Page images

editions. Καρπους άξιους is universally allowed to be the genuine reading in L. Some ignorant transcriber has probably thought proper to correct one Gospel by the other. Such freedoms have been too often used.

10. “ Turned into fuel.” Ch. 6:30. ?N.

11. “In water-in the Holy Spirit,” įv üdart¿v dyio aveţuaT. E. T. “ with water- with the Holy Ghost.” Vul. “in aqua -in Spiritu Sancto.” Thus also the Sy. and other ancient versions. All the modern translations from the Gr. which I have seen render the words as our common version does, except L. Cl. who says, “ dans l'eau—dans le Saint Esprit.” I am sorry to observe, that the Popish translators from the Vul. have shown greater veneration for the style of that version than of the original. For in this the La. is not more explicit than the Gr. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled to render įv rom Joodávn, in the sixth verse, 'in Jordan,' though nothing can be plainer, than that if there be any incongruity in the expression in water,' this 'in Jordan' must be equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition in could not be avoided there, without adopting a circumlocution, and saying • with the water of Jordan,' which would bave made their deviation from the text too glaring. The word Punti talv, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifiesto dip,'' to plunge,' .to immerse,' and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the La. fathers, 'tingere,' the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is, šv üdarı, ¿v to 100dávn. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition iv, which, answering to the Heb. 3, may denote with as well as in, did not the whole phraseology in regard to this ceremony concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly to the baptized are said avaBaivarv, ' to arise,' emerge,' or ó ascend,' ver. 16, uno toð üdutos, and Acts 8 : 39, *toð üdatos, 'from or out of the water. Let it be observed further, that the verbs gaivu and ouvrićw, used in Scripture for sprinkling, are never construed in this manner. “I will sprinkle you with clean water,” says God, Ezek. 26 : 25, or as it runs in the E. T. literally from the Heb. “I will sprinkle clean water upon you,” is in the Sep. 'Pivo eq' drūs xalavov üdno, and not as Banricois always construed. 'Pávw vuās iv xataon üdali. See also Exod. 29: 21. Lev. 6:27. 16: 14. Had Buntis Św been here employed in the sense of gaivo), 'I sprinkle,' (which, as far as I know, it never is in any use, sacred or classical), the expression would doubtless have been 'Εγώ μεν βαπτίζω εφ' υμας ύδωρ, or und zoù udotos, agreeably to the examples relerred to. When therefore the Gr. word punnitw is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import.

It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence, that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they preser. The true partizan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party.

2 « In the Holy Spirit and fire," {v revetuatı dyim xai nivoi. Hey. “With holy wind and fire.” This most uncommon, though not entirely new version of that learned and ingenious but sometimes fancisul inierpreter, is supported by the following arguments : Ist., The word zvedua, which signifies both spirit and wind, has not here the article by which the Holy Spirit is commonly distinguished. 2dly, The following verse, which should be regarded as an illustration of this, mentions the cleansing of the wheat, which is by the wind separating the chaff, and the consuming of the chaff by the fire. 3dly, The three elements, water, air, and fire, were all considered by the Jews as purifiers, and, in respect of their purifying quality, were ranked in the order now named, water the lowest, and fire the bighest. The mention of the other two gives a presumption that the third was not omitted. The following answers are submitted to the reader: 1st, The article, though often for distinction's sake prefixed to öylov aveüuc is, when either the scope of the place or the other terms employed serve the purpose of distinguishing, frequently omitted. Now this purpose is more effectually served by the epithet öylov, ' holy,' than it could have been by the article. In ch. 1:18, and 20, the miraculous conception is twice said to be XX avevuaros üylov, without the article. Yet Hey. himself has rendered it in both places the Holy Spirit. Further, I suspect that no clear example can be produced of this adjective joined to avaūpa, where the meaning of a vEūuu is ' wind.' At least I have never heard of any such. 2dly, The subsequent verse is certainly not to be understood as an illustration of this, but as further information concerning Jesus. This verse represents the manner in which he will admit his disciples; the next, that in which he will judge them at the end of the world. 3dly, I can see no reason, on the Dr.'s hypothesis, why air or wind should alone of all the elements be dignified with the epithet holy. Fire in that view would have a preferable title, being considered as the most perfect refiner of them all. Yet in no part of the N. T. is mention made of either holy water' or 'holy fire.' Now, as it is acknowledged that aveīļa commonly signifies spirit,' and when joined with üylov 'the divine Spirit,' the word, by all the laws of interpretation, considering the peculiarity of the attribute with which it is accompanied, must be so understood here. It is, however, but doing justice to that respectable author to observe, that he does not differ from others in regard to the principal view of the passage, the effusion of the Holy Spirit; only he thinks that the literal import of the word niv&ūua in this place is wind,' and that · the Spirit’ is but suggested to us by a figure.

3« And fire,” xai voi. These words are wanting in several MSS., but they are found in a greater number, as well as in the Sy. the Vul. and all the ancient versions.

12. “His winnowiny shovel is in bis band,” ou atúov iv in meloi avtoő. E. T. “Whose fan is in his hand.” Vul. “Cujus ventilabrum in manu sua.” In the old Vul. or Itc. the word appears to have been pala,' properly ' a winnowing shovel,' of which mention is made Isa. 30 : 24. This implement of husbandry is very ancient, simple, and properly manual. The ' fan' (or van, as it is sometimes called) is more complex, and being contrived for raising an artificial wind by the help of sails, can hardly be considered as proper for being carried about in the hand.

15. “ Thus ought we to ratify every institution," OUT W T QETOV ¿otiv nuiv na nowoai nãoav dixaloouvnu. E. T. “ Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” In the opinion of Chrysostom and other expositors, dixalooúvn signifies in this place divine precept.' It is the word by which upun 'mishpal,' in Heb. often denoting an institution or ordinance of religion, is sometimes rendered by the Seventy. I have chosen here to translate the verb tanpãout rather ratify' than "ful61,' because the conformity of Jesus in this instance was not the personal obedience of one who was comprehended in the precept, and needed with others the benefit of purification, but it was the sanction of his example given to Jobn's baptism as a divine ordinance.

16. “ No sooner arose out of the water than heaven was opened to him," dvěßn evous dno zoû údatos, xai idoù avanzondav avto oi ovoavoi. E. T. “ Went up straightway out of the water, and lo the heavens were opened unto him.” That the adverb sutus, though joined with the first verb, does properly belong to the second, was justly remarked by Grotius. Of this idiom, Mr. 1: 29, and 11: 2, are also examples.


1. “By the devil,” úno roŨ diabólov. Diss. VI. Part i. sect. 1-6.

3. “A son of God," vios toŨ 080Ŭ. E. T. “ The son of God.” It does not appear to be without design that the article is omitted both in this verse and in the sixth. The words ought therefore to be rendered indefinitely a son,' not emphatically the son.' In the parallel passage in L. 4: 3, there is the same omission; and though in the 9th verse of that chapter we find the article in the present coinmon Gr. it is wanting in so many ancient MSS. and approved editions, that it is justly rejected by critics. Whether we are to impute Satan's expressing himself thus to his ignorance, as

coinmon Gr. iti of that chapter we same omission: In

not knowing the dignity of the personage whom he accosted, or to his malignity, as being averse to suppose more than an equality with other good men, (for he does not acknowledge even so much), certain it is, that the passage be quotes from the Psalms admits a general application to all pious persons. The ornission of the definite article in this place is the more renarkable, as in the preceding chapter in both Gospels the appropriation of the term úlos by means of the article, in the voice from heaven, is very strongly marked, o vios uov ó dyannros. See N. on ch. 14: 33. 27: 54.

2 “ Loaves," äoroi. E. T. “Bread."Apros, used indefinitely, is rightly translated · bread;' but when joined with sis, or any other word limiting the signification in the singular number, ought to be rendered • loaf:' in the plural it ought almost always to be rendered • loaves. Even if either were proper, ' loaves' would be preferable in this place, as being more picturesque. Our translators have here followed the Sy. interpreter, who seems to have read äoros.

4. “By every thing which God is pleased to appoint," ini navii ønuari èx10pevouevo dia orouaros DeoŨ. E. T." By every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.,' The whole sentence is given as a quotation. “ It is written.” The place quoted is Deut. 8: 3, where Moses speaking of the Israelites, says, “ He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, wbich thou knowest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.” It is cvident that the Jewish lawgiver is speaking here of the food of the body, or sustenance of the animal life, as it was this purpose solely which the manna served, and which could not in our idiom be denominated a word. The reader may observe that the term word, in the passage of the 0. T. quoted, is in our Bible printed in italics, to denote that there is no corresponding term in the original. It might therefore have been literally rendered from the Heb.' every thing. In the Sep. from which the quotation in the Gospel is copied, the ellipsis is supplied by oñua. But let it be observed, that in Scripture both the Heb. 737 dabar' and the Gr. oñuu, and sometimes loyós, mean indifferently word' or 'thing.' Take the following examples out of a much greater number. L. 1: 37. Our dvduvarnost napa to Dzū rāv øñua : “ Nothing is in possible with God.”—2: 15. “Let us now go to Bethlehem, and see this thing," To oñua rouro, “ which is come to pass." The phrase tò XN00E vouévov (or itchJor) {* toŨ orduaros is oftener than once to be met with, in the version of the Seventy, for a declared purpose,' resolution, or appointment.' See Num. 32: 24. 1 Sam. i: 23. But nothing can be more express to our purpose than Jer. 44: 17. Toivoquer návra hógov os geheugeTQL x toù oróuctos nuor. E. T. “We will do whatsover thing goeth forth out of our own mouth,” noviæ logov, in Heb. 727.1-12 col babdabar,' every word ;' that is, “ we will do whatsoever we have purposed.” The version I have given is therefore entirely agreeable, both to the sense of the passage quoted and to the idiom of holy writ. I may add, that it is much better adapted to the context a ban the allegorical explanation which some give of the words as relating purely to the spiritual life. The historian tells us that Jesus bad lasted forty days, that he was hungry, and in a desert, where food was not to be had. The tempter, taking his opportunity, interposes, “ If thou be the Messiah, convert these stones into loaves.” The question was simply, What, in this exigence, was to be done for sustaining life? Our Saviour answers very pertinently by a quotation from the 0. T. purporting, that when the sons of Israel were in a like perilous situation in a desert, without the ordinary means of subsistence, God supplied them with food, by which their lives were preserved, (for it is not pretended that the manna served as spiritual nourishment), to teach us that no strait, however pressing, ought to shake our confidence in him. Beau. and the anonymous Eng. translator in 1729, exbibit the same sense in their versions.

6. “Lest,” urinote. E. T. “ Lest at any time." From an excessive solicitude not to say less than the original, words have been explained from etymology, rather than from use; in consequence of which practice, some versions are encumbered with expletives, which enfeeble instead of strengthening the expression. Of this kind is the phrase at any time, which in this passage adds nothing to the sense. The compound unrota, in the use of the sacred penman, rarely signifies more than the simple uri, ‘lest.' It is used by the Seventy in translatiny a Heb. term that imports no more. In the Psalm referred to it is rendered simply lest. And to go no surther than this Gospel, our translators have not hesitated lo render it so in the following passages; 7: 6. 13: 29. 15: 32. 25: 9. 27: 64. Why they have not done so in this, and most other places, I can discover no good reason.

7. “ Jesus again answered, It is written,” {on avrò ó 'Ingoūs nálev yeypuntat. E. T. o Jesus said unto him, It is written again.” The words in the original are susceptible of either interpretation, the difference depending entirely on the pointing. I place the comma after πάλιν, they after 'Ιησούς. This was the second answer which Jesus nade, on this occasion, to the devil. It is not easy to see in what sense the words quoted can be said to have been written again. The punctuation is not of divine authority, any more than the division into chapters and verses.

2 “ Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the proof,” ovu xTELPLOELS Kúplov tov Očov oov. E. T. “Thou shalt not templ the

« PreviousContinue »