Page images
PDF
EPUB

not be pretended that such superfluous particles are entirely without example. The turns given to the words by Gro. by Knatchbull, and other critics, though ingenious, are too artificial.

[ocr errors]

ἀπο

24. "Supply thou the defects of my faith," Bonde pov ry ảлorig. E. T. "Help thou mine unbelief." It is evident from the preceding clause, niorów, that άnioria denotes here a 'deficient faith,' not a total want of faith.' I have used the word supply, as hitting more exactly what I take to be the sense of the passage. Gro. justly expresses it, "Quod fiduciæ meæ deest, bonitate tua supple." His reason for not thinking that the man asked an immediate and miraculous increase of faith, appears well founded: "Nam ut augmentum fiduciæ ab Jesu speraverit, et quidem subito, vix credibile est." The words, however, in the way I have rendered them, are susceptible of either meaning, and so have all the latitude of the original.

6

[ocr errors]

25. “ He rebuked,” ἐπετίμησε. Vul. "Comminatus est;" that is, 'he severely threatened.' In this manner the Gr. word is rendered in the Vul. no fewer than eight times in this Gospel, where it occurs only nine times. This is the more remarkable, as in the Gospels of Mt. and L. where we often meet with it, it is not once so rendered, not even in the parallel passages to those in Mr. No La. translator that I know has in this imitated the Vul. Some say objurgavit;' some increpavit,' or increpuit.' Beau. who says menaca,' and Lu. who says hedrauete,' are the only persons I know who, in translating from the Gr. into modern languages, have employed a word denoting threatened.' If there were more evidence than there is, that this is one usual acceptation of the term, there would still be sufficient ground for rejecting it as not the meaning of the evangelists. For, 1st, The verb inituác is used when the object addressed is inanimate, as the wind, the sea, a natural disease; for though, in such cases, even when rendered rebuke or command, there is a prosopopeia; yet, as we immediately perceive the sense, the expression derives both lustre and energy from the trope; whereas the mention of threats, which always introduces the idea of punishment to be inflicted on disobedience, being nowise apposite to the subject, could serve only to render the expression ridiculous. 2dly, The evangelists have often given us the very words of the niunous used by Jesus, but in no instance do we discover in them any thing of the nature of inenace. We have one example in this verse, for it is inɛtiμnoe kéywv. 3dly, The same word is adopted, Mt. 16: 22, to express the rebuke given by Peter to his Master, in which it would be absurd to suppose that he employed threats. 4thly, The Gr. commentator Euth. has given, on Mt. 12: 16, the word naonyɛile as synonymous to etiuno. 5thly, Recourse to threats, in the orders given to individuals, would ill suit either the meekness or the dignity of character

uniformly supported by our Lord. Even the verb upoμaóμai, though nearer in its ordinary signification to that of the La. ' comminor,' yet, in no place of the Gospels, can properly be rendered to threaten. It is twice used by J. for to groan,' or to sigh deeply.' There are only two other passages in which it is applied to our Lord, once by Mt. and once by Mr. In both places the words he used are recorded, and they contain no threatening of any kind. The only term for threat, in these writers, is antiλn; for to threaten, ἀπειλεῖν and προσαπειλεῖν.

29. "This kind cannot be dislodged, unless by prayer and fasting." Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν, εἰ μὴ ἐν πρησευχῇ xai vηoteia. E. T. "This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting." Some doubts have been raised in regard to the meaning of the words this kind. The most obvious interpretation is doubtless, that which refers them to the word demon immediately preceding. But as, in the parallel passage in Mt. 17: 19, mention is made of faith as the necessary qualification for dispossessing demons, Knatchbull and others have thought that this kind refers to the faith that is requisite. But to me it appears an insurmountable objection to this hypothesis, that we have here the same sentiment, almost the same expression, and ushered in with the same words, this kind, though in what goes before there is no mention of faith, or of any thing but demon, to which it can refer. It would be absurd to suppose, that the pronouns and relatives in one Gospel refer to antecedents in another. Every one of the Gospels does, indeed, give additional information; and, in various ways, serves to throw light upon the rest. But every Gospel must be a consistent history by itself; otherwise an attempt at explanation would be in vain. Now my argument stands thus: The story related in both Gospels is manifestly the same: that the words in question may refer to demon in Mt., no person who attentively reads the passage can deny; that they cannot refer to faith, but must refer to demon in Mr. is equally evident. Either then they refer to demon in both, or the evangelists contradict one another. Other arguments might be mentioned: one is, that the application of yivos to an abstract quality such as faith, is, I suspect, unexampled in the language of Scripture; whereas, its application to different orders of beings, or real existences, is perfectly common. Some have considered it as an objection to the above explanation, that it supposes different kinds of demons; and that the expulsion of some kinds is more difficult than that of others. I answer, 1st, The objection is founded entirely in our ignorance. Who can say that there are not different kinds of demons? or, that there may not be degrees in the power of expelling? Revelation has not said that they are all of one kind, and may be expelled with equal ease. I answer, 2dly, By this kind, is not meant this kind of demons, but

this kind or order of beings called demons. And if there be any implicit comparison in the words, it is with other cures. Another objection is that in Mt. 17: 20 the power of expulsion is ascribed solely to faith; whereas, here, it is ascribed to prayer and fasting. The answer to this objection will perhaps show, that the question does not so much affect the import of the passage, as it affects the grammatical construction and literal interpretation of the words. By the declaration, "This kind cannot be dislodged, unless by prayer and fasting," we are not (as I apprehend) to understand, that a certain time was to be spent in prayer and fasting before the expulsion of every demon, but that the power of expelling was not otherwise to be attained. "Quod est causa cause," say dialecticians, "est etiam causa causati." This is conformable to the idioms which obtain in every tongue. It was evidently concerning the power of expelling that the disciples put the question, Why could not we- ? Now, to the attainment of that power, fasting and prayer were necessary, because they were necessary for the attainment of that faith with which it was invariably accompanied. That i should be used according to the import of the Heb. conjugation hophal, may be supported by many similar examples in the N. T.

[ocr errors]

37. "Not me, but him who sent me:" that is, 'not so much me, as him who sent me.' Mt. 9: 13. 3 N.

40. "Whoever is not against you is for you," "Os oux čori xað ἡμῶν, ὑπερ ἡμῶν ἐστιν. But in a great number of MSS. some of them of note, in several editions, in the Vul. both the Sy. versions, the Sax. and the Go. the reading is vuov in both places, which is also preferred by Gro. Mill, and Wet.

44, 46, 48. "Their wormαὐτῶν.

-and their fire." ‘O oxwing -zai ro nuo. Diss. XII. Part ii. sect. 30.

CHAPTER X.

1. "Came into the confines of Judea through the country upon the Jordan,” ἔρχεται εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς ̓Ιουδαίας διὰ τοῦ πέραν τοῦ 'loodávov. Vul. "Venit in fines Judææ ultra Jordanem." The Sy. and the Go. appear to have read in the same manner as the Vul. agreeably to which did tou is omitted in some MSS.

12. "If a woman divorce her husband." This practice of divorcing the husband, unwarranted by the law, had been (as Josephus informs us) introduced by Salome, sister of Herod the Great, who sent a bill of divorce to her husband Costobarus; which bad example was afterwards followed by Herodias and others. By law, it was the husband's prerogative to dissolve the marriage: The wife could do nothing by herself. When he thought fit to dissolve it,

her consent was not necessary. The bill of divorce, which she received, was to serve as evidence for her, that she had not deserted her husband, but was dismissed by him, and consequently free.

19. "Do no injury," un άлoorzonons. E. T. "Defraud not." This does not reach the full import of the Gr. verb, which comprehends alike all injuries, whether proceeding from force or from fraud, and is therefore better rendered by P. R. "Vous ne ferez tort à personne." This is followed by Sa. Beau. and even by Si. himself, who changing only the mood, says, "Ne faites torte à personne." In the same way Dio. has also rendered it, "Non far danno a niuno" here rightly following Be. who says, " Ne damno quemquam afficito." To the same purpose the Vul. "Ne fraudem feceris;" by the sound of which, I suspect, our translators have been led into the version, "Defraud not," which does not hit the meaning of the La.

21. "Carrying the cross," pas tov oravoóv. These words are not in the Ephrem. and Cam. MSS. There is nothing corresponding to them in the Vul. Sax. and Cop. versions. Mt. 10: 38. N.

25. "Pass through," dieliv. There is the same diversity of reading here, which was observed in the parallel place in Mt. 19: 24. But the other reading, eioekviv, is not here so well supported by either MSS. or versions.

29. See the note immediately following.

30. "Who shall not receive now, in this world, a hundred-fold, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers and children, and lands, with persecutions." There are two difficulties in these words, of which I have not seen a satisfactory solution. The first is in the promise, that a man shall receive, in this world, a hundredfold, houses and brothers The second is in the limitation, with persecutions. As to the first, there is no difficulty in the promise, as expressed by the evangelist Mt. and L. To say, barely that men shall receive a hundred-fold for all their losses, does not imply that the compensation shall be in kind; nor do I find any difficulty in the declaration, that thus far their recompense shall be in this world. James, 1: 2, advises his christian brethren "to count it all joy when they fall into diverse temptations." Paul, 2 Cor. 7: 4, says, concerning himself, that he was "exceeding joyful in all his tribulation." The same principle which serves to explain these passages, serves, to explain the promise of a present recompense, as expressed by Mt. and L. The Christian's faith, hope, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, were more than sufficient to counterbalance all his losses. But if the mention of houses and brothers- -, add nothing to the meaning of those evangelists, to what purpose was it made by Mr.? Instead of enlightening, it could only mislead, and make a retribution in kind be expected in

the present life. Some things are mentioned, ver. 29, of which a man can have only one: these are father and mother. In ver. 30, we have mothers, but not fathers. Wife is mentioned, ver. 29, but not wives, ver. 30. Hence that profane sneer of Julian, who asked whether the Christian was to get a hundred wives. As to these omissions, however, there are some varieties in MSS. and versions. In ver. 29, the word yuvarna is wanting in two MSS. as well as in the Vul. Cop. Arm. and Sax. versions. None, indeed, in ver. 30 have either yuvaina or yuvaixas, but many MSS. and some of note, read μητέρα; many also add καὶ πατέρα, though these words in the singular il suits the Exarovranhaoiova which precedes them. These differences and omissions also contribute to render the passage suspected. According to rule, if one was repeated, all should have been repeated; and the construction required the plural number in them all. Bishop Pearce suspects an interpolation, occasioned by some marginal correction or gloss, which must have been afterwards taken into the text. If the text has been in this way corrupted, the corruption must have been very early, since the repetition in ver. 30, though with some variety is found in all the ancient MSS., versions, and commentaries extant. In a case of this kind, I do not think a translator authorized to expunge a passage, though he may fairly mention the doubts entertained concerning it. In a late publication of Mr. Wakefield's (Silva Critica), this passage is explained in such a manner (sect. 83,) as makes the words "now in this world, a hundred-fold, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions," to signify just nothing at all. I own I am not fond of a comment that destroys the text, or, which amounts to the same thing, exhibits it as words without meaning. Besides, the promise here is so formally divided into two parts, one regarding the present life, the other the future, that it may be fairly questioned whether such a total annihilation of one essential part, does not bring the significance of the other at least under suspicion. See Mt. 26: 29. 2 N.

2 "As to the other question about the qualifying words, μera diwyμov, I observe that the Cam. and one other MS. read doyuov, agreeable to which is the Sy. version: but this makes no alteration in the sense. I observe also, that there are three MSS., none of them of any name, which read uerà diwyμov, after persecution.' Wet. who commonly pays no regard to conjectural emendations, has, nevertheless, adopted this. A promise, according to the letter, regarding things merely temporal, to be accompanied with persecutions, that learned and ingenious critic considered as illusory. The more a man has, in that situation, his distress is the greater. He subjoins: "Omnia vero plana erunt, si, quæ etiam ingeniosa D. Heinsii conjectura fuit, sequamur codices qui habent μera diwyμov. Atque ita promittuntur halcyonia et pacata tempora duris succes

« PreviousContinue »