same latitude of application with the Greek. The La. senator is commonly rendered into Gr. Boulevens and this Gr. word, though rendered by the Vul. decurio,' is translated by Er. Zu. Cas. and Be. 'senator.' This rendering is therefore not improper, whatever was the case. But to say one of the council-chamber of the temple,' if that was not the fact, is a mistranslation of the word. In all dubious cases, the choice of a general term is the only safe mode of translating; but the tendency of most interpreters is, at any risk, to be particular.

54. "The sabbath approached," saßßarov inéqwoxe. Vul. "Sabbatum illucescebat." The Jews, in their way of reckoning the days, counted from sunset to sunset; thus beginning the natural day, to vuxenuεoov, with the night. This had been the manner from the earliest ages. Moses, in his history of the creation, concludes the account of the several days in this manner, "And the evening and the morning were the first day;"-and so of all the six, always making mention of the evening first. There is some reason to think, that the same method of counting had in very ancient times prevailed in other nations. It was not, however, the way that obtained in the neighboring countries in the time of the apostles. Most others seem at that time to have reckoned as we do, from midnight to midnight; and in distinguishing the two constituent parts of the natural day, named the morning first. Had the Jewish practice been universal, it is hardly possible that such a phrase as caßßarov inéqwoze, sabbatum illucescebat, to signify that the Sabbath was drawing on, had ever arisen. The expressions, then, might have been such as Lightfoot supposes is oάßßarov ¿oxorioon, and obtenebrescebat in sabbatum; the Sabbath being, as every other day, ushered in with darkness, which advances with it for several hours. The conjecture of Grotius, that L. in this expression refers to the light of the stars, which do not appear till after sunset, and to the moon, which gives at least no sensible light till then, is quite unsatisfactory. That the coming of night should on this account be signified by an expression which denotes the increase of light, is not more natural than it would be to express the progress of the morning, at sunrise, by a phrase which implies the increase of darkness, and which we might equally well account for by saying, that, in consequence of the sun's rising, the stars disappear, and we no longer enjoy moonshine. I am no better pleased with the supposition to which Wet. seems to point, that there is an allusion here to a Jewish custom of ushering in the Sabbath by lighting lamps in their houses. The transactions spoken of in this chapter were all without doors, where those lights could have no effect: besides, they were too inconsiderable to occasion so flagrant a deviation from truth, as to distinguish the advance of the evening by an expression which denotes the increase of the

light. Lightfoot's hypothesis is as usual ingenious, but formed entirely on the languages and usages of modern rabbis. He observes, that with them the Hebrew is answering to the Greek pas, is used for night; and taking it for granted that this use is as ancient as our Saviour's time, the approach of night would naturally, he thinks, be expressed by iniquoxo, illucesco. But let it be observved, that, as the rabbinical works quoted are comparatively recent, and as their language is much corrupted with modernisms from European and other tongues, it is not safe to infer, merely from their use, what obtained in the times of the apostles. As to the word in question, certain it is that we have no vestige of such a use in the O. T. There are not many words which occur oftener than ¬is; but it never means night, or has been so rendered by any translator whatever. The authors of the Sep. have never used as in rendering, the Heb. word for night, nor vue in rendering is. The word pas never signifies night in the Jewish Apocryphal writings, nor in the N. T. I even suspect that in the modern rabbinical dialect it does not mean night exclusively, but the natural day, vvyonμegov including both; in which case it is a mere Latinisin, lux for dies. Nay, some of his own quotations give ground for this suspicion. What he has rendered "luce diei decimæ quartæ," is literally from the originally quoted "luce decima quarta.' Nor does it invalidate this opinion, that the thing mentioned, clearing the house of leaven before the passover, is, according to their present customs, dispatched in the night time, and with candle-light. The expression may, notwithstanding, be used as generally as those employed in the law, which does not, in the discharge of this duty, confine them to the night: nor does their use of candles or lamps in this service, show that they confined themselves to the night. Even in the day-time these are necessary for a search, wherein not a press or corner, hole or cranny, in the house, is to be left unexplored. But admitting that the rabbis have sometimes preposterously used the word is for the night, of which the learned author has produced the testimony of one of their glossaries, its admission into a work whose use is to interpret into proper Heb. the barbarisms and improprieties which have in later ages been foisted into their tongue, is itself sufficient evidence that it is a mere modern corruption. How, indeed, can it be otherwise? Moses tells us, (Gen. 1: 5), that at the creation "God called the light day, and the darkness he called night." But this right use of words, these preposterous teachers have thought proper to reverse, being literally of the number of those stigmatized by the prophet, (Isa. 5: 20), as putting "darkness for light, and light for darkness." The way, therefore, wherein I would account for this expression of the evangelist (a way which has been hinted by some former interpreters) is very simple. In all the nations round, (the Jews perhaps alone excepted), it was cus

