Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

whole nation perish not. And this spake he, not of himself: but being high-priest that year, he prophesied, that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

There are here two things which need to be explained ; first, why Caiaphas is said to be high-priest" that same year:" and secondly, what is meant by his "prophesying," being "high-priest.

[ocr errors]

Some have thought, that the phrase, “being high-priest that year," implies that St. John supposed the high-priesthood was annual; and upon this account they have been willing to charge him with a great mistake: for Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea ten years, and Caiaphas was put into the priesthood by Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, and continued in it till after Pilate's removal. Selden thought, that by high-priest, is meant the chief man of that nation, and particularly the prince of the sanhedrim, which post might be at that time annual. For my own part, I think," that year" (as it ought to have been rendered, and as the same phrase is rendered, ver. 51, and not “that same year") denotes no more than "at that time." It is very common to put' years' and' days' in the plural number, for time. Ezek. xxxviii. 8, " After many days thou shalt be visited in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword," &c. Mal. iii. 4, "Then shall the offerings of Judah be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in the former years." There are other texts perhaps more apposite to our purpose. Deut. xxvi. 3, " And thou shalt go unto the priest that shall be in those days." Josh. xx. 6," And he shall dwell in that city, until the death of the high-priest that shall be in those days." Philo uses the word day in the singular number, in the same manner: speaking of the trial of jealousy, he says, the man and the woman shall go up to the temple, and the man standing before the altar shall declare the 'cause of his jealousy in the presence of him who is priest at that day. All that St. John says therefore is, that Caiaphas was high-priest at that time, or the high-priest of that time. And if we ought to suppose any thing emphatical in the expression, [which yet I cannot see,] I apprehend it arises from the distance between the time of the event and the writing. St. John writing his gospel a con

1 Αλλα αρχιερευς ων το ενιαυτε εκείνο, προεφήτευσεν.

* Και ὁ μὲν ανηρ σας αντικρυ τε βωμε, παρόντος τε κατ' εκείνην την ήμεραν ἱερωμενο, δηλέτω την ύπονοιαν αμα. κ. λ. De Legibus Special. p. 785. C.

siderable time after the crucifixion of Jesus, when many might be supposed to be ignorant who was then high-priest; and there having been under the Romans frequent removals made in that office; it was natural enough for him to express this circumstance with some peculiar emphasis, or to inention it more than once.

[ocr errors]

The other difficulty to be considered lies in the words, "being high-priest that year he prophesied." Here I cannot perceive the sense of this observation, supposing, with Selden, high-priest to stand for prince of the sanhedrim. By prophesying I understand in this place, declaring the event; which it was in a peculiar manner the office of the priest to do, when he was inquired of, or when God was inquired of by him, concerning any important matters under deliberation. Thus Josephus says: But the Philistines, when they heard that the Hebrews had made David. 'king, brought forth their army against him.-But the king of the Jews (for. he allowed not himself to do any thing 'without prophesy, and the command of God, and assurance of the event from him) required the high-priest to foretell him, what was the will of God, and what would be the issue of the battle. When he had prophesied victory and 'power, he led out his forces against the Philistines.' And presently after, The king of the Israelites inquiring again of God, concerning the event of the battle, the high-priest 'prophesied,' that he should do so and so, and then would have a sure and easy victory; referring to the story told 2 Sam. v. 22-25.

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Let us now apply these remarks in a general paraphrase of this text of St. John. Some of the council, of a different opinion from those whose words are recorded, ver. 48, having, as may be supposed, from considerations taken from the dispositions of the people, the temper of the Roman gover

