66 that it has been injured in transcribing. This writer often indeed uses tautologies; but, except in this passage, they occasion no darkness or perplexity. The clause, ἐκείνο εἰς ὁ ἐνέβησαν οἱ μαθη rai avrou-E. T. "That wherein his disciples were entered"-is not in the Al. nor in some other MSS. There is no corresponding clause in the Vul. Go. Sax. Cop. Eth. and Ara. versions; nor in Nonnus. Ben. and Mill reject it. The Sy. has read the clause, but avoided the tautology by omitting the following clause in this verse to the same purpose—ἀλλὰ μόνοι οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον. [ have adopted the reading of the Vul. as preferable upon the whole. 27. For to him the Father, that is God, hath given his attestation,” τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν, ὁ Θεός. Ε. Τ. “ For him hath God the Father sealed." By the manner in which ὁ Θεός, God, is introduced in the end of the sentence, it is manifestly done in explanation of o nutno accordingly the sentence is complete before that word is added. It was the more pertinent here to add it, as our Lord, in the preceding part of the sentence, is called "the Son of Man." It might therefore be supposed, that by the Father, who vouched him, is meant some human being. The addition, ó ós, that is God,' entirely precludes this mistake. The Father was a title from the earliest ages given to the Deity, to distinguish him as the universal parent or author of all things. 66 31. "He gave them bread of heaven to eat," "prov ix rov ovρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν. Ε. Τ. “ He gave them bread from heaven to eat." The words are capable of being translated either way. But bread of heaven appears to me an expression of greater energy than bread from heaven. Besides, it is more suitable to the passage in the Psalms referred to, where it is called "corn of heaven," and "angels' food." 32. "Moses did not give you the bread of heaven," ou Moons δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Ε. Τ. “ Moses gave you not that bread from heaven." Here, though the difference in expression is but small, the difference in meaning is considerable. The latter seems to point only to the place whence the manna came. The pronoun that, which is quite unwarranted, conduces much to this appearance. The former points to the true nature of that extraordinary food: Our Lord's declaration, as I imagine, imports that it is in a subordinate sense only that what dropped from the clouds, and was sent for the nourishment of the body, still mortal, could be called the bread of heaven, being but a type of that which hath descended from the heaven of heavens, for nourishing the immortal soul unto eternal life, and which is therefore, in the most sublime sense, the bread of heaven. 33. "that which descendeth from heaven," o xaraßaivov iz rov ovρavou. E. T. "He who cometh down from heaven." Let it be observed, that o aozos, to which this participle refers, is of the masculine gender, and by consequence susceptible of the interpretation I have given it. Let it be further observed, that this whole discourse is figurative, and that it appears from what follows, that our Lord meant not at once to lay aside the veil wherein he had wrapped the sentiments. The request made to him in the very next verse, "give us always this bread," shows that he was not yet understood as speaking of a person, which he must have been if his expression had been as explicit as that of the E. T. It is only in ver. 35, that he tells them plainly, that he is himself the bread of which he had been speaking. In this exposition I agree entirely with Dod. Hey. Wy. and Wor. and some of our best commentators. 39. This is the will of him who sent me," zoro ¿ori tò Délnμα τοῦ πέμψαντός με πατρός. But the word πατρός is wanting in the Al. and several other MSS. It is not found in the Cop. and Ara. versions. The whole verse is wanting in the Go. Several of the fathers also appear not to have read the word naτoos in this place it is wanting also in many La. MSS. As this verse is explanatory of the preceding, whereof a part is repeated, it suits the ordinary method of composition not to mention argos in this place, as it does not occur in the words referred to. Mill and some other critics agree in rejecting it. 41. "I am the bread which descended from heaven," yo eiu ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Vul. " Εgo sum panis vivus ó qui de cœlo descendi." The addition of vivus in this place has no support from MSS. or versions; no, not even the Sax. version. 