they write, (which is but seldom), their words, rightly explained, will always be found to convey a precise and distinct sentiment, and not to prove expressions merely indefinite, of what is good or bad in general. Now, the common version of this passage is exactly such a vague expression. For, to say that yaois here means favor, is to say that the historian tells us nothing which we are not told verse 52, where it is said "he advanced in favor with God and man." Now, I do not find that these writers are chargeable with such repetitions so quickly recurring. Besides, in this acceptation, the phrase would not be χάρις ἦν ἐπ' αὐτὸ; but εὗρε χάριν ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, οι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πρὸς τὸν λαόν. The thing to which in my judgment, the historian here particularly points, is that graceful dignity in our Lord's manner, which at once engaged the love, and commanded the respect of all who heard him. To this we find several allusions made in these writings. See Mt. 7: 28, 29. Mr. 1:22. L. 4: 22, 32. J. 7: 46. All these passages, put together, indicate an authority in his manner superior to human, blended with the most condescending sweetness. With this distinguishing quality the evangelist here acquaints us that Jesus was attended from his childhood.

Συνοδίᾳ means, pro

44. " In the company,” ἐν τῇ συνδία. perly, a company of travellers.' As, at the three great festivals, all the men who were able, were obliged, and many women chose, at least at the passover, to attend the celebration at Jerusalem, they were wont, for their greater security against the attacks of robbers on the road, to travel in large companies. All who came, not only from the city, but from the same canton or district, made one company. They carried necessaries along with them, and tents for their lodging at night. Sometimes, in hot weather, they travelled all night, and rested in the day. This is nearly the manner of travelling in the East to this hour. Such companies they now call caravans, and in several places have got houses fitted up for their reception, called caravansaries. See N. on ver. 7. 2. This account of their manner of travelling furnishes a ready answer to the question, How could Joseph and Mary make a day's journey without discovering, before night, that Jesus was not in the company? In the day-time we may reasonably presume that the travellers would, as occasion, business, or inclination led them, mingle with different parties of their friends and acquaintance; but that, in the evening, when they were about to encamp, every one would join the family to which he belonged. As Jesus did not appear when it was growing late, his parents first sought him where they supposed he would most probably be, amongst his relations and acquaintance, and not finding him, returned to Jerusalem.

48. "But they who saw him were amazed," zaì idóvres avtov ¿§endάynoav. E. T. "And when they saw him, they were amazVOL. II.

44

ed;" that is, when Joseph and Mary (mentioned ver. 43), saw him. This is the common way of rendering the words, and they are doubtless susceptible of that here given. This is taken notice of by Bowyer, as an exposition suggested by Markland. Indeed, if the article had been prefixed to dovres, I should not have thought the words capable of any other meaning. As they stand, the omission, especially after nas or navies, and a participle in the nominative, with the article, is not unprecedented. Thus, Mt. 11: 28, Дɛurε πρὸς με πάντες οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι, καγω ἀναπαύσω vuus. It may indeed be objected, that, in this example, both the participles are to be understood as relating to the same persons; in which case the repetition of the article would hardly be proper. This, I acknowledge, may be the case; but the suppression of the article will not be admitted as sufficient evidence that it is. For in L. 14: 11, where we read πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται, the two participles, so far from being applicable to the same individual, are contrasted, as representing persons of opposite characters. Yet the article, as well as the adjective nas, are omitted before the second participle: but every body must be sensible, that they are understood as equally belonging to both. The case of the passage under review is similar. Εξίσταντο δὲ πάντες οἱ ἀκούοντες αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐξεπλάγησαν. Here the πάν Tes of may be understood as repeated before the second participle. An inconsiderable alteration in the arrangement of the words, will make this criticism more sensibly felt: Πάντες δὲ οἱ ἀκούοντες αὐτὸν ἐξίσταντο, καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐξεπλάγησαν, ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς áлoxoiaɛoi avrov. For the sake of perspicuity, I have followed this order in the version. But as the words are capable of the other interpretation above mentioned, my reasons for preferring that here given are these: 1st, In the ordinary explanation, the distance is rather too great between the participle in ver. 48 and the nouns to which it refers in ver. 43. This has made Be. think it necessary to supply the words parentes ejus for removing the obscurity; and in this he has been followed by several other interpreters. 2dly, The meaning here given appears to me better suited to the scope of the passage. His parents may be said to have had reason of surprise, or even amazement, when they discovered that he was not in their company; but surely, to them at least, there was nothing peculiarly surprising in finding that he was not amusing himself with boys, but in the temple, among the doctors, discoursing on the most important subjects. I may say justly, that to them who knew whence he was, there was less ground of amazement at the wisdom and understanding displayed in his answers, than to any other human being. 3dly, It appears the intention of the evangelist, in this passage, to impress us with a sense of the extraordinary attainments of our Lord

