aera hed 
 
 
 
Library of The Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 
 
 DIES 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Samuel Agnew 
 
 aA 
 \ S49 
 τ 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
A 
 
 SUPPLEMENT TO THE AUTHORISED 
 ENGLISH VERSION OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 BEING A CRITICAL ILLUSTRATION OF ITS MORE 
 DIFFICULT PASSAGES FROM THE SYRIAC LATIN AND EARLIER 
 
 ENGLISH VERSIONS WITH AN INTRODUCTION 
 
 BY THE REVEREND 
 
 FREDERICK HENRY’“SCRIVENER, M.A. 
 
 OF TRINITY COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE ASSISTANT MASTER OF THE 
 
 KING’S SCHOOL SHERBORNE 
 
 ANGLVSE 
 
 
 
 LONDON 
 WILLIAM PICKERING 
 1845 
 
““ As nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter 
 thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their founda- 
 tion that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to 
 make that better which they left so good ; no man, we are sure, hath cause 
 to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank 
 us. The vintage of Abiezer that strake the stroke; yet the gleaning of 
 grapes of Ephraim was not to be despised (Judges viii,2). Joash,the king of 
 Israel, did not satisfy himself till he had smitten the ground three times; 
 and yet he offended the prophet for giving over then.” Preface of the Trans- 
 lators to the Reader, Authorised version of the Bible. 
 
DESIGN OF THE PRESENT WorRK......». shale Wioweistvaets ὙΠ ΜΠ 
 Division of the whole subject into ΤῊ ΒῈΒ general heads .. 5 
 
 1. Errors or Criticism in the Authorised version, arising 
 from false readings of the Greek text. Account of the 
 
 ifemtas Hecepiis;...5....5.. πὴ γ- που 204d, 
 Text followed by our common version ......... ΠΣ ἢ 
 Griesbach’s edition, and theory of recensions ........ 9 
 imunpuamence Ss ΚΟ Remarks” soc. ace aentesascs 12 
 Scholz’s edition, and theory of recensions............ 16 
 Lachmann’s Noy. Test. Greec.-Lat. ............ πα pee 
 Tischendorf’s Nov. Test. τος «οτος ον ΟΣ στους 80 
 General result of the preceding review ..........+... 31 
 
 II]. Errors or InrerPretTATION in the Authorised version. 32 
 (a). Errors in the signification of single words. Lexi- 
 BOOTAPNY ΤΡ ΠΤ: ibid. 
 (b). Errors in the grammatical ον ΕΝ ΞΉὴ of one or 
 more words in the same clause. The article. 
 Bp. Middleton’s theory ........ Seabee ve dO 
 On the exact rendering of the Greek tenses.... 44 
 (c). Errors in the dependence of clauses on each other 46 
 
 On the, punctuation yp.) < ὗς ὁ τις οτος τὶς shot siete σοι sty Ad 
 On the divisions into chapters, verses, and para- 
 p10) SOBs Bias ον SENOS eae sa ee . 48 
 
 Ill. Errors or Expression in the language of the English 
 version, arising 
 (a). from want of uniformity in rendering the same 
 
 (πε εν τιν τ} γι: ἐς πού cre Oh) 
 (b). from grammatical inaccuracies............. Ayo 
 (c). from ambiguous, obscure, and obsolete expres- 
 SIONS ~.e.cee-s -ooSo ahha σασαος τυ 
 On the marginal renderings in the Authorised version, 
 Dire ΒΙ νυ πον... ietete lets ot = Serato si Bite Mieton shalt oft a 57 
 
 On the use of the Italic character. Dean Turton .... 59 
 
vi Contents of Fntroduction, 
 
 Application of other versions to the Illustration of our own 
 THE PESHITO SYRIAC VERSION .00-.00000 scp mee 
 The Philoxenian Syriac version ......+++ee+seseeese 
 Tur Latin VULGATE VERSION ιν εν το 
 
 Modern Latin versions of Beza and Castalio. Boisii 
 
 Collation... sammie 6.3 00 06 o 0'e a0 ol 9c en 
 Earty Enctisy versions. Their internal character . 
 Wickliffe’s Bible, a. bd. 1380 «τος 00. <- - eote eee 
 Tyndal’s New Testament, 1526, 1594 ........+--- 
 Coverdale’s Bible; 1.595. οτος osc, οἶον νος» «00's ieee 
 Cranmer’s, or the Great Bible, 1539 .......--se0ee 
 Sir John Cheke’s Translation of St. Matthew, about 1550 
 Geneva New Testament, Ist edition, 1557 ........ 
 The Bishops’ Bible, 1568, 1572 .......-+seeeesees 
 Laurence’s Critique το το ΣΑΣ δος, one ae » of etnias 
 Rhemish New Testament, 1582 .........ee.00- Pi é 
 King: James's Bible, 161)... eee ee sate eee 
 Later Eneuisu versions. Doddridge’s Family Ex- 
 
 positor, 1739——1756 eee niece oe oles onl e ean 
 Campbell on the Gospels, 1788 .........--- +e eee 
 Macknight on the Epistles, 1795 .........0.-- : 
 Archbp. Newcome’s Translation of the New τοῖο τς 
 
 DABS Cis “ers ΓΎ to lal Site! Sie aval στςν- -- 
 Dr. Boothroyd’s Bible, 1823, 1836 ..........4-.. 
 Holy Bible with 20,000 emendations, 1841 ........ 
 
 Dr. Symonds’s Observations on the Authorised version, 1789 
 
 Pr. Scholefield’s Hints for an Improved Translation, 1836 . 
 Principces or InreRPRETATION. Grinfield’s Nov. Test. 
 
 Hellenisticam oes ΕΗ Pee ate ca cries See oe 
 Bp. Jebb’s' Sacred’ Literature, 1820. 022.... 3. Joie ne 
 Tur Greek ComMenrarors, Chrysostom, Theophylact, &c. 
 Modern Commentators, Kuinodel in Libros N. T. Historicos 
 
 GONCTUSTOND ον core τον Στ iozere 
 
 ΝΌΤΕΒ oN THE AUTHORISED ENGLISH VERSION OF ST. Mart- 
 PRET EW, 9 ssa pdt. ΠΡ {1} Ὁ Δ 9}π|15ι 
 
 Appendix A. On the principal Greek Manuscripts of the 
 Four Gospels ...... a ejalels abyaiehtu he « » louie ein 
 
 Pace 
 
 63 
 
 ibid. 
 
SS πε ΟΣ Oe 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 Desion eg is generally agreed among com- 
 of the {Rt ἯΙ 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 modern 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 
 
 ef B 
 ὥ 
 
 present [Bac | 
 work. [} 
 
 
 
2 Qntroduction. 
 
 1611, 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- 
 
Gntroduction. 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 ; 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 might 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. Ina performance like the present 
 it would be worse than idle to aim at originality. 
 The interpretation of the Bible has tasked the intel- 
 
4 Antroduction, 
 
 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 [have undertaken. The earlier 
 English translations, independently of their intrinsic 
 excellence, are the basis of King James’s Bible, which 
 resembles several of them toan 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 
 that period down to the present hour. But the cha- 
 
*Qntroduction. 5 
 
 racter of each of these venerable translations will be 
 more conveniently discussed hereafter. 
 
 Division of The texts whose renderings in our autho- 
 the whole —_ rised version I have presumed to examine, 
 subject into - 
 
 three general are arranged in the body of my work ac- 
 pee 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 THrEr general heads. 
 
 I. Errors or Criricism, arising from false read- 
 ings of the Greek text. 
 
 II. Errors or InreRPRETATION, which originate 
 from mistaking the sense of the original Greek. 
 
 Ill. Errors or 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 or Criticism, arising from false read- 
 ings of the Greek text. 
 The Textus By the Received text of the New Testa- 
 Receptus. ment we usually understand that printed 
 in Robert Stephens’s third edition of 1550, or that of 
 the Elzevirs, published in 1624. These two editions 
 differ from each other in about 130 places,* but 
 
 * Tischendorf enumerates 115 variations (Pref. N. Τὶ 1841): 
 but exclusive of stops, accents, and manifest typographical errors, 
 I believe 130 to be nearer the truth. 
 
6 Gntroduction, 
 
 their general character is 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 (Proleg. 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 Stephanic 
 edition of 1550, differs from it in Luke vii, 12; x, 6; 
 xvii, 1; 35; John’ viii, 25; xix; ἢ; ΟΕ Ὁ: 
 Eph. iv; 25; James'v, 9 ;1 Pet:av/8; 2-Pepanaay, 
 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 Receptus. 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, 25; Acts ii, 
 36; xiv, 83 xv, 38(?); Eph. iv, 25; .1 Pet. iii, 11; τ Be 
 
 2 Pet. ii, 12. But I doubt not that several more might be added : 
 ὃ. g. Luke x, 6; xvii, 1; 35; John xix, 7. 
 
Fntroduction. 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 Bezze, 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. 
 
 Text folz Theodore Beza’s several editions of the 
 lowed by Greek Testament contain a text essentially 
 our com- 5 
 
 mon ver- the same as that published by Stephens, from 
 sign: 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, 138, 14; Mark viii, 24; ix, 40; 
 πὶ 20) sto uke 45353) cat, ‘22 x, δ xv 263) xvii, 
 πο John «xii, 31; xvi, 33; xviii, 24; Acts xvi, 
 paorxux, 25; xxiv, 13; 18; xxvii,,13; Rom. vii, 
 
 * ες Codices vetustatis specie pene adorandos.” R. Stephani, 
 Pref. N. T. 1546. 
 
8 Jntvoduction. 
 
 65-viil,. 11s xu, 11s°xvi, 205: Cor. v; daa 
 (where however Beza’s Ist edition of 1565 coin- 
 cides with Stephens); 2 Cor. iii, 1; v, 4; vi, 15; 
 wi; 12; 163 xi,:10;-Col. 45°24: ἃ, 15: ἘΠ ΞΕ ἢ 
 15; 2 Thess. ii,4; 1 Tim. i, 4; Hebr. ix, 1; James 
 11, 183, iv, 133° v;:125.1 Pet: 1; 45-111, 219 eae 
 11, 7; 1 John i, 4; 11, 23 (though the clause is in- 
 serted in italics); i, 16; 2 John v. 3; 3 John v. 
 7; Jude vv. 19; 24; Revs in;.1 ;v, 11 ΗΘ ΝΣ 
 will, 115: xi, 12 τ χῖ, ὃ; χῖν 18; χυι; eee 
 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, 7-5 xxv, Ὁ; Romy v3 17 » de Corsi; 3 eee 
 2. .Cor.-i, 14: ; vin, 24; χα 1 ©; Gali 
 Phil})i,:23 Col.i, 2; Tita 7; Hebr. x, 2; Ἔνι ΝΠ 
 In Matth. 11; 115 x, 10%) John xviii, 1: Acts xavm 
 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- 
 ceived in our translation: and it will be seen that 
 Mr. Hartwell Horne 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 
 
 
 
 * Besides Stephens’s 3rd edition of 1550 and the Elzevirs’ of 
 1624, I have used Beza’s New Testaments of 1565, 1582, 1589 
 and 1598, 
 
Gntvoduction. 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 
 δε , Teceptus. It was reserved for Griesbach 
 Griesbach’s , pt 
 edition, and to publish an edition of the New Testa- 
 pe oft 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 imspired volume, will 
 perhaps give me a claim to the reader’s indulgence, 
 if | 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 “Cure in Epist. Paulin.” and his “Symbole Cri- 
 tice.” Every one who has consulted the materials 
 
10 Qntroduction, 
 
 collected by Wetstein and his successors must have 
 observed, that certain manuscripts and versions bear 
 some affinity to each other; so that one of them is 
 seldom cited in support of a various reading (not 
 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 mwmber 
 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, 
 
Qntroduction, 11 
 
 and the Byzantine recensions. The standard of the 
 Alexandrine text he imagined that he had discovered 
 in Origen, who, though he wrote in Palestine, might 
 be fairly presumed to have brought with him into 
 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. xu, 11, the fol- 
 
12 {Gntroduction. 
 
 lowing words appear in the Textus Receptus, rw 
 κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες. Here instead of κυρίῳ Griesbach 
 reads καιρῷ, 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 ad loc.) ; 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 
 ages 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 καιρῷ, and shews that the 
 expression καιρῷ δουλεύειν is occasionally met with in 
 Greek authors. The variation in all probability arose 
 from the custom of representing a familiar word like 
 κυρίῳ in’an abridged form (gq), a practice which 
 would scarcely have been adopted in the case of καιρῷ. 
 Nang ete It certainly seems astonishing that a 
 rence’s * Re- theory which built so vast ἃ superstruc- 
 ma ture on foundations thus slight and pre- 
 
GQntroduction, 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 
 “Cure in Epist. Paulin.” that five or six different 
 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, which 
 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 Antroduction, 
 
 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. Crit. 1. 
 Ρ. 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 his Appendix, has shewn from an elabo- 
 rate collation, that the Codex A agrees with Origen against the 
 received text in 154 places, and disagrees with Origen and the re- 
 ceived text united in 140. The total sum of the agreements of 
 the Codex A with the received text against Origen he proves to 
 be 444, 
 
GQntroduction, 15 
 
 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 his exposure of many other errors both in 
 reasoning and computation, of which Griesbach’s cri- 
 tical writings furnish a luxuriant crop. Still less 
 need 1 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 is really 
 different from the Constantinopolitan; 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 late as 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 reasons 
 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’s 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 means 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 issue between 
 Griesbach and the advocates for the received text. How far that 
 
16 Gntroduction, 
 
 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 f invite 
 the reader’s attention: Matth. xix, 17; Mark iv, 24; 
 Acts xi, 20; Col. ii, 2. εν 
 
 Schol’s edit | The next considerable attempt to form 
 i ae a 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’s recension ‘‘ rests on reasonable, well-weighed, and probable 
 evidence,” the arguments I have alleged will by this time have 
 enabled my readers to judge for themselves. 
 
 * T have not alluded to Dr. Nolan’s “ Integrity of the Greek 
 Vulgate,” 1815, 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.” 
 
GQnetvoduction, 1G 
 
 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 Griesbach and his prede- 
 cessors. To the 674 MSS which had been collated 
 or referred to by others, Scholz has added no less 
 than 607, which he 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. 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ay 3 eel aie | ae 
 g2|/f2/38) ἘΠ) = 
 4 “ ~ = S|} tod nae n og 6 
 Scholz’s new MSS. Sslo=|ce| § jeg] & 
 = a ΘΟ 
 MSS of the Gospels i ΠῚ 19 ΠῚ Oe Old 
 
 0 
 Evangelistaria : 1 
 MSS of the Acts and Cath. Epp. 4 
 MSS of the Pauline Epp... 4 
 MSS of the sis vee 1 
 
 2 
 
 Lectionaria 11 15 12 Al 
 
 uae bel ke ghee SA naif 22 36 |237 |147° 165 607 
 
 »- 
 KSWOnw eo 
 -- 
 
 -- 
 
 D> 
 (o>) 
 
 Ww 
 we 
 »- 
 
 -- 
 
 Oa] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I cannot help observing that Scholz’s collation of 
 select passages is of a very hasty and superficial cha- 
 5 
 
18 Fntroduction. 
 
 racter, being sometimes 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 sehject-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 guality of his documents ἡ 
 aid us in accounting for the course he has pursued. 
 [t 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- 
 
Introduction, 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 
 is barely reconcileable with his theory of recensions 
 (e.g. Ev. 354; Evangst.71; Lect. 22 ; 46), he passes 
 by with as little scruple as the crowd of C onstantino- 
 politan codices, in which he scarcely meets with a 
 single variation from the received text once in a chap- 
 ter! (Prolez. 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, eorumque lectionibus diligenter conquisitis” 
 (Preef. N. T. p. 2), that it has rendered further investi- 
 gation 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 differ- 
 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), 
 
 
 
 
 
 * When Scholz states (Proleg. § 37) that he has collated more 
 than 100 MSS entire, and 200 in not less than twenty chapters 
 each; he must be understood to include his re-collation of many 
 manuscripts used by his predecessors: a very valuable portion of 
 his labors. 
 
20 FJntroduction. 
 
 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 1 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 1 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 (Horne’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, 
 
Futroduction. 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- 
 dence of the several sources whence it is derived. 
 Whereas the Alexandrine manuscripts and versions, 
 on the contrary, abound in the most serious discre- 
 pancies; many of them are full of interpolations, 
 omissions, and critical corrections ; so that they often 
 agree as little with each other, as with their adver- 
 saries of the rival family. I assent, therefore, to 
 Scholz’s conclusion (Proleg. § 58), “ nihil ex textu 
 illo, quem refert classis Constantinopolitanorum cod1- 
 cum, demendum aut mutandum, nisi quod falsum aut 
 improbabile esse apparet.” And this falseness or 
 improbability can spring only from considerations of 
 internal evidence. 
 
 But it is chiefly on the point of internal evidence 
 that Scholz’s edition is a decided failure. Although 
 he is so far from undervaluing its importance, that 
 he alleges it in 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 
 into the text the anomalous form ἀπεκατεστάθη (Matth. 
 xii, 13),* and that too chiefly on Alexandrine autho- 
 rity, after it had been rejected on account of its in- 
 herent improbability | by Griesbach, who professes 
 
 
 
 * Scholz’s text actually contains the word ἀποκατεστάθη, but 
 if we look to the inner margin, this appears to be a misprint. 
 Other examples of scandalous inaccuracy in the typography of 
 Scholz’s volume will be found in the Introduction to Bagster’s 
 English Hexapla, p. 163. 
 
 + ἀντεπαρετάξατο however is found in several manuscripts of 
 Chrysostom, Hom. in Matthzum. II. p. 20, where see Mr. Field’s 
 note. I recollect no other examples of such a form. 
 
22 Qntroduction. 
 
 to make that family his standard. Again, in Matth. 
 ΧΙ, 8 Scholz’s reading βασιλείων is so very inferior in 
 sense to βασιλέων, 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 
 λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε ; 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 
 νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε 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 λεπροὺς delapsis; vel ex duditatione de hac 
 facultate Apostolis concessd ; seepiusque 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, 
 
GFntvoduction. 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 ἀλλὰ ρῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ 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 in 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. , 
 
 Lachmann’s N. [Π6 first edition of Lachmann’s New 
 T. Gree.-Lat. 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 his character as a scholar and a 
 
24 {Gntvoduction, 
 
 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 Chrysostom, the prince of the Greek Fathers, is 
 excluded from his work, “‘ ne ad quintum szeculum 
 descenderemus ” (Preef. 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 
 
 * His periodical reviewers, three in number, are courteously 
 compared to the three Phorcides of Aischyl. 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 (Gree). 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- 
 chendorf’s New Testament is ‘‘ tota peccatum.” Fritzche, the 
 excellent commentator on the Gospels, is a fourth Grea. But 
 the most amusing case of all is Dr. Barrett’s, who was guilty of 
 editing the facsimile of the Dublin palimpsest of St. Matthew 
 (Z of Scholz). After duly thanking the engraver for his work- 
 manlike skill, Lachmann kindly adds, ‘‘ Johannem Barrettum, qui 
 Dublini edidit anno 1801, non laudo; hominem hujus artis, ultra 
 quam credi potest, imperitum.”’ 
 
Gntroduction. 25 
 
 MS (A of Wetstein); 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- 
 dorf’s 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 Beze (D), whose testimony he 
 admits for certain purposes (Preef. pp. xxv; xxxvil), 
 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 (Pref. 
 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 Italic, or as he would call it, the Afric trans- 
 
26 Qntvoduction. 
 
 lation,* he devotes a large share 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 Ireneeus, 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.” (Preef. 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. Wise- 
 man’s conjecture, which Lachmann implicitly adopts, that the first 
 Latin version was made in Africa; and that, being subsequently 
 corrupted in Italy by various hands from Greek manuscripts newly 
 imported from the East, the interpolated copies received the name 
 of Italic, and are those alluded to by Augustin in the celebrated 
 passage De Doctrin. Christ. II, 22. 
 
{Qntroduction. oF 
 
 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 era 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 Qntroduction, 
 
 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 Irenzeus and 
 Origen used more corrupt copies than Erasmus or 
 the Complutensian editors?” (Preef. 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 Irenzeus, 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 semibarbarous 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- 
 neeus. 
 
Gntroduction, 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 (Pref. pp. v, 
 xxxiil) that the province of a reviser of the text of 
 Scripture (‘“ recensere ’), should be kept quite sepa- 
 rate from that of a corrector (“ emendare Ὁ. 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 are almost evenly 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 Bez. 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 {ntroduction. 
 
 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. 
 Tischendorf’s 1 he researches of Scholz have done much 
 N.T. towards removing the obloquy 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. 1841) 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. Matth. 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. Ifa 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 does not pretend to account, he gives the 
 decided 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- 
 
Introduction, 31 
 
 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- 50), 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. 
 General result ΜῈ design in the following pages limits 
 of the prece- me to the examination of such various 
 ding review. . alas : : 
 readings 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 1 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 1 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 is the first to apply the St. Gall MS (A of Scholz) to the 
 criticism of the Gospels. 
 
32 Qntroduction. 
 
 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 1 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 
 
Antroduction. 33 
 
 πυγμῇ in the tevt of Mark vii, 3 (one of the marginal 
 interpretations is probably correct) ; ἐνταφιασμός, Mark 
 XIV, 8; ἀπογράφεσθαι, Luke 1} ; πωροῦν, 2 Cor. ill, 
 14; and perhaps also φαιλόνης, 2 Tim. iv, 13. This 
 source of error is happily very rare in our version. 
 Or a transitive verb may be wrongly used intransi- 
 tively, as σκανδαλίζειν, Matth. v, 29 (where the mar 
 gin is right) ; κατοπτρίζεσθαι, 2 Cor. iii, 15. Ora 
 word is rendered in its ordinary sense, where the 
 context requires a less usual one to be adopted ; as 
 πίστις, Rom. xiv, 23; χάρις, 2 Cor. viii, 6; 19 (it is 
 right in the margin of both verses, and in the text of 
 v. 4); ὑπόστασις, Hebr. xi, 1 (where again see the 
 margin). This is probably the case also with νεάνισκοι, 
 Mark xiv, 51; ἤκουσαν, Acts xxii, 9; καταχρᾶσθαι, 
 1 Cor. vii, 31. Or the strict literal sense may be 
 brought out more fully than the sacred penman seems 
 to intend, as συκοφαντεῖν, Luke iii, 14; xix, 8. In 
 like 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 ὠτίον 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 
 in the preceding verse (ch. xxii, 50), uses the word 
 ove instead of the diminutive ὠτίον. So again, St. 
 Matthew (ch. xv, 36) calls the same fishes ἰχθύας, 
 which in v. 34 he had named ἰχθύδια. The word 
 
 * And the best Classics constantly use diminutives, in speaking 
 of parts of the body: e. g. ὀμμάτια, ῥινία, &c. See Lobeck’s note 
 
 on Phrynichus, p. 211. 
 D 
 
34 Jntvoduction. 
 
 θυγάτριον 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 κοράσιον (Mark ν, 
 42) be rather a term of endearment than a diminutive 
 in its proper sense. Παιδίον 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 
 exxx, 5 renders the Hiphil conjugation of 2M by 
 καραδοκεῖν, but in Psalm xxxvii, 7 the Hithpahel con- 
 jugation by ἀποκαραδοκεῖν, he infers after Fischer 
 “ substantivo ἀποκαραδοκία (Rom. viii, 19; Phil. i, 
 20) non ampliorem notionem subjiciendam esse, 
 quam simplici καραδοκία ;” although Chrysostom ex- 
 pressly paraphrases the word by ἡ μεγάλη καὶ ἐπιτετα- 
 μένη προσδοκία ; 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- 
 
Introduction. 35 
 
 tensive force of ἀπὸ in composition from such instances 
 as ἀπεκδέχεσθαι in Rom. vill, 19, and ἀποκαταλλάσσειν 
 Eph. ii, 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 of the Alexandrian and later versions of the Old 
 so closely, that they all uniformly use the same 
 word, in precisely the same sense (an assumption 
 which 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 
 the 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 (I am speaking of 
 the best writers) without their apt and proper mean- 
 ing; gently and concisely insinuating some limitation 
 or collateral idea, which, though not absolutely essen- 
 tial to the sense, gives completeness to the image 
 which is preserved to the mind of an intelligent 
 reader. No one who has imbibed the spirit of Thucy- 
 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 (6. g. Matth. xvi, 22 ; Mark iii, 2; Luke 
 
36 Gntroduction. 
 
 viii, 40; Hebr. xii, 2). But when, on the contrary, 
 (as in the case of ἀπέρχεσθαι, ἀποκρύπτειν, ἀποβλέπειν 
 and many other verbs of frequent occurrence), the 
 preposition is manifestly a dispensable accessory, I 
 have thought that the spzrit 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 ὃς 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 
 ov the copula. Thus the expression ὁ ποιμὴν “ the 
 shepherd” would be called by Middleton elliptical, 
 the full form being ὁ [ὧν] ποιμήν, ‘* he-who [is] shep- 
 
@ntroduction. 37 
 
 herd.” Now although this definition is far less 
 simple than that of Matthiz and the great body of 
 critics, and though the direct evidence urged in its 
 behalf 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 
 phznomena of the use of the 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 generally 
 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 
 
 
 
 
 
 * The examples of a purely demonstrative sense of the article 
 given by Mr. Green (Grammar of the New Testament Dialect, p. 
 136) are all capable of another solution. But I am not at all 
 inclined to dogmatise on the subject. 
 
38 Fntroduction. 
 
 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; Hebr. 
 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 
 common master’s ‘‘ Doctrine of the Greek Article.” 
 
Introduction. 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 
 his best powers to the defence and elucidation of 
 God’s Holy Word, that I cannot but regard Bp. 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: “1 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 παύομαι 
 with a participle? At least the following in his whole note on 
 Hebr. x, 2. “᾿Επεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι; ‘ for otherwise, 
 i. 6. if the sacrifices could have perfected those who presented them, 
 would not the offerings have ceased?’ To προσφερόμεναι most critics 
 subjoin εἶναι 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 προσφέρεσθαι, 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 1 have given to it. 
 But προσφερόμεναι (θυσίαι) ἐπαύσαντο seems to me more facile 
 than the other construction.” Facile with a witness ! 
 
40 FGntvoduction. 
 
 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 Christ, 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 
 
Gntroduction. 4] 
 
 same person. Thus, for instance, we read in James 
 ill, 9 εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα, which our 
 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 Θεὸν ‘ God,” and Πατέρα 
 ‘* Father” are personal nouns (or attributives, as 
 Middleton terms them), and since the first Θεὸν has 
 the definite article τὸν 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, Πατέρα would be pre- 
 ceded by the article as well as Θεὸν. 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 Βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ, 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 Being: 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 Qntvoduction. 
 
 in the Authorised version with every possible variety 
 of phrase. Thus in 1 Cor. xv, 24 τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ 
 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 1,9. 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. 1,35 nu, 234m a: 
 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. 
 ¥; 5);*2 Thess. i, 12... }eTim. v;21;-2 Takes 
 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 
 
Qntrodvuction. 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. 11, 13, such an 
 inference 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. Now Bp. 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. 67, 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 mot inherent in their own nature, 
 but rather arising from the context in which they 
 stand. Thus in Aschin. c. Timarch. c. 2 we read 
 τὰ μὲν τῶν δημοκρατουμένων σώματα καὶ τὴν πολίτειαν οἱ 
 νόμοι σώζουσι, τὰ δὲ τῶν τυράννων καὶ ὀλιγαρχικῶν [these 
 seem to be the orator’s words] ἀπιστία, καὶ ἡ μετὰ τῶν 
 ὅπλων poovea. Now there is nothing very incom- 
 patible, at least to modern notions, in the ideas of 
 
44 Qntvoduction. 
 
 tyranny and oligarchy; but the omission of the 
 second article in this place is permissible from the 
 circumstance that /Eschines had just before drawn 
 a pointed distinction between them: ὁμολογοῦνται 
 yao τρεῖς εἶναι πολίτειαι παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, τυραννὶς 
 καὶ ὀλιγαρχία καὶ δημοκρατία. 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 ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ 
 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 καί. 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 iii, 9 the Syriac reads Κύριον, 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 version. Hence it appears, that the practice of the 
 Peshito is uniform on this point. 
 
Fntroduction, 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 xi, 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, 26) 
 or future (Luke xxi, 40). In the similar case of 
 
46 Qntroduction. 
 
 the Greek present being used to intimate the cer- 
 tainty or near approach of some future event (Matth. 
 xxvii, 63; Luke xiii, 32; Actsi, 6; 2 Pet. m, 11), 
 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 
 forcing 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: 4, 4). 1Onat 
 the construction be a little involved, it may become 
 doubtful where the concluding member of the sen- 
 tence, technically called the apodosis, begins (Luke 
 xili, 25; Actsx,37; 2 Cor. ii, 13; Eph. ii, 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. Il. 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 1 Tim, 1. 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 : 
 
Gntroduction. 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, 
 still 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, 5), yet it is a resource to which 
 we should betake ourselves only in the last ex- 
 tremity.* 
 
 * < Tf J give a man the liberty of punctuating for me, I resign 
 him much of interpretation.’”’” English version of N. Τὶ by a 
 ** Layman” 1840. Preface, p. xi, see above p. 15 note. 
 
48 Fntcoduction. 
 Chapters, verses | Closely connected with the punctu- 
 and paragraphs. . See sees 
 ation of the 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 
 τ 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 vill, 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 bea 
 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 
 
{Gntvoduction. 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. Blayney’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 1 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 English 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. 
 
 Ι: 
 
50 Fntroduction, 
 
 to the careless and capricious arrangement in the first 
 edition of King James’s Bible. 
 
 ΠῚ. 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. 
 
 (III, 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 7] 
 have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, 
 that we might not vary 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,” &c. 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 
 
Fntroduction. 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 
 of constraint 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 
 critic 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 
 μετοικεσία iS rendered in three different ways in the 
 very first chapter of St. Matthew (vv. 11, 12, 17); 
 or that μαρτυρία is translated “ witness ” in John i, 7, 
 and “record” in v. 19; or that the verb μαρτυρεῖν 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 
 μαρτυρία and μαρτυρεῖν perpetually recur. Within the 
 limits of nine verses (John v, 31—39) is comprised a 
 train 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. 
 33—35); by His own miraculous works (v. 86); by 
 His 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- 
 ing of the above-mentioned leading words: for we 
 have ‘“‘testimony” in v. 34; “testify” in v. 39; 
 
52 Introduction: 
 
 ‘“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 ν, 10, 12, 
 17;-18, 23 . Rev. iv, 4; xix, 15, 21), andzayiliaie 
 suffered to pass unnoticed. The former, which are 
 comparatively unfrequent, shall be diligently cor- 
 rected; and 1 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; Δ σους 
 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 1 here mention once for all. The 
 precise mode of representing Hebrew Proper Names 
 in English is a matter of very little moment; but it 
 2s 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 
 
Qntroduction, 53 
 
 of the unlearned reader, and for no better reason, as 
 it would seem, than that the Vulgate and the pre- 
 ceding 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. 
 
 (III, 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 
 this point 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 
 Prelate 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. 110); but, not- 
 withstanding 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 
 
54 Gntroduction. 
 
 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 this 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 the 
 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. τι, 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, 25 “ chiefest? 
 for ““ chief,’ Mark x, 44 ἅς.) have been positively 
 rejected as “ improper” and incorrect. At the same 
 time I am bound to express my deep obligation to 
 this learned Prelate, who has detected several im- 
 portant errors in the language of our translators, 
 which 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; Actsi, 15; xxii,30 ;*Hebr. 
 We Si) 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- 
 
Gntroduction, 55 
 
 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 Qntroduction. 
 
 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 our public version, so that it cannot be thought 
 that it was inserted in this place on the authority of the few manu- 
 scripts and versions in which it forms part of the text. 
 
Gntroduction. 57 
 
 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, 
 11; 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 
 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. 
 
 The Marginal It will soon be seen that our present 
 Renderings. version 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 
 also Matth. xx, 12; Luke vii, 47; John v, 39; Rom. ix, 3 ἄς. 
 
58 Autroduction. 
 
 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 855 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 1769. Of the original marginal notes about 
 eighteen point out various readings of the Greek 
 text! (Matth..4, 11; -vit,'14; xxvi, 26; «-Miarkiix, 
 16%; ‘Lukerii,:38-;>° x, 22.5 » xvii, 36.;': Acts ἘΝ ὮΝ 
 1 Cor. xv, 31; Gal. iv, 17; Eph. vi, 9; James 
 ii, 18-¢-.EePet. det; fi 21502-P et: ib 2a pee 
 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: vit, 20'> =xviit;<l b30 Rom. vip: ld; -Cokmpaa; 
 Rey. xi, 13); while a few, no doubt, are sufficiently 
 trifling (John xix, 25; 1 Cor. v, 8; 1 Thess. v, 11 ; 
 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 these may be added the frivolous variation ‘“‘ Beelzebul” 
 for ‘‘ Beelzebub” thrice repeated, Matth. x, 25; xii, 24; Luke 
 ἘΠ: 
 
GFntvoduction. 59 
 
 so far may be deemed useful. The greater part, how- 
 ever, are either totally erroneous (Acts xv, 5; 1 Cor. 
 iv, 9; 2 Pet. i, 1, Ist note); or very idle (Matth. 
 xxi, 19; xxii, 26; Mark vii, 22; Actsviii, 13; xvi, 
 θυ ύτυν,, 7;° Gal. iv,:24; Eph. vi, 12, &e:) 3-08 
 explain peculiar phrases of the original with unneces- 
 sary minuteness (Matth. xiv, 6; Luke 11, 15; John 
 xi, 33; 2Johnv.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, 11; 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 subject of those words and 
 
 character. 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 
 
60 Qntroduction. 
 
 (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 
 
GQntroduction. 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 
 tome remarkable ; and they may be greatly increased 
 by any one who will take the trouble to investigate 
 the subject. In Luke iii, 23—38 τοῦ Ἦλί «.7.X. is 
 thus rendered in the edition of 1611; ‘which was 
 the son of Eli,” &c. agreeably to which, in the cor- 
 responding expression ὁ τοῦ ᾿Αλφαίου 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, Matth. v, 3—11, the copula 
 “‘are’’ is uniformly printed in italics, and rightly ; 
 since it is not expressed in the Greek : in the parallel 
 passage Luke vi, 20, 21, the form of the original 
 being precisely the same, the copula is found in 
 
 * The quotation given above is borrowed from Dean Turton; 
 but perhaps it would be more satisfactory to cite the 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. 
 
62 A ntroduction. 
 
 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 τίς μείζων ; 15 ren- 
 dered in the original edition “‘ who should be the 
 greatest?” in a like expression Matth. xxiii, 19 ri yap 
 μεῖζον ; 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 shall 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 
 
Gntroduction. 63 
 
 wherein they occur (6. g. Matth. xv, 6; xx, 23; 
 Mark vii, 11; x, 40; Acts vii, 59); 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 xii, 34; Luke xii, 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 The age and merits of the Peshito 
 SyriacVersion. yergion 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 ‘‘ Hore Syriace’”’ 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 Antvoduction. 
 
 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 numerous 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; 11,14; 24; v, 4; xii, 15; Romixuy, 
 16), or to explain some involved construction, (Acts 
 x, 38; Eph. ii, 1; 1 Johni, 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 Michaelis ; 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 seem to have contented themselves for 
 
GJntroduction, 65 
 
 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 Schaaf’s 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 Schaaf’s 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-Hebreeus, 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- 
 ing collected by Mr. Rich, and purchased for the 
 
 * I say accurate, for I have repeatedly collated the various 
 readings in Schaaf’s two editions (1709, 1717) with the editio 
 princeps, with Plantin, Antwerp, 1575, 24°, and with Trost. 
 Anhalt. Coth. 1621, without discovering a single error worth 
 notice. 
 
 FE 
 
66 {Qntroduction. 
 
 British Museum in 1825, are six manuscripts of 
 the Peshito version, five of which are most care- 
 fully written 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, 1816), 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. 369 note). 1 do not share in Scholz’s suspicion 
 (Proleg. N. T. vol. i, p. 124) that the London edition 
 derived its corrections of Schaaf’s text from Gries- 
 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. 
 
Gntroduction, 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 Qntroduction, 
 
 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 the 
 whole collection. ““ Inter quos ante alios omnes me- 
 morabile est Novi Testamenti exemplar Nestori- 
 anum, numer. 7157 Rich., liber et antiquitate sua, 
 quum seeculo octavo scriptus est, et summa scripturee 
 diligentia atque elegantia, inter omnia quotquot 
 nobis innotuerunt Syriaca N. T. exemplaria, eximia 
 laude dignus. Etenim remotioris etiam etatis codices 
 Syriacos extare comperimus quidem; sed de nullo 
 nos vel audire vel legere meminimus, qui omnes 
 quos Nestoriani agnoscunt N. T. libros amplecteretur. 
 Si quis vir doctus, id quod jamdudum desideratum 
 est, N. T. Syri textum cura critica recognoscendum 
 suscipere vellet, magni interfuturum esse censemus 
 hunc codicem, textis, quo Nestoriani seeculo octavo 
 usi sunt, egregium testem, guam diligentissime inspi- 
 cere. (Preef. Cat. MSS. Syr. Brit. Mus. 1838). 
 
 atop ot one perhaps who ἴδ. much ac- 
 ian Syriac ver- quainted with the Philoxenian Syriac 
 Tho 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 
 
Gntroduction, 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. p. 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, Pref. 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 @ntroduction. 
 
 that though the old translation is evidently the basis 
 of the later, yet there are about 76 variations from it 
 in the twenty 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 
 (Ναζαρηνόν, v. 5). 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 Aramzan 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, | cannot avoid the conclusion, 
 that inasmuch as neither 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 The merits and defects of the Latin 
 Vulgate. Vulgate version have been so carefully 
 examined by Campbell (Prel. Diss. x, Pt. 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. 
 
~ 
 
 Antvoduction. 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 fora moment, to express an earnest wish that 
 some competent critic would undertake a renewed 
 investigation 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 Qntvoduction. 
 
 Of the later Latin versions I have 
 Modem Latin “chiefly used Castalio’s (1550, 1578), and 
 Bema and (ας. Beza’s (Ist 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 so 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. 
 Boisii Col- 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 afhnity 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 version, wherever it cannot be 
 
Antroduction, 79 
 
 proved absolutely false. At the end of ἃ long note 
 on Matth. xv, 6, he says “ Mihi, in locis hoc genus 
 perplexis et obscuris, pro optimis interpretibus sunt, 
 qui verbis usquequaque adherent, nec tam 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 :—‘“‘ quod si quid addendum 
 videbitur,” he goes on to remark, ‘‘ juvandi lectoris 
 causa, quanto rectius id in Scholia, aut marginales 
 annotationes, quam in contextum ipsum conjiciatur.” 
 And this irrational desire of maintaining the inte- 
 egrity 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 1, 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 
 Chrysostom 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 FGntroduction. 
 
 Farly English But it is 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. p. 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, though 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 (Water- 
 
AQntvoduction. 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.p. 1380, I 
 need say but a few words. It is chiefly important 
 
 * In Crutwell’s Preface to Bp. Wilson’s Bible 1785, a succinct 
 account is given of all the English versions of the Bible, but it is 
 chiefly borrowed from Lewis. The value of this edition is much 
 enhanced by a collation of our common translation with those that 
 preceded it, contained in Mr. Crutwell’s notes. For though that 
 collation is very imperfect, even in places where we should most 
 have expected information, yet until the publication of Bagster’s 
 excellent reprints, it was the only means by which the general 
 reader could obtain a notion, however inadequate, of the contents 
 of those scarce and precious volumes. 
 
76 Gntroduction, 
 
 as being the 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- 
 tine text (See Matth. viii, 15; 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 
 
 ἘΠῚ have used the edition of Wickliffe’s N.T. which is printed 
 in Bagster’s Hexapla, because it seems 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 by various hands. Of these 
 latter an account may be seen in the Introduction to Baber’s edition 
 of Wickliffe’s N. T. or in that prefixed to Bagster’s Hexapla. 
 
{ntroduction. 7 
 
 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 (6. g. Matth. 
 mms Acts v9.75) beCor. νοῦ; ὅ; Tit. iii, 5, &e:); 
 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. 1 
 
 
 
 * The ““ Persone”’ seems to be his own translator from the Vul- 
 gate. At least it is evident that he does not use Wickliffe’s ver- 
 sion. See his renderings of Matth. ν, 34—37; Luke xxiii, 42, 
 43; Acts iv, 12; 1 John iii, 15 &c. 
 
78 GQntroduction. 
 
 shall therefore appeal to their renderings of Scripture 
 in those cases only, where some happy expression or 
 striking peculiarity claims our especial notice. 
 
 Tynda’sN.T, | Almost a century and a half after Wick- 
 1526, 1534. —Jiffe’s 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 (1534), 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 
 (Ist 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. Τ᾿ 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 of Scripture 
 
GQntroduction. 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. Offor 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 (99 ; 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 Bagster’s Hexapla, Introd. p. 41, where ἄνωθεν 
 (John iii, 3) is said to be translated in these fragments ‘‘ from 
 above.” The Vulgate has ‘‘ denuo.” 
 
80 Qntroduction. 
 
 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, that 
 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 had 
 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 can he possibly mean by “ the 
 English translation of Tyndal and Coverdale, 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. 
 
Antroduction. 8] 
 
 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, 11); 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 particles, 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 
 
 G 
 
82 Gntroduction. 
 
 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 1534 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 unto the 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 διάβολος is translated 
 ‘“‘ backbiter:”? in 1 Tim. iti, 2 a bishop must be xéo- 
 puoy ‘ honestly apparelled :” the κλῆροι of 1 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 Authorised version, Matth. xxiv, 48; 1 Pet. iii, 
 14. ‘* And” is similarly used after ‘‘ but” in other phrases by 
 Tyndal. Thus “ but and thou,” Matth. xix, 17; edition of 1526. 
 
TITIAN) 
 
 Gntroduction. 83 
 
 so far complied with the representations of others 
 as to substitute the technical word ‘“ elders” in the 
 book of 1534 in the room of “ seniors” (πρεσβύ- 
 repot); but in both editions ἐκκλησία is translated 
 “congregation,” not “ Church;”* ἀγαπὴ ““ love,” 
 not “ charity ;” and very often χάρις “ favor,” not 
 “race.” 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 
 Shwe lari S45 ix,. 1s Ds» xix; 28 ;ἢ xxiti, 18"; xxv; 
 28; xxvi, 31). 
 
 A conviction of the great intrinsic merit of Tyndal’s 
 New Testament of 1526, 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. 
 eureaaie’s To Miles Coverdale, sometime Bishop 
 Bible, 1535. of Exeter, we owe the first English ver- 
 sion of the whole Bible, including the Apocryphal 
 books (1535). 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, whose third Instruction to 
 the Translators proscribed its use. 
 
84 Qntroduction. 
 
 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, “10 help me, I have had sundry 
 translations, not only in Latin, but also of the Dutch 
 interpreters ; whom....I 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 
 
 
 
 * For some vague conjectures on this 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. 
 
Gntroduction. 85 
 
 more knowledge and understanding of Scripture by 
 sundry translations, than by all the glosses of our 
 sophistical doctors.” On the other hand 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, 
 xvill, 37, as instances wherejhis 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 Antvoduction. 
 
 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 855, 1526, 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, 11; 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; 
 xxvl, 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. 
 
GJntroduction. 87 - 
 
 Cranmer’s or the “ Great Bible” of 1539, published 
 theGreatBible under the auspices of Archbishop Cran- 
 Bt 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 1661. [ἢ 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 Gntroduction. 
 
 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, 53; xxvii, 8; 
 Mark ii, 23 ; Luke xvi, 21; xxiv, 36; Acts xv, 34; 41; 
 Rom. i, 32; v, 2; 8 ; xii, 17; 1 Cor. iv, 16 ἡ πιν 9. 
 2 Cor. xi, 21; Col. i,6; James v, 3; 1 Pet. v,2;3¢ 
 2 Pet. i, 10; 11,4. In the following texts it agrees 
 with Latin manuscripts, against the present printed 
 text, both Latin and Greek. Matth. xix, 21; John 
 vii, 29; Acts xiv, 7; 1 Cor. χ, 17: 9. ον. Υπ 88. 
 The interpolated clause in the last five instances is 
 also found in Wickliffe. 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. 
 
 Sir John A curious fragment of a translation of 
 Dheben Deans the New Testament, by Sir John Cheke 
 ation of St. : Ε Ὰ Ἷ 
 Matthew, (that illustrious scholar, the pride of his 
 about 1550. 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 this 
 version was apparently unknown to all succeeding 
 translators, and consequently is not comprehended 
 within the strict limits of my design, a slight account 
 
Gntvoduction, 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 1539 Cheke was but twenty-five years 
 old; in 1557 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 paraphrastie 
 as Sir John Cheke’s. Like some modern 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 Jntroduction. 
 
 said 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, 18 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. ti, 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 
 a profusion of strange compounds, invented after the 
 
Gntvoduction. 9] 
 
 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” 
 (Ψυχικὸς 1 Cor. 11, 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 Wickliffe’s 
 ‘““meini” for ““ household ;”’ Wickliffe’s ‘ tollboth” 
 for ““ receipt of custom ;” ‘“ shire” for “ kindred” or 
 “ tribe,” ἄς. 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, I 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, 5 ; 23; v,21; vi, 22; ix,2; xv, 
 ΕΣ ΘΕ στ ἐν 9 τ χχν, ΤΑ; xxvi,:2..)°-The 
 translator's notes, if not very deep, are sensible and 
 
92 Gntroduction. 
 
 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. 
 
 ΠΥ ΣΈ: Very superior to the “ Great Bible” is 
 Testament, the English Translation made at Geneva 
 aN eno 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 affliction. 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 
 
Gntroduction. 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, 
 es xx, 9 3. xxviii; 155 Rom. xvi, 23 ;. Col. 1,24; 
 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 
 can 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 Qntroduction. 
 
 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; xu, 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. 
 
 ΔῈ ite? The Bishops’ Bible is a revision of 
 
 e Bishops : Ἢ aA 
 Bible, 1568, .Cranmer’s or the “ Great Bible,” ex- 
 Tees 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 
 
Gntroduction, 95 
 
 retained its footing 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. 1 
 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 παιδίον 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 (ἐκβάλῃ) 
 laborers into his harvest ;” xxi, 19 “ one fig-tree ;” 
 xxvill, 14 “‘ make you careless;” Luke u, 15 “ the 
 men the shepherds ;” Acts xxii, 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 
 “ὁ and [afterward] returned to her own house ;” the 
 
96 {Qntroduction. 
 
 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 (6. 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 
 editiom 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 acomment. 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. 
 
 ΤᾺ While this Bible was ἴῃ preparation, 
 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 earlier 
 versions is preserved in Strype’s Life of Parker (Ap- 
 pendix Ixxxv, pp. 139—142; see also Townley’s 
 Biblic. Literat. vol. 111, p. 180), and possesses some 
 
-~ 
 
 {Qntvoduction. 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. 
 xxvii, 14). Although he examines but twenty-nine 
 texts (all of them, except Col. ui, 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 ἵνα in Luke ix, 45 was not ren- 
 dered τελικῶς, “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. 
 
 someday The Anglo-Romish version of the New 
 New Testa- Testament, published at Rheims in 1582, 
 ments 182+ is a very literal translation from the Latin 
 Vulgate, which the crooked policy of the Roman 
 
 H 
 
98 Gntroduction. 
 
 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, perspicuity 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; 
 ‘* preefinition,” 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 lan- 
 tern.” Fuller, Church History, Bk. v, Sect. iv, 35. 
 
Qntroduction. 99 
 
 contempt for our vernacular translations, they have 
 not scrupled to use some of the earlier versions as the 
 basis of theirown. Nor should I suppress the fact, 
 that the Rhemish divines may occasionally do us 
 good service, by furnishing some happy phrase or 
 form of expression, which had eluded the diligence 
 of their more reputable predecessors. 
 
 If then it be asked on what grounds the Rhemish 
 New 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 
 though rather angry refutation of this production of 
 the “‘traiterous seminarie ”’ at Rheims ; in which he 
 traces his hapless victims through every paragraph 
 of their Preface and Annotations, and prints the 
 version 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- 
 ing edifying remarks. ‘A man may sometimes be 
 so 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 without disputing that this precious note con- 
 tains what Dr. Fulke calls in his homely phrase “a 
 
100 Gntvoduction. 
 
 beggarly petition of two principles,” I would rather 
 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, 
 ‘Cand 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, seeing all 
 antiquity against them, are forced to be more bold, 
 or rather impudent than others on that point.” 
 
 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 Him 
 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- 
 
Fntroduction. 101 
 
 ing and shuffling the Scriptures, but are of all men 
 the most ignorant in the deep knowledge thereof. 
 And therefore our Master referreth them not to the 
 reading 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 
 1611, 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 scholars of 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 
 
 “ They are not in the British Museum, nor in Sion College 
 Library. 
 
102 Fntroduction, 
 
 that the 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 (Heb. x, 34). Lewis also mentions Matth. 
 xx, 23; 1 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, 
 Doddridge’s : Ξ ae 
 Family Ex- Who made it the sole business of his life 
 poser, 1789. to consecrate 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 should 
 suspect a 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 read the “" Bible in Spain ?” 
 
AQntroduction. 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 acommentary, 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 sufh- 
 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 AQntroduction. 
 
 greater part of the New Testament was translated by 
 two ministers of the Scottish kirk ; by Campbell in 
 his work on the Four Gospels, and by Macknight in 
 that on the Apostolical Epistles. Of these authors 
 Dr. Campbell most deserves our attention. For 
 Cauphals though he had not a particle of that mo- 
 tie Sidi desty and unaffected gentleness which in 
 
 i 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 
 hand, I will extract a few passages at random, to ex- 
 
{ntvoduction. 105 
 
 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 
 in 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 
 air of confidence. Yet whenon John v, 39 he tells us that in the 
 Syriac language the word ἐρευνᾶτε has the same ambiguity as in 
 Greek and Latin, he proves his ignorance of the very elements of 
 Aramzan Grammar. 
 
106 {Qutvoduction. 
 
 say, that the student will seldom consult Campbell's 
 annotations, without deriving from them a high de- 
 gree of pleasure and instruction. 
 Macknight on Macknight’s New Translation and Com- 
 the Epistles, mentary on the Apostolical Epistles has 
 1795. 
 
 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 difhcult 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 
 so 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 ἴδετε 
 (Phil.i, 30) and φάγεται (James v, 3) are present tenses, 
 that ἑαυτὸς is often used for ἄλληλος, that ὁ yap “ for 
 he who” and ὁ δὲ “ but he who” (Rom. vi, 10. The 
 
AQntvoduction. 107 
 
 common text has ὃ) are analogous to ὁ δὲ σπαρεὶς in 
 Matth. xiii, 20; and much more ejusdem farine, 
 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 εἰς, 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 the 
 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 sufh- 
 
108 Qntroduction, 
 
 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- 
 Archbishop aan 
 Newcome’s mate Newcome render it difficult to speak 
 eee of his Translations with freedom. His 
 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 15 this vicious practice carried, that in the short 
 book of Hosea alone he proposes no less than fifty- 
 
 * On the sources of Coverdale’s Bible of 1535 I have spoken 
 above, p. 84. Much of Macknight’s fallacious reasoning arises 
 from his confounding this version with one published in 1538 by 
 Coverdale, under the feigned name of Hollybushe, and which was 
 a professed translation from the Vulgate. 
 
Gntvoduction, 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 
 theory 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- 
 
110 Qntroduction. 
 
 sion” were glad to build, when they endeavored to 
 expunge from the New Testament the blessed doctrine 
 of our Lord’s Divinity. 
 
 ai eiee: Among the admirers of the Archbishop’s 
 royd’s Bible, Translation the first place may be assigned 
 Peat tes De; Boothroyd; who 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 the 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, 82. “40 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 own liberty.” 2 Cor. 
 ui, 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 
 
GFntroduction. 111 
 
 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 
 wien ee? years ago by the 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 similar misuse of the Italic character (or rather 
 of the type which corresponds to it), though not carried to the same 
 extent, was noticed in the Bishops’ Bible, see p. 95. 
 
112 Qntvoduction, 
 
 avowed production of an eminent London physician. 
 It is possible that Biblical learning may not have 
 gained very much by so lavdable 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, ἅς.) : but he has no marginal ren- 
 
 * It may be proper to state that in the Preface we 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, Valckenzar, Herodotus, Bennett, Dobree, Clarke, John- 
 son.” 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 ἢ 
 
Qntvoduction. 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 xxii, 9; 2 Cor. 
 ili, 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 
 erounds 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. 
 ἘΠ Π The Observations ” of Dr. Symonds 
 Observations, of Cambridge ‘“‘On the expediency of 
 1789—1794. @ ; ae 
 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 
 closing 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 
 I 
 
 3 
 
114 Gntroduction. 
 
 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 angry critic’s denunciation it is much to be 
 wished that all the larger editions of our Bibles contained the ad- 
 mirable Preface. Can any thing in language be more beautiful 
 than the concluding paragraph ? 
 
Qntvroduction. 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, 26; 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. 
 ρας Widely removed from this arrogant and 
 field's Hints, supercilious bearing is Professor Schole- 
 1880, and ed. Feld, in his “ Hints 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 Qntvoduction, 
 
 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 
 often 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, 28: xv) 1, ὃ; 34; 2 Corie 
 Gal. ii, 2—9 ; Phil. iv,3; 1 Thess. 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, 16, he is not, I think, equally successful. 
 Those of his emendations which at first sight may 
 appear frivolous or unmeaning (6. g. Rom. xvi, 9; 
 1 Pet. v, 13) must be vindicated by recollecting 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. 
 
Antroduction. 117 
 
 Printed of It may 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, they are wnconsciously 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 1 would not be understood to deny that the 
 
118 {ntvoduction. 
 
 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 difficulty.” 
 
 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 Testan.ent, 
 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” (Preef. 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 example, the pleonastic use of the pronoun αὐτός, and 
 of καὶ in apodosi (See note on Matth. ch. xv, 5, 6): or the con- 
 struction of prepositions after certain verbs: 6. g. φοβεῖσθαι, 
 Matth. x, 28; ὁμολογεῖν, ibid. v. 32 &e. 
 
Gntvoduction. 119 
 
 Jordan’s streams with the slime of the Tiber, or 
 Arethusa, or Alpheus” (ibid. p. x), 1 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. 
 Grinfield’s complaints, though possibly over-earnest 
 in 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 pene Babylonica barbaries, e 
 scriniis Oratorum, Historicorum, Comicorum, Tra- 
 gicorum, Eroticorum, omniumque fere scriptorum 
 dicendi genere, frustatim et minutatim compilata.” 
 (ibid. p. ix). 
 Jebb’s Sacred | May reasonably be expected to deliver 
 <a 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 
 
 * T lately heard a Wesleyan preacher express his gratification 
 at the light thrown on a portion of the Lord’s Prayer by Bp. Jebb’s 
 simple 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 the last. 
 
120 Antroduction. 
 
 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 
 
Fntvoduction. 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 jalso be raised to Jebb’s occa- 
 sional alterations of the text, when the received read- 
 ing is ‘not quite in accordance with the equilibrium 
 of parallel clauses. Thus he would reject τοῦ 
 προφήτου in Luke xi, 29 on testimony much weaker 
 than that which he condemns Griesbach for relying 
 on in 1 Cor. i, 22,23. And this tendency in our 
 author is the more to be regretted, as he confesses 
 that his acquaintance with the subject of various 
 readings was far from considerable (Letter lii. in 
 vol. il. 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. xvii, 1— xix, ὃ. 
 
122 Qntroduction. 
 
 The Greek I trust that I shall incur no censure 
 Commenta- for the frequency of my appeals to the 
 tors, Chrysos- 
 tom, Theo- | Greek commentators, to Chrysostom and 
 phylact ke. Theophylact 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 Coryphzeus, 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 
 styles 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- 
 
GQntroduction. 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—11); 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.* 
 
 ἘΠῚ have used the following editions. Theodoreti Opera, Schulze 
 et Nosselt, Hal. 1771, Tom. iii. Theophylacti Opera, Venet. 1754, 
 4 tom. Chrysostomi Opera, Par. 1834, which is but a slight im- 
 provement on Montfaucon’s edition of 1728. But the best edi- 
 tion of any portion of Chrysostom is the Homilies on St. Matthew 
 by Field, Cambridge, 1839, 3 tom: for which more than twelve 
 manuscripts 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 Qntroduction. 
 
 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 Theodoret on Rom. 
 ix, 22). If any are inclined on such grounds to dis- 
 courage the study of their writings, | 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 
 
Gntvoduction. 125 
 
 all those, which are presented with a sincere desire 
 to promote His glory.” 
 
 4 baer Among the several modern commen- 
 mentators.  tators consulted for the purposes of this 
 a 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. xli, 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 bane and disgrace of Germany fifty years ago: 
 —would that they were not so still. This is a serious 
 charge, and one which I would not willingly bring 
 against any one on insufficient grounds. But (to 
 confine my strictures to his remarks on a single 
 chapter), it is impossible that those who speak 
 favorably of Kuindel 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) the 
 shocking blasphemy of ‘the most learned Paulus,” 
 who tells us that the Saviour’s death upon the 
 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 Qntroduction. 
 
 less impious than some others who conjectured— 
 it makes one shudder to repeat it—that our Lord’s 
 syncope might be fezgned. 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 not 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, but shrank from the task of composing a 
 regular Life of Christ, lest their writings should be drawn into an 
 unequal comparison with those of the Greek and Roman historians. 
 Prolegom. p. v. _It is quite necessary to add the reference. 
 
GQntvoduction, 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. 
 
 a, ow ww. ¥, 
 i i ia al 
 ee le 
 were 
 
 Pt 
 
‘eS ates da ¥ 19 Row” 2 πο ae a Ν 
 a hae ν i) ΦΥ͂: he 
 Ε ἣν ay aw Ἂ ae Ν 
 ἐν - ᾿ ᾿ 1 ee ῃ 4 < 
 Ἴ eer 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 “tivo: icity fats Ἰδ8 aidan ed 
 few alps). boieboa eiion io Ὁ 
 Se ee iyo ‘bah ive sii 
 ὙΠ ΠΝ ‘Tom enorme ere oil) uid qn 
 sep lanaal ὃ SAO πε 
 ξανὰ τυ ταν εὐ ΩΝ #26 
 wedi at) να Pond ; he ἘΠ ait 
 
 μ 
 
 Hite piwinn Joes sion £ Pu ‘Tatil 
 doen rst di i> broom ad sav ig 
 ned ΤΙΝ i my ΤΟΝ Xenon sg 
 Riscyut of HMR ΔΊΑ eee ἐμὴ tit 
 (ote ots seit ἢ Tit, isin tides sil πων. 
 
 τὰ σόν ἢ eed oan s ΕἸ. οὗ ΑἿΜ 
 
 πο ες γον ϑ.ν τ ae 
 wes ΝΣ advange Mo ones 
 ἀν A ip erlieat of 014A dou gree 
 
 λΡ.γ} el) ROM) 41} Acs rote ἢ aw 
 
 inf, " ἢ) } ive i ; “9 A aiaishen 
 ρον VE ihe Tied aly wei 
 bts) }}} Ὁ ; ly eT 3 ᾿ τἡ ΓΤ, tial 
 ΠΡΟ 
 ss 
 ree 4 
 ' δες sy "Ὁ 
 
 Ἰ ΐ ‘= 
 “τὶ J 
 Wire ΝΜ & 
 σιν ἃ = 
 ΤᾺΝ ae Ψ ἊΝ 
 τς Ἔν. ει an 
 2 
 να νὴ ᾿ Ξ oj, ae 
 @ 
 » Ἂ 
 
Tota! bate toad! fone toe? 
 
 NOTES 
 ON THE AUTHORISED ENGLISH VERSION OF 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Seika? taka toate! tote 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 Tue reader is requested to bear in mind the general heads to 
 which all critiques on our Authorised version are referred in the 
 following pages. 
 
 I. Errors or Criticism, arising from following false readings 
 of the Greek text (Introd. p. 5). 
 
 II. Errors or 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 or Expression in the language of the English 
 version, 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 THE COMMON TRANS- 
 LATION OF THAT PASSAGE is recommended (p. 57). 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 The following abbreviations are used throughout this work :— 
 
 Syr. The Peshito Syriac version. Cov. Coverdale’s version of 1535. 
 Vulg. The Latin Vulgate. Cran. Cranmer’s, or the Great 
 Tynd. 1. Tyndal’s first edition of Bible, 1539. 
 
 1526. Gen. The Geneva New Testament, 
 Tynd. 2. Tyndal’s last edition of 1557. 
 
 1534. Bish. The Bishops’ Bible, 1572. 
 Tynd. Where Tynd. 1. and Tynd. | Auth. King James’s or the Author- 
 
 2. agree. ised version, 1611. 
 
 Eng. denotes all the above-mentioned English versions. 
 
 The English rendering which immediately follows the Greek text of 
 each passage, is that proposed to be adopted: e. g. Matth. x, 29, 
 
 (III, c). ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὗ πεσεῖται “ 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. 
 
 Che Gospel according to St, ABattheww, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 =n LE margin of Auth. informs us that 
 
 Ἢ] “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 τὸν Ἰακείμ, 
 ᾿Ιακεὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησε 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 ιδ΄ of Stephens (Griesbach’s 120 of the Gospels), 
 and Colinei 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 Dotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 of ᾿Ιωακεὶμ for ᾿Ιακεὶμ), 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 
 Irenzeus, 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, ἐμοὶ 
 yap ἐνταῦθα δοκεῖ τὸν χρόνον τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐν τάξει 
 γενεᾶς τιϑέναι. 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. 11 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. Cov. Cran. here resemble the re- 
 ceived Greek text. 
 
 (III, ο). VerLG: μνηστευθείσης γὰρ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ 
 Μαρίας ““ When his mother Mary was betrothed’). 
 So Tynd. 2. Gen. Bish. “ married,” Tynd. 1. Cov. f 
 
 * “ Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, docet 
 falsa esse, que addita sunt,” is the well-known rule of Jerome on 
 this point. 
 
 + Coverdale’s margin here has ‘‘ Some read, before they sat at 
 home together,” (συνελθεῖν). 
 
St. Watthew. 133 
 
 Cran. and Matthew’s Bible, which conveys a totally 
 false idea. “ensured,” Cheke. “ espoused,” Wick- 
 liffe, Taverner, 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 yap satisfactorily in Eng- 
 lish (“ when as” Bish. Auth.); but its exact force is 
 excellently explained by Krebs, “ Observationes in 
 N. T. 6 Flavio Josepho.” 
 
 (II, b). v. 20. ἄγγελος Κυρίου “ an angel of the 
 Lord”’|. Thus all Eng. render the words in ch. 1], 
 19; although both Rave and in ch. 11, 13; xxviii, 2 
 they implicitly follow Tynd. in prefixing the definite 
 article, without the least shew of reason for doing 
 SO; ὁ ἄγγελος Κυρίου in v. 24 being evidently a case 
 of renewed mention. Doddridge in this place cor- 
 rects the common version, but is himself wrong inv 
 ch. ii, 13. Campbell translates “a messenger ” in 
 all the four verses. 
 
 ibid. γεννηθὲν 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 Parkhurst’s notion that γεννᾷν 
 when applied to women is always synonymous with 
 τίκτειν. 
 
 (II, b). v. 23. ἡ παρθένος “ΤῈ Virgin ”’]. So 
 Campbell and Bp. Middleton. ‘‘ La Vierge, ” 
 Martin’s French version. ‘‘ Virgo illa,” Beza. ‘ that 
 maid,” Gen. was an improvement on ‘a maid,” of 
 Tynd. Cov. 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 myn by 
 
134 JQotes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 Ἡ νεᾶνις, however perverse their interpretation may 
 ‘be in other respects. Dr. Lee (Hebrew Grammar 
 § 180, 14) says that 7 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.25. καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν “ and 
 called his name 6505}. This is the rendering of all 
 Eng. previous to Auth. of Cheke, and Syr. (Aso) 
 The Vulgate is ambiguous, although Wickliffe and 
 the Rhemish translation (as indeed we might expect) 
 make Mary the nominative to ἐκάλεσε. From an 
 opposite bias Castalio and Beza refer the verb to 
 Joseph, in which they are followed by Auth. and 
 most of the modern English versions. It will probably 
 be admitted that ἐκάλεσε ought to have the same no- 
 minative as érexe 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 
 
St. Matthew, 135 
 
 the Philovenian 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 
 Vad; τε yap Kal εἰς τὴν γέννησιν οὐδὲν συντελεῖς .. . ὅμως 
 ὕπερ ἐστὶ πατρὸς ἴδιον eee τοῦτό σοι δίδωμι, τὸ ὄνομα ἐπι- 
 θεῖναι τῷ τικτομένῳ" σὺ γὰρ αὐτὸν καλέσεις. Ex γὰρ καὶ 
 μὴ σὸς ὃ γόνος, ἀλλὰ τὰ πατρὸς ἐπιδείξῃ περὶ αὐτόν (Hom. 
 in Matth. iv, p. 49, ed. Field). Theophylact also 
 on v. 25 bids us remark τὴν εὐπείθειαν τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, ὅτι 
 ὅσα εἶπεν αὐτῷ 0 ἄγγελος, ἐποίησε. 1 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. 
 
 (III, c). v. 4. ἐπυνθάνετο ““ asked”]. So Tynd. 2. 
 Cov. Cheke, Gen. “ inquired,” Wickliffe, Rhemish 
 version, Doddridge. LEjither of these is preferable to 
 “‘ demanded,” the rendering of Tynd. 1. Cran. Bish. 
 Auth. 
 
 (III, c). v. 6. ποιμανεῖ “ shall feed”). So Syr. 
 Beza, Cheke, the Geneva Bible of 1560, and the 
 
136 οι on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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. Cov. 
 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 ν, 2, should 
 refer to Bp. Jebb’s Sacred Literature, pp. 98—100. 
 
 (III, b). v. 8. κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν “1 also may 90]. 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. Symonds (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, 18; Acts 
 ΧΙ, 18; xii, 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 indeed 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 παιδίον 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. Cov. Cran.; and by 
 Cheke in all places except v. 8, where he has “ this 
 young child.” From Beza’s “ puerulus” came “babe” 
 in Gen. vy. 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- 
 
St. Watrhew. 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)e v. 11. εἶδον “ they saw’’]. So Syr. Cheke, 
 Bish. Auth. and all the critical editors. Evpov, 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 (Codex 2 of Wetstein), it was 
 adopted by him, and after his example by Tynd. 
 Cov. Cran. Castalio: being no doubt favored by 
 those who wished to avoid what appeared to them 
 an inelegant repetition of εἶδον 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 Compluten- 
 sian Polyglott. Compare Introduction, p. 8. 
 
 (III, ὍΝ ibid. προσήνεγκαν “" they offered”’]. So 
 Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke, Gen. and the margin of 
 Auth. after Syr. Vulg. This is much better than 
 “they presented,” of Bish. Auth. since it more fully 
 implies a religious service or oblation. 
 
 (II, b). zbzd. δῶρα ““ as presents’]. In apposition 
 with χρυσόν, &c. So Campbell, Middleton. 
 
 (II, a). v. 16. rode παῖδας “ the male children’’] 
 
 only. So Gen. Doddridge, Campbell. 
 
 * In Matth. xxv, 33 ἐρίφια are unquestionably identical with 
 ἔριφοι in the preceding verse. 
 
 +t Yet Beza admits that ‘‘ in omnibus vetustis exemplaribus 
 legimus venerunt.” 
 
138 Dotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 (III, y).° v. 18. ὅτι οὐκ εἰσί “ because they are 
 not’]. So Auth. Vulg. Beza and Bp. Jebb. “ were 
 not,’ Tynd. Cov. 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 Ἴ32 2 Jeremiah 
 xxxl, 15. Instances of this Hellenistic euphemism 
 are produced by Krebs from Josephus, and by his 
 imitator Loésner from Philo. ‘So also Herod. vii, 
 205. 
 
 (II, a). v. 21. ἦλθεν εἰς γῆν ᾿Ισραὴλ (ς went to the 
 land of Israel’’]. On ““ went” see note on v. 8. All 
 Eng. interpret εἰς by “ into:” but since it appears 
 from yv. 22 that Joseph did not enter Judea, 
 which is the part of the land of Israel nearest to 
 Egypt, it seems best to translate εἰς “ to,” which is 
 safer than Wakefield’s rendering ‘‘ towards.” Joseph 
 had intended to go to Judea, 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 εἰς pre- 
 cisely similar occurs in John iv, 5 (compare v. 8), 
 where even Auth. has “ to.” 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 (1) v. 8. καρπὸν ἄξιον]. 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 ui, 8. Origen 
 goes so far as to assign a reason, though of course 
 
St. Watthew. 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 Cov. closely follows 
 Vulg. “due fruits of penance.” The general meaning 
 of the words is plain enough: οὐ μόνον δεῖ φεύγειν τὸ 
 κακόν, says Theophylact, ἀλλὰ καὶ καρποὺς ἀρετῆς 
 ποιεῖν. 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., 
 
 CIT, c)°. v. 9. μὴ δόξητε λέγειν “ 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 
 δόξητε is pleonastic here. Indeed it would not be 
 easy to point out passages in which that verb is 
 really 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 κωλύων αὐτοὺς λέγειν ἐξ ἐκείνων εἶναι τῶν 
 ἁγίων, ἀλλὰ κωλύων μὴ τούτῳ θαῤρεῖν, is Chrysostom’s 
 simple comment. In truth δοκεῖν, as is often the 
 case, is here the most emphatic word in the clause. 
 Thus ZEschyl. Agam. 814. εἴδωλον σκιᾶς, δοκοῦντας 
 εἶναι κάρτα πρευμενεῖς ἐμοί. Plato, Euthyphro (I, i. 
 Ρ. 358 ed. Bekker), ὁ Μέλιτος οὗτος σὲ μὲν οὐδὲ δοκεῖ 
 ὁρᾷν, ἐμὲ δὲ οὕτως ὀξέως ἀτεχνῶς καὶ ῥᾳδίως κατεῖδεν, 
 ὥστε ἀσεβείας ἐγράψατο. 
 
 (il, a).° v. 12. τὴν ἅλωνα αὑτοῦ “ his floor’’]. So 
 
140 Motes on the Pew Cestament. 
 Syr. Vulg. Eng. Campbell, however, adopts the 
 
 opinion of Fischer, Schleusner &c. that ἅλων here 
 signifies “ grain ;” ‘corn after threshing mixed with 
 chaff.” This metonymy seems to take place in 
 Job xxxix, 12, where 12 is rendered ἅλων 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, Ὁ. see Introd. p. 45). v. 14. διεκώλυεν “ 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. 
 
 CII, c). v.15. πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην “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 δικαιοσύνη in 
 this context, all interpreters are agreed. Δικαιοσύνη 
 yap ἐστιν n τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐκπλήρωσις. . . πρέπον ἐστιν 
 ἐμοὶ πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἅπαντα, 1S Chrysostom’s para- 
 phrase. Consult Suicer’s Thesaur. Ecclesiast. δικαι- 
 οσύνη L§ 6: and Wolf's Cure Philolog. ad loc. 
 
 (II, a). v. 16. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος ‘“ from the water’’]. 
 “de,” Vulg. “ab,” Castalio. But “ex,” Beza; “out 
 of,” Eng. Syr. (©) will admit of either sense, 
 «ς 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 noteon Acts vill, 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 
 
St. Matthew, 141 
 
 be not pressed into the service of those who con- 
 sider that form essential to the validity of the rite. 
 
 ibid. Before cide Castalio, Tynd. 2. Cov. 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 αὐτῷ. Tam 
 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. 
 
 (II, a). v. 1. ἀνήχθη “* was led away}. So Tynd. 
 Cov. 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 ἤγετο (ch. iv, 1), and Syr. (which has no 
 compound verbs) employs the same word (,5,) in 
 both places, he concludes that ἀνὰ 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. τὸ πτερύγιον “ the pinnacle’’]. So 
 Cheke. ‘les creneaux,” Martin. It is useless to 
 re-open the discussion respecting the precise meaning 
 of πτερύγιον here and in Luke iv, 9. All Eng. have 
 “a pinnacle.” Yet the very obscurity of the passage 
 
142 otes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 τὸ πτερύγιον 
 to be the ridge of the high roof of the great Eastern 
 Porch. See Middleton. 
 
 (III, c). v. 6. ἐπὶ χειρῶν “on their hands”). I 
 presume that both here and elsewhere “ in” is used 
 by our version for ‘‘ on” (See ch. vi, 10; xxviti, 18). 
 ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is rendered “ on earth” in Auth. ch. xviii, 
 18, 19. In this place Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish. 
 have ““ with.” “ in their arms,’ Cheke. 
 
 (1)° v.10. After ὕπαγε the words ὀπίσω pov 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. ᾿Οπίσω 
 μου 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 vy. 19, as 
 from the parallel texts Matth. xvi, 23; Mark viii, 
 33; Luke iv, 8. 
 
 (III, c). v. 12. παρεδόθη “* 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. 
 Cov. Cran. Gen. “ was put in prison, ” Cheke. 
 
 (1) v. 18. ὁ Insove 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 
 
St, Watthew. 149 
 
 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 περικοπαὶ or lessons, 
 used in the public services of the Greek Church. 
 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, 5. 
 
 (II, b). v. 21. ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ “in the ship”]. So 
 Tynd. Cov. Cran. Bish. “a boat,” Cheke. “a ship,” 
 Gen. Auth. for what possible reason it is hard to 
 imagine. They might have translated “in their 
 ship,” as ra δίκτυα “‘ their nets” in v. 20. In ch. iii, 
 12 Cheke rightly renders τὴν ἀποθήκην “ his garner,” 
 as indeed do Tynd. Cov. 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. 
 
 (III, c). ὙΦ ΟΝ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας 
 “ proclaiming the glad tidings of the kingdom,” or 
 “reign ᾽᾽] viz. of God, Mark i, 14. Campbell 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 JQotes on the Pew Cestanrent. 
 
 Diss. V, ii, 1 1—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, 35; and Tynd. 2. 
 Gen. in ch. xxiv, 14. 
 
 (II, a). zed. μαλακία “ 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 μαλακία with νόσος. 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. 
 
 Wil 24; δαιμονιζομένους. In rendering δαίμων, δαι- 
 μόνιον Χο. it 15. now customary to speak of “Ἅἀε- 
 mons,” not ‘ devils.” The subject is discussed by 
 Campbell (Prel. Diss. VI, Pt. 1), 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, 1 do not see that much will be gained by the 
 change. That these δαιμόνια were instruments in 
 Satan’s hands (Matth. xii, 26,27 ; Mark iii, 22—26) 
 for the torment and ruin of mankind (Matth. xii, 483— 
 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 δαίμονες of Classical Antiquity. 
 
 ” 
 
St. Matthew, 145 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 (II, b). v. 1. εἰς ro ὄρος “* into the mountain 
 country]. i.e. “the mountains embosoming the 
 lake of Galilee; a form of expression most natural 
 to persons familiar with the country, but. strictly 
 correct on their part only in addressing others who 
 were so too. Compare ch. iv, 18—v, 1; with Mark 
 ili, 7—13.” Green, Grammar of N.T.Dialect, p. 158. 
 This explanation of the force of the article is rather 
 more simple than that of Bp. Middleton, with which 
 Pr. Scholefield was not entirely satisfied. All Eng. 
 read “a mountain,” but Cheke, somewhat more accu- 
 rately, “the hill.” 
 
 (III, b). ibid. καθίσαντος αὐτοῦ “ when he had sat’’]. 
 All Eng. and even Cheke (so closely did he copy 
 Tynd. &c.) have ‘ was set.” I notice this slight 
 inaccuracy in deference to Bp. Lowth (English 
 Gram. p. 97), who cites similar errors from Auth. 
 in ch. xxvii, 19; Luke xxii, 55; John xiii, 12; 
 Hebr. viii, 1; xii, 2; Rev. iii, 21, and adds “ set can 
 be no part of the verb ἕο sit. Ifit belong to the verb 
 to set, the translation in these passages is wrong: for 
 to set, signifies to place, but without any designation 
 of the posture of the person placed ; which is a cir- 
 cumstance of importance expressed in the original.” 
 
 v. 11. ψευδόμενοι. The trifling variation of “ lying” 
 for “ falsely” in the margin of Auth. is from the text 
 of Bish. 
 
 CHI, b). v. 13. μωρανθῇ .““ become unsavory”’]. 
 So Bish. “ be once unsavory,” Tynd. 1. “ be un- 
 savory,” Cheke. ‘ have lost her saltness,” Tynd. 2. 
 
 13 
 
146 JPotes on the Pew Cestaimnent. 
 
 “his saltness,’’ Cov. ‘“ 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. 
 ΧΙ, 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 ἔν τινι 
 ἁλισθήσεται ; “ what can be salted therewith?” Tynd. 
 Cov. So Cran. Gen. nearly; and even Cheke 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. τὸν μόδιον, τὴν λυχνίαν “ the corn- 
 measure,” “ the candlestick,” or ‘‘lamp-stand”]. ΑἹ] 
 Eng., the French versions, and even Campbell (who 
 knew better) use the indefinite article in this place. 
 Yet these are 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. 
 
 (ΗΠ, 8). VV. 15, 16. καὶ λάμπει πᾶσι τοῖς κ. τ. λ. 
 “ 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. 51), but it is 
 plain how much the force of the present passage is 
 increased by translating λάμπει in the same manner 
 
St. Matthew. 147 
 
 in both verses. This course is recommended by 
 Archbp. Newcome (‘“ Historical View,” Rule viii), 
 and carried into effect by Syr. Vulg. All Eng. (even 
 Cheke) here resemble Auth. “ it giveth light unto 
 all... .So let your light shine’... 
 
