Images de page

Corrections and Emendations.

P. xxi. 1. 12, for frequented read celebrated at Jerusalem

- xliv. 1. 2, dele the Discourses of Christ on the Mount of Olives,

— xlvi. 1. 19, dele (not improbably to those of Palestine),

P. 15 note

In the HARMONY, Lachmann for Lachman throughout.

dele the reference to "two other renderings." See Explanatory Observations respecting the Translation

- 30 John iv. 4 read Now it was necessary


[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

- 66 Matt, vi. 22

83 Luke v. 29 · 90 2d col.

145 note


read The lamp of the body

- read that placed themselves at table with them

dele Mark vi. 9, and see p. 135.

dele It appears to have been commonly called Chorazin. See pp. cii and evi. 106 note, l. 1 read like the fourth,


[blocks in formation]



SECT. I. Various Opinions respecting it.

THE Ministry of Christ includes the period between his Baptism and his Ascension. It may sometimes be convenient to designate the opinion that this period included two Passovers only, the bipaschal system; that it included three only, the tripaschal; and that it included four, the quadripaschal.

That the Ministry of Christ included four Passovers, has been the prevalent opinion ever since the time of Eusebius; but, to use the words of Mr. Benson, this "was totally unknown to the Christian Fathers of the first three centuries." Upon this hypothesis is founded the very valuable Harmony of Archbishop Newcome, which was itself much framed upon that of Le Clerc; together with Dr. Doddridge's, Mr. Greswell's, and various others. The excellent Diatessaron by Professor White, which was drawn up by aid of Newcome's Harmony, and others in Latin and English derived from White's, are of course arranged on the quadripaschal system.

Whiston and Macknight framed their respective Harmonies upon the supposition that the Ministry of Christ included five Passovers. Scaliger, Sir Isaac Newton, Stillingfleet, and others, adopted the same opinion: but

See p. 254 of "The Chronology of our Saviour's Life, or, An Inquiry into the true time of the Birth, Baptism, and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ; by the Rev. C. Benson, M. A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1819: "-a work well deserving the attentive perusal of the critical student. Mr. Benson himself adopts the tripaschal hypothesis.

+ Newcome's Harmony, and Mr. Greswell's, are in Greek: an English Harmony has been founded on each of them.-Doddridge obviously received with hesitation, the hypothesis upon which his arrangement is founded.


the tendency of the critical scripturalists of the present day, is to shorten, not extend, the period assigned by the prevalent hypothesis.*

Lamy constructed his Harmony, 1699, upon the principle that our Lord was crucified at the third Passover after his Baptism; and Bengelius his, with much greater judgment in the details, in 1736. On this, the tripaschal hypothesis, is founded the Harmony of the Four Gospels by Samuel Lieberkühn, first published in German, and afterwards in English;+ the Life of Christ framed on the arrangement of the Rev. Newcome Cappe, by his late excellent widow; the combined narrative in the chronologicallyarranged Bible by the Rev. Prebendary Townsend; and the Chronological Table prefixed to the edition of Griesbach's Text, published by Taylor and Walton. This hypothesis was entertained by Dr. Lardner, and by Dr. Benson; and it has recently been advocated, with great ability and research, by the Rev. C. Benson, in the work already cited. It was also held by several intelligent writers in the third and fourth centuries; and, if the Gospel of John were our only means of judgment, this opinion, though not without serious difficulties, as will be shown hereafter, would be that in which-discarding the common opinion as founded on "late and scanty" tradition, and "obscure and inconclusive reasoning"-the scripturalist would ultimately rest.-See Benson, p. 258.

During the first three centuries, it was the prevalent opinion, that the Ministry of Christ lasted not more than a year and a few months. Influenced by this consideration, and by the examination of the first three Gospels, Dr. Bentley adopted this, the bipaschal system. From him, it was communicated to Dr. Hare; and by him to Mr. Mann, afterwards Master of the Charter House, who defended it "with much learning and sagacity," in his work on the True Years of the Birth and Death of Christ, first published in English in 1733, and afterwards in Latin in 1742.1 Upon

* The late Dr. Burton, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, in his Lectures on the Ecclesiastical History of the First Century, 1831, inclined to the opinion "that our Saviour's Ministry occupied part of three years; i. e. one whole year and part of two others." With this explanation, his view appears to accord with the bipaschal opinion, as there could be only two Passovers in "one whole year and part of two others,"unless indeed he meant Julian, instead of Jewish years. If my interpretation of Professor Burton's view is correct, we have three learned clergymen taking each a different opinion: Mr. Greswell being for four Passovers, Mr. Benson for three, and Dr. Burton for two.

+ This work, being a single narrative constructed from the Four Gospels, would more properly be termed a Monotessaron, or Diatessaron. It is chiefly founded on Bengel's Harmony.

See Biographica Britannica, VOL. 1. 2d Ed. p. 345, quoted in Newcome's First Reply, p. 119.

this principle, Mann constructed a Chronological Arrangement of the Gospel History; and Dr. Priestley formed a Harmony upon it, which he published in Greek and in English, prefixing a Letter on the subject, addressed to Dr. Newcome, then Bishop of Waterford, together with Observations in defence and illustration of his arrangement. Dr. Newcome replied in 1780, and Dr. Priestley soon published a Second Letter, to which he prefixed the former one. In 1781, Dr. Newcome published his reply to Dr. Priestley's Second Letter; and Dr. Priestley addressed to him a Third Letter, which closed this controversy; a controversy marked by that urbanity and candour which the love of truth, united with the christian temper, cannot but produce. The Bishop's Reply to Dr. Priestley's Second Letter, is peculiarly valuable, as it respects the "Testimony of the Christian Fathers", for the judiciousness of his views, and for the information which it contains.

To support the bipaschal system, Mr. Mann and Dr. Priestley, besides transposing the sixth and fifth chapters of St. John's Gospel, deemed it necessary to maintain that ro waoxa, the passover, in John vi. 4, was not in the original Gospel. Bishop Pearce, in his Commentary,-from considering the position of the sixth chapter, between the fifth, relating he thinks to the Pentecost, and the seventh, relating to the Tabernacles,argues that the whole verse is spurious.

The whole verse is, however, found in all known Manuscripts containing the passage, and in all existing Versions; and there is no adequate evidence to support the opinion that the early Christian Writers were without the words To Tаoxa in their copies of the Gospel. In the present advanced period of textual criticism, such emendations could scarcely have been proposed by the eminent persons above-mentioned.

The arguments in favour of the omission of To Tаoxa, the passover, in John vi. 4, are, 1. That none of the early Fathers could have held the opinion that our Lord's Ministry did not include more than two Passovers, if they had had those words in their copies of St. John's Gospel, which were much more ancient than any manuscripts at present existing; and, 2. That Irenæus, who advocated the strange theory that our Lord's Ministry lasted twenty years, does not appeal to this verse in support of itanxious as he naturally was to discover indications of the occurrence of Passovers. Newcome and Benson combat this second argument, by showing that Irenæus "only proposed to mention how often, at the season of the Passover, our Lord, after his Baptism, went up to Jerusalem." With respect to the former, there are two views of the matter: either, that the early Writers did not observe the supposed inconsistency between the mention of a Passover in John vi. 4, and their own opinion; or, that they

« PrécédentContinuer »