« ElőzőTovább »
chapter. Perhaps he did not perform that journey on foot, that he might be as little as possible from Galilee, to which country he seems to have devoted all the first part of the year, viz. from the passover to the feast of tabernacles. His disciples, if they did go to the feast, might travel in the same manner, and perhaps be dispersed among their acquaintance in Jerusalem. § 5. Of the proper Place for the Incidents mentioned by Luke
ix. 51,-xviii. 14. From chap. ix. 51, to xviii. 14, Luke seems to relate what passed after Jesus took his final leave of Galilee, in order to reside chiefly in Judea, during the remainder of his ministerial year. This appears to me sufficiently to account for the manner in which this part of his history is introduced, “ And it came to pass when the time was come that he should be received up.
If we refer these incidents to the feast of dedication, we still depart from the literal sense of the words, (on the most probable supposition, that avannus means his ascension to the Father, after the completion of his ministry,) and it is impossible to find room for them in the history subsequent to his journey to Jerusalem, at the last passover, when only the time was actually come that he should be
Besides, in this part of his work, Luke seems to relate, without much regard to the order of time, a number of instructions and parables, many of which must have been delivered before either the sending out or the return of the seventy, mentioned x. 17. This evangelist, however, seems to have imagined, that they were all delivered about the time of his last departure from Galilee to Jerusalem.
Those of these incidents and discourses that cannot be paralleled in Matthew, or any other evangelist, I thought I could not do better than throw all together, between the feast of tabernacles (at, or soon after which, the seventy probably returned) and the feast of dedication. 8 6. Of the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven.
The parables of the mustard seed, and of the leaven, mentioned Luke xiii. 18-21, are related in different cir. cumstances by Matthew ; but as they are mentioned by Luke in immediate connexion with the account of our Lord's travelling towards Jerusalem, it may perhaps be most advisable to repeat them in a complete harmony.
87. Of the Discourse concerning hating a Man's Father and
Mother. There is a passage, parallel to that of Luke xiv. 26, concerning a man's hating“ his father and mother,” &c. in Matt. X. 37. In Matthew, however, it is related as spoken to his disciples in private, but in Luke to a great multitude.
§ 8. Of the Discourses delivered beyond Jordan. The discourses recorded Matt. xix. 3, &c. appear, by their connexion, to have been delivered “beyond Jordan ;' and they also appear to have immediately preceded Jesus's last journey to Jerusalem. We must, therefore, suppose the evangelist omitted all that passed between our Lord's leaving this country to his return to it, mentioned by John only. From their introduction in Matthew and Mark, they would seem to have been delivered immediately upon his first arrival in that country “ from Galilee;" (Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1;) but as the conclusion of them is immediately connected with the account of his last journey from thence to Jerusalem, every incident of which must have made the deepest impression on their memories, I think it most probable that they were delivered then.
§ 9. Of the Place where the Infants were brought to Jesus.
According to Matthew and Mark, the infants were brought to Jesus, and the question concerning eternal life was asked
beyond Jordan;" but Luke (xviii. 15, 31) represents them as happening only in the way to Jerusalem, without mentioning the country beyond Jordan. This evangelist seems not to have imagined that Jesus went thither at all, in his journey from Galilee ; for he only mentions his passing through Samaria, though he doth mention his coming to Jericho, which was in his way from beyond Jordan, and not in his way through Samaria.
§ 10. Of the blind Man cured by Jesus near Jericho. The blind man, according to Luke xviii. 35, (compared with xix. 1,) was cured before Jesus entered Jericho, whereas Matthew says expressly, (xx. 29,) that the miracle was performed “ as they departed from Jericho.” This evangelist, who was present, is most to be depended on.
Pilkington, indeed, maintains that the word eyrisevy may signify to be near, as well as to approach; and in proof of this he says, that Luke uses the sanie word when he is describing the last entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, when he says, ηγγιζεν εις Βελφαγη και Βελανιαν, ας he was near to Bethphage and Bethany ; because it is evident, from the course of the history, that Jesus was then going not towards but from Bethphage and Bethany. But Luke says nothing of Jesus having been at Bethphage or Bethany, as the other evangelists do, but describes his triumphant entry into Jerusalem as in immediate connexion with his journey from Jericho. Luke's idea, probably, was simply this, that the circumstance he was about to relate happened when Jesus was so far on his way to Jerusalem as to be near Bethphage and Bethany, but before he entered them; and as Jerusalem was at no great distance, it might, probably, be in view from some part of the road, before his arrival at those two villages.
§ 11. Of the Parable concerning the Ten Servants, and the
Ten Talents. The parable related in Luke xix. 12, concerning the nobleman and “his ten servants,” and that in Matt. xxv. 1430, concerning the talents, very much resemble one another ; but they differ in several respects, and the parable in Luke is expressly said to be delivered “because he was nigh to Jerusalem,” (perhaps in the house of Zaccheus,) whereas the parable in Matthew was delivered after his last departure from the temple.
§ 12. Of the Lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem. It seems more probable that our Lord's lamentation over Jerusalem was made when he came in view of the city, in his journey from Jericho to Bethany, than during his triumphant entry into it, as Luke represents. In coming to Bethany, he must have been very near Jerusalem, the two places being only fourteen furlongs distant from one another. * Besides, so particular a prophecy as our Lord's speech upon this occasion contains, ( Luke xix. 43, 44,) seems more likely to have been delivered to his particular disciples, than to the
• Sandys, in 1611, visited « Bethania, (two miles from Jerusalem,) now a tottered village, inhabited by Arabians." Travels, (ed. 7,) 1673, p. 153.
mixed multitude that attended him in his triumphant entry. As no other evangelist, however, mentions his lamentation, it may seem too bold to set aside the order even of Luke upon mere conjecture.
§ 13. Of the Supper at Bethany. According to Matthew, (xxvi. 2, 6,) Jesus supped with Simon at Bethany, (at which time Mary anointed him with precious ointment,) “ two days” before " the passover,' after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and his discourses in the temple. But John (xii. 1, 2) expressly says, that this supper was “ six days before the passover,” and also, (xii. 12,) the day before his triumphant entry. In this case we must either make the authority of Matthew yield to that of John, who is the more circumstantial of the two, or we must transpose the account of Matthew ; and if the verses that contain this story in Matthew (xxvi. 6—13) be considered, they will be found to stand very awkwardly in their present situation, where they interrupt an account of a consultation among the Jews about putting Jesus to death. And the whole story, from ver. 6 to 13 inclusive, may very easily be taken out, and vers. 5 and 14 will have sufficient connexion. The Gospel of Mark will read equally well with a similar parenthesis, viz. from chap. xiv. 3 to 9, inclusive.
It is not impossible but that the story might have been written by Matthew after the rest of the history was composed ; and that, finding his account of the journey from Jericho, and of the entry into Jerusalem, were so connected, (xii. 1,) that the account of this supper could not be inserted between them, (and not being very solicitous about the exact order of his narration,) he, or some other person for him, put it, without much circumspection, where it now stands. *
It is remarkable, however, and unfavourable to this transposition, that this story in Mark stands precisely in the same connexion as it doth in Matthew. It looks as if Mark, when he saw Matthew's Gospel, had drawn up an account of the same incident, and inserted it in the same place in his own work.
Or these stories may have happened to be so connected in the notes taken from the apostle's preaching, and, being of good authority in other respects, may have gained so much credit, as to have been copied by the evangelists themselves, just as we find them. I hardly know how to account for the remarkable resemblance between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark in this case, without having recourse to this supposition; as I am convinced that they had neither of them seen each other's Gospel ; at least, at the time of their beginning to write.
* See supra, p. 84.
It is possible, however, that Matthew and Mark might choose to introduce the account of the supper at Bethany, after mentioning the last consultation of the Jews to kill Jesus, and of the assistance they received from Judas, by reciting, in that place, the first occasion of Judas's disgust, though it happened some time before; a thing wbich is very common with historians. Upon the whole, I have adhered to the account of John. Having seen what the other evangelists had written, it may be presumed that, where he differs from them, it was with design, and in order to be more exact.
In one respect the account of Matthew and Mark may be thought to be more probable than that of John. It is evi. dent that the Jews held frequent consultations about putting Jesus to death, particularly at the time of the resurrection of Lazarus ; but, according to all the evangelists, Judas was instigated to betray him, by the affront he conceived to be put upon him, in the observation our Lord made about the precious ointment at this supper at Bethany; and it is more probable that he should keep to so base a purpose two days only, than six. But, on the other hand, there would be more time for consultation upon the other supposition, as it is not so probable that so convenient an opportunity as Judas found should have occurred in two days.
Mr. Whiston and other harmonists maintain, that the anointing of our Saviour mentioned by John is wholly different from that which is mentioned by Matthew and Mark. But the different circunstances in these stories, on which he lays so much stress, are either inconsiderable, or not absolutely incompatible.
The anointing mentioned by John was of the feet, the other of the head and the whole body. But both might have been done at the same time. Of the former only Judas complained, of the other, all the disciples. But the rest might join in his complaint, though less openly. In the