C^RNEiL 
 L I BRARY 
 
 The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz 
 Book Endowment for the Humanities 
 
 Class of 1924 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 090 851 779 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924090851779 
 
A SUPPLEMENT TO THE AUTHORISED 
 ENGLISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
SUPPLEMENT TO THE AUTHORISED 
 
 ENGLISH VERSION OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 BEING A CRITICAL ILLUSTIIATION OF ITS MORE 
 
 DIFFICULT PASSAGES FROM THE SYRIAC LATIN AND EARUER 
 
 ENGLISH VERSIONS WITH AN INTRODUCTION 
 
 bV the reverend 
 FREDERICK HENRY SCRIVENER, M.A. 
 
 np miNITT COI.LIOR OiHIRIDOS AIIHTAMT HAfTm OP TUt 
 lll^O'■ BOHOOL SRBRBOIINI 
 
 C. WHITTINOHAM, TOOKM COU»T, 
 CHAHOEtr LANI!. 
 
 VOLUME I 
 
 LONDON 
 
 WILLIAM PICKERING 
 
 1845 
 
Cable of tbe Contents of tlje 3lnttouuction. 
 
 ** As Dotblnf li befvii and perfeotod it tb% nm* ttin«» mo6 the litUr 
 tfaoofhCi ftr« tbought to be tbe wlicr: »• if wt butMing vpon their fonnde* 
 tlon thet went before ni» unit being holpen hj their Ubore, do endetror to 
 Bikbe thet better which they left lo good ; do merii we ere enre, hath ceuie 
 to millike ai ; they, we penuade oareelTei, If they were ellre, would thank 
 ae. The vintnge of Abifser that atrake the atroke; yet the gleaning of 
 grapei of Ephrnim wan not to b« deRpiaed (Jndgea viil,9). Joaah,the king of 
 larecl, did not aatisfy himself till he bad amltten the ground three timei ; 
 and yet he ofTended the prophet for giving over then/' Preface of the Trena- 
 lators to the Reader, Aothoriaed Tenion of the Bible. 
 
 i ^ 
 I ^ 
 
 -1 
 
 r 
 
 J 
 
 PAoa 
 
 Desion of the present Work 1 
 
 Division of the whole subject into Three general heads . . 5 
 
 I. Errors of Criticism in the Authorised version, arising 
 
 from false readings of the Greek text. Account of the 
 
 Textus Receptus ibid. 
 
 Text followed by our common version 7 
 
 Griesbach's edition, and theory of recensions 9 
 
 Archbp. Laurence's " Remarks " 12 
 
 Scholz's edition, and theory of recensions 16 
 
 Lachnionn's Nov. Test. Grecc.-Lat 23 
 
 Tischendorf's Nov. Test 30 
 
 General result of the preceding review 31 
 
 II. Ennons OF Ikterpretation in the Authorised version . 32 
 
 (n). Errors in the signification of single words. Lexi- 
 cography ibid. 
 
 (b). Errors in the grammatical construction of one or 
 more words in the same clause. The article. 
 
 Bp. Middleton's theory 36 
 
 On the exact rendering of the Greek tenses .... 44 
 
 (c). Errors in the dependence of clauses on each other 46 
 
 On the punctuation 47 
 
 On the divisions into chapters, verses, and para- 
 graphs 48 
 
 III. Errors of Expression in the language of the English 
 
 version, arising 
 (a), from want of uniformity in rendering the same 
 
 Greek word 50 
 
 (b). from grammatical inaccuracies 53 
 
 (c). from ambiguous, obscure, and obsolete expres- 
 sions 55 
 
 On the marginal renderings in the Authorised version. 
 
 Dr. Blayney 57 
 
 On the use of the Italic character. Dean Tiirlon .... 59 
 
vi Contenwof UntroUuctfon. 
 
 PaOI! 
 
 Application of other versions to the Illustration of our own 63 
 
 The Pesiiito Syiuac version ibid. 
 
 The Philoxenian Syriac version 68 
 
 The Latin Vuloate veusiov 70 
 
 Modern Latin versions of Beza and Castalio. Boisii 
 
 Coliatio 72 
 
 Early English VERSIONS. Their internal character . 74 
 
 Wicklifle's Bible, a. i>. 1 380 75 
 
 Tyndal's New Testament, 1 526, 1 534 78 
 
 Covcrd;ile's Bible, 1535 83 
 
 Ciantnrr's, or the Great Bible, 1 539 87 
 
 Sir John Chcke'sTranslation of St. Matthew, about 1550 88 
 
 Geneva New Testament, Ist edition, 1557 92 
 
 The Bishops* Bible, 1568, 1572 94 
 
 Laurence's Critique 96 
 
 Rhemish New Testament, 1582 97 
 
 King James's Bible, 1611 101 
 
 Later English versions. Doddridge's Family Ex- 
 positor, 1739—1756 102 
 
 Campbell on the Gospels, 1788 104 
 
 Macknight on the Epistles, 1 795 1 06 
 
 Archbp. Newcome's Translation of the New Testament, 
 
 1796, &c 108 
 
 Dr. Boothroyd's Bible, 1823, 1836 110 
 
 Holy Bible with 20,000 emendations, 1841 Ill 
 
 Dr. Symonds's Observations on the Authorised version, 1789 
 
 —1794 113 
 
 Pr. Scholefield's Hints for an Improved Translation, 1836 . 115 
 Principles of Interpretation. Griufield's Nov. Test. 
 
 Hcllcnisticum, 1 843 117 
 
 Bp. Jebb's Sacred Literature, 1820 119 
 
 The Greek Commentators, Chrysostom, Thcophylact, &c. 122 
 
 Modern Commentators, Kuinoel in Libros N. T. Historicos 125 
 
 Conclusion 126 
 
 Notes on the AuTHonisEn Enolisii version or St. Mat- 
 thew 131 
 
 Appendix A. On the principal Greek Manuscripts of the 
 
 Four Gospels 327 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 jlT is generally agreed among com- 
 petent judges that a new trans- 
 lation of the Holy Scriptures, for 
 public use, is both needless and 
 inexpedient. Assured that our 
 present admirable version faithfully conveys to the 
 English reader the general sense of the original 
 Hebrew and Greek, they rightly judge it at once 
 unnecessary and dangerous to unsettle and perplex 
 the simple by attempting to improve it. The Bible 
 of King James's translation is cherished as their 
 best treasure by our countrymen and kindred, in 
 every spot on the globe where our language is 
 spoken or our name respected. It is the only bond 
 which unites our Dissenters at home with the Church 
 of their fathers. These are advantages which could 
 not be expected to accrue to any modem version, 
 were its superiority to the old one ever so decided ; 
 even were it to embody the results of all the Bib- 
 lical learning and critical research of the last two 
 hundred years. 
 
 Yet however excellent our common translation as 
 a whole, like every other work of man, it is far from 
 being faultless. During the short period of eighty 
 years which had elapsed between the commencement 
 of the English Reformation and its publication in 
 
 It 
 
2 3|ntroDuct(on. 
 
 161 1, at least five separate versions of Scripture had 
 appeared — to omit several less important editions — 
 Tyndal's, Coverdale's, Cranmer's, or the Great Bible, 
 the Geneva, and Parker's or the Bishops' Bible ; 
 each of them perhaps superior to its predecessors in 
 faithfulness and perspicuity. All these earlier ver- 
 sions our translators were instructed to keep in view 
 (the Bishop's Bible especially, which was then read 
 in Churches) ; and comparing them diligently with 
 the original tongues, to amend them where they were 
 inaccurate, and studiously to retain their renderings 
 wherever they were correct (See King James's first 
 and fourteenth Instructions to the Translators). To 
 this holy task a large body of the best divines in 
 the kingdom devoted themselves for above three 
 years : translating, revising, and debating with each 
 other on the numerous difficulties that arose : till at 
 length they produced our authorised translation ; a 
 work of such surpassing merit that it at once super- 
 seded all previous attempts, and closed the older 
 versions for ever on every one save the Biblical an- 
 tiquarian. 
 
 Now it were unreasonable to suppose, that if our 
 authorised version is so great an improvement on all 
 that went before it, during the short space of eighty 
 years, the current of improvement is here to stop, and 
 that no blemishes remain for future students to de- 
 tect and remove. More than two centuries have 
 passed since that version (or, to speak more correctly, 
 revision of former versions) was executed, and they 
 have been centuries of great and rapid improvement 
 in every branch of knowledge and science. So amply 
 furnished were King James's translators with all the 
 theological learning of a learned age, that there was 
 no risk of their falling into errors which could seri- 
 
 I 
 
 3|ntrolmctfon. 3 
 
 ously affect the belief of their readers, on any of the 
 great points of Christian doctrine. Still it must be 
 confessed, that in their time. Scriptural criticism was 
 but in its infancy. Few manuscripts had been col- 
 lated in order to settle to original text ; the Greek 
 language, in particular, was studied rather extensively 
 than accurately j the peculiar style of the writers of 
 the New Testament was little understood. The 
 general sense of Holy Writ was apprehended by them 
 at least as well as by ourselves : they drank deeply 
 (how much more deeply than we are wont to drink !) 
 of the waters of life: and if they knew little respecting 
 the critical niceties which characterise high scholar- 
 ship at present, it was no fault of theirs that they 
 could not anticipate the results of the long labors of 
 those who were to follow them. As well mio-ht we 
 impute it as a defect to Newton, that he did not pre- 
 sage the discoveries of Herschel or of Olbers. 
 
 It is the design of the present work to collect and 
 review those passages of our authorised version of 
 the New Testament, which a diligent collation with 
 the original may shew to be inaccurate or obscure : 
 and such an undertaking will perhaps be approved 
 by many who would earnestly deprecate a formal 
 revision of the translation itself. A production 
 intended for the use of the student in the closet can 
 give no offence to the weak or ill-informed Christian; 
 and may, if carefully executed, prove the means of 
 exciting in the intelligent reader an interest in the 
 cultivation of Biblical criticism ; and a well-grounded 
 admiration of the version, whose merits form the sub- 
 ject of our enquiry. In a performance like the present 
 it would be worse than idle to aim at originality. 
 The interpretation of the Bible has tasked the intel- 
 
4 3|ntrotiuction. 
 
 lects of the ripest scholars in Christendom for many 
 ages ; and in theology all that is really new is cer- 
 tainly false. Hasty and presumptuous conjecture, 
 indecent as it is in every case, becomes positively 
 sinful when we approach the Scriptures of truth. It 
 was chiefly with the view of checking a rash spirit 
 of criticism that I determined to annex to every cor- 
 rection I shall propose the renderings of the earlier 
 English versions ; and (if they be corrections which 
 concern the sense) those of the Peshito Syriac and 
 Latin Vulgate also. It will thus be visible at a glance, 
 how far the changes I suggest are favored by the 
 weighty authorities above mentioned : and I am sen- 
 sible that where the interpretation of the common 
 translation is supported by the united testimonies of 
 the Syriac, Latin, and former English versions, a very 
 strong case must be made out, before I can hope to 
 convince my readers of the propriety of disturbing 
 the received rendering. Such instances, however, 
 will be found exceedingly rare. 
 
 It is almost superfluous to state my reasons for 
 adopting the versions I have named as my models 
 and guides in the task I have undertaken. The earlier 
 English translations, independently of their intrinsic 
 excellence, are the basis of King James's Bible, which 
 resembles several of them to an extent of which nothing 
 short of actual inspection will enable us to form a 
 notion. The Peshito Syriac and the Vulgate are 
 among the most precious monuments of Christian an- 
 tiquity; they are the productions of an age little 
 posterior to that of the Apostles ; and have been con- 
 stantly used in the public services, the one of the 
 Oriental, the other of the Western Churches, from 
 thnt period down to the present hour. But the cha- 
 
 \ 
 
 3|ntrotiuttfon. 5 
 
 racter of each of these venerable translations will be 
 more conveniently discussed hereafter. 
 Division of The texts whose renderings in our autho- 
 iub/JcUnio "'^^ ^^'■^'O" I ^'^^e presumed to examine, 
 headT"*'*' ^^^ arranged in the body of my work ac- ' 
 cording to the order in which they stand/ 
 in the volume of the New Testament. But it will 
 be proper to state fully in this Introduction the prin- 
 ciples on which I have acted, and to which perpetual 
 reference will be made in the course of my review. 
 
 It would appear then that the inaccuracies of our 
 common English version of the New Testament may 
 be comprehended under threk general heads. 
 
 I. EimoKs OF Criticism, arising from false read- 
 ings of the Greek text. 
 
 II. Ekuors of Interpretation, which originate 
 from mistaking the sense of the original Greek. 
 
 III. Errors of Expression, where the language 
 of the English translation itself is ambiguous, ungram- 
 matical, or obscure. 
 
 Each of these leading divisions of the subject will 
 now be considered in such detail, as its relative im- 
 portance shall seem to demand. 
 
 I. Errors of Criticism, arising from false read- 
 mgs of the Greek text. 
 
 Ti.c Textus By the Received text of the New Testa- 
 Hcceptu,. „ent we usually understand that printed 
 ni Robert Stephens's third edition of 1550, or that of 
 the Elzevirs, published in 1624. These two editions 
 di ff-er from each ot her in about 130 places,* but 
 
 • Tischcndorf enumerates 115 variations (Prrof. N T 1841)- 
 but exclusive of stops, accents, and manifest typographical errors; 
 I believe 130 to be nearer the truth. 
 
6 3ntroduttCon. 
 
 their general character ia the same ; though Stephens's 
 peculiar readings may perhaps be considered prefer- 
 able, on the whole, to those of the Elzevirs. Mill's 
 Greek Testament (Oxon. 1707) professes to be a re- 
 print of Stephens's text (Prolog, p. 167), though it 
 departs from it in several places, without giving any 
 intimation to the reader.* Professor Scholefield's 
 Greek and English Testament of 1836 (which I have 
 constantly used for the purposes of this work), al- 
 though stated to be an exact reprint of the Stephanie 
 edition of l.'SSO, differs from it in Luke vii, 12 ; x, 6 ; 
 xvii, 1 ; 35 ; John viii, 25 ; xix, 7 ; Acts ii, 36 ; 
 Eph. iv, 25 ; James v, 9 ; 1 Pet. iv, 8 ; 2 Pet. ii, 12 ; 
 2 John v. 5; Rev. vii, 10. In most other reprints 
 of the received text, the Elzevir edition is adopted 
 as the standard. 
 
 It is not necessary at the present day to enter 
 upon a prolix discussion respecting the sources of 
 the Textus Reccptus. It will now be admitted 
 on all hands that the learned persons who super- 
 intended the earlier editions of the New Testament, 
 both possessed a very limited critical apparatus, and 
 did not always avail themselves as they ought of 
 the resources which were within their reach. It is 
 therefore most satisfactory to discover that the text 
 which they formed bears, in all probability, a closer 
 resemblance to the sacred autographs, than that of 
 some critics very much their superiors in Biblical 
 science ; who, moreover, had access to a vast trea- 
 sure of materials, which was entirely unknown to their 
 
 • Tischendorf refers us to Luke vii, 12 ; John viii, ?5; Acts ii, 
 36 : xiv, 8 ; xv, 38 (') ; Eph. iv, 25 ; 1 Pet. iii, 11; 21 ; iv, 8 ; 
 2 Pet. ii, 12. But I doubt not that scvcrnl more might bo added : 
 f. g. I,uke X, fi; xvii, I ; '15; John xix, 7. 
 
 3|ntrotiutt(on. 7 
 
 predecessors. I hope it is no presumptuous belief, 
 that the Providence of God took such care of His 
 Church in the vital matter of maintaining His Word 
 pure and uncorrupted, that He guided the minds of 
 the first editors, in their selection of the authorities 
 on which they rested. It is easy to declaim on the 
 low date and little worth of the manuscripts used 
 by the Complutensian divines, by Erasmus, or Ste- 
 phens ; but what would have been the present state 
 of the text of the Gospels, had the least among them 
 conceded to the Cambridge MS. or Codex Beza?, the 
 influence and adoration * which its high antiquity 
 seemed to challenge ? But we shall be better able 
 to appreciate the excellency of the received text, when 
 we have examined the principal attempts that have 
 been made to supersede it. 
 
 Textfoi- Theodore Beza's several editions of the 
 lowed by Greek Testament contain a text essentially 
 
 our com- i i- i i 
 
 mon vet- the Same as that published by Stephens, from 
 "°"' whose third edition he does not vary in much 
 
 more than eighty places. But his critical labors claim 
 our especial notice, from the deference paid to them 
 by the translators of the English authorised version ; 
 who, though they did not implicitly follow Beza's 
 text, yet have received his readings in many passages 
 where he differs from Stephens. I subjoin a list of 
 those places, in which our translation agrees with 
 Beza's New Testament, against that of Stephens. 
 Matth. xxi, 7 ; xxiii, 13, 14 ; Mark viii, 24 ; ix, 40 ; 
 xii, 20; Luke i, 35; ii, 22/x, 22; xv,26; xvii, 
 36; John xiii, 31;'xvi, 33; xviii, 24 ; Acts xvii, 
 25; xxii, 25 ; xxiv, 13 ;j 18 j xxvii, 13; Rom. vii, 
 
 * " Codices vetustatis specie psenc adorandos." R. StcphanI, 
 Pricf. N.T. 1546. 
 
8 I jntroOuctfon. 
 
 6; viii, 11; xii, 11; xvi, 20; 1 Cor. v, 11; xv,3l 
 (where however Beza's Ist edition of 1565 coin- 
 cides with Stephens); ^ 2 Co r, iii, 1; v, 4; vi, 15 ; 
 vii, 12; 16; xi, 10;Col.i,2^u »». l3-;-l Thess. ii, 
 15 ; i2 Thess. ii, J) 1 Tim. i, 4 ;^Hebr. ix, 1^ James 
 ii, 18- iv, 13; V, 12;J-^t. \, 4 ijAi^^tj^ ; 2 Pet. 
 iii, 7 ; 1 John i, 4 ; ii, gS^though tlie clause is in- 
 serted in italics) ; ( iii, 16) 2 John v. 3 ; 3 John v. 
 7; Jude vv. 19; 24; Rev. iii, 1 ; v, 11; vii, 3 ; 10; 
 viii, 11 ; xi, 1 ; 2 ; xiii, 3 ; xiv, 18 ; (xvi, 14 | xix, 14. 
 In 33 out of the above 60 texts Beza was followed 
 by the Elzevir edition of 1624. The passages in 
 which our translation agrees with Stephens against 
 Beza are Mark xvi, 20; John xviii, 20; Acts iv,27; 
 xvi, 7 ; XXV, 6 ; Rom. v, 17 ; 1 Cor, iii, 3 ; x, 28 ; 
 2 Cor. iii, 14(?); viii, 24; xi, 1 (?); Gal. iv, 17; 
 Phil, i, 23 ; Col. i, 2 ; Tit. ii, 7 ; Hebr. x, 2 ; Rev. iv, 10. 
 In Matth. ii, 11 ; x, 10; John xviii, 1 ; Acts xxvii, 
 29, our version adopts a reading found neither in Ste- 
 phens nor Beza ; in the last two cases on the autho- 
 rity of the Latin Vulgate. After this examination 
 (which I trust will be found tolerably accurate *) we 
 may safely determine the character of the text re- 
 rnivri! in our trnnslntion : and it will be seen that 
 Mr. Ilartwcil Home is not quite correct in his state- 
 ment (Introduction to Scriptures, Vol. II. Pt. ii, p. 
 13) that " Beza's edition of 1598 was adopted as the 
 basis of the English version of the New Testament 
 published by authority in 1611." It does not ap- 
 pear that the translators adopted any particular text 
 as their standard, but exercised their own judgment 
 
 • BeiiiHcR Stephens's 3rd edition of 1550 and the Elzevirs' of 
 1624, I have used Beia's New Testaments of 1565, 1582, 1580 
 anil 1598. 
 
 intcobuction. 9 
 
 on the several readings, as they passed successively 
 under review. 
 
 But whatever might be the minute diversities of 
 the early editions, they present to us a text in sub- 
 stance the same : for what are eighty or a hundred 
 variations (many of them so unimportant as not to 
 affect the sense in the slightest degree), in such a 
 book as the New Testament? And though, more 
 than a century later, Mill and Wetstein spent their 
 lives in the collation of Greek manuscripts, they both 
 felt that the time was not yet arrived when they 
 could securely introduce any changes into the textus 
 ^, . ^ , , receptus. It was reserved for Griesbach 
 
 Oriesbach s i , • i i . • n , «.t m 
 
 edition, and to publish an cdition 01 the New Tcsta- 
 ceZ7on!."" ment (1796—1806), exhibiting a totally 
 new revision of the text, into which num- 
 berless various readings were admitted from manu- 
 scripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers : no pre- 
 ference being given to the received text as such, 
 where it was not supported by what he deemed 
 competent authority. It is my present purpose to 
 investigate the correctness of the principles on which 
 Griesbach proceeds : and the celebrity which his work 
 has attained, coupled with the magnitude of the alte- 
 rations he has made in the inspired volume, will 
 perhaps give me a claim to the reader's indulgence, 
 if I prosecute my enquiry at some length. 
 
 The main feature of Griesbach's scheme of revision 
 is his theory of families or recensions, the first slight 
 draught of which was sketched by the learned and 
 amiable Bengel ; and which, after receiving some im- 
 provements at the hands of Semler, was applied to 
 the criticism of the New Testament by Griesbach, in 
 his "Cura3 in Epist. Paulin." and his "Symbolae Cri- 
 ticaj." Every one who has consulted the materials 
 
10 ^ntcoDuction. 
 
 collected by Wetstein and his successors must have 
 I observed, that certain manuscripts and versions bear 
 I some affinity to each other ; so that one of them is 
 j seldom cited in support of a various reading (not 
 I being a manifest and gross error of the copyist), un- 
 accompanied by one or more of its kindred. Now it 
 seems a very reasonable presumption that documents 
 which are thus closely connected, have sprung from 
 a common source, quite distinct from the great mass 
 of manuscript authorities, from which they thus 
 unequivocally withdraw themselves. And if these 
 families could be shewn to have existed at a very 
 early period (that is to say, within one or two hun- 
 dred years after the death of the Apostles) ; and were 
 it to appear moreover that certain peculiarities cha- 
 racterised the manuscripts of certain countries ; it is 
 plain that we should then have made important ad- 
 vances in our knowledge of the history, and conse- 
 quently of the relative values of the various recensions. 
 We should thus have some better guide in our choice 
 between contending readings, than the very rough 
 and unsatisfactory process of counting the number 
 of authorities alleged in favor of each. I believe 
 that Griesbach has entirely failed in his attempt to 
 classify the manuscripts of the Greek Testament; but 
 I am not blind to the advantages which would ensue 
 from such a classification, were it possible to be ac- 
 complished. His was a noble ambition; and if he 
 did not achieve all that he aspired to, " magnis 
 tamen excidit ausis." 
 
 The researches of Griesbach, prosecuted with un- 
 wearied diligence during the course of many years, 
 led him to the conclusion that the several families 
 into which manuscripts are divided, may be reduced 
 to three great classes, the Alexandrian, the Western, 
 
 3ntcoliutt(on. ii 
 
 and the Byzantine recensions. The standard of the i 
 Alexandrine text he imagined that he had discovered 
 in Origen, who, though he wrote in Palestine, might I 
 be fairly presumed to have brought with him into i 
 exile manuscripts of the New Testament, similar to , 
 those in ordinary use in his native city. The text of 
 the Western Church would naturally be drawn from 
 the Italic version and the Latin Fathers ; while the 
 large majority of manuscripts, versions, and ecclesias- 
 tical writers followed the readings which prevailed in 
 the Patriarchate of Constantinople. He then pro- 
 ceeded to attribute to each of these three families an 
 equal influence in correcting and settling the text ; 
 or rather, he considered the testimony of the Byzan- 
 tine class inferior in weight to that of either of the 
 others. Consistently with these principles, the evi- 
 dence of the very few antient manuscripts of the ' 
 Alexandrine class which are yet extant (e. g. Wets- 
 tein's A, B, C, &c.) ; or of the Latin versions, and 
 one or two old Latinising manuscripts (e. g. D of the 
 Gospels ; E, F, G of the Pauline Epistles), if sup- 
 ported by the Fathers of the two families, and suffi- 
 ciently probable in itself; may balance or even out- 
 weigh the unanimous voice of hundreds of witnesses 
 of every kind, should they happen to belong to the 
 unfortunate Byzantine recension. Indeed the agree- 
 ment of the Alexandrine and Western families is pro- 
 nounced by Griesbach (Proleg. N. T. Vol. I. p. Ixxx) 
 to be a sufficient proof of the high antiquity of the 
 reading which they favor ; and " si interna simul 
 bonitate sua niteat," of its genuineness also. 
 
 Let us now see the practical effect of this ingenious 
 and refined theory on the text of the New Testament. 
 I select one example out of multitudes which occur 
 in all parts of his edition. In Rom. xii, II, the fol- 
 
12 3lntroDuct(on. 
 
 lowiDg words appear in the Textus Receptus, r<^ 
 icvpitf SovXtvovrtf. Here instead of Kvpli^ Griesbach 
 reads Kaipi^, in which alteration he is supported by 
 no modern editor ; and of the earlier by Stephens 
 alone. In defence of this change (by no means a 
 trivial one), what authorities appear in Griesbach 's 
 note ? The evidence of three uncial manuscripts (D 
 F G) of the 8th or 10th century, and the Latin trans- 
 lations contained in two of them (D G) ; some Latin 
 manuscripts spoken of by Jerome, Rufinus and Bede ; 
 a Latin inscription prefixed to this chapter, quoted 
 by Lucas Brugensis at the beginning of the 17th 
 century ; a remote and possible allusion in Ignatius 
 ad Polycarp. (c. 3. see Mill adloc.) ; and two passages 
 of Gregory Nyssen. Ignatius and Nyssen must be 
 presumed to represent the Byzantine family, as all 
 his other witnesses are clearly Occidental. And on 
 such evidence Griesbach rejects the reading sanc- 
 tioned by all the versions, by the Fathers who have 
 quoted the text, and by about 150 manuscripts of all 
 ao-es and countries known to him, which contain the 
 Epistle to the Romans. Where the external testimony 
 is so decided, the intrinsic goodness of a reading is a 
 matter of secondary importance. Knapp however 
 refers us to ch. xiv, 18 ; xvi, 18, in favor of the com- 
 mon text; while Wolf (Cur. Philol. ad loc.) quotes 
 Col. iv, 8 in support of xaipy, and shews that the 
 expression Kaip^y SouXtitiv is occasionally met with in 
 Greek authors. The variation in all probability arose 
 from the custom of representing a familiar word like 
 Kvp'i^* in an abridged form (;^,). » practice which 
 would scarcely have been adopted in the case of /cai^x^. 
 It certainly seems astonishing that a 
 ronc'^r-'^Te"' theory which built so vast a superstruc- 
 marks." ^„^g q^ foundations thus slight and pre- 
 
 intcoUuction, 13 
 
 carious, should have commanded for a considerable 
 period the assent of the learned throughout Europe. 
 But it was not till the year 1814 that Archbishop 
 Laurence published his " Remarks on Griesbach's 
 Systematic Classification," which at once, and almost 
 without an effort, laid his whole edifice in the dust. 
 As this masterly production has finally settled the 
 question respecting a triple recension of manuscripts, 
 it may be convenient to give a brief analysis of the 
 principal arguments which Dr. Laurence employs in 
 the course of his investigation. 
 
 In the first place, he observes (" Remarks" ch. ii), 
 that whereas Griesbach expressly confesses in his 
 " CurfE in Epist. Paulin." that five or six diflferent 
 texts might be formed from the manuscripts now ex- 
 tant ; still, in the full consciousness of the doubtful 
 and imperfect nature of his hypothesis, he confines 
 himself to the use of the three above-mentioned re- 
 censions, the Alexandrian, the Occidental, and the 
 Byzantine. Thus he satisfies himself with a coarse 
 approximation to the truth, and substitutes conjectural 
 probability in the room of certainty. Yet it is easily 
 seen how extremely fallacious every system of clas- 
 sification must be, which excludes from our con- 
 sideration half the families of manuscripts, whicii 
 are known to exist. 
 
 But, waiving this preliminary objection, fatal as it 
 may well be deemed to the whole theory, and con- 
 ceding that all possible recensions are reducible to 
 three ; let us examine Griesbach's mode of deter- 
 mining the class to which a particular manuscript or 
 version belongs. This point is of great importance; 
 for if he possesses no accurate means of classifying 
 his authorities, it is obvious that his scheme, even if 
 true in itself, can never be safely applied to the cri- 
 
14 3|ntcotiuct(on. 
 
 ticism of the New Testament. Now I have before 
 stated, that his Alexandrine family is discriminated 
 from the rest, by comparing each manuscript sepa- 
 rately with the readings found in Origen's works; 
 the quotations of that Father being made the standard 
 of the Egyptian recension. Thus, inasmuch as in 
 St. Paul's Epistles Griesbach reckons that the places 
 in which the Codex A of Wetstein and the quotations 
 of Origen agree with each other against the received 
 text amount to 110 ; while the places in which the 
 Codex A disagrees with the received text and Origen 
 united amount to but 60; he concludes that the Codex 
 A belongs to the Alexandrine, and not to the common 
 or Byzantine recension, for the simple reason that 
 110 is greater than 60. Admitting for a moment 
 that Griesbach 's calculations are accurate (which is 
 far enough from being the case*), he has nevertheless 
 committed an oversight so enormous, as to be per- 
 fectly incredible if it were not self-evident. It re- 
 quires no argument to show that the true character 
 of the Codex A as much depends on its agreements 
 with the received text, as on its disagreements. Let 
 us see how far this new element, essential as it is to 
 the formation of a right judgment on the subject, will 
 affect the result at which our critic has arrived. Still 
 adopting Griesbach's own numbers (Symbol. Grit. i. 
 p 134), it appears that the Codex A agrees with the 
 received text against Origen in 96 passages, which, 
 added to the 60 places given above, will make the 
 
 • Archbp. Laurence, in hi. Appendix, has .hewn from «n elabo- 
 rate collation, that the Codex A agree, with Origen aga-n.t the 
 received text in IM phce., and disagree. w.thOngen and the re- 
 ceived text united in 140. The total «um of the agreemenU of 
 the Codex A with the received text again.t Origen he proves to 
 be 444. 
 
 3|ntcoDuctfon. lo 
 
 sum total of its differences from Origen 156 ; whereas 
 it differs from the received text only 110 times. 
 Hence the conclusion to be drawn from Griesbach's 
 own premises would unavoidably be the very oppo- 
 site to that which he seeks to establish : viz : the 
 Byzantine character of the Codex A. 
 
 It is unnecessary for us to follow Archbishop Lau- 
 rence in liis exposure of many other errors both in 
 reasoning and computation, of which Griesbach's cri- 
 tical writings furnish a luxuriant crop. Still less 
 need I indicate the grounds of that Prelate's opinion, 
 which he distinctly intimates, but with characteristic 
 caution refrains from expressing: that the Alexan- 
 drine text is a nullity, although the Western rs really 
 different from the Constantinopolifan ; the Latin ver- 
 sion, like the Latin Church, being " that mighty rod 
 of Aaron, which is ever prepared to swallow the feebler 
 rods of Egypt." (Remarks, p. 90). From the very 
 first Laurence's refutation was felt in this country to 
 be unanswerable.* With all our gratitude to Gries- 
 
 * Yet as Inte ns the year 1840, a revision of the authorised 
 English version of the New Testament, conformably to Griesbach's 
 text, was executed by a " Layman," now deceased. The reason, 
 which induced him to adopt that text shall be given in his own 
 words. " It is one which the general opinion of critics through- 
 out Europe has long fully approved. At any rate it is a known 
 and well-recognised standard — resting, in every part, on reason- 
 able, well-weighed and probable evidence : and though there may 
 occur in it, as there must in any such undertaking, instances of 
 nicely balanced testimony, in which other minds may come to dif- 
 ferent conclusions from Griesbach'. on the same evidence, or as 
 to the mode of weighing and classifying the authorities, yet that 
 is a difficulty from which there never can be mean, of escape." 
 Preface p. ix. It is not a little remarkable that this modest and 
 amiable writer failed to perceive, that" the mode of weighing and 
 classifying the authorities" is precisely the point at issne between 
 Griesbach and the advocntes for the received text. How far that 
 
 t 
 
16 3ntcotmtt(on. 
 
 bach for what he has really effected for the criticism 
 of the New Testament, his theory of recensions has 
 been tacitly and universally abandoned. In Germany, 
 indeed, the " Remarks" on his classification appear 
 to have experienced the strange neglect, which Eng- 
 lish divinity seems fated to meet with there; but 
 which we. I trust, are too wise to resent or retaliate. 
 Yet within the last few years, they who have clung 
 to Griesbach's main hypothesis, have advocated it on 
 grounds widely different from those propounded by 
 its author. 
 
 As a specimen of the practical results of Gries- 
 bach's system, Dr. Laurence refers us to John vii, 8 ; 
 1 Tim. iii, 16 ; important texts which I shall be called 
 upon to discuss in their proper places. Hardly less 
 striking are the following instances, to which I invite 
 the reader's attention : Matth. xix, 17 ; Mark iv, 24 ; 
 Acts xi, 20 ; Col. ii, 2. 
 
 Sclioh's edi- The next considerable attempt to form 
 tion, and the- ^ consistent theory of families (for that 
 sions" '*'^"' of Hug is but a modification of Gries- 
 bach's) was made by Professor Scholz of Bonn, in 
 his edition of the New Testament, 1830-36.* If 
 the value of a production is to be estimated by the 
 
 critic'8 recension " rests on reasonnblc, well-weighed, and probable 
 evidence," the arguments I have alleged will by this lime have 
 enabled my roadci s to judge for themselves. , , „ . 
 
 • I have not alluded to Dr. Nolan's » Integrity of the Greek 
 Vulgate " IRI/"', because I have been compelled to arrive at the 
 conclusion that his scheme of recensions is radically erroneous. 
 Few things perhaps are more sad to the honest enquirer after truth, 
 than to see a learned and single-hearted man like Dr. Nolan, by 
 assuming as certain what is barely possible, and setting ingenious 
 conjecture in the room of historical fact, led on step by step to 
 adopt a theory, which (to use the words of Dr. Turner of New 
 York) "is sufficiently condemned by its own extravagance. 
 
 JntroOuttion. 17 
 
 amount of labor which has been spent upon it, 
 Wetstein alone can enter into competition with this 
 Romanist divine. For twelve years he was engaged 
 in searching the chief libraries of the continent in 
 quest of manuscripts of the New Testament, and its 
 principal versions. He has even extended his Bib- 
 lical travels to the Archipelago and the Greek monas- 
 tery of St. Saba near Jerusalem. By these means he 
 has nearly doubled the list of manuscripts of the 
 Greek Testament named by (Jricsbach and his prede- 
 cessors. To the 674 MSS which had been collated 
 or referred to by otiiers, Scholz has added no less 
 than 607, which lie enjoys the honor of first making 
 known to the world. It must not, however, be 
 supposed that any large portion of them has been 
 carefully examined by this indefatigable editor; we 
 ought rather to wonder that a private individual 
 could do so much, than to murmur at the slight and 
 cursory manner in which the great bulk of his docu- 
 ments has been inspected. The following table will 
 convey some notion both of what Scholz has effected 
 in this matter, and of what he has been compelled 
 to leave undone. 
 
 Scholz's new MSS. 
 
 h 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 4 
 1 
 2 
 22 
 
 ii 
 
 r 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 35 
 
 159 
 27 
 28 
 11 
 I 
 11 
 
 237 
 
 f 
 
 o 
 
 7 
 29 
 10 
 G6 
 20 
 15 
 
 6 E 
 
 ^' 2 
 
 MSS of the Gospels . . . 
 
 Evangelistarin 
 
 MSSof the Acts and Cath. Epp. 
 MSS of the Paulino Epp. . . 
 MSS of the Apocalypse 
 Lectionaria 
 
 20 
 ()1 
 27 
 .■)2 
 13 
 12 
 
 Totals 
 
 147 
 
 1G5 
 
 ■3 
 (2 
 
 207" 
 
 123 
 83 
 
 115 
 38 
 41 
 
 607 
 
 I cannot help observing that Scholz's collation of 
 select passages is of a very hasty and superficial <;lia- 
 
18 3lnttoIiuction« 
 
 meter, being eometimes limited to two or three chap- 
 ters, and seldom extending beyond twenty. He does 
 not seem to have been guided in his choice of manu- 
 scripts for closer examination by the relative value of 
 the documents themselves, so much as by the pres- 
 sure of external circumstances. His chief attention 
 appears to have been devoted to the manuscripts in 
 the libraries of Paris and the North of Italy ; those 
 which he inspected least carefully are deposited in 
 Palestine and — England. His neglect of the manu- 
 scripts of our own country, however mortifying (six 
 MSS in the British Museum, Evan. 444-49, are col- 
 lated only in the 5th chapter of St, Mark) I do not 
 so much regret. The time cannot be far distant when 
 we shall be ashamed to depend on foreigners for our 
 acquaintance with a vast store of our own intellectual 
 wealth, much of which has lain untouched since the 
 days of Mill. Respecting the Oriental Manuscripts, 
 which naturally excite our ardent curiosity, Scholz 
 affords us less information than would be contained 
 in a good catalogue. Nor can we discover any in- 
 telligible plan in the selection of his materials, with 
 reference to their subject-matter. The number of the 
 extant manuscripts of the Gospels is very great (about 
 745 in all) ; those of the Apocalypse are few (103) 
 and inaccurate : no book either of the Old or New 
 Testament so urgently needs the care of a critical 
 editor. Yet Scholz contents himself with a cursory 
 view of all his new manuscripts of the Apocalypse 
 except four, only one of which has been collated 
 throughout. Nor will the quality of his documents 
 aid us in accounting for the course he has pursued. 
 It will hereafter be seen that he was specially bound 
 by the hypothesis he had adopted, to give a distinct 
 explanation of the nature of the later or cursive Alex- 
 
 Jntroliuttfon. 19 
 
 andrine manuscripts; particularly of those which were 
 designed for the public services of the Church Yet 
 monuments of this kind, the very existence of which 
 13 barely reconcileable with his theory of recensions 
 (e.g. Ev. 354 ; Evangst. 71 ; Lect. 22 ; 46), he passes 
 by with as httle scruple as the crowd of Constantino- 
 pohtan codices, in which he scarcely meets with a 
 smgle variation from the received text once in a chap- 
 ter ! (Proleg. N. T. § 55). On the whole, therefore, 
 we cannot but conclude, that though Pr. Scholz is 
 entitled to our thanks for having opened so many 
 veins of precious ore, he has in a great measure left 
 the task of working them to other hands. In truth, 
 so far is his edition from realising his confident boast 
 ' omnibus fere, qui adhuc supersunt, testibus explo- 
 ratis, eommque lectionibus diligcnter coiiquisitis " 
 (1 rajf. N. T. p. 2), that it has rendered further investi- 
 gallon on a large scale more indispensable than ever.* 
 From Scholz's performances as a collator of manu- 
 scripts 1 proceed to consider his success as the author 
 of a new scheme for their classification. Like Archbp. 
 Laurence, he can trace no such fundamental diflTer- 
 ence between the Egyptian and the Western docu- 
 ments, as to justify his arranging them in distinct 
 classes. Hence his Alexandrine family comprehends 
 the Latin versions, and the Greek manuscripts which 
 resemble them, as well as the authorities named 
 Alexandrine by Griesbach. He moreover contends 
 that the Constantinopolitan or common text (which 
 IS not far removed from our printed textus receptus), 
 
 than 100 MSS entire, and 200 in not lew than twenty chapter, 
 each; he n„„t be understood to include hi, re-collation of many 
 jnannscnpts u*ed by hi. predece..orB : a very valuable portion of 
 
20 3lntcoUuct(on. 
 
 approaches much nearer to the sacred autographs 
 than does the text of Alexandria : both on account 
 of the internal excellency of its readings, and be- 
 cause it has been the public and authorised edition 
 of the Greek Church, from the earliest ages to the 
 present day. On a subject of so great doubt and 
 intricacy, it would ill become me to pronounce a 
 positive judgment; but if I may venture to express 
 an opinion formed after long and repeated conside- 
 ration, I believe that in its main features Scholz's 
 theory is correct. The distinction between the Alex- 
 andrian and Byzantine texts is too broadly marked 
 to be controverted ; and no hypothesis which has yet 
 been suggested is so simple as Scholz's, or so satis- 
 factorily explains the leading phenomena of the case. 
 At the same time I am unwilling to commit myself to 
 the reception of all his details ; and his historical 
 demonstration of the truth of his system (Proleg. N, 
 T. cap. i — iv ; ix) is likely to carry conviction to 
 few, who really know what historical demonstration 
 means. The chief objection to his whole scheme (as 
 I hinted above) is the existence of a few late codices 
 of the Alexandrine recension, furnished with litur- 
 gical tables and directions, as if designed for the 
 services of the Church : whereas we have no reason 
 to believe that the Egyptian text was ever used for 
 this purpose within the Patriarchate of Constanti- 
 nople. It is of course very easy to say that such 
 manuscripts were transcribed merely as curious relics, 
 and not for actual use (Home's Introduction, Vol. II, 
 pt. i, p. 60), but till we are possessed of more in- 
 formation respecting them than Scholz has afforded 
 us, we shall scarcely acquiesce in this mode of evading 
 the difficulty. At all events, one thing is clear. If 
 we consult the monuments of the Byzantine class. 
 
 3ntroDuctfon. 21 
 
 we find their testimony regarding the sacred text uni- 
 form and consistent; exhibiting no greater degree of 
 variation than is sufficient to establish the indepen- 
 ^nce of the several sources whence it is derived, 
 wnereas the Alexandrine manuscripts and versions, ) 
 on the contrary, abound in the most serious discre-/ 
 pancies; many of them are full of interpolations.' 
 om.ss.ons and critical corrections ; so that they often 
 agree as little with each other, as with their adver- 
 sar.es of the rival family. I assent, therefore, to 
 Scholz s conclusion (Proleg. § 58), "nihil ex textu 
 illo, quern refert classis Constantinopolitanorum codi- 
 cum, demendum aut mutandum, nisi quod falsum aut 
 improbab. e esse apparet." And this falseness or 
 improbab.hty can spring only from considerations of 
 mternal ev.dence. 
 
 But it is chiefly on the point of internal evidence 
 that bcholz s edition is a decided failure. Although 
 he .s so far from undervaluing its importance, that 
 he alleges .t ,n favor of his own system (Proleg. « 
 55), yet he seems quite unable to apply it, even in 
 cases where it is most necessary to be thrown into 
 the scale. Few other critics would have introduced 
 .nto the text the anomalous form i...„„.ra'0, (Matth. 
 X", 13), and that too chiefly on Alexandrine autho- 
 rity, after ,t had been rejected on account of its in- 
 herent .mprobabilityt by Griesbach, who professes 
 
 note. 1 recollect no other examples of .uch a form. 
 
22 g|ntcot>utt(on. 
 
 to make tliat family liis standard. Again, in Mattli. 
 xi, 8 Scholz's reading fiaaiXtiiov is so very inferior in 
 sense to fiaat\iwv, which is given by the received 
 text and by Griesbach, and so much resembles a 
 marginal gloss, that its Byzantine advocates, how- 
 ever numerous, ought in this case to be disregarded. 
 In ch. X, 8 of the same Gospel, there is some varia- 
 tion in the MSS as to the order of the two clauses 
 Xcirpovc KaOafiitiTt, viKpov^ iyt'ipfTi ', and Griesbach, in 
 compliance with his usual Egyptian guides, places 
 the raising of the dead before the cleansing of the 
 lepers. Scholz solves the difficulty by omitting 
 v«cpovc iyt'iptre altogether, on evidence which I will 
 not call weak (for numerically it is far from being 
 so), but certainly insufficient in a passage of so great 
 importance. How much more wisely would he have 
 acted, had he borne in mind the observations of 
 Vater (himself no warm friend of the textus recep- 
 tus); " omissio oriri potuisset oculis scribarum ad 
 simile \tirpovf delapsis ; vel ex dubitatlone de hac 
 facultatc Apostolis concessit; saepiusque ex proposi- 
 tionibus ejusmodi accumulatis una alterave a scribis 
 omissa reperiretur." I may here remark, that Vater's 
 practice of compressing in a few words all that can 
 be said concerning the internal evidence, stamps a 
 value on his edition of the New Testament (Halle, 
 1824) which it would not otherwise possess. 
 
 The foregoing instances have been designedly taken 
 from three consecutive chapters of St. Matthew's 
 Gospel, and the reader will perceive from them that 
 Scholz, after his own fashion, makes almost as great 
 havock with the received text, as the redoubtable 
 Griesbach himself. A large list of passages might 
 also be drawn up, wherein Scholz has followed Gries- 
 bach's example in tampering with the sacred original. 
 
 3|ntro&uct(on. 23 
 
 in a manner which no strictures of mine can ade- 
 quately condemn. The Lord's Prayer seems to be 
 the special object of their attacks. They agree in 
 expunging the doxology in Matth. vi, 13, on grounds 
 which (as I hope to shew in the sequel) are miserably 
 insufficient ; and on evidence which Scholz, at least, 
 might have remembered is exclusively Alexandrine.' 
 And as if this were too little, they unite in rejecting 
 
 the last petition aWi /iGaa, h^^a^ kni ro5 ,ror,poC in 
 
 Luke XI, 4, on the authority of the Latin Vulgate, 
 and the manuscripts most suspected of Latinising,' 
 but mainly I suppose on the presumption that the 
 clause m question was interpolated from St. Mat- 
 thew. 
 
 After these slight specimens, which might be mul- 
 tiplied a hundred-fold, I may be allowed to express 
 my regret that Scholz's edition should have been 
 received in England with a degree of consideration 
 to which It has slender claims, and which was never 
 accorded to it at home. I freely admit the value of 
 this critic's exertions as a collator of manuscripts ; 
 I admire his diligence, and venerate his zeal. His 
 theory of recensions I conceive to approximate very 
 near to the truth. But he seems disqualified by a 
 lack of judgment for the delicate task of selecting 
 from the mass of discordant readings the genuine 
 text of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Lnciimann's N. The first edition of Lachmann's New 
 orxc-ut. Testament, 12- 1831, attracted much 
 notice throughout Germany. In the Preface to his 
 enlarged edition (8™, Tom. i, 1842) he inveighs 
 against the critics who reject his theory in a tone so 
 bitter and arrogant, that however it may remind us 
 of the controversial licence of by-gone times, it is 
 little creditable to hi., character as a scholar and a 
 
24 31ntcotiuct(on. 
 
 Christian.* Whether true or false, it must be con- 
 fessed that Lachmann's scheme of recensions is per- 
 fectly novel. Its two main features are a total dis- 
 regard of internal evidence (concerning which I shall 
 speak presently), and the absolute rejection of all 
 manuscripts, versions and Fathers, of a lower date 
 than the fourth century. For what reason this par- 
 ticular epoch should be assigned, beyond which all 
 authorities are to be treated as worthless, Lachmann 
 has not troubled himself to explain ; but so rigorously 
 does he act upon this arbitrary rule, that the evidence 
 of Chrj'sostom, the prince of the Greek Fathers, is 
 excluded from his work, " ne ad quintum saeculum 
 descenderemus " (Praef. p. xxi) ; because forsooth, 
 though he flourished in the fourth century, he hap- 
 pened to die in the eighth year of the fifth. 
 
 The consequences of this strange restriction may 
 soon be told. Of the 745 manuscripts of the Gos- 
 pels, or of portions of them, known to preceding 
 critics, Lachmann retains but seven : the Alexandrine 
 
 • Hii periodical reviewer*, three in number, are courteouBly 
 compared to the three Phorcides of ^schyl. Prom. 795 ; and 
 throughout a Preface of 44 pages he wears out this sorry wit- 
 ticism, ringing the changes on the spite, and impudence, and 
 folly of the hags (Greeie). It might almost be said that Lach- 
 mann speaks well of no one. Scholz he does not condescend to 
 name. The judicious Vater he termed " homo levissimus." Tis- 
 cbendorf's New Testament is " tota peccatum." Fritzche, the 
 excellent commentator on the Gospels, is a fourth Greea. But 
 the most amusing case of all is Dr. Barrett's, who was guilty of 
 editing the facsimile of the Dublin palimpsest of St. Mntthew 
 (Z of Scholz). After duly thanking the engraver for his work- 
 iimnliko skill, Lachmann kindly adds, " Johannem Barrettum, qui 
 DiiMiiii rtliilit nnno 1 801, nnn liiudo ; hominem hnjus nrti.i, ultra 
 
 3ntcotiuction. 25 
 
 MS (A of Welstein); the Vatican (B); the Codex 
 Ephremi (C); the Dublin uncial palimpsest of St. 
 Matthew (Z) ; the Wolfenbuttel fragments published 
 by Knittel (P; Q); and the Borgian fragment of 
 St. John (T). The readings of two of the most im- 
 portant out of the seven were very imperfectly known 
 to Lachmann. Angelo Mai's long-promised facsimile 
 of the Codex B has not yet appeared ; and Tischen- 
 dorfs excellent edition of the Codex C not being 
 published in time, Lachmann was compelled to use 
 Wetstein's inaccurate collation of that document. To 
 the preceding list we ought perhaps to add the Cam- 
 bridge MS, or Codex Bezaj (D), whose testimony he 
 admits for certain purposes (Prscf. pp. xxv ; xxxvii), 
 although it is posterior to the fourth century ; as in- 
 deed we may reasonably suspect are most of the 
 other seven. 
 
 Very similar is the effect of his system on the ver- 
 sions of the New Testament. The Sahidic indeed, 
 he quietly observes, may possibly be of service to 
 those who understand that language ; but why should 
 he learn Syriac, when the most faithful and antient 
 manuscripts of the Peshito are still uncollated (Praf. 
 p. xxiv) ? Having thus disposed of the two great 
 Eastern versions, nothing remains but the old Latin 
 translations ; upon which, however, he has bestowed 
 such diligent care, as entitles him to the gratitude 
 of the Biblical student. Following for once the 
 example of the early editors, he annexes to the Greek 
 original Jerome's Latin Vulgate ; and that too not 
 the common authorised text of the Romish Church, 
 but one which he has formed for himself, chiefly by 
 the aid of two antient manuscripts of that version. 
 To the It.nlir. or ns he would call if. tJie Afric trans- 
 
26 gntconuttlon. 
 
 lation,* he devotes a large shave of his attention ; 
 anxiously collecting its fragments from such of the 
 older manuscripts as, in his judgment, present it in 
 an unadulterated state; as well as from the Scrip- 
 tural quotations found in Irenajus, Cyprian, Lucifer 
 of Cagliari, and Hilary of Poictiers, the only Latin 
 authors whose testimony he deems trustworthy on 
 this point. Of the Greek Fathers he cites Origen 
 alone ; and by means of this slender apparatus of 
 critical materials, Lachmann hopes to supersede the 
 labors of all his predecessors, and to establish on a 
 firm foundation a pure and settled text of the Greek 
 Testament. 
 
 Whence then, it may well be asked, this deliberate 
 rejection of the great mass of authorities ? Whence 
 this voluntary choice of poverty, when we might freely 
 take possession of a rich harvest, which others have 
 toiled to gather in ? " Ante omnia," Lachmann re- 
 plies, " antiquissimorum rationem habebimus ; fine 
 certo' constituto recentiores, item leves et corruptos 
 recusabimus." (Prsf. p. vi). Let us endeavor there- 
 fore to discover the causes, why the oldest manu- 
 scripts should necessarily be the best, while the more 
 recent are to be despised as " corrupt and of little 
 consequence." Now Lachmann would perhaps be 
 slow to assert that the more recent Byzantine docu- 
 ments are but bad copies of the Alexandrian, Vatican 
 or Paris MSS ; yet no supposition short of this will 
 
 • This is not the place to investigate the truth of Dr. W.se- 
 man-s conjecture, which Lachmann implicitly adopts, that the first 
 Latin version was made in Africa; and that, being subsequent y 
 corrupted in Italy by various hands from Greek manuscripts newly 
 imported from the East, the interpolated copies received the name 
 oUtalic, and are those alluded to by Augustin in the celebrated 
 passage Do Uoctrin. Christ. II, 22. 
 
 JntcoDuctfon. 27 
 
 answer the purpose of his argument. The remark 
 is so trite that one is tired of repeating it, that many 
 codices of the ninth or tenth century were probably 
 transcribed from others of a more early date than 
 any which now exist : and the incessant wear of the 
 uncial Constantinopolitan manuscripts in the public 
 services of the Church will abundantly account for 
 their general disappearance at present (Scholz, Pro- 
 leg. N. T. § 56). We all know the reverential, and 
 almost superstitious care with which their Synagogue 
 rolls are preserved by the Jews ; yet scarcely one of 
 them has been written so long as a thousand years. 
 The Alexandrine copies, on the contrary, having 
 fallen into disuse at the acra of the Mohammedan 
 conquests in Egypt and Northern Africa, have been 
 buried since that time in the recesses of monastic 
 libraries, until they were disinterred on the revival of 
 learning, only to be prized as valuable relics, and 
 jealously guarded by their fortunate possessors. 
 * Again it may be observed, that Lachmann claims 
 for his best manuscripts no higher antiquity than 
 the fourth century. But we have the strongest proof 
 the nature of the case will admit, that no important 
 change has taken place in the received text, since 
 the rise of the Arian heresy, and the final recognition 
 of Christianity by the Roman Emperors. The deep 
 anxiety to procure correct copies of Holy Scripture 
 (see Euseb. de Vit. Constant, iv, 36, 37), and the 
 perpetual watchfulness of rival parties, seem to pre- 
 clude the possibility of extensive alteration from the 
 fourth century downwards. It was far otherwise in 
 the earlier history of the Church ; when its scattered 
 branches were harassed by persecution, and main- 
 tained no regular intercourse with each other. During 
 the cruel reign of Diocletian more especially, when 
 
28 3!ntco&uttion. 
 
 fresh copies of the New Testament must often have 
 been produced in haste, to supply the places of those 
 destroyed by the enemies of our Faith ; when such 
 manuscripts were secretly circulating among persons 
 whose lives stood in jeopardy every hour : it is easy 
 to see that many errors may have imperceptibly crept 
 into the sacred text, which the well-meant criticism 
 of subsequent correctors would tend only to aggra- 
 vate and confirm. 
 
 In what way, then, does Lachmann meet the ob- 
 vious suggestion that our present cursive manuscripts 
 are but the representatives of venerable documents, 
 long since lost ? He grants that it might possibly be 
 true, but denies that in fact it is so. " Since the 
 oldest manuscripts still extant," he says, " wonder- 
 fully agree with the citations of the most antient 
 writers ; why should we think that Irenaeus and 
 Origen used more corrupt copies than Erasmus or 
 the Complutensian editors?" (Prsef. p. vii). With 
 Lachmann's last statement I cheerfully join issue. We 
 need only refer once more to Archbp. Laurence's 
 " Remarks" (see above, p. 15) to prove that Origen 
 at all events does not agree with his favorite autho- 
 rities against the common Byzantine text. With re- 
 spect to IrenaBus, if Lachmann alludes to the small 
 portion of his work yet preserved in Greek, it would 
 well become him to demonstrate what he so readily 
 assumes. But if (as is more probable), he refers to 
 the old Latin version of that Father, I answer, that 
 the scmibarbarous renderings of an unknown trans- 
 lator may very properly be applied (as Lachmann 
 often does apply them) to the correction of the Italic; 
 but can lend us no certain aid in determining the 
 readings of the Greek Testament adopted by Ire- 
 naeus. 
 
 SittcoDuctfon. 29 
 
 The exclusion of internal evidence, which is an- 
 other peculiarity of Lachmann's system, arises partly 
 from his misapprehension of the duties of an editor, 
 and partly from a reverential fear lest his own fanci- 
 ful opinions should be obtruded in the room of the 
 oracles of God. He seems to imagine (Pr«f. pp. v, 
 xxxiii) that the province of a reviser of the text of 
 Scripture (" recensere"), should be kept quite sepa- 
 rate from that of a corrector (" emendare "). The 
 former he would limit to a bare representation of the 
 readings of manuscripts and versions, while he per- 
 mits the latter to exercise a critical judgment upon 
 them. It will probably be thought that this distinc- 
 tion is too nice to be reduced to practice. The 
 application of internal reasons, when external autho- 
 rities arc almost event]/ balanced, is surely very far 
 removed from wanton conjecture. At the same time 
 we cannot be too much on our guard against substi- 
 tuting ingenious speculation in the place of positive 
 testimony, and treating as a co-ordinate power what 
 is useful only in the character of a subject-ally. 
 
 Where the foundations are unsound it is fruitless 
 to dwell too minutely on the superstructure; yet it 
 ought not to be concealed, that Lachmann develops 
 his false principles with rare acuteness and logical 
 skill. The few authorities he admits are marshalled 
 in two families; the Eastern, comprehending nearly 
 all the uncial manuscripts; and the Western, which 
 is composed chiefly of the Latin versions, supported 
 in the Gospels and Acts by the Codex Bezaj. These 
 classes respectively correspond with Griesbach's Alex- 
 andrine and Occidental recensions; his Byzantine 
 documents being rejected by Lachmann in one pro- 
 miscuous mass. This editor has also constructed a 
 graduated scale, containing six degrees of proba- 
 
30 3|ntcotiuct(on. 
 
 bility, in some one of which a place is assigned to 
 each various reading, according as it is supported by 
 the witnesses of one or both families, wholly or in 
 part. On a general view it will perhaps appear that 
 Lachmann's text is somewhat preferable to Gries- 
 bach's ; but a list of variations from the textus re- 
 ceptus, covering 43 pages of his first edition, will 
 shew the formidable effects of his daring and mis- 
 taken theory. 
 
 Tischendorrs Tl'^ researches of Scholz have done much 
 N-T. towards removing the obldquy and unde- 
 served contempt which had been cast on the received 
 text by critics of the last century. A desperate effort 
 has recently been made by Tischendorf (Nov. Test. 
 Lips. 1 84 1) to retrieve the credit of Griesbach's theory, 
 or at least to vindicate the principal changes which he 
 introduced into the text of Scripture (e. g. Malth, vi, 
 13; John vii, 8; Acts xx, 28; 1 Tim. iii, 16). His 
 own sentiments on the subject of recensions seem to be 
 the following (Proleg. N. T. p. 49). The great bulk 
 of various readings in the New Testament arise from 
 accident and the errors of copyists. If a formal re- 
 vision of manuscripts ever took place (which he will 
 not undertake to deny), we are so totally ignorant of 
 the country, and age, and plan of the editors, that it 
 would be wrong to concede to it any practical influ- 
 ence in determining questions of criticism. Assuming 
 the characteristic differences between Scholz's Alex- 
 andrine and Byzantine families as a simple fact, for 
 which he docs not pretend to account, he gives the 
 <lccidcd preference to the Alexandrine readings, when- 
 ever some serious obstacle does not oppose their re- 
 ception. For this preference he assigns one, and (so 
 far as I can observe) but one reason, — the high 
 antiquity of the manuscripts which follow that re- 
 
 3|ntrotiuctfon. 3i 
 
 cension : an argument on the validity of which I 
 have already delivered my opinion (see p. 28). Cor- 
 rected therefore by nothing but the operation of a few 
 sensible canons relating to internal evidence (Proleg. 
 p. 60), Tischendorf's text is completely Alexandrian. 
 A large portion of his Prolegomena is aimed against 
 Scholz, whom he criticises in a thoroughly hostile 
 spirit ; and accuses (I fear with some truth) of dis- 
 graceful negligence in the execution of his edition, 
 even to repeating the typographical errors of Gries- 
 bach (Proleg. p. 52). Tischendorf's New Testament 
 may be found useful by those who wish to possess, 
 in a small compass, the latest information on the 
 subject of various readings.* As an original work its 
 value is very questionable. 
 
 „^^ . . My design in the following pages limits 
 
 of tlie prcce- me to the examination of such various 
 ing review, rg^dings of the Original, as in translation 
 affect the sense of the passage in which they stand. 
 The deviations of our English version from the textus 
 receptus I shall never intentionally leave unnoticed. 
 In other cases, I by no means purpose to confine my 
 observations to those passages, in which I acquiesce 
 in the propriety of a change in the Greek. So many 
 important places in the New Testament have been 
 rashly mangled by the German editors, that I shall 
 only be discharging a plain duty in protesting against 
 their innovations, and in stating my reasons, as briefly 
 and distinctly as I may, for abiding by the readings 
 of the common text. 
 
 The leading principles by which my criticisms are 
 directed may readily be gathered from the foregoing 
 
 • He in the first to apply iho St. Gall MS (A of Scholz) to the 
 rriticism of the C5ospels. 
 
32 gjntconuttlon. 
 
 remarks. I would adhere as much as possible to the 
 text of the editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs ; 
 not indeed because it is the received text (as Lachmann 
 so unfairly insinuates) ; but because I believe it to 
 bear, on the whole, a close resemblance to the best 
 manuscripts, which have been used by the Greek 
 Church from the earliest ages. The schemes both of 
 Griesbach and of Lachmann I feel bound to reject, 
 since their direct tendency is to overthrow the testi- 
 mony of the vast majority of our critical authorities, 
 on grounds too precarious to admit of satisfactory 
 defence. By conceding some weight to internal evi- 
 dence, and by following out Scholz's hypothesis more 
 consistently than he has done for himself, we may 
 hope to purge the received text of its grosser corrup- 
 tions, and to approach more nearly to the Apostolic 
 autographs than any of the illustrious scholars whose 
 attempts have passed under our notice. Those who 
 best know the difficulties of my task, will be the 
 most disposed to allow my claim on their candor and 
 indulgence. 
 
 II. We now come to our second general head, 
 comprehending errors of interpretation, which arise 
 from mistaking the sense of the original Greek . Of 
 this class there are several varieties, which may be 
 distributed as follows : 
 
 (II, a.) When the inaccuracy consists in the mis- 
 translation of a single Greek word. This is the 
 Lexicographical branch of our subject, and has been 
 assiduously cultivated by some of the best Biblical 
 critics on the continent : Fischer, Schleusner, Titt- 
 mann and Wahl being the great names in this de- 
 partment of literature. Errors may arise in the 
 rendering of single words in several ways. Either 
 the sense of the word may be totally mistaken, as 
 
 3ntcoDurtfon. 33 
 
 ;r«7Mp in the text of Mark vii, 3 (one of the marginal 
 mterpretations is probably correct) ; .Vra^.aT^o'c, Mark 
 XIV, 8 ; aVoypi^fff^a., Luke ii, 1 ; ffwpoJv, 2 Cor. iii, 
 14; and perhaps also ^aiXo'v.;?, 2 Tim. iv, 13. This 
 source of error is happily very rare in our version. 
 Gr a transitive verb may be wrongly used intransi- 
 tively, as cKav^aXlluv, Matth. V, 29 (where the mar 
 gin is right); KaTonrpll,„Qai, 2 Cor. iii, 18. Or a 
 word is rendered in its ordinary sense, where the 
 context requires a less usual one to be adopted ; as 
 TiVrfc, Rom. xiv, 23; ykpi^, 2 Cor. viii, 6; 19 (it is 
 right in the margin of both verses, and in the text of 
 V. 4); u7ro'<rrn(Tic, Hebr. xi, 1 (where again see the 
 margin). This is probably the case also with v.a',.«T/co, 
 Mark xiv, 51; ,Vou,t«v, Acts xxii, 9; ;faraxf.5<r0a., 
 I Cor. vii, 31. Or the strict literal sense may be 
 brought out more fully than the sacred penman seems 
 to intend, as <TVKo,l>avTuv, Luke iii, 14; xix, 8. In 
 jike manner, diminutives are sometimes expressed as 
 such in our version, when it is by no means certain 
 that the writer designed them to convey a notion 
 different from that of the word from which they are 
 derived. Thus for example, Peter is said by all the 
 Evangelists to have cut off the «Lr/ov of the high 
 priest's servant, and some commentators have sup- 
 posed that only a part of the ear is here meant- 
 whereas St. Luke, in speaking of the very same act 
 m the preceding verse (ch. xxii, 50), uses the word 
 ouc instead of the diminutive Criov* So again St 
 Matthew (ch. XV, 36) calls the same fishes iju^ 
 which in V. 34 he had named l-)^^B{,Sia. The word 
 
 • And the best Classics constantly use diminutives, in speakinff 
 of parte of the body : e. g. vfi^Arm, ^„la, &c. See Lobcck's note 
 on Phrynichufs, p. 211. 
 
34 3lntcotiuction. 
 
 Ovyarptov is twice used by St, Mark (v, 23 ; vii, 25) ; 
 yet since in the former case it is applied to a damsel 
 of twelve years old, it must like Kopamov (Mark v, 
 42) be rather a term of endearment than a diminutive 
 in its proper sense. IlaiSiov also frequently occurs 
 in the New Testament, being used nine times in the 
 second chapter of St. Matthew with reference to our 
 Saviour : yet it is remarkable that neither the Syriac, 
 Vulgate, nor English versions before the Bishops' 
 Bible express the diminutive. For further informa- 
 tion on this point I may refer to Campbell (Prel. 
 Dissert, xii, 1, 19); whose judicious observations 
 nearly exhaust the subject. 
 
 It only remains to say a few words respecting the 
 force of prepositions when compounded with verbs. 
 I must here observe that Schleusner's practice in this 
 matter seems neither just nor rational. He first en- 
 quires for what Hebrew word a particular Greek 
 compound verb is used in the Septuagint, or other 
 Greek version of the Old Testament. If the same 
 Hebrew word be rendered in another passage in these 
 versions by the corresponding simple Greek verb, he 
 concludes at once that in Hellenistic writers the 
 simple and compound verbs in question are identical 
 in signification. Thus, because Aquila in Psalm 
 cxxx. 5 renders the Hiphil conjugation of vlT by 
 KapaSoKuv, but in Psalm xxxvii, 7 the Hithpahel con- 
 jugation by awoKapaSoKtiv, he infers after Fischer 
 " substaiitivo airoKapaSoKia (Rom. viii, 19; Phil, i, 
 20) non nmpliorem notionem subjiciendam esse, 
 quam simplici KapaSoKia ;" although Chrysostom ex- 
 pressly paraphrases the word by ^ fieyaXti Kal iiriTira- 
 pivn npoaSoKia ; and Tittmann, in his beautiful frag- 
 ment on the Synonyms of the New Testament (Vol. I. 
 p. 187 English translation), has since proved the in- 
 
 Jntrolrticrton. 35 
 
 tensive force ofi.i in composition from such instances 
 
 ^a^^KSiy^^Oa. m Rom. viii, 19, and i^o^araXXi,x«.v 
 
 Jj-Ph. 11, 16. Now Schleusner's process is open to 
 this manifest objection ; that even supposing the 
 style of the writers of the New Testament to resemble 
 that ot the Alexandrian and later versions of the Old 
 so closely, that they all uniformly use the same 
 word, m precisely the same sense (an assumption 
 wh.ch may well be doubted) ; yet the principle of 
 interpretation here described would compel us to tie 
 down original authors in a varied and copious lan- 
 guage like the Greek, to the meagre vocabulary of 
 he Hebrew. But if we turn from the Hellenistic 
 translators to the Greek classics, we find an exquisite 
 array of compound verbs, scattered in lavish profu- 
 sion over every page, but never (F am speaking of 
 the best writers) without their apt and proper mean- 
 ing; gently and concisely insinuating some limitation 
 or.collateral idea, which, tliough not absolutely essen- 
 tial to the sense, gives completeness to the imaffe 
 which is preserved to the mind of an intelhVent 
 reader. No one who has imbibed the spirit of Thucv- 
 dides, or Plato, or the Attic orators, will be soon per- 
 suaded that the Greek prepositions in composition 
 are idle and superfluous prefixes ; though he must 
 often despair of expressing them in a modern lan- 
 guage without straining the sense by giving undue 
 prominence to the incidental and subordinate notions 
 which they convey. The rule I have proposed to 
 myself on this point is the following. Whenever I 
 conceive that the writer's meaning is rendered ob- 
 scure or imperfect by neglecting the force of the pre- 
 position, I have invariably suggested its adoption, 
 even where it may produce a degree of awkward cir- 
 cumlocution (e. g. Matth. xvi, 22 ; Mark iii, 2 ; Luke 
 
36 3|ntcotiutt(on. 
 
 viii, 40 ; Hebr. xli, 2). But when, on the contrary, 
 
 (as in the case of airlpj^icrOai, arroKptmruv, airo(i\huv 
 
 and many other verbs of frequent occurrence), the 
 preposition is manifestly a dispensable accessory, I 
 have thought that the spirit of the original is best 
 preserved, by wholly suppressing the particle in trans- 
 lation. 
 
 (II, b.) The next sub-division of my second general 
 head treats of inaccuracies in the grammatical con- 
 struction of one or more words in the same clause. 
 On this important and comprehensive branch of the 
 subject I wish to make a few preliminary observations 
 relating to the article, and to the tenses of the verbs. 
 It is obvious that the great mass of errors of this 
 description are too miscellaneous in their character 
 to admit of more minute classification. 
 
 On the subject of the Greek article I must profess 
 myself a disciple of Bishop Middleton, whose work 
 has taught us more concerning the use of this impor- 
 tant little word, than former scholars had thought it 
 possible to attain. His treatise is a perfect model of 
 close argument and accurate learning, applied to the 
 support of a most ingenious and elaborate hypothesis. 
 The reader is probably aware that Middleton does 
 not agree with the majority of grammarians in con- 
 sidering the nature of the Greek article demonstrative, 
 but pronounces it to be the prepositive relative pro- 
 noun (the common relative Sc being retrospective), 
 which is anticipative, and whose relation to its ad- 
 junct (noun &c.) is supposed to be more or less ob- 
 scure. It is, in fact, the subject of a proposition, 
 whereof the adjunct is predicate, and the participle 
 wv the copula. Thus the expression o irotfiriv " the 
 shepherd" would be called by Middleton elliptical, 
 the full form being o [wv] wotftriv, " he-wlio [is] shep- 
 
 Untcotiuctfon. 37 
 
 herd." Now although this definition is far less 
 simple than that of Matthiae and the great body of 
 critics, and though the direct evidence urged in its 
 belmif may be slight and precarious, it is difficult to 
 study the beautiful process of analytical reasoning 
 by which its author deduces from it the principal 
 pliaenomena of the use of ti.e article, without feeling 
 a growing conviction, that the theory which satisfac- 
 torily accounts for so large a body of philological 
 facts cannot be entirely false.* Still, the peculiar 
 excellence of Bp. Middleton's volume arises from 
 the circumstance, that its value as a practical guide 
 to the interpretation of the article is nearly indepen- 
 dent of the correctness of his hypothesis. We may, 
 if we please, entirely reject his speculations, without 
 impairing, to any considerable extent, the usefulness 
 of his grammatical canons. If subsequent researches 
 have taught us that he sometimes makes too little 
 allowance for the varieties of idiom or the license of 
 spoken language, and has erred in exacting an uni- 
 versal observance of rules which are only generaliy 
 true; it would be unjust to forget that this has ever 
 been the besetting fault of the most eminent scholars • 
 a fault from which Dawes and Elmsley, nay even 
 Porson himself, were by no means free. Above all 
 we are bound to bear in mind the Bishop's acute dis- 
 tinction, that while examples of the insertion of the 
 article in a manner irreconcilable to his principles 
 would constitute a serious objection to the validity 
 of his theory, or if numerous must overthrow it • 
 instances of its omission, where it might justly be 
 
 • * ^^ tr*"^'*" "'' * P^'^^'y ''^•"""Otrative sense of the article 
 f:;; ''^ ^ [• ^-^ (Grammar of the New TeBtament Dialect, p. 
 136) are al capable of another solution. But I am not at all 
 inrlincd to dogmatige on the subject. 
 
38 3lntroliuction. 
 
 looked for, ought to produce no such effect: since 
 the natural tendency both of poetry and common 
 discourse is to abridge the fuller forms of expression 
 which are required in written and periodic prose, 
 where no ambiguity results from such abridgement. 
 No one will doubt the accuracy of his distinction, 
 who, with a view to this enquiry, will compare a few 
 pages of the Greek Tragedians with a short passage 
 from Xenophon or Isocrates. The prose writer will 
 probably be found to repeat the article five times, 
 where the poet employs it once. Yet it is obvious 
 that if this variation in usage be a real obstacle to 
 the reception of Bp. Middleton's system, it must 
 prove equally fatal to every other hypothesis that 
 may at any time be devised. 
 
 I have endeavoured, therefore, in the course of my 
 review, to give its full force to every article con- 
 tained in the sacred text, whenever it can be ex- 
 pressed in English. On this point, as is well known, 
 our translators have not exercised their usual care. 
 Instances abound in which the English indefinite 
 article is wrongly substituted for the definite ; some- 
 times to the injury of the sense (1 Cor. v, 9; Ilebr. 
 ix, 1); but more frequently to the suppression of 
 some minute circumstance, or delicate intimation, 
 which tends to give an air of freshness and reality to 
 the original (Matth. xiii, 2 ; xvii, 24 ; Luke xii, 54 ; 
 John iii, 10; v. 35 ; Acts xvii, 1 ; 2 Cor. xii. 18). 
 In several cases I have been compelled to dissent 
 from the views of Bp. Middleton ; with the greater ' 
 confidence whenever I had the advantage of treading 
 in the steps of Professor Scholefield or Mr. Green : 
 but they I believe would cheerfully admit that nearly 
 all they know on the subject is derived from our 
 corfimon master's " Doctrine of the Greek Article." 
 
 JntcoDuctfon. 39 
 
 For myself I must confess that I have studied his 
 work earnestly and repeatedly with ever-increasing 
 admiration. So subtle yet so exact were his habits 
 of thought ; so deep and comprehensive his learning; 
 with so much singleness of purpose did he devote 
 Ins best powers to the defence and elucidation of 
 God's Holy Word, that I cannot but regard Dp. Mid- 
 dleton as one of the brightest ornaments of his age, 
 and of the Church in whose service he sank into a 
 premature grave. Yet this is the man of whom Moses 
 Stuart of Andover, in a tract which he is pleased to 
 call " Hints and Cautions respecting the Greek Ar- 
 ticle," thus modestly expresses himself: "I have read 
 his book until I despair of getting to the light ; so 
 often does he deal in the claro-obscure, and so often 
 utters unguarded assertions, or at least such as are 
 incapable of solid defence." Those who happen to 
 be acquainted with any of Mr. Stuart's publications, 
 will readily conjecture to whose account the blame 
 of this claro-obscurity should be placed. * 
 
 Before we quit the subject of the Greek article, it 
 IS proper to notice an important theological discus- 
 
 * To name but one instance of this gentleman's fitness for com- 
 piling Grammars of the New Testament Dialect, will it be credited 
 that he is perplexed at the very common construction of waiofiai 
 with a participle ? At least the following in his whole note on 
 Hebr. x, 2. " 'Ewcl ovk ay iiraviravTo vpoaftpdfitvat ; ' for otherwise, 
 i. e. if the sacrifices could have perfected those who presented them,' 
 would not the offerings have ceased V To ^povfepSfuvai most critics 
 subjoin cTyat understood [it would be worth while to know what 
 critics, since the days of poor Lambert Bos], which would be equi- 
 valent to the infinite npoa<j>lpi(,9at, rendering the phrase thus 
 ' They (i. e. the sacrifices) had ceased to be offered.' The sense 
 of the phrase, thus explained, is the same as I have given to it. 
 But irpoff^tpo/itiai ifiviriai) iiravanvTo seems to me more facile 
 than the other construction." Facile with a witness ! 
 
^0 3ntcoliutt(on. 
 
 sion to which its use in the New Testament has 
 given occasion. In the year 1798 the excellent 
 Granville Sharp first published his " Remarks on 
 the uses of the Definitive Article in the New Tes- 
 tament, containing many new proofs of the Divinity 
 of CJirist, from passages which are wrongly trans- 
 lated in the common English." The title of this 
 work sufficiently shews its design; and though 
 Socinian writers chose to treat his theory as a mere 
 idle dispute about words and grammatical niceties, 
 it soon received the attention it deserved from sound 
 and judicious scholars. Dr. Wordsworth, the late 
 eminent Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, in- 
 contestably proved that some of the passages brought 
 forward by Sharp were understood by the Greek 
 Fathers in the very sense which he had attached to 
 them (Wordsworth's Six Letters to Sharp, 1802). 
 The whole question was soon afterwards re-examined 
 by Bp. Middleton, who has so firmly established 
 Sharp's leading principle, and so clearly and con- 
 cisely pointed out its limitations and exceptions 
 (Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp. 56—70, Rose's 
 edition), that every objection which has since been 
 alleged, either to the general theory, or to its appli- 
 cation in the New Testament, may be removed at 
 once on referring to the Bishop's work, where it will 
 be found to have been fore-seen, and answered by 
 anticipation. 
 
 Mr. Sharp's rule, then, (though in truth it was 
 known to many divines long before the publication 
 of his " Remarks"), is simply the following :_When 
 two personal nouns of the same case are connected 
 by a copulative conjunction, if both have the de- 
 finitive article, they relate to different persons; if 
 only the former has the article, they relate to the 
 
 3nti:o6uct(on. 41 
 
 same person. Thus, for instance, we read in James 
 
 III, 9 wXoyoifitv riy QtHv Kal Uaripa, which OUf 
 
 Authorised version renders " We bless God, even the 
 Father;" but which would be more accurately trans- 
 lated " We bless God the Father." Now in this 
 passage, since both G.iv "God," and Uaripa 
 '' Father" are personal nouns (or attributives, as 
 Middleton terms them), and since the first G.ov has 
 the definite article riv before it, while the second 
 has not, it follows from Granville Sharp's rule, that 
 they refer to one and the same Person ; for if they 
 related to different Persons. Baripa would be pre- 
 ceded by the article as well as Giov. I have pur- 
 posely chosen for our example a passage wherein 
 no one ever doubted that the two nouns refer to the 
 same Divine Person; but the reader must already 
 see how important this principle becomes in such a 
 case as Eph. v, 5 Baa.A«V ro'v Xpt^roi Ka\ Q,ov, whose 
 literal^ rendering is " the kingdom of the Christ and 
 God." Here the presence of the article before 
 "Christ," and its absence before " God" amount (if 
 Mr. Sharp's canon be correct) to an express and 
 positive declaration on the part of St. Paul, that 
 Christ and God are one and the same Bein^r- a 
 most weighty conformation of the doctrine main- 
 tained by the Church universal, respecting the god- 
 head of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 If we examine the renderings of such passages as 
 these in our English Bible, we shall be led to con- 
 clude that Its translators were not so much adverse 
 to the grammatical rule here stated, as ignorant or 
 forgetful of it. Confining ourselves for the present 
 to those texts which do not involve an assertion of 
 the Deity of Christ, we shall find that the very same 
 form of expression in the Greek original is translated 
 
42 3|ntcoliuct{on. 
 
 in the Authorised version with every possible variety 
 of phrase. Thus in 1 Cor. xv, 24 ry Gey koI Uarpi 
 is rendered " To God, even the Father" (where even 
 Tyndal has " to God the Father"): so also in Rom. 
 XV, 6 ; 2 Cor. i, 3 ; James iii, 9. But in the follow- 
 ing passages, besides some less notable variations, 
 we read " God and the Father:"— 2 Cor. xi, 31; 
 Gal.i,4; Eph. i,3; v, 20 ; Col. i,3; ii, 2 ; iii, 17; 
 James i, 27 ; 1 Peter i, 3. From this inconsistency 
 we may fairly infer, that if our translators were ac- 
 quainted with the property of the Greek article so 
 ably insisted on by Sharp and his followers, they at 
 all events failed to perceive its direct bearing on the 
 profoundest mysteries of our Faith. 
 
 The texts alleged by Mr. Sharp, as calculated, if 
 rightly translated, to testify to the Divinity of our 
 Saviour, are eight in number : — Acts xx, 28 ; Eph. 
 V, 5 ; 2 Thess. i, 12 ; 1 Tim. v, 21 ; 2 Tim. iv, 1 ; 
 Tit. ii, 13 ; 2 Pet. i, 1 ; Jude v. 4 ; each of which 
 will be carefully investigated in its proper place. 
 The result, I think, will be found to be, that while 
 later researches have thrown more or less of doubt on 
 the propriety of applying his principle to five out of 
 the eight texts ; the canon has been confirmed with 
 respect to the other three (Eph. v, 5 ; Tit. ii, 13 ; 2 
 Pet. i, 1) to as high a degree of probability as is 
 attainable in questions of this nature. 
 
 I ought not, however, to suppress that Mr. Green in 
 his Grammar of the New Testament Dialect, has not 
 adopted the precise view of this matter which Middle- 
 ton advocated. In the course of a valuable disquisi- 
 tion on the use of a single article with several words 
 connected by conjunctions, after assigning to the first 
 class those instances where the description involved 
 in each separate word extends to the whole (which 
 
 Untcolruction. 43 
 
 form of expression exactly coincides with that in 
 Sharp's rule, when the attributives are personal 
 nouns) ; he admits a second class, where each of the 
 words, which are generally/, though not always incom- 
 patible, is descriptive of only part of a subject (Gram- 
 mar p. 208). But it is clear, that if compatible ap- 
 pellatives can ever be thus used with a single article 
 before them, and yet be respectively descriptive of 
 only parts of a subject, that however probable may be 
 the theological deduction from Tit. ii, 13, such an 
 mference is not grammatically necessary; and thus 
 the whole superstructure which Sharp had raised 
 upon this property of the article, falls at once to the 
 ground. NowBp.Middleton unequivocally denies that 
 the second article is ever omitted in such instances 
 as are contemplated in Mr. Green's second class, 
 unless indeed the attributives be in their nature 
 absolutely incompatible ; since in this last case the 
 perspicuity of the passage does not require the rule 
 to be accurately observed (Middleton p. G7, 3rd 
 edition). This is a strong assertion, and one which 
 can be disproved only by the production of examples 
 to contradict it ; a course which Mr. Green has not 
 thought it necessary to adopt. One part of the 
 Bishop's statement is certainly capable of modifi- 
 cation. It is adviseable to explain that the " abso- 
 lute incompatibility" of the attributives, is often an 
 incompatibility not inherent in their own nature, 
 but rather arising from the context in which they 
 stand. Thus in ^Eschin. c. Timarch. c. 2 we read 
 
 rafxlv tCov Br,fiOKparov,iiv,ov awfxara Ka, rnv TroXlruav ol 
 vo/xo. awlovai, ri Bk r^v rvpdvvwv Kal oAtyapx'Kwv [these 
 seem to be the orator's words] amarla, Kal h M^ra rC>v 
 
 oirXwv <ppovpd. Now there is nothing very incom- 
 patible, at least to modern notions, in the ideas of 
 
44 3|ntroDuct(on. 
 
 tyranny and oligarchy ; but the omission of the 
 second article in this place is permissible from the 
 circumstance that ^schines had just before drawn 
 a pointed distinction between them : ofioXoyovvrat 
 yap rptic nvai iroXirtiai irapa Traaiv avOpunroiq, rvpavvlq 
 Kai uAcyap^^i'a »cai Sti/xoKparta, A similar explanation 
 may be given to the passage cited from the opening 
 of Aristotle's Rhetoric by Rose (Prelim. Observ. to 
 Middleton, p. xxvii). 
 
 But whatever be determined on the point thus 
 raised by Mr. Green, our version must at all events 
 be corrected in texts of this description, since it 
 inevitably suggests to the English reader that 
 another article is prefixed to the second appellative 
 in order to distinguish it the more carefully from the 
 first. Whereas, on the contrary, the circumstance 
 of only one article being employed indicates, if not 
 personal identity, at the very least an intimate con- 
 nection between the two appellatives.* 
 
 We come at length to the errors of our common 
 translation with respect to the tenses of verbs. No 
 two languages precisely agree in their mode of ex- 
 pressing the time of an action ; and the Greek in 
 particular is furnished with so extensive an ap- 
 
 ' Now that we are speaking of the formula o Oioc xal irar»)p 
 I may be allowed to correct a slight inaccuracy of Bp. Middleton. 
 He says (Doctrine of Article, p. 366, 3rd edition) that this ex- 
 pression is frequently, but not always, rendered in the Peshito 
 by " God the Father," without ifoi. If we may trust Schmidt's 
 Concordance, the term occurs in the New Testament 21 times. 
 In 19 of these I find no copula in the Peshito ; of the two re- 
 maining cases, in James iil, 9 the Syriac reads Kvpiov, and has 
 therefore nothing to do with the question. The other case is 
 Rev. i, 6 : but this book is no part of the Peshito, but is of a late 
 and inferior Tersion. Hence it appears, that the practice of the 
 Peshito is uniform nn this point. 
 
 3|nti-oDutt(on. 45 
 
 paratus for this purpose, that it is often hopeless to 
 render its rich and varied forms into English or any 
 modern tongue (encumbered as they are with the 
 awkward system of auxiliary verbs,) without entirely 
 losing the concise energy of the original. Under 
 these circumstances, our wisest course would seem 
 to be, not to press too closely those minute pecu- 
 liarities of the Greek, which, however they may add 
 to the perfect comprehension of the writer's spirit, 
 are by no means essential to his sense : and on this 
 principle the translators of our English Bible have 
 for the most part acted. Yet there are cases in which 
 the omission to render fully the exact force of the 
 Greek tense, has produced obscurity in the version, 
 or even destroyed the meaning of the sentence. In 
 such cases it is manifestly better to be verbose than 
 unintelligible, and we must not hesitate to sacrifice 
 brevity to perspicuity. Thus I have attempted to 
 express the full signification of the imperfect in 
 Matth. iii, 14; Luke v, 6 ; 1 Cor. x,4; xi, 30; the 
 aorist has been rendered as a Latin pluperfect in 
 Matth. xxviii, 17 ; as a present in 1 Cor. v, 9 ; 11; 
 Philem. v. 19, &c. The full sense of the perfect has 
 been given in Luke xiii, 2 ; and of the pluperfect 
 in Luke xvi, 20. In every chapter of the historical 
 books the inspired authors have perpetually used 
 the present tense in the narrative of past events; 
 but though such a practice lends vigour and ani- 
 mation to the style, I have not thought it necessary 
 to bring the corresponding past tenses of the English 
 New Testament into strict conformity with the 
 original : nor, on the other hand, to propose a 
 change in those rarer instances, in which the English 
 present is used for the Greek past (Matth. xvii, 2G) 
 or future (Luke xxiii, 46). In the similar case of 
 
^^ 3itro6uctfon. 
 
 the Greek present being used to. intimate the cer- 
 tainty or near approach of some future event (Matth. 
 xxvii, 63 ; Luke xiii, 32 ; Acts i, 6 ; 2 Pet. iii. 1 1) 
 the future of our English version will be left un- 
 touched. It would be injudicious to propose a 
 multitude of trifling alterations, for the purpose of 
 forcmg upon one language the idioms of another. 
 
 (II, c.) The third and last species of error com- 
 mitted by our translators with respect to the interpre- 
 tation of the Greek text, arises from a mistaken distri- 
 bution of the several parts of the same sentence or 
 paragraph. One or more words may be joined to the 
 wrong clause, and thus a material change will be 
 produced in the sense (Luke vi, 9 ; Rom. i, 9 • 10 • 
 viii, 20; 1 Cor. vii, 29 ; 34 ; 1 Thess. i, 4). 'or if 
 the construction be a little involved, it may become 
 doubtful where the concluding member of the sen- 
 tence, technically called the apodosis, begins (Luke 
 xiii,25;Actsx,37; 2 Cor. iii, 13; Eph. iii, 1—14): 
 a species of difficulty by no means uncommon in the 
 best Classics. Or, since in certain phrases the 
 apodosis is entirely suppressed, as being readily 
 supplied in the reader's mind (e. g. Homer. II. A, 
 136 ; Luke xiii, 9), it may happen that our version 
 avails itself of its licence too freely (Matth. xv, 6 • 
 Mark vii, 11; and perhaps I Tim, i. 4), and thus 
 misrepresents the meaning of the whole context. 
 Again, in some books of the New Testament, more 
 especially in St. Paul's Epistles, it is not always 
 easy to trace the precise connection of one clause or 
 period with another. So frequently does the Apostle 
 digress from his main subject, to dwell upon some 
 incidental fact or doctrine remotely connected with 
 his argument; and so abruptly, does he sometimes 
 return to the topics which he had abruptly quitted : 
 
 I'* 
 
 ^ 
 
 antroliuction. 47 
 
 that on no point have commentators been more 
 divided, than in marking the limits of his paren- 
 theses, and in arranging the punctuation of his sen- 
 tences. I may refer the reader to Rom. v, 12— 19 ; 
 or to Gal. ii, 2—10, if he wishes to form an idea of 
 the perplexities which beset us in this branch of 
 our enquiry. 
 
 With regard to the general subject of the punc- 
 tuation of Scripture, I cheerfully accord with the 
 sentiments expressed by Bp. Middleton (on Matth 
 xvi, 13), who after Wolf condemns the liberty 
 assumed by Grotius and others, of introducing the 
 most arbitrary changes in the stops, provided only 
 that the words of the text remain unaltered. Even 
 were we to grant that no such points were employed 
 by the writers of the New Testament themselves, 
 «till the system of punctuation which long usage 
 has established, is not to be disturbed on slight 
 grounds. It has existed from time immemorial, and 
 is doubtless the arrangement which those whose 
 native tongue was Greek, judged most suitable to 
 the order of the words, and the exigency of the sense. 
 Hence it is that I look with much suspicion on the 
 innovations in punctuation which have been pro- 
 posed by Griesbach, and more recently by Lach- 
 mann. Though there are cases in which their 
 adoption may possibly be the least of antagonist 
 difficulties (e. g. 1 Cor. vi, 4 ; Hebr. vii, 18, 19; 
 X, 2 ; James iv, 6), yet it is a resource to which 
 we should betake ourselves only in the last ex- 
 tremity.* 
 
 • " If I give a man the liberty of punctuating for me, I resign 
 him much of interpretation." English version of N. T. by a 
 " Layman" 1840. Preface, p. xi, see above p. 15 note. 
 
48 ^IntcoDuction. 
 
 Chapters, »erses Closcly Connected with the punctu- 
 and paragraphs, ^^j^^^ ^^ ^^le sacred text is its division 
 into chapters and verses. On this subject our 
 Translators received positive instructions from King 
 James : " The division of the chapters to be altered 
 either not at all, or as little as may be, if neces- 
 sity so require." (Instruction v). And when we 
 consider the endless confusion which even then 
 must inevitably have ensued from any change in 
 their arrangement, we cannot but think that the 
 authors of our version exercised a sound discretion 
 in retaining them as they found them. It is not 
 however difficult to perceive that the present is far 
 • from being the best distribution of chapters that 
 might have been made. Bp. Terrot (Ernesti's Insti- 
 tutes, English translation, Vol. ii, p. 21) observes 
 that Acts V should commence at chapter iv, 32 ; and 
 that 1 Cor. v, 1—5 should be appended toch. iv. In 
 like manner Campbell would join Matth. xv, 39 to 
 ch. xvi ; ch. xix, 30 to ch. xx ; Mark v, 1 ; ix, 1, to 
 chapters iv and viii respectively. We may also 
 remark that the first clause of Acts viii, 1, belongs 
 to ch. vii; that Acts xxi concludes with striking 
 abruptness ; that Luke xxi, 1—4 ought to form part of 
 ch. XX, in the same manner as the parallel passage 
 of St. Mark is arranged ; that Col. iv, 1 should be a 
 part of ch. iii ; and several other instances of the 
 same kind. But even were these defects of more 
 consequence than they are, a revision of the chapter- 
 divisions would be an intolerable evil, for which no 
 prospective advantages could adequately compensate. 
 Respecting the verses still less need be said. This 
 hasty and incorrect notation was first inserted in the 
 Genevan English Testament of 1557 from Robert 
 Stephen's Genevan Greek Testament of 1551 ; and 
 
 3|ntcoDuct(on. 49 
 
 the facilities which it affords for reference are so 
 great and visible, that it never will or can be dis- 
 pensed with. Its faults as a guide to the sense, are 
 too glaring to escape the merest tiro in Biblical criti- 
 cism ; and the merest tiro may regard them with in- 
 difference, since no respectable edition of the Greek 
 Testament will hereafter be published, in which the 
 figures indicating the chapters and verses are not 
 banished to the margin.* 
 
 Since the distribution of the text into chapters and 
 verses is thus useless as a help to the interpretation 
 of Scripture, it is much to be regretted that more 
 pains were not bestowed by our translators on the 
 marks which denote the commencement of paragraphs 
 or sections ; inasmuch as these might in some mea- 
 sure have supplied the deficiency. But not to insist 
 on the discrepancies in this particular between various 
 modern editions of the Bible (for Dr. Blayncy's at- 
 tempts to preserve uniformity on this point have sig- 
 nally failed) ; it is impossible, I think, to comprehend 
 the principle on which our translators acted with re- 
 spect to the paragraph marks. They are distributed 
 so unequally over the several parts of the New Testa- 
 ment, being introduced in some places where they 
 break the thread of the discourse (Matt, xxviii, 19 ; 
 Luke xviii, 22 ; 1 Cor. xv, 42) ; and sometimes, 
 though less frequently, neglected where they are ab- 
 solutely requisite; that I am bound to recommend to 
 the reader the sections of Bengel, Knappe, Vater, or 
 Bishop Lloyd (Nov. Test. Oxon. 1830), in preference 
 
 • The chief design of Wynne's EngUsh version of the New 
 Testament, London, 1764, is to get rid of the division by chapters 
 and verses, the latter of which he calls " a wild and undigested 
 invention." In other respects his attempt is not deserving of much 
 regard. 
 
50 3|ntrotiuct(on. 
 
 to the careless and capricious arrangement in the first 
 edition of King James's Bible. 
 
 III. The third general division of my subject re- 
 lates to those errors of our Authorised version, which 
 arise from blemishes in the language of the English 
 Translation itself. This class of inaccuracies also 
 may be divided into three varieties. 
 
 (Ill, a.) The version may be faulty from a want of 
 uniformity in rendering the same Greek word. On 
 this topic our Translators speak out boldly in their 
 Preface to the Reader. " We have not tied ourselves 
 to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of 
 words, as some peradventure would wish that we had 
 done, because they observe that some learned men 
 somewhere [is Hugh Broughton here glanced at?] 
 have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, 
 that we might not vaiy if the word signified the 
 same thing in both places (for there be some words 
 that be not of the same sense everywhere), we were 
 especially careful, and made a conscience according 
 to our duty. But, that we should express the same 
 notion in the same particular word ; as for example, 
 if we should translate the Hebrew or Greek word 
 once by " purpose," never to call it " intent ;" if one 
 where "journeying," never " travelling;" if one 
 where "think," never "purpose;" if one where 
 " pain," never "ache;" if one where "joy," never 
 " gladness," See. thus to mince the matter, we thought 
 to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that 
 rather it would breed scorn in the Atheists, than 
 profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of 
 God become words and syllables ? why should we be 
 in bondage to them, if we may be free as commo- 
 diously ?" Now had our excellent Translators been 
 content to abide by the principles they have just 
 
 intcoDuctfon. 51 
 
 laid down, no rational objection could have been 
 alleged against them in this matter. It will at once 
 be admitted that such a compulsory uniformity as 
 they here describe would have given an appearance 
 ot constramt to their version, without being attended 
 with the slightest benefit. Had they really been 
 " especially careful " not " to vary from the sense of 
 that which they had rendered before," every candid 
 cntic would freely have granted to them the use of 
 as large a collection of synonymous words, as they 
 might judge conducive to variety and neatness of 
 style. Thus we do not complain that the same word 
 /«rot«,T«'a is rendered in three different ways in the 
 very first chapter of St. Matthew (vv. 11, 12, 17); 
 or that f,aprvpla is translated " witness " in John i 7 
 and " record " in v. 19 ; or that the verb ,.aprvp,i is 
 not uniformly represented in vv. 7, 8, 15, 32, 34 of 
 the same chapter. Since the sense is not in the least 
 obscured by this variation in the words, it would be 
 captious and idle to found an objection upon it The 
 case IS somewhat altered in another passage, in which 
 /^nprvpla and ^iapTvpuv perpetually recur. Within the 
 limits of nine verses (John v. 3 1-39) is comprised a 
 tram of close and connected reasoning on the evi- 
 dences of our Lord's mission. Here he successively 
 appeals to the testimony borne in His behalf by 
 John the Baptist, the burning and shining light (vv. 
 „.~X^ ' ^y ^*'^ °^" miraculous works (v. 36) • bv 
 I IS Father at His baptism (v. 37) ; and by the pro- 
 phetic Scriptures (v. 39). In this last instance we 
 cannot hesitate to declare, that the force and cogency 
 of the argument is not a little hid from the plain 
 English reader, by a needless change in the render- 
 'ng of the above-mentioned leading words : for we 
 have " testimony " in v. 34 ; " testify " in v 39 • 
 
62 UntcoHuctioiti 
 
 •• witness " and " bear witness " in the other places. 
 From these examples I trust that my distinction be- 
 tween important and unimportant deviations from 
 uniformity will be sufficiently understood. The 
 latter occur, under every possible aspect, in almost 
 every chapter of our version (e. g. Mark v, 10, 12, 
 17, 18, 23; Rev. iv, 4; xix, 16, 21), and will be 
 suffered to pass unnoticed. The former, which are 
 comparatively unfrequent, shall be diligently cor- 
 rected ; and I believe it will be found that several 
 texts may receive valuable elucidation, by the simple 
 process of translating the same Greek by the same 
 English word, throughout the whole passage (e. g. 
 John xix, 28, 30 ; Rom. v, 2, 3 ; 16, 18 ; 1 Cor. ii, 
 14, 15; 2 Cor. vii, 4, 14). 
 
 In one particular, however, our Translators seem 
 to have considered themselves bound to neglect uni- 
 formity, in consequence of the directions drawn up 
 for their guidance by King James. " The names of 
 the prophets and the inspired writers, with the other 
 names in the text, to be kept as near as may be, as 
 they stand recommended at present by customary 
 use." (Instructions to Translators, Rule 2). From 
 a too rigid interpretation of this rule springs one of 
 the most obvious imperfections of the Authorized 
 version, which I here mention once for all. Tlie 
 precise mode of representing Hebrew Proper Names 
 in English is a matter of very little moment ; but it 
 is important that the same forms (whatever they may 
 be which are adopted) should be employed in every 
 part of the Bible alike. Now in the common trans- 
 lation, the persons who are called in the Old Testa- 
 ment Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Hosea, &c. are intro- 
 duced to us in the New as Elias, Eliseus, Esaias, 
 Osee (Rom. ix, 25), &c. to the certain embarrassment 
 
 3|ntcoDuctfon. 53 
 
 of the unlearned reader, and for no better reason, as 
 It would seem, than that the Vulgate and the pre- 
 cedmg English versions had used the same forms 
 before our Translators. The substitution of " Jesus " 
 for " Joshua " in Acts vii, 45 ; Heb. iv, 8 ; is a 
 much more serious fault ; and since it was avoided 
 by most of the earlier Translators into English, it 
 cannot be accounted for on the same grounds as the 
 other errors which relate to Proper Names. 
 
 (Ill, b.) It is now time to speak of the grammatical 
 errors which have been imputed to our Authorised 
 version. The public attention was first directed to 
 tins pomt by Bp. Lowth, in his excellent " Introduc- 
 tion to English Grammar;" a little work which 
 however slightly its author thought of it, may be re- 
 garded as the text book on the subject of which it 
 treats: for we might truly apply to this accomplished 
 1 relate what Bentley said of Bp. Pearson, that " the 
 very dust of his writings is gold." Yet I cannot 
 wholly approve of Lowth s management with respect 
 to the Vulgar Translation of the Bible. He seems 
 to regard it as an indisputable fact, that " it is the 
 best standard of our language" (p. HQ); but, not- 
 w.thstandmg this high encomium, he so perpetually 
 quotes Its inaccuracies in his notes, as to convey a 
 notion of its general character which is neither favor- 
 able nor true. The real state of the case appears to 
 be, that It was not before the middle of the eighteenth 
 century that our language was finally settled, and 
 the more recondite laws of grammar became gene- 
 rally acknowledged and observed. What English 
 writer is more artless or elegant than Addison ? Whose 
 style is so pure and perspicuous as Swift's ? Yet the 
 bare inspection of Bp. Lowth's notes may convince 
 us, that they are guilty of solecisms no less numerous 
 
64 'Jiitcotiuttion. 
 
 and gross, than those which have been laid to the 
 charge of King James's Bible. In all our earlier 
 writers grammatical accuracy is but comparative; 
 and tried by tliis test, the vernacular translation has 
 nothing to fear. That Lowth did not dispute the 
 general principle here insisted on, is clear from what 
 he says respecting the interchange of " shall" and 
 "will," "should" and "would," which occurs in every 
 page of our older classics : for he appeals to tlie 
 Authorised version to prove that " the distinction 
 between them was not observed formerly" (Eng. 
 Gram. p. 79). Had he extended this liberal con- 
 cession to some other usages of the more antient dia- 
 lect, we should not have had to complain of his sweep- 
 ing condemnation of the employment of an adjective 
 in the adverbial sense, (2 Tim. iii, 12 ; Tit. ii, 12 ; 
 Jude, v. 15), as " not agreeable to the genius of the 
 English language" (p. 159) : nor would several minute 
 deviations from modern practice (such as " either" 
 for " or," Luke vi, 42 ; xv, 8 &c. " either" for 
 " each," John xix, 18 ; Rev. xxii, 2 ; " chiefest" 
 for " chief," Mark x, 44 &c.) have been positively 
 rejected as " improper" and incorrect. At the same 
 time 1 am bound to express my deep obligation to 
 this learned Prelate, who has detected several im- 
 portant errors in the language of our translators, 
 wliich will be more fully noticed in their proper 
 places (e. g. Matth. xvi, 13 ; xviii, 12; Luke v, 10; 
 vi, 2 ; 4 ; John xvi, 13 ; Acts i, 15 ; xxii, 30 ; Hebr. 
 V, 8; ix, 13). 
 
 I have endeavored to maintain on this point a 
 course analogous to that which I pursued with regard 
 to uniformity of expression. I have proposed no 
 change on slight grounds, but have always retained 
 the words of our version, unless I could give satis- 
 
 3ntcolitict(on. 65 
 
 factory reasons for disapproving of them. Much 
 allowance has been made for the looseness of con- 
 struction, in which the best writers of the seventeenth 
 century freely indulged ; the utmost possible latitude 
 has been given to those variations in idiom which our 
 language must necessarily have undergone during 
 the lapse of two centuries. In a word, I trust that I 
 shall be found to have ventured on no grammatical 
 alteration, to which our revered translators might not 
 have assented, had it been suggested in their own 
 age (e. g. Matth. ii, 8 ; Luke xxiii, 32 ; Eph. iii, 9 ; 
 1 John V, 15). 
 
 (III. c.) But the diction of our English version may 
 be in complete accordance with grammatical propriety, 
 and yet it may be obscure, ambiguous, or obsolete. 
 It is not easy to define before hand the causes from 
 which such effects may arise in each individual in- 
 stance, and we should carefully guard on this point 
 also against the hypercritical temper to which I have 
 already adverted. Dr. Symonds, for example, having 
 discovered that the Bible is usually read by a single 
 chapter at a time, is anxious to meet the wants of the 
 poor and ignorant, whom he fears may forget that 
 our Blessed Lord is the Person, whose life and dis- 
 courses form the subject of the Gospels. Accordingly, 
 at the commencement of about half the chapters in 
 the historical books of the New Testament, he con- 
 siderately substitutes Proper Names for the Personal 
 Pronouns of the Original. Thus, he renders the 
 beginning of the fifth chapter of St. Mark in the fol- 
 lowing manner. " And Jesus and his disciples came 
 over unto the other side of the sea, into the country 
 of the Gadarenes ; and when Jesus was come out of 
 the ship" . . ; and he recommends a similar interpo- 
 lation in the opening sentences of no less than nine 
 
56 3lntcol>uttion. 
 
 other chapters in the single Gospel of St. Mark. How 
 much more commendable is the practice of our trans- 
 lators in this respect ; who insert the name of the 
 person in such rare cases only, as present some real 
 difficulty (e. g. Luke xix, 1 *), safely leaving it to be 
 supplied, in the vast majority of passages, by the 
 memory or common sense of the reader. 
 
 More than one of the critics who have undertaken 
 to revise our translation, have formed large collections 
 of obsolete, vulgar, or difficult words, which they 
 met with in the Authorised Bible. Without any 
 wish to disparage their labors unduly, I confess that 
 I think their diligence misplaced. An assemblage of 
 expressions torn from their context, and strung to- 
 gether in a list, leave a very different impression on 
 the mind from that which they originally produced, 
 when read in connection with the sentences to which 
 they rightly appertain. The word " bewray" is 
 perhaps one of the most obsolete which we find in 
 our version of the New Testament ; yet the most un- 
 learned reader of Scripture is at no loss for its meaning 
 in Matth. xxvi, 73. Let us beware of admitting such 
 alterations into our venerable translation, as without 
 materially adding to its value, might deprive it of 
 that air of solemn antiquity, which would be ill 
 exchanged for the more gaudy refinements of modern 
 phraseology. 
 
 But at however low a rate I may estimate the great 
 bulk of the changes which Campbell and Symonds 
 have proposed with respect to this division of the 
 
 • The word " Jesus" is in types corresponding to italics, in the 
 first edition of oiir public version, so that it cannot be thought 
 thnt it was inserted in this place on tlie anthority of the few manu- 
 srriptn and versions In whicli it formi part of (ho text. 
 
 IntCOtJUCtfOtt. 67 
 
 subject ; I hope that I shall not fall into the opposite 
 extreme of obstinately retaining what in point of sense 
 or language is justly censurable (e. g. Matth. xx, 
 1 1 ; xxiii, 6 ; Acts xviii, 14 ; 2 Cor. viii, 1). Quaint 
 and mean expressions should at all events be avoided 
 in speaking of the awful realities which the Bible 
 reveals to us : and the example of the sacred writers 
 themselves may teach us, that perfect simplicity of 
 manner is quite compatible with a rigid abstinence 
 from every thing which can offend the purest and 
 most delicate taste. 
 
 Such are the general divisions or classes into which 
 my subject is distributed ; and before every rendering 
 of our common version which may be examined in 
 the course of the present work, shall be placed the 
 number of that class to which I refer it. Yet since 
 it will sometimes be necessary to discuss alterations 
 either in the Greek text or in the translation, which 
 have been proposed by eminent scholars, but where, 
 on the whole, I consider the English version correct, 
 I shall distinguish these passages from the rest by 
 prefixing this mark (°) to them.* 
 
 Before we proceed to investigate the character and i 
 value of each of the several versions cited throughout . 
 these pages, I wish to offer a few remarks respecting ' 
 the marginal renderings, and the words printed in ; 
 italics, which so often occur in the Authorised Trans- ' 
 lation. I 
 
 The Marginal ^t will soon be Seen that our present 
 Hcnderings. ycrsion Only follows the example of 
 several of its predecessors, when it places in the mar- 
 
 • Thus in Matth. xvii, 5 "(1) denotes that a change in the 
 Greek text has been proposed, to which I do not accede. See 
 bIbo Mntth. XX, 12 ; Luke vii, 47 ; John v, 39 ; Rom. ix, 3 Ac. • 
 
68 It^tfoUuttfon. 
 
 gin explanations of obscure or doubtful expressions. 
 But these brief notes (for such in fact they are), are 
 much more numerous in King James's Bible than in 
 the earlier translations. In the New Testament alone 
 we meet with 856 marginal annotations, whereof 
 724 are found in the first edition of 1611 ; the rest 
 (including twenty explanations of coins, measures 
 &c), having been subsequently added by various 
 hands, chiefly by Dr. Blayney in the Oxford edi- 
 tions of 17G9. Of the original marginal notes about 
 eighteen point out various readings of the Greek 
 text (Matth. i, 11; vii, 14; xxvi, 26; Mark ix, 
 16 ; Luke ii, 38 ; x, 22 ; xvii, 36 ; Acts xxv, 6 ; 
 
 1 Cor. XV, 31; Gal. iv, 17; Eph. vi, 9; James 
 ii, 18; iPet. 1, 4; ii, 21; 2 Pet. ii, 2; 11; 18; 
 
 2 John v. 8). Much the greater part present a dif- 
 ferent rendering of a single word, or propose a 
 change in the construction of a clause; the sense 
 given in the margin being often, though not I think 
 for the most part, superior to that in the text. Some 
 may be interesting to an English reader as affording 
 specimens of Greek or Hebrew idioms (Luke xii, 20 ; 
 Acts vii, 20; xviii, 11; Rom. vi, 13 ; Col. i, 13; 
 Rev. xi, 13); while a few, no doubt, are sufficiently 
 trifling (John xix, 25 ; 1 Cor. v, 8 ; 1 Thess. v, 1 1 ; 
 Tit. iii, 6). Of the unauthorised additions to the 
 margin of the New Testament I cannot speak quite 
 so favorably. Here again several relate to various 
 readings of the Greek (Matth. vi, 1 ; x, 10 ; Acts 
 xiii, 18; Eph. ii, 5; Hebr. x, 2 ; 17; James iv, 2; 
 2 John v. 12 ; Rev. xv, 3 ; xxi, 7 ; xxii, 19*), and 
 
 • To tliese may be added the frivolous variation " Bcelzebul" 
 for " Beelzebub" tlirice repeated, Matth. x, 25; xii, 24; Luke 
 .xi. 15. 
 
 3|titcoliuctron. 69 
 
 so far may be deemed useful. The greater part, how- 
 ever, are either totally erroneous (Acts xv, 6 ; 1 Cor. 
 iv, 9; 2 Pet. i, 1, 1st note); or very idle (Matth. 
 xxi, 19; xxii, 26; Mark vii, 22; Actsviii, 13; xvi, 
 13; xxvi, 7; Gal. iv, 24; Eph. vi, 12 &c.); or 
 explain peculiar phrases of the original with unneces- 
 sary minuteness (Matth. xiv, 6; Luke ii, 15; John 
 xi, 33 ; 2 John v. 3). In some places, however, this 
 later margin is undoubtedly correct (Matth. xxviii, 
 19; Luke, xviii, 2; Acts xiii, 34; xviii, 5; 28; 
 Rom. V, 1 1 ; 2 Pet. i, 1, 2nd note) ; and in several 
 others it should not be rejected without further en- 
 quiry (Mark xi, 17 ; Luke xxi, 8 ; Acts ii, 6 ; Hebr. 
 i, 6 ; 7) ; though on the whole I do not conceive 
 that the additional notes have much enhanced the 
 value of our excellent translation. I need not dwell 
 longer on this topic, since every marginal rendering, 
 whether proceeding from the translators themselves, 
 or from critical editors since their time, will be care- 
 fully examined in the body of this work, unless it 
 shall appear too slight or unimportant to deserve our 
 special attention. 
 The Italic On the subjcct of those words and 
 cimracier. clauses which in our Authorised Bibles 
 are printed in the Italic character, I am not equally 
 left to my own resources. The reader may remember 
 that a pamphlet was published about twelve years 
 ago, in the form of " Four Letters to the Bishop of 
 London," arraigning in no measured terms the con- 
 duct of the privileged publishers of the English 
 Bible, whom it accused of wilfully departing from 
 the original edition of 1611, in numerous important 
 instances. The author of this production soon after- 
 wards obtained and made public the sanction of a 
 Sub-committee of four dissenting ministers in London 
 
GO 3|ntcotiuctfon. 
 
 (more than one of them men of high and well-merited 
 literary reputation) with regard to a portion of his 
 charge ; those gentlemen declaring in a formal minute 
 their disapprobation of the great increase of italics in 
 our modern Bibles, " as deteriorating the vernacular 
 translation, discovering great want of critical taste, 
 unnecessarily exposing the sacred text to the scoff 
 of infidels, and throwing such stumbling blocks in the 
 way of the unlearned, as are greatly calculated to 
 perplex their minds, and unsettle their confidence in 
 the text of Scripture." In reply to the individual 
 with whom the controversy began a statement was 
 drawn up by Dr. Cardwell (British Mag. Vol. iii. 
 pp. 323 — 47), quite decisive as against his opponent, 
 and in defence of the University of Oxford, but 
 scarcely touching at all on the question of the italics, 
 which had now become the heaviest article of the 
 whole accusation. It is to this point exclusively 
 that Dean Turton directs his attention in his " Text 
 of the English Bible Considered," (2nd. edit. 1834) : 
 a work of permanent value, which will long outlive 
 the occasion that called it forth. By a copious and 
 close induction of particular passages he has proved 
 (I presume to the satisfaction even of the Sub-com- 
 mittee) that the changes which have been introduced 
 with respect to italics in the editions of Dr. Blayney 
 and others, were absolutely needed, in order to carry 
 out the principle of the translators themselves. The 
 end proposed by the use of italics is thus explained 
 in the Geneva edition of 1578 : "Whereas the ne- 
 cessity of the sentence required anything to be added 
 (for such is the grace and propriety of the Hebrew 
 and Greek tongues, that it cannot but either by cir- 
 cumlocution, or by adding the verb, or some word, 
 be understood of them that are not well-practised 
 
 3ntcoUuttion. 61 
 
 therein), we have put it in the text with another 
 kind of letter."* If this be the rule which the 
 translators of our present version proposed to them- 
 selves (and we have every reason for believing that 
 it was), it follows that such a rule should be carried 
 out uniformly, and on all occasions. But the most 
 superficial view of the original edition of 1611 will 
 convince us, that consistency in this matter is not 
 even attempted. To the numerous instances collected 
 by Dr. Turton I shall add two or three which appear 
 to me remarkable ; and they may be greatly increased 
 by any one who will take the trouble to investigate 
 the subject. In Luke iii, 23 — 38 rov 'HXi k.t.X. is 
 thus rendered in the edition of 1611 ; "which was 
 the son of Eli,"&c. agreeably to which, in the cor- 
 responding expression o tov 'AX^ai'ou we find " the son 
 of Alpheus" in Mark iii, 18; whereas the same 
 words are printed without italics in Matt, x, 3 ; Mark 
 ii, 14 ; Luke vi, 15 : in all which verses italics are 
 very properly used in our modern editions. Again, 
 in the Beatitudes, Mattli. v, 3 — 11, the copula 
 "are" is uniformly printed in italics, and rightly; 
 since it is not expressed in the Greek : in the parallel 
 piassage Luke vi, 20, 21, the form of the original 
 being precisely the same, the copula is found in 
 
 * The quotation g^iven nbove is borrowed from Dean Turton ; 
 but perhaps it would be more satisfactory to cite tlie words of the 
 original Geneva editors, from the Preface to their first edition of 
 1557. It is to the same purport, though not quite so explicit. 
 " And because the Hebrew and Greek phrases, which are strange 
 to render in other tongues, and also short, should not be too hard, 
 I have sometimes interpreted them without any whit diminishing 
 the grace of the sense, as our language doth use them, and some- 
 times have put to that word, which lacking made the sentence ob- 
 scure, but have set it in such letters, as may easily be discerned 
 from the common text." " To the Reader," p. 2. 
 
02 3lntcoUuct(on. 
 
 ordinary characters in the edition of 1611 ; but in 
 the later Bibles it is assimilated to the parallel text 
 of St. Matthew. In Mark ix, 34 t.'c fitit^v ; is ren- 
 dered in the original edition "who should be the 
 greatest?" in a like expression Matth. xxiii, 19 rl yap 
 fiutov ; the verb has been put in italics only by a 
 recent hand. From these and a thousand similar in- 
 stances it is abundantly clear, that so far as the use 
 of italics is concerned, the first edition of our common 
 version (to adopt the strong language of Dr. Turton), 
 " cannot be depended upon in the least." We are now 
 therefore in a condition to put one simple enquiry. 
 Are the modern editors to be held guilty (I quote the 
 words of the Sub-committee's Report) of a "wanton 
 abandonment of the standard text;" or did they not 
 rather act with reverence and discretion, when ad- 
 hering closely to the spirit of the translators' design, 
 they corrected what was anomalous in its execution, 
 and supplied what they judged deficient? Or will 
 any one pretend to reconcile the actual practice of the 
 translators with reference to italics, either with itself, 
 or with any intelligible principle that may be devised ? 
 In the course of the present work, then, whenever 
 mention is made of italics, I would be understood to 
 refer to those of our modern Bibles, not to those of 
 the editio princeps of 1611 : unless indeed in a few 
 cases (to be specified as occasion shair arise), in 
 which the later editors have displayed needless re- 
 finement, or a mistaken judgment, in changing the 
 common character of 1611 into italics. To the 
 italicised words and phrases the same criticism will 
 be applied, as to the other portions of the English 
 text. It will, perhaps, be seen in the sequel that 
 several expressions of this description are inserted 
 from a false notion of the meaning of the passages 
 
 3|ntcotiuttfon. 63 
 
 wherein they occur (e. g. Matth. xv, 6 ; xx, 23 ; 
 Mark vii, 11; x, 40 ; Acts vii, 69) ; and that many 
 of the rest, having nothing in the original to which 
 they correspond, may be omitted altogether without 
 detriment to the sense (Matth. xxv, 14 ; xxvii, 27 ; 
 Mark xiii, 34 ; Luke xiii, 29 ; John vii, 36 ; Acts 
 xxii, 3 ; Col. ii. 16; 1 Thess. v, 23; Rev. ii, 25). 
 
 I will now take a brief review of the several ver- 
 sions, which have been collated for every passage 
 illustrated in this work ; avoiding, as much as pos- 
 sible, such topics as have been exhausted by pre- 
 ceding writers ; and limiting my observations, almost 
 exclusively, to the internal condition and critical 
 character of the translations themselves. 
 The Peshito T^^ ^g® ^"*I merits of the Peshito 
 SyriacVersion. version have been so often discussed, that 
 it cannot be necessary for me to detain the reader by 
 recapitulating arguments with which every Biblical 
 student is presumed to be familiar. On few points 
 are the learned so generally agreed, as in assigning 
 a very high antiquity to this translation. Michaelis 
 has fully stated his reasons for believing that it was 
 made not later than the commencement of the second 
 century. The most plausible objections yet alleged 
 against so early a date are refuted by Dr. Wiseman, 
 whose unfinished " Horse Syriacae" impress us with 
 a melancholy sense of the loss sustained by Sacred 
 literature, when their author was seduced from these 
 peaceful studies, to become the champion of a mis- 
 taken and a hopeless cause. But the antiquity of the 
 Peshito is not the chief ground on which it claims 
 our attention. It is not only the oldest, it is one of 
 the best of those many versions of Holy Writ, by 
 
64 JntroUuction. 
 
 which God's Providence has enriched and edified the 
 Church. Composed in the purest style of an elegant 
 and expressive, if not a very copious language, no 
 version with which I am acquainted is so perfectly 
 free from the constraint and stiffness, which are the 
 usual faults of a literal translation. Yet while it is 
 remarkable for its ease, the Peshito is by no means 
 loose or paraphrastic. In itumerous passages a few 
 words are added to the original, in order to elucidate 
 what would else be obscure (e. g. Luke ix, 34 ; xvi, 
 8 ; Acts i, 19 ; ii, 14 ; 24 ; v, 4 ; xii, 15 ; Rom. xii, 
 16), or to explain some involved construction, (Acts 
 X, 38 ; Eph. iii, 1 ; 1 John i, 1); but seldom would 
 the liberty it claims in this particular offend any but 
 the most servile adherent to the letter of the Greek. 
 Few persons, I believe, have long made this version 
 their daily companion without assenting to the judg- 
 ment of Micliaelis ; who, after thirty years study of its 
 contents, declared that he could consult no translation 
 with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and 
 doubt. 
 
 But notwithstanding the value and venerable an- 
 tiquity of the Peshito, little care has been taken by 
 its editors to exhibit a correct text, such as came from 
 the hands of the translator. In fact, a critical edition 
 of the old Syriac version is one of the few great 
 works in this department of study yet open to the 
 enterprise of scholars. The first edition, that of 
 Widmanstadt (Vienn. 1555), though a most beau- 
 tiful specimen of typographical skill, was printed 
 from a single manuscript, still preserved in the 
 Imperial library. And although some of the later 
 editors (as, for instance, Tremellius and the superin- 
 tendents of the Antwerp press) had access to other 
 copies, they soeni to have contented themselves for 
 
 JntcoDuction. fir, 
 
 the most part with reprinting the editio princeps, the 
 vowel and diacritical points alone being varied ac- 
 cording to their own taste or opinions. That such 
 was Schaafs practice he has expressly told us in his 
 Preface; and we need but examine his laborious 
 and accurate * collation of the twelve editions which 
 preceded his own, to be convinced that the variations 
 (where they do not concern the vowel points, or are 
 mere errors of the press) are too few and insignificant 
 to be the result of a careful and systematic use of 
 manuscripts. 
 
 Yet materials for a complete revision of the Syriac 
 text exist in abundance. Not to mention other un- 
 collated documents which are known to be deposited 
 in the chief libraries of Europe, Adler has described 
 no less than fourteen (several of them being upwards 
 of a thousand years old), which he discovered in the 
 Vatican, at Florence, and other continental cities. 
 Nor are our own libraries at all deficient in this 
 respect. An interesting collation of Schaafs text 
 with two manuscripts of the Gospels preserved in the 
 Bodleian, as well as with the citations in the " Hor- 
 reum Mysteriorum " of the famous Jacobite Patriarch 
 Gregory Bar-Hebraeus, was published at Oxford in 
 1805 by Richard Jones. In 1806 Dr. Buchanan 
 found among the Nestorian Christians of the Malabar 
 coast a very fine copy of the whole Syriac Bible, 
 which IS now the property of the University of 
 Cambridge. Among the treasures of Oriental learn- 
 i ng collected by Mr. Ric h, and purchased for the 
 
 • T say accurate, for I have repeatedly collated the various 
 read.ngs m Schaafs two editions (1709, 1717) with the editio 
 
 not?ce. ' ""* ''""""•"^ " ""^'^ '""' --"• 
 
66 3|n«;oBuction. 
 
 British Museum in 1825, are six manuscripts of 
 the Peshito version, five of which are most care- 
 fully Tyritten in the old Estrangelo character, and 
 bear every appearance of great antiquity. Surely, it 
 is not creditable to the learned that so plentiful a 
 harvest has not ere this been gleaned by diligent and 
 reverential hands. 
 
 I have hitherto refrained from mentioning Dr. 
 Lee's edition of the Peshito New Testament (Lon- 
 don, 181G), printed for the use of the Eastern Chris- 
 tians, at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society. In a work of this kind a critical apparatus 
 of various readings would no doubt have been out of 
 place ; but the text of this edition so often differs 
 from that of Schaaf and his predecessors, that some 
 information respecting the sources whence it is 
 drawn should manifestly have been afforded; at 
 least in such copies as, having Latin title-pages, were 
 destined for European circulation. No such intima- 
 tion however was thought requisite, and it was not 
 till Hug had expressed a very reasonable desire for 
 further explanation, that Dr. Lee made known the 
 authorities which had guided him in altering the 
 text. They consist, he tells us, of Buchanan's Tra- 
 vancore manuscript which I have just alluded to ; 
 and of another in the Cambridge Public Library (Ff. 
 2, 15) ; of the previous collections of Jones and 
 others ; and (strange as the statement may seem) of 
 Greek manuscripts of the original (See Dr. Lee's 
 Letter in Hug's Introduction, Wait's translation, vol. 
 i. p. 3G9 note). I do not share in Scholz's suspicion 
 (Proleg. N. T. vol. i, p. 124) that the London edition 
 derived its corrections of Schaafs text from Grics- 
 bach's Greek Testament ; indeed we need seek for no 
 other confutation of this grave accusation than some 
 of the passages he produces in its support (e. g. 
 
 S 
 
 
 3ntroljutt(on, 67 
 
 Mark i, 29 ; ii, 3) : yet it must be confessed, that 
 (however the practical purposes of a particular edi- 
 tion may be promoted by such a course), to correct a 
 translation from manuscripts of the original, is a 
 critical error of the first magnitude. 
 
 The reader is possibly aware of another opinion 
 maintained by Scholz touching this version, and 
 which cannot be read without some surprise. He 
 informs us (Proleg. p. 133) that he has examined 
 manuscripts of the Peshito both in the Paris and 
 Medicean libraries, but discovered his labor to be 
 vain : that on receiving a description and certain 
 readings of the Rich MSS from the officers of the 
 British Museum, he came to the conclusion that 
 those documents are of little service, so very rarely 
 do they differ from the printed text. Now we may 
 readily believe that the variations to be found in 
 these manuscripts are not so great as to change the 
 character of the translation, or materially alter the 
 sense, as represented in the early editions ; but they 
 may not be on that account the less worthy of con- 
 sideration. If Scholz had consulted Jones's collation 
 of the two Bodleian MSS mentioned above (a 
 volume of whose existence he seems to be ignorant), 
 he would have seen for how many minute but not 
 unimportant improvements the patient student may 
 be indebted to codices which, in their general fea- 
 tures, strongly resemble the common text. And 
 when we consider that some of the documents which 
 he treats so superciliously are at least a thousand 
 years old ; it might have occurred to Pr. Scholz that 
 a proof of their agreement in the main with Schaaf's 
 edition is of itself of no slight value ; both as supplying 
 another link in the great chain of evidence which 
 assures us of the integrity of the text of Scripture ; 
 and as giving a silent but decided answer to those 
 
68 3'iwDuction. 
 
 critics, who have imagined that the union of the 
 Maronite Syrians with the Church of Rome, has 
 occasioned the corruption of the Peshito from the 
 Latin Vulgate. The real value of the Paris and 
 Florentine MSS I have no means of estimating : but 
 that Scholz's notion of the Rich MSS is not con- 
 firmed by the judgment of persons somewhat better 
 acquainted with them, may appear from the testi- 
 mony of the late Professor Rosen, who was associated 
 with Mr. Forshall in the task of arranging tlie 
 whole collection. " Inter quos ante alios omnes me- 
 morabile est Novi Testamenti exemplar Nestori- 
 anum, numer. 7157 Rich., liber et antiquitate sua, 
 quum saeculo octavo scriptus est, et summascripturse 
 diligentia atque elegantia, inter omnia quotquot 
 nobis innotuerunt Syriaca N. T. exemplaria, eximia 
 laude dignus. Etenim remotioris etiam aetatis codices 
 Syriacos extare comperimus quidem ; sed de nullo 
 nos vel audire vel legere meminimus, qui omnes 
 quos Nestoriani agnoscunt N. T. libros amplecteretur. 
 Si quia vir doctus, id quod jamdudum desideratum 
 est, N. T. Syri textum cur^ critica recognoscendum 
 suscipere veliet, magni interfuturum esse censemus 
 hum codicem, textfis, quo Nestoriani saeculo octavo 
 usi sunt, egregium testem, quhm diligentissimh inspi- 
 cere. (Prsef. Cat. MSS. Syr. Brit. Mus. 1838). 
 
 No one perhaps who is much ac- 
 ianSyriacter- quainted with the Philoxenian Syriac 
 »'«"• version will be disposed to complain that 
 
 I have so rarely cited its renderings. It is, in truth, 
 nothing but the result of a close collation of the 
 Peshito with two Greek manuscripts of about the 
 fifth century. Whenever the old translation appeared 
 to follow a different reading of the original from that 
 which the two manuscripts presented, the Syriac text 
 
 1 
 
 3|ntroDuct(on. 69 
 
 was altered in accordance with them. Hence arises 
 the critical value of the Philoxenian version, inas- 
 much as it enables us to determine the readings of 
 what were considered good manuscripts at the time 
 it was composed (a. d. 508). As a guide to the in- 
 terpretation of the New Testament it is nearly worth- 
 less. In addition to his design of correcting the text, 
 its author Polycarp labored to force the bold and 
 elegant style of the Peshito into rigorous conformity 
 with the letter of the Greek, and hence produced a 
 version which can be compared with nothing more 
 fitly than with the " metaphrase" of Arias Monta- 
 nus, so mercilessly condemned by Campbell (Pre- 
 lim. Diss. X, Pt. 2).* If verbal exactness be the 
 highest merit of a translation, then is the Philoxe- 
 nian version an admirable representative of the 
 original New Testament. ' The numerous idioms of 
 the Greek are sedulously transfused into a language 
 whose genius is widely dissimilar. The order, and 
 in many instances, the very etymology of the words 
 are superstitiously retained, to the sacrifice of all 
 propriety, and sometimes in violation of the dictates 
 of common sense. Indeed, to appreciate the Peshito 
 as it deserves, it is worth while to compare a chap- 
 ter taken from it with the corrected version of the 
 Philoxenian. I choose Matth. xxviii merely on 
 account of its moderate length. It appears then, 
 
 * Campbell however would probably have mitigated the severity 
 of his strictures had he remembered that Arius Montanus never 
 intended his Latin version to be separated from the original (vid. 
 Leusden, Prsef. N. T. 1698). Correctly speaking it pretends to 
 no higher character than that of an interlinear translation, for the 
 aid of persons imperfectly acquainted with the sacred languages. 
 This apology cannot be pleaded in behalf of the Philoxenian 
 Syriac. 
 
70 3inttoliuct{on. 
 
 that though the old translation is evidently the basis 
 of the later, yet there are about 76 variations from it 
 in the tvirenty verses which comprise this chapter. Of 
 these not more than two can be considered as various 
 readings of the Greek (vv. 2 ; 18), and one seems to 
 be a subsequent addition made by Thomas of Harkel 
 (fiataptivov, V. 6). In six places the order of the 
 Syriac words is brought closer to that of the Greek ; 
 and in about five instances words or phrases then in 
 common use are substituted for others, which in the 
 lapse of four centuries may have grown obsolete. But 
 the great mass of the alterations are of the most 
 frivolous description. The definite state of nouns is 
 - perpetually placed for the absolute, and vice versa ; 
 the Greek article is always represented by the 
 Syriac pronoun ; the inseparable pronominal affixes, 
 which characterise the Shemitic languages, and in 
 the Aramaean dialects prove the sources of such 
 graceful redundancy, are retrenched and as much as 
 possible discarded ; while the most unmeaning 
 changes are made in the tenses of the verbs, and in 
 the lesser particles. Since the same result appears 
 on a similar analysis of any other portion of the 
 Philoxenian version, I cannot avoid the conclusion, 
 that inasmuch as nfeither the age nor the judgment 
 of Polycarp give him a strong claim to our deference, 
 it is not expedient to make very frequent appeals to 
 his authority. 
 
 The Latin '^^^ merits and defects of the Latin 
 Vulgaie. Vulgate version have been so carefully 
 examined by Campbell (Prel. Diss, x. Ft. iii), that 
 I will simply refer to his work, which is, or ought 
 to be, in the hands of every theologian. If Camp- 
 bell errs at all in his estimate of this translation, it 
 certainly is not on the side of excessive indulgence. 
 
 f 
 
 3!ntcoliutt(on. 71 
 
 All its blemishes, whether in style or matter, are 
 prominently displayed in the course of his review, 
 while what he alleges in its favour is of too general 
 a nature to weigh, as it deserves, in the opposite 
 scale. If I am not deceived, the reader will find, in 
 the following pages, many examples of concise yet 
 accurate interpretation, in which the Vulgate will 
 suffer no disparagement by a comparison with any 
 other version antient or modern. 
 
 Perhaps I may be forgiven if I digress from my 
 subject for a moment, to express an earnest wish that 
 some competent critic would undertake a renewed 
 invcstigntion of the history and sources of the Vul- 
 gate New Testament. After the labors of Blanchini 
 and Sabatier we cannot expect, nor indeed do we 
 require, a large accession of fresh materials. As- 
 suming the existence of a single common version^ 
 called the Italic, prior to the fourth century (a fact 
 which really ought never to have been questioned), 
 the contrast in point of style between Jerome's own 
 translation from the Hebrew in the Vulgate Old 
 Testament, and the mixed version which is exhibited 
 in the New, will indicate at once what portions of 
 the Italic have been retained in the present Vulgate, 
 and also what old Latin documents now extant 
 approach nearest to that primitive version. I am not 
 ignorant of the difficulties which beset such an en- 
 quiry (see Ernesti Instit. Pt. iii, ch. iv, 16) ; but if 
 it be pursued with prudence and caution, I am per- 
 suaded they will not be found insuperable. The 
 causes of all past failures are by this time sufficiently 
 ascertained ; and few enquiries would contribute 
 more powerfully to the advancement both of the 
 criticism and the right interpretation of the New 
 Testament (See above p. 26). - 
 
72 Intcoiuction. 
 
 Of the later Latin versions I have 
 SJuTioii^'of c'l'efly used Castalio'8(1560, 1673), and 
 BeaandCM- Beza's (1st edition, 1556), though I have 
 not thought it necessary to cite them, as 
 I have cited the Vulgate, for every text which I have 
 reviewed. Campbell's critique on these translations 
 is 8o admirable and exact (Prel. Diss, x, Pts. iv, v), 
 that it would be worse than useless were I to attempt 
 to imitate or revise what he has accomplished so well. 
 I am sorry that I cannot rebut that which Campbell 
 has advanced to prove the gross partiality of Beza ; 
 though it is but equitable for us to bear in mind, 
 that the principles of sacred criticism were so little 
 settled in his age, that a strong theological bias 
 might very possibly be allowed to influence his trans- 
 lation of Scripture, without any serious imputation 
 on his moral honesty. 
 
 BoisiiCoi- The "Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum 
 latio. Beza, &c" written at the request of Bp. 
 Andrews by John Bois, Canon of Ely (London 1655), 
 is a work of some celebrity, which I consulted with 
 the greater interest, as his plan appeared to have 
 some affinity to my own. I must candidly admit, 
 that on the whole I was a little disappointed. Adopt- 
 ing the Vulgate Latin as his standard, he compares 
 it with the revisions of Erasmus, Piscator, Beza, 
 and occasionally of one or two others (he never once 
 names Castalio), throughout the Four Gospels and 
 the Acts. As we might expect from the man and 
 his connections, Beza is the chief, I might almost say, 
 the sole object of Bois's attack, though I am not sure 
 that his animadversions are much calculated to injure 
 that translator in the estimation of impartial judges. 
 The great end of the " Collatio" is to vindicate the 
 rendering of the old vcrsioii, wherever it cannot be 
 
 gilUCOUUttfon. 73 
 
 proved absolutely false. At the end of a long note 
 on Matth. XV, 6, he says " Mihi, in locis hoc genus 
 perplexis et obscuris, pro optimis interpretibus sunt, 
 qui verbis usquequaque adhairent, nee tarn ponde- 
 rant ea, quam numerant :" — as if a heavier charge 
 could be brought against any version, than that it 
 does not even endeavor to be intelligible. But in 
 every case of difficulty or obscurity, his panacea is 
 a marginal rendering: — " qu6d si quid addendum 
 videbitur," he goes on to. remark, "juvandi lectoris 
 caus&, quanto rectiiis id in Scholia, aut marginales 
 annotationes, quam in contextum ipsum conjiciatur." 
 And this irrational desire of maintaining the inte- 
 grity of the version against the sense of the original, 
 disfigures every page of his book, and leads him to 
 reject, as needless or presumptuous, several in- 
 dubitable improvements of the later translators (e. g. 
 Matth. V, 29; Mark vii, 3; ix, 18; John iii, 10; 
 Acts, i, 8). It might readily be supposed that with 
 such a resolution to find fault, Beza's real errors 
 are not allowed to escape. Yet Bois scarcely con- 
 demns as it deserves his scandalous perversion of 
 Acts i, 14 ; and actually approves of his interpreta- 
 tion of Matth. V, 21 ; xx, 23 : but several less im- 
 portant failings are carefully rectified (Mark xiv, 3 ; 
 Luke i, 78 ; Acts ix, 7 ; xiii, 34). When I add that 
 Clirysostom and Theophylact among the Fathers, 
 and .the great Casaubon of the moderns, are Bois's 
 favorite authors, some idea may be formed of the 
 spirit of a work which has become extremely scarce ; 
 and which, however useful and instructive, is not 
 sufficiently comprehensive, either in design or execu- 
 tion, to regain the place it once held in the public 
 estimation. 
 
74 ^tttwuuttion. 
 
 Early English ^"^ '* '^ full time to speak of those 
 Versions, early English versions, which have been 
 mentioned above as the basis of our present Transla- 
 lation (See p. 2), and which I have diligently col- 
 lated in every passage which is discussed in the 
 progress of my work. They consist of Wickliffe's 
 Bible, translated about a. d. 1380 ; Tyndal's first 
 edition of the New Testament, published in 1526 ; 
 his last edition, of 1534 ; Coverdale's Bible, of 1535 ; 
 Cranmer's or the Great Bible, of 1539; the Geneva 
 New Testament, of 1557 ; the Geneva whole Bible, 
 of 1560; the Bishops' Bible of 1568, 1572; and 
 lastly, the New Testament printed at the Popish 
 Seminary at Rheims, 1582. Besides these versions 
 which I have perpetually consulted, many references 
 are made to Sir John Cheke's translation of St. 
 Matthew, and a few to Taverner's Bible, 1539, and 
 some other less important editions ; as also to Lau- 
 rence Tonson's New Testament, 1576; which usually, 
 though not always, is a mere translation of Beza's 
 Latin version. 
 
 The external history of these several versions has 
 been so copiously described by popular authors, that 
 it is quite superfluous for me to enter upon the topic. 
 Anthony Johnson's Historical Account, reprinted 
 among Watson's Theological Tracts, is short and 
 lively, tliough rather superficial. Lewis's History 
 is valuable, and descends much into details. . Its 
 inaccuracies are of no great moment, and were almost 
 inevitable in the imperfect state of bibliographical 
 knowledge a century since. It is now ascertained 
 that he derived considerable aid from the eminently 
 learned Dr. Waterland, two hundred pages of whose 
 collected works are covered with letters which he 
 addressed to Lewis on this single subject (Watcr- 
 
 3|ntrolJnctfon. 75 
 
 land's Works, Van Mildert's edn. Vol. x, pp. 195 — 
 401). * The portion of Archbishop Newcome's 
 " Historical View of English Biblical Translations" 
 which relates to this point is little more than an ab- 
 stract of Lewis's book ; and Dr. Cotton's elaborate 
 " List of editions of the Bible," is rather (as its title 
 intimates) a chronological catalogue of reprints of 
 the whole Scriptures and various portions of them, 
 than a history of particular versions. The most 
 recent and the best account of the elder translations 
 is found in the Introduction to Bagster's Hexapla, 
 1841 ; wherein all that need be known respecting 
 them and their authors is presented in a pleasing 
 form, though with a visible leaning towards the 
 Puritan party. 
 
 But in all these works the external history of the 
 translations is almost exclusively attended to. Their 
 respective critical characters, and mutual relations to 
 each other are considered but slightly and incident- 
 ally. In the hope of supplying in some degree the 
 omissions of others in this particular, I hazard the 
 following observations, which have occurred to my 
 mind in the prosecution of my present design. 
 Wickliffe's Respecting John Wickliffe's version of 
 Bible, 1380. the Bible, executed about a.d. 1380, I 
 need say but a few words. It is chiefly important 
 
 * In Crutwoll's Preface to Dp. Wilson's Dible 1785, a succinct 
 account is given of all the English versions of the Dible, but it is 
 chiefly borrowed from I^wis. The value of this edition is much 
 enhanced by a collation of our common translation with those that 
 preceded it, contained in Mr. Crutwell'a notes. For though that 
 collation is very imperfect, even in places where we should roost 
 have expected information, yet until the publication of Dagster's 
 excellent reprints, it was the only means by which the general 
 reader could obtain n notion, however inadequate, of the contents 
 of those scarce und precious volumes. 
 
76 3|ntrol)uct(on. 
 
 as being tlie first complete translation of the Scrip- 
 tures into English ; but since it was soon proscribed 
 by the authorities of the Church, its circulation was 
 comparatively limited, and its influence on succeeding 
 versions is barely perceptible.* The universal igno- 
 rance of Greek, which prevailed in Wickliffe's age, 
 compelled him to translate the New Testament from 
 the Latin Vulgate ; a circumstance which, while it 
 renders his work almost useless to the Biblical in- 
 terpreter, gives it a certain critical value, as it enables 
 us to determine how far the Latin manuscripts then 
 in most repute, differed from the present, or Clemen- 
 line text (See Matth. viii, 16; xvi, 20; xxi, 17; 
 1 Cor. X, 17 ; Hebr. v, 11, &c). I hardly know on 
 what grounds it has been conjectured, that Wickliffe 
 is " the real original of Chaucer's celebrated picture 
 of the village Priest." (Lebas, Life of Wickliffe, p. 
 212). The courtly and licentious poet surely had 
 little in common with our Reformer, save the patron- 
 age of John of Gaunt. But if Tyrwhitt's calculations 
 be correct, the " Canterbury Tales" must have been 
 composed about the time of Wickliffe's death (Introd. 
 Discourse to Canterb. Tales, p. clxi). Hence it 
 becomes interesting to compare the style of his version 
 with that portion of his contemporary's masterpiece 
 which most resembles it in subject : the " Persone's 
 Tale," or Sermon. Now Chaucer's diction (I wish 
 to say nothing of his matter), is clear, terse, and 
 
 * I have used the edition of Wickliffe'R N. T. which is printed 
 in Bagster'a Ilexapla, because it seema somewhat more accurate 
 than that published by Lewis and Baber. Several manuscripts of 
 Wickliffe's Translation are interpolated or corrupted from other 
 versions of portions of Scripture made bj various hands. Of these 
 latter an account may be seen in the Introduction to Baber's edition 
 of WicklifTe's N. T. or in that prefixed to Bagster's Mexapla. 
 
 3iurotititt(on. 77 
 
 spirited ; so little antiquated by the lapse of 460 
 years, that a reader of ordinary intelligence may 
 peruse his prose with fluency, without consulting the 
 glossary once in a page.* The style of Wickliffe's 
 controversial writings is pronounced by Sharon 
 Turner to be involved and obscure ; a defect which 
 may also be noticed in his version of Scripture. It 
 is so close a translation from the Vulgate, that the 
 harshest Latinisms are often retained (e. g. Matth. 
 iv, 10; Acts v,7; 1 Cor. v, I ; 5; Tit. iii, 5, See); 
 but this is not the sole, nor indeed the chief cause of 
 that want of perspicuity which pervades his great 
 work. Familiar though we be with the diction of 
 the New Testament, his version is much more 
 difficult to a modern ear than Chaucer's Parson's 
 Discourse. The obsolete words and phrases are 
 more numerous, and the construction of the sentences 
 is by no means so simple. Yet let us not disparage 
 his immortal labors by ungenerous criticism. Taken 
 as a whole, his venerable translation is no unfaithful 
 image of the sacred original ; and during the dreary 
 period which separated his age from the dawn of the 
 Reformation, many a humble saint slaked his thirst 
 in secret at the living fountain which, by John 
 Wickliffe's means, God had mercifully opened for 
 the refreshing of his people. 
 
 Since both Wickliffe's and the Rhemish Testa- 
 ment (which will be described hereafter) are but 
 secondary translations, it would be fallacious to cite 
 their evidence as that of independent witnesses. I 
 
 I 
 
 The " Persone" seems to be his own translator from the Vul- 
 gate. At least it is evident that he does not use Wickliffes ver- 
 sion. See his renderings of Matth. v, 34—37 ; Luke xxiii 42 
 43; Actsiv, 12; 1 John iii, \S &c. ' ' 
 
78 gintcoUuttfon. 
 
 shall therefore appeal to their renderings of Scripture 
 in those cases only, where some happy expression or 
 striking peculiarity claims our enpecial notice. 
 Tyndal'sN.T. Almost a century and a half after Wick- 
 1526,1534. liffe'g death, in the year 1526, William 
 Tyndal, once an Observant Friar of Greenwich, but 
 then an exile for religion, had the honor of publishing 
 the first printed edition of the New Testament, a 
 distinction which the proudest scholars in the realm 
 might well have coveted. In spite of his own po- 
 sitive declaration to the contrary, in the title-page to 
 his third edition (1634), it has been asserted by 
 some who might have known better, that Tyndal's 
 version was in a great measure derived from the 
 Latin Vulgate, and Luther's German Testament 
 (1st edition, 1522). Now it would be a severe 
 reflection upon Tyndal's modesty and discretion to 
 suppose that he neglected to consult these excellent 
 translations; and even after we have made due 
 allowance for over statement and casual mistakes, 
 enough will remain in Bp. Marsh's arguments to 
 shew that Luther's authority had considerable weight 
 with our countryman (Compare Bp. Marsh's Lec- 
 tures, Appendix to edition of 1838, with Mr. Wal- 
 ter's second letter to him, 1828). But we have a 
 decisive proof that Tyndal was fully competent to 
 translate from the original, without slavishly depend- 
 ing on Luther's or any other version. In his 
 " Memoirs of Tyndal" (pp. 8, 9) Mr. Offor has 
 recently brought to light a few manuscript transla- 
 tions of various parts of the New Testament, bearing 
 the signature of " W, T." and the date of 1502, 
 just twenty years before the publication of any por- 
 tion of Luther's Bible. From these most curious frag- 
 ments it appears, that Tyndal's version 6f Scripture 
 
 i 
 
 
 ■tf 
 
 3|ntrol>uctfon. 79 
 
 was no hasty , compilation to serve an emergency, 
 but the matured fruit of careful practice and patient 
 study, continued through the course of four and 
 twenty years. The passage which Mr. OfTor quotes 
 at length (Luke vii, 36 — 50), nearly agrees with his 
 first printed edition ; and is so admirable a specimen 
 of his skill as an interpreter, that its language is 
 retained, with very slight alterations, in our present 
 Authorised translation. That it is not rendered from 
 the Vulgate is perfectly clear, since within the 
 compass of fifteen verses it conforms in seven places 
 to the Greek against the Vulgate (vv. 37 ; 38 twice ; 
 42 twice ; 44 ; 49) ; whereas it accords with the 
 Vulgate but three times in opposition to the present 
 Greek text (39 ; 47 twice).* From a close exami- 
 nation of Tyndal's printed editions, the same con- 
 clusion may be drawn : namely, that his New Tes- 
 tament is, in all essential points, a primary version, 
 made immediately from the Greek original. The 
 Vulgate had no greater influence with him than may 
 reasonably be accounted for, both from the effects of 
 early habit on the translator's mind ; and from the 
 circumstance that the Latin version was the only 
 aid to the right interpretation of Scripture, which 
 was available to students at the opening of the six- 
 teenth century. 
 
 Of the intrinsic merits of Tyndal's translation 
 Biblical critics have spoken in the highest terms. 
 Dr. Geddes has declared that " in point of perspicuity 
 and noble simplicity, propriety of idiom and purity 
 of style, no English version has yet surpassed it." 
 
 * See also Bngstcr's Hcxapln, Introd. p. 41, where HvbiOtv 
 (.)ohn iii, 3) is said to l)o translated in these fragments " from 
 above." The Vulgate has " donuo." 
 
n 
 
 PO ^ntcoBuctfon. 
 
 And though the opinion of this Romanist writer is 
 probably biassed by his hostility to King James's 
 Bible, I am not disposed to dispute its accuracy. It 
 is no mean evidence of Tyndal's general worth, tliat 
 his New Testament is the virtual groundwork of 
 every subsequent revision. Page after page of his 
 translation of the Gospels, in language and phrase- 
 ology ; in the arrangement of the words, and turn of 
 the constructions ; bears so strong a resemblance to 
 our common version as to be scarcely distinguishable 
 from it. The variations that do occur are often so 
 minute as easily to escape observation ; and the 
 changes that have been introduced are not always 
 for the better. Mr. Hallam's information respecting 
 the English versions is rather loose and meagre ;* 
 but there is much justice in his remark, that if the 
 style of our Authorised Bible be the perfection of the 
 English language ; " in consequence of the principle 
 of adherence to the original versions which Iiad 
 been kept up ever since the time of Henry VIII, it 
 is not the language of the reign of King James." 
 (Literat. of Europe, Vol. iii, p. 134). 
 
 In the Epistles, as might be expected, the simi- 
 larity, though still great, is not so striking. The 
 earlier version partakes more of the character of a 
 paraphrase than that now in use (See Rom. xiv, 1 ; 
 2 Cor. iii, 10; 1 Thess. ii, 3; James i, 17 ; 1 Pet. 
 V, 9). Ellipses are perpetually supplied by Tyndal 
 with a boldness which his more wary successors 
 
 * For example, what edition cao be poesibly mean by " the 
 English translation of Tyndal and Corerdale, published in 1535 
 or 1536 ;" which, he tells us, is " avowedly taken" from the Latin 
 Vulgate, and Luther's German Testament (Literat. of Europe, 
 Vol. i, p. 526) ? Of course Mr. Hallam may fairly plead that 
 " operi longo fas est obrepere somnum," but his oversights are 
 very likely to grow into other people's authorities. 
 
 ! 
 
 Jntcotiuction. 81 
 
 feared to imitate ; sometimes indeed to the manifest 
 improvement of the sense (1 Cor. vii, 19 ; Eph. vi, 
 2 ; Hebr. vii, 20 ; 1 Pet. iv, 1 1) ; but occasionally 
 on grounds too doubtful for a cautious interpreter to 
 approve (Rom. viii, 23 ; xiv, 20 ; Eph. ii, 15 ; iii, 
 1 ; Hebr. vi, 1). Yet I conceive that on the whole, 
 an unlearned reader will find Tyndal's version at 
 least as intelligible as our own ; and few indeed are 
 the places in which he materially misrepresents the 
 meaning of the sacred writers. His most prominent 
 defect is a disregard of the Greek particld^, even 
 where they are most needed to indicate the logical 
 connection between the several members of a sentence. 
 And notwithstanding the laudable care of some of 
 the later editors on the point, this negligence of the 
 first translator continues to exercise a pernicious in- 
 fluence on our present Bible. 
 
 In his address to the reader, appended to the first 
 edition of 1526, Tyndal besought " them that are 
 learned Christianly, forasmuch as I am sure, and 
 my conscience beareth me record, that of a pure 
 intent, singly and faithfully I have interpreted it, as 
 far forth as God gave me the gift of knowledge and 
 understanding : that the rudeness of the work, now 
 at the first time offend them not ; but that they con- 
 sider how that I had no man to counterfeit, neither 
 was holpen with English of any that had interpreted 
 the same, or such like things in the Scripture before 
 time." In these words he seems positively to dis- 
 claim the use of Wickliffe's New Testament ; and 
 accordingly, on comparing the two translations, I can 
 trace no other marks of affinity between them, than 
 might arise from accident, or some faint recollection 
 of the expressions of the older version, still lingering 
 in Tyndal's mind. He concludes his address with a 
 
H2 3|nttol>uct(on. 
 
 promise, that this first attempt, which' is " a thing 
 begun rather than finished," shall hereafter undergo 
 a thorough revision, desiring " them that are learned 
 and able, to remember their duty, and to help there- 
 unto." 
 
 It was not before 1634 that Tyndal was enabled 
 to redeem the pledge he had thus given. In that year 
 he published his third and last edition, which, as he 
 informs us in his Prologue, he had " looked over 
 (now at the last) with all diligence, and compared 
 it untofhe Greek ; and weeded out of it many faults, 
 which lack of help at the beginning, and oversight 
 did sow therein." On this last edition his reputation 
 as a translator of Scripture is chiefly founded. 
 Although the character of the two editions is in the 
 main the same, yet several variations occur in every 
 chapter ; and it cannot be questioned that Tyndal's 
 second thoughts were usually the best. Many obso- 
 lete words and undignified phrases are removed ; 
 the more obvious inaccuracies are for the most part 
 corrected (e. g. 2 Cor. vi, 12 ; Phil, ii, 4 ; Hebr. 
 ix, 1 ; xi, 21); and I believe it may be added that 
 the critical readings of the Vulgate have less weight 
 than in the first edition (e. g. Matth. vi, 13 ; xxv, 21). 
 On the other hand, some of the most singular ren- 
 derings of the first edition remain unaltered in the 
 third. Thus in Eph. iv, 27 8ia/3oXoc is translated 
 " backbiter :" in 1 Tim. iii, 2 a bishop must be kov 
 ftiov " honestly apparelled :" the kXtJ/ooc of I Pet. v, 3 
 are " parishes :" and the strange expression " but 
 and if" (which is not quite banished from our pre- 
 sent Bibles),* is very frequently used. Tyndal 
 
 • See our Autlioriged version, Matth. xxiv, 48 ; 1 Pet. iii, 
 14. " And" u Bimilarlj used after '* but" in other phrases bj 
 Tjndal. Thus " but and thoa," Matth. zix, 17 ; edition of 1526. 
 
 5 
 
 "t 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 3|ntrotiuct(on. 83 
 
 so far complied with the representations of others 
 as to substitute the technical word " elders" in the 
 book of 1634 in the room of " seniors" (irpffr(3v- 
 Ttpoi) ; but in both editions fKucXqirta is translated 
 " congregation," not " Church ;"* ayairri " love," 
 not " charity ;" and very often ■^apig " favor," not 
 " grace." It would not be difficult also to point out 
 instances in which a change has been introduced 
 into the later edition decidedly for the worse. I 
 have noticed no less than fifty-four such cases 
 (many of them, doubtless, of little consequence), in 
 the Gospel of St. Matthew alone (See particularly 
 ch. V, 24 ; vi, 34 ; ix, I ; 2 ; xix, 28 ; xxiii, 18 ; xxv, 
 28; xxvi, 31). 
 
 A conviction of the great intrinsic merit of Tyndal's 
 New Testament of 1626, no less than the interest at- 
 tached to it, as being the first English version made 
 immediately from the Greek, has induced me to dis- 
 tinguish by a separate notation, all its variations from 
 the later and more perfect edition, which I may meet 
 with in the progress of my present work. 
 Coverdaie's '^^ Milcs Coverdalc, sometime Bishop 
 Uibie, 1535. ^f Exctcr, wc owe the first English ver- 
 sion of the whole Bible, including the Apocryphal 
 books (1536). Although for prudential reasons his 
 work is called in the Prologue " a special translation," 
 the slightest collation will shew that, at least in the 
 New Testament, he has made a freer use of the 
 labors of Tyndal, than the circumstances of the times 
 would permit him to acknowledge. Many para- 
 graphs may be found in Coverdale, which corres- 
 
 • In Matth. xvi, 18 " congregation" is retained after Tyndal 
 in all our versions before King James's, ^vho8e third Instruction to 
 tiie Translators proscribed its use. 
 
84 jntcoUuctfon. 
 
 pond to the letter with the version of his predecessor ; 
 and still more wherein he contents himself with a few 
 verbal alterations. Yet in such texts as present any 
 difficulty he must be considered an independent 
 translator, since in them he often departs widely 
 from the renderings of Tyndal. In his beautiful 
 prologue he says, " to help me, 1 have had sundry 
 translations, not only in Latin, but also of the Dutch 
 interpreters ; whom ... .1 have been the more glad to 
 follow, for the most part, according as I was required." 
 And in his dedication to King Henry he mentions 
 "five sundry interpreters," out of whom he had " with 
 a clear conscience purely and faithfully translated." 
 . I cite these words the rather, because they have been 
 held to prove that Coverdale's is but a secondary 
 translation, and not the result of a comparison with 
 the Greek. Since it seems impossible to discover 
 the precise versions to which he here alludes,* or 
 even to determine with certainty whether each of 
 them contained the whole or only a portion of Scrip- 
 ture ; we cannot hope to arrive at any positive con- 
 clusion in this matter. It would appear, however, 
 that though he makes no direct mention of the Greek 
 text, it is tacitly referred to throughout his Prologue. 
 If his Bible be after all but a selection from previous 
 translations, if Coverdale really did nothing more 
 than " purely and faithfully follow his interpreters," 
 it is hard to understand what advantage he could 
 expect to accrue from it to " the congregation of 
 God ;" or how he could state, with an immediate 
 view to his own undertaking, that "there cometh 
 
 Bth 1 
 
 • For some vague conjectures on tliis subject (they are really 
 nothing more) see Mr. Walter's First Letter to Bp Marsh, p. 98 ; 
 and Introd. to Bagster's Hexapla, p. 72. 
 
 3intcoDutt(on. 86 
 
 more knowledge and understanding of Scripture by 
 sundry translations, than by all the glosses of our 
 sophistical doctors." On the other liand it must 
 be confessed, that we possess not the same proof of 
 Coverdale's learning that we have of Tyndal's; and 
 certainly the history of this good man's subsequent 
 career, would not lead us to think highly of his 
 judgment and consistency. 
 
 Bishop Coverdale's Translation is spoken of in 
 very favorable terms by Kennicott (Diss. Gen. ad 
 Vet. Test. \ 89 note), who, besides several passages 
 of the Old Testament, quotes Luke xxiii, 32 ; John, 
 xviii, 37, as instances where his interpretation is 
 preferable to that of our present Bibles. Kennicott 
 should have stated that Tyndal's, and indeed most of 
 the other English versions, have avoided the gross 
 error of King James's Translators in the former of 
 these texts ; and I fear that we must not assent to 
 the lavish praise he has bestowed on Coverdale's 
 labors. The services rendered by that prelate to 
 Biblical science are chiefly confined to the Old Testa- 
 ment, a large proportion of which had not been 
 translated by any Englishman since the days of 
 Wickliffe. His version of the New Testament is 
 very unequal, and betrays so many marks of precipi- 
 tancy, as almost to lend credibility to the conjecture, 
 that he began and ended his translation of the whole 
 Scriptures within a year ! (Introd. to Bagster's 
 Hexapla, p. 73.) Yet no competent judge will deem 
 his work destitute of merit. The style is vigorous ; 
 the renderings of difficult texts are very perspicuous, 
 though they are often questionable and diffuse ; while 
 an air of freshness and novelty pervades the volume, 
 since no one of our translators has ventured on such 
 
86 3ntroiiuct{on. 
 
 bold interpretations as Coverdale, and but little of 
 his peculiar diction was adopted by those who fol- 
 lowed him. 
 
 In Coverdale's Bible we may trace the rise of mar- 
 ginal notes, as they are still retained in the Autho- 
 rised version. The first edition of Tyndal's New 
 Testament, in 8". 1626, contains the bare text ; 
 but his 4'". edition, published later in the same year, 
 as also his third edition of 1534, exhibit glosses in 
 the margin : but they are brief annotations on the sub- 
 ject matter of Scripture, and not various renderings 
 of the words. Coverdale appears to have first used 
 the margin for this latter purpose ; though his notes 
 are so few that I have counted but eighteen in the 
 whole New Testament, whereof five are explanatory 
 remarks ; and only three occur in all the Epistles ; 
 — another proof of his haste as he approached the 
 end of his task. On an analysis of the remaining 
 thirteen cases, the rendering of Tyndal appears in 
 the text, and that of the Vulgate in the margin, in 
 Matth. xxiii, 25; Mark i, 11; Acts xv, 3 where 
 Tyndal's first edition agrees with Coverdale's). The 
 Vulgate reading is in the text, that of Tyndal in 
 the margin of Matth. xvi, 13; Acts ix, 40. A less 
 literal version is in the margin of Matth. xi, II ; xx, 
 25 : one more literal in Mark iii, 21. The notes on 
 Rom. iii, 28 ; x, 17, seem mere idle glosses, resting 
 on no proper authority ; while those on Matth. i, 18 ; 
 xxvi, 17 (" some read, a' glass with precious water "); 
 Mark xiii, 9, are so forced, that I hardly know 
 how to account for them. I have been thus minute 
 in my description of these marginal notes, as they 
 promise to afford us a tolerable index of the sources 
 and character of the version which contains them. 
 
 f 
 
 9|ntrol>uct(on. s? 
 
 Cmnmer', or '^^'^ " ^reat Bible " of 1 639, published 
 theOreatBibie under the auspices of Archbishop Cran- 
 mer, was used as the Authorised version 
 of our Church for many years. Its translation of the 
 Psalms is still retained in our Prayer Book, and the 
 Epistles and Gospels were taken from it until the last 
 review in 1601. In the title page to this edition we 
 are informed that it is " truly translated after the 
 verity of the Hebrew and Greek texts, by the diligent 
 study of divers excellent learned men, expert in the 
 foresaid tongues ;" and it has been conjectured by 
 some that John Rogers the Martyr was the person 
 chiefly employed under Cranmer's own eye. That 
 it is the version which was prepared, with King 
 Henry's sanction, by Gardiner and several other pre- 
 lates, is a supposition irreconcileable with the fact, 
 that the prohibited New Testament of Tyndal is ma- 
 nifestly the groundwork of that portion of the Great 
 Bible. One thing however is certain, that no one of 
 our earlier versions contributed so little as this to the 
 formation of a perfect translation. The publication 
 of this edition was doubtless hurried forward by the 
 pressing necessity of providing a Bible fit to be set 
 up and read in Churches. Hence, although slight 
 variations and minute corrections of Tyndal's style 
 may be found in almost every verse, it is useless to 
 expect that the "Great Bible" will throw much 
 light on difficult passages, or explain the more in- 
 volved constructions. In such cases it mostly copies 
 verbatim from the older translation. No primary 
 version, either before or after it, allowed so great 
 weight to the readings of the Vulgate. Cranmer's 
 New Testament is full of interpolations (distinguished 
 however from the rest of the text by a difference in 
 the character) which depend mainly or even ex- 
 
88 3lntrotiuction. 
 
 clusively, on the authority of the ancient Latin ver- 
 sion. I subjoin a few instances, selected from a 
 much larger number, in all which the additions of 
 the " Great Bible " have been rejected by subsequent 
 English translators. Matth. xxvi, 63 ; xxvii, 8 ; 
 Mark ii, 23 ; Luke xvi, 2 1 ; xxiv, 36 ; Acts xv, 34 ; 4 1 ; 
 Rom. i, 32 ; v, 2 ; 8 ; xii, 17 ; 1 Cor. iv, 1 6 ; xiv, 33 ; 
 2 Cor. xi, 21 ; Col. i, 6 ; James v, 3 ; 1 Pet. v, 2 ; 3 ; 
 2 Pet. i, 10; ii, 4. In the following texts it agrees 
 with Latin manuscripts, against the present printed 
 text, both Latin and Greek. Matth. xix, 2 1 ; John 
 vii, 29 ; Acts xiv, 7 ; 1 Cor. x, 17 ; 2 Cor. viii, 20. 
 The interpolated clause in the last five instances is 
 also found in WicklifTe. In 1 Cor. xv, 47 Coverdale 
 follows the Vulgate reading, while the Great Bible 
 annexes it to that of the Greek, which had been 
 adopted by Tyndal. On the other hand, this edition 
 very properly inserts from the Complutensian Poly- 
 glott or the Vulgate, the latter part of James iv, 6 ; 
 which not being found in the manuscript chiefly used 
 by Erasmus (2 of Wetstein), had not yet been ad- 
 mitted into the received text. Another addition, 
 derived from the same source, is Luke xvii, 36 ; 
 the authenticity of which is not so well estab- 
 lished. 
 