• "Then the king sent to call Abimelech the priest the son of Ahitub.And Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, and hast inquired of God for him?" 1 Sam. xxii. 11—13. "And David said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. Then said David, O Lord God of Israel,--Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? And the Lord said, he will come down," 1 Sam. xxiii. 9-11, "And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets," ch. xxviii. 6. Ρ Ο δε των Ιεδαίων βασιλευς· δεν γαρ ανευ προφητείας, και το κέλευσαι τον Θεον, και περί των εσομένων λαβειν εγγυητην εκείνον, ἑαυτῷ ποιείν επέτρεπεν, εκέλευσε τον αρχιερέα, τι δοκεῖ τῷ Θεῷ, και ποδαπον εται το της μάχης τέλος, προλέγειν αυτῳ προφητεύσαντος δε νικην και κράτος, εξάγει την δυναμιν επι της Παλαισινες. Ant. lib. vii. cap. 4. sect. 1. 4 Παλιν δε τω βασιλεως των Ισραηλιτών ερομένω τον Θεον, περι την μαχην εξοδε, προφητεύει ὁ αρχιερευς, κ. λ. ibid.

6

nor, and other circumstances of their affairs, expressed some doubts about the success of a prosecution of Jesus, and the consequences of taking away his life: Caiaphas, who was the high-priest at that time, when it came to his turn to ' deliver his opinion, said, You have hitherto talked very 'weakly and ignorantly; you may proceed in the case be'fore you without hesitation. The taking away the life ' of this man will be so far from being ruinous to the whole 'nation in this country and in other parts, as some of you fear, that it will be much for the advantage of the people of God every where. This however he said, not merely ' of himself, but being then high-priest, he foretold the is'sue and event of their counsels, and of the death of Jesus: ' and that it would come to pass that Jesus would die for 'that nation, and not for that nation only, but that through his death, he would also gather together in one the chil'dren of God which were scattered abroad.'

CHAP. V.

OF THE DIFFERENT NAMES GIVEN TO HERODIAS'S FIRST HUSBAND BY THE EVANGELISTS AND JOSEPHUS.

I COME now to consider the difficulty hinted above," arising from the different names given by the evangelists and Josephus to the first husband of Herodias; whom they call Philip, Josephus, Herod. I need not transcribe here the passages of the gospels, Matt. xiv. 3; Mark vi. 17; Luke iii. 19, or of Josephus, relating to this affair. If the reader will be pleased to look back he will find what is sufficient for the purpose.

As Josephus, speaking of this unlawful marriage of Herod the tetrarch and Herodias, calls her first husband Herod ; so it is certain, that according to him, Philip, whom St. Luke, ch. iii. 1, styles" tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis," could not be the person: for Josephus says, that Herodias's daughter Salome was married to Philip,

r

Ύμεις εκ οίδατε δεν εδε διαλογίζεσθε ότι συμφερει ύμιν, ἵνα εἰς ανθρωπος αποθανη ύπερ το λας, και μη όλον το εθνος αποληται.

Προεφητευσεν ότι εμελλεν ὁ Ιησες αποθνήσκειν ύπερ τε έθνους, κ. λ. b P. 19-21.

a

P. 19. note (").

Herod's son, the tetrarch of Trachonitis. Nor is there any mention made in Josephus of any other son of Herod the Great, who was called Philip, beside the fore-mentioned tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis.

I have no reason to say any thing more of Philip the tetrarch, than I have done already; having shown in another place, that St. Luke has given a just account of him. But I will here give a brief history of Herod, to whom Josephus says Herodias was first married; because I apprehend it may be needful for some readers, and it will be of great use to us upon this occasion.

Herod was the son of Herod the Great by Mariamne, daughter of Simon the high-priest. After Herod the Great had killed his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus, he repented of what he had done, and resolved to take special care of their children. And in particular, he contracted Herodias, daughter of Aristobulus, to the above-mentioned Herod.e There happened indeed afterwards some alterations in the dispositions made by Herod the Great at this time; but, however, this contract remained good, as may be concluded from hence; that this contract is not mentioned among those alterations, and because in the account Josephus gives of Herod the tetrarch's unlawful marriage with Herodias, her first husband, whom she left in his lifetime, is expressly said to be Herod son of Mariamne the high-priest's daughter.

Herod the Great in one of his wills, made after this contract, appointed the said Herod his successor, in case Antipater should die before him. But afterwards, in the inquiries concerning Antipater's design to poison his father, it appeared that Mariamne, mother of Herod, had been concerned in the same design: whereupon Herod the Great put away Mariamne, altered the clause of his will relating to her son, and took away the priesthood from her fathers Simon. After this we hear no more of Herod, till we have the accounts of Herodias's leaving him.

