« PreviousContinue »
would not bestow upon Archelaus the title of king, but only that of
Ethnarch, that is, prince or chief of the nation (m). This name, which had been given before to some of the high-priests, (as to Hyrcanus for (n) instance,) seems to denote a dignity superior to that of a Tetrarch, but inferior to that of a king, since Auguftus, refusing to confer this latter title upon Archelaus, was however willing to distinguish him from his brothers by that of Ethnarch. The' learned are not agreed about the meaning of the word Tetrarch. But it may be inferred from what hath been just now said, that it was reckoned less honourable than the name of king or prince. In its primary and original signification it implies a governor of a fourth part of the country, and this seems to have been the first meaning that was affixed to it (o). But it was afterwards given to the governors of a province, whether their government was the fourth part of a country, or not; as it happened in the case now before us, for: Herod divided his kingdom only into three parts. However, the Tetrarchs were looked upon as princes, and sometimes complimented even with the name of kings (), but this was a misapplying of the word. Archelaus was acknowledged king by the people with vast expressions of joy; but though he had declared that he would not usurp that title, without the emperor's consent, yet he soon acted like a king, or rather a tyrant, that is, in a very absolute and arbitrary manner. Auguftus had promised him the kingly power, whenever he should make himself worthy of that honour (9); but he, instead of endeavouring to gain the favour of his sovereign, and the good-will of his subjects, exercised in the very begining of his reign such cruelties towards them, that, not being able to bear his unjust and barbarous dealings, they complained of him to Augustus. It was undoubtedly upon the account of the tyrannical temper of this prince, that Jofeph and Mary, when they came back from Egypt, and heard that he reigned in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, were afraid to go thither: and therefore caine and dwelt in a city of Galilee called Nazareth (r), which was under the jurisdiction of Antipas, a good and mild governour. We cannot exactly tell whether this return of Joseph and Mary happened before, or after, Archelaus's journey to Rome to have his father's will confirmed. However, when he came back to Jeruta, falem, he acted in as tyrannical a manner as ever, so that the chief men of the Jews and Samaritans joined in such grievous complaints against him, that Cæfar banished him to Vienne, à city in Gaul, where he died (s). From that time Judea was made a province of the Roman empire, and as well as Samaria and Idumea, governed by Roman magic ftrates, which had the name of Procurators, the first of whom was Caponius of the equestrian order (t). These Procurators depended upon the president of Syria, to which Judea and Samaria also were annexed, after
Auguftus had reduced them into provinces. Quirinus, a Roman senator, was then governor of Syria, and he it was who with the allistance of
Caponius (m) Joseph. Antiq. I. xvij. p. 13. (1) Id. Antiq. I. xiv. p. 22. () Harpocrat. Lexic. p. 330.
(p) Matt. xiv. (9) Jofeph. Antiq. l. xvii. p. 13. () Matr. ii. 22. : ) Jofeph. Antiq. t. xvii. p. 75. ..
(1) Id. de Bello Jud. l. ii. p. 76
Caponines put the emperor's commands in execution, by thu's reducing
Judea and Samuria into provinces. This is the same Quirinus whoin St. Luke and Josephus (u) call Cyrenius, who by Gajar's order, made a taxing in Judeci and Syria.
JOSEPHUS mentions only this last taxing. But it is unquestionably manifest from St. Luke, that there was another ten years before, that is, at the time of our Saviour's birth (*). It is therefore to diftinguish this first taxing from the second, that the Evangelist says, that this, which happened at the birth of our Saviour, was made before that of
Quirinus, which the same divine author makes also mention of in the Acts of the apostles (). It is true that St. Luke's words are obfcure and ambiguous, for one would think at first sight that they should be rendered, This first taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria (z). But this translation of them cannot be reconciled with the history of those times; for it appears that, at the time of our Saviour's ziativity, it was either Sentius Saturninus or Quintilius Varus, that was president of Syrin, and not Quirinus (n). It may however be supposed, that, as it happened sometimes, Quirinus was sent by the emperor into Syria with an extraordinary commission to make his first taxing, and was perhaps invested with the title of governor or procurator, these two names being often promiscuoully used by sacred and profane writers (6). .