 A curious fragment of a translation of 
 the New Testament, by Sir John Cheke 
 (that illustrious scholar, the pride of his 
 age, who " taught Cambridge and King 
 Edward Greek"), was published by Mr. Goodwin in 
 1843, from one of the Parker manuscripts deposited 
 in Corpus Christi College Library. Though tliis 
 version was apparently unknown to all succeeding 
 translators, and consequently is not comprehended 
 within the strict limits of my design, a slight account 
 
 5 
 
 Sir John 
 Cheke's Trans 
 lation of St. 
 Matthew, 
 ahout 1550. 
 
 3intcotiutt{on. 89 
 
 of its character and scope will scarcely be condemned 
 as an impertinent digression. The manuscript which 
 contains it being without date or signature. Sir John 
 Cheke is discovered to be its author chiefly by its 
 close resemblance to his beautiful and peculiar hand- 
 writing. Mr. Goodwin conjectures, on no very suf- 
 ficient data, that the translation was executed about 
 A. D. 1550 ; it should certainly be placed between the 
 publication of Cranmer's and of the first Geneva 
 version. In 1639 Cheke was but twenty-five years 
 old; in 1657 he went down to the tomb, a penitent 
 and heart-broken man. Unfortunately this fragment 
 comprises only the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the 
 first twenty verses of St. Mark ; two leaves have been 
 lost, the one containing Matth. xvi, 25 — xviii, 8 ; 
 and the other the last eleven verses of ch. xxviii. 
 There is no reason to think that any farther progress 
 was ever made in the prosecution of the work. 
 
 Although there are abundant proofs in every page 
 that the earlier translations were much used in forming 
 that now under review, none of the older versions so 
 little resembles our present Authorised Bible ; none 
 is so free from all restraint, so loose and paraphrastic 
 as Sir John Cheke's. Like some modem interpre- 
 ters, he feels himself at liberty to remodel the whole 
 form and arrangement of the original, in order to 
 round a period or render a construction more regular. 
 Thus Matth. xxiv, 45, 46 runs as follows in his 
 version : " The servant therefore who is a faithful 
 and a wise servant, whom his Lord hath set over his 
 meini to give them meat in convenient time, and his 
 Lord findeth him doing so at his coming, is happy." 
 He represents the discourses held by our Lord with 
 his disciples and other enquirers, in the degrading 
 idiom of familiar dialogue. " They have no need. 
 
90 3|ntcoliuctfon. 
 
 Baid Christ to them, to go away. Give you them 
 some meat. We have nothing here, said they, but 
 five loaves, and two fishes. Bring them hither to 
 me, saith he" (ch. xiv, 16 — 18). Nay even in that 
 awful description of the solemnities of the Great 
 Judgment-day, we are offended by expressions such 
 as these, " Then shall the righteous answer, Sir, 
 shall they say . . ." (ch. xxv, 37). Every obscurity, 
 whether in the language or the sense, is unhesi- 
 tatingly removed by the boldest expedients. Thus 
 in Matth. i, 1 8 we read •* it was perceived she was 
 with child, and it was indeed by the Holy Ghost." 
 In ch. xxv, 21 we find " go you in thither, where 
 your Master delighteth to be." It would appear 
 then that nothing was more foreign to our learned 
 translator's intention, than to emulate the verbal 
 accuracy, and scrupulous fidelity to the original, 
 which honorably distinguish the public versions of 
 those times. 
 
 The diction of this little book is perfectly unique. 
 It was manifestly Cheke's desire to banish from our 
 language every word, however simple or well-known, 
 which was derived from a Latin root. Of this rather 
 pedantic and whimsical attempt Mr. Goodwin gives 
 us several instances (Introduction, p. 15) : I will add 
 a few more for the reader's edification. Where the 
 English versions use " mount," Cheke employs 
 " hill ;" for " diligently" he substitutes " busily ;" 
 for " people" or " multitude," " throng" or " resort ;" 
 for " scribe," " learned man" (but not in ch. ii, 4 ; 
 vii, 29) ; for " endure," " abide ;" for " similitude," 
 •• by - word" (but " parable," ch. xiii, 34) ; for 
 "verily," "truly;" for "tribulation," "wretched time," 
 &c. He also sought to force upon our native tongue 
 n profusion of strange compounds, invented after the 
 
 f 
 
 
 t 
 
 3|ntcoDuctfon. 9i 
 
 analogy of the German ; not merely comparatively 
 obvious forms like " cursedness" for " abomination" 
 (ch. xxiv, 15) ; " unstaidness" for " excess ;" un- 
 lawfulness" for iniquity ;" " soulish" for " natural" 
 ('irv-jfiKog 1 Cor. ii, 14); &c. but uncouth monsters 
 such as " gain-birth" for " regeneration ;" " on- 
 writing" for " superscription ;" " small-faithed" for 
 " of little-faith ;" " gainrising" for " resurrection ;" 
 words which never could have been generally 
 received without altering the genius of our language, 
 and throwing it back full two hundred years. In 
 the same spirit he sedulously employs the English 
 possessive case to an extent seldom met with else- 
 where ; and strives to rescue from oblivion many 
 words which at that period had become nearly 
 obsolete. Of this kind is Chaucer's and WicklifTe's 
 " meini" for " household ;" Wickliffe's " tollboth" 
 for " receipt of custom ;" " shire" for " kindred" or 
 " tribe," &c. His motive for retaining " margarites" 
 for " pearls" (ch. vii, 6, &c) ; " phantasm" for " ap- 
 parition" (ch. xiv, 26) ; " acrids" in Matth. iii, 4, for 
 which he has " locusts" in Mark i, 6, 1 do not pretend 
 to explain. 
 
 But while I cannot speak very favorably of Sir 
 John Cheke's taste and judgment in the particulars 
 to which I have referred, it would be unjust to deny 
 that Mr. Goodwin has done good service to sacred 
 literature by the publication of this version. In 
 addition to the interest attached to it both on 
 account of its author and his times, it displays much 
 intrinsic worth, and has afforded me many valuable 
 hints in the course of the present volume. See 
 especially Matth. iv, 6 ; 23 ; v, 21 ; vi, 22 ; ix, 2 ; xv, 
 6 ; XX, 23 ; xxiv, 12 ; 31 ; xxv, 14 ; xxvi, 2. The 
 translator's notes, if not very deep, are sensible and 
 
92 3ntcotiuctfon. 
 
 instructive ; but the inaccurate state of the whole 
 manuscript may tempt us to suspect, that we are in 
 possession of little more than his first rough outline, 
 which he would doubtless have retouched and com- 
 pleted, had peace and leisure been granted to his 
 later years. 
 
 Geneva New ^^''^ superior to the " Great Bible" is 
 Tesument, the English Translation made at Geneva 
 by a few Marian exiles, and first pub- 
 lished in that city in 1557. I know not whether 
 King James's words at the Hampton Court Confer- 
 ence are truly reported, that though he had not 
 yet seen a good English version of the Scriptures, 
 the Geneva was the worst of them all ; but unless 
 he had reference solely to the marginal annota- 
 tions, I fear that I cannot agree with the royal critic. 
 Each of the previous versions seems to have been 
 executed by one man ; every portion of the Geneva 
 New Testament is said to have been revised by 
 several of the ripest scholars of the age, whose 
 devotion to this noble work beguiled the hours of 
 banishment and deep afl^iction. They appear to have 
 paid little attention to Coverdale and the " Great 
 Bible ;" but taking Tyndal for their model, they sub- 
 jected his version to a searching examination, retain- 
 ing his renderings where they deemed them satis- 
 factory, and never deserting his text without some 
 adequate motive. The Geneva editors bestowed 
 much care on the Greek particles ; for although 
 Cranmer's version had already supplied some of 
 Tyndal's deficiencies on this head, numerous important 
 omissions were still left for its successors to detect. 
 Another considerable improvement was their repre- 
 senting in a separate character the words they found 
 it necessary to insert, in order to complete the sense 
 
 3ntcomictfon. 93 
 
 of their translation. This admirable expedient is 
 supposed to have originated with Sebastian Munster 
 (Biblia Latina, 1534), but it was first used in 
 English for the Geneva New Testament.. In the 
 " Great Bible" the same variation in the type had 
 been applied to a widely different purpose. The 
 practice of the Geneva in this respect was followed 
 in due time by the Bishops' and King James's 
 Bibles, in which last italics were soon substituted 
 for the small Roman letters of the earliest editions. 
 The brief annotations which crowd the margin of 
 the New Testament of 1557, will find favor with 
 none save the admirers of the theological school then 
 predominant at Geneva. A few, and but a few of 
 them, relate to the interpretation of the text (e. g. 
 Matth. xxii, 24; xxvi, 49; Luke, i, 28; Acts ii, 
 13; XX, 9 ; xxviii, 15; Rom. xvi, 23 ; Col. i, 24 ; 
 Hebr. ix, 7 ; 9, &c), and so far resemble those in 
 Coverdale's Bible, described above (p. 86). In 
 general, they comprise a sort of running commentary 
 on the sacred writers, strongly impregnated with 
 the peculiar views of Calvin and Beza, which are set 
 forth in a tone as positive and uncompromising as 
 ran well be imagined. When we reflect that the 
 Geneva version was the Family Bible of the middle 
 classes in England for two full generations after 
 its first appearance, we may conceive how power- 
 ful an engine these notes became in the hands of 
 that party, which in the next century laid the 
 throne and altar in the dust. The piety and un- 
 affected earnestness of their authors only served to 
 render the poison thus disseminated doubly noxious. 
 But the feeling that we are treading hostile ground 
 must not make us blind to the merits of these excellent 
 men. They were intimately versed in the Scriptures, 
 
94 3|ntroiiuction. 
 
 and profoundly imbued with their spirit. It is not 
 too much to say, that their version is the best in the 
 English Language, with the single exception of our 
 present Authorised Bible. And even King James's 
 revisers sometimes retain the renderings of the 
 Bishops' Bible, where they are decidedly inferior to 
 that of the Geneva New Testament (e. g. Matth. v, 
 29 ; xii, 14 ; xiii, 45 ; xvi, 1 &c.). With the edition 
 of 1557, however, commenced that unhappy deference 
 to Beza's Latin version, published only the year 
 before (see the Geneva renderings of Matth. i, 11 ; 
 Luke ii, 22 ; Gal. iv, 17 ; Hebr. x, 38), which has 
 in some instances warped the judgment of our own 
 translators also. 
 
 It is proper to state, that the version of the New 
 Testament given in the Geneva Bible of 1560, varies 
 considerably from that in the first edition of 1557. 
 The alterations can scarcely have proceeded from the 
 original translators ; and, considered as a whole, are 
 inferior to the interpretations which they displace. 
 Wherever the edition of 1560 is not expressly 
 quoted, I have used the earlier New Testament of 
 1557. 
 
 The Bishops' Bible is a revision of 
 Sbli!'iS' Cranmer's or the " Great Bible," ex- 
 *572- ecuted by several Bishops and other 
 
 eminent divines, under the superintendence of 
 Archbp. Parker, who wrote the eloquent and instruc- 
 tive Preface. It was first published in 1568, but the 
 second edition of 1572, which is esteemed the more 
 correct, has been chiefly consulted for the present 
 work. This Bible became the Authorised version 
 of our Church, in the room of the " Great Bible," 
 until it was superseded in its turn by King James's 
 translation of 1611; but the Geneva translation 
 
 3|nti:oButtfon, 95 
 
 retained its fodting in private families, during the 
 whole reign of Elizabeth. To the spirit of rivalry 
 thus engendered must be ascribed the terms of unfair 
 depreciation, in which some writers have spoken of 
 the Bishops' Bible ; as though it derived its sole 
 worth or interest from the accidental circumstance of 
 its being the basis of our present Translation. I 
 certainly do not prefer it to the Geneva version ; but 
 it little deserves the contemptuous neglect it has 
 often experienced. Its most obvious blemish is a 
 closer adherence to the letter of the Greek than our 
 language requires, or indeed admits. Thus the 
 Bishops' Bible is the first which renders n-aiS/ov in 
 Matth. ii, " young child" (see p. 34) ; and the follow- 
 ing expressions sound very harshly in English : 
 Matth. ix, 38 " that he will thrust forth (w/3a'Ap) 
 laborers into his harvest ;" xxi, 19 " one fig-tree ;" 
 xxviii, 14 •' make you careless;" Luke ii, 16 " the 
 men the shepherds ;" Acts xxiii, 27 (still retained in 
 our present version) " came I with an army ;" 1 Thess. 
 iv, 17 " we which live which remain;" Hebr. ii, 16 
 " he taketh not on him the angels." But though 
 these instances may convict the translators of a lack 
 of critical discernment, they spring from an honest 
 anxiety to approach as near as possible to the pre- 
 cise words of the original. A more serious fault is 
 their extravagant multiplication of the smaller cha- 
 racters within brackets, the use of which they bor- 
 rowed from the earlier versions (see p. 92). With 
 the legitimate design of this notation the reader is 
 familiar (see p. 60) ; but it is a mischievous practice 
 to insert in the body of Scripture words or clauses 
 intended to limit or explain the subject matter of 
 the text. Thus in Luke i, 56 this edition reads 
 " and [afterward] returned to her own house ;" the 
 
9G gintcottuction. 
 
 term within brackets being added by the translators 
 on their own unsupported authority. Several 
 instances of this kind had been found in the Geneva 
 version, and the fault is retained (e. g. Mark xiv, 
 62 ; Eph. ii, 5), or even increased (1 Cor. x, 30) in 
 the Bishops'. The interpolations from the Vulgate 
 in Cranmer's Bible (see p. 88) are for the most part 
 rejected in Parker's. In some places, however, they 
 are retained (e. g. Luke xvi,21 ; John xii, 19 ; Rom. 
 xii, 17) ; and though the Geneva New Testament 
 may not have had any great influence with its suc- 
 cessors, they adopt its rendering in at least one im- 
 portant passage, where it is undoubtedly wrong (Luke 
 ii, 22). Only a few of the marginal notes in this 
 edition relate to the interpretation of the text of 
 Scripture ; they are, however, rather expository than 
 doctrinal, and consequently are not liable to the 
 same objection as those of the Geneva version. It 
 was reserved for the wisdom of our own translators 
 to reject every marginal note that savoured of the 
 nature of a comment. Neither in this, nor in other 
 respects, can the Bishops' Bible stand in competition 
 with King James's. But, at the very lowest estimate, 
 it is the careful production of conscientious and 
 learned men ; and supplies us with the means of 
 determining how far the idioms of Hellenistic Greek 
 can safely be transfused" into our native tongue. 
 
 While this Bible was in preparation, 
 
 Laorencei • 
 
 Critique. Archbishop Parker consulted one Lau- 
 rence, an eminent Scriptural critic of that age, re- 
 specting the plan and details of the revision then in 
 progress. Laurence's brief critique on the eariier 
 versions is preserved in Strype's Life of Parker (Ap- 
 pendix Ixxxv, pp. 139—142 ; see also Townley's 
 Biblic. Literat. vol. iii, p. 180), and possesses some 
 
 3|ntrot»uctfon. 97 
 
 value as being the only document of the kind now 
 extant. If it be anything more than a hasty sketch, 
 it will by no means raise our estimate of the scholar- 
 ship of that period: for though his remarks are appo- 
 site, and for the most part true, yet they are super- 
 ficial and sometimes even trifling (as that on Matth. 
 xxviii, 14). Although he examines but twenty-nine 
 texts (all of them, except Col. ii, 13, from the first 
 three Gospels), he distributes his observations into no 
 less than six distinct heads. Either the passage is 
 " not aptly translated ;" or " words and pieces of sen- 
 tences are omitted ;" or " words are superfluous ;" or 
 " the sentence changed ;" or there is " an error in doc- 
 trine ;" or •' the moods and tenses are changed." 
 He moreover notes one or two texts as " not well 
 considered by Beza and Erasmus." On his sugges- 
 tion the last clause of Mark xv, 3 was admitted into 
 the text, and the words found in the margin of our 
 present Bibles at Luke x, 22 would have been 
 inserted in the Bishops' Bible had his opinion been 
 adopted. Yet in some instances he blames Cranmer's 
 version for too easily receiving doubtful clauses on 
 the authority of the Vulgate. He considers it an 
 error in doctrine that Iva in Luke ix, 45 was not ren- 
 dered rt\iKU)Q, " that they should not understand it." 
 On the whole therefore, notwithstanding the lauda- 
 tory terms in which Laurence is usually referred to, 
 I cannot think that the arrangement of his materials 
 is the best that could be devised ; nor are his criti- 
 cisms of that worth or importance which several 
 writers have attached to them. 
 Rhcmish "^^^ Anglo-Romish version of the New 
 
 New TeMa- Testament, published at Rheims in 1 582, 
 ' ■ is a very literal translation from the Latin 
 Vulgate, which the crooked policy of the Roman 
 
9fi "intcotiuction. 
 
 Catholic Church had recently raised to that para- 
 mount authority, which rightfully belongs only to the 
 original text. Among the many excellencies of the 
 Vulgate itself, perspiduity will scarcely be thought 
 the most prominent ; and the Rhemish translators ad- 
 hered so servilely to its idioms, and even to the very 
 order of its words, that they produced a version which 
 is neither English nor Latin, but composed in an ob- 
 scure and perplexing dialect of their own ; such as 
 always must have been (as perhaps it was designed to 
 be), in a great measure unintelligible to all who were 
 unable to read the Vulgate for themselves. On no 
 other supposition can I account for their perpetual 
 employment of barbarous words, which no one ever 
 did, or would wish to meet with elsewhere. Such are 
 " sindon," Mark xv, 46 ; " zealators," Acts xxi, 20 ; 
 *' praefinition," Eph. iii, 11; " contristate," iv, 30 ; 
 "agnition," Philem. v. 6; " repropiciate," Heb. ii, 
 17 ; and a host of others of the same stamp, that 
 remind us of nothing so forcibly, as of Gardiner's 
 famous list of untranslateable expressions, which 
 amuses the student of the History of the Reforma- 
 tion (Burnet, Hist. Reform. Pt. I, Bk. iii).* Yet in 
 justice it must be observed, that no case of wilful 
 perversion of Scripture has ever been brought home 
 to the Rhemish translators. Wherever the Vulgate 
 rendering is erroneous or insufficient, its followers of 
 course are equally defective. To tread in its steps 
 was all they aimed at, and this poor object of their 
 ambition they have not failed to attain. Wickliffe's 
 Bible, I think, they never saw ; but with all their 
 
 • " Gardiner, though wanting power to keep the light of the 
 Word from shining, sought out of policy to put it into a dark Inn- 
 tern." Fuller, Church History, Bk. t, Sect, iv, 35. 
 
 3ntrolruct(on. 99 
 
 contempt for our vernacular translations, they have 
 not scrupled to use some of the earlier versions as the- 
 basis of their own. Nor should I suppress the fact, 
 that the Rhemish divines may occasionally do us 
 good service, by furnishing some happy phrase or 
 . torm of expression, which had eluded the diligence 
 of their more reputable predecessors. 
 
 If then it be asked on what grounds the Rhemish 
 ^ew Testament has always been so severely con- 
 demned by Protestant writers, I confidently reply 
 chiefly on account of its notes; which present to us 
 a mass of bigotry, sophistry, and unfairness, of which 
 the world has seen but few examples. We are in- 
 debted to Dr. Fulke, sometime Master of Pembroke 
 College, Cambridge, for an acute and unanswerable 
 hough rather angry refutation. of this production of 
 the "traiterous seminarie " at Rheims ; in which he 
 traces his hapless victims through every paragraph 
 ot their Preface and Annotations, and prints the 
 versmn of the Bishops' Bible (which was then the 
 Authorised Translation of the English Church) in 
 parallel columns with the Rhemish text. I can best 
 convey a notion of the truly Jesuitical character of 
 the Popish notes, by submitting to the reader a few 
 choice extracts from their comment on the sacred 
 volume Thus on Luke xvii, 14 we find the follow- 
 •ng edifymg remarks. "A man may sometimes be 
 60 contrite and penitent, that his sin is forgiven before 
 he come to the priest ; but then also he must not- 
 withstanding go to the priest, as these lepers did • 
 specially whereas we are never sure how contrite 
 we are, and because there is no true contrition but 
 with desire also of the sacrament in time and place " 
 Now wuhout disputing that this precious note con- 
 tains what Dr. Fulke calls in his homely phrase " a 
 
 .jk. 
 
100 3lntcotiuctfon. 
 
 beggarly petition of two principles," I would ratlicr 
 draw attention to the editors' insinuation of what 
 they have not the courage to say plainly ; namely, 
 that our Lord sent the lepers to the priest, that they 
 might receive " the sacrament " of absolution. The 
 Rhemish rendering of Heb. xi, 21 is well known, . 
 " and adored the top of his rod," an error which was 
 derived from the Vulgate. In their note the editors, 
 after indulging in a sneer at the Hebrew verity, 
 draw from these words the modest conclusion, 
 " that adoration may be done to creatures, or to God 
 at and before a creature." On Acts xvii, 34, after 
 telling the idle story of Dionysius the Areopagite, 
 and identifying him with St. Denys of France, they 
 condescend to inform us that some persons deny the 
 authenticity of " his notable and divine works on the 
 Sacrament. &c. . . by an old sleight of heretics, but 
 most proper to these of all others. Who, seemg a 1 
 antiquity against them, are forced to be more bold, 
 or rather impudent than others on that pomt. 
 
 But it were endless to enumerate every violation 
 of common sense, or common decency (1 Cor. vii, 5), 
 with which the Rhemish notes on the New Testa- 
 ment overflow. I will content myself with one 
 more instance, which is in itself enough to justify 
 the strongest censures that have at any time been 
 passed on this miserable farrago of impertinence and 
 falsehood. On John v, 39 they say: "Christ re- 
 prehendeth the Jews, that daily reading the Scrip- 
 tures, and acknowledging that in them they should 
 find light and salvation, they yet looked over them 
 so superficially, that they could not find therein Il.m 
 to be Christ, their king. Lord, life and Saviour. For 
 the special masters and scribes of the Jews were like 
 unto our heretics now, who be ever talking and turn- 
 
 3|ntcoUuct(on, lol 
 
 ing and shuffling the Scriptures, but are of all men 
 tlie most ignorant in the deep knowledge thereof. 
 And therefore our Master referreth them not to the 
 rending only or learning them without book, or having 
 the sentences thereof gloriously painted or written in 
 their Temples, houses or coats : but to the deep 
 search of the meaning and mysteries of the Scriptures; 
 which are not so easily to be seen in the letter." How 
 grave and seemly is Fulke's rebuke of this flippant 
 insolence. " We confess that the Scriptures are not 
 only to be read, written, or painted on walls, but 
 diligently to be searched, and deeply to be studied, 
 in which we know eternal life is to be found, with- 
 out all addition of Popish doctrine, which is not to 
 be found in Holy Scripture." Thus far of the Rhe- 
 mish New Testament. 
 
 King James's Of the Authorised, or King James's 
 Bible, 1611. version of the Bible, first published in 
 IGll, it seems adviseable to say little in this place, 
 since the examination of its excellencies and defects 
 forms the subject of the present work. I hardly need 
 observe that it has received the highest panegyrics 
 from Biblical scholarsof every shade of theological sen- 
 timent, from the date of its publication to the present 
 time. For more than a century after its completion 
 almost the only person of respectable acquirements 
 and station who wrote against it was Dr. Robert Gell, 
 a London clergyman, whose twenty Discourses or Ser- 
 mons on this subject (London, 1659, folio) I have 
 not been able to meet with.* Judging from Lewis's 
 description of the book, my loss has not been great. 
 Gell had taken up a foolish and very unfounded notion 
 
 • Tliey aro not in tlio British Museum, nor in Sion College 
 Library. 
 
102 3intcol>uctfon. 
 
 that tlie Calvinistic bias of some of the translators 
 had a prejudicial effect on the version : but Gal. v, 6 
 is the only text I can discover to which he objects 
 on this ground. The New Testament he thought to 
 be worse rendered than the Old, and he complains 
 that the order of the words in the original is wholly 
 neglected (Ileb. x, 34). Lewis also mentions Matth. 
 XX, 23 ; I John iii, 20, as passages which Dr. Gell 
 thought capable of improvement ; but if he gives us 
 any approaching to a fair analysis of the contents of 
 these Sermons, they never could have endangered the 
 reputation of the translation which they assailed. 
 
 Having thus endeavored to prepare the reader for 
 what he may look for in our earlier versions, I pass 
 on to a brief consideration of the principal revised 
 translations of the New Testament, which have ap- 
 peared in this country since the publication of King 
 James's Bible. 
 
 And not to revive the memory of the disgraceful 
 travestie of 1729, or of Dr. Harwood's " liberal trans- 
 lation " into polite English ; or of several other at- 
 tempts long since forgotten (see p. 49 note) ; we will 
 , first speak of the " Family Expositor " of Dr. Dodd- 
 ridge, a learned and most estimable man, 
 Kf Ex- who made it the sole business of his life 
 posiior, J 739 to cousecratc his moderate abilities to the 
 service of Him that gave them.* The 
 common version being recommended by Doddridge 
 for the purpose of family worship, it is exhibited in 
 a column parallel with his own paraphrase, in the body 
 
 • Were not Mr. Borrow a very good-humored person, I shoald 
 Riispect B little malice in his manner of associating the name of our 
 worthy nonconformist Divine with that of Fielding, his uncongenial 
 neighbour in the English burial-ground at Lisbon. I will not quote 
 the passage I allude to, for who has not rend the " Bible in Spain ?" 
 
 gintroliuction. 103 
 
 of which a new translation is contained whose text 
 is distinguished from the comment merely by being, 
 printed in italics. Since the style of this author's 
 paraphrase is rather florid and verbose, the transla- 
 tion which is so intimately incorporated with it must 
 unavoidably partake of the same character : a defect 
 however which those readers will scarcely censure 
 who regard the paraphrase and the text (as in truth 
 they ought to be regarded) as but parts of an insepa. 
 rable whole. It is evident, therefore, that some wrong 
 was done to Dr. Doddridge by an injudicious admirer, 
 who after his death extracted the scattered portions 
 of his version from the paraphrase, and published the 
 collected fragments as a continuous translation of the 
 New Testament. Tried by so unfair a test the mo- 
 dern phraseology and affected elegance which some- 
 times deform Dr. Doddridge's writings will appear 
 very offensive : and we may well believe that several 
 bold interpretations which are not much out of place 
 in a commentary, would never have been admitted into 
 the text of Scripture by this humble-minded and pious 
 divine (e. g. Luke vii, 47 ; Acts xvi, 12 ; Rom. i, 17 • 
 1 Cor. XV, 29; 1 Pet. iii, 7). But if we are content to 
 use his work as Dr. Doddridge intended it to be used, 
 we may derive from it much edification, and perhaps 
 more knowledge than we should be inclined to confess. 
 To his version I shall often have cause to refer in favor- 
 able terms ; it is faithful, perspicuous and agreeable. 
 The notes and paraphrase contain much information, 
 not always very exact or profound, but amply suffi- 
 cient for practical purposes. On the tone and spirit of 
 his devotional " Improvements " it is needless to en- 
 large. They have received too many proofs of the 
 public approbation to require praise from me. 
 
 Towards the close of the last century much the 
 
104 ^t^troDuttion. 
 
 greater part of the New Testament was translated by 
 two ministers of the Scottish icirk ; by Campbell in 
 his work on the Four Gospels, and by Macknight in 
 that on the Apostolical Epistles. Of these autliors 
 Dr. Campbell most deserves our attention. For 
 
 Campbell on ^^o"&'^ ^^ ^^^ "0* * particle of that mo- 
 ihe Gospels, desty and unaffected gentleness which in 
 Macknight conciliate respect even where 
 they fail to convince ; yet he possessed in a high de- 
 gree several qualities which are essential to a good 
 interpreter of Scripture : great acuteness of intellect, 
 unwearied industry, competent learning, and inde- 
 pendence of mind. Indeed, the last-named feature 
 of his character is rather amusingly displayed in the 
 contrast presented by his ardent professions of candor 
 and impartiality, with the hard measure he deals to 
 established prejudices. His Preliminary Dissertations 
 will reward the most careful study ; so richly do they 
 abound in the development of correct principles, and 
 in just and elegant, though severe criticism. 
 
 Of his translation itself it is not easy to speak with 
 commendation. That it ordinarily conveys the sense 
 of the original may be true; since many inaccuracies 
 of our common Bibles are amended by Dr. Campbell ; 
 but nothing can be more repugnant to good taste than 
 the perpetual striving after petty ornament, which 
 disfigures every page and every line of his version. 
 Instead of the simple sentences and parallel clauses 
 which so strongly mark the style of the Gospels, and 
 distinguish them from all other writings, we are con- 
 stantly disgusted by those involved constructions and 
 balanced periods which properly belong only to re- 
 gular and artificial composition. As some of my 
 readers may not happen to have Campbell's book at 
 band, I will extract a few passages at random, to ex- 
 
 antcoDuctfon. io5 
 
 plain my meaning. Mark vi, 19, 20. "This roused 
 Herodias' resentment, who would have killed John, 
 but could not, because Herod respected him, and, 
 knowing him to be a just and holy man, protected 
 him, and did many things recommended by him, and 
 heard him with pleasure." Luke xvi, 11, 12. "If 
 therefore ye have not been honest in the deceitful, 
 who will intrust you with the true riches? And if ye 
 have been unfaithful managers for another, who will 
 give you any thing to manage for yourselves ? " John 
 ii, 10. "When the director of the feast had tasted 
 the wine made of water, not knowing whence it was 
 (but the servants who drew the water knew), he said, 
 addressing the bridegroom. Every body presenteth 
 the best wine first, and worse wine afterwards when 
 the guests have drunk largely ; but thou hast reserved 
 the best until now." How infinitely is this gaudy 
 verbiage surpassed in dignity and real beauty, by 
 the plain old version, which our Scotch critic sought 
 to supersede. 
 
 To this strange and incongruous translation Camp- 
 bell has annexed a body of notes in every respect 
 superior to it. Occasionally, indeed, he falls into 
 distressing errors, by venturing to discuss topics of 
 which he knows little ;* and more often, when he is 
 m the right, his dogmatic tone excites an involuntary 
 prepossession against his decisions (See his notes on 
 Matth. v, 21 ; Luke xxiii, 15). But these are the 
 exceptions. Considered as a whole, we may truly 
 
 For instance, he often speaks of the Peshito Syriac with an 
 nir of confidence. Yet when on John v, 39 he tells us that in the 
 byriac language the word iptvpart has the same ambiguity as in 
 Greek and Latin, he proves his ignorance of the very elements of 
 Arnmcean Grammar. 
 
106 3|ntcotiuctfon. 
 
 say, that the student will seldom consult Campbell's 
 annotations, without deriving from them a high de- 
 gree of pleasure and instruction. 
 ,, , . ^ Mackniffht's New Translation and Com- 
 
 Macknight on => i- i t-> • ^i i 
 
 the Epistles, mentary on the Apostolical hipistles has 
 ^'^*' been received so favorably even by first- 
 
 rate scholars, that it must necessarily be considered a 
 useful and excellent work. Its chief merit (and that 
 confessedly is no slight one), consists in tracing the 
 connection between the several parts of the Apostles* 
 reasoning, and in unfolding those less obvious links of 
 their discourse which are apt to escape an inexperi- 
 enced eye. Sometimes indeed this difficult investiga- 
 tion is pushed beyond all reasonable bounds. I dare 
 assert that Dr. Macknight is the only reader of the 
 First Epistle to the Thessalonians, who ever thought 
 he had discovered in it a formal and regular argument 
 on the evidences of Christianity. In general his re- 
 marks are characterised by good sense, patient reflec- 
 tion, and a sincere love of truth for its own sake. His 
 main defect is an ignorance of the Greek language 
 80 gross, as to be perfectly astonishing in a professed 
 .translator of the New Testament. In the course of 
 the thirty years which he devoted to his great work, 
 it never seems to have occurred to him that a toler- 
 able acquaintance with the original tongues is indis- 
 pensable to the Biblical critic. I conceive that no 
 one will deny the truth of my statement, who has 
 read Macknight's fourth Preliminary Essay " On 
 translating the Greek language used by the writers of 
 the New Testament." We are there told that iSivt 
 (Phil, i, 30) and^aytrai (James v, 3) are present tenses, 
 that tawTov is often used for SXX»|Xoc, that o yap " for 
 he who" and o 8e " but he who" (Rom. vi, 10. The 
 
 9|ntcobutt(on. 107 
 
 common text has S) are analogous to o Se avapsl^ in 
 Matth. xiii, 20 ; and much more ejusdem far'm<z, 
 with which I am ashamed to trouble my readers. 
 In tracing the various senses of the particles (a matter 
 of the utmost importance in the Epistles), he has no 
 idea of first fixing the primary sense of each, and then 
 deducing all others from it. His account of the pre- 
 position tic, for example, is a sad medley of blunder 
 and confusion. Hence it follows, that in questions 
 of mere philology and grammar the judgment of this 
 diligent and good man is worth absolutely nothing. 
 It is painful to speak thus of the labors of a virtuous 
 and most exemplary person ; but were a foreigner to 
 test our advancement in critical science by the lasting 
 popularity of Macknight's Translation among us, his 
 estimate would certainly not be flattering, and I may 
 add it would be very unjust. 
 
 One fanciful opinion held by Macknight my sub- 
 ject compels me to notice. With scarcely any other 
 knowledge of the earlier versions than may be gleaned 
 from Johnson or Lewis, he has chosen to pronounce 
 that Tyndal and Coverdale formed their translations 
 from the Latin Vulgate : and that all the rest (our 
 present Authorised version included) "are not different 
 translations, but different editions of Tyndal and 
 Coverdale's translation." From these premises thfe 
 inference is direct, that " the first English Translators, 
 having made their versions from the Vulgate, the sub- 
 sequent translators, by copying them, have retained 
 a number of the errors of that antient version." (Ge- 
 neral Preface, Sect. II). 
 
 It cannot be required of me in this place to unravel 
 the tissue of misapprehensions which led Macknight 
 to conclusions so remote from the truth. It is suffi- 
 
108 JittcoliuttJon. 
 
 cient to aver that no one could believe Tyndal's trans- 
 lation to be made from the Vulgate, who had taken 
 the trouble of glancing at a few chapters of the ver- 
 sion in question.* Since Macknight has alleged no 
 passages in support of his assumption, I need only 
 refer the reader to the materials brought together in 
 the present work. If he shall find in them (as I am 
 persuaded he will not find) any proof that Tyndal 
 systematically deserted the Greek text for the Latin 
 Vulgate, or made any other use of the latter than that 
 which I have already mentioned (see p. 79), then 
 he may be allowed to believe with Macknight, that 
 "as Greek was very little studied in those days, it 
 may be doubted whether Tyndal understood it so well 
 as to be able to translate the New Testament from 
 the Greek;" and that " in translating the more diffi- 
 cult texts which he did not understand, he implicitly 
 followed the Vulgate." 
 
 The station and high character of Pri- 
 Newcomc^ mate Newcome render it difficult to speak 
 y™"*'*"""' of his Translations with freedom. His 
 
 1796, &c. 
 
 critical taste had been formed in the school 
 of Lowth and Kennicott, men never to be named 
 ' without respect and gratitude, but who delighted to 
 wander in the slippery tracks of plausible conjecture. 
 From this spirit proceeds the constant tampering 
 with the Hebrew text, which grieves us in the Arch- 
 bishop's version of the Minor Prophets. To such an 
 excess is this vicious practice carried, that in the short 
 book of Hosea alone he proposes no less than fifty- 
 
 * On the ■ources of CoTerdale'g Bible of 1535 I have spoken 
 above, p. 84. Much of Macknight's fullacIouB reatoning arises 
 from his confounding this version with one published in 1538 hj 
 Coverdale, under the feigned name of Hollybushe, and which was 
 a professed translation from the Vulgate. 
 
 I 
 
 3ntcoliuctfon. 109 
 
 one emendations, on authorities so insufficient that 
 Bp. Horsley (himself no very cautious interpreter) 
 enumerates only to condemn them. To a mind 
 thoroughly imbued with such principles Griesbach's 
 tiieory of recensions, bold and ingenious as it is, must 
 have appeared a self-evident truth ; and Newcome's 
 first object in preparing his Translation of the New 
 Testament, was to impart to the English reader the 
 results of that editor's investigations. So devoted in- 
 deed is he to his new master, that in one remarkable 
 passage (1 Cor. x, 9) he has even outstripped him in 
 the march of innovation, and brought upon himself 
 a sharp rebuke from no unfriendly pen. (Magee on 
 the Atonement, Vol, iii, p. 203). Yet in an earlier 
 work, his " Historical View of English Biblical Trans- 
 lations," the Primate had given evidence of so correct a 
 judgment, and a knowledge of his subject so accurate, 
 that he would have been esteemed equal to a revision 
 of our Authorised version, had he never attempted it. 
 Within the limits to which he confines himself, no- 
 thing can be more exact and complete than his twenty- 
 one Rules for the guidance of a reviser ; few failures 
 are more signal than his own application of them : so 
 much less difficult is theory than practice. The fate 
 of Archbp. Newcome's literary character has been 
 singularly hard. After a life devoted to studies 
 which adorned his sacred profession, a posthumous 
 and perhaps an ill-considered production, marred the 
 honorable reputation which it had been the first 
 object of this able and industrious scholar's ambi- 
 tion to acquire. By his imprudent liberality and 
 excessive thirst for novelty he rendered himself a fit 
 tool in the hands of mischievous and unprincipled 
 men ; and must now go down to posterity as one on 
 whose foundations the authors of the " Improved Ver- 
 
no Jntcotiuction. 
 
 sion" were glad to build, when they endeavored to 
 
 expunge from the New Testament the blessed doctrine 
 
 of our Lord's Divinity. 
 
 _ „ . Amontr the admirers of the Archbishop's 
 
 T)t. Hoolh- , o 1 L • 1 
 
 royd'i Uibie, Translation the first place may be assigned 
 1823, 1836. ^^ jjj. Uootijroyd . ^ho in his valuable 
 
 " Family Bible" (3 vol, 4to. 1823), as also in his 
 later and more condensed edition (1 vol. 1836), has 
 exhibited a version of his own, differing widely in 
 many particulars from that in common use. In those 
 parts of Newcome's work which are open to the gravest 
 objection, he is not followed by Dr. Boothroyd ; 
 who has however adopted the Primate's renderings in 
 certain passages, where sound discretion might have 
 prompted him to abide by the Authorised Translation 
 (Acts xvii, 22 ; xxv, 25 ; 1 Cor. vii, 8 ; Rev. xxii, 2). 
 In the Preface to his last edition Dr. Boothroyd in- 
 forms us that his chief reason for altering tlie English 
 text was a conviction that " the common version is 
 too verbal and literal to be in all instances faithful 
 and perspicuous.'" Since he produces no instances of 
 this want of perspicuity, we are compelled to gather 
 his precise meaning from the materials his own work 
 affords us. Thus in the corrected text of his Bible, 
 we frequently meet with such renderings as the 
 following : Matth. xviii, 32. " O thou wicked ser- 
 vant, I released thee and so far forgave thee all that 
 debt." Acts xxi, 4. " That he should not go up to 
 Jerusalem, if he regarded his mm liberty:' 2 Cor. 
 iii, 17. "Now the Lord is he who imparteth the 
 Spirit." Now even admitting for the moment that ^ 
 the clauses here printed in italics, and of which there * 
 is no vestige in the original, assist in bringing out 
 the full meaning of the sacred writers, it will hardly 
 be disputed that they are not so much translations of 
 
 3|ntconuct(on. ill 
 
 the words in the Greek text, as rather loose para- 
 phrases upon them.* But since Scripture is the 
 word of God, it becomes those on whom a gift so 
 precious has been bestowed, to be very jealous in 
 preserving it separate from the uninspired comments 
 of men : we must neither add thereto, nor diminish 
 from it. And though the difference of idiom often 
 renders it impossible to translate the Greek Testa- 
 ment into a modern language, without supplying a 
 few words to complete the sense or the construction, 
 yet should this necessary liberty be restricted within 
 the narrowest bounds. It is on no account to be 
 allowed, unless the words which are added are so 
 certainly implied by the holy penmen, that they 
 would have been expressed had the genius of the 
 Greek language permitted or required them. Dis- 
 approving, therefore, as I do of Dr. Boothroyd's 
 first principle of translation, it is superfluous for me 
 to dwell on that less important error of judgment, 
 which led him to banish from his version, as far as 
 possible, those peculiar Hebrew phrases, so venerable 
 and full of meaning, which strongly characterise our 
 common Bibles ; and which, without perplexing the 
 ignorant, or justly offending the most refined, are 
 stored up in our memories in happy association with 
 the most solemn and affecting truths of Religion. 
 Holy Bible Some interest was excited about three 
 riaUon"" y^*" ^^^ ^y *^^ publication of an edition 
 1841. of the Holy Bible, which professes to 
 
 contain no less than twenty thousand emendations 
 of the Authorised version, and is, I believe, the 
 
 " A somewhat similnr misuse of the Italic character (or rather 
 of the type which corresponds to it), though not carried to the same 
 rxtent, was noticed in the Dishops' Dible, see p. 95. 
 
1'2 ginttoliuttfolu 
 
 avowed production of an eminent London physician. 
 It is possible that Biblical learning may not have 
 gained very much by so laudable an employment 
 of this gentleman's leisure hours for thirty years ; 
 and the examples of Mead and Mason Good might 
 have warned him, that theology is a profession no 
 less exclusive than his own, since it demands and 
 repays the devotion of the whole mind. Still it is 
 cheering to see a pious and intelligent man, in the 
 midst of pursuits which are commonly deemed un- 
 favourable to spiritual improvement, dedicating a por- 
 tion of his time to the critical study of God's word. 
 The fundamental error of his plan is that his edition 
 contains the bare text of Scripture, without a single 
 note to intimate his reasons for the changes he has 
 introduced, or the authorities by which they are 
 sanctioned :* nor has he devised any means of shew- 
 ing in what places his interpretation differs from 
 that of King James's version, or where he agrees with 
 it. In common with all competent judges our phy- 
 sician speaks highly of the Authorised Translation, 
 which he has taken as the groundwork of his own, 
 and has followed in several cases where it is usually 
 considered faulty (e. g. Matth. i, 25 ; xxviii, 17 ; 
 1 Cor. XV, 1, 2, &c.) : but he has no marginal ren- 
 
 * It may be proper to Btate that in the Preface ve find a list of 
 about 300 authors, from whom, either mediately or immediately, 
 he has derived his materials. But it is clear that such a list can 
 be of no practical service, and the extraordinary order in which 
 the names are arranged can scarcely fail to provoke a smile. I 
 quote the first line which meets my eye. " Bush, Pagninus, 
 Geierus, Valckensear, Herodotus, Bennett, Dobree, Clarke, John- 
 eon." The name of Watson occurs twice : if Bp. Richard Wat- 
 son and Richard Watson of the Methodist connection are meant, 
 it would be as well to say so. And are not Dathe and Dathius the 
 same person 7 
 
 3!ntroiiutt(on. 113 
 
 derings, and does not use italics. Limiting my 
 remarks to the New Testament, I conceive his at- 
 tempt to be respectable, and even useful. He admits 
 some of the best corrections of modern scholars 
 (Matth. XX, 23 ; John viii, 44 ; Acts xxir, 9 ; 2 Cor. 
 iii, 18 ; Tit. ii, 13 ; 1 John v, 16 &c.); he arranges 
 the hymns in Luke i, ii, and all the poetical portions 
 of the Old Testament, in parallel lines ; and adopts 
 the great improvement of assimilating the forms of 
 Proper Names throughout both Testaments. There 
 are, however, a few difficult texts in which he has 
 ventured on a doubtful paraphrase (e. g. Luke iii, 
 23 ; Rom. ix, 3) ; more often he has erred by re- 
 signing himself to the guidance of Newcome, or some 
 other unsafe authority : and with one petition in the 
 Lord's Prayer he has most rashly tampered, on no 
 grounds either critical or philological that I can dis- 
 cover, but wholly induced by what he presumes to 
 consider the exigency of the sense. " And leave us 
 not in temptation," Matth. vi, 13. 
 Dr.Symonds's '^^^ " Observations " of Dr. Symonds 
 U89-im.' ""^ Cambridge "On the expediency of 
 revising our Authorised version " are for 
 the most part confined to the language of the English 
 Translation itself, which forms the subject of my 
 third general head. His work gives evidence of 
 much sagacity and research, but the bitterness of the 
 temper in which it is written renders it a weari- 
 some task to read it throughout : indeed so weari- 
 some that nothing but a sense of duty prevented my 
 closmg the book after looking over a few pages. 
 His absurd and passionate prejudices are too much 
 for the patience of one of the mildest of critics. Dean 
 Turton, who says of him, " Dr. Symonds had taken 
 such a dislike to everything connected with our 
 
U4 3ntcot>iitt(om 
 
 Authorised version, that he scarcely ever permitted 
 his judgment to interfere, in that matter, with his 
 determination to find fault." King James's Bible is 
 pronounced by this person perpetually " ambiguous 
 and incorrect, even in matters of the highest import- 
 ance." The adoption also by our Translators of so 
 much of Tyndal's phraseology and diction was, it 
 seems, a most fortunate circumstance, inasmuch as 
 '• their original compositions were deficient in point 
 of elegance and style." (Pref. to Observ. on Epistles). 
 Since Dr. Symonds's opinion is somewhat novel, we 
 are obliged to him for informing us which of their 
 original compositions he had specially in view. He 
 alludes to the " pedantic and uncouth " Preface of 
 the Translators to the Reader, a production which 
 less enlightened students are content to regard as a 
 treasure of wisdom and sacred eloquence.* 
 
 Symonds's mode of dividing his matter appears 
 rational and convenient. He considers first the am- 
 biguities of our translation : whether they arise from 
 the obscure reference of the relative to the antecedent 
 (a defect to some extent unavoidable in a language 
 whose relatives are indeclinable) ; or from the use of 
 equivocal words or phrases ; or from the indeter- 
 minate sense of the prepositions. From these am- 
 biguities he passes on to the grammatical errors of 
 our version, after sneering unmercifully at the " brisk 
 manner " of the translators, " who seemed to think 
 grammatical accuracy beneath them." Many of his 
 corrections are utterly frivolous ; many are delivered 
 
 * In spite of this nngry critic's denunciation it is much to be 
 wished that nil the larger editions of our Bibles contained the ad- 
 mirable Preface. Can any thing in language be more beautiful 
 than the concluding paragraph ? 
 
 3ntcotiuct(on. 115 
 
 in the hypercritical tone which Bishop Lowth had 
 but too much countenanced (See p. 53, 55) ; but no 
 small portion of the rest has been adopted in the pre- 
 sent work. His next topic is the obsolete or harsh, 
 and (such is his gentle appellation) the " mean and 
 vulgar " expressions of our version. If the reader 
 will turn to Matth. xxviii, 4 ; 14 ; Luke ii, 6 ; xxi, 
 16; Acts vii, 20 ; xxvi, 21 ; Eph. v, 5 &c. he may 
 find some honest English words and phrases, which 
 Dr. Symonds holds to be " low/' He concludes 
 with a sensible discussion of the question, " how far 
 a version of the Bible should be literal ;" and justly 
 determines that a translation of Scripture should 
 always retain the peculiarities of the original, ex- 
 cepting where by such a course it would become 
 unintelligible. 
 
 I have entered into this detail respecting a per- 
 formance which is now little remembered, not only 
 that my readers may be enabled to compare Dr. Sy- 
 monds's plan (so far as it extends) with my own ; but 
 because it cannot be uninstructive to observe how 
 good mental endowments, both natural and acquired, 
 may serve only to make their possessor ridiculous, if 
 they be not regulated by a temperate, kind and candid 
 spirit. 
 
 Pr. Schoie- Widely removed from this arrogant and 
 ?«'5' i^'^'!!, supercilious bearing is Professor Schoie- 
 held, m his " Hmts for an Improved 
 Translation of the New Testament," a work to which 
 I owe much that I have suggested in the following 
 pages. His scheme in one respect differs from my own, 
 since he anticipates with complacency a public revi- 
 sion of our common version, and offers his " Hints " 
 as a contribution to the existing stock of materials 
 for executing that revision satisfactorily. But it is 
 
116 Jntirotiuctfon. 
 
 obvious that had he filled up his own outline in a 
 manner worthy of his subject and himself, such a 
 work as mine need never have been projected. For 
 all practical purposes it will matter little, whether a 
 series of critiques on particular passages be designed 
 as a " Supplement" to the present version, or as 
 " Hints" towards a revision of it. But the fact is, 
 that this book (like too many others which proceed 
 from the same learned pen), is but a slight and im- 
 perfect sketch ; a collection of notes accidentally 
 brought together in the course of private study : 
 tolerably full in the Apostolical Epistles (though 
 even in them passing over many obscure texts), but 
 extremely meagre in the Historical books. On those 
 points where as Greek Professor at Cambridge he 
 might have spoken with the greatest weight, we are 
 ofteq disappointed by his total silence : yet when we 
 meet with so much that is admirable, it seems ungrate- 
 ful to complain that we have not more. His most ela- 
 borate notes are those on Acts x, 36—38 ; Rom. v, 7 ; 
 1 Cor. ix, 23 ; XV, 1, 2; 24 ; 2 Cor. iii, 17 ; 18 ; 
 Gal. ii, 2—9 ; Phil, iv, 3 ; 1 Thcss. iii, 5 ; Hebr. ix, 
 15—17 ; James iv, 5 ; each of which will be con- 
 sidered in its place. In the perplexing sentence 
 Eph. iv, 10. he is not, I think, equally successful. 
 Those of his emendations which at first sight may 
 appear frivolous or unmeaning (e. g. Rom. xvi, 9 ; 
 1 Pet. V, 13) must be vindicated by recoUectmg the 
 end he had in view ; namely, to provide means for 
 a thorough correction of the Authorised version : 
 an undertaking concerning which I have already 
 delivered my sentiments (See p. 1), but which has 
 been too often recommended by great and virtuous 
 men, for its advocacy to be imputed as a fault to any 
 one. 
 
 UntcoDuctfott. 117 
 
 Principles of I* ™ay be fit to apprise the reader. 
 Interpretation, that the principles of interpretation which 
 I have adopted, are those established by the re- 
 searches of eminent continental scholars, among whom 
 Planck and Winer hold the chief place. They have 
 been recently brought before the English public by 
 Mr. Green, in his valuable " Grammar of the New 
 Testament Dialect" (1842). We may now regard 
 the relation which the Greek of the New Testament 
 bears to that of the Classics as precisely ascertained ; 
 and the conclusion is that, so far as grammar is con- 
 cerned, there is no broader distinction between them 
 than must always exist between a written language 
 in its most perfect state, and the spoken dialect of a 
 later and declining age. Hence it follows that we 
 may securely apply to the interpretation of the New 
 Testament even the more refined laws of Greek 
 syntax which are observed by the best Attic writers ; 
 since both reason and analogy teach us that the dif- 
 ference between the written style and that of ordinary 
 speech in reference to those idiomatic niceties, is 
 merely a difference in the frequency of their employ- 
 ment ; for where such forms occur at all in common 
 conversation, tlioy are unconsciously used in strict 
 accordance with grammatical propriety and the prac- 
 tice of standard authors. The importance of arriving 
 at settled principles on this point will be duly esti- 
 mated by those whose minds have been bewildered 
 by the vague hermeneutics of the Hebraizing school 
 of critics ; men who by a dexterous use of the Sep- 
 tuagint and the Hebrew Concordance contrive to 
 assign to the words of the sacred text (the unfortunate 
 particles more especially) almost any sense which 
 happens to suit their own preconceived opinions. Of 
 course I would not be understood to deny that the 
 
118 Jrttcotiuctfon. 
 
 New Testament abounds with Hebraisms, which 
 must be. illustrated and explained by perpetual re- 
 ference to the Septuagint and other Hellenistic 
 sources : but I believe it will be found that this 
 foreign influence never affects the grammatical con- 
 struction of the Greek, except in such obvious and 
 simple cases as can create no practical difHculty.* 
 
 I can scarcely hope that this view of the subject 
 will prove satisfactory to Mr. Grinfield, whose enthu- 
 siastic veneration of the Alexandrine version is so 
 warmly expressed in the eloquent Preface to his 
 Hellenistic edition of the New Testament (1843). 
 As it cannot be doubted that an intimate knowledge 
 of that Translation is indispensable to the sound 
 interpretation both of the Old and New Testament, 
 his learned and laborious work entitles him to the 
 gratitude of students of the Bible, whose necessary 
 toil it greatly relieves. But it must be confessed 
 that Mr. Grinfield 's zeal for his favorite pursuit has 
 in some measure biassed his judgment with respect 
 to the utility of the Classics, as auxiliaries to the full 
 understanding of the New Testament. " The way 
 through Jerusalem and Mount Sion" he tells us " is 
 'open, plain and straight ; that through Rome or 
 Athens devious, and often perilous" (Praef. p. viii) : 
 forgetting, it would seem, that Alexandria is not 
 Jerusalem, and that the " brooks which wash Mount 
 Sion's hallowed feet" do not discharge themselves 
 into the muddy channel of the Nile. At the risk, 
 therefore, of incurring the imputation of " polluting 
 
 * As for exnmple, tho pleonastic use of the pronoun ahrot, and 
 of (cnl in apodosi (See note on Matth. ch. xv, 5, 6) : or the con- 
 struction of prepositions after certain verbs : e. g. ^optiorOai, 
 Mntth. X, 28 ; oftoXoytly, ibid. v. 32 &c. 
 
 3ntro6uct(on. 119 
 
 Jordan's streams with the slime of the Tiber, or 
 Arethusa, or Alpheus" (ibid. p. x), I shall endea- 
 vour to elucidate the inspired writings by a sparing 
 use of such pertinent quotations from the Greek 
 classics as the diligence of others, or my own slender 
 store shall supply : bearing always in mind that Mr. 
 Grmfield's complaints, though possibly over-earnest 
 m tone and a little exaggerated in statement, are far 
 from being entirely groundless. For there are critics, 
 and those of high name and real genius, whose anno- 
 tations on Scripture may not unjustly be described 
 as "omnigena et psene Babylonica barbaries, e 
 scrmns Oratorum, Historicorum, Comicorum, Tra- 
 gicorum, Eroticorum, omniumque fere scriptorum 
 dicendi genere, frustatim et minutatim compilata " 
 (ibid. p. ix). 
 
 Jebb's Sacred ^ '"^X reasonably be expected to deliver 
 Liurature, my sentiments with regard to the theory 
 developed in Bp. Jebb's Sacred Litera- 
 ture, a volume which enjoys the good fortune of 
 being highly esteemed by many, who cannot be sus- 
 pected of any predilection for the theological tenets 
 of Its author.* His great object, as is well known, 
 IS the application to the New Testament of those 
 principles of Hebrew poetry, the truth of which Bp. 
 Lowth had irrefragably demonstrated in the case of 
 
 . .V.^u'^'u'""*' " ^"'^y'"' ?>•««»>«>• "press his gratification 
 at the hght thrown on a portion of the Lord's Prayer by Bp. Jebb's 
 •impio arrangement. 
 
 Thy name be hallowed : 
 Thy kingdom come : 
 Thy will be done : 
 As in heaven, so upon the earth. 
 
 Thus referring " As in heaven &c." to each of the three peti- 
 tions, not exclusively to tho last 
 
120 3nttol>uct(on. 
 
 the metrical books of the Old Testament : an hypo* 
 thesis which at first sight is rather startling, but 
 which he has established by such an overwhelming 
 mass of evidence, that his general conclusions cannot 
 be shaken. To a superficial reader, indeed, Bp. 
 Jebb's work may appear loose and excursive : so 
 frequently is he drawn aside from his subject into 
 some delightful episode of criticism, or philology, or 
 moral reflection. But on a closer examination it will 
 be seen, that though he often strays from the direct 
 road to dwell on a lovely prospect that may chance 
 to arrest his attention ; yet amidst all his roamings 
 the end of his course is kept steadily in view. This 
 seeming capriciousness is but a charm in the hand of 
 a wizard, to beguile the tedium of abstract discus- 
 sions, on a topic in itself perhaps rather dry and 
 repulsive. 
 
 While we admit, however, that in the New Testa- 
 ment, and more particularly in our Lord's discourses 
 as recorded in the Gospels, numerous passages occur 
 which are constructed on the principles of Hebrew 
 parallelism, we are by no means bound to acquiesce 
 in all the details which Bp. Jebb alleges in illustra- 
 tion of his theory. Thus, his arrangement of the 
 Hymn of Zacharias into two distinct parts, designed 
 to be sung alternately by two semi-choruses, each 
 carrying on a construction and sense of its own, in- 
 dependent of the other, has always seemed to me 
 extremely arbitrary. That it accounts for the gram- 
 matical difficulties of this noble poem can prove but 
 little, since Bp. Jebb distributed the Hymn into 
 members for that very purpose. Nor will the analogy 
 of several of the Psalms, which Bps. Lowth and 
 Horsley divide in a similar manner, entirely remove 
 our doubts. The Psalms were composed by the 
 
 3ntcot)uct(on. 121 
 
 inspired penmen with a direct view to their use in 
 the public worship of the Temple; such could 
 not have been the design of the father of the Bap- 
 tist. 
 
 An objection might falso be raised to Jebb's occa- 
 sional alterations of the text, when the received rcad- 
 mg is 'not quite in accordance with the equilibrium 
 of parallel clauses. Thus he would reject roG 
 npo^riTov in Luke xi, 29 on testimony much weaker 
 than that which he condemns Griesbach for relyino- 
 on in 1 Cor. i, 22, 23. And this tendency in ou* 
 author is the more to be regretted, as he confesses 
 that his acquaintance with the subject of various 
 readings was far from considerable (Letter liii. in 
 vol. ii. of his Life, by Forster). 
 
 Such are the slight imperfections of a production 
 which is an honor to the country that gave it birth : a 
 production which would be eminent for elegant taste, 
 profound scholarship,^ and manly piety, were not 
 the lustre of these qualities dimmed by the original 
 thought and severe logic which comprise its most 
 striking features. On the value of Jebb's Sacred Lite- 
 rature as a help to the interpretation of Scripture it is 
 needless to enlarge. The reflecting reader will easily 
 perceive that a correct knowledge of the principles 
 of composition adopted by the sacred writers cannot 
 fail to be a key to their meaning in numberless doubt- 
 ful cases, and to expand fresh beauties of conception 
 or language even where the sense is sufficiently clear. 
 Of the many texts which have derived new light 
 from Bp. Jebb's investigations, I would particularise 
 the examples of Epanodos in Matth. vii, 6; Philem. v. 
 5 ; his analysis of St. Paul's mixed quotation, Rom. 
 xi, 33 — 35 ; and the sublime hymn of triumph over 
 mystical Babylon, Rev. xviii, 1 — xix, 3. 
 
122 3|ntcoliuct(on« 
 
 Tiie Greek ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^ <^^^'^ incur no censure 
 Commenu- for the frequency of my appeals to the 
 
 tors, Chrysos- _, , ^ J -^ rr 
 
 torn, Thee (jrreek commentators, to Chrysostom and 
 p y act Sec. Xheophylact more especially. Were it 
 only that these venerable men were so happy as to 
 read the Greek Testament in their native language, 
 and made that one volume the study of their lives to 
 an extent that the change of times and circumstances 
 forbids to us, it were surely worth our while to con- 
 sult them ; the rather as they no doubt preserve 
 many expositions of Scripture, which were current 
 among generations anterior to their own. But in 
 truth John Chrysostom, their Coryphaeus, would 
 have been conspicuous in any age or clime as the 
 mightiest master of pulpit eloquence the Christian 
 Church has hitherto beheld. Even now as we hang 
 over the dead pages, and contemplate his passionate 
 earnestness, his boldness in rebuking sin, and his all- 
 absorbing zeal for the salvation of souls, a spark of 
 that flame is kindled within us, which once glowed in 
 the breasts of his enraptured hearers at Antioch or 
 Constantinople. By some he has been compared to 
 our English Barrow, and between their respective 
 sti/les much similarity exists. Each of them is full 
 of vigour ; each of them tasks the resources of lan- 
 guage to the utmost, by the copiousness, I might say 
 the exuberance of his expressions. But here the 
 parallel must end. Isaac Barrow was as little ca- 
 pable of emulating the delicate pathos and affec- 
 tionate warmth of Chrysostom, as the Eastern Patri- 
 arch of brooking his calm, and patient, and exhaus- 
 tive ratiocination. 
 
 For the purposes of the interpreter, however, 
 Theophylact will be found more convenient than 
 Chrysostom, since the work of the former is a per- 
 
 introuuctfon. 123 
 
 petual commentary in the strictest sense of the term, 
 unbroken by those practical exhortations which 
 must and ought to form a large portion of every 
 public homily. Presenting to us nearly all that 
 IS valuable in Chrysostom's explanations of Scripture 
 (usually in the very words of his author, though in 
 an abridged form), like his great model he is clear, 
 rational, and orthodox. Nor have we any right to 
 regard him as a mere compiler. He abounds in 
 passages, some of them of great merit, which we have 
 good reason for thinking original (see his note on 
 John xvi, 8—1 1) ; and he occasionally cites the opi- 
 nion of Chrysostom with a modest but decided inti- 
 mation of dissent. It is not hard to point out errors 
 both of doctrine and of fact in the writings of Theo- 
 phylact (see his notes on Matth. xxiii, 35 ; xxvi, 26) ; 
 but the student who observes how little that is really 
 satisfactory has been added to our knowledge of the 
 New Testament since his day, will scarcely deem the 
 eleventh century a period of such dismal ignorance 
 as It has pleased certain historians to imagine. 
 
 From Theodoret, the Ecclesiastical historian, we 
 have a short exposition of St. Paul's Epistles, very 
 inferior in value to those above mentioned. It con- 
 tains little that may not be found in his preceptor 
 Chrysostom, though for some motive which it is not 
 easy to understand, his language seems studiously 
 varied from that of his predecessor.* 
 
 I have used the following edition.. Theodoreti Opera, Schuizo 
 etNowelt Hal. 1771.Tom.iii. Theophylacti Opera. Venet. 1754 
 4 torn. Chrysostomi Opera, Par. 1834, which is but a slight im' 
 provement on Montfa.icon's edition of 1728. But the best edi- 
 tion of any portion of Chrysostom is the Homilies on St. Matthew 
 by F,eld Cambridge. 1839, 3 tom: for which more than twelve 
 manuscript* and the Armenian version were consulted. Why will 
 not Mr. Field continue his labors through the Homilies on John, 
 the Acts, and Pauline Epistles ? 
 
124 intcoliuction. 
 
 A principal cause of the neglect into which the 
 Greek Fathers have fallen in modern times, is the 
 disagreement of their sentiments respecting Predes- 
 tination and Free-will, with the doctrine which has 
 prevailed on those points in the Western Church 
 from Augustin downwards. And it must be admitted 
 that their opinions are rather unseasonably insisted 
 on in their Comments upon texts, which certainly 
 appear to favor the antagonist view of the question 
 (See, for instance, Chrysostom or T!)eodoret on Rom. 
 ix, 22). If any are inclined on such grounds to dis- 
 courage the study of their writings, I would venture 
 to suggest, that let our own convictions on these 
 mysterious topics be what they may (and every 
 thinking being will have arrived at some conclusions 
 regarding them), we knowingly and of necessity ex- 
 clude half the truth from our minds. Being utterly 
 unable to reconcile God's foreknowledge with man's 
 responsibility, we are driven to lose sight of the one 
 or the other, in order to relieve ourselves from sus- 
 pense and doubt. Let this consideration, then, teach 
 us moderation. Far be it from us to scan the hidden 
 counsel of the Almighty : it is our wisdom to believe 
 and to obey. One thing, however, may safely be as- 
 serted, that the staunchest adherent of the Augustin- 
 ian scheme will find much in Chrysostom not only 
 to inform his judgment, but to probe his conscience, 
 and to quicken his spiritual affections. So correct, 
 at least in this particular, is the fine remark of Arch- 
 bishop Newcome, that " the volumes of sacred criti- 
 cism may be compared to an antient and ample trea- 
 sure-house, containing numerous offerings of different 
 value. Men are frequently warped in their appreci- 
 ation of these gifts, but God will graciously accept 
 
 introDuttion. 125 
 
 all those, which are presented with a sincere desire 
 to promote His glory." 
 
 Modern Com- Among the several modem commen- 
 kS"" *^*°" consulted for the purposes of this 
 work, it may possibly be asked why I 
 have so seldom referred to Kuinoel's Annotations on 
 the Historical Books of the New Testament ; a com- 
 pilation which, in spite of Rose's earnest protest 
 (German Protestantism, Supplement p. xlii, 2nd 
 edition), appears to retain a degree of popularity in 
 this country which it ill deserves. I will not say 
 that I think meanly of Kuinoel as a critic, because 
 this is far from being my principal objection to the 
 use of his book in England. It is enough surely to 
 render it unfit for a place in the library of a Christian, 
 that its pages are largely devoted to the collecting 
 and preserving, for the corruption of another genera- 
 tion, those irrational and wicked speculations on 
 various passages of the Gospel history, which were 
 the banc and disgrace of Germany fifty years ago : 
 —would that they were not so still. This is a serious 
 charge, and one whicli I would not willingly bring 
 against any one on insuflicient grounds. But (to 
 confine my strictures to his remarks on a single 
 chapter), it is impossible that those who speak 
 favorably of Kuinoel can have even glanced at his 
 commentary on the 27th chapter of St. Matthew. 
 He there abuses his reader's patience by discussing 
 deliberately and at leisure (see his note on v. 50) tlie 
 shocking blasphemy of " the most learned Paulus," 
 who tells us that the Saviour's death upon tlie 
 cross for our redemption was in reality nothing more 
 than a syncope, or fainting-fit, from which he re- 
 covered in the tomb; Paulus himself being a shade 
 
126 3|ntcotiuct(on. 
 
 less impious than some others who conjectured— 
 it makes one shudder to repeat it — that our Lord's 
 syncope might he feigned. But Kuinoel's own expla- 
 nations of Scriptural " myths," though more harm- 
 less, are equally daring. The Apostle's narrative 
 respecting the bodies of the saints that slept, is thus 
 illustrated by his commentator. " On the day of 
 Jesu's death an earthquake (v. 51) broke open the 
 sepulchres of several persons who had lately died, 
 and who had been entombed, after the custom of 
 the Jews, in the rocky caves which abound near 
 Jerusalem. Their bodies being crushed in the ruins, 
 or devoured by the jackals (shakal), could iiot be 
 found by their pious relatives ; who, however, were 
 consoled after Christ's resurrection by dreams or 
 visions, wherein their departed friends appeared unto 
 them and declared that they had returned to life. 
 Matthew by no means vouches for the truth of this 
 report, but simply tells us in passing what ' many' 
 believed, to show how strong a hold the circum- 
 stances of Jesu's death had taken on men's imagina- 
 tions." I cannot doubt that such delectable speci- 
 mens will prove to others no less than to myself, that 
 neither pleasure nor profit need be looked for in the 
 volumes of this liberal " Professor of Theology."* 
 
 I have now explained, at some length, 
 my design in the present work, and have 
 offered a short account of the materials used in 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 • One other instance of this wretched man's extravagance I 
 cannot refrain from mentioning. The Evangelists, being rude 
 and illiterate men, put together loose memoirs of our Redeemer's 
 words and actions, hut shrank from the task of composing a 
 regular Life of Christ, lest their writings should bo drawn into an 
 unequal comparison with those of the Greek and Roman historians. 
 Prologoin. p. V. It is quite necessary to add the reference. 
 
 3ntcotiuctfon. 127 
 
 executing it. In a production of this nature, com- 
 posed as it is of numerous isolated details, I must 
 unavoidably have fallen into many errors. I only 
 presume to hope that they are not errors of rashness, 
 or dogmatism, or wilful ignorance. A formal critique 
 on King James's version it is not my province to 
 attempt. It is enough if I have afforded to others 
 the means of forming a more exact estimate of its 
 "worth, than can be gathered from the vague enco- 
 miums of our popular writers. Yet I should be 
 acting wrongfully both to my theme and to myself, 
 were I to suppress the conviction which the devotion 
 of several years to this employment has fixed on my 
 mind : that if faithfulness and perspicuity ; if energy 
 of tone and simplicity of language be the true tests 
 of merit in a translation of Holy Scripture ; our Autho- 
 rised Bible is in no wise inferior to the most excellent 
 of the other versions with which I am acquainted : — 
 that it will be the pride and blessing of England, 
 so long as she values her privileges as a nation 
 professing godliness. 
 
*^§gHl 
 
 NOTES 
 
 ON THE AUTHORISED ENGLISH VERSION OF 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
^Advertisement. 
 
 The reader is requested to bear in mind the general heads to 
 which all critiques on our Authorised rersion are referred in the 
 following pages. 
 
 I. Erhors of Criticism, arising from following false readings 
 of the Greek text (Introd. p. 5). 
 
 II. ERnons of Interpretation, 
 
 a. in the signification of single words (p. 32). 
 
 b. in the grammatical construction of one or more words in 
 the same clause (p. 36). 
 
 c. in the dependence of clauses on each other, including 
 punctuation (p. 46). 
 
 III. Errors of Exfression in the language of the English 
 Tersion, arising 
 
 a. from a want of uniformity in rendering the same Greek 
 by the same English word (p. 50). 
 
 b. from grammatical inaccuracies (p. 53). 
 
 c. from ambiguous, obscure, and obsolete expressions (p. 55). 
 
 N. B. If the note on any passage be distinguished by this 
 mark (°), it indicates that no change in tiif, common trans- 
 lation OF THAT FASSAOE is recommended (p. 57). 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 The following abbreviations are used throughout this work ;— 
 
 Syr. The Peshito Syriac Tersion. 
 
 Vulg. The Latin Vulgate. 
 
 Tynd. 1. Tyndal's first edition of 
 
 1520. 
 Tynd. 2. Tyndal's last edition of 
 
 1534. 
 Tynd. Where Tynd. 1. and Tynd. 
 
 3. agree. 
 
 Cot, CoTerdale's Tersion of 1535. 
 
 Cran. Cranmer's, or the Great 
 Bible, 1539. 
 
 Gen. The GcneTo New Testament, 
 1557. 
 
 Bish. The Bishops' Bible, 1572. 
 
 Auth. King James's or the Author- 
 ised Tenion, 1611. 
 
 Eng. denotes all the above-mentioned EnglM versions. 
 
 The English rendering which immediately follows the Greek text of 
 each passage, is that proposed to be adopted i e. g. Matth. x, 39, 
 
 (III, c). » ii avrSf (u wmXru " not one of them shall fall"]. Here the 
 words " not one of them shall fall" comprise the amended translation. 
 
 NOTES 
 
 ON THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 CDe &omi atcotWnff to ®t ^att&eto. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 HE margin of Auth. informs us that 
 "some read Josias begat Jakim, 
 and Jakim begat Jechonias" The 
 same note occurs in the margin of 
 Bish., and the words are found in 
 the text of Gen., which deferred in this matter to the 
 judgment of Beza (see Introd. p. 94). Mill (Proleg. 
 N. T. p. 130) censures Beza for admitting rhv 'laKdfi, 
 laKilfi Sk iyivvn<n into the earlier editions of his Greek 
 Testament. Mill might have added that he after- 
 wards became sensible of his error, and retracted it in 
 the edition of 1582. The words proposed to be inserted 
 are certainly supported by some authority. Besides 
 Codex tS' of Stephen8(Grie8bach's 120 of the Gospels) 
 and ColinEei N. T. 1534 (which misled Castalio and 
 Beza), nine other manuscripts have been cited in their 
 favor by Scholz. The same clause (with the variation 
 
132 /I5otf0 on t|jt iPeto 'aTe^tament. 
 
 of 'IwaKttfi for 'lajv(Cju), IS found in about twenty-five 
 other manuscripts, including several of respectable 
 antiquity ; as well as in the margin of the Philoxenian 
 Syriac, and some copies of the Jerusalem Syriac ver- 
 sion. In all other translations the words are omitted, 
 and this is a case in which the testimony of versions 
 manifestly deserves to have considerable weight.* 
 The addition is unknown to all the Fathers except 
 Irenaeus, whose precise meaning is very doubtful, 
 and Epiphanius, who has a reading peculiar to him- 
 self. Hilary, on the contrary, points out the defi- 
 ciency in the number of generations between the 
 captivity and our Lord's birth ; Porphyry cavils at it ; 
 and Chrysostom resorts to the forced apology, iftol 
 
 yap ivravOa ooKti rov ^ovov ttjc af)^a\waiag (v ra^u 
 
 ■ytvfac TiSf'wai. Thus the arguments for the spurious- 
 ness of the clause decidedly preponderate. It pro- 
 bably originated in a marginal gloss made by some 
 person who adopted Jerome's explanation of the 
 passage : namely, that by Jechonias in v. 1 1 we 
 ought to understand Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah ; 
 and in v. 12 Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim ; a 
 view of the subject approved by Whitby ; whether 
 correctly or otherwise it is not for me to enquire. 
 Syr. Vulg. Tynd. Gov. Cran. here resemble the re- 
 ceived Greek text. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 18. /ii'»j(Tr(wflii<T»jc yap tJjc fxrirpoQ avrov 
 Maplag " When his mother Mary was betrothed "]. 
 So Tynd. 2. Gen. Bish. " married," Tynd. 1. Cov.f 
 
 * " Multarum gentium linguia Scriptara ante translata, docet 
 falia ette, qtia addita sunt," is the well-known rule of Jerome on 
 this point. 
 
 t Coverdale's margin here has " Some read, before they sat at 
 home together," {avytXaiiv). 
 
 fet. fl^awjeto. 133 
 
 Cran. and Matthew's Bible, which conveys a totally 
 false idea, "ensured," Cheke. "espoused," Wick- 
 liffe, Tavemer, the Rhemish version and Auth. But 
 " to espouse " is nearly obsolete in the sense of be- 
 trothing; and in a matter of so great importance, 
 the utmost perspicuity is desirable. It is difficult, 
 if not impossible, to render yip satisfactorily in Eng- 
 lish (" when as" Bish. Auth.) ; but its exact force is 
 excellently explained by Krebs, " Observationes in 
 N. T. e Flavio Josepho." 
 
 (II, b). V. 20. i-yytXoc Kvp'iov " an angel of the 
 Lord "]. Thus all Eng. render the words in ch. ii. 
 19 ; although both here and in ch. ii, 13; xxviii, 2 
 they implicitly follow Tynd. in prefixing the definite 
 article, without the least shew of reason for doing 
 so ; o ayycXoc Kvp'tov in V. 24 being evidently a case 
 of renewed mention. Doddridge in this place cor- 
 rects the common version, but is himself wrong in 
 ch. ii, 13. Campbell translates "a messenger " in 
 all the four verses. 
 
 tbid. ytvvnBlv is rendered " begotten " by the 
 margin of the editions of Auth. subsequent to that of 
 1611 (see Introd. p. 58): but this is unnecessary. 
 Gal. iv, 23, 24 refutes Parkliurst's notion that ytw^rv 
 when applied to women is always synonymous with 
 
 TlKTllV. 
 
 (II, b). V. 23. ^ Trapflfvoc "The Virgin"]. So 
 Campbell and Bp. Middleton. " La Vierge, " 
 Martin's French version. " Virgo ilia," Beza. " that 
 maid," Gen. was an improvement on " a maid," of 
 Tynd. Gov. Cran. " a virgin," Cheke, Bish. Auth. 
 The words are, as Middleton remarks, a close trans- 
 lation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah vii, 14 ; and so 
 essential to the sense is the retaining of the article, 
 that even Aquila and Symmachus render noVvPl by 
 
134 Mott& on tfie i^tio 'Wtmmtnu 
 
 'H vtaviQ, however perverse their interpretation may 
 be in other respects. Dr. Lee (Hebrew Grammar 
 § 180, 14) says that n the Hebrew article, is used 
 " to mark the noun to which it is prefixed, as already 
 known and definite, either from the context, or from 
 general consent." Since the former alternative is out 
 of the question in the present instance, we cannot 
 doubt that " The Virgin " was a person familiar to 
 the meditations of pious Israelites in the prophet's 
 age, as the future mother of Him, who was to bruise 
 the serpent's head (Gen. iii, 15). 
 
 ibid. " his name shall be called " of the margin of 
 Auth. is a trifling variation of expression in the loose 
 style of Castalio, who renders " qui nominabitur." 
 
 (II, c). V.26. Kol tKoXtat TO ovofta avrov 'Itiaovv " and 
 called his name Jesus"]. This is the rendering of all 
 Eng. previous to Auth. of Cheke, and Syr. (a^). 
 The Vulgate is ambiguous, although Wickliffe and 
 the Rhemish translation (as indeed we might expect) 
 make Mary the nominative to tKoKtai. From an 
 opposite bias Castalio and Beza refer the verb to 
 Joseph, in which they are followed by Auth. and 
 most of the modem English versions. It will probably 
 be admitted that iKaktat ought to have the same no- 
 minative as iriKt which stands just before it, unless 
 some good reason can be alleged to justify the in- 
 sertion of " he " in the latter clause, when there exists 
 no trace of it in the Greek. Now Grotius assigns 
 two causes for his preference of the rendering of 
 Auth. : first, that it is the sense adopted by the 
 Syriac; and secondly, that it is necessary, in order 
 to reconcile the narrative with the angel's direction 
 in v. 21. On the first point he is undoubtedly mis- 
 taken. Every extant edition and manuscript of the 
 Peshito represents the feminine verb ; and though in 
 
 &t. fl^att^eto. 136 
 
 the Philoxenian Syriac the verb is masculine, that 
 version could scarcely have been known to Grotius, 
 nor is its testimony worthy of much consideration 
 (see Introd. p. 70). His second argument is much 
 stronger, and would be almost decisive of the con- 
 troversy, had not the same command been given to 
 Mary in Luke i, 31 ; a sufficient proof that Matth. 
 i, 21 must not be pressed too literally. The view of 
 Grotius, however, is fully borne out by the Greek 
 Fathers. Chrysostom, for example, thus paraphrases 
 V. 21, H yip Koi tic r^v yivvnaiv ovZlv trvvrtkiig . . . S/iwc 
 ontp iarl varpb^ ?8iov . . . toSto <toc g/Sw/uj, to ovofia twi- 
 0wai T<^ TiJcroMevy- <tw yap avrov KaXhtig. EI yap Kai 
 HV ffoc o yovoQ, kWa Ta nuTpo^ Ifl-iStiSy vtpl avTov (Hom. 
 
 in Matth. iv, p. 49, ed. Field). Theophylact also 
 on v.^ 25 bids us remark tUv ivntlOftav toO 'Iwaf,^, Srt 
 
 oaa tlirtv airy o ayytXoQ, liro'iriat. I must confess too 
 
 that the passage quoted from the Septuagint by Mr. 
 Grinfield (2 Sam. xii, 24) is identical in form with 
 the present, while the gender of the Hebrew verb 
 removes all ambiguity as to its sense. Having there- 
 fore laid the whole question before the reader, I 
 must leave him to take his choice between the two 
 interpretations. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 4. 'twvv9iiviTo " asked"]. So Tynd. 2. 
 Gov. Cheke, Gen. " inquired," Wickliffe, Rhemish 
 version, Doddridge. Either of these is preferable to 
 "demanded," the rendering of Tynd. 1. Cran. Bish. 
 Auth. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 6. noifiavt'i " shall feed"]. So Syr. 
 Beza, Cheke, the Geneva Bible of 1560, and the 
 
136 ipote0 on tfij iPeto 'grcjJtament. 
 
 margin of Auth. Since the word indicates the 
 pastoral nature of Messiah's rule, this rendering is 
 more proper than " shall govern," as in Tynd. Gov. 
 Cran. Gen. Bish. ; or " shall rule," as in Vulg. 
 Castalio and Auth. The reader who desires to see 
 St. Matthew's citation concisely, yet satisfactorily, 
 reconciled with the prophecy in Micah v, 2, should 
 refer to Bp. Jebb's Sacred Literature', pp. 98 — 100. 
 (Ill, b). V. 8. Kayi, ixe^v " I also may go"]. A 
 similar confusion in the use of the verbs " to go" and 
 " come" may be seen in v. 23 ; where however all 
 Eng., except Bish. and Auth., are perfectly accu- 
 rate. In the present passage they are all wrong 
 alike. Dr. Syraonds (Observations Pt. I, ch. vi, 2) 
 points out the ungrammatical position of " also" in 
 Auth. " I may come and worship him also ;" and 
 quotes ch. xvii, 12; Mark xi, 25; Luke vi, 13; Acts 
 xi, 18; xiii, 9 as similar instances. If the student 
 should deem these remarks minute and over-refined, 
 I trust he will not think that I lay much stress upon 
 them. With Dr. Symonds ilideed they are impor- 
 tant matters, and provoke him to many a hard speech 
 against our venerable translators. (See also note on 
 ch. X, 32). 
 
 On the use of iraiSlov in this chapter I have 
 spoken already (Introduction pp. 34, 95). It is in- 
 variably rendered " child" throughout vv. 8, 9, 
 11, 13, 14, 20, 21 by Tynd. Gov. Cran.; and by 
 Cheke in all places except v. 8, where he has " this 
 young child." From Beza's " puerulus" came "babe" 
 in Gen. vv. 8, 13. Bish. Auth. uniformly translate 
 •' young child." Diminutives occur very frequently 
 in the New Testament, as in the later Greek in 
 general. Upwards of thirty nouns of this form are 
 used by the sacred writers, many of which it is dif- 
 
 fet. fl^atr^etD. 137 
 
 ficult to distinguish, in respect to their sense, from 
 the simple words whence they are derived.* If we 
 take the context for our guide, we shall probably 
 conclude, that though in the present case, it was not 
 necessary to express the force of the diminutive, 
 yet since it is expressed by Auth., it will be our 
 wisest course to retain it. 
 
 (I)° V. 11. Jgov " they saw"]. So Syr. Cheke, 
 Bish. Auth. and all the critical editors. EZpov, the 
 reading found in the received text and in Beza.f 
 rests almost entirely on the authority of' the old 
 Italic manuscripts and Vulg. Having been inserted 
 by some corrector in the copy of the Gospels most 
 used by Erasmus (Godex 2 of Wetstein), it was 
 adopted by him, and after his example by Tynd. 
 Gov. Cran. Gastalio : being no doubt favored by 
 those who wished to avoid what appeared to them 
 an inelegant repetition of tISov from vv. 9, 10. It is 
 an evidence of great care in Bish., that it departed 
 so judiciously from the common editions in this par- 
 ticular, and followed the reading of the Complutcn- 
 sian Polyglott. Compare Introduction, p. 8. 
 
 (Ill, c). ibid. wpoafivtyKav " they offered"]. So 
 Tynd. Gov. Gran. Cheke, Gen. and the margin of 
 Auth. after Syr. Vulg. This is much better than 
 " they presented," of Bish. Auth. since it more fully 
 imphes a religious service or oblation. 
 
 (n, b). ibid. SJipa " as presents"]. In apposition 
 with xp«<ro'v, &c. So Campbell, Middleton. 
 
 (II, a). V. 16. roue nallSaq " the male children"! 
 only. So Gen. Doddridge, Campbell. 
 
 - * ^" '^/'"•'- "J' 33 .'p/^ia are unquestionably identical with 
 iinfoi in the preceding verse. 
 
138 ^otc0 on tfje i^tto %t0tammt* 
 
 (III, 7).° V. 18. ort ov/c fW " because they are 
 not"]. So Auth. Vulg. Beza and Bp. Jebb. " were 
 not," Tynd. Gov. Cran. Gen.Bish. "were gone," 
 Cheke. But it is advisable to preserve the Greek 
 idiom in this passage, both as being more poetical, 
 and as the exact translation of layK'"'? Jeremiah 
 xxxi, 15. Instances of this Hellenistic euphemism 
 are produced by Krebs from Josephus, and by hi^s 
 imitator Loesner from Philo. So also Herod, vii, 
 
 205. 
 
 (II, a). V. 21. ijXeiv fic yvv 'UpariX " went to the 
 land of Israel"]. On " went" see note on v. 8. All 
 Eng. interpret «? by " into :" but since it appears 
 from V. 22 that Joseph did not enter Judaea, 
 which is the part of the land of Israel nearest to 
 Egypt, it seems best to translate tic " to," which is 
 safer than Wakefield's rendering " towards." Joseph 
 had intended to go to Judaea, but on learning the 
 state of affairs in that country, he turned aside to the 
 regions eastward of the Dead Sea, and reached 
 Galilee by crossing the Jordan. A use of ug pre- 
 cisely similar occurs in John iv, 6 (compare v. 8), 
 where even Auth. has " to." 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 (I) V. 8. Kapiriv of^iov]. There is little doubt that 
 the singular form, and not the plural, was here 
 employed by St. Matthew. Syr. is the chief support 
 of the received reading ; but it is opposed by the 
 vast majority of manuscripts of all ages and families, 
 and was probably derived from Luke iii, 8. Origen 
 goes so for as to assign a reason, though of course 
 
 &t a^att^eto. 139 
 
 a very fanciful one, why St. Matthew preferred the 
 singular ; the Italic and Vulgate read it, and it has 
 been adopted by every critic from Mill down to 
 Lachmann. 
 
 ibid. Here Gen. and the margin of Auth. " fruits 
 answerable (" belonging, " Gen.) to amendment of 
 life," are certainly clearer than " meet for repent- 
 ance," of Bish. Auth. We find " fruits belonging to 
 repentance," in Tynd. Cran. But Gov. closely follows 
 Vulg. "due fruits of penance." The general meaning 
 of the words is plain enough : ov fiovov Su ^tvyiiv to 
 KUKov, says Theophylact, dWa xal Kapnovg aptrriQ 
 iroitw. Compare Acts xxvi, 20. The rendering of 
 Cheke and Doddridge " fruits worthy (of) repent- 
 ance," is perhaps as neat as any. See also Raphel 
 on Polybius, ad. loc, 
 
 (III, c)°. V. 9. ^^ So^tjTt Xiynv " think not to say"]. 
 Auth. is quite tolerably, though " presume not," of 
 Gen. may be somewhat better. " Seem not," Cheke. 
 None of the versions countenance the idle notion that 
 So^ttTt is pleonastic here. Indeed it would not be 
 easy to point out passages in which that verb is 
 reallj^ superfluous, though it may not always be 
 possible to preserve its force in a translation (e. g. 
 Hebr. iv, 1). In the present instance no difficulty 
 can arise. Ov kwXvwv avrovc \iyftv l^ tKuviov ilvai twv 
 ayltov, aWa ko)\vu>v /iq rovr^ Oappiiv, is Chrysostom's 
 
 simple comment. In truth SoKtiv, as is oflen the 
 case, is here the most emphatic word in the clause. 
 Thus ^schyl. Agam. 814. ctStoXov <rKtac, SoKovvrac 
 tivai Kapra wpivfttvtic ffio'i. Plato, Euthyphro (I, i. 
 p. 358 ed. Bekker), o MtXtroc ovtoq ak fxiv ovSi Sokh 
 opfv, t/u ol ovrcuc o^^<t>c are^vioc lac p^Sioic KorttScv, 
 u(Tr( aatfif'iag lypaxparo. 
 
 (11, a).° V. 12. rriv aXwva avrov " his floor"]. So 
 
140 iRote0 on t^e ifltXo '^t^t&mtnt, 
 
 Syr. Vulg. Eng. Campbell, however, adopts the 
 opinion of Fischer, Schleusner &c. that oXwv here 
 signifies " grain ;" " corn after threshing mixed with 
 chaff. " This metonymy seems to take place in 
 Job xxxix, 12, where ]'^i is rendered &\wv in the 
 LXX. The other texts quoted by Schleusner make 
 nothing for his purpose, nor must we hastily transfer 
 a highly poetical figure like that in Job, to the simple, 
 though metaphorical, style of the Baptist. 
 
 (II, b. see Introd. p. 45). v. 14. SuKbtXvtv ** would 
 have hindered"]. So Doddridge, "forbad," Auth. It 
 is remarkable that none of our early translators under- 
 stood this use of the imperfect tense, which is duly 
 expressed by Syr. Vulg., and cannot be suppressed 
 without detriment to the sense. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 15. narrav Si>caeo<T«rijv "every ordinance"]. 
 " every institution," Campbell. " all righteousness," 
 Eng. I propose this change, because the word 
 "righteousness," in the present passage, seems liable 
 to be misconceived. On the meaning of BiKaioavvft in 
 this context, all interpreters are agreed. At/catoffvvjj 
 yap tariv n '"'•''' EvroAoiv tKirXttpaxrit; . . . irptnov tVTiv 
 
 ip<H irXttpwtxat rov vopov airavra, is Chrysostom's para- 
 phrase. Consult Suicer's Thesaur. Ecclesiast. Sckoi- 
 offwvi? I § 6 : and WolFs Curae Philolog. ad loc. 
 
 (II, a). V. 16. a-iro ToC uSaroc " from the water"]. 
 " de." Vulg. " ab," Castalio. But " ex," Beza ; " out 
 of," Eng. Syr. (,Jto) will admit of either sense, 
 " There can be no doubt whatever," a living prelate 
 has observed, " that the expression implies only 
 that they ascended from the hollow through which 
 the river ran." See my note on Acts viii, 38, 39. 
 Kennaway on Baptism, p. 8. Without being anxious 
 to dispute that our Lord was baptized by immersion, 
 we should take care that such a text as the present 
 
 &t. fl^attljeto. 141 
 
 be not pressed into the service of those who con- 
 sider that form essential to the validity of the rite. 
 
 ibid. Before dSe Castalio, Tynd. 2. Gov. Gen. Bish. 
 supply the nominative " John," which is very pro- 
 perly omitted by Tynd. 1. Cran. Cheke, Auth. Dr. 
 Symonds blames Auth. for thus " stumbling on the 
 threshold" by leaving out the antecedent. He was 
 possibly not aware that some critics have thought 
 our Lord to be the person alluded to in alr,^. I am 
 not prepared to defend their opinion (see John i, 32 
 —34) ; but we have no right to corrupt the text of 
 Scripture by interpolating words whereof no trace 
 can be found in the original, and which unneces- 
 sarily restrict the sense. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 (If, a). V. 1. avn-j^dt, " was led away"]. So Tynd. 
 Gov. Cran. Cheke. " led aside," Gen. " led up," 
 Bish. Auth. But removal, not ascent, is here implied. 
 This is one of the many cases in which Schleusner 
 represents the preposition to be otiose. Because St. 
 Luke uses tiyero (ch. iv, 1), and Syr. (which has no 
 compound verbs) employs the same word (^.) in 
 both places, he concludes that ivi might as well 
 be omitted altogether. I have already stated my 
 reasons for thinking such a principle of interpre- 
 tation both uncritical and untrue (see Introd. p. 34). 
 
 (II, b). V. 5. TO wTtpvyiov " the pinnacle"]. So 
 Cheke. " les creneaux," Martin. It is useless to 
 re-open the discussion respecting the precise meaning 
 of 7r«piy,ov here and in Luke iv, 9. All Eng. have 
 " a pinnacle." Yet the very obscurity of the passage 
 
142 illotetf on tfje i^cto Cetftament. 
 
 should make us careful to express the article of the 
 original, as it may serve to shew the futility of 
 several conjectures which have been hazarded on 
 this subject. Perhaps no view is encumbered with 
 so few difficulties as that which supposes to irrepwytov 
 to be the ridge of the high roof of the great Eastern 
 Porch. See Middleton. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 6. lire x«(»«-»' " o" t^^*'' l»ands"]. I 
 presume that both here and elsewhere " in" is used 
 by our version for " on" (See ch. vi, 10 ; xxviii, 18). 
 €irt i4)c ync is rendered " on earth" in Auth. ch. xviii, 
 18, 19. In this place Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gen. Bish. 
 have " with." " in their arms," Cheke. 
 
 (I)° V. 10. After Zirayt the words onlaut fiov are 
 added by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann. 
 The external evidence in favor of this reading is 
 rather strong, though it very slightly (if at all) pre- 
 ponderates over that for the received text. 'On'ffw 
 ^ov is not found in the Vatican (B of Wetstein) and 
 many other manuscripts, nor is it rendered by Syr. 
 Vulg. or the Italic versions. It bears every appear- 
 ance of a gloss, derived not so much from v. 19, as 
 from the parallel texts Matth. xvi, 23 ; Mark viii, 
 33 ; Luke iv, 8. 
 
 (Ill, c). v. 12. vapidoOn " was delivered up "]. So 
 Bish. and margin of Auth. This is somewhat better, 
 because it is more literal, than " was cast into prison" 
 of Bish.'s margin and Auth. " was taken, " Tynd. 
 Gov. Gran. Gen. " was put in prison, " Gheke. 
 
 (I) V. 18. o 'InffoOg at the beginning of this verse 
 should be removed from the text. All the best edi- 
 tors reject it, and it is found in very few manuscripts. 
 There are no traces of it in Syr., and though it is read 
 in the printed editions of Vulg., the oldest copies 
 of that version do not contain the words. Hence they 
 
 &t. 99attl)cto. 143 
 
 are omitted by Lachmann, in his revised Latin trans- 
 lation (see p. 26). The fact is, that v. 18 is the 
 commencement of one of the irtpiKonal or lessons, 
 used in the public services of the Greek Ghurch. 
 Since a large proportion of our extant manuscripts 
 was written for ecclesiastical purposes, it was judged 
 necessary to insert in them various Proper Names, in 
 order to make the several portions of Scripture read 
 in the congregation more intelligible to the hearer. 
 Thus even in our English Prayer Book the name of 
 Jesus is interpolated in the Gospels for the 14th, 16th, 
 17th, and 18th Sundays after Trinity; and whole 
 clauses are introduced into the Gospels for the 3rd 
 and 4th Sundays after Easter, and the 6th and 24th 
 after Trinity ; without ever subjecting the compilers 
 of our Liturgy to the imputation of fraud, or of a 
 want of respect for the integrity of the Sacred Text. 
 See note on ch. viii, 6. 
 
 (II, b). v. 21. tv T«(; TrXoiV "in the ship"]. So 
 Tynd. Gov. Gran. Bish. " a boat," Gheke. " a ship," 
 Gen. Auth. for what possible reason it is hard to 
 imagine. They might have translated " in their 
 ship," as TO B'lKTva " their nets " in v. 20* In ch. iii, 
 12 Cheke rightly renders tjjv avoOfiKtiv " his gamer," 
 as indeed do Tynd. Gov. Gen. By " the ship " in the 
 Gospels is to be understood that particularized in 
 Mark iii, 9. See Middleton's note on Matth. xiii, 2. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 23. Ki)pv(Tau>v TO tvayyiXiov r^C fiaaiXuag 
 
 " proclaiming the glad tidings of the kingdom," or 
 " reign "] viz. of God, Mark i, 14. Gampbell justly 
 censures the Authorised rendering " preaching the 
 Gospel of the kingdom," as almost unintelligible in 
 itself, and calculated to conceal from the reader's 
 mind that tacit reference to the Prophetic Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament, which the words contain (Prel. 
 
144 jfiotc0 on t!je iPcto 'JEe^tament. 
 
 Diss. V, ii, 11 — 13). All our English versions however 
 resemble Auth. both here and in ch. ix, 35; xxiv, 
 14; Mark i, 14; only that Tynd. 2. Cran, Gen. 
 have " glad tidings " in ch. ix, 36 ; and Tynd. 2. 
 Gen. in ch. xxiv, 14. 
 
 (II, a), ibid. fiaXaKta " infirmity "]. So the Rhemish 
 N. T. both here, and in the only other places where 
 the word occurs, ch. ix, 35; x, 1. Cheke has 
 •' feebleness " here and in ch. x, 1 ; " weakness, " in 
 ch. ix, 35. " infirmitas," Vulg. " languor," Castalio, 
 Beza. All Eng. have " disease," and like Syr., ap- 
 pear to confound fiaXaxia with vovoc. Yet there is 
 an evident distinction between them ; the latter re- 
 ferring chiefly to pressing and acute disease ; the 
 former to the languor consequent upon lingering sick- 
 ness. See Schleusner. 
 
 V. 24. Saifiovitofiivovg. In rendering Salfuov, Sai- 
 ftoviov &c. it is now customary to speak of " de- 
 mons," not " devils." The subject is discussed by 
 Campbell (Prel. Diss. VI, Pt. i), with even more than 
 his usual ability. There are,, on the whole, two pas- 
 sages in the New Testament (Acts xvii, 18 ; 1 Cor. 
 X, 20, 21) in which this version, or something equiva- 
 lent to it, is imperatively called for. But in texts 
 like the present, which relate to demoniacal posses- 
 sion, I do not see that much will be gained by the 
 change. That these Saifiovia were instruments in 
 Satan's hands (Matth. xii, 26, 27 ; Mark iii, 22 — 26) 
 for the torment and ruin of mankind (Matth. xii, 43 — 
 45), is too plain to be called in question by any 
 honest reader of Scripture. Whether we name them 
 "demons" or "devils" is a very little matter; ex- 
 cept indeed that " demon " is pretty unintelligible 
 to the ignorant, and may suggest to the learned a 
 false analogy between these servants of the Evil 
 One, and the Saiuovtg of Classical Antiquity. 
 
 . """- -*''^ 
 
 ^t, SIpattljetD. ,45 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 coumiy '•]■ I' e^\/;r;" "'"' ."'"*'* *^^ "mountain 
 Jake of Galilee a f '"^""tams embosoming the 
 to persons fiiar Z l^^^^^^^'^ --* -tumi 
 correct on theTr nl t ' f ""*'^' ^"* '^"'^^Y 
 -e so t^ ^^.;:;el 7/ -7 othe. .h^ 
 
 ^7-13." Green,'GramL:;f NT^i; j;t "^^t 
 This explanation of the force of th^ . i •' ^' f®" 
 more simple than fho* % n ... ^^^""^^ '« ''ather 
 
 Tynd. 8cc.) have " w^as set " i I .^^ '°P^ 
 inaccuracy in deference lo R 7"^^*^'" ^''ght 
 Gram. p. 97) who rT n ^' ^°^*^ ^^""SUsh 
 
 in ch. xxvii 19 if "™'^''' '"•"'■^ ^^^"^ A"th. 
 Hebr.vii,- 'x, 2 R ''"' '" ' ^''^^ --^' ^2 ; 
 be no par; of tT ' ^r^^^' ^ ?"? ^^^« " -' can 
 to set, the translation J„ . J, ^^'°"^ *° *^« ^^--b 
 
 of the posture of fh!n' ! °"' '"^ designation 
 
 cumstance of imnor, ^ "^ ' ""^''^ '« ^ '^'■'- 
 
 for " fal^pL" • r ""'"^ variation of" lyin^" 
 
 nave lost her saltness," Tynd. 2. 
 
146 ipotetf on t^e iPeto 'STctftainent. 
 
 " his saltness," Gov. '• the saltness," Cran. " his 
 savour," Gen. Auth : a tolerable variety of renderings 
 for so simple an expression. The same license with 
 respect to genders in old English may be seen in ch. 
 xii, 33 ; xxiv, 32 ; xxvi, 52 ; Mark ix, 50 ; Luke vi, 
 44; xiv, 34; John xv, 19 &c. All Eng. except 
 Bish. Auth. have misunderstood the clause iv rtvi 
 iXiaBhatrat ; " what can be saltcd therewith ?" Tynd. 
 Gov. So Cran. Gen. nearly ; and even Gheke has 
 " wherewith shall things be salted ?" as if the verb 
 were used impersonally : " wherewith. (" wherein," 
 Bish.) shall it be salted," Bish. Auth. Campbell's 
 paraphrase " how shall its saltness be restored?" 
 gives the true sense. To the same effect are Syr. 
 Vulg. Castalio, Beza and Bp. Jebb. 
 
 (II, b). V. 15. Tov fioSiov, Tijv \v)^y'iav " the com- 
 measure," " the candlestick," or *' lamp-stand"]. All 
 Eng., the French versions, and even Campbell (who 
 knew better) use the indefinite article in this place. 
 Yet these arc evidently monadic nouns, denoting 
 ordinary articles of furniture, whereof only one of 
 each kind was usually found in an apartment; as we 
 say " the table," " the bed." See Middleton. The 
 later editions of Auth. put in the margin the exact 
 capacity of a modius ; describing it as " a measure 
 containing about a pint less than a peck." But it 
 is obvious that no specific measure is here desig- 
 nated by our Lord. 
 
 (Ill, a). VV. 15, 16. KOI Xafiiru iraai toiq k. t. X. 
 " and it shineth to all in the house. So let your 
 light shine before men". . .]. Thus Bp. Jebb. I am 
 no advocate for rigorous uniformity in the rendering 
 of the same Greek word (see Introd. p. 61), but it is 
 plain how much the force of the present passage is 
 increased by translating Xa/tn-a in the same manner 
 
 »>t, flpattfteto. J 47 
 
 Lhf T"'- '^^'' '^"'^'^ '« recommended by 
 Archbp. Newcome (" Historical View," Rule viiif 
 and can-jed into effect by Syr. Vulg. All Eng. (even 
 Cheke) here resemble Auth. "it giveth ligftL o 
 ail. . . .So let your light shine". . . 
 
 ihlH' ?■• T; ^^' '^^^^'' "'^ "''X-'o'c " it was said to 
 W.ckhffe Tynd. Gov. Gran. ChekeC' "nto old men") 
 Auth. . qu ,1 a 6t4 dit aux anciens," Martin and 
 
 dr:l''w""'"'o^^"^^^^^^^'°- ThusJsoDod 
 thif ' Z^TV ^'"P''""' ^«^«°"«. Boothroyd 
 Jebb; and of the Commentators Grotius, Whitby 
 and many others. To the same effect Ghrysostom 
 
 atrChr" 1 -'-^^^^-"^ «-. ai.o'c Jrand 
 after Ghrysostom, Theophylact accounts as follows 
 for the impersonal form of the clause: «,„> JJZ 
 
 ....*. r X. manifestly never dreaming of the possi- 
 bihty of another mode of interpretation. TvluZs 
 reserved for the daring genius of Beza to devise who 
 renders the words by " dictum fuisse a veterTbu" " 
 and has been followed by our Authorised versTo'n 
 by Bo,3 (s Introd. p. 73), Raphel, Kypke, Kr bs' 
 
 to Martm s revision, had « par les anciens " Beza 
 honestly gives us his reasons for this violent change 
 
 delivered by God tote t^lX ^^2 
 wilderness ; but that they were rather the inventions 
 of later scr,bes and doctors of the synagogue'" nu 
 solebant patrum et majorum nomina suis^fSi intl- 
 pretationibus pr^texere." But if there were any 
 
148 iliotejJ on tlje 0t\o <Ec0tament. 
 
 weight in this objection, it would be the duty of an 
 expositor to endeavor to remove the difficulty, and 
 not of a translator to conceal it, by misrepresenting 
 the meaning of the sacred penman. With respect 
 to the grammatical branch of the question, yrhen we 
 observe the pointed antithesis between ipplOn toIc 
 ipxaioa: in v. 21, and iyi> 8J \iy'^ V«v >« v. 22 ; and 
 when we find the same opposition subsistmg in the 
 corresponding clauses vv. 27 and 28 ; vv. 31 and 32 ; 
 vv. 33 and 34 ; vv. 38 and 39 ; vv. 43 and 44 ; it 
 is hard to believe that the construction of aVx"*"'* 
 after ippiOr, is totally unlike that of vp'iv after Xlyw. 
 Yet we cannot deny, that considered in itself, without 
 reference to the context, there is nothing repugnant 
 to the Greek idiom in Beza's opinion, that rorc 
 apvai'oic is equivalent to viro twv a>xn''w- The utmost 
 we can fairly say is, that such a form of expres- 
 sion is not generally employed with ipiu, in the New 
 Testament (see Rom. ix, 12 ; 26 ; Gal. iii, 16 ; Rev. 
 vi 1 1 • ix, 4)- This verb occurs no less than thirty 
 times in St. Matthew's Gospel ; and in every instance 
 where it is not used absolutely, is joined with the 
 dative of the person addressed, or with the genitive 
 of" the person speaking, governed by iwh or Sia'. Both 
 constructions are united in ch. xxii, 31. To this 
 tide of adverse examples (which may readily be 
 verified by means of the Concordance), relating to 
 the single word ipiu. in the Gospel of St. Matthew 
 alone, it is vain to oppose the occasional practice of 
 profane authors (e. g. Herod, vii, 143, ry 0.^ «pn<r0-. 
 rh v-n.rr,V.ov), or a few passages scattered through- 
 out the Septuagint and the New Testament, m which 
 some other verb than Ipiu, may seem to be followed 
 by a dative of the instrument (Gen. xxxi, 15 ; Isai. 
 Ixv, 1 ; Matth. xxiii, 5 ; Acts ii, 3). 
 
 I 
 
 fet. S^attljeto. 149 
 
 In V. 22 Cheke retains the Greek word " pa^a" 
 (sic), as if he had not yet made up his mind how to 
 render it. (See Introd. p. 92). The marginal note 
 " vain fellow," is not in the Jirst edition of Auth. 
 
 (II, a). V. 24. SinXAayjiOt Ty aStXijuf <rov " reconcile 
 thyself to thy brother"]. So Tynd. 1. Gov. after 
 Syr. which employs the reciprocal conjugation 
 Ethpaal (}Jj;:|y " te reconcilier," Martin, Oster- 
 vald. This rendering is much better than " be 
 reconciled" of Tynd. 2. Cran. Gen. Bish. Auth. and 
 the Latin versions: "be agreed," Cheke. The passage 
 before us is examined by Archp. Magee in his great 
 work on the Atonement (Vol. i, pp. 200 — 203, 5th 
 edition). He observes after Leclerc and Hammond 
 that BiaWamaOai has here a reciprocal sense, like the 
 Hebrew Hithpahel, " to reconcile oneself to another ;" 
 " to appease or obtain the favor of one whom we 
 have offended." " In the present instance," he says, 
 *' the words must necessarily signify take care that 
 thy brother be reconciled to thee; since that which 
 goes before is not that he hath done thee injury, but 
 thou him." Magee compares the LXX in 1 Sam. 
 xxix, 4; 1 Esdras iv, 31, for similar uses of SiaXXaV- 
 
 aopai : as also for KaraWaaaofiai Rom. V, 10; 1 Cof. 
 
 vii, 1 1 ; 2 Cor. v, 20. We may add Eurip. Helen. 
 1235 (ed. Matthiae), (rn-ovSac re/u«/ucv Koi Sta\\d-)(OriT'i 
 
 fiot. Demosth. Ep. 3 (p. 1478 Reiske), /ujjSt npoQ 
 
 TtXivTYiaavra^ SiaXXayrtaovrai. Even Auth. translates 
 rairtivbjOriTt " humble yoursclves" in James iv, 10; 
 1 Pet. v, 6. I ought however to state that Tittmann 
 draws a distinction between the sense of SiaXXaaaofiai 
 (which occurs no where else in the New Testament), 
 and that of KaraXXa'ar<ro/ua( : making the former to 
 denote the causing a mutual enmity to cease ; the 
 latter to have reference to one party only. But 
 
160 /|Jotc0 on t!ic iPcto tli:c0tament. 
 
 Storr and Tholuck (in his commentary on the 
 *• Sermon on the Mount") demur to the truth of this 
 opinion ; and Tholuck severely remarks that " Titt- 
 man in his book on the Synonyms is in the habit of 
 seizing on particular examples, while he passes over 
 in silence much that is against him." In the case of 
 SiaWaavofiai he is Supported by nothing but the 
 etymology of the word. 
 
 (I). V. 27. To'iq a>x»'o'c " by them of old time" is 
 omitted in this verse by Griesbach, Scholz and Lach- 
 mann ; on the authority of many good manuscripts 
 of both families, of Syr. and most of the Italic and 
 other versions. Although the words are found in 
 Irenseus and Vulg., they should probably be rejected, 
 as they are more likely to have been inserted from 
 w. 21, 33, than overlooked by the negligence of 
 
 copyists. 
 
 (II, a. See Introd. p. 33). vv. 29,30. aKav^aXltti « 
 " cause thee to offend"]. So Gen. Beza, the margin 
 of Auth. and Syr. which uses the causative conju- 
 gation Aphel (\L^^)' But Tynd. Gov. Bish. 
 Auth. have " offend," Gran. Cheke " hinder :" " scan- 
 dalizat," Vulg. " insnare," Gampbell. That the 
 margin of Auth. is here preferable to the text cannot 
 be doubted. Aquila and Symmachus employ ivKav- 
 SaXiWre for the Hiphil conjugation of ^P^ in Malachi 
 ii, 8. Dr. Symonds is pleased to observe that our 
 translators always felt at liberty to put nonsense in 
 the text, providing that they " foisted" the true ren- 
 dering into the margin. See my notes on ch. xvii, 
 27 ; xviii, 6 ; 8 ; 9. 
 
 (II, a)°. V. 32. vaptKTot \6yov nopvnat " save for 
 the cause of fornication"]. So Auth. correctly, afler 
 Syr. Vulg. Beza and Gastalio. Thus also Ghekc, 
 though with his usual quaint idiom " for fornication's 
 
 1 
 
 &t. ^att^tXa, 161 
 
 cause" (see Introd. p. 91). Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gen. 
 Bish. have " except it be for fornication." But there 
 is no reason to think Xoyoc pleonastic here, or indeed 
 in any other passage of the New Testament. The 
 Hebrew phrase "^^^ I?"!" '?^ does not appear to 
 be imitated here, for it is rendered inl Xoyov o5 by 
 the LXX in 2 Sam. xiii, 22. The expression tic 
 ^ipvriQ \6yov in 2 Macc. i, 14 is good Greek. In 
 the present text we may, with Fritzsche, regard Xoyoc 
 as equivalent to " crimen." 
 
 (I)°. V. 47. In the room of ol rtXuvai oZrw " the 
 publicans so," Lachmann reads ol iOviKol ro avro 
 " the Gentiles the same." This change is supported 
 by the uncial manuscripts B D Z, and by a small 
 number of cursive MSS, nearly all of them Alexan- 
 drian. It is also found in the Vulg. and in most of 
 the Italic documents, and is cited by Chrysostom in 
 the body of his commentary, where there is less 
 ground for suspecting that his text has been altered 
 by transcribers. Syr. reads ol rtXuivai to avro, and of 
 the two, the variation to avro for oCrw is better sus- 
 tained than iOviKoi for rtXwvai. Yet Griesbach, with 
 an inconsistency for which I cannot account, adopts 
 Ol C0VIKOI, and banishes to avro to the inner margin. * 
 Bp. Jebb approves of Griesbach's reading, and by a 
 beautiful but perhaps over-refined application of his 
 theory of parallelisms, labors to shew that the re- 
 ceived text will not adequately express our Lord's 
 meaning. " According to the common reading," he 
 observes, " the fourth line would be merely tautolo- 
 gous ; while, on the contrary, this alteration gives a 
 
 * Possibly Griesbach was misled by his erroneous information 
 that this is the reading of B. But if Buttmann, Lachmann's 
 fellow-laborer, may be depended on, that MS has ot iOyiKol t6 
 ahri. 
 
162 /iaote0 on tlje iPeto 'ErjJtamcnt, 
 
 lively progress to the argument. Degraded as pub- 
 licans were, they might still be Jews, and they fre- 
 quently were so : but the Gentiles were objects of 
 unequivocal and national hatred : the publican might 
 be despised ; the Gentile was detested " (Sacr. Liter. 
 p. 207).* In spite of this ingenious reasoning, I 
 must think with Wetstein and Scholz, that ol iOviKot 
 rests on too weak authority to be received as genuine ; 
 and Mill's conjecture is sufficiently probable (Proleg. 
 N. T. p. 85), that it originated with some corrector, 
 who was displeased with the repetition of rtXwvai v. 
 46 ; as certain of his brethren had been with tlSov in 
 eh. ii, 1 1 (see note ad loc). 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 (I) °. V. 1. The marginal note " or righteousness " 
 in the later editions of Auth. (see Introd. p. 58) 
 directs our attention to the various reading SiKoioaCvriw 
 instead of iXft,/io<n)vnv " alms." This change is sup- 
 ported by five Greek manuscripts (including B, D and 
 1, or Basil. 7), and by a scholium annexed to two 
 other MSS. It is the reading of Vulg. and the Italic 
 
 • Still more subtle is Bp. Jebb's defence of o6ru in preference 
 to TO ahro, in this same Terse. " All who loved their lovers only, 
 were actuated by one and the same principle of selfishness (v. 46) : 
 not so with respect to all who confined their courtesy exclusively 
 to their own countrymen. The Jews did this from religious bigotry, 
 the Gentiles from national pride. And, as principles determine 
 the character of actions, the Gentiles in this particular could not 
 be said to act in the same, but in a like manner, with the Jews." 
 How instructive is every idea which emanates from this prelate's 
 elegant and tho!ightful mind ; yet it is hard to believe that such 
 metaphysical precision ought to be looked for in our Saviour's 
 popular discourses. 
 
 J 
 
 fet. fl^otttieto. 153 
 
 versions, and has been approved by Mill, Griesbach, 
 Vater and Lachmann. Syr. is of necessity neutral, 
 since jj3,j would very well answer to either Greek 
 word. Internal probabilities plead strongly in favour 
 o( BiKaioavvriv, which is a familiar Hellenistic term, 
 nearly synonymous with iXtrifioawriv : and it must be 
 confessed that the latter has the appearance of a 
 gloss, borrowed either from vv. 2, 3, 4 ; or from Luke 
 xi, 41 ; xii, 33. Agreeable to this view is Jerome's 
 exposition, " Justitiam, hoc est, eleemosynam." See 
 Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad loc. But all such consider- 
 ations must yield, where external testimonies are so 
 decidedly adverse as in the present case. If we once 
 give the reins to plausiblc.conjecture, and set up in- 
 genious arguments in opposition to established facts, 
 it is impossible to foresee where the course of innova- 
 tion will end. When the received reading is pal- 
 pably absurd (if indeed it ever be so), or conflicting 
 authorities are pretty evenly balanced (see Introd. p, 
 29), there is fair scope for internal evidence : but 
 if we permit it to overstep its proper bounds, I do 
 not see what security the text of Scripture will find 
 against the wildest guesses of visionaries or unbe- 
 lievers. In this instance the sense happens to be just 
 the same, whichever of the two readings we adopt. 
 But we shall soon come to an important passage, 
 which has been most improperly expunged by a host 
 of critics, on internal grounds far less weighty than 
 those in the present verse, and in the face of docu- 
 mentary proofs which might well have been thought 
 irresistible (See note on v. 1 3). 
 
 ibid. The margin of Auth. after Cran. has " with " 
 {wapa). All other Eng. " of." I do not wish to over- 
 look auy marginal notes (see Introd. p. 59), but are 
 trifles like this worth our notice ? 
 
164 iPotfjJ on tt>e iprto %e0tamtnu 
 
 (II, a)°, V. 2. firi ffoXiriVpc ifiirpoaOh aov "do not sound 
 a trumpet before thee "]. This rendering of Auth. is 
 confirmed by Syr. Vulg. Castalio, Cheke, Bish. and 
 Bp. Jebb. " Do not cause (or " make") a trumpet to 
 be sounded " is found in Tynd. Gov. Cran. Gen. the 
 margin of Auth. Beza, and his imitator Martin (" ne 
 fais point sonner"); and approved by Schleusner and 
 Kuin(5el. In behalf of this latter interpretation it may 
 be alleged, that a person can hardly be said to sound 
 a trumpet before himself. Perhaps also the analogy of 
 the causative verb <TKavSa\'ilw (ch. v, 29, 30) may have 
 had some weight. The example cited by Schleusner 
 from Isai. xliv, 23, in which the Hiphilform W^J} is 
 translated (raXniaart by the LXX, is nothing to the 
 purpose ; since that Hebrew verb being defective in 
 its simple or Kal conjugation, Hiphil is here used 
 merely in the signification of Kal. On the whole I 
 agree with Mr. Rose, in his edition of Parkhurst, that 
 there is little occasion for altering Auth. Since the 
 expression is figurative (as Chrysostom remarked long 
 ago), we need not press ifivpoadh aov too literally ; 
 it is enough if our Lord be understood to mean, that 
 the Pharisees distributed alms ostentatiously and in 
 public. Besides, the verb aaXirllw occurs in eleven 
 other passages of the New Testament (1 Cor. xv, 52, 
 and ten times in the Apocalypse) ; in all which it 
 bears its ordinary classical sense " I sound a trum- 
 pet." See Eisner's Observ. ad loc. 
 
 (II, b). V. 13. awo Tov irovnpov " from the evil one "]. 
 So Doddridge and Bp. Jebb. " du malin," Ostervald. 
 Middleton has clearly shewn that Syr. understood the 
 words to refer to a person, both here and in ch. v, 
 37. Even in ch. v, 39 Syr. employs the masculine 
 gender, although in that place Satan cannot be al- 
 luded to, but " the wrong-doer " generally. The 
 
 &t. a^att^eto. 155 
 
 Latin versions in this verse are, of course, ambiguous. 
 All Eng. have "from evil." Cheke translates "from 
 the evil " here and in ch. v, 37 ; but " evil " simply 
 in ch. V, 39 : since the devil is called by him " the 
 wicked " in ch. xiii, 19; 38, it is probable that the 
 same being is meant in the present text. That we 
 pray to be delivered from the power of Satan in this 
 petition, was the constant persuasion of the Greek 
 Fathers. Chrysostom expressly states that irovnpov 
 tvTovOa TOV Sia(io\ov KaXti. Theophylact observes, 
 ovK tiTTiv and irovvpiov avdpunruv, ov yap Utivoi dBiKovaiv 
 
 vfiag, aXX' o irovnpoq. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his ex- 
 position of the Lord's Prayer, calls wovr,pig, o avriKu- 
 
 pivoQ Saipujv, a<p' ov pvaOrivai ivy^optOa. Other passages 
 
 equally decisive, from Gregory Nyssen, Tertullian, 
 &c. may be seen in Suicer's Thesaur. Ecclesiast. 
 Indeed this conclusion might easily be drawn from 
 the language of the New Testament itself. If the 
 reader will turn to Matth. xiii, 19 ; 38 ; John xvii, 
 15; Eph. vi, 16; 2 Thess. iii, 3 ; iJohnii, 13; 14,' 
 iii, 12 ; V, 18 ; 19 ; he will find that in most of these 
 texts o novripo^ and its oblique cases undoubtedly 
 indicate our great spiritual enemy ; while this is the 
 fullest and most satisfactory interpretation in them 
 all. 
 
 (I).° ibid. (See Introd. p. 23). The doxology 
 which closes the Lord's Prayer (Sn aov ianv v PaalXua 
 K.T.X. . . . [apfiv].) is rejected as spurious by Wetstein, 
 Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, Tischendorf and Lachmann 
 on the continent ; in England by Mill, and recently by 
 Dr. Bloomfield and Professor Davidson. In fact I 
 am not aware that it is retained by any editor of note 
 except Matthaei, whose exclusive adherence to his 
 own Moscow manuscripts renders his judgment on 
 such a point of as little weight, as that of an acute 
 
166 ipotctf on tfie 0tXa lleistament. 
 
 and profound scholar well can be. I cannot help 
 feeling how perilous it is to dispute the verdict of 
 this formidable array of Biblical critics ; but we may 
 reasonably demand something more than the bare 
 authority of high names, before we consent to aban- 
 don a clause, which we have all regarded from our 
 infancy as an integral part of the most solemn form 
 of words ever delivered to man. 
 
 The sixth chapter of St. Matthew is contained in 
 about five hundred Greek manuscripts of various 
 kinds : the doxology is omitted in only eig-A^ It is 
 preserved in the venerable Peshito Syriac version, 
 and (with some slight abridgment) in the Sahidic, 
 which ranks next to the Peshito on the score of an- 
 tiquity. It is also found in the ^thiopic, Armenian, 
 Gothic, Sclavonic and Georgian versions ; in the 
 Philoxenian and Jerusalem Syriac ; and in the Persic 
 version of Walton's Polyglott, which is demonstrably 
 a secondary translation, made from the Peshito Syriac 
 (see Walton, Proleg. xvi, §. 9, and Pr. Lee's Excur- 
 sus in Wrangham's edition). On the other hand the 
 clause is omitted in most copies of the Coptic ; in the 
 Arabic (the least valuable, for critical purposes, of 
 all the versions) ; in the Italic and Vulgate ; and is 
 consequently unknown to a long train of Latin 
 Fathers, who did not understand, or seldom consulted 
 the Greek original. Among the Greeks the doxology 
 is first met with in the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions, a work of about the fourth century; and in 
 Chrysostom, who comments upon the disputed words 
 without shewing the least consciousness that their 
 authenticity is doubtful. After Chrysostom 's time 
 the clause seems to have been implicitly received in 
 the Eastern Church. The silence of earlier writers, 
 such as Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem, who do not 
 
 &t. a^attlieto. 157 
 
 notice it in their expositions of the Lord's Prayer, 
 may be accounted for by the supposition that tliey 
 regarded the doxology not so much a portion of 
 the Prayer itself, as a hymn of praise annexed to it 
 by our Blessed Redeemer. But in truth, every 
 person versed in these studies is aware, that however 
 trustworthy may be the positive testimony of the Fa- 
 thers, the argument derived from their silence is of all 
 others the most precarious. Throughout every class 
 of their writings, they perpetually overlook the most 
 obvious citations from Scripture, with which, as we 
 learn from other sources, they were perfectly familiar. 
 Yet this slender presumption is suffered to outweigh 
 the direct evidence of a vast majority of the Greek 
 manuscripts and versions. 
 
 I wish not to disparage the character of the manu- 
 scripts which omit the doxology (B D Z. 1. 17. 
 118. 130. 209). The Vatican MS. (B) is probably 
 the oldest now extant which contains this chapter ; 
 its rival the Codex Alexandrinus (A) being unfortu- 
 nately mutilated from the beginning of St. Matthew 
 down to ch. xxv, 6. The Dublin palimpsest (Z) is 
 an important document, but it too closely resembles 
 the Vatican MS to claim all the consideration due to 
 an independent witness. Of the Codex Bezae (D) I 
 must speak much less favorably. Its wannest advo- 
 cates will confess that it is much oftener wrong than 
 right. The glosses that deform its text amount to 
 several hundreds (see, for instance, its readings in 
 Matth. XX, 28 ; xxi, 29 ; xxii, 13 ; xxiv, 31 ; 41 ; 
 xxv, 1, &c.) ; and its notorious connection with the 
 Italic versions detracts still further from its value. 
 Respecting the five cursive manuscripts I need only 
 remark, that they all with the exception of 17 (a MS. 
 of the 15th or IGth century), belong to the Alex- 
 
168 j|5ote0 on ttje iPeto %tmmtm. 
 
 andrine family. The best of them is 1 (Basil, y), 
 which is about 800 years old, and in the Gospels 
 constantly follows the Latin translations. Neither 
 of the other three is earlier than the 13th century ; a 
 circumstance which I name, not because I deem 
 the age of a manuscript a sure criterion of its worth, 
 but because such is the doctrine of Lachmann (see 
 Introd. p. 26), and to some extent of Griesbach also. 
 We must not forget to state, that the doxology is 
 omitted in the Complutensian Polyglott, no doubt 
 through deference to the authority of the Vulgate 
 (see note on 1 John v, 7) ; and that scholia, or notes 
 by uncertain hands, are written in the margins of 
 many manuscripts which contain the clause, import- 
 ing that it is deficient in certain copies. Finally, it 
 is found in all the English versions except Tynd. 1, 
 which was probably misled by the Complutensian 
 edition. Such then is a faithful summary of the 
 external arguments both for and against the clause. 
 Ought we to hesitate for a moment to pronounce our 
 judgment in favour of its authenticity ? 
 
 Among the versions the Peshito Syriac holds the 
 foremost place. Yet it is superfluous for Dr. Bloom- 
 field to remind us that " its solitary testimony is not 
 decisive of the question " (Greek Test, ad loc.) ; 
 since, in the present case, so far from standing alone, 
 it is supported by full forty-nine fiftieths of the Greek 
 manuscripts. But Dr. Bloomfield goes on to urge, 
 that " there are passages in the Peshito which are 
 admitted to be interpolated, probably from the later 
 Syriac versions." Now it is perfectly true that the 
 occasional conformity of the Peshito to the Latin 
 versions has given rise to a suspicion (I will not say 
 an unfounded one), that its text has been corrupted in 
 accordance with the Vulgate ; either at the period 
 
 fet. Sl^attlieto. 169 
 
 of the submission of the Maronite Syrians to the 
 Church of Rome in the twelfth century (see Introd. 
 p. ba;, or by the persons who superintended the 
 Vienna ed.t.o princeps in 1555. Even if this surmise 
 be well-grounded, it can have no place in an instance 
 hke that now before us, where the Syriac reading 
 <i>Iejsirom that of the Latin versions. That these 
 admitted interpolations " were introduced from the 
 Philoxeman Syriac, never has been, and I believe 
 never w.ll be proved. The existence of the doxology 
 in the early Persic translation affords us no slight 
 evidence that it was already contained in the Peshho, 
 when that secondary version was formed from it 
 
 But ,t IS on internal r^^rVs of its spuriousness that 
 the objecors to this clause chiefly insist. "It is 
 more hkely," they say, "that the doxology should 
 have been inserted in the text of St. Matthew from the 
 Greek liturgies than that the copyists should have 
 ejected u m St. Matthew, because it is wanting 
 
 rJL tK ^ ;• '•'• '^•" ' ^^""^ ^''•^^^3^ Protested 
 against the admission of arguments of this kind 
 where the direct proofs are strong and cogent (see 
 note on v ); and I have little inclination to a" 
 just the balance between the conflicting possibili- 
 ■es mentioned above. Yet it were easy \o rep y 
 tl^ ta passage which has been received as genu^n^ 
 by the translators of the Peshito and the Sahidic in 
 
 he fourth . r' T'"""' '"'^ '^ ^'^^y-^to™ in 
 
 the fourth must have become a part of the text at 
 
 a very early period. With all our veneration for the 
 
 Pnmuive Liturgies, what right have we to assume 
 
 hat tkcy have continued unaltered, in their actud 
 
 ate ever since the Apostolic age? Still „ore 
 
 read ly may we dispose of Scholz's remark, that the- 
 
 doxology interrupts the logical connection between 
 
160 jl5otej5 on tlje iPeto 'Ste^tament. 
 
 the 12th and 14th verses.* If this plea were of any 
 force, it would compel us to cancel the whole of 
 V. 13, and not merely its last clause. 
 
 I trust that the reader will pardon the length of my 
 present note ; but the great importance of the sub- 
 ject made me anxious to explain fully the grounds of 
 my conviction, that the doxology is a genuine portion 
 of the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 (I). V. 18. cv T(j> ^avtp(f •' openly " is found in all 
 Eng. in Beza and Castalio ; but is omitted by Syr. 
 Vulg. and Campbell, I fear correctly. A few au- 
 thorities reject the words in vv. 4, 6, but there is no 
 good reason for following them. Bp. Jebb defends 
 the received reading because it best accords with the 
 system of parallel lines, into which he considers the 
 whole sermon on the Mount to be distributed. He 
 also endeavors to shew that cv rh! <pavtpi^ in this place 
 is required by the sense. "The act of the individual 
 not merely shews the absence of anxiety for display, 
 but is studiously designed for concealment (on-wc ftri 
 jtavyg). Does not the generosity of God's dealings 
 indicate, and one might almost say, demand, that 
 the reward of such an act should be of the most 
 public nature?" (Sacr. Liter, p. 166). Every one, 
 I think, must be sensible of the awkwardness which 
 ensues from the rejection of these words in v. 18, if 
 they be retained (as beyond a doubt they should be 
 retained) in vv. 4, 6 ; but I cannot safely resist the 
 evidence which Scholz has produced against them. 
 They are not read in a very considerable majority of 
 manuscripts of all ages and of both families. Nearly 
 
 * The same thing had been said, though much less posttirel^, 
 hj Wotstcin. But that eminent critic was neceiiarilj ignorant of 
 a large proportion of the evidence in favor of the doxology. 
 
 fet. a^atttjeto. 161 
 
 all Matth^i's MSS omit them, and Griesbach, Vater, 
 J^cholz and Lachmann remove them from the text. 
 Jn fact they are found only in the Italic. iEthiopic, 
 and Arabic versions, and in some late Byzantine 
 manuscnpts. They seem to be so much needed by 
 
 theVhr'!: • ''"■' '^ '""^^ ^^"^« ^°^ «"»•?"«« that 
 
 h y a" "rr'^'^t - - f- -pies, than that 
 
 they are found in those which actually contain 
 
 Cni, c). V. 22. inXoi, " clear "]. So Gen. Dod- 
 
 "sitTe "";':?; f'^^^- "«°""^'" ^-p^°". 
 
 Cn7r '^"i'!- (^"d '" Luke xi, 34) after Tynd. 
 Cov. Gran. B.sh.. a rendering which is not very 
 perspicuous, even if it be taken in a moral rather 
 than a physical sense. Syr. 4-.. , ^, as Vulg 
 
 ll"f '•" .?'"'" ^''''''^^- C'^'^y-^to- thus 
 paraphrases the passage : rH. iyU^a. r^r .oi..v [.J. 
 
 IT^tl^: Tr ^I''^'"''^ ^^«™ other wrLs; 
 but It . too slight a deviation from the ordinary 
 ^.gnification of the word to be attended with any 
 difficulty. nov,,ac inv. 23 should be rendered «d7 
 
 Chekt^''.ev^r' a"'!;'^^"' ^^"- '"''''■ "-^ -"'" 
 
 worth or of more value," Tynd. Gov. Gran. Cheke 
 Gen. B,sh. "pluris,"Gastalio, correctly. But"f^us " 
 
 c.e;n':htersL\ar.:!; th?!,''";^ "''^'"''^ '^ "^^-"' "-••-. - 
 
 tnd say, that "1. V u °° "**■• """^ '"'■«'» ^'th"' :" 
 
 pedime'nt in it." '""' '"" '" *•"*' '"'* """« '"-' "^--e or im- 
 
162 iPotejf on t!)e JReto i:c0tament. 
 
 Vulg. Beza, whence " more," Auth. See cb. xii, 41 ; 
 
 42. 
 
 (II, a), vv. 25, 27, 28, 31, 34. fitpifxv^v « to be 
 anxious"]. So Bootbroyd after Doddridge, Camp- 
 bell, &c. " to take anxious thougbt," Newcome, and 
 tbe " Holy Bible" of 1841. In v. 27 we bave " by 
 taking careful thought" in Cran. Gen. Bish. In 
 vv. 25, 28, 34 we find " care not" in Tynd. Gov. 
 Cran. Gen. Bish. In v. 31 all Eng. render " take 
 thought," which is the uniform translation of Auth. 
 in all the passages. Cheke, however, has " be not 
 thoughtful," which is somewhat less objectionable. 
 Most English critics have lamented the inadver- 
 tence of Auth. which, in bidding us" take no thought" 
 for the necessaries of life, prescribes to us what is 
 impracticable in itself, and would be a breach of 
 Christian duty, even were it possible. The same 
 remark applies to ch. x, 19 ; Luke xii, 11; 22 ; 25 ; 
 26; and in some measure to Phil, iv, 6. Syr. 
 renders it by ^^-^^ the Latin versions by " solliciti," 
 except that Vulg. uses " cogitans" in v. 27. In fact, 
 there can be no doubt of the inaccuracy of Auth. in 
 this particular. 
 
 (II, a). V. 27. irpoffOtTvat eVi t^jv viXiKlav avroi vnxvv 
 
 iva "add to his life one span"]. So correct Luke 
 xii, 25. Syr. Vulg. Beza, Castalio, Cheke and all 
 Eng. render these words with Auth. " add one cubit 
 unto his stature." While I entertain a strong, and 
 I hope a wholesome distrust of novel modes of inter- 
 pretation, I cannot withhold my assent from the argu- 
 ments adduced by Hammond, Wolf, Wetstein, Dod- 
 dridge and Campbell, in behalf of the change I have 
 suggested. The received sense seems to lie under 
 two insuperable difficulties. Our Lord is here dis- 
 suading us from worldlincss of mind. He even ex- 
 
 
 &t. ^atttieto. 163 
 
 horts us not to be over-anxious to secure a due 
 provision for the pressing wants of the body, such 
 as food and raiment. How can we reconcile it 
 with the dignity of his character, or the universal 
 interest of his subject, that he should abruptly turn 
 aside to reprove the foolish vanity of that very small 
 portion of his hearers, who might wish to add 
 to their stature ? Whereas, on the contrary, by 
 referring fiXiKia to the duration of life, we establish 
 an intelligible connection between this verse, and 
 the context in which it stands. In the last clause 
 of V. 25, a comparison is instituted between the 
 respective values of life and meat, of the body and 
 raiment. In vv. 26, 28 the leading idea of the 
 passage is expanded in two beautiful similes, each 
 designed to shew the futility of our excessive care 
 for food and clothing, since the meanest portions of 
 the creation are abundantly supplied with them, 
 according to their several needs. How natural is it 
 to interpose, by way of parenthesis, between the 
 two members of this single illustration, a new but 
 most important sentiment, that our very life, for the 
 preservation of which these things are necessary, can 
 be prolonged by no foresight or anxiety on our part ! 
 Again, is there not almost a contradiction in terms 
 in the common version of this text? "Which of you 
 by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature ?" 
 Our Lord can only mean, increase his stature by 
 the smallest appreciable measure ; by nn inch, by 
 an liair's-brcadth. And this notion St. Luke, in the 
 parallel text, expresses by the words " If ye then 
 be not able to do that which is least" {iXayiarov Luke 
 xii, 26). Now a cubit is not less than one foot and 
 a half (" an half yard mete," Cheke ; but Suidas 
 tells us o itr)yyq iyti TroSac Ivo') '. with what pro- 
 
164 i^ote0 on tlie i^eto Cr0tament. 
 
 priety then can it be called iXa^tvTovl what rational 
 person ever desired to increase his stature in that 
 proportion? Such are the chief objections to the 
 usual rendering of the passage ; and they seem to 
 have escaped even Chrysostom's observation, for he 
 quietly dismisses the sentence by saying wirwtp yap 
 Ttfi aufiari ovSi fiiKpov wpoaOiivai Svv^ap /tc/oi/ivwv, ovrwc 
 
 But how will qXiKfa and n-n^uc bear the senses I 
 have ventured to assign to them ? With the former, 
 I conceive, our course is clear. 'HXitcfa is used for 
 " age," or " time of life," in John ix, 21 ; 23 ; Hebr. 
 xi, 11. In the Attic writers it constantly occurs, 
 as well for the prime of life, or age of military ser- 
 vice ; as for any particular period of life, even the 
 more advanced. Thus Demosthenes Olynth. 3. (p. 38 
 Reiske) includes in the expression 8, n koO' tiXikIov 
 EicaiTToc ?x<"> every possible service ^that citizens of 
 whatever age can render the state ; and ^schines c. 
 Timarch. (p. 19 Stephan.) speaks of ttjv tppovovnav Koi 
 irptafivripav qXiKfav. I cannot agree with Rose (Park- 
 hurst's Lexicon, voc. iiXikio) in adding Ezek. xiii, 18 ; 
 for the Hebrew word (HOlp) there rendered v^ikIo 
 by the LXX, is the very same that is employed by 
 the translator of the Peshito in the New Testament 
 to signify " stature." 
 
 n^X^fj however, is attended with greater difficulty. 
 Yet even Schleusner, who abides by the usual inter- 
 pretation of the passage, admits that it may very 
 well (" conimodi^") mean the shortest space of time, 
 and refers us to Psalm xxxix, 5. It is in allusion 
 to that memorable Psalm, that I have suggested 
 " span" as an adequate rendering of ir^x"?* though 
 there can be little objection to a more literal trans- 
 lation. Campbell has '• prolong his life one hour;" 
 
 fet Sl^atttieto. 1C5 
 
 a version which entirely conceals the tropical form 
 of the passage. Hammond has illustrated the sense 
 of ^nxvc here contended for, by a happy quotation 
 from a fragment of Mimnermus : roTc Ik^Xoi iry',x»iov 
 M xpovov &v9tmv apng TtpTr6n(9a. I am not aware 
 that a second example of this usage can be found. 
 The comparison of life to a race in the course is not 
 unfrequent in Scripture (Acts xiii, 25 j xx, 24; 
 2 Tim. iv, 7); with all the circumstances and tech- 
 nical terms of the Grecian games, even the Jews 
 were by this time familiar : thus there is much pro- 
 bability in Wetstein's conjecture, that if nnx«s is to 
 be taken strictly as a definite measure of length, our 
 Saviour may have reference to the stadium, or race- 
 course, in which a single cubit would be but a very 
 small part of the space over which the contending 
 candidates had to run. That such an allusion is not 
 foreign to our Saviour's mode of teaching, may per- 
 haps appear from Luke xxii, 25. 
 
 V. 34. There is a remarkable diversity between 
 the various translations in rendering the last clause 
 
 of this chapter, dpKtrhv ry f,fi{p^ f, kokIo air^c- Auth. 
 is the best, but Tynd. 1. "each day's trouble is suf- 
 ficient for the self-same day," is decidedly superior 
 to Tynd. 2. " for the day present hath ever enough 
 of his own trouble." See Introd. p. 83. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 (I). V. 2. Read with Griesbach, Scholz, Lach- 
 mann, and all recent editors ,itrp„Of,<riTat instead of 
 «'vr,^6rp,0<i«ra., omitting " again," which is found in 
 all Eng. except Cran. Even Bp. Jebb rejects the 
 
166 iI5otf0 on t^c 0iMt irc0tament. 
 
 received reading (which seems to have arisen from 
 Luke vi, 38), on the ground that all the other verbs 
 in this stanza being uncompounded, the preposition 
 dvrX destroys the balance of the couplet, mrpy^eim- 
 rai is given by nearly all the manuscripts of note, 
 by Syr. (though the evidence of that version is of 
 little influence in a question of this kind), and even 
 in some copies of the Italic and Vulg. Indeed 
 Lachmann's revised Vulgate text has " metietur. 
 
 (II b). V. 4. 7, SoK&c " the beam"]. So Bish. but 
 manifestly by accident. The promiscuous manner 
 in which all the English versions use the definite ami 
 indefinite articles in vv. 3, 4, affords one mstance 
 out of a thousand how utterly regardless they were 
 of this little part of speech. In expressmg or 
 neglecting the Greek article, they seem to have 
 been guided by no other principle than the caprice 
 or convenience of the moment. 'H So.6c stands m the 
 same position as rh k^p^oc in this very verse. There 
 is not the slightest reason for employing our definite 
 article in the one case, and not in the other. I pre- 
 sume that those who, with Bishop Middleton, deny 
 the demonstrative character of the Greek article. 
 " would explain its use in vv. 3, 4 by a reference to 
 its anticipative property. (Doctrine of the Article, p. 
 
 23, 3rd edit.) , ^ i, ii 
 
 Some of my readers will remember that Campbell, 
 in this place, renders r^iv So.ov " a thorn ;" a signifi- 
 cation which he does not pretend to defend by the 
 authority of any Greek writer whatsoever. The sole 
 reason which he assigns for his bold interpretation is 
 the following. 2.oXo^, in classical authors, means 
 .« a stake." In the LXX, however (Numbers xxxiii, 
 66), it answers to the Hebrew ^\ff, " a thorn :" it .» 
 found in this sense in 2 Cor. xii, 7, and (he might 
 
 I, 
 
 I 
 
 &t. 9^attteto. 167 
 
 have added) in profane authors also. (See Wetstein 
 ad loc). In like manner /3oX«c properly is " a dart " 
 or "javelin;" but in Numb, xxxiii, 55 ; Josh, xxiii, 
 13 it corresponds with D'J^JV " prickles " or " thorns." 
 " Now it is not more remote from our idiom," he ob- 
 serves, " to speak o(a.pole, or a javelin, than to speak 
 of a beam, in the eye." I am surprised that so sag- 
 acious a critic as Campbell failed to perceive the 
 broad distinction which subsists between the case of 
 SoKoc, and of the words which he cites to vindicate his 
 interpretation of it. For the metaphorical sense, both 
 of (TKoXoi^ and /3oXic, he has produced sufficient justifi- 
 cation ; that SoKOQ is ever used in a similar manner 
 he has neither shown, nor endeavoured to show. 
 And with respect to his attempted illustration from 
 the English idiom, it is surely enough to reply, that 
 nothing is more fallacious than to determine what is 
 proper in one language, from the phrases or peculiari- 
 ties of another. In the present instance there can be 
 no question that the primary signification of Sokoq is 
 that intended to be conveyed. It is translated "beam " 
 by all the versions. Lightfoot speaks of the passage 
 as a familiar proverb among the Jews ; and one of 
 his authorities uses the word iTnip, which is found 
 in 2 Kings vi, 2 (Sokoq LXX) ; 6 ; 2 Chron. iii, 7, 
 and is identical with the Syriac l-A.»-vo employed by 
 the Peshito in these verses. 
 
 (II, c). V. G. icai arpa^tvrtz pn^iiiow vfiaQ " and they 
 turn again and rend you"]. Auth. renders "and 
 turn again and rend you," after Syr. Vulg. Beza, 
 Cheke, Gen. Bish. But Tynd. Cov. Cran. translate 
 " and [the other] turn again," thereby intimating that 
 this last clause refers not to the swine, but to the 
 dogs. To the same effect Castalio, with his wonted 
 freedom, "ne hi eos pedibus conculcent, illi versi 
 
168 iPotefJ on tte iPeto Ht^tamtnt. 
 
 lacerent vos;" and is followed by that disgraceful 
 production, the anonymous English version of 1729. 
 I have already (Introd. p. 121) expressed my gratitude 
 to Bp. Jebb for his valuable illustration of this verse 
 (Sacred Liter, pp. 338-40), and of the kind of stanza 
 •which it exemplifies. It will scarcely admit of a 
 doubt that his arrangement of the passage is agree- 
 able to the mind of the Divine Speaker. The whole 
 verse is divided into four clauses or parallel lines, 
 whereof the first is closely connected with the fourth, 
 and the second with the third.* By virtue of an 
 artifice which Bp. Jebb terms Epanodos, the dif- 
 ferent members of the sentence are thus transposed 
 from their natural order, to situations better fitted for 
 producing a powerful eflfect. 
 
 But without disputing the truth of the principle 
 here stated, we may reasonably question the pro- 
 priety of imitating Tynd. and Castalio -in this par- 
 ticular ; and I cannot help assenting to the opinion 
 of Dr. Doddridge, that the practice of Auth. and the 
 later versions is far more judicious. " The transposi- 
 tion [or, as Doddridge might have said, the arbitrary 
 supplying] of words, even where there is a trajection 
 in the sense, is so dangerous a thing where the sacred 
 writers are in question, that no small advantage 
 gained in elegance or perspicuity seems sufficient to 
 counterbalance it." I would fain bear in mind this 
 just and pious sentiment throughout every page of 
 the present work ; at the same time I have inserted 
 
 • The regular arrangement of the stanza would be as follows : 
 
 Give not that which is holy to the dogs ; 
 Lest they turn about and rend yon : 
 Neither cast your pearls before the swine ; 
 I*»t they trample them under their feet. 
 
 I 
 
 fbt 9^atttieto. 1G9 
 
 the pronoun " they" before " turn," although it is not 
 in Auth., in order so far to disjoin koI (Trpa<f>ivTtg 
 pri^tixriv vfxac from the preceding clause, as to render 
 our translation compatible with Bp. Jebb's idea, to 
 the full extent that reverence for the original will 
 permit. 
 
 (I). V. 14. Tt ffTivn " how strait "]. So the margin of 
 Auth. after Syr. Vulg. The received reading on arevri 
 " for strait," is adopted by Tynd. l.Cran." but strait," 
 Tynd. 2. Gov. Matthew's Bible, Castalio. "because 
 strait," Gen. Bish. Auth. after Beza's " quia." The 
 variation rl for ort has caused me more hesitation 
 and perplexity than any which has yet occurred. 
 Differing as they do only by the omission or intro- 
 duction of a single letter at the beginning of a 
 sentence, either of them might easily have originated 
 from the other. The balance of external evidence is 
 certainly in favour of ri, which is adopted by Gries- 
 bacli, Vater, Scholz, and Lachmann. No less than 
 fifty of the best manuscripts are cited in its support 
 by Scholz, and it is read in many others not ex- 
 pressly named. It is found in most of Matthaei's 
 manuscripts, so that it cannot be considered ex- 
 clusively Alexandrine. It is the reading not only of 
 Syr. Vulg. but of the ^thiopic and several other 
 versions. Although Chrysostom has koI in his ex- 
 position of the passage (" and the gate is narrow," 
 Cheke), he elsewhere prefers rt. Ov\ oTrXwc tlwtv^ he 
 remarks, Sr« aTtvfi i<mv, aXXa jutTo dav/iafffiov, rl (TTtvfj t) 
 oSoc, TovrtoTiv a(j>6Spa anvfi (Tom. xi, p. 492) : and 
 so say Theophylact and the rest of the Greek com- 
 mentators. On the other side we have a respectable, 
 but by no means an equal, company of witnesses. 
 They consist of the two uncials B X, of two valuable 
 MSS of about the 12th century, and a crowd of 
 
170 iPotejJ on tljc iPeto 'gtejJtament. 
 
 later ones of the Byzantine family. Among the 
 versions on is supported by the Coptic (teste Wil- 
 kins), the Armenian, and one or two Italic copies. 
 It is also cited by Origen. In conclusion, then, I 
 am obliged to differ from Bp. Jebb in this matter, 
 though I know not how to refute his arguments, 
 derived from the structure and sense of the passage 
 (Sacr. Liter, pp. 382-4). That on, were it the reading 
 of the manuscripts, ought to be understood in the 
 way pointed out by him, will scarcely be doubted by 
 any one. 
 
 (II, b). vv. 24, 25. rnv nlrpav "the rocky ground"]. 
 See Bp. Middleton. " The article is here used witli 
 propriety, because the attention is directed to the 
 substance, in respect of its quality, in contradistinc- 
 tion to another (iirl rr^v a/ifiov, V. 26)." Green, 
 Gram. N.T. Dialect, p. 149. Thus correct Luke 
 vi, 48. It is curious to observe the inconsistency of 
 our old versions (See note on v. 4). They all read 
 " a rock " in v. 24, but in v. 25 Tynd. Gov. Gran, 
 have " the rock." Yet this may possibly be designed 
 to indicate renewed mention. " La roche," Martin, 
 ijn both verses. 
 
 (II, a). V. 25. irpoalvtaov "fell upon." v. 27. vpoal- 
 Koi^av " struck upon "]. These words, which were 
 confounded by Syr. Vulg. Eng. ("beat upon"), as 
 also by Schleusner and most other critics, are accu- 
 rately distinguished by Castalio (" irruentibus .... 
 impingentibus "), Beza (" inciderunt . . impegerunt "), 
 Doddridge and Gampbell. I have adopted the ver- 
 sion of Bp. Jebb, in whose light we have lately been 
 walking, and whose admirable analysis of the Sermon 
 on the Mount ranks with the most precious treasures 
 of our native theology. " The verb irpoaTrlirrut," ob- 
 serves this great scholar and good man, " is more 
 
 felt, a^atf^eto. 171 
 
 forcible than irpo<rK6irTw. The rain, the floods, the 
 w'mds,/ell prone with violence upon the prudent man's 
 house, and it did not fall ; they struck, or impinged 
 with less of downright impetuosity, on the foolish 
 man's house, and it did fall." 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 28. SiSaxfi "teaching"]. So Cheke. 
 " manner of teaching," Gampbell. All Eng. have 
 " doctrine," which to a modem ear conveys a dif- 
 ferent meaning. The verse immediately following 
 renders it clear, that the mode of teaching, and not 
 the doctrine taught, is what is here intended. AtSax<?, 
 avr\ Tov SiSowaXfa, Suidas. Schleusner approves of my 
 interpretation, but adds that some refer S«Sox»/ to the 
 doctrine of a future life and judgment, as taught by 
 our Lord. See ch. xxii, 33. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 (I). V. 5. Instead of 'Uaov in this verse, Vulg. and 
 all the critical editors read avrif, except indeed that 
 Lachmann prefers the Alexandrine correction tlatX- 
 Oovroc Si avTov. 'Iqcrov is found in but one or two 
 good manuscripts, and in Syr., so that its spu- 
 riousness is unquestionable. This is another instance 
 of our first translators' disregard of the Vulg., for all 
 Eng. insert " Jesus." The source of such interpo- 
 lations was explained in my note on ch. iv, 18 ; and 
 tlie same remarks will apply to ch. xiv, 22 ; Mark 
 viii, 1 ; John i, 29 ; 44 ; iii, 2 : and perhaps to 
 Mark vi, 34 ; Luke xxiv, 36. 
 
 (Ill, a), vv. 6, 8. KCpu " Sir"]. So Tynd. Gov. 
 
172 jpotejj on tlje i|leto i:c0tament. 
 
 Cran. Cheke, Gen. " Domine " of Vulg, was rendered 
 " Lord, " more suo, by Wickliffe and the Rhemish 
 translators, but it is to be regretted that Bish. Auth. 
 should have thus altered the earlier versions. Camp- 
 bell (Prelim. Diss. VII, Pt. 1) has forcibly stated the 
 ingruity of representing our Blessed Lord, •• though 
 not acknowledged by the great and learned of the 
 age, and though meanly habited," as addressed by 
 almost every one in the peculiar style by which 
 the Almighty is invoked in prayer. Where an 
 express recognition of his Divine office is intended, 
 it is of course proper to retain the reverential ap- 
 pellation " Lord ;" wherever this is not the case, it 
 both is the safest and most reasonable course to 
 translate K6pioc " Sir," as is actually done by Auth. 
 in John iv, 11 ; 15 ; 19 ; 49 ; v, 7. In John xx, 15 
 any other rendering would have been absurd. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 14. /3i/3X»ijulvijv (cal nvplaaovaav " lying 
 sick of a fever "]. So Tynd. Gov. " lying in bed 
 and sick," Cran. " lying and sick," Gen. Still more 
 harsh is " laid down and sick," Cheke ; and " laid 
 and sick," Bish. Auth. The Syriac } 1 w is con- 
 stantly used in this sense. The full expression 
 PoXXhv tJc tcXfvijv occurs in Mark vii, 30 ; Rev. ii, 22. 
 
 (I), v. 15. SiriK6vti avTi^ " ministered unto him "]. 
 So we ought no doubt to read, instead of airroif " to 
 them." Though the latter is contained in Syr. Vulg. 
 the singular is found in Rapheleng's Cologne MS of 
 the Peshito, and in those copies of Vulg. from which 
 the Rhemish divines translated.* All the chief Greek 
 manuscripts concept Jive have airy, and these (L. 1. 
 
 • In the Introduction p. 76, I stated that Wickliffe also dif- 
 fered from the printed Vulgate in the present passage. But this 
 was an error, for which I entreat the reader's forgiveness. 
 
 &t, Sl^att^cto. 173 
 
 13. 33. 124) too often conspire in presenting impro- 
 bable readings, to be regarded, when they stand 
 alone, with much respect. Indeed the Codex L is, 
 next to the Cambridge manuscript, the most sus- 
 picious of all the Alexandrine uncial documents. 
 Chrysostom unequivocally favors airy, which is cited 
 by Origen and adopted by Scholz and Lachmann. 
 Griesbach's theory here precludes him from admitting 
 the true reading. Considering these five MSS and the 
 Syriac version to represent one of his three families, 
 and the Italic and Vulg. another ; he not only rejects 
 the evidence of the Byzantine class, but even that of 
 his special favorites, B, C, and K (Codex Cyprius). 
 A still more unjustifiable application of his principle 
 of recensions occurs in v. 31; where he substitutes 
 aTToemiXov v/iac for IwlTpvpov v/itv avfXOsiv, on the poor 
 authority of four manuscripts (certainly B is one of 
 them), and of the Latin and Egyptian versions, * The 
 little influence produced on the sense by such altera- 
 tions affords us no ground for thinking them slight or 
 frivolous. The uprightness of Griesbach's character 
 places him far above the suspicion of sinister designs ; 
 but if his critical canons be once allowed to bias our 
 decisions on matters of minor importance, it will be 
 impossible to offer a consistent or successful resist- 
 ance to the rashest attempts at innovation, in pas- 
 sages of the highest concern to our Christian faith 
 and practice. 
 
 (II, b). v. 16. Xo'yv " with a word"]. So all Eng. 
 except Cheke and Auth., and why should they have 
 changed that rendering into " with his word ?" As 
 " his" is not printed in italics in the first edition of 
 
 • By the term Egyptian 1 understand the Sahidic, Coptic and 
 ^thiopic versions. 
 
174 iPotc0 on tlje iPeto 'cEctftamciit. 
 
 Auth., our common version requires t«(» \6y<f avrov, 
 
 or T»^ Xrfyv at the least. 
 
 (II, b). V. 23. ri, wXoiov " the ship"]. So Gen. 
 " a ship," Tynd. Gov. Gran. Bish. Auth. " a boat," 
 Cheke. The vessel in question was that implied in 
 V. 18. See note on oh. iv, 21. In like manner we 
 must correct ch. ix, 1 where Tynd. 1. alone has 
 '• the ship." " la nacelle," Martin, in both places. 
 
 (II, b. See Introd. p. 45). v. 24. KaXOwrtadat " was 
 being covered"]. All Eng. wrongly translate " was 
 covered." 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 26. iyivtro " ensued"]. So the Rhemish 
 version. " followed," of Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gen. Bish. 
 is much better than " was" of Gheke, Auth., who 
 seem to agree very often against the rest. 
 
 (1)°. V. 28. Twv rtpytartvwv " of the Gergesenes"]. 
 There are three different readings of this passage. 
 rtpy«rr)VMv, which is given in the textus receptus, 
 and Eng., is retained by Griesbach, though he almost 
 prefers rij9a<T»ivwv, the word adopted by Vater and 
 Lachmann from the Italic and Vulg. Scholz how- 
 ever edits FaSaprivbtv, which is found in Syr. and in 
 the parallel texts Mark v, 1 ; Luke viii, 26. repaatfviov 
 is contained in no manuscript now extant, although 
 it was a common reading in Origen's age, and besides 
 the testimony of the Latin versions, is supported by 
 Gregory Nyssen and Athanasius, by the Sahidic, and 
 the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. Still this 
 evidence amounts to so little in itself, and Gerasa was 
 so far distant from the shores of the Lake Tiberias, 
 that we may fairly dismiss Ftpaarfviov from our con- 
 sideration. The real difficulty consists in choosing 
 between rtpytarfviov and FaSapnvwv. And here again 
 we might readily decide the controversy, if manu- 
 script authority were principally to be regarded. 
 
 fet. a^atttjeto. 175 
 
 raSaptiviov is sanctioned by only eleven MSS (although 
 B G M are among them), and five Evangelistoria, or 
 extracts from the Gospels for ecclesiastical purposes ; 
 but into the latter a variation would easily be ad- 
 mitted, which removes the apparent discrepancy 
 between the narrative of St. Matthew, and those of 
 the other Evangelists. Origen says Iv oXlyoig Eitpo/icv 
 tic rfiv xbipav Tb)v raSnp»|vwv, and both the Peshito and 
 Philoxenian Syriac, together with the Persic version 
 (see note on ch. vi, 13), and one or two Fathers, 
 favor the same side. 
 
 FtgyiaiivCdv, on the contrary, is the reading of the 
 vast majority of manuscripts of both families ; of 
 the Goptic, iEthiopic, Armenian and some less im- 
 portant versions, as well as of several ecclesiastical 
 writers of various ages, down to the time of Theophy- 
 lact. Indeed there would have been little scruple 
 respecting the authenticity of the received text, had 
 it not been imagined by Wetstein, and after him by 
 Michaelis and Scholz (Proleg. N. T. § 15), that 
 TiQyiar\vwv originated in a gratuitous conjecture of 
 Origen. Now not to insist on the glaring improba- 
 bility of the supposition, that the unsupported in- 
 fluence of Origen was sufficient to procure the inser- 
 tion of any reading his capricious taste might dictate, 
 into nearly all the manuscripts of Scripture scattered 
 throughout the world; we may reasonably doubt 
 whether, on an attentive examination, his words will 
 bear the construction put upon them by Wetstein. 
 They occur in his commentary on St. John, Tom vi 
 (Opera, Paris. 1759 Delarue, Vol. iv, pp. 140—1). 
 He had taken up a notion (a very idle one perhaps) 
 that the etymology of certain names of places men- 
 tioned in the Bible, was prophetically significant of 
 the great events, of which they were hereafter to 
 
176 j|Jote0 on ttie iPeto '^e0tament. 
 
 become the scenes. On this account he prefers the 
 various reading B»|0a/3apa in John, i, 28 to BriOavta, 
 although the latter was found in nearly all his copies. 
 
 E<rr« Tt 17 ipfifivua row 6v6fiaTOf aK6\ov0oc rt^ /3o7rrf<T^aTt 
 Tov IrotfiaZovroc Kvpf((* \ahv KartaKtvatrfiivov ' /ieraXa/u/3ai/- 
 trai yap lie oIkov KaraffKCvijc' V 8l BqOavfa, lie oTkov vwa- 
 
 •toijc. And he furthermore defends the reading which 
 he approves by the traditionary recollections of the 
 inhabitants of the district bordering on the Jordan. 
 We must confess, therefore, that Origen (whether cor- 
 rectly or otherwise is another point) is in one passage 
 induced by his fanciful theory to reject the testimony 
 of the majority of his manuscripts ; but neither in 
 that place, nor in those which he subsequently cites 
 from the Old Testament (e. g. Gen. xlvi, 11, in p. 
 141), does he ever hazard a bare conjecture. Why 
 then should we think that he would do so in the case 
 of Matth. viii, 28 ? He certainly recognises rtpainivutv 
 
 as an established reading {avaylypavrat ytyovhai iv ry 
 X<i'pq TU)V rtpaarfvwv), while he States that raSapijvwi/ 
 
 was found in but a few copies, and is entirely silent 
 respecting the evidence for ri/oyiffijvwv. But can it 
 be thought for a moment, that Origen, a scholar and 
 a man of genius, would have coolly invented th\s word, 
 because forsooth fpftrtvtitTai n ripytaa irapoiKta lK/3t0- 
 Xr)KOT(iii', (irwvwjuoc ovaa TAXA irpo^iirtKwc> ov ntpl tov 
 "Siftrrtfpa ntnoiriKaai, irapaKoXlaavTtf avTov fitraOttvai tK twv 
 
 op(wv avTuiv ol TWV \o(po)v ttoXTtoi ? Moreover, is not his 
 employment of ra^a a sufficient proof that his choice 
 was not determined solely by the etymology of Fipytaal 
 It is a certain fact that rip7e<T»jvd)v is the reading of 
 the great mass of documents at present. It was ap- 
 pealed to ax such by several of the antients, who had 
 occasion to notice this passage (sec Gricsbach). Why 
 then may we not infer that Origen also found it in 
 
 I 
 
 fet. fl^ottljeto. 177 
 
 some of his manuscripts, although through inadvert- 
 ency he neglected to mention the circumstance ? 
 
 Thus we are led to conclude, from the pressure of 
 external evidence, that Tipyw^vwi/ is the true reading 
 of St. Matthew. Nor is it hard to reconcile the 
 received text with raSapt,vi:,v of the other Evangelists. 
 The district wherein Gadara was situated seems to 
 have been called indifferently the country of the 
 Gadarenes, its actual inhabitants, and of the Gerge- 
 senes or Girgashites, the Canaanitish nation which 
 had been expelled from those regions by Joshua. 
 Such is Lightfoot's solution of the difficulty, and by 
 Its simplicity it proves itself. That Gadara is " the 
 city" alluded to in v. 34, will not be disputed ; yet 
 It is not necessary for our purpose to fix its precise 
 locality. A place which was but "sixty stadia" 
 Closeph. de vita su&, c. 05), or 6^ miles "distant from 
 Tiberias in Galillee;" being itself "above Jordan, 
 opposite Scythopolis and Tiberias, and to the east of 
 them" (Euseb. Onom.); yet "situated on the Hie- 
 romax" (Pliny, v, 16) a tributary of the Jordan- 
 mi/st have been within three miles of the South- 
 eastern corner of the Lake. Surely a region by the 
 sea-side, so near to Gadara, "the metropolis of Peraja" 
 (Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv, 7), would very naturally be 
 called by its name. 
 
 (11, b). V. 32. Kttrd TOV Kprtfivov " down the steep"] 
 VIZ. the bank of the Lake Gennesareth. Here is another 
 example of the peculiarity noticed on ch. v, 1, wliere 
 St. Matthew presupposes in his readers the same 
 Ultimate acquaintance with Galillee and its vicinity 
 which he himself possessed (Green, Gram. N T. 
 Dialect, p. 159). This strong though undesigned 
 proof of the writer's good faith, and consequently of 
 the credibility of his history, depends on our accurate 
 
178 ilJotefl on tlje iPeto "ZCetftanicnt. 
 
 observance of the force of the article. " Per praeceps," 
 Vulg. whence " headlong," Wickliffe, Tynd. Gov. 
 Cran. Bish. " by an headlong place," Cheke : " from 
 a steep down place," Gen. " down a steep place," 
 Auth. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). vv. 2, 5. d<t>lwvTm " are forgiven"]. 
 So Tynd. 1. and Gov. Gheke in v. 2 ; Gen. in v. 5. 
 All other Eng. have " be forgiven." Syr. Vulg, render 
 the verb as indicative, and such doubtless was the 
 intention of Auth., though the ambiguity of tlie ex- 
 pression " be forgiven" is unfortunate in a passage, 
 which so fully demonstrates our Lord's proper 
 divinity (see vv. 3, 6). A similar correction should 
 be applied to Auth. in Mark ii, 6 ; 9 ; Luke v, 23. 
 The word is properly translated in Luke v, 20 ; vii, 
 47 ; 48 : and the context in every place forbids our 
 taking atptwvrai in a mere optative sense. The 
 Doric form d^(wvrat for a^cTvrat is illustrated by Butt- 
 mann in his Greek Grammar, Gatalogue of Irregular 
 Verbs, pp.6 and 115, notes, Fishlake's Translation. 
 
 (II, a), v. 7. tfc Tbv oIkov avTov *' to liis own house"]. 
 So Tynd. 2. Gen. rather more accurately than " to 
 his house," of Tynd. 1. Cran. Gheke, Bish. Auth. 
 The force of avrov is not always capable of being 
 preserved in a version, and editions of the Greek 
 Testament perpetually vary between avrov and avTov, 
 I am ignorant of the grounds of Mr. Field's opinion 
 (Annot. ad Chrysost. in Matth. Horn. II), " pro- 
 nomen avrov reciprocum e Sacro Novi Foederis 
 codice penitus extirpandum esse." 
 
 (III,c). V. 10. lvrjoiK(<; "in ///.y house"], viz. 
 
 
 &t. Sl^attjieto. 179 
 
 Gen" Bti? i, T?ru^"'' '' ''• ^° ^^"^- ^ ' C-n. 
 Cov pf.^'^'i^^fi^ld-- "in the house, "of Tynd. 2. 
 
 •V, 21. But this use of the article in the sense of the 
 personal pronoun prevails in every page of Greek 
 
 to our In, T' ^ ^«««"'"""e'- '>as remarked, 
 
 'W f \ f '^- '"' ^^>- '^^^ transposition of 
 I.-, from the last clause to the beginning of v. 10 
 
 readmg of the Greek, as it is done merely for the 
 nt ^,'^°"^'\"'.^"'^- Tynd. I. Cran. Gen. Bish re^ 
 peat the word in both places. 
 (II, b). V. 13. g«a/ovf "just men"]. So Cheke 
 
 Luke :'3;'."" "'"'"'"" '^'- »>'- M-kTi'n; 
 
 or- "'"'■ •'<■/■".•».,.,. "to repentance"!. These 
 word, are .anting in s,. Vnig": b„ft ^^ JJ^ 
 
 al 1 / . °, /' " ■"'«'" ^ ^°"P«:'«i thai they 
 
 T3TX "^- "" P'""'' P^'-S'. Luke 
 
 Ma?k; r ^ "\"=J=olc<l both in Malfhe* and 
 iWark by G„csbach and Lachmann; and in Mark 
 alone by Va.ej and SehoU. Of the t'e,t in s". Ma k 
 1 wdl speak hereafter: in the present case 1 ,1 
 cupelled to consider the evident for th:i ss.^^ 
 of .,c „™.„„„ .nsufficient. Schol. cites only twelve 
 
 coir itin the zirM *™^' '"T °f *■"■■ 
 
 Al^ J • , '"^'^&'"- They are near y all of the 
 A exandrme class, and several of them io cLselv 
 alhed be regarded with much confidence as sen« 
 rate witnesses (D. 1. 33 im J! ''''^ f ^^P^" 
 fl,» D u-x .\^-/* •5'5. ii«;. I he accordance of 
 
 he Peshrto w,,h the Vulgate and earlier Latin ve"- 
 3.on, I have before noticed a, a little suspicion,, Z 
 
180 il5ote0 on tlje /peto "^esftament. 
 
 note on ch. vi, 13), and the few other authorities* in 
 favour of expunging the words, are easily counter- 
 balanced by the testimony of the Sahidic version, 
 of Chrysostom, and the vast majority of manuscripts 
 of both families, which favor their authenticity. AH 
 Eng. have " to repentance," though Cran.'s attach- 
 ment to Vulg. led him in v. 15 to render ol viol row 
 vw/i^ivoc " the bridegroom's children," from " filii 
 sponsi" of Vulg. In v. 25 Cran. alone after " took 
 her by the hand" adds : " and said damsel, arise." I 
 cannot, however, trace this interpolation (see Introd. 
 p. 88) to Latin influence.! 
 
 (II, a). V, 16. dyva^ov " undressed"]. So Camp- 
 bell : " unfulled," Cheke. This is more literal than 
 " new" of Syr. Eng. and clearer than " rudis" of 
 Vulg. or " raw, unwrought," of the margins of Bish. 
 Auth. Thus correct Mark ii, 21. Doddridge sen- 
 sibly observes, that cloth which has not passed 
 through the fuller's hands, being less supple than 
 what has been often washed, is likely to tear away 
 the edges to which it is sewed, since it yields less 
 than the old cloth. 
 
 ^ (III, a), ibid. ln\ " upon"]. So Auth. in Luke v, 
 36, but " on" in Mark ii, 21, and " unto" here : " in," 
 Cran. Bish. Respecting vkfipw/ia in this verse see 
 Storr de voce vi. It manifestly denotes " the sup- 
 plement," " the new part added,"' that which filU 
 ■up, or makes perfect, the whole garment. It is 
 called by St. Luke ri Kaiv6v, while St. Mark unites 
 
 * Grieabach citea Clement of Rome aa an evidence againat 
 the clauae. He alludea to a paasnge in c. 2. of the aecond or 
 spurious Epistle, which is of very little value. 
 
 ■f- Mill i* mistaken when he aaya that the words are found in 
 the Vulg. Yot I suppose they may be discovered in some Italic 
 tnanuscript. 
 
 fet. S^atttieto, 181 
 
 both modes of expression, rb nMgw^a airot, rh Kaiv6v. 
 It would be well if the signification of the word 
 were equally plain in some other passages of the New 
 1 estament (e. g. Rom. xi, 12 ; Eph. i, 23). The con- 
 struction of the next clause was entirely mistaken by 
 lynd. Cov. Cran. ('« for then.taketh he away the 
 piece agam from the garment") who were probably 
 misled by Vulg. "tollit enim plenitudinem &c." And 
 to the same effect Cheke says " for it taketh away 
 tl.e wholeness of the garment." But Syr. Beza and 
 Castaho rightly make nMp^^a the nominative to 
 °'P«. Gen. Bish. are mere translations from Beza 
 ( tor tlien the piece taketh away something from 
 he garment," Bish.). Auth. " that which is put in 
 to fill It up taketh from the garment," is as exact and 
 clear as any. 
 
 (HI, c). V. 17. ««oic " leathern bottles"]. So 
 Campbell, Scholefield. but only on the first mention 
 of them ; correctly judging " bottles" to be sufficient 
 m all subsequent places : "vessels," Tynd. Cov Gen 
 •'bottles," Cran. Cheke. Bish. Auth.; and « utres"' 
 of Vulg. ,g thus rendered by Wickliffe and the 
 Rhemish version. So - Ilis cold thin drink out of 
 his leather bottle." Shakespeare, Henry VI Pt iii 
 Act ii Scene 5. " Bottle" in this sense' is now 
 obsolete. 
 
 (Ill, c). ibid. .inoXovvrai, " are destroyed"! So 
 Doddridge, much better than "perish" of Ene 
 
 except Cheke and Auth. render the preposition in 
 <rv.r,po..ra, " preserved together." It is not neces- 
 sary to tlie sense, but there can be no good reason 
 for suppressing it. See Introd. p. 35. 
 
 (HI, c). V. 24.ivax<opHT, " withdraw"]. SoCamn- 
 bell : .' go forth," Cheke : " retire," Doddridge, a'i 
 
182 ipotetf on tie ipeto 'atesttament. 
 
 are preferable to " get you hence" of Tynd. Gov. 
 Cran. Gen. or " give place" of Bish. Auth. Campbell 
 (Prel. Diss. XI, Pt. 2, 8) complains of the idiomatic 
 phrase " laughed to scorn," by which Eng. render 
 Mr«yfXo.v (•• laughed at" simply, Cheke). I do not 
 think that " deride," which he substitutes in its 
 place, so well expresses the intensive Kori. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 26. V ♦Vi »5rn " this report"]. But 
 " this noise," Cran. " the fame of this," Bish. " this 
 fame," margin of Auth. " the fame hereof, " Cheke, 
 Auth. The accordance of Cheke with our common 
 Bible (see note on ch. viii, 26) is very extraordinary. 
 How shall we account for it ? 
 
 • (II, a), v. 30. tvf^pe/^t7}(To^o " enjoined with a 
 threat"]. " charged," Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke, Gen. 
 " straitly charged," Bish. Auth. But « comminatus 
 est," Vulg. Castalio ; " graviter interminatus est," 
 Be'za, whence " defend it avec minaces," Martin; 
 '« dcfendit fortement d'en parler" Osterwald. Syr. 
 lij, which usually implies " to forbid with autho- 
 rity" (KwXiuv, Acts xxvii, 43; 1 Tim. iv, 3). Agree- 
 ably to Vulg., Hesychius explains the word by 7r(.o<T- 
 
 ^i^ai ^xet' iKovnlag-^tri aVf.XSc ivra\t<,9at' and Suidas, 
 (iiT 6pyvg \a\i)<rai-titT' aiompiirnTOC Inmnriaai. iEschyl. 
 Theb. 443, "irirowc tf' a^irvKTvprnv t^^pj/xw/ifvaf. Rose 
 
 compares Psalm cvi,9; Nahum i, 4. 'E^Pp.M<i;itvoc 
 is the rendering of DVT •« angry" given by one of 
 the Greek translators (Bahrdt thinks by Symmachus) 
 in Ps. vii, 1 1 ; where Aquila has dntiXoifuvot, and 
 the LXX 'op7'> ivaywv. Symmachus also represents 
 nyj " rebuke" by ififiptfi^airai in Isai. xvii, 13 ; 
 where Aquila translates liriTttx{,<Tti, and the LXX 
 aVoTKopaKuT. So correct Mark i, 43. 
 
 (Ill, a), vv. 31, 32. ol 81 J5fX0({vric • • • oi'^w»' ** 
 {^ipXo^Wwv " when they were gone out . . . but as 
 
 fet. 9?atttieto. 183 
 
 tliey were going out"]. It is easy to perceive the 
 advantage of rendering i^ipxf<r9ai uniformly in tliese 
 verses. See Introd. p. 51. All Eng. have " departed" 
 in V. 31, " went out" in v. 32. 
 
 (Ill, c). v. 33. ovEivoTt (^a'vT) ovTwg tv ri^ 'I(T/>ai)X 
 " the like was never seen in Israel"]. So Gen. " it 
 never so appeared," Tynd. 1. " it was never so seen," 
 Tynd. 2. Cov. Cran. Bisli. Auth. 
 
 (II, b). v. 34. rd Sm^Li'wia " the devils"]. So Bish. 
 and even Auth. in the edition of 1611. All other 
 Eng., and the later copies of Auth., wrongly omit 
 "the," which refers us back to tow Smfiovlov, v. 33. 
 Cheke neglects ra Sai/uowa altogether. 
 
 (I), v. 35. tv Tt{) Xa<^ " among the people," is ex- 
 punged by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann, 
 and was probably interpolated from the parallel 
 passage, ch. iv, 23. On this ground, more than 
 from the weight of manuscript authority, I am dis- 
 posed to abandon the clause. It was unknown both to 
 Chrysostom and Theophylact ; and is not read either 
 in Syr.Vulg. or in the Italic, Sahidic, Coptic, ^tliiopic 
 and several other versions (see p. 132, note). 'Ev t({> 
 Xaif is also wanting in about twenty-seven manu- 
 scripts (including B C D S. 1. 33. 118. 157); most 
 of them, though not all, being of the Alexandrine re- 
 cension. 
 
 (I). V. 36. i<TKv\iJiivot " (were) harassed "]. This 
 reading is substituted for iKXiXvfiivoi " fainted," by 
 Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann, 
 and most other critics ; the common reading being 
 generally regarded as a marginal gloss on i<TKv\fi(voi, 
 which is here employed in a rather unusual sense. A 
 formidable array of the best manuscripts is produced 
 by Scholz to justify the change, while those that favor 
 iKXtXvuivoi, are cither of slight value (such as Codex 
 
184 iI5otcj5 on t|)e iPeto tleistament. 
 
 L, respecting which see note on ch. viii, 15; and 
 Appendix A), or of recent date. The two words are 
 so nearly synonymous that the testimony of versions 
 should be used with caution : but Syr. ^-u-U. ("lassi," 
 Schaaf) seems best to correspond with lK\t\vfi(vot, 
 while the Italic and Vulg. " vexati " suggest 1<tkv\- 
 ftfvoi, which is also the reading of Chrysostom, and 
 other Fathers ; and may fairly be considered as a 
 genuine portion of the sacred text. The renderings 
 of Eng. are various. Thus Tynd. Gov. have " pined 
 away ;" Cran. Gen. Bish. " destitute ;" Cheke and 
 Auth. " fainted," but in the margin of Auth. " were 
 tired and lay down " (ipptfinlvoi) ; " dissipati," Beza. 
 But these are only different modes of translating the 
 same word. See Wolf. Cur. Philog. ad loc. 
 
 The meaning I have assigned to loKvXtiivoi is amply 
 vindicated by the practice of Greek writers. In its 
 strictest sense, as Kypke observes, oKuX/aoc signifies 
 " the plucking of the hair," 3 Mace, iii, 25 ; iv, 6 ; 
 vii, 5. Hence it refers to any mode of vexation or 
 annoyance (see Wetstein's note, ^sch. Pers. 583, and 
 Blomfield's Glossary) ; especially to the weariness 
 felt after a journey : Herodian iv [p. 494, ed. Ste- 
 phani, 1525], "va S^ ^n Tovra riv JTr/oaTov (ric<>XXp. Ro- 
 senmiiller, after Grotius, understands by laKvXixivot the 
 effect produced by the harassing and burdensome 
 ceremonies of the .Jewish ritual (ch. xxiii, 4); by 
 ippinfilvoi the distraction of the people's minds, by 
 reason of the various sects which at that time divided 
 the nation (ch. x, 6). I doubt whether this distinc- 
 tion be not rather far fetched. 
 
 &t. Si^attljeVD. 
 
 186 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 (HI, a and c). v. 1. i^ovatav wvivpiruyv aKaOaprojv 
 " power over unclean spirits"]. So Tynd. Cov. and 
 the margin of Auth. "against," Cran. Cheke, Gen. 
 Bish. Auth. after Tyndal's second or quarto edition 
 
 of 1526. Syr. inserts the preposition '^-i.. This 
 construction of iKovata with a genitive of the object 
 is not uncommon. See Mark vi, 7 ; John xvii, 2 ; 
 Rom. ix, 21, in all which places Auth. has "over." 
 Thus also Raphel cites from Polybius ii, 6, twv avrwv 
 virapxdv Koi roe to^tXdaQ Ik tHiv u7ro\\vpivii)v, Kot Trjv 
 
 i^ovalav rwv aw^opivwv. In the parallel text Luke ix, I 
 
 we find iKovatav lir\ navra ra Saifiovia. 
 
 (II, a). V. 4. Sfjuwv 6 KavavhriQ «' Simon the Zealot"]. 
 So correct Mark iii, 18. He is the person called 
 ZfjXwrnc in Luke vi, 15 ; Acts i, 13 ; that appellation 
 being in fact nothing more than a Greek translation 
 of the Syriac | . i n or j- ■ i^ (Kavavfriic), which latter 
 the Pesliito employs here and in St. Mark, while it 
 
 renders Z^Xwrrjc by the kindred term ] \ \ I. Thus 
 Chrysostom : Sf^uva rov ^riXwr/^v, uv icai Kavavtrrjv koXei. 
 Doddridge objects to this version (which has the 
 sanction of expositors of high reputation ; see Poli 
 Synops. ad loc.\ that the Zealots do not appear to 
 have existed as a sect, till a little before the fall of 
 Jerusalem (Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv, 3, 9). But not to 
 mention that Josephus does not speak of them as a 
 new sect at that period, it is more probable that this 
 cognomen was given to Simon from his personal 
 character for zeal for the law of Moses, than on ac- 
 count of his connection with any public sect or order 
 
186 jpotttf on tte 0t\o %tmmtnt. 
 
 of men. Besides that Doddridge's argument would 
 compel us to expunge ZijXwt»)c from the text of St. 
 Luke. At any rate, it is clear that " Chananreus " 
 Vulg. (but " Cananaeus " in Mark iii, 18), " of 
 Canaan," Cran. "of Canan," Gen. " the Canaanite," 
 Cheke, Bish. Auth. are quite incorrect. The people 
 of the land of Canaan, whom the Jews expelled, are 
 represented both in the New Testament (Matth. xv, 
 22), and in the Greek versions of the Old (e. g. LXX 
 
 Deut. i, 7), as Xavavawi, not as KavavTrai, or Kavavaiot. 
 
 A third rendering yet remains, which is that of Tynd. 
 Cov., who translate " of Cana," the town in Galillee 
 where Christ's first miracle was wrought. This in- 
 terpretation also is open to considerable difficulty. 
 It of course presupposes that the identity in meaning 
 between Kavavh^Q and ZijXwt^c is purely accidental. 
 Moreover, if the analogy of Classical Greek be ob- 
 served, from Kava we should expect Kav{r»ic, not 
 Kavav/rric : just as we have 'Ap^rtphric from "A^Supo, 
 &c. The various reading Kavavalog, which Lach- 
 mann adopts after the Coptic and Latin versions, 
 Codices B, C and a few other Alexandrine manu- 
 n scripts, is liable to a similar exception. 
 
 (II, a). V. 5. dwiXOnrt "go abroad "]. So Cheke. 
 " go off," Bp. Jebb. Sacr. Liter, p. 313. The force of 
 ani, is lost in Eng. ; yet it should be retained in this 
 place, because hTriXOnrt is pointedly opposed to uviXOnrt 
 in the next clause. " Go not away from Palestine, 
 towards other nations." 
 
 (II, b). ibid, fk irrfXiv " into a city "]. " civitates," 
 Vulg. whence possibly " the cities," Tynd. Cov. Gen. 
 " any of the Samaritans' cities," Cheke. " any city," 
 Auth. " the city," Cran. Bish. ; but no particular one 
 is intended. 
 
 (I). V. 8. vncpoiit lyilptri " raise the dead "]. In my 
 
 s 
 
 &t. a^attfiet). 187 
 
 Introduction p. 22, I have been led to condemn 
 Scholz's rash rejection of these words. Griesbach, 
 Lachmann, and Vulg. place them before XiwpovQ 
 KaOaplZtre : Vater, after Syr., agrees with the received 
 text. The clause however is wanting in the editio 
 princeps of the Peshito, in the Sahidic, and in Chry- 
 sostom's Commentary. The manuscripts also cited 
 by Scholz in behalf of his decision are numerous and 
 of some consideration, though they are not, perhaps, 
 of the first importance (e. g. E K L M S V X). On the 
 whole there is cause for a suspicion that the words were 
 brought into this passage from ch. xi, 5. What I 
 complain of in Scholz is their absolute removal from 
 the text, when so much is still capable of being urged 
 in their defence. 
 
 In V. 9, KTiiatiaOt is well rendered " provide " by 
 Auth., or by its margin "get." In Tynd. Cov. 
 Cran. Cheke, Gen. Bish. we have " possess," an 
 error more than once committed by Auth. e. g. in 
 Luke xviii, 12; xxi, 19. 
 
 (I). V, 10. pafiSovc " staves "]. The received text 
 haspa/3Sov, as also have Syr. Vulg. " a rod," Tynd. 1. 
 Cran. " a staff," Tynd. 2. Cov. Gen. Bish, and the 
 margin of Auth., but only in the later editions. 
 
 The present is one of the very few instances in 
 which Auth. departs both from Stephens's third 
 edition and the text of Beza (see Introd. p. 8, and 
 note on ch. ii, 11). 'Pa/38owc however is the reading 
 of the Complutensian Polyglott, and of Stephens's 
 first and second editions. It was favored by Beza 
 in the notes to his earlier editions, and is approved by 
 Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach and Scholz. A great 
 majority of the most excellent manuscripts support 
 this reading, though the singular form is found in 
 B D. 1. 33, and several other Alexandrine documents ; 
 
188 ijlottn on ttje ipeto '(im&mtnt. 
 
 in many later Byzantine copies, as also in Chrysos- 
 tom, at least in the printed editions. Lacbmann and 
 Vater retain pd/38ov, a form which may possibly have 
 arisen from a misapprehension of the sense of d /u^ 
 pa/3Sov fiovov in Mark vi, 8. Compare Luke ix, 3. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 11. KWfitiv "village"] as opposed to 
 ir6Xtv, uniformly with oh. ix, 35. So Scholefield. 
 All Eng. " town. " Cheke omits Kwfiijv altogether. 
 In this verse Gov. alone translates " enquire in it 
 who is meet for you," a transposition of the words 
 which speaks little for his skill and judgment. 
 
 (II, b). v. 12. tic rriv oiKtav " into his house "]. 
 viz. the house of the person who is worthy to receive 
 you. Here all Eng. have " an house," overlooking 
 the article : " any house," Cheke, Martin. 
 
 (II, b). v. IG. «J>C ol S^tic, Kol oKlpaioi «i)c ttl irtpKTTtpal 
 " as the serpents, and harmless as the doves "]. " It 
 is not without reason," Bp. Middleton remarks, 
 " that we have ^C 7rpo/3ora, but wc oi o^cic [«I»c al irtpiir- 
 Ttpal]. All sheep are not supposed to be in the 
 midst of wolves ; but all serpents are assumed to be 
 prudent, [and all doves harmless]." Bish. alone of 
 Eng. notices this minute distinction. For aVlpatoi I 
 prefer " harmless " of Bish. Auth. to " innocent " of 
 Tynd. Gov. Cran. Gen. " plain " of Cheke, or 
 " simple" of the margin of Auth. (which comes from 
 " simplices " of Vulg. Beza, Martin). " Sinceri," 
 Castalio: |_:q_— ^_I (perfect) Syr. Clirysostom 
 
 rightly explains it by tk rb fii) dfivvtaOat rovt dSiKovvra^, 
 
 jUfiSi Tt/iioptiaOai roue iir«j3owXtuovTac- Eisner compares 
 Eurip. Orest. 910 (ed. Matthia;), clicfpmoc, aviTrfXijirrov 
 vffKTiKwQftfov (Scholiast anXovf). Thus also Plato, Rep. 
 I. (Ill, 1, 33 ed. Bekker), ovrt yap -n-ovtiph own afiaprla 
 ovSf/ifa oiihfiij rlxi'if napitrriv . . . avrri St aftXafi^it Koi 
 fiKf'potoc i(m\', opdh ovva. 
 
 i. 
 
 i 
 
 &r. ^att^eto. 189 
 
 (II, a). V. 18. Ka\...St " yea and "]. So Auth. in 
 Acts iii, 24. Both particles are well rendered by 
 Auth. in John viii, 16 ; xv, 27 ; Acts v, 32 ; 1 John 
 i, 3 : but one of them is lost in John vi, 51 ; viii, 17. 
 See Green, Gram. N. T. p. 308. 
 
 (II, b). ibid, tic fiaprvpiov avTotc " for a testimony 
 unto them "]. So Doddridge, Campbell, and all 
 Eng. except Auth. (substituting "witness" for "tes- 
 timony "). Cheke has " and so shall ye witness me 
 to them :" " en temoignage h. eux," Martin : " pour me 
 rendre temoignage dcvant eux," Ostervald. Thus also 
 Vulg. " in testimonium illis," and similarly Castalio 
 and Beza. Syr. ^.ol1_^! (_/Lo.j-oi_oi\ (in testimonium 
 ipsorum), Beza however says in his note " ut sint 
 inexcusabilcs i. e. adversus eos," whence Auth. has 
 " against them," although it renders the same phrase 
 by "unto" in ch. viii, 4; xxiv, 14; Mark i, 44; 
 Luke V, 14. Thus correct Mark xiii, 9. In Mark 
 vi, 1 1 (as Campbell has remarked) the context suffi- 
 ciently vindicates Auth, ; accordingly in the parallel 
 text of St. Luke (ix, 5) we read ih fiapripiovin avrovg: 
 and even on the present passage Theophylact (after 
 
 ChrysOStom) says, Toir^ariv tJc f\iyxov avTwv ftrj iriOTtv- 
 
 6vTwv: to the same purport perhaps is the para- 
 phrase of Grotius " hoc facto convincentur auditae 
 veritatis." Yet it cannot be denied that the con- 
 struction of the dative which I have adopted is much 
 the more natural of the two ; whil? the sense it affords 
 is perfectly satisfactory : " ut doctrinam salutarem 
 liac occasionc iis et gentibus exteris annuncietis." 
 RosenmUller. 
 
 (I) °. V. 23. Between ^liytrt tJc rfiv and aXXiji* 
 Griesbach alone inserts the clause irlpav, kSv Ik raurijc 
 ZiwKttxtiv vfioQ, (^tiytrt tie '■»?v ..." flee unto [the next, 
 and if they persecute you from from this, flee unto] 
 
190 iRotetf on ttie i^eVo <i:e0tament. 
 
 another." But not to insist on the offensive tautology 
 thus brought into our Lord's discourse, the additional 
 words are read in but eleven manuscripts of no great 
 value (D and L are the principal), and that too in 
 several different forms : besides which they are con- 
 tained only in Origen, and in some Italic versions and 
 Latin Fathers. We cannot receive an improbable 
 reading on so little evidence, without overturning 
 every principle of sacred criticism. Even Lachmann 
 dislikes the clause : nor is it in Syr. Vulg. 
 
 (II, a and III, c). ibid, ov (iri rtXlonrt '• ye shall in 
 no wise have fully gone through"]. I translate oi /un 
 like Auth. in v, 42. All Eng. lose its force in this 
 place, TiXicrnrt, again, is variously represented by 
 them, though the general sense is the same in all. 
 Tynd. Gov. Gen. and margin of Auth. have " finish " 
 (or " end " Bish. and the margin of Auth) : " go 
 through," Gran, "have gone over," Auth. "have 
 done your circuit of," Cheke, very fairly. This use 
 of TfXiatirt, as applied to travelling, is perfectly legi- 
 timate. Kypke compares Lucian, Toxaris p. 99 [ed. 
 Salmur. 1G19, Tom, ii], hlXttrtv U Max^Cwv if StctOac. 
 nSee also Soph. Elect. 726, reAovvrec ticrov i(3Sofi6v r 
 JJSij lp6nov. Xen, Anab. i,5,7, Sirore ^ irpbf CSwp /3o<;Xoiro 
 SiowXfffai, T] irpoc x*^"'"* which Xenophon elsewhere 
 (iv, 5, 1 1) explains by ol nfi Swantvoi diartXtaai THN 
 'OAON. Wetstein illustrates Thucyd. iv, 78, k *ap- 
 ffoAov IriXtat, by ii, 97, 'OAQc TtXti. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). vv. 24, 25. ovk tan ^aflijT^c "Tip rhv 
 i«Sa<TicaXov " No disciple is above his teacher"]. So 
 Cheke, I have been careful to express the negative 
 exclusive form of this proposition, in compliance with 
 Bp. Middleton's suggestion. AtSowaXoc is rendered 
 " Master " by Eng. Now not only is the word " master" 
 obsolete in this sense, at least in written language, 
 
 -3 
 
 n 
 
 &t. fl^attljcto. 191 
 
 but our translators found it necessary to change it into 
 " teacher" in several passages (e. g, John iii, 2 ; Rom. 
 ii, 20; Hebr. v, 12); although they have retained 
 "master" in more than one text, to the great injury 
 of the sense (John i, 38 ; xx, 16 ; James iii, 1). A 
 uniform version is far preferable. Thus correct ch. 
 ix, 11 ; xvii, 24, &c. 
 
 (I)°. V. 25. BHX^t|3oiX is the reading of all the Greek 
 manuscripts ; " Beelzebub " being found only in Syr. 
 Vulg. and some less important authorities. Yet this 
 latter form is given in the Complutensian Polyglott, 
 and all Eng. (Cheke, however, has " Beelzeboul "). 
 Respecting the marginal rendering of the later edi- 
 tions of Auth. I have spoken in Introd. p. 58, note. 
 
 ifjid. Thewords" shall thei/ call" (which are not in 
 italics in the first edition of Auth.) are very properly 
 expunged by Gen. So remove " that'" from all Eng. 
 twice in v. 27. See Introd. p. 63. 
 
 In V. 29, there can be little doubt that aaaaptov 
 (which is also used in Luke xii, 6) is merely the 
 Greek form for the Latin " as ; " which (as is stated 
 by the margin of Auth. in the later editions) was ori- 
 ginally/ the tenth part of the Roman denarius. If 
 therefore Sr)vapiov is to be translated " penny," daaapiov 
 may very well stand for " farthing,"* as it is actually 
 rendered by all Eng. except Gen. which has " half- 
 penny :" " asse," Vulg. Syr. In consequence, how- 
 ever, of the gradual depreciation of the Roman coin- 
 age, the denarius came to contain sixteen, or even 
 
 " But one difficulty etill remains. If kaadpiov be rendered 
 " fnrtliing," how nro we to represent Kohp&vTrtc (ch. v, 26 ; Mark 
 xii, 42) which is probably the fourth part of the aaaapiov (Fischer, 
 ProhiB. de Vitiis Lex. N. T. xix) ? Aurrov (which is half of a koI- 
 fit'uTFjc) is called " mite " by Auth. in Mark xii, 42 ; Luke xii, 
 59; xxi, 2. 
 
192 il5ote0 on tje ilJcto '3De0tament. 
 
 twenty asses (Pliny, Nat. Hist, zxxiii, 3) ; and it has 
 been conjectured, I believe on insufficient grounds, 
 that the diminutive aooiptov represents this smaller 
 value, or about one farthing and a half of our money. 
 See note on ch, ii, 8. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 29. tv f5 avrwv ov vrtnlrat "not one of 
 them shall fall "]. So Tynd. Gov. " none of them doth 
 light," and Cheke " none of them shall fall." But 
 Cran. Bish. have " one of them shall not light," and 
 Gen. Auth. "one of them shall not fall." The pre- 
 cise form of the original is retained by Syr., whose 
 native idiom it perfectly suits : Vulg. Beza less excu- 
 sably render " unus ex illis (eis, Beza) non cadet." 
 Dr. Symonds ventures to pronounce this clause, as it 
 stands in Auth., unintelligible ; and Macknight (Ge- 
 neral Preface, sect, ii, note) indulges in some trifling 
 criticism to the same purpose. I certainly do not 
 see why the Hebrew epanorthosis should be retained 
 by our version in this place, since it has been judi- 
 ciously dropped in several other passages where 
 Vulg. expresses it : e. g. ch. xxiv, 22 ; Mark xiii, 
 20 ; Luke i, 37 ; 1 Cor. i, 29 ; Eph. iv, 29 ; v, 6. 
 
 (HI, c). ibid, avtv Tov trarphf ifiuiv "without your 
 Father's will," or " knowledge "J. So Campbell : 
 dyvoovvTOf TOW Otov, Chrysostom. All Eng. (even 
 Cheke), after Syr. Vulg. Beza, Castalio, have " with- 
 out your Father," which is obscure enough. For this 
 sense of av«M compare Homer. U. E. 185, oix ^y' avtvOt 
 
 Otov raSt fjiahtrm, Tliucyd. iv, 78, aSfwTv i<l>a9av avtv 
 Tov travTwv koivov ■iroptv6fifvov. Demosth. adv. Lacrit. 
 (p. 935 Rciske), ov Savcf^etv toOtowc fi'"V av jSowXwv- 
 rat \v T«(i n6vTif TO tifttrtpa avtv q/ttwv : tiobis ittScHs et 
 
 itivitis. 
 
 (HI, b). V. 32. 6fio\oy{j9w Kayi} " I also will confess"]. 
 Dr. Symonds might have added this passage and ch. 
 
 fet. a^attjcto. 193 
 
 xvii, 12; xxiii, 26; xxv. 41 to his examples of the 
 ungrammafcal position of " also " enumerated above 
 (note on ch. ..,8). This error is continuated through 
 all Eng. from Tynd. 2. downwards: yet in the very 
 next verse " also " is used quite correctly. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 (I) ". V. 2. Instead of Sio before rwv ^aenrCv airoL 
 ^yr. reads &«', which is found in all Lachmann's 
 manuscripts that contain this chapter (B C D P Z) and 
 •n one or two of later date. But this reading, al- 
 though very antient, is too feebly supported to be 
 received with safety, though Bio might possibly have 
 been taken from Luke vii, 19. Vater says "non 
 solet Matth»us ad 8io addere genitivos; " see how- 
 ever ch. xviii, 19. 
 
 (H, b). v. 3. 6 IpxS^tvot "he who cometh "1. he 
 that is expected to come, an ordinary mode of refer- 
 nng to the Messiah (ch. iii. 1 1 ; ?:!;,„ ,,,,- f^ 
 
 Qu. venturus es." Vulg. which Bois rightly changes 
 •no «,s qui venit," adding " qui tam clto'^venturus 
 est, ac SI jam adesset;" a use of the present tense 
 
 come " T ^TT^'V'' '^' ^"*^°^- P" '^- "S^all 
 come Tynd. Cov. Cran. " is to come," Cheke 
 
 ought to come,"Gen. Martin, " should come," Bish! 
 Auth So alter Luke vii, 19. Whitby compares 
 Daniel vn. 13; Hab. ii. 3 (LXX. not Hebrew).' 
 
 (llI,a).v.4.aVayy.fX«r."tell"]. So Cheke. Make 
 Auth. here uniform with its rendering in ch. viii 33 • 
 ^iv, 12,&c and thus correct ch. xii, 18: "shew,"Tvnd' 
 Gen "tell again," Cov. "shew again," Cran. Bish' 
 
194 J|3ote0 on t)e i^eto '^Ee^tament. 
 
 (II, b). V. 6. Both here and in ch. x, 8 ; xv, 30 ; 
 31 ; xxi, 14, as Bp. Middleton remarks, the omission 
 of the articles before rv^Xol, x««»Xof, &c. intimates that 
 the miracles were performed not on whole classes 
 of men, but only on individuals of each class. It 
 would therefore be strictly correct to omit the English 
 articles : " blind persons," &c. See note on ch. ix, 13. 
 (Ill, a). V. 8. ol ri fiaXoKd. ^opovvrtf " they that wear 
 soft rrtjVnew/"]. Of course Ifiana is understood in 
 ftoXoKo, indeed the article before that adjective indi- 
 cates renewed mention. It is strange that Eng. pay 
 so little regard to uniformity as to employ both " rai- 
 ment" and " clothing " for the same word in the same 
 verse. This error is avoided by Wickliffe and the 
 Rhemish translators. 
 
 (I)°. ibid. I have already mentioned (Introd. p. 
 22), that Scholz alone, among all our critical editors, 
 substitutes fiaaiXtlwv for ^aaiXiwv in this verse. If 
 he intends fiaviXdwv to signify " palaces," as in Luke 
 vii, 25 ; LXX, Esther i, 9 ; Prov. xviii, 19, no trifling 
 pressure of external proof is requisite to make 
 the expression " houses of palaces " endurable. If 
 , he wishes /SamXtfwv to be rendered "courtiers," he 
 should produce some examples of such a use of the 
 word : (iaatXiKh^ is employed in this sense in John 
 iv, 46 ; 49. The Byzantine documents which up- 
 hold Scholz's reading are antient and numerous, but 
 it is not countenanced by any authorities of the other 
 family, or indeed by a single version or ecclesiastical 
 writer. 
 
 In V. 11, fiiKp6rtpoc is rendered "less" by Tynd. 
 Gov. Cran. Gen. Bish. " lesser " by Cheke ; Cov.'s 
 margin and Auth. alone have " least." The older 
 versions are seldom so scrupulous. 
 
 (II, b). v. 12. /Siaoral " violent ones"]. I am always 
 
 &u a^attdeto. 195 
 
 reluctant to differ from Bp. Middleton, but I cannot 
 subscribe to his opinion that by /3«a<rrol we are to un- 
 derstand " plunderers" or "extortioners" (" they that 
 thrust men," as the margin of Auth. has it), such as 
 were the soldiers or publicans (Luke iii, 12 — 14). 
 Not only does this interpretation seem unsuitable to 
 the present context, but it would be hard to reconcile 
 it with TToc «lc avTtiv /3fa?erai, in the parallel passage 
 Luke xvi, 16. BtdZtrm in this place must necessarily 
 be taken in a moral sense ; why should we hesitate 
 
 to do the same with fiiaaral 1 Tlavrtc ol fura ffTTOwS^c 
 vpooi6vTtc is Chrysostom's paraphrase : ro yap a^tivai 
 
 iraripa, koI fixfripa, leal rijc ^yjK ahr^t Kara^povriaai, ir6tTtic 
 
 /3(oc ioTi ; says Theophylact. At the same time it is 
 proper to correct Eng., which all translate ^laaraX by 
 " the violent," or some equivalent expression. Cheke 
 has " is straitly extremely ordered (jSta^trat), and ex- 
 treme men, they catch it," accurately enough, so far as 
 the article is concerned. But the only discrepancy 
 which thus arises between the Evangelists is, that St. 
 Luke contemplates all who earnestly seek for sal- 
 vation, St. Matthew only some individuals of that 
 character.* 
 
 (II, a). V. 14. awrrfc iirriv " he is"] viz. John, who was 
 mentioned in the preceding verse. So Cheke, Kypke, 
 Scholefield. "This is" of Eng. would require ouroc. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 17. iOprivfivafuv vfiiv Kol oiiK iKS^paaOt "we 
 have sung dirges unto you, and ye have not smote 
 the breast"]. So Bp. Jebb. Gen. renders iBptivfiaafuv 
 " we have sung mourning songs unto you," and is 
 
 * This very distinction is larg^ely insisted on by Bp. Middleton 
 in his note on ch. zii, 43. It is therefore the more remarkable 
 that he was misled by the omission of the article in the present 
 case. 
 
196 j|2ote0 on ttie Bt\o '3^e0tament. 
 
 followed by the margin of Bish. In a passage whose 
 spirit is nearly unintelligible without some knowledge 
 of Oriental customs, it is desirable that the version 
 should convey as much information as possible, with- 
 out degenerating into a paraphrase : " we have mourned 
 unto you, and ye have not lamented" of Auth. is very 
 vague. 
 
 It is rather surprising that " winebibber" in v. 19 
 has not come under the lash of Dr. Symonds or some 
 of his compeers. It is used by Gov. Bish. Auth. 
 for " drinker of wine" of Tynd. Cran. Gen. (" wine . 
 drinker," Cheke), and correctly : for olvoirrfrtjc always 
 implies excess, e. g. Prov. xxiii, 20. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 19. airh rCtv tIkvoiv airijc " by her chil- 
 dren"]. " Of" Eng., which is somewhat too indermi- 
 nate, in a clause of itself sufficiently obscure. 'Anh 
 is put for vir6, as in ch. xvi, 21 (for which we find 
 vv6 in ch. xvii, 12); Mark viii, 31 ; Luke vii, 35. 
 "Was justified" (iSiicatwOii) Bish., with exclusive refer, 
 ence to the rejection first of the Baptist, then of our 
 Lord, by the Jewish rulers ; an interpretation which 
 is thus broadly expressed by Cheke, " and wisdom 
 , is clean rid from her own children," while in his note 
 he explains hKaiovaOai to mean " clean and utterly rid 
 from a thing, and having no more to do therewith : wis- 
 dom was clean separated and taken away from the Jews 
 her children, who was not of them regarded." Such 
 likewise is the view of Castalio, " estque suis aliena 
 sapientia" (not an over-literal translation, surely); 
 and, as it would appear, of Theophylact also, ifitic 
 
 atruOfiaavrtc, SUaiov Ifii iif fiv^lv irapnX(7r<$vra BttKvltrt. 
 
 If it be thought better to extend rUvwv to believers 
 in general, the aorist-present "is justified" of Auth. 
 and other Eng. may be retained ; whether we under- 
 stand with Bp. Jebb that " all true Christians (Luke 
 
 &t. 9^atttietD. 197 
 
 vii, 35) by the rectitude of their principles, and the 
 purity of their conduct, vindicate the honor of that 
 wisdom from above, which is the parent, the guide, 
 and the instructress of them all" (Sacr. Liter, p. 244): 
 or conceive with Wetstein that the clause rather sig- 
 nifies that •' the wisdom of God's dispensations is 
 fully acquiesced in by his children," whatever be the 
 mode of their manifestation to us. "A ^t^ justifi^e," 
 Martin, Ostervald.* 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 27. /3o<JX?jTat diroKaKiipai " is willing to 
 reveal him "]. All Eng. have " will reveal (or, open) 
 him." The ambiguity arising from our two-fold use of 
 "will," both as an auxiliary and an independent verb, 
 sometimes produces great obscurity in Auth. See 
 above v. 14 ; as also ch. xvi, 24; xix, 17; 21 ; xx, 
 14; 26; 27; Luke x, 22 ; 2 Tim. iii, 12 ; 2 John v. 
 12; and particularly 1 Tim. vi, 9. Should any one 
 be disposed to controvert Buttmann's lucid discrimi- 
 nation between OlXuv, " the active wish which looks 
 forward to its own accomplishment," and fiov\ea9ai 
 " the bare act of volition, without the means or power 
 of performing it" (Lexilogus, p. 194, English Trans- 
 lation), from the employment of /3oi5X»jra( in this verse, 
 while 0(\tiv is used in v. 14 ; he must bear in mind 
 Tittmann's remark, that with God to will and to do are 
 the same thing (James i, 18) : and what is here said 
 of the Son, is spoken with relation to his Divine 
 Power and Nature. In all ordinary cases the dis- 
 tinction is carefully maintained. See Demosth. ntpl 
 
 ovvra^. c. 2. firi n6vov ravr oKodfiv iOiXovra, dXXa koI 
 
 Wp&TTtlV (3ov\6fttVOV. 
 
 • The exposition in the margin of Gen. ia very pithy ; " They 
 tlmt are wise in Heed, acltnowledge the wisdom of God, in him 
 whom the Piiarisccs contemn." 
 
198 i|2otr0 on tlic jF^eto '^e0tament. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 28. ol KontuivTtc " ye that are weary"J. 
 So Gen., uniformly with Auth. in John iv, 6 ; and 
 more consonantly with the literal meaning of the 
 word. "Labor," Tynd. Gov. Cran. Cheke, Auth. 
 after Vulg. " labor sore," Bish. In v. 29, the article 
 before icopSf^i is rendered by Middleton as a personal 
 pronoun, " my heart." 
 
 (II, a). V. 30. xpn^roc " gentle"]. So Syr. ( y... m A ). 
 Vulg. " suave." But Beza has " facile," Martin 
 and Ostervald " ais^," and all Eng. " easy." Cheke 
 " profitable ;" Castalio " commodum," a very con- 
 venient subterfuge. 'AXX' 6ri filv 'HAYS xal kov^oc 6 
 t5c ap€rnc ?wyoc» Chrysostom. In this sense j(pv<rrb^ 
 is a fit epithet for wine, Luke v, 39, and Athenseus 
 xiii, as quoted by Schleusner. See also 1 Mace, vi, 
 II ; Gal. V, 22; Eph. ii, 7; iv, 32; Tit. iii, 4. 
 Wolf too has some remarks which deserve considera- 
 tion. Cur. Phil, ad loc. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 (Ill, b). V. 2. S ovK ?5«TT» " which it is not lawful "]. 
 So correct v. 4. All Eng. (even Cheke) translate 
 " which is not lawful." In v. 1 1, Auth. falls into the 
 opposite fault ; for rlt avOpuirot being nominative to 
 leparfiou, it is superfluous to insert " he " before " lay 
 hold." This last error is avoided by Tynd. Cov. 
 Cheke. 
 
 (I). V. 8. Kai before rov <ra/3/3arov is rejected by 
 Griesbach, Vatcr, Scholz and Lachmann, in compli- 
 ance with the best manuscripts of both families ; with 
 Syr. (Bish.) and several other versions ; with Origen, 
 Chrysostom, Sic. It was doubtless borrowed from 
 
 &t. a^attfietD. 199 
 
 Mark ii, 28"; Luke vi, 5, where it should be rendered 
 " even " not " also," as most Eng. translate it in this 
 passage. " Even of the sabbath," says Doddridge, 
 "implies that the sabbath was an institution of great 
 and distinguished importance :" yet our Lord's con- 
 trol over it was absolute notwithstanding. 
 
 (II, b). V. 14. aviiftodXiov iXa/3ov "took counsel"]. 
 So Syr. Tynd. 1. Cheke, Gen. the margin of Auth., 
 Beza and Castalio. But " consilium faciebant," Vulg. 
 whence apparently came "held a council " of Tynd. 2. 
 Cov. Cran. Bish, Auth. which seems a strange version. 
 The phrase is found in four other passages of St. 
 Matthew (ch. xxii, 15 ; xxvii, 1 ; 7 ; xxviii, 12), 
 but no where else in the New Testament. In all 
 these places Auth. has "took counsel," in fact the 
 other rendering would be quite inadmissible (see 
 Grotius). St. Mark's expression is avfi^oiXiov irouTv 
 ^ch. iii, 6 ; xv, 1). 
 
 (II, b). V. 16. A 8J 'I?|(touc yvoiic dvtxwpriatv "but 
 
 Jesus knowing it, withdrew himself," or " retired "]. 
 So the Rhemish version from Vulg., and Cheke 
 (" Jesus knowing so much went from them "). All 
 Eng. translate " but when Jesus knew it, &c." which 
 rendering seems calculated, I am sure through inad- 
 vertence on the part of its authors, to exclude the 
 notion of our Lord's in/wi/iue perception of the designs 
 of his enemies (compare v. 25). I scarcely need 
 state that in a case of this kind, the context alone can 
 determine whether the action denoted by the parti- 
 ciple precedes or coincides with that of the finite 
 verb. For a palpable oversight of Auth. on this 
 point consult Acts v, 30 ; x, 39 ; and Scholefield's 
 remarks. See also note on ch. xvi, 8. 
 
 (Ill, b). ibid. iKtiOsv " thence "]. So Auth. in v. 9, 
 and all other Eng. here. Yet all Eng. have " from 
 
200 jiJote0 on ttie iPeto tletftament. 
 
 whence" in v. 44, so little was their attention di- 
 rected to these grammatical niceties. Compare Auth. 
 ch. XV, 21, with V. 29. 
 
 (II, a)." V. 20. fwc Sv i(c/3a'Xp r^v Kptnv tit vipcoc " till 
 he send forth judgment unto victory"] i. e. until he 
 make his just ordinance (the Gospel) victorious. 
 So Syr. Vulg. Eng., only that Gen. has "bring 
 forth," and Cheke " until he make right judgment 
 have the victory": "jusqu'k ce qu'il ait rendu la 
 justice victorieuse," Ostervald. It is not easy to 
 elicit any other sense from these words, yet how can 
 they be reconciled with Isai. xlii, 3, from which they 
 are an avowed citation ? The prophet there says, 
 JDSlf'P N'Vi' nON'2 •« he shall bring forth judgment 
 unto truth," Auth. " He shall publish judgment, so 
 as to establish it perfectly," Bp. Lowth : tie aXfiOttav 
 iKolati Kplatv, LXX. Now it appears that HVi? 
 which literally denotes " to victory," is rendered 
 lit viKot by the LXX in 2 Sam. ii, 26 ; Job xxxvi, 
 7 ; Lament, v, 20 ; Amos viii, 7, &c. and tit vmcoc in 
 Job xxiii, 7 ; Hab. i, 4 : while in every one of these 
 passages it may signify " entirely," " thoroughly," 
 " completely." But this last meaning of tit v'lKot ap- 
 proximates nearly to DON'? in Is. xlii, 3, as under- 
 stood by Lowth, and must therefore be taken to re- 
 present that Hebrew word in the text of St. Matthew. 
 I know of no better explanation of the difficulty ; 
 but as it does not wholly satisfy me, I propose no 
 alteration in the rendering of Auth. See also 1 Cor. 
 XV, 54. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 23. /u<jn o5roc iauv 6 vlbt Aa/3i8 "is not 
 this the Son of David ?"]. So all Eng. (even Cheke) 
 down to Auth. which reads in the original Bible of 
 161 1 " is this the son of David ?" Later editors of 
 Auth. have generally (though not universally) in- 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 U, 
 
 fet. fl^atttietD. 201 
 
 serted the negative, doubtless because they regarded 
 its omission in the early books as a typographical error. 
 It is not, however, perfectly clear that such is the 
 fact, although Auth. uses the negative in John iv, 
 29, where the form of expression is precisely similar. 
 Both for the sake of uniformity and distinctness 
 Auth. should be altered here. M^ is designed " for 
 throwing out a suggestion of what a person is not 
 disposed to affirm directly, or about which he has 
 still some doubt remaining." Green, p. 129. 
 
 (II, a). V. 24. oBtoc " this man "]. So Cheke. 
 •' He," Tynd. 1. Cov. " this/e//ow," Tynd. 2. Cran. 
 Gen. Bish. Auth. This species of false emphasis, 
 so foreign to the spirit of the sacred writers, is most 
 justly blamed by Campbell (Prel. Diss. Ill, 23). So 
 alter ch. xxvi, 61 ; 71, where Cov. is correct. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 28. i<p0a<Ttv l<p' iifiat "is come upon 
 you"]. So Auth. in the parallel text, Luke xi, 20 ; 
 and Tynd. Cov. Bish. even here : " to " Cheke, Gen. 
 " unto," Cran. Auth. Schmidt presses the strict and 
 literal force of <^6avo> «• vestra opinione citius per- 
 venit," which interpretation is approved by Fritzche. 
 No trace however of this meaning can be found 
 in Syr. A_a_;_o, Vulg. " pervenit," or Chrysostom 
 (jttt tiiTrpaylac vfitjv i(pi<TrtiKtv 6 Kaipot — vfiiv vnti ra 
 
 ayaOa'); nor can it have any place in Dan. iv, 25 
 (LXX) ; Rom. ix, 31 ; Phil, iii, 16. We have 
 vpoiipdaatv in Schmidt's sense below, ch. xvii, 25. 
 
 (II, a), v. 31. ri Tov TlvtvfiaTOt (iXaaiprifi'ia " the 
 
 blasphemy against the Spirit"]. So Cov. Cran. 
 But Tynd. 1. Gen. Auth. have "against the Holi/ 
 Ghost," as also have Cheke, Bish. " The blasphemy 
 of the Spirit," Tynd. 2. Rhemish version. The ad- 
 jective " Holy " is totally destitute of authority. 
 (I).° V. 32, Instead of iv rouriji r(ji aiwi/« " in this 
 
202 iflottfi on t\tt l^eto %tfit&n\tnu 
 
 world," Scholz reads fv r^ vvv aluvi " in the pre* 
 sent world." About the same number of manuscripts 
 favor both readings, but none of the very highest 
 antiquity agree with Scholz, who consequently stands 
 alone in changing the text. Syr. Vulg. manifestly 
 support TovTif, and so also does Chrysostom. 
 
 (Ill, b). V. 33. rhv itapiriv airov " its fruit," ter]. 
 " his fruit," all Eng. even WicklifFe, Cheke, and the 
 Rhemish version. See note on ch. v, 13. The 
 general scope of this verse is not perfectly clear. 
 Kypke, who for accurate learning and solid sense has 
 few equals among the Biblical scholars of the last 
 century, thus understands the passage : " if you de- 
 termine that the tree is good, the fruit will be good 
 also ; but if you persist in thinking me the tree bad, 
 then the fruit, my works of mercy (vv. 13, 22), must 
 needs be bad also ;" an inference which his adversa- 
 ries were not prepared to admit. This is, in sub- 
 stance, Chrysostom's exposition, who adds *l yap Ka\ 
 
 TO SlvSpov Tou Kopirov oTrtov, aXX' 6 Kopiroc rov SivSpov 
 
 yvwpKTTHcrff.* For this sense of tokTv ("judicare") 
 Kypke compares John viii, 63, and Joseph. Antiq. iv, 
 8, iKflvovg rov Qtov Swarwripovt iroiti. Somewhat 
 similar is 1 John i, 10. 
 
 (I)°. V. 36. rnc itnpjfac "of the heart " is removed 
 from the text by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann, 
 and Bp. Jebb, the equilibrium of whose stanza these 
 words disturb. They are wanting in Syr. Vulg. and 
 some other versions ; in the best copies of Chrysos- 
 tom ; and in a very large number of Greek manu- 
 scripts of every date and class ; including codices B 
 C in one family, and all Matthaei's good manuscripts 
 
 * " Aut agnoscite me bonam esae, et b«ni agere: aut me ma- 
 lum ewe, ac proinrle mali agere." Note to Beza'a Latin Testa- 
 mcDl, Loodoo, \'j9'i. 
 
 ist, a^attlieto. 203 
 
 in the other. A reading opposed by such authori- 
 ties can hardly be genuine, and it was probably in- 
 terpolated from Luke vi, 46 ; " where TUg Kopdlac is, 
 of necessity, inserted ; because that Evangelist, by a 
 transposition with him not unusual, has postponed 
 
 the clause ^k yap rov irtpioatifioTOC rijc KOpSlaf, which, in 
 
 St. Matthew, is preparatory to this couplet " (Jebb, 
 Sacr. Liter, p. 145). 
 
 (II, a)°. V. 36. apyiv " idle"]. So Eng. Cheke, 
 Bp. Jebb, after Syr. ()i_^_9) " otiosum," as it is in 
 Vulg. Beza : "oiseuse," Martin. Castalio, on the 
 contrary, translates " malum," Ostervald " impies," 
 and Campbell "pernicious." Chrysostom wavers 
 between the two interpretations ; apyhv Bi, rh ftfi Kara 
 
 vpayftarot Kttfttvov, rb \ptvEict ^i> trvKOi^avrlav txov' rtvt^ Si 
 ^aaiv, 8ri Koi rh fttaraiov' oTov, rh ytXwra Ktvovv araierov, fi 
 rh al(TXphv koI avaloxwrov (cal avtXtdOtpov. To this 
 
 latter opinion I confess that I incline. Without 
 wishing to dispute, that by a euphemism common to 
 most languages, apyht may occasionally be employed 
 as a decorous intimation of something worse ; there 
 is every reason for thinking that the primitive signi- 
 fication of the word is that in common use. Even the 
 apophthegm of Pythagoras cited from Stobeeus 
 {aiptrwrtp6v aoi torw X(0ov fl»c5 |3aXXeiv, v \6yov apy6v') 
 may very well be understood literally ; and no prac- 
 tice is more fraught with danger than that of assign- 
 ing to the expressions of Holy Writ the lowest mean- 
 ing they can possibly bear. " Orane verbum quod 
 non aedificat proximum," says Munster, " indignum 
 est homine Christiano, et conscientia ejus hominem 
 damnabit." 
 
 (II, b). V, 4 1. avSpif NtwtwTrai avaarfiaovrai Iv rp Kplati 
 
 " men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment"]. 
 
 V. 42. ftaalXiaaa voroo lytpffriatTai " a quccn of the 
 
204 iPotttf on t|jt i^eto Ce^tanient. 
 
 South shall arise "]. All Eng. have " the men of 
 Nineveh," " the Queen of the South." Respecting 
 the omission of the articles see Middleton'a notes on 
 this passage, and on Luke xi, 30 (where we find roiv 
 Niwewfroic- of so little moment is the variation) ; also 
 Green's Gram. N. T. p. 183. I have also distin- 
 guished between avaaryiaovrat v. 41, and iytpfl/lfftrai, 
 V. 42, after Bp. Jebb. They are confounded in Syr. 
 Vulg. Eng. Again Auth. renders " in judgment," 
 V. 41 ; but •' in the judgment," v. 42. On this 
 point Cheke and all other Eng. are uniform. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 43. rh aK&Baprov irvtvfia . . otto tov avOpd- 
 irov " an unclean spirit .... out of a man "]. So 
 Campbell, who is approved by Bp. Middleton. The 
 article is employed in its inclusive or hypothetic 
 sense in both places ; it is therefore very inconsistent 
 that " spirit" in Eng. should have the definite article, 
 and " man" the indefinite (Gov., however, has " out 
 of man"). "Orai; Si should be rendered " but when," 
 as in Syr. Vulg. (8i is lost in all Eng.), that the 
 passage may be connected with the preceding verses. 
 Thus also express Si at the beginning of v. 46. 
 
 (Ill, c). ibid. aviSpwv " waterless"], dreary deserts. 
 So Syr. nc7i_o ( ^ - ^ ) '. v> . (in quibus non sunt aquae). 
 Castalio " siticulosa," Campbell " parched deserts." 
 " Dry " of Eng. and Cheke, at least to a modern ear, 
 conveys this idea very inadequately. It would pro- 
 bably conduce to perspicuity, if the unclean spirit 
 were spoken of in the neuter gender in English, as in 
 the Greek text, throughout vv. 43-45. " It walketh," 
 "it saith," " when it is come," &c. 
 
 (II, a). V. 45. y(ftTai «« becometh "]. So Campbell, 
 after Syr. (^.001. the participle of the verb-substantive 
 and not the pronominal copula being used), " fiunt," 
 Vulg. Bcza, Castalio. " Is " of Eng. is far from cor- 
 
 < 
 
 \ 
 
 &t. a^atttieto. 206 
 
 rect. Thus alter Auth. in ch. v, 45 ; xvii, 2 ; xxiii, 
 26, &c. 
 
 In my account of the Rhemish translation of the 
 New Testament (Introd. p. 99), I hinted that its dic- 
 tion is occasionally preferable to that of any of the 
 preceding versions. Several proofs of the truth of 
 this remark may be found in the present chapter : 
 e. g. " it was not lawful," v. 4 ; " withered " for 
 " dried up, " v. 10 (adopted by Auth.) ; v. 15 (see 
 note adloc.) ; " wicked generation " for " evil nation," 
 v. 45 (also adopted by Auth.). Among these felici- 
 tous expressions, however, we cannot class " rifle 
 his vessel," v. 29; "did penance," v. 41, in which 
 last verse even Gov. thus translates from Vulg. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 (II, b). V. 2. tJc rit irXo'iov " into the ship "]. See 
 notes on ch. iv, 21 ; viii, 23. Bish. alone is right in 
 this place. All other Eng. Cheke, Martin and Os- 
 tervald employ the indefinite article. 
 
 In V. 1, awo Trnc o'lKtag may be translated with 
 Middleton " out of his house," viz. the residence of 
 our Saviour at Capernaum. See ch. ix, 28. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). v. 4. ™ irtr«vo " the birds "]. So 
 Wickliffe, Cheke, and even Auth. in v. 32. Here 
 all Eng. say " fowls." 
 
 (II, a). V. 8. iirl rriv yriv tjjv KoXqv *' upon gOod 
 
 ground"]. So Gov. and the Rhemish version. " into," 
 Wickliffe, Gran. Bish. Auth. " in," Tynd. Cheke, 
 Gen. Thus change v. 23, and lw\ ra irtrpui^ri in v. 20, 
 for which last even Auth. has " upon stony places " 
 in V. 5. 
 
206 iflottfi on t^t /pfto '^e0tament. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 12. rrtpiaatvOnotrat " he shall be made 
 to abound "], or " have abundance," as Auth. in ch. 
 XXV, 29, and Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gen. here (" have 
 plenty," Gheke). Symonds censures " -more abun- 
 dance " of Bish. Auth. 
 
 (I). V. 14. avawXitpovrai avrotc and not nr avroi^ is 
 sanctioned by all the critics from Mill down to Lach- 
 mann. The preposition is omitted in nearly all the 
 older manuscripts of either class, and though Syr. 
 has cr> and Vulg. " in," it does not necessarily follow 
 that they read im in their copies. The sense is 
 nearly the same, whichsoever reading we receive. 
 'Eir' aiiToig will signify " in them " (as all Eng.) i. e. 
 in their case. Without itrl the dative may be consid- 
 ered equivalent to vwo with the genitive, " by them ;" 
 as in Homer. II. E. 466, cc ri in KnivtaOat iaairt 
 Xaov 'Axaiofc ; Matthiae, Gk. Gram. § 392, i. /3. 
 
 (Ill, a), vv. 20, 21. 6«0wc " forthwith "]. As ivOiwg 
 in Auth. V. 5. All Eng. have " anon " in v. 20, and 
 " by and by " in v. 21 , except that Gov. reads " im- 
 mediately" in v. 21, and Gheke " by and by" in both 
 places. From this parable alone it might be shown 
 how seldom the later versions deviated from the lan- 
 guage of the earlier, for the sake of obtaining uni- 
 formity in the diction. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). v. 2\ . vpoaKaipot " endureth but for 
 a time "]. So Auth. in Mark iv, 17 ; much more 
 perspicuously : " is but a forwhile," Gheke : "il n'est 
 que pour un tems," Ostervald. So Tynd. Gen. have 
 " dureth but a season :" but " dureth for a season," 
 Gov. Gran. Bish. "dureth for a while," Auth. Yet 
 " but " is absolutely needed. 
 
 (I). V. 27. The article before tilavia in this verse 
 is rejected by Wetstein, Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and 
 Lachmann. Middleton thinks its spuriousness pro* 
 
 fet. a^attlieto. 207 
 
 bable, but Green (Gram. N.T. p. 136) alleges it as a 
 marked example of the demonstrative force of the 
 article. 
 
 The present is precisely one of those passages in 
 which we feel our want of a more extensive and ac- 
 curate collation of the later or cursive manuscripts 
 (see Introd. p. 19). The versions of course lend us 
 no help ; but while we find nearly all the few uncial 
 documents in existence conspiring in the omission of 
 TO, and most of Matthaei's good MSB favouring the 
 same reading, we are almost entirely in the dark as 
 to the evidence of the great mass of authorities. We 
 only know that a few of those in cursive characters 
 which have been repeatedly examined (such as the 
 Basle MS Erasmi 1, the Urbino- Vatican 157, and 
 Alter's chief Vienna MS 218) agree with B G D &c. 
 in this place; and we cannot help suspecting that 
 such will be found to be the case with a large pro- 
 portion of their long-neglected brethren, whenever a 
 systematic collation of them shall be executed. On 
 points connected with the article, more especially, 
 the information afforded by our present critical edi- 
 tions is so little trust-worthy, that we cannot form a 
 positive judgment respecting its authenticity or the 
 contrary in any particular case, from the light which 
 they afford us. (See for instance, Griesbach's or 
 Scholz's notes on vv. 30 ; 44). In this verse, how- 
 ever, the testimony of Ghrysostom, of nine uncial 
 MSS, and the few more recent copies which have 
 been consulted on the occasion, may possibly justify 
 our rejection of the article. If it must be retained, 
 we should translate " the tares, " I presume with a 
 reference to vv. 25, 26. Gheke renders " this darnel," 
 as if the article had a demonstrative sense. 
 
 (II, b). v. 32. pttiov rwv \a\avutv " greater than the 
 
208 i^ote0 on t^e ipete ttTetftament 
 
 herbs"]. So Auth, in Mark iv, 32, Syr. (for Scbuafg 
 version of ,_^ ^en |lo?'Js inaccurate*) Vulg. Camp- 
 bell, and the " Holy Bible" of 1841. But " the great- 
 est among herbs," Eng.Beza, Castalio, Martin, OiBter- 
 vald (" plus grand que les autres legumes)." Cheke 
 " is one of the biggest herbs." Yet there is not the 
 least reason for thinking that fttZov is used for the 
 superlative, and Xaj^avov is poihtedly distinguished 
 from S^vSpov. 
 
 In V. 33, aara is rendered " pecks" by Tynd. Gov. 
 Cran. Gen. Bish. " bushels," Cheke. Since the 
 exact quantity of the meal does not affect the scope 
 
 of the passage (rpfa 8i odra \vravOtt ra iroXXa tTpqKCV* 
 o78e yap rhv apiOfihv rovrov M irMOovf XapPavuv' Chry- 
 
 sostom), Auth. judiciously substitutes the more 
 general term " measures" (see Campbell, Prel. 
 Diss. VIII, Pt. 1, 6). The Hebrew D'^D is translated 
 fthpahy the LXX in Gen. xviii, 6, where Aquila 
 and Symmachus employ aara, the word used by St. 
 Matthew (see also Luke xiii, 21). Hesychius and 
 Suidas make the aarov equivalent to 1^ Italian modii. 
 Now since the modius is one-third of a cubic foot, 
 or somewhat more than our English peck, it appears 
 that the calculation in the margin of the later editions 
 of Auth. " a peck and a half, wanting little more 
 than a pint," is sufficiently accurate. 
 
 (II, b). V. 39. ol Si Otpiarai ayyiXol (Imv " and the 
 
 reapers are angels"]. So Middleton. " the angels," 
 Eng. 
 
 (II, a). V. 41. ira'vTo ra oTKavSoXa " all that cause 
 
 * " Mnximum est omnium olerum." He translates the very 
 same words correctly in Markiv, 32 " fit majus omnibus oleribus." 
 This (■■ indeed most of his other errors) arises from his treading 
 too closely Ib the steps of Tremolllus. 
 
 1 • 
 
 'lit 
 
 I 
 
 fet Sl^atttjeto. 2od 
 
 offence"]. *' Scandals," Syr. Vulg. margin of Auth. 
 " all things that do hurt," Tynd. 1. "all things that 
 Offend," Tynd. 2. Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish. Auth. " all 
 hindrances," Cheke. The margin of Gen. explains 
 axavBaka to mean " the wicked which hurt others by 
 their evil example;" such as are called roftc ra oKav 
 SoAa TTotovvrac in Rom. xvi, 17. " Seducers," Camp- 
 bell. " things which have been an offence to others" 
 Doddridge. 
 
 (II, b). V. 42. T^v K&nivov " the furnace"], kut 
 i%ox^v, as it is rendered by Auth. in v. 50. All 
 Eng. have " a furnace" here, and all except Auth. 
 in V. 60 also. The Rhemish version, Martin and 
 Ostervald very properly translate " the furnace," and 
 Cheke (awkwardly enough) " the chimney," in both 
 places. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 46. avOpurtrtf lpir6pif " to a merchant"]. 
 So Tynd. Cov. Gen. " man" is added by Cran. 
 Cheke, Bish. Auth. but without cause. The pleo- 
 nastic sense of avOptorroc may be regarded as an 
 Hebraism, for it does not very often occur in pure 
 Greek writers (see however Raphel on Luke ii, 15). 
 Thus correct v. 52 ; ch. xx, 1. This idiom must 
 not be confounded with the common Classical use of 
 avrjp in such expressions as fivSpec Nivtvlrat (ch. xii, 
 
 41), avBptc 'A0i|va(O< (ActS xvii, 22), avSpcc SiKatrraf, 
 &C. 
 
 (I)°. V. 46. Instead of fie ewpwv " who, when he 
 had found" of the received text, Griesbach inserts 
 tipuiv Bi " but having found," on evidence so ex- 
 tremely weak that nothing but the minuteness of the 
 change could have saved his amended reading from 
 general reprobation. Eipuv Si is presented by only 
 five of his manuscripts, four of which (DL. 1. 33) lie 
 under the strongest suspicion of Latinising; the 
 
310 i^otta on ttie 0t\D 'Sc0«ament. 
 
 fifth being a docutnent of the thirteenth century 
 (Stephens's iS', Griesbach's 120 EvaD.). It was 
 probably the reading bf.Syr. and one or two other 
 rersions, and possiblif thai of Vulg^? alio. - But it is 
 obvious how little dependence can be placed on ver- 
 sions in a passage like this. On such grounds we are 
 bidden by Griesbach to reject th« testimony of all 
 other manuscripts scattered throughout the it'orld.t' . ' 
 
 The management of Scholz in this instance affords 
 us a melancholy specimen of the incorrectness of his 
 great work (See Introd. p. 31). Having almost 
 nothing to add to Griesbach's statement,* he copies 
 bis note literatim, but with unpardonable carelessness 
 refers to 5c fwpwr the documents which Griesbach 
 had cited in support of his correction lipwv Si, while 
 he prints the latter reading as a part of the received 
 text, and pronounces Sc tftpwv a mere Alexandrine 
 variation from it. Lachmann prefers tvpibv Si, in 
 perfect consistency with his peculiar theory : but 
 Buttmann, who compiled the notes for his inner 
 margin, copies Scholz's blundering representation so 
 faithfully, as to make: tiputv Si the reading of the 
 fizevir text of 1624. And these are the critics in 
 obedience to whose decisions We are called upon to 
 remodel the text of the New Testament ! 
 
 In the first edition of Auth. we read " who, when 
 he had found . . . , he went." All other Eng. 
 omit " he," which is rejected by the later editions of 
 Auth. itself. See note on ch. xxi, 7. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 67. laKwSaXlZovTo Iv aiirif " were of- 
 
 • Scliolz merely adds that the Codex B reads oc tvpuy. From 
 whaterer quarter he derired this piece of information, it is 
 Mtonishing that it did not lead him to detect the enormoti* error 
 into which ho had fallen. 
 
 &t« 9^attl)eto. 211 
 
 fended at him"]. So Auth. in Mark vi, 3 ; and Gov. 
 Cran. here : "offended with" of Cheke is very good. 
 " Hurt by him," Tynd. 1. " offended by," Tynd. 2. 
 Gen. " offended in," Bish. Auth. which (like many 
 of Bish.'s renderings) is too literal to be perspicuous. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 (II, a). V. 2. al ivvi/xtif Ivtpyovmv " the spiritual 
 powers work"]. So Middleton, Green, Vulg. " vir- 
 tutes operantur." But Syr. Tynd. 2. Cran. Gen. 
 Castalio resemble the margin of Auth. " miracles," 
 or " mighty works are wrought." " His power is 
 so great," Tynd. 1.; so Cov. "This mightiness 
 worketh more inhim," Cheke : " mighty (great, Bish.) 
 works do shew forth themselves in him," Bish. 
 Auth. " virtutes agunt in eo," Beza : and, lest his 
 meaning should be doubtful, his editor tells us by 
 " virtutes" to understand " vim illam et facultatem, 
 non autem effecta" (see p. 202, note): thus agree- 
 ing nearest with Cheke or Tynd. 1. Ostervald on 
 the contrary entirely coincides with the margin of 
 Auth. &c. " se fait des miracles par lui ;" while 
 Martin, as usual, follows Beza more closely, " les 
 vertues montrent leur force en lui ;" where " mon- 
 trent leur force" reminds us of the peculiar turn of 
 the expression in Bish. Auth. On the whole, then, 
 Vulg. of all our versions most favours Middleton 's 
 view of the passage. Yet the common interpreta- 
 tion is surrounded with difficulties of no ordinary 
 description. How shall we account for the use of 
 the article before Swa/istt 1 Reference seems out of 
 the question, and " if it be the object of the propo- 
 sition to declare that miracles are wrought by John, 
 
212 i|;^ote0 on t^e j^eVo tLmamtnu 
 
 it is rather unnatural that their existence should be 
 assumed" (Middleton). Besides, in no other place 
 in the New Testament does the active verb ivipyuv 
 occur in an intransitive sense, such as must be as- 
 signed to it here, if by Swa'/tcic we are to understand 
 miracles : and so clearly was this perceived by the 
 learned Beza, that he resorted to a forced explan- 
 ation, in order to avoid the error of Syr. For the 
 Scriptural use of IvtpyiTv see 1 Cor. xii, 6 ; 11; 
 Gal. ii, 8 ; iii, 5 ; Eph. i, 1 1 ; 20 ; ii, 2 ; Phil, ii, 13. 
 Now nothing is more certain than that al Swa/uctc is 
 a term constantly employed by the Greek Fathers 
 to signify the angels and other heavenly powers. 
 Chrysost. Horn, in Matth. i, p. 3, ovOp«im-oi toTc ayyl- 
 Aotc iKOivtivovv, Ka\ rate SXXatf race &vu> Bwafiiat. Many 
 
 examples to the same purpose may be seen in Suicer, 
 voce Svva/iic (2) ; indeed it was the common style of 
 ecclesiastical antiquity, and as such is imitated by 
 our Milton, " Powers and Dominions, Deities of 
 Heaven," . . . (Par. Lost, ii, 11). Compare 1 Pet. 
 iii, 22 ; and perhaps Rom. viii, 38 ; Hebr. vi, 5. If 
 this meaning be given to Swa/udo all will become 
 easy. The same Spiritual Influences, which raised 
 John from the dead, are performing in his person 
 the miracles which perplex and alarm Herod. So 
 alter Mark vi, 14. 
 
 On the rendering of Auth. " do show forth them- 
 selves," Middleton hazards a singfular conjecture. 
 He supposes it to be founded on Ivapyovmv, the form 
 exhibited by the Codex Bezae, which was presented 
 to the University of Cambridge in 1681, and whose 
 peculiar readings might then have been thought of 
 great importance. I fear it is a fatal objection to this 
 ingenious hypotliesis, that Auth. merely copied the 
 version of Bish. in this instance : and Bish. was pub- 
 
 &t. 9^&tt\)t\o: 213 
 
 lished full ten years before the Codex Bezse was 
 brought to England. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 8. M irhttKt " on a dish "], So correct 
 V. 11. " In a dish," Wickliffe, Cheke, the Rhemish 
 version ; " in a charger," Auth. " in a platter," other 
 Eng. In V. 6, the margin of the later editions of 
 Auth. (iv Tif /ulffn», Gr. "in the midst ") is very trifling. 
 In v. 7, o9tv Auth. follows the Rhemish N. T. " where- 
 upon." Other Eng. have " wherefore." 
 
 In V, 8, irpo/Si/SaffOtTffa "enticed," or "induced," 
 is the interpretation of the margin of Bish. and of 
 Cheke (" being set on "). Such is no doubt the or- 
 dinary acceptation of the word, according to which 
 the French versions have " etant poussee." Still Vulg. 
 " praemonita," and " before instructed" of Gov. Gran. 
 Gen. Bish. Auth. (" informed before," Tynd.) is pro- 
 bably nearer the truth. See the passages cited by 
 Raphel and Kypke. From Mark vi, 24 it would per- 
 haps appear that the force of irpb in composition must 
 not be pressed here. Syr. does not render it, though 
 little stress ought to be laid on that circumstance, in- 
 asmuch as the Syriac language can express preposi- 
 tions compounded with verbs only by means of a 
 periphrasis (e. g. John xx, 4). Compare also the 
 LXX, Exod. xxxv, 34 ; Deut. vi, 7. In Plato, Pro- 
 tag. (I, 1, 184, ed. Bekker), iXXi kSv » oXi'-yov ian 
 
 TIC oq nc oia<pipu rift>av 7r/oo/3t/3a(rac tie aptrriv, ayawtirov' 
 
 Heindorf very properly translates " si quis antecellat 
 in provehendo ad virtutem." But this explanation 
 will not suit the passages from the LXX. 
 
 (II, a). V. 15. n &pa flit] irapriKQiv " the day is now 
 spent"]. "The day is spent," Tynd. "the night 
 falleth on," Gov. "the hour is now (already. Gen.) 
 past," Cran. Gen. Bish. from Vulg.'" the time is well 
 gone," Cheke; "the time is now past," Auth. after 
 
214 i|5otejJ on t^e ipcto %m&mtnt. 
 
 Syr. Beza. St. Luke in the parallel place (ch. ix, 
 12) says fi 8J vfifpa {}p^aro kX(v(iv. "Opa is thus used by 
 Polybius, as cited by Raphel, fiSij il rris 6pac <TvyK\u- 
 oitnit. Not quite so pertinent is Demosth. c. Midiain 
 (p. 641, Reiske), rijc &pac iytyviro 6\l/i. Compare 
 also Mark vi, 35. 
 
 (I). V. 22. Both i 'Inwoiic and ahrov are rejected as 
 spurious by Griesbach, Scholz and Lachmann. Re- 
 specting the omission of the name of Jesus at the 
 commencement of a new paragraph, I have already 
 spoken at length (see notes on ch.iv, 18 ; viii, 5). A 
 few authorities do not read the word in v. 14 ; but in 
 the present instance there can be little doubt of its 
 spuriousness. It is wanting in Syr. and several other 
 versions, including the Italic ; although Vulg. retains 
 it. It is not found in Origen or Chrysostom ; nor in 
 five uncial (B C D M P) and about twenty cursive 
 manuscripts. And though these documents are not 
 very numerous, and are chiefly of the Alexandrine 
 family, the internal argument against its genuineness 
 is 80 strong, that we may confidently (with Vater) 
 remove o 'Irjirowc from the text. 
 
 The evidence against airov is considerably stronger : 
 for most of Mattheei's best Byzantine MSS unite 
 with several Alexandrine, Vulg. Chrysostom, &c. in 
 rejecting it, Griesbach and Scholz quote Syr. as 
 omitting the word. I do not see how any safe conclu- 
 sions can be drawn from the language of that version 
 as to the pronouns contained in the manuscripts from 
 which it was made : so widely different are the Greek 
 and Syriac idioms in this respect (Seelntrod. p. 70). 
 No one was better acquainted with this peculiarity 
 of the Aramaean dialect than Scholz (Proleg. N. T. 
 p. cxxii) ; although he seldom cares to apply his prin- 
 ciples to the criticism of the sacred text. But in fact 
 
 &t. 9^attl)(\D. 215 
 
 Syr. here reads ■-'"■>, ■ v> v a \ "his disciples," 
 
 though woi is wanting in the editio princeps, I sup- 
 pose by an error of the press. To return to alrov : 
 it may unquestionably be expunged in this place. 
 The sense is complete without it, and it was probably 
 at first a mere marginal gloss, suggested to the reader 
 by Mark vi, 45. 
 
 (II, b). ibid, tic rb wXoiov " into the ship"], "a ship," 
 all Eng. See notes on ch. iv, 21 ; xiii, 2, &c. 
 
 (II, b). V. 23. rh 3poc "the mountain-country"], 
 "a mountain," all Eng. See note on ch. v, 1. So 
 alter ch. xv, 29. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 24. iiro Twv KVfiarwv <* by the waves"]. 
 " with the waves," Cheke, Bish. " with waves," other 
 Eng. 
 
 (I)°. v. 25. Here again A'I»j<roOc is omitted by 
 nearly the same authorities as in v. 22, with a few of 
 Matthaji's manuscripts in addition to them (V. a., &c.). 
 In this verse it is found in Syr., but not in Vulg. or 
 Chrysostom. Yet though the external evidence is 
 so similar to that in the former case, it is by no means 
 sufHcient to command our assent : and since the pro- 
 per name does not here occur at the beginning of a 
 section, it is not equally easy to account for its inter- 
 polation. I am therefore disposed to retain it in the 
 present passage ; and Vater comes to the same con- 
 clusion, it may be on the same grounds. Griesbach, 
 Scholz and Lachmann condemn 6 'Itfaove as before. 
 
 In V. 30, rbv avrfiov Iffx^piv is rendered by Tynd. 
 Gov. Cran. Gen. Bish. " a mighty wind." Auth. has 
 very correctly " the wind boisterous ;" Cheke and the 
 margin of Auth. " the wind strong." The same care 
 on the part of Auth. to convey the precise force of 
 the article appears in v. 24, ?v -yap ivavnog 6 avtfioc 
 " for the wind was contrary," where Cheke and all 
 
%io i|3ote0 on ttit ^e\D llttnamtnt. 
 
 the earlier Eng. except Gov. translate.** for it was 
 
 (they had, Cheke) a contrary wind." 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 35. imyvivTtQ " recognised"]. Eng. " had 
 knowledge of," which is very quaint. See also Acts 
 iy, 13. " Knew him," Cheke. 
 
