years of age in the 15th year of Tiberius. This conclusion labours under several disadvantages. First, it takes for granted that, as John began to baptize, Jesus also was himself baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius, an inference which, though very reasonable, is not absolutely certain without other and better proof. 2d, It takes for granted that St. Luke reckoned the years of Tiberius from the death of Augustus, a mode of reckoning which is not altogether necessary or sure. 3d, As the expression of St. Luke is ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, “ about thirty years of age," and has been decided by so good a judge of the Greek language as Justin Martyr to be somewhat indeterminate, and to imply not exactly thirty years, but thirty years more or less,-τριάκοντα ἔτη ἢ πλείονα ἢ καὶ ἐλάσσονα ; each writer has taken the full liberty which this ambiguity allows, and decided that Jesus was from twenty-five to thirty-five years of age, according as it best suited his own preconceived opinion. On all these accounts it is no wonder that the theories of Chronologers should have been in such a fluctuating state, and never during the course

a

a Almost all the Fathers subsequent to Justin Martyr have deserted the moderation which he has observed, and asserted that the phrase ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα means that Jesus was less than thirty years of age when baptized. They were led to this conclusion by their other erroneous opinion, that our Lord was only thirty when crucified, and consequently less than thirty when baptized.

of so many ages have made any nearer approach to unanimity and truth. Decker, if we may trust the intimations of Petavius," was the first who endeavoured to make the period of Herod's death, as deducible from the history of Josephus, subservient to the purpose of ascertaining the chronology of our Saviour's life; and since that time I think we may safely say that the writings of every succeeding computist have made a nearer approximation to that degree of accuracy which is all that need be desired or is practicable. The quotation which stands at the head of this chapter is now therefore justly considered only as a subordinate instrument in the settlement of the dispute; a sort of reflective argument by which a date for the birth of Christ, already rendered highly probable, may be confirmed, and the time of his baptism be more easily settled, when viewed in connexion with that date. In this manner I regard it on the present occasion, and shall agitate the question of its meaning, not as one of paramount and essential importance to the establishment of what has been already advanced, but as one to be regulated in some measure by our previous conclusions, and to be made to bend a little if necessary to meet them.

In the prosecution of such an argument moderation is requisite in proportion to the licence. which may be assumed. The phrase is indefinitethat is granted; and a determined theorist might almost prove a most erroneous system by a skilful adaptation of its ambiguity to his own purposes. For this very reason a partisan of any system should guard against the self-deception originating in his own wishes, and carefully examine the most natural and reasonable interpretation of the words, as they stand; for though a vague expression may be in fact capable of bearing several explanations, there will always be some more reasonable than others, and generally one most so. He should also see whether his interpretation and conclusions be consistent with all the other dates and circumstances with which the subject is connected. To these rules I shall adhere. If the date for the baptism of Jesus, to which we are directed by the most appropriate meaning of St. Luke's words and the evidence of external considerations, be found to correspond with the date already assigned to his birth, it will not only verify that date, but be itself confirmed, and establish a new epoch in our Saviour's life, the epoch of his baptism.

1. Ἦν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρ Xάuevos.-Why the Evangelist should use the χόμενος. word Tρiákovтα, if Jesus was at the time of

which he speaks either less than twenty-nine or more than thirty-one years of age, I cannot conceive. The only reason he could have for making any allusion at all to his age, (which is somewhat incidentally introduced,) must have been to give his reader information. Why then, if he knew him to be twenty-eight or thirty-one years of age, should he choose to mislead the reader by using the word thirty, when he might with equal ease have said that he was either about twenty-nine or thirty-one years of age, as the case might require? The first idea, therefore, which crosses the mind upon perusing the passage, is, that Jesus, at the time of his baptism, had lived not less than twenty-nine, and not more than thirty-one years. Consequently, every scheme of gospel chronology, which deviates from these limits, is not perhaps necessarily false, but certainly is less probable than another, in which they are not transgressed. In drawing this inference I presume of course that St. Luke was acquainted with the precise period of our Saviour's birth; if he was not exactly informed upon that point, it only renders the phrase a little more indefinite, and makes it more necessary for us, in determining the date of his baptism, to be guided by other and independent considerations.

2. Having advanced thus far, any farther

approximation to accuracy must be deduced from the nature and meaning of the construction of the passage. Now this construction has been conceived to depend upon the preposition and understood :—Ἦν δὲ ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς ἀρχόμενος εἶναι ὡσεὶ ΑΠΟ ÉTAν тριάкоvтα. If this be allowed, it can scarce be said to mean any thing else than that Jesus was beginning to be from, or above, or more than

C

thirty years of age; and in this sense the prepo

sition is frequently used with reference to time. 'ATTO Seiπvov means a cœnâ vel post cænam; and still more analogously, arò raidov implies a pueritiâ vel post ætatem pueritiæ. Therefore the verse at present under our consideration, if an instance of a similar construction, signifies not being under, but above thirty years. Now 4709+

C

Many commentators would separate apxóμevos from any connection with étŵv tpiákovta, and translate the passage, thus: "Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his ministry." "Placet," says Petavius," verbum äpxeola, ad initium prædicationis, οἰκονομίας, vel τῆς ἐπιφανείας referre,” and he is followed by Lamy and Lardner. I prefer the authority of Epiphanius, who has removed all doubt as to the manner in which he understood the passage. Ην δὲ Ἰησοῦς, says he, Hær. 30, 29,ἀρχόμενος εἶναι ὡς ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱὸς, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσήφ.

d Viger. p. 580.

There is an argument very commonly insisted upon by writers to prove that our Saviour at his baptism was more than thirty years of age, which I have entirely omitted in the text. It is deduced from the supposed sacerdotal age amongst the Jews.

The