This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
atjhttp : //books . qooqle . com/
:
M
-JKffW
I A
V1
|
LIBRARY Ml 111! University of California. |
||
|
. |
Digitized by VjOOQ
Ie
►
E
Digitized by VjOOQIC
THE NEW TESTAMENT
FOR
ENGLISH READERS.
VOL. I. THE FOUR GOSPELS AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
PART L— THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
^
" That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou
hast heen instructed."
Luke i. 4.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
Digitized by VjOOQIC
|
J«Sidon |
|||
|
/ * |
|||
|
J S |
|||
|
<V 3 C |
|||
|
* j-i^V |
|||
|
co y° * |
|||
|
/ <* / ' |
|||
|
1 ** / "^-^ |
|||
|
<L |
|||
|
* |
y * >f / \(| X |
||
|
A. |
|||
|
V |
/ ' \ \ / 'n6 * |
||
|
♦J |
/ ^ £fa>rudh\* I / j S |
||
|
- |
Ackol /6 flr~»l^-^-iM,lfr |
||
|
T> |
J :' ^^s''.sjf*^^\ i *** |
||
|
4* |
/ A^vM*^' *///[Mt^jrJ ! |
||
|
* |
\ Nazarrth* 2 * j V^ ,/^N* |
||
|
A i ' V / ♦ |
\ |
||
|
/ j , .fti/im *L .. |
|||
|
/ <3 v^>-x |
|||
|
/ Samaria9 W ,' t* |
|||
|
'A. 3? *' |
- G* |
||
|
{ ^uAm^uAtf^9«3 ^fo |
|||
|
OL<r.Aux>*#ina ^ < j _ |
No |
||
|
*r A / j |
- — Sa |
||
|
^ *f \l \ |
- Ju |
||
|
/ \ |
\ / /'a |
||
|
\ •/• — --^ ^ ij ■ |
|||
|
**•••• "" v^ ^^_ j* y |
|||
|
•fphraani ttphrfi -8 . "C / |
|||
|
i*W*Ma8 v\ • »<^jl "^fr*^ 'V™""*"' |
|||
|
JERUSALEM JlT.^'^flOV^y^ J|L ^f » * IP |
|||
|
; |
Jf * 7* |
l |
|
|
17 ~ iff* |
, if |
||
|
• \ L i> r •W |
i |
||
|
Hebrau %A ^ \ ^<* |
k' |
||
|
- - « |
|||
|
Digitized by VjC ( |
|||
|
AM*. |
lie
"B/ LI*. M. i „ iz-KC,l,\
1
u
THE
NEW TESTAMENT
FOB
ENGLISH READERS:
CONTAINING THE AUTHORIZED VERSION,
WITH MARGINAL CORRECTIONS OF READINGS AND RENDERINGS ;
MARGINAL REFERENCES;
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY COMMENTARY;
HENRY ALFORD, D.D.
BEAK OF CAWTERBUBY.
nr TWO TOLUME8.
VOL. I. Pakt I.— THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS
SECOND EDITION.
RIVINGTONS,
Xonfton, ©xfortr, an* CDambrfrgr.
DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.,
tombrfrgc.
1868.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
v./.'/
LONDON : GIXBEBT AKD EITINGTON, PEIJJTEBS,
ST. John's square.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
V
^
ADVERTISEMENT
THE SECOND EDITION.
Since the First Edition was published, the evidence of the recently-found Sinaitic Manuscript has been added to our ancient testimonies regarding the Sacred Text. This has occasioned many variations, which have been indicated in the margin of this Edition, so as to make it conformable to the last Edition of my Greek Testament. The notes, except where such variations necessitated a change, remain as before.
Canteebuet, Christmas, 1867.
8670;]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
CONTENTS OF THE INTRODUCTION.
PRELIMINARY CHAPTER.
PAGE
Of the Present Work 1
CHAPTER L
OX THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS GENERALLY. 8BOTXOH
I. General Characteristics of the Three First Gospels 7
II. Their Independence of one another 8
III. The Origin of onr Three Gospels 12
IV. The Discrepancies, apparent and real, of the Three Gospels . . . .17 V. The Fragmentary Nature of the Three Gospels 19
VI. The Inspiration of the Evangelists and other N. T. Writers ... 20
VIL Impracticability of constructing a formal Harmony of the Three Gospels . 27
CHAPTER H.
OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.
L Its Authorship 29
II. Its Original Language 80
III. For what Readers and with what Object it was written .... 80
IV. At what Time it was written 81
V. Its Style and Character 82
CHAPTER HX
OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK.
I. Its Authorship 88
II. Its Origin . . . .83
III. For what Readers and with what Object it was written .... 86
IV. At what Time it was written 86
V. At what Place it was written 87
VI. In what Language it waB written 87
VII. Genuineness of the Gospel 88
VIII. Its Style and Character 89
Digitized by VjOOQIC
viii CONTENTS OF THE INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER IV.
. OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. SECTION PAGE
I. Its Authorship 40
II. Its Origin 41
III. For what Readers and with what Object it was written .... 43
IV. At what Time it was written 44
Y. At what Place it was written 47
VI. In what Language it was written 47
VII. Genuineness of the Gospel 47
VIII. The Authenticity of the Two First Chapters 48
IX. Its Style and Character . .49
ERRATA.
At Matt. xxvi. 55, "Are ye come out," &c, insert marginal note, " render, Ye are come out, &c., without note of interrogation "
At Luke vii. 32, "and saying," Ac, insert marginal note, "read, which say."
Digitized by VjOOQIC
INTRODUCTION.
PRELIMINARY CHAPTER.
OF THE PBBSENT WORK.
1. This Edition of the New Testament is undertaken with a view to put the English reader, whose knowledge is confined to our own language, in possession of some of the principal results of the labours of critics and scholars on the sacred text.
2. There are of course very many cases where this cannot be done. The English reader must be content to remain in ignorance of all those minute niceties of meaning and connexion, which depend on the import of the constructions and the particles in a language far surpassing our own in its power of expressing the varying shades and slightest turns of thought.
3. But it is believed that there are far more cases, where there is no reason why these results should not be imparted to him. And the more we value the inspired word of God, the more anxious ought we to be, that all should possess every help to ensure the purity of its text, and to clear up its true meaning.
4. In the present state of the English reader's knowledge of his Bible, there are two great obstacles to the attainment of these ends. The one consists in his ignorance of the variations of reading in the ancient authorities from which the sacred text is derived; the other in his ignorance of the existence of other and often indisputably better ren- derings of the sacred text than that which the version before him gives. Our Authorized Version is, as a translation, of high excellence, and is never to be thought of by Englishmen without reverence, and gratitude to Almighty God. But it is derived very often from readings of the Greek which are not based on the authority of our best ancient witnesses ; and it frequently gives an inadequate rendering of the text which it professes to translate.
5. The principal instances of both these imperfections it is the object Vol. L— 1] a
Digitized by
intkoduction.] OF THE PRESENT WORK. [preliminary
of the present Edition to enable the English reader to correct for himself. Words and passages, which in our Authorized Version are wrongly read or inadequately rendered, are printed in italics in the text, the true reading or rendering being pointed out, in the margin below, in the same type as the rest of the text. Besides this, in cases where the principal ancient authorities differ about the reading of the text, the variation is stated in the margin.
6. Marginal notices are also appended in some cases where antiquated terms, or expressions generally misunderstood, are used in the Authorized Version.
7. The notes are mainly an adaptation and abridgment of those in my Edition of the Greek Testament. Additions are sometimes made to those notes, where further explanations, of a nature suitable to the English reader, seemed to be required.
8. The marginal references are adapted and abridged from those found in our ordinary English Bibles. I found, on examination, that many of these were either irrelevant or superfluous, and that sometimes passages the most important for elucidation were not adduced at all. It may be well to mention that the parallel places in the Gospels are not cited on the margin, being systematically given at the head of each paragraph in the notes.
9. It is necessary, at a time when there is so much unsettled opinion respecting the authority of Scripture, to state plainly in the outset, the belief of the Editor on that point, and the principles on which his work has been undertaken.
10. I regard the Canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to have been given by inspiration of Almighty God, and in this respect to differ from all other books in the world. I rest this my belief on the consent of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, and on evidence furnished by those books themselves !.
11. I find that it has pleased God to deliver His revelation of Himself to man, which is contained in those books, by the vehicles of human testimony, human speech, and human writing. All the phenomena neces- sarily incident to these human vehicles I consequently expect, and find, in our sacred books as we have them.
12. Their writers testified that which was true. The Spirit of Truth dwelt in them specially for this purpose. But He did not divest their testimony of its human character. Their peculiar styles and manners of writing were not taken away, nor their disposition to record peculiar facts, and to note different aspects of the truth. Each holy man set down that which he had seen or heard, or which ho found in trustworthy
1 I have treated of this matter more formally and in detail further on, in Chap. I. § vi. of this Introduction. But I have considered it desirable besides, to publish a general statement in the preliminary account of this English edition. 2]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
chapter.] OF THE PRESENT WORK. [introduction.
record, or heard from competent witnesses ; and in this remembrance or selection, he was guided specially by the Holy Spirit. But each man reported, and each man selected, according to his own personal charac- teristics of thought and feeling. Any one who can read the Gospel and Epistles of St. John, and doubt this, would seem to me to re ad to little purpose indeed.
13. A very important result of this may be thus stated. The two, three, of four, Gospel records of the same event are each of them separately true : written by men divinely guided into truth, and relating facts which happened, and as they happened. If we could now see the whole details of the event, we should also see that each narrative is true, and how it is true. But, not seeing the whole details of the event, and having only these two, three, or four, independent accounts, we must be prepared sometimes to find, that they appear to be discrepant the one from the other: and we must not expect that we can reconcile such apparent discrepancies. It is a case where we must walk by faith, not by appearance. One day we may, and one day I firmly believe we shall, see the event with all its details as it happened, and shall be permitted to glorify God for the Truth of His holy Word in every particular ; but that day is not yet come.
14. This is the belief, and these are the principles, on which I have recognized and dealt with what appear to me the undeniable apparent discrepancies in detail between some of the Gospel narratives. I have never attempted to force them into accordance. I shrink from doing so, and I see no end gained by doing so. On the other hand, I believe the confirmation of the faith, gained by the testimony which these discre- pancies furnish to the absolute independence of the narratives, to be of infinitely more importance, than would be the most complete piecing together of them into one apparently harmonious whole.
15. Human Breech was also a vehicle chosen by God for the transmis- sion of the Revelation of Himself to man. Now all language is liable to be imperfectly understood. Few things can be expressed so clearly, but that some possibility occurs of an interpretation being given, other than was intended. And this defect of the instrument of thought has certainly not been removed in its employment by God Himself. Nay this very employment by Him has rather tended to increase the defect : the things which it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive, when set forth in human speech, are too deep and weighty for the instrument which should convey them, and the result is that the sayings of Holy Scripture are often extremely difficult to understand. *• The unlearned and unstable," we are told, " wrest them to their own destruction :" and short of this, their sense is often misapprehended, and their true signi- ficance set aside, for want of intelligent study. We often hear Holy Scripture spoken of as if it were not only all true, which it is, — but all
J * Digitized by CjOOQIC
introduction.] OF THE PRESENT WORK. [preliminary
so plain that there can be no question as to its meaning, which it as certainly is not. Coming as it does from God, its simplest saying has in it a depth which the human mind cannot fathom : and its apparently disjoined sentences have a connexion which it often surpasses even the practised eye to discover, or the most ripened and chastened judgment satisfactorily to pronounce upon.
16. The reader of this work will find this conviction lying at the root of all its endeavours to explain Scripture : that we are dealing not with mere human thoughts, whose significance we may exhaust and surpass, but with divine Truth, conveyed to us in human words — the treasure, in the earthen vessel. No amount of labour can be ill bestowed in search- ing into, and comparing, and meditating on, the import and the connexion of the words of Scripture. Nor are we to expect a time when our work may be regarded as done. As the ages of the world and of the Church pass onward, new lights will ever be thrown upon God's word, by passing events, by the toil of thought, by the discoveries of historical research and of scientific enquiry.
17. Nor has the Bible any reason to fear the utmost activity, and the furthest extension, of such pursuits. We have been, I am persuaded, too timid and anxious in this matter. Let research and enquiry be carried forward in every direction, and in a fearless spirit : and when their results are most completely established and firmly assured to us, then will it be most undeniably found, that Creation, Providence, and Revelation/ are the work of the same God : — then will the plainest light be thrown on the meaning of Holy Scripture, in all points on which such research and enquiry bear.
18. We are too apt to forget that another vehicle in which God has transmitted to us His Revelation, is human writing. The conservation of the sacred books by His Providence ought to be taken into account, as well as their original composition. The general notion concerning the Bible, as regards this point, may perhaps be not unjustly described as being, that the sacred text has come down to us in one unquestioned form, and that form represented by the English Authorized Version. The fact of some variations existing here and there is perhaps known, but its import is at once nullified by some statement, that these varia- tions make no possible difference in the sense : and there the matter is allowed to rest : some even doubting the expediency of further inviting the English reader to its consideration.
19. But surely such a course is hardly that of those who are exhorted to be "not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is." If it has pleased God, in the course of His providential care of His word, that certain portions of it should be variously transmitted to us, can we, with- out blame, resolve to shut our eyes to this His will ? And the case, as affecting English readers, is even stronger than this. There is one
Digitized by VjOOQIC
chapter.] OF THE PRESENT WORK, [introduction.
passage, commonly printed in all our Bibles, read in our churches as God's Word, which undeniably forms no portion of His Word at all, viz. 1 John v. 7 : there are more, which rest upon far weaker evidence than do other forms of the Word, which ought long ago to have been substi- tuted for them. Can we be held blameless, with the knowledge of these things before us, for not having set this matter right ?
20. It has been my desire for many years, that I might contribute, however scantily and imperfectly, towards furnishing the English reader with some means of intelligently dealing with and appreciating these important facts respecting the text of the New Testament. My wish has at length taken shape in this Edition, the first part of which is now offered to the Public. I would wish it to be understood that I put it forth as an experiment, liable to be corrected and improved, if necessary, both in form and in detail. It was my original intention to give an amended version of the sacred text : and I still think that for the com- pleteness and full usefulness of the work, such a version would be neces- sary. After all possible marginal corrections of inadequate renderings, there are many improvements in minute expression and arrangement, tending to clear up the meaning, which must necessarily be passed over where the Authorized Version is printed as the text.
21. It has been my endeavour, in the notes, to give as much informa- tion as I could respecting the general currents of opinion and interpre- tation, without burdening the reader with long catalogues of names. The introduction of some names has been unavoidable. The German Commentaries of Olshausen and . Meyer, for instance, are so valuable, and so rich in original material, that I have often cited them. The latter of these writers, though unhappily not to be trusted where there is any room for the introduction of rationalistic opinions, is, in accurate inter- pretation of the words and constructions of the sacred text, by far the best of all commentators. Another work has been found very valuable : the Reden Jem (Discourses of Jesus) of the late venerable Rudolf Stier. Stier was a Christian scholar of the orthodox Evangelical party, — of a simple and fervid spirit, — apt sometimes to find fanciful allusions and connexions, but full of the power of spiritual discernment ; and his great work above mentioned has certainly been among the most valuable of modern contributions to the understanding of our Lord's words.
22. The reader will find in my Commentary no sympathy whatever with the rationalistic school. Believing in the Eternal Godhead and Perfect Humanity of our Blessed Lord, and in the agency of the Almighty Spirit in Him, and through Him in His Apostles and servants, I regard His divine miracles as proofs of His mission, and of His authority over nature, as being the Creator of nature. The faith of the centurion (Luke vii. 8), so wonderful in him, is that of all Catholic Christians : that the powers of Nature serve the Son of God, as servants their master.
5]
Digitized by
introduction.] OF THE PRESENT WORK.
23. Widely different however from any expression of rationalistic opinion is the caiTying out of the enquiry, sometimes forced on us, whether an incident related in the sacred narrative is intended to be miraculous, or not. Such an enquiry might for example naturally occur regarding the rising up of St. Paul after he was stoned at Lystra (Acts xiv. 19, 20). Such an enquiry, I have believed, is fairly open to us in the case of the narrative of the Star of the Wise Men. Was that a miraculous appearance from first to last, or was it some phenomenon in the ordinary course of the celestial revolutions, which the Magi were guided by God to interpret as they did ? I have been led to incline to the latter view. I have no bias leading me that way : I should feel no difficulty whatever in receiving the whole as miraculous, did I think the sacred text required me to do so. Those who do think this, have much to favour their view. But let them concede to a Christian brother the right to enquire into the meaning of the sacred text itself, without binding him to a pre-conception of that meaning : and let them abstain from harsh judgment, where his enquiry has led him to a conclusion different from that to which they themselves have come.
24. In closing this preliminary chapter, I may venture to Bay, that I hope this work may be found useful to those readers for whom it has been specially designed. It is not in the proper sense of the word, a popular Edition of the New Testament. Some cultivation of mind by an ordinary liberal education will be required for its use : but certainly not more than is possessed by Christian women in the middle ranks of life, and by the majority of the mercantile classes. Should it be found to contribute in any degree towards the diffusion of an intelligent know- ledge of the contents of God's Holy Word, I shall be more than rewarded for the labour bestowed on it.
6J
Digitized by VjOOQIC
ch. i. § i.J GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS, [introduction.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS GENERALLY.
SECTION I.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OP THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.
1. On examining the four records of our Lord's life on earth, the first thing which demands our notice is the distinctness, in contents and character, of the three first Gospels from the fourth. This difference may be thus shortly described.
2. St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, in relating His ministry, discourses, and miracles, confine themselves exclusively to the events which took place in Galilee, until the last journey to Jerusalem. No incident whatever of His ministry in Judaea is related by any of them '. Had we only their accounts, we could never with any certainty have asserted that He went to Jerusalem during his public life, until His time was come to be delivered up. They do not, it is true, exclude such a supposition, but rather perhaps imply it (see Matt, xxiii. 37 ; xxvii. 57, and parallels ; also Matt. iv. 12 as compared with iv. 25, — Matt. viii. 10, xvi. 1); it could not however have been gathered from their narrative with any historical precision.
3. If we now turn to the fourth Gospel, we find this deficiency remarkably supplied. The various occasions on which our Lord went up to Jerusalem are specified ; not indeed with any precision of date or sequence, but mainly for the purpose of relating the discourses and miracles by which they were signalized.
4. But the difference in character between the three first Evangelists and the fourth is even more striking. While their employment (with the sole exception, and that almost exclusively in Matthew, of the application of Old Testament prophecies to events in the life of our Lord) is narration without comment, the fourth Evangelist speaks with dogmatic authority, and delivers his historical testimony as from the chair of an Apostle. In no place do they claim the high authority of eye- witnesses ; nay, in the preface to St. Luke's Gospel, while he vindicates his diligent care in tracing down the course of events from the first, he
* An exception to this apparently occurs, if we adopt the remarkable reading "Judva," Luke iv. 44. But it is hardly to be pressed, especially as it does not imply any journey to the capital.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
implicitly disclaims such authority. This claim is, however, advanced in direct terms by St. John (see below, ch. v. § ii. 1). Again, in the character of our LoroVs discourses, reported by the Three, we have the same distinctness. While His sayings and parables in their Gospels ' almost exclusively have reference to His dealings with us, and the nature of His kingdom among men, those related by St John regard, as well, the deeper subjects of His own essential attributes and covenant purposes; referring indeed often and directly to His relations with His people and the unbelieving world, but usually as illustrating those attributes, and the unfolding of those purposes. That there are exceptions to this (see e. g. Matt xi. 27 : Luke x. 22) is only to be expected from that merci- ful condescension by which God, in giving us the Gospel records through the different media of individual minds and apprehensions, has yet fur- nished us with enough common features in them all, to satisfy us of the unity and truthfulness of their testimony to His blessed Son.
5. Reserving further remarks on the character of St John's Gospel for their proper place, I further notice that the three, in their nana t ion of our Lord's ministry, proceed in the main upon a common outline. This outline is variously filled up, and variously interrupted ; but is still easily to be traced, as running through the middle and largest section of each of their Gospels.
6. Besides this large portion, each Gospel contains some prefatory matter regarding the time before the commencement of the Ministry, — a detailed history of the Passion, — fragmentary notices of the Resur- rection, and a conclusion. These will be separately treated of and compared in the following sections, and more at large in the Corn- men tary.
SECTION II.
THEIR INDEPENDENCE OF ONE ANOTHER.
1. Having these three accounts of one and the same Life and Ministry of our Lord, it is an important enquiry for us, how far they may be considered as distinct narratives, — how far as borrowed one from another. It is obvious that this enquiry can only, in the absence of any direct historical testimony, be conducted by careful examination of their contents. Such examination however has conducted enquirers to the most various and inconsistent results. Different hypotheses of the mutual interdependence of the three have been made, embracing every possible permutation of their order*. To support these hypotheses,
8 1. That Matthew wrote first— that Mark used his Gospel—and then Luke both these. This is held by Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, Townson, Hug, &c, and Greswell, who
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
§ ii.] INDEPENDENCE OF ONE ANOTHER, [introduction.
the same phenomena have been curiously and variously interpreted. What, in one writer's view, has been a deficiency in one Evangelist which another has supplied, — has been, in that of a second writer, a condensation on the part of the one Evangelist of the full account of the other ; — while a third writer again has seen in the fuller account the more minute depicting of later tradition.
2. Let us, however, observe the evidence furnished by the Gospels themselves. Each of the sacred Historians is, we may presume, anxious to give his readers an accurate and consistent account of the great events of Redemption. On either of the above hypotheses, two of them respectively sit down to their work with one, or two, of our present nar- ratives before them. We are reduced then to adopt one or other- of the following suppositions : Either, (a) they found those other Gospels in- sufficient, and were anxious to supply what was wanting; or, (b) they believed them to be erroneous, and purposed to correct what was inac- curate ; or, (c) they wished to adapt their contents to a different class of readers, incorporating at the same time whatever additional matter they possessed ; or (d) receiving them as authentic, they borrowed from them such parts as they purposed to relate in common with them.
3. There is but one other supposition, which is plainly out of the range of probability, and which I should not have stated, were it not the only one, on the hypothesis of mutual dependency, which will give any account of, or be consistent with, the various minute discrepancies of arrangement and narration which we find in the Gospels. It is (e) that (see last paragraph) they fraudulently plagiarized from them, slightly disguising the common matter so as to make it appear their own. One man wishing to publish the matter of another's work as his own, may be conceived as altering its arrangement and minutiae, to destroy its dis- tinctive character. But how utterly inapplicable is any such view to either of our three Evangelists ! And even supposing it for a moment entertained, — how imperfectly and anomalously are the changes made, — and how little would they be likely to answer their purpose !
4. Let us consider the others in order. If (a) was the case, / main- tain that no possible arrangement of our Gospels will suit its require- ments. Let the reader refer to the last note, and follow me through its divisions. (1), (2), (5), (6) are clearly out of the question, because
advances, and sometimes maintains with considerable ingenuity, the hypothesis of a supplemental relation of the three taken in order.
2. Matthew, Luke, Mark.— So Griesbach, Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette, and others.
3. Mark, Matthew, Luke.— So Storr and others, and recently, Mr. Smith of Jordan- hill.
4. Mark, Luke, Matthew.— So Weisse, Wilke, Hitzig, &c.
5. Luke, Matthew, Mark.— So Btisching and Evanson.
6. Luke, Mark, Matthew.— So Vogei.
9]
Digitized by
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
the shorter Gospel of St. Mark follows upon the fuller one of St. Matthew, or St. Luke, or both. We have then only to examine those in which St. Mark stands first. Either then St. Luke supplemented St. Matthew, — or St. Matthew, St. Luke. But first, both of these are inconceivable as being expansions of St. Mark ; for his Gospel, although shorter, and narrating fewer events and discourses, is, in those which he does narrate, the fullest and most particular of the three. And again, St. Luke could not have supplemented St. Matthew ; for there are most important portions of Matthew which he has altogether omitted (e. g. ch. xxv. much of ch. xiii. ch. xv.) ; — nor could St. Matthew have sup- plemented St. Luke, for the same reason, having omitted almost all of the important section, Luke ix. 51 — xviii. 15, besides very much matter in other parts. I may also mention that this supposition leaves all the difficulties of different arrangement and minute discrepancy unaccounted for.
5. We pass to (b), on which much need not be said. If it were so, nothing could have been done less calculated to answer the end9 than that which our Evangelists have done. For in no material point do their accounts differ, but only in arrangement and completeness ; — and this latter difference is such, that no one of them can be cited as taking any pains to make it appear that his own arrangement is chronologically accurate. No fixed dates are found in those parts where the differences exist ; no word to indicate that any other arrangement had ever been published. Does this look like the work of a corrector? Even sup- posing him to have suppressed the charge of inaccuracy on others, — would he not have been precise and definite in the parts where his own corrections appeared, if it were merely to justify them to his readers ?
6. Neither does the supposition represented by (c) in any way ac- count for the phaenomena of our present Gospels. For, — even taking for granted the usual assumption, that St. Matthew wrote for Hebrew Christians, St. Mark for Latins, and St. Luke for Gentiles in general,— we do not find any such consistency in these purposes, as a revision and alteration of another's narrative would necessarily presuppose. We have the visit of the Gentile Magi exclusively related by the Hebraizing Matthew; — the circumcision of the child Jesus, and His frequenting the passovers at Jerusalem, exclusively by the Gentile Evangelist Luke. Had the above purposes been steadily kept in view in the revision of the narratives before them, the respective Evangelists could not have omitted incidents so entirely subservient to their respective designs.
7. Our supposition (d) is, that receiving the Gospel or Gospels before them as authentic, the Evangelists borrowed from them such parts as they purposed to narrate in common with them. But this does not represent the matter of fact. In no one case does any Evangelist borrow from another any considerable part of even a single narrative. For
10]
Digitized by
§ ii.] INDEPENDENCE OF ONE ANOTHER, [introduction
such borrowing would imply verbal coincidence, unless in the case of strong Hebraistic idiom, or other assignable peculiarity. It is incon- ceivable that one writer borrowing from another matter confessedly of the very first importance, in good faith and with approval, should alter his diction so singularly and capriciously as, on this hypothesis, we find the text of the parallel sections of our Gospels altered. Let the ques- tion be answered by ordinary considerations of probability, and let any passage common to the three Evangelists be put to the test. The phenomena presented will be much as follows: — first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical; — then as many wholly distinct: then two clauses or more, expressed in the same words but differing order: — then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third: — then several words identical: — then a clause not only wholly distinct but apparently inconsistent; — and so forth ; — with recurrences of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transposi- tions. Nor does this description apply to verbal and sentential arrange- ment only; — but also, with slight modification, to that of the larger portions of the narratives. Equally capricious would be the disposition of the subject-matter. Sometimes, while coincident in the things related, the Gospels place them in the most various order, — each in turn connecting them together with apparent marks of chronological se- quence (e. g. the visit to Gadara in Matt. viii. 28 ff. as compared with the same in Mark v. 1 ff. Luke viii. 26 ff. and numerous other such instances noticed in the commentary). Let any one say, divesting himself of the commonly-received hypotheses respecting the connexion and order of our Gospels, whether it is within the range of probability that a writer should thus singularly and unreasonably alter the subject- matter and diction before him, having (as is now supposed) no design in so doing, but intending, fairly and with approval, to incorporate the work of another into his own ? Can an instance be any where cited of undoubted borrowing and adaptation from another, presenting similar phenomena ?
8. I cannot then find in any of the above hypotheses a solution of the question before us, how the appearances presented by our three Gospels are to be accounted for. I do not see how any theory of mutual interdependence will leave to our three Evangelists their credit as able or trnsttvorthy writers, or even as honest men : nor can I find any such theory borne out by the nature of the variations apparent in the respec- tive texts.
ii]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
SECTION III.
THE ORIGIN OF OUR THREE GOSPELS.
1. It remains then, that the three Gospels should have arisen inde- pendently of one another. But supposing this, we are at once met by the difficulty of accounting for so much common matter, and that nar- rated, as we have seen, with such curious verbal agreements and dis- crepancies. Thus we are driven to some common origin for those parts. But of what kind ? Plainly, either documentary (i. e. contained in writings), or oral. Let us consider each of these in turn.
2. No documentary source could have led to the present texts of our Gospels. For supposing it to have been in the Hebrew language (or Aramaic, the dialect of Palestine at the time), and thus accounting for some of the variations in our parallel Greek passages, as being independent translations, — we shall still have no solution whatever of the more im- portant discrepancies of insertion, omission, and arrangement. _ To meet these, the most complicated hypotheses have been advanced, — all per- fectly capricious, and utterly inadequate, even when apprehended, to account for the phenomena. The various opponents of the view of an original Gospel have well shewn besides, that such a Gospel could never have existed, because of the omission in one or other of our three, of passages which must necessarily have formed a part of it ; e. g. Matt, xxvi. 6 — 13 {see there) omitted by St. Luke*. I believe then that we may safely abandon the idea of any single original Gospel, whether Aramaic or Greek.
3. Still it might be thought possible that, though one document cannot have originated the text of the common parts of our Gospels, several documents, more or less related to one another, may have done so, in the absence of any original Gospel. But this, it will be seen, is but an imperfect analysis of their origin ; for we are again met by the question, whence did these documents take their rise? And if they turn out to be only so many modifications of a received oral teaching respecting the actions and sayings of our Lord, then to that oral teaching are we
* Those who maintain the anointing of Matt. xxvi. 6 to be the same with that of Luke vii. 36, forget that it is incumbent on them in such cases to shew sufficient reason for the inversion in order of time. It is no reply to my argument, to say that St. Luke omits the anointing at Bethany, because he had related it before in ch. vii. Had he not had St. Matthew's Gospel before him, it is very likely that he may have inserted an incident which he found without date, in a place where it might illustrate the want of charity of a Pharisee ; but having (on their hypothesis) St. Matthew's Gospel before him, and the incident being there related in strict sequence and connexion with our Lord's Death, it is simply inconceivable that he should have transposed it, and oblite- rated all trace of such connexion, deeply interesting and important as it is.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ m.] THEIE ORIGIN. [introduction.
referred back for a more complete account of the matter. That such evangelical documents did exist, I think highly probable ; and believe I recognize such in some of the peculiar sections of Luke ; but that the common parts of our Gospels, even if taken from such, are to be traced back further, I am firmly convinced.
4. We come then to enquire, whether the common sections of our Gospels could have originated from a common oral source. If by this latter is to be understood, — one and the same oral teaching every where recognized, our answer must be in the negative : for the difficulties of verbal discrepancy, varying arrangement, insertion, and omission, would, as above, remain unaccounted for. At the same time, it is highly impro- bable that such a course of oi-al teaching should ever have been adopted. Let us examine the matter more in detail.
5. The Apostles were witnesses of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. In this consisted their especial office and work. Others besides them had been companions of our Lord : — but peculiar grace and power was given to them, by which they gave forth their testimony (Acts iv. 33). And what this testimony included, we learn from the conditions of apostleship propounded by Peter himself, Acts i. 21, 22: that in order to its being properly given, an Apostle must have been an eye and ear witness of what had happened from the baptism of John until the ascen- sion : i. e. during the whole official life of our Lord. With the whole of this matter, therefore, was his apostolic testimony concerned. And we are consequently justified in assuming that the substance of the teaching of the Apostles consisted of their testimony to such facts, given in the Holy Ghost and with power. The ordinary objection to this view, that their extant discourses do not contain Evangelic narrations, but are hortatory and persuasive, is wholly inapplicable. Their extant discourses are contained in the Acts, a second work of the Evangelist Luke, who having in his former treatise given all which he had been able to collect of their narrative teaching, was not likely again to repeat it. Besides which, such narrative teaching would occur, not in general and almost wholly apologetic discourses held before assembled unbelievers, but in the building up of the several churches and individual converts, and in the catechization of catechumens. It is a strong confirmation of this view, that Luke himself in his preface refers to this original apostolic narrative as the source of the various narrations, which many had taken in hand to draw up, and states his object in writing to be, that Theo- philus might know the certainty of those sayings concerning which he had been catechized.
Jt is another confirmation of the above view of the testimony of the apostolic body, — that St. Paul claims to have received an independent knowledge, by direct revelation, of at least some of the fundamental parts 13]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
of the Gospel history (see Gal. i. 12 : 1 Cor. xi. 23; xv. 3), to qualify him for his calling as an Apostle.
6. I believe then that the Apostles, in virtue not merely of their having been eye and ear witnesses of the Evangelic history, but espe- cially of their office, gave to the various Churches their testimony in a narrative of facts: such narrative being modified in each case by the individual mind of the Apostle himself, and his sense of what was requisite for the particular community to which he was ministering. While they were principally together, and instructing the converts at Jerusalem, such narrative would naturally be for the most part the same, and expressed in the same, or nearly the same words : coincident, how- ever, not from design or rule, but because the things themselves were the same, and the teaching naturally fell for the most part into one form. It would be easy and interesting to follow the probable origin and growth of this cycle of narratives of the words and deeds of our Lord in the Church at Jerusalem, — for both the Jews, and the Hellenists, — the latter under such teachers as Philip and Stephen, commissioned and authenticated by the Apostles. In the course of such a process some portions would naturally be written down by private believers, for their own use or that of friends. And as the Church spread to Samaria, Caesarea, and Antioch, the want would be felt in each of these places, of similar cycles of oral teaching, which when supplied would thence- forward belong to and be current in those respective Churches. And these portions of the Evangelic history, oral or partially documentary, would be adopted under the sanction of the Apostles, who were as in all things so especially in this, the appointed and divinely-guided overseers of the whole Church. This common substratum of apostolic teaching, — never formally adopted by all, but subject to all the varieties of diction and arrangement, addition and omission, incident to transmission through many individual minds, and into many different localities, — / believe to have been the original source of the common part of our three Gospels.
7. Whether this teaching was wholly or in part expressed originally in Greek, may admit of some question. That it would very soon be so expressed, follows as a matter of course from the early mention of Grecian converts, Acts vi., and the subsequent reception of the Gentiles into the Church ; and it seems to have been generally received in that language, before any of its material modifications arose. This I gather from the remarkable verbal coincidences observable in the present Greek texts. Then again, the verbal discrepancies of our present Greek texts entirely forbid us to imagine that our Evangelists took up the usual oral teaching at one place or time ; but point to a process of alteration and deflection, which will now engage our attention.
14]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ m.] THEIR ORIGIN. [introduction.
8. It will be observed that I am now speaking of those sections which our Gospels possess in common, and without reference to their order. The larger additions, which are due to peculiar sources of information, — the narratives of the same event which have not sprung from a common source, — the different arrangement of the common sec- tions, with all these I am not now concerned.
9. The matter then of those sections I believe to have been this generally-received oral narrative of the Apostles of which I have spoken. Delivered; usually in the same or similar terms, to the catechumens in the various Churches, and becoming the text of instruction for their pastors and teachers, it by degrees underwent those modifications which the various Gospels now present to us. Am} I am not now speaking of any considerable length of time, such as might suffice to deteriorate and corrupt mere traditional teaching, — but of no more than the trans- mission through men apostolic or almost apostolic, yet of independent habits of speech and thought,— of an account which remained in sub- stance the same. Let us imagine the modifications which the individual memory, brooding affectionately and reverently over each word and act of our Lord, would introduce into a narrative in relating it variously and under differing circumstances : — the Holy Spirit who brought to their remembrance whatever things He had said to them (John xiv. 26), working in and distributing to each severally as He would ; — let us place to the account the various little changes of transposition or omission, of variation in diction or emphasis, which would be sure to arise in the freedom of individual teaching, — and we have I believe the only reason- able solution of the arbitrary and otherwise unaccountable coincidences and discrepancies in these parts of our Gospels.
10. It might perhaps be required that some presumptive corroborations should be given of such a supposition as that here advanced. For the materials of such, we must look into the texts themselves of such sections. And in them I think I see signs of such a process as the latter part of paragraph 9 describes. For,
11. It is a well-known and natural effect of oral transmission, that while the less prominent members of a sentence are transposed, or dimi- nished or increased in number, and common-place expressions replaced by their synonymes, any unusual word, or harsh expression, or remarkable construction is retailed. Nor is this only the case, such words, expres- sions, or constructions, preserving their relative places in the sentences, — but, from the mind laying hold of them, and retaining them at all events, they are sometimes found preserved near their original places, though perhaps with altered relations and import. Now a careful observation of the original text of the Gospels continually brings before the reader instances of both of these. I have given a few of them in a note to this portion of the Introductory matter in my Greek Testament.
15]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
inteoduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
12. With regard to those parts of our Gospels which do not fall under the above remarks, there are various conceivable sources whence they may have arisen. As each Evangelist may have had more or less access to those who were themselves witnesses of the events, whether before or during the public ministry of our Lord, or as each may have fallen in with a more complete or a shorter account of those events, so have our narratives been filled out with rich detail, or confined to the mere state- ment pf occurrences : — so have they been copious and entire in their history, or have merely taken up and handed down a portion of our Lord's life. These particulars wnl come under our notice below, when we treat of each Gospel by itself.
13. The above view has been impugned by Mr. Birks (Horae Evan- gelical, &c. Lond. 1852), and Mr. Smith of Jordanhill (Dissertation on the Origin and Connexion of the Gospels : Edinb. 1853). While maintaining different hypotheses, both agree in regarding ( oral tradition ' as quite insufficient to account for the phenomena of approximation to identity which are found in the Gospels. But both, as it seems to me, have forgotten to take into account the peculiar kind of oral tradition with which we are here concerned. Both concur in insisting on the many variations and corruptions to which oral transmission is liable, as an objection to my hypothesis. But we have here a case in this respect exceptional and of its own kind. The oral tradition (or rather oral teaching) with which we are concerned, formed the substance .of a deliberate and careful testimony to facts of the highest possible import- ance, and as such, was inculcated in daily catechization : whereas com- mon oral tradition is careless and vague, not being similarly guarded, nor diffused as matter of earnest instruction. Besides which, these writers forget, that I have maintained the probability of a very early collection of portions of such oral teaching into documents, some of which two or even three Evangelists may have used ; and these documents or narra- tions, in some cases drawn up after the first minute verbal divergences had taken place, or beiug translations from common Aramaic sources, would furnish many of the phenomena which Mr. Smith so ingeniously illustrates from translation in modern historians and newspapers. I have found reason to infer that St. Luke was acquainted with Hebrew ; and he would therefore be an independent translator, as well as the other two Evangelists.
14. For the sake of guarding against misunderstanding, it may be well formally to state the conclusion at which I have arrived respecting the origin of our three first Gospels : in which, I may add, I have been much confirmed by the results of many years' study of the sacred text since it was first published :
That the Three first Gospels contain the substance of the Apostles' testimony, collected principally from their oral teaching current in the 16]
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
§ iv.] THEIR DISCREPANCIES. [introduction.
Churchy —partly also from written documents embodying portions of that teaching: that there is however no reason from their internal structure to believe, but every reason to disbelieve, that any one of the three Evange- lists had access to either of the other two Gospels in its present form.
SECTION IV.
THE DISCREPANCIES, APPARENT AND REAL, OP THE THREE GOSPELS.
