Page images

meaning of these words is no more than when certain men came down from Jerusalem, where • James was. As 'is allowed by the best interpreters.

Peter was culpable, as is evident. And he was justly and openly reproved by Paul. And Peter acquiesced. But we will not acquiesce. And rather than not make out an apology for him, we attempt to bring in another apostle to be partner in guilt with him : though the history affords not any ground or reason for so doing.

Without any curious researches, and groundless conjectures, Peter's alteration of conduct is easily accounted for from the well-known zeal of the Jewish people in general, and of too many of the Jewish believers. As formerly said : I imagine, that he now first of all went • abroad out of Judea into Gentile countries. It is probable, that he was desirous to see the

christian people at Antioch. But hitherto he had not been much used to converse with • Gentiles. And when some zealous Jew believers came to Antioch from Jerusalem, he was • alarmed : recollecting, it is likely, how some at Jerusalem had contended with him after he . was come from Cesarea, because “ he had eaten with men uncircumcised,” Acts xi. 1-3. and

well knowing, from long and frequent experience, the prevailing temper of the people of « his country.'


Page 208. Diss. li. “What is the meaning of Paul's expression, “ You see how large a letter • I have written unto you with my own hand,” Gal. vi. 11.

This question has been considered by many interpreters, and other learned men. I likewise have had occasion to speak to it. And I think, I have said what is sufficient to show, that our English version is very right.

• Quum venirent quidam a Jacobo.'] Id est, ab Hicroso- cobo.] id est, Hieresolymis, ubi pedem fixcrat Jacobus. Bez. lymis, cui ecclesiæ tum præsidebat Jacobus. A Jacobo, id est, in loc. ab eo loco ubi erat Jacobus, &c. Grot. ad Gal. ii. 12. a Ja- b Vol. III. chap. xviii. sect. 3.

c See Vol. III. chap. xii. sect. 3.

[blocks in formation]









I intend to send you some observations upon your Harmony of the four Gospels, relating to the history of our Saviour's resurrection. They will regard these several sections of your work, sect. 149–156. If my thoughts are somewhat different from yours, I do not know, that you have any good reason to be offended. You have made a “New Harmony of the Gospels,” after many others, and very different from them in many respects. Another therefore may have a right after you, and may think himself to represent the sense of the evangelists as it appears to him.

My observations will relate to the several following articles. 1. The burial of our Saviour. 2. The request of the chief priests and pharisees, to Pilate the governor, to afford them a guard for the security of the scpulchre. 3. A visit to the sepulchre, which you suppose to have been intended, and attempted by the women from Galilee, but not performed by them. 4. The preparing the spices by those women to anoint the body of the Lord Jesus. 5. Their journey to the sepulchre, and the appearances of our Lord to them, and others, after his resurrection.

I. • Of the burial of our Saviour,' which is related by all the evangelists, but by St. John more particularly than by any of the rest. Matt. xxvii. 57—61. Mark xv. 42—47. Luke xxiii. 50—56. John xix. 38–42.

But here I do not stay, not intending to make any remarks upon this beside what may offer occasionally, in considering the other articles.

II. •The request of the chief priests and pharisees to Pilate the governor, to afford them a guard for the security of the sepulchre.' Which is related by St. Matthew only, ch. xxvii. 62—66.

His words are these. “ Now the next day that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again : command therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away,

and say unto the people, lle is risen from the dead. So the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch. Go your way, and make it as sure as you

So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.” Upon this you say, p. 618. “Ty de ea zup.OV, 4715 E51 JETC Tuu mzpecueurv, “the next day that fol• lowed the preparation,” that is, after the sun was set. For the Jewish day began then. They took • this measure therefore, not “on the morrow,” in our sense of the word, but in the evening, • after sun-setting, when the Jewish sabbath was begun, and when they understood the body · was buried. To have delayed it to sun-rising, would have been preposterous, as the disciples might have stolen the body away during the preceding night.'


