norεvovoi, 'They do not fast.' As the simple manner suits better the idiom of our tongue, I have preferred it. " 20. They will fast," norεvσovov. E. T. "Shall they fast." The expression here used does not convey a command from our Lord to his disciples, but is merely a declaration made by him occasionally to others, of what would in fact happen, or what a sense of propriety, on a change of circumstances, would induce his disciples of themselves to do. The import is therefore better expressed by will than by shall. At the time when the common translation was made, the use of these auxiliary verbs did not entirely coincide with the present use. In the solemn style, and especially in all the prophecies and predictions, shall was constantly used where every body now, speaking in prose, would say will. As that manner is (except in Scotland) become obsolete; and as, on many occasions, the modern use serves better the purpose of perspicuity, distinguishing mere declarations from commands, promises, and threats; I judged it better, in all such cases, to employ these terms according to the idiom which prevails at present. 24. "Which, on the Sabbath, it is unlawful to do." Mt. 12: 2. N. 26. "Abiathar the high-priest." From the passage in the history referred to, it appears that Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was then the high-priest. 2 "The tabernacle-the loaves of the presence." Mt. 12: 4. N. 23. Therefore the Son of Man,” ὥστε ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. This is introduced as a consequence from what had been advanced, ver. 27, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Hence one would conclude that the Son of Man,' in this verse, must be equivalent to man in the preceding; otherwise a term is introduced into the conclusion which was not in the premises. CHAPTER III. 4. "To do good-or to do evil; to save, or to kill," aɣaðoποίησαι, ἢ κακοποιῆσαι· ψυχὴν σῶσαι, ἢ ἀποκτεῖναι. In the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, L. 14: 26, not to love, or even to love less, is called "to hate ;" Mt. 11: 25, not to reveal, is "to hide;" and here, not to do good when we can, is "to do evil;" not to save, is "to kill." Without observing this particularity in the oriental idiom, (of which many more examples might be brought), we should be at a loss to discover the pertinency of our Lord's argument; as the question about preference here was solely between doing and not doing. But from this, and many other passages, it may be justly deduced as a standing principle of the Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it. 66 5. For the blindness of their minds," ini 17 nowσeł rys rugdias avtav. Diss. IV. sect. 22, 23, 24. 12. "He strictly charged them," mollà ineríμá avrois. Ch. 9: 25. N. 14. "That he might commission them to proclaim the reign," ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν. Diss. VI. Part v. sect. 2. แ 21. "His kinsmen hearing this, went out," axovouvres vi nag avtov ov. Sir Norton Knatchbull, a learned man, but a hardy critic, explains these words as if they were arranged and pointed thus, Οἱ ἀκούσαντες, παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον, “ Qui audiverunt, sive audientes quod turba ita fureret ab eo exiverunt," They who heard, went out from him. He does not plead any diversity of reading, but that such transpositions of the article are often to be met with. Ακούσαντες οἱ, dicitur frequenti trajectione pro οἱ ἀκούσαντες.” But it would have been more satisfactory to produce examples. For my part, I cannot help thinking, with Raphelius, that this transposition is very harsh, and but ill-suited to the idiom of the language. 2 Oi nag avrov. That this is a common phrase for denoting sui propinqui, cognati,' bis kinsmen, his friends, is well known. I have preferred the word kinsmen, as the circumstances of the story evince that it is not his disciples who are meant, but who would most readily be understood by the appellation friends, Bishop Pearce is of a different opinion, and thinks that by oi nao avrov is meant, "rather those who were with him, or about him; that is, some of the apostles or others present." Of the same opinion is Dr. M'Knight. But I cannot find warrant for this interpretation. Ilaga often signifies ad apud, juxta, prope; 'at,' near,' 'with;' but not when joined with the genitive. It has, in that signification, regularly the dative of persons, and the accusative of things. Thus Phavorinus, Παρὰ πρόθεσις, ὅτε πλησίοτητα δηλοί, ἐπὶ μὲν ἔμψυχου, δοτίκῇ συντασσέται· ἐπὶ δὲ ἄψυχου, αἰτιατικῇ. He subjoins only three exceptions that have occurred to him, in all which the preposition has the accusative of the person instead of the dative, but not a single example wherein it is construed with the genitive. The use of the preposition in the N. T. in this signification, which is very frequent, I have found (except in one instance, where the dative of the thing, and not the accusative, is used) entirely conformable to the remark of the lexicographer. The instance is in J. 19: 25. Ειστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ. But in no instance have I found it with a genitive, unless when the meaning is different; when it has either no relation to place, as appears to be the case here, or when it corresponds to the La. a, ab, and to the Eng. from. If the article did not form an insuperable objection to the disposition of the words proposed by Knatchbull, his way of rendering nag' avrov ¿ñλdov,“ went out from him," would be unexceptionable. Another insuperable objection against both of the above hypotheses (for both imply that it was some of the disciples, or at least some of those who were with Jesus in the house, that went out) is, that by the evangelist's account, they who went out were persons who had been informed of his situation by others. Ακούσαντες οἱ παρ' αὐτοῦ. Now, what writer of common sense would speak of men's hearing of a distress which they had seen and felt, and in which they had been partakers? For it is said, not of him alone, but of him and his disciples, that they were so crowded that they could not so much as eat. Nor can the particle άxovoavres, in a consistency with the ordinary rules of construction refer to any thing but the distress mentioned in the preceeding verse. 3" To lay hold on him," xparnoat autóv. All the above-nentioned critics agree in thinking that the autóv refers not to 'Inoous but to ozos, in the twentieth verse. L. Cl. also has adopted this opinion. He renders the words xoaτñoαι avτór, “pour la retenir," referring to la multitude in the foregoing verse. As to the justness of this version, far from being dogmatical, he says modestly enough, in his notes, "Les mots xoaτñoα avrov sont equivoques, et peuvent être egalement rapportez au mot özlos qui precède, et à Jesus Christ. Si l'on suit cette construction, l'evangeliste voudra dire, etc., mais si on rapporte ces paroles à Jesus Christ, il leur faudra donner un sens conformé." He seems to put both ways of rendering the words on a foot of equality. Bishop Pearce is more positive, and says, in his note on this passage, our Eng. translation must certainly be a mistake. Why? Because Jesus was in a house, and therefore they who wanted to lay hold on him could not go out for that purpose. True, they could not go out of that house but if they who heard of his distress were in another house, (and the very expression employed by the evangelist shows that they were not witnesses of the distress), would there be any impropriety in saying, 'They went out to lay hold on him?' I admit with L. Cl. that the pronoun autov may refer either to odos, or to Jesus the subject of discourse. But that the latter is the antecedent here is the more probable of the two suppositions, for this reason: The same pronoun occurs before, in this verse, where it is admitted by every body to refer to him, and not to the multitude, οἱ παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτὸν. The interpretation, therefore, which makes it refer to him though not absolutely necessary, is the most obvious, and the most conformable to the syntactic order. Further, till of late, the pronoun here has been invariably understood so by interpreters. Thus, the Vul. "Cum audissent sui, exierunt tenere eum." It must have been cam if they had understood it of the crowd, turba, mentioned in the preceding sentence. With this agree, in sense, all the other translations I know, ancient or modern, oriental or European, L. Cl.'s alone excepted. The ancient commentators, Gr. and La. show not only that they understood the expression in the same way, but that they never heard of any other interpretation. Though in matters of abstract reasoning, I am far from paying great deference to names and authorities, their judgment is often justly held decisive in matters purely grammatical. 4 "He is beside himself," orn. Vul. "In fuorem versus est." It shocks many persons to think, that so harsh, so indecent a sentence concerning our Lord, should have been pronounced by his relations. Several methods have accordingly been attempted for eluding this sentiment entirely, or at least affixing another meaning to the word gorn, than that here given, though the most ancient and the most common. By the explanation Dr. Pearce had given of the preceding words, (which I have assigned my reasons for rejecting), he has avoided the difficulty altogether; what is affirmed being understood by him as spoken of the crowd, and not of Jesus. But he has not adverted, that to give the words this turn, is to render the whole passage incoherent. Nothing appears plainer, than that the verdict of his friends in this verse, is the occasion of introducing the verdict of the scribes in that immediately following. Observe the parallelism (if I may be allowed the term) of the the expressions: Οἱ παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον, κρατῆσαι αὐτὸν, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη· καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς οἱ ἀπὸ ̔Ιεροσολύμων καταβαντες ἔλεγον ὅτι Βεελζεβούλ ἔχει. Were the scribes also speaking to the crowd? As that will not be pretended; to suppose that in one verse the crowd is spoken of, and in the next our Lord, though the expression is similar, and no hint given of the change of the subject, is, to say the least, a very arbitrary supposition. Now, that the sense given in the common version, which I have followed, is an ordinary meaning of the word is not denied. Phavorinus explains it by palvera, and in 2 Cor. 5: 13, it is contrasted with the verb ooooovεiv, in such a manner as not to admit another interpretation. Thus: Εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ· εἴτε σωφρονοῦμεν, ὑμῖν. It is urged on the other side, that the word occurs in the Sep. in a different meaning, Gen. 45: 26, ἐξέστη ή διανοία Ιακώβ. Ε.Τ. "Jacob's heart fainted." But passing the observation that the expression is not entirely the same, I should admit the same to be the meaning of the evangelist, if it were mentioned as what was reported to his friends, and not as what was said by them. When they say, "he is beside himself," every body understands it as a conclusion which they infer on the sudden from what they had heard. The judgment is rash and injurious, but not unnatural to people in a certain temper. The other version," he has fainted" denoting a visible event, could not naturally come from those who knew nothing of what had happened but by information from others. If it had been said, in the future, xornoɛtat, he will faint,' the case had been different, as this would have been no more than an expression of their fears. L. Cl. was so sensible of the weight of the abovementioned objections, that, though he considered the pronoun αὐτόν as relating to the crowd, he could not understand öri giorn, which he renders "qu'il etoit tombé en defaillance," as either spoken of the crowd, or as spoken by the friends; but in order to keep clear of both these difficulties, he has, after Gro. adopted an hypothesis which, if possible, is still more exceptionable. He supposes, in contradiction to all appearances, that the word you in this verse is used impersonally or indefinitely, and that the same word in the next verse, so similarly introduced, is used personally or definitely. Accordingly, he translates leyov yao, not car ils disoient,' as the construction of the word requires, but 'car on disoit,' thus making it not what his kinsmen inferred, but what was reported to them. If this had actually been the case, the simple, obvious, and proper expression in Gr. would have been: 'Axovoαvres οἱ παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐξέστηκει, ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτὸν. In this case also, I should have thought it not improbable, that the word implied no more than those writers suppose, namely, that he had fainted. Some are for rendering it he wondered, or was amazed, assigning to it the same meaning which the word has ch. 2: 12, where an evident subject of wonder and amazement is first mentioned, and then the passion as the natural effect. This way of rendering the words is exposed to objections equally strong, and more obvious. The only modern Eng. versions that I know, which follow the common translation, are Hey. and Wes. Gro. thinks that the Si. and Ara. favor his explanation of the word torn. But Father Si. is of a different opinion. I cannot help observing, on the whole, that in the way the verse is here rendered, no signification is assigned to the words, which it is not universally allowed they frequently bear; no force is put upon the construction, but every thing interpreted in the manner which would most readily occur to a reader of common understanding, who, without any preconceived opinion, entered on the study. On the contrary, there is none of the other interpretations which does not (as has been shown) offer some violence to the words or to the syntax; in consequence of which, the sense extracted is far from being that which would most readily present itself to an unprejudiced reader. It hardly admits a doubt, that the only thing which has hindered the universal concurrence of |