Page images

-compare Gen. 46: 4. Ps. 66: 6. Hos. 12: 5.” This opinion, however, seems inadmissable, as the same personal designalion, in πλρώσατε ν. 32, as in αποκτενείτε και σταυρώσετε v. 34., manifestly applies only to those addressed, and fol tuão v. 35, points precisely to the same persons. The idea of communitative guilt certainly lies in the whole tenor of the discourse, but not in the word épovedars, which, if what was said referred to the murder of Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, must inuch rather denote a community of uction.

Although, on account of these objections we cannot agree with the latest interpreters of this passage, yet we must accord with them in this, that they set aside the other explanations considered by them, as arbitrary and groundless. We wonder the more, however, that they have altogether overlooked the oldest of all interpretations which finds in Zacharias the father of John the Baptist. Even Winer, who mentions it, enters into no examination of it. The learned Lightfoot, as above quoted, certainly gives his judgment there : quæ de Zacharia, Baptistæ patre, hic dicuntur, somnia sunt; but this cannot prevent us from making the attempt to justify again this earliest interpretation.

Origen, the father of Exegesis, says, in Tract. xxvi, in Matt., that Zacharias, the father of John, was murdered by the Jews, who was enraged because he had allowed Mary, afler ihe birth of the Saviour, to stand in a part of the temple appropriated exclusively to virgins : and in another place

Tom. xi. in Matt. p. 225, ed Huet.—he says expressly that Jesus, by the language in Matt. 23; 35, confirms a writing considered as apocryphal, εν ακοκρύφοις φερομένην-Basilices, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, and others, agree with Origen-comp. Thilo, cod. apocr. N. T. I. Proleg.

There is a different tradition of the murder of this Zacharias found in the Protevangelium Jacobi, capp. XX11. — XXIV.—Thilo. I. 1, p. 262 sq. Zacharias is here represented as having been put io death by Herod the Great, at the time of the murder of the children of Bethlehem, because he would or could not give him information of the abode of his son John. Of this opinion was the Patriarch Peter of Alexandria, expressed in his pastoral letter a. 306—Rnuthir Reliq. sacr. Vol. 1. p. 341 sq., and the Nestorian Bishop Solomon of Bassora sac. 13.- Assemanni Biblioth. Orient. T. III. P. I., p. 315 sq.—who represents as the common

LXIV. n.

opinion of Syrian Christians, that Zacharias, on account of his concealment of his son, was, by Herod's order, slain between the temple and altar.

These testimonies are sufficient to establish the fact of a constant tradition, during the first centuries of the Christian era, that the father of the Baptist had been murdered, although the tradition varies as to ihe occasion and manner of his murder. This variation, however, cannot make us suspicious as to the maller of the tradition itself, as it is universally characteristic of it, that it conjectures the occasion and attendant circumstances of any fact committed to it, and reports them in connection with the fact itself. For the truth of the fact, we have two witnesses of weight in Origen and the Protevangelium Jacobi. For no one will deny critical tact to Origen, nor accuse him of a blind credulity in tradition. If then he applies the account of the murder of Zacharias to the explanation of our passage of the Scriptures, it must have seemed to him to rest on good grounds. Of the Protevangelium Jacobi, however, the learned editor- Thilo, I.I. p. xlv.-judges, that this very ancient writing, of which already Origen, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, indeed, perhaps Justin Mariyr and Clemens Alexandrinus, make mention, mig!it contribute very much to the criticism and grammatico-historical interpretation of the New Testament. Comp. in the same, p. lxii., ihe favorable opinion of Combefisius. Would it not, then, betray an excessive protestant abhorrence of all tradition, if we should place in the land of dreams, an account in itself not improbable, merely because it is found in a writer of traditions? We appeal frequently and with justice to the testimony of tradition, on other points of controversy, e. g. as to the authenticity of our gospels. The only inquiry iherefore is, whether the father of the Baptist suits the context of our passage ; then we have in the words of Jesus, as Origen correcily remarks, a confirmation of the traditionary account of the murder of Zacharias.

That the time, in which this murder falls, agrees very well with the language of Jesus, indeed appears exclusively admissable, has been already determined above. When Jesus spake these words, about thirty years had passed away since the murdering of our Zacharias : he could, therefore, adduce the same as an act of his contemporaries-špovsúcare. And what case lay nearer to him than the murdering, in the sanc

tuary, of the father of the Baptist, certainly highly respected by him? It was connected with his own earliest history, and was still in the lively remembrance of his contemporaries.

The striking designation of place in the gospels, above noticed, finds also its satisfactory explanation, when compared with the account in the Protevangelium Jacobi. In chapter 24 of this

work, it is stated, that the priests had found the blood of Zacharias παρά το θυσιαστήριου κυρίου. We might be in doubt, whether the altar of incense or the altar of burntoffering is here meant, as however in chapter 23, we read : αίμα εκχύνεις παρά (εις) τα πρόθυρα του ναού κυριού, the altar of burnt-offering must be understood, which is known to have been in the court of the priests : so that the designation of place in the Protevangelium agrees exactly with that in the gospels.*

As all the difficulties which stand in the way of the other expositions of this passage, disappear before the interpretation here recommended, so also there would be no reason to doubt the entire correctness of the account of Matthew. For although neither in the canonical nor apocryphal gospels is it mentioned, that the father of the Baptist was a son of Barachias, it certainly cannot be concluded, from this circumstance, that Matthew's account is not according to truth. On the contrary, it is rather inferable, even from our passage, that the father of this Zacharias was called Barachias.

It only remains for us to consider more particularly the

* The reading in the Protevangelium : megi diáopayua špoveson Zaxagias, found in the text, as given by Thilo, seems to be a corruption from the reading of other codices : FERI diapauua, which is confirmed by Eustathius-compare Thilo as above quoted, p. 267. n.; for só diapgaqua is, according to Zonaras, of like signification with sò MEGótorxov, which separates the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites, and immediately after passing over the latter, one came into the court of the priests, at the duoiadangiov-comp. Winer, bibl. Realw. ΙΙ. p. 675.-Moreover περί το διάφραγμα does not accord with the other designations of place above quoted. On the other hand, the reading megi diapavua contains a very suitable designation of time, and seems to be a corruption only because the unusual word diá pauua was not understood.

parallel passage in Luke 11 : 50, 51, which seems, at first view, to be opposed to our exposition, but in fact contains a confirmation of it. Luke has not given the name of Zacharias' father, and hence many interpreters have concluded that the words vioù Bapaxiou in Matthew are an interpolation. But the state of the case differs in respect to Luke and Matthew. Luke, for instance, in the beginning of his gospel, had particularly spoken of Zacharias as the father of John the Baptist ; he must therefore presume that his readers, on the mention of Zacharias again in chapter 11: 51, would think of no other person than the Zacharias already known to them, and consequently he subjoins no more exact designation of him. Whether the Lord himself, in his discourse, added or expressed the father's name, whether therefore Matthew or Luke is the more correct, it will be difficult ever to determine. It must suffice us to have pointed out, in the gospels themselves, the ground of this difference; and even from this source there seems to arise an argument of some weight for the justness of our view about Zacharias.

Another objection which might be raised against our view, out of the passage in Luke, is likewise shown to be unsupported. From the words cà alua návrwv sūv agoontūv v. 50, it is concluded that the Zacharias here mentioned must also have been a prophet. This is certainly true, but does not militate against our interpretation. For just as Abel, in a large sense, is enumerated among the prophets-compare Olshausen and De Weite--so can our Zacharias be also reckoned, of whom Luke, 1: 67, expressly says : xai Zaxagiais ο πατήρ αυτου επλήσθη πνεύματος αγίου και επροφήτευσεν. Ιn Luke 1: 6, also, he is called a dixaios, which exactly corresponds with the aiua dixasov of Matthew. But that the discourse here relates only, as De Wetle thinks, to the occurrence recorded in the Old Testament, is an affirmation intended to favor his own interpretation. Indeed, the father of the Baptist was himself also a pious man under the Old Testament.

If, finally, it be asserted against our exposition, that those apocryphal accounts of the murder of Zacharias are adduced merely to illustrate the passage in Matthew, and especially the difficult words vioữ Balaxiou, the assertion is altogether devoid of proof. In opposition to it, there is the authority of Origen, who would scarcely have given credit to a mere fable, and the antiquity of the Protevangelium Jacobi, which existed

at a time when such inventions to favor the canonical gospels were perhaps scarcely thought of. Besides, the inventor, if his design had been to solve that difficulty, would scarcely have oiniited to designate the Zacharias mentioned by him, as a son of Barachias.

With this view of the matter, we cannot, with modern interpreters, attribute a slip of the memory to the evangelist, as long as a way is open for his justification, which presents so few difficulties.



By Rev. C. P. Krauth, D. D. President of Pennsylvania College, and Professor of Intellectual

and Moral Science, Gettysburg, Pa.

Psychology, or Elements of a new System of Mental Phi

losophy, on the basis of Consciousness and Common Sense. Designed for Colleges and Academies. By S. S. Schmucker, D. D., Professor of Christian Theology in the Thrological Seminary, Gettysburg. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1842. pp. 227.

It may be regarded as interesting to all who believe knowledge to be progressive, and that it is the duly of every generation to make some contribution to its increase, ibat there have appeared in this country recently, several works on the philosophy of mind. Ignorance and prejudice have manifested great distrust of this species of investigation. The opinion has been hastily assumed, either that the mind is too far removed from our reach to adınit of examination, or that, after the researches which have been made, it can hardly be expected to yield any valuable additional results. Sympathy with such an opinion could not justify itself by any thing like adequate views of the phenomena of mind, or of the means in our possession, of inspecting and describing them. The more extensive our acquaintance with the results of the labor of eminent metaphysicians throughout the world in ancient times and in modern, the deeper will be our conviction

« PreviousContinue »