Page images

Indeed, the church at Jerusalem in their prayer to God, give Herod and Pontius Pilate no titles, Acts iv. 27; and I believe, none would have them there at length. In the account of the death of John the Baptist, and of this marriage, all the evangelists do ever give Herod bis title : Matt. xiv. 1; Mark vi. 14; Luke iii. 19, ix. 7. But not one of them has given the Philip, whom they mention, any title; but that • Herod had laid bold of John, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brotber Pbilip's wife,” Matt. xiv. 3, or bound him in prison “ for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife,” Mark vi. 17. Again, “ Herod the tetrarch being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife,” Luke iii. 19. I make no doubt therefore, but that Pbilip, Herodias's first husband, was a private person, who lived, in all probability, at Jerusalem ; and that Herod the tetrarch, in his way to Rome, there fell in love with her, and made the contract. Pbilip then, whom the evangelists speak of, as the first husband of Herodias, was a private person, invested with no titles or dignities : so is Josephus's Herod, as appears from the history I have given of him. And it is not unlikely, that this was one reason, among others, why Herod the tetrarch's proposal of marriage was so soon accepted by Herodias, an ambitious


The only difficulty therefore concerning this matter, arises from the name. Josephus calls this person Herod, the evangelists Philip: moreover, Philip was the name of the tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis; therefore it may be thought strange, that Herod the Great should have another son called Pbilip.

This difficulty will be cleared by the following considerations. It is not at all strange, that Herod the Great should have two sons called by the same name, when he had cbildren by seven or eight wives. Even according to Josephus, the eldest son was called Antipater, and another, who was the youngest, Antipas, or Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee. These are but one and the same name, only a different termination. Josephus mentions three of Herod's sons of the name of Herod, without any addition.p But yet it is highly probable, they had some other names, by which they were distinguished, though Josephus has not mentioned them. Grotius 9 thinks it very probable, there was a Philip among the ancestors of Herod the Great, after whom tw of

p Vid. Jos. Ant. lib. cap. 1. lib. xviii. cap. 6. sect. 4. De Bell. lib. i. cap. 28. et Geneal. Herod. in Reland. Palest. Illustr.

a In Matt. xix. 3.


[ocr errors]

bis sons were named Philip; as there were two of them, who bore the name of Antipater or Antipas from his father.

Though there was another brother by the same father, nainely, Philip the tetrarch, called by the same name with Herodias's husband; yet it was not necessary for the evangelists to take notice of it. When writers relate a wellknown fact, near the time in which it happened, whilst there is no danger of persons making a mistake, this precaution is often neglected. Dio's account of Archelaus's removal is thus : * Herod of Palestine being accused by his brothers,

banished to the other side the Alps.' Herod was the name by wbich the tetrarch of Galilee was usually called ; and be also was afterwards banished to the other side the Alps : yet I believe no one ever charged Dio with a mistake here, as to the person he speaks of, or suspected, that he thought the tetrarch of Galilee was banished from his dominions, A. U. 759. I will transcribe here an observation of the learned and judicious * Prideaux. • He [Ptolemy

Lathyrus] was succeeded by Cleopatra his daughter, and 'only' legitimate child. Her proper name was Berenice, . and so Pausanias calls her. For it is to be noted, that as • all the males of this family had the common naine of Pto• lemy, so all the females of it had the name of Cleopatra, • and besides had other proper names to distinguish them • from each other. Thus Selene was called Cleopatra,

and so were also two other of her sisters. And in like man• ner, this daughter of Lathyrus, whose proper name was Bere

nice, bore also that of Cleopatra, according to the usage • of her family. The observing of this will remove many obscurities and difficulties in the Egyptian bistory!

The evangelists do all agree in calling Herodias's first husband Philip, and they appear fully masters of their story : it is therefore bighly reasonable to suppose, he was called Philip as well as Herod. I shall put a case resembling this: Josephus always calls Livia, Augustus's wife, Julia, though that was the proper name of Augustus's daughter, without ever giving the least hint of his reason for it. It is true, that though the Roman bistorians do generally call ber Livia, yet they have told us, that she had also the name of Julia, and have informed us of the reason for it: wbich was, that Augustus in his last will adopted his wife into the Julian family, and appointed that she should

το τε Ηρωδης ο Παλαισονος, αιτιαν τινα απο των αδελφων λαβων, υπο τας Αλπεις υπερωρισθη. Lib. ΙV. p. 767. Β.

Con. Part. II. year before Christ, 81. p. 396. ' Vid. Jos. p. 1028. not. .



bear the name of Julia, u And there are medals on which she bears this name. But if nothing of this had appeared in any of the Roman authors or inscriptions that are extant, yet since Josephus appears to be well acquainted with the Roman affairs froin Julius Cæsar down to his own time; I believe most men would have allowed, that he had some good reason for calling the wife of Augustus, Julia. For the same reason, a like supposition ought to be made in behalf of the evangelists, in the case before us.

