תמונות בעמוד


MARK xiv. part of ver. 68. 68 But he denied, saying

LUKE xxii. part of ver. 56.
56 But a certain maid-

JOIN xviii. part of ver. 17, 25.
17 Then said
25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself-

After Midnight-Peter's second Denial of Christ, at the

Porch of the Palace of the High Priest.
MATT. xxvi. 71, 72. MARK xiv. 69. part of ver. 70.

LUKE xxii, 58.
Mt.xxvi.71. And when he was gone out into the porch,
La. xxii.58. after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art

one of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
Mt. xxvi.71. And another maid saw him,
Mar. xiv.69. and began to say to them that stood by,
Mt. xxvi.71. This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth ;
Mar. xiv.69. This is one of them.
Mt. xxvi.72. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the

[blocks in formation]

Friday, the Day of the Crucifixion-Time about three in

the Morning. Peter's third Denial of Christ, in the
Room where Christ was waiting among the Soldiers till
the Dawn of Day.
MATT. xxvi. 73–75. MARK xiv. 70–72. LUKE xxij.

La.xxii.59. And about the space of one hour after, another confi-

denied “ Christ at three several times, and in three several
places;" and so had remarkably fulfilled the second significa-
tion of the prediction, “ Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice.”

If it shall appear that there is nothing forced or misrepre-
sented in the relation of this matter; then it must be allowed
that the evangelical accounts are so far from being contradic-
tory or inconsistent, that they greatly illustrate each other, and
shew the true meaning, and the full accomplishment, of what
our Saviour foretold with respect to this event (e.)

(a) Bava Kama, c. vii. Hal. ult. Jvapen Obit2 p52337 75728 T*
ap Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 262. fol. edit. (6) Quænam hora venit præsec-
tas Templi? Resp. non semper tempus definitum observat wys
:7337 nipa xd ninw noonunquam venit tempore gallicinii, vel circa.
(C) Schoetgen. Hor. Heb. vol. 1. p. 232, 233. *(d) Vide Lightfoot, on
John xiii. 38. Works, vol. ii. folio edit. Dr. Bright's. (@) Pilkington,
Notes to the Evangelical History, p. 65.

dently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also-was Jerusalem.

with him, for he is a Galilean.
Lu. xxii.60. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest.
Mar. xiv.70. And they that stood by, said again to Peter,
Mt.xxvi.73. Surely thou also art one of them,
Mar. xiv.70. for thou art a Galilean : and thy speech agreeth thereto,
Mt. xxvi.73. for thy speech bewrayeth thee.

74. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know

not the man ;
Mar. xiv.71. I know not this man of whom ye speak.
Lu. xxi.60. And immediately while he yet spake, the cock crew;
Mar. xiv.72. the second time the cock crew.
Lu. xxii,61. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter; and

Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how that he had
said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me

Mar.xiv.72. Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

And when he thought thereon, he wept;
Mt. xxvi.76. he went out and wept bitterly.

MATT. xxvi. part of ver. 73, 74, 75.
73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and
said to Peter-

74 — And immediately the cock crew-
75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto
him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

MARK xiv. part of ver. 70, 71, 72.
70 — And a little after-Surely thou art one of them
71 But be began to curse and to swear-

72 –And Peter called to mind the word whicb Jesus said
unto bim-


9 Pfeiffer, in the last treatise of his Dubia Vexata, endeavours to prove that the common dialect, both of Galilee and Judea, was not Hebrew, but Syro-Chaldaic, or Aramaic, mixed with Greek, and that they differed only in accent and pronunciation. The learned men, of both countries, understood and conversed in pure Hebrew. The Galilean dialect oonsisted in a corrupt and confused pronunciation of the common Syro-Chaldaic; and this dialect was the vernacular language of the Apostle.

According to Lightfoot, y for * (which change indeed is frequent in the Aramaic dialect, and by no means peculiar to the Galilean,) ɔ for a, n for 7, and they also frequently changed the gutturals. Among other instances of the effects of these changes, he mentions the following amusing circumstance:-A certain woman intended to say to the judge, My Lord, I had a picture, which they stole, and it was so great, that if you had been placed in it, your feet would not have touched the ground. But her words, from the dialect she used, admitted this interpretation-Sir Slave, I had a beam, and they stole thee away; and it was so great, that if they bad bang thee on it, thy feet would not have touched the ground.

Schoetgen (a), among others, mentions, Brescith Rabba, sect. xxvi. fol. 26. 3. popoxe pouzumab prins xbban In Galilæa serpentem,' qui alias pirun dicitur, vocant N*T*x ut pro 7 usurpat r.

Horne and Pfeiffer, as well as the two last mentioned authori. ties, have collected similar instances.

(a) Schoetgen, vol. i. p. 235.




Christ is taken before the Sanhedrim, and condemned.
MATT. xxvii. 1.


of 1. LUKE xxii. 66.

to the end.
Mark Xv.l. And straightway in the morning,
Lu.xxii. 66. as soon as it was day,
Mark xv. 1. the Chief Priests held a consultation with the elders
Mat.xxvii.l. of the people,
Mark xv. 1. and the Scribes, and the whole council,
Matxxvii.l. [and] took counsel against Jesus to put him to death.
Lu. xxii.66. And they led him into their council,

67. saying, Art thou the Christ ? tell us. And he said unto

them, If I tell you, you will not believe.
68. And if I also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let

me go.

69. Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of

of God.
70. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God?

And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71. And they said, What need we any further witness ? for
we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

MATT. xxvii. part of ver. 1.
I When the morning was come, all the Chief Priests and

LUKE xxii. part of ver. 66.
66 —the elders of the people, and the Chief Priests, and the
Scribes came together-

[ocr errors]

Judas declares the Innocence of Christo.

MATT. xxvii. 3-10.
Mat.xxvii.3. Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw

that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought
again the thirty pieces of silver to the Chief Priests and

4. Saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the in-

nocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see

thou to that.
5. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,

and departed, and went and hanged himself".

10 I am induced to place this section here, because it does not appear that the Sanhedrim returned to their council chamber in the temple after our Lord had been condemned by Pilate, and we must therefore refer the repentance of Judas to his condemnation by the Sanhedrim in the temple.

11 The account of the death of Judas is attended with some difficulty. The manner in which Weston reconciles St. Mat. thew and St. Luke, seems to be the most preferable. St. Matthew says, århytato, “ he hanged bimself," and St. Luke that he apnvis yevójevos, falling headlong, as we have translated it,

Mt.xxvii.6. And the Chief Priests took the silver pieces, and said, Jerusalem.

It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because

it is the price of blood.
7. And they took counsel, and bought with them the pot-

ter's field, to bury strangers in.
8. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood,

unto this day.
9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy

the prophet", saying, And they took the thirty pieces of
silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the

children of Israel did value;
10. And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord ap-

pointed me.

(Acts i. 18.) burst asunder in the midst, and his bowels gushed.
out. Some suppose Judas to have fallen on his face after hang-
ing, by the breaking of the rope. Others, that he was choked
with grief, and burst asunder. Weston renders the passage,
Matt. xxvii. 5. he strangled himself, and the rope failing, he
fell headlong, and his bowels gushed out. This solution ap-
pears to be more satisfactory than any other. See Weston apud.
Bowyer's Critical Conjectures, p. 128, 129. See also the refer-
ences in Archbishop Newcome's note, and the commentators.

12 The words quoted bere are not in the prophet Jeremiah,
but in Zech. xi. 13. But St. Jerom says, that a Hebrew, of the
sect of the Nazarenes, shewed him this prophecy in a Hebrew
apocryphal copy of Jeremiah ; but probably they were inserted
there, only to countenance the quotation here. One of Col.
bert's, a MS. of the eleventh century, has Zaxaplov, Zecha-
riab; so has the later Syriac in the margin, and a copy of the
Arabic, quoted by Bengel. In a very elegant and correct MS.
of the Vulgate, in the possession of Dr. A. Clarke, written
in the fourteenth century, Zachariam is in the margin, and Je-
rimiam is in the text; but the former is written by a later hand.
Jeremiah is wanting in two MSS. the Syriac, later Persic, two
of the Itala, aud in some other Latin copies. It is very likely
that the original reading was oià ToŨ a poorov, and the name of
no prophet mentioned. This is the more likely, as Matthew
often omits the name of the prophet in his quotations. See
chap. i. 22. ii. 5. 15. xiii. 35. xxi. 4. Bengel approves of the

It was an ancient custom among the Jews, says Lightfoot, to divide the Old Testament into thrce parts; the first, begioning with the law, is called the Law: the second, begins ning with the Psalms, was called the Psalms; the third, beginning with the prophet in question, was called Jeremiah: thus, then, the writings of Zechariah and the other prophets being included in that division that began with Jeremiah, all quotations from it would go under the name of this prophet. If this be admitted, it solves the difficulty at once. Lightfoot quotes Bava Bathra, and Rabbi David Kimchi's preface to the prophet Jeremiah, as his authorities; and insists that the word Jeremiah is perfectly correct, as standing at the head of that division from which the evangelist quoted, and which gave its denomi. nation to all the rest (a.)

(a) Vide Dr. A. Clarke's Comment, in loc. Lightfoot's Harmony, Pitman's 8vo. edit. vol. ii. p. 157, 158. and the note on the Prophecies of Zechariah, in the second volume of the Arrangement of the Old Testament.



Christ is accused before Pilate, and is by Him also

declared to be Innocent.
MATT. xxvii. 2. and 11-14. MARK XV. 1-5.

xxiii. 1-4. JOHN xviii, 28-38.
Lu. xxiii.l. And the whole multitude of them arose,
Mark xv. I. and bound Jesus,
Mat.xxvii.2. And when they had bound him, they led him away
Jo. xviii. 28. from Caiaphas, unto the hall of judgment :
Mat.xxvii.2. and delivered him unto Pontius Pilate the governor.
Jo. xviii. 28. and it was early; and they themselves went not into the

judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they

might eat the passover.
29. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accu-

sation bring you against this man?
30. They answered and said unto him, If he were not a

malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said

unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death : 32.

That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die '3.

13 Much discussion has taken place on the question, whether
the Jews, in the time of our Lord, retained the power of life
and death. Lightfoot, Dr. Lardner, Doddridge, &c. have stre-
puously defended the negative ; Biscoe is the principal author,
of late date, who has adopted the affirmative.

Two kinds of arguments have been used, to prove that the
Jews were deprived of the power of inflieting capital punish-
ments: one taken from the Roman laws, or the nature of the
Roman government, the other from certain passages in the
New Testament.

The judge, according to the Roman laws, exerted in criminal
affairs the Imperium merum ; in civil causes, Imperium mix-
tum. Proconsuls and presidents of provinces, as Pilate was,
possessed both these powers. They were the representatives of,
and next to, the emperor, in their respective provinces.

The arguments by which the position is defended, that the Jews had not the power of life and death at this time, are thus proposed, and answered by Biscoe (a).

1. There was à Roman law, which states that the municipal magistrate cannot do those things wbich have more of imperium than of jurisdiction; the municipal magistrates not have ing it in their power to enforce their orders.

Ans. It cannot be proved that this law existed at the time in question : and even if it bad, there is sufficient grounds for concluding it was confined to the municipes, who were Roman citizens, and therefore to be tried and punished by magistrates of the first rank; and that it did not extend to the provincials, who were less regarded, and left more under the power of their own magistrates.

2. The power of inflicting capital punishments could pot be exercised by any magistrate, unless it were given bim by some special law or constitution; therefore this power could not be transferable to magistrates who beld a delegated jurisdiction.

« הקודםהמשך »