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 than 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, and their writings stink as much amongst all; and
they labour 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 under-value 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 reader's 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 defence. If the work and book
itself does not carry something with it which may plead its
cause, and obtain the reader's pardon and favour; our oration,
or begging 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 endeavoured after truth: they will show us favour
that we followed after it, and, if we have not attained it, they
will pity us. But as for the wrinkled forehead, and the stern
brow, we are prepared to bear them with all patience, being
armed and satisfied with this inward patronage, that "we have
endeavoured 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 Catharine-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 any thing 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 centre
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 endeavour to give
others an account of our hours, let this give you an assurance
of our affections. And may it last in Catharine-Hall, even to
future ages, as a testimony of service, a monument of love, and
a memorial both of me and you!
1:1 The book of the generation
of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[The book of the generation of Jesus Christ.]
Ten stocks came out of Babylon: 1. Priests. 2.
Levites. 3. Israelites. 4. 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. Proselytes. 6. Liberti, or servants set free. 7.
Nothi: such as were born in
wedlock; but that which was unlawful. 8. Nethinims. 9. Bastards: such as came of a certain mother, but of an
uncertain father. 10. 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. For Ezra went
not up out of Babylon, until he had rendered it pure as flour.
They are the 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 Sanhedrim there,
which might take care of that matter. Therefore he brought them
to Jerusalem, where care might be taken by the Sanhedrim 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 scrolls 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 chief men 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, 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 Sanhedrim,
settled 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 scroll in Jerusalem, in which it was thus
written; 'N., a bastard of a strange 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 Hacceseth from Abner. Ben Cobisin from
Achab,'" &c. And the records of the genealogies smell of those
things which are mentioned in the text of the Misna concerning
'wood-carrying': "The priests' and people's times of
wood-carrying were nine: on the first day of the month Nisan,
for the sons of Erach, the sons of Judah: the twentieth day of
Tammuz, 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
scrolls at that time well enough known, and laid up in the
public 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 gainsaid, but
also that might be proved and established from certain and
undoubted rolls of ancestors.
[Of Jesus Christ.] 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 Saviour, 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;
Acts 2:36, 8:35;
1 Corinthians 16:22;
1 John 2:22, 4:15, &c.
[The Son of David.] That is, "the true
Messias." For by no more ordinary and more proper name did the
Jewish nation point out the Messiah than by The Son of David.
See
Matthew 12:23, 21:9, 22:42;
Luke 18:38; and everywhere in the Talmudic writings,
but especially in Bab. Sanhedrim: 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
Canticles 4:5
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 fore-allotted 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.
2. Abraham begat Isaac; and
Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[Judas.] In Hebrew,
Jehudah.
Which word not only the Greeks, for want of the letter "h" in
the middle of a word, but the Jews themselves, do contract into
Judah: which occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem
Talmud. The same person who is called R. Jose Bi R. Jehudah,
in the next line is called R. Jose Bi R. Judah...
5. And Salmon begat Booz of
Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[Booz of Rachab.] 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 wilfully, let
themselves look to that. Concerning this matter, the Babylonian
Gemara hath these words: "Eight prophets and those priests
sprung 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
Joshua 6. Here the Gloss casts in a scruple: "It
sounds somewhat 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.
8. And Asa begat Josaphat;
and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[And Joram begat Ozias.] The names of
Ahazias, Joash, and Amazias, are struck out. See the history in
the books of the Kings, and
1 Chronicles 3:11, 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 Joram's family. For when
he had razed the house of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung,
on the mother's side, of the family of Ahab, the Lord promiseth
him that his sons should reign unto the fourth generation,
2 Kings 10:30. 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 Joash,
2 Chronicles 25:23.
II. "The seed of the wicked shall be cut off,"
Psalm 37:28. Let the studious reader observe that, in
the original, in this very place, the letter Ain, which is the
last letter of wicked, and of 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," (Exodus
20:5.
Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of the
kings of Israel, according to the manner of the family of Ahab,
2 Kings 8:18. 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 Chronicles 22:2:
Ahazias, the son of two and
forty years: that is, not of his age (for he was not above
two-and-twenty,
2 Kings 8:26), but of the duration of the family of
Omri, of which stock Ahazias was, on the mother's 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 Chronicles 4:1; where Shobal, born in the fifth or
sixth generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an
immediate son of Judah. Compare chapter 2:50.
In the like manner,
Ezra 7, in the genealogy of Ezra, five or six
generations are erased.
11. And Josias begat
Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried
away to Babylon:
[And Josias begat Jechonias.] The sons
of Josias were these: the first-born, Jochanan; the second,
Joachim; the third, Zedekiah; the fourth, Shallum,
1 Chronicles 3:15. 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. Kimchi much more correctly: "Shallum (saith
he) is Jechonias, who had two names, and was reckoned for the
son of Josias, when he was his grandchild" (or the son of his
son); "For the sons of sons are reputed for sons." Compare
Jeremiah 22:11 with 24; and the thing itself speaks
it. And that which the Gemarists now quoted say, Zedekiah was
also called Shallum, because in his days 'Shalmah,' 'an end
was put to' the kingdom of the family of David: this also
agrees very fitly to Jechonias,
Jeremiah 22:28-30.
12. And after they were
brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel
begat Zorobabel;
[Jechonias begat Salathiel.] 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 Kings 25:27. And hence it is, that of all the
posterity of Josiah, Jechonias only is named by St. Matthew.
Jechonias, in truth, was without children,
Jeremiah 22:30; and Salathiel, properly speaking, was
the son of Neri,
Luke 3:27: 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 in that which now was the chief dignity among the
Jews.
So 1
Chronicles 3:16, Zedekias is called the son, either of
Jehoiakim, 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 without children. The
Talmudists do so interpret "R. Judah saith, All they of whom it
is said, These shall be without children; they shall have
no children. And those of whom it is said, They shall die
without children; they bury their children." [Lev
20:2021.]
So Kimchi also upon the place; "The word (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 Babyl. Sanhedrim, where these
words are added, "Assir his son, because his mother conceived
him in prison."
But the words in the original (1
Chron 3:17) are these...Now the sons of Jechonias
bound [or imprisoned] were Shealtiel his son. Which version
both the accents and the order of the words confirm...
16. And Jacob begat Joseph
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called
Christ.
[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.]
The mother's 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 mother's 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.
17. So all the generations
from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from
David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen
generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ
are fourteen generations.
[Fourteen generations.] 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 a
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 ploughed 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, 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; "R. Chaninah of Zippor saith, in the name of R. Abhu,
Aleph denotes one,Lamed thirty, He five,
Dabar one, Debarim two. Hence are the forty works,
save one, concerning which it is written in the law. The Rabbins
of Caesarea say, Not any thing is wanting out of his place: Aleph one,
Lamed thirty, Cheth eight: our
profound doctors do not distinguish between He and Cheth":
that they may fit number to their case...
"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, A
hundred and seventy-five sections of the law; where it is
written, He spake, he said, he commanded, they are for
the number of the years of our father Abraham." And a little
after; "A 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.
18. Now the
birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary
was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost.
[When as his mother was espoused] 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, 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.
[Before they came together.] "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 private society or discourse between the espouser and the espoused, and
the
bringing of the espoused into the husband's house. Of either
of the two may those words be understood, 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.
[She was found with child.] Namely,
after the space of three months from her conception, when she
was now returned home from her cousin Elizabeth. See
Luke 1:56, and compare
Genesis 38:24.
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 7:14) "And children begotten out of holiness."
19. Then Joseph her husband,
being a just man, and not willing to make her a public
example, was minded to put her away privily.
[But Joseph, being a just man, &c.]
There is no need to rack the word 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 to make her a public example, being a
merciful man, and loving his wife, was minded to put her away
privily.
[To make her a public example.] This
doth not imply death, but rather public disgrace, 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 promulged of punishing adultery with death,
Leviticus 10:10,
Deuteronomy 22:22, 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
modified, that I say not weakened, by the law of giving a bill
of divorce,
Deuteronomy 24:1, &c., that the husband might not
only pardon his adulterous wife, and not compel her to appear
before the Sanhedrim, but scarcely could, if he would, put her
to death. For why otherwise was the bill of divorce indulged?
Joseph, therefore, endeavours 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 divorce;
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 Sanhedrim. And if he himself will put her away, he must
have a bill of divorce."
[Put her away privily.] Let the Talmudic
tract 'Gittin' be looked upon, where they are treating of the
manner of delivering a bill of divorce 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.
23. Behold, a virgin shall be
with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
[Behold, a virgin shall be with child.]
That the word virgin, in the prophet, denotes an untouched
virgin, sufficiently appears from the sense of the place,
Isaiah 7:14. King Ahaz there was afraid, lest the
enemies that were now upon him might destroy Jerusalem, and
utterly consume the house of David. The Lord meets this fear by
a signal and most remarkable promise, namely, 'that sooner
should a pure virgin bring forth a child, than 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 prophecy, of a virgin's
bringing forth a son, should not be fulfilled till many hundreds
of years after, yet, at that present time, when the prophecy 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 no 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 shew us now
some remainders of the house of David: or confess this prophecy
fulfilled in the Virgin's bringing forth: or deny that a
sign was given, when a sign is given.
In what language Matthew wrote his Gospel.
