« ZurückWeiter »
* 54. The capital of Judæa was Jerusalem. It was in a “ central situation, on the confines of Benjamin and Judah ; so « that part belonged to the territory of the one, part to that of “ the other. It was built on hills, but being surrounded with “ higher hills, it could not be seen in some directions till the “ traveller came very near it. It was situated on a very stony “soil; and the country round it, for several miles, was dry and “ barren.-The extent of the city differed considerably at dif“ ferent times : it had acquired its greatest extent at the time 4 of its final ruin. It then comprehended four hills, Sion, « Acra, Moriah, and Bezetba. Sion was in the southern part " of the city, and immediately to the north of it was Acra. “Sion was considerably the higher, and that part of the city 4 which was situated on it, was called the upper city; and on « Acra was the lower city. On the south and west of Sion 6 was a very deep valley, which rendered it inaccessible on 6those sides; on the north was a high wall, which was built “ by David. Moriah, on which stood the temple, lay to the 6 east of Acra. It was separated from it by a valley, which was nearly filled
up, that the access to the Temple from Acra “ might be more easy. Moriah was about three-quarters of a 6 mile in circumference. It was connected with Sion by a
bridge and a terrace. To the north of it was another hill, “called Bezetha, which Agrippa joined to the city; and the “whole was then about thirty three furlongs in circumference
For the convenience of teachers who may use this book, the principal topics which have been treated are brought together at the end of it, so that they may be used as questions for the examination of the pupil. The following are the questions for the passages which have been extracted.
« 50. Of what was the city of Samaria the capital ? What « caused the mixture of inhabitants in the country ? Conse
quence. Religion in our Saviour's time. In what respect
did they differ from the Jews ?-51. Causes of the aversion of 66, the Jews ; of the Samaritans. In what respect were the "latter well disposed ? 52. Is the capital mentioned in the “ New Testament ?"!
“ 54. Situation of the capital of Judæa. Extent. Relative 6 situation of each of the hills. Extent of that on which the s temple stood. How was it connected with the other parts of « the city ? Circuit of the whole."
There are also four maps accompanying this Introduction. The first is a general outline of all the countries mentioned in the New Testament. The second contains the places which are described in Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, and the islands of the Mediterranean. The two others are the most important The first of them is of Palæstine, from the reduced map of D'Anville, but it differs in several of its divisions from this great authority. The last is a very miserable sketch of the plan of Jerusalem, being imperfect in matter and execution. We should have much preferred a complete copy of D’Anville, even if Bethphage and Bethany must have been omitted, which would not however have been necessary.
The second part, which makes more than half of this volume, and which is intended to give an outline of the leading facts in the New Testament in the order of time," contains a new method of harmonizing the four gospels.
Although above a hundred harmonies of the four gospels may be found, in various languages,* many of which have been planned with great ingenuity, and arranged with great care, yet the principles upon which harmonists have proceeded have been so various, and the modes of application of the same principles so numerous, and the skill with which different systems have been defended has been so great, that it is a work of immense labor to attain a full view of the ground of this diversity ;
• Marsh's Michaelis, vol iii. p. 2. ch. 2. s. 6. note 24.
and if this view should be obtained, the decision to be made is most perplexing to the judgment; and perhaps it is impossible to obtain conviction of the correctness of any one hypothesis.f For hypothesis is all that we can obtain on this subject, there being nothing decisive in the gospels on many questions which it involves, and there being no positive evidence to be derived from any other source. But we do not consider the subject unimportant. The associations of time, as well as of place, must give greater interest to narrative, and greater force to precept: the period which we suppose to have been occupied by our Saviour's ministry, must affect our opinions concerning the manner in which he was received by his countrymen, and perhaps our ideas of his activity and engagement. We are not therefore displeased at a new attempt to harmonize the gospels, and shall willingly examine into its merits.
