. But Dr. Priestley objects (Harm. p. 55.) that Mark describing the very same progress, in language similar to that of Matth. i. 38, 39; yet says, ii. 1, that he entered again into Capernaum after some days only. And, p. 140, 141, he places fix day's between Jesus's departure from Capernaum and his return to it.

. But it has been shewn in loc. on the authority of the best critics, that di musowy imports as much as I suppose: and if as few days as Dr. Priestley allows had been meant, the number would probably have been expressed : as Matth. xvii. 1. Luke ix. 28. John xii. 1.

** The time allowed by Dr. Priestley for all the transactions, from leaving Judea, John iv. 3, to the arrival at Capernaum, Mark ii. 1, is only fifteen days. Harm. p. 140, 141. Let us say now that from that part of Judea where Jesus dwelt to Cana was fifty miles, from Cana through Nazareth to Capernaum thirty miles, and let us allow that the progress about GaJilee did not exceed even seventy miles; and during these fifteen days, Jesus must have journied ten miles each day, including Sabbaths. I have endeavoured to shew that we cannot, with any probability, assign a shorter period for the incidents during this interval ihan ten weeks : to which must be added five weeks for the continuance in Jerusalem during the passover, and afterwards in Judea : and some of the phrases used by the Evana gelists are of such a latitude as to justify the plan of this and many other Harmonies in extending this whole time to almost a year. See John xxi. 25.

6 But, Ex. xxxiv. 22, wheat harvest was fifty days after barley harvest; and therefore, supposing the transaction of $ 33, «that is, Matth. xii. 1, &c. to have happened at this later harvest, it cannot be reduced to the same year with the passover mentioned 20," that is, John ii. 13.

• Jerome, indeed, supposes wheat harvest three months after barley harvest : fee Harmer, Obl. on Scripture, 2d Ed. i. 40: who observes, “ Nor can I easily believe their wheat harvest was delayed to the close of July : at present at Aleppo, barley harvest commences about the beginning of May, and che wheat as well as that is generally over by the 20th. In Barbary it comes at the latter end of May, or the beginning of June. Agreeably to this, Raimond de Agiles giveth us to understand that a great part of their harvest at Ramula or Ramah, was gathered in before the 6th of June in 1099." See also p. 68, 69: where Fulcherius is quoted as saying, that the harvest at Ramula was ripe, but not gathered in, about the middle of May, 1102; and Hasselquist is said to have eaten half ripe ears · of wheat roasted on the 14th of May, N. S. And I find in Shaw, 460. p. 335 : “Barley, all over the Holy Land, was in

full ,

full ear in the beginning of April; and about the middle of that month it began to turn yellow; particularly in the southern districts. But wheat was very little of it in ear; and in the fields near Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the stalk was little more than a foot high.” Mr. Mann's note on Luke vi. 1, is, “ It was εν σαββατο δευτεροπρωτω, which could not be later than April. Philo de vita Mofis, l. 2, says, Barley and wheat in that country are ripe at the vernal equinox, p. 503. Isidorus of Pelufium says, at the time of the Jewish paslover. V. Petav. var. Differt. 1. 2. c. 11.” Engl. ed. p. 169. See Philo, p. 686, ed. Par. 1640, where wheat and barley are said to be ripe, TEREI CYou siel an, in the first month. [His note in the Latin" ed. is, 'Ev rablá TW DEUTEDOT OWTW, seu poft pascha primo, itaque Aprilis 7o, quo tempore legetes in Judæa maturæ erant. Lev. xxiii. 10.) Dr. Priestley has extended this time to the third Sabbath after the whole pafchal festival. Harm. p. 140, 141.

• There is no difficulty as to the remaining part of our Lord's ministry: a passover being mentioned, john vi, 4; and Mark vi. 39, and the parallel places, implying that it was spring : (fce the Observations on § 63:) and our Lord being crucified at another passover.

Bishop Newcome juftly considers the discourse on the Mount, Matth. v. 6, 7, as the same with that Luke vi. and places it, according to St. Luke's arrangement, immediately after the appointment of the twelve apostles. In answer to an objection drawn from the difference in the discourses themselves, he introduces the following remarks on the coincidence of expresfion which may be observed in the narratives of different Evan. gelifts.

• It is plain,' says his Lordship, that the oppositions and amplifications in St. Luke are virtually contained in St. Mat. thew : and Grotius says, “ me, ne diversas effe narrationes putem, movent-Exordium idem, eademque peroratio.” He might have added, that there is great fimilarity in the order throughout, and that St. Luke has not one precept distinct in every part. The truth is, these discourses differ no more than the two prayers delivered by our Lord, Matth. vi. 9, &c. and Luke xi. 2, &c. if we take the latter from MSS. and not from the present text; which is accommodated to Matthew, as many places in the Gospels are to parallel ones. The same. ness of phrase in the relations of the Evangelists may be accounted for from this cause. Homonymiis et redundantiis Anfam fubinde præbuere collationes privatæ, et deinceps magis folennes Harmoniæ Evangelicæ, pio et utili studio circa tertium feculum a Tatiano primum, dein Eusebio adornatae; unde cog. natæ voces, in margine primum adscriptæ, exinde in textum admittebantur. Hac de re querelam primum inftituit D.

Hieron. Hieron, præf. ad 4 Evan. ad Damasum. “ Magnus hic in noftris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter exprefsit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque existimavit emendandos.” Pref. to Bp. Fell's Greek Testament.' Oxf. 1675. Dr. Priestley has ingeniously sugo gested another reason for coincidence of expression and of arrangement in the Evangelifts; that, before they wrote, detached memoirs of Jesus's history might have been committed to writing by the apostles themselves, or by others from the mouths of the apostles, which might have served as common originals, Harm. p. 72, 73, 87.

The Bishop, in a note which we cannot transcribe or abridge, endeavours to prove that Levi's feast succeeded his call by an interval of at least six months; he replies, we think, satisfactorily to the objections which have been made to this arrangement; and observes from Chemnitius, that these two events were few parated in all the ancient Harmonies, from Tatian in A. D. 170, to Gerson in A. D. 1400.

Bishop Pearce, in his Commentary on the Gospels, &c. observes that the phrase sis Tepov is sometimes used when the place to which it refers, was on the same side of the water, provided a small bay or arm of the sea was crossed to reach it. Bishop Newcome has a note on the situation of Bethsaida and the neighbouring towns, p. 28, the substance of which, though without intention, very much confirms his Lordship's remark.

Dr. Newcome thus reconciles Matth. xvi. 4, and Mark vi. 12.

o St. Mark means that Jesus strongly refused the Pharisees and Sadducees such a particular sign from heaven as they at that time required ; probably a sign that Jesus was to work out for them a temporal deliverance, says Lardner: Cred.1.2. 90. ed. 3. Jewish Testim. 1. 62. However, St. Matthew adds, that hereaster there would be a most decisive proof of his mission. Both Evangelists agree that, according to our Lori's manner, no pre. sent sign would be granted at their demand.'

In our review of Bishop Pearce's Commentary we gave our Readers his Lordship's learned and judicious note on Matth. xxvii. 63, to prove that usta tekis négas is sometimes'equia valent to tn reitn nuéed.' To the authorities which Dr. Pearce has alleged, Dr. Newcome adus, Deut. xiv. 28, comp. xxvi. 12: John XX. 26: Matth. xxvi. 2 : xxvi. 63, 4 : Mark xiv. 1. H. Stephens thes. voc. PETO, pell épous duo, secundo post die. Et Plin. Cæfa spina /Egyptiaca anno tertio resurgit, pro his Theophrasti, tov HOT), MET TOTOU ČT 05 Sul uç úvacef1257%. And R. Stephens voc. poft, Cic. 3 Att. 7.

i E.

that i journey; and from 25: xvii. 1, ourney men

Eo die pueri tui mihi a te literas reddiderunt : et alii pucri, poft diem tertium ejus diei, literas alias attulerunt. h. e. Tertio die poftquam priores acceperam. See also a like mode of expression, Luke ii. 21, compared with chap. i. 59."