 In v. 36, Bish. Auth. rightly express the significa- 
 tion of S«d in Su(rw0q<rav " were made perfectly whole." 
 But " made safe," Tynd. Cran. " made whole," Gov. 
 Cheke, Gen. It is also neglected by Vulg. Beza, Gasr 
 talio, Martin, Ostervald and Syr., by the last indeed 
 almost of necessity. On this subject I have else- 
 where declared my sentiments (Introd.p. 35). Schleus- 
 ner as usual says " iiav^Z^ i. q. simplex tr<iZM : " 
 chiefly, it would seem, because St. Mark (ch. vi, 56) 
 contents himself with lowZovro when narrating the 
 same circumstance. See note on ch. xviii, 31. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 fll, b). V. 1. oJ OTTO 'IfpoaoXifiuv ypafifiaTttc ..." the 
 scribes . . . from Jerusalem"]. So Gov. Scholefield, 
 But " scribes . . . from Jerusalem," Tynd. '• scribes 
 . ^. which were come from Jerusalem," Gran. Bish, 
 " certain scribes ... of Jerusalem," Gen. " scribes . . . 
 which were of Jerusalem," Auth. Bp. Middleton 
 is inclined to reject ol, which is not expressed by Syr. 
 Vulg, or Origen. Gheke's version would in that 
 case be correct " Then came there from Jerusalem 
 unto Jesus scribes ..." OJ, however, is found in all 
 Greek manuscripts except B D (Scholz says G, but 
 this is another of his typographical errors) and six 
 cursive ; so that in spite of Lachmann's decision, its 
 authenticity is beyond dispute. (Yet compare Mark 
 vii, 1). OJ airo ']ipono\6nwv, as Wolf observes, is 
 
 fet. a^atrfieto. 217 
 
 nearly parallel with ol avh t5c 'IraXfac, Hebr. xiii, 24, 
 
 and ol an*^ r^c OtoaaXovUnc 'lovSaioi, ActS xvii, 13. 
 
 St. Matthew's expression of course implies not that all 
 the scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem came to Jesus, 
 but that a large number of them came. No difficulty 
 would have been felt in the present passage, but from 
 an indisposition on the part of many good men to con- 
 cede to the style of Scripture the use of those general 
 and popular forms of speech, which prevail without 
 offence or ambiguity in the most accurate uninspired 
 compositions. Yet (to mention one or two instances 
 out of a thousand), how can such persons defend the 
 strict sense of tSc in Matth. iii, 5 ; iv, 24 ; Acts ii, 6 ? 
 
 (I). V. 4. Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann 
 expunge aov after rov iraripa. It is omitted in so 
 many excellent manuscripts of both families, that it 
 may readily be supposed to be interpolated from 
 Mark vii, 10, where it is repeated after rfjv finrlpa 
 also. Yet we must not allow the Latin versions to 
 have any weight in deciding the point; and since (rov 
 is retained in the great majority of the copies of Ghry- 
 sostom, he ought not to have been cited as a witness 
 against the received text. It is chiefly to point out 
 these irregularities of the critical editors that I notice 
 this various reading ; for whatever be the fate of «row, 
 the sense is precisely the same. Sou is justly re- 
 moved by all the critics from the kindred passage ch. 
 xix, 19. 
 
 In V. 6, the textus receptus has ov fttj Tififi(ry " lie 
 shall noj; honor ;" where, in compliance with a fami- 
 liar canon of Greek syntax, we should eipect the fu- 
 ture indicative. Ti/in«i is actually read by Lachmann, 
 and favorably named by Griesbach : but the manu- 
 script evidence in its behalf is slight, and exclusively 
 Egyptian (B C D. 1. 13. 33. 124. 225. 346, Scholz) ; 
 
218 il^oteis on ttie ijitto 'Xe0tament. 
 
 so that it bears every mark of being the deliberate 
 correction of some Alexandrian grammarian.* On 
 the licence taken by the writers of the Greek Testa- 
 ment in this matter, consult Green, Gram. pp. 124— 
 127. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 4. Oavarif rtXtvr&rw " let him surcly die"]. 
 So Doddridge. Thus also Auth. renders the same 
 palpable Hebraism (niOn niO) in Gen. ii, 17 ; iii, 4 ; 
 Exod. xxi, 17, &c. " Morte moriatur," Vulg. Beza, 
 and Syr. of course retains the Oriental form. *' Meure 
 de mort," Martin ; " morte plectatur," Castalio ; 
 •whence Ostervald " soit puni de mort." Tynd. has 
 simply "shall suffer death," and Cheke, "let him 
 die." Gov. Cran. Gen. Bish. Auth. exhibit the un- 
 couth phrase, "die the death." So change Mark 
 vii, 10, and perhaps also Matth. xiii, 14. 
 
 (II, c. See Introd. p. 46). vv. 6, 6. Swpov, 8 «v IK 
 
 ifiov (o^cXtiOpc, Kal ov fixf Tin-fitrg rhv irarfpa aurov . ..." be 
 
 that a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest have been 
 relieved from me, he shall not then honor . . . ."]. I 
 have here united the interpretations of Bp. Jebb and 
 Dr. Boothroyd ; and such in substance is the render- 
 ing of Whitby, Campbell, Wynne, the translator of the 
 '" Holy Bible" of 1841, and the "Layman" of 1840 
 (Edgar Taylor, Esq. see Introd. pp. 16, 47, notes), 
 who unaccountably praises Wynne's version as " a 
 work of great judgment and ability, which is certainly 
 not known or valued as much as its intrinsic merits 
 justify." Doddridge, with a lack of discretion very 
 unusual in him, adopts Eisner's forced explanation 
 
 of v. 6, Kol {Xlytrt, drrb row koivou) ov /u^ Ttfi{\ay, " et ne 
 
 honoret ;" an artifice by the way of which Eisner is 
 
 • « 
 
 Oratnmaticum egit Alexandrinua 
 Proleg. N. T. Sect. Ill, p. Ixxviii. 
 
 censor." Grieebach, 
 
 &t. S^att^eto; 219 
 
 too fond (see his note on ch. xi, 19). The mode 
 I have suggested makes v. 5 the protasis, and v. 6 
 the apodosis of a single sentence ; koI at the com- 
 mencement of the apodosis being nearly redundant, 
 as Si often is in a like position in Classical authors. 
 This is the view taken by Grotius and his humble 
 imitator Rosenmiiller. Kuinoel also follows on the 
 same side, appealing to Numb, i, 63 ; I Sam. xii, 
 19, which do not seem altogether apposite. Yet 
 there cannot be a doubt that the Hebrew particle 
 1 is constantly employed in this manner; and an 
 Hebrew construction is the more natural in the pre- 
 sent passage, as our Blessed Lord had just been 
 citing the precise form of a Jewish vow (see Light- 
 foot, ad loc. and Mark vii, 11, 12). Vater quotes 
 Exod. XXX, 33 ; 38, where T is not expressed by the 
 LXX ; exactly similar is Gen. iii, 5 (inpWI, BiavotyOfi- 
 aovrai LXX) : not t6 insist on countless instances 
 of the pleonastic T after 'H'l (koI iyivtro), of which 
 so many traces remain even in the New Testament 
 (Luke ii, 15 ; v, 1 ; 12 ; 17, &c.). For a like use of 
 Kal, but not after iyivtro, we may refer to Matth. 
 xxviii, 9; Luke ii, 21; 27,28; vii, 12; xiii, 25; 
 and it is remarkable that nearly all our examples 
 are derived from that Evangelist, who most affects 
 the Oriental idiom. It may tend to prove the com- 
 monness of this phrase in the Aramaean dialects, if 
 we observe that the Peshito introduces the same 
 particle (o) in Luke xiv, 10, where we find rare iarat 
 in the Greek original. 
 
 Such, then, are my reasons for resorting to an 
 Hebraism in the present case. My opinion is for- 
 tified by Syr., and I may add by those Alexandrine 
 authorities which would remove koi from the text 
 (BCD. 1. 33. 36. 41. 61. Copt. Ital. and Lach- 
 
220 i^otets on ttie ^t\a <^r0tament. 
 
 mann). It cannot be disputed that this 'solution ia 
 incomparably preferable to the harsh constructions 
 and harsher ellipses of some of our versions. Beza 
 first inserted in the text " imons erit," whence came 
 " he shall be free" of Auth. and " ri'est pas coupable" 
 of Ostervald. Tynd. and Bish. are much tiearer the 
 truth. " Whatsoever thing I offer, that same doth 
 profit thee," Tynd. 1. "that which thou desirest of 
 me to help thee with, is given to God," Tynd. 2. 
 " by the gift that [is offered] of me, thou shalt be 
 helped," Bish. but they all add, " and so shall he 
 not honor" . . . Gov. is very loose, " the thing that 
 I should help thee withal, is given unto God. By 
 this is it come to pass that no man honoreth" . . . 
 Gen. has "by every gift that procedeth from me, 
 thou shalt be holpen. Though he honor not" . . . 
 Cheke has nearly hit upon the peculiar use of koi, 
 though his translation of the clause before it is bad 
 enough : " Whosoever sayeth . . . whatsoever is 
 given by me, thou shalt take profit by it, he shall not 
 need beside to honor" ... I can make nothing 
 out of Vulg. " Munus, quodcunque est ex me, tibi 
 proderit; et non honorificabit". . . I have chosen to 
 render " be that a gift," rather than " it is a gift," 
 as in Auth., since the precatory form of the passage 
 seems very evident. 
 
 (I)°. V. 8. Griesbach, Vater, and Lachmann re- 
 move from the text as spurious the words l-f-yiKu 
 fioi " draweth nigh unto me," and rt^ <rr6naTi airwv 
 Koi *' with their mouth, and" . . . They are wanting in 
 Syr. Vulg. the Italic, ^thiopic and Armenian ver- 
 sions ; in Origen, Chrysostom and several other 
 Fathers. This would form a strong reason for 
 questioning their authenticity, were they not found in 
 all existing manuscripts except fve (BDL. 33. 124), 
 
 &t. Sl^attteto. 221 
 
 all of which are decidedly Alexandrian. Fully ad- 
 mitting the weight of the versions on a point of this 
 kind, and the possibility that the disputed words were 
 inserted from the LXX of Isai. xxix, 13 ; I still think 
 it unreasonable to reject the reading contained in so 
 immense a majority of the manuscripts of every age, 
 and of both families. Indeed we cannot do so with- 
 out unsettling the first principles of Scriptural criti- 
 cism. 
 
 (Ill, a), v. 10. irpovKoXur&fitvoe "called unto hifn"]. 
 Thus all Eng. (even Cheke) except Auth., and even 
 Auth. in V. 32 ; ch. x, 1 ; xviii, 2 ; xx, 25 ; Mark iii, 
 13 ; 23. So alter ch. xviii, 32. " Him" only should 
 be printed in italics ; and not " unto" (t/joc), as is 
 done by Auth. in several places. Turton. 
 
 (II, b). V. 12. riv \6yov "thy saying"]. "This 
 saying," Eng. but the article never bears that mean- 
 ing. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 18. rhv avOpwirov " a man"]. The whole 
 class. So Tynd. 1. Cheke here, and Auth. vv. 11, 20. 
 
 (II, b). V. 22. airb rCiv oplwv iKttviav " from those 
 coasts"]. So Cheke, Scholefield. " the same," Eng. 
 a too frequent rendering of iwivoc in these versions. 
 See ch. viii, 13 ; x, 19 ; xiii, 1 ; xviii, 1 ; 28 ; xxii, 
 23 ; xxvi, 55. 
 
 (II, b). V. 26. Tolc Kvvaptoic " to the dogs"] viz. the 
 household dogs. Middleton. So Auth. in Mark vii, 
 27. "To dogs," Cov.Cran. Auth. " to whelps," Tynd. 
 Gen. (" to the whelps," Cheke), " to little dogs," Bish. 
 Parkhurst, after Bochart, supposes Kwaptov to be a 
 more contemptuous term than kvwv : but I must 
 think these distinctions somewhat too finely drawn. 
 See vv. 34, 36; and Introd. p. 33. 
 
 (II, a). V. 27. Nol Kvpie ko) yap ra Kvvapta ..." yea 
 
 Lord ; for the dogs". . .]. So Bish. Cheke (" yes Lord, 
 
222 ipotetf on tit i^etD tlTeiStament. 
 
 for the whelps " . .) after Vulg. (" Etiam Domine ;: 
 nam et catelli". ,). But " it is truth Lord, neverthe- 
 less"... Tynd. Gov. "truth Lord, yet". . Auth. yet 
 Cran. Gen. more properly " truth Lord, for". . . Syr. 
 
 has jaf ^-i ,---J (" yea Lord, also". .) as if it did not 
 read yap. " Ita est Domine, et tamen". . . of Castalio 
 is less correct than Beza's " etiam Domine, etenim". . . 
 " II est vrai, Seigneur ; cependant les petit chiens". . , 
 Ostervald. The fact is that val, like the Hebrew Hi 
 (Gen. xix, 7 ; 8 ; Numb, xii, 12, Hebrew), is a particle 
 of entreaty rather than of assent (Philem. v. 20) ; yet 
 without absolutely excluding the latter idea (Gen. 
 xvii, 19; Job xix, 4 ; Rev. xxii, 20). For this last 
 sense see Eisner and Kypke, who produces a passage 
 exactly parallel from Xenophon's (Econom. [p. 488, 
 ed. Stephan. 1581], Ifihv Si Ipyov tiprjotv ^ fifirnp tlvai 
 ffw^povfiv. val fia £iC i^t\v iyw, & yCvai, ical yap iftoX b irariip. 
 In the comic dialogue of Aristophanes vol is always 
 used as a particle of affirmation : e. g. Thesmoph. 
 606, tfif v^t^i fipov;—val.—K\(wvi(iov yvvfi. Plut. 
 186-7, iyio rotravra Svvar(fc *'/*' *Tc "Sv irotiv, — ical vol /jii. 
 A(a Toirwv yt rroWtf itXitova. In va\ therefore the 
 woman meekly assents to our Lord's statement, while 
 in Kol yap she urges that very circumstance as an 
 additional reason why her suit should be granted. 
 Chrysostom carefully traces the precise argument 
 which she pleads : air' aiiruiv ruv awrow prtfi&rwv vXIku 
 rfiv <rvvtiyoplav. El 7ap Kvvtipi6v tljLH, ovk tlfii aXXorpta . . . 
 "Oti ftlv yap avayKata v rpo^fl roTc tIkvoic, (ptfatv, olSa icayii* 
 trXqv ovSi iyw KtKwXv/iai, mvaptov oiva. El filv yap /ut) 
 Oifiic Xa/Bilv, owSJ riiiv \l)i\twv fitraa\tXv Oifit^' tl Si k&v h 
 fUKpov Sft KOivwviiv, ovo) lyitt KtKiliXvfiai, icfiv Kvvapiov &' 
 aWa ical raCrp paXiora fitrt\u>, (I tniv&pi6v tlfit. So alter 
 
 Mark vii, 28. 
 
 (III,c). V. 28. yivtiBhrw croi wc 0(Xtic " be it to thee, 
 
 ti 
 
 \ 
 
 &t a^atttietD. 223 
 
 even as thou desirest"]. This is partly taken from 
 Tynd. Gov. Gen. " be it to thee even as thou 
 desirest ;" partly from Bish. " be it done unto thee 
 even as thou wilt." Cran. Auth. " be it unto thee 
 even as thou wilt," is a little obscure. 
 
 (Ill, b). V. 31. /3Afirovrac icw^ouc AaXovvroc ic. r. A. 
 
 " when they saw the dumb speak, the maimed 
 whole," &c.]. Bp. Lowth (Eng. Gram. p. 137) points 
 out the impropriety of inserting " to," the sign of the 
 infinitive mood, after a verb of seeing. Tynd. Gov. 
 Gheke, Gen. (and Bish. in part) are accurate in this 
 portion of the verse, but all the versions except 
 Cheke's have " the lame to walk, (" the halt to go," 
 Tynd. Gov. Gen.), and the blind to see." On the 
 omission of the Greek article before Kwfoic, KvXXoit, 
 &c. see note on ch. xi, 5. In v. 30, Tynd. Gov. Cheke, 
 Gen. rightly leave out " those that were," which words 
 are not in italics in Bish. or the Ist edition of Auth. 
 
 (III. a and c). v. 32. ^Sq fifUpoQ rptit irpoapivoval ftot 
 
 " they have continued with me now three days"]. 
 So Tynd. Gov. Gen. (Gen. " already "). Cheke 
 " they have remained here with me three days now," 
 nearly resembling Auth. in Mark viii, 2 ; and much 
 more perspicuous than " they continue with me now 
 three days," of Cran. Bish. Auth. All the modern 
 editors read vftipai in both Gospels, and I believe 
 very justly. But this change will not at all affect 
 the sense. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 37, KaX Jipav rh wtpiaaivov tCov K\aap.aTU)v 
 
 " and they took up of the fragments that remained"], 
 vv. 37, 38 are almost verbally repeated from vv. 20, 
 21 of the last chapter; and it i^ fit that this close 
 similarity should not be lost on the mere English 
 reader. Dr. Symonds alleges a further reason for 
 the change of Eng. " they took up of the broken 
 
224 JI5ote0 on t^e /iJeto %tfltamtnt, 
 
 meat that was left." It is disgusting, if we may 
 credit this delicate critic, that the term " meat" 
 should be applied to a meal of bread and fish. Thus 
 alter Mark viii, 8. 
 
 In V. 39, for ivlfin tic rh irXoTov, all Eng. have " took 
 ship," except Gov. " went into a ship" (" a boat," 
 Cheke), which is worse. I would render " went into 
 the ship," mentioned above in oh. xiv, 22, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. I. o{ ^aptaaioi koI SaSSovKaToi " the 
 
 Pharisees and Sadducees"]. So Tynd. 2. Gov. 
 Cheke, Gen. " the Pharisees with the Sadducees," 
 Tynd. 1. Gran. Bish. Auth. it would be hard to tell 
 why. In v. 3, instead of " ye can discern" of Eng. 
 say " ye know how to discern" (yiviaKtrt) with Bp. 
 Jebb. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). v. 5. aprovi Xa/StTv " to bring bread"]. 
 So correct v. 7, conformably to Auth. in v. 8. Other- 
 wise we must render with all Eng. except Auth. " to 
 take bread (Clieke adds " over") with them . . . with 
 lis," vv. 5, 7. " To take bread," of Auth. rather 
 implies " to eat." Compare Acts xxvii, 33, 34. 
 
 (II, b. See Introd. p. 45). v. 7. SiiXoyf^ovro •• began 
 to reason"]. " they thought," Tynd. Gov. Gran. Bish. 
 " they reasoned," Cheke, Gen. Auth. In this verse 
 Tynd. 1. Gov. Gran, do not render oti, but Auth. 
 (•' it is because"), or Cheke (" saying that it was 
 because"), will suit the passage very well. The 
 ellipsis of TQvra \(^ti before on is illustrated by 
 Kypke from Lysias, de csede Eratosth. (p. 14, Reiske), 
 iTretSi) Se ifio wpyil^ifiiiv koL iK/Xtvov avrfiv aTrtlvat, 'iva <rv 
 ft, tfrit irttp^t ivravBa Ttjv iraidtoKtiv. 
 
 • :\ 
 
 fet. apatttieto. 226 
 
 (II, b). v. 8. yvoxig Si o 'Iijirovc ilvtv " but Jesus 
 
 perceived it, and said"]. So Syr. and Cheke (" Jesus 
 knowing this said"). The renderings of Tynd. Gov. 
 Gran. Gen. Bish. " when Jesus understood (" per- 
 ceived" Gov.) that, he said," and of Auth. " which 
 when Jesus perceived, he said," are equally open to 
 the objection stated in my note on ch. xii, 15. Thus 
 alter Auth. in ch. xxvi, 10, where Gen. and Cheke 
 are quite accurate : " and Jesus knowing that," 
 Gen. 
 
 (I), ibid. Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann 
 omit aiiToit after ilirtv, with Origen, the Vulg. the 
 iEthiopic, &c. versions, and a respectable number 
 of manuscripts, which however are all Alexandrine 
 (B D K L M, &c.), except a few of the least consi- 
 derable of Matthaei's, and Birch's Vatican 354 (S). 
 The pronoun has so much the appearance of an ad- 
 dition, that in the present case it is the safest course 
 to acquiesce in their decision. 
 
 (1)°. V. 11. Instead of aprov " bread," the reading 
 of all our versions, Scholz and Lachmann edit a/orwv 
 '* loaves," which form Griesbach and Vater judge 
 little, if at all, inferior to the singular. B C K L M S, 
 several of Matthaei's manuscripts, and many others 
 of both families support the plural ; and it is possible 
 that iprov was taken from v. 12. But the question is 
 obviously one of slight moment. 
 
 (II, c) . v. 13, rlva fit \iyovaiv ol avOpwwoi tlvat, rhv 
 vlhv Tov avOpwwov ; " who (see the next note) do men 
 say that I the Son of man am?]." This is the 
 construction adopted by Tynd. Gran. Cheke, Bish. 
 Auth. and the margin of Gov. (Introd. p. 86); it 
 is also that of Gastalio, and apparently of Syr. also 
 
 (| * ' [; oi-r-^ «-^Ji (iiul -^\ ^t.yij Q.i.Ia). Vulg. 
 
 however renders " quem dicunt homines esse Filium 
 
 Q 
 
226 i^ote0 on tt)e i^cto '^De^tament. 
 
 hominis?" whence Gov. " whom do men say that the 
 Son of man is," and after him Campbell. I do not con- 
 ceive that Vulg. and those other versions which pass 
 over fu did not find it in their Greek copies (though it 
 is really wanting in Codex B), but that they neglected 
 it in order to relieve a rather embarrassed construction. 
 Gen. translates " whom do men say that I am the 
 Son of man" (sic), which though a literal version of 
 Beza's " quemnam esse me dicunt homines, Filium 
 hominis,* may seem to incline to a mode of interpre- 
 tation favored by Leclerc and a few other critics ; 
 who, by placing a mark of interrogation after elvoi, 
 and another at the end of the verse, elicit the following 
 sense : " who do men say that I am ? the Son of 
 Man ?" i. e. the expected Messiah. The habit of 
 tampering in this manner with the received punctua- 
 tion I have elsewhere condemned (Introd. p. 47); 
 and it is well urged by Bp. Middleton that so abrupt 
 an interrogation as Leclerc's mode of understanding 
 the passage would render necessary, but little re- 
 sembles the ordinary ease and perspicuity of the in- 
 spired writers. We should naturally expect fiv or 
 fifirt, or some such word to be prefixed to the second 
 clause of the sentence. Besides, it does not appear 
 that the expression i v26c rou avOpiUnrov was by any 
 means in common use among the Jews, as an appel- 
 lation of their future Christ. This name is applied 
 to our Lord in the New Testament by Himself, and 
 only by Himself; for Rev. i, 13 ; xiv, 14, should be 
 otherwise explained. On the whole then we may 
 rest satisfied, that the vulgar construction of these 
 
 • Beza's French imitators remove the ambiguity by the inser- 
 tion of one little word : " Qui disent les hommes que je suis, moi 
 le Fils de I' homme ?" Martin, Osterrald. 
 
 &t. a^attlieto. 227 
 
 words, though it may be a little involved, is in all 
 probability the true one. 
 
 (HI, b). ibid, rtva fit Xlyovaiv k. t. A. " who do men 
 say" &c.]. So Campbell. •• whom," all Eng. even 
 Cheke, and the Rhemish translators, both here, and 
 in V. 15 ; and all except Gov. in Acts xiii, 25. Bp. 
 Lowth however says '* it ought in all these places 
 to be who; which is not governed by the verb say or 
 think, but by the verb am, or agrees in case with the 
 pronoun I." Eng. Gram. p. 133. 
 
 In v. 14, " that thou art" of Eng. is rejected by 
 Cheke without injuring the sense. See Introd. p. 63. 
 
 In V. 16, 6 Xpiarht is ill rendered " Christ" by all 
 Eng., including Cheke and the first edition of Auth. 
 Most, I believe all, the modem impressions of Auth. 
 have "the Christ;" yet the old reading can hardly 
 be considered a mere typographical error. See note 
 on ch. xii, 23. 
 
 (I). V. 20. 'I.,<»o5c 6 Xpiarbt " Jesus the Christ," 
 Gen. Auth. " Jesus Christ" is the marvellous version 
 of Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke, and even of Bish., after 
 the earlier translators had been set right by Gen. 
 'IijffoDc is omitted by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and 
 Lachmann. Every one must -feel that it was needless 
 for our Lord to charge his disciples to tell no man 
 that he was Jesus, since by that name he was com- 
 monly known while he sojourned on earth. The real 
 point was to desire them to conceal for a time that he 
 was the Christ; the great Messiah whom the prophets 
 had foretold. Now 'Iijcrovc is wanting in the Peshito, 
 which was probably translated before the term "Jesus 
 Christ" had become the ordinary appellation of our 
 Blessed Saviour among believers. It is not recog- 
 nised by Origen, Chrysostom, or Theophylact ; and 
 though its constant use in the public prayers of the 
 
228 i^ote0 on ttie 0t\o i;e0tament. 
 
 Church has procured for it a place in the printed 
 editions of the Latin Vulgate, it is not found in most 
 of the Italic manuscripts, nor in the earlier copies of 
 the Vulgate itself; not even in those from which 
 Wickliffe translated his New Testament. At least 
 forty Greek MSS reject 'Iii<to5c, and though only two 
 uncial documents (B L) are among them, yet Scholz's 
 list of authorities contains some of the best of both 
 classes, including twelve of Matthsei's ; nor can we 
 doubt that by an accurate survey of all extant cursive 
 manuscripts, many more might be added to the 
 number. Moreover, I fully agree with Mill (Proleg. 
 N. T. p. 64), that the very wording of v. 16, to 
 which V. 20 clearly refers, is fatal to the authenticity 
 of 'IijffoDc. 
 
 (II, a. See Introd. p. 35). v. 22. npooXa^ofitvo^ 
 avTov " took him aside'^. So all Eng. except Auth., 
 which omits " aside." Yet as Campbell observes, 
 " took him" is quite indefinite. Compare Acts xviii, 
 26, and so correct Mark viii, 32. Syr. as usual loses 
 the force of irpog. " Assumens," Vulg. " I'ayant pris 
 k part," Martin, Ostervald ; •' took him by the hand," 
 ' Doddridge. 
 
 The precise sense of JAtwc is well explained by 
 Wetstein, who compares ftn^afiwf, the Septuagint ren- 
 dering of nV/n in 1 Sam. xxii, 15, with tXta>c, that 
 of Symmachus and Theodotion. Auth. " be it far 
 from thee," may stand. " Favor thyself" of Tynd. 
 Cov. Cran. Bish, is very inferior : " look to thyself," 
 Gen. - ^ ^ *- Syr. " absit a te," Vulg. " propitius 
 tibi esto," Beza : •' parce tibi," Castalio. " Sir, have 
 pity on yourself, Sir" (!), Cheke, which resembles 
 " pity thyself," of the margin of the later editions of 
 Auth. (" a Dieu ne plaise," Ostervald). This use 
 of ?Aiwc is purely Hellenistic. Compare the LXX, 
 
 &t. a^attlieto. 229 
 
 2 Sam. XX, 20, with Joseph. Antiq. vii, 2, 8, as cited 
 by Krebs. It is plain that Josephus in the clause o 
 
 iXiu) ftiv qv^tro rov Qtov avr^ Siaftivtiv, had the 
 LXX exclusively in view. See also I Mace, ii, 21 ; 
 
 1 Chron. xi, 19, in which last place o Ococ is sup- 
 plied. 
 
 (II, a), ibid, ov ftn tvrai " shall in no wise be"]. 
 See note on ch. x, 23. Thus correct Auth. in v. 28 ; 
 ch. xviii, 3 ; xxiii, 39 ; xxiv, 2 ; 34 ; 35. Bish. 
 alone of Eng. renders ov ^n fully in v. 28. On the 
 tense of Ifcn-ac see Green, Gram. N. T. p. 126. 
 
 In v. 24 (see note on ch. xi, 27) the usual ambiguity 
 occurs with respect to OiXw. In v. 25 there is some 
 difference in sense (not a very wide one certainly) be- 
 tween 8c av OiXg vCitaat and Sc av awoXiiTQ " whoso- 
 ever will (is anxious, is resolved to) save his life shall 
 lose it, and whosoever shall lose." ... In the second 
 clause of course no determination, no excessive for- 
 wardness to expose our life, is either prescribed or 
 would be lawful (ch. x, 23). This distinction of the 
 Greek is preserved by Tynd. Gen. Bish. " whosoever 
 shall lose ;" but disappears in Auth. which employs 
 "will" indifferently in both cases. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 26. ^pvxn " life," bis'] uniformly with 
 Auth. in V. 25. So Doddridge (whose note is worth 
 reading) and Campbell. All Eng. have "soul." 
 
 In V. 27, ten or twelve MSS, some copies of Chry- 
 sostom, and (if versions can be trusted on such a point) 
 Syr. Vulg. and the Sahidic read to ipya for t^v irpa^tv, 
 but this is unquestionably a mere gloss. Yet we must 
 not concede to Schleusner that vpa^tv is here put for 
 the plural. It means not a single act, or a multitude 
 of such acts, but the habit, the practice, the general 
 character. " Deeds," Tynd. Co v. Cran. Gen. " works," 
 Bish. Auth. "actions," Doddridge, Campbell. Per- 
 
230 J^ote0 on ttie Btto %mamtnt. 
 
 haps " conduct" would best express our Lord's exact 
 meaning. In v. 28, wc <>>' (Sfa><n " till they shall have 
 seen," Tynd. is better than " till they see" of Gov. 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. or " till they shall see" of Gen. 
 
 (I)*'i V. 28. Instead of nvfc r&v Stit l*tn»c<frwv ("some 
 of those standing here") Griesbach, Vater and Lach* 
 mann prefer rcctc ruv wSt iarurwv, as they are at per- 
 fect liberty to do if they pleaee. Scholz howevef 
 reads the nominative nvtc «J»8i iarwrtt (•' sortie standing 
 here," Auth.). The manuscript evidence is pretty 
 evenly balanced^ so far at least as such a trifle has 
 been attended to. Vulg. clearly favors the genitive, 
 as also does Ghrysostom. Syr. is ambiguous. " Sed 
 rivtc in Matthaeo sequi solet genitivus," says Vater ; 
 whose remark is confirmed by ch. ix, 3; xii, 38; xxvii, 
 47 ; xxviii, 11. This may be reason enough on so 
 insignificant a question. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 (II, a). V. 1. napa\aftpavH "taketh with him "]. The 
 preposition is neglected by all Eng. here and in ch. 
 XX, 17 ; and by all except Gov. in Luke ix, 28. In 
 Mark ix, 2 it is expressed by Gov. Bish. Auth. In 
 Matth. i, 20 ; 24, Auth. renders it fully " to take 
 unto." 
 
 (I)°. v. 5. In the room of vt^iXti <pwTuvn " a bright 
 cloud," Griesbach reads vi^iXn ^wroc "a cloud of 
 light." It might well be called by Mill "lectio 
 singularis," for even now only eight inferior manu- 
 scripts, the earliest being of the eleventh century, 
 are known to contain ^wroc. Griesbach indeed cites 
 only sir in favor of his reading; but since they 
 
 * 
 
 ---* ,• 
 
 if 
 
 }i 
 
 .-JT" 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 n. 
 
 &t. a^att^eto. 231 
 
 chance to be of different recensions (36. 183. Mat- 
 thaei's e, and perhaps Stephani 8* or 6 of Wetstein 
 being Byzantine; while 13 and 124 are decidedly 
 Egyptian), he alters the common text on that wretched 
 authority; considering no doubt that vi^k\r} <pu»r6g, 
 being the harsher and more Hebraic form, is for that 
 reason the more probable. I have already (note on 
 ch. viii, 15) explained my motive for troubling the, 
 reader with minutiae of this kind. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). v. 6. aijtoBpa " exceedingly "]. So 
 Auth. in ch. xix, 25. " Sore," all Eng. except Gen., 
 which inadvertently omits «r^o8/Ba altogether. Dr. 
 Symonds would wish us to expunge " sore " entirely 
 from our version, and it may be dispensed with easily 
 enough. See below, v. 15. 
 
 (Ill, c). v. 8. wUva " no one "]. " no body," Rhe- 
 mish version ; " none but Jesus," Gampbell ; " no 
 man," Eng. Thus correct Mark ix, 8. It is scarcely 
 proper to employ the term " no man " in reference to 
 the glorified apparitions of Moses and Elijah ; but 
 when the words are followed by " save Jesus only," 
 they become positively offensive to pious ears. Mr. 
 Walter (2nd letter to Bp. Marsh, p. 48) justly com- 
 plains of a similar fault in the Authorised rendering 
 of Acts xiii, 38 ; Hebr. iii, 3 ; vii, 24 ; viii, 3 ; x, 12, 
 in all which texts he proposes to substitute " person " 
 for " man." I need not add that no violence what- 
 ever would be done to the original by this alteration 
 of Auth. 
 
 In v. 9, the preposition in avaary " be risen again " 
 is expressed by all Eng. It may be thought advis- 
 able to remove "again" from v. 23; ch. xvi, 21, 
 where we have the verb iytlpitrOat and not avaarvvai. 
 
 (I)°. V. 11. Lachmann omits 'I»i<tovc, after BDK 
 (Griesbach says L) Z, about five cursive manuscripts, 
 
232 i^ote0 on t^t 0tXo Htfft&mtnt. 
 
 the Coptic, Vulg. and Italic versions. These are all, 
 or nearly all Alexandrine; yet Griesbach does not 
 agree with Lachmann, although the evidence in favor 
 of a change is considerably stronger than in v. 5 : 
 such is the consistency of his judgment, I remember 
 very few passages in the New Testament where o Si 
 "and he" occurs in the singular, unless it be preceded 
 by o niv, as in Heb. vii, 23, 24. But it would be rash 
 to speak positively on the point, for in this instance 
 the Concordance aifords us no assistance. 
 
 (II, a and b). ibid, tpxtrm koI airoicarairr^vii ir&vra 
 " Cometh, and shall reform all things "]. " Restituet," 
 says Lightfoot, " non in pristinum statum, sed melio- 
 
 rem. 'ArroKaraarfitru, tovtIoti, SiopOiixrtrai r^v ivtartav 
 
 TMv ^louSatwv rCtv t6ti dpivKOfiivwv, Clirysostom. " Shall 
 come and restore," Eng. except that Cov. translates 
 '• bring all things to right again," and tpxirai is ren- 
 dered by Gen. " must come." " Venturus est, et res- 
 tituet," Vulg. I prefer taking f/o^crai strictly as a 
 present, for John had already come, though the 
 airoKaTaaraaic, the fruits of his ministry, had not yet 
 shown themselves. Doddridge, for avoKaraarrivu, has 
 " regulate," " reduce to order :" and nearly all the 
 " Commentators refer the expression to John's mission 
 of repentance. Beyond a doubt our Lord alludes, as 
 indeed Chrysostom saw long ago, to Malachi iv, 6 ; 
 where it is said of Elijah avoKaraarrivH (Hebr. y^i^) 
 KopBtav warphg wphf vl6v. Campbell lost sight of this 
 prophecy when he rendered the clause " to consum- 
 mate the whole ;" importing that the end of John's 
 coming was to close the old dispensation, and to 
 usher in a new one. This interpretation is certainly 
 
 countenanced by Syr. ( yi\ • » ) and may be made to 
 suit the context in Acts iii, 21 ; but Campbell pro- 
 duces no examples of the use of anoKaOiTravai in such 
 
 it 
 
 ■a 
 
 Ml 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 &t. S^atttetD. 233 
 
 a sense, whereas it occurs six times in the New Tes- 
 tament in its common and more obvious signification. 
 (II, a). V. 12. lirolr)<Tav iv ai/Ttf "they did in his 
 case"]. So Green, Gram. p. 281, comparing 1 Cor. 
 xiv, II ; 2 Cor. iv, 3 ; Gal. i, 16 ; 1 John iv, 9. See 
 also Luke xxiii, 31. Thus Eurip. Rhes. 855 (ed. 
 
 Matthis), KovSiv irphf avriv olSa itXtiju/uXIc kXiJwk* iv 
 
 vol S' Sv apxolfuaOa, So Syr. oi-o, Vulg. " in eo." 
 But Beza, Castalio have " ei," and all Eng. "done 
 unto him." This construction of iv with persons 
 must not be confounded with its pleonastic use be- 
 fore the dative of the instrument ; as in 1 Thess. v, 
 26 ; Demosth. adv. Lept. (p. 500, Reiske), Xo'-yovc 
 
 firira^fovc, iv olc Kovfifirt ra rSiv ayaOwv avSpu>v tpya. 
 
 (Ill, c). ibid. nBi\v<rav " they pleased "]. So Dod- 
 dridge, Campbell ; " lusted," Tynd. Cran. Gen. Bisb. 
 " listed," Auth. " what they would," Cov. It would 
 be more distinct if both here and in v. 22 ; ch. xx, 
 ■ 22 fiiWti were rendered " is about to," not "shall." 
 
 (Ill, a and c). v. 17. itviKo/iai " shall I bear with"], 
 as in Auth. Acts xviii, 14. All Eng. have "suffer," 
 even Wickliffe and the Rhemish translators. Thus 
 alter Mark ix, 19 ; Luke ix, 41. 
 
 Inv. 18, Beza and all Eng. except Cov. transpose 
 rJ SatfiSvtov and avT0, translating " and Jesus rebuked 
 the devil, and he departed out of him." Thus also 
 Martin and Ostervald : but Syr. Vulg. and Cov. re- 
 tain the order of the Greek. Vater thinks that a dis- 
 tinction is here drawn between avrt^, the possessed 
 child, and ro Saifi6viov which possessed him. This 
 however must be fanciful, since both St. Mark (ch. 
 ix, 25) and St. Luke (ch. ix, 42) say plainly iirtrtfitin 
 Tif irvtCfiari rt^ aKoOaprif. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 24. oJ XafijiavovrtQ " they that were wont 
 to gather"]. So Tynd. Gen. " that use to receive," 
 
234 0ote0 on t|t 0m lltmrntnt 
 
 Crah. " that received," Gov. Bisb. Auth. probably in- 
 tending to convey tbe tame meaning. 
 
 (II, a), ibid. rA IQpajfpt. " the half-flhekels "]. The 
 contribution paid yearly by each adult laraelite, in 
 order to defray the expenses of the Temple-worship : 
 Exod. XXX, 13 ; xxxviii, 26. No one, I conceive, 
 would gather this circumstance from the indefinite 
 language of Tynd. Gen. " poll money ;" of Gov. "the 
 tribute money ;" and still less from " tribute money " of 
 Gran. Bish. Auth. Vulg. has " didrachma," and Syr. 
 U-f dD-iaj', ^io) ^.j^ "two drachms of head money." 
 The value of \he shekel is accurately Stated by Jose- 
 phus (Antiq. iii, 8, 2), 6 8i aficXoc, v6tu,Ffia 'E^palwv &v, 
 'ArrtKiic 8lx«-<« 8pax/*«c rfwopac- In accordance with 
 this interpretation both Aquila and Symmachus trans- 
 late "shekel" in Exod. xxx, 13 by (irarhp (the Attic 
 stater containing four Attic drachmae), and Aquila 
 yp.n " bekah," or half-shekel, in Exod. xxxviii, 26 by 
 ^pa^ov. On consulting the LXX, however, an un- 
 expected difficulty presents itself: for we there find 
 the shekel called SlSpa-j^/iav, and the bekah 8pax/xn 
 (Exod xxxix, 2, according to the arrangement of the 
 LXX). But this obstacle is soon surmounted. We 
 learn from Varro that the Alexandrian drachma, by 
 which the translators of the LXX naturally reckoned, 
 was equal to two Attic drachmae (see Prideaux's 
 Gonnections, Preface). It appears therefore that two 
 Attic drachma; (whose value is pretty accurately given 
 at fifteen pence in the margin of the later editions of 
 Auth. ; see note on ch. xviii, 24), were considered 
 equivalent (indeed they were rather more than equi- 
 valent) to the Hebrew bekah. 
 
 In V 27, ararnpo 18 rendered by Tynd, 1. " a piece 
 of twelve pence ;" by Tynd. 2. Gov. Gran. Gen. 
 Bish. " a piece of twenty pence ;" by Auth. with un- 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 ■I 
 
 ■^1 
 
 &t. a^ltleto. 235 
 
 fortunate vagueness, '" a piece of money," which in 
 the margin of the first edition is explained to be " a 
 stater," its value being indicated only in our later 
 Bibles (" it is half an ounce of silver, in value 2*. Qd. 
 after 5*. the ounce"). Since it is necessary to point 
 out the relation subsisting between orarrip and Si'Spa^- 
 ftov (v. 24), we may call the former " shekel," with 
 Pr. Scholefield, though that version is not quite un- 
 exceptionable. The half-shekel was in actual use 
 among the Jews, when they presented their legal of- 
 fering every year. The alleged business of the koXXu- 
 /3((TTat (Matth. xxi, 12 ; Mark xi, 16), or KtpfiatKTrai 
 (John ii, 14), within the temple was to supply the 
 worshippers with Hebrew coin, in exchange for the 
 Greek and Roman money then in ordinary circula- 
 tion. Both on this account, therefore, and from the 
 language of Exod. xxx, 13, there can be no impro- 
 priety in speaking of the half-shekel in v. 24. The 
 shekel, on the contrary, seems to have become quite 
 obsolete ; and the stater found by Peter was a Greek 
 and not a Jewish piece of money : for few persons, I 
 presume, will believe with Sebastian Schmidt (see 
 Wolf's Curae Phil, ad loc.) that the coin in question 
 was created expressly for this purpose ; because, for- 
 sooth, had it been lost in the sea, its former owner 
 would have had good grounds for a law-suit against 
 our Redeemer ! 
 
 (II, a). V. 27. oKavlaklawfitv owroic "cause them to 
 otTend "]. See note on ch. v, 29. Syr. here, as before, 
 employs the causative conjugation (Vofc-aj) ; but all 
 Eng. Vulg. &c. have "offend." Piscator renders 
 " offendiculum praebeamus ipsis ;" either by inducing 
 them to despise the temple and its services, or to tra- 
 duce our Lord as on impious subverter of the Mosaic 
 ritual. Thus the general meaning is the same as in 
 
236 i^ote0 on ttie 0t\D i:e0tfttmnt. 
 
 Auth., but our rendering of the verb here is more 
 consigtent with its use in other places. See below, 
 note on ch. xviii, 6 ; 8 ; 9. 
 
 (Ill, c). ibid, ipov " take "]. So Tynd. Gov. Gran. 
 
 Gen. "take up," Bish. Auth. 
 the very next line. 
 
 But " up " occurs in 
 
 CHAPTER XVIIl. 
 
 (II, a), vv. 6, 8, 9. <ir«cavSaX«<Tp " cause to offend "]. ^ 
 
 Here vv. 8, 9 are parallel to ch. y, 29, 30 ; and there 
 is not the least reason for questioning that the verb 
 is used in the full transitive sense. So Syr. and even 
 Tynd. 1. in v. 8 (" give thee an occasion of evil") ; 
 Gran, in v. 8, and Gheke in v. 9 ("hinder"); Gen. 
 in vv. 8, 9. All other Eng. have "offend." Auth. 
 is correct in 1 Cor. viii, 13, and its margin in Mark ix, 
 43 ; 45 ; 47 (not in v. 42). " Fait broncher," Martin ; 
 "fait tomber," Ostervald in vv. 8, 9, after Beza's 
 " facit ut offendas." It is but candid to admit that 
 Qhrysostom (on v. 6) is of a different opinion : ol an- 
 
 HaZovrtff—rovro yap iart rb OKavSaXlaat' 
 
 The distinction between Oakaaaa and irfXayoc in v. 
 6 is excellently illustrated by Raphel from Arist. Hist. 
 Anim. i, 1, ical rwv OaXaoaiwv ra iiiv irtX&yta, ra Si alyta- 
 
 xuSi). i 
 
 (1)". V. 8. Instead of avra " them" Lachmann reads 
 airrov " it " (i. e. the foot), which is favored by Gries- 
 bacli and found in the first edition of Erasmus (1616), 
 in Syr. Vulg. Tynd. Gov. Gran. It is supported by 
 only ten manuscripts (B D L inclusive), of which 
 all except two of Matthsei's are Alexandrian. This 
 evidence is far too weak to be considered as authentic, 
 
 j^t. 9^atttie\»* 237 
 
 though perhaps avrw may be thought rather the 
 more probable reading. See note on ch. xxv, 2. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). v. 12. rl ifiiv SoKii " what think ye ?"]. 
 So Gheke, and Auth. also in all other places where 
 the phrase occurs (ch. xvii, 25; xxi, 28; xxii, 17; 
 42 ; xxvi, 66 ; John xi, 66). Here all Eng. have 
 " how think ye." 
 
 (Ill, b). ibid, ovxl a^elc • . . iroptvOtlt Krrrt'i " doth he 
 not leave . . . and go . . . and seek"]. So Tynd. 
 Gen. and Gheke, in substance. But Gov. Gran. 
 Bish. Auth. have " doth he not leave . . . and goeth 
 . . . and seeketh." This lapse in the grammatical 
 construction is pointed out by Lowth, Eng. Gram, 
 p. 146, and after him by Archbp. Newcome. A simi- 
 lar error occurs Jerem. xxvi, 19. We may here re- 
 mark that Syr. Vulg. Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gheke, Gen. 
 Gastalio, Doddridge and Campbell join M ra 3p»/ with 
 ei^Hc, " leave the ninety-nine on the mountains," be- 
 cause St. Luke (ch. XV, 4) has iv if lp^/«j^ in the paral- 
 lel text. Beza, however, the French versions, Bish. 
 Auth. rightly take the words with voptv9t(c, "goeth 
 into (' to ' would be better) the mountains." I cannot 
 concede to Doddridge that "the original will bear 
 either construction." 'Etti with the dative implies 
 rest, with the accusative motion to a place. 
 
 (Ill, c). v. 13. Kol liv ylvrrrai " and if it happen 
 that"]. So Tynd. Gen. (omitting " and ") Gov. Gran. 
 It is surprising that Bish. Auth. should have pre- 
 ferred so inelegant a phrase as " if so be that." 
 Again, xatpti iir' aW^^ should be rendered " rejoiceth 
 over it," as in Gov. Other Eng. have " o( thai sheep :" 
 " of that one," Gheke. 
 
 (Ill, c). v. 16. iir\ «rr<J;«aToc "by the mouth"]. So 
 Gen. " By two or three witnesses' report," or " saying," 
 Gheke; "by the testimony," Campbell. "In the 
 
23A 0ott9 on t1)( fitXa <^0tament. 
 
 mouth" of Vulg. Tynd. Gov. Cran. Bish. Auth. is too 
 obscure. Syr. yn.n y> '^-^ "upon the mouth;" ex- 
 actly as we have V^ in Deut xvii, 6 ; xix, 16. Park- 
 hurst observes " so we say in English, upon the word 
 or oath." TTjus correct 2 Cor. xiii, 1. Such expres- 
 sions as in\ Tovoirwv fiapripwv are Very common in 
 Greek, as Wetstein has shown. See 1 Tim. v, 19, 
 and note. In Hebr. x, 28 iwl is employed with the 
 dative of the person; but this is derived from the 
 LXX, Deut. xvii, 6, which version represents the same 
 Hebrew words by inl orSfiarot in Deut. xix, 15. 
 
 (II, a). V. 17. irapaKovay "disregard"]. So Dod- 
 dridge. " Give no ear to," Cheke, " hear not," Syr. 
 Vulg. Tynd. Gov. Cran. Bish. "will not vouchsafe to 
 hear . . . refuse to hear," Gen. Campbell's " despise" is 
 perhaps too strong, but " neglect to hear" of Auth. is 
 very feeble, for something worse than negligence is 
 intended. ZlapaKoioy is doubtless equivalent to fiv 
 nKovoTf V. 16, and is used for it in the LXX, Isai. Ixv, 
 12. Koi before r^c iKKXnaia? should not be lost ; " dis- 
 regard the Church also ;" so Syr. Bish. Auth. alone 
 have " Church." See Introd. p. 83, note. 
 . (Ill, c). ibid, o iOviKoc "an heathen"]. So Cov, 
 Cheke. The other Eng. have " an heathen man." See 
 note on ch. xiii, 45. 
 
 (I)". V. 19. Here Griesbach adds iftriv to n-oXic, 
 and Lachmann displaces iraXci' to make room for it. 
 The latter cites Codex B and Cyprian only in behalf 
 of his emendation ; a rather poor array of authorities. 
 If Griesbach and Scholz may be trusted, the Codex 
 B adds duriv to n-aXiM, a reading countenanced by the 
 Sahidic and several Italic versions. 'A^qv is found 
 also in seven other uncial, and in so many of the best 
 cursive manuscripts of both families, that but for the 
 adverse testimony of Syr. Vulg. I should be almost 
 
 , 
 
 i. 
 
 &t. a^atttietD. 239 
 
 disposed to adopt it. IlaAiv dfinv has so much the 
 air of a pleonasm, that we can readily understand 
 how one of the two words should have been rejected 
 by translators and copyists. It is remarkable that 
 Gen. renders "again verily," and Bish. "again truly." 
 This can scarcely be accidental : but derived (like 
 the variation in ch. ii, 1 1), from the Complutensian, 
 which reads d^hv. In v. 22, Campbell and Vater join 
 ov with Ewc iirraKif, not with Xiytt aoi, which is thus 
 thrown into a parenthesis ; "I say unto thee, not 
 seven times." I see no occasion for the change. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). v. 23. fiOiXnat mivapai Xrfyov " wished 
 to reckon "]. So Auth. in v. 24 ; ch. xxv, 19. Here 
 " would reckon," Wickliffe, Cov. " would come to 
 acc^itfnt," Cheke. " would take account," (or " ac- 
 counts of,") Tynd. Cran, Gen. Bish. Auth. " settle ac- 
 counts with," Campbell, Symonds. Syr. Vulg. also 
 are uniform in vv. 23, 24. "Swatpttv \6yov seems to 
 be a Latinism. See Schleusner. 
 
 In V. 24, Cov. renders raXai'roi' "pound"! Both 
 here and in ch. xxv, 16 the margin of the later edi- 
 tions of Auth. reckons by Attic talents, each of which 
 contains 6000 drachmae. Now assuming that the 
 Attic drachma is equal to the Roman denarius, which 
 ^ the same margin computes at one eighth of an ounce 
 in v. 28 ; ch. xx, 2 ; xxii, 19, we shall make the 
 talent weigh " 760 ounces of silver, which after five 
 shillings the ounce, is£187. 10*." Modem authorities, 
 however, have arrived at somewhat different results 
 respecting the relative values of the Attic and Roman 
 money. It appears from actual experiments made 
 on Attic drachmae of the times posterior to Alexander 
 the Great, which are preserved in the British Museum, 
 that the average weight of pure silver in each is 63 
 grains, whereas our shilling sterling contains 80.7 
 
240 j^ote0 on Vit i^tto '^t0tament. 
 
 grains, after deducting the alloy. Hence (80.7 : 63 : : 
 12 rf. : 9 . 36 d. nearly) the drachma of the later age 
 was equal to about 9\d. of English money, and the 
 talent [d^d. X 6000) to £231. 6s. (Hussey, Antient 
 Weights and Money, pp. 47, 48). And though the 
 Attic drachma became gradually depreciated so as to 
 be considered equivalent to the Roman denarius 
 (Gronov. De Sestertiis, iii, 2), yet at no time were they 
 precisely equal, inasmuch as the denarius itself was 
 undergoing the same process of slow depreciation, 
 until from \ of an ounce, or 60 grains, it came to 
 weigh under the early Emperors scarcely 51 grains 
 of unalloyed silver, which are convertible into no 
 more than 7^d of English money (80.7 : 51 : : I2d. : 
 7.58 nearly. See also Hussey, pp. 141, 142). Some 
 commentators, with little probability, think that 
 the Hebrew talent is here intended. This talent is 
 reduced by Bp. Cumberland to £353. 11*. lOd. Eng- 
 lish money. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 26. irpoffticwvn avTtf "prostrated himself 
 before him "]. So Doddridge and Campbell nearly. 
 "Bowed himself to him," Cheke. " besought him," 
 Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gen. Bish. and margin of Auth., 
 after "orabat" of Vulg. But there is a broad dis- 
 tinction between the humble entreaty (tropticdAtc) in v. 
 29, and the formal prostration to a superior in the 
 present case. Syr. has j-v^J* " adored." Perhaps 
 " worshipped him " of Auth. expresses this Oriental 
 custom too strongly, and the term is no doubt liable 
 to be misunderstood. The use of vpoaKwtiv in the 
 New Testament is ably examined by Dr. Pye Smith, 
 " Scripture Testimony to the Messiah," vol. ii, p. 
 270. 
 
 (I). V. 28. ti Ti " what "]. This is the reading of 
 almost all the manuscripts and critics instead of « t» 
 
 I, 
 
 
 
 fet. 99att|ieto. 241 
 
 of the received text. Ef n is far more Classical, but 
 still it is frequently found in the N. T. 
 
 (I)". V, 29. Griesbach and Lachmann omit tit roue 
 n-rfSoc oiroO " at his feet." The words are not con- 
 tained in Vulg. or in any edition of Erasmus, pub- 
 lished in his lifetime ; nor are they found in Tynd. 
 Gov. Gran. Gheke, among the English versions. 
 See note on ch. xxv, 2. The authority for the rejec- 
 tion of this clause is slight enough : eleven MSS 
 (BCDL. 1.28.71. 124, &c.) mostly of the Egyptian 
 class, the Sahidic, Coptic, and Italic versions. There 
 is no ground, therefore, for believing the words spu- 
 rious. 
 
 Before airoSw9u> Mill and Scholz expunge wavra, 
 which in the opinion of the former was interpolated 
 from v. 26. The testimony of the manuscripts which 
 favor this omission is so much stronger than that in 
 the case of tig rovg »ro8ac avrov, that nothing but Gries- 
 bach's extravagant partiality for such documents as 
 DL. 1. 124. could have led him to retain vavra here. 
 It is exhibited however in Vulg. Syr. (Griesbach and 
 Scholz say not in the manuscripts of Syr., but I find 
 no various reading in Schaaf), and though it must be 
 confessed that a large number of the earlier Byzan- 
 tine MSS (including nearly all Matthaei's) neglect it, 
 I am reluctant to dismiss it entirely from the text. 
 
 (II, a), v. 3 1 . Suff^^qtrav " told plainly "]. So Gen., 
 or perhaps "gave an exact account of," as in Dod- 
 dridge. " Told," Eng. Vulg. On the force of Sii in 
 composition see note on ch. xiv, 36. 
 
 (Ill, a), v. 33. iXtiiaai . . . tiXinva " had pity," in both 
 
 cases]. So Cheke : all Eng. " had compassion 
 
 had pity." 
 
 (II, a). V. 34. roiv /3affav((TTarc " to the jailors "]. 
 So Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gen. Campbell, Newcome and 
 
242 i|2ote0 on t^t ^tXa '^0tament. 
 
 Boothroyd : but •' tormentors," Syr. Vulg. Beza, 
 Castalio, Cheke, Bisb, Auth. " aux sergens," Martin, 
 Ostervald. Imprisonment, as Grotius observes, was 
 called in the Roman law-books " cruciatus corporis ;" 
 and from all we know of the antient jails, very justly 
 too. Nothing further seems intended in the present 
 instance. In v, 35, Gov, Cran. Bish. Auth. render 
 voiitativiuv by "do also unto you." Tynd. Gen. 
 omit '• also," which indeed is quite needless. 
 
 (I)°. V. 35. Here again Griesbach and Lachmann 
 expunge the clause to vapairriljiiara avTu>v, on evi- 
 dence which I cannot help calling weak and incon- 
 siderable. Mill, more suo, defends the received text 
 in his note on the passage, but when he came to write 
 his Prolegomena several years later, he had grown 
 bolder, and pronounced the words a marginal gloss, 
 derived either from ch. vi, 15 ; or from Mark xi, 26. 
 Vater says, " multo facilius addebantur quam dele- 
 bantur," which I do not think quite true. The words 
 were doubtless removed in order to relieve a some- 
 what harsh and redundant sentence ; for which pur- 
 pose Syr. and two MSS of Chrysostom read r&napawrd)- 
 fiara avrov, a variation, by the way, not noticed by 
 Griesbach or Scholz. The direct authorities for 
 omitting the clause are Griesbach's old favorites 
 BDL. 1. and three other MSS of less note; the 
 Vulg. Italic, Sahidic, Coptic and iEthiopic versions. 
 But a version need be very literal indeed, to be relied 
 on in a case like the present. 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 % 
 
 7> 
 
 li 
 
 ■:$• 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 .'•P- 
 (* 
 
 fet. a^atttjtto. 243 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 (II, b and c). v. 4. 6 rroifiaac, air' apyri^ apaiv ical flijAv 
 
 lirolrfacv aiirovt " he who made them, made them from 
 the beginning a male and a female"]. So Ostervald 
 " qui crea Vhom7ne, au commencement du monde, fit 
 un homme et une femme." Campbell also renders 
 "a male and a female," and is followed by the " Lay- 
 man " of 1840 (see note on ch. xv, 6, 6). The course of 
 our Lord's argument requires that it be distinctly 
 stated, that at the creation God made but one woman 
 for one man. Such is the view of Chrysostom, oi yap 
 
 ilirtv 6ri iirolriffiv iva avSpa koI filav -yuvatica ii6vov, aW 
 uri Kol TOVTo iKlXivatv, SxTTS Tov Iva ry /ut^ avvairrtaOai, 
 So too Theophylact, J£ apxijc iva avvll^tv^cv 6 9t6c fiiq. 
 Thus correct Mark x, 6. All Eng, lose the force of 
 Christ's reasoning in this passage, as if they thought 
 with Grotius and Rosenmiiller, that v. 4 is nothing 
 but a general introduction to vv. 5, 6, being prefixed 
 to them merely "ad contexendam orationem." Accord- 
 ingly in Tynd. Gov. Cran. Cheke, Gen. we find 
 "made them man and woman;" in Bish. Auth. 
 " made them male and female." The Latin versions 
 of course decide nothing where the article is con- 
 cerned ; neither can Syr. ; for though both nouns are 
 in the definite state, as it has been called, yet few 
 Orientalists of the present day will lay any stress on 
 that circumstance, or think that the definite or em- 
 phatic termination in Syriac had any other end, than 
 that of softening and facilitating the pronunciation of 
 the word to which it is affixed. (See Pfannkuche on 
 the Language of Palestine in the Age of Clirist, ^ 2). 
 I have also, though not without some hesitation, 
 
244 0ottfi on ttie Bt\o '^mamtnu 
 
 adopted the punctuation of Homberg and Macknight 
 (Gen. Pref. to Epistles, sect, iii, note), who join aV 
 apxhc with lirofi/(T(v, and not with 6 votfiaat. Here 
 again the antient versions afford us no light, and all 
 Eng. are against me, except Cheke (" the Maker at 
 the beginning made them" &c). Yet this arrange- 
 ment appears most suitable to Mark x, 6 ; it enables 
 us to render aVapx^c uniformly here and in v. 8 ; and 
 it is the construction adopted by Chrysostom, o yap 
 
 ©tic iK opX^C Spatv Kol OriXv lirodi^'v avroCc- This 
 
 absolute use of 6 7rot^«Tac, for •' the Creator," is illus- 
 trated by Loesner from Philo, de Opif. mundi, p. 7, 
 
 S Ka\ Tifilpav 6 iroi^trac tKoXtat. 
 
 (II, b and III, c). v. 6. ol Sio " the two"]. " They 
 two," Gov. (but not in v. 6), Cheke, and the Rhemish 
 version. All other Eng. and even Wickliffe have 
 " they twain." Thus correct ch. xxi, 31 ; xxvii, 21 ; 
 61, " twain." 
 
 In V. 7 also rl o5v Mwoflc . . . Cheke and the Rhe- 
 mish translators alone say correctly '• why then did 
 Moses" . . . Tynd. omits " then," and the rest mis- 
 place it: " why did Moses then," Gov. Gran. Bish. 
 Auth. The rendering of Gen. is even worse ; " why 
 did then Moses . . ." 
 
 (II, a). V. 8. irpic <T(cXi,poicap8fov i/uwv " against your 
 obstinacy"], i. e. to meet it, Green, Gram. N. T. p. 
 303. " Because of the hardness of your hearts," Eng. 
 " for your hearthardness," Cheke. Grotius and Ro- 
 senmiiller labour to shew that rrpoc is here used like 
 the Hebrew V for " propter." Yet is remarkable 
 that Syr. does not render wpot by "^i-i. " on account 
 of," but by ' .V A~^v " against," which is unquestion- 
 ably more literal ; " ad duritiam cordis vestri," Vulg. 
 With regard to ffieXupoKopSfo, it is only necessary to 
 refer the reader to GampbelFs Prelim. Diss. IV, 22 
 
 
 *i 
 
 4 
 
 ■■': 
 
 &t. 9$att^t\xi. 245 
 
 for a full justification of the change suggested. " Per- 
 vicacia,"Castalio; /ioxO»j|Bfa,Theophylact. Syr. agrees 
 with Vulg. and Eng. in rendering " hardness of 
 heart ;" but it is only reasonable to expect that this 
 version should retain the Hebrew idiom. Thus 
 correct Mark x, 5. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 9. \lyu Si vfilv " but I say unto you"]. 
 So Gov. Gheke, after Syr. Vulg. AJ is omitted by 
 Cran. Bish. In Tjmd. Gen. we read " I say there- 
 fore," in Auth. " and I say." Yet beyond a doubt 
 the same pointed opposition is intended between 
 thfe law of Moses and that of Christ, as in ch. v, 32 > 
 where Auth. has " but I say." 
 
 (Ill, c). v. 12. iwb rwv avdpwvwv " by men"]. So 
 the Rhemish version. All Eng. (even Gheke) have 
 " of men," which is equivocal in this place. The 
 Rhemish translators alone have " there are" (tlaiv) 
 throughout the verse. Wickliffe, Gov. and Gheke 
 render " there be," three times. Tynd. Gran. (Gen.) 
 Bish. Auth. " there are" twice, followed by " there 
 be." So closely in some matters did the later trans- 
 lators copy those that went before them. 
 
 (Ill, a), v. 13. Im9^ " lay"]. So Gov. Auth. in 
 v. 15, but " put" here. Tynd, Gran. Gen. Bish. 
 have " put," and Gheke " lay," in both places. IlotSfa 
 is rendered '* young children" by all Eng. except 
 Auth., and by Auth. in Mark x, 13. Yet Gen. trans- 
 lates " little children" in v. 14, as Auth. does here. 
 Gheke does not represent the diminutive here, though 
 he had done so in ch. ii. Bish. alone is consistent in 
 both verses. 
 
 (II, b). V. 14. TO iraiSc'a " the young children"]. So 
 Bish. a case of renewed mention. All Eng. except 
 Auth. have the article (" these children," Cheke), and 
 even Auth. in Mark x, 14. Thus in v. 17, «? rrjv Iwijv 
 
246 iliotcfj on t^e i^etD %m&mtnt. 
 
 refers us back to Cw»|v in v. 16. Cheke says " y 
 ^ (the?) life," and Campbell " that life;" but in this 
 case the force of the article can scarcely be preserved 
 in English. 
 
 (III,c). tOld. rwv ydp Toto{>rwv larlv ri ^aafXiia rwv 
 ovpaviov " for to such belongeth the kingdom of 
 heaven"]. So Tynd. 1. Gov. Bish. Green, Gram. 
 N. T. p. 2G7, This rendering is much clearer than 
 •• of such is," of Tynd. 2. Gran. Gen. Auth. or 
 " such one's is" of Cheke. 
 
 (I)°. V. 17. See Introduction, p. 16. Griesbach 
 and Lachmann here admit into the text an important 
 variation, which, both from its extent and obvious 
 bearing, cannot have originated in accidental causes. 
 
 Instead of rf fit Xf-ync aya06v ; owSflc aya06c, tl ftfi tic, 6 
 
 0frfc> " why callest thou me good ? there is none good 
 but one, that is God :" they read, r( /« Ipwrac ntp\ roD 
 ayaOov ; (Iq lariv 6 ayaOoc, " why askest thou me con- 
 cerning what is good ? He who is good is One." I fear 
 it is but too evident that this text was mangled by some 
 over-zealous scribe, who was displeased with tlie doc- 
 trine of the Son's inferiority which seemed to be im- 
 plied in it; and who did not perceive that His subor- 
 dination to the Father in the economy of grace, is per- 
 fectly consistent with His equality in respect to the 
 Divine Nature and Essence.* The received text is 
 found in Mark x, 18 ; Luke xviii, 19, with no variety 
 in the manuscripts worthy of notice ; and even in 
 this place Griesbach s reading is contained only in 
 five copies (B D L. 1. 22.), and partially in a sixth 
 (Mattli.Tci's x). Now all these documents (except 
 
 • " EqunI to the Father, m touching his Godhead : and inferior 
 to the Fitther, ns teaching hit Manhood ;" is the acciirnte and 
 Scriptural itatement of the Athnnaiinn Creed. 
 
 11 
 
 *? 
 
 ;■'•- 
 
 fet. fl^dttlieto. 247 
 
 perhaps one) being Alexandrine, and B alone being 
 of first-rate importance, every rule of sober criticism 
 calls for the rejection of Griesbach 's correction, es- 
 pecially since it is clear in what sources of mistaken 
 feeling it took its rise. It is supported, however, by 
 the Italic, Vulg. and the Coptic versions (with the slight 
 addition of Deus), and in part by the Sahidic, iEthiopic, 
 and one or two of less weight. Syr. agrees with the 
 textus receptus, but the language of Origen (Tom. iii, 
 p. 664) may shew at how early a period Griesbach 's 
 variation had become current : 6 filv ovv MarOaToc mc 
 
 wtpX ayaOov tpyov IpwrtiOlvrof rov ffwrijpoc Iv ri^ rl dyaOov 
 TTOifiau) ; 6 Si MapKOC kq) AovkSc (^cktI rov owrrjpa tlpriKlvat, 
 r( fU Xlyitc aya06v ; ov^tlt aya06f, si flfi tTc, i Ot^C. The 
 
 process whereby Griesbach and Lachmann persuaded 
 themselves of the genuineness of their new text,' is 
 visible enough. The Codices B D, the Italic, Origen 
 and the Vulgate, constitute a clear majority of the au- 
 thorities admitted by the latter. The former, conceiv- 
 ing that the joint evidence of Codices B L. 1. Origen, 
 the Sahidic and Coptic, is decisive of the testimony 
 of his Egyptian family; while the Codex D, the Italic 
 and Vulg. represent that of the Western recension ; 
 infers that their joint influence will more than coun- 
 terbalance Syr. Chrysostom, and the whole mass of 
 corrupt Byzantine documents of every kind : although 
 numerically they exceed, in the proportion of about 
 ninety to one, the vouchers for both his other classes 
 united. Thus it is only by denying the premises 
 assumed by these critics, that we can avoid sub- 
 scribing to their perilous conclusions. 
 
 In V, 18, Tynd. 2. places the seventh before the 
 sixth commandment, I suppose through oversight, for 
 I know of no various reading. In the parallel pas- 
 sage, Rom. xiii, 9, Pr. Scholefield, in his notes on 
 
248 ipote0 on t|jt 0t\D lEeutammt. 
 
 Middleton, proposes to express ro yip " for the com- 
 mandment." It does not appear advisable to render 
 TO here. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 21.ra vira'p^^ovra "thy substance"]. So 
 Bish. Syr. " quae habes," Vulg. " that thou hast," 
 Tyn. Gov. Cheke, Gen. Auth. " (all) that thou hast," 
 Cran. from some Italic manuscript (see Introd. p. 88), 
 for Wickliffc reads " all," as also, according to Scholz, 
 does the Sahidic version. Tlru^oit should strictly be 
 rendered •' to poor persons." All Eng. have " to 
 the poor." Indeed Lachmann, after B D and a few 
 editions, reads rote. See note on ch. ix, 13. 
 
 (II, b). V. 22. rov X070V " the saying "]. See note 
 on ch. XV, 12. " That saying," Eng. Syr. Here Lach- 
 mann reads rovrov on the sole authority of the Godex 
 B : for Syr. he cares nothing (Introd. p. 25). 
 
 (Ill, c), V. 23. SwfficoXwc " with difficulty "]. So 
 Tynd, 1. "shall hardly enter," Cheke, Bish. Auth. 
 which is very ambiguous: "it shall be(" it is," Tynd. 2.) 
 hard for a rich man to enter," Tynd. 2. Gov. Cran. Gen. 
 
 (I), v. 24. Instead of 8.iX0«v " to go through," 
 Wetstein, Griesbach.Vater, and Scholz, adopt uaiXOtiv 
 " to enter," which is the more difficult reading, and 
 may have been expunged on account of tlatXOfiv im- 
 mediately following (see note on ch. ii, 11).* Camp- 
 bell says that the sense suggested by turiXOtiv is 
 *• odd," and that " should the external evidence 
 appear balanced on both sides, the common reading 
 is preferable, as yielding a better sense." I believe 
 that Griesbach's canon " durior lectio prseferatur ei. 
 
 • Bp. Jebb, however, eajs that " to depart from rerbal repeti- 
 tion, is not the common error of copjiata " (Sacred Liter, p. 31 1). 
 Not of copyiats, perhaps ; but of critical correctors, a much more 
 meddling and curious race. 
 
 S' 
 
 ■i^ 
 
 il 
 
 &t S^attlieto. 249 
 
 qu& posita, oratio suaviter leniterque fluat" (Proleg. 
 N. T. p. Ixv), is grounded on a juster estimate of 
 contending probabilities. In the present case, how- 
 ever, there can scarcely be said to be an equipoise 
 in the external evidence. Not to insist on Syr. and 
 some other versions (which cannot well be trusted- 
 in so minute a question), tltrtKOtiv is read by Chrysos- 
 tom, and by so many of the most antient manuscripts 
 of both families (including C E F H K L M Z), that it 
 may rightfully claim a place in the text. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 26. l/u/3X^ac " looking on them"]. So 
 Cheke, and even Auth. in the parallel place, Mark 
 X, 27 : whether steadfastly, as Doddridge thinks, or 
 with gracious consolation, Tifilp(f iftfian koI wpqv ^pfi- 
 rovaav airbiv rqv Stavoiav irapa/xvOtiaantvoc, as ChrysoS- 
 tom beautifully expresses it. Here all Eng. have 
 " beheld." Thus correct Mark x, 21. In Luke xx, 
 17; xxii, 61, the feeling denoted by ifipXixpa^ is 
 widely different, and more in accordance with the 
 common use of the word in Classical authors : e. g. 
 Plato, Charmides (I, i, 307, ed. Bekker), ivifiXf^pl t{ 
 fiot rote i^OaXfioTt aft{i\av6v ri, SO that, in confusion, 
 fISrfv Tt TO. Ivrhf TQV Ifiarlov ko) i^Xty6fit)v, koI ovKir iv 
 i/iavTov 7iv. 
 
 In this verse all Eng., even Cheke and Auth. in 
 the edition of 1611, have " unpossible." We have 
 noticed similar variations in our modem Bibles from 
 the first edition of Auth. in ch. ix, 34 ; xii, 23 ; xiii, 
 46 ; xvi, 16. For " more" the Bible of 1611 often 
 has " mo ;" e. g. ch. xxi,' 36 ; xxii, 46, &c. 
 
 In V. 27, Tynd. 2. Gen. omit apa altogether. Tynd. 1. 
 Gov. Cran. Bish, Auth. say " what shall we have 
 therefore?" Rather render " what then shall we have"? 
 Cheke puts " then" last. 
 
 (II, c) °. V. 28. iv ry iraXiyyivtvlq " in the regenera- 
 
250 iI5ote0 on tl)t 0t\a tleistainent. 
 
 tion"]. It has been seriously doubted whether these 
 words should be joined with KaOhtaOt, or with the 
 clause which immediately precedes them : and the 
 early editors of the Grreek Testament are pretty equally 
 divided between the two opinions. The determina- 
 tion of this question (I cannot pretend to call it a very 
 difficult one) is dependent on the sense we assign to 
 va\iyytv(a(a. If we punctuate and translate thus, 
 " ye which have followed me in the regeneration," 
 the " regeneration" can bear no other meaning than 
 that given to it here by Calvin ; the then commencing 
 reformation of the world, at Christ's first coming : it 
 is something past or present (a»coXowfl^(Tavrtc)» or at all 
 events not entirely future. Now I believe it is im- 
 possible to produce a single example of this signifi- 
 cation of the word ; at least I can mention no Com- 
 mentator who has succeeded in doing so, notwith- 
 standing all the pains that have been bestowed on 
 the passage. Moreover, regeneration in its moral 
 sense is always mentioned in the New Testament in 
 close connection with the out-pouring of the Holy 
 Spirit (see John iii, 6 ; Tit. iii, 6 ; 1 Pet. i, 22, 23) ; 
 but it is far from certain that He was at this period 
 ' known to the Apostles even by name. Much more pro- 
 bable is the method of Bengel, Wetstein, Kypke, and 
 nearly all the best critics, who unite iv rp iraXiyyevcalq 
 with KaOlaetrOt, and regard orav KaOl<rf .... Srf^lC avTov, 
 as a parenthetic explanation of naXiyyivtatq. This in- 
 terpretation is confirmed by Syr. which translates 
 i^/L-r-^ ) ViSs -> " in the new age," and by Tynd. 1. 
 which renders " in the second generation." The 
 construction of Vulg. Cheke, and other Eng. depends 
 on the punctuation, which, except perhaps in Tynd. 2. 
 Aiilh., is adverse to my view (Gov. has " new birth "). 
 
 Theophylact expounds waXiyytvtirla by avaaraan-, and 
 
 h 
 
 TheophaneS adds a>c a50«c avaytwHtaav fifiaf, Kol tig rh 
 
 apxoTov fitrayovaav (see Suicer, Thcs. Eccles. Tom. ii, 
 p. 65 1 ) : and such a use ofwaXiyytvsala has been amply 
 vindicated by citations from the Classics. Others, 
 however, refer it not so much to the actual resurrection, 
 as to that state of consummate bliss which shall follow 
 it.* But it is evident that both these interpretations 
 are mere modifications of the same general notion, 
 that by the regeneration we are to understand some- 
 thing distant and heavenly ; in fact what St. Mark in 
 the parallel passage (ch. x, 30) expresses by iv r<(J 
 alotvi Tt^ ipxofiivn> I " dans le renouvellement qui doit 
 arrivcr," Ostervald. 
 
 (Ill, a and c). ibid. M AjmJvov " upon the throne"]. 
 So Auth. in the very next line. All Eng. even Wick- 
 liffe, Cheke, and the Rhemish version have " in" here. 
 See note on ch. iv, 6. Of course hi with the geni- 
 tive does not here differ in sense from the same pre- 
 position with the accusative. 
 
 (II, b). V. 30. noWol 8J tffovrat, k. t. X. " but many 
 first shall be last, and last first"]. IloXXol refers to 
 iaxarot as well as to irpioToi, otherwise it would be 
 01 iaxaroi, as in ch. XX, 16. -See Middleton ad loc. 
 Cheke inserts " many " in both clauses. All Eng. 
 have " the last," though I do not suppose that they 
 read, with the Complutensian, of taxo-roi. On the 
 omission of the words in italics, see Introd. p. 63. 
 In the Introd. p. 48 I have spoken of the propriety 
 of joining this verse with ch. xx, 1. "0/uoi'a TAP . . . 
 See also ch. xx, 16. 
 
 • Wotstein tells us that va\iyytviala here denoten " summn 
 felicitni," on account of the emphasig in the article rp. So little 
 did the first critic of his ape know respecting the real nature of the 
 Greek article. 
 
262 i^ote0 on t^e Bt\o HtfMxntnu 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 1. avOpwrrif olKoh(nr6rTg " unto an house- 
 holder"]. So Tynd. Gov. Cheke, Gen. " a man that 
 is an householder," Cran. Bish. Auth. Compare note 
 on ch. xiii, 45. In v. 11 ; ch. xxiv, 43; Mark xiv, 
 1 4 ; Luke xii, 39, we should reject the inelegant 
 rendering " goodman of the house," which Campbell 
 so properly censures, and make those passages uni- 
 form with the present: Cov. does so in v. 11. 
 
 In V. 2, the marginal note in the later editions of 
 Auth. has been examined above (on ch. xviii, 24). 
 A denarius was the daily pay of a Roman soldier : 
 "denis in diem assibus animara et corpus sBStimari," 
 Tacit. Ann. i, 17. So a drachma is proposed as the 
 wages for a day, Tobit v, 14. 
 
 (1)°. V. 6. Griesbach, Vater, and Lachmann omit 
 ipyov( after iaTfJrat, and Mill thinks it may have crept 
 into the text from ▼. 3. The grounds for its rejection 
 .are but trifling. It is read in all the manuscripts ex- 
 cept four (BCD L), Origen, the Italic, Vulg. and 
 Egyptian versions ; which might easily have neglected 
 it, as not necessary to the sense. Scholz, of course, 
 retains ap-yowy in the text. 
 
 (II, a)°. V. 12. lirotn<rav " have wrought"]. So all 
 Eng. including Cheke, Syr.* Vulg. Beza, Castalio, 
 and the French versions. The interpretation of the 
 margin of Auth. "have continued one hour only," 
 
 * Syr. here render* iiroltivav by r, n \ ' whereaa in all the 
 
 pnisnges where iroieTi' refers to time (except the doubtful instance 
 of James Iv, 13), it uses the substantire verb. 
 
 i 
 
 <y 
 
 
 &t a^atttieto. 263 
 
 makes nouiv express duration of time, as it undoubtedly 
 does in Acts xv, 33 ; xviii, 23 ; xx, 3 ; 2 Cor. xi, 25 ; 
 and perhaps also in James iv, 13. But Kypke has 
 assigned solid reasons for retaining the common trans- 
 lation. It is unnatural that vouTv should be used in 
 two senses so widely different, in the same verse : if 
 l-irolnaav signify " tarried," " continued," we should 
 expect wSe to be added (but this argument would 
 equally apply to the texts just cited from the Acts) : 
 and lastly, it is not the time, but the labor expended on 
 the vineyard which is made by the malcontents the 
 
 ground of complaint ; toic fiaaraaam rh /3apoc K. T. X. 
 
 Syr. Eng. Cheke, &c. rightly join tov Kai<Tu>va with 
 r^c Wpac- See James i, 1 1 ; LXX. Gen. xxxi, 40, 
 avyKai6fitvoc r(f Kaivuivi, in the Alexandrine text ; the 
 Vatican reads t«|i Kadfian . 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 14. rh ahv "thine own"]. So Cheke. 
 " that which is thy duty," Tynd. Gen. " that thine is," 
 Cov. Cran. Bish. Aiith. very awkwardly. Translate 
 BlXo) 8l " for I will." This meaning of St is recognised 
 by Auth. in Mark xvi, 8 ; Luke xii, 2 ; 1 Thess. ii, 
 16. Though it seems necessary to the connection 
 here, yet all Eng. omit it. E«r BiXto see note on ch. 
 xi, 27. 
 
 (Ill, a), v. 18. irapaSofl^fffrm " shall be delivered"]. 
 So Auth. in v. 19, and Cov. Cheke here. All other 
 Eng. have " betrayed." The reader cannot fail to 
 observe that Cov. had so little influence on succeed- 
 ing translators, that they often neglected to adopt his 
 most evident improvements on Tynd. (See Introd. 
 p. 80). Campbell's just distinction between wapaStS- 
 ovai " to deliver up," and irpoStSovm " to betray," 
 (Prelim. Diss. Ill, 23), cannot at all times be expressed 
 in English ; but there is the additional motive of uni- 
 formity for not overlooking it in the present case. 
 
254 ii5otc0 on tfie Bt\o 'tCt^tamtnt. 
 
 (II, a), y. 21. «7ri " command"]. So Cheke, Cas- 
 talio (" jube "), Martin, Ostervald (*' ordonne "), 
 which is approved by Vater and Pr. Scholefield. St. 
 Mark (ch. x, 37) has Soc, and Kypke supports this 
 view by several Classical quotations : e. g. Xen. 
 Cyroped. vii [p. 107, ed. Stephen.], koI ilwtv abroU 
 
 atritvai Ik tow (rrpaTtifiarot Ta\iaTa, Cov. translates 
 tiwl by " let," the other Eng. by " grant." Syr. Vulg. 
 I3cza (" die") are quite indeterminate. 
 
 (I), ibid. To ihotvifitav Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, 
 and Lachmann, after a great majority of the chief 
 manuscripts of both families, add aov : " thy left," as 
 it is in Tynd. 1. Cov. Gen. " The left," Vulg. Tynd. 2. 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. Syr. reads trov, if that is of any 
 weight. See note on ch. *iv, 22. 
 
