Works
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From Gabara of Cesarea, and downwards, is as the land of Israel, in respect of the Demai, or, tithing.
CHAP. LXXXVI. The difference of some customs of the Galileans from those of Judea.
IT is not impertinently questioned, with what Inhabitants Galilea and Perea were first planted after the return out of Babylon, when you scarce find any mention of them in the Books of Ezra, and Nehemiah, but of those only who inhabited. Judea, and the land of Benjamin. But whosoever they were, whether pure Israelites, or those that were more mixed, or some of the ten Tribes, it is certain, those that inhabited Galilee differed much from those that dwelt in Judea, in certain rites, and not a little in the Dialect of their speech.
The Jewish Pandects observe a various difference between them: out of which we produce these few instances, instead of more.
In the place noted in the Margin, it is discoursed concerning the form and manner of writing the Donation of the marriage dowry. So and so, say they, the people of Jerusalem writ, and the Galileans writ as those of Jerusalem: but the Inhabitants of Judea something varied, &c. Where the Gemarists thus, The Galileans care was of reputation, not of money; the Inhabitants of Judea their care was of money, not of reputation, &c.
The wise Men say, In Judea they did servile works on the Passover Eves, until noon; in Galilee not at all.
: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The wise Men say, That the Trumah taken generally is • ound in Judea, in Galilee is loosed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For the Galileans know not the Trumah of the Temple chamber. The sense of the Tradition is this, When any one pronounced a Vow in general terms, for example, saying thus, Let this be to me as the Trumah, not naming what kind of Trumah, a Galilean so speaking was loosed from his vow, because he by reason of the distance of the place (as the Gloss tells us) knew not the Trumah of the holy Treasury: but he that inhabited Judea, and spoke thus, was bound by his vow.
And in the same Text is added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any vows generally by curses, he is loosed in Judea; he is bound in Galilee, because the Galileans do not know the curses of the Priests. Where the Gloss is this, There were no Priests among the Galileans: therefore when they cursed, they cursed to none but to God. And the Gemara of Jerusalem thus, Because they were fastened to the curse of Achan, it is said, that they are bound: but in Judea, because they are not fastened to the curse of Achan, it is said, that they are loosed.
Rabbi Judah saith, In Judea they made inquiry concerning the bridegroom, and bride three days before the wedding: but in Galilee they did not so. In Judea they allowed the bridegroom and bride private company one hour before the wedding; but they did not so in Galilee. It was a custom in Judea, that the married persons should have two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 friends, one of the family of the bridegroom, and the other of the family of the bride: but it was not so in Galilee. In Judea those friends slept in the same place, where the bridegroom and bride slept: but in Galilee it was not so, &c.
CHAP. LXXXVII. The Dialect of the Galileans, differing from the Jewish.
A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee, Matth. XXVI. 73. Let these passages, which are delivered by the Masters, be instead of a Comment.
To the men of Judea, who were exact in their Language, their Law is established in their hands. To the men of Galilee, who were not exact in their Language, their Law is not established in their hands. The Gloss is, They (the men of Judea) were exact in their Language: so that their speech was pure, not corrupt.
To the men of Judea, who are exact about their Language, and appoint to themselves certain signs, their Law is established in their hands: to the men of Galilee who are not exact about their Language, nor appoint to themselves signs, their Law is not established in their hands. The Gloss is, They were exact about their Language, namely, in rendering the same words, which they had heard from their Masters. And because they were taught orally, by hearing after hearing, they appointed to themselves from them sign after sign. And because they were exact about their Language, they knew how to appoint to themselves fit signs, that they might not forget.
The men of Judea learn from one Master, and their Law is established in their hands: the Galileans learn not from one Master, and their Law is not established in their hands. The Gloss writes, The Galileans heard one Master in one Language, and another in another; and the diversity of the Language, or pronunciation, confounded them so, that they forgot. And a little after,
R. Abba said, If any ask the men of Judea, who are exact about their Language, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whether they say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maabrin with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maabrin with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph? Whether they say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acuzo with Ain, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acuzo with Aleph? They will answer, There are some, who pronounce it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (with Aleph,) and there are others, who pronounce it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (with Ain.) There are some, who say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and there are others, who say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And a little after,
A certain Galilean said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They answered him, O foolish Galilean, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The sense is, When the Galilean asked 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Whose is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Immar, (this Lamb?) He pronounced the first letter in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Immar, so confusedly and uncertainly, that the hearers knew not, whether he meant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chamar, that is, an Ass, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chamar, Wine, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Amar, Wool, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Immar, a Lamb.
A Galilean woman, when she should have said to her neighbor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Come, and I will feed you with milk (or some fat thing:) said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 My neighbor, a Lion shall eat you. The Gloss is, She distinguished not, but confounded the letters: for when she should say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shelubti, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth, which signifies, a Neighbor, she said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shelucti, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caph, (a barbarous word.) For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Tai Doclic Chalaba, Come, and I will feed you with milk, she said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Toclic Labe, words that imply a curse; as much as to say, Let a Lion devour thee.
A certain woman said before the Judge, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That which she intended to say, was this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , My Lord, I had a Picture, which they stole, and it was so great, that if you had been placed in it, your feet would not have touched the ground. But she so spoiled the business with her pronouncing, that, as the Glosser interprets it, her words had this sense, Sir, slave, I had a beam, and they stole thee away, and it was so great, that if they had hung thee on it, thy feet would not have touched the ground.
Among other things you see, that in this Galilean Dialect, the pronunciation of the Gutturals are very much confounded, which however the Jews correct in the words alleged, yet it was not unusual among them; so that the Mystical Doctors distinguished not between Cheth and He. They are the words of the Jerusalem Talmudists: and these also are the words of those of Babylon, The Schools of R. Eleazar ben Jacob pronounced Aleph Ain, and Ain Aleph.
We observed before one example of such confusion of letters, when one teaching thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The waters of the marshes are not to be reckoned among those waters, (that make unclean,) he meant to have it understood of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The water of eggs: but he deceived his hearers by an uncertain pronunciation.
You have another place noted in the margin: Rabh said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (with Ain,) Samuel said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (with Aleph,) Rabh said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (with Aleph,) Samuel said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (with Ain,) Rabh said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (with Aleph,) Samuel said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (with Ain. )
If you read the Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch, you will find so frequent a changing of the Gutturals, that you could not easily get a more ready key of that Language, than by observing that variation.
CHAP. LXXXVIII. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gilgal in Deut. XI. 30. What that place was.
THAT which is said by Moses, that Gerizim and Ebal were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Over against Gilgal, Deut. XI. 30. is so obscure, that it is rendered into contrary significations by Interpreters. Some take it in that sense, as if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Near to Gilgal; some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Far off from Gilgal; The Targumists read, Before Gilgal: while, as I think, they do not touch the difficulty, which lays not so much in the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mul, as in the ambiguity of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gilgal. These do all seem to understand that Gilgal, which the people of Israel took the first night after their passage over Jordan, Jos. IV. 19. which, as Josephus relates, was distant only fifty furlongs from Jordan: but which the Gemarists guess to be fifty miles and more. For they say, the journey of that day was more than sixty miles, to wit, from Jordan to Gilgal. And this they say, that they may fix Gilgal near Gerizim and Ebal; where they think the people encamped the first night after their entrance into the land of Canaan, from those words of Moses, Deut. XXVII. 2. In the day, wherein thou shalt pass over Jordan, thou shalt set thee up great stones, and shalt plaster them with plaster, &c. Now those stones, say they, are set up in Gerizim and Ebal. Hence is that of the Gemarists, The Lord said, I said, when ye shall pass Jordan, ye shall set up stones, but you have spread yourselves as far as sixty miles. And, Gerizim and Ebal were sixty miles distant from Jordan.
But certainly that Gilgal, of which Moses in those words speaks, Are not Gerizim and Ebal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over against Gilgal? Is to be understood some other, than that, which Joshua named by that name, Jos. V. 9. For when Moses spoke those words, the name of that Gilgal near Jericho was not at all: nor can that, which is spoke in the book of Joshua concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Nations of Gilgal, Jox. XII. 23. be applied to that Gilgal, when it had obtained that name. Therefore in both places by Gilgal seems to be understood Galilee; and that as well from the nearness of the words, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gilgal, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Galil, are of the same root and etymology; as from the very sense of the places. For when in Joshua some Kings of certain particular Cities in Galilee, Kedesh, Jokneam, Dor, &c. are reckoned up, the King of the Nations of Gilgal or Galilee, is also added, who ruled over many Cities and Countries in Galilee.
So also the words of Moses may very well be rendered in the like sense,
These things following strengthen our conjecture. I. The Version of the LXX who render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The nations of Gilgal, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The land of Galilee. II. The comparing Josephus with the book of the Maccabees, in the story of Demetrius. He pitched his tent, saith Josephus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ In Arbel a City of Galilee, but 1 Macc. IX. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They went forth the way, that leadeth to Galgala, and pitched their tents before Mesaloth, which is in Arbel. In one, Arbel is in Galgala, or Gilgal; in the other, it is in Galilee.
CHAP. LXXXIX. Divers Towns called by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tyre.
BEsides Tyre, the noble Mart of Phenicia, we meet with various places of the same name, both in the Talmudists, and in Josephus.
In the place noted in the Margin, they mention 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one Tyre in the very borders of the land, which was bound to pay Tiths, and another in like manner in the borders, which was not bound: we shall hereafter produce their words. And in these examples which follow, and in very many others, which might be produced, they leave it undecided, whether the discourse is of Tyre of Phenicia, or of some other place of that name.
Jacob Navoriensis travailed to Tyre ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and there taught some things, for which R. Chaggai would have him beaten.
R. Mena went to Tyre ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 :) whom R. Chaija bar Ba found there, and going forward he told R. Jochanan those things which he had taught.
R. Issa went to Tyre, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and saw them drinking wine, &c.
Josephus thus writes of Hircanns, the brother of Simon the High Priest. He built a strong place between Arabia and Judea beyond Jordan: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ and called it Tyre.
The same Author, of John ben Levi thus: When he had endeavored to retain the Giscalites, now attempting to shake off the Roman yoke, it was no purpose: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the bordering people, the Gadarenes, the Gabaraganeans, and the Tyrians, having got together considerable forces, invade Giscala. You can scarcely suppose that these Tyrians came out of Tyre of Phenicia; but from some other place, of the same name.
Upon that reason, that very many Towns in the land of Israel were called by the name of Rama, namely because they were seated in some high place: by the same reason very many are called by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tyre, because they were built in a rocky place.
CHAP. XC. Cana.
WE have little to certify as of the situation of this place: only we learn this of Josephus concerning Cana, that it was such a distance from Tiberias, as he could measure with his Army in one night. For when word was brought him by letters, that the enemy Justus had endeavored to draw away the Tiberians from their fidelity towards him, a I was then, saith he, in a Town of Galilee, called Cana: taking therefore with me two hundred Soldiers, I travailed the whole night, having dispatched a messenger before, to tell the Tiberians of my coming: and in the morning, when I approached the City, the people came out to meet me, &c.
He makes mention also of Cana in the same book Of his own life, in these words; Sylla, King Agrippa's General, encamping five furlongs from Julias, blocked up the ways with guards, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , both that which leads to Cana, and that which leads to the Castel Gamala. But now when Julias and Gamala without all doubt were beyond Jordan, it may be inquired, whether that Cana were not also on that side. But those things that follow seem to deny this: for he blocked up the ways 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that by this means he might shut out all supplies that might come from the Galileans. Mark that, that might come from the Galileans, that is, from Cana, and other places of Galilee about Cana.
That Julias, which Sylla besieged, was Julias Betharamphtha (of which afterwards) which was seated on the further bank of Jordan, there where it is now ready to flow into the Sea of Gennesaret. Therefore Cana seems on the contrary to lie on this side Jordan, how far removed from it, we say not, but, we guess, not far, and it was distant such a space from Tiberias, as the whole length of the Sea of Gennesaret doth contain.
CHAP. XCI. Perea. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Beyond Jordan.
THE length of Perea was from Macherus to Pella; the breadth from Philadelphia to Jordan.
The Mountanous part of it was Mount Macvar, and Gedor, &c. The Piain of it was Heshbon, with all its Cities, which are in the Plain, Dibon, and Bamoth-Baal, and Beth-Baal-Meon, &c. The Valley of it is, Beth-Haran, and Beth-Nimrah, and Succoth, &c.
The mention of the Mountains of Macvar occurs in that hyperbolical Tradition of R. Eleazar ben Diglai, saying, the Goats 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the mountains of Macvar sneezed at the smell of the Perfume of the Incense in the Temple. The word Macherus is derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Macvar.
The whole Country indeed, which was beyond Jordan was called Perea: but it was so divided, that the Southern part of it was particularly called Perea; the other part was called Batanea, Auranitis, Trachonitis. So it is called by Josephus, because by the Donation of Augustus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Perea and Galilee came into the possession of Herod Antipas: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Batanea, and Trachon, and Auranitis into that of Philip.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bashan, passed into Batanea, according to the Syriac Idiome, that changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shin into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thau; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Batanin, in the Samaritan Interpreter: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ma • anin, in the Targumists, by the alternate use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mem and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth, which is not unusual with them.
Golan was the chief City of this Country, Jos. XX. 8. Whence is Gaulonitis, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , upper and nether Gaulonitis.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Trachon. In the Jews we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Trachon which is bounded at Bozsra. Not Bozra of Edom, Esa. LXIII. 1. Nor Bezer of the Reubenites, Jos. XX. 8. but another, to wit, Bosorra, or Bosor, in the land of Gilead. Concerning which see Josephus, and the first book of Maccabes, Chap. V. verse. 26.
