« ÎnapoiContinuă »
As to the khans themselves, they vary considerably in their arrangements and importance; and it would here answer no illustrative purpose to particularize them all. We shall therefore merely mention the plan and arrangement which most generally prevail in such establishments, and of which the others are merely variations: the rather, as it so happens, that it is from these that we are ourselves best able to collect what seems a clear understanding of the present
A khan, then, usually presents, externally, the appearance of a square, formed by strong and lofty walls, with a high, and often handsome gateway, which offers an entrance to the interior. On passing through this, the traveller finds himself in a large open quadrangle, surrounded on all sides by a number of distinct recesses, the back walls ot which contain doors leading to the small cells or rooms which afford to travellers the accommodation they require. Every apartment is thus perfectly detached, consisting of the room and the recess in front. In the latter the occupant usually sits till the day has declined, and there he often prefers to sleep at night. Besides these private apartments, there is usually in the centre of one or more of these sides of the quadrangle, a large and lofty hall, where the principal persons may meet for conversation or entertainment. The floor of all these apartments-the recesses, rooms, and halls, are raised two or three feet above the level of the court which they surround, upon a platform or bank of earth faced with masonry. In the centre of the court is a well or cistern, offering to the travellers that most essential of conveniencies in a warm climate-pure water.
Many caravanserais are without stables; the cattle being accommodated in the open area. But the most complete establishments have very excellent stables, in covered avenues which extend behind the ranges of apartments-that is, between the back walls of these ranges of building and the external wall of the khan; and the entrance to it is by a covered passage at one of the corners of the quadrangle. The stable is on a level with the court, and consequently below the level of the buildings, by the height of the platform on which they stand. Nevertheless, this platform is allowed to project behind into the stable, so as to form a bench, to which the horses' heads are turned, and on which they can, if they like, rest the nose-bags, of hair-cloth, from which they eat, to enable them to reach the bottom, when its contents get low. It also often happens that not only this bench exists in the stable, but also recesses corresponding to those in front of the apartments, and formed, by the side walls, which divide the rooms, being allowed to project behind into the stable, just as the projection of the same walls into the great area forms the recesses in front. These recesses in the stable, or the bench, if there are none, furnish accommodation to the servants or others who have charge of the beasts: and when persons find on their arrival that the apartments usually appropriated to travellers are already occupied, they are glad to find accommodation in the stable, particularly when the nights are cold or the season inclement.
Now, in our opinion, the ancient or the existing usages of the East supply no greater probability than that the Saviour of the world was born in such a stable as this. Not knowing that there were stables to Oriental caravanserais, some recent writers, of great information and ability, have concluded that our Lord was born in a place distinct from and unconnected in any way with the "inn "-probably in a shed or out-house-perhaps in a cave.
The word (parn) rendered "manger" has given occasion to some discussion. The most eminent scholars, since
Salmasius, have held that it means a stable or stall for cattle. The same thing is implied, if it be understood to meat; a manger. This being the case, it is evident from our description, that the part of the stable could not reasonably have been other than one of those recesses, or at least a portion of the bench, which we have mentioned as affording accommodation to travellers under certain circumstances. If we will have the word to mean "a manger," with Campbell and others, then we are to consider that the Orientals have no mangers, but feed their cattle from hair-bags; which led Bishop Pearce to entertain the strange idea that the infant Jesus was cradled in such a bag. It cannot even be shown that the classical ancients, although they fed their horses differently from the Orientals, had any such mangers as ours; but either nose-bags or vessels of stone or metal. Therefore, if we would retain the word "manger," we must needs understand it in the large sense of an eating place, not an eating thing-that is, the place to which the horses' heads were turned when they ate, or on which the thing from which they ate rested while they did eat. And this brings us to the same conclusion as before; for, in the above description, we have shown that, in the stable, their heads are turned towards the same bench or recesses. We therefore think that we are fairly entitled to the conclusion which we have stated. The explanation here given was strongly suggested to the present writer's mind while himself finding accommodation in a recess of such stables, when there was no room" for him in the proper lodging apartments of caravanserais; and he is disposed to hope that it may be found to obviate the difficulties which have been discovered in the verses before us.
25. "Simeon."-Many writers have been of opinion that this person was Rabban Simeon, the son of the famous Hillel, and father of Gamaliel (Paul's master). He was the first person who bore the distinguished title of Rabban, and most certainly lived about this time. He was a very eminent man, being president of the council, in which office he succeeded his father, and was himself succeeded by his son. Some of the Jewish writers mention that Jesus of Nazareth was born in the time of this Simeon. As Simeon was a common enough name among the Jews, perhaps there is not much ground for this conjecture. One circumstance that has been adduced in support of it is. that full as the Jewish writings are of the opinions, dogmata, and praises of Rabban Simeon's father and son, very little indeed is said about himself, and no traditions are ascribed to him. This is an extraordinary circumstance, and would seem to show that he was little esteemed by the Jews. and was not a favourer of the traditions of the elders; or, that he had acknowledged Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, would furnish a very sufficient reason for the singular neglect with which his memory has been treated.
