Page images

Ilaon. Where shall we look for the substantive to which St. Luke intended to annex this word? In the verse immediately preceding, where we find the autonTut and the vwmetai inentioned? Or, in the verse before that, where we find the aquyuata mentioned ? To which of these nouns does this adnoun properly belong? to the nearer or more remote? Does not the participle, by which it is governed (especially if the meaning affixed to it by Casaubon be right) seem to indicate, that the Evangelist had made it bis business to obtain a personal inierview * with some witness or witnesses of every fact from the beginning? Indeed, how could his honourable friend bave been satisfied that bis narrative was so correct, as to be relied on with safety, if he bad not been assured that Luke bad obtained an interview with some witness or witnesses of every fact recorded by hip? If Si. Luke and Theophilus lived in the same place, or even in the same country, remote from the Holy Land, and the former did not go abroad to obtain information, ove cannot easily -see how he could have been so much more fortunate in his enquiries than Theophilus, or any other of his neighbours.

[lægnxonulnuoti tas axguCwst." Mainly signifies," says Doddridge, “ that accuracy of investigation, on which the perfect understanding of his subject was built.” If warur ought to be understood as meant of the autemtas in the Verse preceding (immediately) instead of agąqueta, which is more remote, argiewe ought, perhaps, to be understood as belonging to receitas rather than to woon in which connexion, we are told, it is found in the Louvain MS. being therein separated from acou by a comma. If this be the right way of reading these words, the Evangelist's meaning may, as the sauie judicious critic, to whom we are indebted for the above information concerning the Louvain MS. has suggested, have, very probably, thew or St. Mark had done, even from the promise inade to Zacharias of the Baptist, or forerunner of our Lord, I think it more reasonable to adhere to our translation, and not to lay the authority of St. Luke's Gospel upon uncertainties; that is, by making avwbey mean egavoler. WUTBY.

* St. Luke's intercourse with the Apostles and other eye-witnesses to the transactions of Christ, says Michaelis, render him a very credible historian, as he assures us, that he has diligently inquired into the whole history, and traced up the facts to the fountain head. Mica, vol. iii.

P. 230.

† Dion Iłalicarn, at the beginning of his history, says-odsyxxocs εδε αυτα διεσεδεςμενως εδε ακριβως, αλλ' εκ των επιτυχοντων ακερματων surbesi'eb, compiled neither with care nor accuracy, but from common reports.


been, “ It seems good to me, to write exactly in detail to you;" or, rather, it may be," to give a full account of every piece of information which I have been able either to procure, or have thought it necessary to collect for you.” That this is not very unlikely to have been the Evangelist's meaning, may be inferred from the sense in which he has used axçıows in his other treatise, where, giving Theophilus an account of Apollos, he says, that " he spake and taught the things of the Lord 'axçıbws: and that Priscilla and Aquila, on hearing him speak in a synagogue at Ephesus, took him and expounded to him the way of God axçıbesegov.

Kaletni. The learned cannot agree about the meaning of this word. Some * think it implies, that Luke arranged every occurrence in exact chronological order; others t do not care to admit this, and chiefly because St. Luke's arrangement does not appear to tally with that of St. Matthew: however, they who refuse to acknowledge that be placed every thing in due order, are far from be. ing equally pertinacious in their refusal. That he made good his promise, by placing the principal parls of his subject in regular sequence, is allowed on all sidest. Professor Michaelis has endeavoured to shew, that another order, beside that of time, may have been intended by this word. At p. 1]. part 1. vol. 11. that author has

Facit vero hic locus, ut harmonia Evangelistarum scribenda, rectionem ordinem servari putem, si in iis quæ habent communia, reliqui ad Lucam potius accommodentur, quam Lucas ad cæteros. BEZA.

† It is chiefly on the authority of this clause that Mr. Le Clerc, and many other modern harmonizers, have thought (as Beza also did, that all the other gospels are to be reduced to the order of St. Luke, wlienever they differ from it: a conclusion which, I apprehend, for reasons that shall afterwards be given at large, to be an occasion of many erfors, and particularly injurious to the character of St. Matthew. I would only here observe, that the foundation of it is very precarious ; since it is evident, this Evangelist might, with great propriety, be said to have given an orderly account of the history of Christ, as the leading facts are in their due series, though some particulars are transposed. DoDDRIDGE.

It being certain that St. Luke in his Gospel, doth not give us Christ's mirachs, sermons, and journies, in that order of time in which they were done and spoken, it remains, that when he promised to write rabens, in order, we understand this of Christ's conception, birth, circunacision, baptism, preaching, death, resurrection, and ascension, of which he truly writes in order; or that he would write to hiin first of what those eye-witnesses had delivered to him of Christ, and then of what these ministers had done in the propagation of the Gospel, as in the Acts he doth. WHITBY,

Vol. XI. Churchm. Mag. Aug. 1806. N given

given us the following information on this point: "The Gospel of St. Luke, in particular, is supposed to have. been written according to the order of time; because the Evangelist declares in his preface,' that he intends 10 relate every thing in order. But we must not forget, that the order of time is not the only order which an historian may follow. To illụstrate this by an example.-The unction of Christ at Bethany took place six days before the Passover: yet St. Matthew relates it after he has advanced with the rest of his history to within two days of the Passover. The reason is, that on this second day before the Passover, Judas offered to the Scribes and Chief Priests to betray Jesus, which resolution he had been induced to form by the rebuke which he had received when Jesus was anointed*. To return, however, to the Gospel by St. Luke, it appears that the word na@s{ns implies nothing more than an intention to collect accounts of the several wonders and discourses of Christ; and to form them into one uniform whole t, that is, αναταξασθαι διηγησιν, as he says of the writers of whom he speaks in the first verse of his Gospel. Now we cannot suppose that those numerous writers composed entirely according to the order of time. Nay, there are some commentators, who go so far as to assert, that of the four Evangelists, St. Luke deviates the most from the order of time : whether they are mistaken or not, I shall not, at present, enquire; because the examination of the proofs would take up too much room : but this I will venture to assert, that the word valitns, no more affords an argument against this opinion, than the word avatačacbas applied to those who wrote Gospels before St. Luke, would disapprove the assertion, that "these writers deviated more from the order of time than our

* It is not a little remarkable, that the professor himself has informed us, at p. 23, that Matthew has omitted to mention the very circumstance which the professor supposes induced him to make this transposition: he there says, “ The account given by St. Matthew, is in some measure obscure, because we do not perceive in what manner the circumtsance of the unction excited in Judas the resolution to betray his Lord.

† We are rather at a loss to comprehend the professor's meaning here, as we cannot recollect waere the word xabarns occurs in this Sense. At p. 23, he seems to have given us a more intelligible explanation of this word, by reminding us that “ there is, beside the order of time, another arrangement in history, which may he called the order of things."


four Evangelists.” It were to be wished, that the professor had expressed himself in a little more coherent manner; nis transitions are rather remarkable. At. p. 22, however, he has delivered his sentiments on this point with much greater perspicuity. He there says, “still however, it may be objected, that though St. Matthew and St. Mark have noi expressly mentioned the day on which the unction took place at Bethany, they have, at least, assigned to it a place in that part of their narrative, where they were advanced to wiihin two days of the Passover. Now this objection presupposes, that the Evangelists always wrote according to the order of time, which they certainly did not: and if we only make a different division of the chapters, and reckon to the 25th chapter, the two first verses of the 26th, the unction at Bethany, which is related in the following verses, will have less reference to the time specified in those two verses. But at this rate, perhaps, it might be said, tlie Evangelists have written in a very irregular manner, arranging their facts in an order very different from that in which they really happened; and that an irregularity of this kind is hardly to be expected from an inspired writer. This objection brings the matter to an issue ; and the answer which I would make to it is, that beside the order of time, there is another arrangement in history, which may be called the order of things; that is, facts wbich are connected with each other are arranged together, in order that the relation between cause and effect may be more distinctly seen : and it is this very arrangement which distinguishes the entertaining and instructive historian from the mere apnalist.” What the professor has here advanced to prove, that the word xaletns does not mean strict chronological order, seems to be rather irrelevant. To prove that Luke has not always arranged his materials in exact chronological order, he ought to have produced an instance, wherein this Evangelist ditfers from the other three*; or at least, from the two eye

witnesses, * The professor has precluded the possibility of doing this, by what he has said in the pages from whence the two preceding extracts are inade; and again at p. 37. At p. 10 he says, « One of the most frequent apparent contradictions among the Evangelists relates to the order of time, the same fact being recorded earlier by one than by another. This appearance of disagreement arises from the circumstance, that neither St. Matthew, St. Mark, qor St. Luke, wrote in chronolagical order.” Ai p. 22 he says, “ Now this objection presupposes, that



witnesses. But instead of doing this, he has set himself to shew by an example, that an historian may, for a par, ticular reason, instead of relating a circumstance that produced a certain event, at the very juncture of time when it happened, defer mentioning it till he comes to treat of the event itself, in order, as he observes, ? that the relation between cause and effect may be more distinctly seen.” The example which he has produced to illustrate his meaning, is taken, not from the writings of St. Luke, (for St. Luke has not recorded the unction at Bethany) but from those of St, Matthew. St. Mat thew, he observes, in his account of the unction at Be. thany, appears to differ a little from St. John, with regard to ihe time when it happened; and in order to make an apology for this apparent inaccuracy in St. Matthew (for he does not presume to deny that St. John's report is inaccurate) he has recourse to a conjecture, that Matthew was induced to consider a little anachronism in bis Gospel, as a thing that would readily be overlooked by those who desire to contemplate the relation between cause and effect in the most striking point of view. But has St. Matthew taken care to point out this relation to the observation of his reader? Not the least intimation has he given to lead us to suspect, that Judas was the person who found fault with the waste of the ointment. He has neither told us that he was rebuked for so doing, nor that he was so far offended on that, or any other account, as to seek revenge by betraying his Lord. This omission, we perceive, did not escape the observation of the professor, who, a few lines after says, “ the account given by St. Matthew is somewhat obscure, because we do not perceive in what manner the circumstance of the unction excited in Judas the resolution to betray his master.” Had not St. John supplied us with the cause of Judas's treachery, we should have been, in all probability, entirely ignorant of it. The omission of this circumstance is the more remarkable, as Matthew has re

the Evangelists always wrote according to the order of time, which they certainly did not." At p. 37 he says, u St. Matthew and St. Mark, at teast, have totally disregarded chronology."

At p. 312 he mentions this as “ a very important circumstance, necessary to be known;" and as being one of two causes that inducéd St. John to give an account of the supper at Bethany, &c. after the other Evangelists.


« PreviousContinue »