in wisdom and knowledge, even in childhood, from the effect which the discovery of them produced on others. All in the temple who, though they did not see him, were within hearing, and could judge from what they heard, were astonished at the propriety, the penetration, and the energy they discovered in every thing he said; but those whose eyesight convinced them of his tender age, were confounded, as persons who were witnesses of something preternatural. 49. "At my Father's," ¿v rois tov пατoós μov. E. T. "About my Father's business." Sy. " n, in domo patris mei. The Arm. version renders the words in the same manner. It has been justly observed, that ra rov deivos is a Gr. idiom, not only with classical writers, but with the sacred penmen, for denoting the house of such a person. Thus, Esther 7: 9, what is in the Heb., and in the E. T. "In the house of Haman," is rendered by the Seventy ἐν τοῖς ̔Αμάν. Εἰς τὰ ἴδια, J. 14: 27, is justly translated in the common version, (and I may add, to the same purpose in every version 1 know), "Unto his own home." The idiom and ellipsis are the same. The like examples occur, Esth. 5: 10. 6:12. Öne who desires to see more, may consult Wet. upon the place. This interpretation has been given by many great scriptural critics, ancient and modern, Origen, Euth. The. Gro. Wet. and others. the phrase is elliptical in Gr. I have with Dod. expressed it elliptically in Eng. It is not often that our language admits so close a resemblance.

As

CHAPTER III.

1. "Now," d. The Marcionites, who rejected the two preceding chapters, began their Gospel here. It was urged by their adversaries, that the very conjuncion dé, with which this chapter is introduced, which is translated in all the ancient versions, which was retained it seems by themselves, and is wanting only in two MSS. is itself an evidence of the mutilation of their copies, being always understood to imply that something preceded.

2 "Procurator." Diss. VIII. Part. iii. sect. 17.

2. "In the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas," in άoxiegion "Avva nai Kaïápa. By the original constitution, one only could be high-priest at one time, and the office was for life. But after the nation had fallen under the power of foreigners, great liberties were taken with this sacred office; and high-priests, though still of the pontifical family of Aaron, were put in or out arbitrarily, as suited the humor, the interest, or the political views of their rulers. And though it does not appear that they ever appointed two to officiate jointly in that station, there is some probability that the Romans, about this time, made the office annual, and that Annas (or Ananus

as lie is called by the Jewish historian) and Caiaphas enjoyed it by turns. See J. 11: 49. 18: 3. Acts 4: 6. If this was the case, which is not unlikely; or if, as some think, the sagan or deputy is comprehended under the same title, we cannot justly be surprised that they should be named as colleagues by the evangelist. In any event, it may have been usual, through courtesy, to continue to give the title to those who had ever enjoyed that dignity, which, when they had no king, was the greatest in the nation. It is not improper to add, that a very great number of MSS. many of them of the highest value, read dozepes in the singular. Though this reading does not well suit the syntactic order, and though it is not favored by any ancient version except the Cop. it is approved by Wet.

13. "Exact no more," μŋdèv nλéov пoάoσεтε. Vul." Nihil amplius faciatis." Er. "Ne quid amplius exigatis." In this Er. who has been followed by Leo, Cas. Be. the Eng, and other modern translators, has, without departing from the known meaning of the Gr. verb, given a version that is both apposite and perspicuous. We cannot say so much of the passage as translated in the Vul.

18. "And, with many other exhortations, he published the good tidings to the people." Diss. VI. Part v. sect. 4.

19. “ His brother's wife,” τῆς γυναικὸς Φιλίππου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ avrou. The word Dinnov is wanting in very many MSS. both of great and of little account. It is not in some of the oldest and best editions, nor in the Vul. Arm. Go. and Sax. versions. It is, besides, rejected by Mill and Wet. The latter observes, that the name is rightly omitted here, as otherwise the person meant might readily be mistaken for the Philip mentioned ver. 1. This consideration adds to the probability that he has not been named in this place, because, if the evangelist had named him, it is natural to think that he would have added some circumstance, to discriminate him from the Philip he had mentioned so short while before.

23. "Now Jesus was himself about thirty years in subjection," καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος. Ε. Τ. “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age." Nothing I think is plainer, than that by no rule of syntax can the Gr. words be so construed as to yield the sense which our translators have given them. Adinitting that ἦν ἀρχόμενος may be used for ἤρχετο; because, though the phrase does not occur in Scripture, it is not unconformable to the Gr. idiom; yet if dozóuevos mean here 'beginning,' something still is wanting to complete the sense. Some, therefore, to fill up the deficiency, join the word or immediately following to this clause, and, by an extraordinary enallage, cause the participle to supply the place of the infinitive. Thus they make the evangelist say ἦν ἀρχόμενος ὤν for ἤρχετο εἶναι : as if we should say in Eng. And he was beginning being, instead of And he began to be; for the expression in the one language, is noway preferable

to that in the other. Those who imagine that, in so plain a case, the evangelist would have expressed himself in so obscure, so perplexed, and so unnatural a manner, have a notion very different from mine of the simplicity of style employed by these writers. Besides, some critics have justly remarked, that there is an incongruity is saying, in any language, A man began to be about such an age. When we say, a man is about such an age, we are always understood to denote, that we cannot say whether he be exactly so, or a little more or a little less; but this will never suit the expression began to be, which admits no such latitude. To combine, in this manner, a definite with an indefinite term, confounds the meaning, and leaves the reader entirely at a loss. Some interpret the words, When he was about thirty years old, he began his ministry. But as there is no mention of ministry, or allusion to it, either in what goes before or in what follows, I suspect this mode of expression would be equally unprecedented with the former. The whole difficulty is removed at once, by making the import of the participle the same with that of unoraonoμivos, ch. 2: 51 ruled,'' governed,' ' in subjection.' Hey. has adopted this method, which was, he says, suggested by a remark he found in the book called A Critical Examination of the Holy Gospels. In this way understood, we find no more occasion to do violence to the construction; every thing like ellipsis, or tautology, or incongruous combination, vanishes at once. Besides, the meaning given is entirely analogical, and not unfrequent: oyev, in the active voice, is to govern;" doréodar, in the passive, to be governed.' Just so, aoxorres nai dozóμevor, ἄρχοντες καὶ ἀρχόμενοι, A magistrates and subjects. Τῆς νύκτος προσκοπεῖ, τί σοι ποιήσουσιν οἱ ἀρχόμενοι, ἐπείδαν ἡμέρα γένηται, “ At night, provide work for your subjects to do when it is day." Cyropæd. lib.i. No critic hesitates to admit even an uncommon acceptation, when it is the only acceptation which suits the words connected. Who questions the propriety of rendering noάoot, ver. 13, to exact? Yet, though this verb occurs in the N. T. upwards of thirty times, the verse mentioned is the only place wherein it can be so rendered. The argument is stronger in the present case, as, by the meaning here given, which is far from being uncommon, the construction also is unravelled.

2" As was supposed, ais vouitero. Vul. Er. Zu. Cas. "Ut putabatur." Sy. to the same purpose, and. Hey. "As was supposed according to law." Priestley's Harmony, "As he was by law allowed to be." In this he has adopted the explanation given by bishop Pearce, in his Commentary and Notes. I am not against preferring a less, to a more usual interpretation, when the former suits the scope of the passage, and the latter does not. But, in the present instance, nothing can suit better the scope of the passage than the common acceptation of the verb vouiseovat, which