situation, of being well informed of the facts which they relate. And the argument is stronger when applied to the New Testament, than it is in the case of almost any other writings, by reason of the mixed nature of the allusions which this book contains. The scene of action is not confined to a single country, but displayed in the greatest cities of the Roman empire. Allusions are made to the manners and principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews. This variety renders a forgery proportionably more difficult, especially to writers of a posterior age. A Greek or Roman Christian, who lived in the second 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.1

This, however, is an argument which depends entirely upon an induction of particulars; and as, consequently, it carries with it little force, without a view of the instances upon which it is built, I have to request the reader's attention to a detail of examples, distinctly and articulately proposed. In collecting these examples, I have done no more than epitomize the first volume of the first part of Dr. Lardner's Credibility of the

1 Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament (Marsh's translation), c. ii. sect. xi.

Gospel History. And I have brought the argument within its present compass, first, by passing over some of his sections, in which the accordance appeared to me less certain, or upon subjects not sufficiently appropriate or circumstantial; secondly, by contracting every section into the fewest words possible, contenting myself for the most part with a mere apposition of passages; and, thirdly, by omitting many disquisitions, which, though learned and accurate, are not absolutely necessary to the understanding or verification of the argument.

The writer principally made use of in the inquiry is Josephus. Josephus was born at Jerusalem four years after Christ's ascension. He wrote his history of the Jewish war some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in the year of our Lord 70, that is, thirty-seven years after the ascension; and his history of the Jews he finished in the year 93, that is, sixty years after the ascension.

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

I. [p. 14.] Matt. ii. 22. "When he (Joseph) 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 aside into the parts of Galilee."

In this passage it is asserted, that Archelaus succeeded Herod in Judea; and it is implied, that his power did not extend to Galilee. Now we learn from Josephus, that Herod the Great, whose dominion included all the land of Israel, appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, and assigned the rest of his dominions to other sons; and that this disposition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Roman emperor.2

Saint Matthew says, that Archelaus reigned, was king, in Judea. Agreeably to this, we are informed by Josephus, not only that Herod appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, but that he also appointed him with the title of King; and the Greek verb Bariλevel, which the Evangelist uses to denote the government and rank of Archelaus, is used likewise by Josephus.3

The cruelty of Archelaus' character, which is not obscurely intimated by the Evangelist, agrees with divers particulars in his history, preserved by Josephus :-" In the tenth year of his government, the chief of the Jews and

2 Ant., lib. xvii. c. 8, sect. 1.

De Bell., lib. i. c. 33, sect. 7, 8.

Samaritans, not being able to endure his cruelty and tyranny, presented complaints against him to Cæsar."4

II. [p. 19.] Luke iii. 1. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar,-Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, the word of God came unto John."

5

By the will of Herod the Great, and the decree of Augustus thereupon, his two sons were appointed, one (Herod Antipas) tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa, and the other (Philip) tetrarch of Trachonitis and the neighbouring countries. We have therefore these two persons in the situations in which Saint Luke places them; and also, that they were in these situations in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, in other words that they continued in possession of their territories and titles until that time, and afterwards, appears from a passage of Josephus, which relates of Herod, "that he was removed by Caligula, the successor of Tiberius ; and of Philip, that he died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis and Batanea and Gaulanitis thirty-seven years."

Ant., lib. xvii. c. 13, sect. 2.

5 Ibid., c. 8, sect. 1.

דיי

• Ibid., lib. xviii. c. 8, sect. 2

7 Ant., lib. xviii. c. 4, sect. 6.

III. [p. 20.] Mark vi. 17.8" Herod had sent forth, and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison, for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her."

With this compare Joseph. Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 5, sect. 1:-" He (Herod the tetrarch) made a visit to Herod his brother. Here falling in love with Herodias, the wife of the said Herod, he ventured to make her proposals of marriage." 9

Again, Mark vi. 22. " And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in and danced-."

With this also compare Joseph. Antiq., lib. xviii. c. 5, sect. 4. Herodias was married to Herod, son of Herod the Great. They had a

See also Matt. xiv. 1-13; Luke iii. 19.

• The affinity of the two accounts is unquestionable; but there is a difference in the name of Herodias' first husband, which, in the evangelist, is Philip; in Josephus, Herod. The difficulty, however, will not appear considerable, when we recollect how common it was in those times for the same person to bear two names. "Simon, which is called Peter; Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus; Thomas, which is called Didymus; Simeon, who was called Niger; Saul, who was also called Paul." The solution is rendered likewise easier, in the present case, by the consideration that Herod the Great had children by seven or eight wives; that Josephus mentions three of his sons under the name of Herod; that it is nevertheless highly probable that the brothers bore some additional name, by which they were distinguished from one another.-Lardner, vol. ii. p. 897.