45. "Every one who hath heard and learnt from the Father, cometh unto me,” πῶς οὖν ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθών ἔρχεται πρός operaι nós με. E. T. "Every man, therefore, that hath heard and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." Markland justly observes, that as the preceding words are "they shall be all taught of God," it would have been more consequential to subjoin, "every man, therefore, that cometh unto me, hath heard and learnt of the Father:" and there is no doubt that it is only in this way that the affirmation can be deduced, as a consequence, from what preceded. But in some MSS. of note the illative particle ouv is not found; nor is there any thing corresponding to it in the Vul. Cop. Go. and Sax. versions. Origen also omits it. Now the omission of this particle corrects entirely the incoherency. In a case of this kind, where the connexion is plainly injured by the particle, the reason above mentioned is ground sufficient for excluding it; for it is plain, that transcribers have used more freedom with connexive particles than with the other parts of speech. And we may add, that those of this class, in supplying such helps, commonly do not consult the understanding so much as the ear. 51. "Is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," σάρξ μου ἐστὶν ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς. Vul. " Caro mea est pro mundi vita." The clause vy doow is wanting in three noted MSS. and in the Eth. and Sax. versions, as well as in the Vul. 53. "Ye have not life in you," oux exete Swηv iv ¿avroîs. E. T. "Ye have no life in you." The version I have given is closer, both to the letter and to the sense. The life spoken of is called, both before and after, son aiovios. The adjective, though someζωή αιώνιος. times dropped, is always understood, whilst the subject of discourse continues to be the same. The import of our Lord's words is, therefore, not that there was no living principle of any sort in those who rejected him, (though the expression, in the common translation, seems to imply as much), but that they had nothing of the life about which he had been discoursing to them. 55. "For my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink," Ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθῶς ἐστι βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμὰ μου ἀληθῶς ἐστι πόσις. A few MSS. read ἀληθής in both places. With them agree the Cop. and second Sy. versions. The literal translation of this reading is, for my flesh is the true meat, and my blood is the true drink. The difference in meaning is not material, and if it were, there is not sufficient authority in this place for an alteration. 56. The Cam. MS. and one of Stephen's, after auto, add, xaθὼς ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατήρ, καγω ἐν τῷ πατρὶ. ̓Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν· εὰν μὴ λάβητε τὸ σώμα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὡς τὸν ἄρτον τῆς ζώης, oux exere Conv év avra: "As the Father is in me, and I am in the οὐκ ἔχετε ζωην αὐτῷ Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye receive the body of the son of man as the bread of life, ye have not life in him." That Dr. Mill should, on so slight authority, even by his own account, (Proleg. 1268, etc.), favor an addition which, as Whitby observes, (Exam. Millii), has the sanction of no ecclesiastical writer, no translation, no commentary, and is, besides, unsuitable to the style of the context, is truly amazing. 57. "As the Father liveth who sent me, and I live by the Father; even so, he who feedeth on me, shall live by me;" xas απέστειλέ με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ, κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα· καὶ ὁ τρώγων με, nanɛivos Snorrai di' iur. E. T. "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." In the oriental tongues the present participle supplies the present of the indicative. We have an example of it in the above passage; but the illustration conveyed in that manner is more clearly expressed in modern tongues, when rendered by the indicative. I have therefore taken this method here, which is approved by Gro. and followed by Cas. who says, " quemadmodum vivit pater qui me misit." Maldonat also explains it in the same manner. The clauses, καθώς απέστειλε με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ, καγω ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, make not a complete comparison, but only what I may call one moiety of a comparison, whereof what follows xai o rowywv μɛ, ng neīvos ¿ñoerai di ¿ue, makes the other. A comparison of the same taste we have, chap. 10: 14, 15. It must be owned that did, with the accusative, commonly marks the final, not the efficient cause, answering to the La. propter, not to per. But it is confessed on all sides, that this does not always hold. The Vul. indeed, Er. and Zu. render it propter; Cas. and Be. per. But even the expounders of the Vul. and translators from it, consider the preposition propter here as equivalent to per. P. R. and Sa. render it in Fr. par not pour. Maldonat and Si. admit that propter means here the same as per. The whole scope of the context is so manifestly favorable to this interpretation, and adverse to the other, as to leave no reasonable doubt. 69. "The Son of the living God," o vios tou ɛOU TO GOVTOS. Vul. "Filius Dei." Tou Savros is wanting in a few MSS. The same defect is found in the Cop. Arm. and Sax. versions as in the Vul. Nonnus also omits this epithet. 70." A spy." Diss. VI. Part i. sect. 4, 5, 6. CHAPTER VII, 8. "I go not yet,” ¿y@ ovñw ávaßaivo. Vul. "Ego autem non ascendo." The Cam. and another MS. read oux for ovn. The Cop. Sax. and Eth. versions read as the Vul. 12. "Much whispering," yoyyvoμos пolùs. E. T. "Much murmuring." The word murmuring would, in this place, convey the notion of discontent, grumbling. This does not appear to be suggested by the original term. It expresses solely the secrecy and caution which the people found it convenient to use in speaking on this subject, being, prompted, not by their resentments but by their fears. Γογγυσμός, in this, stands in opposition to παρρησία in the next verse. ματα 15. "Whence cometh this man's learning?" nas ovτos roάμμara oïdɛ; An. "How came he acquainted with the Scriptures?" Some foreign translators also render the words in the same manner. It was, no doubt, our Lord's acquaintance with the Scriptures, and reasoning from them, which occasioned the remark.. But there appears no reason for confining the word yoάupaza to this signification. Indeed the expression và "toa yoάuμaτa occurs, 2 Tim 3: 15, in this sense; but this is rather an argument against rendering it so here, where yoάuuara has neither the epithet nor the article with which it is accompanied in that place. The article, for the sake of emphasis, invariably attends yeaqn (which without it, means no more than a writing) when it denotes the Scriptures.' We cannot then think, that so vague a term as yoάμuara, without any mark of distinction, would be used for the same purpose. Further, yoáμuara, for denoting letters, or learning in general, occurs elsewhere, both in the N. T. and in the ancient version of the Old. See Acts 26: 24. Is. 28: 11, 12; where it may be observed, that enioraμas yoάuματα is used in a way entirely similar to the γράμματα οἶδε of the passage under examination. Add to this, that if our Lord had understood by yoάupara'the Scriptures,' he would not surely, ver. 16, have distinguished the doctrine learnt from them from the doctrine taught by the Father. 17. Whosoever is minded to do his will," av rig điầy tổ Giàŋua avrov roiεiv. E. T. "If any man will do his will." As the auxiliary will is often no more than a sign of the future, it expresses but weakly the import of the verb on. To say, with An. and Hey. "is inclined," or, with Wor. "if any man desire," is still worse; because these expressions always denote a disposition of mind which comes short of a purpose or resolution, and from which we can hardly promise any thing. Dod. says "determined," which is very good. I prefer, with Pearce, the word "minded." Mt. 16: 24. N. L. 13: 31. N. 18. "Is a stranger to deceit," áðıxía iv avra ovx ouv. In the use of the Seventy adixiv often denotes to lie,' 'to prevaricate,' deceive,' and adixía, falsehood,'' deceit,' which is evidently the most apposite meaning in this place, where it is contrasted to dinens. In this way, Beau. and some other late interpreters have rendered the word. all. 21, 22. "I have performed one action which surpriseth you Moses instituted circumcision amongst you,” ἐν ἔργον ἐποιήσα καὶ πάντες θαυμάζετε. Διὰ τοῦτο Μωσής δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τήν περιτο unv. E. T. "I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses, therefore, gave unto you circumcision." I have, with The. who is followed by some of our best critics, joined did zouto to the end of verse 21. Nothing can be more incongruously connected than the words are in the Eng. and most other modern translations; where our Lord's performing a miracle is represented as the cause why Moses gave them circumcision. It is justly observed by Be. (though he has followed a different method in translating) that if διὰ τοῦτο be construed with θαυμάζετε, which makes an alteration only on the pointing, we have an example of the same construction and arrangement with the same verb, Mr. 6: 6, davμáše dià rýv ánioriάv avrov, "he wondered at their unbelief." Different methods have been adopted by translators, which, in my judgment, are forced and unnatural. The method here followed, is that taken by Dod. Wes. Wy. and Wor. 22. "Circumcise on the Sabbath." The precept of circumcision required that every male child should be circumcised the eighth day from his birth. Gen. 17: 10, etc. Lev. 12; 3. Though the eighth day happened to be the Sabbath, this ceremony was not |