 (1)°. V. 22. Griesbach and Lachmann remove from 
 
 the text Kol TO fiairTta/ia, 8 iyw fiairrtZoftat, PairrtaOrivm, 
 
 and the corresponding clause in the next verse. 
 Their meagre array of witnesses is of the usual cha- 
 racter : six decidedly Egyptian manuscripts in v. 22 
 (B D LZ. 1. 22. see note on ch.xix, 17), Origen and 
 Epiphanius among the Greeks ; the Sahidic, Coptic, 
 /Etiiiopic, Italic, and Vulg. with their faithful atten- 
 dants, the Latin Fathers. But even if we grant that 
 the Latin and other versions are more trustworthy in 
 their omissions than in their additions to the text ; or 
 concede to Origen the possibility that the disputed 
 words properly belong only to St. Mark (ch. x, 38, 
 39) ; still it is extravagant to claim for translations 
 so high authority, that they should be held compe- 
 tent to overthrow the positive testimony of manu- 
 scripts of the original. The various sources of error 
 to which the versions are peculiarly exposed, are ad- 
 mirably summed up by Bp. Horsley, in the Preface 
 to his Translation of Hosea, and ought to be ever pre- 
 
 \ 
 
 tet a^attlieto. 255 
 
 sent to the mind of the reviser of the textus receptus. 
 How far Bp. Horsley has abided by his own principles 
 in this matter (at least in his posthumous works), I 
 am not prepared to decide. In v. 23, seven other 
 cursive manuscripts, besides those enumerated above, 
 favor the omission of the clause; two of them (Col- 
 bert. 33, and Ephes. Lambeth 71) being of some 
 little consequence. But even there the evidence is 
 much too weak to deserve more particular notice. It 
 should be added that for kuI, at the beginning of each 
 of the disputed passages, Scholz, on very sufficient 
 authority, reads ri. 
 
 (II, b). V. 23. ovK tariv ifiov Bovvai, oXA' oic itroifiaetrai 
 . . ." is not mine to give, but to those for whom it is pre- 
 pared". . .J. So Tynd. Cov. Bish. merely changing' 
 " those," into " them ;" " but it shall chance unto them 
 that it is prepared for". . .Cran. But Cheke more 
 correctly, " but unto them to whom it is prepared 
 for". . .Gen. Auth, translate "but it shall be given 
 to them for whom it is prepared ;" the words " it 
 shall be given to them,'' being printed in italics in the 
 first edition of Auth. though they are not thus dis- 
 tinguished in the parallel text Mark x, 40 ; so little 
 careful of consistency were our translators in the 
 use of italics (see Introd. p. 62). Modern critics 
 with a rare unanimity, are agreed in thinking that 
 Auth. has wrongly interpolated the clause " it shall 
 be given to them," in this verse. Doddridge, Wynne, 
 Campbell, Macknight, Newcome, Boothroyd, the 
 " Layman" of 1840, and the translator of the " Holy 
 Bible" of 1841, all assent to the rendering I have 
 derived from Tynd. Cov. Cheke, Bish. Dean Tur- 
 ton (Text of English Bible Considered, p. 71, 2nd 
 ed.), Pr. Scholefield, and Mr. Green (Gram. N. T. p. 
 308) have fully vindicated this interpretation, which 
 
266 |Jott0 on tttiPtto 'areSMtntnt. 
 
 had previously been sanctioned by Castalio and Gro- 
 tius. It goes upon the assumption that oXXa " but 
 is here used for « fiH "except," "unless:" and that 
 these particles were sometimes interchanged is evi- 
 dent. Not only is « fin used where v^e should ex- 
 pect a'XXi in Matth. xii, 4 ; Luke iv, 26 ; 27 ; Rom. 
 xiv, 14 ; Gal. i, 7 ; but (what is more to the purpose) 
 the converse takes place in 2 Cor. ii, 6 ; Mark ix, 8 
 compared with Matth. xvii, 8; Herod, i, 193 (cited 
 by Raphel), xP^'-vrat St oiSJv eXaiy, «XX' U rwv <Tf,<,a- 
 u«» ,ro..OvrK. Somewhat similar is the ^aprvpia m 
 Demosth. c. Midiam (p. 654. Reiske), mi8^v« .ripov 
 Jvai riv NiKoSVo" *ovia, iXX' 'Apitfrapxov. Other in- 
 stances may be found in Kypke, of which the most 
 Opposite is Joseph. Antiq. xix, 2, 2,ro6c « flioic ov-c 
 
 rove «7.-v«c TTcov^f VO.C. If these examples of the em- 
 ployment of «XX.i for « ,i^ be deemed sufficient, the pas- 
 iJe before us is cleared of all difficulty. There will 
 then be no need of the ellipsis devised by Beza " sed 
 dabitur quibus paratum est," which was approved by 
 Bois, and adopted by Gen. Auth. Martin, and Oster- , 
 vald (cela ne sera donni qu' h ceux k qui mon P^re 
 I'a destine "). Nor will there be any room for the 
 theological objection, that our Lord seems here to 
 disclaim the power of rewarding his people; an ob- 
 iection which drove Augustin and Ambrose to strange 
 modes of evasion (see Poli Synopsis). Yet it is cer- 
 tainly not in favor of the solution I am contending 
 for that it was not perceived by Chrysostom (oiic «*- 
 r.v*i»^v, «XX' EKEINQN, oU itrolpa^rm), or Theophy- 
 lact (rovro .Trr.v i Kftpioc irpSc ri|v .Vh'vwv i^o'vo.av' 
 oi-c ^ffriv Ipov SoSvai KATA XAPIN riv frrl^vov, «XX 
 J, ^roJ^aTTo., ro«Ti<Tr. ry Spa^ovri Kol v.K^aavr. . . . SX- 
 Xo,v yip rwv icoiriaffavrwv iffTl, m1 iit./voic ^oi^otfraO. 
 
 &t. 9?attl)cto. 257 
 
 This much, however, we may safely say, that it is 
 the least of the two difficulties between which we 
 have to choose. Syr. Vulg. (" sed quibus paratum 
 est,") contain no ellipsis, but are too literal to deter- 
 mine any thing else. In Mark x, 40 Bish. changes 
 sides, in order to copy Beza and Gen. In ch. xix, 
 II, too, aXXa is used in its ordinary signification. 
 
 (II, a). V. 24. vtpi " with respect to"]. So Syr. 
 i"^),* Vulg. "de;" "(were grieved) with," Cheke, 
 " (disdained) at," Eng. " against," Auth. Although 
 Schlensner assigns adversus, contra, as the first mean- 
 ing of jr«pi with a genitive, none of the examples he 
 alleges (ch, xv, 7 ; John vi, 41 ; Acts xxv, 16, &c.) 
 bear him out in this forced interpretation. In Mark 
 X, 41 Auth.. has "with." 
 
 (II, a). V. 25. 01 fityoKoi Kart^ovaiatflvmv avrwv " the 
 great ones exercise harsh authority over them"]. 
 So Bp. Jebb (Sacr. Liter, p. 223), who has illustrated 
 the whole of this address of our Lord (vv. 25 — 28) 
 in his happiest manner. KaraKvpiivovmv he had just 
 before rendered " lord it over." The intensive force 
 of Kara in composition is too familiar to require much 
 defence. For KaraKvpuvtiv see 1 Pet. v, 3 ; Psalm 
 
 X, 10, iv Tt^ avTov KaraKvpitvaai twv irivfiTwv (LXX, 
 
 not Hebrew). Schleusner's adverse instances merely 
 shew, that in translating from a language which ad- 
 mits not of such refinements, the LXX sometimes em- 
 ployed KaraKvpitvuv where the simple verb would 
 have sufficed. Cheke has " overmaster them . . . 
 over-rule them." Syr. Vulg, and all Eng.f are nearly 
 
 * Schaaf renders this word hj " contra :" but why ihonld we 
 not prefer " de," " propter ?" 
 
 t The margin of Cor. says, " some read, tho greatest deal with 
 yiolonce." 
 
 S 
 
268 ipotejj on flje ^eto %ma\ntnt 
 
 as Auth. " exercise dominion . . . exercise authority."' 
 See Markx, 42. 
 
 (I). V. 26. AJ " but/' is cancelled after oSrwc by 
 all the modem editors, on the authority of a vast 
 number of good manuscripts; and of the Sahidic, 
 Italic, Vujg. (but not, as Oriesbaoh and Scholz state, 
 of the Syr.) versions. "The insertion of &," Bp. 
 Jebb observes, " would serve but to forestall and 
 weaken the succeeding adversative particle a\\6." Of 
 Eng. Si is expressed by Auth. alone. Though the 
 particle is omitted in several of the early editions of 
 the Greek Testament, I conceive that it was merely 
 casually overlooked by the first English translators ; 
 not that they did not Bnd it in their printed copies. 
 We must not comply with Bp. Jebb in substituting 
 iarai for iarw here, and in v. 27. The antient versions 
 in such a case prove next to nothing. 
 
 (Ill, c). ibid. ytvhOat " become "]. All Eng. " be." 
 See note on ch. xii, 45. " Elvai," Bp. Jebb ingeni- 
 ously refines, " is an advance upon ytv^vOai : those of 
 a more limited ambition, wish to become great ; thereby 
 admitting that they are and have been little : those, 
 on the contrary, whose ambition is unbounded, wish 
 to be first, or chief ; not making any admission what- 
 ever of previous mediocrity." (Sacr. Liter, p. 311 ; 
 see above p. 152 note.) 
 
 On better grounds this eminent prelate adopts 
 Campbell's version of Siaicovov " servant " (" waiter 
 on," Cheke, " minister," Eng.), and in v. 27 of SovXog 
 " slave " (" servant," Eng. Cheke), that an orderly 
 progression may be visible in every term of each paral- 
 lel couplet : M^T"? ytviaOai-^ilvai irpwroc '• ?<rrw Siokovoc 
 — loTw SowXoc- Refer also to ch. xxii, 13, where for 
 SiaKovoiQ Tynd. Cran.Gen. Bish. have " ministers," and 
 Cheke " waiters," not " servants," as in Cov. Auth. 
 
 fet. a^attlieto. 259 
 
 to distinguish them from SoJJXo. in vv. 3. 4 &c I 
 should state, however, that Dr. Symonds objects to 
 the employment of the word "minister," under any 
 
 71 ^/^. ^^^''^ " '"^^"t' I» not this the very 
 dotage of criticism? ^ 
 
 (III, a and b) v. 31. eV,r/;.,«v airocV ?v« . . . 
 
 charged them that" . . .]. So Auth. in Mark x, 48. 
 
 b,t „n ^ r %°'' ^^'^' ^^^^ " ''^^^'^ them that," 
 
 but all other Eng. "rebuked them because." This 
 
 obsolete use of" because," for " that," did not escape 
 
 he keen observation of Bp. Lowth (Eng. G^m. p. 
 
 Ch. xu 16; Mark viii, 30; " straitly charged" in 
 Mark II, 12; Luke ix 27 Tr, ♦!,« n i i 
 
 xviii ^q A \u 7 j' .. *^® P^'^"^^ *«*t Luke 
 xviu, 39, Auth. stands as Cov. here. 
 
 (II. a). V. 32. noif,„u, " that I shotJld do"] subjunc- 
 
 terva d. But Beza (»ho is followed by Martin) 
 A :'ff'P="-"'." which is approved by Parkha™ 
 and Schle„s„er. I really do not see why the fora 
 of ..i should be dropped in this pas«,ge L othe™ 
 b«.use ..happens to be inadmissible ta the solS™ 
 mstance of John ix. ""u»ry 
 
 ■■< 
 
 -) 
 
260 J|2ote0 on ttic 0t\D Ce^tametit. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI 
 
 (II, a)", V. 1. jrpoc TO O/90C "unto the mount"]. 
 So all Eng. here except Cheke ("beside"). But in 
 the parallel texts Mark xi, 1 ; Luke xix, 29, all Eng. 
 have " besides," or " at," except Cov. which, after 
 Vulg. " ad," correctly renders " unto" in both places. 
 
 Syr. translates - ^ . ^ ^1. (" ad latus ") in Mat- 
 
 thew and Luke, but Ajo\ (*' apud") in Mark. Camp- 
 bell also ("near"), and Doddridge ("at") fall into 
 the same error. It appears, therefore, that Vulg. Cov. 
 alone saw the distinction between the sense of npot 
 with a dative " at," and with an accusative " unto." 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 3. o Kvptog " the Master"]. So Camp- 
 bell ; " your master," Tynd. 1. "the Lord," other Eng. 
 See note on ch. viii, 6. I think that this is one of 
 the cases, where the appellation " Lord" is clearly 
 improper. 
 
 (I), ibid. The future airoartXti of the received text 
 is mainly supported by B D, Origen, and the Latin 
 versions. A much greater number of valuable manu- 
 scripts have the present avoariWu, a reading received 
 as genuine by Mill, Griesbach, Vater, and Scholz. 
 It is far more easy to acount for the future being sub- 
 stituted for the present in this passage, than for the 
 opposite change. Chrysostom and Theophylact favor 
 the present, and so perhaps does Syr. ( • ] L \-. \ 
 though Scholz thinks otherwise.* The same altera- 
 
 * The rendering of Syr. ii the same in both texts, Matth. zxi, 
 3, Bnd Mnrk xi, 3. In the former instance Scholz cites its evi- 
 dence in favor of the future, in the latter of the present I But I am 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 "m 
 
 &t. ^m\it\o. 261 
 
 tion is called for, on even higher authority (including 
 both Codices A and B), in Mark xi, 3 ; where Lach- 
 mann also assents to it. The rendering of Auth. " will 
 send " may very well remain. See Introd. p. 45. 
 
 (II, a). V. 4. TowTo Bi oXov yiyovtv " now all this 
 was done "]. So W is rendered by Auth. in ch. i, 1 8 : 
 " but all this was done," Cov, here, and Auth. in ch. 
 xxvi, 56. All other Eng. (like Auth.) in this place 
 neglect the useful particle Bt. In v. 6, the earlier 
 versions translate iirotvflov " an ass used to the yoke" 
 (" subjugalis," Vulg. " an yoked ass," Cheke). But 
 Syr. Auth. rightly say " an ass," simply. Respecting 
 this habit of straining the etymology of words, see 
 Introd. p. 33. 
 
 (I). V. 7. We have now come to the first of those 
 texts enumerated in Introd. p. 7, in which Auth. 
 adopts the reading of Beza, in preference to that of 
 Stephens's third edition. Instead of tirtKaOiaav " they 
 set him," which we find in Vulg. Beza, Castalio, Tynd. 
 Cov. Cran. Cheke, Gen. Auth., we ought to receive 
 from the Complutensian, one of the editions of Eras- 
 mus, and Stephens tntKaOiatv " he sat," the reading 
 of Syr. and Bish., and approved by Bengel, Wetstein, 
 Griesbach, Scholz and Lachmann. I cannot think 
 with Mill and Vater that the external evidence is at 
 all evenly balanced. In favor of the singular form 
 we can produce five of the oldest uncial manuscripts, 
 not only Alexandrine (B C), but Byzantine (Birch's 
 Vat. 354, or S ; and Matthaei's H and V, a fine Moscow 
 copy of the eighth century) ; besides a very great 
 number of the best cursive documents, together with 
 
 almost tired of exposing this editor's slovenly inaccuracies. In v. 7, 
 Scholz asserts that the Codex Z reads liriK&emy. Buttmann in- 
 forms us that nothing remains of that word in Codex Z, but the 
 first two letters. 
 
262 /|5ote0 on tftr ipleto %tmmtnt. 
 
 Origen, both Syriac, the Sfthidic, ^thiopic, and some 
 Italic versions. The.Codflx D has iitaOm-o. The 
 Codex Cyprius of &t., ^inth century (K), Marini's 
 ▼enerable Vatipan fr&gmetit (F), and many cursive 
 manuscripts, have licaOmp, m4<bo far strengthen 
 Stephens's reading. The plural h-usaOt&av rests chiefly 
 on Vulg. and a flood of late copies of so little note, 
 that the authenticity of its rival is placed almost be- 
 yond dispute. 'ErriKaOlluv occurs no where else in the 
 New Testament. It is used by the LXX, not only in 
 the transitive sense here assigned to it by Auth. e. g. 
 1 Kings i, 44 ((V(ica0iff<iv lasn^), but also intran- 
 sitively, as in 2 Sam. xiii, 29. From the parallel 
 passages of the Gospels, nothing certain can be con- 
 cluded. Mark xi, 7 ; John xii, 14 have iKaOwtv : 
 Luke xix, 35 iirtpipaoav. Where the internal marks 
 are so equivocal, external testimonies alone must 
 decide. 
 
 (Ill, c). ibid, ivavw avrwv "upon them"]. "Thereon," 
 Eng. Ou Tutv Sio iivoCvyiwv, a'XXo twv Ifiariwv, says 
 
 Theophylact, reasonably enough, for IfAana is the 
 nearest antecedent. Thua Beza and Castalio under- 
 . stand the passage (see however Krebs ad toe). Vulg. 
 ("desuper") is doubtful, and Syr. reads avroZ. Cheke 
 renders " set him on her," ftirnc, a reading supported 
 only by one Italic manuseript, and the first edition 
 of Erasmus (1516). It follows therefore that Cheke 
 used this edition of the Greek Testament for the 
 purposes of his translation. 
 
 In like manner in v.' 43, it would be clearer to 
 translate aw-nc " of it," viz. the kingdom of God, with 
 Tynd. Gov. Gen. in preference to " thereof," of Cran. 
 Cheke, Bish. Auth. 
 
 Dr. Symonds remarks that the nominative " they" 
 before ," set " in Auth. v. 7 is quite superfluous. 
 
 &t.9^attl)eto. I 263 
 
 Auth. seems to have derived it from Bish. " he sat," 
 for no other Eng. have it. But to the sense of Bish. 
 it was absolutely necessary. He also notices the 
 pleonastic " them" after " persecute" in ch. xxiii, 
 34. In this last place Auth. resembles Gov. Cran. 
 Cheke, Bish., for Wickliffe, Tynd. Gen. and the 
 Rhemish version correctly omit the pronoun, ^ad 
 Dr. Symonds limited himself to the same kind of 
 useful criticism in other cases, I should i^ot have had 
 to speak of him so often in terms of disapprobation. 
 It is pever agreeable to be compelled to comment un-' 
 favorably on men who have gone before us in the 
 same field of labor, and whose pains and diificulties 
 we can so well estimate, by those which beset our- 
 selves, " To seek rather what to commend than what 
 to censure, a pleasing duty in all instances, becomes 
 in scholarship almost a sacred one. For what is the 
 most successful scholarship ? It is little more than to 
 climb on a predecessor's shoulders, and thereby gain 
 a little wider scope of vision : too happy if we can 
 become a temporary step for a successor of still wider 
 eye." These are noble sentiments, Mr. Mitchell : 
 but which of us is so fortunate as at all times to 
 realise them ? 
 
 (Ill, .c). V. 9. ev Toic ixpioTott "in the highest 
 heavens"]. So Gen. and the French versions (" dans 
 les lieux tr^s-hauts"), after Beza (" in ccelis altissi- 
 mis"), as also Campbell. " In the height," Gov. " in the 
 highest," Tynd. Cran. Cheke, Bish. Auth. which is too 
 indefinite. Thus change Mark xi, 10 ; Luke ii, 14; 
 
 xix, 38. "In altissimis" Vulg. Syr. has (.^JLj-toJa, 
 which is identical with the Hebrew D'Dl'lSa, trans- 
 lated by the LXX iv ut^fWotc in Job xvi, 20 ; Psalm 
 cxlviii, 1 (ovpavoic answers to it in the preceding line 
 of the couplet). Mr. Grinfield compares Sirac. xliii, 
 0. See note on Ephes. i, 3. 
 
264 0ott0 on tjit 0t\a <Xe0tament. 
 
 (II, b). V. 12. roc ittpurripi^ " the doves"] used in 
 the temple- worship. Middleton. Thus correct Mark 
 xi, 15. Mr. Qreen (Gram. N. T. p. 154) remarlcs 
 that St. John, writing long after the fall of Jerusalem, 
 did not presume upon that familiarity with the Mosaic 
 ritual on the part of his readers, which the article 
 implies. The truth is, that the article could scarcely 
 have been used in John ii, 14, without completely 
 changing the form of the sentence. 
 
 (II, a). V. 16. (coTn/oTiffw "thou hast ordained"]. So 
 Tynd. Gov. Cran. Bish. " establishest," Cheke, and 
 similarly Syr. ( a ■ » / ). " condis, " Castalio. I 
 prefer this rendering to " perfecisti " of Vulg. Beza, 
 "made perfect" of Gen. and "perfected" of Auth., 
 both because it is more suitable to the context, and as it 
 is actually the rendering given by Auth. to J^IP] in 
 Psalm viii, 2, whence our Lord cites these words. 
 Compare Rom. ix, 22 ; Hebr. x, 5. 
 
 To the end of v. 17 WicklifFe adds " and taught 
 them of the kingdom of God." This spurious gloss 
 is derived from some manuscript of the Vulg. (see 
 Introd. p. 76), or very possibly from the Anglo-Saxon 
 version, to which I have cause for suspecting his ob- 
 ligations. See note on ch. xvi, 20. 
 
 In V. 19, the marginal note of the later editions of 
 Auth. avKnv n'tav " one fig tree," is taken from the 
 scrupulously literal Bish. See Introd. p. 95. 
 
 (Ill, a), vv. 19, 20. 1rapa■j^pn^ia "immediately"]. 
 So Gov. in V. 19: " anon," Tynd. Gran. Bish. Gen. 
 " by and by," Gheke, " presently," Auth. which is a 
 little ambiguous, and a uniform rendering is desirable 
 in V. 20, where all Eng. have " soon." 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 24. X070V "question"]. So Auth. in 
 Mark xi, 29; and Tynd. Gen. Bish. here. "Word," 
 Gov. ".thing," Gran. Cheke, Auth., the margin of 
 
 ;: 
 
 i' 
 
 fst. 99att^eto. 266 
 
 Auth. in Mark xi, 29, and the text in Luke xx, 3. 
 It is needless to give an unusual or Hellenistic sense 
 to Xoyoc in the present instance. 
 
 ElirrtTt is translated " assoil " by Tynd. Gen. This 
 looks like oneof Wickliffe's words, but he has "tell," 
 like Auth. and all the rest. " Assoil " in Chaucer 
 signifies "to answer". Thus "Assoileth me this 
 question, I pray," Canterbury Tales, 1. 9528 (Mer- 
 chant's Tale). 
 
 (II, b). V. 27. i<pri auToic «cai avVoc " he likewise 
 said unto them"]. So Tynd. 1. Vulg. " and he like- 
 wise "... Tynd. 2. " then said he " . . . Gov. " and 
 he said "... Cran. Gen. Bish. Auth., which would 
 require koI at the beginning of the clause. " Nor I, 
 saith he unto them," . . . Cheke, as usual. 
 
 (I). V. 30. Instead of Ztwipt^ " second," tTipt^ 
 " other " is read by Mill, Griesbach, Vater, and 
 Scholz. Mill regards Btvriptf as a marginal gloss 
 suggested by wpwT(fi in v. 28. The change is sanc- 
 tioned by five uncial (D E F H K) and very many cur- 
 sive manuscripts of both families, by Syr. Vulg. the 
 Italic, ^thiopic, and other versions, and (I must add) 
 by considerations of internal probability. The author- 
 ities against it, however, are pretty numerous, and 
 include the great Alexandrine documents BZ, and 
 Ghrysostom. Yet B (as we saw in v. 3) is rather 
 prone to fall in with plausible grammatical corrections. 
 See note on ch. xv, 6. 
 
 In V.33, all the modern editors reject tic "a certain" 
 after avdpwnot, which may be interpolated from Luke 
 XX, 9. It is found, however, in Syr. Ghrysostom, 
 and nearly all the manuscripts of the Byzantine 
 family except SV, and six lesser ones of Matthaii. 
 Of the other class it is omitted in BGDKL, about 
 twenty cursive manuscripts, Vulg., the Coptic and 
 
266 i|;^ote0 on ttir BtXa %ttstAmtnt. 
 
 some Italic versions. But I do not deem this evi- 
 dence sufficient to prove its spuriousness. 
 
 (II, a). V. 33. ttviififitiatv "went abroad"]. So 
 Campbell: "journeyed forth," Cheke. All Eng. 
 render " went into a strange country," except Auth. 
 which has " a far country." In ch. xxv, 16, Auth. 
 has •* took his journey." But airoSir/uciv does not in 
 itself convey any notion of distance. Demosth. adv. 
 Nausimach. (p. 988, Reiske), ohS' oXwc ilS,in\tv<Ttv Iku- 
 voc, oiS' aTTcSrl/utivcv iKtitrt, viz. from Athens to the 
 Bosphorus. ^lian, Var. Hist, xiii, 14, to Bi dyuiyi- 
 fiov TovTo i^ 'liitviaCt iivUn oircSq/infftv, qyaytv, referring 
 to the travels of Lycurgus, which, to one living in 
 
 ."Elian's age, would not be thought very extensive. 
 Besides, the whole scope of the parable seems to 
 imply, that the owner of the vineyard was not far 
 distant. Syr. ,nX^ simply, as Vulg. Beza, Castalio, 
 " peregre profectus est." Thus alter ch. xxv, 14 (v. 
 15 is correct); Mark xii, 1 ; xiii, 34 ; Luke xx, 9. 
 When remote distance is intended St. Luke (ch. xv, 
 13) adds (Ic \wpav fuiKp&v. "S'en alia faire un voyage," 
 Ostervald. 
 
 , (II, a). ▼. 37. Tov vlov avrov " his own son"]. So 
 all Eng. except Cheke and Auth. which merely have 
 " his son." Vulg. " suum." See note on ch. ix, 7. 
 If avTov is ever to be fully rendered, it should be so 
 here. 
 
 All Eng. render vartpov as if it were vararov Travrwv, 
 
 (see ch. xxii, 27 ; xxvi, 60) " last of all." Cov. " at 
 the last." Vulg. " novissime." But Cheke has " after- 
 wards," as it is in Auth. ch. xxv, 11. 
 
 'Evrpawfiaovrai is Well translated by Cov. Cran, 
 Bish. "stand in awe of :" "be in some awe of," 
 Cheke. " Verebuntur," Vulg. " fear," Tynd. Gen. 
 " reverence," Auth. are perhaps inferior to Cov. 
 
 I 
 
 S;< 
 
 X' 
 
 f 
 
 ■.': 
 
 :i:* 
 
 fet. a^att^tto. 267 
 
 (III, a), v. 39. Xa/Sdwrtc " took"]. So Auth. in v. 
 36. Bish. Auth. alone are wrong, for the rest have 
 " caught " in both places. In v. 40, none but Gen. 
 give oJv its proper place. Tynd. Cheke pass it over 
 altogether. Cov. has " now when the lord". . . and 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. " when the lord therefore of the 
 vineyard ". . , which certainly sounds ill enough. 
 
 At the end of v. 42 Cran. alone has " your eyes, " 
 after Codex D, its Latin translation, and a few manu- 
 scripts of very trifling account. See Introd. p. 88. 
 Wickliffe does not agree with Cran. here. 
 
 (II, a). V. 44. avv0\a<rOri<rtTai " shall be bruised"]. 
 So Cheke, Campbell. " Sorely bruised," Bp. Jebb, 
 Sacr. Liter, p. 127. " Broken," Tynd. 2. Gen. Auth. 
 " alto broken, " Tynd. 1 . " broken in pieces, " Cov. 
 
 Cran. Bish. "confringetur," Vulg. so Syr. ( v\ «! ; a i). 
 
 In the parallel text, Luke xx, 18, Tynd. 1. has 
 " bruised, " the rest " broken " (" in sunder, " Cov.). 
 The culprit, at a Jewish execution, was first thrown 
 from a raised platform, and thus bruised; he was 
 then stoned to death (Xi/c/t^vct). 
 
 I would not altogether vouch for Chrysostom's 
 allegorical interpretation : Avo ^tialv awwXuat ivravOa' 
 
 filav ftiv, ri)v otto tov irpovKoif/ai jcai <TKavSaX((T0qvat ' roGro 
 •yap iariv, o jriwrwv tiri tov XlOov tovtov ' iripav Bl, Trjv 
 awo Trig okioattttQ avrwv, Kat t^c wp^opaQ fcat iravwXtQ- 
 piac, vv KOI aa^ftCtt irpoEoqXbxrcv uiruv, XiKpfiati avrov. 
 
 Tynd. 1. Cran. annex the first verse of ch. xxii to 
 ch. xxi ; I know not for what reason. 
 
268 
 
 jRote0 on tfie 0e\» ttTe^tamenr. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 2. ivolunt -yajuovc " made a marriage 
 feast"]. Here again Cheke agrees with the best 
 modem interpreters (Doddridge, Campbell, &c.) in 
 presenting to us the correct rendering. Whatever 
 may be thought of the style and general character of 
 his Translation (see Introd. p. 89), in these minor 
 matters he is very accurate. Thus alter vv. 4, 9 ; 
 ch. XXV, 10. •* Married his son," Tynd. Cov. Gen., 
 and "made a marriage for his son," Cran. Bish. Auth., 
 if not positively wrong, would not suggest the notion 
 of a feast to the English reader. After this explan- 
 ation, " wedding " in vv. 3, 8, 10 may stand. It is 
 evident from these verses that the singular yifioq, as 
 well as the plural, is used in this sense. So in the 
 LXX, Gen. xxix, 22 ; Tobit viii, 19. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 6. v^pitrav " insulted"]. So Doddridge : 
 " abused, " Campbell : " treated contemptuously, " 
 Symonds : '* intreated ungodly," Tynd. " shamefully, 
 Cov. Cran. " sharply, " Gen. " spitefully, " Bish. 
 Auth. "did them despite," Cheke. 
 
 (I)". V. 7. In the beginning of this verse Griesbach 
 reads aKovaat Zl o PaaiXivg ckmvoc "that king;" which, 
 after omitting iKtivoQ, is the reading of the common 
 text. Scholz adopts Kal aVovvac o /3a<n\evc tKttvo^ : 
 Griesbach almost prefers o Si /3a<riXcvc eWvoc, without 
 aKovaaq. Lachmann prints o Si /SatrcXtvc okovvoc, 
 without f (ciivoc : while Vater, with some hesitation, 
 retains the received reading. Of all these variations 
 we are concerned only with that which expunges 
 
 fet. a^atrijeto. 269 
 
 aKoiaaq, and with the authorities which add fVcivoc. 
 The rejection of aKovoa^ is sanctioned only by the 
 Coptic version, and by six thoroughly Alexandrine 
 manuscripts (B L, 1. 22. 118. 209) ; so that it may 
 be at once dismissed from our consideration. The 
 addition of (kcivoc is much better supported : for 
 though it is omitted by Syr. Vulg. and Chrysostom, 
 it is found in most Italic copies, in Theophylact, in 
 ten uncial manuscripts of different families (C D E F 
 K M S, and Matthaei s B H V), and in a respectable 
 number of cursive documents, though not perhaps 
 of the first order. I accede to Vater's decision, " paene 
 recipiendum, nisi facilius additum quam omissum 
 fuerit." Mill also does not admit UilvoQ. 
 
 (II, a). V. 9. «7r{ Toc 8«5oSouc Twv oSwv " to the 
 public roads'"]. So Campbell : " into the crossings 
 of high ways," Cheke. Whatever we determine res- 
 pecting at SiE^oSoi TU)v oSuv, it is obvious that this 
 expression should not be confounded with the simple 
 oSoj of V. 10. Yet all Eng. translate them both by 
 " highways," except Tynd. 1. which has " ways" in 
 V. 10. Syr. Vulg. render " exitus viarum " in v. 9, 
 which Beza explains by " compita viarum," Martin 
 and Ostervald by " les carrefours des chemins, " and 
 Castalio by " trivia." I conceive that there cannot 
 be much doubt of the fact, that Si^^oSot here means 
 " the crossways, where several roads meet ;" not, 
 however, as Kypke gratuitously supposes, within the 
 city : at least not so if this be the same parable with 
 that given by St. Luke, ch. xiv; for there, after 
 returning from the streets and lanes of the city (v. 21), 
 the servants are again despatched «tc toc oSovc koi 
 ^pay^ovg of the country (v. 23). Chrysostom para- 
 phrases the word by rptoSowc, and an antient gloss 
 has " compita. " The ordinary signification of 
 
270 ipote0 on tlie 0t\o Htfit&mmt. 
 
 Sii^oSoc, " a passage " or " outlet, " can have no 
 place here. 
 
 (II, a). V. 16. Tovc ftaOriraf avrwv " their own dis- 
 ciples"]. All Eng. have "their disciples." See 
 note on ch. xxi, 37. 
 
 In this verse 'HpwStavwv is rendered " Herod's ser- 
 vants" by Tynd. Cran. Cheke, Gen. "Herod's 
 officers," by Gov. Syr. has im-jjaJ-oi i^^-Oi " Herod's 
 
 household." " The Herodians," Vulg. Bish. Auth. 
 Chrysostom describes them as towc 'HpwSou arpanw- 
 Toc. Whether we are to understand a sect or political 
 party of that name, or (as seems more probable) the 
 courtiers and dependants of the Herod family, the 
 version of Auth. may continue. Schleusner observes 
 that Luther translates " Herodis dtener, " whence 
 Tynd. may possibly have derived its interpretation. 
 Bp. Marsh would have been glad of this example of 
 resemblance between the English and the German 
 versions (see Introd. p. 78) ; yet to what rational view 
 of the independent origin of Tyndal's New Testa- 
 ment is it adverse ? 
 
 (II, a). V. 20. iiriypa^fi " inscription"]. So the 
 .margin of Auth. and most, if not all, the modern 
 versions. But all Eng. after Vulg. have "super- 
 scription," both here and in Mark xii, 16 ; Luke xx, 
 24. Vulg. uses " inscriptio " in Mark and Luke. 
 " On writing," Cheke : see Introd. p. 91. 
 
 In vv. 7, 22, 33, the ellipsis after uKovaat is sup- 
 plied in three different ways by Cran. Bish. Auth. 
 ("heard thereof, heard these words, heard this). But 
 Tynd. Gov. Gen, render uniformly " heard that," and 
 Cheke " heard this. " These are trifles in them- 
 selves, but should not be overlooked in judging of the 
 care and skill with which the several versions are 
 executed. 
 
 &t. Sl^attlietD. 271 
 
 (II,b).v.23. 2o88ow/caroi "Sadducees"]. All Eng. 
 have " the Sadducees," which is not at all called for. 
 
 In V. 24, the margin of Gen., over-against rlicvo 
 " children," has " or, sons." Vulg. " filium :" "filios," 
 Beza, Syr. but these languages could scarcely retain 
 the ambiguity of gender, which is found in the Greek 
 original and Eng. It is unquestionably possible that 
 ]2 in Deut. xxv, 5, like the corresponding Syriac 
 form, includes female children; yet the reason as- 
 signed by Moses for the institution of the Jus levira- 
 t&s " to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel," 
 would seem to imply that the law contemplated a 
 lack of male children only on the part of the deceased. 
 On the other hand it is difficult to understand how a 
 person who has daughters can be called artKvoc, as 
 in Luke xx, 29 ; or uri iywv anippa, as here. On the 
 whole, therefore, the rendering of Auth. is safer, and 
 probably more true, than that in the margin of Gen. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 25. avippa " seed "]. All Eng. except 
 Gov. translate airkppa " seed " in v. 24, and " issue " 
 in V. 25. Gov. very properly has " seed," and Cheke 
 "children" in both places. The marginal note on 
 v. 26, in the recent editions of Auth. (" Gr. seven") is 
 extremely weak. Even Bish. does not retain the 
 Hebraism in this instance. See note on ch. xxi, 19. 
 
 (II, a)°. V. 35. vo/iiKoc " a lawyer]. While I en- 
 tirely assent to Campbell's judgment that the terms 
 vopiKo^ and ypappartvg are not of necessity identical, 
 merely because an individual who is called in this 
 verse vopiKoc, is spoken of by St. Mark (ch. xii, 28) 
 as Hc Twv ypappariwv, it is proper to state that no 
 stress must be laid on the circumstance that " they 
 are differently rendered in the Syriac version" (Prel. 
 Diss. XII, Pt. V, 12). It is true they are so in the 
 two parallel texts just named ; but in Luke xi, 44, 45, 
 
272 i^otejJ on ttie MtXo llTe^tameiit. 
 
 which passage is so appositely cited by Campbell to 
 prove that the terms cannot well be entirely coinci- 
 dent, Syr. unaccountably confounds them, rendering 
 them both by ] » ■>» ■'' Here Tynd. Cran. have for 
 vo/iiKoc " doctor'of law ;" Gen. " expounder of the 
 law ;" Gov. " scribe ;" Gheke, Bish. Auth. Gampbell 
 "lawyer." Vulg. translates " legis doctor" here; 
 "scriba" in St. Mark; "legis peritus " in Luke xi, 
 46 (Vulg. does not read ypafiftarti^ in the preceding 
 verse). 
 
 In vv. 36, 38, fuyaXv is " chief" in Tynd. 2. Gen. 
 " great " in Tynd. 1. Gran. Gheke, Bish. Auth. Gov. 
 reads " chiefest " in v. 36, " greatest" in v. 38. There 
 ■ is some little difference in the order, perhaps in the 
 reading, of Vulg. in v. 38, but it has " magnum " in 
 V. 36. The Hebraism of positive for superlative may 
 be retained without offence in English. Syr., like 
 the Hebrew, has no choice. 
 
 CHAPTER XXni. 
 
 In v. 2, all Eng. except Gov. Bish. translate 
 iKaOiaav " sit," and very rightly. Gov. has " are 
 set down;" Gheke "did sit" (Vulg. "sederunt"). 
 Bish. renders it by " sat," with its usual over-scrupul- 
 ousness, noting however in the margin that " Beza 
 readeth, sif'C'sedent"). 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 6. rnv npuroKXta'tav "the first places"]. 
 So the Rhemish version : " the first sitting places," 
 Wickliffe, Scholefield nearly; "the highest places," 
 Gheke; "to sit uppermost," Tynd. Gov. "the upper- 
 most seats," Gran. Bish. " the worthiest place," Gen. 
 Thus it is remarkable enough that Auth. alone, in this 
 
 - 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 8E»t. dl^attttto. 273 
 
 passage, employs the obsolete and ambiguous expres- 
 sion " the uppermost rooms." Thus alter Mark xii, 
 39; Lukexiv, 7; 8; xx, 46; in which texts however 
 all Eng. except Gov. have " rooms," as well as 
 Auth. ; and even Gov. in Luke xiv, 8. 
 
 (I)°. At the end of v. 7, Syr. Vulg. the editions of 
 Complutum and Erasmus, and (as a necessary conse- 
 quence) Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gheke read paft^ but once 
 (see note on ch. xxv, 2). This variation is supported 
 by only eleven manuscripts, nearly all of them Alex- 
 andrine, by Chrysostom, the Sahidic, Coptic, Italic, 
 and some lesser versions. The received text, there- 
 fore, is undoubtedly genuine, although Lachmann 
 has decided to the contrary. 
 
 (I)". V. 8. Here again two changes have been pro- 
 posed by the critics, both on insufficient authority. 
 Syr. Vulg. reject o XpioroQ, which is rendered in all 
 Eng., and the omission has been approved by Gries- 
 bach and Lachmann. It may not be very unlikely 
 that o Xpiaroe was brought into this place from v. 10; 
 but such a conclusion is by no means a necessary 
 one : since the disputed words are contained in all 
 the manuscripts but about fourteen (B D L. 1. 22. 71 . 
 118. 124, &c.); while the Sahidic, Coptic, ^thiopic, 
 and Italic versions, Chrysostom and Theophylact, 
 are the only other authorities adverse to their genuine- 
 ness. 
 
 The other alteration is more feebly supported. Beza, 
 Grotius, and Lachmann would fain substitute SiSaa- 
 icaXoc for KaOvyriTTif, although it is pretty clear, as Loes- 
 ner observes, that the former is but a gloss, intended 
 to explain the latter, which is met with but seldom. 
 AiZaaKoXot, however, is read in many manuscripts, 
 including eight of Matthaei's (but only in B among 
 
 T 
 
274 illoteu on t^t iPeto Ut0tamcnt. 
 
 the uncials), and in Chrysostom. Syr. and several 
 other versions are also alleged in its behalf, but on 
 very precarious grounds ; In Syr. KoOijyijrijc in v. 10 
 is rendered by a different word from that employed 
 in V. 8, though it is derived from the same root. Such 
 a circumstance can prove but littl6 on either side of 
 the question. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 12. ravtimoOriatTttt " shall be humbled"]. 
 No Eng. renders ra7r«v«vv uniformly in this verse, al- 
 though the antithetic form of the sentence so plainly 
 requires it. Cheke has " abase " in both places. 
 
 (I. See Introd. p. 7). vv. 13, 14. All Eng. and 
 Vulg. read these verses in the d&me order as Beza 
 and the received text. But they are transposed in 
 Syr. the Complutensian, and Stephens's third edi- 
 tion ; and this latter arrangement has been approved 
 byWet8tein,Griesbach, Scholz andVater. Lachmann 
 cancels the verse on KartaOUrt rac o'lKiat K.r.X. altoge- 
 ther : and Mill (Prolog. N. T. p. 42), after Grotius, 
 thinks that it is borrov^ed from Mark xii, 40 ; or 
 Luke XX, 47. The authorities for Lachmann's reading 
 are far from strong. 'They are ten. decidedly Alex- 
 andrine manuscripts (B DLZ. 1.33. 118. 208. 209. 
 ' 346 ; for which last see Appendix I) ; a few copies 
 of the Italic and Vulg., and probably Origen* and 
 Eusebius. If we lay this reading out of the question, 
 we can have little hesitation in placing ver. 14 of Autht 
 before v. 13, as it is in both Syriac, the Sahidic, Cop- 
 tic and iEthiopic versions, in Chrysostom and Theor 
 
 * Orlgen'a wordi are (Tom. Ir, p. 352) it> rf xarit MarOatoy 
 6 wpdc Toii: Tpafifiartls ami <bnpiiralevs AEYTEP02 raXafier/idc 
 oCrtaic <X" " " (looting r. \5). But Stirrpoc wrr very pouibly 
 an oTenight. 
 
 i 
 
 M 
 
 fet. fl^attjeto. 275 
 
 phylact: as well as in almost all the manuscripts 
 which do not favor Lachmann's view. Scholz, with 
 his usual inaccuracy, cites the Codex Z both for the 
 omission of v. 14, and for placing it before v. 13. 
 Of course the variation in this place must be attri- 
 buted to the circumstance, that the commencing 
 clauses of vv. 13, 14. 15 are the same. 
 
 (II, b). V. 14. Kat trpo^atrti fiuKpa npotrtv)(6fttvoi 
 "and that, making long prayers fon a pretence"]. 
 Thus correct Mark xii, 40; Luke xi, 47 (wherfe 
 Auth. has "shew," which perhaps is better than 
 " pretence "). The rendering of Auth., besides : that it 
 loses much of the force of the passage, would require 
 irpofftixtwOt instead of the participle. All other Eng. 
 are preferable : "and that under a colorof prayinglong 
 prayers," Tynd. Cov. Gen, (Gen. omits "praying"); 
 " and that under a pretence of long prayer," Cran. 
 Dish, so Syr. Kai raura, Sea npoayrifiarof tow fiOKpa vpoa- 
 tvxtaBai, Theophylact: "nay, and use long prayers 
 for a disguise," Campbell. For this intensive force 
 of Koi Raphel compares Polybius, fiovw tQv Kari 
 2wp/ov vwiarrtaav, Kal naaaf i^tXiy^avrtg eXniSag. In 
 
 V. 16, Gov. has " a child of hell." This is better than 
 "the child "of other Eng. 
 
 (Ill, a), vv. 16, 18. o^ti'Xfi " is bound "], Thus 
 the margin of Auth. in v. 18, though Auth., most 
 strangely, has " he is a debtor " in v. 16, and " he is 
 guilty " in V. 18 ; the latter rendering approximating 
 to nonsense. All other Eng. are uniform in both 
 places. Tynd. 1. Bish. " is (a) debtor " (a very fair 
 version) ; " offendeth," Tynd. 2. Gen. " is guilty," 
 Cov. Cran. " debet," Vulg. Syr. " is bound to per- 
 form it, vel, he fauteth," Cheke. I suppose " is 
 guilty " of Cov. Cran. Auth. originated in " reus est" 
 
27G i|;^ote0 on tY)c /|)r\o '^e^tament. 
 
 of Erasmus, retained by Beza. But this, I need not 
 
 say, is a pure Latinistn : voti reus. 
 
 In V. 23, Tynd. Gen. render a^Uvai uniformly 
 throughout the verse, "leave undone." But per- 
 haps this is unnecessary. Cheke has *' dill " for 
 iwOov, like the margin of Auth. in the later editions. 
 (II, a and b). v. 24. o! SiwX/Jovrtc tov Ki>v<oira . . . 
 T^v KaftrjXov " who Strain out the gnat ... the camel"]. 
 Bp. Middleton remarks that the article here intimates, 
 that our Lord is alluding to a familiar proverb. See 
 Suicer, Tom. ii, p. 29. Cheke also has " strain away 
 the gnat ... the camel." Since all Eng. except Auth. 
 read " strain out," it has been reasonably conjectured 
 that •• at," in the first edition of Auth. is but a typo- 
 graphical error for " out." At all events it must be 
 corrected, for as Bishop Lowth remarks, " the impro- 
 priety of the preposition has wholly destroyed the 
 meaning of the phrase." 
 
 (I). V. 25. There are at least three readings of the 
 last word of this verse : aKpaolat " excess," of the re- 
 ceived text, Lachmann and Eng. ; aKaOapviac, favored 
 by Vulg. and noticed by Gov. in his margin (" some 
 read, uncleaness ") ; and a'Siic/ac "injustice," which 
 is adopted by Griesbach, Vater, and Scholz. Syr. 
 has ploJ^ which, though it stands for avofxia in v. 28 ; 
 ch. vii, 23 ; xiii, 41 ; xxiv, 12, represents the cog- 
 nate term a&Ki'o in Luke xvi, 8 ; 9 ; 1 1, &c. Besides 
 two or three versions, aKaOapaiat is found in only two 
 manuscripts of inferior value, and may therefore be 
 rejected at once. The received reading is contained 
 in some copies of the Italic, and in about ten manu- 
 scripts, all Alexandrine (B D L. 1. 13. 33. 69. 106. 
 124), except perhaps one of Matthsei's (e). Since I 
 am perpetually refusing to receive readings proposed 
 by Griesbach, supported by the same or similar evi- 
 
 fet. SpattljrtD. 277 
 
 dence, I cannot dispute the aKpaolat is spurious, 
 though the comparative rarity of the word makes 
 somewhat in its favor. In the N. T. it occurs only 
 in 1 Cor. vii, 6. 'AScjc/ac is read in Chrysostom and 
 Theophylact, in several versions, and (what is of 
 much greater consequence) in the countless majority 
 of manuscripts of both families ; for some of the best 
 of the Egyptian class (e. g. C K) support it. Scholz 
 cites Codex 33 (Colbert. Reg. 14) both for iSiKiat 
 
 and aKpaaiac. 
 
 Since yifttiv is not followed by ix,. but by a simple 
 genitive, in all other places where it is found in the 
 N. T., Mr. Green (Gram. p. 280) thinks that the 
 present expression may be translated " are full of the 
 fruits of rapine and injustice." I cannot help regard- 
 ing this construction merely as a vestige of the Ara- 
 maean use of a preposition after the verb of fulness. 
 For though I cannot discover that N7Q is ever ac- 
 companied by 10 in the Hebrew Bible ;* and though 
 Syr. does not render U even in the present passage ; 
 the employment of ,_io after |Lio is both frequent 
 and legitimate. It occurs no less than six times in 
 the Pseudo-Peshito version of the Apocalypse (ch. 
 iv, 6; 8; v, 8; xv, 7; xvii, 4; xxi, 9; but not in ch. 
 xvii, 3), although there is no preposition in the 
 Greek. St. Matthew's style is certainly less tinged 
 with Orientalisms than that of one or two other writers 
 of the N. T. : yet he often uses the preposition after 
 the verb, quite in the Hebrew manner (e. g. ch. v, 34 ; 
 35 ; 36 ; x, 28; ^2; xxiii, 16). I lay no stress on the 
 
 * Grotiui indeed citei iDK/OD Exod. xr, 9. This must be 
 " T ; ■ 
 
 B miitake ; the^rminatlon iQ. U nothing more than a poetic form 
 of the pronominal affii Q. or*D-. 
 
278 iliotc0 on tie 0t\o •^t0tament. 
 
 hypothesis of the Aramsean origin of this Gospel, 
 betause I have never been able to satisfy my mind, 
 as to the validity of the arguments on which it rests. 
 
 (II, b). V. 31. fiaprvptht tavroTc " yc testify con- 
 cerning yourselves"]. So Syr. C^A), «de vobis," 
 Castalio, " of yourselves," Cheke, "testimonio estis 
 vobismetipsis," Vulg. vtrhence "unto yourselves," 
 Eng. Campbell, Beza, and Rosenmiillersay "against," 
 a meaning which Syr. also will bear. Eng. at all 
 events are either very obscure, or the sense produced 
 by them is poor enough. Compare Luke iv, 22; 
 John iii, 26; Col. iv, 13. The construction with irtpl 
 and a genitive, is frequently met with in St. John. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 33. (cpiVewc "judgment," or " condemna- 
 tion"]. " Punishment," Cheke. All Eng. have "dam- 
 nation," both here and in v. 14 (except that, in v. 
 14, Cran. translates "shall be the sorer punished"). 
 For obvious reasons it may be advisable to correct 
 Eng. in both places. In the present instance I see 
 no difference between Kplaiq the act of judging, and 
 Kpifia the resulting sentence. 
 
 (II, a). V. 35. Tov vaov "the sanctuary"] the holy 
 place, to which the priests alone had access, as dis- 
 tinguished from TO ttpov (ch. xxi, 12), which included 
 the surrounding courts. Syr. Vulg. Eng. render 
 both indifferently " the temple." In most cases, it is 
 perfectly needless to mark the difference between the 
 two words (e. g. vv. 16, 17, 21, &c.), but here strict 
 accuracy is essential to the sense. The Ovaiaarfipiov, 
 or altar of burnt offerings, was itself in the Up6v, 
 " outer court," or " court of the priests " (see Dr. 
 Lee's Hebr. Lex. Append. A, p. 634), though it was 
 opposite to the entrance of the " Holy Place " (oIjcoc 
 or vaot), at about ten cubits' distance from its gates. 
 
 Within this small space Zacharias was slain. Cas- 
 talio properly translates Itpov " templum," voov 
 " Eedem." So also Campbell. Thus correct ch. xxvii, 
 51 ; Mark xv, 38 ; Luke i, 9 ; 21 ; 22 ; xxiii, 45.* 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 (II, a). V. 6. iravra " all things"]. "All these things," 
 Eng. Beza ; though Cran. Beza, Bish. Auth. indicate 
 that "these," is not in the Greek. -Tlavra ravra is 
 read in four lesser manuscripts, Syr. and one or two 
 other versions, Vulg. and some others have " haec," 
 but this is rather an explanatory gloss, than a various 
 reading. Eng. merely added the Vulgate rendering 
 to the Greek. 
 
 In the next verse Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. place " pes- 
 tilence," before " hunger," like Vulg. Syr. Cheke, 
 Bish. Auth. follow the order of the Greek. Since 
 the Vulgate reading is found in only four manu- 
 scripts, and in no early edition of the N. T.,\ will 
 fairly admit that in this trifling particular Tyndal 
 copied from the Vulgate. But it is the first instance 
 of the kind we have yet seen ; for ch. x, 5 must not 
 be insisted on. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 10. irapoSwaovai "shall deliver up"]. 
 Uniform with v. 9. " Betray," Eng. Cheke. See note 
 on ch. XX, 18. 
 
 (II, b). V. 12. TWM TToXXwv " of the many, — the 
 
 * In ch. xxvii, 5, Judas cast down the money Iv rf vaf. Since 
 we cannot venture with Kypke to translate iv " near," we must 
 suppose that the anguish of Judas led him to the very threshold of 
 the Holy Place, within which the Chief Priests were sitting, when 
 he threw down the silver pieces at their feet. 
 
280 illote0 oa ttit i&eto '?Cf0tament, 
 
 greater number"]. So Campbell. See Matthise'i 
 Gr. Gram. § 268. Cheke translates "the people's 
 love," very suitably ; but he has the same renderings 
 in ch. XX, 28 ; xxvi, 28, Tirhere the article is omitted 
 after the preposition in Greek, and should scarcely be 
 supplied. I know not how to interpret twv iroXXwv 
 otherwise than I have here suggested, yet all Eng. 
 have *• many." Syr. and the Latin versions cannot 
 readily express the force of the article ; but even 
 Chrysostom (whose temper might be supposed to lead 
 him to embrace the more emphatic sense) contents 
 
 himself with saying, n-oXXo! -fap ^euSaStX^oi -ftyovaaiv. 
 
 (I). V. 17. In the room of n " any thing," to. (ik tik 
 o'tKiag avrov) " the things (out of his house)," is read 
 by Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, and 
 Lachmann. Bp. Jebb approves of the change, which 
 is confirmed by Syr. Origen, Chrysostom, and so de- 
 cided a preponderance of manuscript authorities, as 
 to leave no doubt of its propriety. Bp. Middleton 
 prefers n, as being more exclusive, but he is misin- 
 formed when he says that it is the reading of the 
 great Vatican MS. (B). 
 
 (II, a). V. 22. Kdi CI fii) ficoXo/3ii>9ii(rav . . . ovk av iaiiOif 
 ," and except . . . had been shortened . . . would be 
 saved "]. This is the form into which the parallel text 
 Mark xiii, 20, is thrown by Tynd. 1. Cov. Gen. Bish. 
 Auth., only that they have " should," for " would," as 
 usual (see Introd. p. 54). Tynd. 2. Cran., however, in 
 St. Mark, and all Eng. here use "should be shortened 
 . . . should be saved " (" were shortened . . . should be 
 saved," Cheke). Besides the awkwardness of this ar- 
 rangement, it does not lead us to infer, what is implied 
 in the Greek, that the decree for shortening the days 
 was contemplated by our Lord as past in the Divine 
 
 3 
 
 bu^attjitto, 281 
 
 Mitid, though with that rapid change of time so com- 
 mon in Prophecy, the future immediately follows. 
 
 (II, a)°. v. 24. Swaovai "shall shew"]. So Cran. 
 Bish. Auth. "give," Tynd. 1. (too literally), "do," 
 Tynd. 2. Cov. Gen. " perform," Campbell, " work," 
 Cheke. This is unquestionably the meaning of the 
 phrase SiSovai atifitia in Exod. vii, 9 ; Deut. vi, 22 ; 
 and especially in Deut. xiii, 1 ; where the Jewish 
 people are expressly warned against the false teachers 
 who shall work miracles in attestation of their mission. 
 See also 2 Thess. ii, 9. This last text alone might 
 have removed the scruples of Kypke, as to the reality 
 of the wonders to be wrought by the deceivers men- 
 tioned by our Saviour : and I cannot think either him 
 or Schleusner (voce SiSovai No. 13) at all successful 
 in their attempt to affix to the verb the signification 
 of " to promise, profess." Chrysostom at any rate en- 
 tertained no doubt that the signs and marvels were 
 
 actually performed : Kat.yap woXXn rort it airarti, 8ta TO 
 Kat atifitia yivtaOai airarrif, 
 
 (III, b). V. 24. w(fr« nXavvoat, t'l Bvvarov " SO as to 
 deceive, if possible " . . .]. The version of Bish. Auth. 
 " insomuch that, iUt were possible, they shall deceive," 
 is almost self-contradictory. For " shall," Tynd. 
 Cov. Cran. Cheke, Gen. have "should," which is 
 materially better. 
 
 (I). V. 27. After ovrwc iarai Scholz and Lachmann 
 would omit Kai, as if it were interpolated from vv. 37, 
 39. It is wanting in Syr., in some copies of Chrysos- 
 tom, in twelve uncial Greek manuscripts of both fami- 
 lies (B D F G H K L S U X, and Matthsei's B V), and 
 so very large a number of cursive, as to render it sur- 
 prising that it should be retained by Griesbach, who 
 often removes words from the text, on a tenth part of 
 
282 Bott0 on tt)C Bt\D tire0tamtnt. 
 
 the present evidence. But the printed Vulg. has 
 " et ;" and that, I suppose, biassed him. 
 
 (II, b). V. 31. fitra oaXrriyyot fu)vrif fityaXri^ "with 
 a loud-soundingtnimpet"]. SoCheke " loud sounded," 
 Syr. jlaJ ]t r, at . 1 V. \ (" with a loud trumpet "), 
 
 Castalio " cum vocalissimS. tub&," and Campbell. 
 Beza, however, and Eng. have " with a great sound 
 ("voice," Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen.) of a trumpet." 
 But this sense is more clearly expressed in Rev. viii, 
 13 by Twv [XoiTTwvJ ^wviv Tijc ffaXjTiyyoc. The Greek 
 language admits of an inversion in the order of two 
 genitives, so that the governing noun may follow the 
 governed, wliich according to the more natural ar- 
 rangement it would precede. Thus in Herod, vi, 82 
 we find within a few lines of each other U rov ayaX- 
 
 fiarof Twv <rTt)OLii)v, and tK rrif Kt^aXqc rov ayaXfiarof 
 employed quite indifferently. But this trajection, I 
 believe, takes place only where no ambiguity can pos- 
 sibly arise. If there be any difficulty in determining 
 which is the governing noun, and which the governed, 
 we may rest assured that they ought to be construed 
 in the order in which they stand. This remark may 
 prove of some importance in enabling us to decide 
 between contending interpretations in Acts vii, 30 ; 
 1 Cor. i, 21 ; Eph. iv, 16. In the present passage I 
 understand the second genitive to be used as an ad- 
 jective, after the ordinary Hebrew idiom (e. g. ch. 
 XXV, 31 ; Luke xvi, 8; Eph. i, 18, &c.), and to be 
 equivalent to tv oaXmyyi Geou, 1 Thess. iv, 16. The 
 margin of Auth. (" with a trumpet and a great voice"), 
 follows Vulg. which inserts "et" between "tuba," 
 and " voce." Codex D, and seven cursive MSS of 
 little consequence, give koL Chrysostom and a few 
 others have fura aaXiriyyoi /(fyaXqct as Syr. But this 
 is more an interpretation, than a various reading. 
 
 ^ 
 
 &t. fl^attteto. 283 
 
 At the end of this verse Cran. translates oir' ixfuov 
 
 ohpavuv " from the highest parts of heaven," I presume 
 
 from a misapprehension of Vulg. " a summis ccelo- 
 
 rum." 
 
 (II, a and b). v. 32. orav fiSi) o kAo'Soc ourjjc ylvtirai 
 airaXot, xai rd ^vXXa tV^ip " when its branch has now 
 become tender, and the leaves shoot forth"]. Thus 
 correct Mark xiii, 28. I am persuaded that the pro- 
 priety of a change in the first clause of this passage, 
 will readily be conceded. All Eng, have nearly the 
 same as Auth. " when his branch is yet tender" . . , 
 " cum jam ramus ejus tener fuerit," Vulg. which is 
 somewhat dubious, Syr. is much more perspicuous 
 " immediately that its branches grow-tender" (J_dj'); 
 " tener fit," Beza : " tenerescunt," Castalio : " com- 
 mencent k hre tendres," Ostervald. The frst sign 
 of approaching summer is the softness of the branch. 
 The construction of ra ^vXXa (K<pvy is more question- 
 able. Yet Syr.* Vulg. Castalio, and all Eng. except 
 Auth. translate " the leaves spring " (" her leaves 
 bud forth," Cheke), This view is confirmed by Srav 
 npoPaXaymv ft^n, Luke xxi, 30. 'E/e^uvac is perpetually 
 used intransitively; thus Eurip. Ion. 1533, SoiOov 
 ri 0i((Ti n-arSa fi (Ktrt^vKhai ; and in many other pas- 
 sages of the same tragedian. Beza, however, Mar- 
 tin, Ostervald, and Auth. take the verb transitively 
 " and putteth forth leaves." Thus it was used by 
 Symmachus in Psalm civ, 14, elc to w^Gtrai t/oo^^v 
 
 diro -yjjc, where the LXX has i^ayayuv, 
 
 • Grotius thinki othervrise, I suppose because Syr. has the 
 noun (ri fbWa) after the verb («^u>i). Yet though \J3j0J0 be 
 of the common gender in the plural, it would hardlj be joined with 
 two participles ^i and ,-j-i-v_a standing together, the former 
 of them being feminine, the latter masculine. 
 
284 /Pote0 on t!)e iPeto %iiMmtnt. 
 
 (II, b). V. 33. iyyiit ivrtv "He is near"] viz. the 
 Son of Man, mentioned in v. 30. So Beza, and the 
 margin of Auth. in the later editions. Gen. supplies 
 " the kingdom of God," from Luke xxi, 31. Vulg. 
 Castalio are doubtful. Syr. Eng. have " it is near," 
 viz. the advent of Christ. My correction is sanctioned 
 by Bishop Horsley, in the first of his elaborate Ser- 
 mons " On the coming of the Son of Man " (that on 
 James v, 8) : discourses which may well be admired 
 as models of profound reasoning and ingenious re- 
 search, though perhaps we may not adopt their 
 authors solution of the difficulties with which he 
 g^pples. 
 
 In V. 41, "women," is not in italics in the original 
 edition of Auth. Since the gender is distinctly 
 marked by the participle, our modern Bibles are wrong 
 in their change. See Introd. p. 62. 
 
 The use of the present for the future in vv. 40, 41, 
 to express the certainty of the event here foretold, is 
 perfectly legitimate. See Introd. p. 46. TlapaXafi- 
 pavirai is variously rendered in Eng. "Received," 
 Tynd. Gov. Gran. Gen. Bish. ("taken," Cheke) ; 
 a^ttrot being translated "refused," by Tynd. Gov. 
 . Gran. Gen. " forsaken," by Gheke, " left alone," by 
 Bish, : all evidently referring the words to election 
 and its contrary, although Bish. tries to soften the ex- 
 pression. This exposition is approved by Vater, who 
 compares wapiXaPov in John i, 11. A more probable 
 opinion is, that irapaXa/u/Savtrat alludes to the being 
 carried away captive out of Judaea by the Romans ; 
 and agreeably to this notion Doddridge has " seized 
 . . . dismissed," and Campbell, " taken . . . escape." 
 In this uncertainty it is surely wiser to say " taken 
 . . . left," as it is found in Auth. Syr. Vulg. This 
 interpretation is perfectly literal, and happily retains 
 
 \ 
 
 &t. a^atttieto. 285 
 
 the ambiguity of the Greek. Beza " accipietur - . . 
 relinquetur ;" "pris . . . laiss^," Martin, Ostervald. 
 
 (1)°. After V. 41, Gov. Gran, insert within brackets 
 " two in a (" the," Gov.) bed, the one shall be received, 
 and the [other refused." This sentence is of course 
 derived from Luke xvii, 34, and is contained in Wick- 
 lifFe, who took it either from the Anglo-Saxon ver- 
 sion (see note on ch. xxi, 17; and Introd. p. 88), 
 or from some early MSS of the Italic and Vulg. It 
 was printed in Pope Sixtus' Vulgate Bible, but was 
 expunged from the present Clementine text. Besides 
 the Latin copies, and the ^thiopic version, it is found 
 in but three Greek manuscripts, all notorious for 
 Latinising: viz. the Codex Bezae (D), the Colbert. 
 Reg. 14. (13), and the Leicester MS, of the 14th 
 century (69). 
 
 (Ill, a and c). v. 43. hopvyvvai " to be broken 
 through"]. So Auth. in ch. vi, 19; 20; Luke xii, 
 39. All Eng. have " broken up" here, as also have 
 Tynd, Gov. in ch. vi, 20. In ch. vi. Gen. uses both 
 " dig through," and " pierce through," the former of 
 which terms is perhaps the best rendering of the 
 word. So Aristoph. Plut. 665, vaw yoCv KXiirrttv 
 Koafxiov ivTiv, Ka\ towc toi'xouc iiopvTTtiv (Parkhurst). 
 Demosth. c. Aristog. i (p. 787, Reiske), ro Btapwrfi- 
 ^lov Biopv^at aviSpa. The fiv after fypny6pn<Ttv is 
 translated " utique," by Vulg. " surely," by Tynd. 
 Gov. Gran. Gen. ; a rendering in every way worthy 
 of Macknight's approbation (Prelim. Ess. to Epist. 
 
 iv, 82). 
 
 (II, b, and III, c). v. 45. rnv rpo^nv " their food"]. 
 " Meat," Eng. See note on ch. xv, 37, and thus 
 alter ch. xxv, 35 ; 42. The employment of the article 
 as a personal pronoun is constantly acknowledged by 
 Auth. See v. 49 (" his fellow-servants," but there 
 
, 286 /fiotc0 oti tje JPeto 'Testament. 
 
 the chief critical editions read airoi) ; ch. xxv, 32, 
 &c. So in V. 32, rHv ir«p«j3oA.}v should be rendered 
 "tts parable," i. e. that which the fig-tree teaches, 
 ocholeheld. 
 
 On "but and if," in v. 48, see Introd. p. 82, note. 
 The phrase occurs also in Auth. 1 Cor. vii 11 • 28 
 "What and if," John vi, 62. 
 
 (II, a)". V. 51. SixoTo/iritTti "shall cut asunder"]. 
 So Auth. Cheke, Doddridge, Castalio : " divide," 
 Tynd. Syr. Vulg. "hew him in pieces," Gov. Cran 
 Bish. " cut him off," Gen. the margin of Auth. and 
 the " Layman " of 1840. "Separabit," Beza, and his 
 French disciples. The sense of Beza and the margin 
 of Auth., that of excommunication, or separation from 
 spiritual privileges, was the favorite exposition of the 
 Greek Fathers. The «.xoro^/ac voovtiivvt Kari rHv tit 
 
 TO iravrtXtc ano rot, TTvtvfiaroQ aXXorpiwatv, says the 
 great Basil : yvfxvw^nrat rov irpovt6vroQ airy j^^apltr- 
 MOToc, is Theophylact's explanation. I do not see 
 how this view is promoted by the remark of Grotius, 
 that Aquila on Gen. xxxiii, 1, expresses the division 
 of Jacob's children into three or four companies by 
 
 But why should not the word be understood liter- 
 ally? Our Lord often accommodated his language 
 and allusions to the customs and ideas of the people 
 He was immediately addressing. If He proposed the 
 unjust steward as an example of prudence and fore- 
 thought, without condescending to stigmatize his 
 manifest villany ; why should He not represent the 
 householder in this parable as cruelly vindictive to- 
 wards the slave who had abused his trust; the rather 
 as in the very next words He turns aside from his 
 subject to intimate the bitterness of the hypocrite's 
 portion in the unseen world ? Now it is well ascer- 
 
 &u 9^atttieto^ 287 
 
 tained that the punishment here referred to was fa- 
 miliar to the Jews (see 2 Sam. xii, 31 ; 1 Chron. 
 XX, 3 ; Amos i, 3 ; Hist. Susann. 65 ; 69), in com- 
 mon with other nations of antiquity (Herod, vii, 39 ; 
 Sueton. Calig. c. 27) : — no unfit retribution for the 
 double-hearted dissembler, as Bois quaintly observes. 
 Because in the parallel text Luke xii, 46 Stj^oro^^irti is 
 found in the same context with SapriotTat iroXXac(v. 47), 
 some have fancied that nothing more than a severe 
 scourging is here intended. But they fail to produce 
 instances of this signification of AlXOro/uctv: for 
 "scindo," "discindo," rfftvta, or even Btaripvot are 
 quite insufficient for their purpose. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 (I)°. y. 1. To the end of this verse Cran. adds 
 " (and the bride)." These words are found in Syr. 
 Vulg. the Italic, and eight Greek manuscripts, chiefly 
 such as are suspected of Latinising (D. 1. 36. 124, 
 209). Lest it should be thought that this gloss was 
 brought into Syr. from Vulg. (see note on ch. vi, 13, 
 p. 169), I remark that it is contained in the Philo- 
 xenian and Persian versions, although the margin of 
 the Philoxenian states that all the Greek manuscripts 
 do not read it. 
 
 In v. 2, Griesbach and Scholz have al before the 
 second nivrt, and this is also the reading of Stephens's 
 third edition. External evidence is not very favor- 
 able to the insertion of the article, though it is given 
 by many Byzantine manuscripts, by most copies of 
 Chrysostom, and by Theophylact. Bp. Middleton 
 says, "the omission may have arisen from the want 
 
288 0ottfi on tie ipeto 'gTejJtament 
 
 of the article before the former vivrt: the first five, 
 however, are not definite, whilst the latter are so, 
 being those which remain of the ten." This is just 
 such a nicety of the Greek as would escape the ap- 
 prehension of the copyists of the Codices B C D L Z 
 &c., whose native language was either Coptic or 
 Latin. 
 
 4>povi/tot " wise," and ftwpal " foolish," are trans- 
 posed in Vulg. Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cfaeke, Gen. , in a few 
 Greek manuscripts (B C D L Z. I. 33. 102. 157. 209, 
 &c.), and in the Complutensian Polyglott and the 
 editions of Erasmus and Lachmann. 
 
 Since this is almost the last instance in St. Mat- 
 thew's Gospel, with which I am acquainted, wherein 
 Tyndal's version agrees in reading with the Vulgate, 
 against the received Greek text, it may be well to re- 
 capitulate those which have already passed under re- 
 view. In ch. vi, 13, Tyndal's first edition agrees 
 with the Vulgate in omitting the doxology ; but the 
 doxology is also omitted in the Complutensian Poly- 
 glott. In ch. X, 25, &c. " Beelzebub" is the form 
 employed by all Eng. after the Vulgate ; but here 
 again they are countenanced by the Complutensian 
 Testament. In ch. xviii, 8, Tyndal and the Vulgate 
 read avrov not avri : but this is also the reading of 
 the first edition of Erasmus (1516). In ch. xviii, 29, 
 fie rove iroSac avrov is not found in Tyndal or the Vul- 
 gate ; nor is it found in any edition of Erasmus pub- 
 lished before 1551. In ch. xxiii, 7, the second pa/3/3i 
 is rejected by Tyndal and the Vulgate : it is rejected 
 too by the editions both of Complutum and Erasmus. 
 The same may be said respecting the transposition of 
 fUM)pai and ^povtfioi in the present verse. See also be- 
 low, on ch. xxviii, 20, note. From these premises 
 the inference is tolerably clear. If Tyndal adopted 
 
 fet. fl?attiieto. 289 
 
 the readings of the Vulgate in those cases o«/y in 
 
 W.U t?;'r '^'^^^ '' ^^^ ^^^^^ Testament gre 
 w.th the Vulgate against the textus receptus; he did 
 «o .n eomphance with the authority, J of he VuN 
 
 fen tefb" tt"r' '"5 °' *'^ 0"&'-I Greek, as rep - 
 sented by the Complutensian and Erasmian editions 
 
 fmarkTh 'k'"'^' '''^ ^'"^'^ ^^P*'- *« these 
 remarks has been pointed out in my note on ch. 
 
 (11, b) v. 8. ,TpivwvTai " are going out "1. So tht^ 
 
 and note „„ ch. „„, 24. " Go out," Tynd. Gen ■• are 
 g"neo„,-C„v.C„n.Bi.h.Au.h...beonVChei: 
 Wdy neoessa^ ,0 expre,. the f„„ pL„ 'n^'jX 
 were not m yet extinguished. 
 
 be m't enoLh-l'T "7' "'"'''' " "■^""- '«' '!""« 
 ne not enough ]. So Gen., a softer and less dir«.t 
 den,., than "„„, „ ,,„ ,^^,^ ^ „„, J-^;- 
 
 verj' bad. M„„,, however, in the original is still 
 
 eCrntotr^al'^J -"""-"' 
 (I), ibid I. have cited the text above as reading 
 
 srLttptted ""f -' °^T^ -^- - 
 
 U^e textus receptus of ch. xxiv, 2. where however" 
 must have been mterpolated from Mark xiii, 2. since 
 all the crmcs and nearly all the manuscripts rejecl 
 ^- In the present verse ,^ has been admitted as 
 
 u 
 
290 ipoteu on ttie jpeto tlTetftament. 
 
 genuine by Scholz And Lachmann. It is read in 
 eleven uncial manuscripts (BCDFGHKMS and 
 Matthsei's H V, but not in the venerable Codex Alex- 
 andrinus or A, which commences at v. 6 of this 
 chapter), and in so vast a number of cursive docu- 
 ments of both recensions, that we ought not to think 
 of rejecting it ; the rather as it is an Hellenistic ano- 
 maly, such as no copyist or critic would forge. Mij 
 is found in several of Matthsei's copies of Chrysos- 
 tom, and in all Mr. Field's except one. 
 
 (Y)°. ibid. After woptitaOt all the modem editors 
 omit Si. It is wanting in nine uncial manuscripts of 
 both classes, and in sixteen cursive : we might safely 
 say in many more, for collators have been very care- 
 less in noting these minute variations (see note on 
 ch. xiii, 27). It is also deficient in Vulg. and pos- 
 sibly in Syr. I might add that Chrysostom rejects 
 it ; but since he rather abridges than quotes the 
 whole paragraph (v. 1 — 30), he cannot be appealed 
 to with any great confidence. Until more manu- 
 script readings are collected, we cannot decide with 
 certainty for or against Bi. If it is not to be retained 
 (and all Eng. retain it), I must protest against Camp- 
 bell's arrangement of the verse (" Lest there be not 
 enough for us and you, go rather "....) as violent 
 and improbable. 
 
 In v. 21 a similar question arises respecting the 
 omission of Si after c^q. It is not in Syr. Vulg. the 
 Italic, nor in Greek manuscripts at least as numerous 
 as those which reject it in v. 9. The particle is 
 neglected in Tynd. 1. Cran. Bish. Auth., but care- 
 fully introduced by Tynd. 2. Gov. Gen. 
 
 (I), v. 13. The clause «v p o wJo? tou avOpuirov 
 ip-j^trai " wherein the Son of man cometh," is ex- 
 punged by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, and Lachmann. 
 
 
 dri™; in about .„i. P'' "'"^"J"""'"- 
 
 ■»»«;of .he'ret: ;: .^ ,rcT ''""■"™''' 
 
 words are wantin., ol • 'o Chrysostom. The 
 
 '^ave theLrr!tat:n"d'L!r> ^^^^. '^^ E"^- 
 versions claim mJl. ^ Egyptian versions; and 
 
 nature. oTthe othe?T'*^r.f " °" " P'''"* -' ^^is 
 ^eatmassofConst^^^^^^^^^^^ '«""^ '" ^^e 
 
 irto confirm M^r:::^^^ 
 
 Th.3 cxrcumstance, coupled wTth the 1, "'"■"'■ 
 Chrysostom and nearly Tn the ver,L '''""^"^ "^ 
 to judge the clause spuriou The m ' "''' "^ 
 dence against it, though w.Jtv "^Tf ^^'- 
 convincing. ^ ^^'g^ty, is not of itself 
 
 'V ^>as whJn l\t''' 'T 'tT "■'^"'^'"-'^ " F- 
 
 ^one before him .■ for it il^^,^ ^ %'\^^^ 
 Castaho retain the deficiency of the Greek /" A 
 Vulg. receives the somewhat nmK ' °'' ''^'''^ 
 
 t-ofBois.Thusair;yrd.^':%rnT^^^^^^ 
 
 as a certain man" and rL .,v, "kewise 
 
 "car ./ en est comme rf' un h ^^'^''^ "^ "'^^«"- ' • 
 Gen. first triedTr^nder th. '"r' ^"' '-C^tervald. 
 "forcertainlytreirnX ;ret^^^ 
 • . • Auth. renders here " for thJT J ^' ''''""" 
 " as a man " . . but In th. t'^^^ '-^ ^'^^'» 
 34, Gen. Auth. b^th^Lad vrS:^''^^'^ 
 a nian " . . . Whether the words I ht ^- """" " ^' " 
 sufficient tomakethpnnc ^^^ '"^^'''ed be 
 
 ^nust dete^ne At'a tlT"''^"^"^' '"^^ -^^r 
 any rate, we must prefer the 
 
292 il5ote0 on t1)t ipeto Cedtoment. 
 rendering of Auth. in St. Mark to that in St. Matthew, 
 since " the kingdom of heaven " and its dispensation 
 cannot so properly be compared with ovOpwn-oc a-iroSv 
 liHiv, as " the Son of man " may. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 16. Kara rfiv ISi'ow ivvafiiv " according 
 to his own ability"]. Thus iSioc is rendered in v. 
 14. " After his ability," Eng. but " according to his 
 several ability," Auth. "according to his power," 
 Cheke. " Secundum ipsius facultatem," Beza. " Se- 
 cundum propriam virtutem," Vulg., and so Syr. 
 
 (oiAJ* yJi ••' '«j t*_j.|)' Some persons have felt a 
 difficulty in distinguishing between Svva/xcc, the na- 
 tural ability of the heart and understanding, and 
 ToXavTo, the acquired gifts of fortune, rank, or learn- 
 ing. Yet that Svvafiic will bear the meaning here 
 given to it will scarcely be questioned. Wetstein 
 cites Jambilich. Pythag. 19, ttoXXoc oSowc TluOayopac 
 
 n'oiSciac avEvpE, km Kara rrfv oiKuav ^vaiv tKaarov Kai 
 Svva/utv, irapcSiSov rifc ao^'ia^ r^v irrt^aWovaav fioipav. 
 Were we to consider Svva/xtc as equivalent to riXavrov, 
 in the sense of riches, abundance, the clause Kara r^v 
 tBlav Svvafiiv would be almost redundant ; a supposi- 
 tion very unworthy of the Divine Speaker, and of the 
 solemnity of the occasion. I do not quite comprehend 
 the drift of Kypke's objection to the more common in- 
 terpretation, which is found in Auth. &c. "Deus sane 
 dona et naturae et gratise queecunque hominibus 
 largiens, aut etiam partes diversas in se suscipiendas 
 illis injungens, vires recte istis utendi et in iis ver- 
 sandi non supponit, sed ipse largitur." Undoubtedly 
 this ability to use our talents, no less than the talents 
 themselves, flows entirely from God's free bounty. Yet 
 if the former be a part of our individual character, 
 while the latter may be given or taken away by the 
 thousand Providential changes of life ; what is there 
 
 fet Sl^attlieto. 293 
 
 unreasonable in the supposition, that God's temporary 
 and fortuitous gifts (if such an expression be allow- 
 
 rJu T 'T^l^^^ '"^ apportioned to faculties and 
 capacties wh.ch were plaiited in us at our birth ; and 
 winch, .n the natural course of things, can neither be 
 increased nor diminished ? 
 
 So^i'' pL ''■ ? u '■" ^"° " '•'" '"'° "J °*™ed in V. 15. 
 
 here 'hi, ■"?•"'"'""• '^" ^"&- °™'* *^« -''ticle 
 here although m v. 16 they had said "the five 
 
 la ents. Correct in like manner w. 18, 20, 22 28 
 
 AH are right in v. 24; as are Tynd. 2. Gov. in v.' 
 
 18^ ^^ the one, " for which Gran. Gen. have « that 
 
 (ni,b). V.24. «V«-v«5r«... J"Iknewthat 
 thou art J^ So Gov. Gheke. "I considered that 
 hou wast, Tynd Gen. " I knew thee, that thou 
 ar . .Gran. Bish. Auth. No advantage can be 
 obtained from preserving the Greek idiom, which 
 sounds very awkwardly in our ears. Thus alter 
 Auth. in Mark i, 24 ; John ix, 8 ; Acts iv, 13 ; xxvi, 
 6; 1 Cor. XV, 1, 2, &c. 
 
 ^"n ''^•J'5- '^'' '^"' '^ '"" " '°' t^'O" hast thine 
 own ]. So Tynd. Cheke, Gen. « there " is inserted 
 by Gov. " there thou hast that is thine," or " that 
 """^ "'" CJran. Bish. Auth. See note on ch. xx, 14. 
 
 (Ill, c). v. 27. rorc rpairtllraig " to the bankers"]. 
 
 :,Vu^ l!^!^^^ '^'"'°"' Doddridge and Campbell. 
 
 labers, Gheke, absurdly enough. WicklifFe and 
 hng. have •« changers," or " exchangers." In their 
 time all exchangers of money may have been bankers. 
 Tpair^Za and its derivatives are perpetually used in 
 this sense by the Attic orators. 
 
 (HI, c). ibid, aiv t6k,(, " with interest"]. So Dod- 
 dridge, Campbell. " Gain," Cheke : " vantage," Eng 
 except Auth. which after Wickliffe and the Rhemish 
 
294 Bott^ on tt)t i^eto ^e0tament. 
 
 version, has " usury," a word at present always used 
 in a bad sense. 
 
 In V. 28, Tynd. 2. alone reads " five" for " ten" 
 talents, I suppose by a typographical error. Codex 
 D indeed has nlvrt, yet it is most unlikely that Tyndal 
 ever saw that suspicious document. 
 