This you say, contrary, as I suppose, to all interpreters and commentators whatever. Says Whitby : «“Now the next day that followed the preparation,” viz. the sabbath-day in the * morning.' And in like manner other interpreters. But the thing is so plain, as scarcely to need any paraphrase or explication, and therefore is seldom found in commentators. But that the meaning of the original word is “ the next day,” according to our usual manner of speaking, is manifest from many texts, where it is found. So Acts xxv. 22, 23. “ Then Agrippa said unto Festus : I would also hear the man myself. To-morrow, cupcov, said he, thou shalt hear him. On the morrow, Th 89 ETUUDIOV, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth.” I presume, that by " to-morrow, [or] on the morrow,” is not meant the dark evening, or night, after sun-setting, but “ the next day,” when it was light, the only proper season for such an assembly, and the important design of it.

Acts iv. 5. “ And it came to pass, that on the morrow, £y£VETO DE ETi Thu euplov, their elders, and rulers, and scribes,—were gathered together.” The context shows, that hereby is not meant the night-season, after sun-setting, but the next day, when it would be light. For it is said at ver. 3, “ And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold until the next day, els tyv augiovo For it was now even-tide.”

Acts x. 23, 24. “ Then called he them in, and lodged them.” And on the morrow, on de ETIQUPLOY, Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him. And on the morrow after, ty de Eteoup10v, they entered into Cesarea.” I do not see, how the word can be here understood of any thing, but the morning of the next day, after the rising of the sun. Nor do I think, that it ever was understood otherwise. See also ver. 9, and chap. xx. 7, xxii. 30, and other like places, which may easily be found by yourself, or any other, that wants farther satisfaction.

It seems to me somewhat strange, that you should misunderstand a phrase, which has in so many places, invariably, the same meaning, and has always been so understood. If the evangelist had intended the time mentioned by you, he would have expressed it, in some one of the phrases, not unusual in the gospels. He would have said : “ And when the evening was now come, (or) when the sun was now set,” of which examples may be seen Mat. xiv. 23. ctas de γενομενης. John vi. 16. ως δε οψια εγενετο. Μark i. 32. οψιας δε γενομενης, οτε εδυ ο ηλιος. Luke iv. 40. δυνoντος δε το ηλι8. .

And why do you affix this unheard of meaning to the word in Matt. xxvii. 62? Let us attend. • To have delayed it to sun-rising would have been preposterous, as the disciples might • have stolen the body away during the preceding night. But, Sir, such reasonings are of no avail against the clear and express assertion of the evangelist, that the priests and pharisees did not go to Pilate, till the next day, or the morrow after our Saviour's crucifixion and burial.

And there are obvious reasons for such delay. The day, in which our Lord was crucified, had been a day of full employment, and great perplexity to Pilate. And the Jewish priests and pharisees might not judge iť convenient to disturb him in the evening of it. Possibly this thought of a guard, to watch the sepulchre, came not into the minds of any of them that evening. Whenever the thought arose in the minds of one, or two, or some few of them, it would require time to propose it to others, and gather them together, to go with the request to Pilate. And the morning of the next day was scon enough. For they could none of them suspect the disciples to be so horribly profane and desperate, as to attempt to remove a dead body on the sabbath! They therefore made provision against the night that followed after the sabbath. Which was all that could be reckoned needful in the opinion of the most suspicious. Indeed, it is not easily supposable, that any of those Jews did really suspect the disciples of a design to steal the body. But they were willing to cast upon them the scandal of such a supposition, the more to bring them under popular resentment. But the contrivance turned out to their own disadvantage.

I seem to myself to have now made good the common interpretation of this text. I have advanced nothing new. On the next day, after the crucifixion of Jesus, and probably, in the morning of that day, some of the priests and pharisees went to Pilate, requesting a guard at the sepulchre, and he granted their request.

This paragraph of St. Matthew is so plain and easy, that I have found few notes upon it in

[ocr errors]


commentators : scarcely any, excepting to show, that by “the day that followed the day of the preparation,” is to be understood the Jewish sabbath. However Grotius has a note, that may be proper to be observed. It is to this purpose : • The 'council could not sit on that day. But • after a private consultation some of the priests and senators of the sect of the pharisees went to · Pilate, as if they had somewhat to say to him of the utmost importance. Nor had they much difficulty to obtain what they requested.'

III. I now proceed to the next article of my inquiry, concerning a visit to the sepulchre, which you suppose to have been intended, and attempted by some of the women from Galilee, but not performed by them."'

This is a visit or journey to the sepulchre, which I do not see in other commentators. Nor can I discern it in the gospels, after all that you have said in favour of it. A part of the title or contents of your 149th section, p. 619, is this : • Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, go out to see the sepulchre : but are terrified by an earthquake.'

P. 620. • Matt. xxviii. 1. - In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,” dewpyc. " to see, if the stone was still at the door, because by that they could know, whether the body was within. For from John xix. 42. it would appear, that the friends of Jesus intended to carry him somewhere else-The women knowing this, had reason to think, that Joseph • would remove the body, as soon as the sabbath was ended. Accordingly, having bought the

spices, they judged it proper to send two of their number, to see, if Jesus was still in the se* pulchre : and, if he was not, to inquire of the gardener where he was laid: that when the spices were prepared, they might go directly to the place, and embalm him.'

All fiction, surely! Nor do I, as before said, find this in any commentators, with whom I am acquainted. However, let us see what this ingenious author says to support it.

P. 620, 621. • This journey to the sepulchre, by the two Marys, is generally supposed to • have been undertaken in the morning, according to our sense of the word, that is to say, some

time after midnight. But this opinion, though universally received, may be justly called in • question. For, first of all, what reason can be assigned for the women not going to see the

sepulchre, as soon as the Jewish sabbath was ended, that is, on Saturday, immediately after • sun-setting, when they had more than an hour's twilight to carry them thither?'

To which I answer, that they could not go then, because the spices were not yet prepared. For I shall show presently, that they were not bought, till after the Jewish sabbath was ended.

You go on : • In the second place, since they delayed it at all, why did they go at two or * three in the morning, rather than at some more seasonable time? You should not say, at * two or three in the morning. For that is not the time intended by the expositors, with whom you are arguing. You should say, "four or five in the morning.' So the evangelist tells us, the women set out early, “ at the dawning of the day,” that is, between four and five in the morning, according to our way of computation. They could not go sooner with decency. And, if the body was to be embalmed, it was proper to take the first opportunity, and perform it as soon as could be conveniently done after decease. This, I think, accounts for the women's going to the sepulchre, early in the morning, at the time supposed by all commentators in general. They would have anointed the body sooner, if they had not been prevented by the coming in of the Jewish sabbath. That being over, and the spices prepared, they embrace the earliest season for going to the sepulchre.

Still you say, p. 621 : « The reader will be pleased to take notice, that the time here fixed • for the women's first visit to the sepulchre, is capable of direct proof likewise from the words • of the text. Matt. xxviii. 1. “ In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the · first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." AC

cording to the Jewish form of the day, the sabbath ended, and the first day of the week began • at sun-setting, Lev. xxiii. 32. If so, Matthew's description of the time, when the women set • out for the sepulchre, fixeth it expressly to the evening, notwithstanding the word “dawn," • in our translation, falsely protracts it to some hour after midnight, being very improperly used • in this passage. The word in the original is etiowongon. Which applied to the Jewish day,

• Non potuit eo die synedrium haberi. Sed privato consi- summam rempublicam pertinente. Nec difficulter ab eo imlio sacerdotum principes quidam et senatores aliqui, Pharisaïcæ petrârunt rem, in quâ ille nihil situm existimabat. Gr. in factionis, Pilatum conveniunt, tamquam acturi de negotio ad Matt. xxvii. 62.

« signifies simply, that “the day began,” without conveying any idea of light at all. Contrary, · L own, to its primary meaning, which doubtless includes the notion of light, gradually increasing • in conformity to the commencement of the day among the Greeks, who formed the word, so • as to denote their own idea. But however contrary to the analogy of the Greek language, this

signification of the word, enillwoudcy, may seem, it could have no other in the mouth of a Jew, whose days all began at sun-setting. Besides, it has this meaning without dispute, Luke • xxiii. 54, where in the history of our Lord's burial, it is said: “ And that day was the day of • the preparation, and the sabbath dawned,” ETEDwore, that is, was about to begin: or, as it is we!! • rendered in our version, “ drew on.” For nobody ever fancied, that Joseph of Arimathea, and • Nicodemus laid Jesus in the sepulchre, when the Jewish sabbath dawned," in the sense of its • becoming light. But the meaning which this Greek word has in Luke, it may have in • Matthew, or rather must have: as it cannot be imagined that an historian, capable of common • accuracy, much less an inspired writer, would say, it dawned toward the first day of the • week,' nine or ten hours after the first day of the week began.'

I have made this long quotation that I might set your argument in its full light, and tliat you might not complain that justice had not been done to it. In answer to all which í say: all know very well, that the Jewish civil day, or rugbypepov, began at the setting of the sun. But that day was divided into two parts, night and day, by day meaning the natural day, or that part of the civil day which is light. This sense of the word day is very common in scripture. Ps. lxxiv. 16. « The day is thine, the night also is thine." John xi. 9, 10. “ Jesus answered : Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of the world. But if he walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.”

In Matt. xx. 1-16, is a parable of the labourers hired to work in a vineyard « for a penny a day :” meaning a day of twelve hours, whilst it is light, and a proper season for labour. Luke iv. 4.2. “ And when it was day, yevOMEVUS de muepas, ne departed, and went into a desert place.” Acts xii

. 18. “ Now, as soon as it was day, yEVOLLEVUS de yllepus, there was no small the soldiers.” Where," as soon as it was day,” cannot mean the Jewish civil day, but day-light. All which is agreeable to that ancient and original determination of the Deity himself. Gen. i. 5. “ And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night.”

Need I add any more examples? They are easily had, Luke vi. 13. “ And when it was day, su OTE EYEVETO Yu Epal, he called unto him his disciples.” Acts xxvii. 29. “ They cast four anchors out of the ship, and wished for the day.” YUZOuto muepuv yevecbel Ver. 33. “ And while the day was coming on, ampa de 8 ELLEN dEv Yu Epee revechai, Paul besought them all to take meat.” I add no other texts, but that of 2 Peter i. 19. “Until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.” εως 8 ημερα διαυγαση, και Φωσφορος ανατειλη εν καρδιαις υμον.

That must be the meaning of the text in Matt. xxviii. 1. “ In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” With which I suppose to be parallel, Mark xvi. 1, 2. “ And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

I beg leave to refer you to Grotius. And I intend to transcribe below the observations of * Keuchenius, which appear to me to be very material.

I allow your interpretation of Luke xxiii. 54, to be right. But there the word, eneDwoxs, is used figuratively, and improperly, though elegantly, and significantly enough. I say improperly, for you yourself say, p. 621, That according to its primary meaning, doubtless, the word • includes the notion of light gradually increasing.'

However, after all, you say, that this journey of which you are here speaking, though undertaken, was not performed.


* Μatt. Χxviii. 1. Τη επιφωσκεση εις μιαν σαββατων, &c. • diluculum,' sed ‘solis' potius ' ortum,' hac locutio e Bene monuit vir illustris H. Grotius, phrasim hanc passim de designari, ex re ipsâ manifestum est. Dicitur enim Esras solis luce usurpari. Ad quam sententiam adstruendam non pos- coranı populo legisse, a luce.' Quod non tam facile a prima sum non producere insignem locum, qui occurrit Neh.viii. 3. ubi lucis apparitione, quam a solis ortu factum fuisse, percipi Fsras in libro legis fertur legisse a “luce usque ad medium diei. potest. Quapropter arbitror, phrasim hanc idem fere signiti Quod 70 Senes hoc modo vertunt: Kai avayyw y AUTW ATO care, quod apud Marcum cap. xvi. 2. dax Tapwi, ons was της ωρας τε διαφωτισαι τον ήλιον εως ημισες της ημερας. Unde σαββατων ανατειλαντος τα ήλιε. Ρet. Keuclien. in Ν. Τ. liquet, Interpretes hos per lucem,' non nisi . solis lucem' vel p. 157. • ortum' intellexisse. Conf. Lxx. ad Job xxxi. 16. Et sane

« PreviousContinue »