Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

cation. This concurrence itself, where the choice is indifferent, is a good ground of preference to later interpreters. But I do not think the choice in this passage indifferent. A fishing bark, such as Josephus describes those on this lake to have been, (lib. ii. ca. 43, De bello), though an improper place for manufacturing nets in, might be commodious enough for repairing small injuries sustained in using.

.66

24. Art thou come to destroy us?" Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) observes, that the Jews had a tradition that the Messiah would destroy Galilee, and disperse the Galileans. He thinks, therefore, that this ought to be considered as spoken by the man, who was a Galilean, and not by the demon, as it is commonly understood.

2 The holy One of God." Diss. VI. Part iv. L. iv. 34. N. 28. "Through all the region of Galilee," is onν tηv regiza

ρον τῆς Γαλιλαίας. E. T. " Throughout all the region round about Galilee." Vul. "In omnem regionem Galilææ." This version of the old La. interpreter entirely expresses the sense, and is every way better than that given by Be. "In totam regionem circumjacentem Galilæa," who has been imitated by other translators, both in La. and in modern languages, often through a silly attempt at expressing the etymology of the Gr. words. Had Galilee been the name of a town, neдixwoos must no doubt have meant the environs,' or circumjacent country. But as Galilee is the name of a considerable extent of country, the compound nɛizwoos denotes no more than the simple zooos, or, if there be a difference, it only adds a suggestion that the country spoken of is extensive. But as the region round about Galilee must be different from Galilee itself, or, which is the same thing, the region of Galilee, the translators that render it so totally alter the sense. The use of περίχωρος in the Sep. manifestly supports the interpretation which after the Vul. and all the ancient interpreters, I have given. Η περίχωρος Αργὸβ is in our Bible “the region of Argob ;” ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ ̓Ιορδάνου, "the plain of Jordan." Other examples might be given, if it were necessary. To express properly in Gr. the region round about Galilee, we should say, ή περίχωρος, not τῆς Γαλιλαίας, but περὶ τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, the repetition of the preposition being quite agreeable to the genius of the tongue. Thus, Apoc. 15: 6, ПIεQLεSwoμεvoi negi là sinon. There is no occasion, therefore, for Dr. Pearce's correction, " rather into the whole region of Galilee, which was round about, i. e. about Capernaum:" a comment which is, besides, liable to this other objection, that, if the lake of Gennesaret was, as is commonly supposed, the boundary of Galilee on the east, it would not be true that Capernaum, which was situated on the side of the lake, was surrounded by Galilee.

38. “The neighboring horoughs,” τὰς ἐχομένας κωμοπόλεις. The Cam. ἐγγύς πόλεις καὶ εἰς τὰς κώμας. Vul. “Proximos vicos

et civitates." So also Sy. Go. Sax. and Ara. The reading of a single MS. can have no weight in this case; and the versions have very little. The uncommonness of the word xwμnóleis, which occurs not in the Sep. and nowhere else in the N. T. might naturally lead translators to resolve it into zápas nai nóleis. But it is understood to denote something intermediate, greater than the one and less than the other, the sense is sufficiently expressed by the Eng. word 'boroughs.'

Mt. 9:

43. "Strictly charging him," ußounoάuevos avry. 30. 2 N.

44. To the priest," z iɛo. Vul. "Principi sacerdotum." Two ordinary Gr. MSS. have to dozori. The Sax. also follows the Vul. This is all the collateral evidence which has been produced for the reading of the Vul. Wet. adds the Go. version. But if I can trust to the Go. and Anglo-Saxon versions, published by Junius and Mareschal, Amsterdam 1684, the Go. is here entirely agreeable to the common Gr. Indeed there is every kind of evidence, external and internal, against this reading of the Vul. The power of judging in all such cases belonged by law equally to every priest. The addition of the article to, in this passage, appears to have arisen from this circumstance, that, during the attendance of every course, each priest of course had his special business assigned him by lot. One, in particular, would have it in charge to inspect the leprous and unclean, and to give orders with regard to their cleansing. For this reason it is said the priest, not a priest; but we have reason to think that, except in extraordinary cases, the high-priest would not be called upon to decide in a matter which the law had put in the power of the meanest of the order. The Sy. uses the plural number," to the priests."

CHAPTER II.

2 "The word of God," zov loyóv. L. 1. 2. N.
7. "
Blasphemies." Diss. X. Part ii. sect. 14.

8. “ Jesus knowing in himself” ἐπιγνοὺς ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς τῷ πνεύμαri avrov., E. T. "When Jesus perceived in his spirit." There is something particular in the expression of the evangelist. At first, it would appear applicable only to the perception a man has of what passes within his own mind, when the object of his thought is his own faculties and their operations. This species of knowledge we commonly distinguish by the name consciousness. But this is far from suiting the application of the phrase here, where the thing perceived was what passed in the minds of others. To me it appears manifest, that the intention of the sacred writer was to signify that our Lord, in this case, did not as others, derive his knowVOL. II.

25

ledge from the ordinary and outward methods of discovery which are open to all men, but from peculiar powers he possessed, independently of every thing external. I have, therefore, preferred to every other the simple expression' knowing in himself;' both because perceiving in or by his spirit, has some ambiguity in it, and because the phrases ἡ ψύχη αὑτοῦ and τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ often in the Jewish idiom denote himself.' May it not be reasonably concluded, that the information as to the source of this knowledge in Jesus is here given by the sacred writer, to teach all Christians, to the end of the world, that they are not to think themselves warranted, by the example of their Lord, to pronounce on what passes within the hearts of others, inasmuch as this is a branch of knowledge which was peculiar to the Son of God, whose special prerogative it was, not to need that any should testify concerning man unto him, as of himself he knew what was in man; J. 2: 25.

15. "Placed themselves at table.' Diss. VIII. Part iii. sect. -3-7.

17. "[To reformation]," eis μezávorav. This clause is wanting here in a greater number of MSS. and ancient versions than in Mt. 9: 13. (See Note 3, on that verse.) It is rejected by Gro. Mill, and Ben. It is not improbable that it has originally, by some copyist who has thought the expression defective without it, been borrowed from L. 5: 32, about which there is no diversity of reading. But though there may be some ground to doubt of its authenticity in this place, and in that above quoted from Mt. yet, as there can be no doubt of its appositeness, I thought it better to retain it in both places, and distinguish it as of doubtful authority.

18. "Those of the Pharisees," oi râv Paqısalov. In a considerable number of MSS. (some very valuable), we read of Daqioaio. The Vul. has Pharisæi,' not 'discipuli Pharisæorum.' This is also the reading of the Cop. Go. Sax. and second Sy. versions. But they are not all a sufficient counterpoise to the evidence we have for the common reading.

19. The bridemen," oi vioi tou voμgovos. E. T. "The children of the bride-chamber." It is evident that the Gr. phrase vioi rov vvuqaros denotes no more than the Eng. word 'bridemen' does, namely the young men who, at a marriage, are attendants on the bride and bridegroom: whereas the phrase in Eng. "the children of the bride-chamber," suggests a very different idea.

2"Do they fast?” un divavrai vyotεveir, E. T. “Can they fast?" In a subject such as this, relating to the ordinary manners or customs which obtain in a country, it is usual to speak of any thing which is never done, as of what cannot be done; because it cannot, with propriety, or without the ridicule of singularity, be done. Μὴ δύνανται νηστεύειν is therefore synonymous with μὴ νηστεύουσι; ‘Do they fast? And οὐ δύνανται νηστεύειν with οὐ

vnotεvovoi,' They do not fast.' As the simple manner suits better the idiom of our tongue, I have preferred it.

νηστεύσουσιν.

20. "They will fast," nozevGOVOLV. E. T. "Shall they fast." The expression here used does not convey a command from our Lord to his disciples, but is merely a declaration made by him occasionally to others, of what would in fact happen, or what a sense of propriety, on a change of circumstances, would induce his disciples of themselves to do. The import is therefore better expressed by will than by shall. At the time when the common translation was made, the use of these auxiliary verbs did not entirely coincide with the present use. In the solemn style, and especially in all the prophecies and predictions, shall was constantly used where every body now, speaking in prose, would say will. will. As that manner is (except in Scotland) become obsolete; and as, on many occasions, the modern use serves better the purpose of perspicuity, distinguishing mere declarations from commands, promises, and threats; I judged it better, in all such cases, to employ these terms according to the idiom which prevails at present.

24. "Which, on the Sabbath, it is unlawful to do." Mt. 12: 2. N.

26. "Abiathar the high-priest." From the passage in the history referred to, it appears that Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was then the high-priest.

2 "The tabernacle-the loaves of the presence." Mt. 12: 4.

N.

28. “Therefore the Son of Man,” ὥστε ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. This is introduced as a consequence from what had been advanced, ver. 27, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Hence one would conclude that the Son of Man,' in this verse, must be equivalent to man in the preceding; otherwise a term is introduced into the conclusion which was not in the premises.

CHAPTER III.

4. "To do good-or to do evil; to save, or to kill," άyado, ποίησαι, ἢ κακοποιῆσαι· ψυχὴν σῶσαι, ἢ ἀποκτεῖναι. In the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, L. 14: 26, not to love, or even to love less, is called "to hate ;" Mt. 11: 25, not to reveal, is "to hide;" and here, not to do good when we can, is "to do evil;" not to save, is "to kill." Without observing this particularity in the oriental idiom, (of which many more examples might be brought), we should be at a loss to discover the pertinency of our Lord's argument; as the question about preference here was solely

between doing and not doing. But from this, and many other passages, it may be justly deduced as a standing principle of the Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it.

ir пwowo rus xα

5. "For the blindness of their minds,"
Diss. IV. sect. 22, 23, 24.

dias aurav.

12. "He strictly charged them," nolλà ineriμa avrois. Ch. 9:25. N.

99

14. "That he might commission them to proclaim the reign,' ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν. Diss. VI. Part v. sect. 2.

21. "His kinsmen hearing this, went out," axovoαvres oi nag avrov nov. Sir Norton Knatchbull, a learned man, but a hardy critic, explains these words as if they were arranged and pointed thus, Οἱ ἀκούσαντες, παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον, “ Qui audiverunt, sive audientes quod turba ita fureret ab eo exiverunt," They who heard, went out from him. He does not plead any diversity of reading, but that such transpositions of the article are often to be met with. ‘Ακούσαντες οἱ, dicitur frequenti trajectione pro οἱ ἀκούσαντες.” But it would have been more satisfactory to produce examples. For my part, I cannot help thinking, with Raphelius, that this transposition is very harsh, and but ill-suited to the idiom of the language.

2 Oi nag avrou. That this is a common phrase for denoting 'sui propinqui, cognati,' his kinsmen, his friends, is well known. I have preferred the word kinsmen, as the circumstances of the story evince that it is not his disciples who are meant, but who would most readily be understood by the appellation friends. Bishop Pearce is of a different opinion, and thinks that by oi nag avrou is meant," rather those who were with him, or about him; that is, some of the apostles or others present." Of the same opinion is Dr. M'Knight. But I cannot find warrant for this interpretation. Iagά often signifies ad apud, juxta, prope; at,' near,' 'with;' but not when joined with the genitive. It has, in that signification, regularly the dative of persons, and the accusative of things. Thus Phavorinus, Παρὰ πρόθεσις, ὅτε πλησίοτητα δηλοῖ, ἐπὶ μὲν ἔμψυχου, δυτικῇ συντασσέται· ἐπὶ δὲ ἄψυχου, αἰτιατικῇ. He subjoins only three exceptions that have occurred to him, in all which the preposition has the accusative of the person instead of the dative, but not a single example wherein it is construed with the genitive. The use of the preposition in the N. T. in this signification, which is very frequent, I have found (except in one instance, where the dative of the thing, and not the accusative, is used) entirely conformable to the remark of the lexicographer. The instance is in J. 19: 25. ̔Ειστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ,

« AnteriorContinuar »