Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

bear the name of Julia." And there are medals on which she bears this name. But if nothing of this had appeared in any of the Roman authors or inscriptions that are extant, yet since Josephus appears to be well acquainted with the Roman affairs from Julius Cæsar down to his own time; I believe most men would have allowed, that he had some good reason for calling the wife of Augustus, Julia. For the same reason, a like supposition ought to be made in behalf of the evangelists, in the case before us.

There

It was exceeding common among the ancients, Jews and others, for persons to have two names, and to be called sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other. are several instances in the New Testament: 66 Simon, who is called Peter; Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus," Matt. x. 2, 3. "Thomas, which is called Didymus," John xi. 16. "Simeon, that was called Niger," Acts xiii. 1, Saul, who was also called Paul."

66

Josephus calls Caiaphas, the high-priest, Joseph. He has indeed told us, that he was also called Caiaphas. If mankind would have been as equitable to the writers of the New Testament, as they usually are to other authors, to some who are far from giving equal tokens of skill or probity with them; this would have created no difficulty, though Josephus had never subjoined the name of Caiaphas to that of Joseph. But if any had been disposed to give the evangelists unfair and unequal treatment, it is likely they would have pretended, that here was a notorious blunder and that Caiaphas was so far from being high-priest when John Baptist began his ministry, and when Jesus was crucified, that there never was any such person high-priest among the Jews.

I hope what is already said may be sufficient to convince all reasonable men, there is no just ground to suspect the evangelists of any mistake in the name of Herodias's first husband. However, there is somewhat farther to be offered: there are other writings extant, in which he is called Philip. I shall transcribe here the account of it in Whitby's words: 'Gorionides saith, Herodias was first married to Philip, and then taken away from him by Herod Antipas. The old Hebrew chronicle saith," Uxorem fratris sui Philippi ipso vivente junxit sibi matrimonio, quæ liberos ex fratre ejus susceperat, et tamen is eam duxit uxorem" (chap. 36). And an old chronicle of the second temple saith,

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]

" Tiberium et Liviam hæredes habuit. Livia in familiam Juliam nomenque Augustæ adsumebatur. Tacit. lib. i. cap. 8. vid. etiam Sueton. Aug. cap. 101. Dion. p. 600. A. VP. 795. v. 23. p. 802. v. 28.

[ocr errors]

66

6

Antipas Philippi fratris sui uxorem accepit, ex qua ille liberos ante genuerat." (F. 54. c. 4.) i. e. " Antipas 'married the wife of his brother Philip, he being yet living, and having had children by her." "w

6

CHAP. VI.

OF ZACHARIAS, THE SON OF BARACHIAS.

THERE are some difficulties attending the prophetical representation, given by our Lord, of those judgments, which he foresaw would soon befall the Jewish nation. This we have in two of the evangelists, in St. Matthew and St. Luke. One account will illustrate the other, and we may have some occasion to refer to each of them: therefore I shall set them both down here at once.

The account of this matter, as it stands in St. Matthew, is thus ch. xxiii. 29-36, "Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye be the children of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily, I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation."

The parallel place in St. Luke, ch. xi. 47-51, is in these words: "Woe unto you, for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness, that ye allow the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. ThereWhitby, on Matt. xiv. 3. 2 E

VOL. I.

W

6

[ocr errors]

6

fore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple; verily, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation."

Here the evangelists may be charged with a mistake several ways. They who would suppose, that Zacharias here referred to is Zacharias, one of the twelve lesser Jewish prophets, will say, they must have been mistaken, because in the time of this Zacharias, the temple is supposed to have been in ruins: and therefore it is impossible he should have been killed between the temple and the altar. Aud others, who suppose Zacharias, here intended, is Zacharias, whose death is related in 2 Chron. xxiv. may say, that St. Matthew mistook the name of his father; for his name was Jehoiada, and not Barachias.

There is another Zacharias, whose death is related by Josephus; but that happened not till long after the time in which our Saviour is supposed to have spoken these words. This seems to afford the most formidable objection: I shall therefore state and consider it particularly and in answering this, I hope to answer also the other two.

Before I state this objection, I shall here transcribe the passage of Josephus on which it is founded. I must abridge it indeed, but I shall omit nothing that is material to the point before us.

6

'The zealots,' says Josephus, were exceedingly enraged ' against Zacharias, the son of Baruch: for he was a man who detested all wickedness, was a lover of liberty, and 'moreover was very rich. They call together therefore by a decree seventy of the chief of the people, and form a 'kind of council, destitute of all authority. They then brought Zacharias before them, and accused him of a con'spiracy with the Romans: and in particular charged him with sending messengers to Vespasian, the better to con'cert measures for betraying them into his hands.' But they had no witnesses. The facts were not proved. Zacharias, in a speech he delivered before the council, confuted all the calumnies of the zealots, and warmly reproved them for their wickedness. The seventy then acquitted him, 'choosing rather to die with him than to bring upon them* Ζαχαρίαν υίον Βαρεχε. Συγκαλεσιν εξ επιτάγματος ἑβδομήκοντα των εν τέλει δημοτών.

b

[ocr errors]

'selves the imputation of his death. He being thus absolved, the zealots raised a loud clamour against those 'judges, as not understanding the design, for which they had been invested with authority. And two of the most daring of the zealots, falling upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, slew him there.'

It may be said then from hence it appears, that the writers of these books were not acquainted with the affairs of those times these writings therefore do not come from St. Matthew or St. Luke: at least the authors of them did not live at the time they are supposed to have lived; possibly not till long afterwards. How else could they have committed such a blunder, as to make Jesus tell the Jews of his time, in the reign of Tiberius, that they had killed Zacharias the son of Barachias, or Baruch when Josephus informs us, that he was not killed till the latter end of Nero's reign, above thirty years after these words are said to have been spoken by Christ.

I. To this I answer, in the first place, that the fact related by Josephus does not suit the words of Christ in the evangelists.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

For, (1.) the name of the father of Zacharias seems to be different. Whitby observes, that as Baruch in Jeremiah, and the Apocrypha, is always called by the Septuagint Bapex, Baruch, so, Barachiah, is rendered by them Bapaxias, Barachiah, Isa. viii. 2; Zech. i. 1, 7. And in Neh. iii. we find Bapaxias, Barachias, v. 4, and Bapex, Ba' ruch, v. 20, which shows they were not the same name.'

(2.) Their characters are not the same. The design of our Saviour's discourse obliges us to suppose, that Zacharias, whom he mentioned, was a prophet: whereas Zacharias in Josephus has not that character from him.

(3.) The place in which they are said to have been slain, is not the same. Zacharias, in the gospels, perished" between the temple and the altar, according to both St. Matthew and St. Luke: but there is no reason to suppose, that Josephus's Zacharias was slain in the inner court, in which the altar stood. The council was not held within that court: and Zacharias seems to have been slain immediately after his absolution by the council. If he was slain in any part of the iepov, temple, that is perfectly agreeable to the words of Josephus; for under that name were comprehended the temple, and all the courts and buildings belonging to it. These several instances of disagreement, I should think, • Δυο δε των τολμηροτάτων, προσπεσοντες εν μέσῳ τῷ ἱερῳ, διαφθείρωσι τον Zaxapiav. De Bell. lib. iv. c. 5. sect. 4. d On Matt. xxiii. 35.

must incline most persons to conclude, that the same Zacharias was not intended by the evangelists and Josephus.

But perhaps this is more than is reasonable to expect should be allowed by an objector. He can easily believe of writers, who are in little credit with him, that they may run far wide of the truth, and really intend a fact that has but a small resemblance with their relation. With such, what hath been said hitherto will have little weight.

I proceed therefore to some other considerations.

II. I say then, that our Lord, in the words we are now considering, instanceth in facts supposed to have been done a considerable time before. The whole tenor and design of his discourse assures us of it.

The Zacharias he mentions is not one, whom they of that age had themselves slain, but rather one of those prophets whose tombs they built.

The sum of what our Saviour says (if I mistake not) is this: Ye say, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." This you say; but, as hereby you own, that you" are the children of them that killed the prophets;" so by your conduct, by your malice, your pride, your bypocrisy, your obstinate disobedience to God, you make it appear, that you allow the deeds of your fathers, and are their genuine offspring: you even exceed them in wickedness; you are now filling up, and will still go on to fill up the measure of their iniquity. I am come among you in my Father's name, and have done works, which no man ever did, but you do not hearken to me; my words you do not receive, and me you will crucify. God will send among you, as he did to your fathers, prophets and wise men, to instruct you in the most excellent doctrine, to admonish and reclaim you; but ye will kill and crucify them, scourge them in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. Hereby you will make the wicked deeds of your fathers your own, and bring the guilt of them upon yourselves; you will hereby deserve, that all the righteous blood, shed from the foundation of the world, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias, should be required of you: and verily I say unto you, " it shall be required of this generation."

Our Lord seems to me to remind them of instances of disobedience and cruelty, which they were well acquainted with, which they avowedly condemned, and pretended to see the evil of, but yet did, and would imitate in a most

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »