the Hebrews; others have ascribed them to Papias, who flourished in the beginning of the second century. Many of the best critics and expositors of opposite sects have entertained strong suspicions of them. Such are Er. Olivetan, Cajetan, Bucer, Cal. Be. Gro. Ham. L. Cl. The words of Be. are remarkable; I shall therefore transcribe them :-" Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi merito suspectum esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel rejecerunt, vel ignorarunt. Deinde quod narrat Jesum solum fuisse relictum cum muliere in templo, nescio quam sit probabile : nec satis cohæret cum eo quod mox, id est, versu duodecimo dicitur, eos rursum alloquutus; et quod scribit, Jesum digito scripsisse in terra, novum mihi et insolens videtur, nec possum conjicere quomodo possit, satis commode explicari. Tanta denique lectionis varietas facit ut de totius istius narrationis fide dubitem." To the expositors abovementioned I might almost add the Jesuit Maldonat, considered in his critical capacity, though, as a true son of the church, he declares himself on the contrary side. For, after fairly deducing the evidences which are urged for the rejection of this story, he produces, as a counterbalance, the single authority of the Council of Trent, and appears to make a merit of sacrificing to it every thing that might be urged from reason on the opposite side. "Sed hæc omnia," meaning the evidences he had given of the spuriousness of the passage, "minus habent ponderis, quam una auctoritas ecclesiæ, quæ per concilium Tridentinum, non solum libros omnes quos nunc habet in usu, sed singulas etiam ejus partes, tanquam canonicas approbavit." But in this implicit deference to authority Maldonat has not preserved an uniform consistency. See the Note on ch. 21:22, 23. There are some strong internal presumptions, as well as external, against the authenticity of the passage. They who desire to enter further into the question, may consult Si.'s Crit. Hist. of the text of the N. T. ch. 13, and Wet. on the place. Let them also read, for the sake of impartiality, Bishop Pearce's note C. on verse 11, and his other notes and remarks on the whole story; and if they think with him, that all, or the chief objections made by Wet, against the authenticity of the story, are fully answered, they will naturally adopt the Bishop's opinion. 6. "Was writing with his finger on the ground," to dazrúdo Eroapev eis tηv yv. E. T. " With his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not." This is one of the few instances in which our translators have deserted the common Gr. and even the La. in deference to the authority of MSS. a good number of which, and some of the early editions, after γῆν read μη προσποιούμενος; but this clause is not in any translation, that I have seen, of an earlier date than Dio.'s. Being, besides, quite unnecessary, I thought it better to follow the common editions both Gr. and La. 9. "They hearing that withdrew," oi dè, axovoavres xai vñò τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι, ἐξήρχοντο. Ε. Τ. “ And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out." The clause καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι is wanting in many MSS. some of the best editions, and in the Vul. Sy. Sax. and Eth. versions. 10. "And seeing none but the woman,” xai undeva dɛaoáμevos лàýv τns yuvaixòs. This clause is wanting in the Cam. and four other MSS. and also in the Vul. Sy. Sax. Cop. and Arm. versions. The sense, however, seems to require it. 2 "Hath nobody passed sentence on thee?" ovdais oe narénqı, vεv; E. T. "Hath no man condemned thee?" 11. "Neither do I pass sentence on thee," ovde ¿ya σe xaranqiναι. E. T. "Neither do I condemn thee." The Eng. word condemn is used with so great latitude of signification for blaming, disapproving, as well as passing sentence against; that I thought it better, in order to avoid occasion of mistaking, to use a periphasis which exactly hits the meaning of the Gr. word in these two verses. 14. My testimony ought to be regarded, because I know whence I came, and whither I go,” Αληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία μου ὅτι οἶδα πόθεν ἦλθον, καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγω. It has been suggested (Bowyer's Conjectures) that the conjunction or is not in this passage causal, but explanatory, and introduces the testimony meant, My record is true, that I know whence I came, and whither I am going." But though or is often employed for ushering in the subject, it does not suit the connexion to render it so here. Had these words, "I know whence I am," etc. been the testimony to which the Pharisees alluded in the preceding verse, where they said, "Thou testifiest concerning thyself," etc. I should admit the justness of the suggestion. But when we observe, that the testimony, ver. 12, "I am the light of the world," etc. which occasioned their retort, is quite different, we must be sensible, that to render the words in the way suggested, is to make our Lord's answer foreign from the purpose. It does the worse here, as this appears to be the first time that Jesus used these words, "I know whence I came," etc. they could not be the testimony to which the Pharisees alluded. How, then, does our Lord's argument run, on the common interpretation? In this manner: Though it holds in general, that a man's testimony of himself, unsupported by other evidence, is not to be regarded; it is, nevertheless, where other testimony cannot be had, always received, and has that regard to which the circumstances of the case appear to entitle it. My mission is a transaction between God and myself. I know whence I came, and whither I go; or all that relates to the nature and end of my mission, of which I am conscious. But this is what no other man is: I can, therefore, produce no human testimony but my own, a testimony which will not be disregarded by those who consider how strongly it is supported by the testimony of God.' (See ver. 16, 17, 18.) If so, 15. “ Ye judge from passion,” ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα κρίνετε. E. T. "Ye judge after the flesh." Edos, in the language of the N. T. is frequently used to denote the inferior powers of the soul, the passions and appetites, and is, in this meaning, opposed to лνεuμα, which denotes the superior faculties of reason and conscience. Thus, κατὰ σάρκα περιπατείν, is to act habitually under the influence of passion and appetite. Though, from the use of the common version, we are habituated to the phrase "after the flesh," to the much greater number it conveys no distinct meaning. It only suggests something which, in general, is bad. Diss. I. Part i. sect. 11. N. sect. 14. N. 20. "The treasury," Mr. 12: 41. N. 24. "Ye shall die in your sins;" that is, impenitent, hardened. It may also denote, that they should die suffering the punishment of their sins. In this explanation it conveys a prediction of the destruction of their city and State, in which it is not improbable that some of our Lord's hearers on this occasion afterwards perished. 25. "The same that I told you formerly," v dov ö, re nai hala vuiv. The E. T. is to the same purpose: "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning :” τὴν ἀρχὴν for κατὰ τὴν don, is entirely in the Gr. idiom for in the beginning,' 'formerly.' In this way it is used by the Seventy, Gen. 13: 4. 43: 18, 20. Dan. 8: 1: In this way it is explained by Nonnus :. Ο ττι περ ὑμῖν In this way also it is rendered in the M. G. ano tv άox. When we have such authority for the meaning of the word, (the best of all authorities for scriptural use), I see no occasion for recourse to profane authors. Misled by these, Dod. unites the passage, with the following words, ver. 26, πολλὰ ἔχω περὶ ὑμῶν λαγεῖν καὶ κρίνειν, into one sentence, thus rendering the whole, " Truly, because I am speaking to you, I have many things to say and judge concerning you;" in which it is not in my power to discover any meaning or coherence. 1st, We have no answer given to the question put; 2dly, We have things introduced as cause and effect, which seem but ill fitted to stand together in that relation. Could his speaking to them be the cause of his having many things to judge concerning them? Vul. "Principium qui et loquor vobis." For the qui there is no support from either Gr. MSS. or ancient versions. Nay, some ancient La. MSS. read quod. 27. “ That he meant the Father,” ὅτι τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν. Vul. "Quia patrem ejus dicebat Deum." The Cam. MS. adds Tov Eov, which, with the Sax. version, seem to be in this place the only testimonies in favor of the Vul. 28" Then ye shall know what I am," tóre yváσeode öri ¿yá τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι sipe. E. T." Then shall ye know that I am he." With Gro. I understand the third word as thus divided, o te which is the same as 1, quid, what.' In this way there is a direct reference to the question put ver. 25, "Who art thou?" It has this advantage also, that it leaves no ellipsis to be supplied for completing the sense; and the connexion is both closer and clearer than in the common version. L. Cl. has taken this method in rendering the words into Fr. "Alors vou connoitrez ce que je suis." P. R. and Sa. though translating from the Vul. which says "quia ego sum," go still nearer the terms of that question, and say "qui je suis," who I am. In Eng. the An. and Hey. follow L. Cl. as I also have done. In this way the full import of the words is given with sufficient clearness. 33. "Some made answer," anexoionoav avr. E. T. "They answered him." The whole scope of the place shows that it was not those believers to whom Jesus had addressed himself in the two preceding verses, who are here represented as answering: But such expressions as ἔλεγον, απεκρίθησαν, are sometimes used indefinitely, and import only it was said,' it was answered.' What follows evinces that they were far from being believers who made this answer. 38. "Ye do what ye have learnt from your father," vμɛis ouv ὁ ἑωράκατε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν ποιεῖτε. Ε.Τ. “Ye do that which ye have seen your father." But in a considerable number of MSS. some of them of note, for ἑωράκατε we read ήκούσατε. It was so read by Origen and Cyril. It is followed by the Eth. Cop. Go. and second Sy. versions. I agree with Bishop Pearce in thinking this reading preferable in point of propriety. It is for this reason, which is of the nature of internal evidence, that I have adopted the correction, otherwise not strongly supported. τε 39. "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would act as Abraham acted,” εἰ τέκνα τοῦ ̓Αβραὰμ ἦτε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ̓Αβραὰμ ἐποιεῖ Tε v. Vul. "Si filii Abrahæ estis, opera Abrahæ facite." To warrant this version the original should be ̓Αβραὰμ ἐστε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ̓Αβραὰμ ποιεῖτε. Yet there is no MS. which reads entirely in this manner. 43. "It is because ye cannot bear my doctrine," öre où dúvaoθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν. Ε.Τ. Even because ye cannot hear my word." The verb axovsv denotes frequently in Scripture, and even in profane authors, not barely to hear,' but 'to hear patiently;' consequently not to hear often means not to bear. The Eng. verb to hear has sometimes, I acknowledge, the same meaning, but more rarely; and in consequence of the uncommonness, the literal version has somewhat of an ambiguous appearance, which the original has not. The An. Hey. and Wor. have all avoided the ambiguity, though not quite in the same manner. VOL. II. 65 44. “ He was a manslayer,” ἐκείνος ανθρωποκτόνος ἦν. Ε.Τ. "He was a murderer." The common term for murderer in the N. T. is govevs. I have here made choice of a less usual name, not from any disposition to trace etymologies, but because I think it is not without intention that the devil, a being not of earthly extraction, is rather called άvvoшñоxτóvos than goveis, as marking, with greater precision, his ancient enmity to the human race. When the name murderer is applied to a rational being of a species different from ours, it naturally suggests that the being so denominated is a destroyer of others of his own species. As this is not meant here, the evangelist's term is peculiarly apposite. At the same time I am sensible that our word manslaughter means, in the language of the law, such killing as is indeed criminal, though not so atrocious as murder; but in common use it is not so limited. Hey. says, to the same purpose, "a slayer of men." 45. "Because I speak the truth, ye do not believe me," or τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι. Vul." Si veritatem dico non creditis mihi." This version, one would almost think, must have arisen from a different reading, though there is none entirely conformable to it in the known MSS. and versions. It may indeed be thought an objection against the common reading, that there is something like exaggeration in the sentiment. How is it possible that a man's reason for not believing what is told him should be that it is true? That this should be his known or acknowledged reason, is certainly impossible. To think or perceive a thing to be true, and to believe it, are expressions entirely synonymous. In this way explained, it would no doubt be a contradiction in terms. The truth of the matter may, nevertheless, be the real, though with regard to himself the unknown, cause of his unbelief. A man's mind may, by gross errors and inveterate prejudices, be so alienated from the simplicity of truth, that the silliest paradoxes, or wildest extravagancies in opinion, shall have a better chance of gaining his assent than truths almost self-evident. And this is all that, in strictness, is implied in the reproach. 46. "Which of you convicteth me?" ris ¿§ vμwv ¿héyyei μɛ; E. T. "Which of you convinceth me?" The word convinceth is not the proper term in this place: It relates only to the opinion of the person himself about whom the question is. Our Lord here, in order to show that the unbelief of his hearers had no reasonable excuse, challenges them openly to convict him, if they can, in any instance, of a deviation from truth. The import of this is, Bring evidence of such a deviation, evince it to the world. A man may be convinced, that is not convicted. Nay, it is even possible that a man may be convicted, that is not convinced. I am astonished that Dod. has missed observing this distinction. He is almost the only modern translator into Eng. who has missed it. |