ページの画像
PDF
ePub

But even a

to set forth in order' the things delivered to him. cursory examination of his narrative shows that he had often no information whatever as to the time and order of events. On a few occasions, (as eminently in the opening of his third chapter,) he uses such precision as to assure us that his habit was not that of passing by dates as unimportant; yet, in numerous instances, he narrates the discourses and miracles of Christ without even a connective adverb of time. This is strikingly the case with the portion of his history comprehended between the tenth chapter, and the eleventh verse of the seventeenth, which is entitled by Dr. C., St. Luke's Gnomology.' He then arranges the succession of events upon the basis of the following assumptions:

I. That our Lord's ministry contained two passovers only. II. That the miracle of the five thousand was wrought when the last passover was approaching.

III. That Matthew's order is generally preferable to Mark's or Luke's.

IV. That Luke's Gnomology is to be arranged, according as any indications in Matthew or John may seem to lead. V. That portions connected by contiguity, in any one of the gospels are not to be needlessly separated from each other.

Certain difficulties to this view arise out of the walk through the corn-fields; which in Matthew's gospel (xii. 1—18) is found after the mission of the twelve, and before the miracle of the five thousand. His scheme requires the mission of the twelve to be in November, and that miracle to be in March; in which interval it is obvious that no ripe corn could be found. The doubtful sense of Luke's word deureооTрúт, (Luke vi. 1, unintelligibly rendered, 'the second sabbath after the first,' for the excellent reason, that the translators were utterly unable to decide its meaning,) tantalizes those who look to it for exact information on the time of this occurrence. But as in vi. 6, the same evangelist distinctly declares, that the man with a withered arm was healed on ANOTHER sabbath, while the language in Matthew would have led us to suppose that it was on the same sabbath, Dr. C. concludes that Matthew was not here precise in his chronology, and may well have deviated from the order of events. His calendar represents the walk through the corn fields as taking place on the 21st of May.

But we must now notice an additional labour which he has imposed on himself, irksome to a scholar, but of much value to the English reader--that of so modifying the common translation, that the same Greek words occurring in the corresponding passages of several evangelists, shall be represented by the same English; and that, as far as possible, different Greek words shall be denoted by a difference in the English. Where this could not

be effected with precision and good taste, it is made up for by marginal notes, in which also the Greek word is given. Such a change is absolutely requisite to enable an English reader to apprehend the existing phenomena of the first three gospels. We think his labour has been alike praiseworthy and successful. He adheres so closely to the spirit and tone of the familiar version, that, in reading his translation, we are but seldom aware of the changes. There are indeed special cases, in which it cannot but be noticed: because, if he touched the renderings at all, consistency obliged him to innovate in avoiding some well-known errors; such as that of using the word 'devil' for demon,' when the two Greek words are never confounded.

Even when we are obliged to regard it as uncertain, whether the chronology has been rightly fixed, many great advantages result from reading the three gospels side by side, in any or every harmony. In no other way can any one intimately understand the real nature and relationship of those narratives; the peculiar phenomena which they exhibit of agreement and diversity. He who has not studied them thus can scarcely touch on the subjects debated between Christians and unbelievers, without imminent risk of damaging his good cause by unwarranted and erroneous assertions concerning their composition. Yet we have no doubt, that many Christians for this very reason dislike 'harmonies ;' becuse it cannot but be that they will suggest inquiries concerning the discrepancies of the writers, and other difficulties, which laziness and little faith would dread, but in which a more intelligent confidence in God, the God of truth, would be satisfied that much solid instruction is to be found. For, in truth, a Protestant must brace his heart and soul to fear no inquiry, in the name of him, trusting in whom he has disowned the mere traditions of men.