While we speak of the difference between Beser and Bosra, we cannot pass by a signal example of this thing propounded by the Babylonian Talmudists. The Prince of Rome, [viz. Samael, the Angel of death, as the Gloss tells us] did formerly commit a threefold error, as it is written, Who comes from Edom, with died garments from Bozrah? In this matter he errs, because there is no refuge but in Bezor, and he betook himself to Bozra, &c.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Batanea is bounded by Trachonitis.
Auranitis. Josephus sometimes calls it Abranitis. Caesar, saith he, gave to Herod (the Great) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Trachon, and Batanea, and Abranitis; and that, that he should restrain and subdue the Robbers, who most miserably vexed those Countries, &c.
CHAP. XCII. Adam, and Zaretan, Jos. III.
I Suspect a double error in some Maps, while they place these two Towns in Perea; much more, while they place them at so little a distance.
We do not deny indeed that the City Adam was in Perea; but Zaretan was not so. Of Adam is mention, Jos. III. 16. where discourse is had of the cutting off, or cutting in two the waters of Jordan; that they might afford a passage to Israel. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The waters rose up upon an heap afar off in Adam. For the textual reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Adam, the marginal hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From Adam. You may very fitly apply both readings.
Adam was the center where the waters parted: here was the station of the Ark of the Covenant, now ready to enter Jordan. Hence the Psalmist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Tabernacle, which he had fixed in Adam, Psal. LXXXVIII. 60. Therefore the textual reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Adam, holds well, because there was the center of the cutting in two of the waters: but the marginal reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Adam, does moreover add light, because the gathering those waters together on an heap was far above it.
a R. Jochanan saith, Adam is a City, and Zaretan is a City, and they are distant from one another twelve miles. From Adam to Zaretan were the waters dried up; from Zaretan and upwards they stood on an heap. Adam was in Perea, over against Jericho; Zaretan was in the land of Manasseh on this side Jordan. It is called Zarthanah, 1 King. IV. 12. and is defined to be near Beth-shean, which was the furthest bounds of the land of Manasseh Northward. The brazen Vessels of the Temple are said to be cast in the Plain of Jordan, in the clay ground between Zaretan (on this side Jordan ) and Succoth (beyond it,) 1 King. VII. 46. Therefore the words cited in Joshua, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 far off from Adam which is beside Zaretan, are so to be understood, as not so much to denote the nearness of Adam and Zaretan, as to intimate, that the heaping up of the waters was by Zaretan. They are to be rendered in this sense, And the waters that came down from above stood together; they rose up into one heap, in a very long distance from the City Adam, namely, to that distance, which is by Zaretan.
Adam and Zaretan on this and the other side were both something removed from Jordan: but they are named in that story, because there the discourse is of the time, when Jordan contained not itself within its own Channel, but had overflown its banks.
CHAP. XCIII. Iulias-Bethsaida.
THERE were two Julias's, both in Perea, one built by Herod, called before Betharamphtha: of which Josephus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . At Betharamphtha, which before was the Cities name, Herod compassed Julias with a wall, calling it by the name of the Empress. The other built by Philip, heretofore called Beth-saida, of which the same Author writes thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Philip having raised the Town Beth-saida on the lake of Gennesaret to the honor of a City, both in respect of the number of the inhabitants, and other strength, gave it the same name with Julia the Emperors daughter.
The Maps have one Julias only: not amiss, because they substitute the name of Bethsaida for the other. But they do not well agree about the situation of both. Julias-Betharamphtha was seated at the very influx of Jordan into the lake of Gennesaret. For thus Josephus, Jordan having measured an hundred furlongs more from the lake Samochonitis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ after the City Julias, cuts the lake of Gennesar in the middle. Do not these words argue, that Jordan being now ready to enter into the lake did first glide by Julias? To which those things, which are said elsewhere by the same Author, do agree. Sylla, saith he, encamped five furlongs from Julias, and stopped up the ways; namely, that which led to Cana, and that which led to the Castel Gamala. But I, when I understood this, sent two thousand armed men, under Jeremias their Captain; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And they having encamped a furlong from Julias near the river Jordan, &c. Note that, when they were distant from Julias a furlong only, they are but a little way off of Jordan. The Maps place it more remote from the influx of Jordan into the lake of Gennesaret, than these words will bear.
Julias-Beth-Saida, was not seated in Galilee, as it is in the Maps, but beyond the Sea of Galilee, in Perea. This we say upon the credit of Josephus. Philip, saith he, built Cesarea in Paneas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Mark that, and Julias (which before time was Bethsaida) in nether Gaulonitis. But now, there is nobody but knows, that Gaulonitis was in Perea. This certainly is that Julias, which Pliny placeth Eastward of the lake of Gennesaret, (for the other Julias was scarcely near the Sea at all:) and that Julias, of which Josephus speaks, when he saith, that a certain Mountanous Country beyond Jordan runs out from Julias to Somorrha.
CHAP. XCIV. Gamala. Chorazin.
THESE things determine the situation of Gamala. 1. It was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in lower Gaulon, in which, as we have seen, Beth-saida was. 2. It was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪] upon the lake (of Gennesaret. ) 3. It was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Over against Tarichee. Compare the Maps, whether in their placing of it they agree with these passages. Here was Judas born, commonly called Gaulonites, and as commonly also, the Galilean. So Peter, and Andrew, and Philip, were Gaulonites; of Bethsaida, Joh. I. 44. and yet they were called Galileans.
While we are speaking of Beth-saida, Chorazin comes into our mind, which is joined with it, in the words of Christ, Matth. XI. 21. as partaking with it in his miracles, and being guilty of equal ingratitude. If you seek for the situation of this place, where will you find it? Some Maps place it on this side Jordan, and others beyond Jordan: but on what authority do both depend? It is mere conjecture, unless I am deceived. Let me also conjecture.
The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chorashin, denotes Woody places, both in the Holy Bible, and in the Rabbinical writings. Hence we suppose the Chorazin that is now before us, is called, namely, because it was seated in some Woody place. For such places the land of Naphtali was famous above the other Tribes: to which the words of Jacob have regard, Naphtali is an Hind let loose, Gen. XLIX. that is, Naphtali shall abound with Venison; as Asher (of whom mention is made in the words going before) shall abound in bread, and royal dishes: those words also of the Talmudists refer to this, It is lawful for cattle to feed in common, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Woods, yea for the Tribe of Judah to feed in the Tribe of Naphtali. Hence Harosheth of the Gentiles hath its name, Judge. IV. 2. which was in that Tribe. Led by these reasons, I suppose our Chorazin to have been in Galilee, rather than in Perea, where most Maps place it.
But when this place seems to have been so famous for the frequent presence and miracles of Christ, it is a wonder, that it hath nowhere else so much as a mention in the Gospel story, but in the bare remembrance of it in those words of Christ, Woe to thee, Chorazin, &c. Whereas Beth-saida and Capernaum, places that he mentioneth with it, are spoken of elsewhere. What if under this name, Cana be concluded, and some small Country adjacent, which from its situation in a Wood might be named Chorazin, that is, The Woody Country? Cana is famous for the frequent presence and miracles of Christ. But away with conjecture, when it grows too bold.
CHAP. XCV. Some Towns upon the very limits of the land. Out of the Jerusalem Talmud, Demai, fol. 22. 4.
IN the place cited discourse is had about the tithing of some herbs and seeds, namely, of Rice, Nuts, Onyons, Egyptian Beans, &c. and enquiry is made, what is to be resolved of tithing them, if they grow in places, which seem to be without the land, and these words are presently after brought in.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These Cities are forbid in the borders, Tsur, Sezeth, and Bezeth, P • Mazobah, upper and lower Canothah, Beth Badia, Rosh Maja Amon, and Mazi, (R. Mena saith, so it was called anciently, but now Susitha.) Ainosh, En Teraa, Ras, Berin, Iron, Jadot, Caphar, Charob, Chaspia, and Caphar Tsemach. These Cities are permitted in the borders, Nebi, Tsur, Tsijar, Gasmi, Zivian, Jagdi, Chatam, Debab, Charbatha, and Cheraccah: (or Debab, and its Wilderness, and its Fortification. )
You see the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Tsur, here once and again, of which we have spoken before: Let us add these words elsewhere. I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living: and are there not other lands of the living besides Tsur, and her companions, and Cesarea, and her companions?
Of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caphar Tsemach, there is mention also in the place first cited, Col. 3. in these words: Rabbi looseth Bethshan. Rabbi looseth Cesarea. R. looseth Beth-Gubrim. Rabbi looseth Caphar Tsemach: (from the obligation, as it seemeth, of the Demai.) Rabbi permitted to take herbs, in the end of the seventh year: but all were against him. He said to them, Come, and let us judge of the matter. It is written (concerning Hezekiah ) And he beat in pieces the brazen Serpent. What? Was not any one righteous from Moses unto his times, who did this? But God reserved that crown for him, that he might be crowned with it: And God hath reserved this crown for us, that we may be crowned with it. A famous Act, and ample spoils.
CHAP. XCVI. The Consistories of more note: out of the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedr. fol. 32. 2.
THE Rabbins deliver, Follow after righteousness, follow after righteousness. Go to (Beth-Din) the famous Consistory, to R. Eleazar to Lydda, to Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : A Tradition. The sound of mills 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Burni. The sons week, the sons week. A Candle in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beror Chel. A Feast is there, a Feast is there.
These things are something obscure, and do require light.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beror Chel, seems to design a place: but what place? Indeed the Sanhedrin of R. Jochanan was in Jafne, but his Consistory, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his seat of Judgment, seems to be distinguished from the Sanhedrin. So Paul was brought up at the feet of Rabban Gamaliel; not in his Sanhedrin, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his Consistory, or School. So you may conjecture, that Rabban Jochanan, besides that he sat President of the chief Sanhedrin, had his peculiar Consistory in Jafne itself, or in some neighbor place.
That which follows, A Tradition, The sound of mills, &c. is cleared by the Glossers.
Another Gloss is thus,
The Jerusalem Talmudists add, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Although the Persecution ceased, yet that custom ceased not.
The Babylonian Talmudists go on. Go to R. Joshua 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Pekiin. In the Jerusalem Talmudists it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bekiin, in this story, that follows.
R. Jochanan ben Bruchah, and R. Eliezer the blind, travailed from Jabne to Lydda, and received R. Joshua in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bekiin.
Go to Rabban Gamaliel to Jabne.
Go to Rabbi Akiba to Bene Barak.
Go to R. Mathia to Roma.
Go to R. Chananiah ben Teradion to Si • ni.
To R. Jose to Zippor.
To R. Judah ben Betirah to Nisibin.
To R. Joshua to the Captivity (viz. to Pombiditha. )
To Rabbi to Beth-Shaaraim.
To the wise Men in the chamber Gazith.
CHAP. XCVII. The Cities of the Levites.
COncerning them, see Numb. Chap. XXXV. and Jos. Chap. XXI. The suburbs of the Cities of the Levites were three thousand cubits on every side, viz. from the walls of the City, and outwards, as it is said, From the walls of the City and outwards a thousand Cubits: and thou shait measure from without the City two thousand Cubits ( Numb. XXXV. 4, 5.) The former thousand were the Suburbs, and the latter two thousand were for Fields and Vineyards. They appointed the place of burial to everyone of those Cities to be without these bounds; for within them it was not lawful to bury a dead corps. Do you ask the reason? It was not so much for the avoiding Pollution, which might be contracted from a Sepulcher, as by reason of the Scribes curious interpretation of the Law, that saith, The Suburban lands of these Cities were given to the Levites, for their Cattle and Oxen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and for all their living (creatures) Numb. XXXV. 3. therefore, say they, Not for the dead, or for burial.
All the Cities of the Levites were Cities of refuge; but with this distinction from those six, which were properly so called; that those six afforded refuge to everyone that dwelt in them, whether he betook himself thither for that end, or no: but the other Levitical Cities were not so. And also, that the unwitting Manslayer, flying to those six Cities, dwelt there at free cost without paying any rent for his house; but in the other Levitical Cities he lived not at free cost.
Those forty eight Cities of the Levites were so many Universities, where the Ministerial Tribe, distributed in companies, studied the Law, became learned, and thence scattered through the whole Nation, dispersed learning, and the knowledge of the Law in all the Synagogues.
Two things are not without good reason to be observed here, which perhaps are not seriously enough observed by all.
I. The settled Ministry of the Church of Israel was not Prophets, but Priests and Levites, Mal. II. 7. For it was not seldom, when there were no Prophets; and the Prophets send the people to the Priests for instruction, Hag. II. 11. and Mal. in the place mentioned already.
II. That Tithes were granted to the Priests and Levites, not only when they ministered at the Altar, or in the Temple, but when they studied in the Universities, and preached in the Synagogues.
Behold the method of God's own Instituion! God chooseth Israel to be a peculiar people to himself: to this chosen people he gives a Law and a Clergy: on the Clergy he enjoins the study of the Law: to their studies he suits Academical Societies: on the Universities he bestows Lands and Tithes: on the Synagogues he bestows Tithes and University men.
And the Schools of the Prophets were little Universities, and Colleges of Students. For their Governor they had some Venerable Prophet, inspired with the Holy Spirit, and that partook of Divine Revelations. The Scholars were not inspired indeed with the same Prophetical Spirit, but received Prophesies from the mouth of their Master. He revealed to them those things that were revealed to him, of the Will of God, and the state of the people, of the times and events of Israel, and above all, of the Mysteries of the Gospel; of the Messias, of his coming, times, death, resurrection, and those things that were to be done by him.
In these small Universities, the Prophets, who prophesied of the grace that should come (as the Apostle Peter speaks) inquired diligently of Salvation: searching what, or what manner of time that was, which was pointed out by the Spirit of Christ, that was in them, when he foretold the sufferings of Christ, and the Glory that should follow. These things not to be fetched out by the mere and bare study of the Law, were here taught, and so the studies of the Law and Gospel together rendered the Minister of the Divine Word complete.
CHAP. XCVIII. Some Miscellaneous matters, respecting the face of the land.