37. "A widow of about fourscore ana four years.”—She must therefore have been a very aged woman. Girls were considered marriageable at twelve years; she had been married seven years when her husband died, and had remained a widow eighty-four years. She could not therefore have been less than 103 years of age, and may have been several years older. The years in which she had remained a widow are doubtless mentioned as a matter of commendation; for although widows were quite at liberty to marry again, it was considered praiseworthy in them to abstain from second marriages; and a woman who became a widow when still young, and remained the rest of her days in widowhood, was regarded with great respect and admiration. The Romans had a similar feeling in this matter.
46. "Found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors."-There is perhaps some difficulty in determining in what part of the Temple this took place. But this is of little consequence. The Jewish teachers of the Law set a high value upon the interrogatory system of instruction. They questioned one another on points of difficulty, and their disciples and auditors were not only permitted but encouraged to put any such questions as occurred to them. This occurred in the synagogues, schools, and consistories. There was no school in the Temple; but there was a synagogue, and several courts of council and judicature, including, at this time, the great Sanhedrim itself. It does not much matter which of these places the young Jesus attended on this occasion. In any of them, we are probably to understand that, being struck by the searching power of his questions and the depth of knowledge which they displayed. the doctors invited him to take a seat among them, as well to mark their admiration, as that they might the more conveniently converse with him. They sometimes offered this mark of encouragement and honour when their admiration was strongly excited. It is very possible, however, that Christ may have sat with other young persons upon the floor, while the doctors sat on raised benches, accordin to their custom. This was called sitting at their feet; and as the benches were often ranged in a semicircle, those who sat or stood in the area might well be said to be "among" the doctors. There is no reason to suppose that Christ disputed with the doctors, as many imagine, from being unacquainted with the extent to which the system of interrogation, between the teachers and the taught, operated among the Jews in the time of Christ.
2 Annas and Caiaphas being the High Priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
1 Matt. 3. 1.
3 'And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;
6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, 'O generation
2 Isa. 40. 3. 3 Matt. 3. 7.
of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from | art my beloved Son; in thee I am well the wrath to come?
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which
6 Or, Put no man in fear. 7 Or, allowance.
8 Or, in suspense.
was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of
Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Verse 1. “Philip."-Of Pilate, the governor of Judea, and Herod. tetrarch of Galilee, we have already written. The present Philip is not to be confounded with the other brother of Herod, the first husband of Herodias, to whom the same name is given in Scripture, but who is called Herod by Josephus. The Philip here named was the half-brother of Herod the Tetrarch, being a son of Herod the Great by his wife Cleopatra. In the will of his father he was named after Archelaus. the tetrarchy here mentioned being assigned to him. He seems to have been, upon the whole, a quiet and well-disposed person, and perhaps the best of Herod's sons. When Augustus had confirmed his father's will, Philip settled himself quietly in his government; and being a moderate, unambitious man, contented with what he had obtained, he gave all his attention to internal improvements and the administration of justice to his people. Among his undertakings he improved and walled the city of Paneas (see the note on Gen. xiv. 14), to which he gave the name of Cæsarea Philippi, and enlarged Bethsaida, the name of which he changed to Julias, in honour of Julia, the daughter of Augustus. He died about five years after the present date, having previously married Salome, the daughter of Herodias, whose dancing afforded her mother an opportunity of procuring the death of John the Baptist. He thus ruled his territory during nearly all, and somewhat beyond, the time of our Saviour, whom we sometimes find within his dominions.