It was exceeding common among the ancients, Jews and others, for persons to bave two naines, and to be called sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other. There are several instances in the New Testaineut: Simon, who is called Peter; Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus," Matt. x. 2, 3. “ Thomas, which is called Didymus," John xi. 16. “ Simeon, that was called Niger," Acts xiii. 1,

Saul, who was also called Paul.”

Josephus calls Caiaphas, the bigh-priest, Joseph. He has indeed told us, that he was also called Caiaphas.' If mankind would have been as equitable to the writers of the New Testament, as they usually are to other authors, to some who are far froin giving equal tokens of skill or probity with them; this would have created no difficulty, though Josephus had never subjoined the name of Caiaphas to that of Josepb. But if any had been disposed to give the evangelists unfair and unequal treatment, it is likely they would have pretended, that here was a notorious blunder : and that Caiaphas was so far from being bigh-priest when John Baptist began bis ministry, and when Jesus was crucified, that there never was any such person bigh-priest among the Jews.

I hope what is already said may be sufficient to convince all reasonable men, there is no just ground to suspect the evangelists of any mistake in the name of Herodias's first husband. However, there is somewhat farther to be offered: there are other writings extant, in which he is called Pbilip. I shall transcribe here the account of it in Whitby's words: • Gorionides saith, Herodias was first married to Pbilip, and • then taken away froin hiin by Herod Antipas. The old · Hebrew chronicle saith, “ Uxorem fratris sui Philippi ip

so vivente junxit sibi matrimonio, quæ liberos ex fratre • ejus susceperat, et tamen is eam duxit uxorem” (chap, • 36). And an old chronicle of the second temple saith,

u Tiberium et Liviam hæredes habuit. Livia in familiam Juliam nomenque Augustæ adsumebatur. Tacit. lib. i. cap. 8. vid. etiam Sueton. Aug. cap. 101. Dion. p. 600. A.

• P. 795, v. 23. p. 802. v. 28.


Antipas Philippi fratris sui uxorem accepit, ex qua ille • liberos ante genuerat.” (F. 54. c. 4.) i. e. “ Antipas • married the wife of his broiber Philip, be being yet living, • and having had children by her.”'




THERE are some difficulties attending the prophetical representation, given by our Lord, of those judgments, which he foresaw would soon befall the Jewish nation. This we bave in two of the evangelists, in St. Matthew and St. Luke, One account will illustrate the other, and we may bave some occasion to refer to each of them : therefore I shall set them botb down here at once.

The account of this matter, as it stands in St. Matthew, is thus : ch. xxiii. 29–36, “ Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, bypocrites, because ye build the tornbs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous: and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye be the children of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of bell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city : that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily, I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.'

The parallel place in St. Luke, ch. xi. 47–51, is in these words: “ Woe into you, for ye build the sepulcbres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness, that ye allow the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. There

Whitby, on Matt. xiv. 3.


2 E

fore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple; verily, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation,

Here the evangelists may be charged with a mistake several ways. They who would suppose, that Zacharias here referred to is Zacharias, one of the twelve lesser Jewish prophets, will say, they must have been mistaken, because in the time of this Zacharias, the temple is supposed to have been in ruins : and therefore it is impossible he should have been killed between the temple and the altar. And others, who suppose Zacharias, bere intended, is Zacharias, wbose death is related in 2 Cbron. xxiv, may say, that St. Matthew mistook the name of bis fạther; for his name was Jeboiada, and not Barachias.

There is another Zacharias, whose death is related by Josephus ; but that happened not till long after the time in wbich our Saviour is supposed to bave spoken these words. This seems to afford the most formidable objection : I shall therefore state and consider it particularly : and in answering this, I hope to answer also the other two.

Before I state this objection, I shall here transcribe the passage of Josephus on which it is founded. I must abridge it indeed, but I shall omit nothing that is material to the point before us.

• The zealots,' says Josepbus, ' were exceedingly enraged against Zacharias,a the son of Baruch: for he was a man • who detested all wickedness, was a lover of liberty, and * moreover was very rich. They call together therefore . by a decree seventy of the chief of the people, and form a • kind of council, destitute of all authority. They then

brought Zacharias before them, and accused him of a con• spiracy with the Romans : and in particular charged hiin

with sending messengers to Vespasian, the better to concert measures for betraying them into bis hands. But they had no witnesses. The facts were not proved. Zacharias, in a speech be delivered before the council, confuted all the calúmnies of the zealots, and warmly reproved them for their wickedness. The seventy then acquitted him, • choosing rather to die with him than to bring upon themZuxaprav viov Bapex8.

Συγκαλεσιν εξ επιταγματος έβδομηκοντα των εν τελει δημοτων. .


« PreviousContinue »