unveverai Пliroos. E. T. "Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone." I have put "which denoteth the same as Peter" in a different character, as the words of the historian, and not of our Lord. We ought to consider that this evangelist wrote his Gospel in a Grecian city of Asia Minor, and for this reason was the more careful to translate into Gr. the Heb. or Chal. names, given for a special purpose, whereof they were expressive. There was the greater reason for doing so in the two cases occurring in this and the preceding verse, as the Greek names were become familiar to the Asiatic converts, who were unacquainted with the oriental names. The sacred writer had a twofold view in it; first, to explain the import of the name; secondly, to prevent his readers from mistaking the persons spoken of. They all knew who, as well as what was meant by Xororós; but not by the Heb. word Messiah. In like manner they knew who was called Peter, but might very readily mistake Cephas for some other person. When a significant name was given to a man or woman, it was customary to translate the name when he or she was spoken of in a different tongue. Thus Thomas was in Gr. Didymus; and Tabitha was Dorcas. Now it deserves our notice, that a translation from the Gr. can, for the most part, answer only one of the two purposes above-mentioned. The Gr. to those who cannot read it, is equally unintelligible witht he Heb. To give the Gr. name, therefore, to the Eng. reader, is not to explain the Heb. For this reason, the interpreter ought to consider which of the two purposes suits best the scope of the place, and to be directed by this consideration in his version. The other purpose he may supply by means of the margin. To me it appears of more importance, in these instances, to be ascertained of the sameness of the person denominated both Messiah and Christ, and also of him called Cephas and Peter, than to know that the two former words signify anointed, and the two latter rock. I have therefore taken the method adopted by the Eng. translators as to the former, but not as to the latter. They have retained Christ in the version, and put anointed on the margin. The word Petros they have translated a stone. The same way ought certainly to have been followed in both. As far as I can judge of the scope of the passage, it is clearly the intention of the writer, on the first mention of some principal persons in his history, in order to prevent all mistakes that may in the sequel arise about them, to give their different names at once, with this intimation, that they are of the same import, and belong to the same person. Thus we have here, in one verse, all the names by which this apostle is distinguishedSimon son of Jona, Cephas, and Peter. Again, if the sacred penmen had more in view to acquaint us with the signification of the name, than to prevent our mistaking the person, he would probably have translated Cephas into Gr. пérou, not Пleroos. The former is always used in the N. T. and in the Sep. for a rock, and never the latter. I acknowledge that nétoos, in Gr. authors, and neroa, are synonymous; but in the use of the sacred writers, Ieroos is invariably, and nitoa never, a proper name. Nay, in the passage, Mt. 16: 18, wherein the signification of the word is pointed out as the reason of assigning the name, the word is changed in the explanation given—σύ εἶ Πέτρος· καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ. This would not have been done, if IIéroos had ever been used by them for a rock. Accordingly, in the Sy. version there is no change of the word; Cephas, or rather Kepha, serving equally for both. The change was evidently made in the Gr. for the sake of the gender; лéroα being feminine, was not a suitable name for a man. The word Iliroos, however, being preferred by the evangelist to nerga, shows evidently that it was more his view to. indicate the person than to explain the name. So the author of the Vul. understood it, who renders the words " quod interpretatur Petrus," not petra. Let it be observed further, that this apostle is never afterwards named by this evangelist Cephas, but always Peter. Now, in consequence of excluding that name out of this verse, the very purpose, as I imagine, of John's introducing the name into it is defeated; as, from this Gospel at least, the mere Eng. reader would not discover, when he hears afterwards of Peter, that it was the same person whom our Saviour, on this occasion, denominated Cephas. It must, therefore, be more eligible to preserve the names in the version, and give their import in the margin, than conversely; unless we will say, that it is of more consequence to know the etymology of the names, than to be secured against mistaking the persons to whom they are appropriated. I shall only add, that, by a strange felicity in some tongues, both purposes are answered in the translation as well as in the original. Pierre, in Fr. hits both senses exactly; and in La. and Itn. the affinity in the names is as great as between nέtoos and πέτρα in Gr. 51. "Thou believest," notevεis. E. T. "Believest thou ?" The words are capable of being translated either way. I prefer the more simple method of rendering, which is by affirmation, when neither the form of the sentence, nor any expression of surprise or emotion, lead us to consider it as an interrogation. 