It did not fall within Dr. C.'s scope to discuss generally points of this nature; only in the appendix to his fourth dissertation, when engaged in settling the chronology of our Lord's ministry, it became requisite to determine the meaning of Luke iii. 1, 'fif'teenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar,' which involves him in the question, whether the second chapter of Matthew can be reconciled with that date. He argues, that it cannot with propriety be computed from any other era than the death of Augustus, and accession of Tiberius to the empire: for though it is true that Tiberius, on becoming joint tribune with his stepfather some time before, became associated with him in the provinces as a coordinate authority, yet no instance occurs in the Roman historians in which his reign is computed from his tribuneship; nor is it even ascertainable at what time he first became tribune. To this he adds, that the early fathers followed a chronology which manifests that it had never occurred to them to understand the nyeμovía of Tiberius to mean any thing else than his sole impe

rial reign. But this leads to the conclusion, that Herod the king died in the year before the birth of Jesus.

To us, this objection does not seem formidable. For, on contrasting the great preciseness of the date in Luke iii. 1, with the laxity of the expression in ver. 23, Jesus was at the beginning about thirty years of age,' we cannot doubt that Luke was conscious to himself of not knowing the age very precisely. If then the ostensible authenticity of the account in Matthew ii. is on a par with that of Luke, the proper method of reconciling them is by attributing as much vagueness as requisite to the age assigned by the latter to Jesus. But that the reign' of Tiberius must be computed from his real accession, appears to be a proposition that ought never to have been questioned.

It will now be expected of us to give some opinion of our own concerning the success of his attempt to settle the much vexed chronology of this period: yet it is not easy to advance any decided judgment on a matter still contested by men of consummate erudition and intelligence, and on which, in our corporate capacity as Eclectic Reviewers, it is impossible that we should hold one view. So much, however, may be said; that Dr. C., proceeding from assumptions generally conceded, appears to have made out as strong a case as the nature of the materials will admit; that he has exhibited praiseworthy assiduity and patience in turning the subject over on all sides, and that his scheme will recommend itself to most students by its requiring fewer dislocations of the gospel narratives than those which it is intended to supersede. Yet it appears to us, that some difficulty is thrown into his way by the opening verses of the seventh chapter of John. The first verse, After these things,' &c., adheres indivisibly to the preceding chapter; and it seems rather harsh to make a break between the first and second verses, and to refer the second and following verses to a time which preceded the sixth chapter. For the reason seems to be given in the first verse why he deferred to go up to Jerusalem, as mentioned in verses 2—9.

But certainly he has passed by many questions, to which in these times an answer is urgently demanded. We do not speak in our own name, but in the name of an objector; who may demand satisfaction on points which have in this country been taken for granted, but cannot be so much longer. We purposely omitted to notice, that Dr. C., twice at least, lays stress on the fact, that Matthew was an eyewitness of the facts which he records, -as giving strength to the dipaschal scheme. Those who have the most superficial acquaintance with the biblical criticism of Germany, are aware that he would be closely pressed for some proof, that our first Greek gospel is identical with that Hebrew gospel, which, we learn from antiquity, the apostle Matthew composed. The argument from external sources seems to turn chiefly

on the testimony of Jerom, who wrote at the end of the fourth century; since he alone of the fathers deposes that he had seen the gospel according to the Hebrews; whether,' says he, 'it be according to the apostles, or as most opine, according to Matthew. In the time of Justin Martyr, it would appear, that the gospels were not generally known by their present names; often as he quotes the first, he never assigns an author to it, nor, indeed to the other evangelical narratives. Our objector might proceed to urge, that, while externally we have the broad facts, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and our gospel is in Greek; internally, we have numerous indications that ours is not from Matthew. For (as Dr. C. remarks) our first gospel is essentially Galilean; it gives no record of the Lord's ministry in Judea, previous to the last passover. Now Matthew wrote in Hebrew for the Hebrews,' to give them an entire acquaintance with the Lord's ministry; and neither could he calculate on another apostle writing to fill up what he omitted, nor in fact was it ever done; for John wrote in Greek, and not in Hebrew. It is hardly credible, that Matthew would have wilfully deprived the Hebrew church of instruction so valuable: yet this he did, if our Greek gospel be a true representation of that which he provided for them in Hebrew. If Dr. C.'s chronology be correct, Matthew's call took place in the ninth month of our Lord's ministry; which ministry lasted only seventeen months. If this be assigned as a reason why he was ignorant of so many events recorded by John, does it not seem to prove, that of all the apostles he was hardly the most competent to write the history? Farther: this will not at all account for his omitting the beautiful, pathetic, and most important discourses contained in John xiv.-xvii., at which all the eleven apostles were undoubtedly present. Again, on comparing the first three gospels, the similarity is so great, as to inspire the belief that all had like means of information. would infer that the first was from an eye-witness, the two others from secondary sources. Whereas, on contrasting John's gospel with any of the other three, strong reasons are presently found for believing that John drew almost solely from personal acquaintance with the facts. Again, the difference of the narrative in different parts of the Acts of the apostles, remarkably evinces

No one

In Evangelio juxta Hebræos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, 'sed Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni; se'cundum apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthæum; quod et in Cæsariensi habetur bibliotheca.' We must leave it to those who are better read in the fathers to reconcile the various statements found in Jerom on this tangled subject.

The most important exception is in the third chapter of John's gospel, where the phraseology which he attributes both to Jesus and to the Baptist is tinged so strongly with all that is peculiarly Johannine, as to make it evi

when the writer speaks as an eyewitness, and when from other sources which is confirmed by the use of the word We in those passages which are most distinct and graphic, as also by the purer Hellenic phraseology apparent in the same. But in the first gospel, no analogous distinction is discoverable between the narrative which precedes, and that which follows, the call of Matthew the Publican. We forbear to say more. It is not our object to advocate this opinion; though we do not know how to reply to these remarks. We wish, however, to express our sense that it absolutely needs to be set at rest, before we can decide on the true order of a harmony. We must know, in short, whether Matthew and John are co-ordinate authorities, so that in reconciling difficulties each must be made to yield a little to each; or whether John, as the sole eyewitness, is to be regarded primarily. In the latter case, we apprehend that the tripaschal theory will prevail.

In conclusion, to give a specimen of his style, and of the manner in which he handles a difficult subject-we should be glad to extract his discussion on the Morning of the Resurrection;' but it is too long; and to quote a part would do him injustice. He thus gives his results:

The following scheme may contribute to elucidate the succession of visits to the sepulchre. It is framed upon the supposition that some of the women who came with Mary Magdalene saw the angel who had rolled away the stone, before they entered the sepulchre. If the reader do not see sufficient reason to adopt this supposition, he may erase the words, are accosted by an angel without the tomb, and then go in.''

First Party. Mary Magdalene The other Mary and companions from Bethany

Salome and companions from Jerusalem Second Party. Joanna and her companions

Third Party. Peter and John

Mary Magdalene

VISITS TO THE SEPULCHRE.
Occurrences at the tomb.

Sees the stone removed:
Are accosted by an Angel with-
out the tomb, and then go
within.

Are accosted by an Angel with-
in the tomb:

Are accosted by two Angels, af-
ter coming from the tomb.

Enter the sepulchre and see no

one.

Sees two Angels, and afterwards
the Lord himself.

Subsequent course. Hastens to Peter and John. Return towards Bethany, and see Jesus when near it.

Return to their abode: say, on
Mount Zion.

Return to near Herod's palace in Bezetha.

Return to their abode, and perhaps afterwards to Bethany. Returns to Bethany.

Perhaps also some other disciples may have afterwards come to the tomb.

dent that he is here reporting only from second hand. Indeed, it is on the face of the narrative, that the interview of Nicodemus with Jesus was strictly private; as it is also improbable that the evangelist was present when the Baptist gave the testimony to Jesus recorded in that chapter.

Dr. Carpenter is fully sensible of the phenomenon ; but tries to account for it (unsuccessfully we think) by setting quotation-marks, so as to make the evangelist utter verses 16-21, 31-36, in his own name.

« 前へ次へ »