с for ascribing them rather to him than to the speaker, are as follows: First, The words are too abrupt, and too much out of the syntactic order for a common parenthesis; for if this had been a clause immediately connected with the preceding, (as those must infagine who think that the reader here means the reader of Daniel's prophecy), the zote, which follows, should have preceded; and the whole would have run thus : "Οταν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δανιὴλ,—ἑστὼς ἐν τότῳ ἁγίῳ· τότε ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, οἱ ἐν τῇ Ιουδαία φευγέτωσαν,—ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος μὴ καταβαινέτω, καὶ ὁ ἐν ro ayow un entorpeyάro- With so small an alteration, the sentence would have been grammatical and perspicuous. As it stands, nothing can be more detached than the clause under review. At the first glance, one is apt to think that there should be a full stop at voɛito. And indeed, if the latter part were entirely away, the former would make a complete sentence. It is not necessary that the second member of a sentence beginning with ötav, should be introduced with zozɛ; though this adverb is sometimes used for rendering the expression more energetic. The clause, therefore, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων, is here thrust in between the two constituent parts of the sentence, and properly belongs to neither. That it does not belong to the first member, is evident from the mood, as well as the want of the copulative; and it is excluded from the second by the following zóze, which, wherever it is used, ushers in all the subjunctive part of the sentence. But though it cannot be made to coalesce with our Lord's words, it appears, when understood as a call to attention from the evangelist, extremely pertinent. Let it be observed, that our Lord pronounced this prophecy about forty years before the fulfilment of what related to Jerusalem. As this evangelist is supposed to have written at least eight or ten years after our Lord's crucifixion, this would be about thirty years before the accomplishment. Jesus said, when he spoke this discourse, that there were of his hearers who would live to see the things happen which he had predicted: now, as the time was still nearer when the evangelist wrote, it was natural for him to conclude, that a great proportion of his readers would be witnesses of the fatal catastrophe, and, therefore, that it was of the last importance to them to fix their attention on a warning, wherein the time is so critically marked, and on the proper use of which, not only their temporal safety, but their conviction of the truth of the gospel, and consequently their spiritual interest, might much depend. In this view, this apostrophe is, though short, a complete sentence, and inserted in the only proper place, between the infallible signs of immediate danger, and the conduct then to be pursued. This makes the zote, which ushers in the sequel of the sentence, particularly emphatical, as serving to recal the former part. Nor is this at all unconformable to the best use in writing. Such short interruptions as, Now mark what fol lows! or, Would God this were duly weighed! when suitable, serve to awaken attention, and do not suspend the sense long enough to create obscurity. Perhaps it will be said, If there be nothing unsuitable in the figure, ought we not rather to think it has been used by our Lord than by the evangelist? The answer is obvious. Our Lord did not write, but speak. Those who received instruction immediately from him, were not readers, but hearers. Had the expression been ó áxovov voeiro, it must have been part of the discourse; as it is, it ought to be regarded as a call from the writer, and consequently no part of the discourse. There is another objection. The evangelist Mr. uses the expression exactly in the same situation. This, if it was spoken by our Lord, is no more to be wondered at, than their coincidence in any other part of the narrative; but, if it was a sentiment of the writer, that it should have struck both precisely in the same part of the narration, may appear extraordinary. That this should have happened to two writers, neither of whom knew of the writings of the other, is no doubt improbable. But that is not the case here. Mt. who was an apostle, and an eye and ear-witness of most of the things which he relates, doubtless wrote first. That Mr. who had not the same advantages, but drew his knowledge in a great measure from the apostles of our Lord, particularly Peter, had read with attention Mt.'s Gospel, there is no reason to doubt. And though he does not copy or follow him implicitly, (for there is a considerable difference of circumstances in several parts of the narrative), the coincidence, in inany things, is so great, as could not otherwise be accounted for. And if this acquaintance with our apostle's history be admitted, it will account sufficiently for adopting a figure so apposite to the occasion. 17. "To carry things," oa r. E. T. "To take any thing." This is a just version of the common reading. But there is a very general consent of the MSS. early editions, ecclesiastical writers, and some ancient versions, which read to instead of tɩ. This reading I have, after Mill and Wet. preferred. 20. "Nor on the sabbath," undè ¿v oaßßáry. E. T. "Neither on the sabbath day." There is no word in the original to which the term day corresponds. Now, as some expositors maintain that it is the sabbatical year, and not the weekly sabbath, which is here meant, the translator ought to preserve, if possible, all the latitude of expression employed by the author. 22. "If the time were protracted," i μn éxoloßwðŋoav ai nuéqai ixɛîvai. E. T. "Except those days should be shortened." To shorten any thing, means always to make it shorter than it was; or, at least, to make it shorter than was intended. Neither of these meanings is applicable here. The like exception may be made to the Gr. verb in this place, which is used in the idiom of the synagogue. See a similar use of μεγαλύνω and πλατύνω, ch. 23: 5. 24. "Will perform great wonders and prodigies," dwoovoi onprła przáda nai répara. Wa. "Will propose great signs and wonders." No other interpreter that I know, ancient or modern, has so rendered the word daoovo. They all present the signs or wonders, as given or shown (not proposed or promised) to the people. This author, indeed, uses as little ceremony as Beza in assigning his reason for this singularity-no other version, it seems, could be made to suit his doctrine of miracles. It may be so: but as the only topics which ought to weigh with a critic, are the import of the words and the scope of the passage; the question is, what meaning do these indicate? As to the first, the words didoval onμtia xai répara, which literally represents the Heb. first occur in the Sep. in Deut. 6: 22. Εδωκε Κύριος σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, μεγάλα καὶ πονηρὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, “ The Lord showed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt." Again, in a public address to God by the Levites, on a solemn fast, Nehem. 9: 10. "Edwxas onuria καὶ τέρατα ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, “Thou showedst signs and wonders in Egypt." Did the sacred peninan mean to tell us, that God only proposed, but did not exhibit signs and wonders; that he threatened Egypt with plagues, but did not inflict them? I cannot suppose that even Mr. Wa. will affirm this. That douval onμetov invariaδοῦναι σημεῖον bly denotes to exhibit, not to promise a miracle, might be proved by examples both from the O. T. and from the N. The only passage which this author quotes as favoring his hypothesis, is Deut. 13: 1, etc. "If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer, who giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass," etc. Is any one at a loss to discover that the sign here meant is the prediction of some event that exceeds human sagacity to foresee? Such a prediction is a miracle, which, though in fact performed when it is uttered, cannot be known to others as miraculous till the accomplishment. The names prophet and dreamer serve to confirm this explanation. As to the scope of the passage in the Gospel, every body sees that it is to warn the disciples against the artifices of false teachers. Now, if all the art of these teachers consisted in promising great things which they never performed, it could not surely have been spoken of as enough to seduce if possible, even the elect. To promise much and do nothing, far from fitting those impostors to be successful antagonists to men endowed with supernatural powers, did not qualify them as rivals to an ordinary juggler, who, if he have not the reality, has at least the appearance of a wonder-worker. Mere proposers or promisers are fitted for deceiving only the weakest and the most credulous of the people. 30. Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven,' τότε φανήσεται τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. The Gr. onusiov, like the La. signum,' means not only 'sign' in 6 general, but standard,' banner,' which is indeed one species of sign. As the Eng. word ensign is equivocal in the same way, the passage may be rendered, Then shall the ensign of the Son of Man be displayed in heaven.' Such military ideas are not unsuitable to the prophetic style, or even the tenor of this prophecy, which is highly figurative. But as there appears in the words a plain reference to the question put by the disciples, ver. 3, "What will be the sign (to onusov) of thy coming?" I judged it better to follow the E. T. and retain the reference. We have no reason to think that a particular phenomenon in the sky is here suggested. The striking evidences which would be given of the divine presence, and avenging justice, are a sufficient justification of the terms. 36. "But, of that day and that hour," nevi dè rūs nμ¿pas ¿zeivas nai ins woas. Bishop Newton, in his excellent work on the prophecies, (Diss. xxi.), says, "It seemeth somewhat improper to say, Of that day and hour knoweth no man; for if the day was not known, certainly the hour was not; and it was superfluous to make the addition ;" he therefore prefers the word season to hour. In my opinion the sentence has less the appearance of redundancy when woa is rendered hour. One who says he knows the day when such a thing will be done, is understood to mean the day of the year, suppose the 7th of April; now, if that be known, the season is known. But a man may know the day, who knows not the hour or time of the day when a particular event shall take place. 2 Three MSS. after ovoavov read ovde o vios. The Eth. version has read so. Some MS. copies of the Vul. have "neque filius," and some of the fathers seem to have read so. But it is the general opinion of critics, (and I think is probable), that this clause has been borrowed from the parallel place in Mr. where there is no diversity of reading. 38. " Marrying," yauoûvres nai ixyaμišovres. The Eng. word comprehends the sense of both the Gr. words, and therefore needs no addition. Immediately after ver. 41, we find in two or three MSS. only, čovrai dva inì xhívns μiãs, as in L. 17: 34, from which it has doubtless been taken. 48. "Vicious," xaxos E. T. "Evil." Ch. 25: 26. N. 51. 66 Having discarded him,” διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν. E. T. "Shall cut him asunder." But this ill suits what follows of his punishment, which supposes him still alive. It is no answer to say, that the punishment of the wicked will affect both the present life and the future. Let it be remembered, that this is a parable wherein our Lord represents to us, under the conduct of earthly rulers and masters towards their subjects and servants in regard to the present state only, what will be the conduct of our Lord and Master in heaven in regard to both, but principally the future. Now, to mingle thus, and confound the letter and the spirit of the parable, or the story and the application, and to ascribe to the earthly master the actions peculiar to the heavenly, would be as contrary to all propriety as it is repugnant to our Lord's manner. In regard to the word dixorouw, we have little or no light from scriptural use. In the N. T. it occurs only here and in the parallel passage in L., and in the Sep. it occurs only once. But it has been observed, that the Sy. uses the same word to express the sense of dipotonia here and in L. which it employs in other places for rendering diyasw and μepito, to divide,' 'to make a breach,'' to separate.' Now, the language spoken by our Lord was a sister-dialect of the Sy. Bishop Pearce has observed, that anorèuvw is used by the son of Sirach, Ecclus. 25: 26, and xxóлтo and άлоxóлro by the apostle Paul, Rom. 11: 22. Gal. 5: 12, in the same signification, for discarding, cutting off from one's family or society. Nor needs there stronger evidence, especially when the absurdity implied in the other interpretation is considered, to satisfy us that this is no more than a Syriasm, to denote, he will deprive him of his office, and so cut him off from his family. Be. has therefore justly rendered it separabit eum,' in which he has been followed by Pisc. as well as by all the Fr. translators I am acquainted with, whether they translate professedly from the Gr. or from the Vul. They also sayle separera;' for the Vul. which says dividet eum,' will bear this version. All the Eng. translators of this century, except An. who says, 'shall turn him out of his family,' have followed the common version. 2" With the perfidious," μerà rav vпоxQirν. E. T. "With the hypocrites." But this word with us is confined to that species of dissimulation which concerns religion only. It is not so with the Gr. term, which is commonly and not improperly rendered by Cas. simulator, dissembler. Nay, from the use of unoxourns and its conjugates, in the Sep. and in the Apocrypha, it appears to have still greater latitude of signification, and to denote sometimes what we should call an unprincipled person, one unworthy of trust. knowledge that in the N. T. it commonly, not always, refers to religious dissimulation; but in a parable whose literal sense regards secular affairs, the term ought not to be so much limited. CHAPTER XXV. 1. «To meet the bridegroon,” εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου. Vul. "Obviam sponso et sponsæ;" "to meet the bridegroom and VOL. II. 17 |