1. LET us begin with that Canon concerning reading the book of Esther in the feast of Purim. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Towns that were begirt with walls from the days of Joshua, read it the fifteenth day (of the month Adar: ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Villages, and great Cities read it the fourteenth day. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unless that the Villages anticipate it, to the day of the Congregation.
You see a threefold distinction of Cities and Towns.
1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fortifications, or Towns girt with walls from the days of Joshua. But whence shall we know them? They are those, which are mentioned in the book of Joshua, which however in after times they were not begirt with walls, are nevertheless reckoned under the Catalogue of them, as to the reading of that book.
2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Great Cities. That was called a great City, in which was a Synagogue. So it is defined by the Piske Tosaphoth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That is a great City, in which are ten men at leisure, to pray and read the Law. See what we say concerning these things on Matth. Chap. IV. verse. 23. when we speak of Synagogues.
3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Villages. That is such, where there was not a Synagogue. Yea, saith the Piske Harosh, a fortified Town, wherein are not ten men of leisure (or such as ceased from the things of the World; and these made up a Synagogue) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is reputed as a Village, &c.
That which is added in the Text of the Mishna, Unless the Villages do anticipate it to the day of the Congregation, is thus explained by the Glossers. When Towns girt with walls read the book of Esther on the fifteenth day, and those that were not walled, on the fourteenth, (see Esth. IX. 21.) and yet it is said before (in the same Text of the Mishna) that that book is read the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth day; the wise Men granted liberty to the Villages, to preoccupate the reading, namely on that day, wherein they resorted to the Synagogue: that is, either the second day of the week that went before the fourteenth day of the month, or the fifth day of the week: which were days of Assembly, in which the Villages resorted into the Cities to judgment. For the second and fifth days of the week, the Judiciary Consistories sat in the Cities, by the appointment of Ezra. Now the Villagers were not skillful in reading, therefore it was needful, that they should have some reader in the City, &c.
II. Let the Canons, and cautions of the spaces and places, next joining to the City or Town, be observed.
1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Dovecoat was not built within fifty Cubits from the City: and that least the Pigeons might do injury to the Gardens that were sown.
2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They permitted not a tree within five and twenty Cubits from the City. And this (as the Gloss speaks) for the grace of the City.
3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They allowed not a barn-floor within fifty cubits from the City: that, when they fanned their corn, the chaff might not offend the Citizens.
4. They permitted not dead carcasses, or burying places, nor a Tanners shop to be within fifty Cubits from the City (because of the stink.) Nor did they allow a Tanners Workshop at all but on the Eastside of the City. R. Akiba saith, On any side, except the West, but at the distance of fifty cubits.
III. From the Cities let us walk forth into their plowed grounds and fields.
Here you might see in some places certain tokens hung upon some figtrees, to show of what year the fruit that grew there, was. See what we say on Matth. XXI. 19. In other places you might see barren trees stigmatized with some mark of infamy. A tree, which shook off its fruits before they were ripe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they mark with red, and load it with stones.
You might see the plowing and mowing of their fields, the dressing of their Vines, and their Vintage to be done by the rules of the Scribes, as well as by the art of the Husbandman, or the Vinedresser. For such was the care and diligence of the Fathers of the Traditions, concerning tithing Corn and Fruits, concerning leaving a corner for the poor, concerning the avoiding of sowing different seeds, and of not transgressing the Law concerning the seventh year; that they might not plow, nor sow, nor reap, but according to the Traditional rule. Hence are those infinite Disputes in the books Peah, Demai, Kilaim, Sheviith, of the corner of the field to be left, what and how much the portion of it was, and of what things such corners ought to consist? Of those that divide the field so, that a double corner of it is due to the poor: Whether a corner is due from beds of corn that grow among Olive-trees? Whether from a field, whose sowing and reaping is various? What are the trees, whose fruits are Demai? Of what things is the tithing of the Demai? How long the same plot of ground may be sown with different seeds, so as not to offend against the Law? Of sowing different seeds: How many Vines make a Vineyard? Of their rows, of the beds of the Vineyard, of sowing within the Press, &c. and innumerable decisions of that nature, which did so keep the Countryman within bounds, that he could not plow nor mow his land according to his own will, but according to the rule of Tradition.
The Inhabitants of Beth-Namer measured out a corner for the poor with a line, and they gave a corner out of every row. Abba Saul saith, They make mention of them to their praise, and to their dispraise, because they gave one part out of an hundred; to their praise, because measuring with a line, they collected and gave a corner out of every row: that is, meeting with a measuring line they yielded the hundredth part of the field to the poor, and that out of every row of sheaves.
CHAP. XCIX. Subterraneous places. Mines. Caves.
THUS having taken some notice of the superficies of the land, let us a little search into its bowels. You may divide that subterraneous Country into three parts: The Metal mines, the Caves, and the places of Burial.
This land was eminently noted for Metal mines, so that its stones in very many places, were iron, and out of its hills was digged brass, Deut. VIII. 9. From these, gain accrued to the Jews, but to the Christians not seldom slavery and misery; being frequently condemned hither by Tyrants: So Eusebius of Edesius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was condemned to the Metal mines in Palestine. And again concerning others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Then passing to the other Confessors of Christ, he condemns them all to the brass mines, which were in Pheno of Palestine.
On the North part of the land, in the Country of Aser, were mines of metal. Hence is that in Deut. XXXIII. 25. Thy shoes shall be iron and brass. On the South, in the desert of Sin, the utmost bounds of Judea, were mines also: hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And shall pass to Sin, as our translation reads, Numb. XXXIV. 4. in the Jerusalem Targumist is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Over against the mountain of iron: and in Jonathan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto the Palmtrees of the mountain of iron: and in the Talmudists, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Palmtrees of the mountain of iron are fit to make a small bundle to carry in the hand, in the feast of Tabernacles. On the East coast of Perea: was also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , An iron mountain, witness Josephus. And without doubt, there were other such like mines, scattered here and there in other parts of that land, though of them we have no mention.
You will not at all wonder at these underminings of the Earth, seeing they brought so much profit and gain with them, and were so necessary to the life of man. But what shall we say of those Dens and Caves in Rocks and Mountains, whence no gain seemed to be digged, but rather danger arose to the neighbouring places oftentimes? For what were these, but lurking places for wild beasts and robbers? There is infinite mention of these Caves both in the Holy Scriptures, and in other Writings especially in Josephus, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , subterraneous passages, and Dens are mentioned a thousand times. And many of these were of a vast largeness, scarcely to be credited; those especially in the Talmudists, which are called The Dens of Zedekiah, not a few miles in measure.
But were those hollows the work of nature, or of the hands and industry of man? By one example taken out of Josephus, the thing may be determined. Relating the story of a Castel built by Hyrcanus in Perea, among other things he speaks thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Out of the Rock against the Mountain having cut in two the prominent part of it, he made Dens of many furlongs long. And a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He made the mouths that opened into these Dens to be strait, that but one might go in at a time, and no more: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ and this he did on purpose for security sake, and for avoiding danger in case he should be besieged by his brethren.
These Dens therefore were cut out of Mountains and Rocks for the uses of War, that they might serve for refuge and strength. And it is probable, the Canaanites, a warlike and Gygantic Nation, had digged very many of these Caves, before the entrance of the Israelites into that land; and that the Israelites also increased the number of them. See concerning these Caves, Jos. X. 16. Judge. VI. 2. 1 Sam. XXII. 1. & XXIV. 3. 1 King. XVIII. 13. Esa. II. 19. &c.
CHAP. C. Of the places of burial.
THERE were more common, and more noble Sepulchers. The common were in public burying places, as it is with us: but they were without the City. And through that place was no current of waters to be made, through it was no public way to be, cattle were not to feed there nor was wood to be gathered from thence.
Nor was it lawful to walk among the Sepulchers with Phylacteries fastened to their heads, nor with the book of the Law hanging at their arm.
Some Sepulchers were extraordinary, that is in reference to the place of their situation. As 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Sepulcher found; that is, when a Sepulcher is in some bodies field without his knowledge; but at last the sepulcher is discovered. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Sepulcher that is publicly noxious; that is, digged near some place of common walk or travail: from the nearness of which the passengers contract pollution.
The more noble Sepulchers were hewn out in some Rock, in their own ground, with no little charge and art. You have the form of them described in the place noted in the margin, in these words:
He that selleth his neighbor a place of burial, and he that takes of his neighbor a place of burial, let him make the inner parts of the Cave four cubits, and six cubits: and let him open within it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eight Sepulchers. They were not wont, say the Glosses, to bury men of the same family here and there, scatteringly, and by themselves, but altogether in one Cave: whence if any one sells his neighbor a place of burial, he sells him room for two Caves, or hollows on both sides, and a floor in the middle. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the very place, where the deads Corps is laid.
The Tradition goes on. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Three Sepulchers are on this side, and three on that, and two near them. And those Sepulchers are four cubits long, seven high, and six broad.
To those that entered into the Sepulchral Cave, and carried the Bier, there was first a floor, where they stood, and set down the Bier, in order to their letting it down into the Sepulcher; on this and the other side, there was a Cave, or a hollowed place, deeper than the floor by four cubits, into which they let down the Corps, divers Coffins being there prepared for divers Corps. R. Simeon saith, The hollow of the Cave consists of six cubits, and eight cubits, and it opens thirteen Sepulchers within it, four on this side, and four on that, and three before them, and one on the right hand of the door, and another on the left. And the floor within the entrance into the Cave consists of a square, according to the dimensions of the Bier, and of them that bear it: and from it it opens two Caves, one on this side, and another on that. R. Simeon saith, Four at the four sides of it. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, The whole is made according to the condition of the ground.
These things are handled by the Gemarists, and Glossers very curiously and very largely, whom you may consult. From these things now spoken, you may more plainly understand many matters, which are related of the Sepulcher of our Savior. Such as these.
Mark XVI. 5. The women entering into the Sepulcher saw a young man sitting on the right hand: in the very floor immediately after the entrance into the Sepulcher.
Luke XXIV. 3. Going in they found not his body, &c. verse. 5. While they bowed down their faces to the Earth, verse. 12. Peter ran to the Sepulcher, and when he had stooped down, he saw the linen cloths. That is, The Women, and Peter after them, standing in the floor ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) bow down their faces, and look downward into the place, where the Sepulchers themselves were, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Cave of the graves ) which, as we said before, was four cubits deeper than the floor.
John XX. 5. The Disciple, whom Jesus loved, came first to the Sepulcher; and when he had stooped down (standing in the floor, that he might look into the burying place) saw the linen cloths lie; yet went he not in. But Peter went in, &c. that is, From the floor he went down into the Cave itself, where the rows ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) of the Graves were (in which nevertheless no corpses had been as yet laid, besides the body of Jesus: ) thither also after Peter, John goes down. And verse. 11. But Mary weeping stood at the Sepulcher without: and while she wept she stooped down to the Sepulcher, and saw two Angels in white sitting, one at the head, and another at the feet, where the body of Christ had lain.
She stood at the Sepulcher without: that is, Within the Cave, on the floor, but without that deeper Cave, where the very Graves were, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the places for the bodies: bowing herself, to look down thither, she saw two Angels at the head and foot of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Coffin, wherein the body of Christ had been laid.
HORAE Hebraicae & Talmudicae, OR, HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL EXERCITATIONS upon the GOSPEL OF St. MATTHEW. By JOHN LIGHTFOOT D. D. and sometime Master of Katharine-Hall in the UNIVERSITY of CAMBRIDGE.
LONDON, Printed by William Rawlins, for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul 's Church-yard. MDCLXXXIII.
To his dear Friends, the Students of Katharine-Hall, Health.
THOSE very arguments, which first and chiefly moved me to turn over the Talmudical Writings, moved me also to this present work: so that from the same reasons, whence that reading first proceeded, from them, proceed also this fruit and benefit of it. For first, When all the books of the New Testament were written by Jews, and among Jews, and unto them; and when all the discourses made there, were made in like manner by Jews, and to Jews, and among them, I was always fully persuaded, as of a thing past all doubting, that that Testament could not but everywhere taste of, and retain the Jews style, idiom, form and rule of speaking.
And hence in the second place, I concluded, as assuredly, that in the obscurer places of that Testament (which are very many) the best and most natural method of searching out the sense is, to inquire how and in what sense those phrases and manners of speech were understood according to the vulgar and common dialect and opinion of that Nation; and how they took them, by whom they were spoken, and by whom they were heard. For it is no matter, what we can beat out concerning those manners of speech on the anvil of our own conceit, but what they signified among them in their ordinary sense and speech. And since this could be found out no other way, then by consulting Talmudic Authors who both speak in the vulgar dialect of the Jews, and also handle and reveal all Jewish matters; being induced by these reasons, I applied myself chiefly to the reading these Books: I knew indeed well enough, that I must certainly wrestle with infinite difficulties, and such as were hardly to be overcome, yet I undervalued them all, and armed myself with a firm purpose, that if, it were possible, I might arrive to a fuller and more deep knowledge and understanding of the style and Dialect of the New Testament.
The ill report of those Authors, whom all do so very much speak against, may at first discourage him that sets upon the reading of their Books. The Jews themselves stink in Marcellinus (Lib. XXII.) and their Writings stink as much almost among all; and they labor under this, I know not what, singular misfortune, that, being not read, they displease, and that they are sufficiently reproached by those that have read them, but undergo much more infamy by those that have not.
The almost unconquerable difficulty of the Style, the frightful roughness of the Language, and the amazing emptiness and sophistry of the matters handled, do torture, vex and tire him that reads them. They do everywhere abound with trifles in that manner, as though they had no mind to be read; with obscurities and difficulties, as though they had no mind to be understood. So that the Reader hath need of patience all along, to enable him to bear both trifling in sense, and roughness in expression.
I indeed propounded three things to myself, while I turned them over, that I might, as much as I could, either undervalue those vexations of reading, or soften them, or recreate myself with them, and that I might reap and enjoy fruit from them, if I could, and as much as I could.
