281 Jesus seems here almost to have challenged inquiry into the a.s.sault so lately committed by Peter upon the servant of the high priest.

St. Luke, however, states a fact which accounts for their not making such inquiry, ch. xxii. 51. _He touched his ear and healed him_. An inquiry into the truth would have frustrated the malicious purpose of the enemies of Jesus, by proving his own compa.s.sionate nature, his submission to the laws, and his miraculous powers. Blunt, Veracity, &c., sect. i. 19.

282 Here is an obscure intimation that neither Pilate nor Herod were residents of Jerusalem; and the manner of the insinuation deserves notice, as a mark of conscious veracity in the narrator. Now it appears from Josephus, that this Herod was the very opposite of his successor, Herod Agrippa; the former being partial to the Greeks, and a hater of the Jews; while the latter so loved the Jews that he took pleasure in constantly dwelling at Jerusalem. It is therefore evident that Herod's presence at Jerusalem at this time was merely casual; as that of Pilate certainly was, the Roman governors residing at Caesarea. See Josephus, Ant. xviii. iv. -- 1.-xix. vii. -- 3.-xx. iv. -- 4. BLUNT, Veracity, &c., sect. II. 11.

283 The accuracy of Luke, as a man of education, is observable in this statement of the formal judgment p.r.o.nounced by Pilate, which is only implied in the narratives of the other Evangelists.

284 The apparent contradiction between John and Mark, (ch. xv. 25,) who mentions the third hour, is reconciled by Dr. Campbell, in a critical note upon the force of the expressions in the original, which he interprets as equivalent to saying, in the one case, that it was past _three_, and in the other, that it was _towards six_.

See CAMPBELL, _in loc_.

285 The pa.s.sage here quoted is found in the prophecy of Zechariah, and not in Jeremiah. Dr. Lightfoot says, that anciently among the Jews the Old Testament was divided into three parts. The first, beginning with the law, was called _The Law_. The second, beginning with Psalms, was called _The Psalms_. The third, beginning with the prophecy of Jeremiah, which anciently stood first, was called _Jeremiah_, under which name all quotations from the prophets were made. See A. CLARKE, _in loc._ JENNINGS, Jewish Antiq. pp. 594, 595.

Others account for the apparent error in Matthew's quotation, by supposing that he omitted the name of the prophet, as he frequently did in his citations of scripture, and that the name of Jeremiah was inserted by a subsequent copyist. 1 HORNE'S _Introd_. p. 582.

286 Zech. xi. 12, seq. Jer. x.x.xii. 6, seq.

287 Clement of Alexandria and Jerome both relate that Mark wrote this Gospel at _Rome_, and we find in Romans xiv. 13, that a disciple named Rufus, of considerable note, resided in that city. Admitting that both Mark and Paul speak of the same person, which is highly probable, as they refer to the same period of time and to a disciple of distinction, there is an evident consciousness of veracity in the Evangelist, in making this reference to Rufus, then living among them, since he could not but have known the particulars of the crucifixion, in which his own father was so intimately concerned.

BLUNT'S Veracity, &c., sect. i. 14. See also EUSEBIUS, lib. 2, ch.

15.

288 Is. liv. 1.

289 Hos. x. 8.

290 Ps. xxii. 19.

291 As to the t.i.tle itself, the precise working may have differed in the different languages; and MSS. represent it differently.

But the same verbal exactness is not necessary in historians, whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public inscriptions. It is enough that the Evangelists agree as to the main article, "_the King of the Jews_," referred to, John xix. 21. That their manner is to regard the sense, rather than the words, appears from many places. Compare Matt. iii. 17, and ix. 11, and xv. 27, and xvi. 6, 9, and xix. 18, and xx. 33, and xxi. 9, and xxvi. 39, 64, 70, and xxviii. 5, 6, with the parallel verses in this Harmony.

Compare also John xi. 40, with ver. 23, 25. One of the most solemn and awful of our Lord's discourses is, in some parts, variously expressed. See Matt. xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor.

xi. 25. Now as each of these writers has, beyond all doubt, faithfully represented the meaning of Christ, we see that it might be truly done in different words, or in a different form of the same words. His sentences also, sometimes admitted a difference of arrangement; for the order in which two sentences, or the several members of the same sentence, are disposed by St. Matthew, is, in several places, inverted by St. Mark. And with regard to his actions, though the most material parts of whatever they were going to relate must command their attention, yet there was no such superior attraction in one specific number and order of secondary circ.u.mstances, as could turn their thoughts absolutely and exclusively to them. This is plain from instances to the contrary.

One Evangelist is sometimes distinct, while another is concise; and describes what the other pa.s.ses over. TOWNSON, pp. 60-1.

We may reasonably suppose St. Matthew to have cited the Hebrew,-St.

John the Greek,-and St. Mark the Latin, which was the shortest, and without mixture of foreign words. St. Mark is followed by St. Luke; only that he has brought down "THIS IS" from above, as having a common reference to what stood under it. NEWCOME.

292 Is. liii. 12.

293 We have here an incidental allusion to a practice well known at that time. The malefactor about to be crucified, having borne his own cross to the place of execution, was stripped, and made to drink a stupefying potion; the cross was then laid on the ground, the sufferer distended upon it, and four soldiers, two on each side, were employed in driving four large nails through his hands and feet. For this service they had a right to his clothes as a perquisite. See Dr. Harwood's Introd., cited in Horne's _Introd_., vol. i. pp. 94, 95.

294 Ps. xxii. 7, 8.

295 Here the common drink of the Roman soldiers is offered by them to Jesus on the cross, while they are deriding him; which is a different act from that in Matt. xxvii. 34, 48, as appears by the place a.s.signed to it. NEWCOME

296 What was true of only one of the malefactors is attributed to both in the concise relations of Matthew and Mark; the plural being often used in the Gospels for the singular. This the Evangelists themselves show in some instances. Compare Mark vii. 17, and Matt.

xv. 15; Mark v. 31, and Luke viii. 45; Matt. xiv. 17, and Mark vi.

38, Luke ix. 13, John vi. 8, 9; Matt. xxvi. 8, and Mark xiv. 4, John xii. 4; Matt. xxiv. 1, and Mark xiii. 1; Matt. xxvii. 37, and John xix. 19; Matt. xxvii. 48, and Mark xv. 36, John xix. 29. See also Luke xxii. 67. In the following places, the plural is used, while the sense shows that one is spoken of. John xi. 8, Luke xx. 21, 39, and xxiv. 5, Matt. xv. 1, 12.-The Evangelists, therefore, when from attention to brevity they avoid particularizing, often attribute to many what is said or done by single persons; nor does any striking peculiarity in the case omitted, lead them to deviate from their manner; for instance, the case of Judas, Matth. xxvi. 8, and the parallel places. NEWCOME

297 Ps. xxii. 1.

_ 298 Hil_ or _Hila_ was the old Syriac for _vinegar_. Hence one of the bystanders, hearing our Saviour's exclamation on the cross, thought he wanted vinegar to alleviate his thirst, and straightway filled a spunge. See BUCHANAN'S _Researches_, p. 153.

299 The Jews gave a literal interpretation to Mal. iv. 5, expecting Elijah to appear in person, as the forerunner of the Messiah; and hence they, on this occasion, sneeringly adverted to the want of this testimony to the mission of Christ. JONES, _Lect_. 147. This incidental allusion to the popular opinion, by Matthew and Mark, may be noticed as additional evidence of their veracity.

300 The objection urged by infidels, upon this pa.s.sage, against the veracity of the Evangelists, from the silence of profane writers concerning so remarkable an event, is met and answered by Bp. Watson in his Reply to Gibbon, Let. 5. See also HORNE'S _Introd_. Vol. 1.

p. 210-216. The word translated _earth_, in Luke, is the same which is rendered _land_, in the others, and applies equally to both.

Taken in the latter sense, it may limit the darkness to Judea. But the Evangelists do not mention the degree of darkness; if therefore it was slight, though it extended over the whole globe, the objection of its not being recorded by Pliny or Seneca vanishes at once.

301 Ps. lxix. 22.

302 This and the parallel verses are reconciled with John xix. 25, by the following observation in Wall's critical notes, p. 116. "Mary stood as yet, (John xix. 25,) so nigh the cross as to hear what Christ said. But at the time of his departure, Matthew, Mark and Luke say, the women stood afar off." See also Watson's Reply to Gibbon, Let. 5, (Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv. pp. 276, 277.) It is natural to suppose that our Lord's relations and friends, mentioned in John xix. 25, were too much struck with commiseration and grief to remain long near the cross; and that they would retire from the horror of the concluding scene. NEWCOME.

303 Here is another of those incidental allusions to existing customs, which show the naturalness and veracity of the narrative. Those who were crucified by the Romans are said to have been usually exposed to the birds of prey; and a guard was set to prevent their friends from burying the bodies. The body of Jesus therefore could not be obtained for burial, without leave from Pilate; which the Evangelists relate was applied for, but without explaining the cause.

304 Ex. xxii. 46. Ps. xxiv. 20.

305 Zech. xii. 10.

306 We must not understand this word of the morning light. The Jewish sabbath began at six in the morning, before which time our Lord's body was deposited in the tomb. NEWCOME.

307 The mention of this circ.u.mstance by Matthew, and not by the other Evangelists, is in perfect keeping with his previous occupation; which led him to watch for fraud, in all places where it might be perpetrated.

308 This appearance of Jesus is not alluded to by any other Evangelist; but it was a fact well known among the disciples, and is expressly stated by Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 5,-"and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve."

309 This appearance of Jesus is also affirmed by Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 5.

310 Many and perhaps most Harmonists and Commentators refer 1 Cor. xv.

6, to this place, where it is related that Jesus was seen of above five hundred brethren at once. Such is the opinion of Dr. Robinson and Bishop J. B. Sumner, and such seems to have been the opinion of Abp. Newcome, Dr. Macknight, and Dr. Pilkington. See NEWCOME, in loc. The fact is deemed by some to have an important bearing upon the extent of the commission then given or repeated by our Lord; but the plan of this work does not require any further notice of the question.

311 This is perfectly consistent with the statement of Luke in Acts i.

12, as Bethany was not only the name of a town, but of a district of Mount Olivet, adjoining the town. See Watson's Reply to Gibbon, Letter vi. in Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv., p. 277.

312 Harm. p. 525. Can. XII. fin.

313 Matt. 8: 28, Mark 5: 2. Luke 8: 27.-Matt. 20: 30. Mark 10: 46. Luke 18: 35.

314 Matt. 16: 21. 17: 23. Luke 9: 22. 24: 6, 7. al.

315 Matt. 28: 63 sq.

316 Matt. 28: 9.

317 See also John 21: 4.

318 See Matt. 26: 32.

319 1 Cor. 15: 6.

320 Acts 1: 15.

321 See Acts 12: 17. 15: 13. 21: 18. Gal. 2: 9, 12 al.