 (II, b). V, 30. TO ff/coToc TO i^Ttpov " the outer dark- 
 ness"]. Thus correct ch. viii, 12 ; xxii, 13. See Bp. 
 Middleton's valuable note. All Eng. render " outer" 
 or " utter darkness," except that Tynd. 1. has the 
 article in ch. viii, 12 ; Gov. in ch. xxii, 13 ; and Cheke 
 in ch. xxii, 13, and here (" the uttermost "). 
 
 (I)°. V. 31. "Ayioi " holy" is here expunged by 
 
 • Mill, Griesbach, and Lachmann. This epithet is ap- 
 plied to angels in three other passages of the New 
 Testament : Mark viii, 38 ; Actsx, 22; Rev. xiv, 10; 
 in the two former of which texts no doubt rests on 
 its authenticity, and very little in the third. Its op- 
 ponents in the present verse are pretty exclusively 
 Alexandrine : our old acquaintance B D L of the 
 uncial MSS (A reads ayiot), and about fourteen of 
 later date, including 1 . 33. 6 1, or the too-famousCodex 
 Montfort of Dublin, the voucher for the authenticity 
 
 ' of the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John v, 7. Of 
 the other leading authorities Syr. reads aytoi, as does 
 Chrysostom ; but the Italic, Vulg. Coptic, and some 
 lesser versions agree with Origen in omitting the 
 word. Unless the critical principles I have adopted 
 be fundamentally wrong, ayiw is indisputably ge- 
 nuine. 
 
 I do not know whether it is quite just to revive every 
 crude opinion that Mill may have pronounced with 
 regard to the goodness of each reading which he in- 
 cidentally mentions in his Prolegomena. His judg- 
 ment was usually decided by the occasion of the 
 
 fen apattlitto. 296 
 
 moment ; and in truth any enlarged view of the whole 
 mass of evidence on both sides of a question could 
 hardly have been taken in his age. The same remark 
 app les to Bengel, and (though not in its full extent) 
 to Wetstein ; a scholar both in vigour of mind and 
 extent of learning greatly superior to his predecessors. 
 It therefore seems desirable, for the future, not to 
 allege the decisions of these earlier critics respecting 
 particular readings, unless when they have commun- 
 icated to us the precise grounds on which their 
 judgment was formed. 
 
 (Ill, c). vv. 35,37, 42, 44. i«.'v«,« " I was hungry"! 
 So Gov. Cheke: " an hungred" of Eng. is obsolete. 
 Ihus alter ch. iv, 2, &c. 
 
 (II, b). V. 41. TO Trip TO ai'w'wov " the everlasting 
 fire J. Cov. Bish. alone of Eng. have the article. 
 
 In vv. 40, 45, *>' g^ovis translated " quamdiu" in 
 Vulg. Yet all Eng. are correct " inasmuch as •" 
 except Cov. " look, what ye have done," and Cheke 
 in V. 40 " whatsoever you have done "... 
 
 (I). V. 44. After airoKpiOriaovTat the pronoun awry is 
 
 cancelled by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann. 
 It IS not found m twelve uncial manuscripts (A B D 
 i-FGKLS and Matthsi's BHV), in a multitude 
 of cursive documents, in Syr., in the Egyptian ver- 
 sions, and in some copies of the Italic and Vulc- 
 There can be little doubt of the spuriousness of air!': 
 and St. Matthew frequently suppresses the pronoun 
 alter ajro»cpie«'c. See ch. xv, 13 ; 24; 26. 
 
 (Ill, a), v. 46. a'twviov " everlasting"]. Follow 
 Gov. and Cheke in rendering this much-controverted 
 word uniformly in the same verse. Other Eng vary 
 between "everlasting" and " eternal," for no possible 
 reason. I so often appeal to Cov. in favour of slight 
 verba! alterations, which I conceive to be improve- 
 
296 i^ote0 on ttie i^eto %tfixtimtnt, 
 
 ments on Autb., that the reader may possibly think 
 I have spoken too slightingly of bis merits in my 
 Introduction, p. 85. The fact is, that in more im- 
 portant matters Gov. generally fails us : though 
 doubtless such minutiee are not without their import- 
 ance. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 (II, a). V, 2. TO naa^a ylverai " the passover cometb"]. 
 " Shall be Easter," Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke : " is 
 Easter," Gen. a rendering of waaxa still retained by 
 Autb. in Acts xii, 4 : "is the feast of the passover," 
 Bish. Autb. But neither here, nor in v. 17 (where 
 Gen. alone resembles Autb.) should " the feast" be 
 expressed. 
 
 (II, a). V. 3. Hc rnv aiXnv " into the court"]. So 
 Cheke. This must be the meaning of avXq in vv. 68, 
 69 ; Mark xiv, 54 ; 66 ; Luke xxii, 55 ; John xviii, 15, 
 as will be clear on comparing the several accounts 
 given by the four Evangelists. In Rev. xi, 2, it is 
 thus rendered by Auth. Hence it is desirable to 
 give the same interpretation to it in Mark xv, 16; 
 Luke xi, 21, where it may possibly be used with a 
 rather wider signification. The avXi7 of an Oriental 
 house, I need scarcely observe, was the enclosed area 
 or court-yard, surrounded by buildings, and open 
 above, to which there was access from the street 
 through the porch irvXwv v. 71, or n-^idavXtov Mark 
 xiv, 68. In this chapter Cheke uniformly translates 
 awXn " court," but all Eng. " palace" (except Gen. 
 " hall" in vv. 3, 69), to the serious injury of the sense. 
 Campbell has " palace" here, and " court" in w. 58, 
 
 fet. Sl^atttietD. 297 
 
 69 : to which, excepting on the score of consistency, 
 
 there can be no objection. Syr. il,',, and Vulg.' 
 
 atrium," m every place. Doddridge has " hall " 
 
 only in v. 69. 
 
 (II, a), v. 5. ev rp iopry " during the feast"], the 
 whole Paschal festival, for no particular day is meant 
 Hence " the holy day" of Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke 
 and '• the feast day" of Gen. Bish. Auth. are im- 
 proper, rivvrai is translated " arise" in Tynd Gen 
 This is much better than " be " of the other Eng. 
 
 Again in v. 7, avoKti^hov is better rendered by 
 Tynd. Cran. Gen. Bish. " sat at the board," or « at 
 the table" by Cov., than by Cheke and Auth. " sat 
 at meat." In v. 20 Autb. has " sat down," which 
 18 far preferable. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 8. vyavaKTtiirav "were indignant"] "Had 
 mdignation " Eng. "disdained," Cov. the rendering 
 of all but Auth. in ch. xx, 24; xxi, 15: "were dis- 
 contented," Cheke. 
 
 (I)°. V. 9 ri ^ipov " ointment" is expunged by 
 Griesbach, Scholz. and Lachmann. Granting that 
 It has some appearance of being a marginal gloss 
 we must not reject the noun of the sentence, on the 
 slender evidence hitherto produced against it. It is 
 not found indeed in Syr. Vulg. the Italic, and Egyp- 
 t.an versions ; but I hesitate to confide in translations^ 
 m the case of an omission so comparatively trifling. 
 The direct testimony against ri ^ipov is slight enough • 
 namely A BDL of the uncial, and eleven cursive 
 manuscripts. But all these are verjr decidedly 
 Egyptian, excepting Codex A, which is mixed, and 
 Matthffiis e. This last, however, ig frequently found 
 m very suspicious company; see note on ch. xxiii, 25 
 At the end of the verse, Chrysostom countenances 
 all the modern editors in reading ror^ before ^ro^xofc 
 
298 iUotcjJ on tt)« ilitto 'gDt0tament. 
 
 It is 80 well supported by manuscripts, that we may 
 justly assume its genuineness; theiather as »ra.xo«c 
 is anarthrous in ch. xix, 21. AH Eng. have '« the 
 poor ;" but no one will imagine that they read ro.c 
 See note on ch. ix, 13. 
 
 (II, a). V. 12. Trpic ri fvra^.<{ff«» f«« " for my em- 
 
 balment," or "to embalm me"]- " Bury," Eng. Syr. 
 
 Vulg. But since ivra^ia^Hv necessarily means • to 
 
 embalm" in John xix , 40, it is advisable with the great 
 
 Casaubon, Campbell, Newcome, and Boothroyd, so to 
 
 render the verb here, and ivT«^.a«TMoc m Mark xiv, 8 ; 
 
 John xii, 7. The LXX employ this word for W!7 m 
 
 Gen. 1,2, where the ivr«^.a»r«l must be illustrated from 
 
 the minute description given by Herodotus, n 86. 
 
 (HI b). V. 13. Ml S . . . " this also which ]. So 
 Cov. Other Eng. wrongly place " also" before 
 " this." See notes on ch. ii, 8 ; x, 32. Thus correct 
 v. 71, by putting " also" before " was." Auth. is 
 
 accurate in vv. 69, 73. . , , , • ,m c 
 
 (II, a). V. 15. ^.rrnffav airy " weighed him ]. bo 
 Beza. Campbell, Newcome, and Scholefield. '• Offered 
 him " Cov. " appointed unto him," Tynd. Cran. 
 Cheke, Gen. Bish. Boothroyd: "covenanted with 
 • him " Auth. " constituerunt ei," Vulg. and thus Syr. 
 (a^d-fi'l) ; " Pac*' 8""*'" Castalio. To the same effect 
 Theophylact paraphrases iffrr,t>av by «rw*^«^.jffav, a^wp- 
 ,,„v 8o0v«., and Ostervald has " ils convinrent, 
 though Martin abides by Beza's judgment " lis lui 
 compt^rent." The truth is that St. Mark (ch. xiv, 
 11), and St. Luke (ch. xxii, 5) merely state that the 
 Jewish Rulers " promised" or " covenanted" to give 
 Judas money : whereas in the present text St. Mat- 
 thew pointedly alludes to that great prophecy of Za- 
 chariah (ch. xi, 12),* which he expressly cites in 
 
 fet* fll^atttjeto. 299 
 
 v. 9 of the next chapter, where 1/i?K^!1 " and they 
 weighed," is represented by (coi tarrtaav in the LXX. 
 The same Greek answers to the same Hebrew word in 
 Ezra viii, 25 ; Jerem. xxxii (LXX, xxxix), 9. Mr. 
 Grinfield compares likewise 1 Esdr. viii, 55. See 
 
 also Herod, ii, 65, laram araOfi^ irpoQ apyvptov rag rpi- 
 
 X«c" TO 8" av iXiciirf . . . Demosth. adv. Timoth. (p. 
 
 1200, Reiske), ov yap Sqirov ovev yt (rra0/iow ifitWtv ou0' 
 o vircTiOiptvoc napaXtfiptaOai, ovB o viroriOfit rov -j^aXKov 
 TrapaSwdHV, oii^ av o narrip tfuWtv avroc ovrc oifftcv rov 
 ^oXkov, ovTt arriataOat. 
 
 At the beginning of this verse " unto them" is not 
 in Tynd. Cov. Cheke, Gen. It is wrongly added by 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. from Vulg. It is also found in 
 Syr. and some other versions, and in one Greek ma- 
 nuscript, the notorious Codex D. Thus we see how 
 even Cov. follows Tynd. in preference to Vulg. 
 
 'Apyvpia is rendered by Cov. " silver pence," 
 both here and in ch. xxvii, 3 ; 5 : " silverlings," by 
 Cheke ; by Eng. " silver pieces" or " pieces of sil- 
 ver " here, but in ch. xxvii, 3 " plates of silver," by 
 Tynd. Cran. " argenteos," Vulg. and Syr. By " sil- 
 ver pence," Cov. of course means denarii, or Attic 
 drachmae, which is probably the true sense in Acts 
 xix, 19. But it is generally supposed that by apyvpia 
 in this place we are to understand staters (see note 
 on ch. xvii, 24) ; in fact Codex D and one or two other 
 Greek and Italic MSS have ararripat as a various read- 
 ing. The strangers' burial-ground would certainly be 
 more likely to cost thirty staters than thirty drachma; 
 (ch. xxvii, 7); and thirty silver shekels is the sum 
 fixed in Exod. xxi, 32 for the compensation of a mas- 
 ter, whose man or maid-servant should be slain by 
 accident. But this latter argument I must confess to 
 
300 iUotea on tljt i^eto i:t0tament. 
 
 be rather precarious. See also C&mpbell, Prelim. 
 Diss. VIII, Pt. I, 4, 5, 10. 
 
 In V. 17, rwv tttvfuov is called ** of unleavened 
 bread" by Tynd. I. " of the unleavened," byCheke: 
 " of sweet bread," by Tynd. 2. Gov. Cran. Bish. " of 
 the feast of unleavened bread," by Gen. Auth. (see 
 note on v. 2) ; •' of the Azymes" (!) by the Rhemish 
 version. Tynd. 1. is obviously the best of them all. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 18. npoQ rov Sitva " to a certain man"]. 
 So Gen. " To such a man," Eng. The wOrd Stiva 
 occurs no where else in the New Testament, nor is 
 it ever used by the LXX, but by Aquila and Theo- 
 dotion in 1 Sam. xxi, 2. 
 
 ■ Bish. renders ttoiw " I make :" other Eng. " I will 
 keep." The use of Troetiv in this sense is familiar to 
 all Greek writers. Wetstein cites Hebr. xi, 28 ; a 
 far more certain example is Acts xviii, 21. 
 
 (Ill, c). v. 24. viriyu " departeth "]. So Campbell. 
 Thus alter Mark xiv, 21. " Goeth his way," Cheke. 
 " Goeth," of Eng. is ambiguous, and " goeth forth," 
 of Gov. positively wrong. Syr. Vulg. have " vadit" 
 merely ; Beza, Castalio " abit." There is little doubt 
 that vTrdytiv is here intended, by a euphemism common 
 to all languages, to denote departure from life. Thus 
 the Greeks use awip-f^taOat, ScocxetrOai, and the Hebrews 
 V"? (Psalm xxxix, 13), 
 
 (u, b). V. 2G. riv iprov "the loaf"]. "The bread," 
 Gov. Bish. "bread," Tynd, Cran. Cheke, Gen. Auth. 
 There was little reason for Middleton's following 
 Clirysostom, and a few Alexandrine authorities 
 (BGDLZ. 1.33,&c.)in removing tov before aprov. It 
 is certainly not found in the parallel texts Mark xiv, 
 22 ; Luke xxii, 19, which circumstance, together 
 with ignorance of Oriental customs on the part of the 
 Alexandrine correctors, was the probable cause of 
 
 I 
 
 &t. S^attjeto. 301 
 
 its being cancelled here. 'O aVoc as Mr r, 
 
 i "' XXIV, 30, where Auth. need, correctionl «nrf 
 !.« no peculiar ,,,„,„„, ,„ ,^^ p^^^^, ^«-™). and 
 
 gm of Aulh informs us thai "many Greek conies 
 
 adopted by Gnesbach. It i, f„„„d ;„ , 
 
 aive MSS of every kmd hitherto collated. Chrv- 
 
 derived C Mark xiv'^ST-^'i ""^ ''°™ *"" 
 .„J ■ J u i? . ' ^^' " " *« received text 
 and IS read by Griesbach, Vater, and Lachmann Its 
 advocates are four uncial MSS (BDLzrr: , 
 
 d'Sirt'""""'''"""''""-^-"^- 
 
 descriptions. The versions are worth but little in 
 such a case, but Syr. Vulg. have the same rend in" 
 n both Gospels, and so far countenance the commof 
 text Matth, xiv. 19; Mark vi, 41 favor .iU ' 
 and Mark viii. 6; Luke xxii 19 ' ' *"^«'7'»»-c, 
 
 ^,11, a;. V. 28. SiaO^Kvc " covenant "1 So Ca^falm 
 Beza, Doddridge. Campbell, Ostervald (" de la n u 
 
 translators Vulg Eng. have " tesfament ; " Syr 
 writes the Greek word in Syriac characters. ChTv- 
 «ostonx seems to agree with Vulg. .„Wei;0.. ««'.,„/„, 
 
 visible allusion to Hebrew ix. 15-17, in the' n on 
 which passage thewhole question may be more conve 
 n ently djscussed. Here, at all events, the course seems 
 plam. Our Lord's A.„fl/i., can be called " NeT" 
 
302 iUote0 on x^t iPeto '^c0tament* 
 
 only in allusion to the Old one, that of Moses. But 
 the Law was consecrated not by the death of Moses 
 the legislator, but by the blood of calves and goats. 
 Since " Testament," therefore, would be quite imper- 
 tinent when applied to the dispensation of Moses ; 
 it can hardly be appropriate in this place, as a desig- 
 nation of the religion of Christ. 
 
 It has been proposed to give to U6,itvov m Luke 
 xxii, 19, to iKxvvo^t^'ov here, and to KXtifitvov in 1 Cor. 
 xi 24 the full present sense, " being given," "bemg 
 shed," "being broken." Undoubtedly this is quite 
 allowable; but then we must conceive the present 
 to be used in a popular manner, where the future 
 would be more strictly accurate ; as we have ,ro.a, in 
 V. 18 ; ytvvSrai in ch. ii, 4 ; i^Jpo/ia. in ch. xxvii, 63 
 (Introd. p. 46). I do not recommend a change m the 
 rendering of Auth. ; the rather since it has been sug- 
 gested with oblique reference to a doctrine unwar- 
 ranted by Scripture, and which the formularies of 
 our Church emphatically condemn. 
 
 In V. 29, Bish. translates oi fiH " in no wise ; in 
 V. 35 •• by no manner of means." Other Eng. neg- 
 lect it in both places. 
 
 • (II a). V. 30. v,ivii<ravTic " when they had sung the 
 hymn "] viz. the great Hallel, or hymn of praise, with 
 ,/hich the Jews concluded the Paschal supper. This 
 Hymn was Psalms cxv-cxviii ; for Psalms cxiu, cxiv 
 had been sung at an earlier stage of the feast (see 
 Lightfoot ad loc). Dr. Doddridge seems miserably 
 afraid of binding our Lord to the ritual observances 
 of the Jews, and deems it " uncertain whether (as 
 Grotius and some others think) it might not be some 
 other hymn more closely adapted to the celebration 
 of the Eucharist." More closely adapted, be it ob- 
 served, than the cxvi* or cxviii* Psalm ! Tynd. Cov. 
 
 &t. a^atttieto. 303 
 
 Cran. have " said grace :" " sung a song of thanks- 
 giving," Gen. " praised [God]," Bish. so Cheke. 
 " Sung an hymn," Auth. " the hymn," Campbell : 
 " psalm," margin of Auth : but it was rather a col- 
 lection of psalms, than any one in particular. " Hymno 
 
 dicto," Vulg. o-^^Jj.^ (" they praised ") Syr. " le 
 cantique," Martin, Ostervald. 
 
 (I). V. 33. After tl all the modem editors omit Kai, 
 and Griesbach inserts Si after iyd, where all Eng. 
 (by accident, no doubt ; — see v. 35) have " yet." 
 These minute variations are not noted by critics with 
 sufficient care, to enable us to determine to which 
 side the balance of manuscript testimony inclines : 
 but if we confine our attention to the uncial, and the 
 more remarkable cursive documents, we shall perhaps 
 conclude, that the former of these changes is neces- 
 sary, but the other not. Syr. Vulg. favor the received 
 text in both instances. The same observations apply 
 to the insertion of Si after ofiolwq in v. 35, which is 
 sanctioned by Griesbach and Scholz, on the authority 
 of Syr. Chrysostom, nine uncial, and numerous later 
 MSS. 
 
 (II, b). V. 34. aXUropa " a cock"]. So Wakefield, 
 Middleton, and Boothroyd : "the cock," all Eng. even 
 Wickliffe, and the Rhemish version. There is no- 
 thing in the Greek to answer to the English article; 
 nor were cocks ip Judaea the domestic birds they are 
 with us, or which the article implies. It appears 
 from the Rabbinical writers (see Lightfoot ad loc.) that 
 they were accounted unclean, and forbidden to be 
 kept by the priests, or by any person within the pre- 
 cincts of the Holy City. Hence the cock mentioned 
 in V. 74, must have been without the walls, nor was 
 his crowing a familiar sound in Jerusalem, 'i'hus 
 
304 i^ote0 on ttie i|2e\9 <Ee0tament 
 
 alter vv. 74 ; 76 ; Mark xiv, 30 ; 68 ; 72 ; Luke xxii, 
 34 ; GO (see note adloc.) ; 61 ; John xiii, 38 ; xviii, 27. 
 
 In V. 31, kv ifioi is rightly rendered " because of 
 me," by Tynd. 1. Auth. ; Tynd. 2. changes it into 
 " by me." See Introd. p. 83. 
 
 In V. 36, yjD^tov is translated " field," by Gov. 
 " farm-place," by Cran, Vulg. has " villam." Syr. 
 Tynd. Cheke, Gen. Bish. Auth. " place." The com- 
 mon rendering is amply sufficient, though that of 
 Gov. is justified by the practice of Greek writers. 
 See in particular, Philo de Agric. in Loesner. 
 
 (II, a). V. 37. d8ij/iov«v " to be overwhelmed with 
 anguish"]. Doddridge complains, and not altogether 
 without cause, that *• the words which our translators 
 use here, are very flat, and fall vastly short of the em- 
 phasis of those terms, in which the Evangelists de- 
 scribe this awful scene." No single Greek word, 
 indeed, can be more expressive of deep dejection than 
 aStjjuomv, to which I hope my rendering will be found 
 adequate. Eurip. Frag. Ixxxi, 3, a8»i/xovovvra trvfifo- 
 pa7t. Plato, Phoedr. (I, i, 50, Bekker), aSrffiovti rt ry 
 aroTTift Tov iraOowc, Kai airopovaa Xvrrf, Kai iftftavvQ ovaa 
 
 . . .. Vulg. is very weak "mcestus esse;", "heavy," 
 Gran. Bish. '* very heavy," Auth. " full of pain," 
 Cheke ; " in an agony," Tynd. Gov. (fairly enough), 
 "grievously troubled," Gen."gravissim& angi," Beza, 
 whence Martin has " fort angoiss^," which Ostervald 
 dilutes into " dans une am^re douleur." Castalio 
 merely " angi." Syr. * nl// v,\ " coarctari," a 
 very forcible word. 
 
 (I)°. v. 38. After Xiyti ai/roU the nominative o 'lt}<rovg 
 is added by Griesbach and Scholz. It is not in Gliry- 
 sostom, Syr. Vulg. or the Sahidic ; but it is supported 
 by nearly all Matthaei's manuscripts, and six or seven 
 
 ) 
 
 i 
 
 &r. a^attfieto. 305 
 
 uncial besides, together with many cursive documents, 
 mostly though not exclusively Byzantine. I suppose 
 that Griesbach (who has little partiality for this class 
 of authorities) admits it into his text, chiefly on ac- 
 count of its inherent improbability ; for it is not at all 
 wanted, and is so much like a marginal note taken 
 from the Evangelistaria, that I cannot receive it with 
 implicit confidence. 
 
 i^jrf. "Unto the death," Tynd. Gov. Cran. Gen. 
 Bish. after Wickliffe. Auth. follows the Rhemish 
 version in leaving out the article here, but retains it 
 in ch. XV, 4 ; Acts xxii, 4, &c. " I am even like to 
 die for sorrow "(!), Cheke. 
 
 (I)°. V. 39. In the room of wpotXOwv " went far- 
 ther," of the received text, Syr. Vulg. &c., Scholz 
 reads irpoatXOuiv " having approached," or " come to." 
 The manuscripts of Chrysostom fluctuate, but no less 
 than twelve uncial documents of both recensions 
 (A G D E F G H LS, and all Matthaei's), together with 
 full eighty cursive documents, chiefly Byzantine, favor 
 irpoatXOijiv. The received reading is supported by the 
 Codices B K, and a crowd of others, of little influence 
 perhaps considered individually, but possibly forming 
 a majority of the whole ; since they are loosely cited 
 by Scholz as " permulti alii." But if ever there be 
 a case in which common sense should prevail over 
 authority it is the present. What rational meaning 
 can we attach to wpoatXOwv ? whereas the textus re- 
 ceptus is perfectly intelligible. The critical canon 
 "quo difficilior lectio, eo verior," must have some 
 limit, or it would compel us to adopt the grossest 
 blunders of the copyists. The difference between 
 nPOEA ... and IIPOSEA ... is far from consider- 
 able ; and the former had not hitherto occurred in Ae 
 New Testament, whereas the latter had been used 
 
306 jl2ote0 on t1)e BtXa '2tc0tament, 
 
 ten times already. But the variation must have arisen 
 very early, for in Mark xiv, 36 even Syr. falls into it. 
 (II, a). V. 46. ri Xwiriv " henceforth"]. So Tynd. 
 Gen. Bish. Syr. Beza, Castalio, Martin ("dor^sna- 
 vant"). ButOstervald " encore;" "jam," Vulg." now," 
 Gov. Cran. Cheke, Auth. It would not be easy to 
 defend by examples this last interpretation, which 
 makes r6 Xoiirov equivalent to nSij or vw, yet such 
 seems the view of Chrysostom, icai firjv TOTE ypriyo' 
 priaat iiti, a'XXo Smkvvc k. t. X. I have chosen to make 
 TO Xoiirov in this place uniform in rendering with Auth. 
 in 2 Tim. iv, 8 ; Hebr. x, 13 : the same version would 
 very well suit Acts xxvii, 20. " Henceforth," is most 
 agreeable both to the primary signification of the 
 word, and to its actual use in Greek authors. See 
 ^schin. c. Ctesiph. (p. 86, ed. Stephani), ov rrjv 7Xwr- 
 
 rav, b>airtp rwv avXwv, iav ric o^iXp, to Xoiirov ovdtv tariv. 
 
 Referring to Xoiwov then not to present but to future 
 time, I see nothing unbecoming our Lord's character, 
 or the awfulness of the occasion, if we understand 
 the words to be spoken in a tone of expostulation and 
 of gentle irony,* and thus reconcile them with iyuptaOt 
 in V. 46. Something in the same manner, though 
 more stern in spirit, may be observed in eh, xxiii, 32; 
 So Fritzche explains the present passage. See also 
 Green, Gram. N. T. p. 321. Thus alter Marit xiv, 
 41. 
 
 (II, a). V. 47. ^vXwv "clubs"]. "Fustibus," Vulg. 
 here, and in v. 66 ; Luke xxii, 62. But " lignis," in 
 Mark xiv, 43 ; 48. Campbell draws a very fair dis- 
 tinction between ^vXa " clubs" in these parallel texts, 
 
 * Much to the laine purpose is Bp, Hall's explanntion in his 
 "^nrd Texts." " Since my so serious admonition could not lieep 
 open your eyes, go to, now sleep on, take your rest if you can ; 
 behold ye are now entering into a busy and perilous time, for now 
 Is the hour of my suffering at hand." 
 
 fet. apatttieto. 307 
 
 and pipSov^ "staves" in ch. x, 10 ; Mark vi, 8 ; Luke 
 IX, 3, in which last places Vulg. has " virgam," Syr. 
 also seems^ to recognise the same difference, calling 
 «wXa 1-^-^/3**, and pifiSout U-ai. Auth. renders 
 both words "staves" alike. Cheke has "staves" 
 here, and " walking staves " in ch. x, 10. Other Eng. 
 vary between " rods" and " staves," but with no fixed 
 purpose. 
 
 (II, b). V. 48. iBoiKtv " had given"]. So Tynd. 2. 
 Gov. Gen. Syr. "avait donn^," Martin, Ostervald: 
 "gave," Vulg. Tynd. 1. Cran. Cheke, Bish. Auth. 
 See note on ch. xxviii, 17. For ^a^pt " hail," of Eng. 
 in V. 49, Gen. has " God save thee," and its margin 
 "or, rest thee merry !" 
 
 (II, b and III, a), v. 6J . rov SoSXow " the servant"] 
 viz. Malchus (John xviii, 10), a well-known person. 
 So Cheke, and even Auth. in Luke xxii, 60: " a ser- 
 vant," Eng. here. Thus correct Mark xiv, 47. 
 
 (I) . V. 63. After irapaarriati Cran. adds (" even 
 now"), "ApTi is placed in this position by Syr. Vulg. 
 and a few manuscripts and versions, but Cran. has it 
 after ivvapai also. Bish. translates irapaarnau " cause 
 to stand by," very literally, as is its wont ; but in the 
 present instance more clearly than " give," of Tynd. 
 Cran. Gen. Auth. " send," of Gov. or " aid with," of 
 Cheke. Syr. resembles Bish. (y^- " ♦), Vulg. "exhi- 
 bebit." 
 
 (II, b). V. 64. irXripwBuaiv al ypa^ai " can the Scrip- 
 tures be fulfilled ?"]. " Should," Tynd. 2. Cov. Cheke, 
 Gen. " shall," Tynd. 1. Cran. Bish. Auth. On the 
 deliberative sense of the subjunctive, see Green 
 Gram. N. T. p. 41. 
 
 (II, a). V. 65. Xp<TTnv " a robber"]. So Doddridge, 
 Campbell, Syr. ( I m ' . ^ not lJ)_l_^), Vulg. 
 (" latro," not " fur"), " murderer," Cov. Other Eng. 
 
308 il5otc0 on till IPetn %mamenu 
 
 have " thief," thus confounding Xf(rr^c with kXIbtijc, 
 although they are expressly distinguished in John 
 X, 1; 8: and all these precautions would be futile 
 against a petty thief, though very proper against a 
 bandit, such as Barabbas for example. Compare 
 Luke xxiii, 19 with John xviii, 40 (where Auth. has 
 " robber"). Thus alter ch. xxi, 13 ; xxvii, 38 ; 44. 
 
 (I)°. V. GO. Kal before iroXXwv, and ov\ tlpov after 
 irpoat\96vrwv are expunged by Griesbach ; the mi 
 only by Lachmann : ten unimportant manuscripts also 
 omit the intermediate words, n-oXXoIv ypivSofiaprvpiav 
 wpoatXOovruv. The appearance of tautology presented 
 by the whole clause, has given rise to several othec 
 varieties of reading, especially among the Italic ver- 
 sions. Vulg. supports Griesbach throughout, and 
 Syr. rejects the second oi^ cvpov. All the Greek 
 manuscripts, however, retain the disputed words, ex- 
 cept the ten above mentioned, three Alexandrine un- 
 cials (B C L), and seven cursive, five of which are 
 decidedly of the same family (1. 102. 118. 124, 209), 
 and another of them (51) so much addicted to Latin- 
 ising, that Mill (whether rightly or not is another 
 point) was inclined to think it the identical Vatican 
 copy, which formed the basis of the Complutensian 
 text (Mill, Proleg. N. T. p. 166-7). It is not on such 
 evidence, seconded only by Vulg. the Coptic, and 
 some inferior versions, that we ought to disturb a 
 reading sanctioned by the great mass of the manu- 
 script authorities. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 6 l.SwrpioJvtj/Mpwv" within three days"]. 
 So Cheke, and Auth. in Mark xiv, 68, though it has 
 " in" here. I propose this petty correction chiefly 
 that I may notice Pr. Scholefield's version " after 
 three days." That Sia is frequently used with the 
 genitive in this sense, can need little proof. See 
 
 -is 
 
 -J 
 
 
 1 
 
 fet, Q^attjeto. 309 
 
 Mark ii, 1 ; Acts xxiv, 17; Gal. ii, 1, in all which 
 places It 18 so rendered by Auth. Herod, iv, 1, ro^c 
 
 Si ^KvBac aVo Vn'tfavToc oktw Kal tUooi trta, Kal Sii -^6. 
 vov roaou'row wr.o'vrac t'c ri,v ff0e«'p.,v . . . Compare 
 
 Matthiae, Greek Gram. § 580. d. Vulg. has " post," 
 Syr. '^s, which perhaps may have this meaning, since it 
 18 employed in Mark ii, 1 ; Acts xxiv, 17. But Beza 
 and Castalio have " triduo," the French versions and 
 Eng. " in three days ;" a rendering which I prefer 
 to that of Vater and Pr. Scholefield for one reason 
 only; namely, that the first two Evangelists, in 
 quotmg the taunt addressed to our Saviour on the 
 cross, both say iv rpwJv V/»«»'c (ch. xxvii, 40 ; Mark 
 XV, 29) ; which is also the interpretation given by 
 Chrysostom to the present passage, for his Iv rpt„lv 
 hfupaiq iytpw avrov is not a various reading. 
 
 In V. 64, for Bwifitw^ the printed copies of Vulg. 
 (but not Lachmann's Latin text) read " virtutis Dei." 
 Hence Cov. Bish. translate " of the power (of God) " 
 Gen. " of the mighty God;" but Tynd. Cran. Cheke, 
 Auth. reject " Dei." 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 66. tvoxoc Oavdrov ivrl " he is deservinff 
 of death"]. " Worthy to die." Tynd. Cran. Cheke, 
 Gen. Bish. I cannot guess why Auth. should have 
 borrowed the uncouth phrase " guilty of death," from 
 Wickliffe, Cov. and the Rhemish version. Thus cor- 
 rect Mark xiv, 64; 1 Cor. xi, 27, where " guilty" is 
 used in the same obsolete sense. So in v. 67, Cheke 
 has "spit" (Cov. "spitted"), instead of the less anti- 
 quated " spat" of Tynd. Gen. Thus alter Auth. in 
 ch. xxvii, 30. 
 
 (II, a)°. v. 67. ippiniaav " smote him with the palms 
 of their hands"]. So Auth. preceded by Tynd. Cran 
 Bish. Vulg. who all add " on the face." Cov. Cheke 
 simply say " smote upon the face," and Syr. " smote" 
 
310 /^otr0 on t1ie 0t\a Ce0tameiit. 
 
 only. Castalio " alapis ferire." The margin of Autb, 
 (" or, rods") follows Gen. and Beza (so " le frappaient 
 de leurs verge*," Martin, "avec leursb&tons," Oster<> 
 raid), who after H^ychius and his tribe derive pxvtCm 
 from pipSoi, wliettce the epic \pv96ppairit, and appeal 
 to such instances as Herod, vii, 36 (Schleusner should 
 not have added viii, 69), where the verb is used gene- 
 rally for any kind of beating. But whatever we may 
 think of the derivation (that most uncertain of all 
 guides to the interpretation), both authority and the 
 usm loqmndi are adverse to Beza. See Matth. ▼, 39 
 and Kypke's note ; Mark xiv, 66 ; John xviii, 22 
 (where Auth. has the same m&rginal note as here) ; 
 xix, 3. Moreover, this verse manifestly contains a 
 fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy (ch. 1, 6) " (I gave) 
 my cheeks D'pl.b? to the pluckers of hair :" ra'c irio* 
 ■yovac fiov etc pairtopara, LXX. Compare the same ver- 
 sion in Hosea xi, 4 with Symmachus and the Hebrew. 
 SuidaS too explains pairlaai by n-ara^t riiv yviSttit 
 airXp r^ \npi, and 80 the Etym. Magnum. That pair{2|<iv 
 cannot well mean " to beat with rods" may also ap- 
 pear from Demosth. c. Aristog. i (p. 787, Reiske), to 
 
 lAv itpirov pairivaf [rriv avOpwtrov] Kal AIIEIAHSAS^ 
 anitrtfiiptv airo r*}C oiKtac. 
 
 (1). V. 70. Between initpooOev and irivtuv Gries* 
 bach and Scholz place avrtuv. " Them" is found in 
 all Eng. (but not in Vulg. or Cheke), in Chrysostom 
 and Syr., though I lay no stress on this last fact. It 
 is read by all authorities of note except BDL. 13. 33. 
 69., the Sahidic and Latin Versions. These purely 
 Alexandrine witnesses are not sufficient to counter* 
 balance the testimony of those opposed to them; 
 although ain-wv looks very much like an addition bf 
 some scribe. .!* 
 
 In v. 75, liptjKoroc is rendered " quod di.xerut," by 
 
 fet apattftttD. 311 
 
 Vulg. Syr. "which he said," by Tynd. 1. Cheke: 
 
 which sa.d," by other Eng. This would require 
 
 rou upnKorot. Without roO it should strictly be " when 
 
 he said. "^ 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 (II, a), v. 2. ry ^yifu)vi " the Procurator"]. So 
 Campbell, and this no doubt was Pilate's correct 
 official title ; yet it seems scarcely worth while to alter 
 Auth unless perhaps here, where he is named 
 for the first time. Syr. retains the Greek word un- 
 translated. Vulg. Beza. Cheke, " pr«sidi," but this 
 appellation belonged to Pilate's immediate superior 
 the President of Syria (Luke ii, 2). Castalio " prae-' 
 ton," which I presume he intends to use in the 
 wider acceptation of early Roman history. " Deputy " 
 Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish., but this word is re- 
 served by Auth. to designate a Proconsul (ivOi^aro^) 
 m Actsxiii, 7; 8; 12; xviii, 12; xix, 38. "Governor " 
 Auth. here. ' 
 
 (III, c). V. 4. aifia iOwov " innocent blood"]. So Cov 
 Other Eng. unmeaningly prefix " the." See note on 
 ch. xxvi, 38. 
 
 It is worth while to notice in this place a curious 
 example of the operation of Griesbach's critical 
 theory. Instead of aflwov he places Sicawv in his inner 
 margin, with a mark denoting that it is " equal 
 or perhaps preferable to the received reading" (Pro- 
 leg. N. T. Sect, vi, p. xc). What then is the autho- 
 rity for a variation thus highly eulogised by Gries- * 
 bach ? One Greek manuscript (L), a marginal note 
 m a second (B), Origen in four places (though in a 
 
312 ipote0 on ttit 0eto '^LtJJtament, 
 
 fifth he has ie^v), Syr. Vulg. the Italic, Sahidic, and 
 Armenian versions, together with three or four Latin' 
 Fathers, who naturally followed their own Bibles. 
 Now this eminent critic must have arrived at his 
 strange conclusion by some such process as I shall 
 describe. B L and Origen represent the judgment 
 of the whole Alexandrine family ; the versions and 
 Latin Fathers that of the Occidental. These being 
 united would overpower not only the recusants of 
 their respective classes (a tolerably numerous body), 
 but the whole heap of documents of every kind which 
 comprise the Byzantine recension. The internal 
 evidence certainly does not favor iUaiov, which look» 
 very much like an explanation of the rarer word 
 «e«ov. And it is self-evident how very precarious 
 the testimony of versions must be in such a case. 
 With respect to Syr. both Griesbach and Scholz are 
 utterly mistaken. It renders oOwocby \^^y "clean, 
 but 8.'k«ioc in vv. 19, 24 of this chapter, and in other 
 places without number by \ n . .p'l " j«9t- " Respect- 
 ing the Sahidic and Armenian I can say nothing : but 
 possibly they stand on the same footing as Vulg, 
 which uses " Justus" for iOwot here, and for 8.'Kaioc in 
 ' vv. 19, 24 ; while it renders o0woc by " innocens" in 
 v. 24.' Far be it from me to detract from Griesbach'a 
 hard-earned reputation ; but what would be the fate 
 of the editor of a classical author, who should venture 
 to reason and to decide, as he has done in the pre- 
 sent instance, and, in several others noticed in the 
 preceding pages ? 
 
 (II, b). V. 8. iKMOr, " is called"]. So Tynd. Gov. 
 Gran. Gheke, Gen. and even Wickliffe. "Was called," 
 Vulg. Bish. Rhemish version, Auth. Compare ch. 
 xxviii, 15, Auth. Gran, after Vulg. and some Italic 
 
 fet. 9^att[|el0D. 313 
 
 versions, interpolates (" Haceldema, that is") before 
 " the field," from Acts i, 19. , 
 
 In V. 9, Za)^ap('ov is found in but one manuscript of 
 inferior rank, written in the eleventh century (22), so 
 that however 'Icpcjuiov may perplex us, it is unques- 
 tionably the true reading. No solution seems so easy 
 as Lightfoot's, who supposes that the book of Jere- 
 miah, being actually arranged by the Jews as the 
 first of all the prophets (Bava Bathra), gave its 
 name to the whole body of their writings ; an opinion 
 which is somewhat countenanced by ch. xvi, 14. 
 
 ibid. The marginal note of Auth. " whom they 
 bought of the children of Israel" is the rendering of 
 all Eng. before Auth. It is perhaps derived from 
 an over-literal interpretation of Vulg., " quem appre- 
 tiaverunt a filiis Israel." But without stopping to en- 
 quire whether rifi^v can properly be used in the two 
 difierent senses of " value" and " buy" in the same 
 verse, or whether that verb ever signifies " to buy," 
 any farther than such a notion is included in the 
 act of valuing; it is a fatal objection to this mode 
 of rendering, that it is neither suitable to the sense 
 of the passage, nor to the language of Zechariah 
 (ch, xi, 13). Ghrist cannot well be said to have been 
 bought of (i.e. from, airo) the children of Israel, though 
 their elders and chief magistrates bargained for him 
 at a certain sum : and the whole clause r»jv ti^»jv . . . 
 'IffpaijX is but an expansion of the prophet's words 
 DH'"??^ m-\^l -im niS'n TIN "a magnificent price 
 at which I was prized by them." I acquiesce then in 
 the version of Auth. " whom they of the children of 
 Israel did value :" the only difficulty of which arises 
 not from irifitiaavro, but from the construction of awo 
 vmv 'IfT^aiiX as a species of nominative before it ; for 
 
314 g!Lnt0 on ttf i^etB '^mmtnt. 
 
 'which compare ch. xxiii,34 j^ ovrtSv airoKrivMrc. - Syr»^'- 
 resembles Auth. (v4-«-j - «'i^' ' ' ^ o-t-*j)» ^'** 
 translates tov rtrtftiinivm in the preceding clause by. 
 J„ with a view to the Hebrew text of Zech. xi,^ 
 
 13. For o..-^ see ch. xx, 2. Beza also haa " pr»>T 
 tium 8D8timati, qui eestimatus fuit a tiliis Israel." . 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 10, avvlra^ ftot "appointed to me"], 
 " Commanded me," Gov. "Appointed me" of Eng. is- 
 susceptible of another meaning. Thus correct ch. 
 xxviii, 16, and perhaps ch. xxvi, 19, where Gen. has 
 " given them charge." 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 11. <n Xtyiic " thou sayest right," or 
 " truly "]. So Campbell. " Thou sayest it, " Cov. 
 " thou sayest so, " Cheke, Gen. " thou sayest " of 
 Tynd. Cran. Bish. Auth. is very obscure. In ch. xxvi, 
 64, Cov. Gen. add " it," but not in v, 25 ; where Cheke 
 has " so thou sayest," but in v. 64 " thou hast said 
 so." 
 
 In V. 14, for wpoc ovSi tv pviia (" to never a word," 
 Eng.), Cov. neatly renders " not one word." 
 
 (II, b). V. 15. Kari (opniv " at the feast "]. The 
 great feast, the Passover. Middlcton. "That feast," 
 'Eng. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 16. inlanfov " famous "]. So Wickliffe, 
 Campbell, or " notorious," Rhemish version, Symonds. 
 " Notable " of Eng. is now always employed in a good 
 sense, unless the tone be ironical. For this use of 
 ivlatinoc with a bad meaning see Schleusner, and 
 Joseph. Antiq. v, 7, 1, oi Sta irXqOoc aSuciifKiTutv iiriaii- 
 f^ol. Eurip. Orest. 239, iirlariUQV crtKt TwSaptWQ f'c 
 rov yfioyov yivoQ Ovyaripttv, SuvkXicc t.' 
 
 (II. b). V. 20. alrnffwvrai tov Ba/oa/3/3av " ask for 
 
 Barabbas"]. "Ask Barabbas." Eng. and even Wick- 
 
 . 
 
 fet.9?att5eto. 315 
 
 liffe. Cheke and the Rhemish version. But this is 
 either ungrammatical or obsolete. In v. 18, Symonds 
 
 rani^ated by Auth (though not by the rest), i„Ls 
 «", 13. Brought him in," Cheke. 
 (Ill, c). V. 27 5A,v r.)v <r,r«/,av " the whole band "1 
 
 fs a?'.,'- ^"'^'. '^'' " ^/^''^'^'-V' but this surely 
 18 an Idle repetition. See Introd. p. 63. "All the 
 company "Tynd. Cran. " the whole multitude," Cov 
 
 all the band o/soldiersr Bish. Scholefield f,^ggest, 
 
 M«r whole company." " Universam cohor^L," 
 
 vuig. ay „^,,p^ ^e n„ugt ^f ^^^^ understand the 
 
 whole cohort then on duty at the Palace : " toute la 
 
 oande, Marlm. 
 
 ibid. nptt,r,ipiov is termed " common hall," by Ene 
 the governor's house, " in the margin of Auth 
 Smce m the parallel text Mark xv, 16, it is spoken of 
 ^ an „„A, or open court" (see note on ch. xxvi, 
 rill .''^"'\«' 7" "°t to disturb the Authorised 
 rendenng. In .John xviii, 28 ; 33 ; xix, 9, however 
 »r^«.ra,^.ov can only signify " Pilate's house " within 
 
 fear of pollution ; although that they did go into the 
 jndgment.hall or «iX^ i, pUi„ from^he mention of 
 
 xxiil aV." pl'r"'^.T.^ ""''^ •'"'"' ''«• »3- In Act, 
 
 the chlf' ; '' '^ ■' " "'^^ ^°' '^' ^^^'d^nce of 
 
 tne chief magistrate. 
 
 SnTl'k*^' ""Vf •,'^P'"'^'"' ^"'^•c " the place of a skull "]. 
 So Auth. ,n Mark xv, 22 ; John xix, 17. Here Bish. 
 Auth have " a place of a skull ; " through a morbid • 
 anxiety to be very literal, and from ignoLce of the 
 licence of the article after verbs nuncupative. See 
 Middleton's Treatise. Part I. Chap. iii. Let. i i, §2 
 
316 0ottfi on ttie 0(\o Htmmtnu 
 
 p. 43. " A place of dead men's skulls," Tynd. Gov. 
 Cran. " the place . . . ," Gen. correctly. " The skull- 
 place '*(!), Cheke. 
 
 (I)°. V. 34. In the place of o^og " vinegar," Lach- 
 mann reads olvov " wine," as in Mark xv, 23. He is 
 supported by four uncial (DDK L), and ten cursive 
 manuscripts, all, or nearly all, Alexandrine, and by 
 the Egyptian, Italic and Vulgate versions. Even 
 Griesbach thinks this evidence insufficient to vindi* 
 cate olvov from the suspicion of wilful alteration. Yet 
 while we retain the received rendering, it were un- 
 reasonable to doubt that o^oc fitra \o\rif fUfuyfuvov 
 here, is the same draught as the oTvov iafmpvu/fiivov of 
 St. Mark. XoXii, therefore, is nothing more than a 
 bitter mixture, whether of myrrh, or (as Campbell 
 thinks) of wormwood, intended to flavor the wine. 
 
 (I). V. 35. It ought not to be questioned that the 
 words iva irX»ipw9ji K.r. \. and the accompanying cita* 
 tion from Psalm xxii, 18, were interpolated by the 
 copyists from John xix, 24. All the critics, from 
 Mill and Wetstein down to Lachmann, reject them. 
 They are omitted in a considerable majority of the 
 manuscripts ; and though they are found in not a 
 few cursive documents (Scholz, however, enumerates 
 but nine), yet these should weigh but little when we 
 regard the vast preponderance on the other side : nor 
 are some of them of very high intrinsic value (e. g. 1. 
 17.6 1). The whole clause is wanting in the Egyptian 
 and most Italic versions ; and although it is printed 
 in Schaaf's edition of Syr. and the Clementine Vulg., 
 it is omitted in many manuscripts and the Sixtine 
 edition of the latter; while, for any thing that appears, 
 it is contained in no Syriac MS whatever, being 
 absent from the cditio princeps, and the Antwerp, 
 Paris, and London Polyglotts. Tremellius was the 
 
 fetfl^attfteto. 317 
 
 first editor who placed it in the margin. It is little 
 creditable to Schaaf's sagacity, that both here and in 
 Acts viii, 37; 1 John v, 7 he should have followed 
 Gutbirius (Hamburg, 1664) in corrupting the Syriac 
 text : but since he has explained the true state of the 
 case in his "various readings," it is neither candid 
 nor just to accuse him (as by some he has been accused) 
 of ill-faith or a deliberate intention to mislead. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 39. KivoCvTtc " shaking "]. So Cheke 
 " Wagging," of Eng. and the .Rhemish version has 
 now become almost ludicrous. ." : 
 
 In V. 37, instead of "accusation" of Bish. Auth. 
 a'nla is rendered " cause of death " by other Eng. Syr 
 and Campbell (" causam ipsius," Vulg. " his cause,'' 
 Cheke). I see no need of a change in Auth. 
 
 (Ill, c). V. 44. djvtiSitov " were upbraiding"]. So 
 Cheke, Doddridge, Campbell, nearly : " reproached," 
 Rhemish version. I suppose no reader of Scripture 
 would wish " cast the same in his teeth," of Eng. to 
 be retained. 
 
 In V. 46, inl vMav Tvv y^v is translated by Cov 
 Cheke "over the whole earth," mistaking (as do 
 Wickhffeand the Rhemish version) "super universam 
 terram " of Vulg. " Over all the land." other Eng 
 correctly. Syr. is ambiguous like the Greek. " Super 
 universam regionem, " Beza ; whence " sur tout le 
 pays," Martin, Ostervald. 
 
 (Ill, a), v. 46. avt/3oVcv " cried out "]. So Auth 
 in Luke ix, 38, " cried aloud," in Mark xv, 8. Here 
 all Eng. neglect «va. See Introd. p. 35. Perhaps 
 instead of " will come," in v. 49. Spx^«, should be 
 translated " is coming." See note on ch. xvii, 1 1. 
 Grotius and Rosenmuller think that i^tc does' not 
 mean " let be," "forbear," as in Eng. Cheke ("soft"), 
 Syr. Vulg. Beza, Castalio, &c., but that it is used 
 
318 0ott0 on tt)C il^e^Q tlTedtameitt. 
 
 pleonastically, as in such expressions as aftc Ko\a- 
 lw/u9a,8ic. Compare ch. vii, 4. Tbeophylact's exposi- 
 tion differs a little from the common mode of under* 
 standing the passage, yet it lends no countenance to 
 the opinion of Grotius : fui iroin<rpc avrov oTroOavcrv, wc 
 av yvwfitv ii ^otiOriati avr^ HXcac- 
 
 (II, b). V. 60. TO irvro/io " his spirit "]. So Camp- 
 bell, Middleton, &c. the article being employed in its 
 ordinary sense as a possessive pronoun. " The ghost," 
 Eng. Wickliffe, and the Rhemish version, here and 
 in John xix, 30. 
 
 In V. 51, " the rocks were rent," of the Rhemish 
 N. T. is noted by Symonds as more grammatical than 
 "rent " of Cov. Cran. Bish. Auth., or "did rent," of 
 Tynd. Gen. '* were torn asunder," Cheke. 
 
 (II, a). V. 65. iJicoXovflnffav " had followed "]. So 
 Cov. Cheke, Vulg. Syr. " followed," Eng. Thus 
 Auth. renders the aorist, v. 60. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 60. nwntiv • • fivvfitlov " sepulchre," uni- 
 formly]. Since the latter word is used with a direct 
 reference to the former (as indeed the article inti- 
 mates), ftvrifttiov should not be rendered, as it is by 
 . Auth., both "tomb" and "sepulchre" in the same 
 verse : though it would be vexatious to object to 
 " grave " in vv. 62, 63. Cov. Cheke alone are uni- 
 form here ; other ^ng. vary like Auth. 
 
 (Ill, a). V. 62. Tijv irapofficfvijv " the preparation "]. 
 So Auth. in Mark xv, 42; John xix, 14; 31. In 
 John xix, 42 " day " is put in italics in the modern 
 editions; but it can be dispensed with altogether. 
 In Luke xxiii, 64 vfupa is expressed. Here wapaaKtvri 
 is called by Tynd. Cheke " Good Friday," a rendering 
 not more unreasonable than " Easter" for to iriay^a 
 (see note on ch. xxvi, 2). " The day of preparing," 
 Cov. Cran. Bish. " the day of the preparation," Auth. 
 
 &t. 9^atttieto» 319 
 
 to which Gen, adds " of the Sabbath," from St. Mark's 
 explanation o icrt irpo9a/3/3arov. 
 
 (I). V. 64. NwKroc is cancelled by all the critics, and 
 certainly may have come from ch. xxviii, 13 : Syr. 
 and Codex S are the chief witnesses in its favor, but 
 it is not in Chrysostom, nor in the Coptic, Italic or 
 Vulg. versions. Ten uncial MSS (A B C D E H K L, 
 and Matthaei's H V) reject it, as do many cursive 
 copies of both recensions, so that its authenticity 
 should not be insisted on. In v. 66, Si af^er t^ti is not 
 rendered by Syr. Vulg. Eng., by the last probably 
 through accident. All the editors expunge it, and it 
 is omitted in very many manuscripts. 
 
 (II, a). V. 65. wc oiSoTi " as ye know how "]. So 
 Syr. Vulg. Beza. "Ye know how well enough," Cheke, 
 " vestro modo," Castalio: " as ye know," Bish., liter- 
 ally, as usual : " as ye can," other Eng,, but olBart is 
 not quite equivalent to Svvaadt. " Ut fieri oporteat, pro 
 sollertid vestra indicabitis," Rosenmiiller. 
 
 (II, a or b). V. 66. nera t^c fcou<rrb>S(ac " together 
 with the watch"], the watch aiding them in securing 
 the sepulchre, and setting the stone. Such is Wet- 
 stein's explanation, and it completely removes all the 
 difficulties which have been raised, respecting both 
 the construction and punctuation of the verse. Chry- 
 sostom asserts that Pilate, suspectifig now more than 
 ever the real character of the Person he had murdered, 
 
 ovK aipirim rove arpariwrat M0N0Y2 ofpayiaai, lest the 
 
 Jews should hereafter pretend that the Roman soldiers 
 were suborned by Christ's disciples : but compelled the 
 chief priests themselves to take their share in sealing 
 the tomb, that every doubt or subterfuge might be cut 
 off. He then adds respecting the Jewish rulers, uBtq 
 
 rrwc ff7rovoa2[ov(T(v iirtp t^c aXljflicac oKovrtc ; Koi yap 
 avToi wpoixriXBov, avroi pr»|(iav, awToi la^payiaav META 
 
320 iIJote0 on t1)i 0t\o •^CtjJtament. 
 
 TH2 KOYSTOMAS, An-i oXXnXwv «voi Mtiiyopof itai 
 iXtyxoi' This would appear to be the sense of Syr; 
 Vulg. " cum (ysl) custodibus"; and such a use of 
 ^,ril with the genitive, denoting the union of several 
 agents in a single act, is almost too common to need 
 illustration. Sec ch. viii, 1 1 ; ix, II ; xii, 41 ; 42, &c. 
 Tertullian says " sepulcro conditum magn& militan 
 manu custodiee diligenti& circumsederunt, " thus 
 joining ^eri r^c KovnrwSlaQ with ijV^XJffovTo, and giving 
 to fiira the meaning of Sw (compare Acts xv, 4 with 
 V. 12). This inversion (which I must be allowed to ' 
 think rather violent) is sanctioned by Beza and several 
 of the earlier editors of the Greek Testament (so far 
 as the punctuation expresses their views), as well M 
 by Tynd. Gov. Cran. " made the sepulchre sure with 
 v/atchmen ;" " sure with a watch," Gen. ; " sure with 
 the watch," Bish. ; "kept the grave safely with watch- 
 men " Cheke. The interpretation of Auth. " and 
 setting a watch," and of Ostervald " en y mettantden, 
 ffardes," most resembles that of Castalio, "et lapidem, 
 prater adhibitam custodiam, sigiUarunt." But how 
 can such a rendering be extracted from the words of 
 the original? 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 (Ill cf. V. 1. 'Ot^ 8J „ap^rwv " Now at the end of 
 the Sabbath"]. So AuthI nearl^,' omitting " now " 
 St Matthew means early In'the morning after the 
 Sabbath ; a period sometime before day-break on the 
 first day of the week : for Boisis right in stating that 
 rv im<pio<fKoi''V •'« m'«v »a/3pira,v, is a mere explana- 
 tion of di^J (fflppircuv. The Syriac idiom whereby in 
 
 ,i 
 
 I 
 
 &t. ^Mt^t\0, 321 
 
 Luke xxiii, 64 iwi^ioaKt denotes the approach of even- 
 ing, has no place here. The sense of 6\f>i «Ta/3/3aTwi», 
 as Theophylact remarks, is exactly ascertained by 
 comparing it with Siaytvoftlvov rov aaPftarov, Mark xvi, 
 , 1 ; opBpov padiof, Luke XXiv, 1 ; and irpwi, OKoria^ in 
 
 ovffTjc, John XX, 1. Both our French versions ("apr^s 
 le Sabbat," " apr^s que le Sabbat fut passe"), and 
 Campbell agree with Auth., and Campbell observes 
 that " o^pi before a genitive often means * after.' " I 
 wish he had furnished us with a few examples, for 
 while I agree with Krebs and Loesner that such 
 must be its meaning here, the only satisfactory in- 
 stances I have yet seen alleged, were cited long ago by 
 H. Stephens (Thesaurus) from Plutarch. Num. 6\pi tiJv 
 /3a(TiX«wc \p6vuv, and by Bos from Philostrat. Vit. 
 Apoll. iv, 18, o)pi ftv<mip'uav,* " when the mysteries 
 were over." Syr. has " on the evening ( j 1 v3 ) on the 
 sabbath," perhaps retaining the Oriental phrase above 
 alluded to. Yet Vulg. says " vespere sabbati ;" Tynd. 
 " the sabbath day at even ;" Cov. " upon the evening 
 of the sabbath holy-day ;" Cran. " upon an evening 
 of the sabbothes" (!); Cheke, " on the sabbath day, 
 at night ;" Gen. Bish. " about (" in " Bish.) the latter 
 end of the sabbath day," after Beza's " extremo sab- 
 bato." AH these interpretations are in substance the 
 same, and though perfectly unobjedtionable so far as 
 6\pl is concerned, cannot easily be reconciled with the 
 accounts given by the other Evangelists. 
 
 (II, b). V. 2. iyivtTo " had beeji"] " ante adventum 
 mulierum," Rosenmiiller, So the margin of Auth., 
 
 • ^lian, Var. Hiit. II, 13, Vixdiupot & trtfitrijc . . . 6\l/i r?c 
 4XiK<ac «aJ furh ri)v MXriviv, koI rofioOtrris . . iyivtro, might look 
 like A cnie in point. But ^XiWa seems here to be used in that 
 wider signification which I spolte of in the note on ch. vi, 27. 
 
 Y 
 
3^2 0m0 on ttie 0t\o %tfSt&mtnt. 
 
 Campbell, Vater. " Was," Eng. " was made," Gov. 
 Vulg. Syr. See note on ch. xxvii, 66. " The angel," 
 Eng., see note on cb. i, 20. 
 
 In V. 4, for "did shake" {iittltr9vnv) of Cheke, Bish 
 Auth., we find '• were troubled, " in Gov. " were 
 astonied, " in Tynd. Gran. Gen. Was Gheke's MS 
 used by Parker for Bish., or by our own translators 
 at a later period? These repeated coincidences can 
 scarcely be fortuitous. See Introd. p. 88, and notes 
 on ch. viii, 26 ; ix, 26. 
 
 (Ill, a). VV. 8, 9, 10, 11. inayytiXat " to tell," or 
 " inform"]. Without the least desire to enforce a 
 rigorous uniformity in rendering the same Greek 
 word (see Introd. p. 51), I do not think it right that 
 ." airayyti\ai should be translated, as it is by all Eng., 
 in three different ways within the space of four verses : 
 " to bring word," in V. 8; "tell," in vv. 9, 10; "shew," 
 in V. 11, in which last however Gov. has " tell." In 
 VV. 8, 9, Gheke has " shew," but his manuscript 
 breaks off at " go" {vniyirt) in v. 10. In v. 10 all 
 Eng. except Cov. run into the opposite fault of ren- 
 dering both vwaytre and ar(\9w&iv by " go." Thus 
 also in v. 8, Gov. has " ran" for " did run," of other 
 , Eng., and in v. 9 " were goitig" (fjropfvoi/ro), in- 
 stead of " went" of Eng. See note on ch. xxv, 46. 
 
 (I)°. V. 9. The first clause of this verse eJc Xt inopsv- 
 
 ovTo airayytiXai roic ftaBtfraif avrov, is wanting in SyV. 
 
 Vulg., B D., and some twenty other manuscripts, 
 chiefly Alexandrine (e. g. 33. 69) : nor is it found 
 in Origen or Ghrysostom, in the Coptic or Italic ver- 
 sions. Nevertheless the preponderance of evidence 
 is so clearly in its favor, that Lachmann alone dares 
 to expunge it ; although Vater urges some trifling 
 objections against the diction, of which the construc- 
 
 fet. 99att6eto. 323 
 
 Hon of KallU after ^ inop^ovro is the principal (see 
 note on ch. xy, 5, 6). Bowyer, in his Conj^tures, 
 sagaciously suggests the rejection of these words, in- 
 asmuch as by so doing we should facilitate the bar- 
 monismg of the different narratives of our Lord s ap- 
 pearances after his resurrection, which are recorded in 
 the Gospels. More patient and cautious critics than 
 Wowyer would trace in that very circumstance, the 
 ongm of the omission of this clause in so many 
 manuscripts and other authorities. 
 
 xir^Vf.' ^^' ^' ^^' "PT^'p"* ««va " much money"]. So 
 Wickhffe. " Money enough," Cov. " large money." 
 other Eng. In v. 13, "awayr is not in italics in the 
 first edition of Auth. Our modem Bibles, by printing 
 away ' m italics here, but not in ch. xxvii, 64, have 
 introduced another inconsistency into the English 
 text, through an excessive anxiety for verbal accuracy 
 See Introd. p. 62. '' 
 
 (III, c). V. 14. u^a'c afitplftvovQ voinaoptv " save vou 
 harmless]. So Tynd. 2. Gran. Gen. This is clearer 
 than make you safe," of Tynd. 1. " ye shall be safe," 
 of Gov. " Secure you," Auth. " make you careless," 
 Bish. very absurdly (see Introd. p. 96). " Indem- 
 nity, Campbell; as if anything could indemnify the 
 soldiers, should Pilat6 order them to be put to death. 
 Again, wuaofitv is rendered by Tynd. "pease •" " still " 
 by Gov "pacify." by Gen. I think " persuade," o( 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. need not be altered. Every one 
 except Dr. Symonds will understand by persuasion, 
 both here and in Acts xviii, 4 ; xix, 8; xxviii, 23, the 
 attempt, and not its successful issue. 
 
 (II, b). v. 16. «c ro' ipof, oj . . . " unto the moun- 
 tain, where . . ."]. So the Rhemish version, Martin, 
 Ostervald, and Campbell, nearly. " Into a mountain, 
 
324 ipoteu on ttie ipeto 'Et0tament. 
 
 where" . . . Eng. I conceive that the article is here 
 employed by anticipation, with an immediate refer- 
 ence to the clause ov ira^aro K. r. X. Mr. Green, 
 however, says " this use of the article presents an 
 instance, in which his own familiarity with circum* 
 stances leads a writer unwittingly to adopt language 
 which is not correct with regard to his readers" (Gram. 
 N. T. p. 221). Possibly the explanation I have 
 offered may be judged the more natural ; but see 
 notes on ch. v, 1 ; viii, 32. 
 
 (II, b. See Introd. p. 45). v. 17. oJ Si fSiWawv " but 
 some had doubted"]. So Martin (mais quelquesuns 
 avaient dout^), Doddridge, Newcome, Boothroyd, 
 and Fritzche. Boothroyd supposes that allusion is made 
 to some of the five hundred brethren, to whom our Lord 
 shewed himself after his resurrection (1 Cor. xv, 6). 
 Grotius also takes the aorist in this place as a Latin 
 pluperfect, but thinks that Thomas is the person 
 chiefly glanced at. Such too seems to be the opinion of 
 Ostervald, who translates, loosely enough, " m6me 
 ceux qui avaient dout^." The same question had 
 been raised by The6phylact, who clearly sanctions the 
 rendering I have proposed : o^ctXnc oww vojjirat, on 
 fic fuv rnv FaXiXaiav tXOovTtc vpootKvvriaav avrif' outoi Si 
 oi wpooKvvriaavTtt iv r^ FoXiXat^, iSiffraffov irportpov tv ry 
 
 'UpowaUfi (Lukexxiv, 11 ; 38; 41). Chrysostom, on 
 the contrary, favors the interpretation " but some 
 doubted," which is also that of Eng. Vulg. Beza, and 
 Castalio. Syr. has ^ o^^_Lz-?, for which both 
 Tremellius and Schaaf have " dubitaverant," and I 
 believe correctly: though it is quite true that~the 
 Syriac verb-substantive, when added to the preterite, 
 does not of necessity constitute the pluperfect tense. 
 
 ; 
 
 &t. 9^att^eto. 326 
 
 I have observed this form of expression occur one 
 hundred and four times in the Peshito version of the 
 Acts, in about fifty of which passages it must be 
 understood as a simple past tense. In the present 
 instance, by assigning the pluperfect sense to iSlara- 
 <Tav, the whole context is relieved of considerable 
 difficulties. Nor is it quite fair to say, with a modern 
 critic, that this explanation looks " too much like a 
 device for the nonce." That such an use of the aorist, 
 more especially in parenthetic clauses, is both legiti- 
 mate and common, will hardly be denied. It is ad- 
 mitted even by Auth. in ch. xvi, 5 ; Luke viii, 29 ; 
 John xviii, 24 : it ought to be adopted in ch. xxvi, 
 48 ; and probably in Luke xxii, 24. See also note 
 on V. 2. 
 
 (I). V. 19. Griesbach and Scholz here omit ovv. It ' 
 is rendered by Syr. Vulg., but is not read in ten 
 uncial manuscripts (A E F H K M S, and all three of 
 Maltheei's) and numerous cursive copies of both fa- 
 milies ; so that it would be difficult to defend the 
 particle, even were it worth contending for, 
 
 (II, a), ibid. fiaOrrrtvaare '* make disciples of"]. So 
 the margin of Auth. in the later editions, adding " or 
 Christians," and Syr. (^ ,v,v/ ). " Proselyte," Dod- 
 dridge ; " convert," Campbell. " Docete" of Vulg. 
 Beza, Castalio, and " teach" of Eng. are very feeble 
 and inadequate. Epiphanius (apud Suicer.) well ex- 
 plains the term by furaPaWtrt to iBwi airo KoKtac «c 
 aX^Ofiav. A similar change is very properly sug- 
 gested by the same recent editors in the margin of 
 Auth., Acts xiv, 21. Above, in ch. xxvii, 57, the 
 verb had been used intransitively. 
 
 (1)°. v. 20. '\firiv is cancelled by Griesbach and 
 
32Q /tooted on tfie i^eto Ce^tament 
 
 Lachtnann. It is omitted by Chrysofetom, Vulg. and 
 all Eng. previous to Auth.,* which contains the word, 
 as also does Syr., and an immense majority of the 
 manuscripts. Indeed it is found in all except B D 
 (A is doubtful) 1. 22. 33. 102, and three of the least 
 important of Matthsei's. Of the other authorities, the 
 Coptic, Armenian, and a few Italic documents neg- 
 lect it. The word might readily have been added by 
 the scribes who prepared the ecclesiastical copies (see 
 Mill ad he.) ; but no sober critic should reject it on 
 such evidence aa has hitherto been alleged. Gries- 
 bach's decision is no less rash at the end of St. Luke s 
 Gospel ; where, however, Scholz, with admirable 
 consistency, sides with him, although he here abides 
 by the received text. The authenticity of a/u^p at the 
 end of St. John is somewhat more doubtful. In 
 Mark xvi, 20, though it is read in Stephens's third 
 edition (see Introd. p. 8), it never obtained admis- 
 sion into those of Beza or the Elzevirs. 
 
 * This instance should be added to those enamereted in the 
 note on ch. zzr, 3, in which Tjndal and his saccessors agree 
 with the Vulgate readings in preference ttt those of the present 
 Greek text. This passage also conlirros us in the conclusion to 
 ' which we there arrived ; for ifiiiv is wanting in the first edition 
 of Erasmus, 1516. 
 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WHICH 
 CONTAIN THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 Thtfiillmving tabular view of the mott remarkabi* (fthe Gruk McmutcripH 
 
 which contain the Four Ooepeb, orporlSeni of them, may he 
 
 convenient to the reader of the present volume. 
 
 N. B. 
 
 Aler. denotes the Alexandrian family; By*, the Byiantine ; 
 mut. that part of a manuKript has been lost. 
 
 Manuscripts written in Uncial or Capital Letters. 
 
 A. Ck)UEx Alexandrinus, in the British Museum, contains the 
 
 whole of the N. T., but mut. in Matth. i, 1 — xxv, 6 ; 
 John vi, 50 — viii, 52. A facsimile edition of this MS 
 was published by Woid in 1786. Its roost probable date 
 is the 5th century. In the Gospels it is chiefly Byz., but 
 where it agrees with the other recension, its testimony is of 
 great weight (e.g. Matth. xzr, 13; zzvi, 39; zzvii, 64). 
 
 B. Codex Vaticanus 1209, at Rome, contains the whole N. T. 
 
 mut., the Apocalypse being in a later hand. It is perhaps 
 the most antient of all our eztant MSS, being generally 
 referred to the 4th century. It presents the Alex, tezt 
 in its best and purest form. Godez B has been often, 
 though hastily, collated. Cardinal Mai is preparing a fac- 
 simile edition, a work which has been long and greatly 
 needed. 
 
 C. Codex Ephrbmi, of the King's Library at Paris, contains 
 
 the whole N. T., sadly mut. This document is a palim- 
 psest of about the 6th century, and a facsimile was published 
 by Tischendorf in 1842. Alex., as a standard of which 
 text it is in value and accuracy second only to Codex B. 
 
 D. Codex Bezm, of the Public library at Cambridge, contains 
 
 the Gospels and the Acts, mut. It was written not later than 
 the 6th century, and a facsimile edition was published by 
 Kipling in 1793. Alex. This is the most corrupt of all 
 
MppenHtjc Si, 
 
 the great manuscripu. It is eo full of interpolationB, of 
 Latiniaing, lingalar and improbtbla nadingt, that ita mI!- 
 tary erideoca deaerret littla or no attention. 
 
 E. Conax BASiLUHaia B. vi, 21 (Baa. a, of Bengel), of alraat 
 
 the 9th century, contains ttie Oospela, mut. Byz. 
 
 F. Codex Borceli containa the Ooapels. Byz, It was used 
 
 for Wetstein's edition, and after being missing for a cen- 
 tury, waa produced by Heringa in 1830. It is still very 
 imperfectly known. 
 
 G. Codex Wolfii A, or Seidelii, now Harl. 6684, British Mo- 
 
 seum.of the 1 1 th century, contains the Gospels, m»f. Byz, 
 H. Codex Wolfii B, of the same age, also contains the Gospels, 
 
 mut. Byz., but its text is more raized than that of G. 
 K. Codex Cyphiub, Reg. 63, Paris, of about the 9th century, 
 contains the Gospels. This important MS has been care- 
 fully examined by Schols. Alex,, but with many Byz. 
 and peculiar readings of its own. 
 L. Codex Rbo. 62, Paris, Stephani 4, of the 8th century, also 
 contains the Gospels, mvt. Alex. This copy had too great 
 influence with Griesbach, and frequently agrees with Cod. 
 D, in its worst corruptions. 
 
 Codex Reg. 48, Paris (Des Camps), of the 10th century, 
 contains the Gospels. Text rery mixed, but chiefly 
 Alex. 
 
 Codex Guklphfubttakus A, ) These Wolfenbuttel frag- 
 
 CoDEX GuELPHERBTTAHl'B B, J ments are palimpsests of 
 the 6th century (P of the four Gospels, Q of Luke and 
 John only). Alex, Their readings were published by 
 Knittel. 
 
 Codex Vaticak. 364, of the 10th century, contains the Gos- 
 pels. It is the best Byz. of all the nnclal MSS. 
 
 Codex Borgi* 1 , at Rome, mut. of the 6th century, contnins 
 John ▼!, 28—67; ▼«, 6— 8 ; 31. Alex. Collated by 
 Georgi. 
 
 Codex Nanii 1, in the Library of St. Mark, Venice, of the 
 10th century, contains the Gospels. Byz, 
 
 Codex Landsiiotewsib (Vossii), of the 10th century, contains 
 the Gospels, mut, Alex, Collated by Schols. 
 
 Codex Dublin : much mut. a palimpsest of St. Matthew'a 
 Gospel, written about the 6th century. A facsimile edition 
 was published by Dr. Barrett in 1801. Alex., closely re- 
 aembllng Codd. B and P. 
 
 CuDEX Vatican. 3786, of the 7th century, contains a few 
 fragments of St. Matthew. Alex. Collated by Mnrini. 
 
 
 M 
 
 P. 
 Q. 
 
 s. 
 
 u. 
 
 z. 
 
 i 
 
 £[ppenlifj: 0. 329 
 
 A. Codex Sah-Galliitsib, a Greek-Latin MS of the 10th cen- 
 
 tury, contains the Gospels. A facsimile edition was pub- 
 lished by Rettig in 1836. It has been hitherto very 
 little used for critical purposes. Alex, ? 
 
 The uncial mannscripU collated by Matthssi for his edition of the 
 Greek Testament (1782—1788) are 
 
 B. Codex Stnodi Mosquensib 43, of the 8th century ; it is an 
 
 Bvangelnrium, or book of lessons from the Gospels, ap- 
 pointed for Divine Service in the Greek Church. Byz, 
 
 H. Codex Typooraph. Synod. Mosq. l2, also an Evangelarium, 
 is considered by Mattheei the earliest MS of the N. T. now 
 extant. Less sanguine critics Nfer it to the 8th century. 
 Byz. 
 
 V. Codex Synod. Mosq. mut. of the 8th century, conteins the 
 Gospels down to John vii, 38. Byz, valuable. 
 
 Mamtscripts written in Cursive or ordinary 
 Letters. 
 
 1 . Codex Basileensis B. vi, 27 (Bas. y, of Bengal), of the 10th 
 
 century, contains the whole N. T. except the Apocalypse. 
 It was known to Erasmus, though little used by him. 
 Alex., much resembling Codd. D L. 
 
 2. B.(8iLEENSisB. vi,26(Bas. /3,ofBengel), ofthe I6th century, 
 
 contains the Gospels. Byz. Since this is the copy chiefly 
 followed by Erasmus, it is of course nearly connected with 
 the textus receptus. 
 
 5. Reg. 106, Paris, Stephani ^, of the liith century, contains all 
 the N. T. except the Apocalypse. Byz. but mixed. 
 
 13. Reo. 6U, Paris, of the I3th century, contains the Gospels, 
 mut. ThiB document is very decidedly Alex, 
 
 17. Reg. 66, Paris (Greek-Latin), of the 16th century, contains 
 the Gospels. Usually Byx., very like the received text. 
 
 22. Reg. 72, Paris, of the 11th century, contains the Gospels. 
 Manifestly Alex. 
 Reg. 379, Paris (Colbert. 2, of Mill), mut. of the lOth cen- 
 tury, contains the Gospels. Alex, with many peculiar read- 
 ings. 
 Reg. 14, Paris, of the 1 1th or 12th century, contains the 
 
 whole N. T. except the Apocalypse, mut. Alex, 
 CoiALiN. 20, Paris, of the 11th century, contains the Gos- 
 pels. Byz. (41. CoiSLiN. 24, is of the same date.) 
 
 28 
 
 33 
 
 36 
 
o»v »ppenDf4; Si, 
 
 61. BoDLiiAW. Oxford (iMod. 7, of Mill), of lh* 13th centarj, 
 contain! th« whol* N. T. tXMpt Um ApoetljrpM.: Byk, 
 (Soe nota on Matth. xxtl> 60). 
 
 61. MoNTFoRT. Dablin, of about tho 16th contnry, contains the 
 whole N. T. Thii manuacript was at one time auipected 
 (unjustly, as it would seem) of having been forged in order 
 to uphold the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 
 T, 7 : which passage was inserted in the 3rd edition of 
 Erasmus (1522) on the authority of the present document. 
 Its text is BO much corrupted by Latin readings, that it 
 must not be depended on. 
 
 69. Leicestrevsi^, of the 14th century, containing the whole 
 N, T., is the property of the Corporation of Leicester. 
 Mttt. in Matth. i, 1 — xtiii, 6, &c. Like most other manu- 
 scripts deposited in England, it stands in urgent want of a 
 fresh examination. Alex., but not so exclnsiTely so as D. 
 1. 13.33. 
 
 71. Epiiesius, at Lambeth, of the 12th century, contains the 
 
 Gospels. It is an accurate Byx. copy. 
 
 72. Harleian. 6647 (Johnson), in the British Museum, of the 
 
 1 1th century, contains the Gospels. Alex., but mixed. 
 
 102. An unknown Medicxan MS, containing Matth. xxiv— 
 Mark yiii. Its readings were extracted by Wetstein from 
 the margin of Plantin's Nor. Test. 1691. Alex., almost 
 always with D L, &c. 
 
 106. The WiNCHBLSEA MS, of the 10th century, containing the 
 Gospels, was used for Wetstein's edition. Alex. 
 
 118. Bodleian. Marsh 124, of the 13th century, contains the 
 Gospels, mut. It is an important it /e«. document. 
 . 120. Reo. 185. a, Paris, Stephani iS', of the 13th century, con- 
 tains Matth., Luke and John. Byx. . 
 
 124. Lambecc. 31, in the Imperial Library, Vienna, of the 12th 
 century, contains the Gospels. Chiefly Alex, 
 
 130. Vaticaii.369 (Greek - Latin), of the 13th century, contains 
 
 the Gospels. Its text is mixed. (Codd. 127—158 are all 
 deposited in the Vatican Library). 
 
 131. Vatican. 360, of the 1 1th century, contains the whole N.T. 
 
 except the Apocalypse. It appears to have been used by 
 Aldus Manutius for his edition (1618). Byz., but it has 
 many singular readings. 
 167. UnBtNo- Vatican. 2, of the 12th century, contains the Gos- 
 pels. Chiefly Alex. Scholz says of it " exscriptus est 
 ex vetustissimis codicibus hieroeolymitanis in monasterio 
 quodam mentis sancti servatis." By iiions sacer he means 
 Athos. 
 
 iapptntifjr ia. 331 
 
 183. LaurestiaH. vi, 14, of the 12th century, contains the 
 Gospels. Byx. (Codd. 182-198 are all at Florence). 
 
 208. Venetos 9, of the 10th century, contains the Gospels. 
 
 Alex, 
 
 209. Venetus 10 (Bessarionis), of the I5th century, contains 
 
 the whole N. T. Alex, in the Gospels. 
 
 218. Lambecc. 1, Vienna, of the 13th century, contains the 
 whole N. T. The text is very mixed. From this cele- 
 brated MS Alter printed his edition of the N. T. in 1786 
 —87, with various readings from other MSS in the Im- 
 perial library, vis. 3. 76. 77. 108. 123—125. 219—225., 
 which (except 123—125. 225) are chiefly Byz, 
 
 236. Havniens. 2, at Copenhagen, of the I4th century, con- 
 tains the Gospels. Alex, 
 
 346. Amdrosian. 23, at Milan, of the 12th century, contains the 
 Gospels. Alex. (Codd. 260— 469 were first made known, 
 and partially collated by Scholz. See Introd. p. 17.) 
 
 Matthffii's cursive manuscripts of the Gospels (including Evan- 
 gelistaria, and portions of Scripture contained in copies of Chrysos- 
 tom's Homilies), are about fifty in number. They are of various 
 degrees of value and importance, and bear dates from the 10th 
 to the 15th or even the 16th century. They are for the most 
 part Byzantine, but the following exhibit a mixed text : 
 
 a. Strod. 45, at Moscow (259 of Scholz), of the 10th or 1 1th 
 
 century, conUining the Gospels. Chiefly Alex. 
 e. Stnod. 48 (238 of Scholz), of the 11th century, containing 
 
 Matthew and Mark only. 
 k. Dresdensis Mattheei (241 of Scholz), of the 11th century, 
 
 containing the whole N. T. It has some peculiar readings! 
 x. Tabular. Imperial., at Moscow (261 of Scheie), of the 1 Ith 
 
 century, containing the Gospels. 
 
 ,♦, The following manuscripU furnish the most characteristic 
 readings of the Alexandrian family : DL. 1.13 33 Hg 
 124. 151. 235. 
 
 The reader will not feel surprised on observing that so many of 
 the manuscripts in the preceding catalogue belong to the Alex- 
 andrian recension. It is obvious that these documents, which 
 contain readings at variance with those of the great bulk of the 
 authorities, will naturally attract a larger share of our attention, 
 than they could claim on the score of intrinsic merit. In our 
 studies, as in common life, the exception makes a deeper impres- 
 sion on the mind than the rule which it violates.