Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

believing that he was governor of it at the time of our Saviour's birth.

5thly, Various modes of solving this difficulty have been proposed. It is scarcely necessary to enumerate all conjectures, especially such as infringe upon the inspired authority of the record. That the writer made a mistake cannot be allowed by any except Rationalists. Ammon, Thiess, and Winer think that he fell into error. That the verse is not a part of the text, but a marginal gloss, is a position too arbitrary to be entertained for a moment by any sober critic. And yet many have thus cut the knot, such as Beza in the first three editions of his Testament, Pfaff, Venema, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others. Michaelis conjectured that the true reading is, αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο go, x. . .; but there is no MS. authority for this. Dr. Hales understands the verses in question thus: "It came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the land should be enrolled. The taxing itself was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, every one to his own city." He explains this to mean, that the taxing itself, which had been suspended from the time of his procuratorship, first took effect under the presidency of Cyrenius.

To this it may be objected, that in translating aürn ʼn åñoygapi the taxing itself, ἀπογραφὴ is taken differently from ἀπογραφέσθαι in the preceding verse. The latter signifies here to be enrolled preparatory to the census or taxing itself. Why should not. both terms be translated exactly in the same manner?

Others render the second verse thus: "The enrolment itself was first made when Cyrenius was president of Syria." Here the census is supposed to have commenced under Saturninus' presidency, and to have been completed under Cyrenius ten years after. It may have been continued ten years under three successive proconsuls. Josephus, however, so far from sanctioning this solution rather opposes it; for he does not give a single hint of the census having been begun before, but merely says that Quirinus was sent by the emperor for the express purpose of taking a census, and speaks of its progress without any intimation of such a proceeding having previously commenced.

Dr. Lardner, who is followed by Paley, translates the second verse, "This was the first enrolment of Cyrenius governor of Syria," i. e. who was afterwards governor of Syria, and best known by that title. When the account was written it was usual

to add the title to his name, but not at the time the transaction took place. In this case, however, the original would have been, τοῦ ἡγεμονεύοντος, or τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, as in Matt. i. 6 compared with Mark ii. 26.

According to others, yoveúovros should be taken in a wider sense than that of president or governor, and refered to Cyrenius as procurator. In this view Saturninus and Cyrenius were joined in the management of the province, the former as chiefgovernor, the latter as procurator. It has been stated in support of it, that a few years before, Volumnius had been thus united with Saturninus; and Josephus, speaking of both together, calls them governors of Syria. It is true that the recall of Volumnius is not mentioned; but it may yet have taken place, and Quirinus have been sent in his room. But why is Quirinus, who held an inferior office, mentioned in preference to Saturninus the chief governor? Probably because he returned 10 years after, and conducted another more important census in his capacity of president. No objection to this view can be drawn from the verb ἡγεμονεύω, since Josephus applies the same word to Volumnius and Pilate, both procurators. It is true that history makes no mention of Quirinus having been procurator of Syria before he became proconsul. But it is not improbable that he undertook this first enrolment at the express command of Augustus, since he stood high in the emperor's favour, and resided about that com time in the east as the emperor's commissariat." It is also said, in an inscription given by Muratori, that Quintus Æmilius Palicanus Secundus held a census in Apamea, by order of Quirinus; and by his command gave battle to the Itureans at Libanon. If, then, Luke be a credible historian, we may rely on his testimony alone for the truth of the fact that Quirinus was procurator of Syria at the time of our Saviour's birth, especially as profane history, in its notices of Quirinus, is not adverse. On the whole, we are inclined to adopt this solution as least encumbered with difficulty. So Casaubon, Grotius, Magnani, Wernsdorf, Deyling, Nahmmacher, Volborth, Birch, Muenter, and others. The language of Justin Martyr, in his first apology to the emperor and senate, is somewhat favourable to the same explanation.

Temmis.

Matthew xiv. 3; Mark vi. 17; Luke iii. 19. These passages are said to be contradictory to profane history, in which the brother of Herod the tetrarch is uniformly called Herod, not

*Tacit. Annal. iii. 48. Tom. i. ed. Brotier, p. 167, Edinb. et Lond. 1796.

in

Philip. Some think, and with good reason, that Luke iii. 19 is spurious. So Griesbach and Lachmann who omit it; and Knapp who puts it in double brackets. Yet it is improbable that in Matt. xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17, Philip is spurious. Josephus uniformly calls him Herod, and says, that he was a son of Herod the Great by Mariamne, daughter of a high-priest. The name need occasion no difficulty. Herod was the family title- Philip his own name. Herod the Great had two sons called Antipater: why then should it be thought strange that he had two Philips? The other Philip was the son of Herod by Cleopatra.*

Acts v. 36. "For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain, &c.

