Amidst fo 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 suited to the limits of my volume, than to the nature of a controverfial argument. For the hiftorical proofs of my affertions, and for the Greek criticifms 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.

I. The taxing, during which Jefus was born, was "first made,” as we read, according to our tranflation, in St. Luke, "whilft Cyrenius was governor of Syria."a Now it turns out that Cyrenius was not governor of Syria until twelve, or, at the foonest, ten years, after the birth of Christ; 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 "first"-" And this taxing was firft 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 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. if the evangelist knew, which this word proves that he did, of fome other taxing befide 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.

And

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 ufed after the

b 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 cor

U

name of Cyrenius as his 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 transac tion, which the account describes. A modern writer, who was not very exact in the choice of his expreffions, in relating the af fairs of the Eaft-Indies, might eafily fay, that fuch a thing was done by governor Haftings, though, in truth, the thing had been done by him before his advancement to the station from 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 enrollment 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 enrollment going on about this time under fome 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 firft.

II. Another chronological objection arifes upon a date af figned in the beginning of the third chapter of St. Luke;b "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius CæfarJefus began to be about thirty years of age;" for fuppofing Jefus to have been born, as St. Matthew, and St. Luke also himself, relates, in the time of Herod, he muft, according to the dates given in Jofephus, and by the Roman hiftorians, have been at leaft thirty-one years of age in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. If he was born, as St. Matthew's narrative intimates, one or two years before Herod's death, he would have been thirty-two or thirty-three years old, at that time.

refponds with the chronology. But I rather choose to argue, that, however the word "firft" be rendered, to give it a meaning at all, it militates with the objection. In this I think there can be no mistake,

a Jofephus (Ant. 17. c. 2. fcc. 6.) has this remarkable paffage"When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Cæfar, and the interests of the king." This transaction 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 Josephus for it.

b Lard. part I. vol. II. p. 768.

This is the difficulty: the folution turns upon an alteration in the conftruction of the Greek. St. Luke's words in the original are allowed, by the general opinion of learned men, to fignify, not "that Jefus began to be about thirty years of age," but that he was about thirty years of age when he began his miniftry." This conftruction being admitted, the adverb "about" gives us all the latitude we want, and more; efpecially when applied, as it is in the prefent inftance, to a decimal number; for fuch numbers, even without this qualifying addition, are often ufed in a laxer fenfe than is here contended for.* III. A&ts v. 36. "For before these days rofe up Theudas, boasting himself to be fomebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; who was flain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were fcattered and brought to nought."

Jofephus has preferved the account of an impoftor, of the name of Theudas, who created fome difturbances, and was flain; but, according to the date affigned to this man's appearance, (in which, however, it is very poffible that Jofephus may have. been mistaken) it must have been, at the least, seven years after Gamaliel's fpeech, of which this text is a part, was delivered. It has been replied to the objection, that there might be two impoftors of this name; and it has been obferved, in order to give a general probability to the folution, that the fame thing appears to have happened in other inftances of the fame kind. It is proved from Jofephus, that there were not fewer than four perfons of the name of Simon, within forty years, and not fewer than three, of the name of Judas, within ten years, who were all leaders of infurrections: and it is likewife recorded by this hiftorian, that, upon the death of Herod the Great, (which agrees very well with the time of the commo

a Livy, speaking of the peace, which the conduct of Romulus had procured to the State, during the whole reign of his fucceffor* (Numa,) has these words-" Ab illo enim profectis viribus datis tantum valuit, ut, in quadraginta deinde annos, tutam pacem haberet :" yet, afterwards, in the fame chapter, "Romulus (he fays) feptem et triginta regnavit annos, Numa tres et quadraginta."

b Michaelis's Introduction to the New Test. (Marfh's Tranflation) vol. I. p. 61.

< Lardner, part I. vol. II. p. 922.

* Liv. Hift. c. 1. fec. 16.

tion referred to by Gamaliel, and with his manner of stating that time "before these days") there were innumerable disturb ances in Judea. Archbishop Ufher was of opinion, that one of the three Judas's above mentioned was Gamaliel's Theudas ; and that, with a less variation of the name than we actually find in the gofpels, where one of the twelve apoftles is called by Luke, Judas, and by Mark, Thaddeus, Origen, however he came at his information, appears to have believed, that there was an impoftor of the name of Theudas before the nativity of Chrift.d

IV. Mat. xxiii. 34. "Wherefore, behold, I fend unto you prophets, and wife men, and fcribes: and fome of them ye fhall kill and crucify; and fome of them fhall ye fcourge in your fynagogues, and perfecute them from city to city; that upon you may come all the righteous blood fhed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, fon of Barachias, whom ye flew between the temple and the altar."

There is a Zacharias, whofe death is related in the fecond book of Chronicles, in a manner which perfectly fupports our Saviour's allufion. But this Zacharias was the fon of Jehoiada.

There is alfo Zacharias the prophet; who was the son of Barachiah, and is fo defcribed in the fuperfcription of his prophecy, but of whofe death we have no account.

I have little doubt, but that the first Zacharias was the perfon fpoken of by our Saviour; and that the name of the father has been fince added, or changed, by fome one, who took it from the title of the prophecy, which happened to be better known to him than the hiftory in the Chronicles.

There is likewife a Zacharias, the fon of Baruch, related by Jofephus to have been flain in the temple, a few years before the deftruction of Jerufalem. It has been infinuated, that the words put into our Saviour's mouth, contain a reference to this tranfaction, and were compofed by fome writer, who either b Annals, p. 797. d Or. Con. Celf. p. 44.

a Ant. l. 17. c. 12. fec. 4.

c Luke vi. 16. Mark iii. 18.

e" And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus faith God, why tranfgrefs ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot profper? Because ye have forfaken the Lord, he hath alfo forfaken you. And they conspired against him, and floned him with flones, at the commandment of the king, in the court of the boufe of the Lord." 2 Chron. xxiv. 20.

confounded the time of the tranfaction with our Saviour's age, or inadvertently overlooked the anachronism.

Now fuppofe it to have been fo; fuppofe these words to have been fuggefted by the tranfaction related in Jofephus, and to have been falfely ascribed to Chrift; and obferve what extraordinary coincidences (accidentally, as it must in that cafe have been) attend the forger's mistake.

First, that we have a Zacharias in the book of Chronicles, whose death, and the manner of it, correfponds with the allufion.

Secondly, that although the name of this perfon's father be erroneously put down in the gospel, yet we have a way of accounting for the error, by fhowing another Zacharias in the Jewith fcriptures, much better known than the former, whose patronymic was actually that which appears in the text.

Every one, who thinks upon the subject, will find these to be circumstances, which could not have met together in a miftake, which did not proceed from the circumstances themfelves.

I have noticed, I think, all the difficulties of this kind. They are few; fome of them admit of a clear, others of a prob. able folution. The reader will compare them with the num ber, the variety, the clofenefs, and the fatisfactoriness of the inftances which are to be fet against them; and he will remember the fcantinefs, in many cafes, of our intelligence, and that diffi culties always attend imperfect information.

Undefigned Coincidences...

BETWEEN the letters which bear the name of St. Paul in our collection, and his hiftory in the Acts of the apofties, there exift many notes of correfpondency. The fimple perutal of the writings is fufficient to prove, that neither the history was taken from the letters, nor the letters from the hiftory. And the undefignedness of the agreements, which undefignednefs is gathered from their latency, their minutenefs, their ob liquity, the fuitableness of the circumftances in which they confift, to the places in which thofe circumstances occur, and the circuitous references by which they are traced out, demon!tates.