Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1839-10-30

/ -'NN0 10 pOitdAlis muse DkutI Lll-
cumstances which should be. suppressed
as llnmaterlal. Each witness tells the
Ting IN his own way. makes use of his
own language, and brings forward cir
cumstances which the other might omit
altogether, as rot essential to the purpose
jof MS narrative. Ii is this agreement In
I the facts, with this variety 10 the manner
OF describing them, that never fails to in
/ press upon the inquirer that additional
conviction which arises from the concur
| 'ence of separate and independent ieStiIno-
MES. Now, this is precisely that kind of
coincidence which subsisis between the
| New Testament writers and Josephus, in
! heir illusions 10 the peculiar customs and
4 Institutions OF that age. Each party main
aims the style of original and independent
/ historians. The one often omis ai,ogeih-
sr, or makes Only slight and distant al
usion to what occupies prominent part
lin the composition of the other There
is not the slightest vestige of any thing
/ like a studied coincidence between them.
There is variety, but no opposition -
and it says much for the authenticity Of
both histories, that the most scrupulous
and attentive criticism can scarcely detect
single example of an apparent contra
diction IN the testimony of these different
authors, which does not admit of likely,
or at least plausible reconciliation.
! When the difference between two histo-
rians is carried to the length of a contra
4 diction. it enfeebles tie credit of both their
testimonies. When the agreement is car
ried to the length of a close and scrupu-
lous resemblance in every particular, il
DESTROYS the credit of one OF the parties as
an independent historian. In the case be-
fore US, we neither perceive this difference,
nor this agreement Such are the varia-
, tions, that, at first sight. the reader is
; alarmed with the appearance of very Sc
: Tious and embarrassing difficulties. And
: such is The actual coincidence, that the
: difficulties vanish when we apply 10 them
the labors of a profound and intelligent
e criticism. Had it been the object of the
5 Gospel writers TO trick out plausible i'm
' position on the credulity OF the world, they
Fl would have studied a closer resemblance
. to the existing authorities of that period;
: nor would they have laid themselves open
e to the superficial brilIianey Of Voltaire,
: which dazzles every Imagination, and re-
d posed their vindication with the Lelands
J. and Lardners OF distant posterily, whose
V sober erudition is so little attended to, and
Ii which so few know how to appreciate.
e In the Gospels, we are told that Herod
d. the Tetrarch Of Galilee, married his broth
,r er Philips wife. In Josephus we have
v the same story; only he gives different
o name to Philip, and calls him Herod -
of and what adds 10 the difficulty, there was
lie Philip of that family, whom we know
a not to have been the first husband of He
if rodias. This is at first sighra little alarm
re ing But, In the progress Of our inqulr-
a les, we are given to understand from this
ID same Josephus, that there were three Her
= DDS of the same family. and therefore no
~ improhablity in there being two Philips.
II We also know, from the histories of that
of period, that it was quite common for the
ed same individual 10 have two names; and
ac- this is never more necessary, than when
on employed to distinguish brothers who
ed have one name the same. The Herod
rs who is called Philip, is just as likely dis
he tinction, as Simon who is called Peter, OF
Sc Saul who is called Paul. The name o
ice the high priest, at the time Of our Savior:
led crucifxion, was Caiaphas, according 4
or. the evangelias. According to Josephus
I'M the name of the high priest al that perioC
ew was Joseph. This would have been pre-
the cisely difficulty of the same kind, ha'
and not Josephus happened to mention, tia
ole this Joseph was also called Caiaphas.-
bill Would il have been dealing fairly w;il
ak he evangeisis, we ask, TO have mad
ON their credibility depend upon the acciden
to al omission of another historians Is
om- consistent with any acknowledged prime
ans pie OF sound criticism, to bring four W.T.
tiers so entirely under the tribunal Of Jos,
,nal phus, each of whom stands as firmly SUI
sta ported by all the evidences which ca
but give authority 10 historian; and VIII
ces. have greatly the advantage Of him in thi
fer that they can add the argument Of the
ap- concurrence to the argument Of each Sc
dit arate and independent testimony 1t
writ happens, however. in the present insianc
rnal that even Jewish writers, in their narr
pro- tive Of the same circumstance, give q
libit- name Of Philip to the first husband Of Il
sion, rodias. We BY no means CONCEIVE, ID
rong any foreign testimony was necessary !
a we the vindication Of the evangeIsis. 81
n however, it must 90 far To disslPate eve
d ac- suspicion of artice in the construction
aried their histories. Ii proves, that IN the co
icult fidence with which they delivered the
were selves up TO their own information, IN
! his. neglected appearance, ana ielt themsel'
rs &C. independent Of it. This apparent dIftic
~ like many others Of the same XII
La Tho lands MS in a stronger confirmation of
~ Do. honesty of the evangelisiS and il is
o,ber lightfuI 10 perceive, how truth receive
,ndent fuller accession TO lis splendor, from