« PreviousContinue »
embraces an earlier feast (v. 1.), which, on this theory, was a Pentecost; our Lord accordingly appearing to have "fulfilled all righteousness," in being present at Jerusalem at every great festival during his ministry; viz. at the Passover in March or April succeeding his baptism (John 11. 23.); the Pentecost, in May (v. 1.); the Tabernacles, in September (vII. 2.); and the Dedication, in November or December (x. 22.) According to the common hypothesis, out of twelve great festivals, which occurred between our Lord's baptism and his crucifixion, he kept but five at the holy city.
The narrative of Matthew, beginning (1v. 12.) with the departure of Jesus into Galilee, after the Feast of Tabernacles, appears to be uninterrupted as far as chapter x. which records the mission of the twelve with their instructions. (pp. 40-81.) Now if the Feast of Dedication, mentioned by John (x. 22.), had taken place at any time between these two events, we cannot account for Matthew's omitting to mention it. And as, for the same reason, it cannot well be placed between Jesus's hearing of the death of John (Matthew xiv. 13.) and the crucifixion Passover, it is naturally referred to the time, when Matthew, with other apostles, was absent from Jesus. John, indeed, from the accuracy of his relation, may seem to have been with him at that feast; but it is not natural, nor have we any authority, to suppose, that all the apostles rejoined him at the same time; and if Thomas and others (xI. 16.) were with him not long after, it was not till Jesus had gone "away again beyond Jordan," after the feast, and "there abode." (x. 40.) The narrative of Matthew, accordingly, is followed from the departure into Galilee, after the Feast of Tabernacles, to the mission of the twelve. After this, at a time when Matthew was probably absent, is placed John's account of Jesus's journey to Jerusalem to the Feast of Dedication, followed by the events connected with it by that evangelist (pp. 87-91.) as far as XI. 55., where he introduces a new date. Next (after an ar-` rangement, in Matthew's order, of events, which occurred near, both before and after, the mission of the twelve and the Dedication Feast, pp. 82 - 86, 91 110,) comes the succession of
events from Jesus's feeding of the five thousand, detailed by Matthew in a closely connected narrative, from xiv. 13, down to xxI., which begins the crucifixion week. (pp. 110-154.)
It was remarked, that the scheme proposed by Dr. Carpenter, and adopted in the following pages, offers the advantage of pursuing the order of both those evangelists, who were also apostles of our Lord. An examination of the table of chapters will show to what extent this has been done. Some of the few apparent deviations are not such in reality. The passages in Matthew iv. 17 (page 40), and x. 2, &c. (page 74), are but transferred a little from their place for the sake of giving a more convenient continuity to the language, the historical order remaining unaffected. Matthew XIV. 3, &c. (page 40), and xiv. 6, &c. (page 107), relate events introduced by the evangelist himself parenthetically, and professedly out of the order of time, the aorist, properly rendered in our version by the pluperfect tense, being used. In this Harmony they are inserted where they best explain what precedes and follows. John XII. 2-8 (page 191), reserved from page 155, to be made parallel with Matthew xxvI. 6, &c., appears to have been introduced by John early, instead of late, among the events which occurred at Bethany during the last week, the mention of Bethany (John XII. 1.) causing it to be anticipated by a connexion of place.* The same may, perhaps, be said of Matthew XXI. 12, 13 (page 160), which records an event apparently dated by Mark (XI. 12, 15.) on the second day of Jesus's appearance at Jerusalem, instead of the first; though it may admit of a question, whether the order of Matthew should not here rather be observed. Matthew XXVI. 30, is placed (page 204) after xxvi. 35, because it clearly presents part of the same scene with what precedes, while any other disposition of it, with its parallels, would either indicate two visits to the Mount of Olives, or create an inconvenient chasm in the language and
*This, however, is a much agitated question among the Harmonists, some favoring the idea of two unctions, others understanding the place assigned by John to indicate the true time.