1. In our Three Narratives, many events and sayings do not hold the same relative place in one as in another : and hence difficulties have arisen, and the faith of some has been weakened ; while the adversaries of our religion have made the most of these differences to impugn the veracity of the writers themselves. And hence also Christian commen- tators have been driven to a system of harmonizing which condescends to adopt the weakest compromises, and to do the utmost violence to probability and fairness, in its zeal for the veracity of the Evangelists. It becomes important therefore critically to discriminate between real and apparent discrepancy, and while with all fairness we acknowledge the former where it exists, to lay down certain common-sense rules whereby the latter may be also ascertained.
2. The real discrepancies between our Evangelistic histories are very few, and those Dearly all of one kind. They are simply the results of the entire independence of the accounts. They consist mainly in different chronological arrangements, expressed or implied. Such for instance is the transposition, before noticed, of the history of the passage into the country of the Gadarenes, which in Matt viii. 28 ff. precedes a whole course of events which in Mark v. Iff.: Luke viii. 26 ff. it follows. Such again is the difference in position between the pair of incidents related Matt. viii. 19 — 22, and the same pair of incidents found in Luke ix. 57 — 61. And such are some other varieties of arrangement and position, which will be brought before the readers of the following Commentary. Now the way of dealing with such discre- pancies has been twofold, — as remarked above. The enemies of the faith have of course recognized them, and pushed them to the utmost ; often attempting to create them where they do not exist, and where they do, using them to overthrow the narrative in which they occur. While this has been their course,— equally unworthy of the Evangelists and their subject has been that of those who are usually thought the orthodox Harmonists. They have usually taken upon them to state, that such variously placed narratives do not refer to the same incidents, and so to save (as they imagine) the credit of the Evangelists, at the expense of common fairness and candour. Who, for example, can for a moment
Vol. I.— 17] b
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [en. i.
doubt that the pairs of incidents above cited from St Matthew and St. Luke are identical with each other ? What man can ever suppose that the same offer would have been, not merely twice made to our Lord in the same words and similarly answered by Him (for this is very possible), but actually followed in both cases by a request from another disciple, couched also in the very same words ? The reiterated sequence of the two is absolutely out of all bounds of probability : — and yet it is sup- posed and maintained by one of the ablest of our modern Harmonists. And this is only one specimen out of very many of the same kind, notices of which may be seen in the following Commentary.
3. The fair Christian critic will pursue a plan different from both these. With no desire to create discrepancies, but rather every desire truthfully and justly to solve them, if it may be, — he will candidly recognize them where they unquestionably exist. By this he loses nothing, and the Evangelists lose nothing. That one great and glorious portrait of our Lord should be harmoniously depicted by them, — that the procession of events by which our redemption is assured to us should be one and the same in all, — is surely more wonderful, and more plainly the work of God's Holy Spirit, the more entirely independent of each other they must be inferred to have been. Variation in detail and arrangement is to my mind the most valuable proof that they were, not mere mouthpieces or organs of the Holy Spirit, as some would suicidally make them, but holy men, under His inspiration. I shall treat of this part of our subject more at length below (in § vi.): — I mention it now, to shew that we need not be afraid to recognize real discrepancies, in the spirit of fairness and truth. Christianity never was, and never can be the gainer, by any concealment, warping, or avoidance of the plain truth, wherever it is to be found.
4. On the other hand, the Christian critic will fairly discriminate between real and apparent discrepancy. And in order to this, some rules must be laid down by which the limits of each may be determined.
5. Similar incidents must not be too hastily assumed to be the same. If one Evangelist had given us the feeding of thej£v« thousand, and another that of the four, we should have been strongly tempted to pronounce the incidents the same, and to find a discrepancy in the accounts : — but our conclusion would have been false : — for we have now both events narrated by each of two Evangelists (St. Matthew and St Mark), and formally alluded to by our Lord Himself in connexion. (Matt. xvi. 9, 10. Mark viii. 19, 20.) And there are several narrations now in our Gospels, the identi- fication of which must be abstained from ; e.g. the anointing of our Lord by the woman who was a sinner, Luke vii. 36 ff., and that at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, in Matt. xxvi. 6 ff. : Mark xiv. 3 ff. : John xi. 2 ; xii. 3 ff. In such cases we must judge fairly and according to probability, — not making trifling differences in diction or narrative into
18]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ v.] THEIR FRAGMENTARY NATURE, [introduction.
important reasons why the incidents should be different j — but rather examining critically the features of the incidents themselves, and discerning and determining upon the evidence furnished by them.
6. The circumstances and nature of our LoroVe discourses must be taken into account Judging a priori, the probability is, that He repeated most of His important sayings many times over, with more or less variation, to different audiences, but in the hearing of the same apostolic witnesses. If now these witnesses by their independent narratives have originated our present Gospels, what can be more likely than that these sayings should have found their way into the Gospels in various forms, — sometimes, as especially in Matthew, in long and strictly coherent discourses, — some- times scattered up and down, as is the matter of several of Matthew's discourses in Luke ? Yet such various reports of our Lord's sayings are most unreasonably by some of the modern German critics (e.g. De Wette) treated as discrepancies, and used to prove St. Matthew's discourses to have been mere combinations of shorter sayings uttered at different times. A striking instance of the repetition by our Lord of similar dis- courses, varied according to the time and the hearers, may be found in the denunciations on the Scribes and Pharisees as uttered during the journey to Jerusalem, Luke xi. 37 ff., and the subsequent solemn and public reiteration of them in Jerusalem at the final close of the Lord's ministry in Matt, xxiii. Compare also the parable of the pounds, Luke xix. 11 ff., with that of the talents, Matt. xxv. 14 ff, and in fact the whole of the discourses during the last journey in Luke, with their parallels, where such exist, in Matthew.
SECTION V.
THE FRAGMENTARY NATURE OF THE THREE GOSPELS.
1. On any hypothesis which attributes to our Evangelists the design of producing a complete history of the life and actions of our Lord, and gives two of them the advantage of consulting other records of the same kind with their own, — the omissions in their histories are perfectly inex- plicable. For example, — St. Matthew, as an Apostle, was himself an eye-witness of the Ascension, an event holding a most important place in the divine process of the redemption of man. Yet he omits all record or mention of it. And though this is the most striking example, others are continually occurring throughout the Three Gospels. Why has there been no mention in them of the most notable miracle wrought by our Lord, — which indeed, humanly speaking, was the final exciting cause of that active enmity of the Jewish rulers which issued in His crucifixion ? Can it be believed, that an Apostle, writing in the fulness of his know- 19] b 2
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
ledge as such, and with the design of presenting to his readers Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, — should have omitted all mention of the raising of Lazarus, — and of the subsequent prophecy of Caiaphas, whereby that Messiahship was so strongly recognized ? The ordinary supposition, of silence being maintained for prudential reasons concerning Lazarus and his family, is quite beside the purpose. For the sacred books of the Christians were not published to the world in general, but were reserved and precious possessions of the believing societies : and even had this been otherwise, such concealment was wholly alien from their spirit and character.
2. The absence of completeness from our Gospels is even more strikingly shewn in their minor omissions, which cannot on any sup- position be accounted for, if their authors had possessed records of the incidents so omitted. Only in the case of St. Luke does there appear to have been any design of giving a regular account of things throughout : and from his many omissions of important matter contained in Matthew, it is plain that his sources of information were, though copious, yet fragmentary. For, assuming what has been above inferred as to the independence of our three Evangelists, it is inconceivable that St. Luke, with his avowed design of completeness, ch. i. 3, should have been in possession of matter so important as that contained in those parts of Matthew, and should deliberately have excluded it from -his Gospel.
3. The Gospel of St. Mark, — excluding from that term the venerable and authentic fragment at the end of ch. xvi., — terminates abruptly in the midst of the narrative of incidents connected with the resurrection of our Lord. And, with the exception of the short prefatory compendium, ch. i. 1 — 13, there is no reason for supposing this Evangelist to be an abbreviator, in any sense, of the matter before him. His sources of information were of the very highest order, and his descriptions and narratives are most life-like and copious ; but they were confined within a certain cycle of apostolic teaching, viz. that which concerned the official life of our Lord : and in that cycle not complete, inasmuch as he breaks off short of the Ascension, which another Evangelistic hand has added from apostolic sources.
SECTION VI.
THE INSPIRATION OF THE EVANGELISTS AND OTHER N. T. WRITERS.
1. The results of our enquiries hitherto may be thus stated : — That our Three Gospels have arisen independently of one another, from sources of information possessed by the Evangelists : — such sources of information, for a very considerable part of their contents, being the narrative teaching of the Apostles ; and, in cases where their personal 20]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ vi.] THEIR INSPIRATION. [introduction.
testimony was out of the question, oral or documentary narratives, pre- served in and received by the Christian Church in the apostolic age ; — that the Three Gospels are not formal complete accounts of the whole incidents of the sacred history, but each of them fragmentary, containing such portions of it as fell within the notice, or the special design, of the Evangelist.
2. The important question now comes' before us, In what sense are the Evangelists to be regarded as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit of God? That they were so, in some sense, has been the concurrent belief of the Christian body in all ages. In the second, as in the nineteenth century, the ultimate appeal, in matters of fact and doctrine, has been to these venerable writings. It may be well, then, first to enquire on what grounds their authority has been rated so high by all Christians.
3. And I believe the answer to this question will be found to be, Because they are regarded as authentic documents, descending from the apostolic age, and presenting to us the substance of the apostolic testimony. The Apostles being raised up for the special purpose of witnessing to the Gospel history, — and these memoirs having been universally received in the early Church as embodying that their testimony, I see no escape left from the inference, that they come to us with inspired authority. The Apostles themselves, and their contemporaries in the ministry of the Word, were singularly endowed with the Holy Spirit for the founding and teaching of the Church : and Christians of all ages have accepted the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament as the written result of the Pentecostal effusion. The early Church was not likely to be deceived in this ' matter. The reception of the Gospels was immediate and universal. They never were placed for a moment by the consent of Christians in the same category with the spurious documents which soon sprung up after them. In external history, as in internal character, they differ entirely from the apocryphal Gospels ; which, though in some cases bearing the name and pretending to contain the teaching of an Apostle, were never recognized as apostolic.
4. Upon the authenticity, i. e. the apostolicity of our Gospels, rests their claim to inspiration. Containing the substance of the Apostles' testimony, they carry with them that special power of the Holy Spirit which rested on the Apostles in virtue of their office, and also on other teachers and preachers of the first age. It may be well, then, to enquire of what kind that power was, and how far extending.
5. We do not find the Apostles transformed, from being men of indi- vidual character and thought and feeling, into mere channels for the transmission of infallible truth. We find them, humanly speaking, to have been still distinguished by the same characteristics as before the descent of the Holy Ghost. We see Peter still ardent and impetuous,
21]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
still shrinking from the danger of human disapproval ; — we see John still exhibiting the same union of deep love and burning zeal ; — we find them pursuing different paths of teaching, exhibiting different styles of writing, taking hold of the truth from different sides.
6. Again, we do not find the Apostles put in possession at once of the divine counsel with regard to the Church. Though Peter and John were full of the Holy Ghost immediately after the Ascension, neither at that time, nor for many years afterwards, were they put in possession of the purpose of God regarding the Gentiles, which in due time was specially revealed to Peter, and recognized in the apostolic council at Jerusalem.
7. These considerations serve to shew us in what respects the working of the Holy Spirit on the sacred writers was analogous to His influence on every believer in Christ ; viz. in the retention of individual character and thought and feeling, — and in the gradual development of the ways and purposes of God to their minds.
8. But their situation and office was peculiar and unexampled. And for its fulfilment, peculiar and unexampled gifts were bestowed upon them. One of these, which bears very closely upon our present subject, was, the recalling by the Holy Spirit of those things which the Lord had said to them. This was His own formal promise, recorded in John xiv. 26. And if we look at our present Gospels, we see abundant evidence of its fulfilment. What unassisted human memory could treasure up saying and parable, however deep the impression at the time, and report them in full at the distance of several years, as we find them reported, with every internal mark of truthfulness, in our Gospels ? What in- vention of man ootid have devised discourses which by common consent differ from all sayings of men — which possess this character unaltered, notwithstanding their transmission through men of various mental organization — which contain things impossible to be understood or appre- ciated by their reporters at the time when they profess to have been uttered — which enwrap the seeds of all human improvement yet attained, and are evidently full of power for more ? I refer to this latter alter- native, only to remark that all considerations, whether of the Apostles' external circumstances, or their internal feelings respecting Him of whom they bore witness, combine to confirm the persuasion of Chris- tians, that they have recorded as said by our Lord what He truly did sayf and not any words of their own imagination.
9. And let us pursue the matter further by analogy. Can we suppose that the light poured by the Holy Spirit upon the sayings of our Lord would be confined to such sayings, and not extend itself over the other parts of the narrative of His life on earth ? Can we believe that those miracles, which though not uttered in words, were yet acted parablesf
22]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ vi.] THEIR INSPIRATION. [introduction.
would not be, under the same gracious assistance, brought back to the minds of the Apostles, so that they should be placed on record for the teaching of the Church ?
10. And, going yet further, to those parts of the Gospels which were wholly out of the cycle of the Apostles' own testimony, — can we imagine that the divine discrimination which enabled them to detect the ' lie to the Holy Ghost,' should have forsaken them in judging of the records of our Lord's birth and infancy, — so that they should have taught or sanc- tioned an apocryphal, fabulous, or mythical account of such matters ? Some account of them must have been current in the apostolic circle ? for Mary the mother of Jesus survived the Ascension, and would be fully capable of giving undoubted testimony to the facts. (See notes on Luke i. ii.) Can we conceive then that, with her among them, the Apostles should have delivered other than a true history of these things ? Can we suppose that St Luke's account, which he includes among the things delivered by those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the first, is other than the true one, and stamped with the authority of the witnessing and discriminating Spirit dwelling in the Apostles ? Can we suppose that the account in the still more immediately apostolic Gospel of St. Matthew is other than the same history seen from a different side and independently narrated ?
11. But if it be enquired, how far such divine superintendence has extended in the framing of our Gospels as we at present find them, the answer must be furnished by no preconceived idea of what ought to have been, but by the contents of the Gospels themselves. That those contents are various, and variously arranged, is token enough that in their selec- tion and disposition we have human agency presented to us, under no more direct divine guidance, in this respect, than that general leading, which in main and essential points should ensure entire accordance. Such leading admits of much variety in points of minor consequence. Two men may be equally led by the Holy Spirit to record the events of our Lord's life for our edification, though one may believe and record that the visit to the Gadarenes took place before the calling of Matthew, while the other places it after that event ; though one in narrating it speaks of two demoniacs, — the other, only- of one.
12. And it is observable, that in the only place in the Three Gospels where an Evangelist speaks of himself, he expressly lays claim, not to any supernatural guidance in the arrangement of his subject-matter, but to a diligent tracing down of all things from the first ; in other words, to the care and accuracy of a faithful and honest compiler. After such an avowal on the part of the editor himself, to assert an immediate revelation to him of the arrangement to be adopted and the chronological notices to be given, is clearly not justified, according to his own shewing
23]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
and assertion '. The value of such arrangement and chronological con- nexion must depend on various circumstances in each case : — on their dehniteness and consistency,— on their agreement or disagreement with the other extant records ; the preference being in each case given to that one whose account is the most minute in details, and whose notes of sequence are the most distinct.
13. In thus speaking, I am doing no more than even the most scru- pulous of our Harmonizers have in fact done. In the case alluded to in paragraph 11, there is not one of them who has not altered the arrange- ment, either of Matthew, or of Mark and Luke, so as to bring the visit to the Gadarenes into the same part of the Evangelic History. But, if the arrangement itself were matter of divine inspiration, then have we no right to vary it in the slightest degree, but must maintain (as the Harmonists have done in other cases, but never, that I am aware, in this) two distinct visits to have been made at different times, and nearly the same events to have occurred at both. I need hardly add that a similar method of proceeding with all the variations in the Gospels, which would on this supposition be necessary, would render the Scripture narrative a heap of improbabilities ; and strengthen, instead of weakening, the cause of the enemies of our faith.
14. And not only of the arrangement of the Evangelic History are these remarks to be understood. There are certain minor points of accuracy or inaccuracy, of which human research suffices to inform men, and on which, from want of that research, it is often the practice to speak vaguely and inexactly. Such are sometimes the conventionally received distances from place to place ; such are the common accounts of phenomena in natural history, &c. Now, in matters of this kind, the Evangelists and Apostles were not supernaturally informed, but left, in common with others, to the guidance of their natural faculties.
15. The same may be said of citations and dates from history. In the last apology of Stephen, which he spoke being full of the Holy Ghost, and with divine influence beaming from his countenance, we have at least two demonstrable inaccuracies in points of minor detail. And the occurrence of similar ones in the Gospels would not in any way affect the inspiration or the veracity of the Evangelists.
16. It may be well to mention one notable illustration of the princi- ples upheld in this section. What can be more undoubted and unani- mous than the testimony of the Evangelists to the resurrection of
* To suppose St. Luke to have written, " It seemed good to me also," if he were under the conscious inspiration of the Holy Spirit, superseding all his own mental powers and faculties, would be to charge him with ascribing to his own diligence and selection that which was furnished to him independently of both. Yet to this are the asserters of verbal inspiration committed. 24]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ vi.] THEIR INSPIRATION. [introduction
the Lord ? If there be one fact rather than another of which the Apostles were witnesses, it was this : — and in the concurrent narrative of all four Evangelists it stands related beyond all cavil or question. Yet, of all the events which they have described, none is so variously put forth in detail, or with so many minor discrepancies. And this was just what might have been expected, on the principles above laid down. The great fact that the Lord was risen, — set forth by the ocular witness of the Apostles, who had seen Him, — became from that day first in importance in the delivery of their testimony. The precise order of His appearances would naturally, from the overwhelming nature of their present emotions, be a matter of minor consequence, and perhaps not even of accurate enquiry till some time had passed. Then, with the utmost desire on the part of the women and Apostles to collect the events in their exact order of time, some confusion would be apparent in the history, and some discre- pancies in versions of it which were the results of separate and inde- pendent enquiries ; the traces of which pervade our present accounts. But what fair-judging student of the Gospels ever made these variations or discrepancies a ground for doubting the veracity of the Evangelists as to the fact of the Resurrection, or the principal details of the Lord's appearances after it ?
17. It will be well to state the bearing of the opinions advanced in this section on two terms in common use, viz. verbal and plenary inspiration.
18. With regard to verbal inspimtion, I take the sense of it, as explained by its most strenuous advocates, to be, that every word and phrase of the Scriptures is absolutely and separately true, — and, whether narrative or discourse, took place, or was said, in every most exact par- ticular as set down. Much might be said of the a priori unworthiness of such a theory, as applied to a Gospel whose character is the freedom of the Spirit, not the bondage of the letter : but it belongs more to my present work to try it by applying it to the Gospels as we have them. And I do not hesitate to say that, being thus applied, its effect will be to destroy altogether the credibility of our Evangelists. Hardly a single instance of parallelism between them arises, where they do not relate the same thing indeed in substance, but expressed in terms which if literally taken are incompatible with each other. To cite only one obvious instance. The Title over the Cross was written in Greek, and, being reported in Greek by the Evangelists, must represent not the Latin or Hebrew forms, but the Greek form, of the inscription. According, then, to the verbal-inspiration theory, each Evangelist has recorded the exact words of the inscription ; not the general sense, but the inscription itself, — not a letter less or more. This is absolutely necessary to the theory. Its advocates must not be allowed, with convenient inconsis-
25]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i.
tency, to take refuge in a common-sense view of the matter wherever their theory fails them, and still to uphold it in the main *. And how it will here apply, the following comparison will shew : —
Matthew, This is Jesus the Kino op the Jews.
Mark, The Kino op the Jews.
Luke, This is the King op the Jews.
John, Jesus op Nazareth the King of the Jews.
