fcibrarjo of t:he t:heological ^emmarjp PRINCETON . NEW JERSEY PRESENTED BY The John M. Krebs l^r.ption -fc6^:^4( \ ANNOTATIONS THE BOOK NEW COVENANT. TRINTEP BV JAMES MOVES, CASTLE STHCCT, LEICESTER SQVARE. ANNOTATIONS THE BOOK NEW COVENANT EXPOSITORY PREFACE. WITH WHICH IS REPRINTED, J. L. HUG DE ANTIQUITATE CODICIS VATICANI COMMENTATIO. By GRANVILLE PENN, Esq. Ou ^^r) rbv rsXsiov ^^idTiavhv ex tuv u/j[> Locut. de Genesi, vol. iii. part i. p. 331. Ed. Benedict. 1(580. ' Note to Matt. xxvi. 27, where the Latin translator has rendered ' testa' mentum.'' 6 PREFACE. Part 5. After the revival of ancient learning and the cultivation of the Greek language in the West, when the light of reform- ation began to dawn on the church, revisions of the first, or Wiclif's translation from the Latin, by collation and com- parison with a Greek text, were justly deemed to be indis- pensably necessary ;^ and those works were undertaken, and prosecuted, with great diligence and learning. In 1526, William Tyndale published his revision of the English, or Wiclif's, ' JVew Testament,' (at Antwerp or Hamburgh) ; which was the first portion of the Scriptures printed in our vernacular tongue. In 1535, Coverdale printed an English translation of the Old Testament, to which he annexed Tyndale's revision of the New,^ probably revised by himself: these last constitute what is called ' Coverdale's Bible' In 1537, John Rogers published a new revision of the former editions, under the fictitious name of Matthewe. In 1539, a new revision was published, in the folio Bible which bears the name of Cranmer ; and in the same year, another revi- sion, conducted by Richard Taverner, was printed by John Byddell. These were successively followed by various other revisions, until 1611, in which year was published the last authorised revision, which constitutes the Bible read in our churches. Thus, the basis and substance of that portion of it which comprises what is entitled ' the New Testament^ is Wiclif's original translation from the Latin, in 1380. 6. But those revisers do not seem to have been aware of the efiect of leaving, in their revised versions, demonstrative evidences of the Latin medium through which the translation had been originally made, and its distinction from the primi- tive text, of which it ought to be the immediate and exact expression. They were too easily satisfied with the language they found in the existing version ; and, though they modern- ised the English to the standard of their own day, they suffered many words of interpretation to pass, which bear • " Libros N. T., si quid in Latinis varietatibus titubant, Grsecis cedere " oportere non dubium est ; et maxime qui apud ecclesias doctiores et diligen- " tiores reperiuntur." — Augustin, de Doctr. Christ, torn, iii, p. 28. 2 It is to Tyndale, therefore, that the first debt of gratitude is due from the Christians of England ; since, Coverdale only reprinted Tyndale's worl^; though, probably, with due corrections. (See Abp. Newcome's Historical View of the Enylish Biblical Translations, T^. M. Dublin, 1792.) Part I. PREFACE. 7 an unequivocal stamp of the intermediate Latin ; and which they would not have employed, if their office had heen that of translation, and not merely of revision. Hence, they in- volved themselves in much perplexity. Thus, in Heh. viii. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13; in Gal. iii. 15,— iv. 17, 24; in Eph. ii. 12, the old edition of 1548 renders ' testament,' after Wiclif, whilst our last revisers, of 1611, found it necessary to the sense to render ' covenant' in those places; and in Acts, iii. 25, vii. 8, the former revisers had found it necessary to read ' covenant,' instead of ' testament,' with Wiclif. On the other hand, the last revisei-s retained the errors of their prede- cessors, by preserving ' testament' in Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark, xiv. 24 ; Luke, xxii. 20 ; 1 Cor. ii. 25 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6, 14 ; Heb. vii. 22— ix. 15, 16, 17, 20; Rev. xi. 19. But, in Gal. iii. 15; Heb. xii. 24 — xiii. 20, they hesitated between the two readings; and, though they have introduced ' covenant' into the text, they have inserted ' testament' in the margin. Now, if in every instance where the Latin has ' testamentum,' they had rendered ' covenant' in the English, they would have given the true meaning of the Greek, throughout ; and the sublime exposition contained in Heb. ix. 15-20, instead of being wrought into confusion, would have preserved its native perspicuity and simplicity. The word " testament," therefore, in our English version, is a badge of our former subjection to the Latin church ; and a demonstration, that our vernacular translation was drawn from a Latin original. 7. There are many other words which equally fix on our version the stamp of a primitive translation from the Latin. Thus, in Mark, v. 30; Luke, vi. 19,— viii. 46, the last revisers have left the word ' virtue,' as the translation of bwaij.iv, ^ power,' only because the Latin, from which Wiclif translated, had ' virtutem,' which Wiclif had rendered * the virtu;' but '■virtue,' in English, does not signify ^ power,' though ' virtus' may embrace that signification in the Latin. So also, in Mark, v. 29, they have rendered fiagn^, by ' plat/ue,' only because the Latin has ^ plaga' (for Wiclif had rendered ' sykenesse'); but, ^plague' does not express 'scourge' or ' stripe' in English, which i^aoTi^ and plaga do in the Latin and Greek. In Matt. xxvi. 45, and Mark, xvi. 41, our version renders, " sleep on now — arise, let us he going," for 8 PREFACE. Part^I. Tcadivhire to Xoivov ; because the Latin has ' dormite jam,' which Wiclif rendered * slepe ye now :' but, Xoimv does not signify 'jam — now' (which is contradictory to the sense), but, in posterum — afterward — reliquo diei spado. (Viger. de Ideot. p. 22, not. Hoogev.) In the same manner, we have incon- siderately received the word ' Calvary' into our English version, as a topographical proper name, in Luke, xxiii. 33, (" When they came to the place which is called Calvary,") though the word is wholly unknown to the original Greek Gospel, which says, on rfk&ov svi rov tovov rov naXoviJjivov x^aviov — ** When they came to the place which is called Kranion," (i. e. scull). This the Vulgate renders, " locum qui vocatur " CalvaricB ;" and the English version accordingly renders, ** place called Calvary," misled by the Latin which consti- tuted its original text. But, ' calvaria,' like x^avtov, only signifies ' a scull ;'^ and in Matt, xxvii. 33, and Mark, xv. 22, where the Vulgate equally reads ' Calvarice,' our version renders simply, 'place of a scull; not assuming the word for a proper name. So likewise, in Luke, xxiv. 31, where the Greek words are, afavTog eysviro wtt avruv, " he disappeared *' from them," or, " became unapparent to them," our version renders, " he vanished out of their sight," because the Latin had rendered, " evanuit ex oculis eorum." In John, i. 5, where the Greek has 35 a^ona aurov ou xanXa^sv, our version renders, " the darkness comprehended it not," only because the Latin had " tenebrse earn non comprehenderunt ;" yet the word ' comprehend,' in this passage, conveys no compre- hensible idea to the mind of the English reader. So also, in John, iii. 10, we read in our version, " art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things 1" and in James, iii. 1, ** be not many masters," only because Wiclif had so translated the * magister,' and ' magistri,' of the Latin : perverting the import of the original in both places, which has didaexaXog, and bihagxaXoi — ' teacher,' and ' teachers ; and disappointing the sense, which regards doctrine, not authority. For though, in some places, bihaexaXog may be rendered ' master,' where its meaning is obvious from being associated with (laQrirng, as we call a tutor a master; yet, in others, where that reading ' " Calva, x^aviov vocatur, licet Cielius et Varro calvariam dicant : nam " calvaricB plurale est calvcB ossa, quae sunt et singulariter calvaria."' — Velius liONGUS. Grammat. Lat, Pusebii, p. 2243. Part I. PREFACE. 9 would be equivocal, it ought to be rendered, literally, ' teacher :' and so, in those places of John and James. So also, in John, vii. 35, our version reads, * the dispersed among the Gentiles,' because the Latin has, ' dispersionem Gentium,' which Wiclif rendered, ' scatering oi hethen men;' yet every Greek manuscript, without exception, has tmv 'BXXrjmv — * the Greeks :' the Latin versions only, and after them the Arme- nian, read Gentiles. In John, x. 15, our version twice renders 'fold,' for the Greek words avXri and 'xoifivri, because Wiclif had twice rendered 'foolde' from the Latin, which has twice ' unum ovile :' but mi/j^vrj does not signify ' a fold,' but ' a flock.' If, therefore, the revisers had consulted the Greek in this place, they could not have failed to diversify their translation, in conformity to the Greek. In Acts, xiv. 12, where the Greek historian relates, exaXouv UavXov 'Eg^jjv — " they called Paul Hermes," our version renders, " they " called Paul Mercurius ;" because the Vulgate has trans- lated, " vocabant Paulum Mercurium ;" retaining the stamp of the Latin, even in the termination of the name. Another defect arising from translating from a Latin version of a Greek original, results from the Latin having no article ; so that, where the Greek expresses a definite sense by means of its article, that sense is not conveyed by the Latin version, and errors necessarily follow in the inter- pretation. Thus, in Mark, iv. 38, where the Greek is iiri to '7rPoazi(pa'kaiov, and where the Latin renders * super cerviccd,' Wiclif rendered ' on a pilewe (pillow),' which version his revisers have left in the text. So, in Luke, vi. 12, where the Greek is, iv rp T^offiv^n, and the Latin, ' in oratione,' our version renders, * in prayer,' following the Latin : and thus, the true senses of T^offxsfiaXaiov, and of T^offeuxv, in those places, are lost to the English reader. (See Annot.) These, and all similar passages in our English version of the JYew Scriptures, bear in themselves indelible proof, that the foundation, and general fabric, of our authorised version, is a translation from the Latin. 8. Its last learned editors, in 1611 , expressly state in their Preface, that the design of their work " was not to make a neio " translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but 10 PREFACE. PautI. " to make a good one letter." The good translation which they were to make better, was that of the Bishop's Bible of 1568, which was, in fact, that of the old version, successively revised by partial collation with the Greek ^; all which nominal translations were only revisions of Wiclif's real translation from the Latin ; but, none of these conduct us to an actual translation of the whole from the Greek, only to collations with it ; so that the term ' translations,' applied to our English version, after Wiclif, must be understood in a very lax sense, as signifying only ' revisals,' * corrections,' and ' editions:' as may be seen in the following examples. 2 Cor. iii. 1—6. Wiclif's Version, a.d. 1380. Authorised Version, a.d. 1611. " Begynnen we therfore eftsoone to " Do we begin again to commend preise us-silf ? or whether we neden, ourselves ? or need we, as some others, as summen, pistlis of preisying to ghou epistles of commendation to you, or or of ghou ? Ghe ben oure pistil writen letters of commendation from you ? Ye in oure hertis which is knowen and are our epistle written in our hearts, red of alle men, and maad open. For known and read of all men. Foras- ghe ben the pistle of Crist mynystrid much as ye are manifestly declared to of us, and writen, not with enke, but be the epistle of Christ ministered by bi the spyryt of the lyvyng God : not us, written, not with ink, but with in stoonene tablis, but in fleischli tablis the spirit of the living God ; not in of herte. For we ban such trist bi tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of Crist to God ; not that we ben suffi- the heart. And such trust have we cient to thenke ony thing of us, as of through Christ to God-ward : Not that us,but oure sufficience is of God, which we are sufficient of ourselves to think also made us able mynystris of the any thing, as of ourselves ; but our Newe Testament." sufficiency is of God, who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament." 1 " nothing prejudicing (said its Preface) any other man's judge- *' ment, by this doing, nor hereby professing this so absolute a translation as " that hereafter might follow no other that might see that which as yet was not " understanded. In this point it is convenient to consider the judgement that " John, once Bishop of Rochester, was in, who thus wrote : ' It is not unknown ' but that many things have been more diligently discussed, and more clearly ' understanded, by the wits of these latter days, as well concerning the gospels ' as other scriptures, than in old time they were. The cause whereof is, saith ' he, for that to the old men the ice was not broken ; or, that for their age ' was not sufficient exquisitely to expend the whole main sea of the scrip. ' tures ; or else for that, in this lai-ge field of the scriptures, a man may ' gather some ears untouched after the harvest-men, how diligent soever they ' were. For there be yet, saith he, in the gospels very many dark places, ' which without all doubt to the posterity shall be made much more open.' " pauti. preface. . 11 These two examples demonstrate, that the latter is only a revisal of the former ; and that the former was made from the Latin of the Vulgate, uncorrected by the Greek. No one now translating from the Greek, would render og ixavuetv rjfMag diaxovoug, " who made us able ministers;" but, *^ -who Jitted, or qualified us to he ministers;" yet it was so translated by Wiclif, and has been continued by his last revisers, because the Vulgate renders, " qui idoneos nos ^^ fecit ministros." This rendering Erasmus allowed to pass, but he has shewn, in his note, that we are to understand thus : " qui idoneos nos fecit ut essemus ministri, quasi *' dicas, idoneavit" And it is observable ; that although the intermediate edition of 1548 took advantage of Erasmus's note, and rendered " whiche hathe made us able to ministre " the N. T.," yet, the last revisers returned to Wiclif 's original rendering, " made us able ministers." Dr. Camp- bell, in his note to Luke, chap. i. 35, says; " it is one of " the few instances in which our translators have deserted " the common Greek, and preferred the present readiyig of the *' Vulgate:" the learned commentator has altogether mis- taken and reversed the fact, which was, that our revisers, in those instances, did not desert the Latin, to follow the Greek. 9. The foregoing observations are equally applicable to the German translation of Luther ; and will guide us to a just apprehension of what Michaelis reports respecting it. " Of " all the European versions, none is so ancient as the Latin, " which may be regarded as the common parent of all the " western translations. For, though many of them were *' taken fi-om the original Greek, yet the translators either " had recourse to the vulgate for assistance, or they were so " accustomed from their youth, if not to the Latin itself, to " translations derived from it, that without the actual design " of making innovations, it was impossible to avoid betraying " a similarity to the vulgate ; and if it be denied that they " were its immediate offspring, it had, at least, a considerable ** share in their formation. The French, Italian, and Spanish ** Bibles that were published before the sixteenth century, " were taken wholly from the Latin. The same may be " said of the old German Bibles printed in 1462, 1467, and 12 PREFACE. Part I. *' 1483 ; in which Bibles it is expressly said, that they were *' corrected, with great care and diligence, according to the " Latin. It is true, that Luther translated from the Greek, " yet marks of the Vulgate are visible through the whole " translation: nor would he have been able to produce so " accurate a translation of the Bible (the present sources of " critical information being at that time wholly unknown) " unless he had recurred to the aid of the Vulgate, and " resolved not to forsake his guide but when it led him into " error." — (Vol. ii. p. 107.) That is, he translated by the Vulgate ; deviating from it only where he found it deviate from the Greek, to which standard he laboured to render it uniform throughout. He was too wise not to use whatever of so great a work was already perfected to his hand ; he followed the example of Jerom in revising the older Latin version, who says, " Novum Testamentum Graecse reddidi " auctoritati — T restored the New Testament to the authority " of the Greek" (not, translated it anew from the Greek) ; and, in the same manner our revisers, miscalled translators, retained and used all that they considered to be unobjection- ably executed by their predecessors. 10. But, though our English translation was originally made from the Latin of the Vulgate, as the preceding ex- amples shew, yet the revisions of that translation, in the times of the Reformation, were not conducted with reference only to the Greek text, but with reference also to Erasmus's revision of the Latin Vulgate, by the Greek ; which revision was ordered by authority to be printed in column by the side of the English version, as it is in the edition of 1548, now by me. That revision, abusively called " Erasmus's translation," retained the general body of the Vulgate, which he altered only when he found it necessary to do so, in order to bring it closer to the verity of the Greek. Like Jerom, he says, " Novum (ut vocant) Testamentum universum ad Graecse " originis fidem recognovi — I have faithfully revised the " whole New Testament (as they call it) by the standard " of the original Greek." The following examples exhibit both the Vulgate and Erasmus's version of the preceding passage, from 2 Co- rinthians : Part I. PREFACE. 13 2 Cor. Hi. 1—5. Lat. Vulgate. Erasmus's Revision. " Incipimus iterum, nosmet ipsos " Incipimus rursus nosipsos com- commendare ? aut numquid egemus inendare ? num egemus, ut noniiulli, (sicut quidam)commendatitiis epistolis commendatitiis epistolis apud vos, aut ad vos, aut ex vobis ? Epistola nostra a vobis commendatitiis ? Epistola nos- vos estis, scripta in cordibus nostris, tra vos estis, inscripta in cordibus quae scitur et legitur ab omnibus ho- nostris, quae intelligitur et legitur ab minibus : Mahifestati quod epistola omnibus hominibus : Dum declaratis, estis Christi, ministrata a nobis, et quod estis epistola Christi, subminis- scripta non atramento, sed Spiritu Dei trata, a nobis inscripta, non atramen- vivi ; non in tabulis lapideis, sed in to, sed Spiritu Dei viventis ; non in tabulis cordis earnalibus. Fiduciam tabulis lapideis, sed in tabulis cordis autem talem habemus per Christum carneis. Fiduciam autem hujusmodi ad Deum : Non quod sufficientes si- habemus per Christum erga Deum. mus cogitare aliquid a nobis, quasi ex Non quod idonei sumus ex nobis ipsis nobis, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo cogitare quicquam tanquam ex nobis est : Qui et idoneos nos fecit ministros ipsis ; sed si ad aliquid idonei sumus, Novi Testamenti." id ex Deo est : Qui et idoneos fecit nos ministros Novi Testamenti." Of the same nature are the nominal translations of Tyn- dale, Coverdale, Matthews, or Rogers, &c., namely, revisions and corrections of a former translation. 11. But those revisions, as I have just said, were not made solely by reference to the Greek. Deference to the commanding learning of Erasmus, and probably a doubt of possessing sufficient skill in the Greek language for such a task, caused the revisers to take Erasmus's Latin text for a guide, and frequently to translate by his revision of the Vulgate. Of this fact, we have internal evidence as sure and con- clusive as of the former. Thus, in Matt. i. 20, our English text reads, " that which is conceived in her." The Vulgate has, " quod in ea natum est." Our editors did not give " conceived" as the English of the vulgate " natum" but as that of " conceptum" in Erasmus's alteration of the Vulgate ; for which alteration he assigns the following reason : *' Nos " conceptum vertere maluimus, ne quem torqueat sermo " minus usitatus :" yet, Erasmus's Greek failed him on this occasion. (See Annotation on the passage.) So again, in rendering the Greek words j(rev v^nvTtiffi)! 5 oeifi Kai tv THIS fivtif^airt /Mitlftatri Kat £v t«/; ogmi 6 CC'TO l-xo U-Jfi Xiyi, 9 'i<>"S avrov; avnyyiikccv a.'TfnyyiiXa.v ilr^Xk, ■nX6oi 15 xa/ 'ifjLo.riiTf/.ito') if/.ctrifff/.iVov 18 ii^^avro; ififieemvros tt fi.IT auTou fiiT ccvrov ») 19 0 Ss Iwous xoti 25 ytivt! ri; yvvn 33 i-r oiuT^ a.ur^ 34 S^i 0 h UffUi 36 ivhu, omitted 38 t^x^r^i z^X'^rx, 6o^v(ioy, KXamra; So^v^ov xat nXaiovra; 40 i S£ auTos h wvavroi; ■rxvrai amnuf^W)! omitted 41 KOVfil, xoufi {Proleg. p. xx.) If we examine these diversities of reading, we shall find, that, so far as they afford internal evidence, the Alexandrian column recommends itself much the most strongly to the reason, as bearing the character of genuineness in its readings. 1. ^XQov = ^X^£i/] The preceding context had been engaged in speaking of Jesus, individually, and the context imme- 46 PREFACE. Part I- diately following is also so engaged ; the most ancient read- ing, rjXdsv, is therefore the most probable. 2. i^sXdovri a'jTU) — aTjji/Tjjffsi/ aurw^zi^iXdovrog aurou — uTYivrrjUsv aurw] As avTuj, in the Second clause, is the reading of every MS., the order of interpretation of Scholz's Const, reading would be, avT^vrrigsv auruj i^iXdovri avrw, the last three words being equally in regimen to a'r^jvrjjcsi/ ; but, as such a con- struction condemns itself, so it confirms the most ancient reading. The readings of this sentence have thus progress- ively varied in the MSS., i^iXSovres aurov . . . Vat. and Ephr., or B and C. ; also L. i^iX&ovraiv avraiv , . . Bezce^ or D. t^iX^ovri ccvrai . . . Alex,, or A. 5. o^Bffi X. E. r. fjj ■=■ ijjV7\iMa6i %. %. r. o] As our Lord was nearer the tombs than the mountains, it is probable the historian would have mentioned the nearer object before the more remote ; and the most ancient reading testifies that he did so. 12. vavTig hi haiijjovig, and 6 Iridoug =: omitted in the Vat. MS.] These pleonasms betray * italic insertions ' to the ancient text (see above, p. 34) ; as also does the substitution of the noun for the pronoun, in 14. Toxjg ^oi^oug = auTovg (ibid.) 18. sfijSavTog = i^^aivovTogl i. e. When he had embarked = When he was embarking : the most ancient reading expresses the latter, which was the more probable. 38. i^x^rat = i^x'^vrail The case here, is the reverse of that of V. 1 ; the preceding sentence had enumerated Peter, James, and John ; the most ancient reading, s^x'^vrai, is there- fore entitled to retain its place. 40. avocxsifx^evov = omitted in the Vat. MS.] The most an- cient reading closed the sentence with -Traidwv, which was sufficient; avaxn/xsvov betrays itself to be a superfluous and officious addition. From this " specimen," Scholz's speculation derives no measure of support ; but, there were abundance of other specimens much better calculated to shew the distinctive characters of the two opposed texts. All those modes of variation above specified, p. 34, viz. 1. the multiplication of parti. preface. 47 the name lrj(foug ; 2. the supplying italic insertions ; 3. the enriching one narrative by adding from another ; -4. the omission of a passage sanctioned by early antiquity, and the introduction of others unknown to primitive antiquity; these are all justly claimed by the learned Scholz for his ' Con- ' stantinojjoUtan' family. We have an apposite specimen in Luke, xvii. 9. Alexandr. Const. Cod. Vat. Text. Scholz. |tt» i^u ^x^iv TO) dovXo), on £5ro«))i7S i^ti ^x^iv i^a rai ^ovXo) extivai, on TU oictru^hyrx j i'^oivia-i rcc atarcc^Sivrx ccvra>i ou Ioku. " Doth he thank the servant, be- " Doth he thank that servant be- cause he did what was commanded ?" cause he did what was commanded him ? / trow not.'''' Here, some dull pkiloponisf- has enfeebled the emphasis of our Lord's interrogation, which precluded all reply (as above, in p. 35) ; '* an interrogation, as Bloomfield observes, on *' 2 Pet. iii, 11, in which the question and the answer are " intermingled, pojmlariter ; and which here, as often, par- " takes of e.xclamation ;" by subjoining a reply drawn from his own dulness. In the former case, p. 35, the question required the answer from the interrogator; in this case, it did not ; yet, Scholz not only admits this last reading, but expressly claims it for his Const, text," and pronounces its omission to be Alexandrian. 32. Every one, therefore, who is very sensitive for the purity and integrity of the Evangelical Records, will feel it to be of the first importance, that the English reader should at length be put in possession of the text of the sacred volume, purged from the heterogeneous incrustations which its surface has contracted during its passage down the stream of dark and turbid ages : Griesbach commenced that service, by partially restoring the ancient asterisk and obelus; his learned am- plifier, Schulz, adhered to his example, though he substi- tuted other marks of notation : Scholz, by discarding those salutary monitors, has thrown back the text into the undis- • See note to Preface, Part ii. § 5. 2 " ov ^oKcu] = BLX. 1. 28. 118. 131. 157. Copt. Arm. (sed ed. Constant. "hab. in m.) M\.h.. Verc. Cypr."— (N. T. Scholz. vol. i. p. 301. V. margg. inter, et infer.) 48 PREFACE. Part I. tinguished confusion of the latter portion of those ages. It is therefore imperative, that we should at length secure and complete what Grieshach had begun, by throwing altogether out of the text every thing apocryphal and spurious; and thus attain to a conformity with primitive Christian antiquity. *' The complete Christian" (observes the ancient Christian writer quoted in the title-page) " ought not to establish his " faith by disputable texts ; those which are agreed upon, " and universally acknowledged, sufficiently declaring every " thing respecting the entire doctrine of Christians." 33. It has been laid down for a rule in literature, that no translation of a work ought to be printed for publication, the original of which work is not also made public in print. The prohibition contemplated in that rule, cannot be applied to the accompanying Revision ; because, though the text of the Vatican MS. has not been published collectively in a printed form, yet we possess, in a printed form, both Bentley's^ and Birch's collections of every word in which it differs from the printed received text ; so that every one, who is willing to give himself the trouble, can assimilate the text of his Greek Testament to that of the Vatican MS., by which means, he will obtain the entire text of that ancient antigraph ; and the rule in question had not in view the indulgence of inexertion, but the prevention of deception and imposition. ' It demands to be noticed, that Scholz, in his description of the Vat. BIS. {Proleg. p. xxxviii,), mentions Birch's Collations (printed 1788-1800), and also those, in MS., of one Julius de St. Anastasia, in the Royal Library at Paris (collated in 1 G69) ; but he passes over, with profound silence, the laborious collations of Bentley, though they were published by Woide in 1/99, thirty years before Scholz published his Prolegomena: also, that in some places (as in Mark, i. 10 and 16, and again, in Mark, vi. 6), where Bentley had given a reading afterwards overlooked by Birch, and for which Schulz gave Bentley the credit; Scholz has used the reading, but excluded the name of Bentley; although Birch says, in his Proleg. p. 24, '^ Lcctt. Luc. et Job. ex schedis " Bentleji, amice cum nobis communicavit Illustr. et Doctiss. Woide." Such a marked omission in such a work, especially in his general enumeration of names {Proleg. c. iv. p. xxvi.), is not a little censurable; and more parti- cularly, as Schulz (of whose inferior margin those of Scholz are in a great measure reprints) has expressly noted Bentley's collations, in his note to the Vat. MS,, p. xcvii. of his Prolegomena. In fact, if we had not Birch's colIa« tions of that BIS., Bentley's collations would have been of infinitely more real value for elucidating the sacred text, than any thing that Scholz's researches have empowered him to contribute towards that end. Part PREFACE. 49 34. But, though the Vatican MS. is of such high an- tiquity, yet, as it does not pertain to the first, hut to the fourth century, between which periods some variations crept into different copies ; it is to he expected, from the ordinary causes perpetually operating towards variations in transcrip- tion, that tliis copy would also deviate in some places from MSS. still more ancient, and now lost; though in much fewer instances than in the mulfltudinous copies of the several centuries which followed it. Of such places, we are able to rectify some by the testimony of still more ancient authorities: as in John, i. 13; Heb. ii. 9 ; 1 John, iv. 4. 35. For all the reasons above detailed, I have conducted the accompanying " Revision of our English Version " by collation with the text of that most ancient MS. The method I have pursued, has been this, I first assimilated a common school copy of the received Greek text, to the entire text of that MS., by substituting the various readings given by Professor Birch, for the Gospels, in his " Quatuor Evangelia" printed at Copenhagen in 1788; and, for the sequel, in his " Varice Lectiones ad Textum Act. App. Epp. Catholicarum " et Paidi, Sfc." printed in 1798, and his " Varies Lectt. ad " Text. Apocalypseos" in 1800 ; comparing them occasionally with those of Bentley, published by Woide, in 1799, at the end of his Appendix to the Alexandrian MS. I next adapted a copy of our English version, to the same readings of the Vatican MS. ; endeavouring to render that version an exact expression of the assimilated Greek text. In the very rare instances in which I have deemed it obligatory to depart from the readings of that MS., I have fully assigned the reasons in the annotations. 36. It has been justly, and soundly observed by Michaelis, that the genuine reading of a passage may survive in only one MS. ; nay, that the true reading may have lapsed from every surviving MS. With respect to the first case ; we have as good reason to be convinced, that we are to read it/ pro 54 PREFACE. Part II. Scribendum an pro av — avoXoyias pro o/ioXoyia; — ■TroXifiovvra; pro -roXi- ftevvroi, eiiam contra. a in V, et contra. Scribendum avocrTovrnv pro aivyrrouait — (fuyovTii pio ^ayovTs; — U5r' pro air. a in &/. Scribendum 1ia\ov(ti pro S/ials^ir/ — aj pro iii. ai in £, et contra. Scribendum avrai^uv pro avn^tiv — tir6nffi pro anxSriiiu. at in »). Scribendum ■prXaiirm pro rrXfiiriov — Oi/tta/ pro ti fit! — avrais pro ecurn;. at in £i et 01, et contra. Scribendum sfrajvEfra/ pro ivaiviini — P>\ef^u pro (iXa^"^! — avrai; pro avrois. av in >!, et contra. Scribendum j, contra, Sj) pro 05 — hvia. pro £v/a — vi^iiv pro IJs/v. £ in /, et contra. Scribendum fitffouvTuv pro //.iffowruv, contra, fnffn pro (/.tfri — wrri pro £a-T»). £ in a, et contra. Scribendum ^ratfjvrsj pro Ta^evris — £« pro aV< — £*8Xowav pro ixiXtvov — o^yris pro i^yoii. £ in u, et contra. Scribendum £a"£;(;8t/a'at/ pro v7nx»tJ^oui pro aXXous. 6 in y. Scribendum i6iia. pro ima. h in 0). Scribendum ir^oirhv pro v^ofioc.ra. — ovhm tuv pro I in «, et contra. Scribendum xitrryit pro xua'r/v — m^oi- fivv pro -ru^oifinv — !r/» pro !r«Xux>jT/v. X in y. Scribendum ix(rr^o(pcu pro ivfT^ixpai — axuffTOi pro avaxrcS' X in a. (i. e. A pro A.) Scribendum X/ya pro aj;ti< — »irag>i(rat pro r^rajjiitta!. i£i in T, et contra. Scribendum (ji,a.Xa, pro raXXcc — |M>; pro t; — T>jy pro (MX. y in 5r. Scribendum y£o/£y pro ^iffoitv. Scribendum mivunv pro ?r£/ga;>jv^ yva(pii; pro ygai^E/f. y in u, et contra. Scribendum a'ir£»SajK»?y pro ff-Triu^ofjtnv — ovrca; pro ourus — iu6v(Lua6a.i pro ey^u- [jt.inrSiii. I in (T, et in ^. Scribendum ^ivi^uv pro au^ionrin. a in a:. Scribendum !7'ag£iay pro vra^uayi — o^;);;» pro a^x^ — o-rara^ pro ai-aru^. a in (>, et contra. Scribendum ih pro m/' — av^n^av pro acya^ioaiv. a in I. Scribendum i^o; pro sg/s. a in (w. Scribendum rtr^ayoviav pro TfTgat- y) pro r^uff'^. r in <), et contra, et in /i*. Scribendum jwsrsjy pro [/.ihv — xara^M pro xufa^ai — a-ro(pfiyficc pro cfxoriuyiio.. 56 PREFACE. Part IF. T in (f, et contra. Scribendum tu pro «•« — wimoa. pro rtoirrtra—aoiaiit pro 'raffiiv, V in », et contra. Scribendum ^vviiv pro :&»»-£/v — a-s*??)- v£v pro 5r£(pyvsv — u/«/v et -V'". iif^iri^"' et h/iiTi^a., millies inter se commutantur. i/v in u. Scribendum trwhis pro tuhis.

!;^;o/j. X Jn "• Scribendum £/;^;£ pro iivmt. ■4, in |. Scribendum i'rtfpi^xis pro f^iffiyil,a.i{. tu in «e. Scribendum rai pro to. — -ttb^^u pro •raga — Xu^eofitvei pro Xufiofiivoi. 0) in >j, et contra. Scribendum ffra(pi^av pro ara..£yau9-/v^ hfioiuii pro ofioious — ^ri^ov pi'O inTu. CAP. II. De Literis omissis et supervacuis. in /3, et contra. Scribendum ^^osfiijia^t a^liv — fiwo/s pro tvfioiiiis. pro !Tg«j- m y, et contra. Scribendum X£yavri pro Xeovt/ — a^jjXXay^afivov pro airsjXXa^fvav — ifit- rixtts pro ya^£T;x5)j. in S, et contra. Scribendum -rn^i^Mv pro !r/£j/&)» — £/W*£/ pro tU^OKil. in £, et contra. Scribendum x^ivtnv pro x^ivnv — ?rgoo'« pro irgflj 111) — (pvyiov pro (ptvyav. in », et contra. Scribendum £w>i; pro ius — i^ti^xuf pro tvrtt^tixus' in ^, et contra. Scribendum (p^ao-s/ pro (f/airti — £|£X- ^£iv pro i^iXiiv —-iiacpffc^ais pro ^ia.(po^a.is .^Bdvai pro £iva!< — (po^cc; pro i5. in X, et contra. Scribendum IxIe/v pro £^£/v — ai-Xtj. iTTiav pro cc.'nariav^a.tihiav pro aX»i^!^£ pro ffun'TXri^t. in |U. Scribendum -roXmv pro traXE/tiuv — ifToiivj^TO ti^aifiiv—i^n^iias pro j|tt!r>j- g£/af. in V, et contra. Scribendum x^ifiviul» pro x^vfitiiin— vavraiv pro awrav— «-/jf pro av?)f — aura/ pro vaurai. in |. Scribendum 'Sto/^ivuv pro It^ofuvuv. in 0, et contra. Scribendum o(p6wo\ira.i pro (p6wi»irai ^vuv pro voj/»^!rX£aij pro !raX£4;s. in 5r. Scribendum ^ajaXus/K pro -^rct^ocrXuuii ^aioXixov pro a/^aX/Atav. in ^, et contra. Scribendum ^^on^ov pro ^ort^ov — ■roTi^ius pro !rgoT£gw; ^ !raj£;(;;£Ta< pro !rajEg;^;£Ta/, Part II. PREFACE. 57 in ir, et contra. Scribendum •r^mrwrov pro •r^ou'rov— (/.Ktrtx, pro f/.tra, — airSr\tai pro it^nvxi—. vsoi pro voa'os — xu/iov pro xor/iDv. Jam -r^os et T^o inter se crebro mutantur. in T, et contra. Scribendum •rXiovra; pro ■rXsovx; — avn^u pro ccvai^ii^-r^offoixovs pro trgas- a;xrayf. in t/, et contra. Scribendum crvfijiovXov pro aufi^oXoi — a.u\%i pro a^£/ — 6^/s/5 prO lutpni; '^ pro !rs^ai/Ta/. in 1^. Scribendum ura^iuv pro ipuvcc^iuv. in ;^;, et contra. Scribendum x'^i"^^ P*"** *«?*? ^ s'sn pro tix^v — fiaKis pro fixx^iS' in (w, et contra. Scribendum eciM^oufisvn pro ai^ovfuw .^S-i^ivxi pro S-tM^ivai, CAP. III. De Syllabis et Verbis addendis et tollendis ; et de Glossis. In initio. Scribendum ^ia.\i(iia.v pro avoiav—i^yiKi pro ix£ — crja^{g£(; pro ^s^s/j — at-xv'kM pro cruXa — xaia'av pro xauxasa'av — S>JTS pro fiainn. In medio. Scribendum sfr/Ss/xvu^svau pro ea-/- ^tifitvov — ^vvoiKtjiridv pro ffvvotffiiv — irxo- •xiXou pro irxt/Xou — vfiiTi^au pro vm^ou — rifttrt^a; pro rif^t^a; — x'^^yiyriffuiv pro ;^4J«»irs(£v — aXXo/j pro aAXxXa^s — y^a,jjt.iJ.iav ■pvO y^afn.fio.rav — ^larroviriv pro iiararrouffiv — iX^Mfitv pro 8X£y;^^«y^£» — ^a»av pro ^avfliTav — o/ioias pi'O o/uovoiu; — av^-s pro e-^ofiiai. In fine. Scribendum i-ravrcc pro a^av — xa- SaaiuTO pro xa,6uatu> — T£X£uriiyvT£5 pro T£X£t/r«v — TaT£ pro ro — //.ivoi pro |t*£v — £;^av pro ix'^'^' — (^"■gru^i pro ficc^ru^iov m^^on pro TTori^K. Jam sicut syllabae, sic etiam voces unius syllaba non raro vel desideran- tur, vel vacant. Ac primum, xa., et oux desunt scepissime: turn ha, •ra^a, -pr^os, iTi, Ti^i, et alia. Contra, xai saepe superest, et ov. Quemadmodura porro voces monosyllabee, sic etiam polysyllabae nonnunquam eodem pacto vel desunt vel supersunt. De glossis. Atque hie merito deploranda venit superioris temporis librariorum insci- tia, qui qusecunque supra lineas in bonis autoribus loco glossarum vel glossematum (sic enim vocentur notce quae glossas, sive difficilla vocabula bre- viter explicant) annotata reperiebant, ea vel emendationes esse contextus, vel membra censentes, temere et in- scite, nunc expulsa vera scriptura, nunc apud veram, contextui inful- serunt. CAP. IV. De Conjunctione vocum, et Disjunctione. male disjungerent. Cujus rei, cum Nunc alium corrigendi modum tra- demus : is in conjunctione vocum vel literarum perperam disjunctarum, et vicissim in perperam conjunctarum disjunctione, cernitur. Inde autem originem hoc mendorum genus habet, quod olim Grseci libri sine ulla vocum inter se distantia, quae nunc est in usu, scribebantur : quo factum post est, ut, qui satis periti non erant, alia vocabula non recte conjungerent, alia permulta suppetant exempla, breves tamen hie, ut in reliquis, erimus. Scribendum a^a pro a fnv — avnyoy pro atv nyov — a.'X'a.vri; pro a vxyris—' awiii/jiiv pro aTtiit /isv — S»X/au pro S'^X! jMuu pro riiiriiv — tivos fia^ias pro rifiu^ias — ri i9rt inficu iffr ctirioi pro iffrai fiot — (iavrius pro rtf^^v rius. «S« 'iiKtty liiuxairt pro vSix>ixai«'a^6va; tXiov ftfioiv — ^raXit vifiav . . . o^oi; — o^toi; ....... uftoai — ufjt.oXoyriiri ayasv ufioi — ouii vo/auv .... 429 ib. ib. 440 448 ib. Xajio) — fiaXuv ' p. 449 rri -roXu — Tfi TTuXyi . . . ffiKrav — eiffctv iwxXuv — iv oxXc^ . . . To;j v^voi; — rois i>//.vois . • £v Tayfio. — tvraXfia . . f/.uiro)/ — f/,ii^av .... ovofiaa'iaii — yo/^mhiriav 452 453 458 468 471 473 481 Demosthenes. Reiske. {Orator es Gr. t. x.) tifiiv — vfciv, et contra, saepissime. (r^ouoa^ouiriv — (p^ovn^ouffii iTTiTihyra; — i'^ihvrccs ^i'Xh — '^^■»<^^ • • e^ffai; — o/ius . . fioyis — fitoXii xara.T^i'^afiivit) — oftDiu tyyvhv — tKtifftv . affvfioTiQOUS — ^a^VficoTl^ous Ev oXiyifi — tvi Xoyco . p. 90 iffTiv — iimi . . . ib. ^t(pifiva(ri — 7n(pvKai(ray p. 780 . ib. . ib. . ib. . 781 Xoi^yoi — X'i" P* 781 )div, i. e. in the maryin) in order to assert, that the " miracles wrought by our Lord were more in number than " those which are recorded; some other, through ignorance '* of the intention of the former, brought it icithin the text " {ssukv) : and having been thus made a part of the scripture " of the Gospel, time and custom brought it to be introduced " into all the Gospels ; and thus it obtained a firm opinion " in all believers, that it truly formed a part, and the con- '* elusion, of the things written by the Evangelist."^ Of the same quality are v. 43, 44, in Luke, xxii. ; and so, also, is to be accounted Matt. i. 17, in the received text. (See annota- tions.) We must be careful, however, to distinguish between intrusive glosses, and the ' italic insertions,' noticed above in Part L p. 34; the former of which are very few, but the latter are numerous and continual. 6. Chapter IV. As the Vatican, Ejjhrem, Cambridge or Beza, and Alexandrian MSS., like all other most ancient Greek writings prior to about the tenth century, were writ- ten in uncial or capital letters, without separation into words ; examples of that mode of writing will best shew, how liable the copier might have been to unite, or divide, some letters and words erroneously : ' The word ' • '"" ^« • • j lb. xvii. 25. cc-^'^Ul^'.Z'-'^o . I J p^^_ jii 20. £/5X;crov lb. xxii. 11. oy «v ^5« . . . Key, ji_ 25. ""' "' • • ! 1 Cor. XV. 10. *"='^'« ''^" • • 1 lb. xvii. 8. And in 1 Tim. vi. 5, 6/' a 'xaoar^i^ai, ^ from which {arise), &c.,' is written in most MSS., Biu'ra^aT^Sai, in one word; and, in other MSS., has been changed to 'xa§adiar§ij3ai. So in Josephus, supra, p. 58. "'^^f I and in Demosth. \ '" ^^'''^ 7. Chapter V. Of 772eifa^Aesi5, or transposition of letters and words. We have an example of the former in Heb. xii. 15, where the received text uniformly reads, with the verb, ivoyXri, " trouble yoit;^ yet the passage in the Greek of Deut. xxix. 18, to which the former clearly refers, reads, with the noun, sv yJKri, " with gall." So in Luke, ix. 31, where both the old MSS. and the received text read i^obov, several MSS. read ho^av. To these we may add Acts, xxvii. 33, where the Latin translator evidently read a^yji {cum inciperet), which is the true reading ; but, where the received text reads dyji. Matthaei reads aoyj : whether or not this is an erratum of the press for a^%>j, does not appear in his note. Of words, we have, in ^ Thess. i. 8, tpXoyi rrxj^og in the most ancient, and four other uncial MSS., but ttuoi (pXoyoc, in the Alex, and in the junior texts. 8. Chapter VL Criticism founded on accents, has no place in the present * Revision.' But it will be well to con- sider here, the authority of accents for determining the antiquity of a MS. Bishop Marsh, in comparing the Vatican and Beza MSS., says: " If it be asked, to which of these '' the precedence is due, I would answer, to the Codex Bezce, ^^ for, the Cod. Vaticanus has accents and marks of aspira- " tion, which were added by the person who wrote the MS. 68 PREFACE. PartII. " itself." Yet the same learned prelate says afterwards, of this same MS. (Cod. Vat.) : " This, indeed, is no absolute " proof against its antiquity, for, on a wall in Herculaneum " was found a verse of Euripides, written with accents :" and again, " Perhaps there are as many ancient MSS., in " uncial letters, which have accents, as those which have " not." Thus, he destroys the only ground on which his first judgment had rested. But, the presence of accents, as Dr. Foster has shewn, testifies chiefly the object for which the MS. had been destined ; whether to be read where Greek was the familiar language, or in another country : thus, of two copies of a Greek author, that which was destined for Corinth or Alexandria would be unaccentuated, and that designed for Rome (as in the inscription in Herculaneum), accentuated ; the accents having been devised to guide foreigners in the pronunciation.^ But, since the learned bishop published his criticisms, in 1793, the investigations of Hug, in 1810, have enabled him to ascertain, by ocular testimony, that the accents which appear in the Vat. MS. have been added hy a later hand (see his Commentatio) ; and to establish the superiority of the Vatican over iheBeza MS., by a seniority of three, if not four centuries. The seniority of the Ephrem MS., over that of Beza, is now also well established. 9. Chapter VII. Of the d/xoioa^xTov, or similar beginning, noticed by Canter, Michaelis has made no mention ; but has confounded its operation with that of the 6/j.oioTs'Ksvro)', or similar ending. " Omissions," he says, " are frequently " occasioned by what is called an biMoton'Kiurov, or, when a " word, after a short interval, occurs a second time in a " passage. Here the transcriber, having written the word '* at the beginning of a passage, in looking again at the book " from which he copies, his eye catches the same word at " the end of the passage ; and, continuing to write what *' immediately follows, he, of course, omits the intermediate " words. Wetstein's Codex 22 omits entirely Matt. x. 40, *' where the copyist was led into error by two following *' verses beginning with 6 bsyj)iJ.ivoc. In Matt. xi. 18, 19, ' Foster, Essay on Accent and Quantity, p. 180. Part II. PREFACE. 69 " Wetstein's Cod. 59 omits all the words between tivmv and " mvojv" with which words both those verses end. But, in the first of these cases, the error arises from an 6/j,oioa^xrov, and in the latter only, from an o/MoionXsurov. Michaelis, therefore, by confounding the two, has erroneously defined the latter ; for, it has not always been either the beginning, or e7id of a word or sentence, that has caused such omissions : a mechanical copyist, seeing a word in a sentence of the original from which he is transcribing, and his eye, on looking again at the original, falling on a similar word in a sentence following, has often proceeded from the latter, leaving out the intermediate words. Of this inadvertency in a catalogue of names, w^here it w^as very likely to occur, we have a notable example in v. 8, 9 of the received text of chap. i. of Matthew. Canter has confined his examples of the o/j^oioaexrov to single words ; in which, however, avr — misapprehended in its inflections of avrog, has introduced many errors and ob- scurities into the MS. texts : as in Luke, xxi. 21, avTrig for aurojv. But, we have proof of its effects in entire sentences, as in the passages just cited, beginning with the same words, 6 hi-xoij.ivog. So also in Heb. ii. 13, in which the two clauses of the verse begin with -/.ai tuXiv, the copyists of the MSS. 4 of Wetstein (Steph. y), and Vat. 367, have passed from the first y.ai craX/v, to the sequel of the second xa/ TaX/K, omitting the sequel of the first. Examples of 6/j,oiotsXsvtov, however, are much more frequent than of d/j^oioa^xrov. 10. Chapter VIII, The subject of comjjends, or abbre- viations, which have so extensively influenced the transcripts of the Gospel texts, demands some particular consideration. Wetstein, and other eminent biblical critics, very justly re- prehend a hasty and rash assumption of abbreviations, only in order to force a sense on an obscure passage ; but, unless we renounce our common sense and eye -sight, we must clearly perceive, that many diversities of reading have pro- ceeded from no other cause than abbreviations of words, and misapprehension of those abbreviations. Semler has pointed out a manifest example of this, in Heb. vi. 5, where every existing MS. reads, dvm/Mn; rs /AsXXovrog aiuvog, which the Vulgate, and Erasmus, render, " ac virtutes futuri seculi — 70 PREFACE. Pakt ii. " {and the powers of the future world) ;" but where Tertullian, or the Latin from which he quoted, rendered, " occidente '■'■jam (Bvo — {noio that time is ending)." Here, as Semler observes, it is plain that some abbreviation of 8vm/j,sig caused the translator to read, duvai^ /xsXXovroj rou aiuvog, Wetstein himself, also, has adduced an example, equally conclusive. In Acts, xiii. 23, where both the Vatican MS. and the re- ceived text, and most of the ancient MSS., concur in reading GUT^^a Ijjtfoui/; 26 MSS., the Ethiopic and Arabic versions, with Chrysostom and Theophylact, read ffurri^iav. -This latter reading, as Wetstein has pointed out {Proleg. p. 3), obviously resulted from abbreviation, and the unseparated state of words in ancient Greek MSS. ; thus, tr^a (a common com- pend for o-wry;^a), and 7v (a common compend for IneouM), standing without separation (CPXIN), was misapprehended for a compend of cojrripav (CPIXN). The various reading w^iu) and xa/gw, in Rom. xii. 11, has manifestly sprung from a compend xgw, omitting the intermediate vowels. This subject will, therefore, render it advisable to look back to the origin of compendious, or abbreviated writing. The office of copyist was, of necessity, actively exercised in the ages that preceded the invention of printing. In the first ages of the Gospel, when the multiplication of copies was exigent, which could only be effected by the tardy opera- tion of the pen, only two methods presented themselves for accomplishing it ; the one, to copy by the eye from an anti- graph or original ; the other, to write by the ear, from the dictation of a reader. Both methods contained the causes of their respective and peculiar errors. The necessity of expedition for supplying numerous demands, rendered the writing from dictation the most prevalent ; for, many scribes could write from one and the same dictation, but hardly more than one could transcribe, at the same time, from one and the same original. The Ubrarii, or amanuenses, who ' Semler suggested ^vimi, but St/va/ appears the more probable (Tertull. De Pudicitia, c. 20, torn. iv. p. 427, and torn. v. p. 253. Ed. Semler. 12mo.) The learned editor observes, that Mill had noticed this variation in, his Proleg. No. 626 ; but adds, " nee debebat Wetsteuius negligere antiquissimam banc " aberrationem Scripturae." Part II. PREFACE. 71 Avrote from dictation, and who strove to keep pace with the reader, would, according to the speed or tardiness of their penmanship, employ more or fewer abridgments of words, according to their own judgments at the instant. Receiving a sentence by the ear only, they would be governed in a considerable degree by the general sense. They would, there- fore, often transpose the order of words in a sentence, as, iTfortX^av 0 Utr^os u-riv ccvrai. Vat. MS. wgaireX^wv aurx o Vlif^of, (ivt, Rec. and Const. Matt, xviii. 21. Kai fi "jfoXii o\n t'X'iiruvrtyf/.ivn riv, ] Mark, 1. 33. Rom- ix. 3. They would vary the tenses and persons, as, Vat. MS. yiyoviv, Rec. (Tuvayira,! (TVVflX^V vrct^iXivirovTai Mark, iv. 1. lb. xiii. 31. lb. XV. 27. ctKovaovffi ccxovii . Xaf^liani John, X. 27. lb. xvi. 15. lb. xix. 3. Acts, xvi. 17. They would write a synonymous word, as Xiyu and eXgysi/, ,) So also the synonymes, ra, igya KTiffa.; rruotKros ii fin ofiftaruv eip^aX/;iuv Ka6riyrirni iihaiTKaXoi and • I Matt. xvi. 27. • j lb. xix. 4. • } lb. xix. 9. ■ I lb. XX. 34. i lb. xxiii. 8. iVOIOUV . ■rXf/a-rof TToXvs tyi^^nvai avettTYivai ffiytlfftj (Tiwrrian rtviXivrnKoros rtffvnxoTos • . Mark, ili. 6. lb. iv. 1. Luke, ix. 22. lb. xviii. 39. John, xi. 39. They would even be liable to mistake one word for another somewhat similar in sound, as, !r«XXa ri'^o^ii, Vat. MS. ) Afark (ToXXa tvoni, Rec. and Const. ) ^ ' ixoXXri^nfav Rev. xviii. 5. 72 PREFACE. Part II. > Rev. xxii. 14. It is thus, that Birch accounts for the various reading, voiouvreg rag iVToXag aurou 'rXvvouvrsg rag eroXag avruv (Cod. Vat. 579)J " Si fingas nonnulla monasteria, ubi copiam exemplarium *' N, T. amplificare operam adhibuere monachi, hoc modo " processisse, ut unus alta voce textum praelegeret, quern " calamo exciperent plures assidentes librarii, res, meo qui- " dem judicio, erit explicatu facillima. Si eniin in lihrari- *' orum vulgarium tnrba statuas unum vel aUerum, minus " attentum, sed ingeniosum et linguae peritum, cui satis " fuerat vocem dictantis sequi, minime soUicitus, an ea qui " audierat, vel quae audire crediderat, modo sensum con- " textui non adversantem exhiberent, calamo expresserit; " quis non intelligat quam facile verba miowrsg rag ivroXag " auTOu cum verbis '^rXwowrsg rag SToXag auruv permutari potu- " issent ; preecipue, si praelector minus clara ac distincta voce " officio suo functus sit? An plures varietates, in libris N.T. " obvise, quarum origo alias difficulter indagatur, simili con- " jectura explanari queant, doctis judicandum relinquo."^ This solution is the more probable, as the scribe had before written, in chap. vii. 14, i-TrXumv rag (SroXag avTm. Those, on the other hand, who engrossed by the eye from abbreviated antigraphs, were liable to misapprehend, and miswrite, the compends or abbreviations which they strove to decipher : for, the transcribers were often mechanical operators; sometimes, indeed, ignorant of the language which they copied, as copyists are at this day employed, in India and China, to copy English which they do not understand. And thus we may be able to distribute, to the ear and to the eye, the origin of many of the multitudinous variations of reading which have come down to us. Such compends are well defined by Canter — '■'■ quce " paucis et facilihus ductihus, liter arum numerum complec- " tuntur — which comprise a great number of letters, within " a few easy strokes of the pen." This description relates chiefly to copies in the smaller or curswe writing, which suc- ceeded to the uncial. Canter gives but few examples, because the practice was common ; those which he produces, as ana- logous to TJig, GY]^, in the Sacred MSS., for irarn^, aurri^, are, ' Var. Lectt. ad Text. Apocal. Proleg. p. xi. Paut II. PREFACE. 