I. I resolved with myself to observe those things, which seemed to yield some light to the Holy Scriptures, but especially either to the Phrases, or Sentences, or history of the New Testament.
II. To set down such things in my Note-books, which carried some mention of certain places in the land of Israel, or afforded some light into the Chorography of that land.
III. To note those things, which referred to the history of the Jews, whether Ecclesiastical, or Scholastic, or Civil; or which referred to the Christian history, or the history of the rest of the world.
And now, after having viewed and observed the nature, art, matter and marrow of these Authors, with as much intention as we could, I cannot paint out in little a true and lively character of them better, than in these paradoxes and riddles. There are no Authors do more affright and vex the Reader, and yet there are none, who do more entice and delight him. In no Writers is greater or equal trifling, and yet in none is greater, or so great benefit. The Doctrine of the Gospel hath no more bitter enemies than they, and yet the Text of the Gospel hath no more plain interpreters. To say all in a word, To the Jews their Countrymen they recommend nothing but toys, and destruction and poison; but Christians, by their skill and industry, may render them most usefully serviceable to their Studies, and most eminently tending to the Interpretation of the New Testament.
We here offer some specimen of this our reading and our choice, for the Readers sake, if so it may find acceptance with the Reader. We know, how exposed to suspicion it is, to produce new things, how exposed to hatred the Talmudic Writings are, how exposed to both, and to sharp censure also, to produce them in holy things. Therefore this our more unusual manner of explaining Scripture cannot upon that very account, but look for a more unusual censure, and become subject to a severer examination. But when the lot is cast, it is too late at this time to desire to avoid the sequel of it, and too much in vain in this place, to attempt a defense. If the work and book itself does not carry something with it, which may plead its cause, and obtain the Readers pardon and favor, our oration, or beging Epistle will little avail to do it. The present work therefore is to be exposed, and delivered over to its fate and fortune, whatsoever it be: Some there are, we hope, who will give it a milder and more gentle reception; for this very thing dealing favourably and kindly with us, that we have been intent upon our Studies, that we have been intent upon the Gospel, and that we have endeavored after Truth; they will show us favor, that we followed after it, and if we have not attained it, they will pity us. But as for the wrinkled forehead, and the slern brow, we are prepared to bear them with all patience, being armed and satisfied with this inward Patronage, That we have endeavored to profit.
But this Work whatever it be, and whatever fortune it is like to meet with, we would dedicate to You, My very dear Katherine-Hall men, both as a Debt, and as a Desire. For by this most close bond and tie, wherewith we are united, to You is due all that we study, all that we can do, if so be that All is anything at all. And when we desire to profit all (if we could) which becomes both a Student and a Christian to do, by that bond and your own merits, You are the very center and rest of those Desires and wishes. We are sufficiently conscious to ourselves how little or nothing we can do either for the public benefit, or for Yours, yet we would make a public Profession before all the World of our Desire and Study; and before You of our inward and cordial affection.
Let this pledge therefore of our love and endearment be laid up by You, and while we endeavor to give others an account of our Hours, let this give You an assurance of our Affections. And may it last in Katherine-Hall, even to future Ages, as a Testimony of Service, a Monument of Love, and a Memorial both of Me and You.
From my Study. The Calends of June 1658.
CHAP. I.
VERS. I.
TEN a Stocks came up out of Babylon: 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Priests. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Levites. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Israelites. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Common Persons, as to the Priesthood: such whose Fathers indeed were sprung from Priests, but their Mothers unfit to be admitted to the Priests Marriage Bed. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Proselytes. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Liberti, or Servants set Free. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nothi: for such as were born in Wedlock; but that which was unlawful. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nethinims. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bastards: such as came of a certain Mother, but of an uncertain Father. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Such as were gathered up out of the Streets, whose Fathers and Mothers were uncertain.
A defiled Generation indeed! and therefore brought up out of Babylon in this common sink, according to the Opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish Seed, still remaining there, might not be polluted by it. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For Ezra went not up out of Babylon, until he had rendered it pure as flower. They are words of the Babylonian Gemara, which the gloss explains thus: He left not any there that were illegitimate in any respect, but the Priests and Levites only, and Israelites of a pure and undefiled stock. Therefore he brought up with him these ten kinds of Pedigrees, that these might not be mingled with those when there remained now no more a Sanhedrin there, which might take care of that matter. Therefore he brought them to Jerusalem, where care might be taken by the Sanhedrin fixed there, that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate.
Let us think of these things a little, while we are upon our entrance into the Gospel History.
- I. How great a cloud of obscurity could not but arise to the people concerning the original of Christ, even from the very return out of Babylon, when they either certainly saw, or certainly believed that they saw, a purer spring of Jewish blood there, than in the Land of Israel itself?
-
II. How great a care ought there to be in the Families of pure blood, to preserve themselves untouched and clean from this impure sink; and to lay up among themselves Genealogical Scrols from generation to generation, as faithful witnesses and lasting monuments of their legitimate stock and free blood?
Hear a complaint and a Story in this case, R. Jochanan said, By the Temple, it is in our hand to discover who are not of pure blood in the Land of Israel: But what shall I do when the ••••• m •• of this generation lie hid? (that is, when they are not of pure blood, and yet we must not declare so much openly concerning them.) He was of the same Opinion with R. Isaac, who said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Family (of the polluted blood) that lies hid, let it lie hid. Abai also saith, We have learned this also by tradition, that there was a certain Family called the Family of Beth-Zeripha, beyond Jordan, and a son of Zion removed it away. (The gloss is, some eminent Man by a public Proclamation declared it impure.) But he caused another, which was such (that is, impure) to come near. And there was another which the Wise-men would not manifest.
-
III. When it especially lay upon the Sanhedrin, sealed at Jerusalem, to preserve pure Families, as much as in them lay, pure still; and when they prescribed Canons of preserving the legitimation of the people (which you may see in those things that follow at the place alleged) there was some necessity to lay up public Records of Pedigrees with them: whence it might be known what Family was pure, and what defiled. Hence that of Simon Ben Azzai deserves our notice; I saw, saith he, a Genealogical s • rol in Jerusalem, in which it was thus written, N. a Bastard of a strang Wife. Observe, that even a Bastard was written in their public Books of Genealogy, that he might be known to be a Bastard, and that the purer Families might take heed of the defilement of his seed. Let that also be noted, They found a Book of Genealogy at Jerusalem, in which it was thus written, Hillel was sprung from David. Ben Jatsaph from Asaph. Ben Tsitsith ha • ceseth from Abner. Ben Cobesin from Ahab, &c. And the Records of the Genealogies smell of those things which are mentioned in the Text of the Mishnah concerning Wood-carrying. The Priests and Peoples times of Wood-carrying were nine. On the first day of the month Nisan, for the Sons of Erach the Son of Judah: the twentieth day of • ammuz, for the Sons of David, the Son of Judah: the fifth day of Ab, for the Sons of Parosh, the Son of Judah: the seventh of the same month, for the Sons of Jonadab; the Son of Rechab: the tenth of the same for the Sons of Senaah the Son of Benjamin, &c.
It is therefore easy to guess whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this Genealogy, and Luke the first forty Names of his: namely, from the Genealogical Scrols, at that time well enough known, and laid up in the public 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Repositories, and in the private also. And it was necessary indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people, as the Lineage of the Messiah would be, that the Evangelists should deliver a truth not only that could not be gain-said; but also, that might be proved and established from certain and undoubted Rolls of Ancestors.
That the Name of Jesus is so often added to the Name of Christ in the New Testament, is not only, that thereby Christ might be pointed out for the Savior; (which the Name Jesus signifies) but also that Jesus might be pointed out for true Christ: against the unbelief of the Jews; who though they acknowledged a certain Messiah, or Christ, yet they stiffly denied that Jesus of Nazareth was he. This observation takes place in numberless places of the New Testament, Act. ii. 36. & viii. 35. 1 Cor. vi. 22. 1 John ii. 22. & iv. 15, &c.
That is, the true Messias. For by no more ordinary, and more proper Name did the Jewish Nation point out the Messiah, then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Son of David. See Mat. XII. 23. & XXI. 9. & XXII. 42. Luke XVIII. 38. and everywhere in the Talmudic Writings, but especially in Bab. Sanhedrin: where it is also discussed, what kind of times those should be when the Son of David should come.
The things which are devised by the Jews concerning Messiah Ben Joseph (which the Targum upon Cant. IV. 5. calls Messiah Ben Ephraim ) are therefore devised, to comply with their giddiness, and loss of judgment in their opinion of the Messiah. For since they despised the true Messiah, who came in the time foreallotted by the Prophets, and Crucified him; they still expect I know not what Chimerical one, concerning whom they have no certain opinion: whether he shall be one, or two; whether he shall arise from among the living, or from the dead; whether he shall come in the clouds of Heaven, or sitting upon an Ass, &c. They expect a Son of David, but they know not whom, they know not when.
VER. 2.
IN Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehudah. Which word not only the Greeks for want of the Letter in the middle of a word, but the Jews themselves do contract into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judah: which occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same person who is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose Bi R. Jehudoh; in the next line is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose Bi R. Judah. So also h Shabb. And this is done elsewhere in the very same line.
VERS. 5.
SO far the Jewish Writers agree with Matthew, that they confess Rachab was Married to some Prince of Israel, but mistaking concerning the person; whether they do this out of ignorance, or willfully, let themselves look to that. Concerning this matter, the Babylonian Gemara hath these words: Eight Prophets, and those Priests sprang from Rachab, and they are these; Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, and Shallum. R. Judah saith, Huldah also was of the Posterity of Rachab. And a little after, There is a tradition that she being made a proselytess, was Married to Joshua. (Which Kimchi also produceth in Jos. Chap. VI. ) Here the gloss casts in a scruple: It sounds some what harshly, saith it, that Joshua Married one that was made a Proselyte; when it was not lawful to contract Marriage with the Canaanites, though they became Proselytes. Therefore we must say, that she was not of the Seven Nations of the Canaanites, but of some other Nation, and sojourned there. But others say, That that prohibition took not place before the entrance into the Promised Land, &c.
VERS. 8.
THE Names of Ahazias, Joash, and Amazias are struck out. See the History in the Books of the Kings, and 1 Chron. III. 11, 12.
- I. The Promise, That the Throne of David should not be empty, passed over after a manner for some time into the Family of Jehu, the overthrower of Jorams Family. For when he had razed the House of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung on the Mothers side of the Family of Ahab; the Lord promiseth him, that his Sons should Reign unto the fourth generation, 2 King. X. 30. Therefore however, the mean time the Throne of David was not empty; and that Joash and Amazias sat during the space between: yet their Names are not unfitly omitted by our Evangelist, both because they were sometimes not very unlike Joram in their manners; and because their Kingdom was very much eclipsed by the Kingdom of Israel, when Ahazias was slain by Jehu; and his Cousin Amazias taken and basely subdued by his Cousin Joas, 2 Chron. XXV.
- II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The seed of the wicked shall be cut off, Psal. XXXVII. verse. 28. Let the studious Reader observe, That in the Original, in this very place, the Letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain, which is the last Letter of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wicked; and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seed, is cut off, and is not expressed; when by the rule of Acrostic Verse, (according to which this Psalm is composed) that Letter ought to begin the next following Verse.
-
III. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, &c. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth generation, Exod. XX. 5.
Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of the Kings of Israel, according to the manner of the Family of Ahab, 2 King. VIII. 18. Which horrid violation of the Second Command God visits upon his Posterity, according to the threatening of that Command; and therefore the Names of his Sons are dashed out unto the fourth Generation.
- IV. The Old Testament also stigmatizeth that Idolatry of Joram in a way not unlike this of the New; and shows that Family unworthy to be numbered among David's progeny, 2 Chron. XXII. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ahazias the Son of two and forty years: that is, not of his age, (for he was not above two and twenty, 2 King. VIII. 26.) but of the duration of the Family of Omri, (of which Stock Ahazias was, on the Mothers side) as will sufficiently appear to him that computes the years. A fatal thing surely! that the years of a King of Judah should be reckoned by the account of the House of Omri.
-
V. Let a Genealogical style, not much different be observed, 1 Chron. IV. 1. where Shobal, born in the fifth or sixth Generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an immediate Son of Judah. Compare Chap. II. 50.
In the like manner Ezr. VII. in the Genealogy of Ezra five or six Generations are erazed.
VERS. 11.
THE Sons of Josiah were these: The first born Jochanan, the second Joachim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum, 1 Chron. III. 15. Who this Shallum was the Jerusalem Talmudists do dispute. R. Jochanan saith, Jochanan, and Jehoachaz were the same. And when it is written, Jochanan the first born, it means this, That he was the first born to the Kingdom: that is, He first Reigned. And R. Jochanan saith, Shallum and Zedekias are the same. And when it is written, Zedekias the third, Shallum the fourth; he was the third in birth, but he reigned fourth. The same things are produced in the Tract Sotah. But R. Chimchi much righter: Shallum, saith he, is Jechonias, who had two names, and was reckoned for the Son of Josiah, when he was his Grandchild, (or the Son of his Son.) For the Sons of Sons are reputed for Sons. Compare Jer. XXII. verse. 11. with 24. and the thing itself speaks it. And that which the Gemarists now quoted, say, Zedekiah was also called Shallum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because in his days Shalmah, an end, was put to the Kingdom of the Family of David: This also agrees very fitly to Jechonias, Jer. XXII. 28, 29, 30.
VERS. 12.
THAT is, a son of the Kingdom, or Successor in that dignity of the House of David whatsoever it was which was altogether withered in the rest of the Sons of Josiah, but did somewhat flourish again in him, 2 King. XXV. 27. And hence it is, that of all the posterity of Josiah, Jechonias only is named by St. Matthew.
Jeohonias in truth was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without Children, Jer. XXII. 30. and Salathiel, properly speaking, was the Son of Neri, Luk. III. 27. but yet Jechonias is said to beget him; not that he was truly his Father, but that the other was his Successor; not indeed in his Kingly dignity, for that was now perished, but into that which now was the chief Dignity among the Jews. So 1 Chron. III. 16. Zedekias is called the Son, either of Joakim, whose Brother indeed he was; or of Jechonias, whose Uncle he was; because he succeeded him in the Kingly Dignity.
The Lord had declared, and that not without an Oath, that Jechonias should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Without Children. The Talmudists do so interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Judan saith, All they, of whom it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 these shall be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without Children, they shall have no Children. And those of whom it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They shall die without Children; they bury their Children.
So Kimchi also upon the place. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith he, means this, That his Sons shall die in his life, if he shall now have Sons: but if he shall not now have Sons he never shall. But our Rabbins of blessed memory, say, That he repented in prison. And they say moreover, Oh! how much doth Repentance avail, which evacuates a penal Edict? For it is said, Write ye this Man Childless: but he repenting; this Edict turned to his good, &c. R. Jochanan saith, His carrying away expiated. For when it is said, Write this Man Childless; after the carrying away, it is said, The Sons of Coniah, Assir his Son, Shealtiel his Son. These things are in Bab. Sanhedr. where these words are added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Assir his son, because his mother conceived him in the house Haasurin, of bonds, or in Prison.
But the words in the Original are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are thus to be rendered, Now the sons of Jechonias bound (or, imprisoned) were Shealtiel his son. Which Version both the accents, and the order of the words confirm. For Zakeph hung over 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to which Munach beneath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serves, persuades that it is a conjunct construction, to wit, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jeconiah, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bound should be joined together that is, a Substantive and an Adjective. And the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his son, placed after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shealtiel, not after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bound, fixeth the genealogy in Salathiel, not in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asir at all.
VERS. XVI.
: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The mothers family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's Father. These two frame the Genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the Seed of the Woman, and as the Son of David: that as a man, this as a King. It was therefore needful in setting down his Genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the Woman, deducing his Mothers stock, from whence man was born, from Adam. Matthew exhibits his Royal Original, deriving his pedigree along through the Royal family of David to Joseph his (reputed) Father.
VERS. XVII.
ALthough all things do not square exactly in this threefold number of fourteen generations, yet there is no reason why this should be charged as a fault upon Matthew, when in the Jewish Schools themselves it obtained for a custom, yea almost for an Axiom, to reduce things and numbers to the very same, when they were near alike. The thing will be plain by an Example or two, when an hundred almost might be produced.
Five Calamitous things are ascribed to the same day, that is, to the ninth day of the month Ab. For that day, say they, it was decreed, that the people should not go into the promised land: the same day the first Temple was laid waste, and the second also: the City Bitter was destroyed, and the City Jerusalem plowed up. Not that they believed all these things fell out precisely the same day of the month, but as the Babylonian Gemara notes upon it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they might reduce a fortunate thing to a holy day, and an unfortunate to an unlucky day.
The Jerusalem Gemara, in the same tract, examines the reason, why the daily prayers consist of the number of eighteen, and among other things hath these words; The daily prayers are eighteen, according to the number of the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the book of Psalms to that Psalm, whose beginning is, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, (which Psalm indeed is the Twentieth Psalm.) But if any object that nineteen Psalms reach thither, you may answer, The Psalm, which begins, Why did the Heathen rage, is not of them. A distinct Psalm. Behold with what liberty they fit numbers to their own case.
Inquiry is made, whence the number of the thirty nine more principal servile works to be avoided on the Sabbath day, may be proved. Among other we meet with these words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Chaninah of Zipp • r saith in the name of R. Abhu, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph denotes one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lamed thirty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He five, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dabar one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Debarim two. Hence are the forty works, save one, concerning which it is written in the Law. The Rabbins of Cesarea say, Not anything is wanting out of his place: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lamed thirty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth eight: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our profound Doctors do not distinguish between He and Cheth: that they may fit numbers to their case, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These, they write, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth at their pleasure.
R. Joshua ben Levi saith, In all my whole life I have not looked into the (mystical) book of Agada, but once: and then I looked into it, and found it thus written, An hundred seventy five Sections of the Law; where it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He spake, he said, he commanded, they are for the number of the years of our Father Abraham. And a little after, An hundred and forty and seven Psalms which are written in the book of the Psalms, (note this number) are for the number of the years of our father Jacob. Whence this is hinted, that all the praises, wherewith the Israelites praise God, are according to the years of Jacob. Those hundred and twenty and three times, wherein the Israelites answer Hallelujah, are according to the number of the years of Aaron, &c.
They do so very much delight in such kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the due measure, and stretch them till they crack. So that, if a Jew carps at thee, O Divine Matthew, for the unevenness of thy fourteens, out of their own Schools and Writings thou hast that, not only whereby thou mayest defend thyself, but retort upon them.
VERS. XVIII.
NO woman of Israel was married, unless she had been first espoused. Before the giving of the Law (saith Maimonides) if the man and the woman had agreed about marriage, he brought her into his house, and privately married her, But after the giving of the Law, the Israelites were commanded, that if any were minded to take a woman for his wife, he should receive her first before witnesses; and thenceforth let her be to him a wife, as it is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one take a wife. This taking is one of the Affirmative precepts of the Law, and is called Espousing. Of the manner and form of Espousing you may read till you are weary in that Tractate, and in the Talmudic Tract, Kiddushin.
In many places the man espouseth the woman, but doth not bring her home to him, but after some space of time. So the Gloss upon Maimonides.
Distinction is made by the Jewish Canons, and that justly and openly between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Private society or Discourse between the Espouser and the Espoused, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The bringing of the Espoused into the husbands house. Of either of the two many those words be understood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , before they came together, or rather of them both. He had not only not brought her home to him, but he had no manner of society with her alone, beyond the Canonical limits of discourse that were allowed to unmarried persons; and yet she was found with child.
Namely after the space of three months from her conception, when she was now returned home from her Cozin Elizabeth. See Luke 1. 56. and compare Gen. XXXVIII. 24.
The Masters of the Traditions assign this space to discover a thing of that nature. A Woman, say they, who is either put away from her husband, or become a Widow, neither marrieth, nor is espoused, but after ninety days. Namely, that it may be known, whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made between the offspring of the first husband, and of the second. In like manner a husband and wife, being made proselytes, are parted from one another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children begotten in holiness, (that is, within the true Religion. See 1 Cor. VII. 14.) and children begotten out of holiness.
VERS. XIX.
THERE is no need to wrack the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 just, to fetch out thence the sense of gentleness or mercy, which many do: for construing the clauses of the verse separately, the sense will appear clear and soft enough. Joseph, being a just man, could not, would not endure an adulteress: but yet not willing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to make her a public example, being a merciful man, and loving his wife, was minded to put her away privily.
This doth not imply death, but rather public disgrace 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To make her public. For it may not without reason be inquired, whether she would have been brought to capital punishment, if it had been true, that she had conceived by adultery. For although there was a Law promulgated of punishing adultery with death, Levite. XX. 10. Deut. XXII. 22. and in this case she that was espoused would be dealt withal after the same manner, as it was with her who was become a wife; yet so far was that Law mollified, that I say not weakened, by the Law of giving a bill of Divorse, Deut. XXIV. 1. &c. that the husband might not only pardon his adulterous wife, and not compel her to appear before the Sanhedrin, but scarcely could, if he would, put her to death. For why otherwise was the bill of Divorse indulged?
Joseph therefore endeavors to do nothing here, but what he might with the full consent both of the Law and Nation. The Adulteress might be put away; she that was espoused could not be put away, without a bill of Divorse, concerning which thus the Jewish Laws: A woman is espoused three ways, by money, or by a writing, or by being lain with. And being thus espoused, though she were not yet married, nor conducted into the man's house, yet she is his wife. And if any shall lie with her beside him; he is to be punished with death by the Sanhedrin. And if he himself will put her away he must have a bill of divorse.
Let the Talmudic Tract Gittin be looked upon, where they are treating of the manner of delivering a bill of Divorse to a wife to be put away; among other things, it might be given privately, if the husband so pleased, either into the woman's hand, or bosom, two witnesses only present.
VERS. XXIII.
THat the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Prophet denotes an untouched Virgin, sufficiently appears from the sense of the place, Esa. VII. King Achaz there was afraid, lest the enemies, that were now upon him, might destroy Jerusalem, and utterly consume the House of David. The Lord meets with this fear by a signal and most remarkable promise, namely, that sooner should a pure Virgin bring forth a child, tha • the family of David perish. And the promise yields a double comfort: namely, of Christ hereafter to be born of a Virgin: and of their security from the imminent danger of the City and house of David. So that, although that Prophesy of a Virgins bringing forth a son should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after; yet at that present time, when the Prophesy was made, Ahaz had a certain and notable sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the danger that hung over it. As much as if the Prophet had said, Be not so troubled, O Ahaz, does it not seem an impossible thing to thee, and that never will happen, that a pure Virgin should become a Mother? But I tell thee, a pure Virgin shall bring forth a son, before the House of David perish.
Hear this, O unbelieving Jew, and show us now some remainders of the House of David; or confess this Prophesy fulfilled in the Virgins bringing forth: or deny that a sign was given, when a sign is given.
§ In what language Matthew wrote his Gospel.
I. All confess, that the Syriac Language was the Mother Tongue to the Jewish Nation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew was not all understood by the common people may especially appear from two things.
- 1. That in the Synagogues, when the Law and the Prophets were read in the original Hebrew, an Interpreter was always present to the Reader, who rendered into the Mother Tongue that which was read, that it might be understood by the common people. Hence those rules of the office of an Interpreter, and of some places, which were not to be rendered into the Mother Tongue.
- 2. That Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a Scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christ's birth, rendered all the Prophets (that is, as the Jews number them, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Books of the Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve lesser Prophets) into the Chaldee Language, that is, into a Language much more known to the people than the Hebrew, and more acceptable than the Mother Tongue. For if it be asked, why he translated them at all, and why he translated not rather into the Mother Tongue, which was known to all: and if it be objected concerning S. Matthew, and S. Paul, that writing to the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the Hebrews, ) must have written in the Syriac Tongue, (if so be they wrote not in Hebrew, ) that they might be understood by all. We answer,
First, It was not without reason, that the Paraphrast Jonathan translated out of the Hebrew original into the Chaldee Tongue, because this Tongue was much more known and familiar to all the people, than the Hebrew. The holy Text had need of an Interpreter into a more known Tongue, because it was now in a Tongue not known at all to the Vulgar. For none knew the Hebrew, but such as learned it by Study. However therefore all the Jews, inhabiting the land of Canaan, did not so readily understand the Chaldee Language, as the Syriac, which was their Mother Language; yet they much readilier understood that, than the Hebrew, which to the unlearned was not known at all. Hence it was not without necessity, that the Prophets were turned into the Chaldee Language by Johnathan, and the Law not much after by Onkelos, that they might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew original was not understood at all We read also, that the Book of Job had its Targum in the time of Gamaliel the Elder, that is Paul's Master. the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not for a prophesy, because it was not uttered in the Language that was proper for prophetical predictions. But we tarry not here. That which we would have, is this, that Matthew wrote not in Hebrew, (which is proved sufficiently by what is spoken before) if so be we suppose him to have written in a Language vulgarly known and understood, which certainly we ought to suppose: Nor that he, nor the other Writers of the New Testament writ in the Syriac Language unless we suppose them to have written in the ungrateful Language of an ungrateful Nation, which certainly we ought not to suppose. For when the Jewish people were now to be cast off and to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very improper certainly, to extol their Language, whether it were the Syriac Mother Tongue, or the Chaldee its cozin Language, unto that degree of honor, that it should be the original Language of the New Testament. Improper certainly it was, to write the Gospel in their Tongue, who above all the Inhabitants of the World most despised and opposed it.
II. Since therefore the Gentiles were to be called to the Faith, and to embrace the Gospel by the preaching of it, the New Testament was writ very congruously in the Gentile Language, and in that, which among the Gentile Languages was the most noble, viz. The Greek. Let us see what the Jews say of this Language, envious enough against all Languages besides their own.
Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the holy Books, the wise Men permitted not that they should be writ in any other Language, than Greek. R. Abhu saith, that R. Jochanan said, the Tradition is according to Rabban Simeon; that R. Jochanan said moreover, Whence is that of Rabban Simeon proved? From thence, that the Scripture saith, The Lord shall persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem? The words of Japheth shall be in the Tents of Sem: and a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God shall persuade Japheth, i. e. The grace of Japheth shall be in the Tents of Sem. Where the Gloss speaks thus; The Grace of Japheth is the Greek Language; the fairest of those Tongues, which belong to the sons of Japheth.
Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the sacred books, they permitted not, that they should be written in any other Language than Greek. They searched seriously, and found, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the Law could not be translated according to what was needful for it, but in Greek. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 You have this latter clause cut off in Massecheth Sopherim, where this story also is added: The five Elders wrote the Law in Greek for Ptolemy the King: and that day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the golden Calf was made, because the Law could not be translated according to what was needful for it. This story of the five Interpreters of the Law, is worthy of consideration, which you find seldom mentioned, or scarce anywhere else. The Tradition next following after this, in the place cited, recites the story of the LXX. Look it.
When therefore the common use of the Hebrew Language had perished, and when the Mother Syriac or Chaldee Tongue of a cursed Nation, could not be blessed, our very enemies being judges, no other Language could be found, which might be fit to write the (New) divine Law, besides the Greek Tongue. That this Language was scattered, and in use among all the Eastern Nations almost, and was in a manner the Mother Tongue; and that it was planted everywhere by the Conquests of Alexander, and the Empire of the Greeks, we need not many words to prove, since it is everywhere to be seen in the Historians. The Jews do well near acknowledge it for their Mother Tongue even in Judea.
R. Jochanan of Beth Gubrin said, There are four noble Languages, which the world useth: The Mother Tongue for Singing, the Roman for War, the Syriac for Mourning, and the Hebrew for Elocution; and there are some who say, the Assyrian for Writing. What is that which he calls the Mother Tongue? It is very easily answered, The Greek, from those encomiums added to it, mentioned before: and that may more confidently be affirmed from the words of Midras Tillin, respecting this saying of R. Jochanan, and mentioning the Greek Language by name. R. Jochanan said, There are three Languages, The Roman for War, the Greek for Speech, the Assyrian for Prayer. To this also belongs that, that occurs once and again in Bab. Megillah, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Greek mother Tongue, you have an Instance of the thing: R. Levi coming to Cesarea heard some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reciting the Phylacteries in the Hellenistical Language. This is worthy to be marked. At Cesarea flourished the famous Schools of the Rabbins. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Rabbins of Cesarea are mentioned in both Talmuds most frequently, and with great praise, but especially in that of Jerusalem. But yet among these, the Greek is used as the Mother Tongue, and that in reciting the Phylacteries, which you may well think, above all other things, in Judea were to be said in Hebrew.
In that very Cesarea, Jerome mentions the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew to be laid up in the Library of Pamphilus, in these words: Matthew, who was also called Levi, from a Publican made an Apostle, first of all in Judea composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, for their sakes, who were of the circumcision and believed. Which Gospel, who he was that afterwards translated it into Greek, it is not sufficiently known. Moreover that very Hebrew Gospel is reserved to this day in the Library at Cesarea, which Pamphilus the Marlyr with much care collected. I also had leave given me by the Nazareans, who use this Book in Berea, a City of Syria, to write it out.
It is not at all to be doubted, that this Gospel was found in Hebrew, but that which deceived the good man, was not the very hand writing of Matthew, nor indeed did Matthew write the Gospel in that Language; but it was turned by somebody out of the original Greek into Hebrew, that so, if possible, the Learned Jews might read it. For since they had little kindness for foreign books, that is, Heathen Books, or such as were written in a Language different from their own, which might be illustrated from various Canons concerning this matter; some person converted to the Gospel, excited with a good zeal, seems to have translated this Gospel of S. Matthew out of the Greek Original into the Hebrew Language, that learned Men among the Jews, who as yet believed not, might perhaps read it, being now published in their Language: which was rejected by them, while it remained in a foreign speech. Thus I suppose this Gospel was written in Greek by S. Matthew for the sake of those that believed in Judea, and turned into Hebrew by somebody else for the sake of those that did not believe.
The same is to be resolved concerning the original Language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. That Epistle was written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom the Syriac was the Mother Tongue, but yet it was writ in Greek for the reasons above named. For the same reasons also the same Apostle writ in Greek to the Romans, although in that Church there were Romans, to whom it might seem more agreeable to have written in Latin; and there were Jews, to whom it might seem more proper to have written in Syriac.
VERS. I.
TEN a Stocks came up out of Babylon: 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Priests. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Levites. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Israelites. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Common Persons, as to the Priesthood: such whose Fathers indeed were sprung from Priests, but their Mothers unfit to be admitted to the Priests Marriage Bed. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Proselytes. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Liberti, or Servants set Free. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nothi: for such as were born in Wedlock; but that which was unlawful. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nethinims. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bastards: such as came of a certain Mother, but of an uncertain Father. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Such as were gathered up out of the Streets, whose Fathers and Mothers were uncertain.
A defiled Generation indeed! and therefore brought up out of Babylon in this common sink, according to the Opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish Seed, still remaining there, might not be polluted by it. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For Ezra went not up out of Babylon, until he had rendered it pure as flower. They are words of the Babylonian Gemara, which the gloss explains thus: He left not any there that were illegitimate in any respect, but the Priests and Levites only, and Israelites of a pure and undefiled stock. Therefore he brought up with him these ten kinds of Pedigrees, that these might not be mingled with those when there remained now no more a Sanhedrin there, which might take care of that matter. Therefore he brought them to Jerusalem, where care might be taken by the Sanhedrin fixed there, that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate.
Let us think of these things a little, while we are upon our entrance into the Gospel History.
- I. How great a cloud of obscurity could not but arise to the people concerning the original of Christ, even from the very return out of Babylon, when they either certainly saw, or certainly believed that they saw, a purer spring of Jewish blood there, than in the Land of Israel itself?
-
II. How great a care ought there to be in the Families of pure blood, to preserve themselves untouched and clean from this impure sink; and to lay up among themselves Genealogical Scrols from generation to generation, as faithful witnesses and lasting monuments of their legitimate stock and free blood?
Hear a complaint and a Story in this case, R. Jochanan said, By the Temple, it is in our hand to discover who are not of pure blood in the Land of Israel: But what shall I do when the ••••• m •• of this generation lie hid? (that is, when they are not of pure blood, and yet we must not declare so much openly concerning them.) He was of the same Opinion with R. Isaac, who said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Family (of the polluted blood) that lies hid, let it lie hid. Abai also saith, We have learned this also by tradition, that there was a certain Family called the Family of Beth-Zeripha, beyond Jordan, and a son of Zion removed it away. (The gloss is, some eminent Man by a public Proclamation declared it impure.) But he caused another, which was such (that is, impure) to come near. And there was another which the Wise-men would not manifest.
-
III. When it especially lay upon the Sanhedrin, sealed at Jerusalem, to preserve pure Families, as much as in them lay, pure still; and when they prescribed Canons of preserving the legitimation of the people (which you may see in those things that follow at the place alleged) there was some necessity to lay up public Records of Pedigrees with them: whence it might be known what Family was pure, and what defiled. Hence that of Simon Ben Azzai deserves our notice; I saw, saith he, a Genealogical s • rol in Jerusalem, in which it was thus written, N. a Bastard of a strang Wife. Observe, that even a Bastard was written in their public Books of Genealogy, that he might be known to be a Bastard, and that the purer Families might take heed of the defilement of his seed. Let that also be noted, They found a Book of Genealogy at Jerusalem, in which it was thus written, Hillel was sprung from David. Ben Jatsaph from Asaph. Ben Tsitsith ha • ceseth from Abner. Ben Cobesin from Ahab, &c. And the Records of the Genealogies smell of those things which are mentioned in the Text of the Mishnah concerning Wood-carrying. The Priests and Peoples times of Wood-carrying were nine. On the first day of the month Nisan, for the Sons of Erach the Son of Judah: the twentieth day of • ammuz, for the Sons of David, the Son of Judah: the fifth day of Ab, for the Sons of Parosh, the Son of Judah: the seventh of the same month, for the Sons of Jonadab; the Son of Rechab: the tenth of the same for the Sons of Senaah the Son of Benjamin, &c.
It is therefore easy to guess whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this Genealogy, and Luke the first forty Names of his: namely, from the Genealogical Scrols, at that time well enough known, and laid up in the public 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Repositories, and in the private also. And it was necessary indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people, as the Lineage of the Messiah would be, that the Evangelists should deliver a truth not only that could not be gain-said; but also, that might be proved and established from certain and undoubted Rolls of Ancestors.
That the Name of Jesus is so often added to the Name of Christ in the New Testament, is not only, that thereby Christ might be pointed out for the Savior; (which the Name Jesus signifies) but also that Jesus might be pointed out for true Christ: against the unbelief of the Jews; who though they acknowledged a certain Messiah, or Christ, yet they stiffly denied that Jesus of Nazareth was he. This observation takes place in numberless places of the New Testament, Act. ii. 36. & viii. 35. 1 Cor. vi. 22. 1 John ii. 22. & iv. 15, &c.
That is, the true Messias. For by no more ordinary, and more proper Name did the Jewish Nation point out the Messiah, then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Son of David. See Mat. XII. 23. & XXI. 9. & XXII. 42. Luke XVIII. 38. and everywhere in the Talmudic Writings, but especially in Bab. Sanhedrin: where it is also discussed, what kind of times those should be when the Son of David should come.
The things which are devised by the Jews concerning Messiah Ben Joseph (which the Targum upon Cant. IV. 5. calls Messiah Ben Ephraim ) are therefore devised, to comply with their giddiness, and loss of judgment in their opinion of the Messiah. For since they despised the true Messiah, who came in the time foreallotted by the Prophets, and Crucified him; they still expect I know not what Chimerical one, concerning whom they have no certain opinion: whether he shall be one, or two; whether he shall arise from among the living, or from the dead; whether he shall come in the clouds of Heaven, or sitting upon an Ass, &c. They expect a Son of David, but they know not whom, they know not when.
VER. 2.
IN Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehudah. Which word not only the Greeks for want of the Letter in the middle of a word, but the Jews themselves do contract into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judah: which occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same person who is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose Bi R. Jehudoh; in the next line is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose Bi R. Judah. So also h Shabb. And this is done elsewhere in the very same line.
VERS. 5.
SO far the Jewish Writers agree with Matthew, that they confess Rachab was Married to some Prince of Israel, but mistaking concerning the person; whether they do this out of ignorance, or willfully, let themselves look to that. Concerning this matter, the Babylonian Gemara hath these words: Eight Prophets, and those Priests sprang from Rachab, and they are these; Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, and Shallum. R. Judah saith, Huldah also was of the Posterity of Rachab. And a little after, There is a tradition that she being made a proselytess, was Married to Joshua. (Which Kimchi also produceth in Jos. Chap. VI. ) Here the gloss casts in a scruple: It sounds some what harshly, saith it, that Joshua Married one that was made a Proselyte; when it was not lawful to contract Marriage with the Canaanites, though they became Proselytes. Therefore we must say, that she was not of the Seven Nations of the Canaanites, but of some other Nation, and sojourned there. But others say, That that prohibition took not place before the entrance into the Promised Land, &c.
VERS. 8.
THE Names of Ahazias, Joash, and Amazias are struck out. See the History in the Books of the Kings, and 1 Chron. III. 11, 12.
- I. The Promise, That the Throne of David should not be empty, passed over after a manner for some time into the Family of Jehu, the overthrower of Jorams Family. For when he had razed the House of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung on the Mothers side of the Family of Ahab; the Lord promiseth him, that his Sons should Reign unto the fourth generation, 2 King. X. 30. Therefore however, the mean time the Throne of David was not empty; and that Joash and Amazias sat during the space between: yet their Names are not unfitly omitted by our Evangelist, both because they were sometimes not very unlike Joram in their manners; and because their Kingdom was very much eclipsed by the Kingdom of Israel, when Ahazias was slain by Jehu; and his Cousin Amazias taken and basely subdued by his Cousin Joas, 2 Chron. XXV.
- II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The seed of the wicked shall be cut off, Psal. XXXVII. verse. 28. Let the studious Reader observe, That in the Original, in this very place, the Letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain, which is the last Letter of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wicked; and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seed, is cut off, and is not expressed; when by the rule of Acrostic Verse, (according to which this Psalm is composed) that Letter ought to begin the next following Verse.
-
III. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, &c. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth generation, Exod. XX. 5.
Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of the Kings of Israel, according to the manner of the Family of Ahab, 2 King. VIII. 18. Which horrid violation of the Second Command God visits upon his Posterity, according to the threatening of that Command; and therefore the Names of his Sons are dashed out unto the fourth Generation.
- IV. The Old Testament also stigmatizeth that Idolatry of Joram in a way not unlike this of the New; and shows that Family unworthy to be numbered among David's progeny, 2 Chron. XXII. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ahazias the Son of two and forty years: that is, not of his age, (for he was not above two and twenty, 2 King. VIII. 26.) but of the duration of the Family of Omri, (of which Stock Ahazias was, on the Mothers side) as will sufficiently appear to him that computes the years. A fatal thing surely! that the years of a King of Judah should be reckoned by the account of the House of Omri.
-
V. Let a Genealogical style, not much different be observed, 1 Chron. IV. 1. where Shobal, born in the fifth or sixth Generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an immediate Son of Judah. Compare Chap. II. 50.
In the like manner Ezr. VII. in the Genealogy of Ezra five or six Generations are erazed.
VERS. 11.
THE Sons of Josiah were these: The first born Jochanan, the second Joachim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum, 1 Chron. III. 15. Who this Shallum was the Jerusalem Talmudists do dispute. R. Jochanan saith, Jochanan, and Jehoachaz were the same. And when it is written, Jochanan the first born, it means this, That he was the first born to the Kingdom: that is, He first Reigned. And R. Jochanan saith, Shallum and Zedekias are the same. And when it is written, Zedekias the third, Shallum the fourth; he was the third in birth, but he reigned fourth. The same things are produced in the Tract Sotah. But R. Chimchi much righter: Shallum, saith he, is Jechonias, who had two names, and was reckoned for the Son of Josiah, when he was his Grandchild, (or the Son of his Son.) For the Sons of Sons are reputed for Sons. Compare Jer. XXII. verse. 11. with 24. and the thing itself speaks it. And that which the Gemarists now quoted, say, Zedekiah was also called Shallum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because in his days Shalmah, an end, was put to the Kingdom of the Family of David: This also agrees very fitly to Jechonias, Jer. XXII. 28, 29, 30.
VERS. 12.
THAT is, a son of the Kingdom, or Successor in that dignity of the House of David whatsoever it was which was altogether withered in the rest of the Sons of Josiah, but did somewhat flourish again in him, 2 King. XXV. 27. And hence it is, that of all the posterity of Josiah, Jechonias only is named by St. Matthew.
Jeohonias in truth was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without Children, Jer. XXII. 30. and Salathiel, properly speaking, was the Son of Neri, Luk. III. 27. but yet Jechonias is said to beget him; not that he was truly his Father, but that the other was his Successor; not indeed in his Kingly dignity, for that was now perished, but into that which now was the chief Dignity among the Jews. So 1 Chron. III. 16. Zedekias is called the Son, either of Joakim, whose Brother indeed he was; or of Jechonias, whose Uncle he was; because he succeeded him in the Kingly Dignity.