 Gil. ἤν, 9 ἐῤῥέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις “it was said to 
 them of old time”]. So Syr. (\). Vulg. Castalio, 
 Wickliffe, Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke (‘unto old men”), 
 Gen. Bish. the Rhemish version, and the margin of 
 Auth. “ quwil a été dit aux anciens,’” Martin, and 
 Ostervald’s revised Geneva version. Thus also Dod- 
 dridge, Wynne, Campbell, Newcome, Boothroyd, 
 Jebb; and of the Commentators Grotius, Whitby, 
 and many others. To the same effect Chrysostom 
 observes, ὁ καὶ ἐκεῖνα [ῥήματα] δούς, αὐτός ἐστιν" and, 
 after Chrysostom, Theophylact accounts as follows 
 for the impersonal form of the clause: εἰ yap εἶπεν ὅτι, 
 ὁ μὲν πατήρ μου εἶπε τοῖς ἀρχαίοις; ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, 
 ἔδοξεν ἂν ἀντινομοθετεῖν τῷ πατρί" ἀοριστῶς οὖν λέγει, ὅτι 
 ....k.7. A, manifestly never dreaming of the possi- 
 bility of another mode of interpretation. This it was 
 reserved for the daring genius of Beza to devise, who 
 renders the words by ““ dictum fuisse a veteribus ;” 
 and has been followed by our Authorised version, 
 by Bois (see Introd. p. 73), Raphel, Kypke, Krebs, 
 and Kuinoel. The Geneva French also, previously 
 to Martin’s revision, had “ par les anciens.” Beza 
 honestly gives us his reasons for this violent change. 
 He does not think it likely that some of the injunc- 
 tions mentioned in this chapter were actually 
 delivered by God to the Jewish Church in the 
 wilderness ; but that they were rather the inventions 
 of later scribes and doctors of the synagogue, ““ qui 
 solebant patrum et majorum nomina suis falsis inter- 
 pretationibus pretexere.” But if there were any 
 
148 Notes on the Mew Cestament. 
 
 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, when we 
 observe the pointed antithesis between ἐῤῥέθη τοῖς 
 ἀρχαίοις in v. 21, and ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν in v. 22; and 
 when we find the same opposition subsisting 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 ἀρχαίοις 
 after ἐῤῥέθη is totally unlike that of ὑμῖν after λέγω. 
 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 τοῖς 
 ἀρχαίοις is equivalent to ὑπὸ τών ἀρχαίων. The utmost 
 we can fairly say is, that such a form of expres- 
 sion is not generally employed with ἐρέω in the New 
 Testament (see Rom. ix, 12; 26; Gal. ii, 16; Rev. 
 vi, 11; 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 ὑπὸ οὗ διά. 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 ἐρέω in the Gospel of St. Matthew 
 alone, it is vain to oppose the occasional practice of 
 profane authors (6. g. Herod. vii, 143, τῷ θεῷ εἰρῆσθαι 
 τὸ χρηστήριον), or a few passages scattered through- 
 out the Septuagint and the New Testament, in which 
 some other verb than ἐρέω may seem to be followed 
 by a dative of the instrument (Gen. xxxi, 15; Isai. 
 Ixv, 1; Matth. xxiii, 5; Acts ii, 3). 
 
St. Watthew. 149 
 
 In v. 22 Cheke retains the Greek word “ paya” 
 (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 fist edition of Auth. 
 
 (II, a). v. 24. διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ cov “ reconcile 
 thyself to thy brother]. So Tynd. 1. Cov. after 
 Syr. which employs the reciprocal conjugation 
 Ethpaal (S321). ‘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 Leclere and Hammond 
 that διαλλάττεσθαι 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 διαλλάσ- 
 σομαι: as also for καταλλάσσομαι Rom. V; 10; 1 Cor. 
 vii, 11; 2 Cor. v, 20. We may add Eurip. Helen. 
 1235 (ed. Matthie), σπονδὰς τέμωμεν καὶ διαλλάχθητί 
 μοι. Demosth. Ep. 3 (p. 1478 Reiske), μηδὲ πρὸς 
 τελευτήσαντας διαλλαγήσονται. Even Auth. translates 
 ταπεινώθητε ““ humble yourselves” in James iv, 10; 
 1 Pet. v, 6. I ought however to state that Tittmann 
 draws a distinction between the sense of διαλλάσσομαι 
 (which occurs no where else in the New Testament), 
 and that of καταλλάσσομαι : making the former to 
 denote the causing a mutual enmity to cease ; the 
 latter to have reference to one party only. But 
 
150 Motes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 
 διαλλάσσομαι he is supported by nothing but the 
 etymology of the word. 
 
 (1). v. 27. τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἢ 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 
 Ireneus and Vulg., they should probably be rejected, 
 as they are more likely to have been inserted from 
 vv. 21, 33, than overlooked by the negligence of 
 copyists. 
 
 (II, a. See Introd. p. 33). vv. 29, 30. σκανδαλίζει σε 
 *‘ cause thee to offend’’|. So Gen. Beza, the margin 
 of Auth. and Syr. which uses the causative conju- 
 gation Aphel (jieos). But Tynd. Cov. Bish. 
 Auth. have “ offend,’ Cran. Cheke ‘ hinder :” ‘‘ scan- 
 dalizat,” Vulg. ‘“ insnare,” Campbell. That the 
 margin of Auth. is here preferable to the text cannot 
 be doubted. Aquila and Symmachus employ ἐσκαν- 
 δαλίσατε for the Hiphil conjugation of 72 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 XVI, 0 8 τ. 
 
 (II, a)°. v. 32. παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας “ save for 
 the cause of fornication’”]. So Auth. correctly, after 
 Syr. Vulg. Beza and Castalio. Thus also Cheke, 
 though with his usual quaint idiom “ for fornication’s 
 
Str. Matthew. 151 
 
 cause” (see Introd. p. 91). Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. 
 Bish. have “ except it be for fornication.”’ But there 
 is no reason to think λόγος pleonastic here, or indeed 
 in any other passage of the New Testament. The 
 Hebrew phrase WYN I27°"2¥ does not appear to 
 be imitated here, for it is rendered ἐπὶ λόγου ov by 
 the LXX in 2 Sam. xiii, 22. The expression εἰς 
 φέρνης λόγον in 2 Macc. 13 14 is good Greek. In 
 the present text we may, with Fritzsche, regard λόγος 
 as equivalent to ‘“ crimen,” 
 
 (1)°. v. 47. In the room of οἱ τελῶναι οὕτω “ the 
 publicans so,” Lachmann reads οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ 
 “the Gentiles the same.” This change is supported 
 by the uncial manuscripts B DZ, 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 οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτό, and of 
 the two, the variation τὸ αὐτὸ for οὕτω is better sus- 
 tained than ἐθνικοὶ for τελῶναι. Yet Griesbach, with 
 an inconsistency for which 1 cannot account, adopts 
 οἱ εθνικοί, and banishes τὸ αὐτὸ 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 οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ 
 
 2 
 αὐτο. 
 
152 otes on the Pew Testament, 
 
 lively progress to the argument. Degraded as pub- 
 hicans 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 οἱ ἐθνικοὲ 
 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 τελῶναι v. 
 46; as certain of his brethren had been with εἶδον in 
 ch. ii, 11 (see note ad loc). 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 (1) °. v. 1. The marginal note “ or righteousness ” 
 in the dater editions of Auth. (see Introd. p. 58) 
 directs our attention to the various reading δικαιοσύνην 
 instead of ἐλεημοσύνην “alms.” This change is sup- 
 ported by five Greek manuscripts (including B, D and 
 1, or Basil. y), and by a scholium annexed to two 
 other MSS. [{ is the reading of Vulg. and the Italic 
 
 * Still more subtle is Bp. Jebb’s defence of οὕτω in preference 
 to τὸ αὐτό, in this same verse. ‘‘ 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 thoughtful mind; yet it is hard to believe that such 
 metaphysical precision ought to be looked for in our Saviour’s 
 popular discourses. 
 
St, Watthew, 153 
 
 versions, and has been approved by Mill, Griesbach, 
 Vater and Lachmann. Syr. is of necessity neutral, 
 since [oy would very well answer to either Greek 
 word. Internal probabilities plead strongly in favour 
 of δικαιοσύνην, which is a familiar Hellenistic term, 
 nearly synonymous with ἐλεημοσύνην : 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 plausible 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. 13). 
 
 ibid. The margin of Auth. after Cran. has “‘ with” 
 (παρά). All other Eng. ‘‘of.” I do not wish to over- 
 look any marginal notes (see Introd. p. 59), but are 
 trifles like this worth our notice ? 
 
154 jQotes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 (II, a)°. v. 2. un σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν σου “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. Cov. Cran. Gen. the 
 margin of Auth. Beza, and his imitator Martin (‘ ne 
 fais point sonner”’); and approved by Schleusner and 
 Kuinoel. 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 σκανδαλίζω (ch. v, 29, 30) may have 
 had some weight. The example cited by Schleusner 
 from Isai. xliv, 23, in which the Hiphil form we i is 
 translated σαλπίσατε 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 ἔμπροσθέν σου too literally ; 
 it is enough if our Lord be understood to mean, that 
 the Pharisees distributed alms ostentatiously and in 
 public. Besides, the verb σαλπίζω 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 Elsner’s Observ. ad Joc. 
 
 (II, b). v. 13. ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ “΄ from the evil one Ὕ 
 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. vy, 
 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 
 
St, Watthew. 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. ΧΙ, 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 πονηρὸν 
 ἐνταῦθα τὸν διάβολον καλεῖ. Theophylact observes, 
 οὐκ εἶπεν ἀπὸ πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων, οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἀδικοῦσιν 
 ἡμᾶς, ἄλλ᾽ 0 πονηρός. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his e€x- 
 position of the Lord’s Prayer, calls πονηρός, ὁ ἀντικει- 
 μένος δαίμων, ap οὗ ῥυσθῆναι ευχόμεθα. 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; 1 Johnii, 13; 14; 
 iii, 12; v, 18; 19; he will find that in most of these 
 texts ὁ πονηρὸς 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 (ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασίλεια 
 k.t.A.... [aunv].) 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 Matthei, whose exclusive adherence to his 
 own Moscow manuscripts renders his judgment on 
 such a point of as little weight, as that of an acute 
 
156 JLotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 eight. 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 A: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 
 
St. Watrhew. 157 
 
 notice it in their expositions of the Lord’s Prayer, 
 may be accounted for by the supposition that they 
 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 ἢ 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 Bezz (D) I 
 must speak much less favorably. Its warmest 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 
 ΔΙ Π πα 95... xxi, 99 5 xxny 135 xxiv, 51}; 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 16th century), belong to the Alex- 
 
158 otes on the Mew Cestament. 
 
 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 
 
St. Wattheww. 159 
 of the submission of the Maronite Syrians to the 
 Church of Rome in the twelfth century (see Introd. 
 p- 68), or by the persons who superintended the 
 Vienna editio princeps in 1555. Even if this surmise 
 be well-grounded, it can have no place in an instance 
 like that now before us, where the Syriac reading 
 differs from that of the Latin versions. That these 
 ‘admitted interpolations ” were introduced from the 
 Philoxenian Syriac, never has been, and I believe 
 never will be proved. The existence of the doxology 
 in the early Persic translation affords us no slight 
 evidence that it was already contained in the Peshito, 
 when that secondary version was formed from it. 
 
 But it is on zvternal marks of its spuriousness that 
 the objectors to this clause chiefly insist. “It is 
 more likely,” 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 
 rejected it in St. Matthew, because it is wanting 
 in St. Luke (ch. xi, 4).” I have already protested 
 against the admission of arguments of this kind, 
 where the direct proofs are strong and cogent (see 
 note on v. 1); and I have little inclination to ad- 
 just the balance between the conflicting possibili- 
 ties mentioned above. Yet it were easy to reply, 
 that a passage which has been received as genuine 
 by the translators of the Peshito and the Sahidic in 
 the second and third centuries, and by Chrysostom in 
 the fourth, must have become a part of the text at 
 avery early period. With all our veneration for the 
 Primitive Liturgies, what right have we to assume, 
 that they have continued unaltered, in their actual 
 state, ever since the Apostolic age? Still more 
 readily may we dispose of Scholz’s remark, that the 
 doxology interrupts the logical connection between 
 
160 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 the 12th and 14th verses.* Ifthis 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. 
 
 (1). v. 18. ἐν τῷ φανερῷ “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 ἐν τῷ φανερῷ 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 (ὅπως μὴ 
 φανῇς). 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 positively, 
 by Wetstein. But that eminent critic was necessarily ignorant of 
 a large proportion of the evidence in favor of the doxology. 
 
St. Watthew: 161 
 
 all Matthei’s MSS omit them, and Griesbach, Vater, 
 Scholz and Lachmann remove them from the text. 
 In fact they are found only in the Italic, Aithiopic, 
 and Arabic versions, and in some late Byzantine 
 manuscripts. They seem to be so much needed by 
 the context, that there is more cause for surprise that 
 they have been inserted in so few copies, than that 
 they are found in those which actually contain 
 them. 
 
 (III, c). v. 22. ἁπλοῦς “clear”]. So Gen. Dod- 
 dridge. ““ clean,’’ Cheke. ‘ sound,” Campbell. 
 “single,” Auth. (and in Luke xi, 34) after Tynd. 
 Coy. Cran. Bish., a rendering which is not very 
 perspicuous, even if it be taken in a moral rather 
 than a physical sense. Syr. ly. ao, as Vulg. 
 “ simplex.” “sain,” Ostervald. Chrysostom thus 
 paraphrases the passage: τὴν ὑγίειαν τὴν τούτων [τών 
 ὀφθαλμῶν] ἁπάσης τῆς τοιαύτης περιουσίας ποθεινοτέραν 
 εἶναι νομίζεις. It would not be easy to cite apposite 
 examples of this use of ἁπλοῦς from other writers ; 
 but it is too slight a deviation from the ordinary 
 signification of the word to be attended with any 
 difficulty. Iovnpoc in v. 23 should be rendered ‘ dis- 
 tempered,” with Doddridge and Dr. Symonds. 
 “ wicked,’ Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish. “ not well,” 
 Cheke.* “ evil,” Auth. 
 
 (III, c). v. 25. πλεῖον “ of more worth’’]. “ more 
 worth,” or “ of more value,” Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke, 
 Gen. Bish. “ pluris,” Castalio, correctly. But “plus,” 
 
 * In the margin Cheke explains ἁπλοῦς by ‘clean, unmixt, as 
 clean wheat, clean barley that hath no other thing mixed withal ;” 
 and says that ““ πονηρὸν here is that hath some foul disease or im- 
 pediment in it.” 
 
 M 
 
162 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 Vule. Beza, whence “ more,” Auth. See ch. xii, 41 ; 
 42. 
 
 (II, a). vv. 25, 27, 28, 31, 34. μεριμνᾷν “ to be 
 anxious’ |. So Boothroyd after Doddridge, Camp- 
 bell, &c. “to take anxious thought,’ Newcome, and 
 the ‘“‘ Holy Bible” of 1841. In v. 27 we have “ by 
 taking careful thought” in Cran. Gen. Bish. In 
 vv. 25, 28, 34 we find “ care not” in Tynd. Cov. 
 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 a 3-2, the Latin versions by “ solliciti,” 
 
 except that Vulg. uses “cogitans” inv. 27. In fact, 
 there can be no doubt of the inaccuracy of Auth. in 
 this particular. 
 
 (1, a). v. 27. προσθεῖναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὑτοῦ πῆχυν 
 ἕνα ““ 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 worldliness of mind. He even ex- 
 
St. Matthew. 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 ἡλικία 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 vy. 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 an inch, by 
 an hair’s-breadth. 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” (ἐλάχιστον Luke 
 xii, 26). Now a cubit is not less than one foot and 
 a half (“ an half yard mete,” Cheke; but Suidas 
 tells us ὁ πῆχυς ἔχει πόδας δύο") : with what pro- 
 
164 Lotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 priety then can it be called ἐλάχιστον 1 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 ὥσπερ yap 
 τῷ σώματι οὐδὲ μικρὸν προσθεῖναι δυνήσῃ μεριμνῶν, οὕτως 
 Beans We Ale 
 
 But how will ἡλικία and πῆχυς bear the senses | 
 have ventured to assign to them? With the former, 
 I conceive, our course is clear. ‘HAuia 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 6, τι καθ᾽ ἡλικίαν 
 ἕκαστος ἔχοι; every possible service ;that citizens of 
 whatever age can render the state; and A‘schines c. 
 Timarch. (p. 19 Stephan.) speaks of τὴν φρονοῦσαν καὶ 
 πρεσβυτέραν ἡλικίαν. 1 cannot agree with Rose (Park- 
 hurst’s Lexicon, voc. ἡλικία) in adding Ezek. xiii, 18 ; 
 for the Hebrew word (D'P) there rendered ἡλικία 
 by the LXX, is the very same that is employed by 
 the translator of the Peshito in the New Testament 
 to signify “ stature.” 
 
 Πῆχυς, 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 (‘* commodé’’) 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 πῆχυς, though 
 there can be little objection to a more literal trans- 
 lation. Campbell has “ prolong his life one hour ;” 
 
St. Matthew. 165 
 
 a version which entirely conceals the tropical form 
 of the passage. Hammond has illustrated the sense 
 of πῆχυς here contended for, by a happy quotation 
 from a fragment of Mimnermus: τοῖς ἴκελοι πήχυιον 
 ἐπὶ χρόνον ἄνθεσιν ἥβης τερπόμεθα. 1 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 ΧΙ, 25; 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 πῆχυς 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, ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς. 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. 
 
 (1). v. 2. Read with Griesbach, Scholz, Lach- 
 mann, and all recent editors μετρηθήσεται instead of 
 ἀντιμετρηθήσεται, omitting “ again,” which is found in 
 all Eng. except Cran. Even Bp. Jebb rejects the 
 
166 Motes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 
 ἀντὶ destroys the balance of the couplet. Μετρηθήσε- 
 ται 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. ἡ δοκὸς “ the beam”). So Bish. but 
 manifestly by accident. The promiscuous manner 
 in which all the English versions use the definite and 
 indefinite articles in vv. 3, 4, affords one instance 
 out of a thousand how utterly regardless they were 
 of this little part of speech. In expressing or 
 neglecting the Greek article, they seem to have 
 been guided by no other principle than the caprice 
 or convenience of the moment. Ἢ δοκὸς stands in the 
 same position as τὸ κάρφος 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.) 
 
 Some of my readers will remember that Campbell, 
 in this place, renders τὴν δοκὸν “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. Σκόλοψ, in classical authors, means 
 “a stake.” In the LXX, however (Numbers xxxiii, 
 55), it answers to the Hebrew 5jy, “a thorn :” it is 
 found in this sense in 2 Cor. xii, 7, and (he might 
 
St, Watthew. 167 
 
 have added) in profane authors also. (See Wetstein 
 ad loc). In like manner βολὶς properly is “a dart” 
 or “javelin ;” but in Numb. xxxiii, 55; Josh. xxiu, 
 13 it corresponds with 0°3°3¥ “ prickles ” or ‘‘ thorns.” 
 “« Now it is not more remote from our idiom,” he ob- 
 serves, “‘ to speak of 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 
 δοκός, and of the words which he cites to vindicate his 
 interpretation of it. For the metaphorical sense, both 
 of σκόλοψ and βολίς, he has produced sufficient justifi- 
 cation; that δοκὸς 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 δοκὸς 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 [ΠῚ Ρ, which is found 
 in 2 Kings vi, 2 (δοκὸς LXX); 5; 2 Chron. iii, 7, 
 and is identical with the Syriac ἔδυ employed by 
 the Peshito in these verses. 
 
 (II, Cc). v. 6. καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμας ‘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 JPotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 effect. 
 
 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 1 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 you: 
 Neither cast your pearls before the swine ; 
 Lest they trample them under their feet. 
 
St. Watthew. 169 
 
 the pronoun “they” before ‘‘ turn,” although it is not 
 in Auth., in order so far to disjoin καὶ στραφέντες 
 ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς 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, 
 
 (1). v. 14. τί στενὴ “ how strait]. So the margin of 
 Auth. after Syr. Vulg. The received reading ὅτι στενὴ 
 “for strait,” is adopted by Tynd. 1. Cran. “ but strait,” 
 Tynd. 2. Cov. Matthew’s Bible, Castalio. “ because 
 strait,” Gen. Bish. Auth. after Beza’s “‘ quia.” The 
 variation ri for ὅτι 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 τί, which is adopted by Gries- 
 bach, 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 Matthzi’s 
 manuscripts, so that it cannot be considered ex- 
 clusively Alexandrine. It is the reading not only of 
 Syr. Vulg. but of the Ethiopic and several other 
 versions. Although Chrysostom has καὶ in his ex- 
 position of the passage (‘‘and the gate is narrow,”’ 
 Cheke), he elsewhere prefers τί. Οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἶπεν, he 
 remarks, ὅτι στενή ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ θαυμασμοῦ, τί στενὴ ἡ 
 ὁδός, τούτεστιν σφόδρα στενή (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 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 later ones of the Byzantine family. Among the 
 versions ὅτι is supported by the Coptic (¢este 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 ὅτι, 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. τὴν πέτραν “the rocky ground ᾽]. 
 See Bp. Middleton. ‘The article is here used with 
 propriety, because the attention is directed to the 
 substance, in respect of its quality, in contradistinc- 
 tion to another (ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον, 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. Cov. Cran. 
 have “the rock.” Yet this may possibly be designed 
 to indicate renewed mention. “La roche,” Martin, 
 in both verses. 
 
 (II, a). v. 25. προσέπεσον “ fell upon.” v. 27. προσέ- 
 κοψαν “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 Campbell. 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 προσπίπτω,᾽᾽ ob- 
 serves this great scholar and good man, “is more 
 
St. Watthem. 171 
 forcible than προσκόπτω. The rain, the floods, the 
 winds, fell 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.” 
 
 (III, c). v. 28. διδαχὴ “teaching ”]. So Cheke. 
 “‘manner of teaching,” Campbell. All Eng. have 
 *‘ doctrine,” which to a modern ear conveys ἃ dif- 
 ferent meaning. The verse immediately following 
 renders it clear, that the mode of teaching, and not 
 the doctrine taught, is whatis here intended. Διδαχή, 
 ἀντὶ τοῦ διδασκαλία, Suidas. Schleusner approves of my 
 interpretation, but adds that some refer διδαχὴ to the 
 doctrine of a future life and judgment, as taught by 
 our Lord. See ch. xxii, 33. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 (1). v. 5. Instead of Ἰησοῦ in this verse, Vulg. and 
 all the critical editors read αὐτῷ, except indeed that 
 Lachmann prefers the Alexandrine correction εἰσελ- 
 θόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ. Ἰησοῦ 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 
 the same remarks will apply to ch. xiv, 22; Mark 
 vill, 1; John i, 29; 44; iii, 2: and perhaps to 
 Mark vi, 34; Luke xxiv, 36. 
 
 (III, a). vv. 6, 8. Κύριε “ Sir”]. So Tynd. Cov. 
 
172 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 Κύριος “ Sir,” as is actually done by Auth. 
 in John iv,.11; 15; 19;49;v; 7. In 20 ΕΣ 
 any other rendering would have been absurd. 
 
 (III, ὁ) 175,414, βεβλημένην καὶ πυρέσσουσαν “ lying 
 sick of a fever”]. So Tynd. Cov. “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 2 ᾧ; is con- 
 stantly used in this sense. The full expression 
 βάλλειν εἰς κλίνην occurs in Mark vii, 30; Rev. ii, 22. 
 
 (1). v. 15. διηκόνει αὐτῷ ““ ministered unto him”). 
 So we ought no doubt to read, instead of αὐτοῖς * 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 except five have αὐτῷ, and these (L. 1. 
 
 
 
 “In the Introduction p. 76, 1 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. 
 
St, Watthew. 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 αὐτῷ, 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 
 ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς for ἐπίτρεψον ἡμῖν ἀπελθεῖν, 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. λόγῳ “ 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 I understand the Sahidic, Coptic and 
 fEthiopic versions. 
 
174 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 Auth., our common version requires τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ, 
 or τῷ λόγῳ at the least. 
 
 (II, b). v. 23. τὸ πλοῖον “the ship”]. So Gen. 
 ‘a ship,” Tynd. Cov. Cran. Bish. Auth. “a boat,” 
 Cheke. The vessel in question was that implied in 
 v. 18. See note on ch. 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. καλύπτεσθαι ‘* was 
 being covered”]. ΑἹ] Eng. wrongly translate “ was 
 covered.” 
 
 (III, c). v. 26. ἐγένετο “ ensued”’]. So the Rhemish 
 version. “ followed,” of Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish. 
 is much better than “ was” of Cheke, Auth., who 
 seem to agree very often against the rest. 
 
 (T°. v. 28. τῶν Γεργεσηνῶν “ of the Gergesenes’’]. 
 There are three different readings of this passage. 
 Γεργεσηνῶν, which is given in the textus receptus, 
 and Eng., is retained by Griesbach, though he almost 
 prefers Γερασηνῶν, the word adopted by Vater and 
 Lachmann from the Italic and Vulg. Scholz how- 
 ever edits Γαδαρηνῶν, which is found in Syr. and in 
 the parallel texts Mark v, 1; Luke viii, 26. Γερασηνῶν 
 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 Γερασηνῶν from our con- 
 sideration. The real difficulty consists in choosing 
 between Γεργεσηνῶν and Γαδαρηνῶν. And here again 
 we might readily decide the controversy, if manu- 
 script authority were principally to be regarded. 
 
St. Watthew. 175 
 
 Γαδαρηνῶν is sanctioned by only eleven MSS (although 
 B C M are among them), and five Evangelisteria, 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 ἐν ὀλίγοις εὕρομεν 
 εἰς THY χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν, 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. 
 
 Γεργεσηνῶν, on the contrary, is the reading of the 
 vast majority of manuscripts of both families; of 
 the Coptic, AZthiopic, 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 
 Γεργεσηνῶν 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 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 become the scenes. On this account he prefers the 
 various reading Βηθαβαρᾶ in John, i, 28 to BnOavia, 
 although the latter was found in nearly all his copies. 
 Ἔστι τε ἡ ἑρμήνεια τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀκόλουθος τῴ βαπτίσματι 
 τοῦ ἑτοιμάζοντος Κυρίῳ λαὸν κατεσκευασμένον * μεταλαμβάν- 
 εται γὰρ εἰς οἶκον κατασκευῆς" ἡ δὲ Βηθανία, εἰς οἶκον ὑπα- 
 κοῆς. 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 ove 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 Γερασηνῶν 
 as an established reading (ἀναγέγραπται γεγονέναι ἐν τῇ 
 χώρᾳ τῶν Γερασηνῶν), while he states that Γαδαρηνῶν 
 was found in but a few copies, and is entirely silent 
 respecting the evidence for Γεργεσηνῶν. But can it 
 be thought for a moment, that Origen, a scholar and 
 a man of genius, would have coolly znvented this word, 
 because forsooth ἑρμηνεύεται ἡ Γέργεσα παροικία ἐκβεβ- 
 ληκότων, ἐπώνυμος οὖσα TAXA προφητικῶς, οὗ περὶ τὸν 
 Σωτῆρα πεποιήκασι, παρακαλέσαντες αὐτὸν μεταθεῖναι ἐκ τῶν 
 ὁρίων αὑτῶν οἱ τῶν χοίρων πολῖται Moreover, is not his 
 employment of τάχα a sufficient proof that his choice 
 was not determined solely by the etymology of lépyeca? 
 It is a certain fact that Γεργεσηνῶν is the reading of 
 the great mass of documents at present. It was ap- 
 pealed to as such by several of the antients, who had 
 occasion to notice this passage (see Griesbach). Why 
 then may we not infer that Origen also found it in 
 
St. Watrhew. 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 Γεργεσηνῶν is the true reading 
 of St. Matthew. Nor is it hard to reconcile the 
 received text with Γαδαρηνῶν 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” 
 (Joseph. de vita sua, c. 65), or 64 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 ; 
 must 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 Perzea” 
 (Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv, 7), would very naturally be 
 called by its name. 
 
 (iI, b). ν. 32. κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ “ down the steep]. 
 viz. the bank of the Lake Gennesareth. Here is another 
 example of the peculiarity noticed on ch. v, 1, where 
 St. Matthew presupposes in his readers the same 
 intimate 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 
 
 N 
 
178 Motes on the Pew Testament, 
 
 observance of the force of the article. ‘“‘ Per praeceps, ” 
 Vulg. whence “ headlong,” Wickliffe, Tynd. Coy. 
 Cran. Bish. “ by an headlong place,” Cheke: ‘‘ from 
 a steep down place,” Gen. “down a steep place,” 
 
 Auth. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 (III, a and c). vv. 2, 5. ἀφέωνται “ are forgiven’). 
 So Tynd. 1. and Cov. Cheke 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 the 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, 5; 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 ἀφέωνται in a mere optative sense. The 
 Doric form ἀφέωνται for ἀφεῖνται is illustrated by Butt- 
 mann in his Greek Grammar, Catalogue of Irregular 
 Verbs, pp. 6 and 115, notes, Fishlake’s Translation. 
 
 (II, a). v. 7. εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὑτοῦ ** to his own house’’]. 
 So Tynd. 2. Gen. rather more accurately than “ to 
 his house,” of Tynd. 1. Cran. Cheke, Bish. Auth. 
 The force of αὑτοῦ is not always capable of being 
 preserved in a version, and editions of the Greek 
 Testament perpetually vary between αὑτοῦ and αὐτοῦ. 
 I am ignorant of the grounds of Mr. Field’s opinion 
 (Annot. ad Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. ID, “ pro- 
 nomen αὑτοῦ reciprocum e Sacro Novi Feederis 
 codice penitus extirpandum esse.” 
 
 (III, ὁ). v. 10. ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ “in his house”. viz. 
 
St, Matthew. 179 
 Matthew’s: compare Luke v, 29. So Tynd. 1. Cran. 
 Gen. Bish. Scholefield : “in the house,” of Tynd. 2. 
 Cov. Cheke, Auth. is indistinct. See note on ch. 
 iv, 21. But this use of the article in the sense of the 
 personal pronoun prevails in every page of Greek. 
 Εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν in ν. 28 may be translated in the same 
 manner. It refers, as Rosenmiuller has remarked, 
 to our Lord’s ordinary residence at Capernaum (see 
 above v. 7, and ch. iv, 13). The transposition of 
 Ἰησοῦ from the last clause to the beginning of v. 10 
 in Auth. must not be supposed to arise from a various 
 reading of the Greek, as it is done merely for the 
 sake of convenience. Tynd. 1. Cran. Gen. Bish. re- 
 peat the word in both places. 
 
 (II, b). v. 18. δικαίους “ just men’]. So Cheke. 
 All Eng. “ the righteous.” Thus alter Mark 11, 17; 
 Luke v, 32. 
 
 (1)°. ibid. εἰς μετάνοιαν ““ἴο repentance”]. These 
 words are wanting in Syr. Vulg. both here and in 
 Mark ii, 17 ; so that it might be suspected that they 
 are interpolated from the parallel passage, Luke 
 v, 32. They are rejected both in Matthew and 
 Mark by Griesbach and Lachmann; and in Mark 
 alone by Vater and Scholz. Of the text in St. Mark 
 I will speak hereafter: in the present case I am 
 compelled to consider the evidence for the omission 
 of εἰς μετάνοιαν insufficient. Scholz cites only twelve 
 manuscripts which reject the clause (the great 
 Vatican MS B being one of them), four of which 
 contain it in the margin. They are nearly all of the 
 Alexandrine class, and several of them too closely 
 allied to be regarded with much confidence as sepa- 
 rate witnesses (D. 1. 33. 118). The accordance of 
 the Peshito with the Vulgate and earlier Latin ver- 
 sions I have before noticed as a little suspicious (see 
 
180 Potes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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. All 
 Eng. have “ to repentance,” though Cran.’s attach- 
 ment to Vulg. led him in v. 15 to render οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ 
 νυμφῶνος “ 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 ¢his interpolation (see Introd. 
 Ρ- 88) to Latin influence.t 
 
 (II, a). v. 16. ἀγνάφου “ 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. 
 
 CII, a). zbid. ἐπὶ “ upon”). So Auth. in Luke v, 
 36, but “on” in Mark ii, 21, and “ unto” here: ‘‘ in,” 
 Cran. Bish. Respecting πλήρωμα in this verse see 
 Storr de voce vi. It manifestly denotes “ the sup- 
 plement,” ‘“ the new part added,” that which fills 
 up, or makes perfect, the whole garment. It is 
 called by St. Luke τὸ καινόν, while St. Mark unites 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * Griesbach cites Clement of Rome as an evidence against 
 the clause. He alludes to a passage in c. 2. of the second or 
 spurious Epistle, which is of very little value. 
 
 + Mill is mistaken when he says that the words are found in 
 the Vulg. Yet I suppose they may be discovered in some Italic 
 manuscript. 
 
St. Matthew, 18] 
 both modes of expression, τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ τὸ καινόν. 
 It would be well if the signification of the word 
 were equally plain in some other passages of the New 
 Testament (e. ¢. Rom. xi, 12; Eph. i, 23). The con- 
 struction of the next clause was entirely mistaken by 
 Tynd. Coy. Cran. (‘ for then, taketh he away the 
 piece again from the garment’’) who were probably 
 misled by Vulg. “tollit enim plenitudinem &c.” And 
 to the same effect Cheke says “ for it taketh away 
 the wholeness of the garment.” But Syr. Beza and 
 Castalio rightly make πλήρωμα the nominative to 
 αἴρει. Gen. Bish. are mere translations from Beza 
 (“ for then the piece taketh away something from 
 the garment,” Bish.). Auth. “ that which is put in 
 to fill it up taketh from the garment,” is as exact and 
 clear as any. 
 
 (III, c). v. 17. ἀσκοὺς ““ Jeathern bottles’ ]. So 
 Campbell, Scholefield, but only on the first mention 
 of them; correctly judging ‘ bottles” to be sufficient 
 in all subsequent places : “vessels,” Tynd. Cov. Gen. 
 «ς bottles,” Cran. Cheke. Bish. Auth.; and “ utres” 
 of Vulg. is thus rendered by Wickliffe and the 
 Rhemish version. So “ His cold thin drink out of 
 his leather bottle.” Shakespeare, Henry VI, Pt. iii, 
 Act ii, Scene 5. ‘ Bottle’ in this sense is now 
 obsolete. 
 
 (III, 6). wid. ἀπολοῦνται, ““ are destroyed’’]. So 
 Doddridge, much better than ‘“ perish” of Eng. 
 “be marred,” Cheke. All the English translations 
 except Cheke and Auth. render the preposition in 
 συντηροῦνται; ““ preserved together.” It is not neces- 
 sary to the sense, but there can be no good reason 
 for suppressing it. See Introd. p. 35. 
 
 (III, θὰ ν. 24. ἀναχωρεῖτε ““ withdraw’ }. So Camp- 
 bell: ‘go forth,” Cheke : “ retire,’ Doddridge. All 
 
182 srotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 are preferable to ““ get you hence” of Tynd. Cov. 
 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 
 κατεγέλων (“ laughed at” simply, Cheke). I do not 
 think that “ deride,’ which he substitutes in its 
 place, so well expresses the intensive kara. 
 
 (II, c). v. 26. ἡ φήμη αὕτη “ this report”]. But 
 ἐς 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. ἐνεβριμήσατο “ enjoined with a 
 threat”. ‘‘ charged,” Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke, Gen. 
 ** straitly charged,” Bish. Auth. But ““ comminatus 
 est,” Vulg. Castalio; ‘* graviter interminatus est,” 
 Beza, whence ‘“ défendit avec minaces,” Martin; 
 “‘ défendit fortement d’en parler,” Osterwald. Syr. 
 ie which usually implies “‘ to forbid with autho- 
 rity” (κωλύειν, Acts xxvii, 43; 1 Tim. iv, 3). Agree- 
 ably to Vulg., Hesychius explains the word by προσ- 
 τάξαι pet ἐξουσίας-- μετὰ ἀπειλῆς ἐντέλλεσθαι" and Suidas, 
 μετ᾽ ὀργῆς λαλῆσαι--- μετ᾽ αὐστηρότητος ἐπιτιμῆσαι. Aéschyl. 
 Theb. 448, ἵππους ἐπ᾽ ἀμπυκτῆρσιν ἐμβριμωμένας. Rose 
 compares Psalm cvi,9; Nahum i, 4. ᾿Εμβριμώμενος 
 is the rendering of OYt “ angry” given by one of 
 the Greek translators (Bahrdt thinks by Symmachus) 
 in Ps. vii, 11; where Aquila has ἀπειλούμενος, and 
 the LXX ὀργὴν ἐπάγων. Symmachus also represents 
 Wal “rebuke” by ἐμβριμήσεται in Isai. xvii, 13; 
 where Aguila translates ἐπιτιμήσει, and the LXX 
 ἀποσκορακιεῖ. So correct Mark i, 43. 
 
 (III, a). vv. 31, 32. οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες... αὐτῶν δὲ 
 ἐξερχομένων “ when they were gone out... but as 
 
St. Matthew. 183 
 
 they were going out”’]. It is easy to perceive the 
 advantage of rendering ἐξέρχεσθαι uniformly in these 
 verses. See Introd. p. 51, All Eng. have ““ departed” 
 in v. 31, “ went out” in v. 32. 
 
 (III, ὭΣ v. 33. οὐδέποτε ἐφάνη οὕτως ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ 
 “‘ the like was never seen in Israel’’|. So Gen. “ it 
 never so appeared,” Tynd. 1. “ it was never so seen,” 
 Tynd. 2. Coy. Cran. Bish. Auth. 
 
 (II, b). v. 84. τὰ δαιμόνια “ 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 τοῦ δαιμονίου, y, 33. 
 Cheke neglects τὰ δαιμόνια altogether. 
 
 (1). v. 35. ἐν τῷ λαῷ “ 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, Aithiopic 
 and several other versions (see p. 132, note). Ἔν τῷ 
 λαῷ is also wanting in about twenty-seven manu- 
 scripts (including B C DS. 1. 33. 118. 157); most 
 of them, though not all, being of the Alexandrine re- 
 cension, 
 
 (1). v. 36. ἐσκνλμένοι (were) harassed”]. This 
 reading is substituted for ἐκλελυμένοι “ fainted,” by 
 Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann, 
 and most other critics ; the common reading being 
 generally regarded as a marginal gloss on ἐσκυλμένοι; 
 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 
 ἐκλελυμένοι, are either of slight value (such as Codex 
 
184 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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. vent, (‘‘ lassi,” 
 Schaaf) seems best to correspond with ἐκλελυμένοι, 
 while the Italic and Vulg. ‘‘ vexati” suggest ἐσκυλ- 
 μένοι, 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. Cov. have “ pined 
 away ;” Cran. Gen. Bish. “destitute ;” Cheke and 
 Auth. “fainted,” but in the margin of Auth. “ were 
 tired and lay down ” (ἐῤῥιμμένοι) : “ 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 ἐσκυλμένοι is amply 
 vindicated by the practice of Greek writers. In its 
 strictest sense, as Kypke observes, σκυλμὸς signifies 
 “‘the plucking of the hair,” 3 Macc. i, 25; iv, 6; 
 vii, 5. Hence it refers to any mode of vexation or 
 annoyance (see Wetstein’s note, Aisch. Pers. 583, and 
 Blomfield’s Glossary); especially to the weariness 
 felt after a journey: Herodian iv [p. 494, ed. Ste- 
 phani, 1525], ἵνα δὴ μὴ πάντα τὸν στρατὸν σκύλλῃ. Ro- 
 senmiuller, after Grotius, understands by ἐσκυλμένοι the 
 effect produced by the harassing and burdensome 
 ceremonies of the Jewish ritual (ch. xxi, 4); by 
 ἐῤῥιμμένοι the distraction of the people’s minds, by 
 reason of the various sects which at that time divided 
 the nation (ch. x, 6). 1 doubt whether this distine- 
 tion be not rather far fetched. 
 
St. Matthew. 185 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 (III, a and c). v. 1. ἐξουσίαν πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων 
 “* 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 wS. This 
 construction of ἐξουσία 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, τῶν αὐτῶν 
 ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὰς ὠφελείας ἐκ τῶν ἀπολλυμένων, καὶ τὴν 
 ἐξουσίαν τῶν σωζομένων. In the parallel text Luke ix, 1 
 we find ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ δαιμόνια. 
 
 (II, a). v. 4. Σίμων ὃ Κανανίτης “Simon the Zealot”. 
 So correct Mark i, 18. He is the person called 
 Ζηλωτὴς in Luke vi, 15; Actsi, 13; that appellation 
 being in fact nothing more than a Greek translation 
 of the Syriac eee or |a1-10 (Kavavirne), which latter 
 the Peshito employs here and in St. Mark, while it 
 
 renders Ζηλωτὴς by the kindred term te Thus 
 Chrysostom : Σίμωνα τὸν ζηλωτήν, ὃν καὶ Kavavirny καλεῖ. 
 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, 8, 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 Notes on the slew Cestament. 
 
 of men. Besides that Doddridge’s argument would 
 compel us to expunge Ζηλωτὴς from the text of St. 
 Luke. At any rate, it is clear that ‘‘ Chananeus ” 
 Vulg. (but “ Cananeus” 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 Χαναναῖοι, not as Kavavira, or Kavavaior. 
 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 Kavavirne and Ζηλωτὴς is purely accidental. 
 Moreover, if the analogy of Classical Greek be ob- 
 served, from Kava we should expect Kavirne, not 
 Kavavirne: just as we have ᾿Αβδηρίτης from ”"APédnea, 
 Χο. The various reading Καναναῖος, which Lach- 
 mann adopts after the Coptic and Latin versions, 
 Codices B, C and a few other Alexandrine manu- 
 scripts, is liable to a similar exception. 
 
 (II, a). v. 5. ἀπέλθητε “go abroad ”]. So Cheke. 
 “ ρῸ off,” Bp. Jebb. Sacr. Liter. p. 313. The force of 
 ἀπὸ is lost in Eng.; yet it should be retained in this 
 place, because ἀπέλθητε is pointedly opposed to εἰσέλθητε 
 in the next clause. ‘Go not away from Palestine, 
 towards other nations.” 
 
 (II, Ὁ). zbid. εἰς πόλιν “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. 
 
 (1). v. 8. νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε “raise the dead’”’]. In my 
 
St. Matthew. 187 
 
 Introduction p. 22, I have been led to condemn 
 Scholz’s rash rejection of these words. Griesbach, 
 Lachmann, and Vulg. place them before λεπροὺς 
 καθαρίζετε : 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. EK LMS VX). On the 
 whole there is cause for a swspicion 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, κτήσησθε 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 
 Puke xvini,; 12; xxi, 19. 
 
 (1). v. 10. ῥάβδους “staves’’]. The received text 
 has ῥάβδον, as also have Syr. Vulg. “arod,” 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). Ῥάβδους 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 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 in many later Byzantine copies, as also in Chrysos- 
 tom, at least in the printed editions. Lachmann and 
 Vater retain ῥάβδον, a form which may possibly have 
 arisen from a misapprehension of the sense of εἰ μὴ 
 ῥάβδον μόνον in Mark vi, 8. Compare Luke ix, 3. 
 
 (III, a). v. 11. κώμην “village”] as opposed to 
 πόλιν, uniformly with ch. ix, 35. So Scholefield. 
 All Eng. “town.” Cheke omits κώμην altogether. 
 In this verse Cov. 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. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν “ into his house ἢ. 
 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. 16. we οἱ ὄφεις, καὶ ἀκέραιοι ὡς αἱ περιστεραὶ 
 “as the serpents, and harmless as the doves”]. “It 
 is not without reason,” Bp. Middleton remarks, 
 “‘ that we have we πρόβατα, but ὡς of ὄφεις [ὡς ai περισ- 
 τεραί]. 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 ἀκέραιοι I 
 prefer “ harmless” of Bish. Auth. to “ innocent” of 
 Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. “ plain” of Cheke, or 
 ‘“‘simple” of the margin of Auth. (which comes from 
 “‘ simplices” of Vulg. Beza, Martin). ‘“‘ Sinceri,” 
 Castalio : ἰπἰεσεσνιίεν (perfect) Syr. Chrysostom 
 rightly explains it by εἰς τὸ μὴ ἀμύνεσθαι τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας, 
 μηδὲ τιμωρεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐπιβουλεύοντας. Elsner compares 
 Eurip. Orest. 910 (ed. Matthia), ἀκέραιος, ἀνεπίληπτον 
 ἠσκηκὼς βίον (Scholiast ἁπλοῦς). Thus also Plato, Rep. 
 I. CII, 1,33 ed. Bekker), οὔτε yap πονηρία οὔτε ἁμαρτία 
 οὐδεμία οὐδεμιᾷ τέχνῃ πάρεστιν ... αὐτὴ δὲ ἀβλαβὴς καὶ 
 
 3. .ᾧ ΄ > > Ν > 
 AKEOMLOC ἐστιν; ὀρθὴ ουσα. 
 
Sr. Watthew. 189 
 
 (11, a). v. 18. καὶ... δὲ “yea and” ]. So Auth. in 
 Acts ili, 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. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς ““ for a testimony 
 unto them 1. So Doddridge, Campbell, and all 
 Eng. except Auth. (substituting “ witness ” for “tes- 
 timony ’’). Cheke has ‘and so shall ye witness me 
 to them :” “ en témoignage a eux,” Martin : “ pour me 
 rendre temoignage devant eux,” Ostervald. Thus also 
 Vulg. “in testimonium illis,’ and similarly Castalio 
 and Beza. Syr. oe ΡΜ Ἐπ (in testimonium 
 ipsorum). Beza however says in his note “ut sint 
 inexcusabiles i. 6. 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, 11 (as Campbell has remarked) the context sufhi- 
 ciently vindicates Auth.; accordingly in the parallel 
 text of St. Luke (ix, 5) we read εἰς μαρτύριον ἐπ’ αὐτούς: 
 and even on the present passage Theophylact (after 
 Chrysostom) says, τούτεστιν εἰς ἔλεγχον αὐτῶν μὴ πιστευ- 
 ὄντων: to the same purport perhaps is the para- 
 phrase of Grotius “hoc facto convincentur audite 
 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; while the sense it affords 
 is perfectly satisfactory: ‘‘ ut doctrinam salutarem 
 hae occasione iis et gentibus exteris annuncietis.”’ 
 Rosenmiiller. 
 
 (1)°. v. 23. Between φεύγετε εἰς τὴν and ἄλλην 
 Griesbach alone inserts the clause ἑτέραν, κἂν ἐκ ταύτης 
 διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς, φεύγετε εἰς τὴν... * flee unto [the next, 
 and if they persecute you from from this, flee unto] 
 
190 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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. οὐ μὴ τελέσητε “ ye shall in 
 no wise have fully gone through’’]. I translate οὐ μὴ 
 like Auth. in v. 42. All Eng. lose its force in this 
 place, τΤελέσητε, again, is variously represented by 
 them, though the general sense is the same in all. 
 Tynd. Coy. Gen. and margin of Auth. have “ finish” 
 (or “end” Bish. and the margin of Auth): ‘ go 
 through,” Cran. “have gone over,” Auth. “have 
 done your circuit of,” Cheke, very fairly. This use 
 of τελέσητε, as applied to travelling, is perfectly legi- 
 timate. Kypke compares Lucian, Toxaris p. 99 [ed. 
 Salmur. 1619, Tom. ii], ἐτέλεσεν ἐκ Μαχλύων ἐς Σκύθας. 
 See also Soph. Elect. 726, τελοῦντες ἕκτον ἕβδομόν τ᾽ 
 ἤδη δρόμον. Xen. Anab. i, 5,7, ὅποτε ἢ πρὸς ὕδωρ βούλοιτο 
 διατελέσαι, ἢ πρὸς χιλόν" which Xenophon elsewhere 
 (iv, 5, 11) explains by οἱ μὴ δυνάμενοι διατελέσαι THN 
 ὍΔΟΝ. Wetstein illustrates Thucyd. iv, 78, ἐς Φάρ- 
 σαλον ἐτέλεσε, by 11, 97, ὍΔΩι τελεῖ. 
 
 (III, a and c). vv. 24, 25. οὐκ ἔστι μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν 
 διδάσκαλον “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. δΔιδάσκαλος is rendered 
 ‘‘Master” by Eng. Now not only is the word “master” 
 obsolete in this sense, at least in written language, 
 
St. Watrhew, 191 
 
 but our translators found it necessary to change it into 
 “teacher” in several passages (6. ρ΄. 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. 
 ΙΣΤ» xvi, 24, &e. 
 
 (1)°. v.25. Βεελζεβοὺλ 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 ἢ). 
 Respecting the marginal rendering of the later edi- 
 tions of Auth. I have spoken in Introd. p. 58, note. 
 
 ibid. The words “ shall they call” (which are not in 
 italics in the first edition of Auth.) are very properly 
 expunged by Gen. So remove “ ¢hat” from all Eng. 
 twice in v. 27. See Introd. p. 63. 
 
 In v. 29, there can be little doubt that ἀσσάριον 
 (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 or- 
 ginally the tenth part of the Roman denarius. If 
 therefore δηνάριον is to be translated “‘ penny,” dccdgvov 
 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 still remains. If ἀσσάριον be rendered 
 “ὁ farthing,” how are we to represent κοδράντης (ch. v, 26; Mark 
 xii, 42) which is probably the fourth part of the ἀσσάριον (Fischer, 
 Prolus. de Vitiis Lex. N. T. xix)? Λεπτὸν (which is half of a xod- 
 ράντης) is called ‘‘mite” by Auth. in Mark xii, 42; Luke xii, 
 SOs) xxi, 2. 
 
192 ores on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 twenty asses (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxiii, 3); and it has 
 been conjectured, I believe on insufficient grounds, 
 that the diminutive ἀσσάριον represents this smaller 
 value, or about one farthing and a half of our money. 
 See note on ch. il, 8. 
 
 CII, c). v. 29. ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν ov πεσεῖται “not one of 
 them shall fall”’]. So Tynd. Cov. “ 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 [411]. 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. 11, 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, 
 205 ‘Luke, 37 ;) 1-CGor..i, 29; Kph.av) 293eveee 
 
 (III, c). ¢bid. ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν “ without your 
 Father’s will,” or “ knowledge”’]. So Campbell: 
 ἀγνοοῦντος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Chrysostom. All Eng. (even 
 Cheke), after Syr. Vulg. Beza, Castalio, have “ with- 
 out your Father,” which is obscure enough. For this 
 sense of ἄνευ compare Homer. I]. E. 185, οὐχ ὅγ᾽ ἄνευθε 
 Θεοῦ τάδε μαίνεται. Thucyd. iv, 78, ἀδικεῖν ἔφασαν ἄνευ 
 τοῦ πάντων κοινοῦ πορευόμενον. Demosth. adv. Lacrit. 
 (p. 935 Reiske), οὐ δανείζειν τούτους ὅτῳ ἂν βούλων- 
 ται Ἐν τῷ Πόντῳ τὰ ἡμέτερα ἄνευ ἡμῶν : nobis insciis et 
 mnvitis. 
 
 (III, b). γ. 32. ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ““1 also will confess’’]. 
 Dr. Symonds might have added this passage and ch. 
 
St. Matthew. — 193 
 xvii, 12; xxiii, 26; xxv, 41 to his examples of the 
 ungrammatical position of “ also ” enumerated above 
 (note on ch. 11, 8). This error is continuated through 
 all Eng. from Tynd. 2. downwards: yet in the very 
 next verse “also ” is used quite correctly. 
 
 CHAPTER ΧΙ. 
 
 (1)°. v. 2. Instead of δύο before τῶν μαθητῶν αὑτοῦ 
 Syr. reads διά, which is found in a// Lachmann’s 
 manuscripts that contain this chapter (BC D P Z), and 
 in one or two of later date. But this reading, al- 
 though very antient, is too feebly supported to be 
 received with safety, though δύο might possibly have 
 been taken from Luke vii, 19. Vater says “non 
 solet Matthzeus ad δύο addere genitivos;” see how- 
 ever ch. xviii, 19. 
 
 (II, b). v. 3. ὃ ἐρχόμενος “6 who cometh”, he 
 that is expected to come, an ordinary mode of refer- 
 ring to the Messiah (ch. iii, 11; Psalm exviii, 26). 
 ‘Qui venturus es,” Vulg. which Bois rightly changes 
 into “is qui venit,” adding ‘‘ qui tam certo venturus 
 est, ac si jam adesset;” a use of the present tense 
 which has been noticed in the Introd. p. 46. “Shall 
 come,” Tynd. Cov. Cran. “is to come,” Cheke, 
 “ ought tocome,” Gen. Martin, “should come,” Bish. 
 Auth. So alter Luke vii, 19. Whitby compares 
 Daniel vii, 13; Hab. ii, 3 (LXX, not Hebrew). 
 
 (III, a). v. 4. ἀπαγγείλατε “tell” ]. So Cheke. Make 
 Auth. here uniform with its rendering in ch. viii, 33 ; 
 xiv, 12, &c.and thus correct ch. xii, 18: “shew,” Tynd. 
 Gen. ‘tell again,” Cov. ‘shew again,” Cran. Bish. 
 Auth. 
 
 O 
 
194 Potes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 (II, b). v. 5. Both here and in ch. x, 8; xv, 30; 
 31; xxi, 14, as Bp. Middleton remarks, the omission 
 of the articles before τυφλοί, χωλοί, &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. 
 
 (III, a). v. 8. οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ φοροῦντες “ they that wear 
 soft raiment”]. Of course ἱμάτια is understood in 
 μαλακά, 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. 
 
 (1)°. ibtd. I have already mentioned (Introd. p. 
 22), that Scholz alone, among all our critical editors, 
 substitutes βασιλείων for βασιλέων in this verse. If 
 he intends βασιλείων to signify ‘ palaces,” as in Luke 
 vii, 25; LXX, Esther i,9; Prov. xvi, 19, no trifling 
 pressure of external proof is requisite to make 
 the expression “‘ houses of palaces” endurable. If 
 he wishes βασιλείων to be rendered ‘ courtiers,” he 
 should produce some examples of such a use of the 
 word: βασιλικὸς 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, μικρότερος is rendered “less” by Tynd. 
 Cov. 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. βιασταὶ “ violent ones”}. Iam always 
 
St, Watthew. 195 
 
 reluctant to differ from Bp. Middleton, but I cannot 
 subscribe to his opinion that by βιασταὶ 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 πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βίαζεται, in the parallel passage 
 Luke xvi, 16. Βιάζεται in this place must necessarily 
 be taken in a moral sense; why should we hesitate 
 to do the same with Pracrai? Πάντες οἱ μετὰ σπουδῆς 
 προσιόντες is Chrysostom’s paraphrase : τὸ γὰρ ἀφεῖναι 
 πατέρα, kal μητέρα, kal τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς καταφρονῆσαι, πόσης 
 βίας ἐστι. says Theophylact. At the same time it is 
 proper to correct Eng., which all translate βιασταὶ by 
 ‘the violent,” or some equivalent expression. Cheke 
 has ‘is straitly extremely ordered (βιάζεται), 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.* 
 
 (11, a). v. 14. αὐτός ἐστιν “he 15] viz. John, who was 
 mentioned in the preceding verse. So Cheke, Kypke, 
 Scholefield. “This is” of Eng. would require οὗτος. 
 
 (ΠῚ, c). v. 17. ἐθρηνήσαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ οὐκ ἐκόψασθε “ we 
 have sung dirges unto you, and ye have not smote 
 the breast”]. So Bp. Jebb. Gen. renders ἐθρηνήσαμεν 
 “‘we have sung mourning songs unto you,” and is 
 
 
 
 * This very distinction is largely insisted on by Bp. Middleton 
 in his note on ch. xii, 43. It is therefore the more remarkable 
 that he was misled by the omission of the article in the present 
 case. 
 
196 Dotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 Cov. Bish. Auth. 
 for “ drinker of wine” of Tynd. Cran. Gen. (“ wine 
 drinker,” Cheke), and correctly : for οἰνοπότης always 
 implies excess, e. g. Prov. xxiii, 20. 
 
 (II, c). v. 19. ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς “ by her chil- 
 dren”]. “ Of” Eng., which is somewhat too indermi- 
 nate, in a clause of itself sufficiently obscure. ᾿Απὸ 
 is put for ὑπό, as in ch. xvi, 21 (for which we find 
 ὑπὸ in ch. xvii, 12); Mark vii, 31; Luke vi, 35. 
 ‘Was justified” (ἐδικαιώθη) 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 δικαιοῦσθαι 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, ὑμεῖς 
 ἀπειθήσαντες, δίκαιον ἐμὲ ὡς μηδὲν παραλιπόντα δεικνύετε. 
 If it be thought better to extend τέκνων 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 “ad/ true Christians (Luke 
 
St. Watthew. 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 15 
 fully acquiesced in by his children,” whatever be the 
 mode of their manifestation to us. “A été justifiée,” 
 Martin, Ostervald.* 
 
 (III, c). v. 27. βούληται ἀποκαλύψαι ““ 15. willing to 
 reveal him’’]. All Eng. have ‘‘ will reveal (or, open) 
 him.” Theambiguity 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, 
 π᾿ ΠΟ 27 ; Luke x, 22; 2.'Tim. in; 12; 2. John vy: 
 12; and particularly 1 Tim. vi,9. Should any one 
 be disposed to controvert Buttmann’s lucid discrimi- 
 nation between θέλειν, “ the active wish which looks 
 forward to its own accomplishment,” and βούλεσθαι 
 *« the bare act of volition, without the means or power 
 of performing it” (Lexilogus, p. 194, English Trans- 
 lation), from the employment of βούληται in this verse, 
 while θέλειν 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 maintamed. See Demosth. περὶ 
 συντάξ. ς. ὃ. μὴ μόνον ταῦτ᾽ ἀκούειν ἐθέλοντα, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
 
 πράττειν βουλόμενον. 
 
 * The exposition in the margin of Gen. is very pithy: ‘‘ They 
 that are wise in deed, acknowledge the wisdom of God, in him 
 whom the Pharisees contemn.” 
 
198 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 (III, a). v. 28. οἱ κοπιῶντες “ ye that are weary’ |. 
 So Gen., uniformly with Auth. in John iv, 6; and 
 more consonantly with the literal meaning of the 
 word. ‘‘ Labor,” Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke, Auth. 
 after Vulg. “labor sore,” Bish. In v. 29, the article 
 before καρδίᾳ is rendered by Middleton as a personal 
 pronoun, ‘‘ my heart.” 
 
 (II, a). v. 30. χρηστὸς ff gentle’’]. So Syr. (2405). 
 Vulg. “ suave.” But Beza has “ facile,” Martin 
 
 4 99 
 
 and Ostervald “ aisé,” and all Eng. “‘ easy.” Cheke 
 “* profitable ;” Castalio ‘‘ commodum,” a very con- 
 venient subterfuge. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ‘HAYS καὶ κοῦφος ὁ 
 τῆς ἀρετῆς ζυγός, Chrysostom. In this sense χρηστὸς 
 is a fit epithet for wine, Luke v, 39, and Athenzus 
 xiii, as quoted by Schleusner. See also 1 Mace. vi, 
 11;-Gal. v,; 22; Eph. ii, 7: iv,/32; ‘Tite 
 Wolf too has some remarks which deserve considera- 
 tion. Cur. Phil. ad loc. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 (III, b). v. 2. ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστι “which it is not lawful”), 
 So correct v. 4. All Eng. (even Cheke) translate 
 “which is not lawful.” Iny. 11, Auth. falls into the 
 opposite fault; for τίς ἄνθρωπος being nominative to 
 κρατήσει, it is superfluous to insert ‘he ” before ‘ lay 
 hold.” This last error is avoided by Tynd. Cov. 
 Cheke. 
 
 (I). v. 8. καὶ before τοῦ σαββάτου is rejected by 
 Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann, in compli- 
 ance with the best manuscripts of both families ; with 
 Syr. (Bish.) and several other versions ; with Origen, 
 Chrysostom, &c. It was doubtless borrowed from 
 
St. Matthew. 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. συμβούλιον ἔλαβον “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. 
 Coy. 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 συμβούλιον ποιεῖν 
 τι 6: xv, 1). 
 
 (II, b). v. 15. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς γνοὺς ἀνεχώρησεν “ but 
 Jesus knowing ἐξ, 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 7t, &c.” which 
 rendering seems calculated, | am sure through inad- 
 vertence on the part of its authors, to exclude the 
 notion of our Lord’s zntuztive 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. 
 
 (III, b). ibid. ἐκεῖθεν “ thence 4} So Auth. inv. 9, 
 and all other Eng. here. Yet all Eng. have ‘“ from 
 
200 Motes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 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. ἕως ἂν ἐκβάλῃ τὴν κρίσιν εἰς νῖκος ““ {1} 
 he send forth judgment unto victory’’] 1. 6. 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’a 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, 
 (DEW NS! NN? “he shall bring forth judgment 
 unto truth,” Auth. ‘ He shall publish judgment, so 
 as to establish it perfectly,” Bp. Lowth: εἰς ἀλήθειαν 
 ἐξοίσει κρίσιν, LXX. Now it appears that msi? 
 which literally denotes “to victory,” is rendered 
 εἰς νῖκος by the LXX in 2 Sam. ii, 26; Job xxxvi, 
 7; Lament. v, 20; Amos viii, 7, &c. and εἰς νῖκος 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 εἰς νῖκος ap- 
 proximates nearly to NN? 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, 04. 
 
 (III, a). v. 23. μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ vide Δαβὶδ “is not 
 this the Son of David ?’’]. So all Eng. (even Cheke) 
 down to Auth. which reads in the original Bible of 
 1611 ‘is this the son of David?” Later editors of 
 Auth. have generally (though not universally) in- 
 
St. Wartrhew. 201 
 
 serted the negative, doubtless because they regarded 
 its omission in the early books asa typographical error. 
 It is not, however, perfectly clear that such is the 
 fact, although Auth. uses the negative in John iy, 
 29, where the form of expression is precisely similar. 
 Both for the sake of uniformity and distinctness 
 Auth. should be altered here. Μὴ 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. οὗτος “this man”). So Cheke. 
 “He,” Tynd. 1. Cov. “ this fellow,” 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. II, 23). So 
 alter ch. xxvi, 61; 71, where Cov. is correct. 
 
 (III, a). v. 28. ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς “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 φθάνω ‘ vestra opinione citius per- 
 venit,” which interpretation is approved by Fritzche. 
 No trace however of this meaning can be found 
 in Syr. pa-;-0, Vulg. ‘“ pervenit,” or Chrysostom 
 (τῆς εὐπραγίας ὑμῶν ἐφέστηκεν ὃ καιρός---ὑμῖν ἥκει τὰ 
 ἀγαθά"); nor can it have any place in Dan. iv, 25 
 (EXX); Rom. ix, 31°; Phil. ii, 16.' We have 
 προέφθασεν in Schmidt’s sense below, ch. xvii, 25. 
 
 ἘΠ: 8). v. 31. ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημία “the 
 blasphemy against the Spirit”]. So Cov. Cran. 
 But Tynd. 1. Gen. Auth. have ‘against the Holy 
 Ghost,” as also have Cheke, Bish. ‘ The blasphemy 
 of the Spirit,” Tynd. 2. Rhemish version. The ad- 
 jective ‘ Holy ” is totally destitute of authority. 
 
 (1).° v. 82. Instead of ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι ‘in this 
 
202 Notes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 world,” Scholz reads ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι ‘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 τούτῳ, and so also does Chrysostom. 
 
 (III, b). v. 33. τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ “ 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 ΜῈ the tree bad, 
 then the fruit, my works of mercy (vv. 19, 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 εἰ γὰρ καὶ 
 τὸ δένδρον τοῦ καρποῦ αἴτιον, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ δένδρου 
 γνωριστικός. ἢ For this sense οὗ ποιεῖν (“* judicare ἐπ 
 Kypke compares John viii, 53, and Joseph. Antiq. ἵν, 
 8, ἐκείνους τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνατωτέρους ποιεῖ. Somewhat 
 similar is 1 John i, 10. 
 
 Ge v. 35. τῆς καρδίας «ς οὗ 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 Matthzi’s good manuscripts 
 
 
 
 * « Aut agnoscite me bonum esse, et bené agere: aut me ma- 
 lum esse, ac proinde male agere.” Note to Beza’s Latin Testa- 
 ment, London, 1592. 
 
St. Watthew. 203 
 
 in the other. A reading opposed by such authori- 
 ties can hardly be genuine, and it was probably in- 
 terpolated from Luke vi, 45; “where τῆς καρδίας is, 
 of necessity, inserted ; because that Evangelist, by a 
 transposition with him not unusual, has postponed 
 the clause ἐκ yap τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας, Which, in 
 St. Matthew, is preparatory to this couplet” (Jebb, 
 Sacr. Liter. p. 145). 
 
 (II, a)°. v. 36. ἀργὸν “idle” |. So Eng. Cheke, 
 Bp. Jebb, after Syr. (i_a_S) *‘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 ; ἀργὸν δέ, τὸ μὴ Kara 
 πράγματος κείμενον, TO ψευδές, TO συκοφαντίαν ἔχον᾽ τίνες δέ 
 φασιν, ὅτι καὶ τὸ μάταιον" οἷον, τὸ γέλωτα κινοῦν ἄτακτον, ἢ 
 τὸ αἰσχρὸν καὶ ἀναίσχυντον καὶ ἀνελεύθερον. To this 
 latter opinion I confess that I incline. Without 
 wishing to dispute, that by a euphemism common to 
 most languages, ἀργὸς 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 Stobzus 
 (αἱρετώτερόν σοι ἔστω λίθον εἰκῆ βάλλειν, ἢ λόγον ἀργόν") 
 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. ‘‘ Omne verbum quod 
 non eedificat proximum,” says Munster, ‘‘indignum 
 est homine Christiano, et conscientia ejus hominem 
 damnabit.” 
 
 (II, b). v.41. ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει 
 ‘men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment ”’}. 
 v. 42. βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται “a queen of the 
 
204 Notes on the #ew Cestament, 
 
 South shall arise’’]. All Eng. have “the men of 
 Nineveh,” ‘“‘ the Queen of the South.” Respecting 
 the omission of the articles see Middleton’s notes on 
 this passage, and on Luke xi, 30 (where we find τοῖς 
 Νινευίταις" of so little moment is the variation) ; also 
 Green’s Gram. N. T. p. 183. I have also distin- 
 guished between ἀναστήσονται v. 41, and ἐγερθήσεται, 
 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. 
 
 (III, a). v. 48. τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα . . ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώ- 
 που ““ΔῺ unclean spirit.... out οὗ aman’. 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 (Cov., however, has “ out 
 of man”). Ὅταν δὲ should be rendered “ but when,” 
 as in Syr. Vulg. (δὲ is lost in all Eng.), that the 
 passage may be connected with the preceding verses. 
 Thus also express δὲ at the beginning of v. 46. 
 
 (III, c). zbzd. ἀνύδρων ‘ waterless” |, dreary deserts. 
 So Syr. OLD Δα Lata, (in quibus non sunt aque), 
 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. γίνεται “ becometh’’}. So Campbell, 
 after Syr. (jaca, the participle of the verb-substantive 
 and not the pronominal copula being used), “ fiunt,”’ 
 Vulg. Beza, Castalio. “15 of Eng. is far from cor- 
 
St. Matthew. 205 
 
 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 ad/oc.) ; ““ 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. 4], in which 
 last verse even Coy. thus translates from Vulg. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 (II, b). v. 2. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον “into the ship” ]. See 
 notes on ch. iv,21; vii, 23. Bish. alone is right in 
 this place. All other Eng. Cheke, Martin and Os- 
 tervald employ the indefinite article. 
 
 In ν. 1, ἀπὸ πῆς οἰκίας may be translated with 
 Middleton ‘‘ out of Ais house,” viz. the residence of 
 our Saviour at Capernaum. See ch. ix, 28. 
 
 (III, a and c). v. 4. τὰ πετεινὰ ‘the birds “ἢ ΡΠ 
 Wickliffe, Cheke, and even Auth. in v. 32. Here 
 all Eng. say ““ fowls.” 
 
 (II, a). v. 8. ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τὴν καλὴν “upon good 
 ground” |. So Cov. and the Rhemish version. “into,” 
 Wickliffe, Cran. Bish. Auth. “in,” Tynd. Cheke, 
 Gen. Thus change v. 23, and ἐπὶ ra πετρώδη in v. 20, 
 for which last even Auth. has ‘“ upon stony places ” 
 in v. 5. 
 
206 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 (III, ce). vs 12. περισσευθήσεται ““ he shall be made 
 to abound ”’], or “‘ have abundance,” as Auth. in ch. 
 xxv, 29, and Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. here (‘‘ have 
 plenty,” Cheke). Symonds censures “ more abun- 
 dance” of Bish. Auth. 
 
 (I). v. 14. ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς and not ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς 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 @ and Vulg. “in,” it does not necessarily follow 
 that they read ἐπὶ in their copies. The sense is 
 nearly the same, whichsoever reading we receive. 
 ‘Ex’ αὐτοῖς will signify “ in them ” (as all Eng.) 1. 6. 
 in their case. Without ἐπὶ the dative may be consid- 
 ered equivalent to ὑπὸ with the genitive, ‘by them ;” 
 as in Homer. Il. E. 465, ἐς τί ἔτι κτείνεσθαι tacere 
 λαὸν ᾿Αχαιοῖς ; Matthia, Gk. Gram. § 392, 1. β. 
 
 (III, a). vv. 20, 21. εὐθὺς “forthwith ἢ]. As εὐθέως 
 in Auth. v. 5. All Eng. have “anon” in vy. 20, and 
 ‘“‘by and by” in v. 21, except that Cov. reads “im- 
 mediately” in v. 21, and Cheke “ 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. 
 
 (III, a and c). v. 21. πρόσκαιρος ““ endureth but for 
 atime’’]. So Auth. in Mark iv, 17; much more 
 perspicuously : ‘‘is but a forwhile,” Cheke: “il n’est 
 que pour un tems,” Ostervald. So Tynd. Gen. have 
 “ dureth but a season:” but ‘‘ dureth for a season,” 
 Cov. Cran. Bish. “ dureth for a while,’ Auth. Yet 
 “but” is absolutely needed. 
 
 (I). v. 27. The article before ζιζάνια in this verse 
 is rejected by Wetstein, Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and 
 Lachmann. Middleton thinks its spuriousness pro- 
 
St. Matthew, 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 
 nohelp; but while we find nearly all the few uncial 
 documents in existence conspiring in the omission of 
 τά, and most of Matthzi’s good MSS 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 BC 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 Chrysostom, 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. Cheke renders “ this darnel,”’ 
 as if the article had a demonstrative sense. 
 
 il, b). v. 32. μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων ἐς vreater than the 
 
208 ores on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 herbs”}. So Auth. in Mark iv, 32, Syr. (for Schaaf’s 
 version of > wa 5} is inaccurate*) Vulg. Camp- 
 bell, and the “ Holy Bible” of 1841. But “ the great- 
 est among herbs,” Eng. Beza, Castalio, Martin, Oster- 
 vald (* plus grand que les autres légumes).” Cheke 
 ‘is one of the biggest herbs.” Yet there is not the 
 least reason for thinking that μεῖζον is used for the 
 superlative, and λάχανον is pointedly distinguished 
 from δένδρον. 
 
 In ν. 33, σάτα is rendered “ pecks” by Tynd. Cov. 
 Cran. Gen. Bish. “ bushels,” Cheke. Since the 
 exact quantity of the meal does not affect the Βοῦ με 
 οἵ the eee | (rola δὲ σάτα Ἐνταῦθα τὰ πολλὰ εἴρηκεν" 
 οἶδε γὰρ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦτον ἐπὶ πλήθους λαμβάνειν' Chry- 
 sostom), Auth. judiciously substitutes the more 
 general term ‘ measures” (see Campbell, Prel. 
 Diss. VIII, Pt. I, 6). The Hebrew OND is translated 
 μέτρα by the LXX in Gen. xviii, 6, where Aquila 
 and Symmachus employ cara, the word used by St. 
 Matthew (see also Luke xin, 21). Hesychius and 
 Suidas make the σάτον 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. οἱ δὲ θερισταὶ ἄγγελοί εἰσιν “ and the 
 reapers are angels” ]. So Middleton. “ the angels,” 
 Eng. 
 
 (II, a). v. 41. πάντα τὰ σκάνδαλα “ all that cause 
 
 * ἐς Maximum est omnium olerum.” He translates the very 
 same words correctly in Mark iv, 32 ‘ fit majus omnibus oleribus.”’ 
 This (as indeed most of his other errors) arises from his treading 
 too closely in the steps of Tremellius. 
 
St. Watrhew, 209 
 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 
 σκάνδαλα to mean “ the wicked which hurt others by 
 their evil example ;’’ such as are called rove τὰ σκάν- 
 Sada ποιοῦντας in Rom. xvi, 17. ‘ Seducers,” Camp- 
 bell. “ things which have been an offence to others,” 
 Doddridge. 
 
 (II, b). v. 42. τὴν κάμινον “ the furnace’’]. κατ᾽ 
 ἐξοχήν, as it is rendered by Auth. in v. 50. All 
 Eng. have “ a furnace” here, and all except Auth. 
 in v. 50 also. The Rhemish version, Martin and 
 Ostervald very properly translate “the furnace,” and 
 Cheke (awkwardly enough) “ the chimney,” in both 
 places. 
 
 (III, c). v. 45. ἀνθρώπῳ ἐμπόρῳ “ to a merchant’). 
 So Tynd. Cov. Gen. “ man” is added by Cran. 
 Cheke, Bish. Auth. but without cause. The pleo- 
 nastic sense of ἄνθρωπος 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 
 ἀνὴρ in such expressions as ἄνδρες Νινευῖται (ch. xii, 
 41), ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι (Acts xvii, 22), ἄνδρες δικασταί, 
 &e. 
 
 (1)°. v. 46. Instead of ὃς εὑρὼν “ who, when he 
 had found” of the received text, Griesbach inserts 
 εὑρὼν δὲ “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. ἙΕὑρὼν δὲ is presented by only 
 five of his manuscripts, four of which (DL. 1. 33) lie 
 under the strongest suspicion of Latinising; the 
 
 P 
 
210 το on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 fifth being a document of the thirteenth century 
 (Stephens’s ιδ΄, Griesbach’s 120 Evan.). It was 
 probably the reading of Syr. and one or two other 
 versions, and possibly that of Vulg. also. 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 the testimony of all 
 other manuscripts scattered throughout the world. 
 
 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 
 his note literatim, but with unpardonable carelessness 
 refers to ὃς εὑρὼν the documents which Griesbach 
 had cited in support of his correction εὑρὼν δέ, while 
 he prints the latter reading as a part of the received 
 text, and pronounces ὃς εὑρὼν a mere Alexandrine 
 variation from it. Lachmann prefers εὑρὼν δέ, 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 εὑρὼν δὲ the reading of the 
 Elzevir 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. 
 
 (III, a). v. 57. ἐσκανδαλίζοντο ἐν αὐτῷ ‘* were of- 
 
 
 
 * Scholz merely adds that the Codex B reads ὃς εὑρών. From 
 whatever quarter he derived this piece of information, it is 
 astonishing that it did not lead him to detect the enormous error 
 into which he had fallen. 
 
St, Watthew. 211 
 fended at him”]. So Auth. in Mark vi, 3; and Coy. 
 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. ai δυνάμεις ἐνεργοῦσιν “ 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 δυνάμεις, 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 JQotes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 it is rather unnatural that their existence should be 
 assumed” (Middleton). Besides, in no other place 
 in the New Testament does the active verb ἐνεργεῖν 
 occur in an intransitive sense, such as must be as- 
 signed to it here, if by δυνάμεις 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 ἐνεργεῖν see 1 Cor. xu, 6; 11; 
 Gal. 11, 8; iii, 5;Eph. i, 11; 20; u, 2; Philjaiaee 
 Now nothing is more certain than that ai δυνάμεις is 
 a term constantly employed by the Greek Fathers 
 to signify the angels and other heavenly powers. 
 Chrysost. Hom. in Matth. 1, p. 3, ἄνθρωποι τοῖς ἀγγέ- 
 λοις ἐκοινώνουν; καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ταῖς ἄνω δυνάμεσι. Many 
 examples to the same purpose may be seen in Suicer, 
 voce δύναμις (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 δυνάμεις, 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 singular conjecture. 
 He supposes it to be founded on évapyovow, the form 
 exhibited by the Codex Bez, which was presented 
 to the University of Cambridge in 1581, and whose 
 peculiar readings might then have been thought of 
 ereat importance. I fear it is a fatal objection to this 
 ingenious hypothesis, that Auth. merely copied the 
 version of Bish. in this instance: and Bish. was pub- 
 
St. Watthew. 213 
 lished full ten years before the Codex Beze was 
 brought to England. 
 
 CII, c). v. 8. ἐπὶ πίνακι “on adish”]. So correct 
 v. 11. “Ina dish,” Wickliffe, Cheke, the Rhemish 
 version ; “in a charger,” Auth. “in a platter,” other 
 Eng. In vy. 6, the margin of the later editions of 
 Auth. (ἐν τῷ μέσῳ, Gr. “in the midst ”) is very trifling. 
 Inv. 7, ὅθεν Auth. follows the Rhemish N. T. “ where- 
 upon.” Other Eng. have ‘‘ wherefore.” 
 
 In v. 8, προβιβασθεῖσα “ 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 “ étant poussée.” Still Vulg. 
 “ἐ preemonita,”’ and “ before instructed” of Cov. Cran. 
 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 πρὸ 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), ἀλλὰ Kav εἰ ὀλίγον ἔστι 
 τις ὃς τις διαφέρει ἡμῶν προβιβάσαι εἰς ἀρετήν, ἀγαπητόν" 
 Heindorf very properly translates “si quis antecellat 
 in provehendo ad virtutem.” But this explanation 
 will not suit the passages from the LX X. 
 
 (II, a). v. 15. ἡ ὥρα ἤδη παρῆλθεν “ the day is now 
 spent”. ‘The day is spent,” Tynd. ‘the night 
 falleta on,” Cov. “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 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 Syr. Beza. St. Luke in the parallel place (ch. ix, 
 12) says ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤρξατο κλίνειν. “Ὥρα is thus used by 
 Polybius, as cited by Raphel, ἤδη δὲ τῆς ὥρας συγκλει- 
 ούσης. Not quite so pertinent is Demosth. c. Midiam 
 (p. 541, Reiske), τῆς ὥρας ἐγίγνετο ὀψέ. Compare 
 also Mark vi, 35. 
 
 (1). v. 22. Both 6 Ἰησοῦς and αὐτοῦ 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; vili,5). A 
 few authorities do not read the word inv. 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 (BC DMP) 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 so strong, that we may confidently (with Vater) 
 remove ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς from the text. 
 
 The evidence against αὐτοῦ is considerably stronger : 
 for most of Matthei’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 (See Introd. p. 70). 
 No one was better acquainted with this peculiarity 
 of the Aramzean dialect than Scholz (Proleg. N. T. 
 p. exxil) ; although he seldom cares to apply his prin- 
 ciples to the criticism of the sacred text. But in fact 
 
St. Watthew. 215 
 Syr. here reads Soop SAN ‘his disciples,” 
 
 though Ga is wanting in the editio princeps, I Sup- 
 pose by an error of the press. To return to avrov: 
 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). zbid. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον “ into the ship” ]. “a ship,” 
 all Eng. See notes on ch. iv, 21; xiii, 2, &c. 
 
 (II, b). v. 23. τὸ ὄρος “the mountain-country ᾽. 
 “a mountain,” all Eng. See note on ch. v, 1. So 
 alter ch. xv, 29. 
 
 (III, c). v. 24. ὑπὸ τῶν κυμάτων “by the waves”. 
 “‘ with the waves,”’ Cheke, Bish. “ with waves,” other 
 Eng. 
 
 (D°. v. 25. Here again ὁ Ἰησοῦς is omitted by 
 nearly the same authorities as in v. 22, with a few of 
 Matthzi’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 
 sufficient 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 ὁ Ἰησοῦς as before. 
 
 In v. 30, τὸν ἄνεμον ἰσχυρὸν is rendered by Tynd. 
 Cov. 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, ἦν γὰρ ἐνάντιος ὃ ἄνεμος 
 ‘for the wind was contrary,” wh@e Cheke and all 
 
216 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 the earlier Eng. except Cov. translate “‘ for it was 
 (they had, Cheke) a contrary wind.” 
 
 (III, c). v. 35. ἐπιγνόντες “ recognised” ]. Eng. “ had 
 knowledge of,” which is very quaint. See also Acts 
 iv, 13, ‘ Knew him,” Cheke. , 
 
 In νυ. 36, Bish. Auth. rightly express the significa- 
 tion of διὰ in διεσώθησαν ‘‘ were made perfectly whole.” 
 But ‘made safe,” Tynd. Cran. ‘‘ made whole,” Cov. 
 Cheke, Gen. It is also neglected by Vulg. Beza, Cas- 
 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 “ διασώζω i. gq. simplex σώζωῳ :᾿᾿ 
 chiefly, it would seem, because St. Mark (ch. vi, 56) 
 contents himself with ἐσώζοντο when narrating the 
 same circumstance. See note on ch. xviii, 31. - 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 (II, b). v. 1. οἱ ἀπὸ ἹἹεροσολύμων γραμματεῖς... “ the 
 scribes ... from Jerusalem”]. So Cov. Scholefield. 
 But “scribes ... from Jerusalem,” Tynd. “ scribes 
 
 .» Which were come from Jerusalem,” Cran. Bish. 
 ‘“certain scribes ...of Jerusalem,” Gen. “scribes... 
 which were of Jerusalem,” Auth. Bp. Middleton 
 is inclined to reject οἱ, which is not expressed by Syr. 
 Vulg. or Origen. Cheke’s version would in that 
 case be correct ‘“‘ Then came there from Jerusalem 
 unto Jesus scribes...” Oi, however, is found in all 
 Greek manuscripts except B D (Scholz says C, 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 
 vil, 1), Οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων, as Wolf observes, is 
 
St. Watthew. 217 
 
 nearly parallel with οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, Hebr. xiii, 24, 
 and οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, 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 πᾶς in Matth. iii, 5; iv,24; Acts 11,5? 
 
 (I). v. 4. Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann 
 expunge σου after τὸν πατέρα. 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 τὴν μητέρα 
 also. Yet we must not allow the Latin versions to 
 have any weight in deciding the point; and since cov 
 is retained in the great majority of the copies of Chry- 
 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 σου, 
 the sense is precisely the same. Σοῦ is justly re- 
 moved by all the critics from the kindred passage ch. 
 mix, 19. 
 
 In v. 6, the textus receptus has οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ “he 
 shall not honor ;” where, in compliance with a fami- 
 liar canon of Greek syntax, we should expect the fu- 
 ture indicative. Τιμήσει is actually read by Lachmann, 
 and favorably named by Griesbach: but the manu- 
 script evidence in its behalf is slight, and exclusively 
 Egyptian (BC ἢ. 1. 13. 33, 124. 225. 346, Scholz) ; 
 
218 jNotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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. 
 
 (III, c). v. 4. θανάτῳ τελευτάτω ““ let him surely die”}. 
 So Doddridge. Thus also Auth. renders the same 
 palpable Hebraism (MVM MV) in Gen. ii, 17 ; iii, 4 ; 
 Exod. xxi, 17, ἄς. ‘ 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.” Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish. Auth. exhibit the un- 
 couth phrase, “die the death.” So change Mark 
 vii, 10, and perhaps also Matth. xin, 14. 
 
 (II, c. See Introd. p. 46). vv. 5, 6. δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐ 
 ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ TOV πατέρα avrou ....“* 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. 15, 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 Elsner’s forced explanation 
 of v. 6, καὶ (λέγετε, ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ) οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ, “ et Ne 
 honoret ;”’ an artifice by the way of which Elsner is 
 
 * « Grammaticum egit Alexandrinus censor.” Griesbach, 
 
 Proleg. N. T. Sect. II, p. Ixxviii. 
 
St. Watthew: 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; καὶ at the com- 
 mencement of the apodosis being nearly redundant, 
 as δὲ 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. 1, 53; 1 Sam. xi, 
 19, which do not seem altogether apposite. Yet 
 there cannot be a doubt that the Hebrew particle 
 lis 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 ἢ is not expressed by the 
 LXX; exactly similar is Gen. iti, 5 (PHI, διανοιχθή- 
 σονται LXX): not to insist on countless instances 
 of the pleonastic 1 after "ΠῚ (καὶ ἐγένετο), of which 
 so many traces remain even in the New Testament 
 (Luke ii, 15; v, 1; 12; 17, &c.). For a like use of 
 καί, but not after ἐγένετο, we may refer to Matth. 
 wart Ὁ uke πὶ] 27,285 ‘vu, 12’; ΠῚ ΦῸΣ 
 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 Aramzean dialects, if 
 we observe that the Peshito introduces the same 
 particle (9) in Luke xiv, 10, where we find τότε ἔσται 
 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 καὶ from the text 
 
 (BC D. 1. 33. 36. 41. 61. Copt. Ital. and Lach- 
 
220 Qotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 mann). It cannot be disputed that this solution is 
 incomparably preferable to the harsh constructions 
 and harsher ellipses of some of our versions. Beza 
 first inserted in the text ‘‘ zzsons ert,” whence came 
 “he shall be free” of Auth. and “ n’est pas coupable” 
 of Ostervald. Tynd. and Bish. are much nearer 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”... Cov. 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 καί, 
 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. 
 
 (1)°. v. 8. Griesbach, Vater, and Lachmann re- 
 move from the text as spurious the words ἐγγίζει 
 μοι ““ draweth nigh unto me,” and τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν 
 καὶ “ with their mouth, and”... They are wanting in 
 Syr. Vulg. the Italic, Aithiopic 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 jive (BDL. 33.124), 
 
St. Matthew. 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. 
 
 (IIT, a). v.10. προσκαλεσάμενος “called unto him’). 
 Thus all Eng. (even Cheke) except Auth., and even 
 απ v.32 :ch.x, b; xviii, 2; xx, 25; Mark iii, 
 13; 23. Soalter ch. xviii, 82. ““ Him” only should 
 be printed in italics; and not ““ unto”’ (πρός), as is 
 done by Auth. in several places. Turton. 
 
 (II, b). v. 12. τὸν λόγον. ““ thy saying”. ‘ This 
 saying,” Eng. but the article never bears that mean- 
 ing. 
 
 (III, a). v. 18. τὸν ἄνθρωπον “a man”]. The whole 
 class. So Tynd. 1. Cheke here, and Auth. vv. 11, 20. 
 
 (II, b). v. 22. ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων ἐκείνων ‘ from those 
 coasts’’]. So Cheke, Scholefield. ‘* the same,” Eng. 
 a too frequent rendering of ἐκεῖνος in these versions. 
 Seely: wiity 13 5.x,, 195) xiii, 1.3) xviii, 1; 28 ΧΗΣ 
 B35 ΧΙ, Οὔ. 
 
 (II, b). ν. 26. τοῖς κυναρίοις “ 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 κυνάριον to be a 
 more contemptuous term than κύων: but I must 
 think these distinctions somewhat too finely drawn. 
 See vv. 34, 36; and Introd. p. 33. 
 
 (II, a). v.27. Ναὶ Κύριε καὶ γὰρ τὰ κυνάρια... “ yea 
 Lord ; for the dogs”. . .]. So Bish. Cheke (‘ yes Lord, 
 
222 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 for the whelps” ..) after Vulg. (‘‘ Etiam Domine ; 
 nam et catelli”..). But ‘it is truth Lord, neverthe- 
 less”... Tynd. Cov. “truth Lord, yet”. . Auth. yet 
 Cran. Gen. more properly “ truth Lord, for”... Syr. 
 
 has af 4% 2] (« yea Lord, also”. .) as if it did not 
 read yao. ‘Ita est Domine, et tamen”’.. . of Castalio 
 is less correct than Beza’s “" etiam Domine, etenim”’. 
 ‘Tl est vrai, Seigneur ; cependant les petit chiens”. . , 
 Ostervald. The fact is that vat, like the Hebrew δ 
 (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 thistdst 
 sense see Elsner and Kypke, who produces a passage 
 exactly parallel from Xenophon’s CEconom. [p. 488, 
 ed. Stephan. 1581], ἐμὸν δὲ ἔργον ἔφησεν ἡ μήτηρ εἶναι 
 σωφρονεῖν. ναὶ μὰ Al ἔφην ἐγώ, ὦ γύναι, καὶ γὰρ ἐμοὶ ὁ πατήρ. 
 In the comic dialogue of Aristophanes ναὶ is always 
 used as a particle of affirmation: e. g. Thesmoph. 
 605, ἔμ᾽, ἥτις, ἤρου ;----ναί.---- Κλεωνύμου γυνή. Plut. 
 186-7, ἐγὼ τοσαῦτα δυνατός εἰμ᾽ εἷς ὧν ποεῖν ;---καὶ ναὶ μὰ 
 Δία τούτων γε πολλῷ πλείονα. In ναὶ therefore the 
 woman meekly assents to our Lord’s statement, while 
 in καὶ γὰρ she urges that very circumstance as an 
 additional reason why her suit should be granted. 
 Chrysostom carefully traces the precise argument 
 which she pleads: ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν αὐτοῦ ῥημάτων πλέκει 
 τὴν συνηγορίαν. Ei γὰρ κυνάριόν εἰμι, οὔκ εἰμι ἀλλοτρία... 
 Ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαία ἡ τροφὴ τοῖς τέκνοις; φησίν, οἶδα κἀγώ" 
 πλὴν οὐδὲ ἐγὼ κεκώλυμαι, κυνάριον οὖσα. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ μὴ 
 θέμις λαβεῖν, οὐδὲ τῶν ψιχίων μετασχεῖν θέμις" εἰ δὲ κἂν ἐκ 
 μικροῦ δεῖ κοινωνεῖν, οὐδὲ ἐγὼ κεκώλυμαι, κἂν κυνάριον ὦ" 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ ταύτῃ μάλιστα μετέχω, εἰ κυνάριόν εἰμι. So alter 
 Mark vii, 28. 
 
 (III, c). v. 28. γενηθήτω σοι we θέλεις “ be it to thee, 
 
St. Watthew, 223 
 
 even as thou desirest”]. This is partly taken from 
 Tynd. Cov. 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. 
 
 (II, b). Wives βλέποντας κωφοὺς λαλοῦντας x. τ. 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. Cov. 
 Cheke, 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. Cov. Gen.), and the blind to see.” On the 
 omission of the Greek article before κωφούς, κυλλούς, 
 &c. see note on ch. xi, 5. In v.30, Tynd. Cov. 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. ἤδη ἡμέρας τρεῖς προσμένουσί μοι 
 “‘ they have continued with me now three days’’]. 
 So Tynd. Cov. Gen. (Gen. ‘‘ already”). Cheke 
 ‘‘ they have remained here with me three days now,” 
 nearly resembling Auth. in Mark vii, 2; and much 
 more perspicuous than “ they continue with me now 
 three days,” of Cran. Bish. Auth. All the modern 
 editors read ἡμέραι in both Gospels, and I believe 
 very justly. But this change will not at all affect 
 the sense. 
 
 (III, a). v. 37, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων 
 “and they took up of the fragments that remained”’]. 
 vy. 37, 38 are almost verbally repeated from vv. 20, 
 21 of the last chapter; and it is 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 Motes on the Mew Cestament, 
 
 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 ἐνέβη εἰς τὸ πλοῖον; 811 Eng. have ‘ took 
 ship,” except Cov. ‘‘ went into a ship” (“ἃ boat,” 
 Cheke), which is worse. I would render ‘‘ went into 
 the ship,” mentioned above in ch. xiv, 22, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER ΧΥ͂Ι. 
 
 (III, c). v. 1. οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι ‘ the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees’]. So Tynd. 2. Cov. 
 Cheke, Gen. “ the Pharisees with the Sadducees,” 
 Tynd. 1. Cran. Bish. Auth. it would be hard to tell 
 why. Inv. 3, instead of “ ye can discern” of Eng. 
 say “ ye know how to discern” (γινώσκετε) with Bp. 
 Jebb. 
 
 (III, aand c). v. 5. ἄρτους λαβεῖν “to bring bread”’]. 
 So correct v. 7, conformably to Auth. inv. 8. Other- 
 wise we must render with all Eng. except Auth. “to 
 take bread (Cheke adds “ over’’) with them. . . with 
 us,” vv. 5, 7. “ To take bread,” of Auth. rather 
 implies ‘‘ to eat.” Compare Acts xxvii, 33, 34. 
 
 (II, b. See Introd. Dp? 45). v. 7. διελογίζοντο ““ began 
 to reason’’]. ‘‘ they thought,” Tynd. Cov. Cran. Bish. 
 « they reasoned,” Cheke, Gen. Auth. In this verse 
 Tynd. 1. Cov. Cran. do not render ὅτι, but Auth. 
 (‘* it 7s because”), or Cheke (“ saying that it was 
 because”), will suit the passage very well. The 
 ellipsis of ταῦτα λέγει before ὅτι is illustrated by 
 Kypke from Lysias, de cede Eratosth. (p. 14, Reiske), 
 ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐγὼ ὠργιζόμην Kal ἐκέλευον αὐτὴν ἀπιέναι, ἵνα σύ 
 
 ” ~ > v0 Ν OL 
 Ve Epn, πείρας EVTAVUG τὴν παιοισκὴην. 
 
St. Matthew. 225 
 
 (II, b). v. 8. γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν “ but Jesus 
 perceived ἐΐ, and 5814]. So Syr. and Cheke (“ Jesus 
 knowing this said”). The renderings of Tynd. Cov. 
 Cran. Gen. Bish. “‘ when Jesus understood (‘ per- 
 ceived” Cov.) 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. 
 
 (1). zbid. Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann 
 omit αὐτοῖς after εἶπεν, with Origen, the Vulg. the 
 ARthiopic, &c. versions, and a respectable number 
 of manuscripts, which however are all Alexandrine 
 (Β DK LM, &c.), except a few of the least consi- 
 derable of Matthei’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 ἄρτου “ bread,” the reading 
 of all our versions, Scholz and Lachmann edit ἄρτων 
 ‘‘ loaves,” which form Griesbach and Vater judge 
 little, if at all, inferior to the singular. BOCK LMS, 
 several of Matthzi’s manuscripts, and many others 
 of both families support the plural ; and it is possible 
 that aprov was taken from v.12. But the question is 
 obviously one of slight moment. 
 
 (11, c)°. v. 18. τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τὸν 
 υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ; “ who (see the next note) do men 
 say that I the Son of man am?].” This is the 
 construction adopted by Tynd. Cran. Cheke, Bish. 
 Auth. and the margin of Cov. (Introd. p. 86); it 
 is also that of Castalio, and apparently of Syr. also 
 
 (1 4. ἡ, tps Shu} taal δὰ psf ois). Vulg. 
 
 however renders ‘‘ quem dicunt homines esse Filium 
 Q 
 
226 JPotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 hominis?” whence Cov. “ 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 με 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 Leclere and a few other critics ; 
 who, by placing a mark of interrogation after εἶναι, 
 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 μὴ or 
 μήτι, or some such word to be prefixed to the second 
 clause of the sentence. Besides, it does not appear 
 that the expression 6 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 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 1᾿ homme?” Martin, Ostervald. 
 
St. Matthew. 227 
 words, though it may be a little involved, is in all 
 probability the true one. 
 
 (III, b). 2btd. τίνα με λέγουσιν «. τ. 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 Cov. 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 1. 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, ὁ Χριστὸς is ill rendered ‘“ Christ” by all 
 Eng., including Cheke and the first edition of Auth. 
 Most, I believe ad/, the modern impressions of Auth. 
 have “the Christ ; yet the old reading can hardly 
 be considered a mere typographical error. See note 
 on ch. xii, 23. 
 
 (1). v. 20. Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ‘ 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. 
 Ἰησοῦς 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 ᾿Ιησοῦς 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 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 Ἰησοῦς, 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 Matthezi’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 Ἰησοῦς. 
 
 (AI, a. See Introd. p. 35). v. 22. προσλαβόμενος 
 αὐτὸν “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 πρός. “ Assumens,” Vulg. “ayant pris 
 a part,” Martin, Ostervald; ‘took him by the hand,” 
 Doddridge. 
 
 The precise sense of ἵλεως is well explained by 
 Wetstein, who compares μηδαμῶς, the Septuagint ren- 
 dering of non in 1 Sam. xxii, 15, with ἵλεως, 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. οἵ ὦ 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 ἵλεως is purely Hellenistic. Compare the LXX, 
 
St. Watthew. 229 
 
 2 Sam. xx, 20, with Joseph. Antiq. vii, 2, 8, as cited 
 by Krebs. It is plain that Josephus in the clause ὁ 
 δ᾽ ἵλεω μὲν ηὔχετο τὸν Θεὸν αὐτῷ διαμένειν, had the 
 LXX exclusively in view. See also 1 Mace. ii, 21; 
 1 Chron. xi, 19, in which last place ὁ Θεὸς is sup- 
 plied. 
 
 (LI, a). tbid. οὐ μὴ ἔσται “shall in no wise be’’}. 
 See note on ch. x, 23. Thus correct Auth. in v. 28; 
 Gee xvii, o; xxiii, $9; xxiv, 2; 34; 35. Bish. 
 alone of Eng. renders οὐ μὴ fully in v. 28. On the 
 tense of ἔσται see Green, Gram. N. T. p. 126. 
 
 In v. 24 (see note on ch. xi, 27) the usual ambiguity 
 occurs with respect to θέλω. In v. 25 there is some 
 difference in sense (not a very wide one certainly) be- 
 tween ὃς ἂν θέλῃ σῶσαι and ὃς ἂν ἀπολέσῃ “" whoso- 
 ever will (is anvious, 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. 
 
 (III, a). v. 26. ψυχὴ “life,” dzs] uniformly with 
 Auth. in v. 25. So Doddridge (whose note is worth 
 reading) and Campbell. All Eng. have “ soul.” 
 
 In ν. 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 ra ἔργα for τὴν πρᾶξιν, 
 but this is unquestionably a mere gloss. Yet we must 
 not concede to Schleusner that πρᾶξιν 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.Cov. Cran. Gen. “ works,” 
 Bish. Auth. “actions,” Doddridge, Campbell. Per- 
 
230 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 haps “ conduct” would best express our Lord’s exact 
 meaning. In v. 28, ἕως av ἴδωσι “ till they shall have 
 seen,” Tynd. is better than “ till they see” of Cov. 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. or “ till they shall see” of Gen. 
 
 (1)°. v.28. Instead of τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων (“Some 
 of those standing here”) Griesbach, Vater and Lach- 
 mann prefer τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων, as they are at per- 
 fect liberty to do if they please. Scholz however 
 reads the nominative τινες ὧδε ἑστῶτες (‘‘ some 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 Chrysostom. Syr. is ambiguous. “Sed 
 τινες in Mattheeo 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. 
 
 (1, a). v. 1. παραλαμβάνει “taketh with him ”]. The 
 preposition is neglected by all Eng. here and in ch. 
 xx, 17; and by all except Cov. in Luke ix, 28. In 
 Mark ix, 2 it is expressed by Cov. Bish. Auth. In 
 Matth. i, 20; 24, Auth. renders it fully “to take 
 unto.” 
 
 (1)°. v. 5. In the room of νεφέλη φωτεινὴ “a bright 
 cloud,” Griesbach reads νεφέλη φωτὸς ‘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 φωτός. Griesbach indeed cites 
 
 only stv in favor of his reading; but since they 
 
St. Matthew. 231 
 
 chance to be of different recensions (36. 183. Mat- 
 theei’s e, and perhaps Stephani & or 5 of Wetstein 
 being Byzantine; while 13 and 124 are decidedly 
 Egyptian), he alters the common text on that wretched 
 authority ; considering no doubt that νεφέλη φωτός, 
 being the harsher and more Hebraic form, is for that 
 reason the more probable. I have already (note on 
 ch. vill, 15) explained my motive for troubling the 
 reader with minutiz of this kind. 
 
 (III, a and c). v. 6. σφόδρα “ exceedingly ᾽]. So 
 Auth. in ch. xix, 25. “Sore,” all Eng. except Gen., 
 which inadvertently omits σφόδρα 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. 
 
 (III, c). v. 8. οὐδένα “no one]. “no body,” Rhe- 
 mish version; ‘‘none but Jesus,” Campbell; ‘“ 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; vii, 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 ἀναστῇ “ 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 ἐγείρεσθαι and not ἀναστῆναι. 
 
 (1)°. v. 11. Lachmann omits Ἰησοῦς, after B DK 
 (Griesbach says L) Z, about five cursive manuscripts, 
 
232 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 vy. 5: 
 such is the consistency of his judgment. I remember 
 very few passages in the New Testament where ὁ δὲ 
 ‘and he” occurs 12) the singular, unless it be preceded 
 by ὁ μέν, as in Heb. vii, 23, 24. But it would be rash 
 to speak positively on the point, for in this instance 
 the Concordance affords us no assistance. 
 
 (II, a and b). zbid. ἔρχεται καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα 
 “cometh, and shall reform all things ”]. ‘“ Restituet,” 
 says Lightfoot, “ non in pristinum statum, sed melio- 
 rem.” ᾿Αποκαταστήσει, τουτέστι, διορθώσεται τὴν ἀπιστίαν 
 τῶν Ιουδαίων τῶν τότε εὑρισκομένων, Chrysostom. ‘ Shall 
 come and restore,” Eng. except that Cov. translates 
 “bring all things to right again,” and ἔρχεται is ren- 
 dered by Gen. “‘ must come.” ‘ Venturus est, et res- 
 tituet,’” Vulg. I prefer taking ἔρχεται strictly as a 
 present, for John had already come, though the 
 ἀποκατάστασις, the fruits of his ministry, had not yet 
 shown themselves. Doddridge, for ἀποκαταστήσει, 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 ἀποκαταστήσει (Hebr. 2°27) 
 καρδίαν πατρὸς πρὸς υἱόν. 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. (seas) and may be made to 
 
 suit the context in Acts iii, 21; but Campbell pro- 
 duces no examples of the use of ἀποκαθιστάναι in such 
 
St. Watrhew. 233 
 
 a sense, whereas it occurs six times in the New Tes- 
 tament in its common and more obvious signification. 
 (II, a). v. 12. ἐποίησαν ἐν αὐτῷ “they did in his 
 case]. So Green, Gram. p. 281, comparing 1 Cor. 
 xiv, 11; 2 Cor. iv,3; Gal. i, 16; 1 John iv, 9. See 
 also Luke xxiii, 31. Thus Eurip. Rhes. 855 (ed. 
 Matthize), κοὐδὲν πρὸς αὐτῶν οἶδα πλημμελὲς κλύων" ἐν 
 σοὶ δ᾽ ἂν ἀρχοίμεσθα. So Syr. 2D, Vulg. “in eo.” 
 But Beza, Castalio have “ei,” and all Eng. ‘done 
 unto him.” This construction of ἐν 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), λόγους 
 ἐπιταφίους, ἐν οἷς κοσμεῖτε τὰ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν ἔργα. 
 
 (IIT, c). cbid. ἠθέλησαν “ they pleased’’]. So Dod- 
 dridge, Campbell; ‘“ lusted,” Tynd. Cran. Gen. Bish. 
 “listed,” Auth. ‘‘ what they would,” Cov. It would 
 be more distinct if both here and in v. 22; ch. xx, 
 22 μέλλει were rendered “is about to,” not “ shall.” 
 
 (III, a and cc). v. 17. ἀνέξομαι “ shall I bear with’’]. 
 as in Auth. Acts xvii, 14. All Eng. have “suffer,” 
 even Wickliffe and the Rhemish translators. Thus 
 alter Mark ix, 19; Luke ix, 41. 
 
 In v. 18, Beza and all Eng. except Cov. transpose 
 τὸ δαιμόνιον and αὐτῷ, 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 αὐτῷ, the possessed 
 child, and τὸ δαιμόνιον which possessed him. This 
 however must be fanciful, since both St. Mark (ch. 
 ix, 25) and St. Luke (ch. ix, 42) say plainly ἐπετίμησε 
 τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθαρτῷ. 
 
 (III, c). v. 24. οἱ λαμβάνοντες “ they that were wont 
 to gather’’]. So Tynd. Gen. “ that use to receive,” 
 
234 Motes on the Pew Testament. 
 Cran. “ that received,” Cov. Bish. Auth. probably in- 
 tending to convey the same meaning. 
 
 (II, a). bed. τὰ δίδραχμα “the half-shekels”]. The 
 contribution paid yearly by each adult Israelite, 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 Cov. “ the 
 tribute money ;” and still less from “ tribute a ” of 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. _Vulg. has “ didrachma,”’ and i 
 lai am>) =e) ues 3Z ‘‘two drachms of head money.” 
 The value of the shekel is accurately stated by Jose- 
 phus (Antiq. iii, 8, 2), 6 δὲ σίκλος; νόμισμα Ἕ βραίων oy, 
 ᾿Αττικὰς δέχεται δραχμὰς τέσσαρας. In accordance with 
 this interpretation both Aquila and Symmachus trans- 
 late “ shekel” in Exod. xxx, 13 by orarnp (the Attic 
 stater containing four Attic drachme), and Aquila 
 YPA “ bekah,” or half-shekel, in Exod. xxxviii, 26 by 
 δίδραχμον. On consulting the LXX, however, an un- 
 expected difficulty presents itself: for we there find 
 the shekel called δίδραχμον, and the bekah dpaypun 
 (Exod xxxix, 2, according to the arrangement of the 
 LXX). But this obstacle is soon surmounted. We 
 learn from Varro that the Alevandrian drachma, by 
 which the translators of the LX X naturally reckoned, 
 was equal to two Attic drachme (see Prideaux’s 
 Connections, Preface). It appears therefore that two 
 Attic drachmee (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, srarnpa is rendered by Tynd. 1. “a piece 
 of twelve pence;” by Tynd. 2. Cov. Cran. Gen. 
 Bish. “a piece of twenty pence ;” by Auth. with un- 
 
St. Matthew. 235 
 
 3 
 
 fortunate vagueness, “ἃ piece of money,” which in 
 the margin of the first edition is explained to be “(ἃ 
 stater,” its value being indicated only in our later 
 Bibles (‘it is half an ounce of silver, in value 2s. 6d. 
 after 5s. the ounce”). Since it is necessary to point 
 out the relation subsisting between στατὴρ and δίδραχ- 
 pov (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 κολλυ- 
 Prorat (Matth. xxi, 12; Mark xi, 15), or κερματισταί 
 (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, | 
 presume, will believe with Sebastian Schmidt (see 
 Wolf’s Cure Phil. ad loc.) that the coin in question 
 was created expressly for this purpose ; because, for- 
 sooth, had it been Jost in the sea, its former owner 
 would have had good grounds for a law-suit against 
 our Redeemer ! 
 
 (II, a). v. 27. σκανδαλίσωμεν αὐτοὺς “cause them to 
 offend’”’]. See note on ch. v, 29. Syr. here, as before, 
 employs the causative conjugation (.-..5..): but all 
 Eng. Vulg. &c. have ‘‘offend.” Piscator renders 
 “ offendiculum preebeamus ipsis ;” either by inducing 
 them to despise the temple and its services, or to tra- 
 duce our Lord as an impious subverter of the Mosaic 
 ritual. Thus the general meaning is the same as in 
 
236 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 Auth., but our rendering of the verb here is more 
 consistent with its use in other places. See below, 
 note on ch. xvill, 6; 8; 9. 
 
 (III, c). διά. ἄρον “take” ]. So Tynd. Cov. Cran. 
 Gen. “take up,” Bish. Auth. But “ up” occurs in 
 the very next line. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 (II, a). vv. 6, 8, 9. σκανδαλίσῃ “ cause to offend”). 
 Here vv. 8, 9 are parallel to ch. v, 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”) ; 
 Cran. in v. 8, and Cheke in v. 9 (“hinder”); Gen. 
 in vv. 8, 9. All other Ene. 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 
 Chrysostom (on v. 6) is of a different opinion: οἱ ἀτι- 
 μάζοντες;,---τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι TO σκανδαλίσαι. 
 
 The distinction between θάλασσα and πέλαγος in v. 
 6 is excellently illustrated by Raphel from Arist. Hist. 
 Anim. 1, 1, καὶ τῶν θαλασσίων τὰ μὲν πελάγια, τὰ δὲ αἰγια- 
 λώδη. 
 
 (1)°. v. 8. Instead of αὐτὰ ‘“ them” Lachmann reads 
 αὐτὸν “it” (i. 6. the foot), which is favored by Gries- 
 bach and found in the first edition of Erasmus (1516), 
 in Syr. Vulg. Tynd. Cov. Cran. It is supported by 
 only ten manuscripts (B D L inclusive), of which 
 all except two of Matthei’s are Alexandrian. This 
 evidence is far too weak to be considered as authentic, 
 
St. Matthew, 237 
 
 though perhaps αὐτὸν may be thought rather the 
 more probable reading. See note on ch. xxv, 2. 
 
 (III, aand c). ν. 12. τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ “ what think ye 7᾽;. 
 So Cheke, and Auth. also in all other places where 
 the phrase occurs (ch. xvii, 25; xxi, 28; xxii, 17; 
 42; xxvi, 66; John xi, 56). Here all Eng. have 
 “how think ye.” 
 
 (III, b). ibid. οὐχὶ ἀφεὶς . . . πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ ‘ doth he 
 not leave ... and go ... and seek”). So Tynd. 
 Gen. and Cheke, im substance. But Cov. Cran. 
 Bish. Auth. have “ doth he not leave .. . and goeth 
 
 . and seeketh.”’ This lapse in the grammatical 
 construction is pointed out by Lowth, Eng. Gram. 
 Ρ. 146, and after him by Archbp. Newcome. A simi- 
 lar error occurs Jerem. xxvi, 19. We may here re- 
 mark that Syr. Vulg. Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke, Gen. 
 Castalio, Doddridge and Campbell join ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη with 
 ἀφείς, ‘‘ leave the ninety-nine on the mountains,” be- 
 cause St. Luke (ch. xv, 4) has ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ in the paral- 
 lel text. Beza, however, the French versions, Bish. 
 Auth. rightly take the words with πορευθείς, “ goeth 
 into (‘to’ would be better) the mountains.” I cannot 
 concede to Doddridge that ‘‘the original will bear 
 either construction.” ‘Emi with the dative implies 
 rest, with the accusative motion to a place. 
 
 (III, c). v. 13. καὶ ἐὰν γένηται “and if it happen 
 that”|. So Tynd. Gen. (omitting “and’’) Cov. Cran. 
 It is surprising that Bish. Auth. should have pre- 
 ferred so inelegant a phrase as “1 so be that.” 
 Again, χαίρει ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ should be rendered “ rejoiceth 
 over it,” as inCov. Other Eng. have “ of that sheep:” 
 “of that one,” Cheke. 
 
 (IIT, c). v. 16. ἐπὶ στόματος “ by the mouth’’]. So 
 Gen. “By two or three witnesses’ report,” or “saying,” 
 
 Cheke; ‘by the testimony,” Campbell. ‘In the 
 
238 Notes on the Pew Cestament, 
 mouth” of Vulg. Tynd. Cov. Cran. Bish. Auth. is too 
 
 obscure. Syr. yas VS « upon the mouth ;” 
 
 actly as we have 2») in Deut. xvii, 6; xix, 15. Park. 
 hurst observes “so we say in English, upon the word 
 or oath.” Thus correct 2 Cor. xiii, 1. Such expres- 
 sions as ἐπὶ τοσούτων μαρτύρων are very common in 
 Greek, as Wetstein has shown. See 1 Tim. v, 19, 
 and note. In Hebr. x, 28 ἐπὶ 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 ἐπὶ στόματος in Deut. xix, 15. 
 
 (II, a). v. 17. παρακούσῃ “ disregard”]. So Dod- 
 dridge. ‘“ Give no ear to,” Cheke, “ hear not,” Syr. 
 Vulg. Tynd. Coy. 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. Παρακούσῃ is doubtless equivalent to μὴ 
 ἀκούσῃ v. 16, and is used for it in the LXX, Isai. Ixv, 
 12. Καὶ before τῆς ἐκκλησιάς should not be lost; ““ dis- 
 regard the Church also;” soSyr. Bish. Auth. alone 
 have “Church.” See Introd. p. 83, note. 
 
 (IU, c). ibid. ὁ ἐθνικὸς “an heathen”). So Cov. 
 Cheke. The other Eng. have “an heathen man.” See 
 note on ch. xiii, 45. 
 
 (1)°. v. 19. Here Griesbach adds ἀμὴν to πάλιν, 
 and Lachmann displaces πάλιν 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 ἀμὴν to πάλιν, a reading countenanced by the 
 Sahidic and several Italic versions. Αμὴν 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 
 
St. Matthew. 239 
 disposed to adopt it. Πάλιν ἀμὴν 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, 11), from the Complutensian, 
 which reads ἀμήν. In v.22, Campbell and Vater join 
 ov with ἕως ἕπτακις, not with λέγω σοί, which is thus 
 thrown into a parenthesis; “1 say unto thee, not 
 seven times.” I see no occasion for the change. 
 
 (III, aand c). v. 23. ἠθέλησε συνᾶραι λόγον * wished 
 toreckon”’]. So Auth. inv. 24; ch. xxv, 19. Here 
 “would reckon,” Wickliffe, Cov. “ would come to 
 account,” 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. vvatpev λόγον seems to 
 be a Latinism. See Schleusner. 
 
 In v. 24, Cov. renders τάλαντον ‘‘ pound”! Both 
 here and in ch. xxv, 15 the margin of the later edi- 
 tions of Auth. reckons by Aftic talents, each of which 
 contains 6000 drachme. 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 ‘750 ounces of silver, which after five 
 shillings the ounce, is£187. 10s.” Modern 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 drachme of the times posterior to Alexander 
 the Great, which are preserved inthe British Museum, 
 that the average weight of pure silver in each is 63 
 grains, whereas our shilling sterling contains 80.7 
 
240 otes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 grains, after deducting the alloy. Hence (80.7 : 63 : : 
 12d. : 9.36d. nearly) the drachma of the later age 
 was equal to about 91d. of English money, and the 
 talent (91d. Χ 6000) to £231. 5s. (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 
 (ἄτομον. 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 71 ὦ of English money (80.7: 51 :: 12d. : 
 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. 11s. 10d. Eng- 
 lish money. 
 
 (III, c). v. 26. προσεκύνει αὐτῷ ““ prostrated himself 
 before him” ]. So Doddridge and Campbell nearly. 
 ‘‘ Bowed himself to him,” Cheke. “ besought him,” 
 Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish. and margin of Auth., 
 after ‘‘orabat” of Vulg. But there is a broad dis- 
 tinction between the humble entreaty (παρεκάλει) in v. 
 29, and the formal prostration to a superior in the 
 present case. Syr. has Aes “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 προσκυνεῖν in the 
 New Testament is ably examined by Dr. Pye Smith, 
 “Scripture Testimony to the Messiah,” vol. ii, p. 
 270. 
 
 (1). v. 28. εἴ re“ what”). This is the reading of 
 almost all the manuscripts and critics instead of 6 τι 
 
St. Watthew. 241 
 of the received text. Ev rc is far more Classical, but 
 still it is frequently found in the N. T. 
 
 (1)°. v. 29. Griesbach and Lachmann omit εἰς τοὺς 
 πόδας αὐτοῦ ‘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. 
 Cov. Cran. Cheke, among the English versions. 
 See note on ch. xxv, 2. The authority for the rejec- 
 tion of this clause is slight enough: eleven MSS 
 (BC DL. 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 ἀποδώσω Mill and Scholz expunge πάντα, 
 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 εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, that nothing but Gries- 
 bach’s extravagant partiality for such documents as 
 DL. 1. 124. could have led him to retain πάντα here. 
 It is exhibited however in Vulg. Syr. (Griesbach and 
 Scholz say vot 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 Matthzi’s) neglect it, 
 I am reluctant to dismiss it entirely from the text. 
 
 (II, a). v.31. διεσάφησαν “ told plainly’’]. So Gen., 
 or perhaps ‘‘ gave an exact account of,” as in Dod- 
 dridge. “‘ Told,” Eng. Vulg. On the force of διὰ in 
 composition see note on ch. xiv, 36. 
 
 (III, a). v. 33. ἐλεῆσαι... ἠλέησα “had pity,” in both 
 eases]. So Cheke: all Eng. “had compassion .... 
 had pity.” 
 
 (1, a). v. 34. rote βασανισταῖς τ 10 the jailors wit 
 So Tynd. Coy. Cran. Gen. Campbell, Newcome and 
 
 R 
 
242 JRotes on the 22 ἐὺ Cestament. 
 Boothroyd: but “ tormentors,” Syr. Vulg. Beza, 
 Castalio, Cheke, Bish. 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, Cov. Cran. Bish. Auth. render 
 ποιήσει ὑμῖν by “do also unto you.” Tynd. Gen. 
 omit “also,” which indeed is quite needless. 
 
 (1)°. v. 35. Here again Griesbach and Lachmann 
 expunge the clause τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, 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 τὰ παραπτώ- 
 ματα αὐτοῦ, 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 A®thiopic versions. 
 But a version need be very literal indeed, to be relied 
 on in a case like the present. 
 
St. Matthew, 243 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 (II, b and 6). ν. 4. ὃ ποιήσας, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυν 
 ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς ““ἢ6 who made them, made them from 
 the beginning a male and a female”’|. So Ostervald 
 ** qui créa l’homme, au commencement du monde, fit 
 un homme et une femme.” Campbell also renders 
 ‘ta male and a female,” and is followed by the “ Lay- 
 man” of 1840 (see note on ch. xv, 5,6). The course of 
 our Lord’s argument requires that it be distinctly 
 stated, that at the creation God made but ove woman 
 for one man. Such is the view of Chrysostom, οὐ γὰρ 
 εἶπεν ὅτι ἐποίησεν Eva ἄνδρα καὶ μίαν γυναῖκα μόνον, ἀλλ’ 
 ὅτι καὶ τοῦτο ἐκέλευσεν, ὥστε τὸν ἕνα τῇ μιᾷ συνάπτεσθαι. 
 50 ἴοο Theophylact, ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἕνα συνέζευξεν ὃ Θεὸς μιᾷ. 
 Thus correct Mark x, 6. ΑἹ] 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. Cov. 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 afixed. (See Pfannkuche on 
 the Language of Palestine in the Age of Christ, § 2). 
 