Of course it must be understood, that / regard the above variations in the form of the inscription as in fact no discrepancies at all. They entirely prevent our saying with perfect precision what was the form of the inscription : but they leave us the spirit and substance of it. In all such cases I hold with the great Augustine, whose words I have cited in my note on Matt, xiv., when treating of the varying reports of the words spoken by the Apostles to our Lord during the storm on the lake of Galilee, — and cannot forbear citing here again : " The sense op the disciples waking the lord and seeking to be saved, is one and the same : nor is it worth while to enquire, which of these three was really said to christ. for whether they said any one op these three, or other words, which no one op the Evangelists has mentioned, but of similar import as to the truth of the sense, what matters it ?"
19. Another objection to the theory is, that if it be so, the Christian world is left in uncertainty what her Scriptures are, as long as the sacred text is full of various readings. Some one manuscript must be pointed out to us, which carries the weight of verbal inspiration, or some text whose authority shall be undoubted, must be promulgated. But manifestly neither of these things can ever happen. To the latest age, the reading of some important passages will be matter of doubt in the Church : and, which is equally subversive of the theory, though not of equal importance in itself, there is hardly a sentence in the whole of the Gospels in which there are not varieties of diction in our principal MSS., baffling all attempts to decide which was its original form.
20. The fact is, that this theory uniformly gives way before intel- ligent study of the Scriptures themselves ; and is only held, consistently and thoroughly, by those who have never undertaken that study. When put forth by those who have, it is never carried fairly through ; but while broadly asserted, is in detail abandoned.
6 This has been done, as far as I have seen, in all remarks of verbal-iiispiiationiste on this part of my Introduction to the Greek Testament. A most curious idea has been propounded on the example above given, viz. that by forcing into accord the words of the title in Mark and Luke, and believing it to represent a translation from the Latin inscription, we may suppose those in Matthew and John to have been, the one the original Greek, the other a translation from the Hebrew (/). 26]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ vii.] FORMAL HARMONIES. [introduction.
21. If I understand plenary inspiration rightly, I hold it to the utmost, as entirely consistent with the opinions expressed in this section. The inspiration of the sacred writers I believe to have con- sisted in the fulness of the influence of the Holy Spirit specially raising them to, and enabling them for, their work, — in a manner which dis- tinguishes them from all other writers in the world, and their work from all other works. The men were full of the Holy Ghost— the books are the pouring out of that fulness through the men, — the conservation of the treasure in earthen vessels. The treasure is ours, in all its rich- ness : but it is ours as only it can be ours, — in the imperfections of human speech, in the limitations of human thought, in the variety incident first to individual character, and then to manifold transcription and the lapse of ages.
22. Two things, in concluding this section, I would earnestly impress on my readers. First, that we must take our views of inspiration not, as is too often done, from a priori considerations, but entirely from
THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES: and
secondly, that the men were inspired; the books are the results of that inspiration. This latter consideration, if all that it implies be duly weighed, will furnish us with the key to the whole question.
SECTION VII.
IMPRACTICABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING A FORMAL HARMONY OF THE THREE GOSPELS.
1. From very early times attempts have been made to combine the narratives of our Three Gospels into one continuous history. As might have been expected, however, from the characteristics of those Gospels above detailed, such Harmonies could not be constructed without doing considerable violence to the arrangement of some one or more of the three, and an arbitrary adoption of the order of some oney to which then the others have been fitted and conformed. An examination of any of the current Harmonies will satisfy the student that this has been the case.
2. Now, on the supposition that the Three Gospels had arisen one out of the other, with a design such as any of those which have been pre- viously discussed (with the exception of e) in § ii. 2, 3, such a Harmony not only ought to be possible, but should arise naturally out of the several narratives, without any forcing or alteration of arrangement. Nay, on the supplementary theory of Greswell and others, the last written Gospel should itself be such a History as the Harmonizers are in search of Now not only is this not the case, but their Harmonies
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] THE THREE GOSPELS. [ch. i. § vii.
contain the most violent and considerable transpositions: — they are obliged to have recourse to the most arbitrary hypotheses of repetition of events and discourses, — and, after all, their Harmonies, while some difficulties would be evaded by their adoption, entail upon us others even more weighty and inexplicable.
3. Taking, however, the view of the origin of the Gospels above advocated, the question of the practicability of Harmonizing is simply reduced to one of matter of fact : — how far the three Evangelists, in relating the events of a history which was itself one and the same, have presented us with the same side of"the narrative of those events, or with fragments which will admit of being pieced into one another.
4. And there is no doubt that, as far as the main features of the Evangelic history are concerned, a harmonious whole is presented to us by the combined narrative. The great events of our Lord's ministry, His baptism, His temptation, His teaching by discourses and miracles, His selection of the Twelve, His transfiguration, His announcement of His sufferings, death, and resurrection, His last journey to Jeru- salem, His betrayal, His passion, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, — these are common to all ; and, as far as they are concerned, their narra- tives naturally fall into accordance and harmony. But when we come to range their texts side by side, to supply clause with clause, and endeavour to construct a complete History of details out of them, we at once find ourselves involved in the difficulties above enumerated. And the inference which an unbiassed mind will thence draw is, that as the Evangelists wrote with no such design of being pieced together into a complete History, but delivered the apostolic testimony as they had received it, modified by individual character and oral transmission, and arranged carefully according to the best of their knowledge, — so we should thus simply and reverentially receive their records, without setting them at variance with each other by compelling them in all cases to say the same things of the same events.
5. If the Evangelists have delivered to us truly and faithfully the apostolic narratives, and if the Apostles spoke as the Holy Spirit enabled them, and brought events and sayings to their recollection, then we may be sure that if we knew the real process of the transactions themselves, that knowledge would enable us to give an account of the diversities of narration and arrangement which the Gospels now present to us. But without such knowledge, all attempts to accomplish this analysis in minute detail must be merely conjectural : and must tend to weaken the Evangelic testimony, rather than to strengthen it.
6. The only genuine Harmony of the Gospels will be furnished by the unity and consistency of the Christian's belief in their record, as true to the great events which it relates, and his enlightened and in- telligent appreciation of the careful diligence of the Evangelists in
28]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
ch. ii. § i.] MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. [introduction.
arranging the important matter before them. If in that arrangement he finds variations, and consequently inaccuracies, on one side or the other, he will be content to acknowledge the analogy which pervades all the divine dealings with mankind, and to observe that God, who works, in the communication of His other gifts, through the medium of secondary agents — has been pleased to impart to us this, the record of His most precious Gift, also by human agency and teaching. He will acknow- ledge also, in this, the peculiar mercy and condescension of Him who has adapted to universal human reception the record of eternal life by His Son, by means of the very variety of individual recollections and modified reports. And thus he will arrive at the true Harmonistic view of Scripture; just as in the great and discordant world he does not seek peace by setting one thing against another and finding logical solution for all, but by holy and peaceful trust in that Almighty Father, who doeth all things well. So that the argument so happily applied by Butler to the nature of the Revelation contained in the Scriptures, may with equal justice be applied to the books themselves in which the record of that Revelation is found, — that * He who believes the Scriptures to have proceeded from Him who is the Author of nature, may well expect to find the same sort of difficulties in them as are found in the constitu- tion of nature.'
CHAPTER II.
OP THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. SECTION I.
ITS AUTHORSHIP.
1. The author of this Gospel has been universally believed to be, the Apostle Matthew. With this belief the contents of the Gospel are not inconsistent ; and we find it current in the very earliest ages (see testimonies in the next section).
2. Of the Apostle Matthew we know very little for certain. He was the son of Alphaeus (Mark ii. 14), and therefore probably the brother of James the less. His calling, from being a publican to be one of the Twelve, is narrated by all three Evangelists. By St. Mark and St. Luke he is called Levi; in this Gospel, Matthew. Such change of name after becoming a follower of the Lord, was by no means uncommon ; and the appearance of the apostolic, not the original name, in the Gospel proceed-
29]
Digitized by
introduction.] MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. [ch. ii.
ing from himself, is in analogy with the practice of Paul, who always in his Epistles speaks of himself by his new and Christian appellation. (On the doubts raised in ancient times respecting the identity of Mat- thew and Levi, see note on Matt. ix. 9.)
3. The Apostle Matthew is described by Clement of Alexandria as belonging to the ascetic Judaistic school of early Christians. Nothing is known of his apostolic labours out of Palestine, which Eusebius men- tions generally. Later writers fix the scene of them in Ethiopia, but also include in their circle Macedonia, and several parts of Asia. Hera- cleon, as cited by Clement of Alexandria, relates that his death was natural. This is implicitly confirmed by Clement himself, and by Origen and Tertullian, who mention only Peter, Paul, and James the greater, as martyrs among the Apostles.
SECTION H.
ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
On this point, which cannot be supposed of great interest to the English reader, he may be contented to be informed thus much, that it has been disputed among biblical scholars, whether this Gospel was originally composed in Hebrew, or in Greek : — that the testimony of the early Church is unanimous, that it was written in Hebrew : — but that some doubt is thrown upon the sufficiency of this testimony, from a probability that some at least of the Fathers mistook the apocryphal "Gospel according to the Hebrews" for the Gospel of St. Matthew: — and that the phsenomena of the Gospel itself are strongly against the idea that it was written originally in any other language than that in which we now possess it : viz. in Greek : which, be it remembered, was the commonly spoken language in Palestine, and throughout the East.
For the further treatment of the question, I must refer to my Greek Testament, Vol. I., Prolegomena, ch. ii. § ii.
SECTION III.
FOR WHAT READERS AND WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. An opinion has generally prevailed, both in ancient and modern times, that Matthew originally drew up his Gospel for the use of the Jewish converts in Palestine. And internal notices tend to confirm this inference. We have fewer interpretations of Jewish customs, laws, and localities, than in the two other Gospels. The whole narrative proceeds more upon a Jewish view of matters, and is concerned more to establish that point, which to a Jewish convert would be most important, — that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. Hence
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ iv.] AT WHAT TIME WRITTEN, [introduction.
the commencement of His genealogy from Abraham and David ; hence the frequent notice of the necessity of this or that event happening) because it was so foretold by the Prophets; hence the constant opposition of our Lord's spiritually ethical teaching to the carnal formalistic ethics of the Scribes and Pharisees.
2. But we must not think of the Gospel as a systematic treatise drawn up with this end continually in view. It only exercised a very general and indirect influence over the composition, not excluding narratives, sayings, and remarks which had no such tendency, or even partook of an opposite one.
3. Grecian readers were certainly also in the view of the Apostle ; and in consequence, he adds interpretations and explanations, such, for example, as ch. i. 23 ; xxvii. 8, 33, 46, for their information.
4. In furtherance of the design above mentioned, we may discern (with the caution given in 2) a more frequent and consistent reference to the Lord as a King, and to his Messianic kingdom, than in the other Gospels. Designing these remarks not as a complete Introduction to the Gospels, but merely as subsidiary to the following Commentary, I purposely do not give instances of these characteristics, but leave them to be gathered by the student as he proceeds.
SECTION IV.
AT WHAT TIME IT WAS WBITTEN.
The testimony of the early Church is unanimous, that Matthew wrote first among the Evangelists. Clement of Alexandria, who dis- sented from the present order of our Gospels, yet placed those of Matthew and Luke first. Origen's testimony is, that tradition in his time reported Matthew to have written first. And Irenaeus relates that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome. Without adopting this statement, we may remark that it represents a date, to which internal chronological notices are not repugnant. It seems, from ch. xxvii. 8, and xxviii. 15, that some considerable time had elapsed since the events narrated ; while, from the omission of all mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, it would appear that the Gospel was published be/ore that event. All these marks of time are, however, exceedingly vague, especially when other notices are taken into account, which place the Gospel eight years after the Ascension (so Theophylact and Euthymius) ; fifteen years after the Ascension (Nicephorus) : — at the time of the stoning of Stephen (Cosmas Indicopleustes).
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. [ch. ii. § v.
SECTION V.
ITS STYLE AND CHARACTER.
1. The Gospel of Matthew is written in the same form of diction which pervades the other Gospels, the Hebraistic or Hellenistic' Greek. This dialect resulted from the dispersion of the Greek language by the conquests of Alexander, and more especially from the intercourse of Jews with Greeks in the city of Alexandria. It is that of the LXX version of the Old Testament ; of the apocryphal books ; and of the writings of Philo and Josephus. In these two latter, however, it is not so marked, as in versions from the Hebrew, or books aiming at a Hebraistic character.
2. Of the three Gospels, that of Matthew presents the most complete example of the Hebraistic diction and construction, with perhaps the exception of the first chapter of Luke. And from what has been above said respecting its design, this would naturally be the case.
3. The internal character of this Gospel also answers to what we know of the history and time of its compilation. Its marks of chrono- logical sequence are very vague, and many of them are hardly perhaps to be insisted on at all. When compared with the more definite notices of Mark and Luke, its order of events is sometimes superseded by theirs. It was to be expected, in the earliest written accounts of matters so important, that the object should rather be to record the things done, and the sayings of our Lord, than the precise order in which they took place.
4. It is in this principal duty of an Evangelist that Matthew stands pre-eminent ; and especially in the report of the longer discourses of our Lord. It was within the limits of his purpose in writing, to include all the descriptions of the state and hopes of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven which Jesus gave during his ministry. This seems to have been the peculiar gift of the Spirit to him, — to recall and deliver down, in their strictest verbal connexion, such discourses as the Sermon on the Mount, ch. v. — vii. ; the apostolic commission, ch. x. ; the discourse concerning John, ch. xi. ; that on blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, ch. xii. ; the series of parables, ch. xiii. ; that to the Apostles on their divisions, ch. xviii. ; and in their fulness, the whole series of polemical discourses and prophetic parables in ch. xxi. — xxv.
5. It has been my endeavour in the following Commentary, to point out the close internal connexion of the longer discourses, and to combat the mistake of those critics who suppose them to be no more than col- lections of shorter sayings associated together from similarity of subject or character.
32]
Digitized by
ch. in. § ii.] ITS ORIGIN. [introduction.
CHAPTER III.
OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK.
SECTION I. its authorship.
1. As in the case of the two other Gospels, we are dependent entirely on traditional sources for the name of the author. It has been univer- sally believed to be Marcus : and further, that he was the same person who, in Acts xii. 12, 25 ; xv. 37, is spoken of as John whose surname was Mark: in xiii. 5, 13, as John: in xv. 39, as Mark: also in Col. iv. 10: 2 Tim. iv. 11: Philem. 24. The few particulars gleaned respecting him from Scripture are, that his mother's name was Mary (Acts xii. 12) ; and that she was sister to the Apostle Barnabas (Col. iv. 10) ; that she dwelt in Jerusalem (Acts, ibid.) ; that he was converted to Christianity by the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. v. 13); that he became the minister and com- panion of Paul and Barnabas, in their first missionary journey (Acts xii. 25) ; and was the cause of the variance and separation of these Apostles on their second (Acts xv. 37 — 40), — Barnabas wishing to take him again with them, but Paul refusing, because he had departed from them before the completion of the former journey (Acts xiii. 13). He then became the companion of Barnabas in his journey to Cyprus (Acts xv. 39). We find him however again with Paul (Col. iv. 10), and an allusion apparently made in the words there to some previous stain on his cha- racter, which was then removed; see also Philem. 24: 2 Tim. iv. 11. Lastly, we find him with Peter (1 Pet. v. 13). From Scripture we know no more concerning him. But an unanimous tradition of the ancient Christian writers represents him as the " interpreter" of Peter : i.e. the secretary or amanuensis, whose office it was to commit to writing the orally-delivered instructions and narrations of the Apostle. See authori- ties quoted in § ii., below.
2. Tradition brings him with Peter to Rome (but apparently only on the authority of 1 Pet. v. 13) ; and thence to Alexandria. He is said to have become first bishop of the Church in that city, and to have suffered martyrdom there. All this, however, is exceedingly uncertain.
SECTION II.
ITS ORIGIN.
1. It was universally believed in the ancient Church, that Mark's Gospel was written under the influence, and almost by the dictation, of Peter.
Vol. L— 33] c
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] MARK'S GOSPEL. [ch. in.
(a) Eusebias quotes from Papias, as a testimony of John the pres- byter, " Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and wrote down accurately whatever he recollected.,,
(b) The same author says, "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, has delivered down to us in writing the things preached by Peter." This he quotes from Irenaeus ; and further that this took place after the deaths of Peter and Paul.
(c) The same author relates, on the authority of Clement and Papias, that the hearers of Peter at Rome, unwilling that his teaching should be lost to them, besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter, to commit to writing the substance of that teaching ; that the Apostle, being informed supernaturally of the work in which Mark was engaged, " was pleased with the earnestness of the man, and authorized the writing according to the request of the Church." This account is manifestly inconsistent with the former.
(d) Eusebius gives yet another account, citing the very passage of Clement above referred to : that Peter, knowing of Mark's work when it was completed and published, " neither forbade it nor encouraged it."
(e) The same author elsewhere says, " Thus says Peter concerning himself: for all things found in Mark are said to have been memorials of the discourses of Peter."
(/) Tertullian relates: "The Gospel which Mark put forth is affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was."
(g) Jerome writes : " Paul then had Titus for his interpreter, as also St. Peter had Mark, whose Gospel was composed by him writing at Peter's dictation."
2. The above testimonies must now be examined as to how far we are bound to receive them as decisive. We may observe that the matter to which they refer is one which could, from its nature, have been known to very few persons ; viz. the private and unavowed influence of an Apostle over the writer. (For I reject at once the account which makes Peter authorize the Gospel, from no such authorization being apparent, which it certainly would have been, had it ever existed.) Again, the accounts cited are most vague and inconsistent as to the extent and nature of this influence, — some stating it to have been no more than that Peter preached, and Mark, after his death, collected the substance of his testimony from memory ; others making it extend even to the dictation of the words by the Apostle.
3. It is obvious that all such accounts must be judged according to the phenomena presented by the Gospel itself. Now we find, in the title of the Gospel, a presumption that no such testimony of Peter is here presented to us, as we have of Matthew in the former Gospel. Had such been the case, we should have found it called the Gospel according to Peter, not according to Mark.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ ii.] ITS ORIGIN* [introduction.
4. If again we examine the contents of the Gospel, we are certainly not justified in concluding that Peter's hand has been directly employed in its compilation in its present form. The various mentions, and omissions of mention, of incidents in which that Apostle is directly concerned, are such as to be in no way consistently accounted for on this hypothesis. For let it be allowed that a natural modesty might have occasionally led him to omit matters tending to his honour, — yet how are we to account for his omitting to give an exact detail of other things at which he was present, and of which he might have rendered the most precise and circumstantial account ? This has been especially the case in the narrative of the day of the Resurrection, not to mention numerous other instances which will be noticed in the Commentary. Besides, the above hypothesis regarding his suppressions cannot be con- sistently carried out. A remarkable instance to the contrary may be seen, ch. xvi. 7, where " tell his disciples and Peter99 stands for " tell his disciples'! in Matthew.
5. We are led to the same conclusion by a careful comparison of the contents of this Gospel with those of Matthew and Luke. We find that it follows the same great cycle of apostolic teaching ; — that its narra- tives are derived in many cases from the same sources ; — that it is im- probable that any individual Apostle should have moulded and fashioned a record which keeps so much to the beaten track of the generally- received Evangelic history. His own individual remembrances must unavoidably have introduced additions of so considerable an amount as to have given to the Gospel more original matter than it at present
6. But while unable to conceive any influence directly exerted by Peter over the compilation of the Gospel*, I would by no means deny the possibility of the derivation of some narratives in it from that Apostle, and recognize in such derivation the ground of the above tes- timonies. The peculiarly minute and graphic precision (presently, § viii. to be further spoken of) which distinguishes this Evangelist, seems to claim for him access in many cases to the testimony of some eye-witness where the other two Evangelists have not had that advantage. I have pointed out these cases where they occur, in the Commentary; and have not hesitated in some of them to refer conjecturally to Peter as the source of the narration.