“ The leading principles of the arrangement are, 1. that the “ministry of Jesus included two Passovers only ;-—2. that John 6 yi. 4. refers to the latter, at which Jesus was crucified;- and “ 3. that Matthew's order claims a general preference. If any
one of the three be true, archbishop Newcome's arrangement “ cannot be correct; and if the second be true, Dr. Priestley's “arrangement cannot be correct. The general features of the “ arrangement here given, depend upon the two former; ma“ny of the minutiæ upon the last. The second only is pecu6 liar to it; and this removes every difficulty attending the “first. I believed that this principle is at least consistent with “ the opinions of the early Christian writers : but I did not
expect to find it countenanced by any modern. G. J. Vos“sius however was led to the very same opinion, for the same
f This is the opinion of Griesbach :-“valde enim dubito," says he , in the preface to his Synopsis Evangeliorum,“ an ex Evangelistarum li. “ bellis harmonica componi possit narratio, veritati quoad chronologi.
cam pericoparum dispositionem satis consentanea, et firmis funda. * mentis superstructa.".
object, though by a different train of reasoning. Newcome's first letter to Priestley, p. 118.)"*
We shall make some remarks on each of the principles here stated.
One of the principal questions on which harmonists have been divided, has been concerning the principles upon which the events recorded in the gospels are arranged. Some, at the head of whom was Osiander, have maintained, that each fact recorded by either of the Evangelists has its proper chronological place assigned to it in the narrative. To this opinion the most obvious and quite satisfactory objection is, that events mentioned by more than one Evangelist are frequently placed in different relative situations by the several writers. For in, stance, in John ii. 14-17. is an account of the clearing of the temple by our Saviour: an account of the clearing of the temple is also given by each of the other Evangelists,t which differs from that of John in nothing essential, except as to the period to which it is assigned. From the narrative of John, this event seems to have taken place at the first passoyer in our Saviour's ministry which is mentioned after his baptism; Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer it to the last. The solution of this difficulty is twofold; either the order of time was nege lected by one or more of the sacred writers, or two events took place so similar as to have nothing to distinguish them,(but such circumstantial diversity as could not be avoided by writers who had no connexion with each other,) excepting their situation in the respective histories. If this were the only instance of diversity of arrangement which might be produced, the last supposition could be admitted ; but as facts of this kind are numerous in the New Testament, it is very difficult to assent to the hypothesis, upon which we are to believe that miracles and remarkable events so similar, that no disagreeing circumstances are noted in the different accounts of them, occurred more • Preface po vi.
| Mat. xxi. 12. Mark xi. 15. Luke xix. 45.
than once; especially when we have so easy a substitute as that which we have mentioned that one or more of the Evangelists neglected the order of time. If these similar accounts of different occurrences were found in the same gospel, there would be nothing to object to their diversity ; but is it not unaccountable on this hypothesis, to mention only one of many instances, that although such an important event as the clearing of the temple occurred twice, that it should be mentioned once and only once by each of the Evangelists? The case is different with respect to the repetition of the same parables, or the same sayings; although we are far from allowing the license which has been used as to these by some harmonists. But this hypothesis is the only answer that is made to the objection which we have stated; and those harmonists therefore who consider each of the gospels to be chronologically arranged, have supposed all events mentioned by more than one Evangelist, the accounts of which do not occur in corresponding places, to have occurred more than once.
To avoid the very obvious and insuperable difficulty, which attends this opinion, harmonists who have had less superstitious reverence for the sacred text, have denied that attention was paid to the order of time by all the Evangelists, and agreed that some transpositions must be made to produce an orderly and harmonious arrangement. But these have also differed as to the transpositions to be made, and as to the gospel to whose arrangement the others must be made to conform. One of the Evangelists must be allowed to have paid some attention to the dates of his events, or there can be no dependence on any order which may be proposed. The gospels of Matthew and John, who were apostles, on this account are justly thought to have greater authority, as to the dates of events, especially after the period when they were called to be ministers, than those of Mark or Luke, because their writers had better means of information. It has indeed been thought, that Luke intend