Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAP. VI.

ONE argument, which has been much relied upon (but not more than its juft weight deferves), is the conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned or referred to in scripture, with the state of things in thofe times, as represented by foreign and independent accounts. Which conformity proves, that the writers of the New Teftament poffeffed a fpecies of local knowledge, which could only belong to an inhabitant of that country, and to one living in that age. This argument, if well made out by examples, is very little fhort of proving the abfolute genuineness of the writings. It carries them up to the age of the reputed authors, to an age, in which it must have been difficult to impose upon the Chriftian public, forgeries in the names of thofe authors, and in which there is no evidence that any forgeries were attempted. It proves at leaft, that the books, whoever

K 3

whoever were the authors of them, were compofed by perfons living in the time and country in which these things were tranfacted; and confequently capable, by their fituation, of being well informed of the facts which they relate. And the argument is ftronger, when applied to the New Teftament, than it is in the case of almoft any other writings, by reafon of the mixed nature of the allufions which this book contains. The scene of action is not confined to a fingle country, but difplayed in the greatest cities of the Roman empire. Allufions are made to the manners and principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews. This variety renders a forgery proportionably more difficult, efpecially to writers of a pofterior age. A Greek or Roman Chriftian, who lived in the fecond or third century, would have been wanting in Jewish literature; a Jewish convert in those ages would have been equally deficient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome*.

*Michaelis's Introduction to the New Teftament

(Marsh's tranflation), c. ii. feç. xi.

This, however, is an argument which depends entirely upon an induction of particulars; and as, confequently, it carries with it little force, without a view of the inftances upon which it is built, I have to request the reader's attention to a detail of examples, diftinctly and articulately proposed. In collecting thefe examples, I have done. no more than epitomize the first volume of the first part of Dr. Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History. And I have brought the argument within its prefent compass, first, by paffing over fome of his fections in which the accordancy appeared to me lefs certain, or upon fubjects not sufficiently appropriate or circumftantial; fecondly, by contracting every fection into the fewest words poffible, contenting myself for the moft part with a mere appofition of paffages; and, thirdly, by omitting many difquifitions, which, though learned and accurate, are not abfolutely neceffary to the understanding or verification of the argument.

The writer principally made use of in

the enquiry, is Jofephus. Jofephus was born at Jerufalem four years after Christ's afcenfion. He wrote his hiftory of the Jewish war fome time after the destruction of Jerufalem, which happened in the year of our Lord feventy, that is, thirty-feven years after the afcenfion; and his history of the Jews he finished in the year ninetythree, that is, fixty years after the afcenfion.

At the head of each article, I have referred, by figures included in brackets, to the page of Dr. Lardner's volume, where the fection, from which the abridgement is made, begins. The edition ufed is that of 1741.

"When he

I. (p. 14.) Mat. xi. 22. (Jofeph) heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned afide into the parts of Galilee."

In this paffage it is afferted, that Arche

laus

laus fucceeded Herod in Judea; and it is implied, that his power did not extend to Galilee. Now we learn from Jofephus, that Herod the Great, whofe dominion included all the land of Ifrael, appointed Archelaus his fucceffor in Judea, and affigned the rest of his dominions to other fons; and that this difpofition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Roman emperor *.

St. Matthew fays, that Archelaus reigned, was king in Judea. Agreeably to this, we are informed by Jofephus, not only that Herod appointed Archelaus his fucceffor in Judea, but that he also appointed him with the title of king; and the Greek verb Barive, which the evangelift uses to denote the government and rank of Archelaus, is used likewife by Jofephus †.

The cruelty of Archelaus's character, which is not obfcurely intimated by the

* Ant. lib. xvii. c. 8, fec. 1.
+ De Bell. lib. i. c. 33, fec. 7.

« PreviousContinue »