The Lord had declared, and that not without an Oath, that Jechonias should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Without Children. The Talmudists do so interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Judan saith, All they, of whom it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 these shall be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without Children, they shall have no Children. And those of whom it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They shall die without Children; they bury their Children.
So Kimchi also upon the place. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith he, means this, That his Sons shall die in his life, if he shall now have Sons: but if he shall not now have Sons he never shall. But our Rabbins of blessed memory, say, That he repented in prison. And they say moreover, Oh! how much doth Repentance avail, which evacuates a penal Edict? For it is said, Write ye this Man Childless: but he repenting; this Edict turned to his good, &c. R. Jochanan saith, His carrying away expiated. For when it is said, Write this Man Childless; after the carrying away, it is said, The Sons of Coniah, Assir his Son, Shealtiel his Son. These things are in Bab. Sanhedr. where these words are added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Assir his son, because his mother conceived him in the house Haasurin, of bonds, or in Prison.
But the words in the Original are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are thus to be rendered, Now the sons of Jechonias bound (or, imprisoned) were Shealtiel his son. Which Version both the accents, and the order of the words confirm. For Zakeph hung over 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to which Munach beneath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serves, persuades that it is a conjunct construction, to wit, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jeconiah, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bound should be joined together that is, a Substantive and an Adjective. And the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his son, placed after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shealtiel, not after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bound, fixeth the genealogy in Salathiel, not in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asir at all.
VERS. XVI.
: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The mothers family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's Father. These two frame the Genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the Seed of the Woman, and as the Son of David: that as a man, this as a King. It was therefore needful in setting down his Genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the Woman, deducing his Mothers stock, from whence man was born, from Adam. Matthew exhibits his Royal Original, deriving his pedigree along through the Royal family of David to Joseph his (reputed) Father.
VERS. XVII.
ALthough all things do not square exactly in this threefold number of fourteen generations, yet there is no reason why this should be charged as a fault upon Matthew, when in the Jewish Schools themselves it obtained for a custom, yea almost for an Axiom, to reduce things and numbers to the very same, when they were near alike. The thing will be plain by an Example or two, when an hundred almost might be produced.
Five Calamitous things are ascribed to the same day, that is, to the ninth day of the month Ab. For that day, say they, it was decreed, that the people should not go into the promised land: the same day the first Temple was laid waste, and the second also: the City Bitter was destroyed, and the City Jerusalem plowed up. Not that they believed all these things fell out precisely the same day of the month, but as the Babylonian Gemara notes upon it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they might reduce a fortunate thing to a holy day, and an unfortunate to an unlucky day.
The Jerusalem Gemara, in the same tract, examines the reason, why the daily prayers consist of the number of eighteen, and among other things hath these words; The daily prayers are eighteen, according to the number of the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the book of Psalms to that Psalm, whose beginning is, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, (which Psalm indeed is the Twentieth Psalm.) But if any object that nineteen Psalms reach thither, you may answer, The Psalm, which begins, Why did the Heathen rage, is not of them. A distinct Psalm. Behold with what liberty they fit numbers to their own case.
Inquiry is made, whence the number of the thirty nine more principal servile works to be avoided on the Sabbath day, may be proved. Among other we meet with these words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Chaninah of Zipp • r saith in the name of R. Abhu, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph denotes one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lamed thirty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He five, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dabar one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Debarim two. Hence are the forty works, save one, concerning which it is written in the Law. The Rabbins of Cesarea say, Not anything is wanting out of his place: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lamed thirty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth eight: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our profound Doctors do not distinguish between He and Cheth: that they may fit numbers to their case, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These, they write, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth at their pleasure.
R. Joshua ben Levi saith, In all my whole life I have not looked into the (mystical) book of Agada, but once: and then I looked into it, and found it thus written, An hundred seventy five Sections of the Law; where it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He spake, he said, he commanded, they are for the number of the years of our Father Abraham. And a little after, An hundred and forty and seven Psalms which are written in the book of the Psalms, (note this number) are for the number of the years of our father Jacob. Whence this is hinted, that all the praises, wherewith the Israelites praise God, are according to the years of Jacob. Those hundred and twenty and three times, wherein the Israelites answer Hallelujah, are according to the number of the years of Aaron, &c.
They do so very much delight in such kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the due measure, and stretch them till they crack. So that, if a Jew carps at thee, O Divine Matthew, for the unevenness of thy fourteens, out of their own Schools and Writings thou hast that, not only whereby thou mayest defend thyself, but retort upon them.
VERS. XVIII.
NO woman of Israel was married, unless she had been first espoused. Before the giving of the Law (saith Maimonides) if the man and the woman had agreed about marriage, he brought her into his house, and privately married her, But after the giving of the Law, the Israelites were commanded, that if any were minded to take a woman for his wife, he should receive her first before witnesses; and thenceforth let her be to him a wife, as it is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one take a wife. This taking is one of the Affirmative precepts of the Law, and is called Espousing. Of the manner and form of Espousing you may read till you are weary in that Tractate, and in the Talmudic Tract, Kiddushin.
In many places the man espouseth the woman, but doth not bring her home to him, but after some space of time. So the Gloss upon Maimonides.
Distinction is made by the Jewish Canons, and that justly and openly between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Private society or Discourse between the Espouser and the Espoused, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The bringing of the Espoused into the husbands house. Of either of the two many those words be understood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , before they came together, or rather of them both. He had not only not brought her home to him, but he had no manner of society with her alone, beyond the Canonical limits of discourse that were allowed to unmarried persons; and yet she was found with child.
Namely after the space of three months from her conception, when she was now returned home from her Cozin Elizabeth. See Luke 1. 56. and compare Gen. XXXVIII. 24.
The Masters of the Traditions assign this space to discover a thing of that nature. A Woman, say they, who is either put away from her husband, or become a Widow, neither marrieth, nor is espoused, but after ninety days. Namely, that it may be known, whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made between the offspring of the first husband, and of the second. In like manner a husband and wife, being made proselytes, are parted from one another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children begotten in holiness, (that is, within the true Religion. See 1 Cor. VII. 14.) and children begotten out of holiness.
VERS. XIX.
THERE is no need to wrack the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 just, to fetch out thence the sense of gentleness or mercy, which many do: for construing the clauses of the verse separately, the sense will appear clear and soft enough. Joseph, being a just man, could not, would not endure an adulteress: but yet not willing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to make her a public example, being a merciful man, and loving his wife, was minded to put her away privily.
This doth not imply death, but rather public disgrace 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To make her public. For it may not without reason be inquired, whether she would have been brought to capital punishment, if it had been true, that she had conceived by adultery. For although there was a Law promulgated of punishing adultery with death, Levite. XX. 10. Deut. XXII. 22. and in this case she that was espoused would be dealt withal after the same manner, as it was with her who was become a wife; yet so far was that Law mollified, that I say not weakened, by the Law of giving a bill of Divorse, Deut. XXIV. 1. &c. that the husband might not only pardon his adulterous wife, and not compel her to appear before the Sanhedrin, but scarcely could, if he would, put her to death. For why otherwise was the bill of Divorse indulged?
Joseph therefore endeavors to do nothing here, but what he might with the full consent both of the Law and Nation. The Adulteress might be put away; she that was espoused could not be put away, without a bill of Divorse, concerning which thus the Jewish Laws: A woman is espoused three ways, by money, or by a writing, or by being lain with. And being thus espoused, though she were not yet married, nor conducted into the man's house, yet she is his wife. And if any shall lie with her beside him; he is to be punished with death by the Sanhedrin. And if he himself will put her away he must have a bill of divorse.
Let the Talmudic Tract Gittin be looked upon, where they are treating of the manner of delivering a bill of Divorse to a wife to be put away; among other things, it might be given privately, if the husband so pleased, either into the woman's hand, or bosom, two witnesses only present.
VERS. XXIII.
THat the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Prophet denotes an untouched Virgin, sufficiently appears from the sense of the place, Esa. VII. King Achaz there was afraid, lest the enemies, that were now upon him, might destroy Jerusalem, and utterly consume the House of David. The Lord meets with this fear by a signal and most remarkable promise, namely, that sooner should a pure Virgin bring forth a child, tha • the family of David perish. And the promise yields a double comfort: namely, of Christ hereafter to be born of a Virgin: and of their security from the imminent danger of the City and house of David. So that, although that Prophesy of a Virgins bringing forth a son should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after; yet at that present time, when the Prophesy was made, Ahaz had a certain and notable sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the danger that hung over it. As much as if the Prophet had said, Be not so troubled, O Ahaz, does it not seem an impossible thing to thee, and that never will happen, that a pure Virgin should become a Mother? But I tell thee, a pure Virgin shall bring forth a son, before the House of David perish.
Hear this, O unbelieving Jew, and show us now some remainders of the House of David; or confess this Prophesy fulfilled in the Virgins bringing forth: or deny that a sign was given, when a sign is given.
§ In what language Matthew wrote his Gospel.
I. All confess, that the Syriac Language was the Mother Tongue to the Jewish Nation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew was not all understood by the common people may especially appear from two things.
- 1. That in the Synagogues, when the Law and the Prophets were read in the original Hebrew, an Interpreter was always present to the Reader, who rendered into the Mother Tongue that which was read, that it might be understood by the common people. Hence those rules of the office of an Interpreter, and of some places, which were not to be rendered into the Mother Tongue.
- 2. That Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a Scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christ's birth, rendered all the Prophets (that is, as the Jews number them, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Books of the Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve lesser Prophets) into the Chaldee Language, that is, into a Language much more known to the people than the Hebrew, and more acceptable than the Mother Tongue. For if it be asked, why he translated them at all, and why he translated not rather into the Mother Tongue, which was known to all: and if it be objected concerning S. Matthew, and S. Paul, that writing to the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the Hebrews, ) must have written in the Syriac Tongue, (if so be they wrote not in Hebrew, ) that they might be understood by all. We answer,
First, It was not without reason, that the Paraphrast Jonathan translated out of the Hebrew original into the Chaldee Tongue, because this Tongue was much more known and familiar to all the people, than the Hebrew. The holy Text had need of an Interpreter into a more known Tongue, because it was now in a Tongue not known at all to the Vulgar. For none knew the Hebrew, but such as learned it by Study. However therefore all the Jews, inhabiting the land of Canaan, did not so readily understand the Chaldee Language, as the Syriac, which was their Mother Language; yet they much readilier understood that, than the Hebrew, which to the unlearned was not known at all. Hence it was not without necessity, that the Prophets were turned into the Chaldee Language by Johnathan, and the Law not much after by Onkelos, that they might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew original was not understood at all We read also, that the Book of Job had its Targum in the time of Gamaliel the Elder, that is Paul's Master. the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not for a prophesy, because it was not uttered in the Language that was proper for prophetical predictions. But we tarry not here. That which we would have, is this, that Matthew wrote not in Hebrew, (which is proved sufficiently by what is spoken before) if so be we suppose him to have written in a Language vulgarly known and understood, which certainly we ought to suppose: Nor that he, nor the other Writers of the New Testament writ in the Syriac Language unless we suppose them to have written in the ungrateful Language of an ungrateful Nation, which certainly we ought not to suppose. For when the Jewish people were now to be cast off and to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very improper certainly, to extol their Language, whether it were the Syriac Mother Tongue, or the Chaldee its cozin Language, unto that degree of honor, that it should be the original Language of the New Testament. Improper certainly it was, to write the Gospel in their Tongue, who above all the Inhabitants of the World most despised and opposed it.
II. Since therefore the Gentiles were to be called to the Faith, and to embrace the Gospel by the preaching of it, the New Testament was writ very congruously in the Gentile Language, and in that, which among the Gentile Languages was the most noble, viz. The Greek. Let us see what the Jews say of this Language, envious enough against all Languages besides their own.
Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the holy Books, the wise Men permitted not that they should be writ in any other Language, than Greek. R. Abhu saith, that R. Jochanan said, the Tradition is according to Rabban Simeon; that R. Jochanan said moreover, Whence is that of Rabban Simeon proved? From thence, that the Scripture saith, The Lord shall persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem? The words of Japheth shall be in the Tents of Sem: and a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God shall persuade Japheth, i. e. The grace of Japheth shall be in the Tents of Sem. Where the Gloss speaks thus; The Grace of Japheth is the Greek Language; the fairest of those Tongues, which belong to the sons of Japheth.
Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the sacred books, they permitted not, that they should be written in any other Language than Greek. They searched seriously, and found, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the Law could not be translated according to what was needful for it, but in Greek. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 You have this latter clause cut off in Massecheth Sopherim, where this story also is added: The five Elders wrote the Law in Greek for Ptolemy the King: and that day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the golden Calf was made, because the Law could not be translated according to what was needful for it. This story of the five Interpreters of the Law, is worthy of consideration, which you find seldom mentioned, or scarce anywhere else. The Tradition next following after this, in the place cited, recites the story of the LXX. Look it.
When therefore the common use of the Hebrew Language had perished, and when the Mother Syriac or Chaldee Tongue of a cursed Nation, could not be blessed, our very enemies being judges, no other Language could be found, which might be fit to write the (New) divine Law, besides the Greek Tongue. That this Language was scattered, and in use among all the Eastern Nations almost, and was in a manner the Mother Tongue; and that it was planted everywhere by the Conquests of Alexander, and the Empire of the Greeks, we need not many words to prove, since it is everywhere to be seen in the Historians. The Jews do well near acknowledge it for their Mother Tongue even in Judea.
