condo S. Matteo." The translators of P. R. Si. Sa. Beau. and L. Cl. in F. "Le saint evangile," etc. "selon Saint Matthieu." Our translators after Lu. have not given the epithet to the Gospel, but have added it to the writers. Yet they have not prefixed this term to the names even of the apostles, in the titles of their Epistles. In this I think they are singular. The learned Wet. in his excellent edition of the Gr. N. T. remarks, that though the term corresponding to Gospel occurs in that book upwards of seventy times, it is not once accompanied with the epithet holy. CHAPTER I. 1. "The lineage." E. T. "The book of the generation." Βίβλος γενέσεως. Bißlos yevioεws. This phrase, which corresponds to the Heb. ninin "sepher tholdoth," is supposed by some to be the title of the first seventeen verses only; by others, of the whole book. The former in effect translate it as I have done; the latter, The History. That in the first of these senses, and also for an account of progeny, the Gr. phrase is used by Hellenist writers, is undeniable; it is not so clear that it is used, in the second, for a narrative of a man's life. It is true we sometimes find it where it can mean neither genealogy nor list of descendants, as in that phrase in the Sep. Βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, Gen. 2 : 4, the meaning of which is doubtless," the origin and gradual production of the universe;" which has plainly some analogy, though a remote one, to an account of ancestry. The quotations which have been produced on the other side, from the Pentateuch, Judith, and the Epistle of James, do not appear decisive of the question. Of still less weight is the name 'Sepher toledoth Jesu,' given to paltry, modern, Jewish fictions, written in opposition to the Gospel; though this also has been urged as an argument. 2" Christ," Xotoros, without the article, is here to be understood, not as an appellative, as it is in almost all other places of the Gospel, but as a proper name. Into this use it came soon after our Lord's resurrection, but not before. Some distinction was necessary, as at that time the name Jesus was common among the Jews. Diss. V. Part iv. sect. 7. 3 "Son," viou indefinitely, not zou viou" the son" emphatically. The sense is rightly rendered by Cas. "prognati Davide," a descendant of David. There is a modesty and simplicity in the manner in which the historian introduces his subject. He says no more than is necessary to make his readers distinguish the person of whom he speaks, leaving them to form their judgment of his mission and character, from a candid but unadorned narration of the facts. 2. "Judah," etc. My reason for preferring the O. T. orthography of proper names you have Diss. XII. Part iii. sect. 6. etc. 6. "By her who had been wife of Uriah." ̓Εκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐ ρίου. Literally, "By her of Uriah." It is not just to say that the feminine article thus used denotes the wife. The relation is in this phrase neither expressed nor necessarily implied, but is left to be supplied from the reader's knowledge of the subject. We have no idiom in English entirely similar. That which comes nearest is when we give the names, but suppress the relation on account of its notoriety. Thus, if it were said that David had Solomon by Uriah's Bathsheba, every body would be sensible that the expression does not necessarily imply that Bathsheba was the wife, more than the widow, the daughter, or even the sister of Uriah. We have an instance in Mark 16: 1, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ ̓Ιακώβου, where the void must be supplied by the word unino, mother.' The like holds of the masculine. In Acts 1: 13, laxoßov Arquiov Ιάκωβου Αλφαίου must be supplied by viós, 'son;' and in Luke 6: 16, 'Tovdav 'laxaßov, by adeλqov, brother.' What therefore is really implied in any particular case, can be learnt only from a previous acquaintance with the subject. Hence we discover that the ellipsis in this place cannot be supplied by the word wife; for when Uriah was dead, he could not be a husband. Those, therefore, who render in ins rou Ougiov of Uriah's wife,' charge the historian with a blunder of which he is not guilty, and mislead careless readers into the notion that Solomon was begotten in adultery. The common version exhibits the sense with sufficient exactness. 8. "Uziah," zov 'Osiav. So the Sep. renders this name in Gr. 2 Chr. 26:3; whereas Ahaziah is by them rendered 'Ozobias. Some names are omitted in the line, in whatever way it be rendered here; for though Ahaziah was indeed the son of Joram, Uzziah was the father of Jotham. 11. Some copies read, "Josiah begat Jehoiachin; Jehoiachin had Jeconiah," etc.; and this reading has been adopted into some editions. But there is no authority from ancient MSS., translations, or commentaries, for this reading, which seems to have sprung from some over-zealous transcriber, who, finding that there were only thirteen in either the second series or the third, has thought it necessary thus to supply the defect. For if Jehoiachin be reckoned in the second series, Jeconiah may be counted the first of the third, and then the whole will be complete. But as in very early times the Fathers found the same difficulty in this passage which we do at present, there is the greatest ground to suspect the correction. above-mentioned. 11, 12. "About the time of the migration into Babylon." "After the migration into Babylon," ini rns μeroineolas Baßυλῶνος. Μετὰ τὴν μετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος. In the La. versions, the word uerontoia is differently translated. The Vul. Arias, and Leo de Juda, render it transmigratio,' Be. ' transportatio,' Pisc. ' deportatio,' Er. Cal. and Cas. 'exilium,' Lu. in Ger. calls it 'gefangniss,' Dio. in Itn. 'cattivita,' Si. and L. Cl. in Fr. transmigration.' G. F. P. R. Beau. and Sa. adopt a circumlocution, employing the verb 'transporter.' The E. T. says, "about the time they were carried away to Babylon;""After they were brought to Babylon." In nearly the same way the words are rendered by Sc. Dod. renders them, "About the time of the Babylonish captivity:" "After the Babylonish captivity." Wa. says, "the removal to Babylon." It is evident, not only from the word employed by the sacred historian, but also from the context, that he points to the act of removing into Babylon, and not to the termination of the State wherein the people remained seventy years after their removal, as the event which concluded the second epoch, and began the third, mentioned in the 17th verse: Whereas the La. 'exilium,' Ger. gefangniss,' Itn. cattivita,' and Eng. captivity,' express the state of the people during all that period, and by consequence egregiously misrepresent the sense. They make the author say what is not true, that certain persons were begotten after, who were begotten during the captivity. Further, it deserves to be remarked, that as this apostle wrote, in the opinion of all antiquity, chiefly for the converts from Judaism, he carefully avoided giving any unnecessary offence to his countrymen. The terms captivity, exile, transportation, subjection, were offensive, and, with whatever truth they might be applied, the Jews could not easily bear the application. A remarkable instance of their delicacy in this respect, the effect of national pride, we have in J. 8: 33, where they boldly assert their uninterrupted freedom and independency, in contradiction, both to their own historians, and to their own experience at that very time. This humor had led them to express some disagreeable events, which they could not altogether dissemble, by the softest names they could devise. Of this sort is μeroineola, by which they expressed the most direful calamity that had ever befallen that nation. The word strictly signifies no more than passing from one place or state to another. It does not even convey to the mind whether the change was voluntary or forced. For this reason we must admit that Be. Pisc. Beau. Sa. and the E. T. have all departed, though not so far as Cas. Lu. Dio. Dod., and from the more indefinite, and therefore more delicate expression of the original, and even from that of the Vul. from which Sa.'s version is professedly made. For the words used by all these imply compulsion. Nor let it be imagined, that, because peroxola occurs frequently in the Sep. where the word in Heb. signifies' captivity,' it is therefore to be understood as equivalent. That version was made for the use of Grecian or Hellenist Jews, who lived in cities where Gr. was the vulgar tongue; and as the translation of the Scriptures into the language of the place exposed their history to the natives, they were the more solicitous to soften, by a kind of euphemism, a circumstance so humiliating as their miserable enthralment to the Babylonians. For this reason, that event is especially in the historical part, rarely denominated aigualwoia 'captivitas,' and never diaxóuidn, transportatio; but by one or other of these gentler names, μετοικία, μετοικεσία, αποικία, and ἀποικεσία, 'colonia,' 'migratio,' demigratio,' incolatus,' seu 'habitatio in terra aliena.' On the whole, Vul. Si. L. Cl. and Wa. have hit the import of the original more exactly than any of the other translators above-mentioned. I did not think the term transmigration so proper in our language, that word being in a manner appropriated to the oriental doctrine of the passage of the soul, after death, into another body. Emigration is at present, I imagine, more commonly used when the removal is voluntary. The simple term migration seems fully to express the meaning of the original. 16. "Messiah," Xotoros. For the import of the word, see Diss. V. Part iv. sect. 9. 18. "Jesus Christ." The Vul. omits Jesu, and is followed only by the Per. and Sax. versions. 19. "Being a worthy man," dixalos av. Some would have the word dixatos, in this place, to signify good-natured, humane, merciful; because, to procure the infliction of the punishment denounced by the law, cannot be deemed unjust, without impeaching the law. Others think that it ought to be rendered, according to its usual signification, just; and imagine that it was the writer's intention to remark two qualities in Joseph's character; first, his strict justice, which would not permit him to live with an adulteress as his wife; secondly, his humanity, which led him to study privacy in his method of dissolving the marriage. Herein, say they, there can be no injustice, because there are many things, both for compensation and punishment, which the law entitles, but does not oblige, a inan to exact. Though this interpretation is specious, it is not satisfactory; for if the writer had intended to express two distinct qualities in Joseph's character, which drew him different ways, I think he would have expressed himself differently, as thus, "Though Joseph was a just man, yet being unwilling," etc.; whereas the manner in which he has connected the clauses, seems to make the latter explanatory of the former, rather than a contrast to it. It has indeed been said, that the participle av sometimes admits being interpreted though.' In proof of this, Matt. 7: 11, and Gal. 2: 3, have been quoted. But the construction is not similar in either passage. Here the or is coupled with another participle by the conjunction xai. In the places referred to, it is immediately followed by a verb in the indicative. In such cases, to which the present has no resemblance, the words connected may senses. give the force of an adversative to the participle. On the other hand, I have not seen sufficient evidence for rendering dixatos 'humane,' or 'merciful;' for though these virtues be sometimes comprehended under the term, they are not specially indicated by it. I have therefore chosen a middle way, as more unexceptionable than either. Every body knows that the word dxialos admits two The first is just,' in the strictest acceptation-attentive to the rules of equity in our dealings, particularly in what concerns our judicial proceedings. The second is 'righteous,' in the most extensive sense, including every essential part of a good character. In this sense it is equivalent, as Chr. remarks, to the epithet vagetos, virtuous,' 'worthy,' 'upright.' And in this not uncommon sense of the word, the last clause serves to exemplify the character, and not to contrast it. 2To expose her," aviv napadequarioa: E. T. "to make her a public example." In order to express things forcibly, translators often, overlooking the modesty of the original, say more than the author intended. It has not, however, been sufficiently adverted to, in this instance, that by extending the import of the word nagadaiyuarioat, they diminish the character of benignity ascribed by the historian to Joseph. It was not the writer's intention to say barely, that Joseph was unwilling to drag her as a criminal before the judges, and get the ignominious sentence of death, warranted by law, pronounced against her, which few perhaps would have done more than he; but that he was desirous to consult privacy in the manner of dismissing her, that he might as little as possible wound her reputation. The word appears to me to denote no more than making the affair too flagrant, and so exposing her to shame. So the Syrian interpreter, and the Arabian, understood the term. I have therefore chosen bere to follow the example of the Vul. Leo. and Cal. who render the words, 'eam traducere,' rather than of Cast. and Pisc. who render them, 'in eam exemplum edere,' and ' eam exemplum facere,' which have been followed by our translators. The expressions used by these naturally suggest to our minds a condemnation to suffer the rigor of the law. Yet the original word seems to relate solely to the disgrace resulting from the opinion of the public, and not to any other punishment, corporal or pecuniary. Infamy is, indeed, a common attendant on every sort of public punishment. Hence by a synecdoche of a part for the whole, it has been sometimes employed to express a public and shameful execution. And this has doubtless occasioned the difficulty. But that it is frequently and most properly used, when no punishment is meant but the publication of the crime, Raphelius, in his notes on the place, has, by his quotations from the most approved authors, put beyond a doubt. I shall bring one out of many. It is from Polybius, Legat. 88, where he says, |