tomary to reckon the morning the first part of the day, the evening the second. Those who reckoned in this manner would naturally apply the verb iniquoxo to the ushering in of the day. L., who was, according to Eusebius, from Antioch of Syria, by living much among Gentiles, and those who used his style, or even by frequent occasions of conversing with such, would insensibly acquire a habit of using it. A habit of thus expressing the commencement of a new day, contracted where the expression was not improper, will account for one's falling into it occasionally, when in consequence of a difference in a single circumstance, the term is not strictly proper. And this, by the way, is at least a presumption of the truth of a remark I lately made, that this evangelist has, oftener than the rest, recourse to words and idioms which he must have acquired from the conversation of the heathen, or from reading their books. This is an expression of that kind, which, though it might readily be imported, could not originate among the Jews. I shall only add, that the use which Mt. makes of the same verb (28: 1), is totally different. He is there speaking of the morning, when the women came to our Lord's sepulchre, which was about sunrise. Here, on the contrary, the time spoken of is the approach of sunset; for the setting of the sun made the beginning of the sabbath.

CHAPTER XXIV.

1. "With some others," xai rives ovv avrais. Those words are wanting in two or three MSS. They are also omitted in the Vul. Cop. Sax. and Eth. versions; but are in the Sy. and Ara. The external evidence against their admission, compared with the evidence in their favor, is as nothing. But a sort of internal evidence has been pleaded against them. As no women are named either here or in the conclusion of the preceding chapter, what addition does it make to the sense to say, "with some others?" Or what is the meaning of it where none are specified? I answer, the women spoken of here, though not named, are mentioned in the last verse but one of the foregoing chapter, under this description -"the women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee." Now, where is the absurdity of supposing, that those pious women from Galilee were accompanied by some of our Lord's female disciples from Jerusalem and its neighborhood? As it is certain that our Lord had there many disciples also, I see no reason why we should not here be determined solely by the weight and number of authorities.

12. "He went away musing, with astonishment, on what had happened,” ἀπῆλθε, πρὸς ἑαυτὸν θαυμάζων τὸ γεγονός. Some point the words differently, removing the comma after άлne, and

placing it after avrov; and, in consequence of this alteration, render the clause," he went home wondering at what had happened." Thus, J. 20: 10, ̓Απῆλθον οὖν πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς οἱ μαθηταί, is rendered in the E. T. "Then the disciples went away again unto their own home." That the words of L. admit of such an adjustment and translation, cannot be denied. The common punctuation, however, appears to me preferable, for these reasons: 1st, It is that which has been adopted by all the ancient translations, the Cop. alone excepted. 2dly, It has a particular suitableness to the style of this evangelist. Thus, ch. 18: 11, ngòs éavròv ravτa noooŋúzero, is in the E. T. rendered, "prayed thus with himself;" though, I confess, it admits another version; and 20: 14, diɛhoyiSovro noos taurous, "they reasoned among themselves." 3dly, It appears more probable, from what we are told ver. 24, of this chapter, and from the account given by J. ch. xx, that Peter did not go directly home, but returned to the place where the apostles and some other disciples were assembled. And this appears to be the import of anyλðòv ngos žavrovs, J. 20: 10, which see.

18. "Art thou alone such a stranger in Jerusalem as to be unacquainted ?” Σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς ἐν ̔Ιερουσαλήμ, καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως; E. T. "Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known?" There are two ways wherein the words of Cleopas may be understood by the reader: one is, as a method of accounting for the apparent ignorance of this traveller; the other, as an expression of surprise, that any one who had been at Jerusalem at the time, though but a stranger, should not know what had inade so much noise amongst all ranks, and had so much occupied, for some days, all the leading men in the nation, the chief priests, the scribes, the rulers, and the sanhedrim, as well as the Roman procurator and the soldiery. The common version favors the first interpretation; I prefer the second, in concurrence, as I imagine, with the majority of interpreters ancient and modern. I cannot discover with Be. any thing in it remote from common speech. On the contray, I think it in such a case as the present so natural an expression of surprise, that examples remarkably similar may be produced from most languages. Dio. Ο. Σὺ ἄρα, εἶπε, μόνος ἀνήκοος εἰ τούτων & πάντες ἴσασιν ; 66 Are you the only person who have never heard what all the world knows?" Cicero, pro Milone: "An vos, judices, vero soli ignoratis, vos hospites in hac urbe versamini; vestræ peregrinantur aures, neque in hoc pervagato civitatis sermone versantur ?"

19. “ Powerful in word and deed,” δυνατὸς ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ. I have here altered the order a little, for the sake of avoiding a small ambiguity; in deed, might be mistaken for the adverb. The first of these phrases, powerful in word, relates to the wisdom and eloquence which our Lord displayed in his teaching; the other relates to the miracles which he performed.

25. "O thoughtless men!" avónτoc. E. T. "O fools." The word is not wool. The two words are not synonymous. The term last mentioned is a term of great indignation, and sometimes of contempt; that employed here is a term of expostulation and reproof.

29. "They constrained him," napißiάoavтo avrov. How did they constrain him? Did they lay violent hands on him, and carry him in whether he would or not? The sequel shows-" saying, Abide with us; for it groweth late, and the day is far spent." The expression, in such cases, must always be interpreted according to popular usage. Usages such as this, of expressing great urgency of solicitation, by terms which, in strictness, imply force and compulsion, are common in every tongue. How little then is there of candor, or at least of common sense, in the exposition which has been given by some of a like phrase of the same writer, ch. 14: 23, « Compel them to come in,” ανάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν ?

34." Who said, The Master is actually risen, and hath appeared unto Simon,” Λέγοντας· Οτι ηγέρθη ὁ Κύριος ὄντως, καὶ apon Ziuavi. Mr. Markland (Bowyer's Conjectures) thinks, that the words ought to be read interrogatively: "Is the Lord risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon? with a sneer on the credulity or veracity of the informers, Peter and Cleopas;" for these, he thinks, were the two to whom Jesus appeared on the road to Emmaus. Lightfoot's explanation is much to the same purpose. To me the words do not appear susceptible of this version. Ευρον λέ youras ori can never be made to introduce a question. There is no different reading, except that the Cam. reads Aéyovres for Aéyovtas, in which it is singular. That Peter was one of the two, is improbable. He is not named by either Mr. or L., though Cleopas is by the latter, and though Peter never fails to be mentioned by name by the sacred historians, when they record any transaction wherein he had a part. The opinion that he was one of the two, seems to have arisen from a hasty assertion of Origen. It has not the support of tradition, which has from the beginning been divided on this point; some thinking L. himself the unnamed disciple, some Nathanael, others one of the seventy sent by our Lord in his lifetime. The great object of this attempt of Markland's is to avoid an apparent contradiction to the words of Mr. who says, (16: 13), that when the two disciples at their return acquainted the rest, "they did not believe them." This, which is in fact the only dif ficulty, does not imply that none of them believed, but that several, perhaps the greater part, did not believe. On the other hand, when L. tells us, that the eleven and those with them said, "The Master is actually risen, and hath appeared unto Simon," we are not to conclude that every one said this, or even believed it; but only that some believed, one of whom expressly affirmed it. Such lati