« PreviousContinue »
at Rome, as also several of the most considerable of the Samaritans. Josephus says that “ Felix, for some slight
offence, bound and sent to Rome several priests of his ac• quaintance, and very good and honest men,
to answer for • themselves ton Cæsar. Felix also sent to Rome Eleazer, captain of a troop of robbers, and several of his men, whom he had taken prisoners. XI. There remains but one thing more.
6 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept_bin,” Acts xxviii. 16. Doubtless Paul was consigned by Felix to the " captain of the guard,” as well as the other“ prisoners :" but he was suffered to “ dwell by himself,” the rest were ordered to a more strait confinement. The only thing we have to observe here is, that the captain of the guard often had the custody of prisoners. This appears from the history I have given above of Agrippa. And it seems, that generally the prisoners which were sent from the provinces were transmitted to this officer, and not to the præfect of the city. For so Trajan directs Pliny, when he 'bad written to him for some advice concerning a particular person whom be had with bim in the province; • That be should send him • bound to the præfects of his P prætorium :' or in other words, to the captains of the guard ; there being two at that time, whereas there was but one when Paul was sent to Rome. Heliodorus the sophist, being in a certain island, fell under a charge of murder. Whereupon,' says' Philostratus, · be was sent to Rome, to answer for binnself be• fore the præfects of the prætorium.'
η Καθ' όν χρονον Φηλιξ της Ιεδαιας επιτροπευεν, ιερεις τινας συνηθεις εμοι, καλες καγαθες, δια μικραν και την τυχασαν αιτιαν δησας, εις την Ρωμην επεμψεν, λογον υφεξοντας τη Καισαρι" In Vit. sect. 3. • De Bell. lib. ii. c. 13. sect. 2.
P Si-vinctus mitti ad præfectos prætorii mei debet. Plin. lib. x. ep. 65. 9 About A. D. 223.
Λαβων δη εν τη νησω φονικης αιτιαν, ανεπεμφθη ες την Ρωμην, ως απολογησομενος τοις των τρατοπεδων ηγεμοσι. . Vit. Sophist. I. 2. num. 32.
THREE REMARKABLE FACTS.
1. The temple forty-six years in building. II. The dearth
in the reign of Claudius. III. The Jews banished from
Rome by the same emperor. I. WHEN our Saviour was at Jerusalem, at one of the Jews' passovers, he “ made a scourge of small cords, and drove them that sold oxen and sheep, and the changers of money, out of the temple,” John ii. 14, 15. This action implied a claim of some particular authority. “Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, what sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou dost these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days ?" Or in other words : • Forty and six years has this • temple been building, so far as the work is carried on, and
many thousand men have been employed upon it all this • time. And wilt thou alone rebuild it in three days, if it • were pulled down and demolished ?' Ver. 18-20.
It ought to be observed here, that Josepbus has informed us, thată Herod the Great, in the eighteenth year of his reign, made a proposal to the Jews of rebuilding the temple. In eight or nine years' time he finished what he intended to do to this sacred place. But the people of the Jews were after this, as it seems, continually adorning and improving the buildings of the temple.
İt is bighly probable, that the term of forty-six years, mentioned here by the Jews in their reply to our Saviour, commences at the time when Herod made his proposal to the Jews, or else at the time, when in pursuance of that proposal, he actually set about repairing the temple.
There being some chronological difficulties attending the period of Herod's reign, as well as our Saviour's ministry, ihere is between learned men the difference of two or three years about the exact time when these words were spoken by the Jews. But I have no occasion at present to concern myself with any of those difficulties; because it is easy to
* De Bell. lib. i. cap. 21. Ant. lib. xv. cap. 11.
show, that the buildings of the temple were continued beluw any of the dates affixed to this discourse between our Saviour and the Jews.
The evidences for this fact are these : Josephus relating affairs which happened in the reign of Nero, after the arrival of Gessius Florus, procurator of Judea in the year of the christian æra 65,6 says : • At that tiine was the temple • finished. The people, therefore, secing the workmen to * the number of cighteen thousand lie idle, and apprehend
ing that they would stand in need of the wages which they were wont to receive for working at the temple; and • being afraid that the money, if laid up, should fall into • the hands of the Romans; and moreover, having a regard . to the workmen, and being willing that the treasures • should be laid out upon them, (for if any man worked but * one hour of the day, he presently received his pay,) they * petitioned thed king to rebuild the east portico.-It was • the work of king Solomon, who first built the whole temple. But the king (the charge and oversight of the temple had been committed to him by Claudius Cæsar) considering, that this would be a work of much tiine and * vast expence, did not grant their request. However, he . was not against paving the city with white marble.'
It appears from bence, that the Jews had continually employed men upon the temple; for Josephus says, it was now finished.
If it be inquired, how they were supplied with money to maintain so many men constantly at work; I answer, that Josephus, in the passage just now transcribed, intimates what the fund was, namely, their sacred treasury. He has more particularly informed us in another place, where he says, that on the temple were expended · all the sacred • treasures, which were supplied by tributes sent to God • from all parts of the world. Beside the ordinary tribute sent to the temple, the zeal of the people for this work produced liberal contributions, • Usser. Ann.