But, in short, there is no occasion of having recourse to this supposition, if we do but render the words of S. Luke thus, This taxing was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria. The original will admit of this sense, as well as the other, and therefore we have followed it in our translation after several learned criticks (c). Quirinus's taxing had made so much noise, and the memory of it was so fresh in men's minds, when St. Luke wrote his gospel, that he had reason to suppose it had caused the other to be forgotten, since it had been, in all likelihood, less takeit' notice of, as being no more than a bare enrolling of the citizens names, without taking an estimate of their estates, as was done by
Quirinus ; therefore the Evangelist thought fit to distinguish them one from another. For it is to be observed, that when Jesus CHRIST was born, Judea was not the tributary to the Romans, as it had been before in the time of Poinpey, because Auguftus had given it to Herod; but, when after the banishment of Archelaus, it was again reduced into a province, it became of course tributary to the Roman empire, and accordingly an estimation of it was made in order to settle and regulate the taxes and tribute. The reason why Josephus doth not speak of the first taxing,
(u) Luke ï. 2. Joseph. Antig. l. xviii. p. 1. For an account of the nature of the Procurator's office, see Bishop Pearson on the Creed, upon these words, Under Pontius Pilate. (*) Luke ïi. 2.
(y) Acts v. 37. iz) Aton a dneygaon.azúton iyulo iz ovvoylas tñs Eugises Kugnvis. (a) Tertull. adv. Marc. I. iv. p. 19. (6) Lami Appar. cap. 10. sect. iii.
(c) See Perizonius, Differtat. de Aug. Descript. And Dr. Wbitby, in siis Comment on this place,
mentioned by St. Luke, is, in all likelihood, because it being only an enrolling of the people's names, he did not meet with it in the acts of Nicolaus Damafcenus, as having no relation to the life of Herod, whichthat author wrote. It is probable that this taxing was made according to Augustus's survey of the Roman empire, which he had (d), that he might readily know, how many forces, and what sums of money he could raise in his provinces
Before we conclude this digresion, it will be proper to add a word or two with reference to the version and notes on Luke i. 1. where the terms in the original, which according to the letter signify, All the habitable earth, are rendered by, the whole country, that is, Judea. i We are not ignorant, some famous authors understand by this expression, that great part of the world then in subjection to the Romans (e), and that they actually stiled themselves The masters of the world (f). But it is extremely improbable that ever Augustus, or any other emperor, did enrol, or tax the whole Roman empire at once. For, I. No historian makes mention of any such thing, excepting Suidas, and he is too modern an author to be credito; besides, he has it from an ANOYMOUS weiter. Now can it be injagined that among so many Roman historians, as have been handed down to us, not one should mention this fupposed general taxing of the whole empire, especially since they have taken notice of several particular ones (8)? 2. Taxing of particular countries, always occasioned abundance of murinurings and discontent, and therefore what noise must a general one have caused? Dio Caffius relates, that Auguftus having once attempted to take an account of the value and incomes of some provinces, in order to lay a tax upon thein for the maintaining his armies, they declared, that they were resolved rather to undergo the greatest hardihips and miseries, than suffer any such thing; so that Augustus was forced to get it done privately and by Itealth (b). Which certainly was very far from being like a publick decree for a general tax. It is well known, that when Quirinus undertook, by Cafür's order, to raise a tax in Judea, the Jews could hardly be prevailed upon to submit, and that it caused a very great sedition (i). Tacitus informs us, that when Cappadocia was reduced to a province, part of the country rebelled upon their being enrolled, in order to be taxed (k). The emperor Claudius, in a speech to the fenate, speaks of enrollings as a very ticklish point, though designed only to know the riches of the empire (1). 3. As St. Luke takes occasion of mentioning this first taxing, when he is speaking of that of Quirinus, which was confined to fudea, it is natural to judge of the one by the other; and by all the world, to understand only the whole country of Judea, including the Tetrarchies. This way of speaking: seems to
. (d) Tacit. Annal. 1. i. p. It. Sueton. Vit. Augusti, cap. ult.
(e) Petron, Satyr. Florus, l. iv. p. 2. S. 1. Dionyf. Halicaro...
be very conformable to the stile of this Evangelift. Thus he tells us (mts that men's hearts shall fail them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (*), that is, on Judea, as is evident from the 23d verse. It is also much more probable that when he tells us, in another place (r), that Agabus had foretold there should be great dearth throughout all the world, he understood thereby only all Judea. It is true fome historians (o) mention a famine that happened at Rome in the time of the emperor Claudius; but Rome was not the whole world; and this dearth was neither in Egypt nor Cypriis, fince according to Josephus (P), queen Helena fent for provisions from thence to relieve the inhabitants of Jerusalem, which were ready to perish for want of sustenance. You may obferve here, that Josephus mentions only Jerusalem, and therefore it may from hence be inferred that the famine was not universal. This way of speaking was not peculiar to St. Luke, for the facred writers of the Old Tefiament often give Judea the name of the whole earth (9), which the seventy most commonly render by the habitable world (r); and they call lo not only Judea, which was looked upon as the earth by way of eminence, but any other country they are speaking of, as St. Žerome hath observed (s).