 I have also, though not without some hesitation, 
 
244 Potes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 adopted the punctuation of Homberg and Macknight 
 (Gen. Pref. to Epistles, sect. 111, note), who join aw 
 ἀρχῆς with ἐποίησεν, and not with ὁ ποιήσας. 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 ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς uniformly here and in v. 8 ; and 
 it is the construction adopted by Chrysostom, ὁ γὰρ 
 Θεὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς. This 
 absolute use of 6 ποιήσας, for “the Creator,” is illus- 
 trated by Loesner from Philo, de Opif. mundi, p. 7, 
 ὃ καὶ ἡμέραν ὃ ποιήσας ἐκάλεσε. 
 
 (II, b and III, c). v. 5. οἱ δύο ““1μ6 two]. “ὙΠὸν 
 two,’ Cov. (but not in v. 6), Cheke, and the Rhemish 
 version. All other Eng. and even Wickliffe have 
 ‘they twain.” Thus correct ch. xxi, 31; xxvu, 21; 
 51, “ twain.” 
 
 In v. 7 also τί οὖν Μωσῆς... . 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,’’ Cov. Cran, Bish. 
 Auth. The rendering of Gen. is even worse ; ‘* why 
 did then Moses...” 
 
 CH. a). v. 8. πρὸς σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ““ against your 
 obstinacy” ]. i. 6. to meet it, Green, Gram. N. T. p. 
 303. ‘ Because of the hardness of your hearts,” Eng. 
 ‘for your hearthardness,” Cheke. Grotius and Ro- 
 senmiller labour to shew that πρὸς is here used like 
 the Hebrew ¥ for “ propter.” Yet is remarkable 
 that Syr. does not render πρὸς by “-S “ on account 
 
 99 
 
 of,” but by ie BRR OE against,” which is unquestion- 
 ably more literal ; ‘‘ad duritiam cordis vestri,” Vulg. 
 With regard to σκληροκαρδία, it is only necessary to 
 refer the reader to Campbell’s Prelim. Diss. IV, 22 
 
St. Matthew. 245 
 for a full justification of the change suggested. “ Per- 
 vicacia, Castalio; μοχθηρία, 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. 
 
 (IIT, a). v. 9. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν “ but I say unto you”). 
 So Cov. Cheke, after Syr. Vulg. Aé is omitted by 
 Cran. Bish. In Tynd. Gen. we read “ I say there- 
 fore,” in Auth. “ and I say.” Yet beyond a doubt 
 the same pointed opposition is intended between 
 the law of Moses and that oh Christ, as in ch: v.o23 
 where Auth. has “ but I say.’ 
 
 CII, c). v. 12. ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ibs men”|. So 
 the Rhemish version. All Eng. (even Cheke) have 
 ““ οὗ men,” which is Sanvacal in this place. The 
 Rhemish translators alone have ‘ there are” (εἰσιν) 
 throughout the verse. Wickliffe, Cov. and Cheke 
 render “there be,” three times. Tynd. Cran. (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. 
 
 (III, a). v. 13. ἐπίθῃ “ lay”). So Cov. Auth. in 
 v. 15, but “ put” here. Tynd. Cran. Gen. Bish. 
 have “ put,” and Cheke “lay,” in both places. Παιδία 
 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. 
 Cheke 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. τὰ παιδία “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 inv. 17, εἰς τὴν ζωὴν 
 
246 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 refers us back to ζωὴν 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). cbtd. τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν ἡ βασίλεια τῶν 
 οὐρανῶν “for to such belongeth the kingdom of 
 heaven’]. So Tynd. 1. Cov. Bish. Green, Gram. 
 Ν, T. p. 207. This rendering is much clearer than 
 “of such is,” of Tynd.2. Cran. Gen. Auth. or 
 “‘ such one’s is” of Cheke. 
 
 (1)°. 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 τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὃ 
 Θεός, “ why callest thou me good? there is none good 
 but one, that is God :” they read, ri με ἐρωτᾶς περὶ τοῦ 
 ἀγαθοῦ ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός, * why askest thou me con- 
 cerning what is good ? He whois good is One.” I fear 
 it is but too evident that this text was mangled by some 
 over-zealous scribe, who was displeased with the 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 
 Jive copies (B DL, 1. 22.), and partially in a sixth 
 (Matthei’s x). Now all these documents (except 
 
 * «« Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior 
 to the Father, as touching his Manhood;” is the accurate and 
 Scriptural statement of the Athanasian Creed. 
 
Sr, Matthew, 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 Dews), and in part by the Sahidic, Ethiopic, 
 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 piv οὖν Ματθαῖος ὡς 
 περὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἔργου ἐρωτηθέντος τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐν τῷ τί ἀγαθὸν 
 ποιήσω ; ὁ δὲ Μάρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς φασὶ τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρηκέναι, 
 τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὃ Θεός, 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 Notes on the Mew Cestament. 
 
 Middleton, proposes to express τὸ yap “ for the com- 
 mandment.” It does not appear advisable to render 
 τὸ here. 
 
 (III, c). v.21. τὰ ὑπάρχοντα “thy substance’’|. So 
 Bish. Syr. ‘‘ que habes,” Vulg. “that thou hast,” 
 Tyn. Cov. Cheke, Gen. Auth. “ (all) that thou hast,” 
 Cran. from some Italic manuscript (see Introd. p. 88), 
 for Wickliffe reads “all,” as also, according to Scholz, 
 does the Sahidic version. Πτωχοῖς should strictly be 
 rendered ‘‘to poor persons.” All Eng. have “ to 
 the poor.” Indeed Lachmann, after B D and a few 
 editions, reads τοῖς. See note on ch. ix, 18. 
 
 (1, b). v. 22. τὸν λόγον ‘ the saying ”’|. See note 
 on ch. xv, 12. ‘‘ That saying,” Eng. Syr. Here Lach- 
 mann reads τοῦτον on the sole authority of the Codex 
 B: for Syr. he cares nothing (Introd. p. 25). 
 
 (III, c). v. 28. δυσκόλως “ 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. Cov. Cran. Gen. 
 
 (1). v. 24. Instead of διελθεῖν “to go through,” 
 Wetstein, Griesbach, Vater, and Scholz, adopt εἰσελθεῖν 
 ‘to enter,” which is the more difficult reading, and 
 may have been expunged on account of εἰσελθεῖν im- 
 mediately following (see note on ch. ii, 11).* Camp- 
 bell says that the sense suggested by εἰσελθεῖν 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 preferatur ei, 
 
 * Bp. Jebb, however, says that “‘ to depart from verbal repeti- 
 tion, is not the common error of copyists ” (Sacred Liter. p. 311). 
 Not of copyists, perhaps; but of critical correctors, a much more 
 meddling and curious race. 
 
St, Matthew. 249 
 
 qua 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), εἰσελθεῖν is read by Chrysos- 
 tom, and by so many of the most antient manuscripts 
 of both families (including CE F HKLM Z), that it 
 may rightfully claim a place in the text. 
 
 (II, a). v. 26. ἐμβλέψας “looking on them”]. So 
 Cheke, and even Auth. in the parallel place, Mark 
 x, 27: whether steadfastly, as Doddridge thinks, or 
 with gracious consolation, ἡμέρῳ ὄμματι καὶ πράῳ φρίτ- 
 τουσαν αὐτῶν τὴν διάνοιαν παραμυθησάμενος, 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 ἐμβλέψας is 
 widely different, and more in accordance with the 
 common use of the word in Classical authors: e. g. 
 Plato, Charmides (I, 1, 307, ed. Bekker), ἐνέβλεψέ τέ 
 μοι τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀμήχανόν τι, SO that, in confusion, 
 εἶδόν Te τὰ ἐντὸς τοῦ ἱματίου Kal ἐφλεγόμην, Kal οὐκέτ᾽ ἐν 
 ἐμαυτοῦ ἦν. 
 
 In this verse all Eng., even Cheke and Auth. in 
 the edition of 1611, have ‘‘ unpossible.” We have 
 noticed similar variations in our modern 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 dpa altogether. Tynd. 1. 
 Cov. Cran. Bish. Auth. say “ what shall we have 
 therefore?”’ Rather render ‘“‘ what then shall we have’’? 
 Cheke puts “ then” last. 
 
 (II, c)°. v. 28. ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ “ in the regenera- 
 
250 jotes on the Pew Testament, 
 
 tion”. It has been seriously doubted whether these 
 words should be joined with καθίσεσθε, or with the 
 clause which immediately precedes them: and the 
 early editors of the Greek 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 
 παλιγγενεσία. If we punctuate and translate thus, 
 γα 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 (ἀκολουθήσαντες), 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, 5; Tit. iii, 5; 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 ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ 
 with καθίσεσθε, and regard ὅταν καθίσῃ . . . . δόξης αὑτοῦ, 
 as a parenthetic explanation of παλιγγενεσίᾳ. This in- 
 terpretation is confirmed by Syr. which translates 
 fou, Jks5 “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. 
 Auth., is adverse to my view (Cov. has ‘‘ new birth”). 
 Theophylact expounds παλιγγενεσία by ἀνάστασις, and 
 
St, Watthew. 251 
 Theophanes adds ὡς αὖθις ἀναγεννῶσαν ἡμᾶς, καὶ εἰς τὸ 
 ἀρχαῖον μετάγουσαν (see Suicer, Thes. Eccles. Tom. 1], 
 Ρ. 551): and such a use of παλιγγενεσία 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 consunimate 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 ἐν τῷ 
 αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ : “dans le renouvellement gui doit 
 arriver,” Ostervald. 
 
 (III, a and c). bid. ἐπὶ θρόνου “ 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 ἐπὶ with the geni- 
 tive does not here differ in sense from the same pre- 
 position with the accusative. 
 
 (II, b). v. 80. πολλοὶ δὲ ἔσονται, κ΄ τ᾿ Δ. “ but many 
 first shall be last, and last first”]. Πολλοὶ refers to 
 ἔσχατοι as well as to πρῶτοι, otherwise it would be 
 of ἔσχατοι, 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, οἱ ἔσχατοι. 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. Ὁμοία TAP... 
 See also ch. xx, 16. 
 
 
 
 * Wetstein tells us that παλιγγενεσία here denotes ‘‘ summa 
 felicitas,” on account of the emphasis in the article τῇ. So little 
 did the first critic of his age know respecting the real nature of the 
 Greek article. 
 
252 Notes on the lew Cestament, 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 (III, c). v. 1. ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ “ unto an house- 
 holder”]. So Tynd. Cov. Cheke, Gen. “ἃ man that 
 is an householder,” Cran. Bish. Auth. Compare note 
 on ch. xiii, 45. In v.11; ch. xxiv, 43; Mark xiv, 
 14; 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 animam et corpus estimari,” 
 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 
 ἀργοὺς after ἑστῶτας, and Mill thinks it may have crept 
 into the text from v. 8. The grounds for its rejection 
 are but trifling. It is read in all the manuscripts ex- 
 cept four (BC DL), Origen, the Italic, Vulg. and 
 Egyptian versions; which might easily have neglected 
 it, as not necessary to the sense. Scholz, of course, 
 retains apyove in the text. 
 
 (1, a)°. v. 12. ἐποίησαν “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 renders ἐποίησαν by o.,.<.: whereas in all the 
 
 ray: 
 passages where ποιεῖν refers to time (except the doubtful instance 
 of James iv, 13), it uses the substantive verb. 
 
St. Watthew. 253 
 makes ποιεῖν 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 ποιεῖν should be used in 
 two senses so widely different, in the same verse: if 
 ἐποίησαν signify “ tarried,” ‘* continued,” we should 
 expect ὧδε 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 ; τοῖς βαστάσασι τὸ βάρος κ. τ. X. 
 Syr. Eng. Cheke, &c. rightly join τὸν καύσωνα with 
 τῆς ἡμέρας. See James i, 11; LXX. Gen. xxxi, 40, 
 συγκαιόμενος τῷ καύσωνι, In the Alexandrine text; the 
 Vatican reads τῷ καύματι. 
 
 (III, c). v. 14. τὸ σὸν “thine own”]. So Cheke. 
 “that which is thy duty,” Tynd. Gen. “ that thine is,” 
 Cov. Cran. Bish. Auth. very awkwardly. Translate 
 θέλω δὲ “for 1 will.” This meaning of δὲ 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. For θέλω see note on ch. 
 mo? 
 
 (III, a). v. 18. παραδοθήσεται “" 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. 86). Campbell’s just distinction between παραδιδ- 
 όναι “to deliver up,” and προδιδόναι ‘ to betray,” 
 (Prelim. Diss. IIT, 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 Potes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 (II, a). v. 21. εἰπὲ “command” ]. So Cheke, Cas- 
 talio (“jube”), Martin, Ostervald (‘ ordonne”), 
 which is approved by Vater and Pr. Scholefield. St. 
 Mark (ch. x, 37) has δός, and Kypke supports this 
 view by several Classical quotations: e. g. Xen. 
 Cyroped. vii [p. 107, ed. Stephan.], καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς 
 ἀπιέναι ἐκ τοῦ στρατεύματος τάχιστα. Cov. translates 
 εἰπὲ by “let,” the other Eng. by ‘“‘ grant.” Syr. Vulg. 
 Beza (“ dic”) are quite indeterminate. 
 
 (1). chid. To εὐωνύμων Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, 
 and Lachmann, after a great majority of the chief 
 manuscripts of both families, add σου: “thy left,” as 
 it is in Tynd. 1. Cov. Gen. “ The left,” Vulg. Tynd. 2. 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. Syr. reads σου, if that is of any 
 weight. See note on ch. xiv, 22. 
 
 (1)°. v. 22. Griesbach and Lachmann remove from 
 the text καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι, βαπτισθῆναι, 
 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 DLZ. 1. 22. see note on ch. xix, 17), Origen and 
 Epiphanius among the Greeks; the Sahidic, Coptic, 
 ‘Ethiopic, 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- 
 
St, Matthew. 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 καί, at the beginning of each 
 of the disputed passages, Scholz, on very sufficient 
 authority, reads 7. 
 
 (iI, b). v. 23. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἡτοίμασται 
 ...“fis not mine to give, but to those for whom it is pre- 
 pared”. ..]. 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 
 
256 {Qotes on the Mew Cestament. 
 
 had previously been sanctioned by Castalio and Gro- 
 tius. It goes upon the assumption that ἀλλὰ “ but” 
 is here used for εἰ μὴ “ except,” “unless: and that 
 these particles were sometimes interchanged is evi- 
 dent. Not only is εἰ μὴ used where we should ex- 
 pect adda 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, 5; Mark ix, 8, 
 compared with Matth. xvii, 8; Herod. i, 193 (cited 
 by Raphel), χρέωνται δὲ οὐδὲν ἐλαίῳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν σησά- 
 μων ποιεῦντες. Somewhat similar is the μαρτυρία in 
 Demosth. c. Midiam (p- 504, Reiske), μηδένα ἕτερον 
 εἶναι τὸν Νικοδήμου φονέα, ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Αρίσταρχον. Other in- 
 stances may be found in Kypke, of which the most 
 apposite is Joseph. Antiq. xix, 2, 2, rote re θεοὺς οὐκ 
 ἄλλοις συμμαχεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μετὰ ἀρετῆς καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ 
 τοὺς ἀγῶνας ποιουμένοις. If these examples of the em- 
 ployment of ἀλλὰ for εἰ μὴ be deemed sufficient, the pas- 
 sage 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 donné qu’ ἃ ceux ἃ qui mon Pére 
 l’a destiné’’). 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- 
 jection 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 (οὐκ ἔσ- 
 τιν ἐμόν, ἀλλ᾽ ΕΚΕΙΝΩΝ, οἷς ἡτοίμασται), or Theophy- 
 lact (τοῦτο εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων ὑπόνοιαν" 
 οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι KATA XAPIN τὸν στέφανον, add’ 
 ᾧ ἡτοίμασται, τουτέστι τῷ δραμόντι καὶ νικήσαντι cee aA- 
 
 Ν ~ ἢ ’ Wey ἢ € 7 
 λων yap των KOTLACAVTWY ἔστι, Καὶ EKELVOLC ἡτοίμασται). 
 
St. Watthew, 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, 
 11, too, ἀλλὰ is used in its ordinary signification. 
 
 (II, a). v. 24. περὶ “with respect to”]. So Syr. 
 (Ὁ. Δ), Vulg. “de;” « (were grieved) with,” Cheke, 
 “ (disdained) at,” Eng. “against,” Auth. Although 
 Schleusner assigns adversus, contra, as the first mean- 
 ing of περὶ with a genitive, none of the examples he 
 alleges (ch. xv, 7; John vi, 41; Acts xxv, 16, Χο.) 
 bear him out in this forced interpretation. In Mark 
 x, 41 Auth. has “ with.” 
 
 (II, a). v. 25. of μέγαλοι κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτών “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. Κατακυριεύουσιν he had just 
 before rendered “lord it over.’”’ The intensive force 
 of κατὰ in composition is too familiar to require much 
 defence. For κατακυριεύειν see 1 Pet. v, 3; Psalm 
 x, 10, ἐν τῷ αὐτὸν κατακυριεῦσαι τῶν πενήτων (LXX, 
 not Hebrew). Schleusner’s adverse instances merely 
 shew, that in translating from a language which ad- 
 mits not of such refinements, the LX X sometimes em- 
 ployed κατακυριεύειν where the simple verb would 
 have sufficed. Cheke has ‘“‘overmaster them . 
 over-rule them.” Syr. Vulg. and all Eng.t are nearly 
 
 eee EE EEE ee 
 
 * Schaaf renders this word by “ contra:” but why should we 
 not prefer “‘ de,” ‘* propter ?” 
 + The margin of Cov. says, ‘‘ some read, the greatest deal with 
 violence.” 
 5 
 
258 Pores on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 as Auth. “exercise dominion . . . exercise authority.” 
 See Mark x, 42. 
 
 (I). v. 26. Age “but,” is cancelled after οὕτως by 
 all the modern editors, on the authority of a vast 
 number of good manuscripts; and of the Sahidic, 
 Italic, Vulg. (but not, as Griesbach and Scholz state, 
 of the Syr.) versions. ‘The insertion of 8,” Bp. 
 Jebb observes, ‘“ would serve but to forestall and 
 weaken the succeeding adversative particle ἀλλά." Of 
 Eng. δὲ 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 find it in their printed copies. 
 We must not comply with Bp. Jebb in substituting 
 ἔσται for ἴστω, here, and in v.27. The antient versions 
 in such a case prove next to nothing. 
 
 (III, c). ibid. γενέσθαι “ become ᾽]: All Eng. “ be.” 
 See note on ch. xii, 45. “ Ea,” Bp. Jebb,imgent- 
 ously refines, ‘‘is an advance upon γενέσθαι : 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 διάκονος “servant > (“ waiter 
 on,” Cheke, “ minister,” Eng.), and in v. 27 of δοῦλος 
 “slave” (“servant,” Eng. Cheke), that an orderly 
 progression may be visible in every term of each paral- 
 lel couplet : μέγας γενέσθαι---εἶναι πρῶτος : ἔστω διάκονος 
 - ἤστω δοῦλος. Refer also to ch. xxii, 13, where for 
 διακόνοις Tynd. Cran. Gen. Bish. have “ ministers,” and 
 Cheke “ waiters,” not ‘ servants,” as in Cov. Auth. 
 
St. Watthew. 259 
 to distinguish them from δοῦλοι in vv. 3, 4, &e. I 
 should state, however, that Dr. Symonds objects to 
 the employment of the word “ minister,” under any 
 circumstances, lest it should be supposed that a per- 
 son in Holy Orders is meant! Is not this the very 
 dotage of criticism ? 
 
 (III, a and Dee “ol ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς Wwa.. - 
 “charged them that”. ..]. So Auth. in Mark x, 48. 
 In this place Cov. Cheke have “rebuked them that?’ 
 but all other Eng. “rebuked them because.” This 
 obsolete use of “‘ because,” for “ that,” did not escape 
 the keen observation of Bp. Lowth (Eng. Gram. p. 
 117). Auth. translates ἐπιτιμᾷν “charged,” also in 
 ch. xii, 16; Mark viii, 30; “ straitly charged,” in 
 Mark iii, 12; Lukeix,21. In the parallel text Luke 
 xviii, 39, Auth. stands as Cov. here. 
 
 (II, a). v. 32. ποιήσω “that I should do”] subjunc- 
 tive aorist. So Tynd. 2. Cheke, Gen. “Shall do,” 
 other Eng. 
 
 In v. 34, all Eng. render ἀνέβλεψαν “ received 
 sight,” as in ch. xi, 5. So Syr. Vulg. Castalio, Os- 
 tervald. But Beza (who is followed by Martin) 
 has “ receperunt,” which is approved by Parkhurst 
 and Schleusner. I really do not see why the force 
 of ava should be dropped in this passage and others, 
 because it happens to be inadmissible in the solitary 
 instance of John ix. 
 
260 Qotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 dl, aye. Vols πρὸς τὸ ὄρος «ς ᾳῃίο 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 ceenea ie ἐλ Be (“ad latus”) in Mat- 
 
 thew and Luke, but No (“‘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 πρὸς 
 with a dative “at,” and with an accusative “ unto.” 
 
 (III, c). v. 3. ὁ Κύριος “ 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. 
 
 (1). bid. The future ἀποστελεῖ of the received text 
 is mainly supported by BD, Origen, and the Latin 
 versions. A much greater number of valuable manu- 
 scripts have the present ἀποστέλλει, 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. (;_| ἃ Ὁ)» 
 though Scholz thinks otherwise.* The same altera- 
 
 
 
 * The rendering of Syr. is the same in both texts, Matth. xxi, 
 3, and Mark xi, 3. In the former instance Scholz cites its evi- 
 dence in favor of the future, in the latter of the present! But I am 
 
St. Watthew. 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. τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ““ now all this 
 was done”’]. So δὲ 15 rendered by Auth. in ch.i,18: 
 “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 δέ. In y. 5, the earlier 
 versions translate ὑποζυγίου “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 ἐπεκάθισαν “ they 
 set him,” which we find in Vulg. Beza, Castalio, Tynd. 
 Coy. Cran. Cheke, Gen. Auth., we ought to receive 
 from the Complutensian, one of the editions of Eras- 
 mus, and Stephens ἐπεκάθισεν ‘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, orS; and Mattheei’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 ἐπεκάθισεν. Buttmann in- 
 forms us that nothing remains of that word in Codex Z, but the 
 first tivo letters. 
 
262 ores on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 Origen, both Syriac, the Sahidic, Athiopic, and some 
 Italic versions. The Codex D has ἐκάθητο. The 
 Codex Cyprius of the ninth century (K), Marini’s 
 venerable Vatican fragment (I), and many cursive 
 manuscripts, have ἐκάθισεν, and so far strengthen 
 Stephens’s reading. The plural ἐπεκάθισαν 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. ᾿Επικαθίζειν 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 1, 44 (ἐπεκάθισαν Ἴ23)), 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 ἐκάθισεν : 
 Luke xix, 35 ἐπεβίβασαν. Where the internal marks 
 are so equivocal, external testimonies alone must 
 decide. Ἴ 
 
 CII, ο). ibid. ἐπάνω αὐτῶν “upon them”’ |. ‘Thereon,” 
 Eng. Οὐ τῶν δύο ὑποζυγίων, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἱματίων, says 
 Theophylact, reasonably enough, for ἱμάτια is the 
 nearest antecedent. Thus Beza and Castalio under- 
 stand the passage (see however Krebs ad /oc.). Vulg. 
 (“‘desuper’’) is doubtful, and Syr. reads αὐτοῦ. Cheke 
 renders ‘‘ set him on her,” αὐτῆς, a reading supported 
 only by one Italic manuscript, 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 αὐτῆς “ of it,” viz. the kingdom of God, with 
 Tynd. Cov. 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. 
 
St. Warrhew. 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 Cov. Cran. 
 Cheke, Bish., for Wickliffe, Tynd. Gen. and the 
 Rhemish version correctly omit the pronoun. Had 
 Dr. Symonds limited himself to the same kind of 
 useful criticism in other cases, I should not have had 
 to speak of him so often in terms of disapprobation. 
 It is never 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 difficulties 
 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 ? 
 
 (III, 6). v. 9. ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις ‘in the highest 
 heavens’|. So Gen. and the French versions (“ dans 
 les liewr trés-hauts”), after Beza (“in celis altissi- 
 mis’), as alsoCampbell. “In the height,” Cov. “in the 
 highest,” Tynd. Cran. Cheke, Bish. Auth. which is too 
 indefinite. Thus change Mark xi, 10; Luke u, 14; 
 xix, 38. “In altissimis” Vulg. Syr. has 1 ον Ὁ Ὁ, 
 which is identical with the Hebrew Dia, trans- 
 lated by the LXX ἐν ὑψίστοις in Job xvi, 20; Psalm 
 exlviii, 1 (οὐρανοῖς answers to it in the preceding line 
 of the couplet). Mr. Grinfield compares Sirac. xliii, 
 9. See note on Ephes. i, 3. 
 
264 PMotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 (II, b). v. 12. τὰς περιστερὰς ‘the doves’] used in 
 the temple-worship. Middleton. Thus correct Mark 
 xi, 15. Mr. Green (Gram. N. T. p. 154) remarks 
 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. κατηρτίσω ‘thou hast ordained”]. So 
 Tynd. Cov. Cran. Bish. “establishest,” Cheke, and 
 similarly Syr. (Δ 27), “ 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 ATO? 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. συκῆν μίαν “ one fig tree,” is taken from the 
 scrupulously literal Bish. See Introd. p. 95. 
 
 (III, a). vv. 19, 20. παραχρῆμα “ immediately”]. 
 So Cov. in v.19: “anon,” Tynd. Cran. Bish. Gen. 
 “by and by,” Cheke, “ presently,” Auth. which is a 
 little ambiguous, and a uniform rendering is desirable 
 in y. 20, where all Eng. have “ soon.” 
 
 (III, a). v. 24. λόγον “question”]. So Auth. in 
 Mark xi, 29; and Tynd. Gen. Bish. here. ‘* Word,” 
 Cov. “ thing,” Cran. Cheke, Auth., the margin of 
 
St. Watther. 265 
 
 Auth. in Mark xi, 29, and the text in Luke xx, 3. 
 It is needless to give an unusual or Hellenistic sense 
 to λόγος in the present instance. 
 
 Εἴπητε is translated “ assoil” by Tynd. Gen. This 
 looks like one of 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). ὙΠ. ἔφη αὐτοῖς καὶ αὐτὸς “he likewise 
 said unto them”]. So Tynd. 1. Vulg. ‘ and he like- 
 wise?) .lynd. 2, “ then said he”... Coy. ‘and 
 he said”... Cran. Gen. Bish. Auth., which would 
 require καὶ at the beginning of the clause. ‘‘ Nor I, 
 saith he unto them,” . . . Cheke, as usual. 
 
 (I). v. 30. Instead of δευτέρῳ ‘ second,” ἑτέρῳ 
 “other” is read by Mill, Griesbach, Vater, and 
 Scholz. Mill regards δευτέρῳ as a marginal gloss 
 suggested by πρώτῳ in v. 28. The change is sanc- 
 tioned by five uncial (D Εἰ F H K) and very many cur- 
 sive manuscripts of both families, by Syr. Vulg. the 
 Italic, Ethiopic, 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 B Z, and 
 Chrysostom. 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 τις ‘fa certain” 
 after ἄνθρωπος, which may be interpolated from Luke 
 xx, 9. It is found, however, in Syr. Chrysostom, 
 and nearly all the manuscripts of the Byzantine 
 family except SV, and six lesser ones of Matthzi. 
 Of the other class it is omitted in BCDKL, about 
 twenty cursive manuscripts, Vulg., the Coptic and 
 
266 jPotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 some Italic versions. But I do not deem this evi- 
 dence sufficient to prove its spuriousness. 
 
 (II, a). v. 33. ἀπεδήμησεν “ 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, 15, Auth. 
 has ‘“ took his journey.” But ἀποδημεῖν does not in 
 itself convey any notion of distance. Demosth. adv. 
 Nausimach. (p. 988, Reiske), οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἐξέπλευσεν Ἐκεῖ- 
 νος, οὐδ᾽ ἀπεδήμησεν ἐκεῖσε, VIZ. from Athens to the 
 Bosphorus. lian, Var. Hist. xiii, 14, ro δὲ ἀγώγι- 
 μον τοῦτο εἕ ᾿Ιωνίας, ἡνίκα ἀπεδήμησεν, ἤγαγεν, referring 
 to the travels of Lycurgus, which, to one living in 
 /Blian’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. oj. 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 εἰς χώραν μακράν. “S’en alla faire un voyage, ” 
 Ostervald. 
 
 (IT, a). v. 37. τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ‘‘ his own son”]. So 
 all Eng. except Cheke and Auth. which merely have 
 “his son.” Vulg. “ suum.” See note on ch. ix, 7. 
 If αὑτοῦ is ever to be fully rendered, it should be so 
 here. 
 
 All Eng. render ὕστερον AS if it were ὕστατον πάντων, 
 (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. 
 
 ᾿ντραπήσονται 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 Coy. 
 
St. Warthew, 267 
 
 (III, a). v. 39. λαβόντες “ took]. So Auth. inv. 
 35. Bish. Auth. alone are wrong, for the rest have 
 “caught” in both places. In v. 40, none but Gen. 
 give οὖν 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. συνθλασθήσεται “ 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. (WS 5A): 
 
 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 (λικμήσει). 
 
 I would not altogether vouch for Chrysostom’s 
 allegorical interpretation : Ato φησὶν ἀπωλείας ἐνταῦθα" 
 μίαν μέν, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ προσκόψαι Kal σκανδαλισθῆναι" τοῦτο 
 γάρ ἐστιν, ὃ πίπτων ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον τοῦτον ‘ ἑτέραν δέ, τὴν 
 ἀπὸ τῆς ἁλώσεως αὐτῶν, καὶ τῆς συμφορᾶς καὶ πανωλεβ- 
 ρίας, ἣν καὶ σαφῶς προεδήλωσεν εἰπών, λικμήσει αὐτόν. 
 
 Tynd. 1. Cran. annex the first verse of ch. xxii to 
 ch. xxi; I know not for what reason. 
 
268 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 (III, 6). v. 2. ἐποίησε γάμους “ made a marriage 
 feast”]. Here again Cheke agrees with the best 
 modern 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 γάμος, as 
 well as the plural, is used in this sense. So in the 
 LXX, Gen. xxix, 22; Tobit viii, 19. 
 
 (III, c). v. 6. ὕβρισαν “ insulted” |. So Doddridge : 
 ‘‘ abused, ” Campbell: ‘ treated contemptuously, ” 
 Symonds: “ intreated ungodly,” Tynd. ‘ shamefully, 
 Cov. Cran. “ sharply,’’ Gen. “ spitefully,” Bish. 
 Auth. “did them despite,” Cheke. 
 
 (1)°. v. 7. In the beginning of this verse Griesbach 
 reads ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκεῖνος ‘that king ;” which, 
 after omitting ἐκεῖνος, is the reading of the common 
 text. Scholz adopts καὶ ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκεῖνος : 
 Griesbach almost prefers ὃ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἐκεῖνος, without 
 ἀκούσας. Lachmann prints ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἀκούσας, 
 without ἐκεῖνος : while Vater, with some hesitation, 
 retains the received reading. Of all these variations 
 we are concerned only with that which expunges 
 
St. Watthew. 269 
 
 ἀκούσας, and with the authorities which add ἐκεῖνος. 
 The rejection of ἀκούσας 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 ἐκεῖνος 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 Ὁ E F 
 K MS, and Matthzi’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 ἐκεῖνος. 
 
 (II, a). v. 9. ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν “to the 
 public τοῦ 5᾽]. So Campbell: ““ into the crossings 
 of high ways,’ Cheke. Whatever we determine res- 
 pecting ai διεξόδοι τῶν ὁδῶν, it is obvious that this 
 expression should not be confounded with the simple 
 ὁδοὶ 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 διέξοδοι 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 εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς καὶ 
 φραγμοὺς of the country (v. 23). Chrysostom para- 
 phrases the word by τριόδους, and an antient gloss 
 has ‘“ compita.” The ordinary signification of 
 
270 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 9 
 
 διέξοδος, “a passage ” or “ outlet,” can have no 
 place here. 
 
 (1, a). v. 16. τοὺς μαθητὰς αὑτῶν “ their own dis- 
 ciples”]. All Eng. have “their disciples.” See 
 note on ch. xxi, 37. 
 
 In this verse “Ηρωδιανῶν is rendered ‘‘ Herod’s ser- 
 
 vants” by Tynd. Cran. Cheke, Gen. ‘‘ Herod’s 
 officers,” by Cov. Syr. has (ὦ. γι τισι duo» “ Herod’s 
 household.” ‘The Herodians,” Vulg. Bish. Auth. 
 Chrysostom describes them as τοὺς Ἡρώδου στρατιώ- 
 τας. 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 diener,” 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. ἐπιγραφὴ ““ 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 vy. 7, 22, 33, the ellipsis after ἀκοῦσαι is sup- 
 plied in three different ways by Cran. Bish. Auth. 
 (“heard thereof, heard these words, heard this). But 
 Tynd. Cov. Gen. render uniformly “ heard that,” and 
 Cheke “ heard this.” These are trifles in them- 
 selves, but should not be overlooked in judging of the 
 eare and skill with which the several versions are 
 executed. 
 
St. Wartthew, 971 
 
 (II, b). v. 23. Σαδδουκαῖοι “ Sadducees”}. All Eng. 
 have ‘‘ the Sadducees,” which is not at all called for. 
 In v. 24, the margin of Gen., over-against τέκνα 
 “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 
 ja 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- 
 tus ‘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 ἄτεκνος, as 
 in Luke xx, 29; or μὴ ἔχων σπέρμα, aS here. On the 
 whole, therefore, the rendering of Auth. is safer, and 
 probably more true, than that in the margin of Gen. 
 (III, a). v. 25. σπέρμα “seed”. All Eng. except 
 Cov. translate σπέρμα “seed” in v. 24, and ““ issue” 
 inv. 25. Coy. 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. νομικὸς “ἃ lawyer]. While I en- 
 tirely assent to Campbell’s judgment that the terms 
 νομικὸς and γραμματεὺς are not of necessity identical, 
 merely because an individual who is called in this 
 verse νομικός, is spoken of by St. Mark (ch. xii, 28) 
 as εἷς τῶν γραμματέων, It 15 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 otes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 L;a ὦ. Here Tynd. Cran. have for 
 
 νομικὸς “doctor of law ;” Gen. “ expounder of the 
 law ;” Cov. “scribe ;” Cheke, Bish. Auth. Campbell 
 “lawyer.” Vulg. translates “legis doctor” here ; 
 ‘“scriba” in St. Mark; “legis peritus ” in Luke xi, 
 45 (Vulg. does not read γραμματεῖς in the preceding 
 verse). 
 
 In vv. 36, 38, μεγάλη is “ chief” in Tynd. 2. Gen. 
 “oreat” in Tynd. 1. Cran. Cheke, Bish. Auth. Cov. 
 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 XXIII. 
 
 In v. 2, all Eng. except Cov. Bish. translate 
 ἐκάθισαν ““ 510, and very rightly. Cov. has “are 
 set down;” Cheke “did sit” (Vulg. ‘‘ sederunt”’). 
 Bish. renders it by ‘‘ sat,” with its usual over-scrupul- 
 ousness, noting however in the margin that “ Beza 
 readeth, sit’’ (“ sedent”’). 
 
 (III, c). v. 6. τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν “ the first places Ἴ. 
 So the Rhemish version: “the first sitting places,” 
 Wickliffe, Scholefield nearly; “the highest places,” 
 Cheke; “to sit uppermost,” Tynd. Cov. “the upper- 
 most seats,” Cran. Bish. ‘‘ the worthiest place,” Gen. 
 Thus it is remarkable enough that Auth. alone, in this 
 
St. Watthew. 278 
 
 passage, employs the obsolete and ambiguous expres- 
 sion “the uppermost rooms.” Thus alter Mark xii, 
 39 ; Luke xiv, 7; 8; xx, 46; in which texts however 
 all Eng. except Cov. have “ rooms,” as well as 
 Auth.; and even Cov. in Luke xiv, 8. 
 
 (1)°. At the end of v. 7, Syr. Vulg. the editions of 
 Complutum and Erasmus, and (as a necessary conse- 
 quence) Tynd. Coy. Cran. Cheke read ῥαββὲ 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. 
 
 (1)°. v. 8. Here again two changes have been pro- 
 posed by the critics, both on insufficient authority. 
 Syr. Vulg. reject ὁ Χριστός, which is rendered in all 
 Eng., and the omission has been approved by Gries- 
 bach and Lachmann. It may not be very unlikely 
 that ὁ Χριστός was brought into this place from νυ. 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, Ethiopic, 
 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 διδάσ- 
 καλος for καθηγητῆς, although it is pretty clear, as Loes- 
 ner observes, that the former is but a eloss, intended 
 to explain the latter, which is met with but seldom. 
 Διδάσκαλος, however, is read in many manuscripts, 
 including eight of Matthzi’s (but only in B among 
 
 T 
 
274 Qotes on the Mew Cestament. 
 
 the uncials), and in Chrysostom. Syr. and several 
 other versions are also alleged in its behalf, but on 
 very precarious grounds. In Syr. καθηγητὴς 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 little on either side of 
 the question. 
 
 (III, a). v. 12. ταπεινωθήσεται “ shall be humbled”. 
 No Eng. renders ταπεινοῦν 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. 18,14. All Eng. and 
 Vulg. read these verses in the same 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 
 by Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz and Vater. Lachmann 
 cancels the verse ὅτι κατεσθίετε τὰς οἰκίας K.T.A. altoge- 
 ther: and Mill (Proleg. N. T. p. 42), after Grotius, 
 thinks that it is borrowed 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 D LZ. 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 Auth. 
 before v. 13, as it is in both Syriac, the Sahidic, Cop- 
 tic and Aithiopic versions, in Chrysostom and Theo- 
 
 
 
 * Origen’s words are (Tom. iv, p. 352) ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον 
 ὁ πρὸς τοὺς Τραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαίους AEYTEPOS ταλανισμὸς 
 οὕτως ἔχει «-«« (quoting v.15). But δεύτερος was very possibly 
 an oversight. 
 
St. Watthew. 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 ν. 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. καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ προσευχόμενοι 
 ‘fand that, making long prayers for a pretence’’]. 
 Thus correct Mark xii, 40; Luke xx, 47 (where 
 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 
 προσεύχεσθε instead of the participle. All other Eng. 
 are preferable: ‘and that under a color of praying long 
 prayers,” Tynd. Cov. Gen. (Gen. omits “ praying ”) ; 
 “and that under a pretence of long prayer,” Cran. 
 Bish. so Syr. Kat ταῦτα, διὰ προσχήματος τοῦ μακρὰ προσ- 
 εὔχεσθαι, Theophylact : ‘‘nay, and use long prayers 
 for a disguise,” Campbell. For this intensive force 
 of καὶ Raphel compares Polybius, μόνοι τών κατὰ 
 Συρίαν ὑπέστησαν, καὶ πάσας ἐξελέγξαντες ἐλπίδας. In 
 v. 15, Cov. has ““ἃ child of hell.” This is better than 
 “the child” of other Eng. 
 
 (III, a). vv. 16,18. ὀφείλει ‘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’ inv. 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,” 
 Coy. Cran. “ debet,” Vulg. Syr. “is bound to per- 
 form it, vel, he fauteth,” Cheke. I suppose “ is 
 guilty ” of Coy. Cran. Auth. originated in “ reus est” 
 
276 Qotes on the Mew Cestament. 
 
 of Erasmus, retained by Beza. But this, I need not 
 say, is a pure Latinism: vote reus. 
 
 In v. 23, Tynd. Gen. render ἀφιέναι uniformly 
 throughout the verse, ‘“‘leave undone.” But per- 
 haps this is unnecessary. Cheke has “ dill” for 
 ἄνηθον, like the margin of Auth. in the later editions. 
 
 (II, a and b). v. 24. οἱ διυλίζοντες τὸν κώνωπα ... 
 τὴν κάμηλον ‘ 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...thecamel.” 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.” 
 
 (1). v. 25. There are at least three readings of the 
 last word of this verse: ἀκρασίας ‘‘ excess,” of the re- 
 ceived text, Lachmann and Eng.; ἀκαθαρσίας, favored 
 by Vulg. and noticed by Cov. in his margin (‘‘some 
 read, uncleaness”’); and αδικίας ‘‘ injustice,” which 
 
 is adopted by Griesbach, Vater, and Scholz. Syr. 
 
 has Wok, which, though it stands for ἀνομία in v. 28 ; 
 ch. vii, 23; xiii, 41; xxiv, 12, represents the cog- 
 nate term αδικία in Luke xvi, 8; 9; 11, ἅς, Besides 
 two or three versions, ἀκαθαρσίας 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 Matthzi’s (6). Since I 
 am perpetually refusing to receive readings proposed 
 by Griesbach, supported by the same or similar evi- 
 
St. Watthew. 277 
 dence, I cannot dispute the ἀκρασίας 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, 5. ᾿Αδικίας 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 (6. g. C K) support it. Scholz 
 cites Codex 33 (Colbert. Reg. 14) both for ἀδικίας 
 and ἀκρασίας. 
 
 Since γέμειν is not followed by ἐκ, 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 
 Jruits of rapine and injustice.” I cannot help regard- 
 ing this construction merely as a vestige of the Ara- 
 mean use of a preposition after the verb of fulness. 
 For though I cannot discover that 82% is ever ac- 
 companied by 13 in the Hebrew Bible ;* and though 
 Syr. does not render ἐκ even in the present passage ; 
 
 the employment of —» after lic 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. 
 xvil, 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; 32; xxiii, 16). I lay no stress on the 
 
 * Grotius indeed cites Oxon Exod. xv, 9. This must be 
 
 a mistake ; the termination 3. is nothing more than a poetic form 
 of the pronominal affix 8 or 0... 
 
278 Sotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 hypothesis of the Aramzan origin of this Gospel, 
 because I have never been able to satisfy my mind, 
 as to the validity of the arguments on which it rests. 
 (II, b). v. 31. μαρτυρεῖτε ἑαυτοῖς ‘ ye testify con- 
 
 cerning yourselves ”]. So Syr. (SS), “de vobis,” 
 Castalio, “ οἵ yourselves,” Cheke, ‘‘testimonio estis 
 vobismetipsis,” Vulg. whence ‘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 περὲ 
 and a genitive, is frequently met with in St. John. 
 
 (III, c). v. 33. κρίσεως “ 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 κρίσις the act of judging, and 
 κρῖμα the resulting sentence. 
 
 (II, a). v. 35. τοῦ ναοῦ ‘the sanctuary”] the holy 
 place, to which the priests alone had access, as dis- 
 tinguished from τὸ ἱερόν (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 θυσιαστήριον, 
 or altar of burnt offerings, was itself in the ἱερόν, 
 ‘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” (οἶκος 
 or ναὸς), at about ten cubits’ distance from its gates. 
 
St. Marthe. 279 
 
 Within this small space Zacharias was slain. Cas- 
 talio properly translates ἱερὸν “ templum,” ναὸν 
 “edem.” So also Campbell. Thus correct ch. xxvii, 
 51; Mark xv,38; Luke i, 9; 21; 22; xxiii, 45.* 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 (1, a). v. 6. πάντα “all things” |. “All these things,” 
 Eng. Beza; though Cran. Beza, Bish. Auth. indicate 
 that ‘‘these,” is not in the Greek. Πάντα ταῦτα is 
 read in four lesser manuscripts, Syr. and one or two 
 other versions. Vulg. and some others have “ hee,” 
 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., 1 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. 
 
 CII, a). v. 10. παραδώσουσι “shall deliver up” ]. 
 Uniform with v. 9. “ Betray,’ Eng. Cheke. See note 
 on ch. xx, 18. ἰ 
 
 (II, b). v. 12. τῶν πολλών “ of the many,—the 
 
 * Inch. xxvii, 5, Judas cast down the money ἐν τῷ vay. Since 
 we cannot venture with Kypke to translate ἐν ‘‘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 {Notes on the Pew Cestainent, 
 
 greater number”’]. So Campbell. See Matthiz’s 
 Gr. Gram. § 268. Cheke translates ‘the people’s 
 love,” very suitably ; but he has the same rendering 
 in ch. xx, 28; xxvi, 28, where the article is omitted 
 after the preposition in Greek, and should scarcely be 
 supplied. I know not how to interpret τῶν πολλών 
 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, πολλοὶ yap PevdadedA por γεγόνασιν. 
 
 (1). v. 17. In the room of τι “ any thing,” ra (ἐκ τῆς 
 οἰκίας αὑτοῦ) “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 τι, 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). Vv. 22. καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐκολοβώθησαν.. .. οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη 
 “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 out Lord as past in the Divine 
 
St, Warthew. 281 
 
 Mind, though with that rapid change of time so com- 
 mon in Prophecy, the future immediately follows. 
 
 (II, a)°. v. 24. δώσουσι “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 διδόναι σημεῖα 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 διδόναι 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 3 καὶ yap πολλὴ τότε 7 ἀπάτη, ova TO 
 Kal σημεῖα γίνεσθαι ἀπάτης. 
 
 (Η, Ὀ). wad. WOTE πλανῆσαι, εἰ δυνατὸν (ἐὺ as to 
 deceive, if possible” ...]. The version of Bish. Auth. 
 ‘insomuch that, if z¢ were possible, they shall deceive,” 
 is almost self-contradictory. For “shall,” Tynd. 
 Coy. Cran. Cheke, Gen. have ‘“ should,” which is 
 materially better. 
 
 (1). v.27. After οὕτως ἔσται Scholz and Lachmann 
 would omit καί, as if it were interpolated from vv. 37, 
 39. Itis wanting in Syr., in some copies of Chrysos- 
 tom, in twelve uncial Greek manuscripts of both fami- 
 lies (B DF GHK LSU X, and Matthezi’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 Notes on the Mew Cestament, 
 
 the present evidence. But the printed Vulg. has 
 ‘‘et;” and that, I suppose, biassed him. 
 
 (II, b). v. 31. μετὰ σάλπιγγος φωνῆς μεγάλης “with 
 
 a loud-sounding trumpet” ]. SoCheke “ loud sounded,” 
 Syr. {Las "ἀμ ες Sais (‘with a loud trumpet”), 
 Castalio “cum vocalissima tuba,” 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 τῶν [λοιπῶν] φωνῶν τῆς σάλπιγγος. The Greek 
 language admits of an inversion in the order of two 
 genitives, so that the governing noun may follow the 
 governed, which according to the more natural ar- 
 rangement it would precede. Thus in Herod. vi, 82 
 we find within a few lines of each other ἐκ τοῦ ayad- 
 ματος τῶν στηθέων, and ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ ἀγάλματος 
 employed quite indifferently. But this trajection, | 
 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. 1, 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 ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ, 1 Thess. iv, 16. The 
 margin of Auth. (“ with a trumpet and a great voice”), 
 follows Vulg. which inserts “ οἱ ἡ between “ tuba,” 
 and “voce.” Codex D, and seven cursive MSS of 
 little consequence, give cat. Chrysostom and a few 
 others have pera σάλπιγγος μεγάλης, as Syr. But this 
 is more an interpretation, than a various reading. 
 
St. Matthew. 283 
 
 At the end of this verse Cran. translates am’ ἄκρων 
 οὐρανῶν “ from the highest parts of heaven,’’ I presume 
 from a misapprehension of Vulg. ‘‘a summis ccelo- 
 rum.” 
 
 (iI, a and b). v. 32. ὅταν ἤδη ὁ κλάδος αὐτῆς γένηται 
 ἁπαλός, καὶ τὰ φύλλα ἐκφύῃ “ when its branch has now 
 become tender, and the leaves shoot forth”]. Thus 
 correct Mark xiii, 28. 1 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” (- 50); 
 “tener fit,” Beza: ‘‘ tenerescunt,” Castalio: ‘ com- 
 mencent ἃ étre tendres,”” Ostervald. The first sign 
 of approaching summer is the softness of the branch. 
 The construction of τὰ φύλλα ἐκφύῃ 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 ὅταν 
 προβάλωσιν ἤδη, Luke xxi, 80. ᾿Εκφῦναι is perpetually 
 used intransitively ; thus Eurip. lon. 1533, Ξούθου 
 τέ φησι παῖδά μ᾽ ἐκπεφυκέναι 5 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, εἰς τὸ ἐκφῦσαι τροφὴν 
 ἀπὸ γῆς; where the LXX has ἐξαγαγεῖν, 
 
 
 
 * Grotius thinks otherwise, I suppose because Syr. has the 
 
 noun (τὰ φύλλα) after the verb (ἐκφύῃ). Yet though fe be 
 of the common gender in the plural, it would hardly be joined with 
 
 δ δ ο 
 two participles ---2 and map standing together, the former 
 
 of them being feminine, the latter masculine. 
 
284 {Notes on the Pew Cestaiment. 
 
 (II, b). v. 33. ἐγγύς ἐστιν “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 
 author’s solution of the difficulties with which he 
 erapples. 
 
 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. Παραλαμ- 
 βάνεται is variously rendered in Eng. ‘ Received,” 
 Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish. (‘‘ taken,” Cheke) ; 
 ἀφίεται being translated “refused,” by Tynd. Cov. 
 Cran. Gen. ‘“ forsaken,” by Cheke, “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 παρέλαβον in Johni, 11. A more probable 
 opinion is, that παραλαμβάνεται alludes to the being 
 carried away captive out of Judea 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 
 
St. Watthetw, 285 
 
 the ambiguity of the Greek. Beza “ accipietur... 
 relinquetur ;” ‘‘pris ... laissé,” Martin, Ostervald. 
 
 (1)°. After v. 41, Cov. Cran. insert within brackets 
 “two in a (“ the,” Cov.) 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 Athiopic version, it is found 
 in but three Greek manuscripts, all notorious for 
 Latinising: viz. the Codex Bezz (D), the Colbert. 
 Reg. 14. (13), and the Leicester MS, of the 14th 
 century (69). 
 
 (III, a and c). ν. 43. διορυγῆναι ‘to be broken 
 through”]. So Auth. in ch. vi, 19; 20; Luke xii, 
 39. All Eng. have “ broken up” here, as also have 
 Tynd. Cov. 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. 565, πάνυ γοῦν κλέπτειν 
 κόσμιόν ἐστιν, καὶ τοὺς τοίχους διορύττειν (Parkhurst). 
 Demosth. c. Aristog. i (p. 787, Reiske), τὸ δεσμωτή- 
 ριον διορύξας ἀπέδρα. The av after eypnyooncey is 
 translated ‘‘utique,” by Vulg. “surely,” by Tynd. 
 Cov. Cran. Gen.; a rendering in every way worthy 
 of Macknight’s approbation (Prelim. Ess. to Epist. 
 iv, 82). 
 
 (II, b, and III, c). v. 45. τὴν τροφὴν “ 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 JQotes on the Pew Cestainent. 
 
 the chief critical editions read αὑτοῦ) ; ch. xxv, 32, 
 &e. So in v. 32, τὴν παραβολὴν should be rendered 
 “its parable,” i. 6. that which the fig-tree teaches. 
 Scholefield. 
 
 On ‘but and if,” in v. 48, see Introd. p. 82, note. 
 The phrase occurs also in Auth. 1 Cor. vu, 11; 28. 
 “What and if,” John vi, 62. 
 
 (II, a)°. v. 51. διχοτομήσει * shall cut asunder” ]. 
 So Auth. Cheke, Doddridge, Castalio: ‘ divide,” 
 Tynd. Syr. Vulg. ‘‘hew him in pieces,” Cov. 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. Τῆς διχοτομίας νοουμένης κατὰ τὴν εἰς 
 τὸ παντελὲς ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀλλοτρίωσιν, says the 
 great Basil : γυμνωθήσεται τοῦ προσιόντος αὐτῷ Xapio- 
 ματος, 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 
 ἡμίσευσεν (VE). 
 
 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 dzdéerness of the hypocrite’s 
 portion in the unseen world? Now it is well ascer- 
 
St, Matthew, 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. 55; 59), 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 διχοτομήσει is 
 found in the same context with δαρήσεται πολλάς (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 ΔΙΧΟοτομεῖν : for 
 *scindo,” ‘‘discindo,” τέμνω, or even διατέμνω are 
 quite insufficient for their purpose. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 (1)°. v. 1. To the end of this verse Cran. adds 
 ‘(and the bride). These words are found in Syr. 
 Vule. 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. 159), I remark that it is contained in the Philo- 
 xenian and Persian versions, although the margin of 
 the Philoxenian states that a// the Greek manuscripts 
 do not read it. 
 
 In v. 2, Griesbach and Scholz have ai before the 
 second πέντε, 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 3 τσ on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 of the article before the former πέντε: 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 BC DLZ 
 &c., whose native language was either Coptic or 
 Latin. 
 
 Φρόνιμοι “wise,” and μωραὶ “ foolish,” are trans- 
 posed in Vulg. Tynd. Coy. Cran. Cheke, Gen., in a few 
 Greek manuscripts (BC DL Z. 1. 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. Inch. 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. xvi, 8, Tyndal and the Vulgate 
 read αὐτὸν not αὐτά : but this is also the reading of 
 the first edition of Erasmus (1516). In ch. xviii, 29, 
 εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ 1s 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 ῥαββὲ 
 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 
 μωραὶ and φρόνιμοι in the present verse. See also be- 
 low, on ch. xxviii, 20, note. From these premises 
 the inference is tolerably clear. If Tyndal adopted 
 
 3 
 
St. Watrhew. 289 
 
 the readings of the Vulgate in those cases on/y, in 
 which the first editors of the Greek Testament agree 
 with the Vulgate against the textus receptus; he did 
 so in compliance with the authority, not of the Vul- 
 gate translation, but of the original Greek, as repre- 
 sented by the Complutensian and Erasmian editions 
 (See Introd. p. 108). The single exception to these 
 remarks has been pointed out in my note on ch. 
 XXiv, 7. 
 
 (II, b). v. 8. σβέννυνται “are going out” ]. So the 
 margin of Auth. and Campbell. See Introd. p. 45, 
 and note on ch. viii, 24. ‘Go out,” Tynd. Gen. “are 
 gone out,” Cov. Cran. Bish. Auth. “ be out,” Cheke, 
 Syr. (@54)). “ Extinguuntur,” Vulg. It is abso- 
 lutely necessary to express the full present meaning 
 in this place, since ἐκόσμησαν in v. 7, proves that they 
 were not as yet extinguished. 
 
 (II, b). v. 9. μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ “ we fear lest there 
 be not enough”’]. So Gen., a softer and less direct 
 denial than ‘not so, lest there be not enough”’ of 
 Eng. Cheke’s “ there is not then sufficient ” is 
 very bad. Μήποτε, however, in the original is still 
 more courteous than Gen. represents. It rather sug- 
 gests than states the probability of the contingent 
 event. See note on ch. xii, 23, and Gen. xxiv, 5, 
 LXX. 
 
 (1). διά. I have cited the text above as reading 
 μήποτε ov μὴ ἀρκέσῃ. A similar use of οὐ μὴ where we 
 should have expected οὐ occurs in ch. xxiv, 21; 
 Mark xiii, 2; Luke xviii, 30. It is also found in 
 the textus receptus of ch. xxiv, 2, where however it 
 must have been interpolated from Mark xiii, 2, since 
 all the critics and nearly all the manuscripts reject 
 μή. In the present verse μὴ has been admitted as 
 
 U 
 
290 Notes on the Pew Cestainent. 
 genuine by Scholz and Lachmann. It is read in 
 
 eleven uncial manuscripts (BC DF GHK MS and 
 Matthzi’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. Μὴ 
 is found in several of Matthzei’s copies of Chrysos- 
 tom, and in all Mr. Field’s except one. 
 
 (1). ibed. After πορεύεσθε all the modern editors 
 omit δέ. 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 δέ. If it is not to be retained 
 (and all Eng. retain it), 1 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 δὲ after ἔφη. It is not in Syr. Vulg. the 
 Italic, nor in Greek manuscripts at least as namerous 
 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. Cov. Gen. 
 
 (I). v. 18. The clause ἐν ἡ ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
 ἔρχεται ‘wherein the Son of man cometh,” is ex- 
 punged by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, and Lachmann. . 
 
St. Matthew. 291 
 
 Mill guesses that it was removed to this place from 
 ch. xxiv, 44, by the compilers of the Church Lec- 
 tionaries, who wished to avoid so abrupt an ending 
 of the Lessons as τὴν ὥραν would be. It is omitted 
 in six uncial MSS (ABC DLX), chiefly Alexan- 
 drine; in about twenty good cursive documents, 
 mostly of the same family ; and in Chrysostom. The 
 words are wanting also in Syr. Vulg. (yet all Eng. 
 have them), the Italic and Egyptian versions; and 
 versions claim much consideration on a point of this 
 nature. On the other hand they are found in the 
 great mass of Constantinopolitan documents, and (as 
 if to confirm Mill’s conjecture) in αὐ the Lectionaries. 
 This circumstance, coupled with the testimony of 
 Chrysostom and nearly all the versions, induces me 
 to judge the clause spurious. The manuscript evi- 
 dence against it, though weighty, is not of itself 
 convincing. 
 
 (II, c). v. 14. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἀποδημῶν “ For 
 %is as whena man”’...]. So Beza supplies the 
 ellipsis “ita enim est ut guum” ..as Cheke had 
 done before him “ for it is even like as”. . Syr. Vulg. 
 Castalio retain the deficiency of the Greek ; for which 
 Vulg. receives the somewhat ambiguous commenda- 
 tion of Bois. Thus also Tynd. Cov. Cran. “likewise 
 as a certain man” ..and Bish. “likewise as when”... 
 “‘car ὁ en est comme d@’ un homme qui”... Ostervald. 
 Gen. first tried to render the sentence fully complete : 
 “for certainly the kingdom of heaven is like as when” 
 ... Auth. renders here ‘for the kingdom of heaven 
 is asaman”’..., but in the parallel text, Mark xiii, 
 34, Gen. Auth. both read “for the Son of man is as 
 a man”... Whether the words I have inserted be 
 sufficient to make the passage perspicuous, the reader 
 must determine. At any rate, we must prefer the 
 
292 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 ἄνθρωπος ἀποδη- 
 μῶν, as “the Son of man” may. 
 
 (III, a). v. 15. κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν δύναμιν ‘ according 
 to his own ability”’]. Thus ἴδιος 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. 
 (Gon. Audi «4.ν] ca1|): Some persons have felt a 
 difficulty in distinguishing between δύναμις, the na- 
 tural ability of the heart and understanding, and 
 τάλαντα, the acquired gifts of fortune, rank, or learn- 
 ing. Yet that δύναμις will bear the meaning here 
 given to it will scarcely be questioned. Wetstein 
 cites Jambilich. Pythae. 19, πολλὰς odode Πυθαγόρας 
 παιδείας ἀνεῦρε, καὶ κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν ἑκάστου καὶ 
 δύναμιν, παρεδίδου τῆς σοφίας τὴν ἐπιβάλλουσαν μοῖραν. 
 Were we to consider δύναμις as equivalent to τάλαντον, 
 in the sense of riches, abundance, the clause κατὰ τὴν 
 ἰδίαν δύναμιν 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 nature et gratiz 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 
 
St. Watthev. 293 
 
 unreasonable in the supposition, that God’s temporary 
 and fortuitous gifts (if such an expression be allow- 
 able) are regulated and apportioned to faculties and 
 capacities which were planted in us at our birth; and 
 which, in the natural course of things, can neither be 
 increased nor diminished ? 
 
 (II, b). v. 17. τὰ δύο “the two’’] named in v. 15. 
 So the Rhemish version. All Eng. omit the article 
 here, although in v. 16 they had said “the five 
 talents.” Correct in like manner vv. 18, 20, 22, 28. 
 All are right in v. 24; as are Tynd. 2. Cov. in v. 
 18 “ the one,” for which Cran. Gen. have “ that 
 one. 
 CLIT by. v.24. ἔγνων σε OTL... e “I knew that 
 thou art”... 1. So Cov. Cheke. “1 considered that 
 thou wast,” Tynd. Gen. “1 knew thee, that thou 
 art” .. Cran. 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, 
 ΝΠ ον. xv;1; 2, &c. 
 
 (III, c). ν. 25. ἴδε, ἔχεις τὸ cov “lo, thou hast thine 
 own”]. So Tynd. Cheke, Gen. “there” is inserted 
 by Cov. “ there thou hast that is thine,” or “ that 
 thine is,” Cran. Bish. Auth. See note on ch. xx, 14. 
 
 (III, c). v. 27. τοῖς τραπεζίταις ““ to the bankers”). 
 So the Rhemish version, Doddridge and Campbell. 
 “ Tablers,’ Cheke, absurdly enough. Wickliffe and 
 Eng. have “ changers,” or “ exchangers.” In their 
 time all exchangers of money may have been bankers. 
 Τράπεζα and its derivatives are perpetually used in 
 this sense by the Attic orators. 
 
 (III, c). tbid. σὺν τόκῳ “ with interest”. So Dod- 
 dridge, Campbell. “ Gain,” Cheke : “ vantage,” Eng. 
 except Auth. which after Wickliffe and the Rhemish 
 
 92 
 
294 jJQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 πέντε, yet it is most unlikely that Tyndal 
 ever saw that suspicious document. 
 
 (II, b). Vv. 90. τὸ σκότος TO eSwrepov ‘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 ; Cov. in ch. xxii, 13; and Cheke 
 in ch. xxii, 13, and here (‘the uttermost ”’). 
 
 (I)°. v. 31. “Ayu “ 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 ; Acts x, 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 BDL of the 
 uncial MSS (A reads ἅγιοι), and about fourteen of 
 later date, including 1.33.61, or the too-famous Codex 
 Montfort of Dublin, the voucher for the authenticity 
 of the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 Johny, 7. Of 
 the other leading authorities Syr. reads ἅγιοι, 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, ἅγιοι 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 
 
Sr, Watthew, 295 
 
 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 
 applies 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. 
 
 (III, c). vv. 85,37, 42, 44. ἐπείνασα “I was hungry’’]. 
 So Cov. Cheke: “ an hungred” of Eng. is obsolete. 
 Thus alter ch. iv, 2, &c. 
 
 (1, b). v. 41. τὸ πῦρ ro αἰώνιον “ the everlasting 
 fire’’]. Cov. Bish. alone of Eng. have the article. 
 
 In vv. 40, 45, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον 15 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”... 
 
 (1). v. 44. After ἀποκριθήσονται the pronoun αὐτῷ is 
 cancelled by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz and Lachmann. 
 It is not found in twelve uncial manuscripts (A B D 
 EFGKLS and Matthei’s BH V), in a multitude 
 of cursive documents, in Syr., in the Egyptian ver- 
 sions, and in some copies of the Italic and Vulg. 
 There can be little doubt of the spuriousness of αὐτῷ: 
 and St. Matthew frequently suppresses the pronoun 
 after ἀποκριθείς. See ch. xv, 13 ; 24; 26. 
 
 (III, a). v. 46. αἰώνιον “ everlasting’). Follow 
 Cov. and Cheke in rendering this much-controverted 
 word uniformly in the same verse. Other Eng. vary 
 between “ everlasting” and “ eternal,” for no possible 
 reason. Iso often appeal to Cov. in favour of slight 
 verbal alterations, which I conceive to be improve- 
 
296 Notes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 ments on Auth., that the reader may possibly think 
 I have spoken too slightingly of his merits in my 
 Introduction, p. 85. The fact is, that in more im- 
 portant matters Cov. generally fails us: though 
 doubtless such minutiz are not without their import- 
 ance. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 (II, a).v.2.76 πάσχα γίνεται ‘“ the passover cometh” }. 
 “‘ Shall be Easter,” Tynd. Cov. Cran. Cheke: “ is 
 Easter,” Gen. a rendering of πάσχα still retained by 
 Auth. in Acts xii, 4: ‘‘is the feast of the passover,” 
 Bish. Auth. But neither here, nor in v. 17 (where 
 Gen. alone resembles Auth.) should “ the feast” be 
 expressed. 
 
 (II, a). v. 3. εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν ‘ into the σου]. So 
 Cheke. This must be the meaning of αὐλὴ in vv. 58, 
 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 αὐλὴ 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 πυλὼν v. 71, or προαύλιον Mark 
 xiv, 68. In this chapter Cheke uniformly translates 
 αὐλὴ “ 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 vv. 58, 
 
St. Matthew. 297 
 
 69: to which, excepting on the score of consistency, 
 there can be no objection. Syr. ae and Vulg. 
 “atrium,” in every place. Doddridge has ““ hall’”’ 
 only in v. 69. 
 
 (II, a). v. 5. ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ ‘ 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. Γένηται is translated “arise” in Tynd. Gen. 
 This is much better than “be” of the other Eng. 
 
 Again in v. 7, avaxemévov 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 Auth. has “ sat down,” which 
 is far preferable. 
 
 (III, c). v. 8. ἠγανάκτησαν “were indignant” |. “Had 
 indignation,” Eng. “disdained,” Cov. the rendering 
 of all but Auth. in ch. xx, 24; xxi, 15: “ were dis- 
 contented,” Cheke. 
 
 (1). v. 9. τὸ μύρον “ 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- 
 tian versions ; but I hesitate to confide in translations, 
 in the case of an omission so comparatively trifling. 
 The direct testimony against τὸ μύρον is slight enough: 
 namely ABD L of the uncial, and eleven cursive 
 manuscripts. But all these are very decidedly 
 Egyptian, excepting Codex A, which is mixed, and 
 Matthei’s e. This last, however, is frequently found 
 in very suspicious company ; see note on ch. xxii, 25. 
 
 At the end of the verse, Chrysostom countenances 
 all the modern editors in reading τοῖς before πτωχοῖς. 
 
298 Notes on the Jew Cestament, 
 
 It is so well supported by manuscripts, that we may 
 justly assume its genuineness; the rather as πτωχοῖς 
 is anarthrous in ch. xix, 21. All Eng. have “ the 
 poor;” but no one will imagine that ¢hey read τοῖς. 
 See note on ch. ix, 18. 
 
 (II, a). v. 12. πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι pe “ for my em- 
 balment,” or “to embalm me’’]. ““ Bury,” Eng. Syr. 
 Vulg. But since ἐνταφιάζειν 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 ἐνταφιασμὸς in Mark xiv, 8 ; 
 John xii, 7. The LXX employ this word for 037 in 
 Gen. |, 2, where the ἐνταφιασταὶ must be illustrated from 
 the minute description given by Herodotus, ii, 86. 
 
 CII, b). v. 18. καὶ ὃ... “ 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. 
 
 (II, a). v. 15. ἔστησαν αὐτῷ ““ weighed him’. So 
 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. 
 (α -ο,. ol) 5 “pacti sunt,” Castalio. To the same effect 
 Th eophylact paraphrases ἔστησαν by συνεφώνησαν, ἀφώρ- 
 wav δοῦναι, and Ostervald has “ ils convinrent,” 
 though Martin abides by Beza’s judgment ‘ ils lui 
 compterent.” 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 
 
St, Wartrhew. 299 
 v. 9 of the next chapter, where ype ‘and they 
 weighed,” is represented by καὶ ἔστησαν 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, ἱστᾶσι σταθμῷ πρὸς ἀργύριον τὰς τρί- 
 xac’ τὸ δ᾽ ἂν ἑλκύσῃ... Demosth. adv. Timoth. (p. 
 1200, Reiske), ou yap δήπου ἄνευ ye σταθμοῦ ἔμελλεν οὐθ᾽ 
 ὸ ὑποτιθέμενος παραλήψεσθαι, οὐθ᾽ ὃ ὑποτιθεὶς τὸν χαλκὸν 
 παραδώσειν, οὐδ᾽ αὖ ὁ πατὴρ ἔμελλεν αὐτὸς οὔτε οἴσειν τὸν 
 χαλκόν, οὔτε στήσεσθαι. 
 
 At the beginning of this verse ‘‘ unto them” is not 
 in Tynd. Coy. Cheke, Gen. [{ is wrongly added by 
 Cran. Bish. Auth. from Vulg. It is also found in 
 Syr. and some other versions, and in ore Greek ma- 
 nuscript, the notorious Codex D. Thus we see how 
 even Cov. follows Tynd. in preference to Vulg. 
 
 ᾿Αργύρια is rendered by Cov. “ silver pence,” 
 both here and in ch. xxvu, 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 
 drachme, which is probably the true sense in Acts 
 xix, 19. But it is generally supposed that by ἀργύρια 
 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 στατῆρας as a various read- 
 ing. The strangers’ burial-ground would certainly be 
 more likely to cost thirty staters than thirty drachmee 
 (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 JQotes on the Jew Cestament. 
 
 be rather precarious. See also Campbell, Prelim. 
 Diss; VIII, Pt. I, 4, 5; 10. 
 
 In v. 17, τῶν ἀζύμων is called “ of unleavened 
 bread” by Tynd. 1. “ of the unleavened,” by Cheke : 
 ‘‘ of sweet bread,” by Tynd. 2. Cov. 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. 
 
 (III, c). v. 18. πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα “ to a certain man” }. 
 So Gen. “Τὸ sucha man,” Eng. The word δεῖνα 
 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 wow “‘ I make:” other Eng. “1 will 
 keep.” The use of ποιεῖν in this sense is familiar to 
 all Greek writers. Wetstein cites Hebr. xi, 28; a 
 far more certain example is Acts xviii, 21. 
 
 (III, c). v.24. ὑπάγει ‘departeth ”]. So Campbell. 
 Thu’ alter Mark xiv, 21. “" Goeth his way,’ Cheke. 
 “Goeth,” of Eng. is ambiguous, and “ goeth forth,” 
 of Cov. positively wrong. Syr. Vulg. have “ vadit” 
 merely ; Beza, Castalio ‘‘ abit.” There is little doubt 
 that ὑπάγειν is here intended, by a euphemism common 
 to all languages, to denote departure from life. Thus 
 the Greeks use ἀπέρχεσθαι, διοίχεσθαι, and the Hebrews 
 son (Psalm xxxix, 13). 
 
 (II, b). v. 26. τὸν ἄρτον “the loaf”’]. “The bread,” 
 Cov. Bish. “bread,” Tynd. Cran. Cheke, Gen. Auth. 
 There was little reason for Middleton’s following 
 Chrysostom, and a few Alexandrine authorities 
 (BC DLZ. 1.33, &c.) in removing τὸν before ἄρτον. 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 
 
St. Watthew. 301 
 
 its being cancelled here. ‘O doroc, as Mr. Green 
 remarks (Gram. N. T. p. 219), is nothing more than 
 the single loaf ordinarily placed on the table at meals 
 (Luke xxiv, 30, where Auth. needs correction), and 
 has no peculiar reference to the Paschal supper. 
 
 (1). zbid. Instead of εὐλογήσας ‘ blessed,” the mar- 
 gin of Auth. informs us that ‘‘ many Greek copies 
 have gave thanks,” εὐχαριστήσας (See Introd. p. 58). 
 The latter reading is approved by Scholz, and almost 
 adopted by Griesbach. It is found in ten uncial 
 documents (A EFHKMS, and all Matthei’s By- 
 zantine B H V), and in a large majority of the cur- 
 sive MSS of every kind hitherto collated. Chry- 
 sostom supports it, and there seems little doubt of 
 its authenticity. EvAoynoac (which may have been 
 derived from Mark xiv, 22) is in the received text, 
 and is read by Griesbach, Vater, and Lachmann. Its 
 advocates are four uncial MSS (Β DLZ), strongly 
 Alexandrine, and about six cursive copies of various 
 descriptions. The versions are worth but little in 
 such a case, but Syr. Vulg. have the same rendering 
 in both Gospels, and so far countenance the common 
 text. Matth. xiv, 19; Mark vi, 41 favor εὐλογήσας, 
 and Mark viii, 6; Luke xxii, 19 εὐχαριστήσας. 
 
 (II, a). v. 28. διαθήκης ‘‘ covenant”). So Castalio, 
 Beza, Doddridge, Campbell, Ostervald (‘ de la nou- 
 velle alliance’’), Scholefield, and nearly all our modern 
 translators. Vulg. Eng. have “ testament ;”’ Syr. 
 writes the Greek word in Syriac characters. Chry- 
 sostom seems to agree with Vulg. καντεῦθεν δείκνυσιν, 
 ὅτι καὶ μέλλει τελευτᾷν * διὸ καὶ διαθήκης μέμνηται " a 
 visible allusion to Hebrew ix, 15-17, in the note on 
 which passage the whole question may be more conve- 
 niently discussed. Here, at all events, the course seems 
 plain. Our Lord’s Διαθήκη can be called “ New” 
 
302 Potes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 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 7 this place, as a desig- 
 nation of the religion of Christ. 
 
 It has been proposed to give to διδόμενον in Luke 
 xxii, 19, to ἐκχυνόμενον here, and to κλώμενον in 1 Cor. 
 xi, 24 the full present sense, ‘‘ being given,” “being 
 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 wow in 
 V. 18; γεννᾶται in ch. il, 4; ἐγείρομαι in ch. XXVil, 63 
 (Introd. p. 46). Ido not recommend a change in 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 ν. 29, Bish. translates οὐ μὴ “in no wise ;” in 
 v. 35 “* by no manner of means.”” Other Eng. neg- 
 lect it in both places. 
 
 (II, a). ν. 80. ὑμνήσαντες “ when they had sung the 
 hymn ”’] viz. the great Hallel, or hymn of praise, with 
 which the Jews concluded the Paschal supper. This 
 Hymn was Psalms cxv-cxviii; for Psalms exiii, exiv 
 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. 
 
St. Matthew. 303 
 Cran. have “ said grace :” “ sung a song of thanks- 
 giving,” Gen. “ praised [God],”’ Bish. so Cheke. 
 “Sung an hymn,” Auth. “the hymn,” Campbell: 
 “6 psalm,” margin of Auth: but it was rather a col- 
 lection of psalms, than any one in particular. “‘ Hymno 
 
 dicto,” Vulg. o+.5-» (‘they praised”) Syr. “le 
 cantique,” Martin, Ostervald. 
 
 (1). v. 33. After εἰ all the modern editors omit καί, 
 and Griesbach inserts δὲ after ἐγώ, 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 δὲ after ὁμοίως 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. ἀλέκτορα “ἃ 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 in Judeea 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. ‘Thus 
 
304 JQotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 alter vv. 74; 75; Mark xiv, 30; 68; 72; Luke xxii, 
 34 ; 60 (see note ad loc.) ;61 ; John xiii, 38 ; xvii, 27. 
 
 In v. 31, ἐν ἐμοὶ is rightly rendered ‘“ because of 
 me,” by Tynd.1. Auth.; Tynd. 2. changes it into 
 ‘““by me.” See Introd. p. 83. 
 
 In v. 36, χωρίον is translated “ field,” by Cov. 
 “farm-place,” by Cran. Vulg. has “ villam.” Syr. 
 Tynd. Cheke, Gen. Bish. Auth. “place.” The com- 
 mon rendering is amply sufficient, though that of 
 Cov. is justified by the practice of Greek writers. 
 See in particular, Philo de Agric. in Loesner. 
 
 (II, a). v. 37. ἀδημονεῖν “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 
 ἀδημονεῖν, to which I hope my rendering will be found 
 adequate. Eurip. Frag. ΙΧΧΧΙ, 3, ἀδημονοῦντα συμφο- 
 ραῖς. Plato, Phoedr. (, ΠΕ 50, Bekker), ἀδημονεῖ τε τῇ 
 ἀτοπίᾳ τοῦ πάθους, καὶ ἀποροῦσα λυττᾷ, καὶ ἐμμανὴς οὖσα 
 ... Vulg. is very weak ‘‘meestus esse ;” “heavy,” 
 Cran. Bish. ‘‘ very heavy,” Auth. “full of pain,” 
 Cheke ; “in an agony,” Tynd. Cov. (fairly enough), 
 ‘‘orievously troubled,” Gen. “gravissimé angi,” Beza, 
 whence Martin has “ fort angoissé,” which Ostervald 
 dilutes into ““ dans une amére douleur.” Castalio 
 merely “angi.” Syr. Gaizzu\ “coarctari,” a 
 very forcible word. ᾿ 
 
 (1)°. v.38. After λέγει αὐτοῖς the nominative ὁ Ἰησοῦς 
 is added by Griesbach and Scholz. It is not in Chry- 
 sostom, Syr. Vulg. or the Sahidic ; but it is supported 
 by nearly all Matthzei’s manuscripts, and six or seven 
 
St, Matthew. 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. 
 
 ibid. ‘‘ Unto the death,” Tynd. Cov. 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. 
 
 (1)°. v. 39. In the room of προελθὼν ‘ went far- 
 ther,” of the received text, Syr. Vulg. &c., Scholz 
 reads προσελθὼν “ having approached,” or “ come to.” 
 The manuscripts of Chrysostom fluctuate, but no less 
 than twelve uncial documents of both recensions 
 (ACDEFGHLS, and all Matthzi’s), together with 
 full eighty cursive documents, chiefly Byzantine, favor 
 προσελθών. 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 zpoce\Qwv? whereas the textus re- 
 ceptus is perfectly intelligible. The critical canon 
 ‘quo diflicilior lectio, eo verior,” must have some 
 limit, or it would compel us to adopt the grossest 
 blunders of the copyists. The difference between 
 IIPOEA ... and IIPOSEA . . . is far from consider- 
 able; and the former had not hitherto occurred in the 
 New Testament, whereas the latter had been used 
 
 x 
 
306 Notes on the Pew Cestanent, 
 
 ten times already. But the variation must have arisen 
 very early, for in Mark xiv, 35 even Syr. falls into it. 
 