[Which is, being interpreted.] I. All
confess that the Syriac language was the mother-tongue to the
Jewish nation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew was not at
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 St. Matthew and St. Paul, that, writing to
the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the
Hebrews), they 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 more readily 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 Jonathan, 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.
Secondly, it is no impertinent question, Why
Jonathan and Onkelos did not rather translate into the Syriac
language, which was the mother-language to all the people, when
both they themselves were in Judea, while they were employed
about this work, and laboured in it for the use of the Jews that
dwelt there? To which we give this double answer; 1. That, by
turning it into the Chaldee language, they did a thing that
might be of use to both them that dwelt in Judea, and in Babylon
also. 2. The Syriac language was not so grateful unto the Jews,
who used it for their mother-tongue, as the Chaldee was; as
being a language more neat and polite, and the mother-tongue to
the brethren in Babylon, and which they that came up out of
Babylon, carried thence with them into Judea. You may wonder,
reader, when you hear that canon which permits a single man "to
say his prayers in any language, when he asks those things that
are needful for him, except only the Syriac: While he asketh
necessaries for himself, let him use any language but the Syriac."
But you will laugh when you hear the reason: "Therefore, by all
means, because the angels do not understand the Syriac
language."
Whether they distinguish the Syriac language
here from the pure Chaldee, is not of great moment solicitously
to inquire: we shall only produce these things of the Glosser
upon Beracoth, which make to our purpose:--"There are some (saith
he) who say, that that prayer which begins 'sermon,' is
therefore to be made in the Syriac language, because it is a
noble prayer, and that deserves the highest praise; and
therefore it is framed in the Targumistical language, that the
angels may not understand it, and envy it to us," &c. And a
little after; "It was the custom to recite that prayer after
sermon: and the common people were there present, who
understood not the Hebrew language at all; and therefore they
appointed it to be framed in the Targumistical language, that it
might be understood by all; for this is their tongue."
Mark, the Hebrew was altogether unknown to the
common people: no wonder, therefore, if the evangelists and
apostles wrote not in Hebrew when there were none who understood
things so written, but learned men only.
That also must not be passed over, which, at
first sight, seems to hint that the Syriac language was not
understood even by learned men. "Samuel the Little, at the point
of death, said, Simeon and Ismael to the sword; and all the
other people to the spoil: and there shall be very great
calamities." And because he spoke these things in the Syriac
language, they understood not what he had said. This story
you have repeated in the Babylonian Gemara, where the words of
the dying man are thus related; Let the Glosser upon the place
be the interpreter: "Simeon and Ismael to the sword [that
is, Rabban Simeon the prince, and R. Ismael Ben Elisha the
high-priest, were slain with the sword], and his fellows to
slaughter [that is, R. Akibah and R. Chananiah Ben Teradion
were slain by other deaths; namely R. Akibah by iron teeth, and
R. Chananiah by burning alive before idols]; and the other
people for a prey: and very many calamities shall fall upon the
world."
Now where it is said that, "They understood not
what he said, because he spake in the Syrian tongue," we also do
not easily understand. What! for the Jerusalem doctors not to
understand the Chaldee language! For Samuel the Little died
before the destruction of the city; and he spake of the death of
Rabban Simeon, who perished in the siege of the city; and he
spake these things when some of the learnedest Rabbins were by:
and yet that they understood not these words, which even a
smatterer in the oriental tongues would very easily understand!
Therefore, perhaps, you may beat out the sense
of the matter from the words of the author of Juchasin, who
saith, He prophesied in the Syriac language, But now,
when prophecies were spoken only in the Hebrew language, however
they understood the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not
for a prophecy, 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: not
that he, or the other writers of the New Testament, wrote 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 cousin language,
unto that degree of honour; 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 written 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 written 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 Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents
of Sem': the words of Japhet shall be in the tents of Sem": and
a little after, God shall persuade Japhet; i.e. The
grace of Japhet shall be in the tents of Sem." Where the
Gloss speaks thus; "'The grace of Japhet' is the Greek language;
the fairest of those tongues which belonged to the sons of
Japhet."
"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, that the law could not be translated
according to what was needful for it, but in Greek." 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 Seventy. Look at 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 every where by the conquests of
Alexander, and the empire of the Greeks, we need not many words
to prove; since it is every where 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 the Greek mother tongue. You have an
instance of the thing; "R. Levi, coming to Caesarea, heard some
reciting the phylacteries in the Hellenistical language."