The narrative given by Josephus† relates a transaction that occurred some years after Gamaliel's advice had been given. There must, therefore, have been two persons of the same name living at different times. It is most probable that the Theudas mentioned in Acts v. 36 lived in the interregnum which followed the death of Herod the Great, while Archelaus was at Rome. But the Theudas of whom Josephus speaks, appeared in the reign of Claudius, after the death of Herod Agrippa I., and was cut off by Cuspius Fadus fourteen or fifteen years after Gamaliel's declaration. There were two seditious ringleaders of the same name; the one spoken of by Josephus; the other by Gamaliel, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

As for seeming contradictions to reason and morality, to philosophy, science, and the nature of things, they do not lie within our province. They belong to the subject of the evidences of a divine revelation, not to the interpretation of it. We have all along proceeded on the supposition, that the Bible contains a divine revelation, whence it necessarily follows, that it has real contradictions neither to morality and reason, nor to physical truth.

* Winer's Realwörterbuch, Zweite Auflage, p. 297. Antiq. Lib. xx. c. 5, § 1.

CHAPTER XIII.

11. ANCIENT VERSIONS, COMMENTARIES, AND LEXICONS, AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.

NUMEROUS rules have been given for ascertaining the meaning of the Scriptures. But their multiplicity is apt to mislead. A cumbersome apparatus of observations and exceptions, such as is met with in hermeneutical treatises, is of no practical benefit. We may be well acquainted with the prineiples laid down, and with the minute limitations to which they are subject, and fancy ourselves possessed of such comprehensive information as will assuredly lead to truth; but when this multitude of canons and corollaries is applied in actual practice, the mind is found to be overloaded and confused. Hence a suspicion arises, that in the discovery of divine knowledge, some simpler and more practicable way must be followed. It will often be perceived, that numerous canons laid down by German writers are the result of their own opinions concerning the Bible, instead of being founded on the express or implied statements of the written word itself. The great error of all hermeneutical writers with whom we are acquainted is, that they do not give sufficient attention to the practice recommended in the Scriptures themselves. In many instances they set their fancy to work that it may frame canons : they tax their judgment to the utmost to devise such rules as may be useful in discovering the sense, while they virtually disregard the testimony of the Bible. They are not sufficiently aware of its self-interpreting nature, a characteristic by which it is distinguished from ordinary writings. Hence they proceed on defective and erroneous principles. In seeking, therefore, to ascertain what the Almighty has revealed, we are inclined to look more into the sacred volume itself for the means of arriving at its true sense. It is necessary to exhibit some general canons in the province of interpretation. And if any be contained within the Bible, or sanctioned by its declarations, they must be the best. In controversies with religious opponents we must have some common principles which they acknowledge equally with ourselves; else *See page 228.

we shall never agree. possible to the nature of axioms. All reasoning proceeds on certain data that must be taken for granted as self-evident, or such as the human mind is at once disposed to receive. This holds good in mathematics; it is the case in mental philosophy; it is true of all sciences. Canons of interpretation should nearly correspond to axioms. They should be equally obvious to the perception of all; and equally agreeable to the constitution of the mind. They ought not to be the result of speculation; or the farfetched deductions of reason. Rather should they be the axioms lying at the foundation of religious truth. If there be much room to question their reality, they will never serve important and valuable purposes. When they are not at once recognised as just and reasonable, they will not conduce to the development of divine truth. The stamp and impress of common sense must be on their forehead. With these sentiments, we have propounded such axioms alone as are founded on Scripture itself, and must be acknowledged by all who receive it as the word of God. And yet there are many who will not heartily embrace and act upon our maxims, however axiomatic their character may be. When the paramount authority of Scripture is rejected, the clearest rules for expounding it are of no avail.

Our rules should approach as nearly as

It is not surprising, that different expositors put different constructions on the same passages, and bring forth contradictory systems, because all are not disposed to submit to the teachings of God. Such perversity indicates something morally wrong. It shews the necessity of the mind being first rectified, and disposed to receive the communications of heaven with profound reverence. There is little hope of effecting greater unity of belief on religious subjects, while any refuse to allow that the word of God is always and infallibly correct. It is scarcely possible to lay down canons universally acceptable, when assent is withheld from the statements of the Bible itself, whence we profess to derive them. Thus, Faustus Socinus avows, were it not only once, but often written in the sacred records, that satisfaction for our sins was made to God by Christ, I would not therefore believe that such was the case.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"Nam si vel unus saltem locus inveniretur, in quo satisfactionis pro peccatis nostris Deo per Christum exhibitæ mentio fieret: excusandi fortasse viderentur. Ego quidem, etiamsi non semel, sed sæpe id in sacris monimentis scriptum extaret: non idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem." De Jesu Christo Servatore, pars tertia, cap. vi. p. 204. Bibliothec. Polon. fratrum vol. 2, fol. Irenopoli, 1656.

« AnteriorContinua »