In the mean while, Herod-Antipas and Philip were in peaceable poffeflion of their Tetrarchies. As mention is often made of these princes in the gospel, it will be proper to give some account of them. Jofephus (*) Teems not to be consistent with himself, when he speaks of the mother of Herod-Antipas; he calls him sometimes the son of Cleopatra, and at other times of Malthace, which were two of Herod's wives; but this is a matter of a very little consequence to our present purpose. He cannot but very improperly be called a king (t), since he never was fo. Herod had indeed in his first will nominated him his successor to the kingdom; but he altered it afterwards, and conferred that dignity upon Archelaus, who notwithstanding had it not. Antipas is represented in the New Testament as a very vicious prince, who added the death of John the Baptist to all the evils which he had done (u). Jolephus gives him no better character («). He plainly discovered his incontinence by marrying Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. It must be observed, by the by, that this Philip seems not to have been the Tetrarch of Ituræa, and fon.of. Cleopatra; for, according to Josephus (y), he, whole wife Antipas
(m) Luke xxi: 26.
i*j tã oirsuivn, the fame word as is used chap. ii..p. 1. See Dr. Hammond in loc.
(*) Acts xi. 28. - () Dio Caffius, p. 60. Sueton. Vit. Claudii, p. 18. () Joseph. Antiq. 1. xx. C. 2.
(Q) ponam. Deut. xxix. 23. Josh. xi. 23. Jer. i. 18. iv. 20. vü. 16. xxiji. 13.
(r) oirejtim. Isaiah xiii. 5. xiv, 26. &c.
(u) Luke iii. 19, 20. (x) Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. xix. c. 7.:
1a. Antiq. 1. xviii. C. 7, de Bell. Jud, I. i. c. 19.
married, was the son of Mariamne, the daughter of the high-priest Simon. Jofephus does not indeed call this son of Mariamne, Philip; but all the Evangelists give that name to him, whose wife Antipas married (2). That historian stiles him only Herod the brother of Herod (Antipas), bg, another mother. And therefore in the note on that place we have chofe rather to follow the Evangelists, who lived in those days, than Fosephus, who might easily be mistaken in a fact. so long before his time, and besides of very little consequence. There is certainly a vast deal of confusion in the genealogies of Herod's family, given us by Josephus (a). However this be, such a vile thing as the debauching his brother's wife, and basely putting away his own, which was the daughter of Aretas king of Arabia, manifestly thews the character of Herod-Antipas was but very indifferent. The death of John the Baptift, of which he was the author, was a complication of crimes ; for he could not commit this murder without great impiety, because John was looked upon as a prophet, and Hered himself seems not to have been ignorant of it. However, he was severely and justly punished for this wickednefs : for Aretus, to revenge the injury done to his daughter, denounced war against Herod, and utterly routed his army: the generality of the Jerus, if we may believe Josephus (6), were of opinion that this was a juft judgment of God upon that prince, and his army, for the murder of John the Baptift; but it is doubted whether this paffage be genuine. In what year the death of John the Baptist happened, is not well known; but it is certain, that Jesus Christ had then preached a considerable time, and done many miracles in Galilee. It may therefore seem' ftrange, that Herod-Antipas should have so little knowledge of what passed in his dominions, as never to have seen Jesus Christ, as the Evangelists tell us (c). But it may be Herod was absent while our blessed Saviour preached in Galilee ; accordingly Jofephus makes mention of his taking a journey to Rome, before he married Herodias. After his return from thence, he had not the satisfaction of seeing Fesus Christ, though he was very desirous of it. This was indeed a very suspicious kind of curiosity in a prince, who well knew how to difguise his ill designs with a fair outside, and draw the innocent into his snares, as well as oppress them by open force. Jesus Chrijt was so far from gratifying his desire, that he went away into another place, that he might elude and defeat the craftiness and devices of that fox, as he is pleased to stile him (d). Herod could not therefore obtain his desires in this respect, till the time of our Saviour's arraignment and condemnation, when Pilate knowing that efis was a Galilean, and, confequently belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, fent him to him, intending thereby to do him a pleasure, and also that he might at the same time get rid of the trouble of judging him. In what a ridiculous and indecent manner he treated him, we are told by St. Luke, who adds, that at that time Pilate and Herod were made friends together, when before they had been at enmity ().
oso... ioanny is The (*). Matt. xiv. 3. Markvi, 17. Luke iii. 19.'"" ..... , (a) Jofeph. Antiq. 1, xvii. c. 1. (6) Id. ibid. 1. xviii. c. 7
) Luke xxij. 8. (d) Luke xii. 31." . () Luke xxiii. nS. /19
ight ratifying his ppress them outlide, and who well