Page images
PDF
EPUB

79

would not bestow upon Archelaus the title of king, but only that of 123 Ethnarch, that is, prince or chief of the nation (m). This name, which had been given before to some of the high-priefts, (as to Hyrcanus for (n) inftance,) feems to denote a dignity fuperior to that of a Tetrarch, but inferior to that of a king, fince Auguftus, refufing to confer this latter title upon Archelaus, was however willing to diftinguish 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 faid, that it was reckoned lefs honourable than the name of king or prince. In its primary and original fignification it implies a governor of a fourth part of the country, and this feems 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 cafe now before us, for ́Herod divided his kingdom only into three parts. However, the Tetrarchs were looked upon as princes, and fometimes complimented even with the name of kings (p), but this was a mifapplying of the word. Archelaus was acknowledged king by the people with vaft expreffions of joy; but though he had declared that he would not ufurp that title, without the emperor's confent, yet he foon acted like a king, or rather a tyrant, that is, in a very abfolute and arbitrary manner. Auguftus had promifed him the kingly power, whenever he fhould make himself worthy of that honour (q); but he, inftead of endeavouring to gain the favour of his fovereign, and the good-will of his fubjects, exercifed in the very begining of his reign fuch cruelties towards them, that, not being able to bear his unjuft and barbarous dealings, they complained of him to Auguftus. 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 came and dwelt in a city of Galilee called Nazareth (r), which was under the jurifdiction of Antipas, a good and mild governour. We cannot exactly tell whether this return of Jofeph and Mary happened before, or after, Archelaus's journey to Rome to have his father's will confirmed. However, when he came back to Jeru falem, he acted in as tyrannical a manner as ever, fo that the chief men of the Jews and Samaritans joined in fuch grievous complaints against him, that Cafar banifhed him to Vienne, a 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 Idumaa, governed by Roman magiftrates, which had the name of Procurators, the first of whom was Caponius of the equestrian order (t). Thefe Procurators depended upon the prefident of Syria, to which Judea and Samaria alfo were annexed, after Auguftus had reduced them into provinces. Quirinus, a Roman fenator, was then governor of Syria, and he it was who with the affiftance of Caponius

(m) Jofeph. Antiq. I. xvij. p. 13.
(0) Harpocrat. Lexic. p. 330.
(2) Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xvii. p. 13.
(5) Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xvii. p. 15.
() d. de Bello Jud. 1. ii. p. 7.

[ocr errors]

(2) Id. Antiq. 1. xiv. p. 22.
(p) Matt. xiv.
(r) Matt. ii. 22.

Caponins put the emperor's commands in execution, by thus reducing Judea and Samaria into provinces. This is the fame Quirinus whom St. Luke and Jofephus (u) call Cyrenius, who by Gafar's order, made a taxing in Juded and Syria.

JOSEPHUS mentions only this laft taxing. But it is unquestionably manifeft from St. Luke, that there was another ten years before, that is, at the time of our Saviour's birth (x). It is therefore to diftinguish this first taxing from the fecond, that the Evangelift fays, that this, which happened at the birth of our Saviour, was made before that of Quirinus, which the fame divine author makes alfo mention of in the Acts of the apoftles (y). It is true that St. Luke's words are obfcure and ambiguous, for one would think at first fight that they fhould be rendered, This first taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria (z). But this tranflation of them cannot be reconciled with the hiftory of thofe times; for it appears that, at the time of our Saviour's nativity, it was either Sentius Saturninus or Quintilius Varus, that was prefident of Syria, and not Quirinus (a). It may however be fuppofed, that, as it happened fometimes, Quirinus was fent by the emperor into Syria with an extraordinary commiffion to make his first taxing, and was perhaps invested with the title of governor or procurator, thefe two names being often promifcuoufly used by facred and profane writers (b).

But, in short, there is no occafion of having recourfe to this fuppofition, 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 fenfe, as well as the other, and therefore we have followed it in our tranflation after feveral learned criticks (c). Quirinus's taxing had made fo much noife, and the memory of it was fo fresh in men's minds, when St. Luke wrote his gofpel, that he had reafon to suppose it had caufed the other to be forgotten, fince it had been, in all likelihood, less take 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 Evangelift thought fit to distinguish them one from another. For it is to be obferved, that when JESUS CHRIST was born, Judea was not the tributary to the Romans, as it had been before in the time of Pompey, because Auguftus had given it to Herod; but, when after the banishment of Archelaus, it was again reduced into a province, it became of courfe tributary to the Roman empire, and accordingly an eftimation of it was made in order to fettle and regulate the taxes and tribute. The reason why Jofephus doth not speak of the first taxing, mentioned

(z) Luke ii. 2. Jofeph. Antiq. I. xviii. p. 1. For an account of the nature of the Procurator's office, fee Bishop Pearfon on the Creed, upon thefe words, Under Pontius Pilate.

(x) Luke ii. 2.

(y) Acts v. 37.

(2) Αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφή πρώτη έγνελο ἡγεμονευονίας τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνία.

(a) Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. iv. p. 19.

(b) Lami Appar. cap. 10. fect. iii.

(c) See Perizonius, Differtat. de Aug. Defcript. And Dr. Whitby, in his 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 Auguftus's furvey of the Roman empire, which he had (d), that he might readily know, how many forces, and what fums of money he could raise in his provinces.

Before we conclude this digreffion, it will be proper to add a word or two with reference to the verfion and notes on Luke ii. 1. where the terms in the original, which according to the letter fignify, All the habitable earth, are rendered by, the whole country, that is, Judea. We are not ignorant, fome famous authors understand by this expreffion, that great part of the world then in fubjection to the Romans (e), and that they actually ftiled themselves The masters of the world (f). But it is extremely improbable that ever Auguftus, or any other emperor, did enrol, or tax the whole Roman empire at once. For, 1. No hiftorian makes mention of any fuch thing, excepting Suidas, and he is too modern an author to be credited; befides, he has it from an ANOYMOUS writer. Now can it be imagined that among fo many Roman hiftorians, as have been handed down to us, not one fhould mention this fuppofed general taxing of the whole empire, especially fince they have taken notice of feveral particular ones (g)? 2. Taxing of particular countries, always occafioned abundance of murmurings and difcontent, and therefore what noise must a general one have caufed? Dio Caffius relates, that Auguftus having once attempted to take an account of the value and incomes of fome provinces, in order to lay a tax upon them for the maintaining his armies, they declared, that they were refolved rather to undergo the greatest hardships and miferies, than fuffer any fuch thing; fo that Auguftus was forced to get it done privately and by tealth (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 Cafar's order, to raife a tax in Judea, the Jews could hardly be prevailed upon to fubmit, and that it caufed a very great fedi[ tion (i). Tacitus informs us, that when Cappadocia was reduced to a province, part of the country rebelled upon their being enrolled, in qrder to be taxed (4). The emperor Claudius, in a speech to the fenate, fpeaks of enrollings as a very ticklish point, though defigned only to know the riches of the empire (7). 3. As St. Luke takes occafion of mentioning this firft taxing, when he is fpeaking of that of Quirinus, which was confined to Judea, 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 fpeaking feems to

(d) Tacit. Annal. 1. i. p. t. Sueton. Vit. Augufti, cap. ult.
(e) Petron, Satyr. Florus, 1. iv. p. 2. S. 1. Dionyf. Halicarn.
(f) Athen. Deipnofoph. 1. 1.

[ocr errors]

(g) Dio Caffius, p. 56. Monum. Ancyr. Suet. Aug. p. 27.

(b) Dio Caffius, ubi fupr.

(i) Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xviii. p. 1. & de Bello Jud. I. ii. p. 8. Acts v. 37.

(4) Tacit. Annal. 4, vi. p. 41.

(Gruter. Infeript. p. 502.

be

be very conformable to the ftile of this Evangelift. Thus he tells us (m) that men's hearts fhall fail them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (*), that is, on Judea, as is evi dent from the 23d verfe. It is alfo much more probable that when he tells us, in another place (n), that Agabus had foretold there should be great dearth throughout all the world, he understood thereby only all Judea. It is true fome hiftorians (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 Cyprus, fince according to Jofephus (p), queen Helena fent for provifions from thence to relieve the inhabitants of Jerufalem, which were ready to perish for want of fuftenance. You may obferve here, that Jofephus mentions only Jerufalem, and therefore it may from hence be inferred that the famine was not univerfal. This way of fpeaking was not peculiar to St. Luke, for the facred writers of the Old Teflament often give Judea the name of the whole earth (q), which the feventy moft commonly render by the habitable world (r); and they call fo not only Judea, which was looked upon as the earth by way of eminence, but any other country they are speaking of, as St. Jerome hath obferved (s).