Dr. Newcome is of opinion that the journey mentioned Luke ix. 51. xiii. 22. xiv, 25. xvii. ii, 12, was one and the same journey; and from the series of the history concludes, that it was not our Lord's last journey to Jerusalem, but that which he took when he went up to the feast of dedication. John X, 22.

His Lord hip reparates the institution of the cup in the Lord's Supper from that of the bread, and places in the interval, John, chap. xiv. His reasons are, that the bread was broken, &c. εσ'θιόντων αυτών, while they were eating, the cup given μετα To ostavnsxn, after they had supped ; that the apostles being deeply affected by so expressive a sign or symbol of his body broken, the discourse in John, c. xiv. was very pertinent; and that John xv. follows not unsuitably the institution of the cup. This we mention as a singular opinion rather than as a probable circumstance.

We could willingly notice our Author's sentiments and remarks upon several other interesting passages of the Evangelical history; but we pass them over in order to lay before our Readers the result of his inquiries respecting the transactions of that day on which our Lord arose from the dead.

The series of events,' says his Lordfhip, is this : On the morning of the first day of the week, about the beginning of the fourth division of the night, Jesus rises from the dead. A great earthquake happens about the time of his resurrection; and an angel appears, who rolls away the stone from the mouth of the cave, sits on it, and strikes the keepers with great fear.

After Jesus's resurrection, many bodies of the faints arise from their graves, and appear to many in Jerusalem.

Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and certain other women, go very early to the sepulchre, intending to pay honour to the body of Jesus by embalming it. On the way, they consult about removing the stone, which they know was rolled against the mouth of the fepulchre; but on their approach they find it removed; they enter into the cave, and two angels suddenly appear to them, one of whom fits on the right hand, and mildly addresses them.

Being commanded to assure the disciples of Jesus's resurrection, and that he would go before them into Galilee; they re. turn to Jerusalem, and relate all these things to the eleven, and all the rest, and Mary Magdalene herself coinmunicates them to Peter and John.

« The

lene heir journeo Save the apostide report of

"The women are disbelieved: however, Peter and John hasten to the sepulchre, and find that the body is removed, but see not Jesus.

• Cleopas and his companion, having heard the report of the women and of Peter and John, leave the apostles and disci. ples, and prepare for their journey to Emmaus.

Mary Magdalene and the other women follow Peter and John to the sepulchre. Mary Magdalene, either arriving before the other women, or remaining after them at the tomb, or revisiting it apart from them, looks into the cave, and sees a vifion of angels, and, after she has .conversed a short time with them, Jesus himself appears to her.

. She joins the other women, who seem to have continued in the neighbourhood of the fepulchre; and as they are returning to Jerusalem, Jesus meets them.

• The guards leave the sepulchre, and relate to the Jewish rulers all that had occurred within their knowledge.

. The women relate to the disciples that Jesus was alive, and had been seen by them; but are disbelieved.

After this Jesus appears to Peter, then to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and then to the eleven as they sit at meat, with whom he holds a long conference : and thus end the great, and glorious transactions of the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.'

This arrangement his Lordship has supported by a minute consideration and comparison of the separate accounts of the four Evangelists, and of the methods in which other Harmonists and Commentators have attempted to reconcile them, and by a number of judicious critical remarks. We could have wilhed to have made an observation or two upon some of the particulars : but this Article is already protracted beyond our usual limits. We, therefore, here take leave of this ingenious and elaborate publication, and earnestly recommend it to the attention of every lover of facred literature, on account both of the fund of erudition that it contains, and of the candid and liberal spirit which it breathes.

ART. III. A Medical Commentary on Fixed Air, &c. &c. By Mat

thew Dobson, M. D. F.R. S. 8vo. 3 s. sewed. Cadell. 1779. DEFORE the nature of fixed air, and particularly the chem

mical qualities of that Auid, were so largely investigated, as they have lately been, physicians were not inattentive to the salutary uses to which that subftance might be applied in the practice of medicine. Though the late ingenious Dr. Macbride, in particular, probably erred in that part of his theory, Rev. O&t. 1779.



« VorigeDoorgaan »