived its origin from Vossius,
and also to have received his approbation ; under
which they contrive to shelter themselves by passing
the usual and unmeaning encomiums which are so
often poured forth by critics upon those with
whom they happen to agree. That Vossius has
mentioned this conjecture I have already stated ;
but he has so mentioned it as to intimate that he
was neither responsible for its origin, nor inclined
to adopt it as an admissible or valid emendation of
the text. His own opinion was that the verse in
question referred to the propinquity of the Passover
of the crucifixion, and as it might be urged against
him that the very next chapter mentions a feast of
Tabernacles as intervening between this Passover
and the crucifixion, he anticipates the objection by
asserting that it is only an instance of torepov mpore-
pov, Which is so common to the Evangelists, and
268
endeavours to prove his position by a reference to
the Gospel of St. Luke.. The proof is very weak,
and the interpretation so forced, that it certainly
reflects but little credit upon his critical acumen
to have advanced or defended it; but that he has
done both, the following quotation is so clear a
demonstration, that it is wonderful how any men
who had read it could mistake his meaning :—
“* Quare nihil opus dicamus Joannis vi. 4. scriptum
prius fuisse jv dé éyys 4 eopty Tav lovdaiwy......
in Scripturis non pauca sunt vorepa rporepa et tale
hic quoque esse ex Luca ostendimus.’’’
So little credit is due to the proposed omission
of the words ro zacya, that Bishop Pearce appears
to have acted a much wiser part in boldly declar-
ing the whole verse to be an interpolation. — It
cannot be denied that the weight of external testi-
mony is clearly against this opinion. If defended
at all, therefore, it must be defended, like the
preceding conjectures, by considerations deduced
from other sources, and which it consequently
becomes our duty to investigate.
1. Itis said that no more than two Passovers—
no longer a space of time than one year and a half
¥ Dissert de temp. Dom, Passion, p. 84 in. vol. V. of Amster-
dam edition, 1701.
269
can be inferred from the first three Gospels: but if
St. John wrote his Gospel, as is generally believed,
to supply the omissions of his predecessors, nothing
could be more natural than to find a Passover
mentioned by him which was not expressly noticed
by others. His Gospel, therefore, is to be the in-
terpreter of theirs. To make their Gospels the
rule of our judgment with regard to his, is to
invert the order of things.
2. It is said that the verse in St. John is
introduced quite parenthetically, and that the
third and fifth verses would read equally well
without the fourth. This is very true, with this
exception, that the transaction to which they relate
would then no longer have any date attached to it.
But what useful inference can be drawn from this
remark? There are many other cases in which
though a verse might be dropped without detri-
ment, yet no one would think himself authorized
on that account to reject it. Why then should
that mode of proceeding be recommended here?
The verse in question is very truly said to bea
parenthetical note of time; but if we can produce
another instance from the New Testament, in
which similar words are inserted in a manner ap-
parently equally unnecessary, this objection must
be given up, or else the same unsparing hand of
correction be extended to every such passage.
270
This similar instance, however, we can produce
from Acts xil. 4, where the words jaav dé npépa
Tov aCvuwv are inserted in a parenthesis in a
manner exactly analogous to jv dé eyyis TO Tacx
in the chapter before us, and for the very same
reason, namely, to mark the date and the time of
the year at which the transaction occurred.
3. It is said, that St. John has inserted the
note of time in this place, without any other end
to answer than merely to mark the season. Be
it so,—yet it proves nothing against the propriety
of the insertion. But I maintain on the other
hand that he had a peculiar object in view, and
one strictly connected with the purpose for which
he is supposed to have written his Gospel. In
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, the transac-
tions of the last Passover are fully detailed. The
first Passover after our Saviour’s baptism seems
also to have been distinctly alluded to by all three,
when relating the incident of the disciples plucking
the ears of corn on the sabbath-day ; but there is
not in any of them, when separately perused, any
thing to mark the period at which the second Pass-
over in our Lord’s ministry occurred. St. John
has supplied this omission. He has taken the
trouble, as I conceive, for this very purpose to
recount a fourth time a miracle,—the feeding of
the five thousand, which had already been suffici-
271
ently related by the three former Evangelists, and
as if to shew the end he had in view, he inserts in
the very middle of his relation a parenthetical note
of time, an allusion to a Passover, thus teaching us
to infer that the place at which this second Pass-
over in our Lord’s ministry is to be added in the
narratives of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke,
is about that part in which they are treating of the
miraculous feeding of the five thousand. Suppose
St. John to have seen the other Gospels, and
marked their want of chronological intimations,
and nothing can more clearly account for his in-
troduction of this verse, and also for the very place
and manner of its introduction. It is a note of
time inserted as a guide to us in our perusal of the
other Gospels ; and in drawing up a harmony of
the Evangelists, upon the hypothesis of three Pass-
overs in the ministry of our Lord, I have found it
of the greatest use and importance.
A. Itis said that this Passover was quite otiose
in our Saviour’s ministry,—that he does not appear
to have done any thing memorable at Jerusalem
during its celebration, the very reverse of which
was particularly the case in both the other Pass-
overs, and in each of the other feasts which are
mentioned. The reason is, because he was not
present at Jerusalem at this Passover; and St.
John takes particular pains to account for his
272
absence, and thus at the same time explains why
we meet with no notice of it in the former Gospels,
a singularity which would otherwise have created
a considerable degree of surprize. “ After these
things,” says St. John, ‘Jesus continued walking
in Galilee, (though the Passover was near,) and
would not walk in Judea because the Jews sought
to kill him.” They had made this attempt upon
his life at the very last feast at which he had at-
tended, and therefore knowing that his hour was
not yet come, he did not choose to tempt God by
exposing his life to their enmity before the ap-
pointed time. At the following feast of Taber-
nacles, though he went up to Jerusalem, yet it
was not openly nor till near the end of the feast.
But at the next Passover, when the fulness of
time was come, he was no longer influenced by
this consideration. Thus we see at once how the
whole narrative of St. John, as it at present stands,
coheres and connects together and explains the
various parts of which it is composed. Trans-
pose the chapters and change the text, and the
harmony is destroyed.
5. It is said that, with the exception of Ire-
neus, all the Fathers of the first three centuries
were decidedly of opinion that our Lord’s ministry
did not last for any longer period than a year and
a half, and that it is inconceivable how they could
273
have formed such an opinion had the passage now
spoken of existed at that time in the Gospel of
St. John. I do not feel myself called upon to
account for all the strange or erroneous sentiments
of these ancient doctors. That they did fall into
many mistakes is an undoubted fact; and no one
can read the earliest of their writings without
being struck, and perhaps edified, by remarking
the wonderful superiority of the inspired over the
uninspired, of the sacred authors of the books of
the New Testament over their immediate and most
favoured successors. In matters of chronology
their errors are so remarkable that I should feel
almost inclined to follow the course pursued by
Sir Isaac Newton upon the present question, and
rejecting their irreconcileable testimonies altoge-
ther, attempt to explore a path for myself, without
any regard to the statements which they have
made, were it not that such a proceeding might
be construed into a confession of weakness, and
want of dependence upon the truth of the hypo-
thesis which I defend. In contradiction therefore
to the preceding assertion, I would say that, with
the exception of Clement of Alexandria and Va-
lentinus, there is not one of the Fathers within the
specified period who has positively asserted that
our Lord’s ministry was of so short a duration as
one year anda half. Fora proof of the truth of this
assertion I refer to the following observations :
S
274
Tertullian has been produced as one of those
who directly favour the opinion of only two Pass-
overs, and a space of one year and a few months
in our Saviour’s ministry. Speaking of the reign
of Tiberius he says,“ Hujus quintodecimo anno
imperii, passus est Christus, annos habens quasi
triginta, quum pateretur.”” Now the expression
“annos habens quasi triginta’”’ refers to the time
of our Saviour’s crucifixion, and seems an exact
translation from the phrase of St. Luke woe! erwv
tpiaxovta, Which refers to the time of his baptism.
The same may be said of “hujus quinto decimo
anno imperil,” when compared with ev ére wévre
Kal dexaTw THs nyEenovias TiBepiov, and hence it is.
inferred that ‘Tertullian supposed that Christ’s
ministry did not exceed one year,” because other-
wise it would have been impossible for him to
have imagined that Jesus was only about thirty
_ years old when he suffered, or that he suffered in
the fifteenth of Tiberius. I wonder that those
who have insisted upon this argument should never
have perceived that, if it proves any thing, it proves
too much, and that it is equally inconsistent with
the idea of two and of three Passovers. From
St. Luke we learn that Jesus was not baptized
until after the commencement of the fifteenth year
of Tiberius, and that he was then “ about thirty
* Ady. Jud. lib, vii, p. 144.
9795
years of age.” Tertullian asserts that he was
crucified in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and
was then also “about thirty years of age.’ If both
these statements be correct, and if the fifteenth
year of Tiberius be the same in both, it is unde-
niable that our Saviour was both baptized and
crucified in the same year, and consequently his
ministry did not continue above a few months.
Instead of two, therefore, we have only one Pass-
over in that ministry. In order therefore to re-
concile the Gospel of St. John with Tertullian, as
thus interpreted, we must not only reject the Pass-
over alluded to in John vi. 4, but also that of
which we have so full and interesting an account
in John ii.—a Passover at which the presence and
important transactions of Jesus are fully recorded.
But whatever be the authority of Tertullian, and
in matters of chronology and history it is not held
very high, I should not feel authorized in rejecting
any part of the Gospel of St. John in mere defe-
rence to his implied opinion. But is this his opi-
nion? Is the inference which is drawn from his
words correct! Is it necessary, is it in fact con-
sistent with his declarations in other parts of his
writings to suppose that he believed our Saviour
to have preached only for a few months? I think
not. In his treatise against Marcion, ‘Tertullian
says expressly “Dominus a 12 Tiberii Cesaris
s 2
276
revelatus.”* A. little afterwards he observes,
“apparuit sub Tiberio,” that is, he appeared or
was made known to the world as Christ, from or
after the twelfth year of Tiberius Cesar ; for it is
plain Jesus appeared in the world in a private
capacity before the reign of Tiberius. Now Jesus
was not made known to the world under the cha-
racter of the Messiah until his baptism, and the
commencement of his ministry. It must therefore
be to these events that Tertullian alludes when he
says “Dominus a 12 Tiberii Cesaris revelatus.”
But we have already seen that in another place
he informs us that our Lord was crucified in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius. It would therefore
appear to have been his opinion that Christ’s
ministry lasted about three years.
The manner in which Mann” has attempted
to overturn the preceding conclusion forms one
of the most curious instances of sophistry which
can be imagined. In the first place he assumes
that when Tertullian says ““ Dominus a 12 Tiberii
Cesaris revelatus,” he means by the word “ reve-
latus”’ the same as “ baptizatus et crucifixus.” To
Lib. i. cap. 15. p. 624.
» De annis Christi, p. 160 et 247, ‘'Tertullianus significat
istis verbis Dominum tam passum esse, quam revelatum, Tiberii
duodecimo,” p. 247. ‘<'Piberii duodecimo ab excessu. Augusti
computato.” p. 101,
277
answer this most unwarrantable assertion | have
before enquired and shewn to what circumstance
in our Saviour’s life that word does allude. Mann
next proceeds to compare this passage so inter-
preted with the other in which Tertullian informs
us that our Lord suffered in the 15th year of Tibe-
rius, and to reconcile the two, supposes that in the
latter he speaks of the fifteenth year of the procon-
sular government of Tiberius, in the former of the
twelfth of his sole empire, which two years, cor-
responding in his opinion to each other, give us
at once the hypothesis of Tertullian, and the
manner of interpretation so as to make the pas-
sages agree. But against this we may positively
assert, that Tertullian did not mean the fifteenth
year of the proconsular government of 'Tiberius,
and what is more, that Mann must have known
that this was not his meaning. He quotes the
passage from Tertullian in the following manner :
«—__ Successit Tiberius Caesar hujus quinto
decimo anno,’ &c. The hiatus occurring before
“ successit”’ and after ‘Cesar’ indicates the omis-
sion of some words in those portions of the sen-
tence ; and it so happens, that those very words,
if quoted, would have proved to demonstration
that the writer was speaking of the 15th year of the
sole, and not of the proconsular empire of Tiberius.
The whole paragraph runs thus,—‘‘ Post Augus-
tum, qui supervixit post nativitatem Christi, anni
278
15 efficiuntur. Cui successit Tiberius Caesar et
imperium habuit annis 22, mensibus septem, die-
bus viginti. Hujus quinto decimo anno,’ &c.
Tiberius reigned twenty-two years, seven months,
and twenty days after the death of Augustus.
From the death of Augustus, therefore, alone can
that reign of Tiberius be computed, in the
fifteenth year of which Christ, according to Ter-
tullian, was crucified. This is still more evident
from what he afterwards says,—Que passio—
perfecta est sub Tiberio Cesare, Coss. Rubellio
Gemino et Rufio Gemino, mense Martio,’ &c.
Now the Gemini were consuls in the 15th year of
the sole empire of Tiberius. It therefore appears
that Tertullian conceived our Saviour to have
commenced his preaching from the twelfth, and to
have suffered death at the Passover in the fifteenth
year of the sole empire of Tiberius, and conse-
quently to have continued his ministry for about
the space of three years. To account therefore
for his using phrases so very similar to those of
ev €rer TEVTE Kal dexaTw THS Hryeuovias Tiepiov and
WEL ETOV TpiakovTa in St, Luke, we must suppose
that he considered these expressions of the Evan-
gelist to refer rather to the death than the bap-
tism of Jesus, an interpretation which, however
unwarranted and improper, has not been with-
out its defenders in almost every age of the
Church.
279
Before 1 quit Tertullian let me just notice
another error with regard to his opinions. Jerome
in his commentary on the ninth chapter of Daniel
speaks of him as having believed that our Saviour
was crucified in the thirty-third year of his age.
That this is incorrect is plain. Tertullian says,
Jesus was born fifteen years before the death of
Augustus, and suffered in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius, whence it is clear that he did not con-
sider him to have completed his thirtieth year at
the time of his crucifixion.
- In thus settling the opinion of Tertullian we
have disposed of the testimony of a variety of the
other Fathers, whose writings have been produced
on the same side. Africanus, Jerom, Augustin,
Sulpicius Severus, Lactantius, and the rest have
merely asserted that our Saviour was crucified in
the consulship of the Gemini, or the fifteenth
year of Tiberius. Of the duration of his ministry
they have said nothing, and if, as we seem to have
proved in the case of Tertullian, it was possible to
maintain this opinion regarding our Lord’s death,
without limiting the interval between it and his
baptism to so short a space as one year, their
testimony must at least be considered as neutral,
until some other passage can be produced from
their works in which their sentiments upon that
point are more explicitly contained. Origen there-
280
fore is the only writer who still remains to be con-
sidered. }
In two places of his works Origen undoubtedly
mentions a one year’s ministry of our Saviour, but
not with equal confidence in both passages. In the
first,° he speaks of it as his own opinion that our Lord
eviavTov yap Tou Kal wyvas ONiTyous édloake ; but in the
other he is not so positive, and rather alludes to
the opinion as contended for by others than enter-
tained by himself.—< Atunt uno anno Salvatorem
in Judea Evangelium preedicasse, et hoc esse quod
dicitur preedicare annum Domini acceptum et
diem retributionis.”" Were these the only re-
marks upon the subject in the works of Origen,
they would be decisive enough of his sentiments.
But he was not always uniform or consistent in
his ideas, and we therefore find two other passages
in which he declares unequivocally for a two
year’s ministry and three Passovers. The former
of these passages is in the Latin translation of his
work upon St. Matthew—* Circa quadragesimum
annum a quinto decimo anno Tiberii Cesaris fac-
ta est destructio Hierusalem et templi quod fuit in
ea....Deduc ergo predicationis Domini /fere
annos tres.’* The second is quite as explicit, and
© De Principiis, lib. iv. sect. 5, * Hom. 32 in Lue.
* Tract 35, See Whiston Testim. of Phlegon vindic. p. 10.
281
may be found incidentally introduced as a sort of
admitted fact in his answer to Celsus :—'O 0é 'lovdas
mapa tw ‘Inoov ove Tpla Over puvev éry.. Mann’s®
observations upon this are totally unworthy of
refutation. He maintains that Origen, by saying
not quite three years, meant not quite éwo years.
In short it suited his purpose to give this expla-
nation. Taking Origen however in his obvious
sense, it must at least be allowed that, in different
works and at different periods of his life, he was
divided against himself. This would at any rate
neutralize his evidence. But when we consider
that his work against Celsus is his most celebrated
‘ Lib. ii. p. 67. edit. Spenceri.
*
® Deannis Christi, p. 162, ‘*‘O d€’Iovéas rapa re ‘Incou ode
tpia cuetpivev éry. Judas verd apud Jesum ne tres quidem
annos versatus est, id est, biennii quidem majorem partem, seu
plus auno exegit, anni vero tertii partem prorsus nullam attigit.
Sed ne duos quidem annos noluit dicere, quum ultra annum duos
tresve menses inter baptismum et initium docendi effluxisse cre-
deret ; cavillari enim visus esset, si contra morem tunc receptum
- partis anni excurrentis rationem nullam habuisset.” Is it not a
little singular that Priestley, who was so obstinate in disbelieving
many things, should betray such an easy credulity of disposition
upon this point, and, admitting without hesitation the unsatisfactory
remarks of Mann (whose characteristic modesty and ingenuity he
extols) rank both Tertullian and Origen amongst the patrons of a
one year’s ministry? There certainly is more ingenuity than
modesty in these criticisms of Mann, and I cannot wonder that,
with such flagrant perversions of words before their eyes, he should
have ‘absolutely staggered and offended the whole Christian
world,” and that Priestley ‘‘ never heard of so much as one ai:
person haying embraced his opinion.”
282
and judicious production, and that both it and the
commentaries upon St. Matthew were composed
some time after the work “ De Principiis” and
the Homilies upon St. Luke, we may perhaps be
induced to think that he renounced the opinion of
a one year’s ministry, as founded only upon a
mystical interpretation of a prophecy of Isaiah,
and embraced upon maturer deliberation the hypo-
thesis of three Passovers, and two years and a
half. This will appear still more probable if we
investigate the false grounds upon which Clemens
of Alexandria, the master of Origen and the
person from whom he most probably borrowed his
early notions, built the propriety of reducing our
, Saviour’s ministry within such narrow limits.
Kai ore emavrov povov ede avrov kypitar Kat TOUTO
ryéyparra ovtws. 'Evavrov dexrov Kuptouv knpveat
aréaTen€ me, TOVTO Kai 0 Tpopyrns etme kai TO Evay-
yéeduov." We have here not only the opinion of
Clemens, but also his reasons for it. He believed
that Jesus preached but for a single year, “ be-
cause so say the prophet and the gospel.’ The
order in which he places the two, and the promi-
nent effect which he gives to the prediction, too
plainly shew that this was the proof upon which
he principally relied. Now before the time of
"Clem. Al. Strom. lib, 1. p. 340.
283
Clemens the Valentinians had professed the same
opinion, and been led to it by the same reasoning:
Aéyovar (says Irenzeus) dt: re Swoexarp pyre Erabev
(Inoovs) émavte yap eve Bovdovrar avTov peta TO
Bamwricua avtov Kexynpuxéva.' He repeats this a
second* and a third time;' adding in this last
place the foundation upon which they built their
hypothesis. —‘‘ Duodecimo autem mense dicunt
eum passum, ut sit anno uno post baptismum pre-
dicans, et ex propheta tentant hoc ipsum confirmare.
Scriptum est enim, Vocare annum Domini accep-
tum et diem retributionis.” From this we per-
ceive that Clemens copied both the error and the
argument of the Valentinians, so that we have
only to refute their notions, and his will fall to the
ground at the same time.
Now from the forced inference by which the
Valentinians attempted to bolster up their opinion
in apparent conformity with a passage of Scripture,
it is pretty evident that the duration of our
Saviour’s ministry for only a single year was not
supported by any general tradition and belief of
the Christian Church, but was a mere invention of
their own. Had there been any such tradition,
they would not have failed to produce it as their
leading argument. Had there been any such
' Adv. Her. lib, i. p, 16. * Lib. ii. cap. 36.
_ * Lib, il, cap. 38,
284
tradition, Irenzeus would not have failed to have
admitted the fact, and reasoned only against their
interpretation of Isaiah ; for throughout his expo-
sition of their errors, one of his principal grounds
of objection is the direct opposition in which the
creed of these heretics stood to the creed of all
other churches in the world. This is more parti-
cularly the case in his second book; and throughout
the whole of his writings he evinces a laudable
degree of deference to general and long received
opinions. I do not therefore think that he would
have opposed the idea of the Valentinians at all
had he known it to be generally believed, or have
ventured upon any reasonings and: conjectures of
his own upon the subject, as he proceeds to do,
had he been aware of any commonly received
opinion. Hence I conceive that in the days of
Irenzus the church was in as great a state of .
uncertainty upon the duration of our Lord’s mi-
nistry as at this moment, and that the Valentinians
were originally led into their error by their own
allegorical interpretations of Scripture. The fact
is indeed directly asserted by Irenzeus,—“ Ili
autem, ut figmentum suum de eo quod est Scrip-
tum vocare annum Donuni acceptum affirment,
dicunt uno anno eum predicasse et duodecimo
mense passum.”"" We have only therefore to
™ Tren, adv, Her. lib. u. cap. 39. Priestley supposes (Obs.
on
285
shew that the passage quoted from Isaiah, as a
prediction of a one year’s ministry of Christ, is
totally irrelevant, and the hypothesis itself will be
no longer entitled to any kind of attention beyond
the conjecture of any other individuals. Yet
really even this seems unnecessary. In the present
advanced state of expository theology it is needless
to enter into any elaborate investigation of the
words of Isaiah, to prove that the mystical inter-
pretation of the Valentinians is inadmissible. I
shall content myself with merely subjoining the
explanation of Irenzus, “ Dies retributionis dictus
est in qua retribuit Dominus unicuique secundum
opera sua, hoc est, judicium. Annus autem Do-
mini acceptabilis, tempus hoc in quo vocantur ab
eo hi qui credunt ei et acceptabiles fiunt Deo....
Ita.... illic annus non qui est ex duodecim men-
sibus, sed omne fidei tempus in quo audientes
predicationem credunt homines, et acceptabiles
Domino fiunt, qui se ei copulant.’’" ‘Thus have
we traced the opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus to
the Valentinians, and found the fanciful foundation
on Harm. p. 44) that the opinion of the Valentinians with regard
to the duration of our Saviour’s ministry gave rise to their allego-
rical interpretation of Isaiah, and not, as is generally imagined,
that their opinion originated in that interpretation. With how
much reason this fancy of his can be maintained, the passage
which I have here quoted from Irenzus sufficiently proves.
" Ady. Heer, lib, i. cap. 38.
286
of their opinion to be so utterly unsound, that it is
astonishing how Priestley’ could condescend to
repeat it as any proof of a one year’s ministry of
Christ. We have also proved that none of the
ancient Fathers, except Clemens, were decidedly
of this opinion. Tertullian is against it—Origen
is divided against himself—and in the rest there
is nothing positive or tangible. Their evidence,
therefore, cannot fairly be produced against the
genuineness of St. John vi. 4.
6. Lhave reserved to the last the consideration
of what may appear to be the strongest argument
for the rejection of the verse in question. Irenzus
reckons three Passovers in the Gospel of St. John ;
but in his enumeration of them he entirely omits —
John chap. vi. ver. 4, and substitutes in its stead
the feast mentioned John v. 1. Hence it is con-
cluded that’ he had not seen any copy of the Gospel
of John that contained the word zacya in the
fourth verse of the sixth chapter.”’ “For his purpose
was to collect all the passages in the Gospel of
John, where he imagined that a Passover was
either intended or expressed, and therefore if he
had seen that verse, or read it, as we now read it,
he would have preferred it, without any hesitation,
° Observ. on Harm, p. 41.
P Priestley’s Observ, on Harm, chap. vil, p. 46.
287
to the feast mentioned in chap. v.”” This conclusion,
even if certain, would not be completely decisive,
because the copy from which Ireneus quoted
might in fact itself be in error, and might with
some degree of fairness have been argued to be
so, from the circumstance of its being contradicted
by so many other authorities. The inference
however itself is not absolutely necessary or sure.
Epiphanius positively asserts that our Saviour
preached for more than two years, and says that,
at the first feast at which he was present after his
baptism, ‘Ev pécw tis copTys exexpaye, Néywv Ef Tis
OwWa épyécOw mpos we kai mwérw. Now when we
turn to St. John we find this invitation to have
been uttered at that feast of Tabernacles, which
immediately preceded the crucifixion, and therefore
in the second and not in the first year of our
Saviour’s ministry, as Epiphanius would intimate.*
To what then are we to attribute this variation ?
To some variation in the copy which Epiphanius
used, or to his own mistake? If we follow the
4Tov yap mpwrov énavtov.... meta TO BarricOyjva....
avéBn Sndrovor: eis ‘lepoodd\upa Kat év meow THS EopTHS, K.T.E.
Epiph. Her. 51. cap. xxv. p. 447. The words of St. John are
not év péow THe Eoptys, but év TH EoyaTn Mepa TH peyarn THs
€optxs, cap. Vil. 27. which is another proof of Epiphanius having
quoted from memory, a practice certainly not uncommon in the
present day, and most probably equally prevalent among the
older writers, when copies of the Scriptures were much more
scarce,
288
steps of those who have framed the argument from
Irenzus, we shall say the former ; for it was evi-
dently of great importance to him to make out
his opinion clearly and distinctly, and therefore, .
as they would say, had he known of those passages
in St. John which now exist, and read them in
the order in which we read them, he would never
have made use of such a false statement, when one
both true and in his favour was ready to his hand.
But I apprehend that a much more natural method
of accounting for the variation in both places is
by attributing it to the error of the writers,—an
error arising either from their quoting by memory,
or from an actual misunderstanding of the Evan-
gelist. Perhaps Ivenzus, perceiving and not
being able to account for the silence of St. John
with regard to the presence or any transactions
of our Saviour at the Passover mentioned chap. vi.
ver. 4, conjectured that this Passover was the
feast mentioned chap. v. 1, at which our Saviour
was present, and performed one of his most me-
morable miracles, and in consequence explained
the word éyyvs in the phrase nv O€ ervyryus TO Tdoxa
of the nearness of that Passover which was past,
instead of one which was future. This interpre-
tation [admit to be forced, and false, and inadmis-
sible, but still I do not think it impossible for
Irenzus to have adopted it, when we recollect
that it was not (as Priestley asserts) his object “ to
289
collect all the passages in the Gospel of John where
he imagined that a Passover was either intended
or expressed,” but only “quoties secundum tempus
Pasche Dominus post Baptisma ascenderit in
Hierusalem,’’' that is, at how many Passovers he
was present in Jerusalem. We should consider
also that in the very next chapter Ireneus has
fallen into blunders equally inconceivable, and
imagined our Saviour to have been nearly fifty
years old, hecause the Jews said unto hin—'Thou
art not yet fifty years old.” The opinion of an
author who could acquiesce in such an interpre-
tation, and thus fortify himself in the belief of a
twenty year’s ministry of our Saviour, is not much
to be relied on. Yet such was the case with
Ireneus. He contends indeed against the Valen-
tinians, that St. John has mentioned three Pass-
overs, and that consequently our Lord’s ministry
lasted at least for two years and a half: but he
also maintains, and apparently as his own sen-
timent, that our Saviour, beginning his ministry
when about thirty, did not end it by his death till
he was about fifty years of age, that is, till he had
preached nearly twenty years, but whether con-
stantly or at intervals he does not positively state ;
he would rather seem to imply the latter. He
must therefore, as I conceive, have interpreted
* Abp. Newcome’s Notes to Harm, p. 27.
T
290
some expressions of St. John’ with great latitude,
and supposed that he omitted many Passovers, as
well as many acts of Jesus. But be this as it may,
such was his hypothesis, and, what is still more
singular and opposed to the declarations of every
other Christian writer, he asserts that it was an
Apostolic and almost universal tradition in the
church. The passage which contains this curious
assertion has been fortunately in part preserved
in its original Greek, and is certainly worthy of
a perusal,—Ildvyres 0: mpecBvtTepor paptupovaw, ot
kata thy Aciav Twavrn T@ TOU Kupiov pabyrn ouupse-
BAnKoTEes, TapadeowKevat TavtTa Tov lwavynv. Trapepewve
yap avtos wéxp Tov Tpaiavov xpover. ‘Quidam
autem eorum non solum Joannem, sed et alios
Apostolos, viderunt et hec eadem ab ipsis audierunt,
et testantur de hujusmodi relatione.”* What are
we to say, or what judgment to pass upon this?
It has often been the occasion of much doubt and
perplexity to my mind. If we believe his statement,
it confounds and overturns the calculations and
theories of every age and every nation of Chris-
* «There are also many other things which Jesus did, the
which if they should be written every one, I suppose that the
world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”
chap, xxi, 25. This is no doubt an hyperbolical expression, but
it is an expression which of itself would lead us to suppose our
Saviour’s ministry was at any rate longer than a year.
‘ Adv. Heer. lib. it, cap. 39. The latter part exists only in
the Latin translation.
29}
tians under heaven, and is also absolutely contra-
dicted by the first three Evangelists, who all con-
fine the duration of our Saviour’s ministry within
ten years instead of twenty by informing us that
he was both baptized and crucified under the go-
vernment of Pontius Pilate, who only remained ten
years in Judea. If we reject it, it casts a reflec-
tion upon the understanding or the credibility of
Irenzeus, which I should be extremely unwilling to
admit, and which is not justified by any similar
instances in any other part of his writings. Perhaps
the truest and most lenient conclusion we can
draw is, to say that he was borne away by his zeal
against the. Valentinians, and ventured for once
upon one of those unwarrantable assertions which
are sometimes hazarded in the heat of controversy,
and of which we have, even in the present en-
quiry, produced some glaring examples from Allix
and from Mann in a later and more enlightened
age.
i have now made all the observations which
seem to me necessary upon this subject, and the
conclusion I would draw is this—that there is
very little reason to suppose that the feast in
St. John, chap.v. i, is to be considered as a
Passover—no sufficient argument or authority for
rejecting the Passover mentioned by him in chap.
vi. 4—and no intimation or foundation whatever
T2 ;
292
in his Gospel to induce us to imagine that he omit-
ted to record any of the Passovers which occurred
in our Saviour’s ministry. It therefore follows
that as he has enumerated, as his Gospel now
stands, only three Passovers, the most probable
opinion is that which assigns to our Saviour’s
ministry a duration of two years and a half.
293
SECTION IL.
Probable Year of our Saviour’s' Crucifixion.
Ir there be any force in those arguments by which
we have endeavoured to shew that our Saviour was
baptized in the month of November J. P. 4739,
and any truth in the opinion we have expressed
relative to the duration of his ministry, it is evi-
dent that, as according to that opinion he was
crucified at the third Passover after his baptism,
he was crucified at the Passover J.P. 4742.
Now this conclusion has the peculiar advantage
of corresponding with the most ancient and uni-
form tradition which exists upon the subject in
the Church; for it fixes the death of our Lord
to the consulship of the Gemini at’ Rome, and
the fifteenth year of the sole empire of Tibe-
rius, which is the date assigned to this event by
every one of the Fathers of the first three centu-
ries, who have made any mention at all of the
294
period at which it occurred. In most other cases
we have to estimate and compare the value of
contending conclusions, sometimes built upon the
same and sometimes upon different premises ; but
in the present imstance, whoever has said any
thing, has said the same thing, and the date stands
uncontradicted by any existing Christian writer
for more than three hundred years. Many of
them indeed have been entirely silent about the
year of the crucifixion, but no one who has spoken
has differed from the statement of his brethren.
Whether with Clement of Alexandria and the
Valentinians they limited the duration of our Lord’s
ministry to a single year, or with Origen seemed
to be of a doubtful judgment, or with Tertullian
dated the commencement of his ministry from the
twelfth of Tiberius, they yet all (with the excep-
tion of some Basilidians, who deferred it to the
sixteenth)* fixed the death of our Saviour to the
fifteenth of that Emperor’s reign. A few of the
testimonies which bear out this assertion I will
now produce.
Clemens of Alexandria,” after observing that
Jesus when baptized was about thirty years of
age and that the word of the Lord came to John
* Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. i. p. 408.
» Ubi supra.
295
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and that our
Saviour preached not more than one year, adds
the following words : [evrexadexdt@ ovv ever TiBe-
piov kai mevTekawexaTw AuyovcTou, ov’Tw mAnpouvTat
Ta TpLaKovTA éTn Ews ov emaber. Ad? ov 06 éraber
(0 Incovs) éws THs KaTasTpoPys "Lepovoadyu yiryvovTa
érn uw. unves y? From the former part of this
passage it is quite plain that Clemens did not con-
ceive our Saviour to have suffered before the com-
mencement of the fifteenth year of Tiberius: he
must therefore have been mistaken when he says,
that from the date of our Saviour’s crucifixion to
the destruction of Jerusalem there elapsed a period
of forty-two years and three months. “Sept. J. P.
A783 (the date of the destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus)—42 years and 3 months=June spa ig
4741; which in point of years corresponds to the
latter part of the fourteenth instead of the fifteenth
of Tiberius, and in point of months cannot be made
to correspond to the Passover of the Jews and the
crucifixion of our Saviour in any year. To account
for this difference we may suppose that Clemens
computed the full and final caracrpopy of Jerusalem
from the year subsequent to its being taken . by
Titus, that is, from J. P. 4784, in which Vespa-
sian and his son enjoyed the honours of their
triumph, and Cesarea became the metropolis of
Judea, which gave the last blow to the greatness
and glory of the city of David. This will render
296
his computation more exact, as also that of Origen,
who here and probably in many other instances
seems closely to have adhered to the opinions of
his master Clemens.
The sentiments of Origen with regard to. the
year of our Saviour’s crucifixion will appear
very plainly from a comparison of the two fol-
lowing passages : |
> , ?
‘Amo mevtexawexatou érous Tifsepiov Katcapos éri
\ \ a ; , \ éu ,
TH KaTacKkadyy vaov TecoapakovTa Kat ovo TETAIPW~
of
Tal ETN. ©
/ \ y vend, > >)? ec F ,
Tecoapakovta yap €Tn Kat ovo vipa ad ov eaTav-
‘ , - , > " \ e ,
pwoav tov ‘Incovv yeyovevac emt tyv lepocodvpwv
xaQaipeotv.”
By thus placing the same number of years
between the destruction of Jerusalem and the
fifteenth of Tiberius, and between the destruction
of Jerusalem and the death of our Saviour, it is
clear that the fifteenth of Tiberius was the year
to which he as well as Clemens referred the date
of the crucifixion.
That the same opinion was held by Tertullian
the passages already quoted from his writings are
a sufficient proof; and for the sentiments of Afri-
© Hom, xiv. in Jerem. p. 140.
297
canus to the same purpose we may rest satished
with the testimony of Jerome :— Julius Africanus
in quinto temporum, Alque cxinde usque ad annum
quintum-decimum Tiberti Cesaris, quando pas-
sus est Christus, nimerantur anni sexaginta.*
Lastly, we find the same date assigned to our
Saviour’s death by Lactantius: “Ab eo tempore
quo Zacharias fuit usque ad annum quintum-deci-
mum imperii Tiberii Cesaris, quo Christus cruci-
fixus est, anni quingenti numerantur siquidem
Dari, &c.*
Such were the general sentiments of the Chris-
tian Church during the first three centuries ; and
it was not until the fourth century that any new
idea was promulgated. Eusebius, conceiving that
our Lord was baptized in the fifteenth year of the
sole empire of Tiberius, and that his ministry
lasted about three years and a half, very natu-
rally transferred the Passover of the crucifixion to
the eighteenth or nineteenth year of that Empe-
ror’s reign. The foundations of this new date
I have already endeavoured to prove to be de-
fective; and I therefore think that, considering
their weak and unsatisfactory nature, we cannot
* Hieron. Comment. in cap, iv. Danielis.
* Lactant. Instit, lib. iv. cap. 14.
298
be» deemed presumptuous in regarding the tra-
dition, which fixes the passion of our Saviour to
the fifteenth year of Tiberius, as containing the
most probable hypothesis, not only on account of
its extreme antiquity and respectable patrons,
but also because it agrees most exactly with
those opinions relative to the baptism and ministry
of our Lord which have already Spireneite most
worthy of our adoption.
299
SECTION IIL.
The probable Month and Day of our Saviour's
Crucifixion.
—@-———
From the arguments and authorities produced in
the preceding Section we might safely conclude
that the fifteenth year of the sole empire of Tibe-
rius, and the 4742d of the Julian Period, was not
only the most probable, but the certain year of
our Lord’s crucifixion, were it not for some diffi-
culties which arise from the: consideration of the
month and the day on which he suffered.
It is plain, in the first place, from the narrations
of the Evangelists that our Saviour was crucified
on a Friday. He was nailed to the cross about
the sixth Jewish hour, or about twelve o’clock.
He expired on the cross about the ninth Jewish
hour, or about three o’clock in the afternoon, and
that on the Friday afternoon. For, after he had
expired, “ when the even was come, because tt was
the preparation, that is the day before a sabbath,
300
Joseph of Arimathea went in boldly unto Pilate,
and craved the body of Jesus.’’* This is suffici-
ently distinct; but to shew that this sabbath was
the Saturday or seventh day of the week, and not
any of the great festivals which were also called
sabbaths, we may just add another quotation from
the same Evangelist: “When the sabbath was
past... very early in the morning, the first
day of the week, they (Mary Magdalene and
Mary the mother of James and Salome) came unto
the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.’” From
these passages we clearly perceive that our Lord
was crucified on the Friday, the day before the
Jewish sabbath, and rose again on Sunday,’ the
first day of the week. This is indeed so univer-
sally allowed, that it would have been needless to
dwell upon it, except for its importance, when
viewed in connection with another fact.
For it is also demonstrable, in the second
place, that our Saviour was crucified on the 15th
day of the Jewish month Nisan. This proposition
is not so generally received as the former one, but
yet may be satisfactorily proved.
It is well-known that a controversy, originating
in the supposed meaning of certain expressions of
* Mark xv, 43. b Mark xvi. 1, 2.
301
the Evangelist St. John, has long been agitated
relative to the question, whether our Saviour cele-
brated the Passover on the same day with the
rest of the Jews or not; and many of the writers
who have treated of the chronology of the life of
Christ have thought themselves bound to enter at
large into the subject. I shall not follow their
example beyond a certain extent. It is univer-
sally admitted in the western churches (by. the
Greeks it is denied) that, if there was any differ-
ence between our Saviour and the Jews upon this
point, the error lay not on the part of Jesus
himself, but of those who differed from him. His
character, his conduct, his sentiments, will not
permit us for a moment to believe that he disobeyed
in the slightest degree the ordinances of the
Mosaic law, in deference to any traditions which
existed amongst the Scribes and Pharisees. If he
refused to follow upon this occasion the practice
of the High Priests and others amongst the Jews,
his refusal must be referred to some deviation in
their practice from that which had been formerly
prescribed to their forefathers by God. Our Lord
was right and they were wrong. This being ad-
mitted, it follows that the determination of the
controversy before mentioned is of no importance
as to the determination of the day on which our
Saviour celebrated the Passover and_ suffered.
Whatever rules might have been introduced by
302
time and tradition amongst the Jewish Priests, and
by whatever fanciful notions they might be guided
in changing the day of the celebration of the
Passover, these rules and notions would not affect
the practice of our Lord. It is still to be main-
tained that he eat the Passover on the day ap-~
pointed by the law of Moses,—“‘ the day when the
Passover ought to be killed,’ © ev 7 "EAEI @QvecOax
70 magya, as it is expressly stated in the Gospel of
St. Luke. The Pharisees might defer, but our
Lord would not anticipate the legal and proper
day for the celebration of the Paschal feast. We
have only therefore to examine the law of Moses,
and observe what month and what day he prescribes
for the celebration of the Passover, and then it
will necessarily follow, that on that day our Savi- |
our eat the Paschal lamb with his disciples, and on
the following morning was himself crucified as the
great Passover of the world.
There is no doubt whatever entertained as to
the month in which the celebration of the Pass-
over was enjoined to the Jews. It was in the
first month, the month Nisan or Abib, as it is
styled in Exodus,‘ which corresponds to the months
of March and April in the Christian year. Nor
is there much more difficulty with regard to the
© Chap, xxii, 7. 4 Chap, xiii. 4.
303
day on which ‘the Passover ought to killed.”
“Tn the fourteenth day of the first month, at even
is the Lord’s Passover.”* “‘'The whole assembly
of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the
evening.’ Our Saviour therefore, having eaten
the Paschal lamb with his disciples on “the day
when the Passover ought to be killed,” eat it of
course on the evening after the fourteenth, and
was crucified: on the following day, that is the
fifteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan. ‘ia
Had it not been for the doubt and obscurity
which the “too much learning’ of some chrono-
logers and theologians have thrown upon the pre-
ceding facts, I should not have deemed it neces-
sary to insist upon them. It»was expedient
however to combine them, and to prove that
our Lord, having been crucified both on the
fifteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan- and
on a Friday, could not have been crucified in
any year in which the fifteenth of Nisan did
not fall upon a Friday. The only circumstance
then with which we are at present concerned is,
whether the fifteenth day of Nisan fell upon a
Friday in the year J. P. 4742. Those who ac-
quiesce in the opinion of Eusebius and of four
Passovers in our Saviour’s ministry maintain the
* Levit, xxiii, 5. ‘ Exod, xii, 6,
304
negative. The Jewish months they observe were
Lunar months, beginning always with the new
Moon, and consequently assigning the full Moon
to the night of the fifteenth day of each month.
Now they say, that according to the Jewish mode
of computation, the Paschal full Moon, or the first
full Moon after the vernal equinox, did not fall
upon a Friday in the year J.P. 4742;. conse-
quently neither did the fifteenth of the Jewish
month Nisan fall upon that day inthat year. The
only year within the period to which the death of
our Lord can be properly attributed, and in which
in their opinion the Paschal full Moon fell upon
a Friday, is the year J.P. 4746. In that year it
fell upon Friday the third day of April: therefore
they conclude that the year J.P. 4746, and not
J.P. 4742, is the most probable year of the cruci-
fixion of Jesus.
In the formation of this argument it is evi-
dently taken for granted, 1st, that the vernal
equinox always preceded the fifteenth day of
Nisan, 2dly, that we are perfectly acquainted
with the Jewish method of computation, and 3dly,
that this method was in itself so accurate that the
precision of modern astronomy may be made use
of and depended upon in determining its results.
The investigations of chronologers upon each
305
of these propositions have been so laborious, and
intricate, and profound, that to place before the
reader even the substance of their hypotheses,
feunded as they are upon the most different and
contradictory premises, and leading often to the
most different and contradictory conclusions, would
carry me far beyond the bounds of moderation, and
might perhaps after all only throw the reader and
myself into a labyrinth of difficulty and confusion.
I will not attempt it; nor indeed, with the view I
have ultimately taken of the subject, do I think it ne-
cessary to do so. The greater part of the writers,
who have given their attention to the question,
have had some peculiar theory of their own to
defend as to the Jewish mode of computing their
months and years. Whiston maintains that amongst
the Jews “each month began the evening next
after the new Moon.’’® Petavius," that they com-
puted from a faulty cycle of their own, which is
given in Epiphanius,’ and the elucidation of which
has exercised the ingenuity of Scaliger, of Kepler,
and himself, without leading to any determinate
conclusion. Now as it is my intention in the
present section not positively to adopt any one of
£ Short View of Harm. p. 195.
* Petay. de Doctr. Temp, lib. ii, and xii, and Animady, in
Epiph,
' Her, 51.
306
the multifarious theories which have been hazarded,
but to shew generally the uncertainty of all, and
the impossibility of trusting to the assertions either
of the Rabbinical doctors or Epiphanius, If shall
not enter any further into the subject than may
seem essential to that purpose. The advantage
which I propose to myself by such a mode of pro-
ceeding is this: If the uncertainty of every known
hypothesis, and of the premises upon which every
future hypothesis is to be founded, can be shewn,
it will appear possible at least, and when we con-
sider other circumstances, perhaps not very impro-
bable, that the fifteenth day of Nisan might have
fallen upon a Friday in J. P. 4742.
1. That the vernal equinox must always have
“preceded the fifteenth day of Nisan and the Pass-
over, has been strenuously maintained from several
quotations which contain the sentiments of writers
both before and about the period of our Saviour’s
appearance upon earth, the only time of which it
is necessary for us to speak.
The opinion of the Jews upon this subject,
before the coming of our Lord, is stated in two
quotations from the works of the Agathobuli and
their scholar Aristobulus, who flourished in the
second century before the Christian era. The
307
passages may be found in the Ecclesiastical his-
tory of Eusebius. * |
Paclv (01 AyaboBovro) detv Ta cvaBaTnpa Ovew
° a \ ’ ’
EToNS ATaYTAS META iTHmEpiay EapLwHy.
‘O oe "ApisroBouros rporTiOyaw we ein cEavaryxns oa)
~ , ¢ ae. a 4) \> \
rév StaBaTnpiov EopTH 14» sovov Tov Lov TO tonuepwoy
H ‘
SarropeverOar Tunua, Kal THY TeARVHY OE.
*O.da (concludes Eusebius) rAciora cai adda T pos
auton eyoueva. .. +. 208 Ov TapioTdvew TELpaVTaL THY
Tov Tacyxa Kai T@Y aQUuwY EopTHY dELY mMaVTWS MET
ionuepiav ayec@ac.
The following are produced as traces of the
prevalence of a similar rule from authors about
or subsequent to the commencement of the Chris-
tian era.
Try apxny THs Eapwis icnnepias TPwTov avarypadet
unva Mwions.'
~ \ ~ a ~ ray 2 Fe A
To o€ un te BavOco, os Niccav Tap yu. Kanerrat
\ ~ WM ’ > A , \
KaL TOU ETOUS EoTLY apyy, TeccaperkaiveKaTn KaTa OE-
Ayvyv, év Kpup tov HXtov caBeotwros,. .. «Tv Ovaiav
* Lib. vii. cap. 32. p. 369-70.
* Philo Jud, in Vita Moysis,
U 2
308
7, / ’ a « 7 ,
».++Taoya Reryonévnv, o¢ Erous exactov Ovew €vo-
fice.”
The rule is confirmed by Maimonides* who
maintains that the Jews intercalated a month,
whenever, without that intercalation, the vernal
equinox would have fallen either on or before the
sixteenth day of Nisan,
The passages quoted above from Philo and
Josephus are by no means so positive or distinct
as those from the Agathobuli and Aristobulus.
The former seem rather to prescribe the celebra-
tion of the Passover about the period of the
vernal equinox, whereas the latter absolutely con-
fine it to some day after that equinox. It may also
be observed that, though Anatolius (for the passage
in Eusebius appears to be a quotation from that
author) places the Agathobuli and Aristobulus in
the second century before Christ, yet the propriety
of his opinion has been controverted very boldly
by the commentators,’ and the antiquity of those
™ Josephi Antiq. lib. ill. cap. 10. p, 93.
" Petav. de Doctr, Temp. lib, ii. cap. 30. ver. 1. p. 160.
° «Duos fuisse Agathobulos cognomento doctores, scribit
Anatolius. Sed quod eos Philone et Josepho antiquiores facit
vereor ne opinione sua falsus sit,”
« Aristobulum unum fuisse ex septuaginta senioribus, scribit
Anatolius. Id jampridem refutavit Scaliger, &c.” Valesu Note
in Euseb, ubi supra. .
309
writers, or the genuineness of their writings very
strongly called in question. Upon the whole,
however, I am inclined to think that it was a rule
among'st the Jews about the time of our Saviour
that the Passover ought never to precede the day
to which their calculations had fixed the vernal
equinox. But then it does not necessarily follow
from this rule that the Passover never did precede
the day of the vernal equinox, as determined by
the extreme accuracy of the astronomical observa-
tions of modern days, unless it could be shewn
that the Jewish mode of ascertaining the equinox
was attended with the same degree of accuracy.
If the Jewish method of determining the equinox
was either uncertain or inaccurate, the preceding
rule must itself also have been liable to the same
inaccuracy or uncertainty in its practical applica-
tion. Now we know that there is no injunction in
the Mosaic law which made it necessary for the
Jews to be anxiously minute with regard to the
observation of the equinox, or which indeed re-
quired it to be observed at all. The only points
to which it was really necessary for them to attend
in the appointment of the Passover were—that the
Paschal lamb should be slain on the fourteenth day
of the first month at even, and that the barley
should then be sufficiently ripe for the offering of
the first-fruits in the temple on the second day of
the feast. Hence as it was not necessary for the
| 310
Jews to guard against error upon this subject,
neither is it impossible or improbable that they
should sometimes have deviated into a slight degree
of inaccuracy with regard to the proper period of
the vernal equinox. Nay more, there seem to be
some hints in Epiphanius of an error of this kind
having actually occurred in the very year in which
our Saviour was crucified. His language is indeed
extremely dark and intricate, yet, according to
Petavius, his words, if they have any assignable
meaning, would appear to intimate as much.—
*“Hoc tamen significare videtur, (Epiphanius)
Judzos nonnullos, videlicit, Phariszeos ac Scribas,
communem hune errorem emendare cupientes
Pascha suum in 20 Martii diem distulisse, quo
passus est-Christus, guo nimirum propius ad equi-
noctium accederent, vel etiam ceeleste plenilunium.
Nam hoc verba ipsa tacité demonstrant: «ai
TSHMEPIA zo évoexa Kadavday 'ArpirrXiwv, &¢ qv
aAavnGEevTes uTrep Bac av [Lucy npepay emoinoav.? Though
therefore the rule would require that the vernal
equinox always should have preceded the Passover,
it does not seem absolutely certain that it did al-
ways so precede it. ‘From some cause or other
the rule and the practice would seem sometimes to
have been at variance.
® Petav. Obs, in Epiph. Her. 51. p. 181
311
Il. In directing our attention to the method.
of calculating the Jewish months and years we
may lay out of our consideration every thing which
relates to the remoter periods of the Jewish polity,
and confine ourselves to the times which succeeded
the captivity of Babylon, and preceded the disper-
sion of the Jews.‘
With regard to the practice of the Jews within
this limited period we have several testimonies
from writers of great weight, which determine
their months. to have been lunar months, that is,
of a duration nearly equal to a synodical revolution
of the Moon.
The author of the book of Ecclesiasticus in
the forty-third chapter expatiates upon the beauty
of the Moon, and the uses derived from her regular
revolutions: ‘‘' The Lord made the Moon also to
4 Much additional confusion has been thrown into this very
intricate subject by writers neglecting to mark the period of the
Jewish. Commonwealth to which their observations apply.—
“‘ Kepler” (says Prideaux, Com. Pref. vol. I. p. 14.) “holds that
the Jewish year was a solar year, consisting of twelve months of
thirty days each, and an addition of five days after the last of
them ; and our countrymen Archbishop Usher and Mr. Lydiat,
two of the most eminent chronologers that any age hath produced,
go into the same opinion.” Sigonius also (de Rep. Hebr.) agrees
with them. But then it should be stated, that Kepler confines and
the rest ought to have confined the application of their remarks to
the times previous to the reign of Alexander the Great,
312
serve in her season, for a declaration of times, and
a sign of the world. From the Moon is.the sign
of feasts, a light that decreaseth in her perfection.
The month is called after her name.”" After read-
ing these verses it is impossible to doubt but that
in the days of this Jewish author, and about the
second century before Christ, the months of the
Jews were lunar months, in the sense above
mentioned.
The same conclusion may be deduced with
equal certainty for the century after Christ from
the expression Kata cednvyv, ina passage which has
already been quoted from Josephus. ‘The expres-
sions of Philo Judzus also establish the same fact ;
but as I shall have occasion to refer to them after-
wards, I do not think it necessary to produce them
on the present occasion. |
We have now ascertained that the months of
the Jews were lunar months, so far as to be nearly
determined in their commencement and duration
by the synodical revolutions of the Moon; but in
what manner they were measured and dated,
whether from the phasis or appearance of an illu-
minated portion of the Moon’s disk, or by tables
in which her mean motion was calculated and
* Ver. 6, 7, 8.
313
adapted to the purpose, or by some faulty and
inaccurate cycle of their own, or by some other
method altogether different from these, is a point
upon which the most learned have disputed in
every age, and which, | apprehend, can never be
settled with any degree of satisfaction from the
remaining scanty and inadequate hints which form
the only materials for our judgment.
Mr. Mann‘ argues very strongly for the anti-
quity of the astronomical method of computation
at present in use amongst the Jews, and contends
that it was the method adopted so early as the
times of our Saviour.
Epiphanius‘ on the other hand broadly asserts
that the Jews in our Saviour’s time followed the
calculations of a faulty and inaccurate lunar cycle,
by means of which they anticipated in the year of
his crucifixion the proper period for the celebration
of the Passover by two days. Petavius defends
this opinion, and he and Kepler have both with
much labour endeavoured to draw out a set of
tables upon the principles which Epiphanius has
laid down; but there is so much obscurity and
even contradiction in the passage in which that
* De annis Christi, cap. 20, 21, 22, 23.
* Her. 51, cum Animadversionibus Petayii.
314
- Father treats upon the subject, that it would be
quite impossible to say whether they are right or
wrong in their conclusions. ‘
The Rabbinical Doctors (and Maimonides in
particular") have referred to a third method and
stated that the ancient-Jews reckoned the begin-
ning of their months from the phasis of the Moon,
and that their present mode of calculation was not
introduced until after the final dispersion of the
nation. Before that period they assert that there
were in Judea several cuvédpia, or committees,
(as we should term them) under the general super-
intendence, and, as it were, branches of a central
committee fixed at Jerusalem. The members of
this committee were in possession of certain tables
containing calculations of the motions of the Moon,
which being inspected it was thence determined
when the new Moon ought and would most pro-
bably appear. They then sent out some approved
and steady persons to observe whether the Moon
" Sealiger de. Emend. Temp. Lib. 1, and Petavius de Doctr.
Temp. Lib. ii. and xii. have both treated at large upon the state-
ments of the Talmudical Doctors, and as usual are at direct vari-
ance with eachother. Those who wish to understand the subject
and judge impartially for themselves, should consult and study
‘‘Surenhusii Mischna, Tractatus de Principio anni, vol. II..p.
300 to 354. and still more carefully the treatise of Maimonides
«“ De Consecratione Calendarum, &c.” translated into Latin by
De Veil, and published in 4to. Lond, 1683.
315
did appear atthe time at which they expected her
appearance or not. If these persons beheld the
phasis on the night after the twenty-ninth of the
current month, they immediately proclaimed the
new moon: thus determining what would other-
wise have been the thirtieth day of the current
month to be the first of the succeeding one. If
the watchers did not return with intelligence of
the observation of the phasis before the night
after the thirtieth day of the current month, they
fixed the commencement of the succeeding month
on the following day, making the current month
consist of thirty days. In other words, they de-
termined the current month to consist of twenty-
nine or thirty days, according as their watchers
did or did not return with intelligence of having
seen the new Moon before the conclusion of the
thirtieth day. After the central committee had
thus fixed the day of the new Moon, messengers
were sent to the several cities within the distance
of a ten day’s journey from the metropolis to
announce the fact.
Such are the leading points in the statements
of Maimonides and the Rabbins, which Scaliger
and Petavius have summarily rejected as a gra-
tuitous fiction, and against which others have
reasoned with a great degree of probability and
force. For myself however I must say, that I
316
cannot consider them as either altogether true or
untrue. There are in the detail of the proceedings
of the committee and of the purposes for which
those proceedings were instituted a great number
of manifest absurdities and inconsistencies, and
hence I much doubt whether the object for which
they observed the phasis has not been misrepre-
sented by these fanciful doctors, as well as many
fictitious circumstances added. But on the other
hand I can scarce believe the whole story of the
committee and the observations of the phasis to
have been a mere creature of their inventive ima-
ginations. It may therefore deserve our attention
to enquire, what was the real purpose of the
labours of this committee, and whether its objects
and proceedings have not been erroneously stated,
and strangely mingled and corrupted by the ficti-
tious additions of the later Rabbins.
That there is much substantial truth im the
Rabbinical statement may be fully proved from the
pages of Philo, who lived and wrote at the very
time of our Saviour’s appearance upon earth. He
calls the new Moon the beginning of the month
(apyy myvos) and informs us that the new Moon
was determined by the phasis or first perceptzble
illumination of the Moon’s disk—Novuyvia yap
apxeta pwticew ALZOHTQ peyyer ondyvyv HALOS,
317
4 O€ TO WOsov KaANOS avaawwet TOS opwot,. It seems
therefore a certain fact, that about the period of
our Lord’s crucifixion the Jews reckoned the
beginning of the month in some sense or other
from the phasis of the Moon.
It would appear however from another passage
of Philo (and this is all that it is requisite for us to
shew)’ that they did not regulate the celebration
of the Passover by the phasis of the new Moon.
The Passover he informs us was celebrated in the
month Nisan, on the fourteenth day of the month,
and before the Moon had reached the full. - wept
TeccepeckawexaTny yuepav, MEAAONTOS cov cedn-
yiakov KUKAOV ryiryverOat mdyouaous.” Now if the
first day of the month had been reckoned from the
first visible illumination of the Moon’s disk, the
Passover would have been said to have been cele-
brated a little after and not before the full Moon.
It would appear therefore that the first day of the
month, in the popular sense, in the month Nisan
at least, was not reckoned by the generality of the
Jewish nation from the phasis of the new Moon,
but by some other method of computation. Indeed
there are several considerations. which: tend in a
’ Philo Jud. de Septen. vol. II. p. 292. editio Mangey.
* De Mon, lib. iii. vol. II. p. 169.
318
great measure to destroy the credibility of the
principal points of this Rabbinical tradition.
1. There are several glaring inconsistencies
and absurdities in the circumstantial part of the
whole account,—many things which Mann very
justly terms “absurda simul et supertitiosa,”* and
one of the most prominent is this, that, if the be-
ginning of every month was determined by the
phasis of the new Moon of the succeeding month,
it would have. been impossible to say which was
the last day of any month until it was actually
past. Whether the current month was to contain
twenty-nine or thirty days could never be known
till the month had closed. This must have been
productive of very great confusion and uncertainty
as to dates, even in Jerusalem itself, where the
central committee was sitting for the purpose of
determining the point, whilst in places at the
distance of two or three days’ journey from the
metropolis it must have left them in’ uncertainty
* Some of those absurdities however which Mann _ produces
he would have found to be removed by Maimonides, had he taken
the trouble of consulting him. For instance the difficulty which
(p. 234) he conceives the cities at a distance from Jerusalem must
have felt in knowing when to observe the great day of expiation in
the month Tisri is completely obviated by Maimonides, who says
that in all these cases the distant cities, in order “to make assur-
ance doubly sure,” observed these festivals on two successive
days.
39
of the real day. of the month for several days. Nor
is this by any means the whole of the evil; for
there were some cases in which, even after a whole
month had passed away, the whole reckoning
would have to be changed, and a new one com-
menced. Maimonides’ informs us that, when the
phasis of the new. Moon had been erroneously
fixed to the thirtieth day of the preceding month,
that error, even if discovered within a few days,
was never rectified; but if the preceding month
had been erroneously intercalated, and the phasis
fixed to what would otherwise have been the thirty-
_ first day of that month, the intercalary day was
rejected, and the preceding month made to consist
only of twenty-nine days, if the error was proved
any time before the end of the month. He excepts
indeed the months of Nisan and Tisri from the
operation of this rule, on account of the Passover
and the great day of expiation, and conceives that
if the efror was not rectified before the fourteenth
day of Nisan and the ninth of 'Tisri, it was not in
those months rectified at all; but with regard to
the other months he affirms it to have always been
enforced. To what confusion would not such a
rule lead if observed in any month, and how can
we possibly suppose that any nation would perse-
vere for centuries, as the Jews are said to have
* De Conseer. Cal. cap. ii. sect. 10, and cap. iil, sect, 15, 16.
320
done, ina mode of framing their calendar which
must inevitably be attended with the utmost per-
plexity and confusion.
2. What renders the improbability the
stronger in this case is, that if they did act in this
manner it was not because they were a rude and
illiterate people, and like some barbarians utterly
unacquainted with the changes and periods of the
Moon. It was not for want of knowledge, because
the ‘central committee are reported to have been
in possession of certain astronomical tables from
which they were able to calculate the true motion
of the Moon and very nearly the time of her appear-
ing,—“ Habebant illi lunarium motuum verorum,
sive accuratissimorum, tabulas, quibus diligenter
inspectis, animadvertebant ecquid luna se suo tem-
pore visendam preberet, hoc est tricesima nocte, an
nondum sui copiam factura videretur.’’’ If really
possessed of tables of which the calculatiéns were
so nearly accurate, why did not they depend upon
them and intercalate a day at intervals, as might
seem necessary ? Why always leave the first day
of the month uncertain, until it was almost past,
and not rather adopt some technical method of
fixing the duration and commencement of each
month, as was the practice with almost every other
* Petayv. de Doc. ‘emp. lib. ii, cap. ti, 7, p. 156.
321
nation, and as seems also to have been the practice
even in the most ancient times; for Moses, when
speaking of the continuance of the flood, makes
it to have lasted for five months, and computes the
length of each month at exactly thirty days.*
3. The difficulties already mentioned seem to
render it somewhat unlikely that the Jews in gene-
ral should ever follow such a bungling and uncer-
tain method of determining the beginning and
duration of their months; and that they did not
always do so,—that in one instance at least the
nation at large did not regulate their reckoning
by the day on which the priests proclaimed the
phasis of the new Moon is freely admitted by
Maimonides himself. When circumstances requir-
ed that a month should be intercalated, Maimoni-
des says” that letters were sent to the distant
cities and provinces, announcing the intercalation,
and absolutely fixing the duration of the intercalary
month either at twenty-nine or thirty days, to
which duration those cities and provinces always
adhered. The council at Jerusalem, however,
did not settle for themselves and their own prac-
tice whether the intercalary month should consist
of twenty-nine or thirty days, until the conclusion
* Gen, chap, vil. and viii. Shuckford’s Connection. Preface.
* De Cons: Calend. cap. iv. §.17.
Xx
322
of that month and the appearance of the new
Moon of the succeeding month Nisan had pointed
out which number of days it ought to consist of.
Hence it is evident that there might and would
sometimes be a difference between the members of
the Jerusalem council and the rest of the Jews in
their mode of reckoning the first day of the month
Nisan. If the council announced to the nation
at large an intercalary month of twenty-nine days
only, and afterwards found out that they were
wrong in their calculations, and.that it ought to
have consisted of thirty days, it is evident that in
that year the persons composing and adhering to
the practice of the council would differ from the
rest of the Jews in counting the first, and there-
fore the fifteenth day of Nisan. What was the
fifteenth of Nisan to the one, would be the six-
teenth to the other; and perhaps some circum-
stance of this nature, at present unknown to us,
may have occasioned the difference, if there really
was any difference, amongst the Jews as to the day
of the celebration of the Passover in the year of
our Lord’s crucifixion. Perhaps from this very
cause we may explain why, as is supposed by
many, our Saviour and his disciples and the gene-
rality of the Jews sacrificed the Paschal lamb on
the evening of the Thursday, and the Scribes and
Pharisees and others not until that of the Friday
in Passion week,—in other words, why our Lord
328
considered the Friday, and others the Saturday,
as the fifteenth day of Nisan: but without insist-
ing further upon this, it is plain that the procla-
mation of the time of the new Moon’s appearance
did not always determine the Jews in fixing the
first day of the month, and more especially that it
did not always do so with regard to Nisan. This
is sufficient for my purpose,—sufficient to shew,
that we are still in such a degree of ignorance
with regard to the method of calculating the Jewish
months and years, as to prevent our deciding with
absolute certainty upon the day on which the
Passover took place in the year of our blessed
Saviour’s crucifixion. As, however, Ihave already
entered somewhat at length into the curious and
obscure subject of the Jewish calendar, I would
beg leave to be permitted, with great diffidence, to
propose a conjecture with regard to what I con-
sider to have been the real object of that super-
stitious observation of the phasis of the Moon
which cannot with any degree of probability be
denied to have been uniformly made, and also with
regard to the sense in which Philo is to be inter-
preted when he says, that this phasis or new Moon
so determined constituted the beginning of the
month. I conceive then, that the first visible ap-
pearance of the new Moon constituted the begin-
ning of the month only in an ecclesiastical sense,
and for particular purposes of sacrifice, and that
x 2
324
the first day of the month in a civil and popular —
sense was not computed from that appearance,
but, as Epiphanius asserts, from some peculiar
cycle of their own; for I perceive no other method
by which the account of that Father can possibly
be reconciled to the statement of the Talmudical
doctors. Further, the purposes for which the new
Moon was so strictly watched I conceive may be
deduced from the very first page of the treatise of
Maimonides, which has been already so frequently
quoted. Maimonides in the first place produces
the words of Moses, where it is said—‘‘In the
beginning of your months ye shall offer a burnt-
offering to the Lord,’’* and then adds, that it was
a tradition of the elders that when God gave the
preceding precept to Moses, he shewed him the
appearance of the new Moon, and enjoined that
whenever he observed the same he should conse-
crate it to the Lord by religious services,—by
the offering of an additional sacrifice. I deem it
to be not impossible, that this tradition may have
occasioned the constant observance of the new
Moon, and all the care and strictness with which
it was watched, and all the rules and scruples with
which the testimonies of its appearance were re-
¢ Numb. xxviii. 11. ‘‘ quod sapientes quidam sic interpretati
sunt, ut vellent per visum a Deo Lune nov speciem objectam
esse Mosi, atque eidem prescriptum, ut cum similem visurus esset
am illicd consecraret.” Maimon. de Cons, Calend. cap. i. sect, 1.
325
ceived and judged, and all the apparatus of mes-
sengers sent to different cities, which might all
have been adopted to prevent the offering of these
sacrifices to God before the occurrence of that phe-
nomenon which they conceived he had appointed
as a sign for their celebration ; for it it well known
to every reader of the New Testament how rigid-
ly the Pharisees adhered to their traditions, some-
times even in direct violation of the moral law of
God. I offer this however as a mere conjecture,
_ upon a point which is extremely obscure, and of
no material importance either in a moral or reli- |
gious point of view, and therefore one of those
subjects upon which a conjecture may safely be
hazarded without unsettling the principles of faith |
in any mind. It is only indeed in matters of little
consequence that men are authorized thus to exer-
cise their ingenuity and imagination. In questions
of higher moment they should learn to confess
their ignorance and be wisely silent.
Ill. But to return. From what has been
observed we may draw the following conclusions :
—lst, that it is not absolutely certain whether
the Jewish Passover was always celebrated before
the vernal equinox :—2dly, that even if it were,
Epiphanius and the Talmudists are utterly at va-
riance with regard to the method of computation
in-use amongst the Jews, in the days of our Sa-
326
viour, for the regulation of their months and years,
and that to neither the one nor the other is so
much deference due as to justify our giving a
positive determination in favour of either side :—
3dly, that in consequence we may safely say that
the Jewish method of fixing the Passover is not
by any means so well known at present as to
permit us to make use of and depend on the pre-
cision of modern Astronomy, in ascertaining the
period to which it was fixed in the year of our
Saviour’s crucifixion. It is therefore at least poss?-
ble that the fifteenth of Nisan might have fallen
on a Friday in J.P. 4742. Beyond this possibi-
lity it is not absolutely necessary for us to enquire,
but as there are several probable suppositions upon
which it may also be shewn that the fifteenth of
Nisan did fall upon a Friday in that year, I shall
now proceed to state them.
Ist, If we suppose that the Passover took place
before the vernal equinox in the year of our
Lord’s crucifixion, we shall find that the full Moon
next before the vernal equinox in J. P. 4742, which
we have assigned for the death of our Saviour,
fell upon the 18th of March, and that it was also
a Friday, B being the dominical letter for that
year.
adly, If, determining nothing with respect te
327
the mode of fixing the Passover, we simply follow
the authority of Tertullian, who positively asserts
that our Lord was crucified on the 25th of March,‘
we shall find here also a strict correspondence
with our opinion; for the 25th of March was a
Friday in J.P. 4742, and in no other year to
which the crucifixion can with any propriety be
attributed. |
3dly, If we suppose that the Paschal full Moon
in the year of our Saviour’s crucifixion was the
first after the vernal equinox, and admit with
Epiphanius that the Jews, following in that year
the erroneous calculations of their own peculiar
and inaccurate cycle, anticipated by two or three
days the proper period for the celebration of the
Passover, this hypothesis will also agree very well
with our opinion that Christ suffered in J. P. 4742.
In that year the first full Moon after the vernal
equinox took place on the night between the 16th
and 17th, the new Moon having occurred on the
2d of April about eight o’clock p.m. This was
the real period of that new Moon,—the antici-
pated period therefore, according to the Jewish
method of computation as stated by Epiphanius,
4 «Que passio......perfecta est sub Tiberio Cesare, Coss.
Rubellio Gemino et Rufo Gemino, mense Martio, temporibus
Pasche, die 8vo. Calendarum Aprilium, &c.”
Tertull, adv. Jud, lib, villi, p. 141.
328
would fix it about the 31st of March, and we may
consequently suppose the first of April to have
been the first day of Nisan for that year. The
evening of the 14th of April or Nisan would thus
be the time at which “the Passover ought to be
killed,” and of course also the time at which it
was killed by our Saviour and his Disciples. On
the morning of the next day Jesus was crucified —
that is, on the morning of Friday the 15th of
April or Nisan, J. P. 4742, the 17th of April
being the Sunday in that year.
We have here no less than three probable sup-
positions, upon any one of which it is evident.
that our Saviour, if crucified on the 15th of Nisan
J.P. 4742, was crucified on a Friday, and there-
fore I apprehend that when we reflect upon the
many reasonings and testimonies by which we are
led to fix upon that year, as the year of our Lord’s
death, it will easily be allowed that some one of
them may be the true hypothesis, and that at any
rate there is no incontrovertible objection against
the date we have selected to be drawn from the
day of the week and Jewish month on which, from
the writings of the Evangelists, Christ may be
proved to have suffered. Having given this general
answer to the objection, I would now beg leave to
add a few remarks upon the third mode of solution
which I deem the most likely to be correct, and to
329
state the reasons which induce me to form that
opinion.
Whatever may be the faults of Epiphanius,
{ cannot persuade myself to think so lightly of his
veracity as to suppose that he would wilfully have
invented the whole account which he has given us
of the Jewish cycle, nor so meanly of his judgment
as to imagine that there was no foundation what-
ever for his opinion, that in the year of our Lord’s
crucifixion the Jews anticipated the proper period
of the Paschal feast. There certainly is an insur-
mountable degree of obscurity and of difficulty in
explaining and reconciling his statements,—‘ Hac
Epiphanii oratione nullum sphingis enigma per-
plexius esse puto.”* It may be indeed that, as in
the second verse of the second chapter of St. Luke,
so here also there is some corruption of the text;
and I am strongly inclined to agree with Petavius
“ut emendationem potius hic locus quam inter-
pretationem requirat,”’ for after all the learned
observations of that author I am still much in the
dark with regard to the cycles of the Jews. I seem
however from all his learning and obscurity to
gather two things with tolerable clearness,—first,
that it is impossible in the present day, and without
more distinct and copious information with regard
* Petav. Animadv. in Epiph. vol. II. p. 127.
330
to the method by which the Jews regulated their
feasts and determined their new Moons, to say
precisely upon what day they celebrated the Pass-
over in any particular year; and, secondly, that
they did anticipate the proper day in the year of
our Lord’s crucifixion. Since therefore it appears
that, if in the year J. P. 4742 the Jews celebrated
the Paschal feast on the evening of Thursday the
14th of April, they celebrated it before the pro-
per period, according to the Moon, that is one
strong reason for supposing it to have been the
year of the passion of Christ.
Another reason for supposing J. P. 4742 to
have been the year of our Lord’s death, and April
14 the day on which he eat the Passover with his
disciples, I have already hinted at. It is the faci-
lity it affords of removing a great difficulty, with
regard to the different days on which in that
year some of the Jews appear to have sacrificed
and eaten the Paschal lamb. I have with great
care examined the arguments produced on both
sides in this controversy, and my ultimate convic-
tion is that, whilst the words of St. Matthew, St.
Mark, and St. Luke necessarily compel us to
believe that the majority of the Jews sacrificed the
Paschal lamb on the same day with our Saviour,
the expressions of St. John lead us irresistibly to
the conclusion, that many of the Scribes and Pha-
331
risees and other leading characters amongst them
did not sacrifice it until the evening of the fol-
lowing day,—until after our Saviour himself had
been crucified. Two passages produced from this
Evangelist may and perhaps ought to be other-
wise interpreted, but a third is, I think, quite
conclusive. JI allow that the phrase zpo rijs eopris
rod mdoxa, in chap. xiii. 1. means, that it was the
preparation of the Paschal subbath, or that sabbath
which occurred in the Paschal week, but no cri-
tical distortion appears to me capable of giving to
chap. Xvili. 28.—xal avrot ov« eisndOov eis TO Tpat-
Twpiov, wa wy piavOwow, adr’ wa paywor TO Taoya,
any other meaning or translation than this, —“ And
they themselves went not into the judgment-hall,
lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat
the Paschal offering’”—the sacrifice of the Pass-
over. The word zacya when alone is not always
used exclusively for the Paschal lamb, but often in
a more enlarged and extended sense, for the
whole feast of unleavened bread; but the phrase,
payeiv to macya, though used by each of the first
three Evangelists, and more than once, is never
applied except to the eating of the Paschal offer-
ing itself, at the time.appointed in remembrance of
the Lord’s Passover in Egypt. The inference
therefore from the words of St. John above
quoted is, that the Priests and Pharisees did not
eat this Passover at the same time with Jesus and
332
the rest of the Jews; and I say, that this differ-
ence may be accounted for on the supposition that
our Lord was crucified J. P. 4742. 'To understand
this we must refer back to the preceding year, and
we shall find that the Paschal full Moon took place
in J.P. 4741 on the 29th of March. It could
not have been the full Moon next before the 29th
of March, for that would bring us back to the very
beginning of that month, and therefore fix the
Passover more than twenty days before the vernal
equinox, an error too great to be attributed with
any degree of probability to the Jewish method of
computation. It could not have been the full
Moon next after the 29th of March, for then the
Passover would have been on the second and not
the first full Moon after the vernal equinox.
Hence we perceive that the Passover J. P. 4741,
or in other words the 15th of Nisan in that year
fell about the 29th of March. Now the year of
which that Nisan was the first month either had or
had not an intercalary month. If it had not, it
consisted only of twelve lunar months, and there-
fore would fix the next Paschal full Moon, and
consequently the Passover also, either on or about.
the 18th of March J.P. 4742. But this as we
have seen was before the vernal equinox. It is
therefore perhaps more probable to suppose that,
in order to fix the Passover after this equinox, the
Jewish calendar had in this year an intercalary
333
month, and so transferred the Passover J. P.
4742 to the full Moon next after the 18th of
March, that is, tothe month of April. This being
assumed, we must now recollect what Maimonides
has told us about the length of those intercalary
months, namely, that their duration was fixed at
the time at which they were appointed either to
29 or 30 days, but that if the new Moon did not
appear before the conclusion of the 30th day, the
priests and those who were with them reckoned
an intercalary month of thirty days, even though
they had originally determined that it should con-
sist only of twenty-nine. Suppose now that an
intercalary month of twenty-nine days had been
proclaimed for the year J. P. 4742, and the 1st of
the month Nisan fixed by their method of compu-
tation to the 1st of April, here it is plain that as
the new Moon did not take place until the 2d of ©
April, the priests and others, not being able to see
the new Moon on the 1st, would necessarily extend
their intercalary month to thirty days (and their
months never consisted of more than thirty days)
whilst the rest of the nation would still reckon it
as consisting only of twenty-nine. Thus Friday
the 1st of April would be the ist of Nisan, and
Thursday the 14th of April the 14th of Nisan to
the majority of the Jews, whilst to others Saturday
the 2d of April would be the 1st of Nisan, and
Friday the 15th of April the 14th of Nisan in
334
J.P. 4742. The bulk of the nation would there-
fore sacrifice and eat the Paschal lamb on the
Thursday with our Saviour, and others not till
the Friday evening. This seems to be an expla-
nation of at least a possible cause of this difference
and difficulty, and at the same time to give a
degree of strength, proportioned to its own proba-
bility, to the opinion of our Saviour’s crucifixion
being rightly dated when dated in April J. P.
4742. There is an argument however against
this month, and in favour of March, which ought
not to be omitted, and it is this: —The Fathers are
not more unanimous and decided in ‘fixing the
death of Christ to the 15th of Tiberius, as the
year, than they are in determining upon March,
as the month. With regard to the day they
differ, but upon the month they agree; and this
may perhaps weigh with some in giving’ their opi-
nion for the 18th or 25th of March, rather than
the 14th of April, whilst all, I trust, will acknow-
ledge the intricacy and obscurity of the subject,
and perceive that no decisive objection can be
raised against any year, merely from the circum-
stance of our Saviour’s being known to have been -
crucified on a Friday. Whether he was crucified
in J. P. 4742 or J.P. 4746 or any other year,
can neither be affirmed or denied merely by our
calculations of the Paschal full Moon, because we
know not with sufficient accuracy the Jewish
335
method of determining the Passover; but must
be settled by other considerations, by a comparison
of the testimonies of ancient writers with the du-
ration of our Saviour’s ministry, and his age at
the time of his baptism.
336
CONCLUSION.
—<,>———-
I nave now brought these observations to a close,
and endeavoured to prove that our blessed Saviour
was born into the world in the Spring of J. P.
4709,—baptized in the month of November, J. P.
4739, and crucified at the Passover, J. P. 4742,
after a ministry of about two years and a half.
To be positive in a matter of such extreme diffi-
culty would ill become any man; I shall therefore
only remark, that if I have forgotten or undervas
lued any objection it is because I was ignorant
either of its existence or importance. I have
wilfully mis-represented nothing, but endeavoured
to lay before the reader every argument connected
with my subject in the very light in which it ap-
peared to my own mind. I know not however in
what manner I can better explain the views with
which I have written and the course which I have
pursued, than by adopting the simple and honest
words of Le Clerc, who is not only one of the
most sensible, but what is of some consequence to
the shortness and uncertainty of human life, one
of the most concise of all the writers upon the
chronology of our Saviour’s life.*
* Le Clere’s Dissertations suffixed to his Harmony, p. 581.
3317
“TI would not have it thought that I have pro-
duced nothing but what is new, which would be
far from truth, others having before made use of
many things here mentioned: but I have selected
from the writings of others what seemed necessary
for the confirming and illustrating of my design ;
and these I have set forth with as much brevity
and plainness as I was able, and, if Iam not mis-
taken, explained them with some new arguments,
by which I have endeavoured more diligently than
others have done before me to distinguish those
things that were dubious from what was manifest,
and of certain authority. So that what I have
here advanced is not all my own, neither is all
borrowed ; but I shall think it will be enough for
my credit, if I have not deviated from the truth,
and if I have reached it in the common road or in
a less frequented path. Now if any one shall
censure me, as being altogether in the wrong,
I shall not at all wonder at it, as one unacquainted
with the temper of some men. [ shall not how-
ever be incensed against him, or wish him any
ill, or detract from his reputation. I have herein
acted according to the best of my understanding
for our common Saviour; and if not so well as
I should have done, yet at least sincerely: nor
have I writ one syllable but what flowed from the
love of truth or the Gospel : to which if any others
=
338
think they can do better service another way, I
shall be far from opposing of it, provided they
observe the plain precepts of the Gospel, and assent
to those tenets which are uncontroverted amongst
Christians.”
339
CHRONOLOGICAL
TABLE.
Years of
the Julian
Period.
4674. | June, Jury, &c.—The 184th Olympiad ends,
Herod nominated to the Kingdom of Judea
by the Roman Senate.
4709. | Marcu To JuNE.—A decree having been issued
by “ Cesar Augustus, that all the land should
be taxed, all went to be taxed every one to
his own city,’ and, as Josephus says, “ All
the Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful
to Cesar, and to the interests of the King.”
Joseph also with his espoused wife Mary
went up to Bethlehem, and there JESUS
WAS BORN.
From THE 39th To THE 49d DAY AFTER THE
Birtu or Jesus.—Magi from the East ar-
rive ia Jerusalem, saying, “ Where is he that
is born King of the Jews?’ Herod holds a
consultation “ with the chief Priests and Scribes
of the People.” Jesus is brought to Jerusalem
and presented in the temple, and then carried
back again to Bethlehem, 6 miles. The Magi
are sent by Herod to Bethlehem “‘ to: search
diligently for the young Child.” The Magi
arrive in Bethlehem, find Jesus, present their
offerings, and then, “ being warned of God in
a dream that they should not return to Herod,
they returned into their own country by another
way. The same night Joseph, being also
warned by God in a dream, “took the young
child and his mother by night, and departed
into Egypt.”
Years of
the Julian
Period.
4710.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
42d to THE 50th DAY AFTER THE Birta
or Jesus.—The Murder of the Innocents
at Bethlehem.
Fesruary.—The last illness of Herod probably
commenced.
Marcu 13th.—The Rabbis put to death for
sedition. “The same night there was an
eclipse of the Moon.”
FresrRuARy.—About this time Herod died, in
the 37th year of his reign, and not quite two
years after our Saviour’s birth. He was suc-
ceeded in the kingdom of Judea by his son
Archelaus.
Marcu 16th.—The first Jewish month Nisan
and the 2d year of Archelaus’s reign, according
to the Jewish method of computation, begin.
Fesruary.—The ninth year of Archelaus’s
reign, according to the Roman and common
method of computation, begins.
Marcu or Aprit.—The first Jewish month
Nisan, and the tenth year of Archelaus’s reign,
according to the Jewish method of computa-
tion, begin.
SEPTEMBER TO DrcEMBER.—Archelaus was
banished in the ninth Roman and _ tenth
Jewish year of his reign.
JANUARY TO ApRIL.—Cyrenius appointed
Governor of Judea, and ordered to: make a
general Assessment.
SEPTEMBER 2d.—Cyrenius had before this
finished the general Assessment in Judea.
NovemsBer or DecEMBER.—A decree of the
Roman Senate conferred upon Tiberius equal
power with Augustus in the Armies and Pro-
vinces, from which period is to be dated the
‘H-yexovia or Government, or Proconsular
Empire of Tiberius.
Years of | CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 341
the Julian
Period.
——
SS ee
4727. | AvueusT 19th.— Augustus dies, and the Baowrela
or ‘Apyx, or reign, or sole Empire of Tiberius
begins.
4738. | NovEMBER oR DEcEMBER.—The 15th year
of the ‘Hyyenovia or Government of Tiberius
begins.
4739. | JANUARY TO MAyY.—Pontius Pilate became
Governor of Judea before the Jewish Pass-
over.
May to Octroser.—The Word of God came
to John the Baptist, and he began to baptize.
NovemBer.—JESUS BAPTIZED by John.
NovemBer or DecemMBer.—The 15th year
of the ‘H-yyeuovia or Government of Tiberius
ends.
4740. | Marcu, Arrit.—The first Passover in our
Saviour’s Ministry.
4741. | Marcu, Aprit.—The second Passover in our
Saviours Ministry.
Avucust 19th.—The 15th year of the reign or
sole empire of Tiberius begins.
4742. | Our Blessed Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST
was CRUCIFIED at Jerusalem by the Jews,
at the third"Passover in his Ministry, which
lasted on the whole about two years and a
half, viz. from November J. P. 4739 to
March or April J. P. 4742.
Aveusr 19th.—The fifteenth year of the reign
or sole empire of Tiberius ends.
4749. | JANuary to May.— Pontius Pilate removed
from the Government of Judea, having held
it for ten years, viz. from the beginning of
J.P. 4739. a
Vitellius, President of Syria, went up to Jeru-
salem, at the time of the Passover, and there
deposed the High Priest Joseph, &c.
| May aNnp JunE.—~Tuiberius sends letters to
Veart of
the Julian
Period.
4750.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
Vitellius, commanding him to form a friendly
alliance with Artabanus king of the Parthians.
JuNE AND JuLy.—Vitellius enters into a Treaty
with Artabanus, and sends dispatches to Tibe-
rius announcing the fact and the terms.
SEPTEMBER, OcToBER.—Tiberius in answering
the dispatches of Vitellius informs him that he
had previously been made acquainted with all
the circumstances.
Herod sends to Tiberius an account of a dispute
between himself and Aretas king of Arabia
Petra.
Novemser, DecemBer.—Vitellius receives
orders from Tiberius to make war upon
Aretas.
Marcu 16th.—The Emperor Tiberius dies.
ArriL to Juty.—Vitellius, on his March
against Aretas, goes up to Jerusalem, “a
feast of the Jews being at hand,” and there
on the fourth day after his arrival receives
intelligence of the death of Tiberius.
343
A List of the principal Works and Editions of Works
quoted or referred to in the preceding pages.
Allix de Christi anno et mense natali. 8vo. 1707.
Clementis Alexandrini Opera. edit. Potteri. fol. Oxon. 1715.
Casauboni Exercitationes in Baronium, 4to.
Cotelerii Patres Apostolici. Antverp. 1700.
Cypriani Opera, 1 vol. folio. Amstelod. 1691.
Chrysostomi Opera, 7 Vols. fol.
Epipbanii Opera. edit. Petavii Parisiis, 1622.
Trenzus. edit. Grabe. Oxon. 1702.
Justini Martyris Apologize et Dial. cum Tryphone. edit. Thirlbii.
Lond. 1722.
Josephi Opera. fol. Geneve 1635.
Lamy Commentarius et Apparatus in Harmon. Paris. 4to. 1699.
Lardner’s Works, 8vo. edition by Kippis.
Maimonides de Consecratione Calendarum Latiné. Lond. 4to.
1683.
Mann. de veris annis D. N. Jesus Christi natali et mortuali Dis-
sertationes. 8vo, Lond. 1742.
ee contra Celsum Libri 8. &c. edit. Spenceri Cantab.
1077.
Petavius de Doctrinaé Temporum, 2 Vols. fol. Paris, 1627.
Pagi. Appar. et Critic. ad Baronium. 5 Vols, fol.
Surenhusii Mischna.
Scaliger de Emendatione ‘Temporum.
Tertulliani Opera, 1 Vol. folio, Paris, 1616.
Vossius de Mense, dieque natali Christi et de Tempor. Domin,
Passionis. fol. in the 5th Vol. of his Works.
Whiston’s Chronology and Harmony, 4to, Camb, 1702.
ERRATA ET CORRIGENDA.
Page 3 line 26, for contrarities read contrarieties.
— 9 — 10, for these read those.
— 19 — 15, instead of a comma place a period after “‘ Syria.
— 20 — 30, for Rodm read Proxm.
— 49 — 27, for Elul read Schebat.
— 61 — 26. for term read tense.
— 73 — 21, for it her read in her.
— 88 — 7, dele and scrupulosity.
— 147 — 16, for shewed read shewn.
— 150 — 2, after connected 2nsert with.
— 192 — 5, for Narva read Nerva.
— 196 — 22, for contrarities read contrarieties.
— 243 — 10, dele Tatian and.
— 246 — 29, for agreed read argued.
— 248 — 26, for ensusing read ensuing.
— 250 — 10, dele he.
— 252 — 6, for defeat read defect.
— 253 — 5, for axactly read exactly.
— 254 — 14, for probable read probably.
— 255 — 28, for Syker’s read Sykes’s.
— 257 — 3, for ground read grounds.
— 262 — 24, for remove read obviate.
— 266 — 7, dele therefore.
— 303 — 13, for have read has.
— 310 — 13, for videlicit read videlicet.
— 318 — 7 and 8. for beginning read conclusion.
"
Rae eee ue
it etna hae Pe ni MAGN iia
Pat mm hy: ns crash q ba an “i i
a ase bits d eee Mhaliext,.' Vo Wise Ate Ri) 3 .
shia Rant ae Sal ns og ee eA NTT
. ibe elit i BEAT: vO)
ee ini oe t Pie 00h es, SN ae:
ies oe We. (sea GR i
on i ee id cnc cs Pe ha aT ei
| a vials - iyyglen alee Oh. Sekt ana Di a ROA A:
ee a) cee fi cash aga fy Se ae
hi te mh eG Lie Re, ae eee Re
eee te Baik ge aa al Wary Each Meath Nate
, Eas be anwar, ko Homi ae ae sae an me a
ik he ieytane Ly IR Ms) teh” MNT MO CT eX
ee Re a edt ices ett et oo ee)
rae hE Re 0) Re a a a , me Salta
ee A 9 ay Nae tae anne Re Sr AE a / HE
Pee: OS SO Ben te he) Sane
ica ve eee a ee i a hen Se ae
ene a) Ria, ee gsi! adh Othe RU gt, Sian
hp ee RS \ deleh tenet i we OPT ae 3 ae
ayes ae XE Bhs fee A Pre
ee ae Tine PRU tReet oT ay Ca 1
Sin eas of Ohad ay" Ae heen ee ees ' tid
; ; "i - by ' is ‘ n ae i
a : bal 7. 4 pay e
7h rr
ieee ‘
+} ;
oT
i
wi ty ila
rn ra
mide tT
* Be arity
7 ' pie ahaa
‘ r ANG DBs PAL ¢
ervey Fa Is
’ r) ae
i J
e's
al
¥ ‘ot asi
, a,
} Y oi 4
Wy aie
Aes |
. . é
ar a
< * J
7 > = , «
,
"% . j
Oe . Py 5
ie
* * ‘
. Pa
i
.
ei La
. °
‘ . '
| ‘
A - ~
: \
t)
>
a +. é
i .
»> ’
; ’ :
a
z 6 . >
<
2
, . , ’
é - a é
Pe 4 Pd
‘_- :
al 4 s
f
4
a
, .
° ns
DATE DUE
ee ee ee
<
uv
3
=
a
w
-
=
«
a
a
«
°
as
21.4 .B47 | .
chronology of our iour’s life
t
|
|
|
17
I
inary—Speer Library
HN A
nN
1 1012 00057 4808
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11