sense in Luke XXII. 40, and John XVIII. 1. (p. 205.) Again, John XIII. 36, &c. (p. 203), which relates but a different incident of the same scene described in the following chapters, is placed after those chapters, in this volume, to harmonize with the order of the three other evangelists. Three cases only occur, then, of what can properly be accounted deviation. from the historical order of either Matthew or John; viz. those of John ch. vI. (p. 111), which has been explained at length; Matthew vш. 14, &c. (p. 44). and Matthew xii. 1, &c. (p. 24.) It may be doubted whether, in either of these latter cases, a different order requires to be substituted for that of Matthew, though the editor, having undertaken to exhibit the plan of Dr. Carpenter, was not at liberty to make any change. In determining the place to which the former passage, recording the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, should be referred, Dr. Carpenter (Geog. P. II. § 21.) appears to attach some importance to the relation of Mark to Peter, as authorizing in this instance a preference of Mark's chronology; but it is not easy to see why a rule, deduced from this circumstance, if applicable at all, is not to be received to a much wider application. Dr. Priestley (Observations, Sect. XII. § 2.) lays stress on Mark's saying (1. 21. 29–31.) that the cure was performed the sabbath after (i. e. next after) Jesus's arrival at Capernaum; but this it does not distinctly appear that Mark has said. If it was on the first sabbath after his arrival, that Jesus "entered into the synagogue and taught," which is not an unquestionable construction of Mark's words, still it would not be ascertained that the visit to the synagogue there mentioned, is the same with what is indicated in 1. 23, 29. Michaelis argues (Vol. III. Part 1. p. 84.) that Matthew iv. 25. - vii. 17. records but the events of one day, the same day on which Mark also (1. 29.) relates the cure of Peter's mother-in-law (with the cure of the demoniac (1. 23.), not mentioned by Matthew) to have taken place; and arranging the series of its events, he rejects the order of Mark and Luke for that of Matthew; and Marsh (Part 11. p. 69.) agrees with him in referring all the events
there recorded to one day, and understanding them to have taken place according to Matthew's arrangement. It may be added, that though Matthew's account of this miracle precedes his account of his call to be an apost'e, nothing is more probable than that, being an inhabitant of Capernaum, and dispensed from his duty as publican on the sabbath, he listened to the discourse which he so particularly records, and was a witness of the remaining wonders of the day; while, on the other hand, as to one of these (Matthew vIII. 2.), Mark (1. 40.) gives no note of the time of its occurrence, and Luke (v. 12.) appears to have been even ignorant of the place.
The walk through the corn-fields, (Matthew XII. 1.) is dated by Luke (vi. 1.) év σábbαto devτegoдgoro, rendered in our version, "on the second sabbath after the first." This (after Wetstein and Storr) is understood by Dr. Carpenter, who disposes the passages accordingly, to signify the first sabbath of the second month, the Passover being in the first month. But the phrase, which is not elsewhere found, is not improbably not genuine, the last word being omitted from some good manuscripts and versions. At all events, it still costs much pains to the critics, and must be owned to be of too unsettled sense to be a sufficient foundation for any argument. Michaelis (Vol. III. Part 1. p. 88.) understands the epithet to denote a particular part of any sabbath, or rather of the preceding day, and not the part of the year when the specified sabbath occurred. And even that the plucking of ears of corn supposes a different season of the year from that intervening between the Feast of Dedication and the death of John the Baptist, where Matthew appears to place it, is not perhaps entirely clear. Barley was sown in October. The harvest, which was preceded a full month by the first reaping, is placed by some authorities as early as the vernal equinox ; and moreover, it was not full-formed kernels, but ears, perhaps in the milk, (otάzves, the same word which is used Mark iv. 28, in distinction from the full corn in the ear,) which the disciples are represented to have plucked and eaten. These thoughts are thrown out with much diffidence, the editor having
met with nothing in any writer, which goes to countenance them. But if they be allowed any force, there will be the less reason for assigning to the incident related in Matthew XII. 1-8, a different date from that, (in the month of February, and not certainly early in that month,) to which this evangelist appears to determine it, by the place where it is introduced. It is true that Matthew might not have returned to Jesus, at the time to which he refers, for the mission of the Twelve is related in the second preceding chapter. But the words " at that time" (xII. 1.) connected with what follows, are, for this evangelist, somewhat uncommonly precise; and, at least, if other events recorded in this connexion are to be understood, for the reasons above given, to have taken place in and near the month of February, the placing of this incident in the midst of them, sufficiently indicates that Matthew was not sensible that the plucking of ears of corn, would seem an act then out of season. And if only this be admitted, the objection to retaining the passage, in a Harmony, in the same place which it occupies in Matthew's Gospel, will then be done away. It will not need to be violently severed from what, before and after, (xII. 1, 9.) appears to have close connexion with it, and no anomaly will remain in the plan which professes to adopt Matthew's order for a guide.
It remains to say a few words respecting the present publication.
It was undertaken with no other view than to favour the usefulness of a course of expository lectures, which the editor was intending to deliver to a portion of a congregation, to which all services, he could render, have been felt to be due.
The text is that of the Common Version, conformed to Griesbach's edition of the Greek, no other alteration being admitted than such as correspond to the emendations presented in that work.
Much praise is due to the printers for the care which they have bestowed on the arrangement of the page. The difficulty of