In the mean while, Herod-Antipas and Philip were in peaceable poffeffion of their Tetrarchies. As mention is often made of thefe princes in the gofpel, it will be proper to give fome account of them. Jofephus (*) feems not to be confiftent with himself, when he speaks of the mother of Herod-Antipas; he calls him fometimes the fon of Cleopatra, and at other times of Malthace, which were two of Herod's wives; but this is a matter of a very little confequence to our prefent purpose. He cannot but very improperly be called a king (t), fince he never was fo. Herod had indeed in his firft will nominated him his fucceffor to the kingdom; but he altered it afterwards, and conferred that dignity upon Archelaus, who notwithstanding had it not. Antipas is reprefented in the New Teftament as a very vicious prince, who added the death of John the Baptift to all the evils which he had done (u). Jofephus gives him no better character (x). He plainly difcovered his incontinence by marrying Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. It must be obferved, by the by, that this Philip feems not to have been the Tetrarch of Ituraa, and fon of Cleopatra; for, according to Jofephus (y), he, whofe wife Antipas maried,

(m) Luke xxi. 26.

(*) Toixsiy the fame word as is ufed chap. ii. p. 1. See Dr. Hammond in loc...

[ocr errors]

(z) Acts xi. 28.

(e) Dio Caffius, p. 60. Sueton. Vit. Claudii, p. 18. (p) Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xx. c. 2.

[ocr errors]

xxiii. 15.

Deut. xxix. 23. Josh. xi. 23. Jer. i. 18. iv. 20. viii. 16.

(r) Oixem. Ifajah xiii. 5. xiv, 26.
(s) Hieronym. in Efai. xiii. 5.
() Matt. xiv. 9.

(*) Jofeph. Antiq. Jud. I. xix. c. 7.
(y) Id. Antiq. I. xviii. c. 7. de Bell.

&c.

(*) De Bello Jud. 1. i. c. 20, 21, (u) Luke iii. 19, 20.

Jud. 1. i. c. 19.

married, was the fon of Mariamne, the daughter of the high-priest Simon Jofephus does not indeed call this fon of Mariamne, Philip; but all the Evangelifts give that name to him, whose wife Antipas married (z), That hiftorian ftiles him only Herod the brother of Herod (Antipas), b another mother. And therefore in the note on, that place we have chofe rather to follow the Evangelifts, who lived in thofe days, than Jofephus, who might eafily be mistaken in a fact. so long before his time, and befides of very little confequence. There is certainly a vaft deal of confufion in the genealogies of Herod's family, given us by Jofephus (a), However this be, fuch a vile thing as the debauching his brother's wife, and bafely putting away his own, which was the daughter of Aretas king of Arabia, manifeftly fhews 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 Herod himself feems not to have been ignorant of it. However, he was feverely and justly punished for this wickednefs: for Aretas, to revenge the injury done to his daughter, denounced war againft Herod, and utterly routed his army: the generality of the Jerus, if we may believe Jofephus (b), 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 Baptift happened, is not well known; but it is certain, that Jefus Chrift had then preached a confiderable time, and done many miracles in Galilee. It may therefore feem ftrange, that Herod-Antipas fhould have fo little knowledge of what paffed in his dominions, as never to have seen Jefus Christ, as the Evangelifts tell us (c). But it may be Herod was abfent while our bleffed 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 fatisfaction of feeing Jefus Chrift, though he was very defirous of it. This was indeed a very fufpicious kind of curiofity in a prince, who well knew how to difguife his ill defigns with a fair outfide, and draw the innocent into his fnares, as well as opprefs them by open force. Jefus Christ was fo far from gratifying his defire, that he went away into another place, that he might elude and defeat the craftinefs and devices of that fox, as he is pleafed to ftile him (d). Herod could not therefore obtain his defires in this refpect, till the time of our Saviour's arraignment and condemnation; when Pilate knowing that Jefus was a Galilean, and confequently belonged to Herod's jurifdiction, fent him to him, intending thereby to do him a pleasure, and alfo that he might at the fame 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 (e).

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The

(e) Luke xxiii 7, 8. 11/129

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »