Page images
PDF
EPUB

Hebrew gospel of Matthew before him, and at times confined himself to translation, does not use the word, "his own."

2. The old Syriac translation has "was hewn out," for "he had hewn out," and the new Syriac translation has the same version in the margin, a proof, that the marginal reading was not from the old Syriac, but from Greek manuscripts of the sixth century. It gains additional importance from its coincidence with Mark, who so generally follows Matthew.

The probability therefore, is, that the authorised version is incorrect, and that the original reading is," in a new tomb, which had been hewn out in a rock." But supposing this reading not to be acquiesced in, the following will be the result. We have not Matthew in the original Hebrew, but only a Greek translation, which may be, from the very nature of translation, in itself, defective. In the original Hebrew, it must have been different, for Mark possessed and read it, and he writes, "laid him in a sepulchre, which was hewn out of a rock." The translator, (for every one, accustomed to translation, knows the extreme difficulty of preserving the perfect sense of the

original,) probably considered it to be Joseph's own grave, and by introducing the word "his own," gave rise to a belief which John, whose gospel was not known to the translator of Matthew, finding in the Greek copies, mildly corrects. The following may be considered as trifling, but they are the laborious, and at times, erroneous conclusions of learned philologists. The word we translate "hewn out" signifies also to" wall up," and "a rock” signifies also "stones." Salmasius, and afterwards Krebs, have both observed this from the modern Greek, and from a passage in Josephus. The remark is not of much importance, so far as it relates to that which is now shown as the holy sepulchre, but for which we have no authentic guarantee, although hewn out of a rock, and consisting of square stones. The comment, however, is true, so far as it applies to Mark, but not, as it applies to Matthew, for with him it is "in the rock." Of course, it means not stones, which made the wall of "the tomb," but "the rock, in which it was hewn." I should prefer the illustration of the Septuagint, written in the Greek of the New Testament, and where, in the case of sepulchres, it says, Isaiah xxii. 16, "What hast

thou here? and whom hast thou here? that thou hast hewn thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an habitation for himself in a rock?". We know, from travellers, that in Palestine, graves were frequently worked into the rocks, like grottoes, and that they subsequently served, as asylums to hermits and to robbers. A very unnecessary doubt has arisen upon the use of the article, whether it should not be "a rock," and if not, what rock? In German the question is easily answered, but in English we frequently say, "cut out of the rock," as applying to rocks generally. But to inquire into the locality of the rock, is to inquire into the locality of Golgotha, of which the only certainty is, that it is not the one now pointed out as the place of crucifixion. The whole neighbourhood of Jerusalem is so rocky, as easily to afford an excavated sepulchre in its vicinity. The word (kav kevŵ)“ new,” has in one important manuscript (Reüchlen) another reading, "empty," of which a Greek, and especially a modern Greek reader, will immediately perceive the reason, from the similarity of pronunciation; it has, however, a

E

66

Chrysostom, "that as

great influence on the sense.

who is quoted for this reading, says, Joseph was thrown into an empty pit, and taken out again without injury, so was Jesus buried in an empty grave and rose again on the third day." He may have been deceived by the similarity of sound, although he might fairly use it, since Luke xxiii. 53, very strongly confirms this explanation.

66

Rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre."] This is alone mentioned by Matthew, and by his follower Mark, probably because Matthew wished to add the circumstance of the high priest's having sealed the stone; nor is the silence of Luke and John any contradiction to it, because Luke xxiv. 2, and John xx. 1, both allude to the stone being rolled away, either from a Jewish custom, or from the presumption, that it was known to have been previously sealed and guarded. When this happened, it was the first day of Easter, which, according to Exodus xii. 16, was a Sabbath; a person, fond of doubting, might here say, "Could Joseph envelope Jesus for burial on the first day of Easter? Could he bury him? Could he roll the stone before

the door of the sepulchre?"

The answer is

easy; Joseph did not do this himself, but others might do it, under his directions, and those, who have lived with Jews in the same city, know that they employ people to do for them on the Sabbath day, that labour, which they consider forbidden in their own persons. Joseph might do this, therefore, through men, who were not Jews. But, besides this, the first day of Easter is not such a complete sabbath, as the weekly Sabbath. It was permitted, as indeed appears from the passage I have quoted, to prepare food on that day. To inter a dead body, previous to the coming of the weekly Sabbath, was considered by the Jews, as a work of necessity, and therefore, for this purpose, an infringement upon the feast-day, was a due respect paid to the weekly Sabbath. Even where there is no coincidence of the two Sabbaths, (the weekly Sabbath, or the festival,) our Jews make no scruple of burying the dead who have died upon the first. day of Easter, but they do not consider burial. to be allowed upon the weekly Sabbath, or our Saturday.

« PreviousContinue »