Скачать книгу
born late in the year 5, or early in the year 4 b.c., though some scholars put the date back as far as 7 b.c. The time of the year is also uncertain, the date commonly accepted in the occident (Dec. 25th) having nothing older than a fourth century tradition in its favor. The date accepted by the Greek Church (Jan. 6th) rests upon a somewhat older tradition, but neither day has any claim to reliability. For a full and excellent discussion of this subject, see the essay of Andrews in his
Life of our Lord,
pp. 1–22. See, also, Schaff’s Church Hist.
I. p. 98 sq. 2 Micah v. 2.
3 Cf. Luke ii. 2 Quirinius is the original Latin form of the name of which Luke gives the Greek form κυρήνιος or Cyrenius (which is the form given also by Eusebius). The statement of Luke presents a chronological difficulty which has not yet been completely solved. Quirinius we know to have been made governor of Syria in a.d. 6; and under him occurred a census or enrollment mentioned by Josephus,
Ant. XVII. 13. 5, and XVIII. 1. 1. This is undoubtedly the same as that referred to in Acts v. 37. But this took place some ten years after the birth of Christ, and cannot therefore be connected with that event. Many explanations have been offered to account for the difficulty, but since the discovery of Zumpt, the problem has been much simplified. He, as also Mommsen, has proved that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, the first time from b.c. 4 (autumn) to b.c. 1. But as Christ must have been born before the spring of b.c. 4, the governorship of Quirinius is still a little too late. A solution of the question is thus approached, however, though not all the difficulties are yet removed. Upon this question, see especially A. M. Zumpt,
Das Geburtsjahr Christi
(Leipzig, 1869), and compare Schaff’s Church Hist., I. 121–125, for a condensed but excellent account of the whole matter, and for the literature of the subject.
4 Eusebius here identifies the census mentioned by Josephus (
Ant. XVIII. 1. 1) and referred to in Acts v. 37, with the one mentioned in Luke ii. 2; but this is an obvious error, as an interval of ten years separated the two. Valesius considers it all one census, and hence regards Eusebius as correct in his statement; but this is very improbable. Jachmann (in Illgen’s
Zeitschrift f. hist. Theologie, 1839, II. p. 35 sq.), according to his custom, charges Eusebius with willful deception and perversion of the facts. But such a charge is utterly without warrant. Eusebius, in cases where we can control his statements, can be shown to have been always conscientious. Moreover, in his
Chron. (ed. Schoene II. p. 144) he identifies the two censuses in the same way. But his
Chronicles were written some years before his
History, and he cannot have had any object to deceive in them such as Jachmann assumes that he had in his
History. It is plain that Eusebius has simply made a blunder, a thing not at all surprising when we remember how frequent his chronological errors are. He is guilty of an inexcusable piece of carelessness, but nothing worse. It was natural to connect the two censuses mentioned as taking place under the same governor, though a little closer attention to the facts would have shown him the discrepancy in date, which he simply overlooked.
5 The New Testament (
Textus Rec.) reads λαὸν ἱκανόν, with which Laemmer agrees in his edition of Eusebius. Two mss., followed by Stephanus and Valesius, and by the English and German translators, read λαὸν πολύν. All the other mss., and editors, as well as Rufinus, read λαόν alone.
6 Acts v. 37.
7 Josephus,
Ant. XVIII. 1. 1. Upon Josephus and his works, see below, Bk. III. c. 9.
8 Ibid. 9 Judas the Gaulonite. In Acts v. 37, and in Josephus,
B. J.
II. 8. 1 (quoted just below), and 17.8, and in Ant. XVIII. 1. 6 and XX. 5. 2, he is called Judas of Galilee. But in the present section Josephus gives the fullest and most accurate account of him. Gaulonitis lay east of the Jordan, opposite Galilee. Judas of Galilee was probably his common designation, given to him either because his revolt took rise in Galilee, or because Galilee was used as a general term for the north country. He was evidently a man of position and great personal influence, and drew vast numbers to his standard, denouncing, in the name of religion, the payment of tribute to Rome and all submission to a foreign yoke. The revolt spread very rapidly, and the whole country was thrown into excitement and disorder; but the Romans proved too strong for him, and he soon perished, and his followers were dispersed, though many of them continued active until the final destruction of the city. The influence of Judas was so great and lasted so long that Josephus (
Ant. XVIII. 1. 1 and 6) calls the tendency represented by him the “fourth philosophy of the Jews,” ranking it with Pharisaism, Sadduceeism, and Essenism. The distinguishing characteristic of this “fourth philosophy” or sect was its love of freedom. For an excellent account of Judas and his revolt, see Ewald’s
Geshichte des Volkes Israel, V. p. 16 sq.
10 Greek, Σ€δδοχον; Rufinus,
Sadduchum. He, too, must have been a man of influence and position. Later in the same paragraph he is made by Josephus a joint founder with Judas of the “fourth philosophy,” but in §6 of the same chapter, where the author of it is referred to, Judas alone is mentioned.
11 Josephus,
B. J. II. 8. 1.
Chapter VI.—About the Time of Christ, in accordance with Prophecy, the Rulers who had governed the Jewish Nation in Regular Succession from the Days of Antiquity came to an End, and Herod, the First Foreigner, Became King.
Table of Contents
1. When Herod,1 the first ruler of foreign blood, became King, the prophecy of Moses received its fulfillment, according to which there should “not be wanting a prince of Judah, nor a ruler from his loins, until he come for whom it is reserved.”2 The latter, he also shows, was to be the expectation of the nations.3
2. This prediction remained unfulfilled so long as it was permitted them to live under rulers from their own nation, that is, from the time of Moses to the reign of Augustus. Under the latter, Herod, the first foreigner, was given the Kingdom of the Jews by the Romans. As Josephus relates,4 he was an Idumean5 on his father’s side and an Arabian on his mother’s. But Africanus,6 who was also no common writer, says that they who were more accurately informed about him report that he was a son of Antipater, and that the latter was the son of a certain Herod of Ascalon,7 one of the so-called servants8 of the temple of Apollo.
3. This Antipater, having been taken a prisoner while a boy by Idumean robbers, lived with them, because his father, being a poor man, was unable to pay a ransom for him. Growing up in their practices he was afterward befriended by Hyrcanus,9 the high priest of the Jews. A son of his was that Herod who lived in the times of our Saviour.10
4. When the Kingdom of the Jews had devolved upon such a man the expectation of the nations was, according to prophecy, already at the door. For with him their princes and governors, who had ruled in regular succession from the time of Moses came to an end.
5. Before their captivity and their transportation to Babylon they were ruled by Saul first and then by David, and before the kings leaders governed them who
Скачать книгу
