Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

piled by Hilkiah or by Moses. Neither is such a pretext corroborated by those slight geographical illustrations and genealogical supplements, which evidently were annexed long after the time of Moses, to the Pentateuch; for some of these appear to have been inserted during the captivity at Babylon, and of course considerably later than Hilkiah's time: but it is well known both that similar interpolations have also crept into copies of the New Testament, and that in no case they affect the sense, or are needful to the connection, of the authentic text of the Scriptures. So the second Cainan, in one of the pedigrees of Christ, was undoubtedly interpolated from the Septuagint, where it seems to have been inadvertently introduced; but it neither affects the general contents of the New Testament, nor those of the gospel of Luke in which it is found, nor even the rest of the genealogy with which it is immediately connected.

The preceding outline of ancient chronology and history, however hastily sketched on this occasion, has been deduced from principles on which a very mature and minute investigation inclines us to repose much confidence. If just, we apprehend them to obviate all material uncertainty on the subjects: but should our readers still fluctuate between widely discordant hypotheses, even of chronologers who in common are friendly to the Scriptures, the truth of the facts recorded would still remain unshaken. If there was not a date in the Bible, the history would be no less true on that account; it would only be less complete and distinct. In the New Testament one event only, the commencement of John the Baptist's ministry, has an express date: yet, instead of impeaching its authority for want of dates, sceptical readers have laboured to subvert the only one that it contains.

Of their cavils, Mr. Benson's volume affords a more complete refutation than any publication that has preceded it; and if any thing could convice those who are averse from believing, it might lay to rest for ever disputes on the date in question. That the evangelist Luke designed to date the years of Tiberius not from the death of his predecessor Augustus, but from his admission to joint imperial authority with him, was intimated by a precision in the original terms, which our translators have not preserved. What they call the "reign" of Tiberius, would more justly be translated his "administration." It is a word no where else used in the New Testament, and seems to have been chosen to denote a peculiarity in Tiberius's government, especially as it had been used by the Septuagint for the joint sovereignty of the dukes of Sair (Genesis xxxvi. 30). The evangelist appears to have been intent on precision in every respect, when specifying the only date that he introduced; and

had he avowed his purpose to distinguish from the "reign" of Tiberius his administration of imperial authority over the provinces and armies of the Roman empire, he could no better have defined the latter than by the term which he used. He evidently wrote his gospel not at Rome, nor for its inhabitants, but in a Roman province, and for inhabitants of the provinces, who, from the time of Tiberius's admission to imperial authority, had been ruled by him, and not by Augustus Cæsar. Yet as Tiberius declined the title autoxpaTwp, or emperor, while Augustus lived, his government, considered in its whole extent, was more properly called ηγεμονια than βασιλεια.

This distinction is duly marked by Mr. B.; but he demonstrates, on grounds wholly independent of it, the impossibility that the date in question could signify the fifteenth year of the sole reign of Tiberius. That year (A. D. 29. U. C. 782) he has proved, beyond all reasonable question, to be the same in which our Lord was crucified; whether on the 18th or 25th of March, or the 14th of April, he has not undertaken to decide. We are inclined, with him, to prefer the latest, but chiefly because figs were then capable of being eaten, though not generally ripe enough to be gathered. (Mark xi. 13.) He has proved, no less to our satisfaction, that three passovers, and not more, were comprised in our Lord's ministry. In addition to his arguments to this effect, we would briefly suggest, that it is the only hypothesis on which our Lord's attendance at the annual festivals can be clearly explained. He was present only at four beside that of the dedication; and his absence from the rest, within two years, may be satisfactorily accounted for, but not for a longer term. Christian Unitarians have laboured hard to confine our Lord's ministry to one year, that, if possible, they might identify the date of the Baptist's ministry with the fifteenth year from the death of Augustus, and thereby discredit Matthew's account of our Lord's incarnation; but although, for this purpose, at every step, they transgressed, without scruple, the genuine limits of criticism, their efforts were still fruitless. Instead of proving a single point of their hypothesis, they had no other resource than to take it altogether for granted, and even to assume appearances of ignorance that it had ever been either disproved or disputed!

[ocr errors]

Mr. Benson, therefore, has subverted this pretext for denying the doctrine of the Incarnation; and, by establishing the true date and duration of our Lord's ministry, has, moreover, laid the only just basis for a harmony of the four gospels. If he had done nothing else, or if nothing else that he has done had been equally conclusive, the biblical student and the Christian world would have been greatly obliged by his labours; but his whole argument, both for its matter and manner, claims much attention and re

spect, though all its parts do not appear to us to be equally decisive. He renders it nearly certain that Herod lingered a year under the disease of which he died, and that Pontius Pilate was deposed a yet longer time before he arrived at Rome; but we cannot concur with him in opinion that the presentation of Jesus in the Temple exactly coincided with the visit of the Magi to Jerusalem, or that so much as four months intervened between our Lord's baptism and the first passover of his ministry. On this he probably entered when he completed his thirtieth year, as John also did on his ministry, at a proper time for the exercise of his priestly office. So we interpret the date of Ezekiel's ministry, ch. i. 1. John, therefore, we suppose to have been born about August, U. C. 749, and Jesus in February, 750; consequently, to have been crucified in the thirty-third year of his age, U. C. 782, when the two Gemini held the Consulate. Some mistake on this subject seems to us to affect Mr. Benson's chronological table, which, with all his dates, we would recommend, in future editions, to be numbered by the years of Rome, checked by those before and after the Christian era. The whole history stands connected with the Roman epoch; and of the Julian period we can perceive no use but for purposes of general chronology.