This is worthy to be marked. At Caesarea flourished the famous
schools of the Rabbins. The Rabbins of Caesarea 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 Caesarea, Jerome mentions the
Hebrew Gospel of St. 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 afterward translated it into Greek, it is not
sufficiently know. Moreover, that very Hebrew Gospel is reserved
to this day in the library at Caesarea, which Pamphilus the
martyr, with much care, collected. I also had leave given me by
the Nazarenes, 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 handwriting 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 St. 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 St. 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 proepr to
have written in Syriac.
Chapter 2
A calculation of the times
when Christ was born.
1. Now when Jesus was born in
Beth-lehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold,
there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.
[Now when Jesus 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 3928.
For from the creation of the world to the
deluge are commonly reckoned 1656 years.
From the deluge to Abraham's promise are 427
years. This being supposed, that Abraham was born the 130th year
of Terah: which must be supposed.
From the promise given, to the going out of
Egypt, 430 years,
Exodus 12:40;
Galatians 3:17.
From the going out of Egypt to the laying the
foundations of the Temple are 480 years,
1 Kings 6:1.
The Temple was building 7 years,
1 Kings 6:38.
Casting up, therefore, all these together, viz.
1656 + 427 + 430 + 480 + 7 = The sum of years amounts to 3000.
And it is clear, the building of the Temple was
finished and completed in the year of the world 3000.
The Temple was finished in the eleventh year
of Solomon,
1 Kings 6:38: and thence to the revolting of the ten
tribes, in the first year of Rehoboam, were 30 years. Therefore,
that revolt was in the year of the world 3030.
From the revolt of the ten tribes to the
destruction of Jerusalem under Zedekiah were three hundred and
ninety 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 4:4-6: "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 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 Josias 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, 3030, when the ten
tribes fell off from the house of David, the age of the world
when Jerusalem perished, arose to the year 3420.
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
Jehoiakim,
Daniel 1:1, whose fourth year begins the Babylonian
monarchy,
Jeremiah 25:1. And, in the nineteenth year of
Nebuchadnezzar, the Temple was destroyed,
2 Kings 25:8, when now the twentieth year of the
captivity passed; and other fifty remained: which fifty being
added to the year of the world 3420, a year fatal to the Temple,
the years of the world amount, in the first year of Cyrus, unto
3470.
From the first of Cyrus to the death of Christ
are seventy weeks of years, or four hundred and ninety years,
Daniel 9:24. Add these to the three thousand four
hundred and seventy, and you observe Christ crucified in the
year of the world 3960. When, therefore, you have subtracted
thirty-two years and a half, wherein Christ lived upon the
earth, you will find him born in the year of the world 3928.
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: "This their sea-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:
|
A.M.
|
A.U.C.
|
Augustus
|
A.D.
|
CONSULS.
|
|
3928
|
754
|
31
|
1
|
Caes. Aug.
XIV. and L. Aemil. Paulus. |
|
3929
|
755
|
32
|
2
|
Publius
Vinicius and Pub. Alfenus Varus. |
|
3930
|
756
|
33 |
3
|
L. Aelius
Lamia, and M. Servilius. |
|
3931
|
757
|
34
|
4
|
Sext.
Aemilius Carus, and C. Sentius Saturninus. |
|
3932
|
758
|
35
|
5
|
L. Valerius
Messala, and Cn. Corn. Cinna Magn. |
|
3933
|
759
|
36
|
6
|
M. Aemil.
Lepidus, and L. Aruntius. |
|
3934
|
760
|
37
|
7
|
A. Licin.
Nerv. Silanus, and Q. Caecil. Metell. Cret. |
|
3935
|
761
|
38
|
8
|
Furius
Camillus, and Sext. Nonius quintilianus. |
|
3936
|
762
|
39
|
9
|
Q. Sulpit.
Camarin, and C. Poppaeus Sabinus. |
|
3937
|
763
|
40
|
10
|
Pub. Corn.
Dolabella, and C. Junius Silanus. |
|
3938
|
764
|
41
|
11
|
M. Aemil.
Lepid. and T. Statilius Taurus. |
|
3939
|
765
|
42
|
12
|
Germanicus
Caes. and C. Fonteius Capito. |
|
3940
|
766
|
43
|
13
|
L. Munatius
Plancus, and C. Silius Caecina. |
|
3941
|
767
|
44
|
14
|
Sext. Pomp.
Sexti F. and Sext. Apuleius Sexti F. |
[A.M Latin anno mundi = in the year of the
world.
A.U.C. Latin ab urbe condita = from the year of the founding of
the city (of Rome).]
Augustus Caesar died the 19th day of August:
on which day he had formerly entered upon the first consulship.
He lived seventy-five years, ten months, and twenty-six days. He
bore the empire alone, from the victory at Actium, forty-four
years, wanting only thirteen days.
"Tiberius held the empire in great
slothfulness, with grievous cruelty, wicked covetousness, and
filthy lust."