• Ηδη δε τοτε και το ιερον ετετελετο βλεπων 8ν ο δημος αργησαντας τες τεχνιτας, υπερ μυριες και οκτακισχιλιες οντας, και μισθοφοριας ενδεεις εσομενες δια το την τροφην εκ της κατα το χρον εργασιας ποριζεσθαι, και χρηματα μεν αποθετα δια των εκ Ρωμαιων φοβον εχειν 8 θελων, προνουμενος δε των τεχνιτων, και εις τατος αναλαν τες θησαυρος βaλομενος" και γαρ ει μιαν τις ωραν της ημερας εργασαιτο, τον μισθον υπερ ταυτης ευθεως ελαμβανεν επειθον τον βασιλεα την ανατολικην σοαν ανεγειραι" κ. λ. Αnt. 1. xx. c. 8. sect. 7. Agrippa the younger. Εις ο μακροι μεν εξανηλωθησαν αιωνες αυτοις, και οι ιεροι δε θησαυροι παντες ανεπιμπλασαν οι παρα της οικεμενης δασμοι πεμπομενοι το θεω. De Bell. lib. ν. c. 5. sect. 1.
Η τε γαρ δαψιλεια των χρηματων, και η τε λαο φιλοτιμια, λογο μειζονας ETTOLELTO TAG Enrißolas. Id. ibid. vid. et Ant. I. xiv, c. 7. sect. 2.
If it be objected, that Josephus, in the account of the building of the temple by Herod, says, that the tepov, that is, the cloisters and other buildings of the temple, were raised in eight years, and the vaos, or temple itself, in a year and a half, that is, in nine years and a half; I answer, that Josephus can mean no more than that the temple was then fitted for use, or that all was then finished that Herod proposed to do at his cost, and not the completing the teinple and all the buildings belonging to it. This is evident, from the passage just described at length, in which be says, ' At that time the temple was finished.' And even these words are to be understood with a limitation. The teinple was not then completed : there was something still wanting, which the people would have had done. But they then put an end to repairing and building, and there was no more work done at the temple.
It is possible, that there might be some interruptions in the works at the temple; but it is likely they were very short, (if there were any,) and such as were not worth taking notice of in a long period.
II. The next event I would here confirm from some foreign testimony, is the famine said to have happened in the reign of Claudius. “ And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit, that there should be great dearth throughout all the world, which came to pass in the days of Claudius Cæsar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea. Which also they did, and sent it to the elders, by the hands of Barnabas and Saul," Acts xi. 27-30.
I do not take notice of this famine, as the fulfilment of a prophecy, because I do not enter into that argument, but only as a remarkable event, which St. Luke assures us, bappened in the reign of Claudius.
St. Luke says, “ In those days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.” It may be questioned, what was the exact time of the arrival of these prophets to Antioch, and of the delivery of the prophecy; but I think, it is easy to perceive from St. Luke, when the famine happened. It is observable, that St. Luke having, in the words just now transcribed from him in the conclusion of the with of the Acts, given an account of the resolution of the church at Antioch, and of the commission given by them to Barnabas and Saul, to carry their contributions to Jerusalem, proceeds in the xiith chapter to relate the transactions concerning the church at Jerusalem, during the reign of Herod Agrippa, and also Herod's death. And then says, “ But the word of God grew and multiplied. And Barnabas and Saul rcturned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ipinistry,” Acts xii, 24, 25.
8 Ant. lib. xv. cap. 11. sect. 5, 6.
There can be no reason assigned for that interruption in the course of the narration, and for the delay to mention the fulfilment of the cominission of the church at Antioch, but this, that the commission was not executed till the death of Herod Agrippa. Moreover, as the christians at Antioch had a previous knowledge of this famine, according to St. Luke's account, before it happened, it is reasonable to suppose, that the famine was but then coming on, when Barnabas and Saul fulfilled their ministry. Herod died in the fourth year of Claudius's reign, A. D. 44. It is very evident therefore to me, that b the commencement of this famine ought not to be placed before the latter end of the year 44, or perhaps not till the beginning of the year following:
But before I proceed to the proofs of this fact, I must let the rcader know how I understand it. I think the dearth prophesied of by Agabus, and related by St. Luke, was in Judea only. I desire the words themselves may be considered. There “ came prophets from Jerusalem, and one of them signified by the Spirit, that there should be great dearth throughout the whole world,” that is, throughout the whole land, the country before mentioned, from whence those prophets came, namely, the land of Judea : that there would be a great dearth and scarcity, not at Jerusalem only, which might have been occasioned by soine circumstances peculiar to the city, a siege or some other accident; but that there would be scarcity throughout all the land of Judea, by means of a general failure of the usual produce of the earth.
The original word [olkepevn] does sometimes signify not the whole world, but a particular country only.
h Vid. Usser. Ann. P. J. 4755.
i 'Hyn signifies, the earth : yet the coherence of the words in many places determines the meaning to some particular country. Jos. ii. 3, “ T'hey be come to search out all the country" (tnv you]. Luke iv. 25, “ But I tell you of a truth many widows were in Israel, when the heaven was shut up three
years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land, ETTL Tagav tņu ynu." Not all the earth but all the land of Israel ; that being the country before mentioned.
In like manner, oueuevn signifies, according to the original notation of the word, the habitable, or rather the inhabited earth: but the connexion of the