 (II, a). v. 45. τὸ λοιπὸν “ henceforth”). So Tynd. 
 Gen. Bish. Syr. Beza, Castalio, Martin (‘‘ dorésna- 
 vant’’). But Ostervald “encore ;” “jam,” Vulg. “now,” 
 Cov. Cran. Cheke, Auth. It would not be easy to 
 defend by examples this last interpretation, which 
 makes τὸ λοιπὸν equivalent to ἤδη or νῦν, yet such 
 seems the view of Chrysostom, καὶ μὴν ΤΟΤΕ ypnyo- 
 pnoa ἔδει, ἀλλὰ δεικνὺς κ΄ τ. A. L have chosen to make 
 τὸ λοιπὸν 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 
 ‘Kschin. c. Ctesiph. (p. 86, ed. Stephani), ov τὴν yAwr- 
 ταν, ὥσπερ τῶν αὐλῶν, ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ, TO λοιπὸν οὐδὲν ἐστιν. 
 Referring τὸ λοιπὸν 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 ἐγείρεσθε 
 in v. 46. Something in the same manner, though 
 more stern in spirit, may be observed in ch. xxiii, 32. 
 So Fritzche explains the present passage. See also 
 Green, Gram. N. T. p. 321. Thus alter Mark xiv, 
 41. 
 
 (II, a). ν. 47. ξύλων “οἸ}5᾽. ‘‘ Fustibus,” Vulg. 
 here, and in v. 55; Luke xxui,52. But “ lignis,” in 
 Mark xiv, 43; 48. Campbell draws a very fair dis- 
 tinction between ἕύλα ““ clubs’’ in these parallel texts, 
 
 * Much to the same purpose is Bp. Hall’s explanation in his 
 ‘‘Hard Texts.” ‘‘ Since my so serious admonition could not keep 
 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.” 
 
St. Wattheww. 307 
 
 and ῥάβδους “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 
 ξύλα Gos, and ῥάβδους ἐν 53. Auth. renders 
 both words “staves” alike. Cheke has “staves” 
 here, and “ walking staves” inch.x, 10. Other Eng. 
 vary between ‘“‘rods”’ and “staves,” but with no fixed 
 purpose. 
 
 (II, b). ν. 48. ἔδωκεν “had given”]. So Tynd. 2. 
 Coy. Gen. Syr. ‘avait donné,” Martin, Ostervald: 
 “gave,” Vulg. Tynd. 1. Cran. Cheke, Bish. Auth. 
 See note on ch. xxviii, 17. For χαῖρε hail,” of Eng. 
 in v. 49, Gen. has “God save thee,” and its margin 
 “for, rest thee merry !” 
 
 (II, b and III, a). v. 51. τὸν δοῦλον “ the servant’’] 
 viz. Malchus (John xviii, 10), a well-known person. 
 So Cheke, and even Auth. in Luke xxii, 50: “a ser- 
 vant,” Eng. here. Thus correct Mark xiv, 47. 
 
 (D°. v. 53. After παραστήσει Cran. adds (‘even 
 now”). “Apri is placed in this position by Syr. Vulg. 
 and a few manuscripts and versions, but Cran. has it 
 after δύναμαι also. Bish. translates παραστήσει ** 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 Cov. or ‘aid with,” of 
 Cheke. Syr. resembles Bish. (9... 9), Vulg. “ exhi- 
 bebit.” 
 
 (II, b). v. 54. πληρωθῶσιν ai γραφαὶ * can the Scrip- 
 tures be fulfilled 7. ‘‘ 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. 55. λῃστὴν “ἃ robber”]. So Doddridge, 
 
 Campbell, Syr. (Lei. not Bay Vulg. 
 
 (“latro,” not “ fur”), “ murderer,” Cov. Other Eng. 
 
308 sNotes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 have “ thief,” thus confounding λῃστὴς with κλέπτης, 
 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 alterch. xxi, 13; xxvil, 38 ; 44. 
 
 Cae v.60. Kai before πολλῶν, and οὐχ εὗρον after 
 προσελθόντων are expunged by Griesbach; the καὶ 
 only by Lachmann : ten unimportant manuscripts also 
 omit the intermediate words, πολλών ψευδομαρτύρων 
 προσελθόντων. The appearance of tautology presented 
 by the whole clause, has given rise to several other 
 varieties of reading, especially among the Italic ver- 
 sions. Vulg. supports Griesbach throughout, and 
 Syr. rejects the second οὐχ εὗρον. 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. 156-7). It isnot on such 
 evidence, seconded only by Vule. the Coptic, and 
 some inferior versions, that we ought to disturb a 
 reading sanctioned by the great mass of the manu- 
 script authorities. 
 
 (IIT, a). v. 61. διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ‘ within three days”’]. 
 So Cheke, and Auth. in Mark xiv, 58, though it has 
 “in” here. I propose this petty correction chiefly 
 that I may notice Pr. Scholefield’s version “ after 
 three days.” That διὰ is frequently used with the 
 genitive in this sense, can need little proof. See 
 
St. Watthew. 309 
 Mark ii, 1; Acts xxiv, 17; Gal. ii, 1, in all which 
 places it is so rendered by Auth. Herod. iv, 1, τοὺς 
 δὲ Σκύθας ἀποδημήσαντας ὀκτὼ καὶ εἴκοσι ἔτεα; καὶ διὰ χρό- 
 νου τοσούτου κατιόντας ἐς τὴν σφετέρην Seals Compare 
 Matthie, Greek Gram. § 580. ἀ. Vulg. has “ post,” 
 Syr. ὃ, which perhaps may have this meaning, since it 
 is 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 
 quoting the taunt addressed to our Saviour on the 
 cross, both say ev τρισὶν ἡμέραις (ch. xxvil, 40; Mark 
 xv, 29); which is also the interpretation given by 
 Chrysostom to the present passage, for his ἐν τρισὶν 
 ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτὸν is not a various reading. 
 
 In y. 64, for δυνάμεως 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.” 
 
 (III, ον ς 66. ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστὶ ““ he is deserving 
 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 νυ. 67, Cheke 
 has “spit” (Cov. “ spitted”), instead of the less anti- 
 quated “spat” of Tynd. Gen. Thus alter Auth. in 
 ch. xxvil, 30. 
 
 (II, a)°. v. 67. ἐῤῥάπισαν “ 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 JPotes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 only. Castalio “‘alapis ferire.” The margin of Auth. 
 (“ or, rods’’) follows Gen. and Beza (so “ /e frappaient 
 de leurs verges,’’ Martin, ‘“‘ avec leurs batons,” Oster- 
 vald), who after Hesychius and his tribe derive ῥαπίζω 
 from ῥάβδος, whence the epic χρυσόῤῥαπις, and appeal 
 to such instances as Herod. vii, 35 (Schleusner should 
 not have added viii, 59), 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 
 wsus loguendi are adverse to Beza. See Matth. v, 39 
 and Kypke’s note; Mark xiv, 65; John xviii, 22 
 (where Auth. has the same marginal note as here) ; 
 xix, 3. Moreover, this verse manifestly contains a 
 fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy (ch. 1, 6) “ (1 gave) 
 my cheeks Ὀ᾽ to the pluckers of hair:” τὰς σια- 
 yovac pov εἰς ῥαπίσματα, LXX. Compare the same ver- 
 sion in Hosea xi, 4 with Symmachus and the Hebrew. 
 Suidas too explains ῥαπίσαι by πατάξαι τὴν γνάθον 
 ἁπλῇ τῇ χειρί, and so the Etym. Magnum. That ῥαπίζειν 
 cannot well mean ‘‘ to beat with rods” may also ap- 
 pear from Demosth. c. Aristog. i (p. 787, Reiske), ro 
 μὲν πρῶτον ῥαπίσας [τὴν ἄνθρωπον] καὶ AILEIAHSAS, 
 ἀπέπεμψεν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας. 
 
 (1). ν. 70. Between ἔμπροσθεν and πάντων Gries- 
 bach and Scholz place αὐτῶν. ‘‘ 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 αὐτῶν looks very much like an addition of 
 some scribe. 
 
 In v. 75, εἰρηκότος is rendered ‘‘ quod dixerat,” by 
 
St. Matthew. 31] 
 Vulg. Syr. “ which he said,” by Tynd.1. Cheke: 
 “which said,” by other Eng. This would require 
 τοῦ εἰρηκότος. Without τοῦ it should strictly be “ when 
 he said.” 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 (II, a). v. 2. τῷ ἡγέμονι “ 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, “ preesidi,” but this 
 appellation belonged to Pilate’s immediate superior, 
 the President of Syria (Luke ii, 2). Castalio “ pre- 
 tori,’ which I presume he intends to use in the 
 wider acceptation of ear/y Roman history. “‘ Deputy,” 
 Tynd. Cov. Cran. Gen. Bish., but this word is re- 
 served by Auth. to designate a Proconsul (ἀνθύπατος) 
 in Acts xiii, 7; 8; 12; xviii, 12; xix, 38. ‘“Governor,” 
 Auth. here. 
 
 (III, c). v. 4. αἷμα ἀθῶον ““ 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 ἀθῶον he places δίκαιον 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 
 in a second (B), Origen in four places (though in a 
 
312 jRotes on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 fifth he has ἀθῶον), 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. BL 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 δίκαιον, which looks 
 very much like an explanation of the rarer word 
 ἀθῶον. 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 ἀθῶος by ἰὴ “clean,” 
 but δίκαιος in vv. 19, 24 of this chapter, and in other 
 
 places without number by 1.2...) “just.” Respect- 
 
 ing the Sahidic and Armenian I can say nothing : but 
 possibly they stand on the same footing as Vulg. 
 which uses ‘‘ justus” for ἀθῶος here, and for δίκαιος in 
 vv. 19, 24; while it renders ἀθῶος by ““ innocens” in 
 v. 24. Far be it from me to detract from Griesbach’s 
 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. ἐκλήθη “ is called”]. So Tynd. Coy. 
 Cran. Cheke, Gen. and even Wickliffe. “Was called,” 
 Vulg. Bish. Rhemish version, Auth. Compare ch. 
 xxvill, 15, Auth. Cran. after Vulg. and some Italic 
 
St, Matthew. 919 
 versions, interpolates (‘‘ Haceldema, that is”) before 
 *‘ the field,” from Acts i, 19. 
 
 In νυ. 9, Ζαχαρίου is found in but ove manuscript of 
 inferior rank, written in the eleventh century (22), so 
 that however Ἱερεμίου 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. 
 
 thid. 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 τιμᾷν can properly be used in the two 
 different 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). Christ cannot well be said to have been 
 bought of (i.e. from, azo) the children of Israel, though 
 their elders and chief magistrates bargained for him 
 at a certain sum: and the whole clause τὴν τιμὴν... 
 Ἰσραὴλ is but an expansion of the prophet’s words 
 pivbyn TP? WW APT WIS “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 ἐτιμήσαντο, but from the construction of ἀπὸ 
 υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ as a species of nominative before it; for 
 
314 Qotes on the 939 ε Cestanrent. 
 
 which compare ch. xxiii, 34 ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενεῖτε, Syr. 
 resembles Auth. (Wj ds τ —S α- οὐ) but 
 translates τοῦ τετιμημένου in the preceding clause by 
 |;-.-2-, with a view to the Hebrew text of Zech. xi, 
 
 13. For «ὦ Ὁ see ch. xx, 2. Beza also has “ pre- 
 tium estimati, qui estimatus fuit a filiis Israel.” 
 
 (III, c). v. 10. συνέταξέ μοι “appointed to me’’}. 
 “*« Commanded me,” Cov. “ Appointed me”’ of Eng. is 
 susceptible of another meaning. Thus correct ch. 
 xxvili, 16, and perhaps ch. xxvi, 19, where Gen. has 
 ‘‘ oiven them charge.” 
 
 (III, a). v. 11. σὺ λέγεις “ thou sayest right,” or 
 “truly ἢ. So Campbell. “ Thou sayest it,’ Coy. 
 “thou sayest 80," 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.” 
 
 Inv. 14, for πρὸς οὐδὲ ἕν ῥῆμα ΩΝ to nevera word,” 
 Eng.), Cov. neatly renders “not one word.” 
 
 (iI, b). v. 15. κατὰ ἑορτὴν “ at the feast ae The 
 great feast, the Passover. Middleton. ‘‘ That feast,” 
 Eng. 
 
 (III, c). v. 16. ἐπίσημον ““ 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 
 ἐπίσημος With a bad meaning see Schleusner, and 
 Joseph. Antiq. v, 7, 1, οἱ dia πληθος ἀδικημάτων ἐπίση- 
 μοι. HKurip. Orest. 239, ἐπίσημον ἔτεκε Τυνδάρεως ες 
 τὸν ψόγον γένος θυγατέρων, δυσκλεές τ. 
 
 (II. b). v. 20. αἰτήσωνται τὸν Βαραββᾶν “ ask for 
 Barabbas”]. “Ask Barabbas.” Eng. and even Wick- 
 
St. Matthew, 315 
 liffe, Cheke and the Rhemish version. But this is 
 either ungrammatical or obsolete. In v. 18, Symonds 
 proposes to render παρέδωκαν by “ delivered up, ”’ in- 
 stead of “delivered,” as in Eng. It is actually so 
 translated by Auth. (though not by the rest), in Acts 
 iii, 13. “* Brought him in,” Cheke. | 
 
 (III, c). v.27. ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν “ the whole band mh 
 So Cheke. Auth. adds “of soldiers,” but this surely 
 is an idle repetition. See Introd. p. 63. ‘ All the 
 company,” T'ynd. Cran. ‘‘the whole multitude,” Cov. 
 (very badly); ‘‘all the band of their company,” Gen. 
 ‘‘all the band of soldiers,” Bish. Scholefield suggests 
 “their whole company.” ‘‘ Universam cohortem,” 
 Vulg. By σπεῖρα we must of course understand the 
 whole cohort then on duty at the Palace: ‘‘ toute la 
 bande,” Martin. 
 
 ibid. parrwprov is termed ‘‘ common hall,” by Eng. 
 “the governor’s house,” in the margin of Auth. 
 Since in the parailel text Mark xv, 16, it is spoken of 
 as an avAy or “ open court” (see note on ch. xxvi, 
 3), it seems as well not to disturb the Authorised 
 rendering. In John xviii, 28; 33; xix, 9, however, 
 πραιτώριον can only signify “ Pilate’s house” within 
 the αὐλή: for the Jews would not venture into it, for 
 fear of pollution; although that they did go into the 
 judgment-hall or αὐλὴ is plain from the mention of 
 βῆμα in v. 19, compared with John xix, 13. In Acts 
 xxiil, 85; Phil. i, 13 it is used for the residence of 
 the chief magistrate. 
 
 (IIT, a). Vv. 33. κρανίου τόπος “ the place of a skull Ἢ! 
 So Auth. in 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 ignorance of the 
 licence of the article after verbs nuncupative. See 
 Middleton’s Treatise, Part I, Chap. ii, Sect. iii, § 2 
 
316 οι on the Pew Cestament, 
 
 p. 43. ‘A place of dead men’s skulls,” Tynd. Coy. 
 Cran. ‘‘ the place...,” Gen. correctly. ‘The skull- 
 place” (!), Cheke. 
 
 (1)°. v. 34. In the place of ὄξος “ vinegar,” Lach- 
 mann reads οἶνον “ wine,” as in Mark xv, 23. He is 
 supported by four uncial (B D K L), and ten cursive 
 manuscripts, all, or nearly all, Alexandrine, and by 
 the Egyptian, Italic and Vulgate versions. Even 
 Griesbach thinks this evidence insufhcient to vindi- 
 cate οἶνον from the suspicion of wilful alteration. Yet 
 while we retain the received rendering, it were un- 
 reasonable to doubt that ὄξος pera χολῆς μεμιγμένον 
 here, is the same draught as the οἶνον ἐσμυρνισμένον οἵ 
 St. Mark. Χολή, therefore, is nothing more than ἃ 
 bitter mixture, whether of myrrh, or (as Campbell 
 thinks) of wormwood, intended to flavor the wine. 
 
 (1). v. 35. It ought not to be questioned that the 
 words wa πληρωθῇ κιτ. A. 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. 
 17.61). 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 editio princeps, and the Antwerp, 
 
 Paris, and London Polyglotts. Tremellius was the 
 ‘ 
 
St. Watthew. 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. 
 
 (III, δὴ. v. 39. κινοῦντες * shaking ᾽᾽]. So Cheke. 
 “ Wageing,” of Eng. and the Rhemish version has 
 now become almost ludicrous. 
 
 In v. 37, instead of “ accusation” of Bish. Auth. 
 αἰτία 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. 
 
 CII, c). v. 44. ὠνείδιζον “ 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. 45, ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γὴν is translated by Cov. 
 Cheke “over the whole earth,” mistaking (as do 
 Wickliffe and 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. 
 
 (III, a). v. 46. ἀνεβόησεν “ cried out”’]. So Auth. 
 in Luke ix, 38, “" cried aloud,” in Mark xv, 8. Here 
 all Eng. neglect ava. See Introd. p. 35. Perhaps 
 instead of “ will come,” in v. 49, ἔρχεται should be 
 translated ‘is coming.” See note on ch. xvii, 11. 
 Grotius and Rosenmiiller think that ἄφες does not 
 mean “ let be,” “forbear,” as in Eng. Cheke (‘“soft’’), 
 Syr. Vulg. Beza, Castalio, &c., but that it is used 
 
318 Motes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 pleonastically, as in such expressions as ἄφες κολα- 
 ζώμεθα, &c. Compare ch. vii, 4. Theophylact’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 : μὴ ποιήσῃς αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν, ὡς 
 ἂν γνώμεν εἰ βοηθήσει αὐτῷ Ἠλίας. 
 
 (11. b). v. 50. τὸ πνεῦμα ‘his spirit a? 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. 
 
 Inv. 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. 55. ἠκολούθησαν ‘had followed’’]. So 
 Cov. Cheke, Vulg. Syr. “" followed,” Eng. Thus 
 Auth. renders the aorist, v. 60. 
 
 (ΗΠ, a). v. 60. μνημείῳ .- μνημείου a sepulchre,” uni- 
 formly]. Since the latter word is used with a direct 
 reference to the former (as indeed the article inti- 
 mates), μνημεῖον 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 
 “‘orave”’ in vy. 52, 53. Cov. Cheke alone are uni- 
 form here ; other Eng. vary like Auth. 
 
 (IIT, a). v. 62. τὴν παρασκευὴν “the preparation "dp 
 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, 54 ἡμέρα is expressed. Here παρασκευὴ 
 is called by Tynd. Cheke “ Good Friday,” a rendering 
 not more unreasonable than “ Easter” for τὸ πάσχα 
 (see note on ch. xxvi, 2). “The day of preparing,” 
 Coy. Cran. Bish. “the day of the preparation,” Auth. 
 
St, Matthew, 319 
 
 to which Gen. adds “ of the Sabbath,” from St. Mark’s 
 explanation 6 ἐστι προσάββατον. 
 
 (1). v. 64. Νυκτὸς is cancelled by all the critics, and 
 certainly may have come from ch, xxviii, 13: Syr. 
 and Codex δ are the chief witnesses in its favor, but 
 it is not in Chrysostom, nor in the Coptic, Italic or 
 Vulg. versions. Ten uncial MSS(ABCDEHKL, 
 and Matthei’s HV) reject it, as do many cursive 
 copies of both recensions, so that its authenticity 
 should not be insisted on. In v. 65, δὲ after ἔφη 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. we οἴδατε ‘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 οἴδατε is 
 not quite equivalent to δύνασθε. ‘‘ Ut fieri oporteat, pro 
 sollertid vestra indicabitis,” Rosenmiiller. 
 
 ii, a or b). v. 66. pera τῆς κουστωδίας ““ 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, suspecting now more than 
 ever the real character of the Person he had murdered, 
 οὐκ ἀφίησι τοὺς στρατιώτας ΜΟΝΟΥ͂Σ σφραγίσαι, 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, εἶδες 
 πῶς σπουδαζουσιν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας ἄκοντες ; καὶ γὰρ 
 
 \ - ᾽ , haa U 
 αὐτοὶ προσῆλθον, αὐτοὶ ἤτησαν, αὐτοὶ ἐσφράγισαν META 
 
320 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 ΤῊΣ KOYSTQAIAS, ὥστε ἀλλήλων εἶναι κατήγοροι καὶ 
 ἔλεγχοι. This would appear to be the sense of Syr. 
 Vulg. “cum (,».ν} custodibus”’; and such a use of 
 pera With the genitive, denoting the union of several 
 agents in a single act, is almost too common to need 
 illustration. See ch. viii, 11; ix, 11; xii, 41; 42, &e. 
 Tertullian says ‘‘ sepulcro conditum magna militari 
 manu custodie diligentia circumsederunt,” thus 
 joining μετὰ τῆς κουστωδίας With ἠσφαλίσαντο, and giving 
 to μετὰ the meaning of διά (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 as 
 by Tynd. Cov. Cran. “ made the sepulchre sure with 
 watchmen ;” “ 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 mettant des 
 gardes,” most resembles that of Castalio, ‘‘et lapidem, 
 preter adhibitam custodiam, sigillarunt.” But how 
 can such a rendering be extracted from the words of 
 the original ? 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 (II, 6}: v. 1. Owe & σαββάτων “Νοῦν at the end of 
 the Sabbath”]. So Auth. nearly, omitting ‘ now.” 
 St. Matthew means early in the morning after the 
 Sabbath ; a period sometime before day-break on the 
 first day ofthe week : for Bois is right in stating that 
 τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, is a mere explana- 
 tion of ὀψὲ σαββάτων. The Syriac idiom whereby in 
 
St. Watthew, 321 
 Luke xxii, 54 érépwoxe denotes the approach of even- 
 ing, has no place here. The sense of ὀψὲ σαββάτων, 
 as Theophylact remarks, is exactly ascertained by 
 comparing it with διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, Mark xvi, 
 1: ὄρθρου βαθέος, Luke XXIV, is and πρωΐ, σκοτίας ἔτι 
 ουσης, John xx, 1. Both our French versions (“ aprés 
 le Sabbat,” ““ aprés que le Sabbat fut passé’), and 
 Campbell agree with Auth., and Campbell observes 
 that ““ ὀψὲ 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. ὀψὲ τῶν 
 βασίλεως χρόνων, and by Bos from Philostrat. Vit. 
 Apoll. iv, 18, owe μυστηρίων, ἢ “ when the mysteries 
 were over.” Syr. has “on the evening (1_4_s;) 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.” All these interpretations are in substance the 
 same, and though perfectly unobjectionable so far as 
 ὀψὲ is concerned, cannot easily be reconciled with the 
 accounts given by the other Evangelists. 
 (II, b). v. 2. ἐγένετο “ had been’”’] ‘ ante adventum 
 mulierum,” Rosenmiller. So the margin of Auth., 
 
 * Mlian, Var. Hist. 11, 23, Νικόδωρος ὁ πὕκτης ... ὀψὲ τῆς 
 ἡλικίας καὶ pera τὴν ἄθλησιν, καὶ νομοθέτης .. ἐγένετο, might look 
 like ἃ case in point. But ἡλικία seems here to be used in that 
 wider signification which I spoke of in the note on ch. vi, 27. 
 
 ve 
 
322 Motes on the Pew Cestament. 
 Campbell, Vater. “‘ Was,” Eng. “ was made,” Cov. 
 Vulg. Syr. See note on ch. xxvii, 55. “ The angel,” 
 Eng., see note on ch. i, 20. 
 
 In v. 4, for “did shake” (ἐσείσθησαν) of Cheke, Bish 
 Auth., we find “ were troubled,” in Cov. ““ were 
 astonied,” in Tynd. Cran. Gen. Was Cheke’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 chi ville 2691x2261 
 
 (Ἢ, 4). νν. 8, 9, 10; 11. ἀπαγγεῖλαι ἀρ 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 
 ἀπαγγειλαι 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 Cov. has “ tell.” In 
 vv. 8, 9, Cheke has “shew,” but his manuscript 
 breaks off at ‘“ go” (ὑπάγετε) in v. 10. In v. 10 all 
 Eng. evcept Cov. run into the opposite fault of ren- 
 dering both ὑπάγετε and ἀπέλθωσιν by “ go.” Thus 
 also in ν. 8, Cov. has “ ran” for “ did run,” of other 
 Eng., and in v. 9 “ were going”’ (ἐπορεύοντο), in- 
 stead of ‘‘ went” of Eng. See note on ch. xxv, 46. 
 
 (1)°. v. 9. The first clause of this verse we δὲ ἐπορεύ- 
 OVvTO ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, IS wanting in Syr. 
 Vulg., B D., and some twenty other manuscripts, 
 chiefly Alexandrine (e. g. 33. 69): nor is it found 
 in Origen or Chrysostom, 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- 
 
St. Matthew. 323 
 tion of καὶ ἰδοὺ after we ἐπορεύοντο is the principal (see 
 note on ch. xv, 5, 6). Bowyer, in his Conjectures, 
 sagaciously suggests the rejection of these words, in- 
 asmuch as by so doing we should facilitate the har- 
 monising 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 
 Bowyer would trace in that very circumstance, the 
 origin of the omission of this clause in so many 
 manuscripts and other authorities. 
 
 (IIT, c). v. 12. ἀργύρια ἱκανὰ ““ much money”. So 
 Wickliffe. “« Money enough,” Cov. “ large money,” 
 other Eng. In v. 13, ‘‘ away,” is not in italics in the 
 first edition of Auth. Our modern Bibles, by printing 
 “away” in 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. 
 
 (ΗΠ, C). v. 14. ὑμᾶς ἀμερίμνους ποιήσομεν Save you 
 harmless”]. So Tynd. 2. Cran. Gen. This is clearer 
 than “‘ make you safe,” of Tynd. 1. “γα shall be safe,” 
 of Cov. ‘ Secure you,” Auth. ‘“ make you careless,” 
 Bish. very absurdly (see Introd. p. 95). ‘ Indem- 
 nify,” Campbell ; as if anything could indemnify the 
 soldiers, should Pilate order them to be put to death. 
 Again, πείσομεν is rendered by T'ynd. “ pease ;” “still,” 
 by Cov. ““ pacify,” by Gen. I think “ persuade,” of 
 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; xxvili, 23, the 
 attempt, and not its successful issue. 
 
 (II, b). v. 16. εἰς τὸ ὄρος, ov... ‘unto the moun- 
 tain, where ...’]. So the Rhemish version, Martin, 
 Ostervald, and Campbell, nearly. “ Into a mountain, 
 
 6c 
 
324 Notes on the Pew Cestament. 
 
 where”...Eng. I conceive that the article is here 
 employed by anticipation, with an immediate refer- 
 ence to the clause ov ἐτάξατο κι r. A. 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. οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν “ but 
 some had doubted’’]. So Martin (mais quelquesuns 
 avaient douté), 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, ‘‘ méme 
 ceux qui avaient douté.” The same question had 
 been raised by Theophylact, who clearly sanctions the 
 rendering I have proposed: ὀφείλεις οὕτω νοῆσαι, ὅτι 
 εἰς μὲν τὴν Γαλίλαιαν ἐλθόντες προσεκυνησαν αὐτῷ" οὗτοι δὲ 
 οἱ προσκυνήσαντες ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ, ἐδίστασαν πρότερον ἐν τῇ 
 Ἱερουσαλήμ (Luke xxiv, 1] ; 38; 41). Chrysostom, on 
 the contrary, favors the interpretation ‘“‘ but some 
 doubted,” which is also that of Eng. Vulg. Beza, and 
 
 Castalio. Syr. has oon fea ΤῊ) 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. 
 
St. Watthew. ' 325 
 
 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 ἐδίστα- 
 σαν, 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. [{ is ad- 
 mitted even by Auth. in ch. xvi, 5; Luke vii, 29; 
 John xviii, 24: it owght to be adopted in ch. xxvi, 
 48; and probably in Luke xxii, 24. See also note 
 on v. 2. 
 
 (1). v. 19. Griesbach and Scholz here omit οὖν. It 
 is rendered by Syr. Vulg., but is not read in ten 
 uncial manuscripts (A EF HK ΜΚ, and all three of 
 Matthzei’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). 2bid. μαθητεύσατε ““ make disciples of ’’]. So 
 the margin of Auth. in the later editions, adding “ or 
 
 Christians,” and Syr. (osa\Z). “ 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 μεταβάλλετε τὰ ἔθνη ἀπὸ κακίας εἰς 
 ἀλήθειαν. 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. ᾿Αμὴν is cancelled by Griesbach and 
 
326 JQotes on the Jew Cestament, 
 Lachmann. It is omitted by Chrysostom, 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 BD 
 (A is doubtful) 1. 22. 33. 102, and three of the least 
 important of Matthei’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 loc.); but no sober critic should reject it on 
 such evidence as 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 ἀμὴν 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 enumerated in the 
 note on ch. xxv, 2, in which Tyndal and his successors agree 
 with the Vulgate readings in preference to those of the present 
 Greek text. This passage also confirms us in the conclusion to 
 
 which we there arrived; for ἀμὴν is wanting in the first edition 
 of Erasmus, 1516. 
 
 te 
 aie eee 
 “ee iene ie 
 ip eae ie the ie 
 ae ie ie thet 
 eg 
 
ἘΞ oe ee ee ϑς 
 
 OP Pe DD LAY A. 
 
 LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WHICIL 
 CONTAIN THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 The following tabular view of the most remarkable of the Greek Manuscripts 
 which contain the Four Gospels, or portions of them, may be 
 convenient to the reader of the present volume. 
 
 N. B. Alex. denotes the Alexandrian family ; Byz. the Byzantine ; 
 mut, that part of a manuscript has been lost. 
 
 Manuscripts written in Uncial or Capital Letters. 
 
 A. Coprx ALEXANpDRINUS, 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 most probable date 
 is the 5th century. Inthe Gospels it is chiefly Byz., but 
 where it agrees with the other recension, its testimony is of 
 great weight (e.g. Matth. xxv, 13; xxvi, 39; xxvii, 64). 
 
 B. Coprex Varicanus 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 extant MSS, being generally 
 referred to the 4th century. It presents the Alex. text 
 in its best and purest form. Codex 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. Coprex Ernremt, of the King’s Library at Paris, contains 
 the whole N. T., sadly mut. This document is a palim- 
 psest of about the 5th century, and a facsimile was published 
 by Tischendorf in 1842. Alez., as a standard of which 
 text it is in value and accuracy second only to Codex B. 
 
 D. Coprex Beza, 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 
 
328 Appendir a, 
 
 Ov 
 
 the great manuscripts. It is so full of interpolations, of 
 Latinising, singular and improbable readings, that its soli- 
 tary evidence deserves little or no attention. 
 
 . Conex BasiveEnsis B. vi, 21 (Bas. a, of Bengel), of about 
 
 the 9th century, contains the Gospels, mut. Byz. 
 
 . Copex ΒΟΆΒΕΙΙ contains the Gospels. Byz. It was used 
 
 for Wetstein’s edition, and after being missing for a cen- 
 tury, was produced by Heringa in 1830. [{ is still very 
 imperfectly known. 
 
 . Copex οι A, or Seidelii, now Harl. 5684, British Mu- 
 
 seum, of the 11th century, contains the Gospels, mut. Byz. 
 
 . Copex Worrtt B, of the same age, also contains the Gospels, 
 
 mut. Byz., but its text is more mixed than that of G. 
 
 . Copex Cyprius, Reg. 63, Paris, of about the 9th century, 
 
 contains the Gospels. This important MS has been care- 
 fully examined by Scholz. Alex., but with many Byz. 
 and peculiar readings of its own. 
 
 . Copex Rec. 62, Paris, Stephani ἡ, of the 8th century, also 
 
 contains the Gospels, mut. Alex. This copy had too great 
 influence with Griesbach, and frequently agrees with Cod. 
 D, in its worst corruptions. 
 
 . Covex Rec. 48, Paris (Des Camps), of the 10th century, 
 
 contains the Gospels. Text very mixed, but chiefly 
 Alex. 
 
 . Copex GUELPHERBYTANUS A, ᾿ These Wolfenbuttel frag- 
 . Copex GuELPHERBYTANUS B, 
 
 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. 
 
 Copex Vatican. 354, of the 10th century, contains the Gos- 
 pels. It is the best Byz. of all the uncial MSS. 
 
 . Copex Borcti# 1, at Rome, mut. of the Sth century, contains 
 
 John vi, 28—67; vii, 6—8; 31. Alex. Collated by 
 Georgi. 
 
 . Copex Nani 1, in the Library of St. Mark, Venice, of the 
 
 10th century, contains the Gospels. Byz. 
 
 . Copex Lanpsnurensis (Vossii), of the 10th century, contains 
 
 the Gospels, mut. Alex. Collated by Scholz. 
 
 . Copex Dustin: much mut. a palimpsest of St. Matthew’s 
 
 Gospel, written about the 6th century. A facsimile edition 
 was published by Dr. Barrett in 1801. Alez., closely re- 
 sembling Codd. B and P. 
 
 . Copex Vatican. 3785, of the 7th century, contains a few 
 
 fragments of St. Matthew. Alex. Collated by Marini. 
 
Appendir A, 329 
 
 A. Copex San-Gattensis, 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 manuscripts collated by Matthzei for his edition of the 
 Greek Testament (1782—1788) are 
 
 B. Coprex Synopr Mosquensis 43, of the 8th century; it is an 
 Evangelarium, or book of lessons from the Gospels, ap- 
 pointed for Divine Service in the Greek Church. Byz. 
 
 H, Copex Typocrapu. Synop. Mosa. 12, also an Evangelarium, 
 is considered by Matthzei the earliest MS of the N. T. now 
 extant. Less sanguine critics refer it to the 8th century. 
 Byz. 
 
 V. Coprex Synop. Mosq. mut. of the 8th century, contains the 
 Gospels down to John vii, 38. Byz. valuable. 
 
 Manuscripts written in Cursive or ordinary 
 Letters. 
 
 1. Copex Basrierensis B. vi, 27 (Bas. y, of Bengel), 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. Basiteensis B. vi, 25 (Bas. β, of Bengel), of the 15th 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. Ree. 106, Paris, Stephani δ΄, of the 12th century, contains all 
 the N. T. except the Apocalypse. Byz. but mixed. 
 
 13. Ree. 50, Paris, of the 13th century, contains the Gospels, 
 mut. This document is very decidedly Alex. 
 
 17. Ree. 55, Paris (Greek- Latin), of the 16th century, contains 
 the Gospels. Usually Byz., very like the received text. 
 
 22. Rec. 72, Paris, of the 11th century, contains the Gospels. 
 Manifestly Alex. 
 
 28. Rec. 379, Paris (Colbert. 2, of Mill), mut. of the 10th cen- 
 tury, cqntains the Gospels. Alea. with many peculiar read- 
 ings. 
 
 33. Rec. 14, Paris, of the 11th or 12th century, contains the 
 whole N. T. except the Apocalypse, mut. Alex. 
 
 36. Corstrn. 20, Paris, of the 11th century, contains the Gos- 
 pels. Byz. (41. Corstin. 24, is of the same date.) 
 
330 
 51. 
 
 61. 
 
 69. 
 
 71: 
 
 72. 
 
 102. 
 
 106. 
 
 118. 
 
 120. 
 
 124. 
 
 130. 
 
 131. 
 
 157. 
 
 Appendir A. 
 
 Bopieran. Oxford (Laud. 2, of Mill), of the 13th century, 
 contains the whole N. T. except the Apocalypse. Byz. 
 (See note on Matth. xxvi, 60). 
 
 Monrtrort. Dublin, of about the 15th century, contains the 
 whole N. T. This manuscript was at one time suspected 
 (unjustly, as it would seem) of having been forged in order 
 to uphold the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 
 v, 7: which passage was inserted in the 3rd edition of 
 Erasmus (1522) on the authority of the present document. 
 Its text is so much corrupted by Latin readings, that it 
 must not be depended on. 
 
 Leicrestrensis, of the 14th century, containing the whole 
 N. T., is the property of the Corporation of Leicester. 
 Mut. in Matth. i, 1—xviii, 5, &c. Like most other manu- 
 scripts deposited in England, it stands in urgent want of a 
 fresh examination. Alez., but not so exclusively so as D. 
 1. 13. 33. 
 
 Epuesius, at Lambeth, of the 12th century, contains the 
 Gospels. It is an accurate Byz. copy. 
 
 Harwrran. 5647 (Johnson), in the British Museum, of the 
 11th century, contains the Gospels. Alex., but mixed. 
 
 An unknown Mepiczan MS, containing Matth. xxiv— 
 Mark viii. Its readings were extracted by Wetstein from 
 the margin of Plantin’s Nov. Test. 1591. Alex., almost 
 always with DL, &c. 
 
 The Wrincuetsea MS, of the 10th century, containing the 
 Gospels, was used for Wetstein’s edition. Alex. 
 
 Bopieran. Mars 124, of the 13th century, contains the 
 Gospels, mut. It is an important Alex. document. 
 
 Ree. 185.a, Paris, Stephani v6’, of the 13th century, con- 
 tains Matth., Luke and John. Byz. 
 
 Lameecc. 31, in the Imperial Library, Vienna, of the 12th 
 century, contains the Gospels. Chiefly Alex. 
 
 Vatican. 359 (Greek - Latin), of the 13th century, contains 
 the Gospels. Its text is mixed. (Codd. 127 — 158 are all 
 deposited in the Vatican Library). 
 
 Vatican. 360, of the 11th century, contains the whole N.T. 
 except the Apocalypse. It appears to have been used by 
 Aldus Manutius for his edition (1518). Byz., but it has 
 many singular readings. 
 
 Ursino-Vartican. 2, of the 12th century, contains the Gos- 
 pels. Chiefly Alex. Scholz says of it ‘‘ exscriptus est 
 ex vetustissimis codicibus hierosolymitanis in monasterio 
 quodam montis sancti servatis.”. By mons sacer he means 
 Athos. 
 
Appendir A. 331 
 
 183. Laurentian. vi, 14, of the 12th century, contains the 
 Gospels. Byz. (Codd. 182—198 are all at Florence), 
 
 208. Venetus 9, of the 10th century, contains the Gospels. 
 Alex. 
 
 209. Venerus 10 (Bessarionis), of the 15th century, contains 
 the whole N. T. Alex. in the Gospels, 
 
 218. Lampecc. 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, viz. 3. 76. 77. 108. 123—125. 219—225,, 
 which (except 123—125. 225) are chiefly Byz. 
 
 235. Havniens. 2, at Copenhagen, of the 14th century, con- 
 tains the Gospels. Alex. 
 
 346. Amprosian. 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.) 
 
 Matthzi’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. Synop. 45, at Moscow (259 of Scholz), of the 10th or 11th 
 century, containing the Gospels. Chiefly Alex. 
 
 e. Synop. 48 (238 of Scholz), of the 11th century, containing 
 Matthew and Mark only. 
 
 Κι Dresprysis Matthzi (241 of Scholz), of the 11th century, 
 containing the whole N.T. It has some peculiar readings, 
 
 x. Tazuar. Imperta.., at Moscow (251 of Scholz), of the 11th 
 century, containing the Gospels. 
 
 +» The following manuscripts furnish the most characteristic 
 readings of the Alexandrian family: DL. 1. 13. 33. 118. 
 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. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 149, line 27, for Demosth. read Pseudo-Demosth. 
 Page 274, line 24, for Appendix I, read Appendix A. 
 

 

 
Tat ote 
 “a tats 
 wg sa iy 
 
 ‘ 
 
 ᾿ 
 4 Oy 
 
 as 
 
 1? A 
 ΡΥ 
 VEO EK 
 
 43> 
 f 
 
 ΓΝ i 
 
 i ῃ 
 
 anid ONY 
 
 ΡΥ ἢ 
 Wake Pani 
 \ avy 
 
 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 BR ities? Pe ee 
 
 Printed 
 In USA 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45230 
 
Ord vias 
 71 ‘ - 
 
 ΣΙ