7. The inference to be drawn from what has preceded is, that, — the general tradition of the ancients, which ascribed to Mark a connexion with Peter as his secretary or interpreter, being adopted, as likely to be founded on fact, — yet the idea of any considerable or direct influence of Peter over the writing of the Gospel is not borne out by the work itself. We may so far recognize in it one form of the probable truth , — it is likely that Mark, from continual intercourse with and listening to Peter,
35] c 2
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] MARK'S GOSPEL. [ch. hi.
and possibly from preservation of many of his narrations entire, may have been able, after his death, or at all events when separated from him, to preserve in his Gospel those vivid and original touches of description and filling-out of the incidents, which we now discover in it. Further than this I do not think we are authorized in assuming ; and even this is conjectural only.
section m.
FOR WHAT READERS AND WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN.
1 . Internal evidence is very full as to the class of readers for whom Mark compiled his Gospel : the Gentile Christians are clearly pointed out by the following indications : —
(a) The omission of all genealogical notices of our Lord's descent.
(b) The general abstinence from Old Testament citations, except in reporting discourses of our Lord (ch. i. 2, 3 is the only exception, xv. 28 being rejected as spurious).
(c) The appending of interpretations to the Hebrew or Aramaic terms occurring in the narrative (ch. v. 41 ; vii. 11, 34).
(d ) The explanations of Jewish customs, as for example ch. vii. 3, 4.
(e) Remarkable insertions or omissions in particular places: as, e. g. " for all the nations," ch. xi. 17, which words are omitted in Matthew and Luke: — no mention of the Jewish law: — omission of the limitations of the mission of the Apostfes in Matt. x. (common, however, also to Luke).
2. It is true that too much stress must not be laid on single par- ticulars of this sort, as indicating design, where the sources of the Gospels were so scattered and fragmentary. But the concurrence of all these affords a very strong presumption that that class of readers was in the view of the Evangelist, in whose favour all these circumstances unite. See Introduction to Matthew, § iii. 2.
SECTION IV.
AT WHAT TIME IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. The most direct testimony on this head is that of Irenceus (see above, § ii. 1, b), that it was after the deaths of Peter and Paul. This would place its date, at all events, after the year 63 (see In trod, to Acts, chronological table). But here, as in the case of the other Gospels, very little can be with any certainty inferred. We have conflicting 36]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ vi.] IN WHAT LANGUAGE WRITTEN, [introduction.
traditions (see above, § ii.), and the Gospel itself affords us no clue whatever.
2. One thing only we may gather from the contents of the three first Gospels, — that none of them could have been originally written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Had they been, the omission of all allusion to so signal a fulfilment of our Lord's prophecies would be inexplicable. In the case indeed of Luke, we can approximate nearer than this (see below, ch. iv. § 4); but in those of Matthew and Mark, this is all which can be safely assumed as to the time of their first publication ; — that it was after the dispersion or even the death of most of the Apostles, and before the investment of Jerusalem by the Roman armies under Titus in the year 70.
SECTION V.
AT WHAT PLACE IT WAS WRITTEN.
Of this we have no trustworthy evidence. Most ancient writers (Clement, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, &c.) mention Borne; but apparently in connexion with the idea of Mark having written under the superintendence of Peter. Chrysostom mentions Alexandria ; but no Alexandrine writer confirms the statement. In modern times, Storr has advanced an hypothesis that Mark wrote at Antioch, which he grounds, but insufficiently, on a comparison of ch. xv. 21, with Acts xi. 20.
SECTION VI.
IN WHAT LANGUAGE IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. There has never been any reasonable doubt that Mark wrote in Greek. The two Syriac versions contain a marginal note, that Mark preached in Borne in Latin : and four of the later manuscripts of the Gospel append a notice to the same effect. This statement, however, is destitute of probability from any external or internal evidence, and is only one more assumption from the hypothetical publication in Rome under the superintendence of Peter, and for Roman converts.
2. Many writers of the Romish Church have defended the hypothesis of a Latin original, being biassed by a wish to maintain the authority of the Vulgate : and a pretended part of the original autograph of the Evangelist is still shewn in the Library of St. Mark's church at Venice ; which, however, has been detected to be merely part of an ancient Latin MS. of the four gospels.
3. If Mark wrote in Latin, it is almost inconceivable that the original
37]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] MARE'S GOSPEL. [ch. hi.
should have perished so early that no ancient writer should have made mention of the fact. For Latin was the language of a considerable and increasing body of Christians, — unlike Hebrew, which was little known, and belonged (but even this is doubtful) to a section of converts few in number:— yet ancient testimony is unanimous to Matthew's having written in Hebrew, — while we have not one witness to Mark having written in Latin.
section vn.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL.
1. This has never been called in question, till very recently, by some of the German critics on, as it appears to me, wholly insufficient grounds. They allege that the testimony of Papias (see above, § ii. 1, a) does not apply to the contents of our present Gospel, but that some later hand has worked up and embellished the original simple and unarranged notices of Mark, which have perished.
2. But neither do the words of Papias imply any such inference as that Mark's notices must have been simple and unarranged ; nor, if they did, are they of any considerable authority in the matter. It is enough that from the very earliest time the Gospel has been known as that of Mark ; confirmed as this evidence is by the circumstance, that this name belongs to no great and distinguished founder of the Church, to whom it might naturally be ascribed, but to one, the ascription to whom can hardly be accounted for, except by its foundation in matter of fact.
3. On the genuineness of the remarkable fragment at the end of the Gospel, see notes there.
SECTION VIII.
ITS STYLE AND CHARACTER.
1. Of the three first Gospels, that of Mark is the most distinct and peculiar in style. By far the greater part of those graphic touches which describe the look and gesture of our Lord, the arrangement or appearance of those around Him, the feelings with which He contemplated the persons whom He addressed, are contained in this Gospel. While the matters related are fewer than in either Matthew or Luke, Mark, in by far the greater number of common narrations, is the most copious, and rich in lively and interesting detail.
2. In one part only does Mark appear as an abridger of previously well-known facts ; viz., in ch. i. 1 — 13, where, — his object being to detail the official life of our Lord, — he hastens through the previous great
38]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ vm.] ITS STYLE AND CHARACTER, [introduction.
events, — the ministry of John, the baptism and temptation of Christ. Bnt even in the abrupt transitions of this section, there is wonderful graphic power, presenting us with a series of life-like pictures, cal- culated to impress the reader strongly with the reality and dignity of the events related.
3. Throughout the Gospel, even where the narratives are the most copious, the same isolated character of each, the same abrupt transition from one to another, is observable. There is no attempt to bind on one section to another, or to give any sequences of events. But occasionally the very precision of the separate narratives of itself furnishes accurate and valuable chronological data : — e. g. the important one in ch. iv. 35, by which it becomes evident that the whole former part of Matthew's Gospel is out of chronological order.
4. Mark relates but few 'discourses. His object being to set forth Jesus as the Son op God (see ch. i. 1), he principally dwells on the events of His official life. But the same characteristics mark his report of our Lord's discourses, where he relates them, as we have observed in the rest of his narrative. While the sequence and connexion of the longer discourses was that which the Holy Spirit peculiarly brought to the mind of Matthew, the Apostle from whom Mark's record is derived seems to have been deeply penetrated and impressed by the solemn iterations of cadence and expression, and to have borne away the very words themselves and tone of the Lord's sayings. See especially, as illustrating this, the wonderfully sublime reply, ch. ix. 39 — 50.
5. According to the view adopted and vindicated in the notes on ch. xvi. 9 — 20, the Gospel terminates abruptly with the words " for they were afraid," ver. 8. That this was not intentionally done, but was a defect, — is apparent, by the addition, in apostolic times, of the authentic and most important fragment which now concludes the narrative.
6. I regard the existence of the Gospel of Mark as a gracious and valuable proof of the accommodation by the divine Spirit of the records of the life of our Lord to the future necessities of the Church. While it contains little matter of fact which is not related in Matthew and Luke, and thus, generally speaking, forms only a confirmation of their more complete histories, it is so far from being a barren duplicate of that part of them which is contained in it, that it comes home to every reader with all the freshness of an individual mind, full of the Holy Ghost, intently fixed on the great object of the Christian's love and worship, reverently and affectionately following and recording His posi- tions, and looks, and gestures, and giving us the very echo of the tones with which He spoke. And thus the believing student feels, while treating of and studying this Gospel, as indeed he does of each in its turn, that, — without venturing to compare with one another in value these rich and abiding gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church, — the
39]
INTRODUCTION.] LUKE'S GOSPEL. [ch. it.
Gospel of Mark is at least as precious to him as any of the others ; serving an end, and filling a void, which could not without spiritual detriment be left uncared for.
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. SECTION I.
ITS AUTHORSHIP.
1. Although the Author of this Gospel plainly enough speaks of himself in his Introduction, and in that to the Acts of the Apostles, we are left to gather his name from tradition. Here, however, as in the case of Mark, there seems to be no reasonable ground of doubt. It has been universally ascribed to Lucas, or Luke, spoken of Col. iv. 14, and again Philem. 24, and 2 Tim. iv. 11.
2. Of this person we know no more with any certainty than we find related in the Acts of the Apostles and the passages above referred to. From Col. iv. 11, 14, it would appear that he was not born a Jew, being there distinguished from " those of the circumcision." It is, however, quite uncertain whether he had become a Jewish proselyte previous to his conversion to Christianity. His worldly calling was that of a Physician ; he is called " the beloved Physician " by Paul, CoL iv. 14. A very late tradition, generally adopted by the Romish Church, makes him also to have been a painter ; but it is in no respect deserving of credit. His birthplace is said 'by Eusebius and Jerome to have been Antioch, but traditionally only, and perhaps from a mistaken identification of him with Lucius, Acts xiii. 1. Tradition, as delivered by Epiphanius, Theophylact, Euthymius, &c, makes him to have been one of the seventy, Luke x. 1 ; but this is refuted by his own testimony, in his Preface, — where he by implication distinguishes himself from those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word. It seems to have arisen from his Gospel alone containing the account of their mission.
3. Luke appears to have attached himself to Paul during the second missionary journey of the Apostle, and at Troas (Acts xvi. 10). This may perhaps be inferred from his there first making use of the first person plural in his narrative ; after saying (ver. 8) " they came down to Troas," he proceeds (ver. 1 0), " immediately we endeavoured to go
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ ii.] ITS ORIGIN. [introduction.
into Macedonia." He thence accompanied Paul to Macedonia, re- maining perhaps at Philippi (but see below, § iv. 3) until Paul returned thither again at the end of his second visit to Greece, after the disturbance at Ephesus. Thence (Acts xx. 5) we find him again accompanying Paul to Asia and Jerusalem (xxi. 17); being apparently with him at Caesarea during his imprisonment (xxi v. 23); and travelling with him to Rome (xxvii. 1 — xxviii. 16). There we also find him remaining with the Apostle to a late period, very nearly till his martyrdom. (See 2 Tim. iv. 11.)
4. Of the time and manner of his death nothing certain is known, and the traditions are inconsistent one with another : some alleging him to have suffered martyrdom, while the general report is that he died a natural death.
SECTION II.
ITS ORIGIN.
1. A plain statement of the origin of this Gospel is given us by the Author himself, in his preface, ch. i. 1 — 4. He (here states that many had taken in hand to draw up a statement, according to the testimony of those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, of the matters received (or fulfilled) among Christians ; and that it therefore semed good to him also, having carefully traced the progress of events from the first, to write an arranged account of the same to his friend (or patron) Theophilus.
2. From this we gather, (1) that Luke was not himself an eye-witness, nor a minister of the word from the beginning; (2) that he compiled his Gospel from the testimony of eye-witnesses and Apostles, which he carefully collected and arranged. For (1 ) he implicitly excludes himself from the number of the " eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," and (2) by the "to me also" he includes himself among the "many" who made use of the testimony of eye-witnesses and of Apostles.
3. I have before proved generally that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark cannot have been among the number of these narratives of which Luke speaks. I may now add to those proofs, that if Luke had seen and received, as of apostolic authority, either or both of these gospels, then his variations from them are, on his own shewing, unaccountable ; if he had seen them, and did not receive them, his coincidences with them are equally unaccountable. The improbabilities and absurdities involved in his having either or both of them before him and working up their narratives into his own, I have before dealt with, in the general Intro- duction to the Three Gospels.
4. Judging entirely from the phenomena presented by the Gospel
Digitized by VjOOQIC
INTBODUCTION.] LUKE'S GOSPEL. [ch. IV.
itself, my conclusion with regard to its sources is the following : — that Luke, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, drew up his Gospel inde- pendently of, and without knowledge of, those of Matthew and Mark ; — that he fell in with, in the main, the same cycle of apostolic teaching as the writers of those Gospels placed on record, viz. that which em- braced principally the Galilaan life and ministry of our Lord, to the exclusion of that part of it which passed at Jerusalem before the formal call of the twelve Apostles ; — but that he possessed other sources of information, not open to the compiler of Matthew's Gospel, nor to Mark.
5. To this latter circumstance may be attributed his access to (I believe, from its peculiar style and character) a documentary record of the events preceding and accompanying the birth of the Lord, derived probably from her who alone was competent to narrate several parti- culars contained in it : — his preservation of the precious and most im- portant cycle of our Lord's discourses and parables contained in that large section of his Gospel, ch. ix. 51 — xviii. 15, which is mostly peculiar to himself: — numerous other details scattered up and down in every part of his narrative, shewing information from an eye-witness : — and, lastly, his enlarged account of some events following the Resurrection, and the narration, by him alone, of the circumstances accompanying the Ascension.
6. A tradition was very early current, that Luke's Gospel contained the substance of the teaching of Paul. Irenseus states : " Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by that Apostle7." See also Tertullian. But this is contradicted by the implicit assertion of the Evangelist himself in his preface, that the Gospel was compiled and arranged by himself from the testimony of those who, 'from the beginning of our Lord's ministry,' were eye-witnesses or ministers of the word. Among these it is not, of course, possible to reckon Paul.
7. It is however an interesting enquiry, how far his continued inter- course with the great Apostle of the Gentiles may have influenced his diction, or even his selection of facts. It is a remarkable coincidence, that the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper should be nearly verbatim the same in Luke xxii. 19, and in 1 Cor. xi. 23, — and that Paul claims to have received this last from the Lord. For we know, that to compensate to Paul in his apostolic office for the want of the authority of an eye-witness, and to constitute him a witness to the truth of the Gospel, a revelation was made to him, — to which he refers, Gal. i. 12: Eph. iii. 3: 1 Cor. xi. 23; xv. 3, — embracing at least
7 Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome go bo far as to understand the expression "my Gospel/' Rom. ii. 16, of the Gospel of Luke. But this is contrary to the usage of the word " Gospel " in the New Testament : see the true meaning in notes there. 42]
Digitized by VjOOQIC
\
§ in.] FOR WHAT READERS WRITTEN, [introduction.
the leading facts of the evangelic history. And this circumstance may have acted imperceptibly on the mind of Luke, and even shaped or filled out some of his narratives, in aid of direct historic sources of testimony.
8. There is very little trace of PauVs peculiar diction, or prominence given to the points which it became his especial work to inculcate in the Gospel of Luke. Doubtless we may trace a similar cast of mind and feeling in some instances; as e.g. Luke's carefulness to record the sayings of our Lord which were assertive of His unrestricted love for Jew and Gentile alike : Luke iv. 25 ff. ; ix. 52 ff. ; x. 30 ff. ; xvii. 16, 18. We may observe too that in Luke those parables and sayings are principally found, which most directly regard the great doctrine of man's free justification by grace through faith: e.g. ch. xv. 11 ff.; xvii. 10; xviii. 14, in which latter place the use of "justified" (see note there) is remarkable. These instances, however, are but few, — and it may perhaps be doubted whether Commentators in general have not laid too great stress upon them. It would be very easy to trace similar relations and analogies in the other Gospels, if we were bent upon doing so.
SECTION m.
FOR WHAT HEADERS AND WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. Both these questions are formally answered for us by the Evan- gelist himself. He states, ch. i. 3, that he wrote primarily for the benefit of one Theophilus, and that he might know the certainty of those accounts which had formed the subject of his catechetical instruction.
2. But we can hardly suppose this object to have been the only moving cause to the great work which Luke was undertaking. The probabilities of the case, and the practice of authors in inscribing their works to particular persons, combine to persuade us that Luke must have regarded his friend as the representative of a class of readers for whom his Gospel was designed. And in enquiring what that class was, we must deal with the data furnished by the Gospel itself.
3. In it we find universality the predominant character. There is no marked regard paid to Jewish readers, as in Matthew, nor to Gentiles, as in Mark; if there be any preference, it seems rather on the side of the latter. In conformity with Jewish practice, we have a genealogy of our Lord, which however does not, as in Matthew, stop with Abraham, but traces up his descent even to the progenitor of the human race. Com- mentators have noticed that Luke principally records those sayings and acts of our Lord by which God's mercy to the Gentiles is set forth :
43]
Digitized by
INTRODUCTION.] LUKE'S GOSPEL. [ch, IV.
see ch. xv. 11 ff.; xviii. 10; xix. 5 (but see notes there); x. 33 ; xvii. 19; ix. 52 — 56 ; iv. 25 — 27. Such iustances, however, are not much to be relied on; — see above, ch. i. § ii. 6; — to which I will add, that it would be easy to construct a similar list to prove the same point with respect to Matthew or John8; — and I therefore much prefer assigning the above character of universality to this Gospel, which certainly is visible throughout it. That it was constructed for Gentile readers as well as for Jews, is plain ; and is further confirmed from the fact of its author having been the friend and companion of the great Apostle of the Gentiles,
4. I infer then that the Gospel was designed for the general use of Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles ; and, subordinately to this general purpose, for those readers whose acquaintance with Jewish customs and places was sufficient to enable them to dispense with those elucidations of them which Mark and John have given, but which are not found in Matthew or Luke.
5. The object of the Gospel has been sufficiently declared in Luke's own words above cited, — that the converts might know the certainty of those things in which they had received oral instruction as catechumens; in other words, that the portions of our Lord's life and discourses thus imparted to them might receive both permanence, by being committed to writing, — and completion, by being incorporated in a detailed narra- tive of His acts and sayings.
SECTION IV.
AT WHAT TIME IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. We are enabled to approximate to the time of the publication of this Gospel with much more certainty than we can to that of any of the others. The enquiry may be thus conducted. — We may safely assume
» e.g. Matthew relates the visit of the Magi, ch. ii. 1 ff.; refers to Galilee of the Gentiles seeing a great light, ch. iv. 15, 16 :— • Many shall come from the East and West' &c. ch. viii. 11 — ' Come unto me all ye that labour,' ch. xi. 28 : the Syropha- nician woman (not related by Luke), ch. xv. 21 ff.; 'The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation,' &c. ch. xxi. 43 (omitted by Luke) : ' The elect from the four winds of heaven ' (not in Luke), ch. xxiv. 31 : * The judgment of all the nations,' ch. xxv. 31 — 46 : * Make disciples of all the nations,' ch. xviii. 19. — Again, John relates the visit to the Samaritans, ch. iv.; ' The other sheep not of this fold,' ch. x. 16 : ' not for that nation only, but that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad,' ch. xi. 52 : * The request of the Greeks at the feast,' ch. xii. 20, Ac. &c. See the view, that Luke wrote for Greeks principally, ingeniously illustrated in the lecture prefixed to this Gospel in the first volume of Dr. Wordsworth's Greek Testament : which however, like the other notices of this learned and estimable writer, is written far too strongly in the spirit of an advocate, who can see only that which it is his aim to prove.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ iv.] AT WHAT TIME WRITTEN, [introduction
that the i former treatise' of Acts i. 1, can be no other than this Gospel. And on that follows the inference, that the Gospel was published before the Acts of the Apostles. Now the last event recorded in the Acts is an interview of Paul with the Jews, shortly after his arrival in Rome. We further have the publication of the Acts, by the words of ch. xxviii. 30, postponed two whole years after that arrival and interview; but, I believe, no longer than that. For had Paul continued longer than that time in his hired house before the publication, it must have been so stated ; and had he left Rome or that house, or had any remarkable event happened to him before the publication, we cannot suppose that so careful a recorder as Luke would have failed to bring his work down to the time then present, by noticing such departure or such event. I assume then the publication of the Acts to have taken place two years * after PauVs arrival at Rome : i. e. according to Wieseler (see my chronological table in Introduction to Acts), in the spring of a.d. 63.
