the New Teftament, a knowledge of the affairs of those times, which we do not find in authors of later ages. In particular, many of the Chriftian writers of the fecond and third centuries, and of the following ages, had falfe notions concerning the ftate of Judea, between the nativity of Jefus and the deftruction of Jerufalem." Therefore they could not have compofed our hiftories. Amidst so many conformities, we are not to wonder that we meet with fome difficulties. The principal of these I will put down, together with the folutions which they have received. But in doing this I must be contented with a brevity better fuited to the limits of my volume then to the nature of a controverfial argument. For the hiftorical proofs of my aflertions, and for the Greek criticifis upon which fome of them are founded, I refer the reader to the fecond volume of the first part of Dr. Lardner's large work. * Lard. part i. vol. ii. p. 96c. N 4 I. The I. The taxing during which Jefus was born, was "first made," as we read, according to our tranflation, in St. Luke," whilst Cyrenius was governor of Syria *." Now it turns out that Cyrenius was not governor of Syria until twelve, or, at the foonest, ten years after the birth of Chrift; and that a taxing, cenfus, or affeffment, was made in Judea in the beginning of his government. The charge, therefore, brought against the evangelift is, that, intending to refer to this taxing, he has mifplaced the date of it by an error of ten or twelve years. The answer to the accufation is found in his ufing the word "firft "" And this taxing was first made;" for, according to the mistake imputed to the evangelift, this word could have no fignification whatever it could have had no place in his narrative; because, let it relate to what it will, taxing, cenfus, enrollment, or affeffment, it imports that the writer had more than one of thefe Chap. ii. ver. 2. in contemplation. It acquits him therefore of the charge, it is inconfiftent with the fuppofition of his knowing only of the taxing in the beginning of Cyrenius's government. And if the evangelist knew, which this word proves that he did, of some other taxing beside that, it is too much, for the fake of convicting him of a mistake, to lay it down as certain that he intended to refer to that. The fentence in St. Luke may be conftrued thus: "This was the firft affeffment (or enrollment) of Cyrenius, governor of Syria *;" the words "governor of Syria” being used after the name of Cyrenius as his * If the word which we render "first" be rendered "before," which it has been strongly contended that the Greek idiom allows of, the whole difficulty vanishes; for then the paffage would be-" Now this taxing was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria;" which correfponds with the chronology. But I rather choose to argue, that, however the word "first" be rendered, to give it a meaning at all, it militates with the objection. In this I think there can be no mistake. addition addition or title. And this title, belonging to him at the time of writing the account, was naturally enough fubjoined to his name, though acquired after the transaction which the account def ribes. A modern writer who was not very exct in the choice of his expreffions, in relating the affairs of the Eaft Indies, might easily say, that such a thing was done by Governor Haftings, though, in truth, the thing had been done by him before his advancement to the ftation rom which he received the name of governor. And this, as we contend, is precifely the inaccuracy which has produced the difficulty in St. Luke. At any rate, it appears from the form of the expreffion, that he had two taxings or enrollments in contemplation. And if Cyrenius had been fent upon this bufinefs into Judea, before he became governor of Syria (against which fuppofition there is no proof, but rather external evidence of an enroll. ment going on about this time under fome perfon 7 perfon or other *), then the cenfus on all hands acknowledged to have been made by him in the beginning of his government, would form a fecond, fo as to occafion the other to be called the first. - II. Another chronological objection arises upon a date affigned in the beginning of the third chapter of St. Luke †. "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæfar Jefus began to be about thirty years of age; for, fuppofing Jefus to have been born, as St. Matthew, and St. Luke alfo himself, relate, in the time of Herod, he muft, according to the dates given in Jofephus and by the Roman hiftorians, have * Jofephus (Ant. xvii. c. 2, fec. 6.) has this remarkable paffage-" When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Cæfar, and the interefts of the king." This tranfaction correfponds in the course of the history with the time of Chrift's birth. What is called a cenfus, and which we render taxing, was delivering upon oath an account of their property. This might be accompanied with an oath of fidelity, or might be mistaken by Jofephus for it. Lard. part i. vol. ii. p. 768. been |