73 gust, "TTgwov, for 2wy.gar£/, rrar^uov. We also find ill Strabo, UooxXris for Tlar^ozkrii ; as, in 2 Tim. iv. 19, U^isxa for Those compends extended from monosyllables to words of many syllables. Thus, they noted, r, for n, ro, rov, roj, &c. ; ff, for ffu, ffou, 601, Gi ; and /Z, for jjjov, ix,oi, /is ; from whence has arisen much confusion of those pronouns : also, b, for bi, Bvo, dia ; x, for xai ; rj, for tji/. Again ; " Vetustissimi codices," says Wetstein, " quas- " dam voces in compendio scribunt, ita ut primam tantuni " atque ultimam, interdum et mediam literam, pro integru " voce ponunt," lineaque superducta tegant. — The most an- " cieut MSS. write some words in compend, so as to put " only the first and last, sometimes a middle letter, for the " whole word, covering it with a line drawn above :" as, 6g, xg, ig, yj;, vg, CTjg, /jjX or iffX, iXrifx,, T^ce, /xga, Aad, for &sog, Kv^iog, Iriffoug, XpffTog, viog, tfwrjj^, IffgariX, Is^ouffaXrj/ju, iranpa, firjTSga, AajSid. To these Woide adds, from the Alexandrian MSS., ouvog, wa, 6^0-j, -K, r, for ov^avog, Tvsu/x-a, ffrau^ou, '/.at, rai.^ Griesbacli has added, from Cod. L. Wetst. (tj or 8 Steph.),* ' " Imo etiam vel in obviis abbreviationibus, peritissimos interdum viros " errasse comperimus : exempli causa, in editionibus Xenophontis Hist. Graec. " lib. vii. legitur U^onXyi;, ubi legendum 'accr^oKXr,;. Error autem hinc ortus " est, quod in MSS., abbrevlandi causa, n^oxX-zis pro Xlar^oxX^; jaceret. Quod " autem Uxt^oxX>i; sit legendum, plane liquet." — Montfaucon, Pal.Grcec. lib. V. p. 342. See ibid, cr^t; for ^an^-;, erroneously taken for T^iir[ivrz^oi -. and p. 343, 3d paragraph. On the other hand : " Non semel in hoc auctore (Strabone) vox U^oxXri; "in XlocT^oKXr,; mutata est: Hie quidem n^onXTi legendum esse, testes sunt " infiniti." — Is. Casaubok, Not. in Strab. lib. viii. p. 364. " Ex hoc fonte manavit, quod Genes, xliv. 3. in Aldina editione, legitur *' a'l a.v6^uToi auTuv, pro ol ovm avrav ; nimirum in promjitu erat aberiatio, ut a. pro a librarius scriberet, unde pro ovoi factum est avoi, i. c. av^^u'roi." — Semlek. in Proleg. Wetsteik. p. 12. Ed. Semleri, 8vo. " Sic Cantabr. -rra, fuit, " compendium pro -r^ofoara, sed id lectum TtavTot, — omnia.'" — Ejusd. Append. Obs. ii. p. 010. ^ Proleg. p. 3. ^ pj-gf. p. G. '' SymbolcB Crie. vol. i. p. Ixvii.-viii. Evang. L. " In media vocabulorum "parte non raro una littera praetermissa est Interdum etiam verborum " monstra et ridiculi errores occurrunt ; e. g. I\Iatth. v. 22, yixu pro nxn ; x. 30, " ^'^S'X^ P^'^ "' '''i'X-^ ' XXV. 4, a-yioi; pro ayyuois. Ware. v. 20, ra T^avrn; pro " rx -ra^a. avrr,;. LuC. xxiv. 34, a>(p6n; iiftiuv pro eoip^ti irif/.uvi. Jo. V. 2, «vTe " arofta, pro ViVTi ffmoc;. Matt. xiii. 4, oil; ou xai %u v/iv, pro ous ova l^ou >iv. 74 PREFACE. Part II. yivinrai x.Xvtiri'ra.i for ivhvfjt.a.ro; yivriffirai //.avairffns. omitting intermediate vowels. ra^hvos, ^ omitting intermediate consonants ( and syllables. To this head pertains, also, the abbreviations of proper names, which Matthsei places under the head of diminutives : (Gr. § 102. obs. 3. vol. i. p. 135.) " Many diminutives are formed by abbreviations, as AXi^a; for AXslavS^os. A^-roK^as A^TTOK^itrns. Ayif/.a.; (Col. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. iv. 10) Asj^xtj/oj. E-rap^as (Col. i. 7 — iv. 12) . . Ea-aipgoS/roj. 'E^f/.Ks (Rom. xvi. 14) .... 'E^/mo^u^os. BivSas (Acts, V. 36) ©lo^a^os. Mjjrgaj MjjTjoSa/gas. iiXus iiXoStjftoi, Afiipis . A/z(pia^aos. \ipis liptocvaffffa, &C." Also, li^iirxa (2 Tim. iv. 19) ... . u^irKiXka. But it is manifest, from the character of the various readings which occur so often in the small-letter MSS., that many of them proceeded from more intricate compends than any of those just adduced — " paucis et facilibus ductihus " magnum literarum numerum complectentia," — namely, from abbreviated forms in which some letters only were distinctly w^ritten, the rest being left by the writer to be apprehended and supplied by the reader ; the misapprehension of which caused the various readings. Such are the following : iiTKu'kf/.itm, Vat. MS. ixXiXufitvii/, Rec. Matt. ix. 36. j lb. xi. 16. I 11). xiv. 24. I Mark, i. 39. \ lb. iii. 7. \ lb. xiv. 47. avafia; . avap>oy)ffce,s i-rixaXitffSai I'Ttt^etTOI I'rixctra^a.Tiit ■X^n, Mark, xv. 8. Luke, V. 1. lb. vi. 17. lb. xiv. 15. John, vii. 49. lb. X. 4. Part II. PREFACE. 75 sy.|s .... £K);|6 .... * \ Jolin,xix.34. lOiovs .... louletiovs . . . ' \ Acts, iv. 23. • \ lb. V. 3G. Kiuhaiuv . • . • j lb. vi. 7- ufioXoyyiiriv . . U/iOfflV . . . • j lb. vii. 17. ufftSi . . . . ittrrtXh . . . • \ lb. ix. 6. afoirriiXavrai . cf^orroXovs . . • \ lb. XV. 33. •rvXrts . . ■ • j lb. xvi. 13. ■: :::} a-rnXatriv u-riXuffiv . . .Mb. xviii. 16. a-riiXr,iriv, Vulg. minavit) xaraffTliXa; • •JTlgl Xn^uM xarccfifl xaraXa^n "T^offocyiii) vXri^o(po^niv ua'Ti^ov//.sv 1 Cor. ii. 1. [ Ib. iv. 6. [ Ib. vii. 3. j Ib. viii. 7. } Ib. xii. 24. I 2 Cor. i. 12. I Ib. ib. 15. ■XobXai •raXiv etviXii avaXaiffti . iXiyx"^ . tXiyfiOf Xio^iS a^oXtiTUi a.'ToXii'^irai •TeoXtrriv '^rXmtof a.Kot.Tatx^''^'''' ci-pi-i^ihxi'ro a,-7ta\ sIsSs^s a.ya.'ffa.ii a-x'ara.i; oXiycog Xct^iflJ-a. . a (t.ttTQ) viip^ov; fxXuva.1 I'TXccruvav CtiTOV ayyiXou . KariPtn xaTifiXnh £j3a9j«v nKoXovinffi nXh . ■ ayyiXav 2 Cor. xii. 1. Ib. ib. 19. 2 Thess. ii. 8. 2Tim.iii. 16. Heb. i. 3. Ib. ii. 9. Ib. iii. 39. Ib. iv. 9. Ib.viii. 11. James, iii. 8. 1 Pet. iii. 18. \ Ib. ib. 20. [ 2 Pet. i. 3. j Ib. ii. 13. j Ib. ib. 18. I 1 John, ii. 27. I Rev. ii. 15. \ Ib. ib. 23. J Ib. vii. 14. \ Ib. viii. 13. I Ib. xii. 12. \ Ib. ib. 16. I Ib. xiv. 8. \ Ib. lb. 19. 76 PREFACE. Part II. It is evident, from these examples, that the general principle observed in abbreviated writing was to preserve the first and last letter or syllable, leaving the intermediate omitted portion to be recovered by the sense ; which, if it was not correctly seized by the engrosser, caused a false, or a various reading. Sometimes the final syllable was curtailed, as in Eph. i. 13, and iii. 19, in the Vat. MS., which reads, Trisrixxsavng i,os . . . . mo; . . . . lb. xiii. 32. N. C. XV. 32. i-Tea^iway . . j lb. xi. 37. rixvay . . . nxrovim . . . Luke, vii. 35. ^.H .... tiuy^ .... j lb. xii. 13. There are some various readings, which have so far established rival authorities as to have received the denomi- nation of ' duplices lectiones,' or 'double readings:' of these, it is evident that one only can be the genuine reading : as vat. Ms. XCCI ffv 'H-ccTn^yocouf/,, fin v-^ca6YiiTn im; rov oveccycv; \u; cciou "> xccra(iw/i I Matt. xi. 23, Rec. xai ITU KccTi^yccovfi, ri icat rov ov^ocyou v-^'uiiKru (et v-^ai6r,s) | j k i c iia; ochau xa,ra.fiip>aa6r^ir^ J ' ' Both these readings are noticed by Jerom. PAUTir. PREFACE. 77 The following double readings have coalesced, and become united in some copies, forming what Matthaei calls, " duplex " lectio temere confiata" (note to Mark, xiv. 31 ; 2d ed.) : OTOiv aiaarmtti \ oXiyaiv tffri X^^'"' J These last became united as early as the time of the Vat. MS., which reads, oXiyuv h lart %fs/a, n '^vog; which is evidently copied from a scholion, signifying, ' oXiyov vel hog' shewing two ancient readings ; the former of which, Scholz ascribes, with great probability, to Origen, {Proleg. p. xiii.) So, f.r, «^.=x^,« ) Luke, xvii. 23. " ^ '^•'^y'"^^*^" • • U Cor. i. 13. f/,71 oiai^fiTi } » xai I'^riyivaiTxin . . ) '" '^""^"^ \ Rom. ili. 22. '"" '""" "l""^""" """"'' \ Heb. viii. 12. All these double readings are severally united in the rec. text ; but, orav avaffruai, sti 'rravrag, and avo/ji,iav, are unknown to the Vat., Ephr., Alex., Vat. 367. MSS. and most ancient versions, as is imytvucxin to the Vat. MS. ; the -/mi, as the ri in the preceding case, only intimating a different reading. It is to be observed, that in almost every instance where we find this conflation of two readings, the former is the reading of the oldest copies. To the " duplex lectio temere confiata" is to be referred the ' tautology ' remarked in 1 John, ii. 12-14. (See Annot., and Bloomfield's note.) The transcribers had another mode of abbreviation, namely, by a monogram denoting different words. Thus, the union of ;)(^ and g, in the form ^, represented the words ys-jGag, yoovog, yo^jGoCroiJ^og, yoriffi/Mog, y^yjffTog, and y^iffrog. Of the confusion thus occasioned between the last two words, we have a signal example in Philipp. i. 21. Also, in 1 Pet. ii. 3, where several MSS. erroneously read y^icrog for y^n'^rog. (See the Annotation on the first of these passages.) ' " Observandum est, abbreviationes saepe easdem pluribus significandis " vocibus usurpari ; exempli causa, ^, ZS"''"'' ««»'«'"> significat, itemque, " xeof'S', tempus, atqne etiam ;^;gt/]'y/iraiv. Unde haec tarn mirabilis " lectio ? Scilicet, ex codicibus constat, scribas interdum syllabam 5r^i -. hie quater legitur aeSg°, id est, a-^oeS^oj." — Ed. 2d. Part II. PREFACE. 79 text. He fairly puts the question, " Whether any of his " conjectures have been confirmed by the authority of manu- " scripts?" and he as fairly replies, " I answer, not one:" nor would sound criticism expect that they should be con- firmed. He observes, of the learned Wolf, that " the.acute- " ness of his criticism was very disproportionate to the depth " of his erudition." — (Vol. i. p. 320.) He was not conscious how applicable this distinction was to himself; for, he is much greater as a historian of criticism, than as himself a critic. The passages, on which he has so fruitlessly expended his ingenuity and learning, are : Matt, xxviii. 16 — Mark, xiv. 69 ; xvi. 8, 14 — Luke, vi. 29 ; ix. 10 ; xi, 36 ; xii. 15 ; xxiv. 12 — John, vi. 21; xvii. 10 — Acts, ix. 16; xvi. 26; xxvii. 16 — Rom. i. 4; vii. 24, 25; viii. 2; ix. 12, 16, 22; XV. 12 — 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; viii. 10; xiv. 10; xv. 1, 27 — 2 Cor. i. 17, 24 ; V. 10, 18 ; vi. 1— Gal. iii. 20 — Philipp. ii. 13 — Heb. viii. 3—1 Pet. i. 6, 8 — 1 John, ii. 20, 27— Rev. xiv. 17._(Vol. ii. p. 403.) 13. All that has been shewn from the Scriptural texts, compared with what has been shewn by Canter from the single text of Aristides, fully establishes the truth of what has been above alleged ; that, whilst the Divine Providence watched over the doctrines transmitted by the Scriptural MSS., it left those channels of transmission subject, in all other respects, to the ordinary causes which influence the actions of men ; so that, to look for any one continued text as having been exempted from the operation of those causes, would betray a most profound ignorance of the subject. 14. Whoever will attentively consider the present state of the text and of the interpretations of the Evangelical Scrip- tures, and will reflect on their progress to that state, and on the causes which have influenced that progress, will sensibly discern evidence of the continued operation of a moral cause, bearing a very near analogy in quality to that which, in physics, is called the 'vis inertlcs;' which is defined to be, " a power that resists any change endeavoured to be made in " it, either of rest or of motion." It is thus, that erroneous assumptions, put in motion in remote and unskilful ages, have perpetuated that motion even in ages of skilfulness and 80 PREFACE. Part II. sagacity ; and, that on points on which the mind had rested without motion in those remote ages, it has remained without motion even in succeeding ages of sagacity and skill. In the former of these cases, the ancient error has maintained its course ; in the latter, the mind has not made any adequate effort to extract the truth. Of the first of these cases, we have an example in Matt. xxiv. 5 ; and of the latter, in John, X. 8. (See the Annotations on these two passages.) But, Dr. Burton's notes on Matt, xxiii. 35, and Rom. ix. 3, gave token of a new action arising in biblical criticism, tending to resist, and overcome, the inertial power. 15. It now remains for me to apprise the reader, of the principle of interpretation which I have adopted in the translation of a few particular and influential words ; and to explain the general form in which I have judged it most advisable to present to him the accompanying ^ Hevision.' With respect to the language ; I have closely adhered to that of our ancient revised and authorised version (as being far more congenial in style, tone, and spirit, to that of the Greek, than any other which has since been attempted) ; except where it was imperative that it should be varied, either to replace such superannuated phrases as " I trow — I icot — *' / do you to wit" &c. ; or, to correct manifest errors in the interpretation ; or, to rectify the order of words, where they had too closely followed the exotic order of the language from which they were translated : for, the syntax of every language is as idiomatical as the words themselves ; and requires the translation of transposition, as much as the words and phrases require the translation of interpretation. Of the effect of overlooking this consideration, we have a notable instance in Luke, xxii. 29, 30, where our English revisers have been led to introduce constructively a plurality of kingdoms, though our Lord speaks only of one, namely, his own universal king- dom. But I have been scrupulous to adhere generally to the vocabulary of our last revisers ; and have added to it very few words of a more modern practice of phraseology. For, there is a fondness, founded in the best feelings of our compound being, for the very language and terms in which we first received the illumination and consolation of revealed truth ; an affection, entitled to our tenderness and regard, even where Part II. PREFACE. 81 it runs close on prejudice. Augustin remarked, " that the " force of habit is so great, that those who have been brought " up and educated in the Sacred Scriptures, wonder at new " phrases, and think them to be less Latin than those which " they have learned in the Scriptures, although they are " found in no Latin authors: — Tanta est vis consuetudinis " etiam ad discendum, ut qui in Scripturis Sanctis quodam- " modo nutrati educatique sunt, magis alias locutiones " niirentur ; easque minus Latinas putent, quam illas quas " in Scripturis didicerunt, neque in Latinse linguae auctori- " bus reperiuntur." — {De Doctr. Christ, torn. iii. p. 27.) Through deference to this attachment, I have introduced no new terms, except where it was rendered necessary by the inadequacy of the terms previously employed : thus, I have rendered );xo//3w(r£, '■ascertained^' instead of '■diligently searched,' in Matt. ii. 16 ; /Asra/zsXTj^s/g, ' smitten with remorse,' instead of' repented himself,' in Matt, xxvii. 3; and Cffagagai/, ' con- vulsing,' instead of ' had torn,' in Mark, i. 26. I have uniformly rendered diadrjxri, ' covenant,' for the reasons stated in the beginning of this Preface ; and have wholly excluded the word ' testament' from the text. It is excellently observed by Bishop Bull, that the verb 8r/.aiovv, throughout the JVew Covenant, is to be understood in its forensic or judicial sense ; viz. to pronounce guiltless, or acquit.^ The same signification is to be extended to dixawuvr/i, which expresses its operation, and ought in almost every instance in which it occurs, to be translated justif cation, not righteousness', so also hixaiog, in its Gospel sense, is to be understood as bixaiu^kig, justified (see annot. to 1 Pet. iv. 18). For, the economy of the Gospel acknowledges no positive righteousness in man ; only, a negative righteousness, a justification or acquittal from an imputation of guilt, which qualifies and entitles him, when it is obtained individually by faith in, and consequent obedience to, Christ, to receive from the free mercy of God, the blessings promised under the New Covenant. Thoroughly sensible of the paramount ' " Vocem iiKcctoZv in iisitatiorl suo signilicatu usiirpari, /*. e. sensu forensi, " pro justum censere sive pronuntiare : earn enim esse vocabuli hujiis in sacris " Uteris, praesertim Novi Testament!, significationem maxime obviam ac fatni- " liarem, pene ccecus est, qui non videat." — Opera, Harm. Apost. p. 410. See annot. to Matt. iii. 15.) G 82 PREFACE. Part II. importance of this correction, I have so rendered diTtaioffwri, wherever it is applied to man. The siihstitution of ' covenant' for ' testament,' and of ^justification ' for ' righteousness,' will alone diffuse an increased light over the sacred volume. The word mix^ij^a, unfitly rendered sometimes ' ghost,' and sometimes * spirit,' in our version, I have uniformly rendered ' sjnrit ;' and the verb i^i-TviuffB, with its periphrasis apj^xe to 'Trvsv/j.u, I have rendered simply and literally ' expired,' a term now much more familiar to the English reader, than the Saxon 'yielded up the ghost,' or, as Wiclif rendered, '■ gaf up ' the goost,' from the Latin ' ernisit sjnritum.' The word ' expire,' was not strange to the vocabulary of our version ; but it was only applied, at the date of that version, to the expiration or lapse of time. In Acts, v. 10, where the Greek has s^s-^u^sv, the Latin ' expiravit,' and Wiclif ' diede,' those revisers still adhered to the periphrasis, * yielded up the ghost,' rejecting Wiclif's simpler term. The Greek ovdug, or more strictly speaking, the Latin * nemo,' a contraction of ' ne homo,' which our version uni- formly renders ' no mail,' after Wiclif, though correct with I'elation to the Latin, is a false rendering of the Greek, and often ofifensive to the reason ; I have therefore substituted ' 710 one,' throughout the volume. I have rendered rraidiov ' child,' (Matt. c. ii.) with Wiclif, and his revisers of the sixteenth century, omitting the quality '■young' added by the last revisers: the quality of 'young' being implied in the term ' child.' So also, 'xaiha and nxvia, jjassim, I have rendered * children,' not ' little children.' It is an error, to suppose, that diminutive nouns always intend youngness, or littleness; for they sometimes denote endear- ment, and even sometimes contempt. Purver, in his transla- tion, with a view to greater accuracy, ridiculously rendered nvmpa (Matt. XV. 26), 'puppies' — ' it is not well to take * the children's bread, and throw to puppies ;' whereas, xwa^ia here designs the common dogs which infest the towns of the East : so, St. Paul does not intend ' young women ' by yvvaixa^ia (2 Tim. iii. 6), but silly and trifling women, of all ages. In Hebrew pioper names which ought to be enounced with the sound of K, but which the Latin has written with ihe letter C, I have restored the K where the initial letter Part II. PREFACE. 83 ought to preserve that sound, but where the Latin orthography renders the enunciation doubtful : as, Kidron for Cedron, Kenchrca for Cenchrea, Kephas for Cephas, Kish for Cis. Where that sound is preserved, even in the Latin orthography, as before a and o, I have retained the C (except in the appellation Korhan), to avoid an air of idle innovation. I have retained it also in the words of Latin origin, Ccesar, and CcEsarea ; and even in the Greek names, Cilicia and Cyprus, which long prescription has familiarly established amongst us, in their Latin form and enunciation. With respect to the standard of English which I have observed in this revision, I have abandoned some forms which have fallen into disuse, however grammatically defen- sible. Thus, I have rejected the ancient form ' ate,' for the preterit of the verb ' to eat,' notwithstanding the suggestion of my accurate printer. Long custom has now established the form * eat ' (as ' read '), both for the present and past tense ; every body being aware, that in the present tense it is to be pronounced long, and in the past tense short, although our forefathers appear to have pronounced it long. On the other hand, I have resisted the pedantic accuracy that condemns the ancient phrase ^ from thence,' and demands the invariable use of * thence,' without the preposition. The Greek has its redundant particles, which are pronounced elegancies; and, as the Latin has both ' inde' and ' exinde,' so may we say, either * thence' or '^ from thence,' according as euphony directs us; for, there is often an abruptness in ' thence' alone, which is offensive to the ear. Johnson calls the latter a ' vicious mode of speech,' and applies the same judgment to ' hence,' and * whence ;' but, as he cites Spenser, Shakspear, and Milton for its use, I shall take the liberty of regarding those high and old authorities as evidences of the consistency of the phrase 'from thence,' with the genius of our English language. Servius, reasoning on '■exinde' and ' deinde,' as Johnson on 'from thence,' says, ** Exinde, una pars orationis ** est, et in tertia a fine accentum habet, licet penultima " longa sit : quod ideo factum est, ut ostenderetur una pars " esse orationis, ne Prcepositio jungeretur Adverhio, quod ' vitiosum esse non duhium est" — i^ad Virg. ^n. vi. 743): and Donatus, the grammarian, also says : " Prsepositio sepa- " ratim adverbiis non applicabitur, quamvis legeriinus exinde. 84 PREFACE. Patit II. " deJiiiic, kc. ; sed kcec tanquam uncnn partem orationis sub " uno accentu pronunciahimus" — (Putsch. Gr. Lat. p. 1761.) But, this sophistry does not alter the fact, that ' ex-inde,' and ' de-inde,' are really combinations of the prepositions ' ear,' and ' de,' with the adverb ' inde ;' wherefore, another Latin grammarian, Diomede, sensibly remarks : " Adverbiis addi " prsepositiones quam plurimi negant ; sed tamen lectum " invenimus ' exinde,' ' ahhinc^ " &c. (ib. p. 401.) The truth is, that these are irregularities in principle, to be found in all languages, which custom, or convenience, has rendered practically regular : no Latin writer uses de-inde, ex-inde, pro-inde, more frequently than Cicero. The signs of the future tense, ' will,' and ' shall,' have also undergone very general alteration in this revision. " It is difficult," observes Johnson, *' to shew or limit the ** significations of those signs, which foreigners and provincials " confound ;" yet, the general limitation of them, as it chiefly concerns our version, is not very difficult. When we say, * it will rain,' we simply allege a result; but. One only can say, ' it shall rain.' When, therefore, our Lord, or an heavenly messenger, simply foreshews a result, we are to render the future by 'will;' but, where our Lord speaks, expressly, as the author and designer of that result, or where a heavenly messenger conveys a command, we are to render by 'shall:' as in Matt. i. 21, where our version has, "she *' shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name " Jesus;" we should render, " she will bring forth a son, " and thou shalt call his name Jesus." The want of due attention to this distinction, has tended extensively to con- found those two signs in our English version. There are some words of the Greek, which, by being rendered differently into English in different passages of our common version, tend to induce the mind to suppose, that some variation or modification of meaning is designed by varying the translation ; to use the words of Erasmus above cited ; " h(Fc varietas interjiretandi ansam errandi prcehet, *' dum aliud quiddam a Paulo did putant, quum apud ilium " eadem sit vox." Such are the words ayavn, rendered sometimes love, and sometimes charity ; lycXizros, sometimes rendered elect, and sometimes chosen. As no difference of meaning is designed in the Greek, in those places, it is Part II. PREFACE. 85 important that the English reader should be guarded against all occasion of error in that respect ; I have therefore uni- formly rendered ayai-rj, love, and exXexrog, chosen. The verb Tgoo|/^w, which our version renders "determine before" in Acts, iv. 28, and 1 Cor. ii. 7, is changed to "predestinate" in Rom. viii. 29, 30, and Eph. i. 5, 11, only because the Latin had employed the word '^ prcedestino" in those places. I have therefore excluded "predestinate" from the text, and have rendered "fore-ordained," in all those places. In Rom. V. 11, we find the word atonement, for KaraXkayri, in our English version, and it has been idly remarked, " that " it is the only place where the word atonement occurs in " the N. T. ;" but as, in the immediate context, and in all other places, it is rendered, reconciliation, I have so rendered it in this place also. (See annot. to this last passage.) There are, likewise, a few passages in which the same sentence recurs in the Greek ; but its identity is lost to the English reader, from being differently worded in the different passages. Such are, all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, Matt. ! ^w-ovov, ' not only ' — aXXa. -/.ai, ' but also,' — /Mmv, ' only,' and %ai, ' also,' are often suppressed ; and the particle aX?,a, at the beginning of tlie second sentence, alone remains to shew the construction designed by the writer, Macknight has occasion to give the 86 PREFACE. Pakt if. same caution, in his note to James, ii. 22 ; " As in many " passages of Scripture, so in this, the word ' only ' is wanting, " and must be supplied." Bloomfield also, on Matt. v. 46, observes; " here there is the very frequent ellipsis of/AOfoi/." Sometimes, aXXa. is replaced by the particle bz. ^ Of the first of these cases, we have an example in 2 Cor. v. 13; and, of the second, a most important one in Rom. iv. 5. 16. With respect to the form of this Revision ; it will probably be thought, that I ought to have employed a con- tinued text, noting the verses on the margin. This would, perhaps, have been the rule prescribed by general reasoning, and perhaps also by a refined taste. But, the Sacred Scrip- tures hold a position distinct from that of every other writing to be perused by men; and ought always to be considered with reference to that position. Under that distinction, what is unsuitable to other writings, is peculiarly appropriate to them ; and the propriety is rather to be found by actual experience, than by deduction from general reasoning. My first object in making the Revision, is, to put every English reader in possession of the pure text ; freed from all spurious accretions. The recovery of a true text, in any obscure or doubtful passage, is alone sufficient to relieve the biblical reader from many dull and disappointing pages of attempted explanation, which generally increases in quantity, in proportion as the expositor feels his inability to afford to his reader a clear and conclusive interpretation ; and, when this is the case, it will as generally be found, that the com- mentator is labouring in vain, to explain what is essentially inexplicable, not from being a profound and recondite passage, but either a false and vitiated reading, or an in- veterate misacceptation : for, most of the perplexities which arise in reading the received or common text^ are consequences of the depravation of the copies during the dark ages. 17. My second object, is to adapt the revision to the level of every mind, and therefore, to that of minds least practised and disposed to attention and reflection. Now, ' " Et ponitur (2s) pro a.xxa discretivo et advei-sativo, — vcl potius dicam, " senteiitice diversae aut adveisanti additur, ita ut vicem Ttu aXXx expleie " videatur."-— (Hoogeveen de Part., p. 113, § 5, ed. Schiitz.) Part II. PREFACE. 87 the popular division of the text into separate verses, though but of modern origin, and devised for a very different pur- pose, gives prominence to every sentence in its succession ; and, in the same degree, attracts attention to every sen- tence : many of which would be passed over, by many readers, with slight or no regard, if they lay undistinguished in a continued text. Trading convoys always regulate the progress of their fleet by the ability of the slowest sailer, however irksome the delay may be to the impatience of the swifter movers : that practice manifests the principle that ought to govern in the publication of a Book imparted for the welfare of the most simple, as much as for that of the most enlightened and sagacious. This practical reason has determined me to risk all criticism as to taste ; and to present the text in that form which long habit and experience proves to be the most generally useful, to every class and description of reader. The only particular in which I have deviated from our common form, is that of beginning each verse with a smaller letter, where it is the continuation of a paragraph or relation ; and of putting a capital letter, only where it follows a full stop, and begins a paragraph. Whereas, the common custom has been, to begin each verse indiscriminately with a capital letter, whether it commences a paragraph, or is a fractional part of a paragraph. 18. I have reflectively abstained from altering the com- monly received order of the Gospels, and also of the Epistles, from experiencing the confusion, without proportionate utility, which it produces in Macknight's Commentary. The order of the books is, indeed, diversified in different MSS. ; but it would now be a wanton innovation, to change the order which has been universally adopted since the invention of printing, I have, in a few instances, altered the divisions of chap- ters ; where I have done so, the reasons for the alterations will be apparent. In 1 Thess. c. iv. of this Revision, the reason for a new division will be very manifest, since that chapter is now made to combine the whole of a most mo- mentous subject, which, in the common text, is divided and distributed to two other chapters, with whose matter it is whollv unconnected. 88 PREFACE. Part II. The common division of verses (made originally by Robert Stephens, in 1551, on his journey from Paris to Lyons, and exhibiting abundant evidence that it was not made in his study), has been corrected according to the sense and import of the matter. This alteration will certainly cause some disturbance to the references of Concordances, for which object alone Stephens contrived the divisions ; but, the equation table of Correspondence of Chapters prefixed to the ' Revision,'' will a good deal diminish that disturbance. I can- not agree with Michaelis, who, while he condemned Stephens's division because " the interpretation has suffered greatly by " it, for, a verse often ends at the wrong place, against the " sense of the passage — wished that the verses had been *' formed, not from the sense, but from the number of letters, "like the stichi of the ancients." — (Vol. ii. p. 328-9.) Such a mode of division might have suited learned scholars, but it would ill have suited the far more numerous classes whose instruction I have principally in view. With regard to the annotations, I have almost entirely confined them to the particular occasions of the present Revision. I have endeavoured to supply the reader, briefly, with the necessary elucidations and references ; but I have been caj'eful, from my own experience, to abstain as much as possible from oppressing him with dilated and dissertatory notes. Those who are ambitious to enter the Babel of expositors ; or, to launch forth on the immensurable ocean of commentation, where they must steer a toilsome course through conflicting currents, making little head-way unless they resign themselves altogether to one or other of those impulses ; will find their labour considerably facilitated by Dr. Bloomfield's elaborate and voluminous " JRecensio *' Synoptica," the Poli Synopsis of the present day : those who would avoid so arduous and extensive an enterprise, will find the sum of that learned work reduced, with admir- able concentration, into the same learned divine's notes to his edition of the " Greek Testament." But, they must keep in mind, that all those learned recensions and annotations are directed, with a very strong bias, toivardihe " received text," and consequently, from the text of that most ancient MS., whose paramount authority is asserted in the present Revi- sion ; by which difference, I have been regretfully brought Part II. PREFACE. 89 into frequent collision with the judgments and conclusions of that learned scholar and critic. The verbal differences between the two texts here opposed, which can in any degree affect the sense of the translation, are pointed out in the annotations. Those differences which are purely philological minutice, and which would properly pertain to an edition of the Greek text only, are not noticed ; as they would tend to swell this work beyond the limits of its purpose. The reader is to understand, generally, that all words and clauses omitted in this Revision, which are found in our common version adapted to the received Greek text, are absent also from the text of the Vatican manuscript ; and that they are, therefore, to be regarded, and accounted, as ' italic insertions' introduced by the critics of the middle ages. I have abstained from loading the margins with scriptural references ; being sensible from experience, that the multitude of references, alone, deters most readers from consulting any : especially when they find, how remote many of them are from the immediate subject with which their mind is engaged ; and, how much the pursuit of them all must interrupt them in the perusal. I have therefore inserted such only as appeared to me to bear immediately on the present passage ; and which, by their paucity, may chance to attract, rather than repel; but I have copied none from any printed margin. I have given the text, without adding heads or titles of chapters, in this first edition ; my immediate object being, to bring that text into a printed form. " Notwithstanding the " great pains taken in the first edition," says Cruden, in the preface to the second edition of his elaborate Concordance, " there was room for improvement, which could not so well " be done in the manuscript copy, as in the printed." This last observation, expresses an important experimental fact ; for, defects which escape the closest vigilance amid the cor- rections and erasures of hand-ioriting , or even in the process of correcting proof-sheets, reveal themselves readily, when brought to the plain and lucid exposure of a printed volume.^ ' Tlius, I already perceive that, in the marginal reference from Matt. xvi. 14,-1 Cor. iii. 2, should have been, 1 Cor. iii. 11. 90 PREFACE. Paui Tl. 19. To conclude : — These, and the following collections, made during the progress of a long life, I feel it a sacred duty to communicate, to my own family and to the Christian world. I regret, that the object which I have endeavoured to effect in this undertaking (namely, to unite in one practical result, available to every description of reader, the lights which have been continually accruing for the ulterior eluci- dation of the Sacred Volume, during the 225 years which have elapsed since the date of the last revision of our English version), has not engaged the service of more eminent abilities ; but, since that has been the case, I shall not feel myself justly chargeable with presumption, or obtrusion, in having taken up a ground which I have found to be altogether unclaimed, and unoccupied ; especially, as I cannot but be sensible, that it must contribute a new stimulus to research into the volume of the ' New Covenant," in this concluding period of its Dispensation: — xa/ iv tovtuj %a/^w, aXXa xai Stoke Park, Bucks, ~ Gr. P. 1836. Philipp. i. 18. DE ANTIQUITATE CODICIS VATICAN! COMMENTATIO QUA ALBERTINM MAGNI DUCAT US ZAHRINGO BADEN SIS UNIVERSITATIS LITTERARUM NOMINE IN ITT A LECTIONUM PUBLICARUM AD. XXX. APRILIS CloIoCCCX. IN DIGIT. ID. LEONARDUS HUG, DOCTOR ET PROFESSOR PUB. ORD. YM tA^NTOycnoA ACoK<^ kaioaiaac k a aoc Miceocoy^ori^eTAi K]v ; in margine ot<. Matth. XVI. 4, oiirui in margine iTn^yiru. Matth. xxii. 10, o wfi- (pm ; in margine y«^«j, etc. Cuncta hsec, turn ea, quge signo reprobationis notantur, tum etiam ea, quibus discrepans lectio juxta adjungitur; cuncta hsec recentior calamus non infecit, atque plane nusquam ullum accen- tum exhibent aut spiritum. Et si fors cuiquam in mentem incident, comminisci, fieri potuisse, ut calligraphus ille primus labori peper- cerit, ea exornandi signis sonorum, quse reprobasset ; hsec excu- satio si firmiori fundaraento quam conjecturse inniteretur, nihil ' Idem reprobationis signum saepius in Philodemi exemplare Herculanensi obvenit ; atque adeo mirum est, virum eximium, Joannem AYinckelraaun, non statim animadvertisse, quid sibi haec puncta in Philodemo velint. Versus vero Euiipidis ad parietem domus in Herculano adscriptus et accentibus instructus, a quodam nostrorum est, qui citra meritum viio doctissimo imposuit. Senr/- schreilen von den Herculanischen Entdeck, an den Reicbsgr. von Briibl, p. «0 et 82, confer de versu Euripideo, quae doctiss. de Murr adnotavit in Commcnta- tiotie de Papyri^ sen Volum. Grac. Ilerculanen. p. 55. (See F. S. p. 112.) 100 /. L. HUG, DE ANTIQUITATE tamen de ejusmodi vocibus pronunciaret, quae haudquaquam re- pudiantur, quod diversam ab illis lectionem inveniri in margine admoneatur. Alia denique sunt, queis vel omnino nulla nota reprobationis adnexa, vel a secunda tantum manu superaddita est. Tn his adeoque calligraphus ipse non advertit, quidpiam a se male aut iterate per errorem scriptum fuisse, cui accentus denegaret. Talia sunt Jo. XIII. 14, EIOTNErnHNITATMnNTOTcnOAAcOKcKAIO lAAcKAAOc secundo scripta. Ep. Jacobi. i. 3, THcnicTEHc, quse voces semel tantum scriptee, ne a longe quidem suspicionem incurrunt; recentiori tamen atramento uncos habent, et non sunt refectse. Signis carent : Matth. xxii. 45, KAAEIAXTONATTON, ubi alteram ATTON abundat ; Jo. xvii. 18, KAmAnEcTEIAAAT- TOTcEIcTONKOcMON, sententia bis scripta ; Act. xviii. 7, ONO- MATITIOTIXOTcTOT, vox TITIOT raro in codicibus, et in quibus- dam solum versionibus legitur. Hue spectant etiam Act. xviii. 7; 2 Jo. Ep. V. 10. Ex Antique Foedere, ut exinde quoque aliqua exempla decerpamus, tria tantum Psalmorum loca, in quae nullis omnino signis animadversum est, in medium adducamus. Ps. xxiv. 14, xcii ro ovofAx X.V rm (po/iovf^ivav ccvrcv, quse ab editione Romana absunt; Ps. lxxv. 4, post ^o/x(px(xv x.»t ?roXifAov, subjiciuntur ix.u o-vmcXeuri rx xi^arx i Ps. CXLIII. 9, post ■<^«A(W a-oi legitur : kxi t))v jxsyxXoa-vv^v coy, ssepis- sime invitis grammaticsc legibus additum. Hsec cacoethia iterum recurrit in iEgyptiaco monumento Grseco, cui ad latus respondet versio dialecto Thebaica concinnata, cuj usque editorem ipsum ea de re juvat dicentem audire, cum Vaticani libri morem sua chartae Thebaicse descriptione quasi depingat : " Non inutile erit obser- " vasse, ait, i- eips?\>cv(rrix.cv, quod cum heic tum alibi saepissime in " hujus fragment! exemplo additum occurrit verbo itT-rt -, et tertise " cuique personse prseteriti perfecti, atque aoristi singularis, etiamsi " littera, quse sequitur, consona sit, contra quam hodierni canones " ferunt Grsecse grammaticse, et ortbograpbise."^ ^gyptium vero codicis Vaticani librarium propius arguit singularis orthographia in vocibus o-wAA»4"), P^ri'^io-B^, M.vtfA-^i(rBi, XYifi(j)B-yia-ircit , Xvif^tot.i itTTxv xvrm legitur ; vel in ordine missse : £v st^yivti Kxt xyxTTYt Iijc-oti H-ov f^iB^ vf^uv, "^xXxn ; et in Latiniis : iv ii^-ziv^ ra> X.S ■tpxXxTi.* Multo antiquius vero ejusdem specimen superest Thebis in inscriptione, quee inter Grsecas prima in crure dextro Memnonis conspicitur. En ejus verba, qualia ofFert linea sexta : MHMNON EnirNOTc OTAEN ESE.yif^(p9->i Marc. xir. " et in pluribus aliis locis. Ng vero t(piXMTiicoi> semper fere additur, sive " vocalis sive consonans sequatur." " Assemani Cod. Liturg. lib. viii. p. 79, ad finem partis v. Georgi Fragm. S. Jo. Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum. Append. Lilurg. pp. 353. * Richard Pococke, a " Description of the East, and some other Countries." London, 1745. fol. Vol. I. Plat, xxxviii. 104 /. L. HUG, DE ANTIQUITATE peculiare hoc idioma degeneravit. Neminem cseterum hujus rei admiratio subibit, qui perpenderit, Vaticanum librum editionem exhibere, qualem pro coetibus jEgypti Hesychius recensuit ; ilium autem, Alexandrinum, licet in evangeliis Origenis emendationem sequatur, altera saltern parte, in Actis et Epistolis, ad Hesychii exemplaria reverti.i Verum jam et nos revertamur ad ea, a quibus judicium pendet de setate codicis, et inscriptiones atque subscriptiones singulorum librorum consideremus. Adsunt quidem inscriptiones libris prsefixge, sed simplicissimae, x.utx Mx66xio» (sic), xxtx Mx^koy, xxrx Aovkxv, X.XTX luxvvrtv, U^x^Ui Avoa-roXuv, Ixx.ei ayro ^iXiVTTUi ; post eam ad Galatas, Ephesios, Philippenses, atque Colossenses, iy^«,s Tirov rut K^nrov iKx-Xnvias Zacagni Colleclan. Monumenlor. Vet. pp. 573, 591, 013, 625, etc. 110 /. L. HUG, DE ANTIQUITATE Seculo vero quarto hie Epistolarum ordo, qui epistolae ad He- braeos decimum locum, post secundam ad Thessalonicenses, assig- naverat, adeo vulgaris fuit et usu tritus, ut Epiphanio nulli omnino codices innotuerint, qui earn meliore loco habebant, sed cuncti vel hoc, vel jam deteriore coUocaverant ; nimirum decimo quarto, omnium epistolarum ultiraam.^ Haec duo sola codicum genera Epiphanio cognita fuere. Prior consuetudo in ^Egypto obtinuit, altera per Asiam, ut videtur, atque Grseciara. Athanasius enim in epistola festali, in qua canonem librorum sacrorum recenset, cam post Thessalonicenses enumerat, non ex opinione sua, sed publicam et adoptatam sententiam ecclesiarum ^gypti secutus, a quibus nee ipsi dissidere, nee cuiquam integrum fuit." Haec igitur imrautatio, qua Epistola ad Hebrgeos in decimum locum transferebatur, setate Athanasii minima nova erat; quo tempore vero noster codex seribebatur, vix non erat facta, adeo ut conve- niens capitum divisio nondum exstaret, et perturbatio numerorum inde oriretur, quin adhue quisquam illi suceurrisset. Prseclarissimum denique antiquitatis doeumentura codex Vati- canus asservat in exordio Epistolae ad Ephesios. Res est nota, et multorum disquisitionibus agitata, priscis rei Christianse tempori- bus, in salutatione epistolae prsemissa, post to«? «yj, yivvr^div i% ffi'Su/AaT-og sffr/i/ aytOM : not, to yag sv auT/j yswridsv, i-K r. cr. £. a., as commonly divided. It was the to sv aurp, that disturbed the mind of Joseph ; and the angel quieted his alarm by the assurance, yiwrjdiv iiendi, deque foetus excellentia." In this place, it manifestly respects, not the conceptional effect, but the pro- creative cause. The diversion of the attention from the latter to the former object, in this place, in ver. 17, and in Luke, i. 35, of the Latin Vulgate (from which our translation was made), is a result of tliat early superstition which directed devotional honour to the Holy Virgin. Ver. 26. Brought forth her son.] The Vatican and other ancient MSS. and versions read simply, stsks tov uiov — "brought " forth her son," without 'x^oToroTiov — first-born. CHAPTER II. Ver. 1. After Jesus had been born, &:c.] i. e. two years after, v. 16. " Wise men from the east," says Prideaux, " following " the guidance of a star, came and worshipped Christ at '' Bethlehein."— (Part ii. p. 507 : foL) And Hug: "The " parents and the child receive, in Bethlehem, a visit of the " Magi." — {Introd. vol. ii. p. 274.) Such has been the pre- scriptive confusion of history, transmitted through ages of darkness. The historical accounts of Luke and Matthew have been strangely mingled and anachronised. It was not observed, that St. Luke relates the incidents following immediately from Chap. II. MATTHEW. 123 the birth of Christ, until his first removal to Nazareth, from Bethlehem and Jerusalem ; but that Matthew begins with those which occurred when our Lord had attained the age of two years, and carries them on until his second removal to Nazareth from Egypt. Frank, in his '■'■ Jiibilcean Chronology"^ was the first to shew (which might have been easily inferred from the Gospels) that the '■'■Adoration of the Magi" as it is commonly called, took place, not at Bethlehem, but at Naza- reth. Tt took place when Herod had ^'exactly ascertained,'' (T^x^ilSuffs, avTi Tov a/i^ijSug s/Madiv, Euthym.) that our Lord was " about two years old." We learn from Luke, that at the expiration of the time prescribed by the law for purification after child-birth (i. e. forty-one days, or six weeks, Lev. xii.) " they brought Jesus (from Bethlehem) to Jerusalem, to " present him to the Lord ; and when they had performed " all things according to the law, they returned into Galilee, " to their city, Nazareth." Thei-e, after " about two years," the eastern travellers, guided by the miraculous indication of the star, found our Lord " in the house" (v. 1 1) ; not in the manger or stable. From that distant station, they easily escaped beyond the jurisdiction of Herod ; which would not have been the case from Bethlehem, which was only six miles from Jerusalem, and, consequently, in the immediate sphere of Herod's presence, vigilance, and power. The error and confusion of the dark ages, with respect to this fact of history, has been hitherto confirmed and perpetuated by the imaginary representations of the great painters of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, who were taught, and impressed with, that same error. Ver. 2. His star.^ That this was a luminous phenomenon, like the pillar of fire which guided the Israelites by night, and like the toyigues or flames of fire which sat on the heads of the disciples on the day of the Pentecost, cannot be reasonably questioned ; and, because it is called a * star,' we are to understand, that it appeared, to the eye of the be- holder, with the visible magnitude of a star of the firmament. That such a preternatural existence should move within the sphere of those whom it was ordained to conduct, and should ' Pralusio Chronologice Fundamentalis, &c., a Johanne Geoigio Frank, &c. Goettingae, 1774, 124 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. II. take its final station on the roof of a house, is in the order of the two miraculous phenomena above cited ; it is, therefore, unreasonable to consider its appearance with any reference to physical astronomy, though it received a form peculiarly adapted to command the observation of those to whom it was displayed. It is to be inferred from the recital, that after the first vision of the sacred meteor, the eastern travellers saw it no more, until it reappeared to them in the progress of their pursuit, to guide them onward to Nazareth. Ver. 3. Herod, the king.l " Why," says Euthymius, " does " he mention the place, and the tbjie, and the title of Herod? " That he may shew, 1st, the fulfilment of the prophecy of " Micah, ' And thou, Bethlehem,' Sec. ; 2dly, the fulfilment " of the prophecy of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 10), ' The sceptre shall " ' not depart from Judah till Shiloh come,' 8cc. ; for, at the " eve of Christ's birth, the sceptre did depart from Judah ; " and Herod, the Idumsean, a foreigner, reigned over the " Jews : 3dly, he expresses his title, because there was a '* second Herod, the tetrarch." Ver. 13. When they had departed to their own country.'\ eig rrjv %w|av auruv : — This clause of the Vat. MS. has lapsed from the J7mior texts, either through an o^ioiot. of auruv — auruv, or through a fastidious avoidance of a repetition, customary to a Hebrew narrator. Ver. 16. Sleio all the children.'} " Lardner," observes Michaelis, " has employed much dihgence and erudition in " answering an objection to St. Matthew's relation of the " massacre in Bethlehem, drawn from the silence of Josephus " upon that subject. His answer is, in my opinion, satis- " factory; and the objection will be still diminished, if we " take into consideration the size of the town, which was " small and insignificant." — (Vol. i. p. 50.) That the mas- sacre at Bethlehem would not have presented itself to the mind of the Jewish historian, who was a contemporary, and had been an eye-witness of numerous massacres perpetrated by Herod, as it does to us, in single and solitary enormity, is most certain ; yet we cannot assert the absolute silence of Josephus, since we are fully authorised to include that CiiAP. Iir. MATTHEW. 125 massacre in the general class of those of which he says, that Herod, " if he ever thought amj thing was stirring against his " kingdom, icas not able to control himself; hut persecuted " even his kindred and friends, as if he was taking vengeance *' on his enemies. — £/ do^snv ng rrjv a^-x/iv n rra^ayimiv, ouy^ ixavog " savrou x^aniv syivsro, %ai bn'^rikdiv o^aou (Svyytvug %ai (piXoug, iaa " rro>.i[MOtg riiJ^u^obiJ^ivog." — {Ant. Jud. lib. xvi. C. 5.) This temper of Herod is graphically illustrated in the single in- stance recorded by St. Matthew. lb. Of two years old, and somewhat under.] a-xo bnroug xai xarwrspw: — This was the age that Herod had ^'accurately " ascertained" (not, vaguely collected) from the wise men. As minuteness of date is here intended, xarursoo) is to be un- derstood in a restrictive sense ; according to the rule, " where " a comparative is used, independently of comparison, to " express a lower degree than is expressed by the positive ; " which, in English, is expressed by somewhat, rather." — (Matthi^'s Gr. Gr. Blomfield, vol. ii. p. 661, § 457.) Ver. 20. TAey are dead.] rsOvrixaei : — namely, ^eroc?. It is material that the reader should impress his memory with the idioms of the evangelists, who often use the plural, though speaking oF a singular person or thing; and, on the other hand, the singular, when alluding to a plurality. Ver. 23. Returned into.'] aviy^o^rieiv ng — as in v. 12; an- swering to v'TtiGT^i-^av, in Luke, ii. 38 ; not ' turned aside,' as our version has altered Wiclif's "■ went into." The historian signifies, that they had designed to " turn aside," through fear of Archilaus ; but, being warned in a dream, they pur- sued their journey to " the land of Israel," and returned to their home at Nazareth. CHAPTER III. Ver. 15. To accomplish the tvhole of justification.] vXi^oueai rragav bixaioe Testimonio Animce, c. ii. torn. iv. p. 30. Ed. Semler. 12mo.) This testimony of Tertullian fully explains and confirms the declaration of St. Paul, in Rom. i. 19, 20, 21 ; and in Acts, xiv, 16. Now, the yearning of the unenlightened soul for internal peace of spirit, together with its devotional efibrts to acquire it, is called, under the New Covenant, s^ya^isdai, miiiv, Biy.aioffuvrjv ; not as effecting justification, but as surelj/ acquiring it from the ready goodness of God, who imparts, to such yearning, excited by his grace, the faith in his Son which alone can effect justification. (See Annot. to 1 John, iii. 7.) Thus it befel Cornelius ; so likewise the multitude who exclaimed (Acts, ii. 37), ' What shall we do?' Great is the confusion of ideas which has arisen from interpreting the word bixaioa-ovn, applied to man, in a positive sense, and rendering it * righteousness instead oi justification ; that is, making it denote ahsolute, personal excellence,' instead of clearance from guilt by the remission of sin. ' Imputed righteousness,' is, to say the least, a dangerously misleading phrase.^ The Gospel, indeed, says, ' Thy sins are forgiven:' but it never ceases to say, ' There is none righteous, no, not ' one — none is good but One, that is, God.' Man, indeed, was created perfect by God ; in His own image, and there- fore positively righteous. He contracted guilt. The gracious 1 " De justitia Christi nobis imputata, primo in loco agendum est : — obser- *' vandum est, phrasin illam pessime congruere cum locutione S.S. notissima, " qua fides dicitur homini in justitiam imputari. (Rom. iv. 3, 5, 6, 22, 23, 24, *' &c.) : -quae vero, tu de justitia tam imputata quam inhserente disseris, ita " intricata et perplexa sunt, ut Lector in iis versatus, veluti in labyrinthum " quendam incidlsse sibi videatur, unde extricare sese baud facile poterit."— (BuLLi Op. pp. 557, 566.) See tbis argument triumphantly treated by the excellent and learned author, in his Respons. ad Animadv. xi. Chap. III. MATTHEW. 131 end of redemption was to clear, acquit, or justify him from that guilt, and from its jyenalty ; and God imputes such clearance, acquittal, or justification, to all who truly and faithfully receive, and strive to obey. His Gospel. But, the originally bestowed righteousness, to which justification shall restore us, cannot be imputed to man, but exclusively to God, whose it is, and from whom it proceeded by creation : if it be regained, it is regaining a proper creation of God. " Where, then (justly asks St. Paul), is boasting?" Yet, the phrase " imputed righteousness" has been, and is, the source of much ' boasting,^ secret or overt. As well might the trees in Eden have imputed to themselves the merit of the created fruits which they yielded, as man impute to himself the divine qualities with which his soul was created ; which it lost, and which it aspires to recover, through the pardon- ing grace of the Gospel. It is lamentable to observe the efforts continually making, to neutralise the constituent and essential principles and doctrines of the Gospel ; the vica- rious suffering, the atonement, ihe justification, and the true divinity of our Lord. Such efforts, far from being demon- strations of a superior sagacity in those who make them, are as if a man should employ his labour and ingenuity in endeavouring to neutralise the effervescing principle in the springs of Pyrmont and Selzer, in order to present you with a glass o^ purer water; insensible of the vapid, and virtue- less condition, to which his ingenuity and labour shall have reduced the fluid. By 'TrXri^uffai rraeav dixaioouvT^v, in this place, we are to understand, " to accomplish and perfect the dispensation of ^^justification;'' which our Lord was to commence, in the character of one submitting himself to all the forms of that law which he came, not to abrogate but, to fulfil. Ver. 16. And he saw] xa/ nh — i.e. '■John saw.' — It is remarkable, that although the name of ^Jesus' has been so generally substituted for the pronoun, or inserted as the nominative case, often without necessity, yet no MS. has inserted the name of ^ John in this place, where it would have contributed perspicuity to the sentence. Compare John, i. 32, 132 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IV. CHAPTER IV. Ver. 5. the pinnacle] to irn^-jyiov. — " On the sense of this *< term," says Dr. Bloomfield, " commentators are not agreed : "one thing is admitted, that it cannot mean ^pinnacle,' for " thus there would have been no article." This judgment (the grammatical argument for which, here assigned, I do not apprehend) appears to have resulted from assuming 'TTTs^vyiov, in the modern architectural notion of a winff, (" Trs^u/zov, est dimin. ab ttso-j^, ala," Erasm.), which sup- poses a duplicate or counterpart to be necessarily supposed in that term : an assumption altogether fallacious and erro- neous, in this place. The Latin translator, who wrote while the Greek was a living language, and the correctness of whose interpretation there is no ground for questioning, rendered the Greek word by * pinnaculum,' a diminutive of ' pinna,' as 'ffrs^uyiov is a diminutive of ct-s^ov. Both the Greek and the Latin themas have the same signification, viz. ^ phi?7ia, ala' — ^feather, wing.' The error has consisted, in referring Tn^vyiov here, to the sense of ' wing,' which sup- poses a correlate, instead of to the sense of ^feather' or ' plume,' which is single and individual. Besides the signi- fications just stated, the Greeks thus divided the iMi^n oixodo- fji,ri,u,aTcov — 'parts of buildings' — roiyjn, boi^oi, 'Trn^uyig, (pa^ffrj — ' muri, cubicula, pinna, pinnacula.' — (Pollux, lib. vii. § 121.) Hesychius explains (pa^eog by 'xngvym {pinnaculum) ; and he explaims crrsguy/oi/ by a-zi^urriPiov, ' summitas, cacumen, vertex — ' top or summit.' The 'Trrs^uysg or ^ pinnce' of walls, denoted their upper extremity, in both languages ; not with any refer- ence to a partner or * wing,' but to a single feather, plume, aigrette, or panache, as Varro expressly afiirms : " muri sum- " ma pinncB, ab his, quas insigniti milites habere in galeis " Solent (ap. Gesner. Th. Lat.) — the summits of walls are " called ^ pinn^,' from those {plumes) which distinguished " soldiers are used to wear in their helmets." Those 'rrn^uyig ' or pinncs' of walls, terminated in, and were surmounted by, the 'rrn^uym or 'pinnaculum,' the axPurrj»iov, cacumen, or highest point, the asT-w/xa, or eagle's perch. (See Wetstein's note.) The word 'xnoxjyiov, therefore, rightly understood, shews that Wiclif and his revisers have well rendered, "■ pynnacle' and ' pinnacle^ as this word is explained by Johnson, from Chap. V. MATTHEW. 133 Clarendon and Cowley — " a turret, or elevation above the " rest of the building — a high spiring point." The Latins also gave the name of ^ jjenniculuyn' to the elevated point which bore the vane or weather-cock — " pinna ilia, quae, in " fastigio aedificiorum sita, facili motu, ventorum indicat " flatum." — (Gesner.) The same lexicographer adds, (v. pinna), " j^infiam et j^^nnayn frequentissime confundi, *' constat." Such a ^pinnacle' Josephus (who knew it ocu- larly) distinctly describes when he says, *' that the south " front of the temple had three porticoes, the two exterior " of which rose to an elevation of fifty feet, but the middle " portico surmounted them both to twice that height," or one hundred feet — " {/-^/o? 5s di-zXaffiov, avii'^i ya^ vrXiiffTOv Ta^a rag '* sTiars^ajdiv — above a precipitous descent; from which ' su7n- " mit of the roof — a-r ax^ou rou ravrrig rsyoug (i. e. az^ojrrj^iou, " TTSPvyiov), the head of any one looking down was made " giddy, from the depth :" {Ant. Jud. lib. xv. c. xi. § 5.) — the building standing on the verge of a precipice five hundred feet deep. No ground for questioning the propriety of the rendering pinnacle, therefore, remains. Bishop Marsh says, in his note to Michaelis (vol. i. p. 418), " No instance has been found, where the diminutive Trs^vyiov " is applied to a building:" but, since Pollux describes the ascending parts of a building to be, roiyjai, dofMoi, Trs^vysc, fa^ari, and since Hesychius explains fagaog by vTiovyiov, and 'rmouyiov by ax^urrjoiov, it is plain, that -ffTs^vyiov was applied to a build- ing; though we may not find it so applied in any written document which has descended to us, except in the Greek version of the Gospel of St. Matthew. CHAPTER V. This chapter ought properly to commence, as in this Re- vision, with the last three verses of chap. iv. of the common texts. To arrive at this period of the history, St. Matthew passes over all the details contained in St. Luke's Gospel, from chap. iv. 14, to chap. vi. 17. Ver. 6. the beggars in spirit.] o'l 'xrayjii. — Our version has rendered, " the poor in spirit," from the Latin '^ pauper es 134 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. V. "spiritu:" a rendering, which has always confounded its import with that of ver. 8, ''the meek — mites'' As early as the end of the second or beginning of the third century, TertuUian justly censured the translation of the Latin in this place, though he elsewhere adopted the received version, ^^ pauperes." — " Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio *' vocabuli quod in Grceco est) quoniam illorum est regnum " Dei — Blessed are the beggars (for so the Greek word *' ought to be translated), for their's is the kingdom of God."^ The difference between 'nvrig, a ^ poor man,' and vroi-xog, a * beggar,' is thus shewn by J. Pollux (lib. iii. § 110, 111): mvrig — ruv sfrj/j^sgoov a':rogm — " the j90or, is he who is in want '^ of daily necessaries :" rrruy^og — T^offairuv' sig rrag aXkor^iag X^^i^i a'ffo(3XsTojv~ — " the beggar, is he who asks, and who '* looks to the hands of others." " A soul, 'tttoj^os rw TvBv/xaTi," says Macarius, " is one who is sensible of his own wounds, " and of the darkness of the passions which encompass it ; " one who continually seeks deliverance from the Lord." Such a one says, with the Psalmist; " As the eyes of ser- •' vants look to the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of " a maiden to the hand of her mistress, so do our eyes look "■ to the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us." It is to this exercise that our Lord would stimulate us, when he says, "Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it " shall be opened to you: — if ye, who are evil, know how " to give good gifts to your children, how much rather will " your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask " him?" To the same end is addressed his enforcing parable, to inculcate, " that men ought always to pray, and not be •' discouraged." By '■'prayer and supplication" only, man can " draw near to God" He who knows God only in the third grammatical person, ' He,' and he who knows him in the second grammatical person, ' Thou,' stand on very dif- ferent levels for apprehending the things presented to the mind of man by revelation. ' Adv. Marcionem, lib. iv. c. 14. This passage confutes Semler's rash assertion, " that Teitullian never looked at the Greek text, nor compared " the Latin translation, which he made use of, with the Greek Hie homo " nunquam Grcecum tectum librorum sacroiaim versaveih : —nunquam Latinum " istam, qua utitur, translationem comparat cum Graco quodam codice." — Dissert, i. in TertuU. torn. v. p. 230. Ed. Semler. 12mo. ' Lib. ii. c. 22. Chap. V. MATTHEW. 135 Ver. 7. they that mourn.] To this, and to the next beati- tude, we must carry on and supply the toj Tvnjf/jan — " in " spirit," of ver. 6. Ver. 8. the 7neek.] To this beatitude may now be duly applied, all the reflections which have hitherto been erro- neously exhausted on the first beatitude ; as, in the notes to the quarto Cambridge Bible of 1823, where all the excel- lencies of " meekness" are expended on the first beatitude (to which they do not pertain), and the third beatitude (to w^hich alone they do pertain), is consequently passed over without any remark. Ver. 25. angered against his brother.] Our version adds here, '* without a cause," from nzri intruded into the Const. texts ; which modifying particle is not in the Latin Vulgate, and, consequently, not in Wiclif's translation. Augustin ex- pressly testifies, " Codices Graeci non habent ' sine causa;'" {Retract.), and accordingly, ii%r\ is not in the text of the Vatican MS., although it has crept into those of all the later MSS. It was introduced, in false tenderness to human frailty, but with much unskilfulness ; for our Lord, through- out this discourse, proceeds with a view to his conclusion, " Be je. perfect ;" and presents a rule of perfection, to which his disciples are to endeavour to attain. Thus, zr/.n became an established reading of the Constant, texts ; and was thus explained by Euthymius in the 12th century — ooyi^o/jbiwg toj adiXpui avTov f/juri^v, axa/gwc, raura yag 6?)Xo/ ro sixr) — " angry " with his hvoiher foolishly , unseasonahly , for these are what " is meant by £/>c?j." Our revisers of Wiclif's translation adopted this adverb from Erasmus, who first gave it author- ity, by printing it in his Editio Princeps, and translating the passage, " quisquis irascitur fratri suo temere." But, in so doing, they did not suflnciently weigh the force of Erasmus' note, which he deemed requisite to be subjoined to his inno- vation. " In nonnullis Grsecorum codicibus adscriptum est " £/x)], id est, temere, vel sine causa; verum Hieronymus '* edisserens hunc locum, itemque secundo dialogo adversus " Pelagium, negat id in vetustis ac bonce fidei exemplaribus '* repertum. Et additum videtur ab audaculo quopiam, qui " ceu mitigare voluerit, quod alioque durius dictum vide- 136 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI. " batur. — Proinde, divus Hieronymus duas has voces, * sine " causa,' jubet eradi :" and he cites the passage of Augustin quoted above, which testifies, that nzn was not contained in any Greek MS. of his time. It had its origin, therefore, from a Latin text, and is wholly spurious in the Greek. Ver. 32. cause thee to stumble.'] Our version renders, ' offend thee:' see Preface, pp. 13, 14; for the reasons there assigned, the words 'offend' and 'offence' are altogether banished from the vocabulary of this Revision. Ver. 47.] This verse is read, in the Vat. MS,, as it is rendered here ; conformably with the citations of the earliest fathers. It has been amplified by italic insertions from Luke, vi. 28, in the Constant, texts, by which our editors made their revisions. Ver. 47. Do not even the Gentiles so ?] The Constant. texts repeat nXwai — ' puhlicans,' in this place: '■'■ rikmat " habent, cum rec, omnes fere Const, f am. documenta," says Scholz. The Vatican, and other ancient MSS. and versions, including the Vulgate, read idvixoi, from which last Wiclif rendered, ' hethene men.' Our revisers have here followed the more modern reading, nXumi, as it stands in Erasmus' printed text ; although Erasmus subjoined this caution : *' Rursus hoc loco nonnulli codices Grseci habent ny^uvai ; " caeterum, ex interpretatione Chrysostomi, deprehendere *' licet ilium Ethnici legisse." CHAPTER VL Ver. 1. not to do your (works for) justification .] ttjv dr/,ai- oduvriv v/j,uv firi Toniv — This is the reading of the Vatican, JBezcE, and other ancient MSS., also of the old Jerusalem- Syriac version. It was the reading known to Jerom, who thus in- terprets, "■ justitiam, hoc est, eleemosynam vestram."^ From this false interpretation of Jerom, the reading sX^jj/xoffuv^ji/, ' cdms,' has grown to supplant the original reading, hiTiaiocxjvnv, 'justification.' The Gentile Christians ill apprehended the • Comment, in Matth., and lib. ii. Adv. Proleg. tom. iv. p. 518. Chap. VI. MATTHEW. 137 Jewish phraseology. The Jews had brought themselves to the persuasion, that they could ^justify' or clear themselves of guilt before God, by the threefold process oi ^ alms-giving ,' ^ prayer,' and ^fasting' Of this we have an example in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, On the present occasion, our Lord speaks, first, to the general head, and then proceeds successively to the three particular parts. Jerom, not sensible of this order, assumes biTiaioeuvriv to regard the first particular, and to mean ^alms-giving' only, and so in- terprets it. To this error he was probably drawn by an equivocation in the Syriac word, which signifies both sXsjj^. and br/.. '* AsEMAN. optime adnotatur, i'kiriiJ.oGuvriv synonymum " esse Syr. vocis pro bixaioawri;." — (Birch, n. Q. Ev. p. 24.) Ver. 2. far from their reward] a-vi-x/^Mgi. The verb avi-^u, in its genuine and primitive sense, signifies, ' averto, procul ^ teneo, disto, absum:' — '7ra^ix,iiv l-i^^v n, to lyyxic, rmg s^iiv' a'Xiyiiv hi, TO To^gw s'^^siv. — ** 'Kagzyiiv, is to have any thing " near at hand ; but aviysiv, to have or keep it at a distance." — (Eustath. in Horn. pp. 1584, 40; 1848, 45; 1891, 20.) In a later age, ainyoi acquired the sense of aToXa^^/Sai/w or XajMBoLvu), to receive, and of the simple ix^iv, to have; '■'■ hahendi " notionem huic verbo tribuisse reperiuntur Scriptores illius " aetatis, qua jam corrupta erat lingua Grseca." — (Sturzius, ap. Steph. Thes. Gr. Valpy, tom. i. p. clxxxv.) As the former of these senses accords best with that of oux g;^er2 in the first verse, so those words determine the sense of aTsxovai in this place, and in ver. 5 and 16, (tmiyoMtsi tov /Migdov avTuv, signifies, therefore, '^og^u s^oueiv (ap' savTuv) tov fj,is6ov auTuv — that is, ' the reward they look for.' The Latin Vulgate, on the con- trary, has interpreted ' receperunt' according to the later sense, from whence Wiclif rendered ' han resseyved ; ' which his revisers altered to ' have their reward,' in the simple sense of sp^^w. Yet there is reason to believe, that aviyj^iv has the sense of ffoigw iyjiv — ' to have aloof ^ throughout the New Covenant;' even in Philipp. iv. 18, and in Philemon, 14. (See Annot. to those passages.) Ver. 11. Our daily bread.'] tov u^tov tov imougiov. Though Origen states, that the word smouaiov, used in Matthew and Luke, was formed by those evangelists, and was unknown to 138 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI. the Greek writers, its sense is determined by the latter's use of 77 imovffrj rj/Mi^ot, ( Acts, j)assim), to express ' the morrow.' Now, as our Lord concludes this part of his discourse by enjoining his auditors not to be ' anxious for the morrow,' it is evident, that the clause signifies a petition, that God would continually provide for ' the morrow ; and thus, enable the mind to dis- charge from itself the continually recurring anxiety which he forbids. For, if God is pleased always to provide for * the morrow,' he necessarily provides always for the passing day. The force of the term is, therefore, always prospective. As man is constituted with forethought, he is not forbidden to exercise it; but, he is here instructed, how and whither to direct it. — rov a^rov Tov sTiougiov signifies, therefore, rov a^rov rrig tmoverig ri/xs^ag — " Give US to-day, our morrow's bread :" thus, efiectually precluding anxiety for the morrow. Ver. 13.] The ordinary conclusion of this verse, com- monly called the " doxology," is absent from this place, as from the parallel place in Luke (xi. 4), in the Vatican, and other ancient MSS, and versions. It is not in the Latin Vulgate, and consequently, it is not in Wiclif's translation. Our revisers have introduced it from Erasmus, to whom the modern Constant, texts only were known ; for he says, " banc " coronidem in omnibus Graecis exemplaribus comperio : " these amounted, first io four, next io five, and lastly, to eight junior MSS. But Erasmus subjoined this caution : " quando " nee in ullis Latinorum exemplaribus adscriptum visitur, nee " exponitur ab Hieronymo, aut ullo prorsus interprete, prseter " Chrysostomum, et hujus abbreviatorem recentem Theophy- " lactum, apparet ex solenni consuetudine sic additum, ut " Angelicce Salutationi (Luc. i. 28) qusedam adjecerunt, nee " ab angelo dicta, nee a quopiam alio." It is plain, that it was only a Liturgical appendage to the Lord's Prayer, in an ancient ritual of the Greek church ; which has been obtruded on St. Matthew's text, to the disturbance of the intimate relation between the verses immediately preceding and fol- lowing it. The Prayer, therefore, ought to stand thus in every Liturgy, and Manual of Devotion : " Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name! Thy " kingdom come ! Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven ! " Give us this day our daily {or morrow's) bread ! And forgive us Chap. VIII. MATTHEW. 139 " our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us ! And " lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil ! " For, Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, " for ever and ever ! Amen ! " Ver. 32. for all the nations require these things.] The Vat. MS. reads, ■■ravTa yao raura ra iQvn sTi^TjrovtSiv, which is also the order of the received text. Some MSS. read, rocura ya^ rravra t. e. The latter shews the order of construction, that Tavra pertains to ra idvT) — all the nations, as distinguished from the particular nation which our Lord was then ad- dressing.— sTi^riTsu is here to be understood as ' requiro,' in the sense of ' opus habeo,' (see Gesner's Thes. Zat.) i. e. to require, in the sense of to have need. Our Lord's argument is this : ' Be not over-anxious concerning food or * clothing ; your heavenly Father knoweth that ye require ' these things, as all other nations require them ; but apply ' yourselves, in the first instance, to obtain his justification, ' and his kingdom, and he will take care that you are sup- * plied with all those things.' Ver. 33. His justification, and his kingdom.] This is the order of the words in the Vatican MS. only. The later texts have reversed that order, and have introduced the word 0£oj, of God. Clemens Alexandrinus has cited this passage on various occasions ; but, as he cites it differently, sometimes with ©sou, ' of God,' and sometimes with tuv ovoavuv, ' of heaven ;' sometimes with br/.aio(Svvriv, and some- times with (SasiXsiav only, his citations can afford no evi- dence of the primitive reading. That of the Vat. MS. is better supported by internal evidence ; for, the attainment of God's ^justification,' is an indispensable preliminary to the attainment of his ' kingdom.' CHAPTER VHI. Ver. 8. I am not^^] havog, not ag/og, ^worthy,' as our version renders from the '^ dignus" of the Vulgate: the cen- turion speaks modestly, with relation to his temporal rank and station ; not with any moral reference. 140 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IX. lb. at the word,'] Xoyu, as at ver. 16. — Xoytf) is so uni- versally the reading of the most ancient and authoritative MSS. " utriusque familice" as Scholz speaks, that both he and Matthsei have been constrained to admit it into their respective texts, although the received text follovrs Erasmus in reading Xoyov. This latter reading has arisen from erro- neous punctuation in the first instance : vee should thus punctuate: aXka [lovov e/ts, Xo/w xa/ — . Ver. 28. the GadarenesJ] The confusion vrhich Origen's refinements have caused, of the names, Gadarenes, Gerasenes, and Gergasenes, is well knovrn. (See Michaelis's Introd. vol. ii. p. 396.) According to the most ancient MSS. and versions, St. Matthew here wrote Gadarenes; St. Mark, V. 1, and St. Luke, viii. 26, read Gerasenes. Origen's re- finement introduced the name Gergasenes. But all this confusion is restored to order by a statement of Epiphanius. The country lying immediately on the east coast of the lake of Tiberias, or sea of Gennesaret, was occupied by the Gada- renes, the Gerasenes, and the Gergasenes, whose districts met on the coast of that sea. The place celebrated by the miracle of the swine, was situated at the point of union of the three — rm r^tm -/.Xrj^m 6 roTog ocva fj^saov rjv, says Epiphanius. Matthew designated it from the Gadarenes, Mark and Luke from the Gerasenes, and Origen has not benefited the history by sub- stituting the designation of Gergasenes. CHAPTER IX. Ver. 8. they feared.'] s(pol3rid^(rav : so read the Vat. and Beza MSS. ; but the efiect designed to be expressed not being apprehended by some later copyist, it has been changed to i6cx,v[jjaj. Campbell says, " We find in a very few Greek MSS. [^ri lug, *' &c. ;" but, that learned writer was not aware of the deter- mining authority of those ancient ^ few,' over the mass of later MSS. multiplied by transcript, one from the other, during 1000 years. CHAPTER XII. Ver. 31. will not be forgiven.] See Annot. to Mark, iii. 27, and Heb. xii. 17. CHAPTER Xni. Ver. 27. Didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence, then, hath it tares?!^ It has, of late years, been deemed a point of meritorious discrimination, to substitute * darnel,' or cockle, for * tares' in this parable : an object not worthy of the occasion, which was not designed to distinguish minutely ' hetioeen weeds,' but generally ' hetiveen weeds and corn;' and, whatever springs undesignedly among corn, is relatively a weed. But, as the native vegetation of Syria and of this country are not exactly the same, and it is therefore a 144 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIII. hazardous affectation to pretend to identify, in our indigenous vegetation, the particular plant here designed, I have deemed it more advisable to leave the long established reading * tares ^ than to inflict on our version an unimportant novelty, likely to be as erroneous as it would be strange ; especially, as ' tare^ is now naturalised in all our Dictionaries, as a term denoting ' a weed that grows among corn.' Ver. 45. a merchant.] Our version renders a "merchant- " man." Wiclif, more critically, rendered simply ' a mar- * chaunt ;' though his Latin original had ' homini negotiatori,' from the Greek, av&aurw i'j.'xo^u). So, in ver. 52, our version renders, *' a man that is an householder," because the Greek has, ocvd^wTTuj oiKobsaTrorrj. In all such passages, the words av^^wTTog, avri^, ' man,' are pleonastic additions of the Hellen- istic idiom, and ought not to be rendered in the translations. Ver. 51 .] The Const, texts introduce here, Xsyu auroig 6 Irieoug — 'Jesus saith to them,' with a view to connection and elucidation ; which clause is not in the most ancient MSS. and versions. If, therefore, it be admitted into the text (which is not necessary), it should be printed in italics, like all the other supplementary additions to those texts. Ver. 52. Every Scribe, &c.] rrag y^a/jy/j.arsu;, here signifies, every one 'professionally learned in the Jewish law ; and our Lord affirms, that if such a one be disciplined also in the Gospel, he will possess, as it were, the abundance of a householder, who is able, from his own stores, to bring forth ''things both 'new and old.'" Of this declaration, we have a most splendid illustration in the apostolical author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; which sublime composition of a Jewish scribe converted to the Gospel, unites and har- monises the profoundest doctrines of the Old, with those of the New Covenant. Ver. 55. James and JosepA.] The most ancient MSS. and versions, together with Origen and Jerora, here read ' Joseph,' though they read ' Joses' in all other places where the same person is named ; which would go to shew, that those forms were varying enunciations of the same name. This evidence Chap. XIV. MATTHEW. 145 is lost by the substitution of Joses in this place, in the later and Constant, texts, with a view to produce uniformity. The substitution has been followed by our last revisers ; though Wiclif had rendered 'Joseph' from the Latin, con- formably to the oldest authorities. CHAPTER XIV. Ver. 2. Is this John the Baptist?] *' The words of Herod, " Matt. xiv. 2, (says Michaelis, vol. i. p. 313), ourog senv "■ I'jiavvng 0 Ba'XTiCTng, have the appearance of contradicting " Luke, ix. 9. * I have beheaded John, but who is this — ng *' de ioriv ohrog ;' and it was manifestly with a view of removing " the difficulty, that in the Cod. Cantab. (D) they are altered " to, iMr,ri ovrog egriv I. 6. /3." The contradiction here sug- gested, must be supposed to consist in the opposition of the affirmation in the former Gospel, and of the doubt implied in the interrogation in the latter Gospel. How futile this remark of Michaelis is, we may learn from a letter of the younger Pliny (lib. ix. ep. 23), in which, after expressing his pleasure at having been recognised by a stranger in the form, " This is Pliny" (i. e. Is this Pliny), he says : " An si " Demosthenes jure laetatus est, quod ilium anus Attica ita '* noscitavit, ohrog itsri Ajj/xoc^si/jjs ; ego celebritate nominis mei '* gaudere non debeo? — If Demosthenes had a right to " rejoice, because the old Athenian woman recognised him " {noscitavit) by saying, ' This is Demosthenes?' ought not " I to rejoice in the celebrity of my name?" On which " passage Gesner observes : Noscitare, est eorum qui dubiam " adhuc notitiam confirmare student, et certo cupiunt cog- " noscere. — Igitur hie interrogationis notam adpono ; et " vocem arbitror (certe Plinium intellixisse puto), interro- ^' gantis mulierculae, '■ Hiccene est ille Demosthenes?'" Herod's affirmation, therefore, in St. Matthew, is of a quality as interrogative as his question in St. Luke. Ver. 8. On a dish.'] " In a dische," is John Wiclif's cor- rect rendering of ' in disco' — st/ Timxi. The point of tiie narrative is impaired by substituting the word ' charger,' to 146 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XV. which term the reader attaches no familiar idea. Whereas the damsel, entering into a banqueting-room where ' dishes' met her sight, enforced and facilitated the execution of her demand, by saying, 'Give me here, on one of these dishes, * the head of John the Baptist.' Ver. 13. By land.'] This ordinary sense of te^,^, ^ pedes,' should have corrected Wiclif's erroneous rendering, ** on her ^^ feet" (i.e. on their feet); and should also have prevented his revisers from suffering his eri'or to pass. Ver. 24. Many furlongs from the land,] This is the reading of the Vatican MS. and the most ancient versions. The clause, * in the midst of the sea,' has been interpolated here, from St. Mark's narrative, c. vii. 18. Ver. 26. A phantom.] Wiclif properly rendered ^ a fan- turn, from the Latin '■ phantasma' — j Tifjbi^gei. There is no passage, of which the I'e- ceived reading has more constantly puzzled both comment- ator and reader, than this. The perplexity that it has caused is very sufficiently manifested in Dr. Bloomfield's note on this passage, viz. " Euthymius, not without reason, complains of Chap. XV. MATTHEW. 147 '* the difficulty of the construction, to which some suppose " an apodosis to be wanting, suppressed per aposiopedn ; " either rfkivkourai, or avainog itsri, or the like. Others sup- " pose an ellipsis of some word, as ofuXn or xuXurov. Kuinoel " and others regard the xa/ as a mere expletive (as often the " Heb. i), and render, ' he need not honour.' But this *' removing a difficulty, by silencing a word, is too violent : " and as to the other methods above mentioned, there is " certainly no aposiopesis, nor any ellipsis properly so called, " but merely, as Fritzche suggests, an apodosis is to be " supplied from the former verse, q. d. Savaroj fjbri rsXiuraru," This elaborate note has been called forth wholly by a corrupt reading of the ConstantinopoUtan text, which vitiated the primitive reading that had subsisted till th'e seventh century. In order to force a sense for that vitiated reading, the unwar- ranted ellipsis, ^' he shall he free" gratuitously invented in the middle ages, has been adopted into our version : rmg tXXsi'Xrr/.ajg to ^titov sg,Uyrjvsuovrsg, (paoiv — rjXsuds^urai (Euthym.) Our last revisers embraced this failing resource. Erasmus, after a fruitless discussion, thus concludes his note: " Et tamen, " quicunque sensus erit, durior est sermonis compositio, quod " haec particula, ' quicunque dixerit patri et mat j-i, ' non habet '* quod respondeat." It will be evident, on a due reconsidera- tion of the Greek words, ou (j^ti rifiriffsi, as they stood in the primitive text, that the perplexity originated in the error of taking fj^ri in conjunction with ou, as the common compound negative, ou /i?j, instead of taking it in conjunction with the following verb n/xTjo-s/, as forming a negative proposition — " non, non honorabit, non inhonorahit — will not, not honour,'' i. e. will not fail in honour. " Longe alia particularum ratio " est (says Hoogeveen) quoties fxri prsecedit infinitivum qui *' dependet a causa antecedente : tunc ov et f^ri disjunguntur, " negatque ou negatum ; sive, //'[^iv, B C. It appears probable, that to/jjcw in the singular was the primitive reading in Matthew, but that it has been rendered plural in the later copies, from the nixag preceding. Ver. 8. But Jesus himself alone] ti ^n avrov iri8.) 164 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIII. terms of the accumulated bloodshed, which was then imme- diately to experience the exercise of divine retribution. Dr. Burton discerned this exposition; for he thus con- cludes his note on the passage : " Hug thinks, that Jesus " spoke prophetically of Zacharias, who is said by Josephus " to have been viog Ba^ouyjix), and to have been killed iv /xscw '* rw %w: this happened a.d. 67 j" i. e. three years before the final destruction of Jerusalem. The observations of Hug on this subject are so remark- ably correspondent to those of the preceding exposition, which was written before I became acquainted with the 'Introduction of that learned writer, that I shall produce them here. " His " observations (he states) have for some time obtained the " approbation of a distinguished scholar. Vide Eichorn, '' Introcl. to N. T., Part I. p. 507." " This passage in Matt, xxiii. 35, which mentions Zacha- " rias, the son of Barachias, being murdered between the " temple and the altar, leads us to a nearer definition of " the time. If we pay attention to the name, the fact, the " circumstances, and the object with which Jesus mentions it, ** there is no doubt of its being Zay^a^iag Ba^ovyov, who, accord- " ing to Josephus' account, suffered unmerited death in the " midst of the temple, shortly before its destruction. The *' name agrees; the murderous deed, and the remarkable " circumstance which distinguishes it, are the same ; as ** well as the character of the man, to Xiav r'avB^og [/^kso'ttovti^ov, " his strict righteousness ; and also this circumstance, that " he, like the wise men and the prophets, still told the Jews '' the truth intrepidly. When Jesus further says, that all " innocently shed blood, from Abel down to Zacharias, shall " be revenged on the Jews, this a'^ro and sw; in like manner " express a beginning, and an end; both of which are put, " instead of all the circumstances which happened in the " interim. Thus, Zacharias is made the limit — is mentioned " as the last, before this revenge shall commence : the " threatened revenge, however, is, that Jerusalem shall be " abandoned to destruction and become desolate, xxiii. 37,38. " Who can it then be, but this very Zacharias, whose death " history distinguishes among so many mmxlers, as the only " still remaining 7'ighteous jjerson, after the death of the high " priest Ananias, before the destruction of the holy city? Chap. XXIII. .1IATTHEW. 165 " We are not here to think of the Zacharias mentioned ' in 2 Chron. xxiv. 20. He is the son of Jehoida, who was ' not killed between the temple and the altar, or zv fMsffw rw mw, ' but, in the foi^e-court ; and is not the person who terminates ' the number of the innocently slain; or, who concludes an ' ejjoch in the annals of the Jews. Was there not, from the ' days of King Joas, in which that liappened, any other ' righteous person murdered among them ? or, shall not the ' others be revenged? Had there already been, at that time, ' a punishment fully inflicted for all the innocently shed ' blood ? Is there, in that place, a particular point of history ' which is signalised as a great and general time of punish- ' ment for the Jewish nation ? " But, it is quite evident, that this Zacharias is repre- ' sented by Jesus as a pei'son yet to come. He says : ' I send unto you wise men and prophets, whom you loill scourge, kill, and persecute, iJ^asnyoxsiTi, (frau^Mgsrs, hiu^iTi ; that the punishment of all innocent blood may come upon you, from the blood of Abel, unto Zacharias.' Here, Zacharias ' terminates the number of the ill-used righteous, whom the ' Jews would still abuse, scourge, and crucify, and for whose ' blood they would have to answer. " It is, therefore, this Zacharias, of whom Josephus, ' Bell. Jud. iv. 6. 4, has written ; whose death followed long ' after Jesus, but of whom the Lord, in a prophetical spirit, ' spoke. Matthew, who relates to us the discourse of Jesus, ' makes him speak, throughout the whole prophetic passage, * in ihe future tense ; and of Zacharias himself, as a person ' who is yet to suffer : but, when he comes to the commission ' of the murder, he cannot conceal that it is known to him ' {Matthew) as having already taken place ; and, instead of ' putting, as he should have done, the main fact in the Lord's ' mouth, in the future tense, he recounts it in plain words, ' as a past transaction, and says, 6v apivivsan ,'j.sra^u k. t. x. Whom you have murdered between the temple and the altar.' — {Tntrod. vol. ii. p. 11.) The ingenious, but over- drawn criticism of the last paragraph, on the reading i(poyiv3 v^utti niMi^a ruv ui^u/mojv. So the Latin, in both places, * prima die — primo die — Azy- morum.' Accordingly Wiclif, in both places, rendered, *' the " first day of ^/^er/" /ooye5 {imleavened loaves)." In the passage of Mark, our revisers also have correctly rendered, " the -first " day of unleavened bread-" but, in the passage of Matthew, they have inserted in italics, " the first day of the feast of " unleavened bread ;" which is altogether erroneous, for " the ^^ feast of unleavened bread" was held on the day following the first day of unleavened bread or day of the Passover, strictly so called. (Lev. xxiii. 5, 6.) Both Mark and Luke Chap. XXVI. MATTHEW. 173 describe this latter day plainly : " W/ien they killed the Pass- " over" — '* Wheyi the Passover must he killed." I find no authority for the insertion of the word " the feast,'' which gratuitously introduces contradiction and confusion. Ver. 26. Take, eat, this is n\y hodyJ] See Annot. to Heb. xiii. 11. Ver. 29. I will not drink:'] in Luke, xxii. 17, * divide it ' among yourselves, for I will not drink.' Our Lord's total abstinence from this last meal, that no strength which he should display might be attributable to its support, well demands the reflection of his disciples. Ver. 45. SleejD afterwards.] Our version strangely retains Wiclif's * Slepe ye noive and reste ye — rise ye, go we;' which, though a correct rendering of the Latin, * dormite ^ jam, et requiescite — surgite, eamus,' is in contradiction to itself, and in discordance with the Greek : Xoi'ttov, does not mean ^ jam, now,' but, ' ichat remains, or, is left.' We are here to understand, ' in posterum — afterwards,' as in Thucy- dides, lib. i. c. 31 and 56, cited by Hoogeveen (Viger. p. 22) ; specifically, ro Xoitov rrig j^^otggag, as cited by the same annotator from Xenophon, p. 626 (Leunch.), ' the remainder of the day.' The word here purports, " When all is over, then sleep ye; " but now, let us rise and advance." (See Pref. pp. 7, 8.) Ver. 46. Let us go forward.] ayu/nv — let us ' advance.' This is explained in St. John, xviii. 4. " Jesus went forth, " and said to them, Whom seek ye?" Our common render- ing, " let us he going ; behold he is at hand that doth betray " me," rather conveys the idea, of our Lord endeavouring to withdraw himself from the traitor. Ver. 53. now send me] " a^n, ponitur post /j.oi in Vat. 1209, " Phil. Syr."— (Birch.) Ver. 64. I tell you all] It is necessary to supply " all" in the translation, to distinguish what our Lord said to the high priest, individually, from what he spoke to his auditory, collectively; 2T wrac' 'ttXyiv Xgyw TMIN : which distinction might escape the English reader's attention, from our cus- tomarily addressing the plural you, to an individual person. 174 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXVII. Ver. 68. tell us] 'x^o(priTivsbv : though the Latin rendered ^^ prophetiza nobis," Wiclif translated, *'• arede to us, who is " he that smote thee?" (arede, tell, declare. — Gloss.) The word prophesy, in the vocabulary of the early Christian church, possessed the sense of its etymology, ■r^o and fruM, to * speak forth' declare. The substitution of the equivocal word prophesy, by his revisers, was, therefore, not an improvement of Wiclif 's version, in this place. CHAPTER XXVII. Ver. 5. and hanged himself.'] See Acts, i. 18, and Annota- tion. It may here be noted, that the Emperor Constantine the Great suppressed the Roman punishment of the Cross, through reverence to the Saviour ; and substituted the punish- ment of hanging. (Pitisci Lex. Antiq. Rom.) Ver. 9. And / took] iXajSov. This word, having the form both of the 1st person singular and 3d pers. plural, the Latin translator unskilfully rendered it by the latter, ' acceperunt.' Wiclif accordingly rendered, * thei han taken.' His revisers have only modernised his English, ' they took.' Here again is an example of traditional inertia. The passage is a citation from the Septuagint version of Zechariah, xi. 13, sXajSov rove r^iaxovra a^yv^ovg. As that version was made from the Hebrew, it would have been reasonable and regular to consult the Hebrew, in order to fix the proper person of sXa[3ov ; and, if a reference had been made to our English version of that prophet, it would have been found rendered, ' and / took ' the thirty pieces of silver ;' which must have determined the translation in Matthew, That those who first interpreted BXajSov as a 3d pers. plural should have assumed ibojxa, that followed, to be sBuxa, an abbreviation of iduzav, was natural ; and thus, that last plural form became introduced into the text. Ver. 17. release to you? Barabbas — ] ocroXvgu v/j.iv ; Ba^ajS^av — This clause has engendered a monstrum of biblical criticism, worthy of the age in which it originated, but most unworthy of the age to which it has extended. " JYo Chap. XXVII. MATTHEW. 175 " doiibt can he made" says Michaelis {Introd. vol. i. p. 316), *' that the original reading, Matt, xxvii. 16, 17, was iriLo9-^iuiiXKuiTriKov modo oraissura " est ante vocalem, mode adjectum ante consonantem." — Scholz, Proleg. ad N. T., p. X.) 188 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III. this case. The riv of the common text, therefore, shews a compend w, for ri\h)i. CHAPTER II. Ver. 16. Scribes of the Pharisees.'] The Vat. MS. and Cod. L read the passage thus : jjrfav ya^ "xoXXoi, xai TjKoXovdow avrw, y^a/Jj/Marsig ruv (,£/x,4'avro. Ver. 4.] Our common version closes this verse with * and ' of tables ;' in the received Greek text, it ends with a-ro y.y.ivojv ; in the Vulgate, with * lectorum ;' in Wiclif, with, ' of ' heddis; but, in the Vat. MS. and Cod. L, it ends with -xaXxiuv, without the words xai -/.Xivmv. Why our revisers of the 16th and 17th centuries substituted ' tables,' (transferring ^ beds' to the margin,) I have not been able to discover, since neither Erasmus, nor any known MS., has that reading ; and Euthymius makes no mention of ' tables,' in his note to Matt. XV. 1, where he cites this passage of Mark. Ver. 8.] The last clause of this verse in the rec. text, is not in the Vat. MS., Cod. L, and other MSS., the Coptic, or Armen. vers. ; and is an officious supplement, suggested by, and partly repeating, ver. 4. Ver. 11. Ye suffer him.] See Annot. to Matt. xv. 5. The perplexity transmitted from the parallel passage in Matthew, caused the later copyists to introduce here also, ■/.ai, * and,' (unknown to the ancient text,) before 'ye suffer o 194 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VIII. ' him; which unskilful insertion, has confirmed the obscurity that lies on the plain sense of both passages in our version. Ver. 16 of com. text, is wholly absent from the Vat. MS. and other copies, and has been officiously supplied here, from others of our Lord's discourse. Ver. 17. as all other foods.'] " The words of our present " Greek text," says Bishop Marsh {Introd. Michaelis, vol. i. p. 457), " are, 2/5 roi/ a^sS^ws^a sx-TTo^suiTai xudap^ov I'avra roc " l3§oojj,ara : now, whoever impartially considers the forced '' and unnatural explication which is usually given of this " passage, in referring zada^K^ov to tuv (in the preceding sen- " tence), with which it is wholly unconnected, and at the " same time examines the structure of the whole period, will ** be convinced that the words, as they stand, proceeded not '* from the pen of the sacred writer." That the period could not have been so written, originally, by the evangelist, must be evident to every critical mind ; but, not from the gram- matical evidence appealed to by the learned annotator. Uav, is undeniably the nominative case of iyt-Tto^iuirai, which imme- diately precedes xada^i^ov {tuv — sTcro^svirai KuOaoi^ov) ; a strict gra^nmatical connexion might, therefore, subsist between them. But, it is from the total destitution of all sense in the import of the period, as it stands, that the evidence of its vitiation arises. That sense cannot be restored by any inflection of the verb KaQa^i^u ; for, no ' evacuation of any given food ' can be reasonably said to ^purify all foods.' Dr. Bloomfield is nearest the mark when he interprets, " makes them all alike " pure." The corruption lies in the verb xa&ap^o, whether we read Ka^a^t^ov, xada^i^ojv (with the Vat. MS.), xa&a^i^u, or xadap^ovra. Our Lord's argument is this : '* Nothing, i. e. ^' no food — ffai' /3gco///a {accounted unclean — xomv vo,wi^o/ji,svov, " understood), which entereth into a man from without, can '' defile him ; because it entereth not into his heart, but into " his belly ; and goeth out into the draught, even as all other "foods." In uncial compendious writing it would stand thus, undivided : lCJOM\TX. Now, we have experience, in the Gr. MSS., of the inter- changes of a and £, of r and 6, of ^ and a, and of xuda^ov and xadsgov, airs^oc and insog {Pref. p. 61): with that experience. CiiAP. IX. MARK. 195 we are guided to read and divide, -/.ai sTi^a iaov o-avra ra tS^u'Mara. The direct order of construction would be, -ra,v {xoivov vo/xi^ofiivov) iig tov a^sSgwva sxTogeuEra/, iffov xa/ vavra, ra srepot, (S^u/Mocra, (Bque cic omnes alice esccB : iffov -/.ai — cBqucE ac, Viger, c. iii. s. 5. § 6, p. 97, ed. Hoogeveen : but, the emphasis being on xa/ krepa, those words take the lead in the order uttered. We find a similar example of xa; ers^ov changed to xada^ov, in the text of Hippolitas, ' Against the heresy of JVoetus.' " Noetus propounded two errors : Jirst, he maintained, that " Christ was the Father, who was begotten, suffered, and " died. JVext, he affirmed, that he himself was Moses, and '* that Aaron was his brother. Being called to account by *' the elders of the church for this assertion, he at first dis- *' owned it ; afterwards, gaining over other associates in '* error, he chose to maintain the other, or former doctri?ie " also" Hippolitus then proceeds to combat that other or first error, respecting Christ. The Greek text, as printed, has, y.adapov ro doy/j^a. The word Kuda^ov is here a manifest sphalnia. Its very learned and venerable editor suggested its correction to, xai da^^ojv;^ but, with all deference, I must contend, that the purport of the entire context directs us to read, xa/ stspov to Boyfia, i. e. xai to irs^ov doyfj^a ; as here in Mark, xa/ ersga ra jS^u/Ma-Tra, i. e. xa/ ra ers^a /Sgoi^aara. CHAPTER IX. Ver. 24. / see the men, &c.] /S^-ecw tov; avO^wrou;, on ug divd^aopoj, 'TTiPi-TraTouvTag. This is the reading of the Vat. MSS. ; and Scholz acknowledges it to be the common reading both of his Alex, and Constant, families of texts. Nevertheless, he has rejected both or/ and o^w from his own text, which he here conforms to the text, recept. ; which latter text has adopted the reading of a Latinising Greek MS. The Latin Vulgate reads, ' Video homines, velut arhores, ambidantes ; Wiclif, from the Vulgate, rendered, ' Y se men, as trees, ' walkinge; which version our revisers have retained. Yet Erasmus has the ancient reading, which he renders : ' Video ' Script. Ecclcs. Opuscula, torn. i. p. 4f). Roi.th. 196 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. X. ' homines, quoniam velut arbores cerno ambulantes ;' and he adds in his note — 'ambulantes, apud Graecos ad homines * duntaxat referri potest, quod illis arbores sint neutri generis.' Euthymius observes on this passage, ro * on,' to^sXxe/, %aA' 'EfS^aiKov ibiMf/ja — * the particle, on, is expletive here, according * to the Hebrew idiom.' The answer of the blind man suffi- ciently implies the imperfection of his vision : as if he said, ' / see no difference betioeen the men and the trees, except that ' the former are moving.' CHAPTER X. Ver. 23. And said, I believe.] iXiyi, vienuu : — So the Vat., also the Alex, and L. MSS., with the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. The Constant, texts, to add pathos, have introduced /xsra dax^uuv — 'with tears^ as in the received text, the Vulgate, and English versions. Ver. 28. by prayer.] The Vat. MS. has not ■koli vriffrsiu, *■ and fasting' Ver. 37. We forbad him, because he doth not follow us.] We have here a signal example, in the received and Scholz's adopted Const, text, of the ' duplex lectio temere confiata.' The Vat. and Ephrem MSS. read, ■/.ai ixuXiuofijiv aurov, brt owx. ay.oXoudsi rifiiv : The Cod. Bezce, D, thought to improve the sentence, by thus reversing the order : og ovK a-AoXoudii 'h/Xiiv, -/.at sxuiXiuoiJjiv aurov : The Alex, has combined the two, and reads thus : 65 &-JX azoy.ovdsi hiMiv, TLai iXuXvdafiiv avrov, on ovx axoXouhi yj/miv. This last tautologous conflation became the reading of the received text ; and is approved and adopted by Scholz. Ver. 38. readily^ ra-^j. The Vulgate and Erasmus render * cito ;' Wiclif, ' soone ;' Euthymius renders the sentence positive — ' whoever shall do a miracle in my name, will be * slow to speak evil of me' — jB^oi^htoji av im xuKoXoyj^gfj. I know Chap. XI. fllARK. H)7 not why our revisers have changed Wiclif's ' soon" to ' Ujhtly,' which does not so well render the sense. Ver. 39. in the name, that ye are Christ's.] iv ovoijmti, on X^isrou sers: — this is the reading of the Vat., Ephr., Alex., and almost every uncial MS. ; so that Scholz has judged it necessary to adopt it, in exclusion of the Const, and received reading, iv rw ovoij^an /mou, erroneously introduced by the Cod. BezcB, from not being sensible that ev ovofiari was a common phrase signifying ' on the account ' or ' because,' and is here equivalent to bia. to bixag nvai. It would have been well for Scholz's text, if he had uniformly paid the same deference to the first of those ancient authorities. Ver. 44, 46, " Where their worm," Sec. of the common text, are not found in these places, in the most ancient authorities; and are only officious repetitions, with a view to enforcement, of ver. 48 of that text ; which last clause is acknowledged here, by all those authorities. Ver. 44. Every one shall be seasoned with Jive, as, &c.] xai — as: Mackn. vol. i. p. 127: — Our Lord here speaks with allusion to Lev. ii. 13 : *' Ever?/ meat-offering thou shalt '' season with salt" in the LXX., -rav hu^ov dvffiag vfj^uv dXi aXiffdrjesrai, " all your offerings of sacrifice shall he seasoned " with salt." Euthymius thus paraphrases : craj {'mgrog) ttu^i (rrig nr^og &eov Tiffnug) aXiffdrjgiTai, ' every (belie^wr) shall be ' seasoned with the salt {of faith towards God).' In this figure St. Paul speaks, when he says (1 Cor. iii. 15) ; " he " himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire;" and St. Peter (1 Ep. c. iv. 12); " think it not strange concerning the fiery " t7-ial which is to try you ;" which figurative fire, St. Paul explains where he says (Eph. vi. 12) : " for your conflict is " not against flesh and blood oydy, but against principalities, " against authorities, against the rulers of this darkness," kc. CHAPTER Xr. Ver. 1. the borders of Judea, even beyond Jordan.] u; ra o^ia rrig lovdaiag, xai m^av : not, bia rov m^av, which modern reading is contradicted Jby the most ancient authorities. It H>8 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XII. may be observed, that the o^ia, borders, or marches of a country, were not ideal lines of division, but narrow neutral tracts, from which both adjoining parties abstained from exercising a right of occupancy. On these were held the afo^ia ayo^a, or horder-fairs, to which the confining nations resorted, 'o^m was also a diminutive of b^og, a mountain {Gloss, ap. Steph.) ; and we see, in J. Pollux (lib. ix. § 8, and notes), how readily the words o^vi and o^ia were con- founded. Ver. 18. Why speakest thou to me of goodness?^ ixoi Xiyui, not /x.£ Xiym : So, ffoi and as are confounded in c. ix. 4.5, where the Constant, texts generally read co/, but the Alexand., j ^a(Si\ua rou vargog n[Mm Aa(3id — ' Blessed is the kingdom of ' our father David, that cometh ;' omitting ev ovo/jban Kupov, which clause, nevertheless, it reads in Matt. xx. 27; Luke, xix. 37; and John, xii. 13. Euthymius, on the other hand, expressly says; Magxog Bs -x^oaidi^xs, xai svXoyi^/jjivri ri s^'^ofjjsvr] jSaffiXiia IV ovofMari Ku^iov rou var^og yj/Muv Aav'/8 — ' But Mark ' adds. And blessed is the kingdom that cometh in the name * of the Lord of our father David.' This last is the common reading of the Greek ; which Michaelis has peremptorily condemned, on a ground which tends strongly to defend it : " BaciXiia (he says) must be understood before rov ■■xar^og ///y.wv." But there is no such necessity ; on the contrary, Ku^iov mu 'jTccr^og -riii^m is a more exact description of the ' kingdom,' It was with reference to that description, that our Lord shortly afterwards questioned the Scribes, ' how the Christ could be ' both the Son, and the Lord, of David?' Here, then, is internal evidence, which Michaelis failed to discern, and which equiponderates with the external. Euthymius perti- nently remarks, "it is probable, that all those ditfering " exclamations were uttered by the multitude that went '* before him, and followed him." — {Comm. on 3Iatt. xxi. 9.) That the 'kingdom' was that oi' David's Lord,' is unde- niable ; and it is, therefore, most probable, that the clause, £v ow,iu.Ti Kue/oL/, is a true reading of Mark in this place : I 200 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIV. have, therefore, preserved it in this Revision, rendering it literally according to the Greek, which our revisers appear to have purposely avoided. Ver. 17. a house of prayer /or all nations.] oixoc. -ff^oGiuyjii 7t\r,6ri6zrai itaci roig sdvigiv : — So read all the MSS. ; and the Latin, " domus orationis omnibus gentihus." Wiclif rendered, *' myn hous schal be clepid the hous of preiying to allefolkis." His revisers, nevertheless, have altered this to, " My house " shall be called of all nations the house of prayer." The passage of Isaiah, Ivi. 7, cited by our Lord, is thus rendered in our authorised version : " mine house shall be called an " house of prayer /or all people ;' and the Greek is verbatim the same, in St. Mark's Gospel and in the Septuagint. Macknight duly notices this defect, and observes : " the " error in the common version is the more extraordinary, '* as, in their translation of Isaiah, they render the passage " quoted, * for all people.' " This contradiction probably resulted, from the distribution of the Bible, in parts, to different bodies of revisers ; and from the impatience of the public, which would not allow them the time requisite for a perfect revisal of their whole work. Ver. 26, of the common text, is omitted in the Vat. MS. and other MSS. and versions ; but, whether it is an interpo- lation from Matt. vi. 15, of that text, or has lapsed from the ancient text through the 6/ji,oioTi}.suTov — 'rapa'7rTu/ji,ara u/jhwi/ — Tu^wrru/Mara uij^m, cannot now be determined. Ver. 32. We know not.'] See Annot. to Matt. xxi. 18. CHAPTER XIV. Ver. 24. In the resurrection.] jv r?) amcrasu. The fol- lowing clause in our common version, * when they shall rise,' orav avuffrugiv, is not in the most ancient MSS. ; shewing, that it was only a double reading of the former ; both which have become united in the later, or received texts. (See Preface, p. 77.) Chap. XV. .AIARK. ^01 CHAPTER XV. For this chapter generally, see Annot. on Matt, xxiv, Ver. 14.] The words, ro ^rj6iv v-ro AavtriX rou T^o^prjTov — * spoken of by Daniel the prophet^ are not read in this place in the Vat. and Beza MSS., and are plainly a supplementary interpolation fi'oni Matt. xxiv. 15. lb. horders.'\ See Annot. to c. xi. 1, of this Gospel, and to Luke, xxi. 21. Ver. 20. those whom he hath chosen.] The Greek phrase expresses literally, ' the chosen whom he hath chosen,^ which is an idiomatic pleonasm, signifying only, ' those whom he ' hath chosen.' By transfusing the idiom into the transla- tion, and rendering, as our version, ' the elect whom he hath ' chosen,' false ideas and false distinctions are raised in the mind, misleading the English reader, and leading to ulterior errors. (See Preface, p. 84, 5.) Ver. 32. neither caii know.'] We come now to a passage of the highest importance. This is one of those passages which, as was before observed (Preface, p. 25), appear to have been left to the operation of ordinary causes in human writing and transcription, for the trial and proof of our faith, our diligence, and our integrity, in " searching the " Scriptures." The application of these qiialities to this place, imperatively demands, in the first instance, the obli- teration of all prejudicate impressions. To effect this, we cannot take our first ground on any printed text, or even on any MS. more modern than the use of uncial and undivided writing. I am unable to produce 2i facsimile of this passage as it stands on the pages of the Vatican and Ejjhrem MSS. ; but in the Beza and Alexandrian MSS. it stands as already given in the Preface, p. 66. That uncial and undivided writing, is thus divided and written in the smaller Greek character of our printed texts : TEg/ bi TYj; fifis^ag ixuvrji, xai rrig wfa;, oudsig oidiv, ouhi o'l ayyiXoi (I'l iv ovgavu), odSe 6 Tiog, ti fj,ri o Tlarrif : '202 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XV. which words yield the following literal import in English : " But, of that day and that hour no one knoweth, not the " angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." In the Vatican MS. the passage stands thus : "TE^/ 8s T1K ^M'S^ag iXiivrig, '/j rrig w^ag, ovhug oibiv, ov8s ajys^.og iv ov^avoj, o\jds outog ei fi,ri 6 Uarri^. In the Ephrem MS., thus : 9 ve^i hi Trig rifx^s^ag iKSivrig, jj rrjg oj^ag, ovdsig oidev, oi/Ss o'l ayyehoi sv ougavw, ovdi oviog a /z,)} 6 Uarr/p. In the Alex. MS., thus : TS^i 8s Trig rj/uus^ag exs/vjj; r} w^aj, nudiig oidiv, ouds o'l ayysXoi iv ou^avw, ovde ovg ei fj^rj 6 Uarri^. The Beza MS. reads thus : vs^i 8s Trig ri/j^i^ag exsivi^g, xai Trig u^ag, cvdsig oibev, ovds o'l ayyeXoi sv TU) ov^avu), ouds oviog si /A55 6 'n-arrjo. It is here seen, that the oldest MS. reads ayysXog in the singular, without the article, whereas the three junior MSS. read 0/ ayysXoi, in the plural, with the article. The received text follows these copies in reading 0/ ayysXoi, but it follows the Cod. Bezce in reading xai, in place of the more ancient r) (which last Scholz has restored) ; and it superadds 0/ before sv ou^., after some of the very recent copies. The Vatican reading is, therefore, that which plain reason and critical accuracy, equally, enjoin us to adhere to. Now, it is impossible for any one, well conversant with the Evangelical Scriptures, to read this passage, without being sensible of an essential contradiction between what it expresses, and what is elsewhere solemnly and repeatedly declared in the same Scriptures. Our Lord asserted, that " the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son — and " hath given him authority to execute judgment (John, v. " 22-27). That, the Father hath given to him all jiower " in heaven and earth (Matt, xxviii. 18). That, v)hatsoever " tilings the Father doth, these also the Son doth likewise " (John, v. 18) ; and, that the Father hath given his Spirit, *' without measure^ to the Son {ib. iii. 34). That, in him are Chap. XV, 3IARK. 203 " hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. " ii. 3)." We are assured, that " the Spirit searcheth all " things, even the depths, (3adr,, i. e. the profoundest secrets " of God;" that " all the fulness of the Godhead resides in " the Son" (1 Cor. ii. 10; Col. ii. 9); and, " that He and '* the Father are One." We see our Lord describing the circumstances of his own future judgment-day, and himself as the blaster, who is to surprise his servants by coming- suddenly upon them. Speaking of himself, in the third person, he says, " The Son of Man cometh at an hour that " ye think not;" but, speaking in the first person, he says, " /will come on thee as a thief: — behold, /come quickly, *' and my reward is with me!" Yet, we are called upon to believe, from this single sentence, nay, from one word, or rather one letter only of this sentence, that he is ignorant of '* the day and hour" of that judgment which he himself is to execute. Though former ages may have been left without the means of I'econciling this seeming contradiction, those means are at length supplied to the present age. Our experience has taught us, in all cases of apparent contradiction, to look carefully on the opposing texts, and to see if either of them contains in itself the elements of reconciliation. Such ele- ments, in the present case, will not be long in revealing themselves to such a scrutiny. In re-examining with attention the undivided uncial writing of the ancient texts, we discern a transcriptural error, partly caused by the frequent alterna- tions of 01 and oj, in the preceding context, which alternations have produced the reading, ou/o? for oiog, in this place. From that sphalma sprang the reading, 6 vtog. But, the adjective, 0/6;, in its sense of * talis — qui possit,' will easily vindicate its title to become the reconciler of this apparent contra- diction. We find a corresponding use of okg in Chrysostom {de S. Pentecoste, p. 169) : wc^Tsg, ipyjSi, ra m hiavoia ro-j avd^wTTou ouy^ o'lov Ti iTSPov riva nhivai, aKK avrog fjuovog oih ra kauTOu' o-j-'u •/.at ra. rov 0eou ovBsig oidsv a (iri ro ':rviv/J,a rov Qsov (i. e. (prjfJi (6 a'troeroXog) riva irs^ov ovk o'iov re (s/i/a/) nhvai ra : Conf. 1 Cor. ii. 11, rig oihv avd^wxoiv ra rou avd^uTov) — " As no Other Ca7i " know the thoughts which are in the mind of a man, but *' the man alone knows his own thoughts ; so, no one knows " the thoughts of God, but the Spirit of God." 204 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XV. The sentence of Mark will then stand thus : -ttipi 6i djj r}f/,i^ccg ixsivi^g, ri rr^g ^^OLCy ouBiig oidiv, ovds ayys'kog iv ovpuvjj' oubi oiog, ii [iri b Harn^ — ' but, of that day, or hour, no one know- ' eth, not an angel in heaven ; neither can know, but the * Father.' With a kindred sense our Lord said to his dis- ciples, " It is not for you to know times and seasons, which " the Father hath reserved for his own authority" — o\jy^ uij^mv sffTi yvumi ^^ovovg, &c. (Acts, i. 7) ; which is the same as if he had said, ou;^' o'/oi ten yvmai — non tales estis ut sciatis. The sacred writers enforce a negative affirmation, by subjoining a negation of fotentiality ; and our Lord used the same mode of enforcement in this place. So St. Paul, in Rom. viii. 7, ro (p^uvri/Ma rrig aapxog — rw vo/^u rou ©sou ou^' vTOTaffffirai, o-jbi ya^ duvarai — The carnal mind — is not subject to the law of God, neither can (be subject). St. John affirms, Qiov oxibug ku^axs 'Tru'Tran — " no one hath seen God at any " time;" which affirmation St. Paul thus enforces: 6v ovBsig iidev, oudi iibiiv dvvarai — " Whom no one hath seen, neither " can see. And again, -^u^r/.og avd^uvog ov bi^srai — xoci ov duvuTui yvumi — ' apprehendeth not, and cannot understand.' We find the same mode of enforcement in Virgil, " nihil ille nee ausus, nee potuit." This sense, of potentiality, was sometimes expressed by bumrai, or dvvarog, and sometimes by the adjective oiog. It was formerly thought, that oiog did not express ' qui potest,' unless followed by the particle re (oiog n) ; but the more accurate scholars of later times have demonstrated, from the writings of the best Greek authors in prose and verse, that o'log, alone, and o'log n, equally possess that significa- tion. Thus Viger (c. iii. s. 8, § 9), " o'log — sumitur avr/ rou " buvaff&ai ; nam et o'tog n effriv, et oiog idri, sine rs, significat " bxjvarai, potest." — '* o'log, cum infinitivo eleganter jungitur, " iXKiivTiKug, idque sive prsecedat roiovrog, sive reticeatur." — (ib. § 6). With ToiovTog expressed, Budseus {Comment. Liny. Gr. p. 840), cites from Aristotle {Ethic vii.), 6 /isi/ (p\jm Toiourog oiog fjjfi YibiiG&ai va^oc rov Xoyov, a 6' o'log Tjdsiffdai, aXXa //,y} ayssdai — With Tomrog suppressed, we find in J, Pollux, iv. § 20, o'log iyii^ai QviMov — " qui possit animum concitare :" § 39, o'log Ov/mov xoifj^idai — ''qui possit animum comprimere." " Cogimur " (says Stephens) uti verbo 'posse' interdum in interpretatione Chat. XV. MARK. 205 " hujus vocabuli (oioc), juncti itidem infinitivo." — Sic ap. Aristot. JPolit. iii. 6 MO'iog, o-oy^ o'log rroiiiv ayadov; xai bixaiovg To-Ji rroXiTdg — "qui niinime facere possit (ut Budaeus vertit)." In this chapter of Mark, we find o'log both with and without Toio-oTog : 1 . with roiovro;, in the simple sense of ' talis qualis,^ (v. 19, o/'a ou yiyon roiavrri) : and 2. without roiovrog, in its euforced sense of * qui possit,' in the passage before us. The fulness of the sentence would be this : OTAEI2 OIAEN, OTAE ArFEAOS EN OTPANfl' OTAE roiouTog eariv 0I02 iidimi (or, OTAE OI02 sdriv udivai) EI MH O HATHP. The first ellipsis, common in the Greek, is that of roiourog. The next common ellipsis, is that of the infinitive, sidivai, understood from oidiv : " the infinitive is often wanting, when " it can be supplied, either from the context or otherwise." — (Matthije, p. 734.) These ellipses would reduce the sen- tence to, ouSs o'log seriv, n (in » -rrarri^. The last ellipsis is that of the substantive verb, eot/v : " senv, aliquando Attice, brevi- " tatis causa omittitur, cum quibusdam prsecipue nominibus, " ut o'm, rouTo, &c."— (ViGER, c. 5. s. 6. §3.) But, in this place, it seems to be rather the abruptness characteristic of St. Mark ; as in the following passages, compared with the corresponding passages in Matthew : St. Matthew. C. xix. 26. Gr. ttx^cc xvi^UTroK; rovTO ccavvxTov la-rt, XXU. 38. ccvT/j la-ri Tf^urn ««< xxiv. 6. ovTTw icrrt TO T6Ao?. xiii. 7. ev7r<0 to tcAoj. xxvi. 22. ft^Ti lya n^i; xiv. 19. jtt»T< lyw, John, C. viii. 15. ?rft»? ot/ro? yqot(*.- vi. 2. Tirohv rovrai tccvtoc ; f^CCTX OiOi, f4./i /^i/^x6/IKM? ; We are instructed, by manuscriptural experience, " Corruinpitur i in v — * in ot — et contra,^ Canter, supra, p. 54. " Habet Cant. Cod. i: pro 01 — 01 jjro X, Kipling's ProZe*/. p. xiii. " T ponitur pro 01, Griesb. Sym. Crit. torn. i. p. Ixviii, Cod. L. " Confunduntur v et o< — «< et v, Steph. Thes. Valpy, p. 9739." So also, 0 and &l/, Pref. p. 62, c. 4. ' " /, I/, et 01, sapissitne inter se mutuo corrumpuntnr." — Canter, ap. Aiisl. Jfbb. torn. ii. p. 622. St. Mark. c. X. 27. Gr • '^^e* ecvO^coTTOii Toy TO ec^vvaroy. xii . 30. ccvrr) TT^UTV) eCTOA)). 206 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XV^ Now, since these several letters are so continually inter- changed in ancient Greek manuscript, who shall pronounce, from the letters alone, whether the uncial writing is to be read, oiog or oviogl. If we are elsewhere told, or if it is any where else implied, that the Son is ignorant of the day of his own final judicatory, we shall read oviog, and divide 6 v'log — films ; if, on the contrary, we are assured that the Son is omniscient, we shall read oiog — talis — qui possit : but, in ages devoid of all critical wakefulness, the relation implied in Tarjjg, was alone sufficient to determine the reading to 6 u'log. Yet, this does not exclude the Son. We read in Matt, xi. 27, and Luke, x. 22 : "no one knoweth the Son but the " Father; neither knoweth any one the Father but the Son, *• and he to whom the Son will reveal him :" now, it is mani- fest, that we are left to understand, in the first clause also, " and he to whom the Father will reveal him." It is the same in this place : the exception, " a7id he to whom the Father will " reveal it," is necessarily latent in this proposition, as in the former. These are, " the times which the Father hath " reserved to his own authority" to conceal or disclose ; and we are assured by our Lord himself, in John, v. 19, that " the Father loveth the Son, and she.weth him all things ^' that himself doeth" The reading, o'log, is further confirmed by the primitive reading, ayyiXog, in the singular, without the article ; and thus, this adjective (inadvertently written oxjiog, in a very early age, and from thence erroneously divided, 6 u/os,) re- conciles this passage of St. Mark with all the rest of the Evangelical Scriptures. But, v'log having once gained admit- tance into a copy, as Hir^og, in Matt. xvi. 13, and ^iLoierog, in Philipp. i. 21, a misplaced reverence for those words caused them to retain their stations. And thus, we perceive the justness of Hoogeveen's remark, that the climax ends in ovhi ayyikog (or, according to the received reading, mhi c/ ayyikoi) : " Ubi, recensltis levioribus, negando aliquid maxime " adstrictum voluerunt Grseci, huic prsefigere amaverunt ovh, " i. 6. ne quidem : cujus particulae hie usus est, ut nullam " exceptionem patietur, ut in Act. Apost. vii. 5, xai ovz sBukb '* auTU) xXris^ovoij^iav sv aur'/j, ovds jSrj/jua Todog. Et Matt. xxiv. 36, " 'zs^i di Trig J^/^fgaS S/ts'VJjs xai rrjg oi^ag oubug oihvj, ovdi oi ayyeXoi " Tm ov^avMv." — {de Part. p. 439.) Chap. XVI. MARK. 207 It has been made a question, whether this clause existed originally in St. Matthew's Gospel, as well as in that of St. Mark. It is certainly in St. Matthew's text, in the Vatican, and Beza, and other MSS. ; in the old Jeritsalem- Syriac, and other ancient versions ; and is cited from thence by some ancient fathers : yet, it is disowned by others. As we now discern the true reading of the clause, it is a question of little importance; and we may say, with Grotius : " It is " of little moment whether we read it in Matthew, or not; " for no one endeavours to expunge it from Mark:" and if Mark abridged Matthew's Gospel, there is a possibility that it existed in his original. At the same time, since Matthew has fx,ovog after Uarri^, which Mark has not, it appears more probable that the former wrote only, n /uri 6 Uarri^ fMovoc,^ which the latter equivalently expressed by, ovds o'log, ii /i>j 6 Uarr,^, so that the latter reading has been trans- fused into Matthew from Mark. Nevertheless, as the clause exists in the Vat. copy, I have deemed it obligatory to pre- serve it in this Revision. CHAPTER XVI. Ver. 2. Not during the feast'\ i^ri iv rp so^rp. We have seen (Matt. xxvi. 17), that the ' feast-day' was the day fol- lowing the slauo;hter of the Paschal Lamb. To avoid a general disturbance on that ' feast-day,' " which was a great " day,'" the Jewish priests were desirous to dispatch our Lord previously to the festival ; and the evangelist proceeds to shew how they effected their purpose, by reverting to an incident that occurred three days before. (John, xii. 1-8.) Ver. 3. turning over the box.] The common reading of the Greek is, cwr^i-^ada ; in the Vulgate, '■'■ fracto alabastro ;" our version, after Wiclif, reads, " brake the box." Had former ages been aware, how little authority in MSS. single ' Not /jitiu fjiovo;, as in the rec. text : (jlov, 11, ' «iy,' has plainly arisen from a repetition of the /a of /ksvo?, for it is not found in any of the oldest I\ISS. or versions; and has been inadvertently admitted into this Revision : — •jramz^ is to be understood here as in ■r'a.rn^ iifiuv in the '■Lord's Prayer ;' and as defined by St. Paul in Eph. iii. 13 (of this Revision), where see the Annotation. 208 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVI. vowels possess for determining a reading ; how frequent were the exchanges of vowels, as of / and g ; the sense alone would have caused guvT^-^aaa,, ' breaking,' to be corrected to guvr^s- •vl/aca, ' turning over.' Diodorus Siculus (lib. xv. c. 17) uses the verb guvr^sTu {(SuvirsTgavro), which he immediately explains by, r^o'TTri yivoijjivn- This verb, though rare,^ is found in the Greek of the Septuagint, but is changed to (SvCT^npu in some copies. It was highly improbable that the vessel should have been ^ brohen' to produce the discharge of its contents, which it would deliver out by the same orifice by which it had received them. 'Euvr^i-^asa, ' converse alabastro,' needs little of critical argument, at the present day, to establish it as the true reading. lb. poured the whole on his head.] %ariyj.iv axjrou t/jv xitpaXrjv : — So reads the Vat. MS. — ' perfudit caput ejus.' The later MSS. insert xara, which reduces the meaning to ' defundo,' or simply, * to pour doum.' Without the separate jDreposition, xara, Y.ariyj.iv has the full force of ' per f undo — ' to pour all over,' which is plainly its meaning here. Ver. 22. take this'] All the most ancient MSS. and versions read, Xa,[3sTi, rouro isn r. c. /x. ; without (payiri, ' eat ;' which is a later insertion, from Matt. xxvi. 26, to supply what the philoponist deemed defective. Ver. 31. he said the more vehemently.] The Vat. MS. reads, 6 hi iTt'Xipeao)^ zkiyi : the rec. text reads, 6 hi i% iti^KSgw iXiji fjjoCKKw. Matthaei, sensible of the redundancy of /j^aXXov in this sentence, describes it justly, ' duplex lectio temere ' conflata ;' but he quarrels with iTimgiaeug, adding, " nee in " Marco probandum." Yet it is the reading also of the Codd. Ephr. and Bezce, the two next most ancient copies. Matthaei's objection, therefore, appears to be overruled by the concurrent testimony of those three ancient witnesses, although the word is not elsewhere found. There is nothing in the structure of the word, more than in ejcStjXws, ixi^ir^ug, &c., to render it other than probable, that it was a popular form in the Hellenistic phraseology to which St. Mark was accustomed. ' The verb auMT^i-^ru, omitted in Stephens' original Thesaurus^ is supplied in Valpy's edition of that work, with authorities. CiiA»>. XVI. MARK. 20i) Ver. 41. afterward.'] ro aoitov : — See Annot. to Matt. XX vi. 4.J, and Preface, p. 8. lb. the time is past.'] a^iiyji. By adhering to the sense of TOMw lyja in oL'TsyjM, (see Annot. to Matt. vi. 2, p. 137), and, understandinir iyu in its sense of ui^t, we appear to obtain the true force of this disputed word. Our Lord, at the con- clusion of his prayer, found his disciples sleeping, whilst, Ht the same time, he beheld the near approach of the traitor and his escort. He therefore said to them, " Sleep and take " your rest hereafter; the time {or hour) of sleep is now gone " hij : — rro^^u) vm sffriv ij u^a, rov -/.aOBvdsiv : idou, rfk&iv i] uoa, &C. " — behold, the hour is come when the Son of Man is be- " trayed into the hands of sinners : arise, let us go forward." It has been attempted to find the meaning of a'rriysi in this passage, by comparing it with 'ixavov isn in Luke, xxii. 37 ; between which two passages there is no analogy or relation whatever. On the latter occasion, our Lord had ordered his disciples to provide a sword, with secret knowledge of the purpose to which it was to be applied, namely, for the last manifestation of his divine power in miraculous benevolence (Luke, ib. 48). On the disciples replying, * here are two ' swords,' our Lord rejoined, ixavov san — ' it is sufficient,' (i. e. for the purpose I intend). In the case with which we are now engaged, the sense of ' sufficit — it is enough, or ' sufficient,' is wholly alien, and irrelative. Ver. 72. when he thought thereon.] iTifSaXuv {sub. aurw, sc. -w frj/jbari). St. Mark's abruptness of expression has caused that obscurity in this sentence which made Campbell remark, " There are not many words in Scripture which have under- " gone more interpretations than this term." That obscurity arises from the object of e^i^aXuv being left by Mark in ellipsis; which object is shewn, by the passage quoted by Campbell from Phavorinus, iiri^aXXu ng voniMan r\ t^yu), nyo^tv rjx^i^u/iivug xa/ imrvyug von. So here, with the object expressed, aMi/MTigdi TO ^Ti/J.a ug. Vat. (not rou ^. 06) — jca/ iiri^aXuv {auTw, SC. Tw ^rj,'ji,aTi) iKXaii. Our revisers have, therefore, correctly rendered this disputed word. 210 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVII. CHAPTER XVII. Ver. 3.] Our English version adopts the interpolation of some of the later MSS., which add, at the close of this verse, a-orog 8s ovdsv a'TTsx^ivaro — but he answered nothing. This insertion from Matt, xxvii. 12, is not in the ancient MSS., but is left for inference in ver. 5 : the clause is now rejected, by the latest editors of the Greek. Ver. 8. went up.] avajSag: So the Vat. and most ancient MSS. and versions, from whence Wiclif rendered, ' was gone * up ; not am(3or}(rag, * crying aloud,' as our revised version has substituted from the later Greek texts adopted by Erasmus. Yet, that learned editor has, with admirable acuteness and penetration, observed in his note : " Quoniam " constanter dissonant a Latinis exemplaria Graeca, in con- " jecturam venio, interpretem aliud, atque nos legimus, " legisse; nisi fallor, ava^i^aag pro am^oriaag." (See Preface, p. 76.) Ver. 25. The third hour.'] t^ittj — so records St. Mark in all the MSS., ancient and modern. To reconcile an assumed discordance between this evangelist and St. John, respecting the hour at which our Lord's crucifixion took place, various have been the efforts of ingenuity exercised by ancient and modern commentators ; and all have proved equally unsatis- factory and perplexing to themselves and to their readers, and in the end, totally unsuccessful. Campbell says (note 2 to John, xix. 14) : " The common hypothesis is, that some " early transcriber has mistaken r, the numeral mark for 3, " for the S", the mark for 6, and thus has substituted ixrri ** instead of t^itt}." That ancient effort of hypothesis, ascribed to Eusebius, is fully stated in the notes of Birch, and of Matthsei (1st ed.), on John, xix. 14. But, let us take a review of the whole question. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, unite in relating, that when our Lord had hung on the cross till the sixth hour, darkness arose, at that hour, over the whole land. It is manifest, therefore, that our Lord was ali-eady on the cross before the sixth hour, and that he had been there for a time sufficiently long foi- all the previous incidents recorded to have taken Chap. XVII. MARK. 211 place. He was, therefore, not crucified at the sixth hour. St. Mark records, expressly, " it was the third hour, xa/, " i. e. when, they crucified him." We must now examine, what contradiction these statements sustain from the text of St. John. " Pilate brought Jesus forth, and sat down on " the judgment-seat in a place that is called the ^Pavement,' " but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha, and it was the preparation " of the Passover : it loas about the sixth hour : and he *' saith to the Jews, Behold your king!" — w^a yjv ug sxt-jj ; this, without the copulate 6s — ^ and,' is the reading of the Vat., Alex., Codd. L, with a multitude of later copies. The expulsion of tjv — 'was,' in order to substitute the copulate ds, is traced to the Beza MS. D, which also changed IzTri to r^irri, to force a harmony with St. Mark. This clause, how- ever, stands absolute in the authoritative texts, without any connexion with the preceding and following contexts ; thus interrupting the narrative. That the ' sixth hour ' was a notable hour in those tran- sactions, we learn from the preceding triple testimony ; but, not on account of the crucifixion of our Lord taking place at that hour. Luke, xxiii. 42, has a corresponding clause to that of John : riv rjdri uen w^a i-KTYi — ' it was now ahout * the sixth hour.' Both clauses must relate to the same circumstances ; but this of Luke does not relate to Pilate's judgment -seat, and, therefore, that of John was not de- signed for that period. By every admitted rule of evidence, and by all our experience in manuscriptural criticism, we are brought to this conclusion ; viz. that the historical fact was, as it is collected from Matthew, Mark, and Luke ; that, the * sixth hour ' mentioned in St. John, must relate to the period of the 'sixth hour' recorded by those other evan- gelists ; that, the clause has, in a very early age, been omitted by some transcriber, and inserted in the margin ; and, being an unconnected and isolated paragraph, containing nothing iu itself that could guide the corrector in reinstating it, that it has been erroneously replaced. Euthymius, with the criticism of the 12th century, thus rev^erses this argument. " But, he was crucified, as John " sai/s, at the sixth hour. What, then, are we to say? namely, " that what is said by Mark, ' it was the third hour,' does " not pertain to what follows, ' and they crucified him ;' but. 212 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVII. " to the commencement of the suflFerings which our Saviour " endured. He says, ' it ivas the third hour ;' that is to say, " when he hegan to suffer from the soldiers of Pilate. What " follows, is to be read separately, ' and they crucified him ;' " namely, at the sixth hour. The third hour, therefore, " mentioned by Mark, denotes the beginning of what the " Lord suffered ; but the sixth, mentioned by John, shews *' the termination, namely, the crucifixion." Unfortunately for this expositor, Mark alone speaks expressly to ' the hour ' of our Lord's crucifixion : "It was the third hour, ivhen they " crucified him." There is no biblical tiro at the present day who is ignorant, that zai in this sentence is a Hebraism, and signifies ore — when. Whereas, Euthymius affirms, rashly and falsely, "■ that ^John says' he was crucified at the sixth " hour" — iv inrri uga sffravgudri, x,adug 6 looavvng (prjsr (Comment, on Mark, xv. 25) ; for, John does not speak to the time of the crucifixion. Euthymius here shews himself to have been an interpreter of the kind described by Jerom (see above, Pref. p. 36), who, when some one of the evangelists had expressed the same thing differently from another, take upon themselves to fix the standard Gospel by which those others should be interpreted. Wiiereas, the passage of John is to be explained by the concurrent testimony of the other three evangelists. How easily the present error might have occurred, we can see in Woides facsimile of the Alexandrian MS., which is written in columns. From the united testimonies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we see, that the sixth hour commenced about the time of the revilement of the thieves, or more strictly, of the impenitent malefactor ; immediately after the ninth hour, our Lord expired. The interval would, therefore, occupy the space between verses 24 and 28 of that chapter of John. Now, if we examine how the verses 14 and 27 stand in relation to each other in the double column of the Alex- andrian MS., we shall perceive, how easily an omitted passage written in the interior margin, and designed to be replaced in one column, might have been transferred into the other. The following is the exact correspondence of those verses, in their positions in that MS., line for line ; omitting the questioned clause ; Chap. XVIII. MARK. 213 1st column. 2d column. V. 13. *«' ixxffiffiv ivi V. 25. ufTYiKiKrav Ss ■ra.^a rtu 3ffa(ra — having lived, uniting the two clauses which are here separated. Ver. 37. Joined in confessing. 1 ocvdofioAoyuro : — avr/, in this compound, has the same sense as in the antistrophe, replication, or resjionsion, in lyric poetry. So the LXX. use the word in Ezra, iii. 11. — oij^oKoyuro is to be interpreted, here, by that to which responsion was made, which was, Simeon's confession of the infant Messiah ; and such con- fession was the only purport of Anna's reply. Schleusner's denial of this sense is, therefore, unavailing. CHAPTER III. Vei'. 14. The ^oXdaers going on service.'] "■ The expression *' used by St. Luke," observes Michaelis (vol. i. p. 51), "is " not * soldiers,' (ST^anurai, but the participle, tfT-earsuo/isvo/, " i.e. men under arms, or fnen going to battle. Whence these " persons came, and on what particular account, may be Chap. III. LUKE. 225 " found at large in the History of Josephus (Ant. lib. xviii. " c. 5, § 1, 2). Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, was engaged " in a war with his father-in-law, Aretas, a petty king in " Arabia Petraea, at the very time in which John was preach- " ing in the wilderness. The army of Herod, then on its " march from Galilee, passed through the country in which " John baptised; which sufficiently explains the doubt, who " the soldiers were that proposed to him the above question. " So minute a coincidence, in a circumstance overlooked by " Grotius and the rest of the commentators, would be hardly " discovered in a forgery of later ages." Ver. 16. in expectation of the Christ.'] " For several " years before the birth of Christ," observes Prideaux, " not " only Simeon and Anna, the prophetess, but the whole *' nation of the Jews, were in earnest expectation of his " coming, and of the redemption of Israel by him. And " this, not only the history of the Gospel in many places " tells us, but Josephus, the Jewish historian, doth also attest " the same ; for he tells us, that the expectation which the " Jews, for some years before the destruction of Jerusalem, " had of the arising of a great King from among them, who " should have the empire of the whole world, was the true " cause which then excited them to that war against the " Romans, in which that city, and the temple in it, were " utterly destroyed." — {Connexion, kc. Part ii. p. 493. fol.) This expectation of the Jewish nation, founded on the predic- tions of their prophets, was not confined to that people, but had spread through the heathen world, and had engendered, in the spurious prophecies of Rome, a similar expectation of " a great King who was to arise — de magno Rege venturo," &CC. — (CiCEEO, Divin. ii. 54. Sueton. Aug. 94.) Julius, and, after his death, Octavius Caesar, was regarded as the object of that expectation. A remarkable celestial pheno- menon, which appeared in the month of September imme- diately following the death of Julius Caesar, and during the games which took place on occasion of the anniversary of Octavius' birth, is noted and recorded by the elder Pliny, in the words of that emperor : " lis ipsis ludorum meoruni " diebus, sidus crinitum, in regione cadi qucs sub Septem- " trionibus est, conspectum — During the days of my own Q 226 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III. " games, a Comet was seen in that region of the heavens "■ which is under the constellation of the Great Bear." — {Nat. Hist. I. 23. Hard.) To that comet, a temple was afterwards raised in Rome ; and Pliny observes, that " it " was the only place in the whole world in which a Comet " received divine honours — Cometes in uno totius orbis loco " colitur, in templo Romce." — {Ih. iii. 3.) The remarkable configuration of that luminary, as here described, and its singular resemblance to the configuration of the comet which, in 1811, appeared in the same month, September, and exactly in the same region of the heavens, prompted me (while engaged in a work on the fourth eclogue of Virgil) to address a letter, on the subject, to my late illustrious neighbour, Sir William Herscliel. The following is that great man's reply. " DEAR SIR. " On examining the elements of the comet of the year 1680, I find, that had the comet been in a certain part of its orbit about September, forty-three years before the birth of Christ, it might then , have been seen under the seven stars of the Great Bear. But, as we have never before observed a comet whose elements agree with those of the comet of 1680, we can have no knowledge of its periodical time, if, indeed, it should revolve round the sun. And, considering that we know of but only one that actually revolves about the sun, we can have no reason to admit, that the comet of 1680 should be the same which was observed ' tous les jours de la ' duree des Jeux' — (during all the days that the games continued.) With more probability we might affirm, that it loas the comet of 1811 ; for, that was actually seen under the Seven Stars of the Great Sear, in September i"^ and, having been seen there once, we are sure it might have been seen there before, had it been in the sanie part of its orbit, and did it revolve about the sun in the required periodical time," &ic. " WILLIAM HERSCHEL." " Slough, Feb. 21, 1812." The first of those configurations appeared forty-three years before the birth of Christ; the last appeared in 1811, just twenty-five years ago (1836). ' The annexed plate, representing the comet of 1811, is engraved from a drawing accurately made at the time, both with respect to station, and to sensible proportion and magnitude. CiiAP. III. LUKE. 227 Ver. 24.] This verse stands thus in the text of the Vatican MS., also in Cod. L. and in Origen : -/mi avrog nv 6 Ir^ffovg a^ypijjivog uan stuv r^iaxovra' utv v'log, ug svofji,i^sro rov ludrif, rov HXsi. *' The participle, a^yj,[j.iyog" says Hoogeveen, " is " elegantly put for vj aoyji^ in or at the beginning ;"^ «?%«- iMivog ojffsi is, therefore, equivalent to ussi iv a^yji, as it were at the heginning, or, at or ahout the beginning, of thirty years, i. e. of his thirtieth year. For, the Hebrews counted the present or current measure of time, into their computa- tions, whether day or year. Thus they said, indifferently, three days, or the third day ; eight days, or the eighth day ; and so also, thirty years, or the thirtieth year. — (Matt, xxvi. 61 ; xxvii. 63; Luke, i. 57; ii. 20.) Dr. Bloomfield, on the other hand, says, " The sense is, ' Jesus was be- ' ginning to be of about thirty years,' i. e. he had nearly "completed his thirtieth year:" he adds, " I grant, that " this is somewhat anomalous phraseology ; but it is not " more so than some other modes of expression to be found " in Scripture ;" but, as he does not produce any of these in evidence, such appeal is not available in criticism. Dr. Burton also thinks " the phrase probably means, that our " Saviour wanted a little of being full thirty years of age." Erasmus more exactly interprets : " Quorum verborum hie " est sensus, JEt ipse Jesus ingressus erat annum trigesimum, " aut, Et ipse Jesus accedebat ad annum trigesimum — Jesus " had entered or attained his thirtieth year." Campbell, by a violence not to be sustained, proposes to interpret a^yo/Msvog in the sense of u-roTagGo/Mivog in c. ii. 49, 'subject;' but, in that case, the object is subjoined, auroig, ' to them;' whereas, aoyjaij^iwg is here accompanied by no word in the context to suggest a notion of subjection. The sense of the verse, therefore, according to the most ancieiit terms of the evangelical record, is, " And Jesus was " at the beginning of his thirtieth year ; being the son {while " he was supposed, of Joseph) of Heli," &c. That the evan- gelist, who had spoken of Jesus as the son of Joseph, and yet ' " Participium ao;^oja-va; ita cum suo substantivo construitur, ut ad veibum " reddi non possit, sed uecessario mutari debeat in substantivum, cum gene- " randi casu nominis ad quod refertur. V. C. Demosth. de Cor. p. 347, i» fine : " /Siiv ruv ■r^ayfiaru)! aj;^>jv." — VlGER. not. 3. HOOGEV. p. 356. 228 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III. had related, that he was not the son of Joseph, should duly distinguish between those two descriptions when he came formally to state our Lord's genealogy, was to be expected ; and, accordingly, he does so in this place. The common in- terpretation of the passage, as it now stands in the received Greek text, and which is also that of our authorised version, is essentially vicious. The words in the English version do not convey the signification which the interpreters themselves designed to draw from them : — m, ug svo/i/^sro, ' being, as he * was supposed,' (as in Mark, i. 1, (tji/) wg yiy^avrai — was, as it is written,) affirms positively, "Jesus was the son of Joseph, " as he was supposed to he." This interpretation, therefore, contains in itself its own confutation ; since it is certain, that the revisers did not intend to make such an affirmation. The difference in the order of the words, in the oldest copy, and in the later copies from which the received text is taken, reveals the error inveterated in the latter. The Vat. MS.^, the Codd. Vat. 360, Ven. 10, and L or >] of Stephens, and others, thus read this sentence, uv u'log, ug ivo/J^i^sro rou Iuffr](p, rov HXi. The later copies read, uv, ug ivoiXii^iro, u'tog Iwffjjp rou HXi. The first relates, ' being the son, while he was supposed of Joseph, of Heli ;' the others have vitiated the reading, so as to make it express, ' being, as he was supposed, the son of Joseph, the so?i of Heli.' All the force, both of external and internal evidence, com- bines to confirm the former reading ; which shews unequi- vocally, that the evangelist had distributed m viog — 'being ' the son,' to Heli, and ug svofi^i^sro — ' while he was supposed,' to Joseph : the ug being the ' ug temporale' (see Hoogeveen, de Partic. p. 516.) How this unjustifiable transposition of the word vhg has operated to create general confusion in the genealogy, will be apparent in examining Dr. Burton's note : " Some ' Birch and Bentley. — (" r/ie testimony of two men is true." John, viii. 6.) The ancient and genuine reading of this sentence has been thus pre- sented, during the last half century, to the attention of all its numerous learned editors, yet h has not experienced the acceptance of any one of them. Chap. III. LUKE. ^29 *' (he says) have coupled uv with rov HXi, and put u; " ivo/Mi^sro v'loi luerjtp in a parenthesis, so that Jesus, and " not Joseph, would be called the son of Heli. But it is " plain, that the article rou, in every instance, does not " belong to the name which follows it, but to that which " precedes, and means the son of; otherwise we should *' Jind uhg rou luffri^. Joseph, therefore, is certainly called " the son of Heli. Some have thought, that Heli was the " father of Mary; so it is said in the Talmud: but this " seems irreconcilable with St. Luke." If the learned annot- ator had taken the unquestionably most ancient text for his ground, instead of the junior vitiated reading of that text, he must have abstained from all these remarks. He would have seen, that uv v'log strictly related to rou UXi ; that the true reading was rou Jugrjtp, in parenthesis ; that Heli's paternity to Mary was not a thought, but a national record; and that it is thoroughly reconcilalDle with St. Luke. We thus distinctly trace, in Matthew and Luke, two separate lines of descent from David, through his two sons, Solomon and Nathan, the one ending in Joseph, the other in Heli : viz, David Nathan Heli Joseph Mary. These last are the a/^tara — ' bloods,' intended by John in c. i. 1.3 : (see Annot. to that place). Thus far (and it is all that is essential) the tree of genealogy has descended to us complete. That the many Hebrew names intermediate between those cardinal points should have suffered corruption and con- fusion from numberless mechanical Greek copyists, who neither knew nor cared much for the genealogies of the Jews, through a series of ages, can surprise no one of any sound judgment : we find it a subject of observation even with Origen and Jerom, in their early ages. (See Wetstein's and Birch's notes,) According to the received tradition of the Jews, incor- porated into their Talmud (which national testimony there is no ground of reason whatever for calling in question, since few genealogical facts are so well attested), Heli was the father 230 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IV. of Mary ; and, according to the Jewish law, filiation was not to be referred to the female, but to the male stock (Num. xxvii. 1-8) ; for which cause our Lord is said to be, tov h?./ — ' of Heli ;' the word ' son,' supplied in Italics in our ver- sion, is, therefore, to be understood with the latitude pre- scribed by that law, and as intending ' grandson ;' as, in a still more extended sense, he was called, v'los AajSid, v'/o; AjSpaa/j,, in ver. 1 . What has here been exposed will shew, that Dr. Burton's note, which gives the generally prevailing impression of this sentence, rests wholly on the vitiated reading of the junior and received texts: for, we do " find " TOT Iwcj)^ ;" so that " Joseph is certainly not called the " son of Heli ;" and Heli's paternity to Mary is not only reconcilable with St. Luke, but is the direct intimation of that evangelist. " Maria est Eli filia," observes the learned Bengel : " occurrit in Scriptis Judseorum 'Sj? r\2 izsno, " Maria filia Eli. Vid. Lightfoot, ad Luc. iii. 23, etWoLF. " ad Matth. i. 20." — Gnomon Bengel. torn. i. p. 1 1. CHAPTER IV. Ver. 21. which is in your, ears.] tj y^a] 55 iv roig um Cfiojv (sffnv). The idea which this strong figurative expression conveys to the mind, is the same as that of Milton (P. L. viii. 1): " The angel ended, and in Adam's ears So charming left his voice, that he awhile Thought him still speaking." (See Todd's learned note on this passage, in his edition of Milton.) — " Fulfilled in your ears," which our revisers have left, from " fulfillid in youre earis" of Wiclif, conveys no adequate meaning ; and is a defective translation of the Latin, "■' impleta est haec Scriptura in auribus vestris," which supposes the ellipsis, ' quce est.' * ViGER. de Idiot, c. iv. § 12. n. 51. HoOGEV. Chap. VI. LUKE. 231 CHAPTER V. Ver. 18. was present /or Am, to heal.] o-jm/juig Kupiov r,v iig ro lacdat a'orov, SO tlie Vat. MS. ; not aurouc, ' to heal them,' as the later copies read, from not keeping in mind that of Matthew, xiii. 58, " He did not many mighty works there, " because of their unbelief." CHAPTER VI. Ver. 1. on a Sabhath-day -I sv 2a,S;3arw : — So reads the Vat. MS., the Cod. Vat. Urh. 2, the Cod. L, and some others. The word, dsvrspo'rr^ojruj, of the received text (' secundo primo' of the Vulgate, '■ secounde jirste' of Wiclif, and ' second after * the first' of our common version), is plainly a marginal irreption in an age long posterior to the evangelist; and has cost much lost labour of interpretation to learned annotators. It seems most probable, that the phrase was a late com- pendious mode adopted for expressing the ^ first Sabbath of ' the second month,' as acutely suggested by Wetstein in his note ; but, the ancient and simple reading, iv 2a!3l3aT(jj, is confirmed by ?v sn^uj 'S.alSjS. following, at ver. 6. Ver. 12. in the prayer-house of God.] sv rr, rrooeroyj tou 0SOJ. This passage the Latin translator, with extraordinary inscience of Greek construction, rendered, ' m oratione Dei ; Wiclif thence translated, ' he was al nyght dicellinge in the ' preier of God. This our revisers have changed to, " con- " tinned all night in prayer to God." It is manifest that, on this occasion, their attention to the Greek was wholly suspended, through their confidence in the Latin. Dr. Burton is desirous to protect the Latin version transfused into our English text; and proposes, sx^tb vienv Qiox) — ' have faith < in God,' Mark, xiii. 22, as a parallel construction to, r,'j i'j TYj -x^oes-j^jj Tov 0SOJ. Without pressing the disparity of the two constructions, I shall only observe ; that, as rr^ogivy^ai are now well known to have been * localities for prayer,' the article, rjj, defines the signification here. The Latin translator, not sensible of the force of the demonstrative 232 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI. article, rendered ' orationeJ' Had 'prayer to God' been the sense intended, it would have been expressed, iv rrj •jr^offsvxp ■TTfog rov Qsov, as in Rom. x. 1 ; xv. 30, Gr. All, therefore, that is now requisite is, to determine the proper English rendering of ' proseuche.' The Jews had their one great ' temjjle,' at Jerusalem; they had their ^synagogues' in various cities ; but, besides these, they had their ' houses 'for prayer' in numerous retired places, which structures the Greeks called 'r^osiuy^ai, 'proseuchcs.' Campbell renders the word, 'oratory:" this term, though perfectly correct, is not sufficiently familiar for our vernacular Scriptural vocabu- lary ; I have, tlierefore, preferred the more simple and intel- ligible term, oi' prayer-house' A learned annotator affirms, that these were " 7iot edifices, but groves, like the ancient " Druidical temples." This statement is directly contrary to that of Josephus, who thus describes one of them : xara rriv iTioxiGav ^f/,i^av ffuvayovrai Tavrsg ng rrjv IIPOSETKHN, iMiyi(STOv OIKHMA 'TTo'kvv oy^Xov i'ffidn^asdai duva/ji^ivov (JoSEPH. Vit. C. 54)-— " On the next day, they all assembled in the Proseuche, a *' vast edifice capable of admitting a large multitude." The Jews resident in Rome had several of these buildings in that city, which, as we are told by Philo, served also for schools (torn. ii. p. 168, not. Mangey) ; whence the well-known line of Juvenal (iii. 296) : " Ede, ubi consistas, in qua te quaere Proseucha." Epiphanius states, that " some of the proseuchcB were " covered buildings, and some open to the air, in the manner " oi forums ; and that they were anciently placed out of the " towns ;" but he makes no mention of ' groves,' which were forbidden to the Jews as places of worship, on account of their intimate connexion with the idol-worship of the Gen- tiles : rivag bi oixoug savroig xaraaxsuagavrig, rj ronfovg 'TrXanig (po^uv dixrjv, vgoGiMya.g ravrag sxaXovv, %a,i rjffav fisv to vaXaiov rf^ogsuyuv ro'TToi iv Ti Toig lovdaioig s^u itoXitag, %ai iv roig Sa/ia^s/ra/g (Hares. 80). For the abhorrence of groves in the Hebrew worship, see the articles 'grove' and 'groves,' in Cruden's Concord- ance, and all their references. Ver. 15. Simon, called Zelotes.'] rov xaXov/ji,svov ZriXunv: — the order of construction appears to be, zaXov/jLsvov rov ZrjXurriv Chap. VI. LUKE. 233 — ' called the Zealot.' " There was about that time," says Campbell, " a party in Palestine, who distinguished them- " selves by the title, ^nXojrai {Zealots), and who, though " perhaps actuated by a pious intention at the beginning, " soon degenerated, and became, at last, the greatest scourge " of their country, and the immediate cause of its ruin. '* Though the atrocious actions of the ^riXurai brought at " last the veiy name into disgrace, there is no reason to " think, that the mention of it here carries any unfavour- " able insinuation along with it." The mention of that denomination here, is evidently to record, and to render more remarkable, Simon's entire renunciation of the Law for which he had been so eminently zealous, and his con- version to the Gospel with a zeal and sincerity qualifying him to be selected by our Lord for one of his twelve Apostles. The single adjunct of i^rjXurrjg — ' zealous,' to the name of this Simon, implies all that St. Paul expressed of himself when he said, i^riXurrig u-ra^x.'^v tou Qsov, xaSug iifisig stfrs drj/Mi^ov — ' being zealous towards God, as ye all are this day;' and it marks out a conversion similar in quality to St. Paul's, though differing in its peculiar cause and circumstances. Ver. 20. beggars.'] See Annot. to Matt. v. 6. Ver. 38. will he given.'] bueoueiv : — literally, 'they will ' give.' This idiomatic phraseology, employed by St. Luke, which he repeats in c. xvi. 9, signifies only, ' will or shall ' he given.' The agent, or agents, to which the verb per- tains, is implied in the context. In this place, we are to understand the import in the sense in which St. Paul writes to the Corinthians (2 Ep. ix. 10): " And he who supplieth " seed to the sower, will both supply bread for your food, " and will multiply your seed sown," &c. So, in c. xvi. 9, " that they may receive you into eternal habitations," signifies, " that ye viay he received" or, " that He, to whom it per- " tains, may receive you, &c." Wiclif translated correctly from the Latin (which as correctly renders the Greek), " thei " schulen gyve into youre bosum." Erasmus makes no alter- ation in the Vulg. version — " dahunt in sinum vestrurn." The introduction of the limitation, " men," into our English text — " shall men give into your bosom" — defeats the true 234 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VII. intention of the passage ; and characters an interpretation of a darkening age, which Euthymius (in the 12th century) thus appears to have intended to spiritualise : " Who will repay *' the same measure of bounty? doubtless, they who have " been benefited : for, while God makes repayment for them, '* they themselves seem to repay" — a-Trodugouat to toiovtov //.bt^ov TTjg euipyBdiag, rivsg ; 0/ sui^ysrridBvrsg itavrug' rov &sov yag airoh- dovTog v'^ip avrcAjv, avroi boy-ovStv wrodidovai. The phraseology is of kin to that which uses the plural for the singular. Ver. 40. even as his Master.'] Dr. Burton justly observes, " If we compare Matt. x. 24 (29), John, xv. 20, the whole " passage seems to mean, that the disciples were to expect to " be treated as their Master " xan^gne/nvog ug — ^ perfected as,' has a kindred sense to gu/j,fji,og(pi^ofiivog rw — ' made conformable * to,' in Philipp. iii. 10. The construction is not -Trag -/.ar^g- Tisfjuivog, sgrai ug 6 bidaexaXog aurou, as it has been generally taken ; but, "ffag (fiadrjrrig), sarai xari^gT/0/j,svog ug b didaffxaXog avrou (KarrigTKffiivog riv) : TtarrigriSfiBvog sdrai being used for y.arag- Tiedncirai, the sacred Greek writers commonly using the parti- ciple with the substantive verb, to express all tenses, both active and passive. (See Annot. to Matt. i. 21.) Ver. 49. because it was well-built.] 81a to %akug oixodo/xstsdat avrriv. This clause, which is the reading of the Vat. or oldest text, has been exchanged in the later texts for that in Matthew, Ti6sfMsXiuTo yag iiti Tr}v mTgav, in order to force a harmony of the two Gospels ; but, the primitive reading is still preserved in the Syriac and Coptic versions ; and both coalesce in the Ethiopic. CHAPTER VII. Ver. 7.] See Annot. to Matt. viii. 8. Ver. 21. gave sight.] The general series of MSS., both Alex, and Const., read i-^agiGaTo /SXsts/v, forming a combina- tion of evidence sufficient to prove, that to, in the rec. text {iXa^K^ocTo TO (SXiTBiv), is either a repetition of the preceding syllable, or an officious intrusion of some very junior philo- ponist. Bloomfield regards it as " very necessary to the sense : Chap. VII. LUKE. 235 " TO (SKs'Ttsiv (he says), signifies, the faculty of sight." But, if tlie evangelist did not intend to use jSXi'xsiv here as a noun, but as a verb, to is not necessary ; and it was evidently under- stood as a verb in all the ancient copies which had not to. All these understood the passage with the ordinary construc- tion of the evangelists, Tu:p'koig toXXoiq iyjtpsaro (auToug) ^Xs'ttsiv, i. e. im (3Xs■^\yc>JSl — * he granted to many who were blind that * they might see:' (as, in c. xviii. 41, im am(3Xs-^u), signifies, ^s avafSXi-^ai.) This is the literal sense of the words, though they may be rendered in a translation, ' ga^)e sight to many ' who were blind.' But we are, now, particularly engaged with the original text. Of the authorities which omit to, Scholz gives the following comprehensive catalogue: " 1st, " all his Constant, family, in the aggregate; 2dly, his Alex, ''family, viz. ABEGHKSV. 13. 69. 72. 91. 106. 125. 130. " 142. 145. 209. 234. 237. 247. 253. 299. 300. alii plurimi." If any reading, therefore, can be proved erroneous by testi- mony, s^a^iffaTo TO is SO proved. The to was introduced into print by Erasmus, who (as we have seen, Pref p. 19) knew only eight junior MSS. Of these eight, five only contained the Gospels ; and of those five, the Cod. 69 alone omitted to. Erasmus, therefore, decided by the numerical testimony of foiir against one; but he knew no other of the numerous MSS. above cited, whose weight overwhelms the four which constituted a determining weight to him. Scholz, neverthe- less, has adopted to, although the professed object of his edition was to establish and present a new text, more correct than that of any of his predecessors. Ver, 31.] The clause, "And the Lord said," of the Const. or received text, is not contained in any of the most ancient MSS. and versions ; yet it is an unobjectionable supplement, if distinguished by a different character in the context. The absence of this clause, in all the earlier authorities, shews that it should be included in the parenthesis with the two preceding verses. Ver. .35. all her works.'] See Annot. to Matt. xi. 20. Ver. 47.] The order for interpretation of this passage is simply this : >.iyu soi oti jjya'T^jo'j rroXu, -/a.^i') o\t a'l To/.Xa/ a/ 236 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IX. afia^Tiai auri^g ax oiban doxifMa^nv : — So reads the Vat. MS.; so, also, the Codd. L. 33, the Copt., Sahid., Eph., and Latin Corb. vers. : not -zug ou doxifj^a^iTi, as in the rec. text. CHAPTER XIII. Ver. 9. And if it afterward bear fruit, well.] The Vat. MS. reads thus: xctv /j,iv 'Xoiriarj za^'rov ng to fisXXov' n dB fJ^riyi, iTizo-^ng' avrov : SO read also the Codd. L. and 33. The junior copies have inverted this reading, to the detriment of the sense. Ver. 35, 36. (See Annot. to Matt, xxiii. 37-39.) Ye will not know me, even while ye shall say, ' Blessed,' &c.] The order of this clause, in the Greek, varies in different copies. In the Vat. and Alex. MSS. it stands, ov ^ idrjTs /a£ ; in the Cod. BeztP, ou ij.n in ^idrin. This last reading (with i above Chap. XIV. LUKE. 241 the /) is important, from shewing, that idrirs was understood to be properly udrjTc ; the < being very commonly written / for the ?/ diphthong, in the uncial MSS. " In nostro Codice " (Alex.)," says Woide, " n pro /, et / (plerumque /) pro s/ " ponitur; sic /ottjxs pro usrr,7t.i : hinc reperies, //xana et sz/ia- " ria ; £//i/ et //x/." — (Prcsf. § 33.) So Kipling (Prof. p. xiii.) In the passage before us, therefore, /3?jr£ is to be read, sidrirs — 'know,' not 'see;' and the whole sentence, according to the order of the Vat. MS., thus, Xsyo) ds u/jjiv, o-j /mtj iidr,Ts fis iug s/TJjrs, EvXoyri/MSnoc, &c. The, av jjf jj ors, though found in the Alex, and Beza MSS., is an insertion of an age posterior to the Vat, MS. For hug, in the sense of ' dum — ' whilst,' see Hoogeveen, de Part. p. 208, ed. Schutz. This remarkable prediction of our Lord, is recorded by St. Luke only. A few days before He arrived at Jerusalem, where he was to experience the outrages he had foreshewn, he foretold the fickleness of his nation, which, on his first arrival in that city, would hail him with the salutation, " Blessed is " He who Cometh in the name of the Lord!" The fulfilment of this prediction St. Luke relates, in ch. xix. 36, 37. Some very heedless interpolator has transferred this prediction to Matthew, introducing it after it had been fulfilled ; insensible of its due relation to the narrative. (See Annot. to Matt, p. 166.) CHAPTER XIV. Ver. 5. Whose child or whose ox.] r/i/o$ v/^wj u'log rj fSovg : — So, all the most ancient MSS. Of this remarkable passage, Michaelis observes : " The first editors of the Greek Test. " so sensibly felt the impropriety of the reading, uiog ri /Soy?, " that they unanimously inserted ovog, although they found *' it in not a single MS." — {Introd. vol. ii. p. 394, and marg. note.) " The number and value of the MSS. which " preserve this reading (uiog)," says Macknight, " are very " considerable; and though it is not found in any ancient '• version except the Syriac, yet, if we were to be deter- " mined solely by the external evidence, I should not hesitate " to declare, that the balance is in its favour. There is, " however, an internal improbability in some things, which " very strong outward evidence cannot surmount." Yet, so R 242 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XV. commanding is that external evidence, that even Scholz has howed to it; and has received vhg into his text, to the rejection of ovog. Bloomfield is pleased to say, " without " sufficient reason;'' but I must take leave to say, with far greater reason than that on which that learned editor rejects it. The external evidence is complete. It is opposed, only by Michaelis's sense of ' impropriety ;' by Macknight's sense of ' improbabilitT/ ;' and by Bloomfield's sense of ' harshness, ' and violation of the usage of language.' These are very feeble arguments to urge against, what the external evidence shews to be, a matter of fact. The repugnance of those learned persons, only demonstrates the magnetic power of ' reception.' As v'log, according to a frequent usage of the sacred writers, is to be understood here in the general sense of ' child,' (as v'log a^^n^, a male child, in Rev. xii. 5), and not in the limited sense of ' son; our Lord argues, " Whose child, '* or (even) whose ox among you shall fall into a pit, who " will not straightway pull it out on the Sabbath-day?" and he leaves them to draw a similar inference to that which he himself had drawn on a similar occasion, in ch. xiii. 17, respecting an aged and infirm woman. CHAPTER XV. Ver. 16. to be fed."] ■xograg&nvoi.i sx, is the reading of the Vat.; also of the Beza, L, and many other MSS. and ancient versions. This has been changed, by some early philoponist, to yifj^idai rnv xoiXiav aurov ai:a — ' to fill his belly with,' in order to heighten the picture. Chrysostom read as the Vatican. So also the Latin Cod. Brixiensis, although the modern Vulgate has, ' implere ventrem.' Ver. 17. I am perishing here."] jyw h ubn So the Vat., Beza, numerous other MSS., and most ancient versions : uh has evidently lapsed in ihe junior texts, from the oimiot. u h, uh (Pref. p. 62). Scholz has properly restored it. Ver. 21. Make me as one of thy hired servants.^ This clause, repeated from ver. 18, is contained in this place, in the Vat. and Beza MSS., but has lapsed from the Const. texts through an o/moiot. of ] hi), but desisted, and proceeded with the 45tli verse : a different and a later hand has finished the spurious passage in the margin. CHAPTER XXIII. Ver. 15. for he hath sent him hack to you.'] avi-inijj-^iv ya^ a\jTov Tgos hixag, is the reading of the Vat. MS., and of almost all the most ancient authorities ; except, that some read rji/.ag for ■jij.ccg (p. 244). This perspicuous reading is rejected by Scholz, in favour of his Const, or rec. text. Ver. 17 of the common text, is not contained in the oldest MSS. and versions. It has been introduced into the received text, from Matt, xxvii. 15, and Mark, xvii. 6. 230 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIII. Ver. 29. green tree.] s; iv ly^uj ^vXw raura ':roiouifiv, sv TU) ^sooj ri ymrai (avroii) : i. e. " if they do these things while " they have yet spiritual life, and opportunity for repentance; " what will befall them, when these shall have departed from " them!" This awful reflection of our Lord is in the spirit of his lamentation over Jerusalem in eh. xix. 41. Ver. 31. called JTramow.] K^awov: — Not CaZmry, Calva- rius, which is only a vestige of the Latin Vulgate. (See Pref. p. 8.) Ver. 32.] The first clause of ver. 34 of the common text, is unknown to the Codd. Vatican and Bezce, and some ancient versions ; and is evidently taken verbatim from Eusebius's account of the death of St. James, which he thus relates: — idi^KS TO, yovara Xsyuv, Ta^axaXu Ku^ii, &ss, Jlarg^, aipsg avroig' o\> yag oiBaffi ri iromdi — ' He knelt down, saying, O Lord, God, * Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do:'^ (these are the identical words transferred to our Lord). It is very apparent that Eusebius was not acquainted with those same words in Luke's Gospel, from his not remarking their identity. It is, therefore, another unskilful effort of embel- lishment, for it directly contradicts our Lord's own words (John, xvii. 9), " I pray not for the world, but for them whom " thou hast given me." That it was unknown to Tertullian, also, in an earlier age than that of Eusebius, is clear, from his producing St, Stephen as a singular instance of a dying person praying for his enemies {de Patientia, c. 14) : " Lapi- ** datur Stephanus, et veniam hostihus suis postulat : — con- *' stitit nobis in exemplum et testimonium, tam spiritu quam " carne, tam animo quam corpore, patientiae perpetrandae," &c. Would Tertullian have altogether omitted our Lord in this argument, if he had read this clause in Luke's Gospel? Most assuredly, he would have preferably adduced his ex- ample. It is therefore manifest, that some weakly pious philoponist thought that our Lord's character needed this surreptitious aid, to raise it to an equal level to that of Stephen and James ; and that he has supplied it from the example of James. Ver. 41 . To-day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.] This blessed representation of the immediate state of those ' Euseb. lib. ii. c. 23. Chap. XXIII. LUKE. 251 who ' die in the Lord,' pronounced by the Lord himself, was that which inspired St. Paul's aspiration (Philipp. i. 23), to "depart and to be with Christ;" knowing, from the same Divine assurance, that in that departure he should only "-^pass ^' from death into life;' into that ineffable condition of im- mediate happiness, which our Lord signified by the word '■Paradise.' All such, we are assured, *' God will hring " with Him" at His coming; which words sufficiently assui:e us also, that the?/ are with Him now. A pious writer and admired preacher of the present day, whose imagination was impressed by an hypothesis of a '■Millennium,' finding the word, (srifiioov, ^to-day' as commonly applied, wholly adverse to his hypothesis, has striven to bend the sense of this plain and unequivocal sentence, though uttered by our Lord, into a conformity with his hypothesis ; instead of modelling his hypothesis by the clear instruction of our Lord's speech. He would reduce the meaning of (r^/Asgoi/ to a mere enforce- ment of affirmation, ' Verily, 1 tell thee this day, thou shalt be ' with me in Paradise :' When? — at a future remote and un- defined period, fondly imagined by some, and by them called, a Millennium. How different was the consolation offered by our Lord, when interpreted according to the authority of St. Paul, as above cited ! (See Annot. to 1 Thess. iv. 5.) Ver. 42. the sun failing of its light.'] tov tjXiou sxXsiTovrog : so read the oldest authorities, with the Vatican MS. and others. Later MSS., following Origen, have changed those words to, iC-KOTiGdri 6 rjXiog — ' the sun was darkened,' on the ungrounded assumption, that the notion of ' eclipsed,' in its astronomical sense, is implied in the word, i%Kiiirovrog ; and, that no * eclipse' took place at that juncture. So contends Eutliymius, with the criticism of his age. But it is remark- able, that Luke uses the verb, iTtXuvM, elsewhere, to signify, ^failing in force ;' and that he is the only evangelist that employs that word (c. xvi. 9 ; xxii. 3J). In this place, it has the simple sense of, ^failing in power, or failing to gii-e its * light,' without any reference to a physical cause, or scientific explanation of the phenomenon. Yet Michaelis ventures to pronounce, with inertial pertinacity, and with no additional authority to allege, " the reading is undoubtedly false, though " so ancient as to have been cpioted by Origen." 252 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIII. Ver. 49. Arimathea, a city of the Judeans.] A^i>j.adaiag -roXswg rm lovdaiuiv : — Our version renders, " Arimathea, a " city of the Jews." This rendering is the more observable, because Wiclif had rendered, ' a cytee of Judee,' from the Latin, * civitate JudcBce,' which is, in effect, the true meaning of rm loudaiojv ; those words being here used in a geographical^ not in a national sense. Arimathea (the Greek enunciation of Aramatha or Arimatha), here mentioned, was situated in Judaea, near to Joppa, and is called, ' of the Judceans, i. e. ' of Judea^ to distinguish it from Ramoth-Gilead, called also, in the time of Luke, Arimathcea (by Josephus, A. J. torn. i. p. 469, A^aiJ^ada rr^g TaXaabirog), which was situated far beyond the boundaries of Judaea, and even beyond Peraea, to the north-east. That Bengel should not have dwelt upon this word is not remarkable, since he followed the interpretation of the Latin, ' Judace,' and, therefore, understood it in its geographical sense ; but it is somewhat observable, that all our annotators, even to the latest of them, have passed the word lovdaiuv, without any reference to the rendering of our version ; though one of them, Campbell, renders, ' a city ' ofJudcea/ in his text. This fact cannot be collected by the common reader from the vague phrase, ' of the Jews ;' since the Jews were spread over the whole of Palestine. The passage should be rendered strictly, " the city Aramatha " of the Judeans," or, of Judcea Proper. Ver. 52. declining to the Sabbath.] This clause can be only rendered by paraphrase. The common reading, s'xs(pug7is, ' illucescebat — began to shine,' has been tortured in vain, by every effort of ingenuity, to signify, the beginning of the Sabbath, which always commenced with approaching dark- ness : an interpretation, near of kin to the etymology, * lux a non lucendo.' The approach of the Sabbath was, therefore, characterised by the diminution of light. Three MSS., of the 9th and 13th centuries (K. Wetst. Vat. 1548, Birch. 42 Wetst.), read in this place, a-rsp wtrxs, which would certainly express the retreat of light ; but, a verb a'xofuSKu, is not found in use elsewhere. Nevertheless, as it expresses the fact ; as aTo and scr; are frequently confounded in MSS. (see Canter, Pref. p. 53) ; and as a'xa^ Xiyoij^iva occur in the New Greek Scriptures; it is very possible, that an ancient Chap. XXIV. LUKE. 253 Hellenistic term, arrstpugxs, has been transmuted, in after- times, to scrs^wcxs : arrocpusKw, with the privative sense of a-To in compound, would seem to answer to ' suhluceo' in Ovid {Amor. i. 5. 5.) : " Qualia sublucent fugiente crepuscula Phcebo :" and to denote the ' hora crepusculascens' (q. sublucescens), " Ultima pars lucis, primaque noctis" — (Gesner. Thes. t. i. p. 1281.) Michaelis observes, " It is possible, and often highly pro- " bable, that the true reading is preserved in only one of " the MSS. that are now extant;" and there is no passage to which that observation can be more reasonably applied, than this : aajSlSarov wrscpugxi, would thus signify, ' sahhatum * crepiisculascehatJ CHAPTER XXIV. Ver. 1.] The clause, -Aat rmg aw avraig — " and certain " others with them," which our version has adopted from the received Constant, text, is not in the most ancient MSS. or versions ; it is not in the Latin, and, consequently, not in Wiclif's translation. Erasmus says : " Hie Grceci Codices " addunt, -/.ai rmg, &c." By comparing the collations from Wetstein downwards, we see of how little authority from antiquity were the few MSS. which Erasmus had an oppor- tunity of consulting. Ver. 17. they stopped sorrowful.] sgradrjffav, and sffrriffav, are the most ancient readings ; not igrB, as in the received text : the first, is the reading of the Vatican MS. Ver. 30. he disappeared from them.] See Pref. p. 8. Ver. 41. a piece of a dried fish.'] That o'xrog, in this place, means simply, dried ; that the orrrog lyjvg, of St. Luke, is equivalent to the o-^a^m of St. John ; and that both words are derived from the same ultimate thema with ocrraw, will appear from many considerations. Pollux (lib. i. § 242, and vi. § 77) applies both o-Ttrog and rira^i-xi-oiMivog to express, dried grapes and figs. Though ra^i^og is rendered by the Latin ' salsameatum,' yet the Greek word does not neces- sarily include the action of salt, but both words are applied 254 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIV. to articles dried in the air or sun : o'?rrog rr^og rjXiov, Xen. ; ra^iX^vsi, ^^^ami, Smd. (Steph. TAes. Valpy.) Fish, so cured, is a common article of food not only on the coasts, but in the interior of the eastern countries ; such were the o-^/a^/a which the apostles had with them as they journeyed, and with which our Lord fed the multitudes ; and such, also, the /%^us ovTog of which he now eat. To this use the excess of fishes, miraculously drawn on two several occasions, would have been applied; for which reason, St. John calls them, o-^a§ia (c. xxi. 10), though still alive. The adjective, ovrog, therefore, expresses only the effect of heat, or drying, whether by the action of. the sun, air, or fire ; and, in the present case, it is to be understood in the simple sense of ^ dried;' as forming an article of food ready at hand. The clause, xai airo iMiXiseio-o xri^iou — ' and of a honeycomb J is not found in the Vat., the interpolated Bezce, Alex., or L. MSS. ; that is to say, not in any MS. anterior to the eighth century, and is marked with an asterisk in the Syriac version : it is, therefore, rejected from this Revision, although it is contained in all the printed texts, and is retained even by the latest learned editor, Scholz. But, if it existed not in those early copies, it is reasonable to inquire, how it could come to pass, that so incongruous a concomitant as * a honey- * comb' should have become associated with * dried Jish,' after a lapse of so many ages. The prosecution of this inquiry, appears to bring us to a curious issue. It seems to shew, that the clause originated from a marginal note of some minute glossist, who thought to assign the name of the particular fish which our Lord then eat ; as the same credu- lous times have thought to transmit the name, and kind, of the fish in whose mouth Peter found the tribute-money : only, in the latter case there is schism, some aflBirming it to have been the haddock, and some the dorado or dory} ' " There is also another very remarkable character in the haddock ; a large *' square, or dusky spot, on each side of the body near the head, or a little below *' the first dorsal fin, from whence, in the legends of credulous devotion, it has *' been admitted to be the same fish as St. Peter caught with the tribute-money '' in its mouth. The two spots are considered as the mark of St. Peter's thumb " and finger, which has ever since remained impressed on the sides of the whole " race of haddocks, to perpetuate the circumstance. But it may be added, that " the haddock is not without a rival in the reputed proof of sanctity, the sides " of the dory being even more distinctly marked than those of the haddock." — Rees's Encyclop. (Gadus JEglefinus.) Chap. XXIV. LUKE. 255 Now, a stream that flows into the lake or sea of Tiberias, or Gennesaret, from whence the apostles supplied themselves so frequently and copiously with fish, was noted for pro- ducing a fish of great reputation, namely, the Ko^axivog — * Coracimis ;' this is stated by Josephus.^ This fish received, from its colour and appearance, the epithet of xri^ionhrig — ' wax-like.' So it was described by Epicharmus, cited by Athenseus in the third century, in his enumeration of deli- cate fishes : aXpTjora/ n xo^ayjvoi ri -/.rj^ioiidiig. — p. 308. Ed. Casaub. ' Alphsestse Coracinique cerei.' * The wax-like Coracini, and Alphsestse :' So also the alphcestce, by Apollodorus Atticus, cited by the same writer: a7.(p7,(Srai to [hv oXov Tcrj^osiBug- — 'the alphcestce ' have altogether the appearance of wax.' (p. 281,) The same writer enumerates the 'xora/j.iog xo^axmg — ^ river Cora- * cinus,' among ra raor/jr^ — * dried fish.' (p. 121. The words in the received texts of St. Luke, [LiXiesiou x-ri^iov, seem rather to intend * bees' -wax' than ' honeycomb.' The superstitiously pious curiosity of a middle age appears, therefore, to have indulged itself in endeavouring to ascer- tain the particular fish which our Lord eat on that memorable occasion ; and in determining, that it was the ' Wax-fi^h,' or * Coracinus :' which assumed discovery, noted as a gloss on the margin, but afterward misapprehended, was at length drawn into the text, in the form in which we now find it. But, whatever may have given origin to the clause, it cannot he any longer retained, with any sanction of sound criticism. Ver. 46. in the City.'\ iv rrj 'xoXn : — tj ToXig, denotes the metropolis, by eminence, as ' Urbs' was used by the Romans to denote Borne ; and, as we say * Town,' for ' London.' The latter copies have subjoined, l'/j^ou(Ta?.-/j/i,, ' Jerusalem,' which is not expressed in the most ancient MSS. and versions. ' Fswa ru x.a.rm Trf AXslavSjcwv Xifi-irn x^^aicivu -ra^ecrXTiffiov — "it produces " a fish very similar to the Coracinus of the Alexandrian lake." — Bell. Jud. lib. iii. c. 10. St. J 0 H N. CHAPTER I. Ver. 1. And the Word was God.] " After the most " diligent inquiry," observes Michaelis, " especially by those " who would banish the Divinity of Christ from the articles *' of our religion, not a single various reading has been dis- " covered in the two principal passages, John, i. 1, and Rom. " ix. 5." Bishop Marsh points out, that the Cod. Steph. n (or L) has the article 6 before Geog, in the former passage ; which, however, is a distinction without a difference, as it respects the object of Michaelis's observation. Ver. 5. overcame him, not.] (See Pref. p. 8.) — auroi/ ou xareXajSsv : — The most ancient text reads with the masculine pronoun, as in all the preceding verses ; not avro, as the later copies, with relation to ro )." Here, then, the proposition is, that darkness came not upon — obscured not — overcame not, the light of the Word, as it existed in him : ' overcame,' in the sense of that word as used by Shakspear, " And overcome us, like a summer's cloud." Ver. 8. but he came to bear witness.] We are rather to supply ri>-&iv, from the preceding verse, ' he came,' than ' he * was sent,' from ver. 6. Ver. 13. Who was begotten'] 6g symridyi: — This primitive reading of these words, in the singular number, antecedently Chap. I. JOHN. 257 to tlie date of the most ancient surviving copy (as testified by Irenaeus, TertuUian, Augustin, and other fathers), is so strongly supported by internal evidence, as to establish its genuineness. That St. John, who not only speaks of our Lord's incarnation, as Matthew and Luke, but ascends beyond it to his divine pre-existence, and from thence descends to that incarnation, should have passed over, unnoticed, the intermediate stage of his preternatural generation, which both those evangelists record, would not be credible. TertuUian justly points out {de Came C/iristi, c. 19), That * believers' could not be intended in this place, " cum omnes qui cre- " dunt in nomine Domini, communi lege generis humani, " ex sanguine, et ex voluntate carnis, et ex viri voluntate " nascuntur — since all who believe, are horn of blood, and " of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man." The syntax of the passage also shews, that oi could not follow hsoi, as its relative: baoi is relative to ihioi preceding — oeot {rm ibiuv) ; " it folloios its adjective," observes Matthiae (vol. ii. p. 647), " and is put at the end of the proposition." The pronoun that succeeds, and begins the 13th verse, is therefore relative to the immediate antecedent, aurou, and is, consequently, not o'l, in the plural, but 6;, in the singular. Besides, the read- ing o'l, produces contradiction, for it is not short of contra- diction to say, " He gave those power to become the sons of " God, who have been begotten of God ;" for, he who has been begotten, is necessarily son of him by whom he has been begotten. But St. John clearly intends to say, " he gave " those power to become the sons of God, who believe in " His name, or, in the name o^ Him, Who was begotten" &c. The plural a'liharm, ' of bloods,' a plural peculiar to this apostle (in this place, and in Rev. xviii. 28), is illus- trative and confirmative of the primitive reading, he, ; and shews, that the writer was not speaking of such as were the fruit of an union of two human ' bloods,' or persons, or the result of their disposition and will. The ancient Latin ver- sion of the Cod. Veronensis, as published by Blanchini, thus gives the passage : " Qui non ex sanguine, Neque ex voluntate carnis, Nee ex voluntate viri, Sed ex deo natus est." 258 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. If. Iren., Clem., Tert., Aug., read iysvvr,&T^, in the singular. Ter- tullian ascribes the received plural reading to the artifice of the Valentinians. Wetstein has incautiously reversed the case in his Var. Led., by ascribing the singular iyiwrt^ri to the Valenti- nians. (Compare Schulz's note, which is reprinted by Scholz.) Ver. 16. Grace above grace] viz. First, the grace of ' the * Law :' for, ** what nation is there so great, that hath statutes " and judgments so righteous as all this Law, which I set *' before you this day?" — (Deut. iv. 8.) Secondly, that of " 'the Gospel,' — full of grace and truth — ^to be preached to ''all nations." — %af'S a"^' yj^^'-'^i — 'grace upon or above ' grace,' in an accumulating ratio: — " Est ubi {avrt) melius " reddetur per adjectivum superlativi gradus — avn rravrm — ^' prcB omnibus, i. e. prastantissimus." — (Viger. not. 50, HooGEv. p. 517.) Ver. 28. Bethany beyond Jordan."] i. e. in contradistinc- tion to Bethany near Jerusalem. The received texts have followed an uncritical cavil of Origen, and have substituted ' Bethabara.' This last reading, Matthaei and Scholz judi- ciously reject for the former, which they reinstate in the text, in conformity to the Vat., Ephrem, and the general host of ancient MSS. ; in which restoration they are followed by Bloomfield, but not by Burton. Ver. 41. early in the morning.'] rr^uii rov ah\(p. The old Latin version of the Cod. Vercellensis reads ' mane,^ not primum with the Vulgate ; it therefore read, rr^ui rov, not ir^uTog rov, which words were readily confounded in the undiv. unc. writing. That reading, though not now found in the Gr. MSS., is rendered the most probable, from there being no numerical succession ; and from that which precedes in ver. 39, " he abode with him that day, because it ivas the " ninth hour :" i. e. ' passed the night there.' CHAPTER II. Ver. 1. third day] i.e. after entering Galilee: see the preceding chapter, v. 43. Ver. 8. the chief guest] a^;^/rg/x/./vo£ — the chief of the guests on the upper seat or couch — 'rPo^roxXiffia : not 'governor Chap. III. JOHN. 259 ' of the feast,' for John shews, in ver. 9, 10, that he regarded the ' bridegroom' as ' governoif^' or master of the feast. CHAPTER III. Ver. 10. Art thou a teacher of Israel?] didasxaXog. In verses 2 and 10, the Latin renders this word ' maf/ister,' therefore Wiclif rendered it ' maister' in both places. His revisers corrected the word ' maister' by the Greek in ver. 1, and rendered ' teacher ; ' but they left Wiclif's version in ver. 10, only changing the orthography to ' master of Israel.' Yet, the rendering ' teacher' was peculiarly requisite in the latter case ; not only to avoid misacceptation of the term, but to give to our Lord's argument its proper force, which is, in effect, that of St. Paul, in Rom. ii. 20: 6 ow didagTiuv in^ov, esavTov ou didaffxsig ; — " Thou who teachest another, teachest " thou not thyself?" (See Preface, p. 8.) Ver. 13. the Son of Man.] The later texts have sub- joined, 6 m iv ruj ov^avw — * Who is in heaven.' This clause is unknown to the Vat. MS., also to Cod. L or ri Steph. Ver. 15. that whosoever believeth in him, should have, &c.] The later texts insert, ^ajj a-roX^ra/ aXX' — ' should not 'perish, but' : The Vat. MS. and the Jerusalem- Sgriac have not this clause. Ver. 25. with Jesus.] This verse, in the rec. text, betrays its unsoundness both by its import, and by the variation with which it exists in the different MSS. It is clear from the recital, that the question alluded to, lay between Johns disciples and Jesus, yet the oldest copies read, ' John's dis- * ciples and Jew' — rm fiadrjTuv luawou (lira. lovdaiou. The junior copies and the rec. text have changed loudawu to lovdaiojv — 'Jews;' from whence our revisers, assenting to Wiclif's translation from the Latin Vulgate, which reads, ' cum Judceis,' have given the verse thus : " There arose a question between some o/ John's disciples and ** the Jews, about purifying." Campbell, rather more correct as to the letter of the text, translates thus, with the singular : " John's disciples had a dispute with a Jew, about purification." 260 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III. The words, as they stand in the most ancient texts, Vat. and Alex, (for this portion of the chapter is wanting in the Codd. Bezce or D), are, sx ruv ixia^rirciiv tuv Iwan/ou [lira lovdaiov ; except, that ruv has hecome absorbed in the Alex., as in all the later copies, into the last syllable of fiadrirm, immediately preceding. The received reading is evidently corrupt, and alien to the purport of the context. If we take a connected review of that context, from ver. 22 to ver. 26, it will be manifest, that the evangelist stated only three parties in this transaction, viz. John, the disciples of John, and Jesus : he relates, " that Jesus (or his disciples) baptised in Judaea, *' whilst John was baptising at (Enon : that {ouv — ' therefore') " a question arose from the disciples of the latter to the for- *' mer, respecting baptismal purification ; for the final resolu- " tion of which question, they returned to their own great " teacher." A Jew, or Jews, are, therefore, imaginary in- truders into this narrative ; for, ouv establishes a direct relation between, and consequence from, the two coincidental baptisms. As, therefore, Jesus was the party designed by the evangelist, let us replace the passage in uncial and undivided writing, MeTMOY-^^IOy. if we stopped at MGTXIOY — > we should have the reading, ^sra Ijjcou — ' with Jesus,' which would be the sense the context leads us to expect ; for, \0\ is a compend of insov. It is therefore apparent, that in some early uncial copy, the compend 10^, by the very common inadvertency of repetition, became 10^10^ (see Preface, p. 62, 3) ; and, that the engrosser from that copy, mistaking repetition for abbreviation (lOVlOV)? read, and wrote, IOYA.XIO>/, loudaiou, which is the most ancient surviving reading. Bentley had already conjectured the reading, inaou, from the import of the narrative only ; which sagacious conjecture, both Wetstein and Schulz have noticed among their various readings ; but, Scholz has abstained from noticing it (see note to p. 48). Dr. Bloomfield, who adopts the reading lovdaiou, would understand rmg, before it, to give it the sense of ' a certain Jew,' adding, " the ellipsis *' of rmg is frequent:" it certainly is frequent in a deductive sense, from a number, as (rmg) run ; but I apprehend, not in an individual sense, as in this case; for which reason, the Cod. 34 of Wetstein {Coisl. 195) has altered the words to ■Tfog riva loudaio]/, in order to force that sense. Chap. IV. JOHN. 261 CHAPTER IV. Ver. 3. ohliged to pass through Samaria.] Because " Sa- " maria lay between Judoea and Galilee" — 35 Sa/xa^j/r/g ^^w^a ,u,i07) iMiv rrii lovdaiag zai rr^g TaXiXaiag. — (JoSEPH. B. J. iii. 3.) Ver. 9. springing water.] iiduo i^ojv : which our version ren- ders literally, ' living water,' was a common phrase, signifying only, springing, or continually flowing , water. Ver. 20. not on this mountain onlyJ] To obtain the true sense of this passage, we must take, collectively, the whole paragraph divided into verses 20-23. We shall then per- ceive, that iv T(jj o^si ro-jrw, and £v iioosoXu/juoig, are opposed to iv 'Tvivfji.aTi xai aAr]dsta, and that our Lord's declaration rests on that adversation : ovtb, therefore, is opposed to aXXa in v. 22, under the common ellipsis ou (fjbovov), aXka : v. 21 being in parenthesis. The Samaritan woman thought, that the worship of God was restricted to a local point : our Lord declares to her, that it was not restricted either to Mount Gerizim or to Jerusalem, for that the time was close at hand when that worship would be extended without limitation of place. The direct declaration of our Lord, exclusive of parenthesis, is, i^yjrat u^a, 6ts ovn sv rui o^n rovTuj {/J>ovov), ouTi £v IsooffoXvfJttOig, crgocrxui'jjo'srg rca Uar^i — aXX' 0/ aXrjdivoi 'X^offxvvriTcci Tgoo'xui/jjs'ouo'/ rui Ilar^i sv cri/gu/xar* xa/ aXr^hia : which implies the same sense as that of St. Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 8, rrooarjy^iGdai sv rravri to-ttw, ivaioovTug offiovg ^sioag. I cannot, therefore, view in this passage " a (direct) prediction of the " overthrow hoth of the Jewish and Samaritan holy places," with Dr. Bloomfield, and the authors to whom he refers. Dr. Burton says, in his note : *' The time is coming, when " there icill he no particular place for worshipping God: " or, it may mean literally, that sacrifices would soon cease " to be offered in Judaa or Samaria." This is not a case in which second thoughts are best ; nor does it appear, that the second interpretation is more literal than the first, as our Lord makes no mention of ' sacrifices.' Or, if we are to understand '-Pox syvu xai ov guvTjXiv : also, Isaiah, xli. 20; xliii. 18; Jer. ii. 10. Ver. 52. for Jesus] or/ ; not ' that,' but, ^for or because.' CHAPTER XII. Ver. 1. six days before the Passover] i. e. on the sixth day before the Passover; both inclusive, according to the computation of the sacred writers. As, therefore, the Pass- over took place on Thursday, Burton duly observes, " St. " John meant the preceding Saturday." Ver. 5. three hundred pence.'] di^m^iuv — denariis. Mr. Charles Hatchett, in his very interesting treatise ' On the ' Nardus Indica, or Spikenard of the Ancients''^ (with a separate copy of which he has kindly favoured me while this sheet is in the press), after shewing that that ointment is still prepared in India from the essential oil of a species of grass of the highest fragrancy, " of those grasses called by " Linnaeus Andropogon, but different from any other of that " genus hitherto described in botanical systems, and different ** from any plant usually imported under the name o^ Nardus" observes : ''In the time of Christ, the denarius may be " estimated at not less than l^d. of our money ; a pound, " therefore, of the oil of spikenard, being valued at 300 " denarii, would be worth 9Z. 13s. Qt?. ; a large sum in a " cheap country like Palestine, where Mr. Tillemont and " other writers assert, that a person in those times might " live luxuriously on one denarius per day ; and it therefore " follows, that the two denarii stated in the parable to have * Philosoph. Trans. 1790, p. 292. CuAP. XII. JOHN. 277 " been given by the good Samaritan, being equal to 15|rf. *' of our money, were fully adequate to supply the wounded '' man with all requisite nourishment and comfort for more '* than two days." The word penny, was therefore a very inadequate rendering of denarius. We thus learn also, that the denarius stated as the price of ' day-lahour,' in the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matt, xix, 32), and ren- dered in our version, a penny ; was, in fact, a silver Roman coin, worth seven pence %d. of our present currency. Ver. 7. suffer her to have kept it.~\ a:pig avrriv — ha rriorjgr] : — This is the reading of the Vatican, also of the Beza, and other uncial and jun. MSS. — hex. rrjorjeyj, is equivalent to riT7}S7i-/.ivai — * Sinite illam ut servaverit (not ' servet,' as the Lat.), or, servasse illud' — 'Suffer her, that she shoidd have ' kept, or, to have kept it.' The omission of im in the later and received texts, with the actual reading nrr^ony.iv, appears to point out, that this last word was originally written nrrtorpirv, i. e. rirr,^rrKivai, with curtailment of the last syllable (see Pref. p. 76), and that the alteration was designed to be interpretive of /va rrione-/). The singular a^s; in all the MSS., shews that this was a personal reply to the ' Iscariot ' speci- fied in ver. 4 ; and therefore, that the ai.ii/ji,svog preceding, would alone render am'XiSm the more probable reading. Ver. 32.] The first clause of this verse, in the common text, ' If God be glorified in him,' is not in the Vat. MS., nor other ancient MSS. and versions. It is evidently an inser- tion founded on the following clause, with a mistaken view to logical sequence and perspicuity. CHAPTER XIV. Ver. 2. that I go.] The Vat. and other most ancient MSS. and versions, read on ■roPsvo/j,ai : Campbell admits this ; yet adds, without any explanation, " but the evidence in " favour of the common reading (without on) greatly pre- Chap. XIV. JOHN. 281 " ponderates." If he spoke with reference to number of junior MSS., we have seen, that their mere number gives them no increase of weight. (See Pref. p. 20 and 26.) Ver. 3. and when I go, / will prepare.] %a.t lav lo^eudu, iToifiagu — So the Vat. MS. ; not xa/ iroi/Maffu, as in the junior MSS. and received text. Ver. 4. ye know the way whither I go.'] 6'rov syu hirayu, oihan rriv obov : SO reads the Vat.; so also Codd. L. Q. X. 33. and others ; also the Copt., Eth., Pers., and Latin Vercel. versions. Ver. 11. Believe Me, Sec] i. e. Believe me {on my word) that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ; but, if not, believe me on account of His works (which I do) : ra, i^yu, auTov, according to the manifestly true reading of the Vat. MS. ; and not aura, the works themselves, or, ' the very ' works,' as in our version, and in the received text. Michaelis, who was not aware of the ancient reading, thus adventures : " — John, xiv. 11, 12, should be thus stopped : u h iiri hia ra " i^ya, aura Tiffriusrs, a/x.)]!/ Xsyu v/miv, x. r. X." {Introd. vol. ii. 517) : by this punctuation, the learned German would reduce a lucid passage to a confused and obscure one. Ver. 15. another Comforter — that the Spirit of Truth, &:c.] aXkov 'xa^cc-/.Xr,Tov : — The word 'TragaxXriTog, is only used in this and the two following chapters of St. John ; and the particular office ascribed by our Lord to that Divine agent, in this place, is that of instruction in the Truth. The Latin preserves the Greek word, ' Paracletus,' which Wiclif ren- dered ' Coumfortour ;' and his revisers have left that word in their text. Michaelis, remarking on Ernesti's interpretation of the word, says : " I agree with him in the impropriety of " the common translation, though, instead of ' doctor ' or " ' mar/ister,' I would rather use ' monitor.' " — {Introd. vol. i. p. 188.) But, as the function of ' comforting' is no less ascribed to the Holy Spirit than that of ' instructing ;' as its ' instruction ' is essential * comfort ;' and as cragaxaXsw em- braces both senses, ' to exhort ' and ' to comfort ;' I see no cause for " attempting (with Michaelis) to discover the mean- " ing of Ta^axX?)ros in a classic author," who could not have 282 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVI. known the propriety of its gospel application ; and I think it more advisable, with Erasmus, to retain the sense of ' conso- ' lator — (nam quod hactenus loquutus est, consolandi gratia ' loquutus est)' — which sense we express by the term ' Com- '' forter ;' a term, derived indeed from a word of base Latinity, * conforto,' but signifying, to confirm, encourage, and console, which are the proper functions of the Divine Paraclete. Ver. 28. because I go to the Father.'] In this clause, the received text intrudes s/ttoi/ — '/ said,' a second time; which is in no ancient copy, and is rejected by Scholz. CHAPTER XV. Ver. 26. Who proceedeth from the Father] i. e. in essen- tial being; (wherefore, Athanasius designates the Father, ri iTTiyri r'/jg r^iadog — ' the fountain or source of the Trinity,' Annot. to Heb. i. 3) ; but, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, in effusion on the church : — " Whom I will send " to you from the Father." And in ch. xx. 22, " He breathed " on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." Thus easily, is the dissention respecting the ' procession of the Holy * Spirit' reconciled. CHAPTER XVI. Ver. 1 . that your faith should not be shaken.] ha (j.r\ (Sx-avdaXigdriTs — ' that ye should not be made to stumble or fail ' in faith.' We have here a signal proof of the perversion of sense in our English rendering, "■ that ye should not be " offended;" which word signifies, \n English language, "that " ye should not be displeased, or angered :" than which ren- dering, nothing could be exhibited more contrary to the true meaning, or more adverse to common reason. (See Pref. part i. pp. 13, 14.) Ver. 8-11.] The three great points on which the pro- mised Divine Teacher was to enlighten the world, compre- hended, in tripartite division, the whole " mystery of the Chap. XVII. JOHN. 283 " Gospel;' namely, 1st, The doctrine of Sin: 2dly, The doc- trine of Justification from that sin : 3dly, The doctrine of Condemnation for that sin. This is intelligible, because it summarily and clearly recapitulates all that our Lord had taught during his preceding, but now closing, ministry. But, I doubt if any such relation can be clearly apprehended by the mind in the three words used in our common version ; " Sin, righteousness, judgment." These are Wiclif's words (modernised), " synne, rightwijsnesse, doom," for the Latin, *' peccato, jusfitia, judicio." Ver. 9. of sin, because they believe not on me.] " Ex- " ceptis aliis peccatis quae possent remitti per fidem, hoc " unum peccatum nominavit, quod si non admitteretur, om- " nia relaxarentur." — (Augustin, tom. iv. p. 1233.) Ver. 16, 17.] These two verses have suffered vitiation, from an endeavour to adapt them to a previous misconcep- tion. In the 17th verse, the auditors are perplexed by two expressions of our Lord : 1st, that which he had just used, " a little while," &c. : 2dly, that which he had used a short time before (ver. 10), " because I go to my Father." Some critic or copyist, of a later age, has deemed it necessary, for illustration, to repeat the last clause, in ver. 16, as it stands in the received text, and in our version ; but the Vatican, and other ancient texts and versions, have it not here, only in ver. 10. Ver. 27. that I came out from the Father.] -ra^a rou Tar^og, is the reading of the most ancient MSS. and versions : T. T. ©sou — 'from God,' is a substitution of the Const, and rec. texts, and is retained by Scholz. CHAPTER XVIL Ver. 3.] Michaelis has here well observed, that this passage " should be stopped in the following manner : ha " yivoK^y.oiSi cs, rov (movov aXri&ivov ©sov, %ai, ov a'Xidru'kag Irisovv, " x^igTov — That they may know Thee {nmt — ^ to be') the " only true God ; and Jesus, whom thou hast sent, {umi — 284 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVIII. " Ho he) the Anointed." (Vol. ii. p. 517): simi being mani- festly understood, in both clauses : as in 1 John, iv. 3, and the passages there noted. Ver. 4. hy accomplishing'] nXitaeag is the reading of all the most ancient MSS. and versions, except the Cod. D, or Bezos, which has substituted inXnuga ; which alteration has been adopted by the Const. MSS., and lastly, by Scholz, Ver. 11. Thy name which thou, &c.] sc rw owfian aou, u diduxag /j.oi (not ovg iduxag — 'whom thou hast given'). The powerful testimonies in proof of the former reading, have constrained Scholz to reject the received reading, and to substitute oJ for oCg. Ver. 24. Father, who gavest.'] Uan^, i hhuxag, not ovg Muytag. Scholz has here fallen back to the received reading, though the ancient reading, 6, equally claimed his preference, as in ver. 11. CHAPTER XVIII. Ver. 20. whither the Jews are always resorting.] 'xavron ; not vavrokv, as in the received text, which Scholz duly rejects for the former ; though he has omitted to notice, in his citation of authorities, the first and oldest, the Vatican MS., which also reads 'xavron ; and which is, therefore, his best authority. Ver. 28. might eat the Passover.'] fayuai to YiaayjL: — Josephus says, ^ rm a^y/Awv sogrjj, 551/ (pa.(S%a \%yo(x,i\) — " the '■^ feast of the days of unleavened bread, which we call " Phaska," i. e. Pascha, or Passover. " On the 14th day " of the first month, at evening, is the Lord's Passover. And " on the 15th day of the same month is the feast of unlea- " vened bread: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. " In the first day, ye shall have an holy convocation ; " in the seventh day is an holy convocation" (Lev. xxiii. 5-7). The feast of unleavened bread was, therefore, the day that followed the sacrifice of the paschal lamb ; but, we Chap. XVIII. JOHN. 285 learn from Josephus, that the name o{ Pascha, or Passover, was extended to the feast-day. The anxiety of the Jewish chiefs to be in a condition to ' eat the Passover' did not regard the ' lamb and bitter herbs,' which had been eaten the preceding evening ; but, the more alluring festival of the ^' great day" which was to commence on that same evening. Euthymius (with other expounders of the middle ages), not aware of this distinction, and assuming that it was the Paschal Lamb which those chiefs were desirous to eat, in- ferred, that the sacrifice of the Lamb was still in their prospect ; and on this misapprehension founded the false speculation, that our Lord had anticipated that sacrifice by one day, and that his supper had taken place on the Wednesday evening, instead of the Thursday evening ; thus making their own erroneous interpretation of St. John a rule by which they perverted the correct relations of the other evangelists. (See Annot. to Luke, xxii. 7.) Ver. 31. We are not allowed to put any one to death.] Dean Prideaux states {Connexion, kc, vol. ii. p. 511. fol.), That when Cyrenius, or Quirinius, was sent by Augustus to reduce Syria to a Roman province, accompanied by Coponius, as procurator of Judsea, " the power of life and death was taken " out of the hands of the Jews, and placed wholly in the " Poman procurator, and his subordinate officers;" and he refers to Josephus's Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 1, and his Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 12. In the first of these passages, Josephus states, that Coponius was, riyrtcoiMzyog r-zj stti 'xasiv sgoutr/a — ' to ' govern with power over all things ;' but, in the second passage, he defines that power ; /^s;^*/ -/-Titvuv XajSuv cra^a rcu KaiGuPog i^ovdiav — ' receiving from Casar a power extending ' to death ;" and his successor in the procuratorship, Pontius Pilate, asserted the transmission of the same power to him- self, when he said, '' Have not L power to crucify thee, and ^^ power to release thee?" This testimony, overlooked by so many learned commentators, fully explains the inhibition alleged by the Jews to Pilate. (See the notes of Campbell and Bloonifield on this place.) The death of Stephen, which was a tumultuous massacre, does not affect this question. 286 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIX. CHAPTER XIX. Ver. 13 and 25. the sixth hour.'] See Annot. to Mark, xvii. 25. Ver. 30. tasted \he vinegar. 1 o^og — ^vinegar': — In Matt, xxvij. 34, the Vat., Beza, and other ancient MSS. and ver- sions, read omv : this variation was omitted to be noticed in that place. Vinegar, in wine countries, as its name imports, is no other than wine become acetous, or sour : whence Plu- tarch, Symp. 3, says, " ro o^og, oivo-o nvog sgri (pveig %ai dvva/i.igj' — £Aa/3£ ro o^og : So read all the texts ; the Latin and English render — '' accepisset acetum — had received the vinegar." St. Matthew, xxvii. 34, says, ysuga/xsvog, ovx, rjkXs msiv — " When he had tasted it, he would not drink it." Wetstein, imagining that this difference might be made a ground for charoing; contradiction on these two statements, observes, " When offered by the Gentiles, he would not drink it : when " offered by a Jew, being thirsty, he drank it." However well intended by Wetstein, the Gospel needed not this aid. Whether sXajSs is here a genuine reading, or an alteration of sXaTs, from XacT-w, which Hesychius explains both by amXa(3uv, ' to receive,' and by -rnvnv rp yXurrri, ' to drink with the tongue,' it means exactly the same as ysuaafievog — 'tasted,' in Matthew. Ver. 34. for one of the soldiers pierced his side.] This sentence refers immediately to ws nbov rid/j aurov redr/ixora- — • " when they saw that he was already dead," in the preceding verse, and explains the fact ; " for, a soldier pierced his " side, &c. ; and he who saw it, hath borne testimony" — /x^i/j^a^Tv^yjxs. Not, leriv 6 fia^ru^uv — ' now bears witness,' as when the writer is testifying for the first time, as in c. xxi. 24 ; but, as in c. i. 34, where the Baptist says, fj^sfia^rv^rjxa,. Both those testimonies Matthew recorded in his early Gospel ; the first testimony, in his c. iii. 16 ; the last testimony, in his c. xxvii. 50, where Chrysostom read it in his own copy, and where we still read it in the two most ancient copies that have survived for our instruction in the truth. (See Annot. to Matt, xxvii. 50.) Dr. Bloomfield subjoins the following note to this verse : " The epitaph of this soldier (if genuine), " said to be found in the church of St. Mary, at Lyons, is as Chap. XIX. JOHN. 287 " follows : ' Qui Salvatoris latus Cruce Cuspide jixit, Lon- ' GiNus hie jacet.' — ' Here lies Longinus, who pierced the * Saviours side on the Cross, with a spear.' " As the learned annotator has thus summarily adverted to this legendary tale, it is right that the reader should be briefly put in possession of the whole of it, as it has been collected by Moreri, from Tillemont and other ecclesiastical writers, in his ^ Dictionary/,' under the head, ^ St. Longin — (S^. Lon- ginus.) This St. Longinus is twofold ; " some saying, that ** he was the soldier that pierced our Lord's side with a *' spear ; and some, that he was the centurion who commanded " the guard at the cross. The legends report both these " persons to have been converted to the Christian faith; to " have suffered martyrdom ; and to have been canonised." Moreri, however, though an ecclesiastic of the Romish church, was constrained to add, " The acts of both Longinuses are " manifestly false ; and the circumstances they allege, mutualhj " refute each other." It would appear, that the name Longi- nus has been formed from the Greek 'koy/ri, spear : (" longinus " being the Latin form of 'Koyyjihag — spear-man)." Thus, St. Longinus is found to be a similar saint to the Sancta Veronica, reported by Brydone. " The Greeks," continues Moreri, " celebrate the martyrdom of Longinus, the centurion, " on the 16th of October, the Latins on the 15th of March, " and the Copts on the first of November. The martyrdom of " Longinus, the soldier, is not acknowledged by the Greeks ; " but the Latins commemorate it on different days ; some " on the loth of March, some on the first of September, " others on the 22d of November, or 11th of December." We thus see, how little this offspring of credulity and super- stition merits the attention of the readers of the Gospel. Ver. 37. they shall look on him whom they pierced.^ This prophecy is pointed to the Jewish nation, under the maxim of justice, " Qui facit per alium, facit per se." As it was said to David (2 Sam. xii. 9), " Thou hast slain Uriah " the Hittite, with the sword of the children of Ammon," so will it be said to the Jews, " Ye slew the Christ by the spear " of the Gentiles." So St. Peter said to that people, Acts, V. 30, " Whom ye slew,'' though in Acts, x. 39, he said, *' Whom they slew." The three Greek interpreters, Aquila, 288 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXI. Theodotion, and Symmachus, rendered this passage (cited from Zechariah, xii. 10) according to the Hebrew text, -ipn, it,iy<.ivrriG(iv — 'pierced;' though the Septuagint have rendered it xaru^x^savTo — 'insulted,' as from npi, ' saltant; revealing, in the old Hebrew copies, various readings of n and n. Ver. 42. Mere] i%u: — comp. aurou, Matt, xxvii. 59.^ CHAPTER XX. Ver. 25 and 27, and pw^ it to my side.] /SaXs ug rrjv 'xXsv^av : — j3aXs has undeniably the same signification here, as the first iSaXoj in v. 25, where our revisers have properly retained Wiclif's version, ' putte ;" yet, in this place they have rejected that rendering, and have substituted the very improper term, ' thrust.' This, they probably thought an energetic version of Erasmus's * immitte,' which he substituted for the simple ' mitte' of the Vulgate. Though Wiclif translated " putte," not ' thrust,' yet he added " into :" thus, an inveterate mis- interpretation of zig, which merely signifies 'ad — to,' in this place, has governed Erasmus, Wiclif, and Wiclif's revisers. CHAPTER XXI. Ver. 16. Tend my sheep.] The Greek varies the verbs — /Sotfxs, To//ia/i/£, fSoffxs. The Vulgate has ' pasce' in all the three places, and accordingly, Wiclif renders all three by '' fede,' which his revisers have retained. Ver. 23. went forth to the brethren.'] Erasmus has a very futile criticism on this passage: " How did \i go forth to the " brethren (he asks), if it was spoken among the brethren?" ' (Omitted, at Matt, xxvii. 64. iest His disciples come and steal Mm away.\ Our version adds, ' by night' from the very modern insertion, vuxtos. The spuriousness of this reading is so manifest, that Scholz has rejected it, with this DOte : " vvxro; rec, cum plerisque fam. Const. Codd., et Aug. : sed omittunt, " ABCDEHKLV. 1. 22. 33. 71- 102. 106. 123. 124. 125. 131. 142. 15?. 172. " 235. 238. 240. 258. 435., alii permulti. Evangel, 1. 6. 32. 44. 50., alii: Edd. " Copt. Syr. p. Arr. Goth. Vulg. Sax. item Chrys. Damasc. Orig. non attingunt " Euthym. Theophyl.") Chap. XXI. JOHN. 289 It was not spoken among the brethren, but among the select disciples mentioned in ver. 2 : from whom it went forth to the ' brethren,' or general community of believers. Ver, 25, or last verse of the received text] : for this pass- age, see Preface, p. 65. Dr. Bloomfield closes his note on this verse with the following strong assertion : " Upon the " whole, there is not the slightest reason for supposing, that the " verse came from any other than the evangelist; who seems to " have intended it as a supplement to what was said at c. xx. " 30." A supplement to c. xx. 30, placed at the end ofc. xxi., must appear an odd arrangement to any mind not previously biassed to admit it. It is extremely irksome to be called upon to resist any positive assertion, and still more so, when it is that of a learned scholar to whom we are much indebted ; yet, truth must not be surrendered to compliment : and, as the right of assertion is not restricted to the first assertor, I must venture, with respect, to oppose to the learned critic, the counter-assertion, that there is full and adequate reason for persuasion, that the verse was not written by the evange- list. It has no relation, either to the doctrine or narrative of his history. It has no relation to what immediately pre- cedes. It has this only relation to c. xx. 30, that the latter evidently suggested the hyperbolical amplification which it contains. That St. John, after concluding his general record of our Lord's actions and proceedings in the words, iroXka /aev oxiv xai aX?va (Srnma B'xoiriaiv 6 Iriaovg — a ovx sen 'ys'y^a/j,/j,iva, &C., should presently and abruptly repeat, ign h xai aXXa, mXXa a io-oirigsv 6 Ijjtfoyg, &c., is not SO probable, as that some pious philoponist should have resumed those words, in order to introduce an amplification of the evangelist's former state- ment ; which, ancient tradition intimates to have been the fact : and we have had sufficient examples, of similar ampli- fications, to confirm the credit of the tradition. Some eminently learned conniientators (Grotius and Le Clerc) would condemn, as apocryphal, the whole of the last two chapters of this Gospel ; but, it is this last verse only that directly betrays its spuriousness, by an hyjjerbole irreferrible to the mind of the evangelist. " Ilic Augustinus (says " Erasmus) oSensus hyperbola, ' capere' nou ad spatium loci " refert, sed ad animum : — nihil tale Chrysostomus et u 290 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXI. " Cyrillus; ingenue fatentur hyperholen esse." The verse is, therefore, to be considered as of the same quality with the last twehe verses subjoined to St. Mark's Gospel. The following is Birch's note to this verse : " Ad hunc versum, in margine Codd. Vat. 358. 756. 757. 758. 1229 ; Cod. Zelada ; Laur. vi. 18. 34 ; Ven. 27 ; Vind. Kol. 4. invenitur Scholion : aXkm hi 'Tr^oed/ix.Tiv eivai tovto (padiv, nOsr/iorog fisv avro rivog tuv (piXoitovuv s^uhv sv cragsv^jjxjj, sig 'xa^acrasiv Tov TXiiova sivai tuv yiyqafLihivWy ra. vto tou Kv^iou yeysvij/Mva, Sa-j/j^aera' Ttarayivrog de egudiv, ayvoict tv^ov tov -Tr^uTou y^atpsug, v'TTo Tivog TUV <7raXaiuv f/,iv, oux ax,^il3uv ds, xai /xsgog Trig tou suayysXwv y§a, p. 59, and (Ji^iTUxridsv for fMiruxiffsv, p. 61. I must refer the reader to a paper on ' An insititious Latin ' term in the Hellenistic Greek,' in the first volume of the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, for a more extended discussion of this subject than can be admitted here ; the object of which paper is to shew, that Xaxsw is not used in this place as a native Greek word, but as the Greek form of the adopted Latin term, ' laqueo,' as (ppaysXXou is the Greek form of the adopted Latin, ' Jiagello :' the Latin q, and qu, being represented in the Greek by the x, as Quiri- nius, KL/g?ji//og, Aquila, AxuXag. The latter of those verbs is an arag Xsyo/xsvov in the N.T., in Matt, xxvii. 26 ; for, though Mark has it also in his Gospel, in c. xvii. 15, it is only a repetition of the words of Matthew, in the former place. So also, p^aysXXiov, xoudroodia, (TTsxouXarwg, and several other terms adopted from the Latin, are a7ra| Xiyo/Miva in the evan- gelical writings. That the term, Xaxsw, for * laqueo,' should have occurred once only, is, therefore, no objection against it. The Greeks, to whom the word iXaxriffi was strange, sought its meaning in their obsolete verb, Xaxu — ' crejw,' from which they retained sXsxsi/ in common use ; and the Latins accepted the interpretation of the Greeks. But, in its native sense from ' laqueo,' the word signifies, ' laqueavit se or laqueatus ' est,' as pr«cipiiai signifies, ' jjrcecipitatur, or prcecipitat se :' ' It is observable, that there is uo various reading of iXuKfiiri in the MSS. from the date of the Vatican, till the 13th century, when it is found changed to ikccKitTi in Cod. 44. Wetsteiu, or 38. Scholz. 294 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. II. correspondent to the description of Seneca, the tragedian, in his Hippolytus, 1086, " PrcEceps in orafusus, implicuit cadens Laqueo tenaci corpus ; et quanto magis Pugnat, sequaces hoc nodes hgat." — ' medius — in the midst,' i. e. ' inter trahem et terram — ' between the beam and the ground.' What follows : ' all his bowels gushed out' — s^S'^udri Tavra ra (C^Xayy^va avrov, was a consequence of the mode, and not any part of the cause, of the death. Wetstein cites an example of the rupture of the belly from a fall ; ^ such an effect was likely to be produced by the action and reaction of the fall, in a frame which tradition reports to have been " so burthened with fiesh as " to be unable to walk about — T^Tjcdsig sm toboutov ti^v j Atf/a xai oixovijj^vri a^srai. The Alex, also reads, iLiXKu, and [liyaXsioTTirog, but adds, avrrig rjv rj ; which words, or, at least, the pron. rjv, appear to have been omitted inadvertently by the writer of the Vat. copy. Ver. 37. robbers of temples.'} 'n^osuXoug : Vulg. ' sacri- ' legos ;' Wiclif, ' sacrilegeris.' But, as our revisers, in c. xii. 4, rendered '^rattxc' by * Easter,' instead of * Passover,' CHAr. XX. ACTS. 315 though it regarded the Jewish festival ; so they have here rendered h^o — 'churches,' instead of' temples,' although the word related wholly to heathen edifices. Ver. 39.] The Vat. and some other MSS. read, m^ain^u, not TJg/ hrsguv. CHAPTER XX. Ver. 1. sent for, and having exhorted and embraced.] The Vat. MS. reads /israo-s/i-vpa/Asi'os, where the rec. text reads 'TT^odKaXseafMSVog ; and adds Tca^cDtcikifSag before ad'Ttaeafiivog. Ver. 13. hy land.'] See Annot. to Matt. xiv. 13. Ver. 15. in the evening.'] rp 8s sSTs^cf, Vat. MS., not Inga. Ver. 24.] The Vatican, Ephrem, Beza, and Alex. MSS. read this verse as I have given it : aXk' ouBsvog Xoyou voiovi^at 771V -^uyjiv TifMiav e/j^avruj, ug nXsiC/Jdoj rov d^ofjbov /JjOV, xoci tyiv dia- xoviav, &c. : whatever is more than this in the received text, must be considered as " Italic insertion." Ver. 28. purchased with the blood of his own Son.] The Vat., and all the most ancient MSS., the Coptic ver- sion, and Irenaeus, read, dia rou a'l/u^aTog tov i8iov — * with ' the blood of his own — ;' not as the later copies have changed the order, dia rov ihov aiiiarog — ' with his own ' blood.' As it is St. Paul that is speaking, we can have no difficulty in supplying the noun emphatically implied by ro\) idiov. In his Epistle to the Romans (c. viii. 32), he says : 6g yi Tou iBiov v'lou oux i(piisaTo, aXk' bin^ rifiuv <7ravTCtJV va^sduxsv avTov — ' He who spared not his own Son, but delivered him ' up for us all:' that is, purchased or acquired us by the blood of his own So7i ; and so here, in his address to the Ephesian disciples. In the uncial writing, the common reading would thus appear, TOV'^'OV • it is probable, that it originally stood TOY'-^IOYY'OYj ^^ in Rom. viii. 32, of the Alex. MS. ; and, that the redundance of con- secutive vowels being mistaken for inadvertent repetition, the sentence was curtailed of I XIO Y» and that word sub- sequently transposed before a/>aTo?. Mattha^i has retained 316 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXL the received reading, rov iSiov oci/u,., but Scholz has duly restored the most ancient, rov a'lfi. rou idiov. Let us ever keep in mind the words, and, in practice, the principle, of the learned La Croze, in exercising Scriptural criticism : " Certe quod ad " me attinet, pertinax sum fidei Nicsenae et orthodoxae ; at " illi tuendse, absit ntfraudes unquam adhibeam.^ — I firmly " adhere, indeed, to the JVicene and orthodox faith ; but, God ^'forbid that I should ever employ fraud in its defence T Ver. 30. from among yourselves, &c.] See Annot. to Matt, xxiv. 5, p. 169. CHAPTER XXI. Ver. 8. the next day loe departed and came'] tjj di i'xav^m z^sXdovng 7}Xdo/Miv : — So read all the ancient MSS. and ver- sions. So, also, the texts of Matthaei and Scholz. Later copyists, after s^sXdovrsg, inserted o'l 'jti^i rov UaxjXov ; which words our revisers adopted from the modern MSS. which came first to their knowledge, and have rendered, ' we that were of PauVs company:' Wiclif rendered simply, from the Vulgate, ' ice gheden forth and camen to Cesarie' Ver. 15. We loaded our goods.'] s'^iff-Aiuagafuvoi — ' put our ' goods upon;' sc. the vehicle that was to convey them, whe- ther carriage or cattle. " sierjrai to, svigKSvafffMZva, riv TO, vm-o^uyia, 0/01/ iGr^uixariGixiva,." — JuL. PoLLUX, lib. X. S. 14. s-Tnffxsvaffoi,- /xsvoi being the reading of the Vat. MS. and best ancient authorities, we need not implicate our thoughts in '* debate " on the received reading, aToffxiv.," which has arisen solely from the variations of later copyists. Dr. Bloomfield asks, " Why amffx,. should not mean to jJack up baggage, as the " same verb signifies, exonerare alvum?" I apprehend the reason to be, because to pack up signifies ' onerare,' sTriex. ; and is, therefore, the reverse of exonerare, aToax.. When Polybius says (note BL), aTo tt^s %w^a5 a-rstrx., he evidently means, removing baggage from a place ; which implies, that it had been previously BTriax,., laden for removal. Matthsei reads iirisx., Scholz a'Koen. • Marsh's note 240 to Michaelis's Introd. vol. ii. p. 765. Chap. XXIII. ACTS. 317 Ver. 25.] In this verse, the later copies have inserted, with a view to elucidation, the clause {fin^sv roiouruv rn^siv aurou;, si /Mr]), which clause is unknown to the Vat. and Alex. MSS., and to the earliest versions; and is a needless philo- ponism. CHAPTER XXII. Ver. 9. heard not the speech.'] This is the meaning of (pmnv "kakouvrog ; for, the simple (puvnv, which denotes only the sound of a voice, they did hear : see c. ix. 7. Ver. 14. foreordained.] T^osy^si^igaro : not merely ' chosen ' thee,' but * hath before laid Ms hand on thee.' (See above, c. iii. 20.) To this pre-election St. Paul appeals (Rom. ix. 3). See c. xxvi. 16, 17. Ver. 16. his name.] ovo/x,a aurov. — So the Vat. and anc. MSS. and versions ; not rou Kv^iov, which is one of the Const. supplements. CHAPTER XXIII. Ver. 9. but what, if a spirit or angel hath spoken to him ?] This is one of those emphatic interrogations which preclude reply. (See Pref, pp. 35, 47.) Accordingly, in the Vat., Ephr., Alex., and some other MSS. ; in the Copt., Ethiop., both the Syriac, and the Vulg. versions, the interrogation stands as it is here given in the English. But, the handlers of the text in a subsequent age have added, //-?j '^iofiay^ufnv, which our version adopts, and renders, ' let us not fight ' against God.' Wiclif renders, from the Latin, simply, * What if a Spirit, either an aungel spak to hym ? ' Dr. Bloomfield calls the above testimonies * very slender.' It is to be presumed, that he again speaks with relation to number of testimonies ; but we have ascertained, that the number of modern copies multiplies evidence scarcely more than the number of impressions of a printed book ; and, that a thou- sand copies, transcribed from each other, since the tenth century, may be outweighed by one written in the ffth. (Pref. p. 26.) 318 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIV. Ver. 24. horses.'] xrr^vrj : the Vulgate renders ^ jumenta,' whence Wiclif, ' an hors.' As the Greek word idiomatically intends 'horses' in this place, the precision of our revisers, in substituting ' beasts,' is misapplied. CHAPTER XXIV. Ver. 1. Some of the elders.] /xsra -Tr^selSuTs^uv tivuv : — So read the Codd. Vat., Alex., St. Germ., and Vat. 367 ; not /jt-gra Tuv -TT^ifflS., as the rec. text. Ver. 6, 7, 8, of the received or common text, from xat xara to g-r/ ffe in the Greek, and from ' and would ' to ' unto * thee' in the English, inclusive, are unknown to the most ancient or Vat. MS., to the Ephr., Alex., and other authori- tative MSS. ; to the Coptic, and the Latin versions. A more thoroughly convicted interpolation occurs not in the whole volume; and it is surprising to observe, how much greater anxiety appears to prevail, to screen and protect a received text, though demonstrated to be vicious, than to recover the purity of that which is genuine. The whole passage is retained by Scholz. Ver. 14. a resurrection both of the just, &c.] The later copies have here inserted vix^Mv — ' of the dead;' an amplifi- cation unknown to the most ancient MSS., and altogether superfluous. Ver. 22. that he should be kept in custody.] The rec. text here reads XlauXoi/, not avrov. Dr. Bloomfield observes, on this passage, '* I must not omit to state, that instead of " rov UauXov, ten MSS., and some inferior versions, have avrov, " which was preferred by Mill and Bengel, and has been " edited by Griesbach, Tittman, and Vatable ; but rashly." Now, as we have continual examples, in the later MSS., of a proper name being introduced in place of a pronoun, for perspicuity, but rarely in the most ancient ; if some copies read with the pronoun, and others with the proper name, there is prima facie evidence that the former is the older reading. (See above, p. 34.) But let us examine the present, Chap. XXIV. ACTS. 319 as a critical case, with some attention. The ten MSS. ad- verted to, comprehend the Vatican, Ephrem, Alexandrian, E or St. Germans, and the Vat. 367, " quem optimis adnu- " merare non dubito," says Birch. The versions, here called " inferior," comprehend the Latin, the Coptic, with the old Syriac, unquestionably the most ancient versions. With this determining mass of evidence for a\jrov, there appears more o^ rashness in rejecting it, than in joining with Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, and even Scholz, in embracing it. We have here an apt exemplification, of the insufficiency of mere ' number^ for establishing critical evidence. lb. to minister to him.'\ v'rrjpsriiv axjrw'. — the amplifica- tion, ri 'XDoGi^yjsQai, ' or come,' is unknown to the Vat., and other most ancient MSS. and versions. Ver. 24, 25.] These verses, also, have experienced the officiousness of philoponists. The oldest copies, Vat. and Ephrem, and also the Alex., read the latter verse, without sgscdai, which is an Italic insertion of the junior copyists. These have also separated 6/aXsyo^svou from awroD which precedes, and have joined it to avro-o which follows. Whereas, it is plain that we are to read, n^ouffsv avrou Tsg/ rrig ug Xg/croi/ IrjUow VKSnug hiaXiyoiiivo-o, aS in C. xiv. 9, riMXJi tod UauXov XaXouvTog. This error has caused a further displacement of the sequel, and aurov hi to have been inverted. The construction of the passage, duly restored, will be thus : nno^siv aurov (UccvXov) diaXiyofiivov m^i rrig "riffrsug ug X. I., -ffsg/ ds dixaioevvrig avrou (X^ierov), x.ai lyz^aniag, %at %gtiJjarog rov [liKkovtog. Kai s/i(po(3og 'ysvo/j,ivog 6 4>. — *' They heard Paul discoursing of faith towards " Christ, and of i7is justification, dominion, and future judg- " ment. And Felix becoming terrified:" our version reads, ' Felix trembled;' not as a translation of i/Mipo[3og of the Greek, but of * tremef actus' of the Latin, which Wiclif had rendered, * was maad tremblynge.' The context shews, that Paul's discourse was engaged in the articles of the Christian faith, and in urging Christ's justification, his supreme power, and his future tribunal : these were the points of doctrine that alarmed Felix. Of the numerous significations assigned to syxsars/a, those of ' ditio, jioicntia, superioritas,' are the most suitable to this place. 320 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXVI. CHAPTER XXV. Ver. 6. not more than eight or ten days.'] So reads the Vat. MS. : and as the Codd. Ephrem and Alex, concur in the same reading, and as the phrase is common in all lan- guages, I cannot yield to Dr. Bloomfield's criticism on the passage ; but am of opinion, that o%tu has lapsed from the Const, texts, in the progress of transcription. Ver. 16. to give uj) any man.'] The junior MSS. add, ng avokiiav, which our version renders, ' to die.' This addition is unknown to the senior MSS. CHAPTER XXVI. Ver. 8. Why is it deemed incredible with you, &c. ?] n wffierov x^ivsrai Tag' v/miv : — " What outrageous madness (ex- " claimed the elder Pliny) to suppose, that life can be "renewed after death! — Qucp, malum! ista dementia est, " iterari vitam morte? (L. vii. c. 56. Ed. Hardouin.)" So also thought Festus ; but, St. Paul throws the impetuous rea- soner back on his own resources : ' Why should it be deemed ' incredible ?' To this calm question, calm reason can offer no adequate reply. Ver. 28. Art thou persuaded, &c. ?] The fate of this verse has been very remarkable. " On the exact sense of sv oX/yoj " — yivi66ai," says Dr. Bloomfield, " commentators are not " agreed." This disagreement is not surprising; for, until the two most ancient authorities, the 'Vatican and Alex. MSS., had been known and collated, no means were within the reach of learned critics to rectify this passage. The Ephrem and Beza MSS. are defective of this part of the chapter, so that the two former are the earliest surviving authorities. The common reading of the Greek is this : bv oXiyw /is 'Trsidsig Xpgnavov ysvsffdai : those two most ancient texts read, with the active infinitive, iroiviGat, instead of the passive infinitive, yivs(S&ai. To obtain the sense of the clause, with this material difference, we must replace the reading of the Vat. copy in the former undivided state of the uncial writing : e. g. eNOxircjDMeTTeieeicxpicTixNONTTOiHCxi. Chap. XXVII. ACTS. 321 The clause, so replaced, will thus resolve itself into its com- ponent words: — bv oX/yw fie Tsidsi a (ffg) X^iSriavov 'Tioir^dai '. — * Art thou persuaded, thou wilt soon make me a Christian?' — St. Paul had pressed Agrippa closely, in ver. 27 (and, as Dr. Bloomlield aptly says, " more than he liked''), by saying, " I am persuaded that none of these things are unknown to " the king — ' King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? / * know, &c.' " To which Agrippa hastily rejoined ; " Art thou " persuaded," &c.? and immediately broke up the assembly. — TTGIGGIC, mistaken for TuQug, is to be read, 'tthQu (Te; as XOKGIC, in Matt. xxvi. 53, has produced the two dif- ferent readings, bo^ng and hoxn coi. The Alex. MS. reads 'Tsidji, without ff (or gs), yet with 'xoirjgai ; but, the import is the same in both MSS. : -rsidu being either the Attic form of midp, or £ written in place of tj. (Matth. Gr. Gr. \ 197.) Thus, a reference to the most ancient authorities would have corrected the erroneous and improbable rendering of our common version ; which, though a favourite text amongst us, expresses a sentiment that Agrippa, if he had entertained it, would not have ventured to avow before such an auditory. lb. soon.'\ sv oktyw'. — iv 'TToXXtfj, vel oXiyuj xi^^V — " ^^ beau- " coup, en peu de temps" — (Viger. p. 544.) CHAPTER XXVII. Ver. 2. to the ports.] ug rovg rornvg : — The Vat. and Alex. MSS. read, rrXstv ng, which last word has lapsed from the later copies : so that we are not to understand, to ' coast or ' sail hy,' but, to ' sail to,' which renders * ports ' the true meaning of TO'^rovg ; as ' Sidon,' in the next verse. Dr. Bloom- field says, " to improve the reading, others supplied ng, or " scr/;" but, as s/g is the reading of the oldest MS. (the Cod. Vat.), and also of the valuable Cod. Vat. 367 (see above, p. 50, note), there is no critical ground for assuming, that any earlier copies had not ng; and, consequently, none for assuming, that ng has been ' siq)plied.' Comp. 'zXsiv ug to'xov, Rev. xviii. 18. Ver. 9. the Nesteia, or Fast.] ttiv i^^riimiav. — See the * Conclusion, p. 505.' 322 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXVII. Ver. 14. Euraquilo.'] Of the two readings, su^azuXwv and i^oxKvhuv, the former has the testimony of the highest an- tiquity. Bishop Marsh, with Shaw, and all his other learned predecessors, thought it peculiar to the Alex. MS. ;^ but, it is the reading also of the far more ancient Vatican MS., and is witnessed also by Jsrom, and ihe. first or Latin translation. The difficulties experienced by commentators in endeavour- ing to settle the reading of this word, has been owing to a pre-assumption, that it is to be interpreted from the Greek ; and, if any one should attempt to explain emnovXaru^, /g/, or for a^yr,^ does not appear, as he has subjoined no observa- tion on the word. If it be the latter, it is very pertinent, and is probably the true reading. The passage could not have meant, that St. Paul * exhorted them/ro??« a time not specified * imtil dmjlight, to do that which they did as soon as they ' saw him do the same:' they did not need such long and protracted exhortation. lb. four days this day.'] That the passengers should have ' taken nothing ior fourteen days,' is a proposition well calcu- lated to rouse examination ; for, as no miraculous sustenta- tion of their lives is intimated, such abstinence could not consist with life, in the established order of nature. But, if we re-examine the text, we shall detect in it evidence of defect ; it reads, nasa^itSTiaibixarriv ernj^i^ov Tifj^s^av. Now, though ffJ5/x£^ov is used without an article when it stands alone, yet, when 71/jbiPa is joined with it, the article always accompanies ri/Msoa. Hence we perceive, that the final rrjv of naea^isxaihixarriv, is no other than the proper article of rijj^i^av (r^jv o-jj/xs^oi/ rnu^av), and, consequently, that the whole word is a compound of undivided uncial writing ; as in Gal. ii. 1 . It should, there- fore, be divided, and read, thus : rstrtfa^ag, xa/ h %ai rr,v ari/M^ov ij/Mioav — 'four days, even this very day.' To i-dst four days, is within the course of nature, and of experience ; to fast four- teen days, is out of the course of both. It was on the fourteenth 7iiyht., from their putting last to sea, that this incident occurred ; which 'fourteen days' embrace the ' many days' mentioned in ver. 20. The four days of fasting, were the term of ' lo7iy ' abstinence' mentioned in ver. 21 ; which are thus found to have been the last four days of those fourteen days. It was, therefore, in the forenoon of the fifteenth day, that the pas- sengers escaped to land. Ver. 34. shall not perish.] The most ancient MSS. and versions read aToXnTai, not msurai. So, in his Gospel, c. xxi. 18, St. Luke uses acroXjjra/ in the same sense. Ver. 37. And all we in the ship were about severity souls.] riiiiOa hi a) rtacai -^uyai iv rui rrXoiM us: — This is the order and reading of the Vat., Ephrem, and Alex. MSS., 326 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXVII. excepting that the Ephrem has 7jij.(v, not »j^2^a. The Vat. adds ijSdofirjKovra s^ ; but the two latter, htaMdia sjSdo/Mi^xovTa sf, as in the received texts. This difference, in the reading of the most ancient MS., calls for close attention and investiga- tion, in order to ascertain, whether the numbers in the ship were 276, or 76. Birch, not considering the paramount value of his own MS., and assuming Stephens text for the standard, thus reasons: "This is the only MS. that omits bianoeiai; which " omission, I conceive, arose from this, that our MS. (Cod. " Vat.) was transcribed from a more ancient copy, in which, " according to the more ancient practice, the numbers were " expressed by ' sigla' — signs or letters ; and, as the sign of " 200 was C, and that of 70 was O, the C might have been " omitted through the similarity of the two letters." But as the Vat. MS. is more ancient than any other now existing, it is best entitled to be regarded as the standard; and, by assuming it for such, we shall trace a more direct and pro- bable cause for the insertion of C, than Birch has supposed for its omission. The uncial writing of the Vat. MS. is, COCeBA.OMHIj, uini) iisum prsestat conjecturalem — cum per " loquendi compendium veriis numeriis iion exprimitur, sed vero proximus, pic- " riimque minor: commode itaque redditur/erc." — Hoog. de Pari. p. 512. CiiAP. XXVIII. ACTS. 3:27 appears rather to have been the compound preposition of the following verb, -/.ooigOsvrsg. In compound, £x adds the sense of completeness ; and though the verb xooiu, which signifies both ' satio' and ^ verro' in the simple, when compounded with IX, is only found in the pure Greek writers to signify ' everro,' it is, nevertheless, probable that it was here used by an Hellenistic writer to express ' expleti ;' and eg is found written in the MSS. for sx, before a consonant, in verbs compounded with that preposition. Ver. 38. they cast out the corn.'] To preserve the im- portant cargo of provision which they were bringing to the metropolis, they had, in the first instance, thrown overboard the luggage, or baggage, embarked in the ship : they next threw out the c-/.iv7i rou rry-oio-j, the ship's furniture and stores, of which Pollux gives a list (lib. x. § 133), under the head, vavTiTia axsvYj. In the last extremity, they were compelled to sacrifice the corn itself, and to cast it into the sea, that the vessel might be kept floating. Ver. 40. where the sea was divided.'] to-tov biQaXaeaov : so called, says the Scholiast on Dion. Perieg. lib. 156, sx rrig oLiTiag ra-jTric, rov %iic&ai sv^a %ai iv&a : not, " where two seas met" by confluence, but where the sea was divided by a projection of land. CHAPTER XXVIII. Ver. 2. The natives.] o'l jSaejSa^oi, means nothing more than ' the foreigners ;' but, as it is not a little contradictory, and equally presumptuous, to call a people ' foreigners ' on their own soil, the proper English rendering in this place is, ' natives ;' not ' barbarians.' Ver. 16.] The clause of this verse, contained in the com- mon text, but excluded from this revision, exists not in the most ancient MSS. and versions. Ver. 29, of the common text, is unknown to the most ancient MSS. and versions, and is, therefore, rejected from this revision. R 0 M A N S< CHAPTER I. Ver. 1. Separated for the Gospel of God.] a](r/i/ fjurixsTi kafM^avofisvoV »J, TO U'TTriXXor^iufisvov Qsov bia xax/ai/ — the term, ava^s/z-a, ' is ' applied to that which is set apart and separated to God, ' and no longer employed in common uses ; or, that which is * alienated from God, through evil.' The same is expressed by Chrysostom. St. Paul's repeated declarations, of his selection and separation hy God, for the conversion of Jews and Gentiles (Annot. to c. i. 1), might well have determined the interpretation of amk[j.a,, in this passage, to the first signification ; it was, however, early determined, in an un- critical age, to the last signification, which has been trans- mitted, without reconsideration, through all the following ages; perplexing the expositors of each age, in its succes- sion, down to the present day. To endeavour to sustain the inveterate interpretation, learned commentators have been constrained to force a signification (conformable to their respective impressions) on the imperfect indicative, ri\)-xo[j.riv, and to insist, that it is to be here understood in the optative sense, jL»ga//ij)f, or iu-xoifjunv av : a necessity, into which they were driven, by retaining the original misaccept- ation of amds/jba. The ' grief and heaviness of heart,' which St. Paul declares, in the preceding verse, arose from the Chap. IX. ROMANS. 339 disappointment he experienced from bis Jewish brethren, to whom he first addressed his discourses. For, says he, " I boasted that I was set apart by the Christ, for the sake ** of my brethren ; my kinsmen according to the flesh." And he draws this conclusion from the failure of his labours to convert them : " it cannot be that the word of God has ^'■failed of effect ; therefore it follows, that all who are " Israelites in the flesh, are not Israelites in the spirit of " the Gospel." — ri\j-)(pijjr\v signifies, ' I boasted' — svyoij^ai, in the sense of ' to boast or glory,' appears to have been regarded by the lexicographers as disused among the Greek writers since the time of Homer, for they draw all their examples of that sense from his poems. Yet Eustathius, in the 12tli century, said generally, ro sv^aedai, itoWaxic, avrt rou xavy^ri- ffaffdai XsysTcci (tom. iii. p. 1602) — " ev^affdai is often used for " x.a\}-)^n(sa6&ai, to boast, or vaunt ;" and Justin Martyr, in his second ^Apology,' c. xiii., uses iv-xof/jai in that sense — Xg/ffT/ai/og sv^sdrjvai xai sup^o/Ascog %ai Tay«,/Aa;(/W5 ayuvi^oiJjivog ofioXoyu — " I " confess, that I am proud, and strive with all my might, to " be a Christian."^ Such a sentiment well suited him who declared, " I magnify my oflice" (c. xi. 13). It is certain, that many Greek terms were retained in the provinces of Asia Minor, after they had fallen into disuse in European Greece. The Vat., and most ancient MSS. and authorities, read the clause in this order : avcx,6s/j!,a sivai aurog iju ; the rec. text, avrog syct) avahficc Bivai. — aTo is here used in the sense of ucro, which is, indeed, the reading of the Clermont (D2), and two other uncial MSS. (See Viger, de Ideot. c. ix. § 1, p. 521, aTo pro v-tto.) The late learned Dr. Burton is the only commentator I have met with, who has dis- cerned the true import of this inveterately misapprehended passage. " XvadsiJ^a, (he observes) is a thing set apart, and " generally in a bad sense ; that is, devoted to destruction : " but it has not necessarily that sense : avaki^a a-ro rmg, is, " * set apart by any one.' St. Paul had been set apart and *' consecrated by Christ to his service ; and he had prayed, " that this devotion of himself might be for the good of his " countrymen." — {Note to Rom. ix. 3.) ' " Me profiteer, laudi ducere, ac dimicatione omni contendere, ut Chris. " tianus rjperiar." — Lat. Tr. ed. Paris. 1742, 340 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IX. Ver. 10. Rebecca, the stranger.'] Macknight and Bloom- field have abstained from taking much notice of the extra- ordinary reading, sf hog, in the rec. texts ; which reading, neA^ertheless, engaged a large share of the attention of their predecessors in exposition. Their abstinence cannot have pro- ceeded from the reading having acquired sufficient elucida- tion ; since it remains as equivocal, as it has always stood to the minds of all former commentators. The silence of these two recent annotators, therefore, leaves it for inference, that the entire elucidation is still wanting, in their judgment. The proposition, that Rebecca had conceived hy one man, and that man, our father Isaac, contains so singular a predicate, that it could not have failed to raise conviction of some defect in the text, had it not been for the traditional inertia of interpretation, above mentioned. Dr. Bloomfield indeed observes, that " it is well remarked by Mr. Slade, that the " apostle may be supposed to adduce this case merely from *' its being yet stronger than the other : in the case of Isaac " and Ishmael, there were two mothers ; but Rebecca had " only one husband, and her children were twins;" but, as in all cases where a woman has twins, they are naturally pre- sumed to be from one husband, I cannot suppose the apostle chargeable with so sterile an intention. Erasmus has a note on the words, sf hog, which shews, by its elaboration, that the reading is entitled critically to particular attention ; and, by its length, that he could not reach a satisfactory con- clusion. We are, therefore, obliged to revert to an uncial and undivided text ; and to dismiss the arbitrary division of the printed copies. In the Alex. MS. it stands thus : feseKKxexeNOC. The frequent interchange of £ and »;, in Gr. MS. copies, is observed by all authors who have had occasion to treat of Gr. hand-writing. Thus, in Canter (p. 51), we find n^uv and i^siv confounded. The internal evidence of the context shews, that this error has occurred here; and that we are to divide, and read, i] t,ivog, instead of sg ivog. Having first given an example in the person of Sarah, the wife of him, whose descendants only were not accounted ' strangers,' St. Paul proceeds to add another example, in one who, by that rule, was accounted a '' stranger to the Covenant'' (Eph. ii. 10), Chap. IX. ROMANS. 341 though carnally allied to Abraham : for, the Covenant was limited to ' Abrahams seed,' or, those who descended from Abraham, and was not extended collaterally to his Jthidred ly nature. That Rebecca stood in that relation, is plainly shewn in the person of Ruth ; who being a Moabitess, and therefore equally of kin to Abraham, but espoused by a Hebrew, thus expressed her surprise at the condescension of the union (c. ii. 10) : ** Why have I found grace in thine ** eyes, that thou shouldst take knowledge of me ? seeing / ** am a stranger" — xa/ iyu sifii ^ivn (LXX). But the people and elders, to encourage her, exclaimed, " The Lord make " this woman like Rachel and Leah" (c. iv. 11) ; thus, class- ing those two with Ruth, as ^smi, or, as a substantive noun, ^ivoi. Now, Rebecca stood precisely in the same relative position as Rachel, Leah, and Ruth, as will be seen in the following table ; and the apostle therefore calls her, in this passage, Ps/Sgxxa ti ^ivog — * Rebecca, the stranger.' Teiah Nahor Haran I I Bethuel Lot "~i Isaac = Rebecca Laban 1st daughter 2d daughter I r-^-n I I Jacob ===== Leah = Rachel Moab Aramon I Ruth From the first error, which introduced the preposition s^ into the sentence, resulted the error of supposing icaax rou Tar^og niMm to be governed by it ; (e. g. aXXa zai Ps/Ssxxa e^ hog xoiTTjv s^ovga, IsarxTC rou vareog rj/iuv) ; and, therefore, the further error of causing a forced sense to be ascribed to Mirnv, which word means simply a ' bed,' as in Heb. xiii. 4, though it has been strained to endeavour to make it yield the sense of ' semen.' Whereas, the order of construction is, a>.Xa xai Ps/Ssjcxa rj ^si/og, lyoxjGa x,oirrjv Iffaax roit 'xar^og Tj^auv — " Nay, and also Rebecca, the stranger, who shared the bed *' of our father Isaac." Michaelis's coarse error, in assigning to Koirri the sense of ' semeii' (vol. i. p. 127), is exposed by his translator (in his note, p. 397), who shews, that where that sense is designed to be expressed, the Sept. render, xonn c'm^- 342 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IX. fj^rxrog; proving, that ytoirri does not comprise that sense: — iyjiv xoirriv, is simply equis^alent to the Latin * inire or sociare * cuhile :' where Gesner observes, *' inire cubile alterius, " honesta periphrasis concubitus" (v. Cubile). The Latin of the Vulgate should, therefore, be corrected, " Non solum " autem ilia, sed et advena Rebecca, quae inivit cubile Isaac " patris nostri, dicenda est:'' — Pj/Ssxxa is thus not a ' nomi- * nativus absolutus,' but * ellipticus,' sc. of |?3«a i)(rou : — Thus the verse stands, and is concluded, in the Vat. MSS. A supplementary clause has been officiously added, which betrays its spuriousness by the different forms it has assumed in different copies : viz. xai gumvwxavaufji^ai ifiiv CHAPTER XVI. Ver. 5. first-fruit of Asia.] The most ancient MSS. and versions concur in reading ' Asia,' not ' Achaia ' (as it stands in our version and in all the modern texts) ; which former authorities are plenary for determining the reading, as there can be no appeal to an anterior testimony. The name 'Asia,' in the mouth of St. Paul, did not intend, according to our modern practice, the quarter of the earth so called, but * Asia Minor,' commonly denominated ' Asia,' in the age of St. Paul. Inattention to this distinction, led the later philo- ponists to alter the word ; because, Damascus and Antioch being in Asia, in the larger sense, St. Paul could not have meant to say, that Epainetus was his first convert, in that acceptation : but, St. Paul here speaks of the first success of his ministry, when he journeyed with Barnabas into the pro- vince of Asia. Micbaelis's " premises," from which he would conclude " that hyjxiac, is the genuine reading, and Ac/ag " spurious," are wholly established on an erroneous prepos- session in his own mind. {Introd. vol. i. p. 314, 15.) Bloom- field, though he has retained hya-iai in his edition, in defer- ence to the received text, shews, by just criticism, that Ac/as would be the proper reading. Scholz has therefore adopted Aff/ae, though Matthsei retained A;^a/ag. Ver. 23. I myself, and Tertius who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.] St. Paul signifies, in 2 Thess. iii. 17, that he concluded " all his epistles with his own hand;" and it is plain, that he concludes them in his own person, AffTa^o/xa; 'jiMcig iyu in this place, therefore, bespeaks St. Paul for its author ; since, in no instance, does any one but him- self speak in the first person, in his epistles. How, then, are we to interpret, Ti^noc 6 y^a^^ag rr^v iTigroXriv 1 Canter 350 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVI. observes (Pref. p. 57), " voces unius syllabae non raro vel " desiderantur, vel vacant ; ac primum, xa/ et oux desunt " scepissime" It is very evident, therefore, that xa/ has lapsed from the text in this place, and that we should read the verse thus : aaica^aihai u/iag lyoi, %ai Ti^riog 6 yga-v}/«$ tjjv ivigroXriv. Dr. Bloomfield justly observes, that " iv Kug;w ** should be joined with ag-Tra^of/jai." It is probable, that syu %ai Ts^Tiog 6 y^a-^ocg, had been misapprehended to signify, • /, even Tertius ; and when only one person was supposed to be intended, the present reading, iyu Ti^nog, was likely to result: as, syu f/,sv UavXog, in Gal. v. 2 — * even /, Paul;' iyu IlauXos, Eph. iii. 1 — ' /, Paul.' Ver. 24. Erastus, the treasurer of the city.] oixovofiog: — The Latin version renders this word * arcarius,' from ' area — * a money chest.' Wiclif had rendered the Latin word, ' treserer^ i. e. treasurer, which is perhaps the aptest inter- pretation. Erasmus has substituted * qucestor cerarius,' for the Vulg. * arcarius.' Why our revisers should have ex- changed Wiclif's ' treasurer,' for ' chamberlain,' which is an incongruous rendering, and why Macknight should have retained that term, I am unable to conjecture. I. CORINTHIANS. CHAPTER I. Ver. 2. To the sanctified.^ The Vat. and three other uncial MSS., read thus : rr\ sxxXjjff/a tom 0. riyiaS/nsvoig sv X^igrtfj Irjffou, TYj ouSTj sv Ko^ivdov. Thc ordcr of construction is, riyiafffisvoig ev X. I. (iv) Tp sxxX-nffia rou 0. Tfi ouffp sv K., shewing that riyiaa/Livoig is simply correspondent in signification to ayioig in the intro- ductory addresses of the following epistles. It is here em- ployed, because it is immediately followed by ayioig. lb. both theirs and ours.'] Hug {Introd. vol. ii. p. 372) creates an unnecessary perplexity of the words avTuv xai Tifiuv, by referring them to rovu), and interpreting them, 'where I am,' and ' where they are;' but they plainly pertain to K. I. x^igTov I after saying, Ku^iov ri/Muv, he corrects himself, and adds, avruv xai ritiuv. (Compare Eph. vi. 9, and Annot.) Ver. 13. But I am of Christ.] We have here another instance of traditional inertia; and yet Chrysostom, in the fifth century, had given it an impulse sufficient to propel it, by thus expounding the passage ; the purport of which is lost, by following the vulgar punctuation and interpretation. The apostle's general argument is this : " Ye take Christ, as '* it were, in parts ; /take him in the whole." Ver. 28. our Wisdom.] The Vat. MS. alone, reads go(pia Tifim (Birch and Bentley) ; the next MSS. in antiquity, tsoipia TiiMiv ; the succeeding copies, niiiv ffotpia., which is the reading of the rec. text. CHAPTER n. Ver. 10. hath revealed to us the mystery.] i. e. of the wisdom mentioned in ver. 7, before the parenthesis ; not ' them — a riToifMuciv — the things which God hath prepared,' 352 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IV. mentioned in ver. 9, within the parenthesis. " It hath not " yet been manifested what we shall be (says St. John) ; but ** we know, that when He shall be manifested, we shall be *' like Him:" such also is the case, generally, of the "good " things which God hath prepared." That which has been " revealed" is " the mysterious wisdom of the Gospel, which " had been hidden from ages and from generations, but is " now made manifest." (Col. i. 26.) CHAPTER HI. Ver. 4. walking as menJ] The Vat. and the six next most ancient MSS., besides versions and fathers, concur in reading avd^ooToi in this place ; which the juniors have exchanged for a repetition o{ aa^Kixoi — ' carnal,' from the preceding verse; Scholz, nevertheless, retains the latter reading. Ver. 10. a skilful architect.'] See Annot. to Matt. xi. 20, p. 142. Ver. 11. that Jesus is Christ.] Compare Matt. xvi. 12, and Acts, ii. 36 ; v. 43 ; and ix. 22. In the first of those references, we have the example which apprises us of the ellipsis, with which, in the latter texts, we are to understand the words, iTiaoug x^iffrog, and Irisow x^iffrov : namely, (6r<) iTjcoue (etfr/) xg/cros, Or, Irjffovv {umi) x^iffrov — " that the human " person, Jesus, is the Christ, or Divine Messiah. (Comp. 1 John, V. 1.) CHAPTER IV. Ver. 2. stewards — be ^ouud faithful.] St. Paul here lays down the position, that all who are appointed " ministers of " Christ," are appointed " steivards (and only stewards) of " the mysteries of God ;" and he appeals to the sense of all mankind in proof, that it is " required, in every steward, " that he be £ound faithful." Hence, he solemnly inculcates on Timothy, to " keep secure that deposit which was com- " mitted to his trust, against the oppositions of what is *' falsely called knowledge." (1 Tim. vi. 20.) Here, then, is Chap. IV. I. CORINTHIANS. 353 a limitation prescribed to the exercise of the steward's office, the exact observance of which limitation, constitutes fidelity. To exceed that limitation, is to depart from fidelity in the same degree and proportion. In the exercise of that defined office, the steward of Christ is to act with universal love or charity ; but, he may not act with arbitrary or discretional liberality, because, no one may be liberal of the property of another, only of his own, and, more especially, if it is con- fided to his trust. The steward of God's mysteries, therefore, is to resist their adversary ; " not to account him an enemy, " but to admonish him as a brother" (2 Thess. iii. 15): at the same time, he is to beware, that in exercising that charity, he does not outstep its bound, and trespass into a liberality irreconcilable with fidelity. When prompted to exceed the bound, it behoves him to question himself rigidly, after the example of St. Paul : " Do I now seek to please " men? for, if I still (sought) to please men, I should not be " a servant of Christ." (Gal. i. 9.) Liberality in a steward, says, " Thou owest my lord an hundred; take back thy bond, and write fifty." (Luke, xvi. 6.) Ver. 4. though I am conscious in myself of nothing.] oy^si/ ya^ e/i-auri^ euvoida. — Vulg., ' nihil enim 7nihi conscius ' sum.' Wiclif, ' I am nothing overtrowynge {conscious, Gloss.) ' to myself Erasmus preserves the reading of the Vulgate, and subjoins in a note: " An Latine dicatur, nihil sum con- " scius, quemadmodum dicitur, non sum id nescius, non satis " apud me liquet. Graece verbum est, nihil mihi conscio. " Sic et Horatius, " Nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa.' " St. Paul's meaning, clearly conveyed in the Latin (and also in Wiclif 's translation, by substituting ' conscious ' for his ' overtrowynge'), is altogether lost in the alteration of Wiclif 's revisers, * / knoio nothing by myself.' The apostle's argument is, ' though my conscience accuses me not, I am not therefore ' justified before God ; for, it is God only that can pronounce ' my justification.' Burton, and Bloomfield, have sufficiently exposed the true interpretation in their notes ; but, the benefit of their exposition does not reach the reader only of the English. 354 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VII. Ver. 12. of the world.] rou xoc/iou : — Vulg., ' hujus mundi:' Wiclif, * this world:' — not, ' the earth,' as in our revised version ; for which reading there is no MS. authority. CHAPTER V. Ver. 8. Therefore let us keep the feast] namely, because TO 'Kas'/a. ri[Muv ervd^, x^tdrog — " Christ, our Passover, is slain" Keeping the feast of the Passover (as we have seen) was not eating the Passover ; the feast-day followed the day of the slaughter of the Passover, though it bore its name. (See Annot. to John, xviii. 28.) CHAPTER VI. Ver. 22. Glorify God in your body.] The Vat. and all the most ancient MSS. close the paragraph with this clause. The later copies have sought improvement, by adding the concluding clause of the common text, " and of your spirits, " which are God's." That the reading should have been " strenuously defended by Matthaei" (as Bloomfield observes), was a matter in course; since he was a strenuous defender of the Constant, texts : Scholz, however, has perceived the necessity of excluding it. Dr. Bloomfield further observes, " that the clause might have been added to correspond to " verses 16, 17, 19;" and we see, that such was the fact. Though, assuredly, God is to be glorified in our spirits, yet, in this place, the apostle is exclusively inculcating the sanctity of the body. CHAPTER VII. Ver. 3. her due.] ofuXriV. — So read all the most ancient MSS. The modern Vulgate also, and the old Latin version in TertuUian, render ' dehitum;' whence Wiclif renders ' dette.' o) aXridsia, firi -Tritkedai — ' that ye should not obey the truth,' drawn from c. v. 7. lb. \s fore-written, crucified.'] ar o'l bi e^ e^idiiag X^iffrov xarayyeX- XovCiv, o-j^ ccyvug, oiOfMsvoi ^Xi-\\^iv syn^nv roig dsgfMoig [mov. Dr. Bloomfield's zealous defence of the received order of reading, cannot avail against the preceding positive testimony of antiquity. The Greek church, during the middle ages, is a sorry authority to oppose to it. Ver. 21. For to me, to live is good ; but to die, is gain.'] ilMoi yc-^f TO ^riv, ^^rjffrov' x.ui to WTrodaviiv, xi^dog : — That the Chap. I. PHILIPPIANS. 391 apostle thus wrote, is morally demonstrable by the soundest critical evidence, external and internal. St. Paul distinctly states, and compares, the respective consequences of his livhuj, and of his dying ; representing the latter, as more beneficial to himself. The Aralsic version printed in Walton's Pohjglott (tom. V. p. 787), thus expresses this verse, according to its Latin translator : " Nam honum est apud me vivere, et lucrum " mihi est mori." Whence came the sense of ' honum^ in the Arabic, but from a reading ^^jj^rov ? We witness a similar confusion in 1 Pet. ii. 3, where the word y^^ri<5Tog is perverted to %|/(rro5, in numerous MSS., ancient writers, and early printed editions. That yjriSTov expresses the only sense accordant with the object in the apostle's mind, is manifest from the context. Wetstein had, therefore, inserted (p^o^jo-roi/, Beaulacre) as conjectural, amongst his various readings ; and Griesbach, in his edit, of 1806, also inserted it, thus: " y^riGTov. Ar.pol.Gregor. M. dial, his Lat. et Gr." Matthaei, in his 2d edit, (of the following year, 1807), thus observes in his note (p. 333) : " In his locis omnibus est etiam yoisrog, non " %f»)(^rov, versu 21 ; quomodo Griesbachio in mentem venire *' potuerit, ut y^n<^Tov ad interiorem marginem eveherat, ecjui- "■ dem non video" This remark supports Michaelis in his judgment, " that Matthaei was at least an age behind the *' rest of Germany, in the knowledge of sacred criticism." For, we have, 1st. The testimony of an ancient translation, which Michaelis pronounced to be " an immediate version *' from a Greek text;" and Marsh, " either from a Greek " text or a Coptic version {Introd. vol. ii. p. 88 and 602), " which gives the sense of p/^jjaroi/." 2dly. We have the internal testimony of the fitness of that sense. 3dly. We have positive proof that %g)3 is the uniform reading of all that is most ancient, of MS. or version, so that Scholz has yielded to it ; and I must express my surprise, that Dr. Bloomfield should think these testimonies are to be overruled by the fiction of a '' recension" (see Pref. p. 39). He says, that " the external " evidence is weak" that is, scanty in comparative numbers ; but, its antiquity renders it a hundred-fold stronger in au- thority, than all the later MSS. put together. The learned editor further adds : " With respect to the internal evi- " dence, it is decidedly in favour of ya^iv, as being the most " difficult reading : that it may have the sense of joy, is " proved," &:c. This criticism is not very readily admissible. The vrord in question, is required to have the sense of 'joy,' as being congenial to that of ' consolation,' with which it is coupled ; accordingly, every most ancient authority reads Xf^io^v — 'joy :' the later MSS., only, read %aff/v. But, instead of judging that x"-S'^ must therefore have been an erratum for %afai^ (as we find in other instances), the learned annota- tor thinks, that because it is the ' most difficidt' word of the two to interpret ' joy,' it must therefore be the true reading ; which is stretching that critical principle much too far. With every sentiment of respect, my judgment is compelled to the reverse conclusion. Ver. 9. Paul an ambassador, though now, a prisoner, of J. C] In Eph. vi. "20, St. Paul says, ^^sc/Ssuw iv aXueu — " I am " an ambassador in bonds." In this place, the text reads — rr^sff^urrii, vuvi di dse/jjiog I. X. That, in these two passages, St. Paul intended the same description of himself and of his PHILE3I0N. 419 position, but that the parallel has been inipah*ed by the absence or lapse of an s before the v, by which Tgsir/Ssi/rjjs — * ambassador,' has been written 'r^igjSurrjg — * old man,' must, on reflection, be manifest, from internal evidence, to every critical mind. To resist that evidence on the sole ground, that an s is deficient, would be to pay a deference to tran- scriptural authority, which no one at all conversant with the errors of ancient MSS. could assent to. Besides, u is very frequently written in the MSS. for su : thus, iuxapsrrimv is written uyjx^icrnsav in the Cod. Alex., in Rom. i. 21, on which Woide observes, " manifestum est /' et u esse compendia " in scribendi, et u et su pronunciata fuisse." {Prcef. p. vi.) And it is well known, that superscribed dots and lines have often either been omitted, or become effaced. Further ; there is no contrast between T^ic^-orrig — * old man,' and hsiuog — * j)fisoner,' for it is not extraordinary, that an * old man' should be a ^prisoner.' But, that an ' ambassador' of Christ should be also his ' jjrisoner,' was a fact of contrast worthy of the emphasis with which it is stated. The reading, it^id- (SiVTYtg, is further confirmed by the rroXXrjv sv X. -rrag^risiav iyjMv smraSGitv — fiaXXov cragaxaXw — 'Though I might have much * boldness in Christ to enjoin — T rather beseech.' That bold- ness was derived from his being an ' accredited ambassador ' of Christ — rrgsalBiuTrig ; not merely from being an old man by nature — r^gff^urjj;, if such he was. Ver. 11-16.] The verses 12, 13, 14, 15, appear to form one of St. Paul's long parentheses, so that the force of ^a^a- XalSov — 'receive him,' in v. 11, extends to ovxin w? dovXov — * no longer as a servant,' in v. 16 ; leaving Philemon to carry on and supply the sense o^ rra^afSaXov ouv — ' receive him, then,' before o-jxin. Ta^, in v. 15, denotes interrogation:^ '^ si/llo- " gistico sive ratiocinativo sensu" (Hoogev. de Part. p. 89) ; and artiyjji appears to retain its sense of -xog^w iyja, as in Matt. vi. 2; (see Annotation). Tap/a iyj^^tc;^r\ tt^os moav, is thus opposed to amvm ai-sy/jc ; and the sense will be, " for, " did he hastily leave thee for a moment, that thou shouldst " reject him for ever?" In other words, " art thou to reject, " or, wilt thou reject him for ever, because he hastily left " thee for a moment?" ' " Particula ya^., inteirogatioiii seivit, ut npud Latinos particulas nam et '■' enim," — Viger, p. 451. HEBREWS. CHAPTER I. Ver. 1, 2.] In these two opening verses of his epistle, the sacred writer states historically, what our Lord had stated figuratively, in his jjarahle of the vineyard ; Matt. xxi. 26 ; Luke, XX. 10 : " God, who at various times spake " The householder sent his seruara/s ; formerly hy His prophets, at the end again he sent other servants: last of of those days spake by His Son, whom all, he sent his Son — the heir." He hath appointed heir." et' zcyaroM tuv rjiMi^uv tovtojv : — This reading of the Vat. MS, is so well supported, that Scholz has adopted it : rouruv — * those,' plainly refers to the days of the projjhets. Ver. 3. effulgence of His glory.] affauyac/xa rrig dot,rig aurov : — By this plenary figure, we are instructed (according to the measure of the human capacity) of the intimate and essen- tial relation of the Son to the Father. He is the effulgence, emanation, or generation, from the Father's glory ; and, therefore, of the same nature, suhstance, and duration. As that glory is eternal, so must its effulgence have been eternal also. Eternal effulgence, is therefore a necessary conse- quence, in our reason, of the eternity of the glory ; since, the glory could at no instant have existed without its effulgence. There is, therefore, no mystery to the human intellect, in eternal effulgence from eternal glory ; the only mystery to our intelligence, is eternal continuance of glory, without a beginning : this mystery admitted in the mind, the eternity of effulgence follows of course. So also, the Holy Spirit is figured to us, by a correspond- ing analogy, as the breath of God ; and this figure our Lord practically exemplified when, after having declared, " as the " Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to Chap. I. HEBREWS. 421 " have life in himself," He " breathed on his disciples, and " said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit!" But, if the life of God is eternal, always continuing icithout a beginning, so also is the figurative breath of that life ; and the eternal effusion, or procession of that breath, follows, of course, to the human reason. It is not acuteness, but obtuseness of apprehension, to imagine, that eternal effulgence, and eternal effusion, are mysterious propositions, merely because they must be deno- minated, in human speech, effects or consequences: for, they are the rational inferences from the premises, viz. eternal continuance of their cause, without a beginning : they are, eternal results from that eternal cause ; and they can only be denied with reason, even in argument, by those who deny that eternal continuance. To admit the eternal continuance of the cause, and to hesitate to admit the coeternity of its operation, is not to demonstrate a superiority, but to betray an inferiority of intellect. Let those whose minds are too dull to admit the former, deny the latter : but, let not those whose intellect can admit the former, stagger at the latter. The great and only mystery, is that which the Unitarian has to encounter in common with the Trinitarian ; if he can admit the eternal continuance of the Father, the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit (whom the church expresses by the term ' Trinity,' or ' the Three) present to the mind no ground for resistance excusable in the sight of God ; because, to deny them, is (to speak with the apostle) " to make God a liar, by not " believing the testimony which He hath given concerning " his Son." Now, these existences and operations have nothing in common with created nature; but were eternally antecedent to it, within the Divine Nature itself. (See INlatt. xxviii. 19, p. 185 ; John, xv. 26, p. 282 ; and Annotations.) lb. making all things manifest by the word of his power.] (pavsouv Ti TO, cravra rw ^rifjbccri rrjg dwa/MSug avrov : — faviooiv, is the reading o^ the most ancient surviving copy, the Vat. MS., by the joint testimony of Birch and Bentley ; and possesses, therefore, critical authority over all its juniors, which read f sawf. It thus shews the latter reading to have been, originally, a conipend (isjwv) of the former. To this external evidence, is to be joined, the internal evidence of the sense. The phrase, 422 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. I. o^ipn, in this place, implies the nature of the subject. By searching in the imagination, the object is lost; for, Macknight's interpretation, " by no " means doth he take hold of angels" is felt, by the reason, to be a relinquishment of its jurisdiction, for that of the imagination. ' Remains, &c. vol. i. p. 241. Chap. VI. HEBREWS. 425 CHAPTER III. Ver. 1. Christ, the Apostle, &c.] The Vat. MS. reads Xoierov only, without irtsoDv : the £j)hrem, Alex., and Clermont, read iriffow only, without Xpistov ; the later MSS. read Irjgouv XPierov, and Xpkttov lr,(To-jv. It is more probable that the apostle, in this place, would have used our Lord's official designation (as we find it in the reading of the most ancient MS.), than his personal. Ver. 6. if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of our hope.] All the MSS., except the Vatican, here add, [j'iy^pi TiXo-jg [SitSaiav — ' Jirm to the end,' taken from ver, 14 following. It is remarkable, that Wetstein found this clause wanting only in the Ethiop. version, and in Lucifer, where the omission was approved by Mill. Since Wetstein's time. Birch has discovered to us, that the Vat. MS. has not the clause in this verse ; (" /vts%*' nXo-og (3si3aiav, omittit Vat. 1209") : Bentlefy has overlooked the omission, in his col- lation. CHAPTER V. Ver. 9. according to the rule of Melchisedec] ra^ig MeX. is explained in c. vii. 15, by o/Moiorns MsX. — likeness of Melch. The vi'ord order, in English, applied to priesthood, is become too technical to convey the true meaning of the original ; since it goes to imply, a community into which our Lord was admitted. Whereas, the prophecy intended to signify, that our Lord should be invested with a priesthood, by a ' similar rule ' to that by which Melchisedec had been in- vested, namely, by a 'personal and individual ordinance;' not derived by transmission from any predecessor, nor to be transferred to any successor ; as was the case in the priest- hood of tlie Law. CHAPTER VL Ver. 2. doctrine of baptisms.'] It will not be out of place, to introduce here an obscrvaliun omitted at Juhn, xiii. 9, 10, 426 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI. which will serve to determine a point causing division, and dissension, even among the most faithful disciples of Christ, namely, the necessity of entire immersion in the rite of baptism. When our Lord proceeded to wash the feet of Peter, whose zeal urged him to solicit a larger measure of ablution, our Lord replied, " He who is washed, needeth " not to wash more than his feet, but is altogether clean." Though this explanation of our Lord was not directly applied to ' baptism,' yet it was rendered by him so entirely general, as to comprehend that and every other object of spiritual ablution; and must convince every reflecting advocate for immersion, that it is not accounted requisite in the sight of his Divine Master. Ver. 5. powers of the world to come.] See Preface, pp. 69, 70. Ver. 17. interposed an oath.] i[jjiSiTi\j(Siv o^xw: — In all compacts, or engagements between two parties, there was an ' interposite,' by or on which the engagement was mutually confirmed. This * interposite' w^as called iMietrm, i. e. iv fj^sgcij ridifisvog — ' in medio positus ;' or dia-nds/Mivoc — ' inter -po situs,' as in c. ix. The literal expression of the Greek is, ' he inter- ' posed with an oath,' which is equivalent to, ' he made his ' oath an interposite,' or simply, * he interposed an oath.' The difference between opw and o^xov, dwelt on by Macknight, thus disappears ; and the ' interposuit jusjurandum ' of the Latin, is found to be a correct rendering of the sense of the Greek. So, also, is Wiclif's version from the Latin, * he * puttide bitwixe an ooth.' In ordinary cases, the oath was pronounced over some object perceptible to sense, which was the proper ' interposite ; but, in the present case, the utter- ance of God's promise superseded the necessity of any sensible object, and became itself the interposite. The word ' con- ' firmed,' therefore, is good as a paraphrase of iiMidinxjaiv, but not as a translation. Macknight suggests ' mediator ed^ but this is a word of his own creation, and not to be introduced into the admitted vocabulary of our version ; and it has been shewn, that it could not express any thing more than is expressed in the term * interposed.' Chap. VIII. HEBREWS. 427 CHAPTER VII. Ver. 12. a change of the priest necessarily takes place.] The words xa/ i/o/iou, which are not contained in the text of the Vat. MS., are an ^Italic insertion of a later age, intro- duced with a view to elucidation, but unskilfully ; for, the context shews, that the apostle is not here speaking of the Law, generally, but of the function and person of the High- Priest, restrictively . This is made clear, partly by the per- sonal application, i fellow-countryman.'] itoXnriv, in the Vat. MS.; not T/.jjff/oi', as in the rec. text : Bloomfield has adopted the reading 'XbKirriv, on the groun,d " of external evidence." Ver. 13.] The Vat. MS. has not the addition, xa; rwv avojiiMv auTcoi/ — ''and their iniquities;' which was probably a duplicate reading for y.ai rm aiia^noiv axirm, (as wo find the 428 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IX. double reading, avojj^iac, and a/xagr/ag, in 2 Thess. ii. 3) ; both which have since coalesced in i\i& junior MSS. CHAPTER IX. Ver. 2. the golden altar for incense.^ The difference of position assigned to the incense-altar in the Temple, by the Vatican MS., and by all other MSS., has been already shewn in the Preface, pp. 32, 33 : the cause of that differ- ence is easily to be traced out. In Exod. xxx. 1-6, it is said, " Thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon — • " and thou shalt overlay it with pure gold — and thou shalt ** put it before the veil that is by the ark of the Covenant :" conformably to which precept, Josephus relates, '* they " placed the golden altar in the Temple before the Holy " of Holies 70V /3w/X0V TOV ^^uaSOV SffT'/lffaV £V TUJ Vaw 'TT^O TQU " abuTou" (tom. i. p. 428. Haverc). But Philo (torn. ii. p. 253, Mangey) states, that *' the golden altar was constructed in " the Holy of Holies, within the first veil — id^vTai sv aovroj, " iigu) To-j 'TTooTiPou narwxiTaGiJjaTog." Here, the two contem- porary Jewish writers, both of a priestly family, are directly contradictory to each other ; and the question is, which of them states the real fact? Now, Josephus is supported, not only by the book of Moses, but by the evangelist St. Luke, in c. i. 9. Philo has no supporting testimony whatever. " Philo," says his biographer, " was a Greek Jew, a native " of Alexandria, in Egypt, and was so much immersed in " heathen philosophy, that he neglected to acquaint himself " with the Hebrew language, and the rites and customs of " his own people. — Grotius is of opinion, that * he is not ' fully to be depended on in what relates to the manners of ' the Hebrews ;' and Cudworth goes somewhat further, when " he says, that ' though a Jew by nation, he was yet very * ignorant of Jewish customs.'" He was twice sent from Egypt to Rome, on a mission from the Jews of the former country ; but it does not appear, in the numerous I'ecords of his life collected by Mangey, that he had ever been at Jerusa- lem, and seen the Temple. We, thus, trace the cause of the diversity we are considering : viz, that the Vat. MS. recorded the fact as declared by Scripture, and attested by the ocular Chap. IX. HEBREWS. 429 testimony of Josepliiis, wlio was well acquainted with Jerusa- lem ; but^ that succeeding copies varied the text, to adapt it preferably to the erroneous statement of Philo. The dislocation which these two verses have sustained, since the date of the Vatican MS., and the total silence in the books of Moses respecting any other Veil than that which separated the Hob/ from the Most Holy place, conspire to shew; that the disturbance has extended to the following words, and that we should read, hvn^ov hi, (Lira, to xara- rrsraefia. To find a support for the received reading, ro hvTioov TLaramracfLa — ' the second Veil,' Dr. Bloomfield says, " there was a second (veil) which separated the Sanctum " from the Court, and called i'Tie-asT^ov." While the Hebrews journeyed and were unsettled, and the place of worship was formed of tents, there was certainly a curtain — a-jXaia, to close the entrance, which was ' drawn hack or to' by an jT/CTaoTso!/, as its name imports (from £'r/(rraw — ' attrahol); but, when a temple was built, the curtain of entrance was replaced by a door or gate, and the i~i6'::a(STs_ov was only the cord or handle by which each was drawn to or fro : where- fore, sTiffrragTsov (in Exod. xxvi. 36) is rendered ^ adductorium' in the Latin version of the Sept., in Walton's Polyglott, being the sense in which the Hebrew word was understood by those ancient Hebrew interpreters. But, there was never more than one xaracsrac/i-a — Veil, pertaining either to the Tabernacle or to the Temple. Ver. 11. good things that were come.] ruv ysvo/Lsvuv ayaduv : — So read the Vat. and Clermont MSS., both the Syriac versions, and Chrysostom ; not tuv /mXXovtuv — * that were to ' come,'' as in the received text, which reading has been un- skilfully brought from c. x. 1, under a notion of correction. But, when Christ cajne, the ' good things' also came with him ; though, until then, and while the law continued, they w^ere yet ' to come.' The genuineness of the reading ysvo/Lsvuv, is discernible in Matthaei's note on the passage (2d edit.), although he retains the junior reading, /LsXXovruv. " yivo/Livuv, " certe contrarium est meis Codd. omnibus; id tamen habet " B et D Wetstenii : pro yivo/j,. Mill laudat etiam MS. Chrys." Ver. 14. purify our conscience.] The Vat. MS. is defective 430 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IX. from the middle of this verse to the end of the epistle : — the next most ancient authorities read rt[j.Mv, not b[j.m. Ver. 15. as his death was accepted.'] Savarou ysvo/tLsvov : — • " We are now advanced," says Dr. Bloomfield, '' to a pass- " age perhaps the most perplexing in the N. T., ver. 15-18." The perplexity, however, is not in the apostle's text, but in the minds of his interpreters. It has been overlooked by them all, that ysvo/Msvov, here, is a sacrificial term, denoting the favourable acceptance either of an offering or of a sup- plication. " Peculiariter, absque adverbio xaXwg, dicuntur *' sacrificia yiyvssdai, quando feliciter cedunt : sin contra, di- " cuntur ou yiyviffdai. — Exempla cumulat Xenophon de Exjj. " Cyri, lib. vi. pp. 382, 3. (ed. Leunclav.) — Vota quoque " sive preces dicuntur yiyncdai, quoties audiuntur." — (Viger, pp. 232, 3. not. Hoogev.) In this place, 6amTou ysvof/^ivou — ' death accepted,' looks back to savrov "jr^offriviyxsv — ' offered ' himself;' and ysi/o/Asvou, expresses the ' acceptance' of that offering, namely, sig aToXurouffiv ■ra^a/Sao'Ewv — ' as a ransom ' from transgressions.' Thus, according to this technical term, the offering of Abel was yivo/Mvri, but that of Cain, Ver. 16. a Covenant?] diadyjxyj: — See Pref. pp. 2-5. lb. the interposed, &c.] The common reading here is diadsf/^ivou ; which the Latin renders * testatoris ; ' and our version ' testator,' so correcting Wiclif's ' testament-maker' But, as we have seen that diaSrjzri does not here signify * testament' (Pref. p. 2-5), it follows, that testator is a false rendering of diadsfuvog : we have, therefore, to seek for the true one. Some MSS. read biari&i[jjivog, in the passive, which reading the internal evidence vindicates ; shewing, that biak[jjivo\j was at first a compendious writing of biankiMivou (diadi/J^Bvov), as Tra^ahw for 'X'xgadidoj, and dovri for didovri, in I Cor. XV." 24, 57. diandrnj^i is here used in the sense of inter- pono, as hiayyiXKo), for inter-nuncio ; haymiiai, inter-sum and inter-cedo ; BiadoKifjbai^u, inter-nosco ; diaxXnM, inter-cludo and inter-cipio ; hiaxovru, inter-rumpo ; diaXsiTu, inter-mitto, &c. The Greeks used 8ia [Jjigov for iv tw /ascw, in medio. — (Viger, p. 112, not.) hia,TikiJ.ivog has, therefore, the sense of hia [j.i(Sou TikiMvog — in medio positus, or inter-positus, answering to Chap. IX. HEBREWS. 431 lMSiTr,c, in c. ix. 15. It is used liere in the masculine, as referrible either to /Souc, iJ'oeyjt;, ai^, or aevog, (understood) the proper subjects of mediatorial sacrifice. The form and mode of sacrifice, in solemnising a covenant between two parties, was similar among the Jews and their heathen neighbours. The contracting parties confronted each other ; and a victim was placed between them : this was the i?iter- posite. The terms of the covenant were then pronounced, and assented to, by both parties ; but, the contract was yet unconfirmed until the blood of the victim was shed, and its life extinguished. The contract, or covenant, became then irrevocably confirmed. Homer describes this solemnity in his 3d Iliad, v. 245-296 : ■/.rj^vxig d^ojv tps^ov o^xia Tiera, a^vs dvu E2 ME220N T^muv %ai A-^aiMv iGriy^owvTO' (Ar|£/3?js) affo Groix,ayo\jg a^vwv rajM vrfki't' yaXxuf •/.at Tovg fisv KATA0HKEN sct/ yjovog aS'Xai^iiVTag, 6u/j,o\j 8iuo/Msvoug rid' iuyovro dsoig aiiysvsTT^ffiv. " The heralds brought the sacred pledges, two lambs; — and " stood between the Trojans and the Greeks: — Atrides cut the " throats of the lambs, and laid them lifeless on the ground ; — " and they adjured the eternal gods." Here, the sg /Mgsov Karanh/jbivog of the Grecian and Trojan covenant, corresponds to the Biaridsf/^smg, or iMGirrig, of the Old and New Covenants between God and man. Ver. 17. over lifeless bodies.'] I'xi roig viz^oig (cw/zatr/) : — Macknight pronounces this, *' a passage hitherto ill under- " stood;" and no other commentator has appeared who was so well qualified to pronounce that judgment as himself, since he has been the first to restore this important context to its primitive apostolical perspicuity. He hesitated, indeed, whether he should sujiply ^v/mugi — ^sacrifices,' or (^uoig — ' animals,' to vr/.^otg ; but he acutely discerned, that the bodies of animals appointed for sacrifice, are intended in the word vsx^oig. But here, an objection is advanced against interpreting 432 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IX. the word i/sxgo/e, ' dead or lifeless animals.' " On the tin " )/£xgo/5," says Bloomfield, " Kuinoel exposes the weakness of " that interpretation ; and remarks, after Carpzovius, that " the word csx^og is used (like our corpse) only of the dead " body of a man, not of a heast." Were this the fact, the interpretation would be predetermined. But, as the fact is far otherwise, Kuinoel's confidence is only a rash note of triumph before victory ; for, Macknight will keep the field. " The word i/gxoos," says Eustathius, " is formed of the pri- " vative particle vs, and %)j^ signifying -^uyj, ' life,' (p. 668, " 65) :" -^vxv, ' life,' expresses equally " the life which is ** rational, Xoyixri, and in irrational animals, iv roig ^mig roig *' oKoyoig, and in plants, sv roig (pvToig" (Phavorinus). The proper sense oivBx^og, therefore, is a-^u^og — ' inanimus, lifeless.' From viz^og was derived the word i/£x^;/ia/a, signifying lifeless flesh, generally, but erroneously assumed to denote only, ' corrupt flesh, or carrion.' From the same word was also formed, by metathesis, the word TuvsfS^ia (for vBxslSgia), which is thus defectively interpreted in Mai thy 's Greek and English Lexicon: '' Carnes morticini — carrion." But, vix^i/j^aia sig- nified ' dead flesh,' in the ordinary sense of butchers' meat ; and Ttivi^^iia, the shambles or market where it was sold — xsvijSpta yap ra vsx^i/u^aia, xara svaXXayrjv groi^siMv — ra vs-/.^t/ubaia •jipia ouru -/.aXouvrai, xai tj ayo^a 6'xou TCfiXsirai ra, roiavra, zsvc^gsia xaXiirai. — (Steph. Th. Gr. Valpy, p. 513, v. ayo^a.) Where- fore, Pollux calls such flesh, -/.ivi^^ia x^sa — ^ market -flesh ' or meat' (vi. § 55). Finally, Hesychius interprets KsXsfS^a, (probably a popular corruption of x£i/s/3g/a), NEKPA kthnh — ' lifeless cattle.' Now I would ask, what were slaugh- tered sacrifices, in the Hebrew worship, but vsx^a tittivti — ' lifeless cattle:' bulls, calves, sheep, or goats? What, then, becomes of Kuinoel's 'exposure of Macknight' s loeakness?' A more complete failure, and reaction, could not attend a premature exultation. We here learn, from categorical authority, that though nxgov ((rw/^a und.), applied to a ' man,' denoted a 'corpse,' — when applied to a ' beast,' it denoted a ' carcass.' The preposition st;, before n-^oig, marks out the application of the latter to a * covenant,' not a ' will:' — *' conditiones pactorum, similiumque rerum, per banc pre- " positionem (s-tt/) cum dandi casu exprimuntur." — (Viger, cap. ix. s. iv. § 11.) The Latin version renders, ' in mortuis;' Chap. IX. HEBREWS. 433 wherefore Wiclif, ' in deede (dead),' to which his last editor has added ' meii,' in Italics : the edition of 1548 (black letter) renders (without distinction of character), ' when men are ' deade :' our last revisers have ventured to follow its example, and have rendered, ' after men are dead,' neglecting their usual caution of printing a supplied word in Italics: for, there is no mention of, or allusion to ' men' in the context. Some learned commentators, who have not settled their own judgments between the two significations of ha&rixri, have taken a very easy and not unusual course for relieving them- selves from further hesitation ; by laying their perj^lexity at the door of the apostle. " As bia&'^^n means both covenant " and testament" says a learned writer adduced by Bloom- " field, the apostle represents the new diadrr/.ri in a double " light." That double light exists only in the vision of the learned critic; and we easily trace it to the original error and confusion of the Latin church (" quce amat pro pacto " dicere testamentum "), exposed in the Preface, pp. 4, 5 ; which error has been transmitted to this late age, by the vis inertia already adverted to. Ver. 19. and also the book] avro « to (SifSXiov, looks back to XalSuv, and not forward to i^^avria : see Exod. xxiv. 7, 8. The " sprinkling of the book" is therefore an error trans- mitted from Wiclif, who rendered the Latin, ' bispreyned bothe ' thilke book and al the peple.' Ver. 20. hath ratified to you.] The words of Moses, which the apostle here quotes from Exod. xxiv. 6-9, stand thus in the Septuagint : thou to ai'ia. Trig hiadrjxrig, rjg bnkro Ku^iog 'K^og llj.ag. According to all the printed texts, the apostle, in citing those words, substitutes the word si/srs/Xaro — * injoined,' for d/idsTo — ' covenanted;' and, according to the Latin ver- sion, ' mandavit' for ' pepigit ;' which words have no com- munity of signification. That the word actually used by the apostle did not so much differ in import from that used by Moses, is almost self-evident; and, therefore, the received reading is probably one of those described by Michaelis, when he observed, "it is possible, that the true reading of " a passage may no longer be extant in any of our manu- " scripts." — {Introd. vol. ii. p. 332.) This will be rendered apparent by the greater afl&nity of inXiTro — ' ratified,' to 434 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. X. Sii^ero — ' covenanted,' than of svsruXaro — ' Injoined.' It is probable, that the reading, ;5S iviruXaTo, has resulted from a confluence of the two readings, 755 sTiXiiro Attice, rjv iTiXsiro. The sense will then be, " Hie (est) sanguis pacti quod effectum " reddidit, vel sancivit (sibi) Deus in vos." CHAPTER X. Ver. 2. for then they would not cease to be offered.] Every ancient and authoritative MS. reads ova av ; the later copies, which have omitted oux, have taken the passage interrogatively, which comes to the same point; for, " they would not cease," or, '' would they cease ?" are modes of phrase having the same implication. But, many copies preserving o-j%, have also pre- served the mark of interrogation ; from which error, great perplexity has ensued to the interpreters. The argument of the apostle is this : " The continually recurring sacrifices of " the law, being incompetent to relieve the soul from the '* accusations of sin, one effectual sacrifice, in the person of " our Lord, was graciously provided to supersede them. But, " if the legal sacrifices had been competent to the same effect, " they would not cease (as they will now cease under the " Gospel dispensation) ; because, in that case, every indi- " vidual, to the end of time, would have derived from them " the same deliverance from the conscience of sin, that is " now only to be obtained by the one sacrifice of Christ" (e. vii. 11, and Gal. iii. 22): iiravmvro in the aorist, is the indefinite present, which applies to all time. The apostle could not mean that those sacrifices ' should cease,' in the case which he supposes, namely, their all-sufficiency ; because then, all who lived after their cessation would be left without a means of deliverance ; the sacrifice of Christ being excluded from his supposed case. Ver, 4. It is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."] See Annot. to Matt. c. iii. 15, p. 127. Chap. XI. HEBREWS. 435 Ver. 9. I come to do thy will] The junior MSS. have here inserted 6 eiog — ' O God/ because it is in the context from which the apostle quotes ; but, the most ancient MSS. shew, that the apostle did not include those words in his quotation, any more than he did the clause between idoo yjxu and ToirjSai, which is in the same context. (Ps. xl. 7, 8.) Ver. 17. He afterwards saith.] bgrs^ov Xeyu : — Besides the MSS. containing this clause which are referred to by Wetstein, they are found in the two valuable MSS. collated by Birch, Vat. 367, Pio-Vat. 50. CHAPTER XI. Ver. 4. yet speaketh.] sn XaXu : — So read the Vat. and Alex. MSS., the Latin, both the Syriac, and Copt, versions, and many of the fathers. Theophylact, as cited by Wetstein, says : Tiva ruv avTiy^a(puv XaXsirai s^ovciiv, ou pcaXwg. Yet Wet- stein, Matthaei, and even the Oxford edition of 1819, retain AaXeirai. Bloomfield has restored the primitive reading, XaXs/. Of his long note on this verse, the virtue lies in the last sentence ; in which he adduces c. xii. 24, in proof of the active form, XaXii. Ver. 13. having seen and greeted.] i8ovrsg xat ac'xataiiivoi : — So read the Vat., Clerm., Alex., and St. Germ., uncial MSS.; and a multitude o^ junior copies, with all the ancient versions ; Chrysostom also, and other fathers. Some later copies have inserted xa; Tg/ff^fi/reg, after idovreg, which reading, though established in the text hitherto ' received,' is duly rejected by Matthaei, and marked by Bloomfield. Our last revisers have used a license in our version, in order to give that reading a place ; but it was not in Wiclif's translation, because it was not in the Latin. Wiclif renders, " thei " beheelden hem afer, and greetynge hem wel." Ver. 14. a paternal country. '\ 'xuT^iba: — We express this term, in English, by 'mother country ;' the Germans express it, by 'father-land.' 436 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XI. Ver. 20. bowed towards the top of his own staff.'] rr^osi- xwrjosv £c; to axeov rrjg ^a/35ou avTou : ett/ has here the sense of * versus — towards:' '' y.Xmiv, er^ipnv — sm do^u, sp' i^viav — in- '^ dinar e ^wi fleeter e^ in dextram aut sinistram.'' (Viger, c. ix. s. 4. § 21.) The Latin omits the preposition st/, and renders, ' et adoravit fastigium virgce ejus.' But, because the Romish church adduced this action of Jacob as an authority for the worship of reliques and other sensible objects, our revisers, without referring to the Greek, rendered, " wor- *' shipped, leaning on the top of his staflp." This frigid insertion of ' leaning,' is wholly unwarranted by the text. The reading of the Latin, rescued from its superstitious abuse, is nearest to the true interpretation. The ' staff of ' Jacob or Israel,' was to become the predicted * sceptre of ' the Messiah.' (Num. xxiv. 17.) Every one knows that, in early times, a sceptre was a staff or stick (Hom. II. A. 234). The faith of Jacob was evinced by his reverential obeisance towards the head of his own staff, in recognition of Him who was eventually to bear it as an emblem of sovereignty. If we look a little further, we shall see this fact demonstrated. The apostle cites partially, from the Greek Genesis, the dependant clause, xai T^ocrsxuv^jo'si/ sm ro ax^ov rng ^alSdov avrou — * and he bowed towards the top of his own staff.' But, what previous matter does this -/mi — ' and,' join with this clause? Let us take the two clauses in conjunction, as they stand in the Septuagint: — sits ds, O/mosov f/.or %ai uijlossv avru) KAI •x^oGSTiwridsv l6^ari>. sm ro axgo;/ rrig ^a^dov aurou — * And he said, ' Swear to me : and Israel sware to him and bowed toward < the top of his own staff,' i. e. in confirmation of his oath. Nothing can be more evident, than that the motion and direction of Israel's person, were parts of his act of swearing ; for, we have an example of the sacredness attached to the ' top of the staff or sceptre,' in Esther, v. 2 : nor can any thing be more inconsequent, than to render, ' and he sware * to him, AND leaned on the top of his staff;' or, ' and reclined ' on his bed's head,' merely because the Hebrew word may signify either ' staff,' or * bed;' for, the description is suf- ficiently explicit to determine the interpretation to the first of those senses. Ver. 32. wrought justification.] See Annot. to Matt. iv. p. 128. Chap. XI. HEBREWS, 437 Ver. 36. were pierced through.] All the MSS. read in this place, as in the printed texts, imigagdi^aav, which the Latin renders, *' tentati sunt ;" and Wiclif, from the Latin, " weren " temj)tid:" this rendering our version has accepted, and transmitted. But, because the writer is here enumerating different modes of death ; and, because there was wherewithal to awaken mistrust of that reading, in the received enume- ration, ' stoned, sawed asunder, tempted, slain by the sword; much conjecture has been set at work to find a means of restoring the passage so manifestly affected. It has therefore been proposed, instead of s'xsi^agSrigav, to read, laav, or EffTj^w^j^trav, or evv^uS^gav, or i'!ri^&r,(Sav , or iT^ridSrigav, or i'lra^^^sav, or sv^adrjgav, or eg^ai^iffdrjOav, or egTii^aedrjffav, or ira^iyjvQridav. (not. Scholz.) Without travelling so far in research, we have only to recollect, that ors/gw, ' transfodio,' and mi^au, ' conor' (from whence ws/^acw — ' tento'), have been actually confounded in sentences; as is shewn by Stephens (Thes. Gr. v. ffs/gw). The internal evidence of the passage sufficiently indicates, that those verbs have been so confounded in this place ; and that we ought here to read, with Beza, e-a^^jjcav — * transfossi ' smit,' — ' were thrust or pierced through.' So we read in Ezek. xvi. 40, " they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust " thee through with their swords." In that place, the Sept. use the verb xarac^a^w ; but, in 1 Tim. vi. 10, where St. Paul says, figuratively, " they have pierced themselves through with " many sorrows," he uses the verb ts/^w in compound, iauroug 'TTioismi^av. To s'TTa^Srigav — * thrust through,' is here opposed, sv 'xXox7jg r^i-^uv x,ai 'ffi^ikcuug p^gutf/ft/i', Ti ivdugsojg i/jjaTiuV aXX' 6 Ti^WTog {sub. x.o(!fiog) Trig za^Siag iv ru) a*>?. yg^x(pa vfCiv, nxviostrema purticula hahctur iy^a-^a, 462 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III. " quum in cceteris haheatur y^afu, puto nihil ad sensum " referre." The identity of the second verses and end of the third, in the two readings, establish the original identity of all. On comparing the two readings, the Jirst claims the selection to which we are compelled to resort ; both by its simplicity/, and because it stands first in order in the context. (See Pref. p. 77.) Ver. 20. But, ye all know.'] The Vat. MS., and Cod. Stepk. 1 y. or 9 Wetst., alone, read oidars rravrsg (without xai) — 'ye all know:' the rec. text, and our version, read, xai oibccTi )v A^a^iav (Clem. Rom. 1 Ep. C. 25.). Yet, this is the same Clemens of whom St. Paul testified (Philipp. iv. -3.), that " his name is written in the Book of " Life." Such instances of weakness ought not to scandalise, or even to surprise us, after St. Paul's open avowal to the Corinthians (1 Ep. i. 25) : " for, ye see your calling, brethren; " that ye are not many wise, nor many mighty, nor many JUDE. 475 " noble, according to the flesh : yea, God hath chosen the " foolish things of the world, that He might confound the " wise, (fee." Though the Gospel imparted a knowledge far transcending all secular knowledge, yet it left to each, un- altered, the measure of secular knowledge which he before Ver. 22, 23.] The Vat. MS. reads this verse thus : xa/ oljg iMiv iKian 8iax.^ivo,u,svo'jg, ovg ds ffw^. sx, vv^. aoT., ovg ds iXsari £v tpo^cfj. The Alex. MS. reads the same, except that it has iKiy/iri for ikzarz in the first clause ; but, both those words are written with the change of vowels (to which Michaelis extends the term itacism) common to that MS. — sXsy^i^srai, sXiarai. See Wetstein's and Scholz's notes, in order to trace the transition to the rec. readina;. THE REVELATION St. JOHN. Although, at the time when our English version was last revised, and put forth by authority, the book of the * Revela- ' Hon' was the least correct, in its Greek text, of all the books of the ' New Covenant,' in consequence of the paucity of known MSS. by which it could then be amended ; it is now become one of the most correct. When Erasmus printed his ^ Editio PrincepSy in 1516, he had only one MS. from which to draw his text of this book (a MS. now unknown, but which he called, Cod. Reuchlini). That MS. he acknow- ledged to have several chasms ; and, because the last leaf was wanting, he translated the Latin of the Vulgate into Greek, to supply the deficiency : such was the origin of the received Greek text of the '■Apocalypse.' During the 225 years which have elapsed since the date of our last authorised revision, in 1611, MSS. of that book have gradually come to light ; and, in the course of the last century, a store was discovered in the libraries of Rome, Venice, Moscow, and other places, which, through the learned labours of Birch and Matthaei, have supplied us with all we can hope for, toward restoring its text to its primitive integrity. And, so remarkably correspondent have been the results of the researches of those two unconnected col- lators, that Matthaei was constrained to observe : " Nisi " mea prior editio prodiisset anno 1785, Birchii autem 1798, " dicerent, meam in plerisque locis conformatam esse ad " prcBstantiores Birchii codices. Sed ego eo tempore Birchium " nondum noram; et ejus prima ' Evangeliorum' editio " prodiit demum 1788, 4to, cum mea prodiisset ab anno " 1782-88." (Note to Rev. xvi. 8. 2d edit.) — Unless my REVELATION. 477 " edition {of the Apocalpyse) had been published in the year " 1785, but Birch's only in 1798, it would have been said, " that mine had been adapted, in many places, to the best " MSS, of Birch. But, at that time I was not acquainted '' with Birch ; and his first edition of the Gospels was pub- *' lished in 1788, in 4to., whereas mine had been published '' between the years 1782 and 1788." The following revision, is made by those ' prcBStantiores ' Codices' of Birch; the collateral testimony of which, is absolutely necessary for confirming the readings adopted by Matthsei in his last edition. " If," says Birch, '^ we compare the number of the MSS. " which contain the ^Apocalypse' of St. John, with the " great abundance of those which comprise all the other " books of the N. T., the number of the former is very small ; " and, of that number, few are found whose dates ascend to ** the antiquity of the greater part of the MSS. of the Gospels '■' and Epistles. For which fact, there is more than one " cause ; namely, the notorious dissension between the " Eastern and Western churches, concerning the authorship *' of this book; many communities of Christians ascribing " it, not to the Apostle John, but, to John called the Pres- " hyter or Elder (see Annot. to ch. i. 2) : and further, that " where no such dissension existed, we never find it used in " the public readings. For these, and other causes, the " copyists very rarely transcribed the ^Apocalypse.' But, " though few copies are found, it will be manifest to any " one who will carefully inspect the text of this book, that it " has been transcribed with more negligence than the other " books of the N. T. ; and that it has more variations, clearly " betraying the exercise oi conjecture : which license, no one " can doubt, arose from the inferior estimation in which " this book was held. Nor was this the case only in the " later ages, but also in the earliest ages of the Christian " church, as is affirmed by Irenaeus. " Since, then, it is evident, from what has been just " stated, that, if any text needs the aid of criticism, it is that " of the ^Apocalypse;' and since the supply of MSS, by which " its genuine readings may be detected, is very slender; I " think I shall engage in a work, neither useless in itself, " nor unacceptable to those who duly appreciate Scriptural 478 ANNOTATIONS. " criticism, if I examine accurately numerous MSS. reposited " in various libraries, and if I partially review others which *' have been already examined. The design, and method, *' with which I have executed this object, will be shewn in *' the following pages. I will only add, that, in this place, " I have not only had in view to exhibit those tokens by " which the outward form and age of the copies may be " determined ; but also, to observe those by which the " character of each copy, and its affinity to others already " known, may be more clearly distinguished." — (Proleg. Var. Led. ad text. Apocal. p. vii.) With respect to the several minute expositions of the details of the prophecies of this book, which have been pressed on the attention of the world, a moment's reflection will suffice to make every thinking reader place his mind in a posture of caution and defence, against the enticing solici- tations of all of them. Common good sense will at once perceive, that if six contemporary writers propound six expositions of the details of this mysterious book, each differ- ing from the others, five of them must be in error, and there are no means for deciding which those five are ; for, as has been before intimated (p. 41), ' the hypothetist' s passion for ' his own hypothesis,' can have no legitimate weight in the mind of any other individual. But, it will not follow that the sixth is correct; on the contrary, the certain error of five in such a mysterious subject, establishes a strong pro- bability, that the sixth is in error also. And, if an expositor pretends to prophecy through prophecy, he at once destroys his own exposition ; for, divine prophecy, yet unfulfilled, is a closed prospect to man, who is only empowered to recognise, by the fact, the accomplishment of such predictions as have been actually and experimentally fulfilled. The great error of those sanguine persons who have aspired to unravel and interpret the Scriptural prophecies in their minute details, has been that (as Sir Isaac Newton wisely observed) of attempting " to foretell times and things, as if God designed " to make them prophets. The design of God was much *' otherwise : He gave them the prophecies, not to gratify " men's curiosities by enabling them io foreknow things ; but " that, after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted " hy the event, and His own providence, not the interpreter's, REVELATION. 479 " be manifested thereby to the world." — (Proph. of H. Writ, p. ii. c. i. § 8.) The object of that divine disclosure, was not to exercise the learned and pious ingenuity of a few, but to impart, to the universal church, a scale of times, marking out, by successive divisions, the progress of the divine dis- pensations, to the end of time. This is only effected in that condensed series of general prophecies to which the learned Mede gave the appropriate name of * the Sacred Kalendar' of prophecy ; combining the correspondent and correlate predictions of the prophet Daniel, and St. John, respecting the chief sovereignties, or eminences, which should succeed each other on the earth, until the Consummation, in those parts of it which should stand in close relation to the church ; both under the Old and the New Covenant. For, as the same pious and learned annotator observed, " The prophecy of Daniel, is the Apoca- *' lypse compressed ; and the Apocalypse, Daniel explicated." — (Mede's WorTis, b. iv. p. 787. ep. 32.) Wherefore, Sir Isaac Newton justly affirmed, " that the Apocalypse of " St. John, and the prophecies of Daniel, make but one " complete prophecy .'' — (P. ii. c. 7.) "That ' Sacred Kalen- ' dar and Great Almanack of prophecy,' " observed Mede, *' consists of the 'four kingdoms' of Daniel; which are a * prophetical chronology of times,' measured by the succession " of 'four principal kingdoms,' from the ' beginning of the ' captivity of Israel,' until the ' mystery of God should be ' finished.' Now, these ' four kindoms ' are, "1. the Babylonian, 2. the Medes and Persians, 3. the Greek, 4. the Roman ; *' in which ' quaternary ' of kingdoms, as the ' Roman,' being " the ' last of the four,' is the ' last kingdom,' so are the * times thereof the ' last times' — (B. iii. 654, 5.) The prophecies of Daniel, which constitute one division of that ' sacred kalendar,' exhibited to the ancient or Jewish church, by appropriate symbols, a succession oi four chief eminences having close and intimate relation to that church, namely, the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman em- pires. The prophetic symbols of empires which concerned 480 ANNOTATIONS. that ancient church (Dan. vii. 4-7), represented four dis- tinct animals of prey, or power, viz. 1. a lion: 2. a hear: 3. a leopard: 4. an animal unnamed, but more terrible than all the preceding. These symbols were corroborated by others corresponding to them, which represented an image com- bining, in descending gradation, the /owr metals, gold, silver, brass, and iron, but terminating at the base in a mixture of the latter metal with clay, or earth (Dan. ii. 31-43). Nor was that church left to decipher those symbols by the mere occurrence of the objects which they betokened : the symbols were divinely explained to it ; thus affording to the better- instructed church which was to follow, a rule and guide to direct it in apprehending the import of the further symbols, which were to pertain exclusively to It. The prophecies, conveyed in those first four distinct symbols, were notoriously fulfilled, to the experience of the world, at the period of the birth of Christ; at which epoch, the ' fourth and last ' of those 'four kingdoms,' the ' Roman * empire,' became firmly established on the ruins of its ' three Let us now consider the 'further symbols,' which are added to the former in the Christian prophecy of St. John ; and which, in a similar manner, were to mark out succeed- ing divisions, in the progress of the Christian ages, until their termination. In this prophecy, the symbols are reduced into one com- pound symbol, combining the four characters of the former prophecy with others which it subjoins. It represents one animal of prey, or power, having a connected series of seven crowned heads ; to be followed by an 'eighth head' distinct from these, and alien to the septenary series. Of those ' seven heads,' the first three, noted by the cha- racters of the lion, bear, and leopard, reveal themselves to denote the three former predictions fulfilled under the former church ; leaving in the Christian prospect a further succession oi four congenial eminences of ' Roman empire,' to be finally followed by another eminence of empire distinct from, and heterogeneous to, the former. The point of time at which the prophecy dates its pre- diction, is expressly declared ; it was, when five of those seven heads had fallen, and the sixth existed ; coincidental ly REVELATION. 481 with which point of time, arose the symbol of another power, exercising the authority of Empire before the former; assuming the appearance of a lamb, but speaking as a dragon, and deceiving the Christian church : for which cause, it is afterward designated, the '■False Prophet' (Rev. c. xiii. and xvii.) The sixth head was to be followed by a seventh, which was to ' continue' for a time, but finally to fall. The separate head w^as to form an ' eighth,' which was to close the suc- cession, and to ' go into perdition,' or perish. This last, is the last mark on the scale of the ' Sacred Kalendar,' short of its termination, which describes the last contest of the rebellious spirits of men with the omnipotence of God. To attempt to dogmatise on these representations, would be to arrogate an authority for which no man can exhibit valid credentials ; yet, it is the duty of every Christian to contemplate them, with wakeful and earnest attention- Without presuming to dictate to the minds of others, I think I should be faiUng towards them, and towards the object of this work, if I were to withhold the impressions of corre- spondence, which those representations have strongly made on my mind. It is manifest, from what has been stated, that the ^fourth' prophetic head of empire, the Roman, had recently obtained existence at the time of the birth of our Lord ; that it was to be succeeded by three others congenial with it ; and was to be finally followed by one more, wholly unconnected with it : thus filling up the entire sum of ages appointed to the Christian church, from its beginning to its end. That fourth head of empire arose 43 years before the birth of Christ, in the person of Octavius Csesar, who as- sumed the name and style o^ Augustus Ccesar ; which name and style was inherited by, and remained attached to, the three several imperial heads which succeeded to it. In the year a.d. 395, a second head of that empire arose, forming Si fifth of the septenary series. " The division of the " Roman world between the sons of Theodosius, a.d. 395, " marks the final establishment of the Empire of the East. •' The sovereign of that empire assumed the title of 'Emperor * of tlie Romans;' and the hereditary appellations of Ccesar' ** and 'Augustus' continued to declare, that he was the I I 482 ANNOTATIONS. '* legitimate successor of the first of men who had reigned " over the first of nations." — (Gibbon, c. xxxii.) In the year a.d. 476, the fourth head of the septenary series, or first of Rome, fell, in the person of the emperor denominated Augustulus ; leaving the second, or Greek head of that empire, subsisting. In the year a.d. 800, a new, or third head of Roman empire arose in the West, constituting the Prankish head, or sixth of the septenary series. " Towards the close of the " eighth century, the dignity of Romari emperor, which had " been extinguished since the year 476 in Rome, and only '' continued in Constantinople with the eastern part of the " empire, was renev^ed in the person of Charlemagne (Putter. *' Constit. of the Germ. Emp. i. p. 59) :" '* and Europe dates " a new era, from the restoration of the Western empire. — " On the festival of Christmas, in the last year of the eighth " century (a.d. 800), Charlemagne appeared in the church '* of St. Peter : after the celebration of the holy mysteries, " Leo suddenly placed a precious crown upon his head ; and " the dome resounded with the acclamations of the people, ' Long life and victory to Charles, the most pious Augustus, ' crowned by God the great and pacific Emjjeror of the ' Romans J' — The head and body of Charlemagne were con- " secrated by the royal unction ; and, after the example of *' the Casars, he was saluted or adored by the Pontiff. The '' hereditary monarchs of Europe confessed the pre-eminence " of his rank and dignity : he was the first of the Christian " princes, the temjwral head of the great Republic of the " West." — (Gibbon, c. xlix.) " About this time an idea arose, that the whole of ' Christendom,' considered as one ecclesiastical society, had " ONE VISIBLE SPIRITUAL HEAD, in the Same manner as all " Christian nations might have one temporal head." — (Putter, i. p. 129.) '' The entire independence of the " popes, and complete structure of the Papal Monarchy, " were finally effected (a.d. 996) by Pope Hildebrand, or " Gregory VII., who extended the former doctrine so far " as at length to establish this doctrine : That, as God had " established two visible heads of the world, a spiritual one " over the church, and a temporal one over kings and " princes, the latter stood in the same relation to the former. REVELATION. 483 " as the body to the soul, or the moon to the sun. And thus, *' at last, every possible degree of power was concentred in " the Roman bishop, or pope, which was the title he now " claimed for himself." — (lb. i. p. 166.) The Frankish head of Roman Empire having fallen, after a short duration (making a fifth fallen head), a fourth head of that empire, being the seventh and last of the septenary series, arose in a.d. 962, in the person of Otho the Great, king of Germany. " After the extinction of the " race of Charlemagne, and a vacancy of seventy years, Otho, " king of Germany, had the honour of procuring, like " Charlemagne, the dignity oi ' Roman emperor' for himself " and his house, a.d. 962; only he went still a step further " than Charlemagne, in omitting his other titles, and at last " only subscribed himself, ' Roman JEmperor. '"— (Pvtier. p. 128.) " At the head of a victorious army he crossed the " Alps, subdued the kingdom of Italy, and for ever fixed " the imperial crown in the name and nation of Germany." — (Gibbon, c. xlix.) This was the origin of the last head of Roman empire, entitled, the ' Germanic, or Holy Roman ' Empire.' In A.D. 1453, the surviving second head of Roman empire, or fifth of the septenary series, fell, by the victorious entrance of the Turks within the pale of Christendom ; leaving alone surviving, the seventh and last, or Germanic head, of the prophetic symbol. In A.D. 1806, the Germanic, or last head of Roman empire, and seventh of the septenary series, fell, after con- tinuing 854 years from the year a.d. 962; and thus, the style and dignity of * Roman Emperor, Ccesar, and An- ' yustuSf' ceased, and became obliterated for ever from the sight of Christendom, after having held the preeminence of rank in the Christian world, by universal and uninterrupted acknowledgment, for 1849 years, or from 43 years preceding the birth of our Lord. But, this termination of the ' septenary series,' left an ' eighth ' head of empire, totally distinct and alien from that series, and by which it was brought to its termination. That ' eighth' head erected itself into solitary empire only tsvo years before it accomplished the fall of this last head of the connected series. " On the second day of December, a.d. 1804, 484 ANNOTATIONS. " Pius VII., having made the journey from Rome to Paris, " anointed Napoleon in the cathedral church of the latter " city : the new emperor placed the imperial crown on his " own head ; and, the ceremony being concluded, the herald "at arms proclaimed, ' Le tres glorieux et tres auguste ' Empereur Napoleon, Empereur des Francais, est couronne ' et intronise! Vive I'Empereur ! — The most glorious and ' august Emperor Napoleon, Emperor of the French, is ' crowned and enthroned! Long live the Emperor!'" — {Coronation of Napoleon.) On the 6th of August, a.d. 1806, the last of the German CcBsars resigned, and so extinguished, the ancient imperial pre-eminence of Rome,^ at the demand and instance of the new and extraneous Emperor of the French; yet, forming with him a mixture or union of bloods (above, p. 480) : which last, being the first and last head of his own new empire, finally fell, after a short survivance of about ten years, on the 18th of June, a.d. 1815, and disappeared, for ever, from the view of the Christian world. It would be wholly unavailing to allege, that the prophecy describes all the four heads of ' Roman empire ' as charac- tered by ' blasphemy,' whereas the last three here presented, as corresponding eminences, were ' Christian powers.^ The prophetic spirit' thought fit to affix that character to the Roman dignity, before these last appeared ; and if these chose, in the face of the prophecy, to assume and invest themselves with a dignity so charactered, they must take it with the character so affixed ; for, the prophecy was not to bend itself to future contingencies resulting from the vain and ambitious secular policies of men. "■ It is a part of this prophecy," observed Sir Isaac Newton, " that it should not be understood till the last age " of the world ; and, therefore, it makes for the credit of the " prophecy, that it is not yet understood. But, if the last ' When the late Head of the House of Austria thus finally extinguished the imperial name of ' Rome,'' he must have fallen back to his hereditary personal title oi Archduke of that principality ; but, to prevent so great a mortification and degradation to so ancient, illustrious, and respected a House, which had so long borne the imperial title, the sovereigns of Europe willingly consented to acknowledge the Archduke of Austria as ' Emperor* of Austria ; but, no longer in the same extended and exalted sense in which that dignity had previously been borne. REVELATION. 485 " age of opening these things be now approaching, as it seems " to he, we have more encouragement than ever to look into " these things. The event, will prove the Apocalypse. The " time is not yet come for understanding them perfectly, " because the main revolution predicted by them, is not yet " come to pass. The signal revolutions predicted by the holy " prophets, will at once turn men's eyes upon considering " the predictions, and plainly interpret them." — {Proph. of H. Writ. c. vii. viii.) It is for the Universal Church, now, to ^' turn its eyes to " the consideration of these predictions ;" and to ask itself, with solemn reflection, these momentous questions : " Whe- " ther, since the time when Sir Isaac Newton delivered that *' oracular judgment, any ' signal revolution' has occurred in " the Christian world, which appears sufficiently plain to " interpret that portion of them which constitutes tlie ' Sacred ' Prophetic KalendarV" Whether the absolute cessation, and final disappearance, of the pre-eminent features which have hitherto accompanied the progress of the Christian ages, is to be regarded as constituting an Indicatory Crisis ? For, though we are not able to detect a * day ' or an ' hour,' we are required to be sensible of the characters of Time.^ 1 Luko, xii. 58, 9 (56, N. T.). 486 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. CHAPTER I. Ver. 2. His servant John.] As there is no variation in the description of the person here named, in any of the MSS., the cause of the ancient dissension noticed by Birch (above, p. 477), respecting his identity, can be ascribed only to a defect of critical attention and judgment in the ages in which such dissension arose, and was maintained. It is not possible for an individual to be described in terms more exclusively appropriate to himself, than John, the Apostle and Eimn- gelist, is here described. It was the John " who bare testi- " mony to the Word of God, even the testimony of Jesus " Christ, in all the things which he saw." Now, we have only to read the first chapters of St. John's Gospel, and of his First Epistle, to receive a conviction, defying all the ingenuities of sophistry, that this description pertains exclu- sively to that apostle. The term o Xoyog — ' the Word,' used as the designation of a person, and that person Jesus Christ, is, as Campbell truly observes, " an idiom, peculiar to the " Apostle John J' It was that apostle, alone, who witnessed and testified the piercing of our Lord's side with a spear ; to which action, special reference is made in ver. 7 of this chapter, and in no other part of the New Scriptures, except where that fact is recorded ; and, the same sacred writer, alone, uses the word aii^a in the unusual plural, aiiiara — * bloods;' in his gospel, ch. i. 13, and in ch. xviii. 28, of this book. We cannot, therefore, doubt of the '•John' here designed, unless we renounce the critical experience which has been accumulated on this age, and carry our judgment backward to the point of time when that experience was first beginning to accumulate. That St. John, the favourite disciple of our Lord, and who was regarded by his fellow - apostles as enjoying our Lord's especial confidence (John, xiii. 23-25), should have been chosen by Him as the depositary of His last prophetic communication, is as probable as it is wholly improbable, that that confidence should have been withheld from all His selected apostles, and have been reserved for an individual totally unknown to the Gospel history, and barely and CuAP. II. REVELATION. 487 vaguely known, even by name, to the history of the early church. Ver. 4. from God, who is, SfcJ] avo ©sou, 6 m : Vat. and 3Iosc. MSS. This is also the reading of the Cod. Venet. 10., of which Birch says {Proleg. p. xx.) " Si Vat. 1209 excipias, " nullus inter reliquos Codd. MSS., a me examinatos atque *' publicatos, quoad textum Evv., tanti ponderis ac dignitatis " reperitur :" and it has already been stated, that the Vatican MS. (1209 or B) does not contain the Apocalypse (Pref. p. 50, note). Some copies have changed ©sou to rou, and some have omitted both those words, reading a'::o 6 ojv. But, the former reading is corroborated by a parallel construction in the next verse, rov I. Xoiffro-j, 6 (Ma^r-jg ; and also by the fact, that the designation 6 m, &c. is no where used in this book, without being immediately preceded by ©sog or Kuo/o; (c. i. 8, and xi. 17.) Dr. Bloomfield says; " the reading ©sou, is " edited injudiciously by INIatthaei, and is an evident gloss :" I must profess my dissent to both these propositions. This learned annotator hesitates on the reading, and gives it thus, a'::o [rou] o uv ; Scholz reads, aero 6 uiv, omitting both Qiou and rou. Ver. 7. all the tribes of the earth will wail because of Him.] See Pref. p. 85, and annot. to Matth. xxiv. 31. p. 171. Ver. 8. the Lord God] Ku^/os 6 ©sog; — Vat. and Mosc. CHAPTER II. Ver. 9. church of Smyrna.'] " Of all the cities of the " Apocalypse (observes a recent learned traveller), Smyrna " is the only one which is not desolate. There was no " denunciation of the removal of its candlestick." The pro- phecy did not speak of cities, but of churches ; and the primi- tive Lamp is as entirely removed from Smyrna, though flourishing as a city, as from the six cities whjch lie in desolation. 488 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. V. Ver. 15. fornication with idols.'] See annot. to Acts, xv. 19. p. 308. Ver. 16. ill like manner.'] 6/j,oiug: — Vat. and Mosc. So also the Alex. MS.; the philoponist changed 6f/.oiug to 6 /^iffu, because the apostle had said, at v. 6, d fiiau. Ver. 22. tht/ wife Jezebel.] rriv ywaixa, gov l. : — Vat. and Mosc. Ver. 23. yet she ivill not repent.] xai ou SsXu fMsravorjdcct : — Vat. and Mosc. Ver. 27. until I open.] a%f'S ou am^u : — Vat. and Mosc. ; not 6v av ^^00, as in the rec. text. CHAPTER III. Ver. 2. which thou wast about to cast from thee.] d sfjbsXXsg aTojSaXXsiv, SO read the Vat. and ilfosc. MSS. : not, d i/xiXXn a-TTodavBiv, as the rec. text. Ver. 7. no one shall shut it but he who openeth ; and none else shall open.] oudsig xXnasi avrr^v si /i»j 6 avoiyuv, xai 0-ohsig am^si. — Vat. and Mosc. Ver. 18. and eye-salve, that thou mayest anoint.] 'iva iyXi"^p r. 0. (T. /'i/a (SXi-^'pg. — Vat. and Mosc. CHAPTER V. Ver. 1. without.] s^cAikv, Vat. and Mosc, and lastly, Scholz ; not o'Triskv, as the rec. text. Matthaei observes, " o'Ttiediv, suspicor nullius esse codicis." It is certain, that Birch found it in no copy. Scholz states, that o-tickv is found in several copies ; but, as he does not specify them, and yields to the preponderating testimony, their authority can be of no weight. Chap. IX. REVELATION. 489 Ver. 3. in heaven above.'] sv ou^avu avu, Vat. and Mosc. — iv ov§av(fj, rec. text. (See Pref. p. 62). Ver. 8. golden cups.] p/aXa; %gi^fl'a5 : — l^at. ' pkialas aureas.' Wiclif rendered ' vloUs,' whence our revisers, ' vials.' Johnson explains ' vial/ ' a small bottle,' which is its only signification in English ; whereas, piaXa, ' phiala,' signifies ' cup' or ' bowl.' So in Num. iv. 14, where our version renders ' bowls, ' the Greek translators rendered ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XX. known to the best Vat. and Mosc. MSS.; and betrays a marginal inference of some glossist, which has been drawn into the text. It is excluded from the text by Matthsei, in his second edition, though he had given it within brackets, in his first edition. In this last, (1785), he had said, " ne " audacior viderer, tantum modo inclusi ;" but, in his edition of 1807, after long consideration and extended collation, he says, " a principio, hujus versus in prima editione incluseram " haec verba, 0/ hi Xoi--oi, &c. : ea jam, plurium et proborum ** Codd. auctoritate, prorsus exclude. " In this decision, he was further strengthened by Birch's collations : " 01 8s Xoimi, " &c. desunt in Vatt. 1 136. 1 160. Pio. Vat. 50. Alex. Vat. 68." The clause, however, is read in the Alex. MS., and is retained by Scholz. Neither Burton nor Bloomfield notice the doubt- ful character of the clause. The question of its admission or rejection, rests on the following grounds. Its admission, is urged on the ground, that it might have lapsed from the numerous copies that contain it not, through the o/miot. — X''^'"' £'"'?5 %'^'a i'T^ ; and that it is, therefore, entitled to hold the place it has acquired in the Alex, and rec. text. On the other hand, it is found to be absent from so many good copies widely disjjersed, that its absence from all these cannot well be ascribed to an inadvertency in any single copy. These balanced accounts acquire a determination from the following clause, avrri ri amdraeig i] 'Tr^curr} — ' this is the first resurrection ; which plainly refers immediately to the preceding clause, from which it is severed by the intrusive clause in question, to which last it cannot pertain. Thus circumstanced, Matthaei has taken the most prudent course, of excluding it from his text ; whose example I have followed in this revision. " Of the two resurrections (observes Augustin, loc. cit.), " St. John has so expressed himself in his ' Ajjocalypse,' that " the. first, not being rightly apprehended by some amongst " us, has been perverted into some ridiculous fictions. — De " his duabus resurrectionibus, idem Johannes evangelista, in '* libro qui dicitur Apocalypsis, eo modo locutus est, ut earum ''prima, a quibusdam nostris non intellecta, insuper etiam in " quasdam ridiculas fabulas vertaretur." See Annot. to Luke, xxiii. 41, and 1 Thess. iv. 5. Ver. 12. the sea gave up the dead which were in it ; and Chap. XX. REVELATION. 501 death and the grave gave up the dead which were in them.'] There is something so remarkable in the parallel, distinction, and distribution, here presented, and in the priority assigned to * the dead which are in the sea,' that these can hardly be supposed to relate to the casualties, however numerous, which occasionally befall navigators on the existing ocean ; and which bear no proportion or analogy to the accumulated mass of mankind, which the established progress of human life is daily and hourly bringing, by entire generations, to their termination in the grave. To find a parallel in the former, which shall bear both priority and analogy to the latter, we must look to St. Peter's record (2 Ep. iii. 6, 7.) : " The world that then was, being overflowed with water, ^^ perished ; but, the heavens and the earth which are now, " are reserved for fire, &c." It is, therefore, the accumulated generations of ' the earth which then was,' (from the creation of man to the catastrophe of the deluge) now submerged in its bed, which the ' sea' will 'give up;' while the ' grave' will give up all those consigned to the present earth, from the renovation of the human race until its absolute termination. Here we find proportionate analogy, and the true priority of the former in the order of succession. And it will be per- tinent to notice an ancient Jewish tradition, preserved by a pious, though uninspired writer of that nation, who, in re- verting to the Mosaical record of the creation, thus describes the formation of the sea: " Upon the third day, Thou didst " command that the waters should be gathered into the " seventh part of the earth : six parts Thou didst dry up." — (2 Esdras. vi. 42.) If we look now on a globe, or map, of the earth, we shall perceive, that the actual relative pro- portions of land and sea are very nearly the exact reverse of those here assigned to them at their first distribution. And, the transfer of the human race to a new oixovfisvi^, or " habi- " table portion" of the surface of the terrestrial sphere, would necessarily have caused a corresponding transfer of the phe- nomena of the constellations (as to navigators who sail to another hemisphere) ; presenting to the survivors, the ap- pearance of ' other heavens' than those to whose signs they had been accustomed, and therefore, the optical effect of the destruction of the latter, as of the earth that had perished. 502 ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXI. CHAPTER XXI. Ver. 1. a new heaven and a new earth. 1 This was a fore- sight, vouchsafed to the evangelist, of the ' new heaven and * new earth' anticipated by St. Peter (2 Ep. iii. 13.); of the ^future earth' adverted to by St. Paul (Heb. ii. 5.) ; of the * paternal country'' foreseen and hailed by the patriarch ; and of the ' city of the Living God' (lb. xi. 14-16, xii. 22), which will form the eternal habitation of those who shall have at- tained to the ^ first resurrection above described (p. 499). Ver. 8. To him that overcometh, I will give these things."] dugci) auruj raura, Vat. and Mosc. — not, xXri^ovofji,r}gei 'ffavra, as in the rec. text, or ' shall inherit all things, as in our version. Ver. 9. the fearful.'] " Perfect love casteth out fear, for, '■^ fear hath torment," says St. Paul; those, therefore, in whom fear will finally prevail, are shewn, by the associates here annexed, to be those only in whom the expelling prin- ciple will have no existence. Ver. 25. and the nations shall walk, &c.] The Vat. and Mosc. MSS. read this verse as in ihe first of these columns : 1. 2, or rec. Tou Hug has shewn (p. 112) that the Vat. MS. was written ' before the middle ' of the FOURTH century — ante seculi \v medium,^ Wherefore Schulz (p. 2D) says, ' Hug, ante seculi iv medium hunc codicem exaratum, probavil.'' \V'hen, therefore, Scholz states (in his ' Prolegomena') — *■ seculo v scriplus est,'' we must assume ' v,' to be an error of the press for ' iv ;' since he alleges no other authority. This is necessary to be noticed, because Scholz's printed state- ment would go to diminish the antiquity of the MS. by one entire century. 506 CONCLUSION. Ver. 9. also, because the ' JVesteia, or Fast,' was now past."] St. Luke here states the grounds on which St. Paul was proceeding to dissuade the captain of the ship, and his associates, from putting to sea ; and to persuade them to remain at the ' Fair-havens,^ where they then were : those grounds were, ' the setting in of the dangerous season for ' navigation, and the time of the Nesteia, or Fast, having ' passed during their tedious delays J Now, what was this ^Nesteia, or Fast?' — tjjv lovha'ixnv drjXovori — 'namely, the Jewish^ says Matthsei's scholiast, with confident brevity; and, with this short answer interpreters appear to have been generally, and easily satisfied. Yet, the Jews had no fast thus exclusively distinguished ; nor could, a Jewish fast have concerned any in the ship, not even Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus, now that they had become released from all subjection to the ordinances of the cere- monial law (Col. ii. 16, 20). The only festival with which St. Paul is connected by the historian, is ' the Pentecost ' (Acts, XX. 16) ; but it is to be remarked, that he says, rnv ri/ji,B^av — * the day,' not ttjv lo^rriv — ' the feast:' and, as that took place on the * first day of a week,' and was the anniversary of the 'first effusion of the Holy Spirit on the ' church,' it is evident, that St. Paul observed it as a Christian, not as a Jewish festival. With respect to a vjjo-Ts/a, or 'fast,' we read, indeed, in Zechariah, viii. 19, " the fast of the fourth, of the fifth, of the seventh, and of " the tenth months," but we read of no fast, in the Hebrew Scriptures, distinguished by the style, ' the Fast ;' and it is observable, that although the Greek interpreters use the word vrjerBia, generally, in the passage of Zechariah above cited, they do not apply that term, specifically, to the ' day of atonement (10th of October),' which has been commonly resorted to, for an exposition of the term in this place. But, on the other hand, we find from history, that at the time when the ship first sailed from Asia, the ship's company had in their prospect a heathen festival, of much interest to them, deno- minated exclusively, 35 'Nriareia — * the Nesteia, or Fast;' a festival, peculiar to the country to which they ivere hastening, and for which St. Paul here reminds them, that they ivould now be too late. The anniversary of this festival fell on the 16th of October (J. Jonston. De Fest. Grcec. Thes. Gronov. CONCLUSION. 507 torn. vii. p. 892 : see, also, Athenseus, p. 307, Casaub.) Its origin is thus recorded by ^lian (lib. v. c. 20) : " When *' Tarentum was besieged by the Romans, and was near being " taken through famine, the Rhegians decreed, to fast one " day in ten, and to send the provisions of that day to the " people of Tarentum. The Romans having been forced, by " these means, to abandon the siege, the town was saved ; " and, to commemorate their jeopardy and deliverance, the " Tarentinians instituted a festival, which they called, r} " 'Nrjgrsia, — * the Nesteia' or ' the Fast;" and we are after- ward informed (c. xxviii. 12.), that the passengers made a circuit to touch at Rhegium, in their course from Malta to Rome. This, therefore, will have been the n 'Nrjffreia intended by the sacred narrator. The dangerous state of the navigation, at that time of the year, is shewn by Dr. Burton, from Vegetius: ''Post " hoc tempus, xviii. cal. Octob., usque in iii idus JVovemb., *' incerta navigatio est, et discrimini proprior" The period of the original institution of the ' Nesteia,' reveals itself to have occurred in the early history of 'Magna GrcBcia/ or southern Italy ; before the Romans had extended their con- quests over that territory, and before they possessed a power at sea enabling them to intercept the communication between the maritime towns of Rhegium and Tarentum. I have further to add, on the testimony of officers very recently returned from some years' service in the garrison of Malta, that the Maltese people preserve an immemorial tra- dition, that the wind which caused St. Paul's shipwreck, was the ' north-east' wind which they call ' Gregale,' from its blowing to them from Greece. This direction of the wind is plainly to be inferred from the narrative, which relates, that the ship was blown along the coast of Crete with so much violence, that it was not able avro(p&aXiLiiv rov avB/xou — ' to work ' in the wind's eye,' or ' to windward,' so as to gain the en- trance of the most western port of that island, Phoenice ; but was driven beyond it, further to the westward in the Adrian sea, by the force of the gale. Such would be the direction of the Gregale, N.E. wind, or Euraquilo. It is evident, that ■/MTa\jrr,g in this sentence can relate only to rnv K^'/}rr,v pre- ceding. A very recent learned and inquiring traveller as- 608 CONCLUSION. sumes, " that avrng implies the ship "^ but, if the historian had intended the ' ship ' in that pronoun, he would have written avrou, in the neuter, since he uses ro tXoiov to express the ' ship' eleven times, in this place and throughout his narrative; ' r^v vavv once only, in his conclusion, at v. 41. The modern claim of the island of ' Melida,' in the Adriatic Gulf, to the honour of St. Paul's shipwreck, is not entitled to our serious consideration ; because it is refuted by the historian himself, where he says, " we were driven along, *' in the A.dria — dia}Xtv/*ivos — nXttfuvos. 1 Cor, vii. 25. xaTuXafifiavu. John, i. 5. aKoXouhuffm;. K. 3 (Gr. 4.) aXXa,. xix. 34. S.»)/.i, is au interpolation drawn from Luke, xiii. 36, so, both the two passages, now found in the Greek translation of Mat- thew's Hebrew original, have been surreptitiously introduced. (See the following Annot. to Mark, xiii. 1, and Luke, xiii. 36.) The elaborated annotation of Bengel to the word Na^w- ^aiog in this place, who was not aware of the change which the text had sustained in its translation from the Hebrew ' The following contumacious position of an intemperate author, would liave been better withheld : " //so many books in Greek, tvhy not all ? It seems to " have been prejudice, which yi>*/ made men fancy It was likely that those two " books {Maltheiv and Hebrews) should be first written in Hebrew, and thence " conclude that they were so.'" — (Hey's Lectures, &c. vol. i. p. 28.) The writer would have more prudently suppressed, either this paragraph, or his own name. 6 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IlL original ; and those of Burton, Bloomfield, Trollope, and of all others ; are superseded at once by the direct internal evidence, that the whole concluding clause was an unskilful philoponisni of the Greek translator : who erroneously con- ceived, that m^i^ {va^i^aiog, vi^rj^ccioi), Jud. xiii. 5, * JVazarite/ or 'o7ie bound under a certain vow ;' and ' JVazarine' or ' JVaza- ' rcean^ or * a native of the city 'Nazareth," had the same signi- jication ; and who, under that error, devised his imaginative superaddition. (See, Tronimii Concord. Gr. ad Septuag. Interpr. vol. ii. p. 62, fol.) CHAPTER III. Ver. 4. his/ooc?was locusts, &c.] h r^ofn rjv uvrcv ax^idtg — It is remarkable, that although in Lev. xi. 22, the * loc7ist and its kind ' are specially named as lawful arti- cles of food, and although they are, to this day, used as such, in the countries of scriptural geography (Shaw's Tra- vels, p. 256, fol.); yet, we never find them again mentioned in Scripture, as applied to that use, by any one but by John the Baptist. The Sept. render, by the common appel- lation of azoig, the Hebrew name of several varieties of insects ; but, that which is specified in Lev., is the n3"iN% ' locusta,' from nai, * multum esse.' (Castell. Lex.) Strabo (tom. ii. p. 1118) describes the simple process by which these insects were prepared, for present and future suste- nance, by the Arabs : " These people," he says, " live on the " locusts which the W. and S.W. winds blow in the spring, " with great violence, into those countries. They place " smoky fuel in their valleys, which they slightly kindle ; " and the swarms of locusts flying over, are blinded by the " smoke, and fall down. They then collect and salt them, " and preserve them for use." See Bochart's Hieroz. lib. iv. c. 4, p. 480 ; and c. 7, p. 487, where he established, in 1692, his position, " Job. Bapt. veras locustas habuisse pro cibo" against his learned contemporary. Sir Norton Knatchbull, and other ingenious expositors, who conjectured, that a-z-iig intended here a vegetable, not an animal substance ; namely, what is called the ' locmt-hean.' Knatchbull found a diffi- Chap. III. MATTHEW. 7 culty in supposing, that the Baptist was able to prepare the animal food in the rlesert — " quarum artium ulla, vix credere •' est usum fuisse Baptistam in deserto ;" or, that he would encounter the labour of doing so, and of hmtivg for the insects — " et utrum lahoris tcedium in arefaciendo coram sole, '* vel in venando vel in auciipando, stimpserit." But, the order of Providence brought the swarms of insects to his hand, by millions, without other labour than the kindling the smoke of some half-dried wild vegetation ; and the ' Dead ^ Sea' was close at hand, to supply him with its salt : " The " Arabs make pits at the side of the lake, which are filled " by its overflow on the melting of the snow; and, when " the lake is lower, the water evaporates, and leaves a cake " of salt : — the country, for a considerable distance, is sup- " plied with it for common use." (Pococke, vol. ii. p. 36.) Bloomfield shews from Aristoph. ^c/iar/2. 1116, Brunck.(1129, Inveruez.) that locusts were accounted a ' mean food' by the Greeks ; but I do not find, in either of those editions, the ' SclioL' to which this learned annotator refers. It was, on account of the ' meanness' of the diet, that it is here commemo- rated by the Evangelist. (See this question, determined also for the animal locust, in Elliott's ' Travels' in Palestine.) Ver. 15. accomplish the whole of justification.] The phrase, ^fulfil all righteousness,' given by Wiclif from the Latin ' implere omnem justitiam ;' and copied from him, by all the succeeding translators and revisers, demonstrates the embarrassment which the English rendering has caused to them all. It is the same with the Latin translation. Euthymius approached much nearer to the true sense with his Greek, when he paraphrased thus: — o'j-u rr^s'mt [loi rrXri- i'j}(Sti iraeav ivroXrtV bia rov (3a--Tisdrtvai, iva — rr^; TaXai y.araBiy.r,g syu vuv affaX>.a^w to-j: i^ s/iou. — ' Thus it becomes me to fulfil * every commandment, by suhmittitig to baptism; that I mag ^release my (people) from their ancient condemnation:' — that is, (as more briefly rendered here) — * Thus it becometh ' us, to accomplish the whole o/ justification.' The learned Cave thus betrays the equivocation with which these two words {justification — righteousness) were used by our early English divines. " In the first three " cluijjters of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, having 8 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IH. *' proved at large that the ' whole world,' both Jew and '' Gentile, were under a state of guilt, and consequently, " liable to the divine sentence and condemnation ; he conies " next to inquire, by what means they may be delivered *' from this state of vengeance; and shews, that it could not " be by legal observances ; but that, now, there is a way of 'righteousness or justification' declared by Christ in the " gospel, extending to all, both Jews and Gentiles : whereby " God, with respect to the satisfaction and expiation of *' Christ, is ready freely to pardon and justify all penitent " believers; that therefore, there was a wag revealed in the " gospel, whereby a man might he justijied, without being " beholden to the rites of the Jewish law." {Life of St. Paul, § 10.) — Karadixrjg a-rnXXaaguv, to ' reprieve after sen- * tence of judgment given,' was conventionally expressed by the apostles, biy.aioeuvr^ ; to convey which sense, the first Latin Christian writers devised the word, ' justi-^co ' — i. e. * make- ' guiltless' (Tertull. ad Marc. iv. 18.) It is manifest, that the quality of absolute and essential guiltlessness or innocence, is widely different from the former ; yet, those qualities are un- warily confounded, as if they were synonymous, in that position of the learned Cave : which is, also, that of the ' eleventh * article of Faith, of our Church.' I must therefore take leave to insist, (notwithstanding the denial of two learned modern divines,) that the proper signification of dijcaiosuvri in this place, and generally throughout the evangelical Scriptures, is (as was asserted by the pre-eminent theologian named in ray first Annotation, Bishop Bull,) " altogether forensic, or of " legal adjudication ; and intends, release from the guilt, and " consequent penalty, of Sin:" — * for, all have sinned; but ' SiVe justified freely hy grace.' (Rom. iii. 23, 24.) There is the same relation to the terms ^justice dinA justification,' as to those of rectitude and rectification: — " rectitude, is strait- " ness, not curvity ; rectification, is the act of setting right " what was wrong." (Johnson.) Righteousness and recti- tude, have the same ultimate signification ; and so, also, justification and rectification have the same ultimate sig- nification. If, then, two such different imports (righteousness and justification) be used as synonymous, the references drawn from them must necessarily be vicious, that is, false. (See after, Annot. to Rom. vi. lG-2-3.) Chap. IV. BIATTHEW. CHAPTER IV. Ver. 13. sea-coast in the borders of Zeb. &c.] rraiaAaXaa- ff/av iv o^ioig Zs/3. (fee: — This description, only denotes the western line of coast of the sea or lake of Tiberias ; which formed the eastern boundaries, both of Zebulun and Naph- tali. Some ancient maps give the whole of the W. coast to Naphtali, contrary to the statement in Josh. xix. 11, " the border of Zebulun went vp to the sea" i. e. of Tiberias or Geiniesaret: (not the 'great sea,' or 'Mediterranean/ as is shewn in ver. 15; the tribe of Asher, extending from Tyre to Carmel, south, separated Zebidiin from the 'great sea,' as is duly laid down in D'Anville's map.) Ver. 15. Zebulun, and Naphtali, on the way of the sea, (fee] {-/.ad') oSov {rrjg) daXadgrig {sig to) •rsgav rou lo^davov, i. e. ' along the sea or lahe-road, to the passage of the Jordan ;' in other words, 'from Nazareth to Capernaum ;' which district, constituted the Galilee here mentioned. For, Nazareth was in Zebulun ; and Capernaum, was situated at the eastern point of Naphtali where the Jordan enters the sea or lake of Tiberias. The ancient prophecy thus, minutely, described the first theatre of our Lord's public ministry: " Topogra- " phia prophetica mirabilis," observes Bengel ; " latitudine " et longitudine ad punctum conveniente." lb. to the Jordan.] All our English versions, from Wiclif to James I., have erroneously rendered the Greek crsoav rov Josdavov — beyond the Jordan ; following the first, or Latin translator, who rendered, ' trans Jordanem.' I there- fore left the received term, ' beyond,' in my former text, until 1 could ascertain the principle by which the word cs^ai- ought, on all occasions, to be interpreted. This word, standing alone, has caused a perplexity to the commentators and annotators of all ages, which has not a little confounded the topographical history of the gospel ; some writers as- suming the word to signify only, 'trans, ultra — beyond,' whilst others contended, that it signified also, ' cis — on this ' side.' (See Parkhurst's Lex., new edition.) 1. Damm {Lex. p. 1972), speaking after Eusta thins, says, 10 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IV. " m^av {Ion. -n^riv), proprie est accusativus ab ri vioa — eadem *' quae i] s^a, rj yjj — per elUpsin, xara rriv Ts^av vel iig rrjv Tioav; " et notat, wxo tuv ivrauda ng rrjv £x.si9sv avrixou yi^v — ' rib hisce " ' locis in terram inde e regione sitam.' " The word is of comparatively rare occurrence in the classical writers, 2. In the sacred Greek writers, of both Scriptures, it is of frequent occurrence, both with and without ellipsis. The Sept. use it about 80 times : of these, 48 times with the prepositions a-ro, sv, ex, sic, expressed, and the remainder, with ellijxsis of the prepositions. The Evangelists employ m^av 23 times ; 1 1 times with the prepositions sig, ha, the remain- ing times elliptically ; but, all these use Tssai/ as an adverb, with the neuter article to, when the preposition is expressed ; not as an accusative case, with the feminine article, as Damm exemplifies : " the accusatives m^av and -ffsfjiv, observes Eusta- " thius, passed into adverbs — ng iTi^^rn^ara to, ts^tjv xai Tigav iJjiTivzsiv." p. 1475, 42. 3. But, these last Hellenistic writers used it with a differ- ent acceptation from that assigned to it by Damm; they used it with the sense of the Heb. iDjr, "i3:?o — htafiacig — ' traus'itus — * alveus — passage, ford, or bed of a river (' transilum ponti- ' ' culo conjungere — io join the opjjosite banks by a bridge.' ' Cic. Tusc. V. 59); so that, ng to -Tre^av signified ad transilum; ' dia To\j '^i^av — per transitum; iv tui ^ri^av — in transitu; avo * TOM 'Tti^av — e transitu.' When, therefore, 'tts^o.v is found alone, it is elliptical of one or other of those directing prepositions, and its intention is manifested by the tenor of the context. In the citation from Isaiah before us, which describes the extremity of the tribe of Naphtali, whose " outgoings were " at Jordan" (Josh. xvii. 9), the ' motus ad locum' indicated by 0^01', directs us to understand, ng to 'jnoav — ' along the sea- ' road, to the channel, or bed of the Jordan, or simply, to the ' Jordan,' which formed the S.E. limit of Naphtali ; not, ' beyond' Jordan. So, in ch. xix. 1, where our version also renders ' beyond,' and the Greek has only in^av, we are to understand ng to m^av, which constituted ra 6^/a r>j$ lovBaiag. Mark, xi. 1 (Gr. x. 1), says, 8ia too — ' by or alotig the ' course or bank of the Jordan,' which formed the eastern boundary of Judea; by pursuing which line, our Lord arrived at Jericho : not ' bi yond,' or ' on the other side,' which was ' not Chap. V. MATTHEW. 1 I ' in the borders ofJudea.' By rendering rri^av, ' ultra^' in this place, the Latin translator entailed a prescriptive perversion of topographical history on all the ages that followed him. The theatre of the Baptist's functions, was the 'wilderness of ' Judea ;' the whole of which lay on the west side of the Jordan. So, eh. v. 3 (Gr. iv. 25), and in the corresponding passage, Mark, iii. 8, ■s-E^av is governed by a'xo, and w^e are to understand, aero to\j asgai/ — 'from the boundary of the Jor- ' dan.' In John, i. 28, iv Brjdavia itioav rou lo^d., oTov rjv lojav., we are to understand, sv rw Ti^av — ' in or at the passage of ' the Jordan:' so, in John, iii. 26; but, in ch. x. 40, a':rr\'kkv lo^d. iig Tov roTov, we are plainly to understand, St. John is the only evangelist that always omits the preposition. In ch. vi. 1, and 17, we are to understand, 6ia rov ■zioav. in vv. 22, 2-5, ev rw 'jigaM-. in ch. xviii. 1, ho. ro-j moav. In Luke, viii. 26, sig ry}v %wfav Tuv Ts^affrivajv {rec. Tada^nvuv^) ijTig iSriv avTim^av r^g TaXiXaiag, we are to understand by avrivs^av, not ' over against Galilee ;' but, ' the opposite coast of Galilee,' both which opposite coasts Josephus (B. J. iii. 3) expressly states, were included in the territory of Galilee. — air/To/s/tr^a/ tmv iti^av ir^ayiJjaruv (Polyb. iii. 97): "■ citeriora et ulteriora," Steph. Thes. Gr. Tifav TOO cIC TO Tipav CHAPTER V. Ver. 6. beggars in spirit.] ■rrojyjji: — I have shewn, in the former Annot., on the authority of Tertullian, that rrroj^oi here signifies ' mendici — beggars.' So Eustathiiis, p. 1782, 10. iTTor/juiiv, I'j ISM T(jj iccciTiiv — iTTuyjuitv , is equivalent to ' to ask;' also, p. 1833, 54. ittoi-xoc, 6 ivatrrig, Tsvrjg h 6 yji^i T&v&u/xsvo;, %ai ovtui dia^uv — * the •T7w;/o; (beggar) is one who ' asks; but the mr/ig (poor) is one who works with his hands, ' and so gains his living.' Suicer, who loved to expound by the Greek of the Lower Empire," says, " ttw;^©? jjroprie est, " 0 arro 'jtXo-jtov xuTiXduv ng ivhiav — 'XTuyog is, properly, one ' See former Annot. to Matt. viii. 28, )). 140. 2 So called from the French, 'Le Bas Empire :' " On appelle Le Bas Em- '■' pire, le temps de la decadence de TEmpire Romain,qiii commence a Valerieii." Diet, de I'Acad. Fr. 12 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VL " who has fallen from wealth to indigence :'' for which defi- nition he only quotes a * Code of Ordinances' of the Lower Greek Emperors — " Ut habetur ad Basil. Ccesar. regid. " hrev. resp. ad Interrog." 262, p. 630. — With such au- thority we have no concern. Ver. 33. should go into hell.] The Vatic, copy, thus reads this clause, sig yiswrjv amXdr,, as does the D, and some other anc. versions : the multitude of later copies, have repeated the clause of the preceding verse ; betraying the carelessness of after copyists. Ver. 51. your heavenly Father.] 6 rraTr,^ v/j:,uv 6 ov^aviog : Vatic, and D, MSS., and others, read thus ; and do not repeat, sv ov^avoig, from ver. 48 (Gr. 4-5), as in the rec. Gr. text, or K. James's revision (of our common translation). It cannot be too often enforced, that our knowledge of the most ancient testimonies of the primitive text, has been acquired since the gear 1611, when that monarch was an active agent in producing our present authorised version. (See the following Annott. to 2 Cor. c. iii. and v.) CHAPTER VI. Ver, 2. are far from their reward] or, ' put away the ^ reward from them' — amy^o-osi rov iMa6ov (acr') a-jruv — as in Jer. V. 25, a<7:i(JTr,aav 7a ayaQa, a(p vfiuv. The Theological Reviewers manifested unacquaintance of the philological history, and genuine signification of the verb am^u (see Preface), will oblige me to extend this annotation far beyond my first design ; since he is more anxious to retain the particular terms used by ' K. James's translators,' than to ascertain the true import of the words used by our Lord. I had stated, that the genuine and primitive sense of wsiyy, was ' averto, procul teneo, disto, absi/m.' The reviewer admits, that ^^ some such transitive sense" (he does not in- quire how or why?) "does, undoubtedly, belong to it, when " used to signify the action of one person icith reference to Chap. VI. MATTHEW. 13 " Others ;" but he objects, with much derision, that I have ascribed to amyjM " the same transitive force, when used to " denote the action of a person with reference to himself :" and lie concludes — " Never till noio did we hear it ques- " tioned, that a--o gives to the transitive verb sy^u, in compo- " sition with it, only a more full and ^emphatic' sense: s^m " implies possession, simply ; a-inyji)) signifies, that the pos- " sessor has received in full, from the proper quarter, what- " ever was due or expected — tliat he has carried off with '* him the whole of what was intended for him." It is easy to shew the source, from which the Theol. Reviewer has helped himself to this elaborated, but fallacious, definition of the verb a^gp^w. He has evidently taken it, without acknow- ledgment, almost verbatim, from the convenient ' Thesaurus' of Suicer, first ))rinted in 1682; who, in his turn, took it verbatim, also without acknowledgment, from Thomas Gata- ker's Annotation to the word a'-rriyii, subjoined to his 'Marcus ^Antoninus,' first printed in 1652 ; by which processes we may learn, how freely learned critics sometimes deal with their brethren's critical property — e. g. : Suicer, 1682. Gataker, 1()52. a-riyu. airiyiiv. " plirasis emphatica est, qua non " phrasis emphalica, qua non tantum suum, quod quispiam assecutus taiitum suum, quod est assecutus quis- est, iudicatur ; sed ita id orrme, quod piam, indicatur ; sed ita id omue, quod suum dncit, plenum et integrum asse- suum ducit, plenum et integrum asse- cutus, ut in eo plane acqniiscat, nee cutus, ut in eo plane acquiescat, nee quicquam amplius reqnirat, ntpute quicquam amplius requirat, utpoie qui iilud sibi snfficei-eexistimat. Uniie quuin illiid sibi sufficere existimat. recte Tlieophylactnsiucap. vi.iMatth." Ita IMatt. vi.ver. 25; Luc. cli. vi. ver. &c. (torn. i. p. 434, ed. 1746.) 24, interpretatur Tlieopliylact." &c. (ed. 1652 et 1697, Aimot. p. 178.) According to the reviewer, therefore, the 'only' direct and full import of a'TrsyM, is to 'receive in full ;' and thus he jjropounds ' suopericulo,' with Bentley's daring, but freed from the learning ; for, he is contradicted by every grammarian and lexicographer, and is not supported by any one of the ancient Greek writers; all of whom, from Homer, down to Dionysius Halicarnasseus in the age of Augustus, w^qA a-Tnyu with the significations assigned to that verb by Portus, in his Ionic Lex. — " abstinere ; ejficere ut aliquis a re aliqua absti- " neat ; arccre, amovere, summovere ; removere ab aliquo loco :" 14 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VL — also, ' disto, absum :' — a-:rodiv kui vo^^u ly^o), Eustatb. crojow s/^/, xwXeuw, Hesych. The meaning of the verb, in ancient Greek, is thus cor- rectly, though briefly, given by Dr. Maltby : ''absum, averto " — to be distant, or keep off. Also, abstineo — to refrain ''■from, which signification more properly belongs to the " middle, am-xotJ^ai." (Gr.Gradus.) Matthise observes — "The " middle voice is exactly equivalent, in signification, to the " active joined to the corresponding pronoun pers. refl." — e.g. '^ avB^siv, to withhold another ; mid. arsxi<^dai, a-Tros^iadai , " i. q. amyjtv savrov, to withhold one's self." (Gr. Gramm. § 491, a.) Here, Matthise contradicts the T'heol. Reviewer ; shewing, that one of the two was by no means master of the subject with which he meddled. Priscian remarks: " Graeci " amyoij.ai rouTou %ai rouro : IVos quoque, abstineo illius, et " ilium, et illo.'" {Gramm. Latt. Putsch, p. 1176.) The first of these signifies, a-rsp/w (s/ji^avrov a-xo) rourov — the second, aitiyui TouTo {a'K ifjja-jrov or s/iov). So in the Latin : "sese " cibo abstinere." Ccesar. " abstinere ignem ab aede," Liv. Eustathius, who interprets aitiyj/i by antohv lyu, m^^cj syu, instances from Homer a'lrisyj jv -TraoaxXtitnv a^s^in tjjv tragaxXjj^iv (aip') ufiuv. V/iUV. ~ vii. 6; XV. 20. ou fi,ccx,^av a-ri- ov //.ax^av a^i;^ovros (^avrov, t. e. ^ovTos a.To. arohv ovTos) ccro. — xxiv. 13. KMfij^v acri^ourav ffTO,^. ^. xu/^tiv a'ri;^ouirav(^avTriv,^ i.e. cc^ohv ovtrav) ff-r. |. Pllilipp. iv. 18. cc^t^ai vea.vTO., a-ri^u {cct' t/^ov) Txvra. Pliilem. 15. /»« aiuviov avro> a^i^y,;, iva aiuviov auTOV a-nx^r,; {aTO ffov). Acts, XV. 20, 29. rov ccTixiir^oci Tuv i. e. rou ccTix^iv laurovi (a^o) aXiiry. aXKrytifiara* — tiSciiXo^VTavKaia,ifiaTOS. £