« PreviousContinue »
sense in Luke XXII. 40, and John xvII. 1. (p. 205.) Again, John XIII. 36, &c. (p. 203), which relates but a different incident of the same scene described in the following chapters, is placed after those chapters, in this volume, to harmonize with the order of the three other evangelists. Three cases only occur, then, of what can properly be accounted deviation from the historical order of either Matthew or John; viz. those of John ch. vI. (p. 111), which has been explained at length; Matthew v. 14, &c. (p. 44). and Matthew XII. 1, &c. (p. 24.)
It may be doubted whether, in either of these latter cases, a different order requires to be substituted for that of Matthew, though the editor, having undertaken to exhibit the plan of Dr. Carpenter, was not at liberty to make any change. In determining the place to which the former passage, recording the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, should be referred, Dr. Carpenter (Geog. P. 1. § 21.) appears to attach some importance to the relation of Mark to Peter, as authorizing in this instance a preference of Mark's chronology; but it is not easy to see why a rule, deduced from this circumstance, if applicable at all, is not to be received to a much wider application. Dr. Priestley (Observations, Sect. XII. § 2.) lays stress on Mark's saying (1. 21. 29-31.) that the cure was performed the sabbath after (i. e. next after) Jesus's arrival at Capernaum; but this it does not distinctly appear that Mark has said. If it was on the first sabbath after his arrival, that Jesus "entered the synagogue and taught," which is not an unquestionable construction of Mark's words, still it would not be ascertained that the visit to the synagogue there mentioned, is the same with what is indicated in, 1. 23, 29. Michaelis argues (Vol. III. Part 1. p. 84.) that Matthew IV. 25. -VIII. 17. records but the events of one day, the same day on which Mark also (1. 29.) relates the cure of Peter's mother-in-law (with the cure of the demoniac (1. 23.), not mentioned by Matthew) to have taken place; and arranging the series of its events, he rejects the order of Mark and Luke for that of Matthew; and Marsh (Part 11. p. 69.) agrees with him in referring all the events
there recorded to one day, and understanding them to have taken place according to Matthew's arrangement. It may be added, that though Matthew's account of this miracle precedes his account of his call to be an apostle, nothing is more probable than that, being an inhabitant of Capernaum, and dispensed from his duty as publican on the sabbath, he listened to the discourse which he so particularly records, and was a witness of the remaining wonders of the day; while, on the other hand, as to one of these (Matthew vIII. 2.), Mark (1. 40.) gives no note of the time of its occurrence, and Luke (v. 12.), appears to have been even ignorant of the place.
The walk through the corn-fields, (Matthew XII. 1.) is dated by Luke (vI. 1.) ἐν σάββατῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ, rendered in our version," on the second sabbath after the first." This (after Wetstein and Storr) is understood by Dr. Carpenter, who disposes the passages accordingly, to signify the first sabbath of the second month, the Passover being in the first month. But the phrase, which is not elsewhere found, is not improbably not genuine, the last word being omitted from some good manuscripts and versions. At all events, it still costs much pains to the critics, and must be owned to be of too unsettled sense to be a sufficient foundation for any argument. Michaelis (Vol. III. Part 1. p. 88.) understands the epithet to denote a particular part of any sabbath, or rather of the preceding day, and not the part of the year when the specified sabbath occurred. And even that the plucking of ears of corn supposes a different season of the year from that intervening between the Feast of Dedication and the death of John the Baptist, where Matthew appears to place it, is not perhaps entirely clear. Barley was sown in October. The harvest, which was preceded a full month by the first reaping, is placed by some authorities as early as the vernal equinox; and moreover, it was not full-formed kernels, but ears, perhaps in the milk, (orázves, the same word which is used Mark 1v. 28, in distinction from the full corn in the ear,) which the disciples are represented to have plucked and eaten. These thoughts are thrown out with much diffidence, the editor having
met with nothing in any writer, which goes to countenance them. But if they be allowed any force, there will be the less reason for assigning to the incident related in Matthew XII. 1-8, a different date from that, (in the month of February, and not certainly early in that month,) to which this evangelist appears to determine it, by the place where it is introduced. It is true that Matthew might not have returned to Jesus, at the time to which he refers, for the mission of the Twelve is related in the second preceding chapter. But the words "at that time" (XII. 1.) connected with what follows, are, for this evangelist, somewhat uncommonly precise; and, at least, if other events recorded in this connexion are to be understood, for the reasons above. given, to have taken place in and near the month of February, the placing of this incident in the midst of them, sufficiently indicates that Matthew was not sensible that the plucking of ears of corn would seem an act then out of season. And if only this be admitted, the objection to retaining the passage, in a Harmony, in the same place which it occupies in Matthew's Gospel, will then be done away. It will not need to be violently severed from what, before and after, (xII. 1, 9.) appears to have close connexion with it, and no anomaly will remain in the plan which professes to adopt Matthew's order for a guide.
It remains to say a few words respecting the present publication.
It was undertaken with no other view than to favour the usefulness of a course of expository lectures, which the editor was intending to deliver to a portion of a congregation, to which all services, he could render, have been felt to be due.
The text is that of the Common Version, conformed to Griesbach's edition of the Greek, no other alteration being admitted than such as correspond to the emendations presented in that work.
Much praise is due to the printers for the care which they have bestowed on the arrangement of the page. The difficulty of
this, in such a book, cannot, perhaps, be understood by any one, who has not become acquainted with it by the opportunity of experience. If some typographical errors appear, they are immaterial, and will be thought as few as could reasonably have been looked for. Should the work reach a second edition, with the advantage of the first in the hands of the compositor, no such difficulty in attaining typographical exactness will remain.
Horizontal lines indicate that, from the place of their insertion, the narrative or discourse proceeds in the words of a different number of evangelists, from what have furnished the preceding passage. Perpendicular lines show, that, parallel with the passage at their left side, there is a passage of an evangelist who is later in the usual order of the Gospels. Headings, indicating the contents of sections, are avoided, as almost necessarily partaking of the nature of a commentary.
The Calendar (p. 258) is from the last edition of Carpenter's Geography.
Finally, the editor of these pages has to disclaim all title to other credit, than what may be due to some pains taken for their correct arrangement; and to apologize beforehand to the learned and revered author of the plan, if, in undertaking to represent him, he has, in any instance, misunderstood his sense. January 8, 1831.