52. "Hereafter," an' out. There is nothing answering to this in the Vul. Cop. Sax. and Arm. versions. The words are wanting in but one MS. of no great account. CHAPTER II. 4. "Woman." That this compellation was not, in those days, accounted disrespectful, has been fully evinced by critics from the best authorities. We find in this Gospel (ch. 19:26) our Lord addressing his mother by this title on a very moving occasion, on which he showed her the most tender affection and regard. 2 "What hast thou to do with me?" Mt. 8: 29. N. It was no doubt our Lord's intention, in these words, gently to suggest that, in what concerned his office, earthly parents had no authority over him. In other things he had been subject to them. Some translators have been rather over-solicitous to accommodate the expression to modern forms of civility. The An. "Leave that affair to me; is not that my concern?" Hey. "What is there between me and you?" This, I suppose, has been thought a softer expression of the sense than that which is given in the E. T. It is certainly more obscure, and does not suit our idiom. But it is a literal version of the phrase by which the Fr. translators render our Lord's expression" Qu'y a-t-il entre vous et moi ?" Wes. "What is it to me and thee?" This, at first sight, appears preferable to the rest, because the most literal version. But, as Bishop Pearce well observes, had that been the evangelist's meaning, he would have written i noos què noi oi; as in ch. 21: 23, ti noos oè; "what is that to thee ?" and, Mt. 27: 4, ti noos nμãs; “ what is that to us?" Let me add, that ri ¿uoì xai ooù, as it is elliptic, is evidently a proverbial or idiomatic expression. Now, the meaning of such is always collected from the customary application of the words taken together, and not from combining the significations of the words taken severally. The common version suits the phrase in every place where it occurs-Wesley's does not; accordingly, in all other places, he renders it differently. Another reason against this manner is, because the sense conveyed by it is a worse sense, and not suitable to the spirit of our Lord's instructions. What is it to us that they want wine? That concerns them only; let them see to it.' This way of talking appears rather selfish, and does not savor of that tender sympathy which our religion so warmly recommends, whereby the interests and the concerns of others, their joys and their sorrows, are made our own. 6. "Baths," peronràs. E. T. "Firkins." As to the impropriety of introducing into a version of Scripture the name of a vessel so modern as firkin, see Diss. 8. Part i. sect. 9. etc. I have preferred here the Heb. measure bath, as the common standard used in reckoning the capacity of their vessels; especially as I find the Heb. word na rendered ueronis, in the Sep. 2 Chron. 4: 5. I acknowledge at the same time, that this evidence is not decisive; but I have not found any thing better, in support of a different opinion. The Seventy indeed have, in 1 Kings 18: 32, rendered seah which was equal to one third of the bath, in the same manner; but, as the words seah and ephah were, with the Hebrews, peculiarly the names of dry measures, and never applied to liquids, we cannot have re course to that passage for the interpretation of an expression relating solely to liquors. Some think, that as μeronrns was also the name of an Attic measure, the evangelist (most of whose readers were probably Greeks) must have referred to it as best known in that country. There are other suppositions made; but hardly any thing more than conjecture has been advanced in favor of any of them. It ought not to be dissembled, that, in most of the explanations which have been given of the passage, the quantity of liquor appears so great as to reflect an improbability on the interpretation. I shall only say, that the E. T. is more liable to this objection than the present version. The firkin contains nine gallons; the bath is commonly rated at seven and a half, some say but four and a half; in which case the amount of the whole, as represented here, is but half of what the E. T. makes it. The quantity thus reduced will not perhaps be thought so enormous, when we consider, first, the length of time, commonly a week, spent in feasting on such occasions, (of which time, possibly, one half was not yet over), and the great concourse of people which they were wont to assemble. 