« AnteriorContinuar »
tomary to reckon the morning the first part of the day, the evening the second. Those who reckoned in this manner would naturally apply the verb étiqaoxo to the ushering in of the day. L.,, who was, according to Eusebius, from Antioch of Syria, by living much ainong Gentiles, and those who used his style, or even by frequent occasions of conversing with such, would insensibly acquire a habit of using it. A habit of thus expressing the commencement of a new day, contracted where the expression was not improper, will account for one's falling into it occasionally, when in consequence of a difference in a single circumstance, the term is not strictly proper. And this, by the way, is at least a presumption of the truth of a remark I lately made, that this evangelist has, oftener than the rest, recourse to words and idioms which he must have acquired from the conversation of the heathen, or from reading their books. This is an expression of that kind, which, though it might readily be imported, could not originate among the Jews. I shall only add, that the use which Mt. makes of the same verb (28: 1), is totally different. He is there speaking of the morning, when the women came to our Lord's sepulchre, which was about sunrise. Here, on the contrary, the time spoken of is the approach of sunset; for the setting of the sun made the beginning of the sabbath.
1. With some others,” και τινες συν αυταίς. Those words are wanting in two or three MSS. They are also omitted in the Vul. Cop. Sax. and Eth. versions ; but are in the Sy. and Ara. The external evidence against their admission, compared with the evidence in their favor, is as nothing. But a sort of internal evidence has been pleaded against them. As no women are named either here or in the conclusion of the preceding chapter, what addition does it make to the sense to say, “ with some others ?" Or what is the meaning of it where none are specified? I answer, the women spoken of here, though not named, are mentioned in the last verse but one of the foregoing chapter, under this description -"the women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee.” Now, where is the absurdity of supposing, that those pious women from Galilee were accompanied by some of our Lord's female disciples from Jerusalem and its neighborhood? As it is certain that our Lord had there many disciples also, I see no reason why we should not here be determined solely by the weight and number of authorities.
12." He went away musing, with astonishment, on what had happened,” απήλθε, προς εαυτον θαυμάζων το γεγονός. Some point the words differently, removing the comina after anñor, and placing it after tavrov; and, in consequence of this alteration, render the clause," he went home wondering at what had happened.” Thus, J. 20: 10, 'Απήλθον ούν πάλιν προς εαυτούς οι μαθηται, is rendered in the E. T. “Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.” That the words of L. admit of such an adjustment and translation, cannot be denied. The common punctuation, however, appears to me preferable, for these reasons: 1st, It is that which has been adopted by all the ancient translations, the Cop. alone excepted. 2dly, It has a particular suitableness to the style of this evangelist. Thus, ch. 18: 11, noo's avtov raūta npoonúpero, is in the E. T. rendered, “prayed thus with himself;" though, I confess, it admits another version; and 20: 14, disloyiGovto npos tautous, “they reasoned among themselves.” 3dly, It appears more probable, from what we are told ver. 24, of this chapter, and from the account given by J. ch. xx, that Peter did not go directly home, but returned to the place where the apostles and some other disciples were assembled. And this appears to be the import of anñadov noos avtous, J. 20: 10, which see.
18. " Art thou alone such a stranger in Jerusalem as to be upacquainted ?” Συ μόνος παροικείς εν Ιερουσαλήμ, και ουκ έγνως ; E. T. “ Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known ?" There are two ways wherein the words of Cleopas may be understood by the reader : one is, as a method of accounting for the apparent ignorance of this traveller; the other, as an expression of surprise, that any one who had been at Jerusalem at the time, though but a stranger, should not know what had made so much noise amongst all ranks, and had so much occupied, for some days, all the leading men in the nation, the chief priests, the scribes, the rulers, and the sanhedrim, as well as the Roman procurator and the soldiery. The common version favors the first interpretation ; I prefer the second, in concurrence, as I imagine, with the majority of interpreters ancient and modern. I cannot discover with Be. any thing in it remote from common speech. On the contray, I think it in such a case as the present so natural an expression of surprise, that examples remarkably similar may be produced from most languages. Dio. Ο. Συ άρα, είπε, μόνος ανήκοος εί τούτων απάντες ίσασιν, Are
you the only person who have never heard what all the world knows?” Cicero, pro Milone : “ An vos, judices, vero soli ignoratis, vos hospites in hac urbe versamini ; vestræ peregrinantur aures, neque in hoc pervagato civitatis sermone versantur ?”
19. « Powerful in word and deed,” δυνατος έν έργω και λόγω. I have here altered the order a little, for the sake of avoiding a small ambiguity; in deed, might be mistaken for the adverb. The first of these phrases, powerful in word, relates to the wisdom and eloquence which our Lord displayed in his teaching; the other relates to the miracles which he performed.
25. “O thoughtless men !" 2 avóntou. E. T. “O fools.” The word is not 2 mopoi. The two words are not synonymous. The term last mentioned is a term of great indignation, and sometimes of contempt; that employed here is a term of expostulation and reproof.
29. “They constrained him," napeßiáoavto avrov. How did they constrain him? Did they lay violent hands on bin, and carry him in whether he would or not? The sequel shows—"saying, Abide with us; for it groweth late, and the day is far spent. The expression, in such cases, must always be interpreted according to popular usage. Usages such as this, of expressing great urgency of solicitation, by terms which, in strictness, imply force and compulsion, are common in every tongue. How little then is there of candor, or at least of common sense, in the exposition which has been given by some of a like phrase of the same writer, ch. 14: 23, “Compel them to come in," aváyxagov cloengeiv?
34.' “ Who said, The Master is actually risen, and hath appeared unto Simon,” Λέγοντας: "Οτι ηγέρθη ο Κύριος όντως, και coon Suwur. Mr. Markland (Bowyer's Conjectures) thinks, that the words ought to be read interrogatively : “Is the Lord risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon ? with a sneer on the credulity or veracity of the informers, Peter and Cleopas ;" for these, he thinks, were the two to whom Jesus appeared on the road to Emmaus. Lightfoot's explanation is much to the same purpose.
To me the words do not appear susceptible of this version. youtas ötı can never be made to introduce a question. There is no different reading, except that the Cam. reads déyoutes for héyortas, in which it is singular. That Peter was one of the two, is improbable. He is not named by either Mr. or L., though Cleopas is by the latter, and though Peter never fails to be mentioned by name by the sacred bistorians, when they record any transaction wherein he bad a part. The opinion that he was one of the two, seems to have arisen from a hasty assertion of Origen. It has not the support of tradition, which has from the beginning been divided on this point; some thinking L. himself the unnamed disciple, some Nathanael, others one of the seventy sent by our Lord in his lifetime. The great object of this attempt of Markland's is to avoid an apparent contradiction to the words of Mr. who says, (16: 13), that when the two disciples at their return acquainted the rest, “they did not believe them.” This, which is in fact the only difficulty, does not imply that none of them believed, but that several, perhaps the greater part, did not believe. On the other band, when L. tells us, that the eleven and those with them said, “The Master is actually risen, and hath appeared unto Simon,” we are not to conclude that every one said this, or even believed it; but only that some believed, one of whom expressly affirmed it. Such lati
Ευρoν λ 16
tude in using the pronouns is common in every language. Mt. and Mr. say that the malefactors who suffered with Jesus reproached him on the cross. From L. we learn that it was only one of them who acted thus.
36. “ Peace be unto you,” sionun vuiv. Vul. “Pax vobis : ego sum, polite timere.” Two Gr. MSS. agreeably to this translation, add you tiul. un gobeiota. Both the Sy. the Cop. the Sax. and the Arm. versions, are conformable to this reading.
43. “Which he took and ate in their presence," sai haßa'r Švartlov avtõv žqayev. Vul. “Et cum manducasset coram eis, sumens reliquias dedit eis.” With this agree the Cop. and Sax. versions, and three Gr. MSS. which add xai ta enlloina dwxɛ avrois. There are some other variations on this verse, which it is not necessary here to specify.
44. “ In the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,” εν τω νόμου Μωσέως και Προφήταις και Ψαλμοίς. Under these three the Jews were wont to comprehend all the books of the 0. T. Under the name Law, the five books called the Pentateuch were included ; the chief historical books were joined with the Prophets; and all the rest with the Psalms.
49. “I send you that which my Father hath promised." Diss. XII. Part i. sect. 14.
The name of Jerusalem is omitted in the Vul. and Sax. versions. It is wanting also in three noted MSS.
52. “ Having worshipped him," spooxvvÚDAvtes autór; that is, having thrown themselves prostrate before him,' as the words strictly interpreted imply. Mt. 2: 2.2 N.
ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL.
That the apostle John, a fisherman of Bethsaida in Galilee, the beloved disciple, the younger brother of James called the greater or elder, (there being two apostles of the name), and son of Zebedee by Salome* bis wife, one of the three most favored apostles, and who, with his brother James, on account of their zeal in their Master's service, were honored with the title Boanerges, or Sons of Thunder, was, in the order of time, the last of the evangelists, is manifest from the uniform voice of christian antiquity. There are evident references to this Gospel, though without naming the author, in some epistles of Ignatius, the authenticity of which is strenuously maintained by bishop Pearson, and other critics of name.
2. The precise time when this Gospel was written has not been ascertained. The most probable opinion seems to be, that it was after John's return from exile in the isle of Patmos, whither, as we learn from himself, he had been banished, “for the word of God and testimony of Jesus," Rev. 1: 9. This probably happened in the persecution under the emperor Domitian. It was in that island where God made those revelations to him, which were collected by him into a book, thence called the Apocalypse or Revelation. The last of his works is thought to have been his Gospel, which the entreaties of the christian people and pastors of Ephesus, and of other parts of Asia Minor, where he had his residence in the latter part of his life, prevailed on him to undertake. If so, it must have been towards the close of the first century when this Gospel first appeared in the church, and it was in the beginning of the second when the above-mentioned Ignatius wrote his Epistles. There are also, in Justin Martyr, both references to this Gospel and quotations from it, though without naming the author. Tatian took notice of this evangelist by name, and used his Gospel along with the rest in composing his Diatessaron. I need scarcely mention the notice that is