Somewhat similar to the examples just adduced is the objection. urged by many Infidels against the seeming contradictions between the genealogies of Jesus, as they are given by Luke and Matthew; out the two evangelists having different designs in writing their gospels, it is not to be expected that both should use the same form in their narratives.

Matthew wrote principally for the Jews. His design was to show to them that according to their law, Jesus Christ was the heir of the throne of David, if by a legal descent. Therefore his genealogy traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ as the promised seed, downwards from Abraham to David; and from him through Solomon's line to Joseph, who was the reputed and legal father of Christ. Luke wrote more particularly for the Gentiles. His design was to show them that Jesus Christ is the Son of David by a natural descent. This was necessary, for the angel Gabriel, at the annunciation, told the virgin that "God would give her divine Son the throne of his father David:" therefore Luke proves this by the genealogy given by him, in which he traces his descent through Nathan, another son of David, and through Eli or Heli, the father of Mary. And it is worthy of remark that not only the early Christians call Mary the daughter of Heli, but the Jewish Talmudical writings also call her the daughter of Heli.

Bishop Horne, treating on this subject, says, "In the first place, genealogies in general, and those of the Jews in particular, with their method of deriving them, and the confusion often arising from the circumstance of the same person being called by different names, or different persons by the same name, are in their nature, and must be to us, at this distance of time, of very complicated consideration, and it is no wonder they should be attended with difficulties and perplexities. Secondly, The evangelist, in an affair of so much importance, and so open then to detection, had there been any thing wrong to be detected, would most assuredly be careful to give Christ's pedigree as it was found in the authentic tables, which, according to the custom of the nation, were preserved in the family, as is evident from Josephus, who says, "I give you this succession of our family, as I find it written in the public tables." Thirdly, As it was well known the Messiah must descend from David, the genealogical tables of that family would be kept with more than ordinary diligence and precision. Fourthly, Whatever cavils the modern Jews and others now make against the genealogies recorded by the evangelists, the Jews, their contemporaries, never offered to find fault with, or to invalidate the accounts given in the Gospel. As they wanted neither opportuni

ty, materials, skill, nor malice to have done it, and would have afforded them so great an advantage against the Christians, this circumstance alone, as Dr. South well remarks, were we not now able to clear the point, ought with every sober and judicious person to have the force of a moral demonstration."*

Matthew (x. 2-4.) says that the names of the apostles were Simon, who is called Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus whose surname was Thaddeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot.

In

But Luke (vi. 14-16.) says their names were Simon, whom he (Jesus) also named Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Simon called Zelotes, Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot. Here, say certain very stupid or very malignant Infidels, we have contradiction, for some of the names of one list are not the same with the other; therefore the New Testament is a forgery. Such persons forget that in those days the same persons sometimes had several names. stances occur not only in the Old Testament and the New, but also in profane history. Thus, in Gen. xxvi. 34. Esau's wife is called Bashemath, but in Gen. xxxvi. 2. she is called Adah; Gideon, in Judges vi. 32. is called by that name, but in the next chapter he is called Jerubaal. Zerobabel is also called Sheshbazzar. Barnabas, (Acts i. 25.) who was nominated to the apostleship, is called Joseph, Barsabas, and Justus; Joses is also another name of the same apostle. Indeed, all the other apostles, with the exception of John, had more names than one. From profane history innumerable instances might be adduced. Pliny the Younger was called Caius, Plinius, Cœcileus, Secundus; and Porphyry was also called Bataneotis; so that in those passages we have no evidence of contradiction.

Infidels have objected to the credibility of the evangelists on account of the seeming contradiction in the title which was written over Jesus Christ when on the cross. Matthew has it, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mark has it, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Luke has it, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS; and John says, Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross, and the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. To this objection, Mr. Horne has given the following answer: "It is not impossible that it (the title) varied in each of the languages in which that

* Bishop Horne's Works, vol. vi. 513.

accusation or superscription was written; for both Luke and John say that it was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. We may, then, reasonably suppose Matthew, who wrote for the Jews, to have recited the Hebrew,

THIS IS

JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

And John the Greek:

JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

If it should be asked, why the Nazarene was omitted in the Hebrew, and we must assign a reason for Pilate's humor, perhaps we may thus account for it. He might be informed that Jesus, in Hebrew, denoted a Saviour, and as it carried more appearance of such an appellative or general term by standing alone, he might choose, by dropping the epithet the Nazarene, to leave the sense so ambiguous that it might be thus understood:

THIS IS

A SAVIOUR THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Pilate, as little satisfied with the Jews as with himself on that day, meant the inscription, which was his own, as a dishonor to the nation; and thus set a momentous verity before them, with as much design of declaring it as Caiphas had of prophecying, That Jesus should die for the people. The ambiguity not holding in Greek, the Nazarene might be there inserted in scorn again of the Jews, by denominating their king from a city which they held in utter contempt.

Let us now view the Latin. It is not assuming much to suppose, that Pilate would not concern himself much with Hebrew names, nor risk an impropriety in speaking and writing them. It was thought essential to the dignity of a Roman magistrate in the times of the republic, not to speak but in Latin on public occasions; of which spirit the emperor Tiberius retained so much, that in an oration to the senate, he apologized for using a Greek word: and once when drawing up a decree, advised them to erase another, that had been inserted in it. And, though the magistrates in general, were then become more condescending to the Greeks, they retained this point of state with regard to the other nations, whose languages they esteemed barbarous, and would give themselves no trouble of acquiring. Pilate, indeed, according to Matthew, asked at our Lord's trial, "Whom will ye that I release unto you-Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" But we judge this to be related, as the interpreter by whom he spoke delivered it, in Hebrew; for if the other evangelists

have given his exact words, he never pronounced the name of Jesus, but spoke of him all along by a periphrasis: "Will ye that I release unto you the king of the Jews? What will ye that I shall do unto him, whom ye call the king of the Jews?" Thus he acted in con

ference with the rulers, and then ordered a Latin inscription, without mixture of foreign words, just as Mark repeats it:

THE KING OF THE JEWS;

which is followed by Luke, only that he has brought down this is from above, as having a common reference to what stood under it,

THIS IS

THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Thus it is evident that there were variations in the inscriptions, and that the Latin was the shortest; but it is equally evident that those variations are not discrepancies or contradictions in the narratives of the evangelists."

According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus Christ was suspended upon the cross at the third hour of the day; that is at nine o'clock in the morning-the sun was darkened at the sixth hour, and Jesus gave up the ghost at the ninth hour. But according to John, the crucifixion did not commence before the sixth hour (at mid-day.) Here, says the Infidel, we have a palpable contradiction.

It is not to be supposed that John, who witnessed the crucifixion of his Master, was ignorant of the length of time he was upon the cross, being present during the whole scene, that he would substitute three for six hours, the period of his punishment. And what at once solves the difficulty is, that it is to be traced to a mistranslation. Dr. Clarke in his comment on the passage says, "The major part of the best critics think that the third (hour) is the genuine reading." Gaussen says: "If we consult the Greek manuscripts of St. John, we find four in small letters, and three in uncial or capital letters, (among others, the famous manuscript of Beza, preserved at Cambridge,) which here read the third hour instead of the sixth hour. The numbers in the Greek manuscripts are often written in figures, that is by simple Greek letters, and the 3d and the 6th being expressed by two letters easily confounded, many ancients have thought that the variation was caused by this." It appears also that Griesbach, whose learned labors have already been mentioned, noticed these variations, and states that the chronicles of Alexandria, appealed in favor of this

* Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, vol. i. pp. 582, 583.

reading to better copies, and even to the original autograph of the gospel of St. John.

There is another class of objections growing out of seeming contradictions between the evangelists and profane authors.

Example. Luke says (ii. 1, 2.) “It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." This census, said to have been ordered by the emperor Augustus, is represented as having taken place at the time. of the birth of Jesus Christ. The Infidel asserts that Luke is not to be credited, because he says, "this taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria;" whereas Syria at that time was governed by Quintilius Varus: a second census was made under Cyrenius; but he was not sent into the east until at least eleven or twelve years after this period, when Jesus Christ is represented to have been born. And Josephus informs us that the first numbering was made in the thirty-seventh year after the defeat of Antony; and Jesus Christ is represented to have been born at the latest, twenty-six years after that

event.

Before giving the replies which have been made to this objection, it may be well to remark, it is extremely impossible that Luke, who was the only one of the evangelists who was learned, and who was writing a book for all nations, and so limited that it is comprised in twenty-four pages, should fall into so gross a mistake as to place an event of such importance in the days of Herod the Great, which had occurred thirty years before. He has shown that he was perfectly acquainted with the condition of Judea as it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, for he has set down the several tetrarchs and governors of it, and the extent of their territories, and his statements in these respects are fully supported by profane history.

He certainly understood the nature of enrollments, as made by the Romans. This is evident from the following language, "Joseph went to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife." By undoubted testimonies it has been shown, that according to the custom of the Romans, women as well as men were enrolled; but among the Jews, the men only were enrolled. Luke was also well acquainted with the census of which Josephus gives an account; for in the Acts, v. 37. he represents Gamaliel as saying, "After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished; and as many as obeyed him were dispersed." Had Luke made so glaring a mistake as is imputed to