2" For the Jewish rites of cleansing,” xarà tòv xavagiouò car 'lovdalov. E. T. "After the manner of the purifying of the Jews." This expression is rather obscure and indefinite. There can be no doubt that, in such cases as the present, xarà is equivalent to is, and denotes the end or purpose. So the Sy. interpreter has understood it. 10. "When the guests have drunk largely," ótáv μedvodãoi. Vul." Cum inebriati fuerint." The Gr. word frequently in Scripture, and sometimes in other writings, denotes no more than to drink freely, but not to intoxication. 14." Cattle," Bóas E. T. "Oxen." Bous in Gr. in like manner as bos in La. is the name of the species, and therefore of the common gender. It includes alike bulls, cows, and oxen. Thus, Gen. 41: 2, 3, the kine in Pharaoh's dream are termed poss by the Seventy—ἕπτα βόες καλαι — ἄλλαι ἕπτα βόες αἰσχράι — and in the Vul. they are named boves; but no person who understands English would call them oxen. And though a herd may sometimes be so denominated, because the oxen make the greater part, it could never with propriety be used of cattle amongst which there was not even a single ox. Let it be observed, that the merchandize which was carried on in the outermost court of the temple, a very unsuitable place without doubt, was under the pretext of being necessary for the accommodation of the worshippers, that they might be supplied with the victims requisite for the altar; and, where payments in money were necessary, that, in exchange for the foreign coin they may have brought from their respective places of abode, they might be furnished with such as the law and custom required. Now, by the law of Moses, no mutilated beast, and con sequently no or, could be offered in sacrifice to God. Yet all the English translators I have seen render Boas here oxen.' In like manner, all the Gr. translators I am acquainted with, except Beau. who says des taureaux,' fall into the same mistake, rendering the word des bœufs.' 20:"Forty-and six years was this temple in building," tooαράκοντα καὶ ἑξ ἔτεσιν ᾠκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος. Dod. Hey . and Wor. say hath been, instead of was, proceeding on the supposition, that those who made this reply alluded to the additional buildings which the temple had received, and which had been begun by Herod, and continued by those who succeeded him in the government of Judea, to the time then present. But let it be observed, that the Jews never did, nor do to this day, speak of more than two temples possessed by their fathers; the first built by Solomon, the second by Zerubbabel. The great additions made by Herod were considered as intended only for decorating and repairing the edifice, not for rebuilding it; for, in fact, Zerubbabel's temple had not then been destroyed. Nor need we, I think, puzzle ourselves to make out exactly the forty-six years spoken of. Those men were evidently in the humor of exaggerating in order to represent to the people as absurd what they had immediately heard advanced by our Lord. In this disposition, we may believe, they would not hesitate to include the years in which the work was interrupted, among the years employed in building. 22. "That he had said this," öri touto ëλeyev. In the common editions, avtois, to them, is added. But this word is wanting in a very great number of MSS. amongst which are several of the highest account. It is not in some of the best editions, nor in the following versions-the Vul. either of the Sy. Cop. Arm. Sax. Ger. Tigurine, old Belgic. It has not been admitted by the best critics, ancient or modern. 6 66 2"They understood the Scripture and the word," iníorevoar τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ. Ε. Τ. “ They believed the Scripture and the word." IIGTEVE, in the sacred writers, sometimes signifies, not so much to believe,' as to apprehend' aright. In this sense it is once and again employed by this writer in particular. It is not insinuated here, that the disciples did not before this time believe the Scripture, or their Master's word; but that they did not, till now, rightly apprehend the meaning of either in relation to this subject. Another instance of this application of the verb norεvo we have ch. 3: 12. 24. “ Because he knew them all,” Διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντ The Gr. expression is an apt example of ambiguous construction, for it is equally capable of being rendered 'because they all knew him.' Yet interpreters, if I mistake not, have been unanimous in rendering it in the former way. This unanimity is itself a |