R. Jochanan of Beth Gubrin said, There are four noble Languages, which the world useth: The Mother Tongue for Singing, the Roman for War, the Syriac for Mourning, and the Hebrew for Elocution; and there are some who say, the Assyrian for Writing. What is that which he calls the Mother Tongue? It is very easily answered, The Greek, from those encomiums added to it, mentioned before: and that may more confidently be affirmed from the words of Midras Tillin, respecting this saying of R. Jochanan, and mentioning the Greek Language by name. R. Jochanan said, There are three Languages, The Roman for War, the Greek for Speech, the Assyrian for Prayer. To this also belongs that, that occurs once and again in Bab. Megillah, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Greek mother Tongue, you have an Instance of the thing: R. Levi coming to Cesarea heard some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reciting the Phylacteries in the Hellenistical Language. This is worthy to be marked. At Cesarea flourished the famous Schools of the Rabbins. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Rabbins of Cesarea are mentioned in both Talmuds most frequently, and with great praise, but especially in that of Jerusalem. But yet among these, the Greek is used as the Mother Tongue, and that in reciting the Phylacteries, which you may well think, above all other things, in Judea were to be said in Hebrew.
In that very Cesarea, Jerome mentions the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew to be laid up in the Library of Pamphilus, in these words: Matthew, who was also called Levi, from a Publican made an Apostle, first of all in Judea composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, for their sakes, who were of the circumcision and believed. Which Gospel, who he was that afterwards translated it into Greek, it is not sufficiently known. Moreover that very Hebrew Gospel is reserved to this day in the Library at Cesarea, which Pamphilus the Marlyr with much care collected. I also had leave given me by the Nazareans, who use this Book in Berea, a City of Syria, to write it out.
It is not at all to be doubted, that this Gospel was found in Hebrew, but that which deceived the good man, was not the very hand writing of Matthew, nor indeed did Matthew write the Gospel in that Language; but it was turned by somebody out of the original Greek into Hebrew, that so, if possible, the Learned Jews might read it. For since they had little kindness for foreign books, that is, Heathen Books, or such as were written in a Language different from their own, which might be illustrated from various Canons concerning this matter; some person converted to the Gospel, excited with a good zeal, seems to have translated this Gospel of S. Matthew out of the Greek Original into the Hebrew Language, that learned Men among the Jews, who as yet believed not, might perhaps read it, being now published in their Language: which was rejected by them, while it remained in a foreign speech. Thus I suppose this Gospel was written in Greek by S. Matthew for the sake of those that believed in Judea, and turned into Hebrew by somebody else for the sake of those that did not believe.
The same is to be resolved concerning the original Language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. That Epistle was written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom the Syriac was the Mother Tongue, but yet it was writ in Greek for the reasons above named. For the same reasons also the same Apostle writ in Greek to the Romans, although in that Church there were Romans, to whom it might seem more agreeable to have written in Latin; and there were Jews, to whom it might seem more proper to have written in Syriac.
§ In what language Matthew wrote his Gospel.
I. All confess, that the Syriac Language was the Mother Tongue to the Jewish Nation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew was not all understood by the common people may especially appear from two things.
- 1. That in the Synagogues, when the Law and the Prophets were read in the original Hebrew, an Interpreter was always present to the Reader, who rendered into the Mother Tongue that which was read, that it might be understood by the common people. Hence those rules of the office of an Interpreter, and of some places, which were not to be rendered into the Mother Tongue.
- 2. That Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a Scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christ's birth, rendered all the Prophets (that is, as the Jews number them, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Books of the Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve lesser Prophets) into the Chaldee Language, that is, into a Language much more known to the people than the Hebrew, and more acceptable than the Mother Tongue. For if it be asked, why he translated them at all, and why he translated not rather into the Mother Tongue, which was known to all: and if it be objected concerning S. Matthew, and S. Paul, that writing to the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the Hebrews, ) must have written in the Syriac Tongue, (if so be they wrote not in Hebrew, ) that they might be understood by all. We answer,
First, It was not without reason, that the Paraphrast Jonathan translated out of the Hebrew original into the Chaldee Tongue, because this Tongue was much more known and familiar to all the people, than the Hebrew. The holy Text had need of an Interpreter into a more known Tongue, because it was now in a Tongue not known at all to the Vulgar. For none knew the Hebrew, but such as learned it by Study. However therefore all the Jews, inhabiting the land of Canaan, did not so readily understand the Chaldee Language, as the Syriac, which was their Mother Language; yet they much readilier understood that, than the Hebrew, which to the unlearned was not known at all. Hence it was not without necessity, that the Prophets were turned into the Chaldee Language by Johnathan, and the Law not much after by Onkelos, that they might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew original was not understood at all We read also, that the Book of Job had its Targum in the time of Gamaliel the Elder, that is Paul's Master. the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not for a prophesy, because it was not uttered in the Language that was proper for prophetical predictions. But we tarry not here. That which we would have, is this, that Matthew wrote not in Hebrew, (which is proved sufficiently by what is spoken before) if so be we suppose him to have written in a Language vulgarly known and understood, which certainly we ought to suppose: Nor that he, nor the other Writers of the New Testament writ in the Syriac Language unless we suppose them to have written in the ungrateful Language of an ungrateful Nation, which certainly we ought not to suppose. For when the Jewish people were now to be cast off and to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very improper certainly, to extol their Language, whether it were the Syriac Mother Tongue, or the Chaldee its cozin Language, unto that degree of honor, that it should be the original Language of the New Testament. Improper certainly it was, to write the Gospel in their Tongue, who above all the Inhabitants of the World most despised and opposed it.
II. Since therefore the Gentiles were to be called to the Faith, and to embrace the Gospel by the preaching of it, the New Testament was writ very congruously in the Gentile Language, and in that, which among the Gentile Languages was the most noble, viz. The Greek. Let us see what the Jews say of this Language, envious enough against all Languages besides their own.
Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the holy Books, the wise Men permitted not that they should be writ in any other Language, than Greek. R. Abhu saith, that R. Jochanan said, the Tradition is according to Rabban Simeon; that R. Jochanan said moreover, Whence is that of Rabban Simeon proved? From thence, that the Scripture saith, The Lord shall persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem? The words of Japheth shall be in the Tents of Sem: and a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God shall persuade Japheth, i. e. The grace of Japheth shall be in the Tents of Sem. Where the Gloss speaks thus; The Grace of Japheth is the Greek Language; the fairest of those Tongues, which belong to the sons of Japheth.
Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the sacred books, they permitted not, that they should be written in any other Language than Greek. They searched seriously, and found, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the Law could not be translated according to what was needful for it, but in Greek. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 You have this latter clause cut off in Massecheth Sopherim, where this story also is added: The five Elders wrote the Law in Greek for Ptolemy the King: and that day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the golden Calf was made, because the Law could not be translated according to what was needful for it. This story of the five Interpreters of the Law, is worthy of consideration, which you find seldom mentioned, or scarce anywhere else. The Tradition next following after this, in the place cited, recites the story of the LXX. Look it.
When therefore the common use of the Hebrew Language had perished, and when the Mother Syriac or Chaldee Tongue of a cursed Nation, could not be blessed, our very enemies being judges, no other Language could be found, which might be fit to write the (New) divine Law, besides the Greek Tongue. That this Language was scattered, and in use among all the Eastern Nations almost, and was in a manner the Mother Tongue; and that it was planted everywhere by the Conquests of Alexander, and the Empire of the Greeks, we need not many words to prove, since it is everywhere to be seen in the Historians. The Jews do well near acknowledge it for their Mother Tongue even in Judea.
R. Jochanan of Beth Gubrin said, There are four noble Languages, which the world useth: The Mother Tongue for Singing, the Roman for War, the Syriac for Mourning, and the Hebrew for Elocution; and there are some who say, the Assyrian for Writing. What is that which he calls the Mother Tongue? It is very easily answered, The Greek, from those encomiums added to it, mentioned before: and that may more confidently be affirmed from the words of Midras Tillin, respecting this saying of R. Jochanan, and mentioning the Greek Language by name. R. Jochanan said, There are three Languages, The Roman for War, the Greek for Speech, the Assyrian for Prayer. To this also belongs that, that occurs once and again in Bab. Megillah, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Greek mother Tongue, you have an Instance of the thing: R. Levi coming to Cesarea heard some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reciting the Phylacteries in the Hellenistical Language. This is worthy to be marked. At Cesarea flourished the famous Schools of the Rabbins. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Rabbins of Cesarea are mentioned in both Talmuds most frequently, and with great praise, but especially in that of Jerusalem. But yet among these, the Greek is used as the Mother Tongue, and that in reciting the Phylacteries, which you may well think, above all other things, in Judea were to be said in Hebrew.
In that very Cesarea, Jerome mentions the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew to be laid up in the Library of Pamphilus, in these words: Matthew, who was also called Levi, from a Publican made an Apostle, first of all in Judea composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, for their sakes, who were of the circumcision and believed. Which Gospel, who he was that afterwards translated it into Greek, it is not sufficiently known. Moreover that very Hebrew Gospel is reserved to this day in the Library at Cesarea, which Pamphilus the Marlyr with much care collected. I also had leave given me by the Nazareans, who use this Book in Berea, a City of Syria, to write it out.
It is not at all to be doubted, that this Gospel was found in Hebrew, but that which deceived the good man, was not the very hand writing of Matthew, nor indeed did Matthew write the Gospel in that Language; but it was turned by somebody out of the original Greek into Hebrew, that so, if possible, the Learned Jews might read it. For since they had little kindness for foreign books, that is, Heathen Books, or such as were written in a Language different from their own, which might be illustrated from various Canons concerning this matter; some person converted to the Gospel, excited with a good zeal, seems to have translated this Gospel of S. Matthew out of the Greek Original into the Hebrew Language, that learned Men among the Jews, who as yet believed not, might perhaps read it, being now published in their Language: which was rejected by them, while it remained in a foreign speech. Thus I suppose this Gospel was written in Greek by S. Matthew for the sake of those that believed in Judea, and turned into Hebrew by somebody else for the sake of those that did not believe.
The same is to be resolved concerning the original Language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. That Epistle was written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom the Syriac was the Mother Tongue, but yet it was writ in Greek for the reasons above named. For the same reasons also the same Apostle writ in Greek to the Romans, although in that Church there were Romans, to whom it might seem more agreeable to have written in Latin; and there were Jews, to whom it might seem more proper to have written in Syriac.
CHAP. II.
VERS. I.
A calculation of the times, when Christ was born.
WE thus lay down a Scheme of the times, when Christ was born. I. He was born in the year of the World, MMMDCCCCXXVIII. For from the Creation of the World to the Deluge are commonly reckoned MDCLVI. years.
From the Deluge to Abraham's promise are CCCCXXVII years. This being supposed, that Abraham was born the CXXXth year of Tharah: which must be supposed.
From the promise given to the going out of Egypt, CCCCXXX years, Exod. XII. 40. Gal. III. 17.
From the going out of Egypt to the laying the foundations of the Temple are CCCCLXXX years, 1 King. VI. 1.
The Temple was building VII years, 1 King. VI. 38. Casting up therefore all these together, viz.
| MDCLVI | |
| CCCCXXVII | |
| CCCCXXX | |
| CCCCLXXX | |
| VII | |
| the sum of years amounts to | MMM. |
And it is clear the building of the Temple was finished and completed in the year of the world MMM.
The Temple was finished in the eleventh year of Solomon, 1 King. VI. 38. and thence to the revolting of the ten Tribes, in the first year of Rehoboam, were XXX years. Therefore that Revolt was in the year of the World MMMXXX.
From the Revolt of the ten Tribes to the destruction of Jerusalem under Zedekiah were CCCXC years: which appears sufficiently from the Chronical computation of the parallel times of the Kings of Judah and Israel: and which is implied by Ezekiel, Chap. IV. verse. 5. Thou shalt sleep upon thy left side, and shalt put the iniquities of the house of Israel upon it, &c. according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days. And when thou shalt have accomplished them, thou shalt sleep upon thy right side the second time, and shalt take upon thee the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days. Concerning the computation of these years it is doubted, whether those forty years are to be numbered together within the three hundred and ninety years, or by themselves, as following after those three hundred and ninety years. We not without cause embrace the former opinion, and suppose those forty years to be included within the sum of the three hundred and ninety; but mentioned by themselves particularly, for a particular reason. For by the space of forty years before the destruction of the City by the Chaldeans, did Jeremiah prophesy daily, namely, from the third year of Josiah to the sacking of the City: whom the people not hearkening to, they are marked for that peculiar iniquity with this note.
Therefore these three hundred and ninety years being added to the year of the World MMMXXX, when the ten Tribes fell off from the house of David, the age of the World, when Jerusalem perished, arose to the year MMMCCCCXX.
At that time there remained fifty years of the Babylonian captivity to be completed. For those remarkable Seventy years took their beginning from the third year of Jehoiachim, Dan. I. 1. Whose fourth year begins the Babylonian Monarchy, Jer. XXV. 1. And in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar the Temple was destroyed, 2 King. XXV. 8. when now the twentieth year of the Captivity passed: and other fifty remained. Which fifty being added to the year of the World MMMCCCCXX, a year fatal to the Temple, the years of the World amount, in the first year of Cyrus, unto MMMCCCCLXX.
From the first of Cyrus to the death of Christ are Seventy weeks of years, or CCCCXC years, Dan. IX. 24. Add these to the MMMCCCCLXX, and you observe Christ crucified in the year of the World MMMDCCCCLX. When therefore you have subtracted thirty two years and an half, wherein Christ lived upon the Earth, you will find him born in the year of the World MMMDCCCCXXVIII.
II. He was born in the one and thirtieth year of Augustus Caesar, the computation of his Monarchy beginning from the Victory at Actium. Of which matter thus Dion Cassius writes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. This their Sed-fight was on the second of September: And this I speak upon no other account, (for I am not wont to do it) but because then Caesar first obtained the whole Power: so that the computation of the years of his Monarchy must be precisely reckoned from that very day. We confirm this our computation, by drawing down a Chronological Table from this year of Augustus to the fifteenth year of Tiberius, when Christ, having now completed the nine and twentieth year of his age, and entering just upon his thirtieth, was baptized. Now this Table, adding the Consuls of every year, we thus frame.
| Year of the World | City built |