Here then lies our difficulty. The evangelists call He

Η δε θυγατηρ αυτης Σαλώμη Φιλιππῳ γαμείται, Ηρωδε παιδί, τῳ τετραρ XV TNS Tрaxwviridos Antiq. lib. xviii. cap. 6. sect. 4.

d

e

Page 18. Ενεγγυητο τε εις γαμον,την δε έτεραν των Αριτοβέλε θυγατέρων, Ηρώδη, παιδι τῳ αυτο γινεται δε τῳ βασιλει εκ της т8 арXIEρews Juуarpos. Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. 1. p. 751. v. 1. vid. etiam p. f Vid. Joseph. p. 751. v. 20. p. 1028. v. 35.

1027. v. 36.

8 Και δια ταδε Ηρώδης εκείνην τε εξέβαλε, και τον υιον αυτής εξήλειψε των διαθηκών, εις το βασιλευσαι μεμνημενων εκείνο και τον πενθερον την αρχιερωσυ την αφείλατο Σιμωνα, τον τε Βοηθε. Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. iv. p. 757. ν. 43. vid. etiam p. 1032. v. 33.

rodias's first husband Philip. It is objected, that they must mean Philip the tetrarch. But it is plain from Josephus, that Philip the tetrarch was not her first husband, but Herod, son of Herod the Great, by Mariamne the high-priest's daughter.

In answer to this: 1. It has been said by some, that Josephus was mistaken. Basnage of Flottemanville, whom I have often quoted, is fully persuaded, that Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, was Herodias's first husband. Beside that the evangelists lived nearer the time of the event than Josephus, he says, they had more reason to be well informed in this matter than Josephus, and they are three to one. Mr. Basnage does not deny Herod's having bad a son of his own name by the high-priest's daughter; but he says, this son died before his father. And he thinks, that Josephus says as much, and has assured us, that after Antipater was dead, Herod had no sons left, besides Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Philip, betwixt whom he divided his kingdom. And therefore Josephus is guilty of a most flagrant self-contradiction, in making the son of the highpriest's daughter Herodias's husband. Besides, there is no mention of this son in Herod the Great's last will; which would be very strange, if he was then alive, especially considering that Herod left his sister Salome a very good estate in land.

This is Basnage's solution; but, in my opinion, a very poor one. I will not be positive, that Josephus has made no mistake in the accounts of Herod's family; because where a man has issue by seven or eight wives, as Herod had, perhaps a writer had need to have a head peculiarly turned for genealogy, to be secure from all errors, in giving an account of his children and all their marriages; especially,

Nulla ergo excusatio Josepho parari potest. Cujus narrationi, illa evangelistarum, missâ vel eorum avaμaprnoia, dubio procul est anteponenda, cum testes et plures et antiquiores fuerint et rationes longe graviores habuerint diligentius inquirendi in causas mortis illatæ Joanni, quas ducunt ex Herodiadis, Philippo legitimo viro, contra jus et fas, ab Antipà ereptæ odio, in Joannem, scelestas nuptias damnantem. Equidem Josephus tenetur er avropwow deprehensus, cum ipse docuerit, Herodi Magno post mortem Antipatri, nil filiorum fuisse, præter Archelaum, Herodem Antipam, et Philippum, quos inter, regnum diviserat suum. Nec vero simile est, in testamento, hujus Herodis, Herodiadi, ut ait Josephus, matrimonio conjuncti, parentem non meminisse, ne expers partis esset de bonis ejus; eo magis, quo multa Salomæ sorori suæ prædia moriendo dederat Herodes. Id faciles Josepho largiemur, ex Simonis pontificis filiâ procreatum Herodi regi filium fuisse, paterno nomine donatum. Parenti superstitem fuisse, negabimus, ex alto historiæ judaïcæ silentio, in quâ vir ille partes egisset suas.--Erravit igitur Josephus. Basn. Ann. Polit. Eccles. A. D. 29. n. 3.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »