says, "laqueo se suspendit:" Wa." was choked with grief." This interpreter does not deny that strangled expresses the common meaning of the Gr. word in classical authors. The examples he produces in support of his version serve only to show, that, in a few obscure instances, the word may (not must) have the signification which he assigns to it. There are only two examples wherein it occurs in the Sep. One is 2 Sam. 17: 23, where it is applied to Abithophel, in which he does not seem to question the justness of the common version; the other is Tob. 3: 10, where it is spoken of Sara the daughter of Raguel. This passage, that interpreter thinks, clearly confirms (and I think it clearly confutes) his version. That the daughter's suicide would bring dishonor on the father may be understood by any body; but her dying of grief, in consequence of the bad treatment she received from strangers, might be to a parent a subject of affliction, but could not be a matter of reproach.

6. "The sacred treasury," tov zooßavāv. E. T. "The treasury." The word in the original occurs in no other passage in Scripture. Josephus makes use of it, and interprets it, tov toov noavoor. It is formed from zooßav, originally Heb. which also occurs but once in the Gr. form, Mr. 7: 11, and signifies that which is given or devoted to God. The unlawfulness of putting the thirty shekels into this repository, arose from this single circumstance, that it contained the treasure consecrated to God.

8. "That field is called the field of blood,” ¿xinŷn ó ároòs Exεivos áɣoos aïμaros. Vul. "Vocatus est ager ille Haceldaina, hoc est, ager sanguinis." To the words, "Haceldama, hoc est," as there is nothing that corresponds in any MS. or translation, except the Sax. and as they are quite superfluous, there can be no doubt that they are an interpolation from Acts 1: 19. With insertions of this kind the Latins have been thought, even by some of their own critics, more chargeable than the Greeks.

"Jeremiah." The words here quoted are not in any prophecy of Jeremiah extant; but they bear a strong resemblance to the words of Zechariah, 11: 12, 13. One MS. not of great account, has Ζαχαρίου. Another adds no name to προφητοῦ. There is none added in the first Sy. version. And it would seem, from a remark of Augustine, that some copies in his time named no prophet. But as all the other MSS. now extant, even those of the greatest antiquity, the Vul. and the other ancient versions, the Sy. alone excepted, all the earliest ecclesiastical writers, read just as we do in the common editions, I did not think a deviation from these could be denominated other than an emendation merely conjectural.

9, 10. "The thirty shekels, the price at which he was valued, I took, as the Lord appointed me, from the sons of Israel, who gave them for the potter's Geld.” "Ελαβον τὰ τριάκοντα αργύρια τὴν τι

μὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου ὅν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν ̓Ισραηλ· καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, καθὰ συνέταξε μοι ὁ Κύριος. Ε. T. They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued; whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. "Elaßov Ελαβον may be either the first person singular, or the third person plural. The latter hypothesis has been adopted by the Vul. and the majority of translators, ancient and modern: the former has been preferred by the Sy. and the Per. translators. There can be no doubt that their way of rendering gives more perspicuity, as well as more grammatical congruity to the sentence. As the words stand in most versions, they appear to represent the action of one, as the obedience of an appointment given to another. Thus: "They took the silver pieces, and gave thein as the Lord appointed [not them, but] me." This incongruity, and the obscurity arising from it, are entirely removed by the other interpretation, which has also this advantage, that it is more conformable to the expression of Zechariah referred to, ἔλαβον τοὺς τριάκοντα αργύριους. So it runs in the Sep. Now there is no ambiguity in the Heb. verb, as there is in the Gr. The former cannot be rendered but by the first person singular. This would certainly have determined all translators to prefer this manner, as being at once more conformable to syntax, to common sense, and to the import of the passage to which the allusion is made. But there arose a difficulty from the verb ἔδωκαν, which appears to be coupled in construction with ἔλαβον. Now, on the supposition that it was so construed, as doxar could be no other than the third person plural,, aßov must be so too. In one of the copies called Evangelistaries, (which are MSS. of the Gospels, divided according to the manner of reading them in some church or churches), it is dwxa, in the first person singular. The Sy. interpreter seems also to have read dwxa, in the copy or copies used by him. But this is too slight an authority, in my opinion, for deserting the common reading. I therefore entirely approve the ingenious solution that has been given by Knatchbull, and read dwxav in the third person plural, not as coupled by the conjunction with aßov, but as belonging to a separate clause; in which case the version will be literally as follows: I took the shekels (the price of him that was valued, whom they valued) from the sons of Israel, (and they gave them for the potter's field,) as the Lord appointed me.' The version given in the text is the same in meaning, but more perspicuously expressed. Here, indeed, the words and they supply the place of the relative who, a very common Hebraism. It is surely much less usual, though I will not say unexampled, to make, as our translators do, the phrase ano via Ioραήλ, serve as a nominative to the verb ετιμήσαντο.

11. "Thou art the King of the Jews?" Eù el o pasilevs täv

'lovdalov; E. T. "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Vul. Ar. Er. Cal. "Tu es rex Judæorum ?" There can be no doubt that this is an interrogation; but it is equally certain, that the form of the expression is such as admits us to understand it either as an affirmation or as an interrogation. Now, I imagine it is this particularity in the form of the question, which has given rise to the customary affirmative answer, où eyes, wherein the answerer, without mistaking the other's meaning, expresses his assent to the words, considered in the simple form as an assertion; and this assent serves equally as an answer to the question. But this would not be a natural manner of answering, if the form of the question were such as could not admit being interpreted otherwise than as a question. In that case, nothing can, with any propriety, be said to have been advanced by the asker. As sometimes, with us, a question is put derisively in the form of an assertion, when the proposer conceives, as seems to have happened here, some absurdity in the thing; I thought it best, after the example of so many La. interpreters, to adopt the equivocal, or rather the oblique form of the original expression. The ambiguity is not real, but apparent. The accent in speaking, and the point of interrogation in writing, do, in such cases, sufficiently mark the difference. Dio. has also adopted this method, and said, "Tu sei il rè de Judei? All the other modern versions I have seen, follow Be. Pisc. and Cas. who put the question in the direct form, the two former saying, "Tune es"-the other," Esne tu"-Leo de Juda says, "Es tu"

17, 18, 19, 20, 21. The reader will observe, that there is in these verses, in the common version, some appearance both of tautology and incoherency, which, in my opinion, is entirely removed by including the 18th and 19th in a parenthesis, and understanding the 21st as a resumption, after this interruption, of what had been mentioned in the 17th verse. Let the whole passage in the original be carefully examined, and compared with the common version, and with this.

24. "Of this innocent person," zou dixaiov roúrov. E. T. τοῦ δικαίου τούτου. "Of this just person." Cas. "Hujus innocentis." L. Cl. 'De cet innocent.' The forensic sense (as I may call it) of the Heb. word ptsadik, and consequently of the Gr. dixaios, adopted as equivalent, is no more than 'innocent,' or 'not guilty,' of the crime whereof he stands accused. This appears from many places of the O. T. which relate to judicial procedings, particularly Deut. 25: 1, and Prov. 17: 15, where it is contrasted with a word commonly rendered wicked, and which, in its forensic meaning, denotes no more than guilty of the crime charged. Pilate does not appear to have known any thing of our Lord's character, and therefore could pronounce nothing positively. But he could not fail to see, that

this accusation brought before him sprang from malice, and was unsupported by evidence.

29. "Of thorns," ¿§ axavo☎v. Bishop Pearce has remarked, in a note on this verse, that axavwv may be the genitive plural, either of axavda, 'thorn,' or of axavos, the herb called bear'sfoot,' a smooth plant, and without prickles. But, in support of the. common version, let it be observed, 1st, That in both Mr. and J. it is called στέφανος ἀκάνθινος. This adjective, both in sacred use and in classical, plainly denotes spineus, thorny;' that it ever means made of bear's-foot,' I have no evidence. Thus in the Sep. (Isa. 34: 13), in the common editions, the phrase ázávðiva ula, is used for prickly shrubs. 2dly, That the word axava, thorn, both in the right case and in the oblique case, occurs in several places of the N. T. and of the Sep. is unquestionable. But that, in either, the word axavos is found, (leaving this, and the parallel passage in J. about which the doubt is raised, out of the question), has not been pretended. 3dly, Not one of the ancient, or of the oriental versions, or indeed of any versions known to me, favors this hypothesis. The Itc. and Sy. which are the oldest, both render the word thorns. The silence of ecclesiastical writers for near two centuries, if this can be properly pleaded after what has been observed of the ancient Itc. and Sy. interpreters, and especially when we consider how few of the works of the earliest fathers are extant, proves nothing at all. That Tertullian, the first of the La. fathers, mentions the crown as being of thorns, and speaks in such a manner as clearly shows that he had never heard of any different opinion, or even doubt raised upon the subject, is very strong evidence from the common translation. Add to this, that an eminent Gr. Father, Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary of Tertullian, understood the word in the same manner. "It is absurd," says he (Pæd. 1. 2. c. 8.), "in us, who hear that our Lord was crowned with thorns, axavdais, to insult the venerable sufferer by crowning ourselves with flowers." Several passages equally apposite might be given from the same chapter, but not one word betrays a suspicion that the term might be, or a suggestion that it ever had been, otherwise interpreted. There is, therefore, here the highest probability opposed to mere conjecture.

34. "Vinegar," öğos. Vul. "Vinum." With this agree the Cop. Arm. Sax. 2d Sy. and Eth. versions. The Cam. and a few other MSS. read oivov.

2 "Wormwood," zoins. E. T. "Gall." The word goin is used with great latitude in the Sep. The Heb. word signifying wormwood is twice so rendered; Prov. 5: 4. Lam. 3: 15. other times, it seems to denote any bitter or poisonous infusion that tasted like gall. To give such a beverage to criminals before their

execution, was then used, in order to make them insensible of the horrors of death.

35. [Thus verifying the words of the prophet, 'They shared my mantle among them, and cast lots for my vesture,'"] iva ninowin τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμὸν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. These words are wanting in a very great number of MSS. in which the most valuable are included in the works of some ancient commentators, in several early versions and editions. Though the Vul. in the common editions has this clause, it is not to be found in any of their best MSS. As it was a practice with some transcribers to correct, and, as they imagined, improve one Gospel by another, it is extremely probable that this clause has been at first copied out of J., to whose Gospel it properly belongs. For this reason I have marked it as of doubtful authority.

40. The reproach in this verse is introduced in the Vul. by the interjection Vah? in which concur the Cop. Sax. and 2d Sy. The Cam. and another MSS. read Ová.

40, 43. "God's Son." See note on ch. 4: 3, and on ver. 54, of this chapter.

41. "And the Pharisees." The words καὶ φαρισαίων, though not in the common edition, are found in a very great number of MSS. some of which are of principal note. They are in the Cam. and some of the oldest editions. With these agree the Ara. and both the Sy. versions. Origen and The. have read so. They are approved by Wet. and other moderns.

42. "Čannot he save himself?" avrov où duvaraι owoαi; E. T. "Himself he cannot save." The words may be understood either as an affirmation or a question. I think, with Bishop Pearce, that the latter way is better suited to the context, as well as more emphatical.

45. "The whole land, nãoav tv yv. The word yn is equiv ocal, and may be rendered either earth' or 'land.' Some have thought, that the addition of nãoα ought to determine our preference in favor of the most extensive signification of the word; but this argument is not conclusive. No two expressions can be more similar than ἐγένετο λιμὸς ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, L. 4: 25, and Mt.'s expression here, ἐγένετο σκότος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. Without some special reason, therefore, nothing could be more capricious than to render the former, "there was famine throughout all the land;" and the latter, "There was darkness over all the earth."

46. "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani." It is to be observed, that these are not the very words of the Heb. original of the Psalm quoted; but they are in what is called Syro-chaldaic, at that time the language of the country, the dialect which our Lord seems al