A few oversights have struck our attention, and very probably the author's, before this time. He concedes, (p.204,) that no Latin historian had called Tiberius Imperator; yet, in the preceding page, he had quoted a sentence of Paterculus, giving that title to Tiberius during the life of Augustus. That passage also implies that the advancement of Tiberius to imperial dignity very quickly followed his first signal success against the Germans, and thereby confirms the duration assigned by Clemens Alexandrinus to his whole government. We add, only, that Josephus uses yovia, and yuove, of the reign of Tiberius (Antiq. 18. 8. and Bell. Jud. 2. 8), perhaps from customary application of those terms, in the provinces, to the entire extent of his government.

A sincere wish for the extensive circulation of so valuable a work makes us regret that the learned author has not translated his numerous Greek quotations. By transferring these (and the Latin also) to the margin, and inserting their sense in the text, he would obviate interruptions of the discussion, and entitle himself to thanks from many persons not familiar with the Greek language, who are, nevertheless, competent to enter into the soundness of his argument, and to feel all its interest and importance. Biblical criticism, like the Bible itself, should be made as open as possible to the public. The specimen before us excites hopes of its progress in our own country that we had been afraid to indulge. The dawn of Kennicott's labours on the Old Testament was long overcast; and neither the fac simile of Beza's copy,

nor the liberal distribution of Griesbach's edition of the New Testament, could disperse the cloud that had long covered scriptural literature in Britain. Bishop Marsh, with peculiar advantages, and much industry, has succeeded better; yet, from the German school, an inoculation could not but be hazardous. In the author of the volume before us (though, in every other respect, unknown to us) we find an extent of literature, a depth of research, and a patience of investigation, that eminently qualify him for whatever subject of this kind he may undertake, together with a decorous independence of mind, and a modest candour, which conciliate while they compel conviction. A vast scope remains for his exertions, and we hope that he will not be sparing of them. Whether the public manifest a due sense of his merits, or for a time neglect them, he has but to proceed as he began, to ensure ultimate success.

This happily is certain, in the highest sense, of all who heartily and discreetly engage in the cause of revealed truth. It has of late been the subject of renewed assaults, but its enemies constantly betray their weakness or their wickedness. They have now altogether dropped the mask. They ridicule Deism no less than Christianity, and certainly with much greater advantage; but the necessary result is, that while importuning you to relinquish a well-grounded hope of favour with God, and of everlasting happiness, through redemption by the grace of Christ, they offer you in return a world without a first cause, in which evil overwhelms what is good, and beyond which is no existence! You pity their miserable delusion, and intreat them to read the Bible. They turn it to ridicule; you explain and vindicate it They then deny the possibility of a written revelation. If there was a revelation from God, they say, it would be universal. But what would they require in evidence of it? Miracles, they tell you, are impossible; they would not trust to their own senses in proof of any thing contrary to the general course of nature. far the Deist will go; but the Atheist demands of him, how this course of nature, that involves the innocent in sufferings, can prove the existence of a supreme intelligent Being? The Deist replies, that this will be cleared up in a future state; but, if asked why he expects a future state, he can only answer, because he believes that there is a supreme intelligent Being. Rejecting revelation, philosophy has no alternative but to reason for ever in a circle, on the subjects which belong to man's immortal

welfare.

So

ART. XIV.-The Outlaw of Taurus, a Poem; to which are added, Scenes from Sophocles. By Thomas Dale, of Bene't College, Cambridge, Author of "The Widow of Nain." London, 1820. P. 120. Richardson.

THE "Outlaw of Taurus" is a production of a very different species from the Giaours and Corsairs, and other "Outlaws" of the age. Mr. Dale is already known to the world-or at least ought to be so-by a very interesting poem, entitled, "The Widow of Naïn;" and his Outlaw of Taurus by no means disparages the reputation earned by his former attempt. It is founded upon a traditional story, related by Eusebius to the following effect. The apostle St. John, at his return from the Isle of Patmos, made, it is stated, an ecclesiastical tour in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, in order to ordain bishops, and inspect the state of the Christian churches. At one of his stations he chanced to observe, among his audience, a youth of commanding stature, whose aspect indicated a corresponding nobleness of mind. Turning to the bishop, whom he had just ordained, he exclaimed: "In the presence of Christ and his church, I commit this youth to your care and diligence." The bishop received the charge, admitted the youth into his family, and after a due course of paternal instruction, administered to him the sacrament of baptism. But too soon the dissolute companions of the youthful convert regained their former ascendancy over him; they enticed him by magnificent banquets; and at length induced him to join their nocturnal predatory parties. Becoming inured to vice, his proud impetuosity of mind hurried him into every excess; till openly renouncing the hope of salvation in his Redeemer, he collected his associates into a band, became their leader, and surpassed them all in deeds of atrocity and blood.

:

In the course of years some exigence requiring the presence of St. John in Ephesus, the aged apostle inquired earnestly for his young friend, and was beyond measure grieved at hearing of his awful career. Instantly he procured a horse and guide, and, hastening from the church, repaired to the mountains in which the robbers had fixed their impregnable retreat, and falling in with one of their parties was seized, and demanded to be carried to their leader. The chief, recognizing the venerable saint, fled from his presence. The apostle followed, exclaiming, "Wherefore do you fly from me; oh, my son? from your father, aged and unarmed! Pity me, oh my child, and fear me not; you still possess a hope of salvation. Willingly would I endure

« ForrigeFortsett »