2. We have therefore a fixed date, before which the Gospel must have been published. But if I am not mistaken, we have, by internal evidence, the date of its publication removed some time back from this date. It is hardly probable that Luke would speak of, as " the former treatise," a work in which he was then, or had been very lately, engaged. But not to dwell on this, — even allowing that the prefatory and dedicatory matter, as is usually the case, may have come last from the hands of the author, — I find in the account of the Ascension, which immediately follows, a much more cogent proof, that the Gospel had been some considerable time published. For while it recapitulates the Gospel account just so much that we can trace the same hand in it (compare Acts i. 4 with Luke xxiv. 49), it is manifestly a different account^ much fuller in particulars, and certainly unknown to the Evangelist when he wrote his Gospel. Now, as we may conclude, in accordance with the " having traced down all things accurately from the very first," of Luke i. 3, that he would have carefully sought out every available source of information at the time of writing his Gospel, — this becoming acquainted with a new account of the Ascension implies that in the mean time fresh sources of information had been opened to him. And this would most naturally be by change ofplace9 seeing that various fixed cycles of apos- tolic teaching were likely to be current in, and about, the respective mother churches. Now the changes of place in Luke's recent history had been, — two years before, from Caesarea to Rome, Acts xxvii. 1 ff. ; two years and a half before that, from Philippi to Jerusalem, Acts xx. 6 ; xxi. 15 ff., — and Caesarea. This last is left to be inferred from his leav- ing Caesarea with Paul, ch. xxvii. 1 ; — at all events he was during this time in Palestine, with, or near Paul. I shall make it probable in the Introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, that during this period he was engaged in collecting materials for and compiling that book ; and by
Digitized by VjOOQIC
INTRODUCTION.] LUKE'S GOSPEL. [ch. IV.
consequence (see above), that in all probability the Gospel had been then written and published. This would place its publication before a.d. 58 * —consequently, before the traditional date of the Gospel of Matthew, — see above, ch. ii. § iv.
3. Tracing Luke's history further back than this, — it has been thought that he remained at Philippi during the whole time comprised between Acts xviL 1 and xx. 6, because he disuses the first person at the first of those dates, at Philippi, — and resumes it also at Philippi, at the second. Now this was a period of seven years : far too long for such an inference as the above to be made with any probability. During this time he may have travelled into Palestine, and collected the information which he incorporated in his Gospel. For that it was collected t» Palestine, is on all accounts probable. And that it should have been published much before this, is, I think, improbable.
4. My reasons are the following : — I have implied in the former part of this Introduction, that it is not likely that the present evangelic collec- tions would be made until the dispersion of all or most of the Apostles on their missionary journeys. Besides this, the fact of numerous narra- tives having been already drawn up after the model of the apostolic narrative teaching, forbids us to suppose their teaching by oral commu- nication to have been in its fulness still available. Now the Apostles, or the greater part of them, were certainly at Jerusalem at the time of the council in Acts xv. 1 — 5 ff., L e. about a.d. 50. How soon after that time their dispersion took place, it is quite impossible to determine : — but we have certainly this date as our starting-point, before which, as I believe, no Gospel could have been published.
5. After this dispersion of the Apostles, it will be necessary to allow some time to elapse for the narratives of which Luke speaks (ch. i. 1) to be drawn up ; — not less certainly than one or two years, or more : which would bring us just about to the time when he was left behind by Paul in Philippi. This last arrangement must however be, from its merely hypothetical grounds, very uncertain.
6. At all events, we have thus eight years, a.d. 50 — 58, as the limits within which it is probable that the Gospel was published. And, with- out pretending to minute accuracy in these two limits, we may at least set it down as likely that the publication did not take place much before Luke and Paul are found together, nor after the last journey which Paul made to Jerusalem, a.d. 58. And even if the grounds on which this latter is concluded be objected to, we have, as a final resort, the fixed date of the publication of the Acts two years after Paul's arrival at Rome, after which, by internal evidence, the Gospel cannot have been published.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ vii.] GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL, [introduction-
SECTION V.
AT WHAT PLACE IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. Our answer to this enquiry will of course depend upon the con- siderations discussed in the last section. Adopting the view there taken, we find Luke in Asia Minor, Syria, or Palestine (probably) previously to his first journey with Paul a.d. 51 ; and from that time till his second journey a.d. 58, perhaps remaining in Greece, but perhaps also travelling for the sake of collecting information for his Gospel. At all events, at the latter part of this period he is again found at Philippi. We need not then dissent from the early tradition, reported by Jerome, that Luke published his Gospel in the parts of Achaia and Boeotia, as being on the whole the most likely inference.
2. The inscription in the Syriac version, — and Simeon Metaphrastes in the tenth century, — report that the Gospel was written at Alexandria, but apparently without any authority.
SECTION VI.
IN WHAT LANGUAGE IT WA8 WRITTEN.
There never has been any doubt that Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek. His familiarity with Greek terms and idioms, and above all, the classical style of his preface, are of themselves convincing internal evidence that it was so.
SECTION vn.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL.
1. It has been generally and almost unanimously acknowledged that the Gospel which we now possess is that written and published by Luke.
2. Whatever doubts may have been raised by rationalistic Com- mentators as to the genuineness of the two first chapters, have been adopted in aid of their attempts to overthrow their authenticity (on which see the next section) ; and have rested on no sufficient ground of themselves. Their principal appeal is to Marcion, who notoriously mutilated the Gospel, to make it favour his views of the Person of Christ.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
introduction.] LUKE'S GOSPEL. [ch. IV.
SECTION VIII.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TWO FIRST CHAPTERS.
1. If the view maintained above of the probable time of the publica- tion of the Gospel be adopted, — and its later terminus, the publication of the Acts two years after Paul's imprisonment at Rome began, is, I think, beyond question, — I cannot see how any reasonable doubt can be thrown upon the authenticity of this portion of the narrative. For there were those living, who might have contradicted any false or exaggerated account of our Lord's birth and the events which accompanied it. If not the Mother of our Lord herself, yet His brethren were certainly living : and the universal reception of the Gospel in the very earliest ages sufficiently demonstrates that no objection to this part of the sacred narrative had been heard of as raised by them.
2. The " accurate tracing down" of Luke forbids us to imagine that he would have inserted any narrative in his Gospel which he had not ascertained to rest upon trustworthy testimony, as far as it was in his power to ensure this : and the means of ensuring it must have been at that time so ample and satisfactory, that I cannot imagine for a moment any other origin for the account, than such testimony.
3. If we enquire what was probably the source of the testimony, I answer, that but one person is conceivable as delivering it, and that person the Mother of our Lord. She was living in the Christian body for some time after the Ascension ; and would most certainly have been appealed to for an account of the circumstances attending His birth and infancy.
4. If she gave any account of these things, it is inconceivable that this account should not have found its way into the records of the Lord's life possessed by the Christian Church, but that instead of it a spurious one should have been adopted by two of our Evangelists, and that so shortly after, or even coincident with, her own presence in the Church.
5. Just as inconceivable, even supposing the last difficulty sur- mounted, is the formation of a mythical, or in any other way unreal account of these things, and its adoption, in the primitive age of the Church. For the establishment of this I refer to the late Professor Mill's able tract, On the Mythic Interpretation of Luke i. ; — in which he has stated and severally refuted the arguments of Strauss and the rationalists.
6. I infer then that the two first chapters of this Gospel contain the account given by the Mother of our Lord, of His birth, and its prefatory and attendant circumstances ; of some of which circumstances
Digitized by VjOOQIC
§ ix.] ITS STYLE AND CHARACTER, [introduction.
that in Matt. i. 18 — 25 is a more compendious, and wholly independent account.
SECTION IX.
IT8 STYLE AND CHARACTER.
1. We might have expected from Luke's name and profession, that he was a man of education, and versed in the elegant use of the Greek, which was then the polite language in the Roman empire. We accord- ingly find that while we have very numerous Hebraisms in his Gospel, we also have far more classical idioms, and a much freer use of Greek compounds than in the others.
2. The composition of the sentences is more studied and elaborate than in Matthew or Mark : the Evangelist appears more frequently in the narrative, delivering his own estimate of men and things j— e. g. ch. xvi. 14 ; vii. 29, 30 ; xix. 11 al. ; — he seems to love to recount instances of our Lord's tender compassion and mercy ; — and in the report of His parables, e. g. in ch. xv., is particularly simple in diction, and calculated to attract and retain the attention of his readers.
3. In narrative, this Evangelist is very various, according to the copiousness or otherwise of the sources from which he drew. Some- times he merely gives a hasty compendium : at others he is most minute and circumstantial in detail, and equally graphic in description with Mark : see as instances of this latter, ch. vii. 14 ; ix. 29. It has been remarked (Olshausen) that Luke gives with extreme accuracy not so much the discourses, as the observations and occasional sayings of our Lord, with the replies of those who were present. This is especially the case in his long and important narrative of the journey up to Jerusalem, ch. ix. 51 — xviii. 14.
4. On the question how far those doctrines especially enforced by the great Apostle of the Gentiles are to be traced, as inculcated or brought forward in this Gospel, see above in this chapter, § ii. 7.
5. In completeness, this Gospel must rank first among the four. The Evangelist begins with the announcement of the birth of Christ's Fore- runner, and concludes with the particulars of the Ascension : thus em- bracing the whole great procession of events by which our Redemption by Christ was ushered in, accomplished, and sealed in heaven. And by recording the allusion to the promise of the Father (ch. xxiv. 49), he has introduced, so to speak, a note of passage to that other history, in which the fulfilment of that promise, the great result of Redemption was to be related. It may be remarked, that this completeness, — while it shews the earnest diligence used by the sacred writer in searching out, and making use of every information within his reach, — forms an
Vol. I.— 49] Digitded by Google
introduction.] LUKE'S GOSPEL.
additional proof that he can never have seen the Gospels of Matthew and Mark,— or he would (to say nothing of the other difficulties attend- ing this view, which have before been dealt with in ch. i.) most certainly have availed himself of those parts of their narratives, which are now not contained in his own.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
THE FOUR GOSPELS ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
Digitized by VjOOQIC
THE GOSPEL
ACCOHDINGt TO
MATTHEW.
I. jThb book of the • generation of Jesus Christ, the^jyvi^ao.
. ftOen. lf.4i t
2 d Abraham begat u*?S\.
Jer.xxlll.S. eGea.xll.Si
b son of David, the c son of Abraham.
Isaac; and e Isaac begat Jacob; and r Jacob begat Judas ^^
and his brethren; 8 and 'Judas begat Phares and Zara/Si**1"
' ^ eOen.xxr.lt.
fOen.xzxT.il— 10. fQen.xxxrlU.x7.
Title] Gospel, from god and speU "good menage" or "news:" a transla- tion of the Greek "enangetion," which means the same. This name came to be applied to the writings themselves which contain this good news, very early. Justin Martyr, in the second century, speaks of " the memoirs drawn up by the Apostles, which are called gospels feuangeHa)." according to Matthew] as delivered by Matthew, implies authorship or editor- ship. It is not merely equivalent to of Matthew, which would have been said, had . it been meant. Nor does it signify that the original teaching was Matthew's, and the present gospel drawn up after that teaching. Eusebius tells us, that Mat- thew "delivered to writing the gospel according to<him.M
Chap. 1. 1—17.1 Genealogy op Jesus Christ. 1. book of the generation]
Not always used of a pedigree only : see reff. Here however it appears that it refers exclusively to the genealogy, by " Jesus Christ " being used in the enun- ciation, and the close being "Jesus which is called Christ." Then ver. 17 forms a conclusion to it, and ver. 18 passes on to other matter. J**us] See on ver. 21.
Christ] The word is equivalent to the Hebrew Messiah, anointed. It is used of kings, priests, prophets, and of the promised Deliverer. It is here used (see ver. 16) in that sense in which it „ Vol. I. ft.
became affixed to Jesus as the name of our Lord. It does not once thus occur in the progress of the Evangelic history; only in the prefatory parts of the Gos- pels, here and w. 16, 17, 18: Mark i. 1 : John i. 17, and once in the mouth of our Lord Himself, John xvii. 3; but conti- nually in the Acts and Epistles. This may serve to shew that the evangelic memoirs themselves were of earlier date than their incorporation into our present Gospels.
son . . . son] both times refers to our Lord. Son of David was an especial title of the Messiah : see reff. That He should be son of Abraham, was too solemn a subject of prophecy to be omitted here, even though implied in the other. These words serve to shew the character of the Gospel, as written/or Jews. Luke, ch. iii. 23 ff., carries his genealogy further back.
8. and his brethren] These addi- tions probably indicate that Matt, did not take nis genealogy from any family or public documents, but constructed it him- self. 3.] These children of Judah were not born in marriage: see Gen. xxxviii. 16—30. Both the sons are named, probably as recalling the incident con- nected with their birth. The reason for the women (Thamar, Rahab, Both, and Bathsheba) being mentioned, has been variously assigned : it might be, to meet the objection of the Jews to our Lord's birth : or for the sake of minute accuracy. B
Digitized by VjOOQIC
ST. MATTHEW.
h Bnth It. 18.
1 S 8am. xii. 14. k 1 Kings xi.
48. 1 1 Klnf s xiv.
IS. m 1 King* XT.
8. n 1 Kings xr.
84. o 1 King* xxll.
60. p S Kings viil.
84. ami Kings
xl.S: Xii. lit
xir. 11 : xt. 7. r 1 Kings xt.
88. s 1 Kings xtI.
SO. 1 1 King* xx.
11. a 1 Kings xxi.
18. ▼ 1 Kings xxi.
30. w see note:
and 1 Chron.
iii. 16, 16.
of Thamar; and hPhares begat Esrom; and bEsrom begat Aram ; * and h Aram begat Aminadab ; and b Ami- nadab begat Naasson ; and b Naasson begat Salmon ; 6 and h Salmon begat Booz of Rachab ; and h Booz begat Obed of Ruth ; and h Obed begat Jesse ; 6 and h Jesse begat David the king; and l David the king begat Solomon of her [a that had been the wife] of Unas ; 7 and k Solomon begat Roboam ; and l Roboam begat Abia; and m Abia begat Asa; 8 and n Asa begat Josaphat ; and ° Josaphat begat Joram ; and p Joram begat Ozias ; 9 and q Ozias begat Joatham ; and r Joatham begat Achaz ; and ■ Achaz begat Ezekias ; 10 and * Ezekias begat Manasses ; and u Manasses begat Amon; and TAmon begat Josias; ll and w Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were
* not expressed in the original.
It most probably is, that the Evangelist omitted what was ordinary, but stated what was doubtful or singular. It has been suggested, that as these women are of Gentile origin or dubious character, they may be mentioned as introducing the calling of Gentiles and sinners by our Lord : also, that they may serve as types of the mother of our Lord, and are conse- quently named in the course of the genea- logy, as she is at the end of it. 5. Baobab] It has been imagined, on chro- nological grounds, that this Rachab must be a different person from Rahab of Jeri- cho. But those very grounds completely tally with their identity. For Naashon (father of Salmon), prince of Judah (1 Chron. ii. 10), offered his offering at the setting up of the tabernacle (Num. vii. 12) 89 years before the taking of Jericho. So that Salmon would be of mature age at or soon after that event ; at which time Rahab was probably young, as her father and mother were living (Josh. vi. 28). Nor is it any objection that Achan, the fourth in descent from Judah by Zara, is contem- porary with Salmon, the sixth of the other branch : since the generations in the line of Zara average 69 years, and those in the line of Phares 49, both within the limits of probability. The difficulty of the interval of 866 years between Rahab and David does not belong to this passage only, but equally to Ruth iv. 21, 22 ; and is by no means insuperable, especially when the ex- treme old age of Jesse, implied in 1 Sam. xvii. 12, is considered. — I may add that, considering Rahnb's father and mother were alive, the house would hardly be called the house of Rahab except on ac-
count of the character commonly assigned to her. 8. Joram . . . Oxias] Three
kings, vis. Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah (1 Chron. iii. 11, 12), are here omitted. Some think that they were erased on ac- count of their connexion, by means of Athaliah, with the accursed house of Ahab. Simeon is omitted by Moses in blessing the tribes (Dent, xxxiii.) : the descendants of Zebulun and Dan are passed over in 1 Chron., and none of the latter tribe are sealed in Rev. vii. But more probably such eraaion, even if justifiable by that reason, was not made on account of it, but for convenience, in order to square the numbers of the different portions of the genealogies, as here. Compare, as illus- trating such omissions, 1 Chron. viii. 1 with Gen. xlvi. 21. 1L Josias . . .
Jechonias] EUakim, son of Josiah and father of Jechonias, is omitted ; which was objected to the Christians by Porphyry. The reading, which inserts Joacim (i.e. Eliakim) rests on hardly any foundation, and would make fifteen generations in the second "fourteen." The solution of the difficulty by supposing the name to apply to both Eliakim and his son, and to mean the former in ver. 11 and the latter in ver. 12, is unsupported by example, and con- trary to the usage of tne genealogy. When we notice that the brethren of Jechonias are his uncles, and find this way of speak- ing sanctioned by 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, where Zedekiah, one of these, is called his brother, we are led to seek our solution in some recognized manner of speaking of these kings, by which Eliakim and his son were not accounted two distinct generations. If we compare 1 Chron. iii. 16 with 2 Kings
Digitized by VjOOQIC
4—18.
ST. MATTHEW.
3
carried away to Babylon : 12 and after they were brought to Babylon, xJechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel x j^*^ begat Zorobabel ; 18 and Zorobabel begat Abiud ; and Abittd begat Eliakim ; and Eliakim begat Azor ; l4> and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Aehim; and Achim begat Eliud; 16 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan ; and Matthan begat Jacob ; 3fl and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
58 Now the D birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise : ° When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy
b read, generation.
xxiv. 17, we can hardly fail to see that there is some confusion in the records of Josiah's family. In the latter passage, where we have " his father's brother/' the LXX render "his son." 12. Jecho-
nias .... Salathiel] So also the genealogy in 1 Chron. Hi. 17. When, therefore, it is denounced (Jer. zzii. 80) that Jechoniah should be ' childless,' this word must be understood as explained bj the rest of the verse, 'for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David and ruling anj more in Judah.' Salathiel . . .
Zorobabel] There is no difficulty here which does not also exist in the O. T. Zerubbabel is there usually called the son of Shealtiel (Salathiel). "Ezra Hi. 2, &e. Neh. xii. 1, Ac. Hag. i. 1, Ac. " In 1 Chron. iii. 19, Zerubbabel is said to have been the son of Pedaiah, brother of Salathiel. Either this may have been a different Zerub- babel, or Salathiel may, according to the law, have raised up seed to his brother.
IS. Zorobabel Abiud] Abiud
is not mentioned as a son of the Zerub- babel in 1 Chron. iii. — Lord A. Hervey, On the Qenealogies of our Lord, p. 122 if., has made it probable that Abiud is iden- tical with the Hodaiah of 1 Chron. iii. 24, and the Juda of Luke iii. 26.— On the comparison of this genealogy with that given in Luke, see notes, Luke iii. 28 — 88.
17* fourteen generation*] If we carefully observe Matthew's arrangement, we shall have no difficulty in completing tUe tbree "fovrtttn" For the first is
0 render, For when.
from Abraham to David, of course inclu- sive. The second from David (again in- clusive) to the migration; which gives no name, as before, to be included in both the second and third periods, but which is mentioned simultaneously with the beget- ting of Jechonias, leaving him for the third period. This last, then, takes in from Jechonias to Jesus Cheist inclusive. So that the three stand thus, according to the words of this verse : (1) from Abraham to David. (2) From David to the migra- tion to Babylon, i. e. about the time when Josiah begat Jechonias. (8) From the mi- gration (i. e. from Jechonias) to Christ. «. 18— 25.] Circumstances op h ib Birth. 18. espoused] i. e. betrothed. The interval between betrothal and the con- summation of marriage was sometimes considerable, during which the betrothed remained in her father's house, till the bridegroom came and fetched her. See Dent. xx. 7. came together] Here
to be understood of living together in one house as man and wife. Chrysostom well •nggests, that the conception was not allowed to take place before the betrothal, both that the matter might take place more in privacy, and that the Blessed Virgin might escape slanderous suspicion. was found] not merely for was, as some have said, out in its proper meaning: — she was discovered to be, no matter by whom. The words "of (by) the Holy Ghost," are the addition of the Evangelist declaring the matter of fact, and do not 2
Digitized by VjOOQIC
4
ST. MATTHEW.
I. 19—25.
Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 2° But while he thought on these things, behold, d the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife : for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name 7Knk.xxxYi. jjjgyjg . for HE shall 'save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
d render, an.
belong to the discovery. 19. husband] so called, though they were as yet but betrothed : so in Gen. xxix. 21. Dent. xxii. 24. just] "and not willing" is, not
the explanation of just, but an additional particular. He was a strict observer of the law,— and (yet) not willing to expose her. The sense of • kind' • merciful,' proposed by some instead of just, is inadmissible.
privily] Not ' without any writing of divorcement,' which would have been unlawful ; but according to the form pre- scribed in Deut. xxiv. 1. The husband might either do this, or adopt the stronger course of bringing his wife to justice openly. The punishment in this case would have been death by stoning. Deut. xxii. 23.
20. behold] answers to the Hebrew " hinneh," and is frequently used by Matt, and Luke to introduce a new event or change of scene : not so often by Mark, and never with this view in John, an angel] The announcement was made to Mary openly, but to Joseph in a dream ; for in Mary's case faith and concurrence of will were necessary,— the communica> tion was of a higher kind, — and referred to a thing future; but here it is simply an advertisement for caution's sake of an event which had already happened, and is altogether a communication of an inferior order: see Gen. xx. 3. But see on the other hand the remarks at the close of the notes on ver. 21. son of David] These
words would "recall Joseph's mind to the promised seed, the expectation of the families of the lineage of David, and at once stamp the message as the announce- ment of the birth of the Messiah. May it not likewise be said, that this appellation would come with more force, if Mary also were a daughter of Da?id ? The addition, "thy wife." serves to remind Joseph of that relation which she already held by betrothal, and which he was now exhorted to recognize. See above on ver. 19.
21. Jesus] The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel. Philo says, " Jesus is, being interpreted, ' The salva- tion of the Lord.'" He] emphati- cally: He alone: best rendered, perhaps, * it is He that: his people] In the primary sense, the Jews, of whom alone Joseph could have understood the words : but in the larger sense, all who believe on Him : an explanation which the tenor of prophecy (cf. Gen. xxii. 18: Deut. xxxii. 21), and the subsequent admission of the Gentiles, warrant. Cf. a similar use of • Israel * by St. Peter, Acts v. 31. from their sins] It is remarkable that in this early part of the evangelic history, in the midst of pedigrees, and the disturbances of thrones by the supposed temporal King of the Jews, we have so clear an indication of the spiritual nature of the office of Christ. One circumstance of this kind outweighs a thousand cavils against the historical reality of the narration. If I mistake not, this announcement reaches further into the deliverance to be wrought by Jesus, than any thing mentioned by the Evangelist subsequently. It thus bears the internal impress of a message from God, treasured up and related in its ori- ginal formal terms.— " Sins " is not put for the punishment of sinf but is the sin itself— the practice of sin, in its most pregnant sense. ' How suggestive it is,' remarks Bishop Ellicott, ' that while to the loftier spirit of Mary the name of Jesus is revealed with all the prophetic associations of more than David's glories— to Joseph, perchance the aged Joseph^ who might have long seen and realized his own spiri- tual needs, and the needs of those around him, it is specially said, thou Bhalt call his name Jesus : for Me shall save his people from their sins.' Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 56. 22. that it might be fulfilled] It is impossible to interpret that in any other sense than
Digitized by VjOOQIC
II. 1.
ST. MATTHEW.
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ^ B Be- hold, • a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ** Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife : M and knew her not till she had brought forth * her firstborn son : and he called his name JESUS.
II. l Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came * wise '
• render, the. * read, a son.
Zl«A.Til.l4.
(p**!) Dan. ll. AcUxvi
in order that. The words "all this was done," and the uniform usage of the N. T., forbid any other. Nor, if rightly viewed, does the passage require any other. What- ever may have been the partial fulfilment of the prophecy in the time of Ahaz, its reference to a different time, and a higher deliverance, is undeniable: and then, what- ever causes contributed to bring about all this, might be all summed up in the fulfil- ment of the divine purpose, of which that prophecy was the declaration. The ac- complishment of a promise formally made is often alleged as the cause of an action extending wider than the promise, and purposed long before its utterance. And of course these remarks apply to every passage where the 'phrase is used. Such a construction can have but one meaning. If such meaning involve us in difficulty regarding the prophecy itself, far better leave such difficulty, in so doubtful a matter as the interpretation of prophecy, unsolved, than create one in so simple a matter as the rendering of a phrase whose meaning no indifferent person could doubt. The immediate and literal fulfilment of the pro- phecy seems to be related in Isa. viii. 1 — 4. let there the child was not called Em- manuel : but in ver. 8 that name is used as applying to one of fur greater dignity. Again, Isa. iz. 6 seems to be a reference to this prophecy, as also Micah v. 8. 23. the virgin] the words are from the Septuagint. Such is the rendering of the LXX. The Hebrew word is the more general term, " the young woman" and is so translated by Aquila. they shall call] This indefinite plural is surely not without meaning here. Men shall call— i. e. it shall be a name by which He shall be called —one of his appellations. The change of person seems to shew, both that the pro- phecy had a literal fulfilment at the time, and that it is here quoted in a form suited to its greater and final fulfilment. The
Hebrew has, ' thou shalt call ' (fern.). Emmanuel] i. e. God (is) with us. In Isaiah, prophetic primarily of deliver* ance from the then impending war ; but also of final and glorious deliverance by the manifestation of God in the flesh. 25.] With regard to the much-contro- verted sense of this verse we may observe, (1) That the prima1 facie impression on the reader certainly is, that knew her not was confined to the period of time here mentioned. (2) That there is no- thing in Scripture tending to remove this impression, either (a) by narration, — and the very use of the term, "brethren of the Lord9* (on which see note at ch. xiii. 55), without qualification, shews that the idea was not repulsive : or (J) bv im- plication,— for every where in the N. T. marriage is spoken of in high and honour- able terms; and the words of the angel to Joseph rather imply, than discoun- tenance, such a supposition. (3) On the other hand, the words of this verse do not require it : the idiom being justified on the contrary hypothesis. See my Greek Test. On the whole it seems to me, that no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwise than in its primd facie meaning, except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is characteristic, and historically instruc- tive, that the great impugner of the view given above should be Jerome, the im- pugner of marriage itself: and that his opponents in its interpretation should have been branded as heretics by after ages. See a brief notice of the contro- versy in Milman, Hist, of Latin Chris- tianity, i. 72 ff. he called] i. e. Joseph ; see ver. 21.
Chap. II. 1—12.] Visit and adora- tion of Magi tboh the East. 1. Bethlehem of Judaa] There was an- other Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun,
Digitized by VjOOQIC
6
ST. MATTHEW.
II.
b nS,Dn,r^ men from the b east to Jerusalem, 2 saying, Where is he to. ob i.s. q^ ^ j)orn King- of the Jews ? for we have seen his star
near the sea of Galilee, Josh. xix. 15. The name Bethlehem- Judah is used, Judges xvii. 7, 8, 9: 1 Sam. xvii. 12. Another name for our Bethlehem was Ephrath; Gen. xxxv. 19; xlviii. 7 ; or Ephrata, Micah v. 2. It was six Roman miles to the south of Jerusalem, and was known as ' the city of David/ the origin of his family, Ruth i. 1, 19. in the days of Herod]
Herod the Great, son of Antipater, an Idamsean, by an Arabian mother, made king of Judaea on occasion of his having fled to Rome, being driven from his te- trarchy by the pretender Antigonus. This title was confirmed to him after the battle of Actium bv Octavianus. He sought to Strengthen his throne by a series of cruel- ties and slaughters, putting to death even his wife Mariamne, and his sons Alexander and Aristobulus. His cruelties, and his affectation of Gentile customs, gained for him a hatred among the Jews, which neither his magnificent rebuilding of the temple, nor his liberality in other public works, nor his provident care of the people during a severe famine, could mitigate. He died miserably, five days after he had put to death his son Antipater, in the seventieth year of his age, the thirty- eighth of his reign, and the 750th year of Rome. The events here related took place a short time before his death, but neces- sarily more than forty days ; for he spent the last forty days of his life at Jericho, and the baths of Callirrhoe, and therefore would not be found by the magi at Jeru- salem. The history of Herod's reign is contained in Josephus, Antt. books xiv. — xvii. It would be useless to detail all
the conjectures to which this history has given rise. From what has been written on the subject it would appear, (1) That the East may mean either Arabia, Persia, Chaldaa, or Parthia, with the provinces adjacent. See Judges vi. 3 : Isa. xli. 2 ; xlvi. 11 : Num. xxiii. 7. Philo speaks of " the Eastern nations and their leaders the Parthians." In all these countries there were magi, at least persons who in the wider sense of the word were now known by the name. The words in ver. 2 seem to point to some land not very near Judaea, as also the result of Herod's en- quiry as to the date, shewn in " two years old." (2) If we place together (a) the prophecy in Num. xxiv. 17, which could hardly be unknown to the Eastern astrologers, — and (b) the assertion of Suetonius " that there prevailed an an-
cient and consistent opinion in all the East, that it was fated that at that time those should go forth from Judaea who should rule the empire*/' — and of Tacitus, to the same effect and nearly in the same words,— and (c) the prophecy, also likely to be known in the East, of the seventy weeks in Daniel ix. 24;— we can, I think, be at no loss to understand how any re- markable celestial appearance at this time should have been interpreted as it was. (3) There is no ground for supposing the magi to have been three in number (as first, apparently, by Leo the Great* a.d. 450} ; or to have been kings. The first tradition appears to have arisen from the number of their gifts: the second, from the prophecy in Isa. Ix. 8. Tertullian seems to deduce it from the similar pro- phecy in Ps. lxxii. 10, for, he says, the Magi were most commonly kings in the East. 2. his star] There is a ques-
tion, whether this expression of the magi, we have seen his star, points to any miraculous appearance, or to something observed in the course of their watching the heavens. We know the magi to have been devoted to astrology : and on com- paring the language of our text with this undoubted fact, I confess that it appears to me the most ingenuous way, fairly to take account of that fact in our exegesis, and not to shelter ourselves from an ap- parent difficulty by the hypothesis of a miracls. Wherever supernatural agency is asserted, or may be reasonably inferred, I shall ever be found foremost to insist on its recognition, and impugn every device of rationalism or semLrationalism ; but it does not therefore follow that I should consent to attempts, however well meant, to introduce miraculous interference where it does not appear to be borne out by the narrative. The principle on which this commentary is conducted, is that of honestly endeavouring to ascertain the sense of the sacred 'text, without regard to any preconceived systems, and fearless of any possible consequences. And if the scientific or historical researches of others seem to contribute to this, my readers will find them, as far as they have fallen within my observation, made use of for that pur- pose. It seems to me that the preliminary question for us is, Have we hero in the sacred text a miracle, or have we some natural appearance which God in His Providence used as a means of indicating to the magi the birth of His Son P Dif-
Digitized by VjOOQIC
*-^
2, 3. • ** ST. MATTHEW.
in the east, and are come to worship him. s When Herod
fount minds may feel differently as to the answer to this question. And, seeing that much has been said and written on this note in no friendly spirit, I submit that it is not for any man to charge another, who is as firm a believer in the facts related in the sacred text as he himself can be, with weakening that belief because he feels an honest conviction that it is here relating, not a miracle, but a natural ap- pearance. It is, of course, the far safer way, as far as reputation is concerned, to introduce miraculous agency wherever pos- sible : but the present Editor aims at truth, not popularity.
Now we learn from astronomical calcu- lations, that a remarkable conjunction of the planets of our system took place a short time before the birth of our Lord. In the year of Borne 747, on the 29th of May, there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the 20th degree of the constellation Pisces, close to the first point of Aries, which was the part of the heavens noted in astrological science as that in which the signs denoted the great- est and most noble events. On the 29th of September, in the same year, another conjunction of the same planets took place, in the 16th degree of Pisces : and on the 5th of December, a third, in the 15th degree of the same sign. Supposing the magi to have seen the first of these conjunctions, they saw it actually in the East ; for on the 29th of May it would rise 3) hours before sunrise. If they then took their journey, and arrived at Jerusa- lem in a little more than five months (the journey from Babylon took Ezra four months, see Ezra vh. 9), if they performed the route from Jerusalem to Bethlehem in the evening, as is implied, the December conjunction, in 15° of Pisces, would be before them in the direction of Bethlehem, 14 hour east of tba meridian at sunset. These circumstances would seem to form a remarkable coincidence with the history in our text. They are in no way inconsistent with the word star, which cannot surely (see below) be pressed to its mere literal sense of one single star, but understood in its wider astrological meaning : nor is this explanation of the star directing them to Bethlehem at all repugnant to the plain words of w. 9, 10, importing its motion from b.e. towards s.w., the direction of Bethlehem. We may further observe, that no part of the text reelecting the star, asserts, or even implies, a miracle ; and that the very slight apparent inconsis-
tencies with the above explanation are no more than the report of the magi them- selves, and the general belief of the age would render unavoidable. If this sub- eervience of the superstitions of astrology to the Divine purposes be objected to, we may answer with Wetstein, "We must infer therefore tha$ these men came to their conclusion from the rules of their art : which though beyond all doubt futile, vain, and delusive, might yet be sometimes permitted to hit on a right result. Hence appears the wonderful wisdom of God, who used the wickedness of men to bring Joseph into Egypt, — who sent the King of Baby- lon against the Jews by auguries and divinations (Ezek. xxi. 21, 22), and in this ' instance directed the magi to Christ by astrology/'
It may be remarked that Abarbanel the Jew, who knew nothing of this conjunc- tion, relates it as a tradition, that no con- junction could be of mightier import than that of Jupiter and Saturn, which planets were in conjunction a.m. 2365, before the birth of Moses, in the sign of Pisces; and thence remarks that that sign was the most significant one for the Jews. From this consideration he concludes that the conjunction of these planets in that sign, in his own time (a.d. 1468), be- tokened the near approach of the birth of the Messiah. And as the Jews did not invent astrology, but learnt it from the Chaldssans, this idea, that a conjunction in Pisces betokened some great event in Judaea, must have prevailed among Chal- dssan astrologers.
It is fair to notice the influence on the position maintained in this note of the fact which seems to have been substan- tiated, that the planets did not, during the year B.C. 7, approach each other so as to be mistaken by any eye for one star : indeed not " within double the apparent diameter of the moon/' I submit, that even if this were so, the inference in the note remains as it was. The conjunction of the two planets, complete or incom- plete, would be that which would bear astrological significance, not their looking like one star. The two bright planets seen in the east,— the two bright planets standing over Bethlehem, — these would on each occasion have arrested the atten- tion of the magi ; and this appearance would have been denominated by them hia star. in the east] i. e. either in the
Eastern country from which they came, or in the Eastern quarter of the htavens.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
8
ST. MATTHEW.
II.
the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the
*ra.?la£». chief priests and c scribes of the c people together, he de- manded of them where Christ should be bora. 6 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is
dMioA.r.s. written by the prophet, 6 d And thou Bethlehem, 9 [in the] land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda : for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people- Israel. 7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. • When they had heard the king, they departed ; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star,
% not expressed in the original*
to worship him] i. e. to do homage to him, in the Eastern fashion of prostra- tion. S. wai troubled] Josephus repre- sents these troubles as raised by the Phari- sees, who prophesied a revolution. Herod, as a foreigner and usurper, feared one was born King of the Jews : the people, worn away by seditions and slaughters, feared fresh tumults and wars. There may also be a trace of the popular notion that the times of the Messiah would be ushered in by great tribulations. 4. when
he had gathered] i. e. says Lightfoot, he assembled the Sanhedrim. For the Sanhedrim consisting of seventy -one mem- bers, and comprising Priests, Levites, and • Israelites, under the term " chief priests" are contained the two first of these, and under " scribes of the people " the third. the chief priests are
most likely the High Priest and those of his race,— anv who had served the office, — and perhaps also the presidents of the twenty-four courses (1 Chron. zziv. 6). the scribes consisted of the
teachers and interpreters of the Divine law, the lawyers of St. Luke. But the elders of the people are usually men- tioned with these two classes as making up the Sanhedrim. See ch. xvi. 21 ; xxvi. 3, 59. Possibly on this occasion the chief priests and scribes only were summoned, the question being one of Scripture learn- ing. 6. And thou] This is a free pararhrase of the prophecy in Micah v. 2.
It must be remembered that though the words are the answer of the Sanhedrim to Herod, and not a citation of the pro- phet by the Evangelist, yet they are adopted by the latter as correct, princes] or thousands (LXX). The tribes were divided into thousands, and the names of the thousands inscribed in the public records of their respective cities. In Judges vi. 15 Gideon savs " Behold my thousand is weak in Manasseh " (see English version, margin), on which Rabbi Kimchi annotates, " Some understand Alphi to mean 'my father/ as if it were Alluph, whose signification is * prince or lord.' " And thus, it appears, did the Sanhedrim understand the word (which is the same) in Micah v. 2. The word, without points, may mean either " among the thousands," or " among the princes" oat of thee shall come J It has been remarked that the singular expres- sion, which occurs both in Tacitus and Suetonius (see above), "there should go forth from Judaa," may have been derived from these words of the LXX. 9.]
stood oyer may mean ' over that part of Bethlehem where the young child was* which they might have ascertained by en- quiry. Or it may even mean, * over the whole town of Bethlehem' If it is to be under- stood as standing over the house, and thus indicating to the magi the position of the object of their search, the whole incident must be regarded as miraculous. Bat this
Digitized by VjOOQIC
4—15.
ST. MATTHEW.
9
they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. n And when
they were come into the house, they saw the young child
with Mary hie mother, and fell down, and worshipped
him : and when they had opened their treasures, they
•presented unto him e gifts; fgold, and 'frankincense, ePaiA.taji.io.
and myrrh. la And being warned of God in a dream
that they should not return to Herod, they departed
into their own country another way. 13 And when they
were departed, behold, h the angel of the Lord appeareth
to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young
child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou
there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the
young child to destroy him. 14» When he arose, he took
the young child and his mother by night, and departed
into Egypt : 15 and was there until the death of Herod :
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by
k render, an.
is not necessarily implied, even if the words of the text be literally understood ; and in a matter like astronomy, where popular language is so universally broad, and the Scriptures so generally use popular language, it is surely not the letter, but the spirit of the narrative with which we are concerned. 11. with Mary] No
stress must be laid on the omission of Joseph here. In the parallel account as regarded the shepherds, in Luke ii. 16, he is mentioned. I would rather regard the omission here as indicating a simple matter of fact, and contributing to shew the truthfulness of the narrative: — that Joseph happened not to be present at the time. If die meaning of the house is to be pressed (as in a matter of detail I think it should), it will confirm the idea that Joseph and Mary, probably under the idea that the child was to be brought up at Bethlehem, dwelt there some time after the Nativity. Epiphanius, supposes that Mary was at this time on a visit to her kindred at Bethlehem (possibly at a Passover) as much as two years after our Lord's birth. But if Mary had kindred at Bethlehem, how could she be so ill-provided with lodging, and have (as is implied in Luke ii. 7) sought accommodation at an inn ? And the supposition of two years having elapsed, derived probably from the "two years old " of ver. 16, will involve us in considerable difficulty. There seems to be no reason why the magi may not have come within the forty days before the
Purification, which itself may have taken place in the interval between their de- parture and Herod's discovery that they had mocked him. No objection can be raised to this view from the " two years old " of ver. 16 : see note there. The gene- ral idea is, that the Purification was pre- vious to the visit of the magi. Being persuaded of the historic reality of these narratives of Matt, and Luke, we shall find no difficulty in also believing that, were we acquainted with all the events as they happened, their reconcilement would be an easy matter ; whereas now the two independent accounts, from not being aware of, seem to exclude one another. This will often be the case in ordinary life; e. g. in the giving of evidence. And no- thing can more satisfactorily shew the veracity and independence of the nar- rators, where their testimony to the main facts, as in the present case, is consen- tient, treasures] chests or bales, in which the gifts were carried during their journey. The ancient Fathers were fond of tracing in the gifts symbolical mean- ings : " as to the king, the gold : as to one who was to die, the myrrh : as to a god, the frankincense." Origen, against Celsus; and similarly Irenseus. We cannot con- clude from these gifts that the magi came from Arabia, — as they were common to all the East. Strabo says that the best frankincense comes from the borders of Persia. 18— S3.] Flight into Egypt.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
10
ST. MATTHEW.
II.
r Ho..x!.i. ^he prophet saying, *Out of Egypt have I called my son. 16 Then 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 * coaste thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. x7 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the
hj«.xxxi. w. prophet, saying, 18hIn Rama was there a voice heard, k [lamentation and] weeping, and great mourning, Rachel
* render, borders : see eh. iv. 13, where the word in the original is the tame. k omit.
18.] The command was immediate; and Joseph made no delay. He must be un- derstood, on account of " by night " below, as having arisen the same night and de- parted forthwith. Egypt, as near, as a Roman province and independent of Herod, and much inhabited by Jew*, was an easy and convenient refuge. 15. Out of
Egypt] This citation shews the almost universal application in the N. T. of the prophetic writings to the expected Mes- siah, as the general antitype of all the events of the typical dispensation. We shall have occasion to remark the same again and again in the course of the Gos- pels. It seems to have been a received axiom of interpretation (which has, by its adoption in the N. T., received the sanc- tion of the Holy Spirit Himself, and now stands for our guidance), that the subject of all allusions, the represented in all parables and dark sayings, was He who was to come, or the circumstances attendant on His advent and reign. — The words are written in Hosea of the children of Israel, and are rendered from the Hebrew. — A similar expression with regard to Israel is found in Exod. iv. 22, 23. that it might be fulfilled must not be ex- plained away : it never denotes the event or mere result, but always the purpose. 18.] Josephus makes no mention of this slaughter ; nor is it likely that he would have done. Probably no great number of children perished in so small a place as Bethlehem and its neighbourhood. The modern objections to this narrative may be answered best by remembering the monstrous character of this tyrant, of whom Josephus asserts, " a dark choler seized on him, maddening him against all." Herod had marked the way to his throne, and his reign itself, with blood; had murdered his wife and three sons (the last just about this time) ; and was likely enough, in blind fury, to have made no enquiries, but given the savage order
at once.— Besides, there might have been a reason for not making enquiry, but rather taking the course he did, which was sure, as he thought, to answer the end, without divulging the purpose. The word "privily" in ver. 7 seems to favour this view. was mocked] The Evan-
gelist is speaking of Herod's view of the matter. the borders thereof] The
word coast* is the common rendering of the Greek horia in the A. V. It does not imply any bordering on a sea shore* but is an old use for parts, or neighbourhood, as odte in French. See margin of A. V. the borders thereof will betoken the insulated houses, and hamlets, which be- longed to the territory of Bethlehem, from two years old] This expression must not be taken as any very certain indication of the time when the star did actually appear. The addition and under implies that there was uncertainty in Herod's mind as to the ago pointed out; and if so, why might not the jealous tyrant, al- though he had accurately ascertained the date of the star's appearing, have taken a range of time extending before as well as after it, the more surely to attain his point ? 17. that which was
spoken by Jeremy] Apparently, an accom- modation of the prophecy in Jer. xxxi. 15, which was originally written of the Baby- lonish captivity. We must not draw any fanciful distinction between " then was fulfilled" and "that might be fulfilled," but rather seek our explanation in the acknowledged system of prophetic inter- pretation among the Jews, still extant in their rabbinical books, and now sanctioned to us by N. T. usage; at the same time remembering, for our caution, how little even now we understand of the full bear- ing of prophetic and typical words and acts. None of the expressions of this pro- phecy must be closely and literally pressed. The link of connexion seems to be Rachel's sepulchre, which (Gen. xxxv. 19 : see also
Digitized by VjOOQIC
16—23.
ST. MATTHEW.
11
weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 19 But when Herod was dead, be- hold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 2° saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel : for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 2a But when he heard that Arche- laus did reign l in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither : ^notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Gali- lee : B3 and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the pro- phets, ! He shall be called a Nazarene. i in note.
* render, over.
1 Sam. x. 2) was 'in the way to Beth- lehem ;' and from that circumstance, per- haps, the inhabitants of that place are called her children. We must also take into account the close relation between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which had long subsisted. Ramah was six miles to the north of Jerusalem, in the tribe of Benjamin (Jer. xl. 1 : " Er-Ram, marked by the village and green patch on its summit, the most conspicuous object from a distance in the approach to Jerusalem from the South, is certainly * Ramah of Benjamin.'" Stanley, Sinai and Pales- tine, p. 213; so that neither must this part of the prophecy be strictly taken. 20. for they are dead} The plural here is not merely idiomatic, nor for lenity and forbearance, in speaking of the dead; but perhaps a citation from Exod. iv. 19, where the same words are spoken to Moses, or betokens, not the num- ber, but the category. Herod the Great died of a dreadful disease at Jericho, in the seventieth year of his age, and the thirty- eighth of his reign, a.u.c. 750. 22.] Aechelaub was the son of Herod by Malthace, a Samaritan woman : he was brought up at Rome ; succeeded his father, but never had the title of king, only that of Ethnarch, with the government of Idu- diss, Judaea, and Samaria, the rest of his fathers dominions being divided between his brothers Philip and Antipas. But, (1) very Kkely the word reign is here used in the wider meaning : — (2) Archelaus did, in the beginning of his reign, give out and regard himself as king : (3) in ch. xiv. 9, Herod the Tetrarch is called the King. —
m render, and.
In the ninth year of his government Arche- laus was dethroned, for having governed cruelly the Jews and Samaritans, who sent an embassy to Rome against him, and he was banished to Vienne, in Gaul. This account gives rise to some difficulty as compared with St. Luke's history. It would cer- tainly, on a first view, appear that this Evangelist was not aware that Nazareth had been before this the abode of Joseph and Mary. And it is no real objection to this, that he elsewhere calls Nazareth " JZie country,*' ch. xiii. 54, 57. It is perhaps just possible that St. Matthew, writing for Jews, although well aware of the previous circumstances, may not have given them a place in his history, but made the birth at Bethlehem the prominent point, seeing that his account begins at the birth (ch. i. 18), and does not localize what took place before it, which is merely inserted as sub- servient to that great leading event. If this view be correct, all we could expect is, that his narrative would contain no- thing inconsistent with the facts related in Luke; which we find to be the case. — I should prefer, however, believing, as more consistent with the fair and conscientious interpretation of our text, that St. Mat- thew himself was not aware of the events related in Luke i. ii., and wrote under the impression that Bethlehem was the original dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. Cer- tainly, had we only his Gospel, this infer- ence from it would universally be made, turned aside must not be pressed into the service of reconciling the two accounts by being rendered 'returned}9 for the same word is used (ver. 14) of the journey to
Digitized by VjOOQIC
12 ST. MATTHEW. III.
III. 1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching
Egypt. 28. that it might be fulfilled] These words refer to the divine purpose in the event, not to that of Joseph in bring- ing it about. Which was spoken by the prophets] These words are nowhere verbatim to be found, nor is this asserted by the Evangelist; but that the sense of the prophets is such. In searching for such sense, the following hypotheses have been made— none of them satisfactory : — (1) Euthymius says, " Do not enquire what prophets said this : for you will not find out : because many of the prophetic books have perished, some in the captivities, some by neglect of the Jews, some also by foul play.1' So also Cbrysostom and others. But the expression "by the prophets" seems to have a wider bearing than is thus implied. (2) Others say, the general sense of the prophets is, that Christ should be a despised person, as the inhabitants of Nazareth were (John i. 47). But surely this part of the Messiah's prophetic cha- racter is not general or prominent enough, in the absence of any direct verbal con- nexion with the word in our text, to found such an interpretation on : nor, on the other hand, does it appear that an inha- bitant of Nazareth, as such, was despised ; only that the obscurity of the town was, both by Natbanael and the Jews, cou- trasted with our Lord's claims. (S) The Nazarites of old were men holy and con- secrated to God ; e. g. Samson (Judg. xiii. 5), Samuel (1 Sam. T. 11), and to this the words are referred by Tertullian, Jerome, and others. But (a) our Lord did not (like John the Baptist) lead a life in accordance with the Nazarite vow, but drank wine, &c, and set himself in marked contrast with John in this very particular (ch. xi. 18, 19); and (o) the word here is not Nazarite, but Nazarene, denoting an in- habitant of Nazareth. (4) There may be an allusion to the Hebrew " Neiser," a branch, by which name our Lord is called in lsa. xi. 1, and from which word it ap- pears that the name Nazareth is probably derived. So "learned Hebrews" men- tioned by Jerome on lsa. xi. 1, and others. But this word is only used in the place cited ; and in by far the more precise pro- phecies of the Branch, Zech. iii. 8; vi. 12 : Jer. xxiii. 5 ; xxxiii. 15, and lsa. iv. 2, the word " Tsemach" is used. — I leave it, there- fore, as an unsolved difficulty.
Chap. III. 1-12.] Pleaching and baptism op John. Mark i. 1 — 8 : Luke iii. 1 — 17 (John i. 6 — 28). Here the synoptic narrative (i. e. the narrative common to the
three Evangelists) begins, its extent being the same as that specified by Peter in Acts i. 22, 'from the baptism of John unto that same day that Re was taken up from us.' For a comparison of the narratives in the various sections, see notes on St. Mark. In this Gospel, I have generally confined myself to the subject-matter. 1. In
those days] The last matter mentioned was the dwelling at Nazareth ; and though we must not take the connexion strictly as implying that Joseph dwelt there all the intermediate thirty years, "those days" must be understood to mean that we take up the persons of the narrative where we left them ; i. e. dwelling at Nazareth, oame] literally, comes forward— ' makes his appearance.' Euthymius asks the ques- tion, whence ? and answers it, from the recesses of the wilderness. But this can hardly be, owing to the "in the wilder- ness'r following. The verb is used abso- lutely. The title "John the Baptist" shews that St. Matthew was writing for those who well knew John the Baptist sb an historical personage. Josephus, in men- tioning him, calls him " John who is called the Baptist." John was strictly speaking a prophet ; belonging to the legal dispensa- tion ; a rebuker of sin, and preacher of repentance. The expression in St. Luke, "the word of God came to John," is the usual formula for the divine commission of the Prophets (Jer. i. 1 : Ezek. vi. 1 ; vii. 1, &c.). And the effect of the Holy Spirit on John was more in accordance with the O.T. than the N. T. inspiration; more of a sudden overpowering influence, as in the Prophets, than a gentle indwelling mani- fested through the individual character, as in the Apostles and Evangelists. — The baptism of John was of a deeper signi- ficance than that usual among the Jews in the case of proselytes, and formed an integral part of his divinely appointed office. It was emphatically the baptism of repentance (Luke iii. 8), but not that of regeneration (Titus iii. 5). We find in Acts xviii. 24— 26 ; xix. 1 — 7, accounts of persons who had received the baptism of John, who believed, and (in Apollos's case) taught accurately the things (i. e. facts) concerning the Lord; but required in- struction (in doctrine), and rebaptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus. Whether the baptism practised by the disciples before the Resurrection was of the same kind, and required this renewal, is uncertain. The feet of our Lord Himself having received baptism from John, is decisive against the
Digitized by VjOOQIC
1—6.
ST. MATTHEW.
18
in the wilderness of Judsea, 8 and saying, J Repent ye : J '8^*™" for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. - 8 For this is he ne»b«T«b
nor substao*
that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, kThe {J^JJKf voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way kl8AXL8* of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a ] leathern 1SKin««l- •• girdle about his loins ; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 and were bap-
identity of the two rites, as also against the idea derived from Acts xix. 4^ that John used the formula " I baptize thee in the name of Him who is to come" His whole mission was calculated, in accord- ance with the office of the law, which gives the knowledge of sin (Rom. iii. 20), to hiring men's minds into that state in which the Redeemer invites them (ch. xi. 28), as weary and heavy laden, to come to Him.
in the wilderness] Where also he had been brought up, Luke i. 80. This tract was not strictly a desert, but thinly peopled, and abounding in pastures for flocks. This wilderness answers to "all the country round about Jordan " in Luke iii. 3. See note on ch. iv. 1. 2. Bepent] Used by the Baptist in the O.T. sense of turning to Qod as His people, from the spiritual idolatry and typical adultery in which the faithless among the Jews were involved. This, of course, included personal amendment in individuals. See Luke iii." 10—14. Joseph us describes John as " com- manding the Jews to practise virtue, and justice to their neighbour, and piety towards God, and thus to receive his baptism."
the kingdom of heaven] An expres- sion peculiar in the N. T. to St. Matthew. The more usual one is "the Kingdom of Qod:" but "the Kingdom of heaven" is common in the Rabbinical writers, who do not however, except in one or two places, mean by it the reign of the Messiah, but the Jewish religion — the theocracy. Still, from the use of it by St. Matthew here, and in ch. iv. 17, x. 7, we may conclude that it was used by the Jews, and under- stood, to mean the advent of the Christ, probably from the prophecy in Dan. ii. 44; vii. 13, 14, 27. 3. For this is he]
Not the words of the Baptist, meaning ufor I am he" as in John i. 23, but of the Evangelist; -and "is" is not for "was," but is the prophetic present, representing to us the place which the Baptist fills in the divine purposes. Of for, Bengel says well, that it gives the cause why John
then came forward, as described in ver. 1, 2, viz. because it had been thus predicted. — The primary and literal application of this prophecy to the return from captivity is very doubtful. If it ever had such an application, we may safely say that its pre- dictions were so imperfectly and sparingly fulfilled in that return, or any thing which followed it, that we are necessarily directed onward to its greater fulfilment — the an- nouncement of the kingdom of Christ. Euthymius remarks, that the ways and paths of the Lord are men's souls, which must be cleared of the thorns of passion and the stones of sin, and thus made straight and level for His approach. 4. And the same John] rather, now John himself, recalling the reader from the pro- phetic testimony, to the person of John. As John was the Elias of prophecy, so we find in his outward attire a striking simi- larity to Elias, who was " an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins" 2 Kings i. 8. The garment of camel's hair was not the earners skin with the hair on, which would be too heavy to wear, but raiment woven of camel's hair. From Zech. xiii. 4, it seems that such a dress was known as the prophetic garb: • neither shall they (the prophets) wear a rough garment to deceive.' locusts]
There is no difficulty here. The locust, permitted to be eaten, Levit. xi. 22, was used as food by the lower orders in Judaea, and mentioned by Strabo and Pliny as eaten by the ^Ethiopians, and by many . other authors, as articles of food. Jerome mentions it as the custom in the East and Libya: and Shaw found locusts eaten by the Moors in Barbary. (Travels, p. 164.) wild honey] See 1 Sam. xiv. 25. Here again there is no need to suppose any thing else meant but honey made by wild bees. Schulz found such honey in this very wilderness in our own time. See Psalm lxxxi. 16: Judg. xiv. 8: Deut. xxxii. 13. 5.] all the region round about Jordan means all the neighbourhood of
Digitized by VjOOQIC
14
ST. MATTHEW.
III.
tized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 7 But when
he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his
njS5u?M.Ml baptism, he said unto them, m O * generation of vipers, who
hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? 8 Bring
n render, offspring.
Jordan not included in "Jerusalem and Judssa" before mentioned. Parts of Peroa, Samaria, Galilee, and Gaulonitis come under this denomination. — There need be no sur- prise at such multitudes going out to John. The nature of his announcement, coupled with the prevalent expectation of the time, was enough to produce this effect. See, as strictly consistent with this account, chap. xi. 7 — 15. 6. were
baptised] W.hen men were admitted as proselytes, three rites were performed — circumcision, baptism, and oblation ; when women, two — baptism and oblation. The baptism was administered in the day-time, by immersion of the whole person; and while standing in the water the proselyte was instructed in certain portions of the law. The whole families of proselytes, in- cluding infants, were baptized. It is most probable that John's baptism in outward form resembled that of proselytes. See above, on ver. 1. Some deny that the pro- selyte baptism was in use before the time of John : but the contrary has been gene- rally supposed, and maintained. Indeed the baptism or lustration of a proselyte on admission would follow, as a matter of course, by analogy from the constant legal practice of lustration after all unclean- nesses: and it is difficult to imagine a time when it would not be in use. Be- sides, it is highly improbable that the Jews should have borrowed the rite from the Christians, or the Jewish hierarchy from John. confessing their sins']
From the form and expression, this does not seem to have been merely ' shewing a contrite spirit,' ' confessing themselves sin- ners,' but a particular and individual con- ■ fession; not, however, made privately to John, but before tbo people: see his ex- hortation to the various classes in Luke iii. * 10—15: nor in every case, but in those which required it. 7. Pharisees and
Sadducees] These two sects, according to Josephus, Antt. xiii. 5. 9, originated at the same period, under Jonathan the High Priest (B.C. 159-144). The Phabisees, deriving their name probably from " Pa- rash" (he separated/ took for their dis- tinctive practice the strict observance of the law and all its requirements, written and oral. They had great power over the
people, and are numbered by Josephus, as being, about the time of the death of Herod the Great, above 6000. We find in the Gospels the Pharisees the most constant opponents of our Lord, and His discourses frequently directed against them. The character of the sect as a whole was hypo- crisy ; the outside acknowledgment and honouring of God and his law, but inward and practical denial of Him; which ren- dered them the enemies of the simplicity and genuineness which characterized our Lord's teaching. Still, among them were undoubtedly pious and worthy men, honour- ably distinguished from the mass of the sect ; John iii. 1 : Acts v. 34. The various points of their religious and moral belief will be treated of as they occur in the text of the Gospels. The Sadducees are
said to have derived their name from one Sadok, about the time of Alexander the Great (b.c. 323): but they were named from the Hebrew Tsaddik, righteousness, more probably. They rejected all tradi- tion, but did not, as some have supposed, confine their canon of Scripture to the Pentateuch. The denial of a future state does not appear to have been an original tenet of Sadduceism, but to have sprung from its abuse. The particular side of religionism represented by the Sadducees was bare literal moral conformity,, without any higher views or hopes. They thus escaped the dangers of tradition, but fell into deadness and worldliness, and a denial of spiritual influence. While our Lord was on earth, this state of mind was very pre- valent among the educated classes through- out the Roman empire ; and most of the Jews of rank and station were Sadducees. — The two sects, mutually hostile, are found frequently in the Gospels united in opposition to our Lord (see ch. xvi. 1, 6, 11 ; xxii. 23, 84 ; also Acts iv. 1) ; the Pharisees representing hypocritical super- stition; the Sadducees,