Itura."―This territory seems to have extended to the north-east of Palestine, forming a central district between the lake of Tiberias and the territory of Damascus. In that case, most of it would appear to have been included in the flat country at this day called Djedour, which is perhaps the same name differently spelt. At present it does not contain more than twenty villages, being in the same nearly desolate condition as the other districts beyond Jordan. The country is supposed to have derived its name from Jeter or Itur, a son of Ishmael, who settled in it; but whose posterity were expelled or subdued by the Amorites, after which it is supposed to have formed part of the kingdom of Bashan. and subsequently appropriated by the half-tribe of Manasseh. About 106 years B.C., Iturea was conquered by Aristobulus, the high priest of the Jews. when the inhabitants were obliged to embrace the Jewish religion. “Trachonitis.”—This was the most eastern part of Philip's territory, lying to the east and south-east of Iturea, and to the south of Damascus, being thus a frontier district towards the Arabian Desert. The present Greek name implies a rough and uneven country, and well describes its character. Burckhardt has given a particular account of this region. without appearing to have been aware how exactly his description tallied with those which Josephus and Strabo give of Trachonitis. This omission has been supplied by his editor, who indicates that the two Trachones into which the country was divided, agree to the two natural divisions of the Ledja and Djebel Haouran, as described by Burckhardt. The former is a level tract, extending about three days' journey in length by one in breadth, with a stony soil, covered with heaps of rocks, among which are found some small patches of meadow, which afford pasture to the cattle of the Arabs who frequent or occupy this singular region. Towards the interior of this tract, or what Burckhardt calls "the inner Ledja," the ground becomes more uneven, the patches of pasture less frequent, the rocks higher, and springs of water disappear. In winter, however, much water collects in the wadys, and is preserved in cisterns and birkets, which occur everywhere, and in which water is sometimes kept all the summer. Trees occur more frequently than before among the rocks-chiefly the oak, the malloula, and the boutan, or bitter almond. The district is, in fact, a rocky wilderness, abounding in intricate paths and inaccessible fastnesses, which at the present day shelter daring Arab robbers, as they did in the time of Herod the Great, to whom this territory was given by Augustus, who took it from its former ruler, Zenodorus, on account of the encouragement which he was supposed to give, to the predatory incursions of the Arabs, from the secure recesses of the Ledja into the neighbouring plains.
The mountains to the south of this stony region, with the part of the plain at their base, are comparatively fertile, and, for this country, well cultivated, by the Druses, who are the principal inhabitants, and have here numerous villages.
Lysanias."-This person is not historically known. He was probably the son or grandson of another Lysanias, whom Mark Antony put to death and gave part of his territory to Cleopatra of Egypt.
"Abilene.”—This territory took its name from the town of Abila or Abela. Its precise situation is not clearly known; but it appears to have been somewhere to the north or north-east of Palestine, bordering on Anti-Libanus, and adjoining Philip's territory. The Lysanias slain by Mark Antony governed it with the title of king. We afterwards find it as part of the territory which was taken from Zenodorus and given to Herod the Great. We should have supposed that he transmitted it to Philip, but for the present text, from which we may infer that Augustus, in confirming Herod's will, excepted Abilene, wishing probably to bestow it, with the title of tetrarch, upon a son or descendant of the deprived family. As Josephus says that part of the territory of Zenodorus was not under the immediate rule of Philip, but paid tribute to him, perhaps Abilene was in this case.
2. "Annas and Caiaphas being the High Priests."-Here are two contemporary high priests, whereas the law recognises and authorises the existence of one only. This is however easily accounted for by the changes which had at this time taken place in the character of the office and in the mode of succession to it. After the return from the Captivity, the high-priesthood remained for about 380 years in the family of Eleazer, the son of Aaron. But there was not much regularity in the succession, and the irregularity increased with time. After the death of Nehemiah, if not before, Judea was regarded by the Persians as a province of Syria, the satrap of which entrusted the civil government to the highpriest, as the principal person in the Jewish nation. From this the most fearful disorders and profanations ultimately ensued; for the prize of civil power became an object of ambition and contention to unprincipled and avaricious members of the family, who were continually plotting to supersede one another. The office was thus sometimes held by those who had stained their hands with the blood of their near relations and predecessors, or who had bought it with gold from Persian governors and Syrian kings. At last the office was taken, with the secular one of prince of his nation, by Jonathan, the brother and successor of Judas Maccabeus; at a time when the only known survivor of the former family was Onias, who was then in Egypt, and who had produced a considerable schism by setting up a new temple, altar, and priesthood in that country. Jonathan was by birth a priest of the house of Joarib, which formed the first of the twenty-four classes appointed by David to officiate in the temple: and being thus of the first class of the great Aaronic family, it would seem that the Maccabees had a legitimate claim to the dignity, failing the line of
Josedek (the high priest of the Captivity), which might at this time be considered extinct. In this family (called Asmonean, from Asmoneus, the great great grandfather of Jonathan) the dignity continued till the time of Herod the Great, who took every care to cut off and depress the remaining branches of the family. From this time forward the office may be considered as thrown open to all the priesthood; and, in the end, some who were not even priests enjoyed it. Herod, and after him the Roman governors, and then the factions, set up and put down whom they pleased, with little regard to qualifications, and none to rights of succession. Hence the appointments became wholly arbitrary, venal, and uncertain. Changes were constant, and not unfrequently the office was sold to the highest bidder. This was the case in the present instance. In the seventy years preceding the destruction of the temple by the Romans, ther were not less than twenty-six high-priests, only one of whom died in the office, the rest having been deposed. It appears that those who had been high-priests retained, after their deposition, the title and some of the considerations which belonged to that office. Hence Josephus, like Luke, in speaking of the affairs of this period, mentions contemporary high-priests. Moreover, it appears that the acting high-priest usually had for his coadjutor a senior who had previously occupied the station, and who, if personally his superior in wealth, age, or influence, sometimes enjoyed more consideration than his principal.
