add, that of vɛavioxo are wanting in the Cam. and two other MSS. with which agree the Vul. Sy. Cop. Ara. and Sax. versions. 53. "All the chief priests," návres of doxoεis. Vul. "Omnes sacerdotes." The interpreter seems to have read "ɛɛs. But this reading is not warranted by any MS. or version, except the Sax. 56. "Were insufficient," loa oux oav. E. T. "Agreed not together." Vul. "Convenientia testimonia non erant." Between those two ways of rendering this passage, translators have been divided. Er. and Zu. are the only La. translators I have seen who agree with that here given, "nec erant satis idonea." The Fr. translations also of P. R. L. Cl. and Beau. the Eng. An. and Wes. concur with mine. On a doubtful point, where the words appear susceptible of either interpretation, one ought to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Now there is nothing, in the whole narrative, that insinuates the smallest discrepancy among the witnesses. On the contrary, in the Gospels, the testimony specified is mentioned as given by all the witnesses. The differences in Mt. and Mr., one saying, "I will rebuild," another, "I can rebuild;" one adding, "made with hands," another omitting it, not only are of no moment in themselves, but are manifestly differences in the reports of the evangelists, not in the testimony of the witnesses; nor are they greater than those which occur in most other facts related from memory. What therefore perplexed the pontiffs and the scribes was, that, admitting all that was attested, it did not amount to what could be accounted a capital crime. This made the high-priest think of extorting from our Lord's mouth a confession which might supply the defect of evidence. This expedient succeeded to their wish. Jesus, though not outwitted by their subtilty, was noway disposed to decline suffering, and therefore readily supplied them with the pretext they wanted. 59." Defective." See the last Note. 61. "The son of the Blessed One," i vios toù evλoynrov. Vul. "Filius Dei benedicti." In the Al. and two other MSS. we read cou To evλoynrou. But it is entirely suitable to the Heb. idiom to employ the adjective tuloyntos, without the noun, as a distinguishing appellation of God. 70. The clause zaì ǹ dadiá oov óuolate is wanting in the Cam. and three other MSS. with which agree the Vul. Cop. and Sax. versions. 72. "Reflecting thereon, he wept," inißalwv exhale. E. T. "When he thought thereon, he wept." There are not many words in Scripture which have undergone more interpretations than this term, inßalas. The Vul. perhaps from a different reading, followed by Er. Zu. Cas. and Cal. says, "Cœpit flere." In this also agree the Sy. the Sax. and the Go. versions. Ar. "Sepa rans se flevit." Be. "Quum se proripuisset, flevit." Dio. "Si mnise a piangere." G. F. after Be. "S'estant jetté hors, il pleura." P. R. Beau. and L. Cl. as Dio. " se mit à pleurer." Hey. "He burst into tears." Almost all our other Eng. versions of this century, An. Dod. Wes. Wor. Wy. have it, "He covered his head," or "his face, and wept." Schmidius and Raphelius have warmly, but not in my judgment successfully, defended Be.'s version, making inßalker to mean, se foras proripere sive ejicere,' to rush out. Elsner has clearly shown, that the examples produced in support of this interpretation conclude nothing; and that the word, as its etymology suggests, denotes more properly to rush in, than to rush out. Accordingly, when it is construed with a preposition, the preposition is always is or iní, never ¿§ž or άnó. He therefore prefers an explanation which had been first given by The. and afterwards defended by Salmasius and others: "Having covered his head, he wept." Yet the Gr. commentator does not give this as the certain meaning of the word; but mentions two interpretations, leaving it to the reader to make his choice. His words are, ἐπιβαλών, γὰρ φησὶν, ἔκλαιε, τοῦτ ̓ ἐστιν, ἐπικαλυψαμένος τὴν κεφα λήν, ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἄρξαμενος μετὰ σφοδροτήτος. But has any authority been produced for rendering inßadeîv, by itself, ' to cover the head?' The authority of The. himself, a writer of the eleventh century, especially on a point of which he is evidently doubtful, will not go far. Pains have been taken to evince that the Greeks and Romans (for nothing, if I remember right, has been affirmed of the Jews) had such a custom; but not that it was ever expressed by the single word inßáll. It is natural in man who weeps, to endeavor to hide his face; not so much to conceal his emotion, as to conceal the effect of it, the distortion it brings upon his countenance. But the matter of consequence to Peter was to conceal his emotion altogether. Now, he could not have taken a more effectual method of publishing it to all around him, than by muffling his head in his mantle. This could not fail to attract the attention of many who had no opportunity of observing the change on his features. I consider the version of this word in Dio. Beau. and L. Cl. as made from the Vul. or the Cam. the only Gr. copy which reads nokaro xhaitiv. Hey.'s seems to be a free version of The.'s, doğaμevos μετὰ σφοδροτήτος, ἔκλαιε. In regard to what appears to have been the oldest manner of translating the word inßaloir, 'he began,' I should, with Palairet, have no objection to it, had the words been ἐπέβαλε κλαίειν, and not ἐπιβαλών ἔκλαιε ; for, though no phrase in Scripture is more common than he began to do for he did, we do not find a single instance in which the first verb is expressed by the participle, and the second by the indicative mood, (I might add, or in which inßalleiv is used for to begin'). Now the form, in idiomatic phrases, must be carefully observed, for they hardly ever con vey the same sense when differently construed. Simon of the Oratory, after Gro. makes this participle equivalent to the addens.' But it is remarkable, that though the verb inßádio occurs very often in the version of the Seventy, they have not once used it in translating the Heb. O, which is also a very common verb. Palairet follows Ham. who has given a version which differs from all the preceding, "He looked upon him [Jesus], and wept." But our former question recurs, Where do we find inßakko, without any addition, used in this sense? Not one quotation where the verb is not followed by ὀφθαλμούς, ὄψεις, οι ὄμματα, has been brought in support of this meaning. The meanings would be endless which might be given it, should we form an interpretation from every word that may be contrued with inßádlo. After weighing impartially the above and other explanations, I think with Wet. that the sense exhibited by the E. T. is the most probable. That there is an ellipsis in the words, is undeniable. Now, we can never plead use in favor of a particular signification of an elliptic term, but when we can show that such is the meaning of the word where there is the same ellipsis. To say inißalleiv means 'to look upon,' because iлißaktēîv oqaluous has that meaning; or, that it signifies to cover the face, because βαλλεῖν φάρη ἐπ ̓ ὄμματων has that signification, appears to me so extraordinary a mode of reasoning, that I am surprised to find critics of undoubted learning and discernment adopting it. If I should produce examples of ἐπιβαλλεῖν τὸν νοῦν, οι τὴν diavolav, as signifying to think of a thing, to reflect upon it, than which nothing is easier, I should give full as much probability to this signification of the word inßullsiv, when alone, as has been given by any quotations I have yet seen, to the most plausible of the meanings above-mentioned. But more can be said here. verb by itself is explained by Phavorinus as admitting this interpretation. Επιβάλλει οὖν τις νοήματι ἤ ἔργῳ, ἡγοῦν ἠκριβωμένως καὶ ἐπιτυχῶς νοεῖ, ὁ καὶ ἐπιβόλως φαμὲν. Suidas explains ἐπιβολή by ἔννοια. And of the word used singly in this acceptation, Wet. has produced clear examples from Polybius, Theophrastus, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Diogenes Laertius, and several others, to which I refer the learned reader; and shall only add, that if these authorities do not put the matter beyond all question, they at least give it a greater probability than has been yet given to any of the other hypotheses. The CHAPTER XV. οὐκέτι οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη. 5. "Answered no more," ovxéti ovdèv άnexgion. E. T. "Yet answered nothing." But this implies that be had answered nothing to the former question; the reverse of which is the fact, as appears ver. 2, and is justly observed by bishop Pearce. All the La. translators say rightly, "Nihil amplius respondit," or what is manifestly equivalent. All the foreign translations I have seen give the same sense. Yet, to show how difficult it is to preserve an uniform attention, and how liable at times even judicious persons are to run blindfold into the errors of their predecessors, it may be observed, that Wes. is the only modern Eng. translator who has escaped a blunder, not more repugnant to the fact, as recorded in the verses immediately preceding, than contradictory to the import of the Gr. expression here used. His version is, "Answered nothing any more." The rest, without exception, say, "Still answered nothing," or words to that purpose. Yet, in the G. E. the sense was truly exhibited, "Answered no more at all." 7. "Who in their sedition had committed murder," oïtives Ev τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν. Vul. " Qui in seditione fecerat homicidium." No MS. authorizes this rendering. 8. "With clamor the multitude demanded," "Avaßonoas o özlos notaro airtiovai. Vul. "Cum ascendisset turba cœpit roλος ἤρξατο αἰτεῖσθαι. gare." Accordingly the Vat. MS. has avaßas for avaßonoas. Agreeable to which are also the Cop. and Eth. versions. The Cam. reads avaßás ölos, and is followed by the Go. but not by the Sax. which has nothing answering to the first clause, "cum ascendisset," but is in what follows conformable to the Vul. 12. "What then would ye have me do with him whom ye call king of the Jews ?” Τί οὖν θέλετε ποιήσω ὅν λέγετε βασιλέα τῶν 'lovdalov; Vul. "Quid ergo vultis faciam regi Judæorum?" But in this omission the Vul. is singular. There is no Gr. MS. known as yet, which has not öv Aéyerɛ: no version except the Sax. which does not translate it, 25. "Nailed him to the cross," oravowoav aúróv. E. T. "Crucified him." The Eng. verb to crucify, denotes properly to put to death by nailing to the cross. The word σταυρόω, here, means no more than to fasten to the cross with nails.' In strict propriety, we should not say a man cried out after he was crucified, but after he was nailed to the cross. 6 2 The third hour." J. 19: 14. N. 34. "Eloi," 'Elwï'. This is the Sy. as well as the Heb. word for my God. See J. 20: 17, in the Sy. version. It is there pronounced Elohi; but the aspiration must be dropped when written in Gr. letters, as it suits not the analogy of the Gr. language to admit it in the middle, or at the end of a word. For this reason they say Abraam, not Abraham; Judas, not Judah. 42. "When it was evening," nai žồn ópias revoμévns. The word answering to evening is used with some latitude in Scripture. The Jews spoke of two evenings, Mt. 14: 23. N. It is probably the former of these that is meant here and Mt. 27: 57, for at six the preparation ended and the Sabbath began, when they durst no longer be so employed. 43. "Senator." Boulevens. L. 23: 30. N. 44. "Pilate, amazed that he was so soon dead," o di Iliλáros ἐθαύμασεν, εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκε. Ε. Τ. “ And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead." Raphelius, with whom agrees bishop Pearce, has shown, by examples from Xenophon and Eusebius, that the conjunction ε is, in some cases, properly translated that. We have a strong evidence that this is the meaning here, from the question put to the centurion, "whether Jesus had been dead лála, any time," not "on, "already." That there are two MSS. which read non, is perhaps not worth mentioning. CHAPTER XVI. 2. "About sunrise," ávarɛihavros tov ýλiov. E. T. "At the rising of the sun." Vul. "Orto jam sole." This expresses too much; for let it be observed, that it is not the preterperfect participle that is here used by the evangelist, but an aorist. Nor is there a word in the Gr. (except in a few copies), nor in any other ancient versions, answering to jam in the L. The E. T. seems, in this place, to follow the Cam. which reads avatéhovros in the present. But this reading is peculiar to that copy. " 8. E. T. "Went out quickly, and fled." But the word razu is wanting in a great number of MSS., some of them of principal note, in several of the best editions and ancient versions, particularly the Vul. and both the Sy. It is also rejected by Mill, and Wet. Getting out, fed,” ἐξελθοῦσαι ταχὺ ἔφυγον. 16. "He who shall believe," o niorεvoas. E. T. "He who believeth." The Gr. aorists have not always the power of the preterite but agreeably to the import of the name, are frequently indefinite in regard to time. Here they are better rendered by the present, as in the E. T. than by the past; the present, with us, being often used indefinitely. Had the words immediately preceding related to a judgment to come, the most proper tense here, in Eng. for expressing the Gr. aorist, would have been the future perfect that is, a future which is past, in respect of another future referred to: "He who shall have believed, shall be saved." In this manner all the La. translations except Ar. have expressed it: "Qui crediderit." But, as the words immediately preceding are an order to the apostles, with which the words of this passage are connected as regarding what is necessarily consequent on the execution of that order, (for of necessity they would be either believed or disbelieved), the time is, in our idiom, best expressed by a simple future. Though the future perfect could not be accounted imVOL. II. 31 |