« PreviousContinue »
MARK xiv. part of ver. 68. 68 But he denied, saying
LUKE xxii. part of ver. 56.
JOIN xviii. part of ver. 17. 25.
Porch of the Palace of the High Priest.
LUKE xxii, 58.
one of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
MATT. xxvi. part of ver. 71.
MARK xiv. part of ver. 69, 70.
the Morning. Peter's third Denial of Christ, in the
And about the space of one hour after, another confidenied “ Christ at three several times, and in three several places;” and so had remarkably fulfilled the second signification of the prediction, “ Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.”
If it shall appear that there is nothing forced or misrepre-
(a) Bava Kama, c. vii. Hal. ult. J'vipya DSWT275933771 772 TX
dently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was Jerusalem.
with him, for he is a Galilean. Lu. xxi. 60.
And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest.
74. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know
not the man ;
Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how that he had
And when he thought thereon, he wept;
MATT. xxvi. part of ver. 73, 74, 75.
74 - And immediately the cock crew
75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto
MARK xiv. part of ver. 70, 71, 72.
72 And Peter called to mind the word wbicb Jesus said
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-Cbaldaic; and this dialect was the vernacular language of the Apostle.
According to Lightfoot, y for * (which change indeed is froquent in the Aramaic dialect, and by no means peculiar to the Galilean,) 7 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 pot have touched the gronnd. But her words, from the dialect she used, admitted this interpretation-Sir Slave, I had a beam, aod they stole thee away ; and it was so great, that if they bad hung thee on it, thy feet would not have touched the ground.
Schoetgen (a), among others, mentions, Brescith Rabba, sect. xxvi. fol. 26. 3. pouvons pugunb yuring x5532 In Galilæa serpentem, qui alias non dicitur, vocant x' x ut pro , usurpat r.
Horse and Pfeiffer, as well as the two last mentioned authorities, have collected similar instances.
(a) Schoetgen, vol. I, p. 235.
LUKE Xxii. 66.
to the end.
67. saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto
them, If I tell you, you will not believe.
69. Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of
And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
MATT. xxvii. part of ver. 1.
LUKE xxii. part of ver. 66.
MATT. xxvii. 3-10.
that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought
nocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see
thou to that.
10 I am induced to place this section here, because it does not
1 The account of the death of Judas is attended with some difficulty. The manner in wbich Weston reconciles St. Mate thew and St. Luke, seems to be the most preferable. St. Matthew says, árnygato, “he hanged bimself,” and St. Luke that he apnvis yevóuevos, falling headlong, as we have translated it,
Mt.xxvi.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.
ter's field, to bury strangers in.
unto this day.
the prophet “, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of
children of Israel did value;
(Acts i. 18.) burst asunder in the midst, and his bowels gushed.
12 The words quoted bere are not in the prophet Jerenziah,
It was an ancient custom among the Jews, says Lightfoot, to divide the Old Testament into three parts; the first, beginning 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 bis authorities; and insists that the word Jeremiah is perfectly correct, as standing at the head of that division from wbich 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, Pitnan's 8vo. edit. vol. ii. p. 157, 158. and the note oa the Prophecies of Zechariah, in the second volume of the Arrangement of the Old Testament.
declared to be Innocent.
xxiii. 1-4. JOHN xviii, 28-38.
judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they
might eat the passover.
sation bring you against this man?
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge
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 13.
13 Much discussion has taken place on the question, whether
Two kinds of arguments have been used, to prove that the
The judge, according to the Roman laws, exerted in criminal
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 a Roman law, wbich 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 suflicient 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 not be exercised by any magistrate, unless it were given bim by some special law or constitution, therefore this power could not be transferable lo magistrates who beld a delegated jurisdiction.