Annas, or Ananus, as Josephus calls him, was made high-priest by Cyrenius, when sent out as governor of Syria, after the deposition of Archelaus. He held the office about fourteen years, until the administration of Valerius Gratus, the fifth governor of Judea, who in the course of four years set up and deposed as many high-priests, one of whom was Eleazer, a son of Annas, and the last Caiaphas, who was the son-in-law of Annas. He, as we have already noticed, was left by Valerius Gratus in possession of the priesthood, which he was allowed to retain during all the administration of Pilate; and when deposed by Pilate's successor, a son of Annas was appointed to succeed him. Josephus says that this Annas, or Ananus. was accounted the most fortunate man of his time; for that he had five sons, and it so happened that they all ministered to God in the high-priesthood, after he had himself formerly enjoyed that honour for a long time, which had never happened to any other high-priest. (Antiq. 28. 8. 1.) Thus we see how Annas was the coadjutor of Caiaphas, the actual high-priest at this time; and his age, rank, and consequence, as a man of the first consideration and influence in the state, easily explains his being named before Caiaphas by the Evangelist.
23. "Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”—See the note on Matt. i. for some observations on the genealogy there given. In that genealogy, the reputed father of Jesus is said to be the son of Jacob. The genealogies are also different; that of Matthew tracing the descent of Christ through Solomon, and Luke through Nathan, another son of David. It is therefore evident that as the former exhibited the genealogy of our Lord in the line of his reputed father, so the latter does this in the line of Mary his mother. The Heli here named must therefore have been her father. It seems, at the first view, that Joseph is called his son: and this might be very well accounted for by supposing that Mary was the heiress of a small inheritance-or, at least, the heiress of a name if not of an estate. This could not have happened if she had any brother; but having none, it became necessary that a family should not be lost in Israel; and as a daughter could not formally transmit an inheritance and a name, the person who married her became, by an act of adoption, the legal son of her father, that the succession might thus pass through him to his sons, or eldest son, by her. This is all the more probable from the close proximity of the two families, which might have rendered it a legal duty on Joseph to preserve the house of Heli from extinction; and from the fact that the two lines had long before coalesced, probably in the same manner, in the person of Salathiel, whose son, Zerubbabel, is counted in both lines, after which they diverge again in his sons Abnid and Rhesa. See also a very similar case in Neh. vii. 63, And of the priests, the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took one of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite to wife, and was called after their name."-The two genealogies are therefore most important, as showing that the lines of Solomon and Nathan united in Christ, who was therefore, by both, the son of David.
If this view should not seem satisfactory, though it seems highly so to us, there is still another which, by a different translation and punctuation, excludes Joseph from this genealogy, and produces him only as the reputed father of Jesus. Dr. Dodd thus explains it:-"The words before us, properly pointed and translated, run thus, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.' He was the son of Joseph by common report; but in reality the son of Heli, by his mother, who was Heli's daughter. We have a parallel example in Gen. xxxvi. 2, where Aholibamah's pe digree is thus deduced: Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon;' for since it appears from verses 24, 25, that Anah was the son, not the daughter of Zibeon. it is undeniable that as Moses calls Aholibamah the daughter both of Anah and Zibeon, because she was the grand-daughter; so Jesus is fitly called the son of Heli because he was his grandson. However, the common pointing and construction may be retained, consistently with the present opinion, because, though the words son of Heli' should be referred to Joseph. they may imply no more than that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law; his son by marriage with his daughter Mary." [This is just the same as the opinion we stated before] "The ancient Jews and Christians understood this passage in the one or the other of these senses; for the Talmudists commonly call Mary by the name of Heli's daughter.' The same view has been adopted by Dr. Hales, who observes, "The Evangelist himself has critically distinguished the real from the legal genealogy by a parenthetical remark: Ιησούς-ων (ὡς ενομίζετο, υἱος Ιωσηφ, [αλλ' οντως]) υἱος του Ηλι. “Jesus-being (as was reputed, the son of Joseph, [but in reality]) the son of Heli,' or his grandson by the mother's side; for so should the ellipsis involved in the parenthesis be supplied." Analysis, iii. 43.
turned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
3 And the devil said unto him, If thon be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
Matt. 4. 1.
1 The temptation and fasting of Christ. 13 He overcometh the devil 14 beginneth to preach. 16 The people of Nazareth admire his gracious words. 33 He cureth one possessed of a devil,
38 Peter's mother in law, 40 and divers other sick persons. 41 The devils acknowledge Christ, and are reproved for it. 43 He preacheth through the cities.
AND 'Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost re