is observed by Kuin.) the subject here treated of is what happened év T Tagokia, and the liberation from Egypt is mentioned in the next words. The simplest interpretation, and that most suitable to the context, seems to Kuinoel to be, "exceedingly increased the number of the people :" of which signification we have examples in Is. 1, 1. Gen. 48, 19. Sir. 44, 21. 50, 22. And this interpretation (he adds) is confirmed by Deut. 1, 10. and Acts 7, 17. But all these modes of explanation yield a too confined sense; and I am inclined to think (with Buxtorf, Wolf, and Kypke) that this wris is of complex meaning, and may indeed embrace all the above particulars. Wolf refers to Ex. 1, 9 & 10. 12. 37. Among other Classical passages, Kypke cites Polyb. 5, 26., who says that very slight momenta i favor ἀνθρώπους, καὶ πάλιν ταπεινοῦσι. Το omit many others, I will advert to the Virgilian, me quoque tollere humo. Kuinoel observes that ragoikia answers to the Heb. ba, peregrinatio, in Esdr. 8, 34., and is used of the sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt at Sap. 19, 10. 17. μετὰ βραχίονος ὑψηλού. An oriental and popular metaphor, signifying in great power. Exod. 6, 1, 6. Num. 33, 4. See 18. ἐτροποφόρησεν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. There has been no little debate among the Commentators respecting the true reading and, as dependant on it, the sense of this passage. The common one érрOTOPógnσev avtoùs, endured their behaviour, is defended and illustrated from Cic. Ep. ad Attic. 13, 29. nihil est quod ego malim. In hoc τὸν τύφον μου πρὸς Θεών Tродоpóρnσov, bear with my pride. Ter. in Hecyra 3, 5, 28. mores tolerare. Aristoph. Ran. 1480. TOîs τρόποις ὑπηρετεῖν. The other reading, ἐτροφοφόρησεν, is found in some excellent MSS., and in the Syr., Arab., Copt., Æthiop., and Slavonic Versions. It is recognized by Athanasius, Cyrill, Macarius, Hesychius, and Const. Apost. 7, 36.; is defended by Pfaff, Casau bon, Hammond, Mill, Bengel, Matthiæ, Ernesti, Pearce, Morus, Rosenmuller, and Valcknaer; and has been received into the text by Griesbach. The common reading is, however, advocated by Grotius, Deyling, Wolf, Doddridge, and most English Theologians. The arguments for it are thus summed up by Kuinoel. 1. It is found in the Vulgate.-2. In the passage of Deut. 1, 31. to which Paul refers, for erpóоPopnσe and τροφοφορήσει the Vat. has τροποφόρησεν and τροποpopnoe, which is more agreeable to the Heb. NW; as appears from ver. 9. of the same Chapter. This reading is also acknowledged by Origen and Const. Apost. 7, 36. Whereas no unexceptionable example is adduced of τgopopopeîv; for as to 2 Macc. 7, 27. τροποφορεῖν is there preferable to τροφοφορείν.3. The letter and are very often interchanged.-4. As to Hesychius, the true reading seems to be erρOTOPógnoe, which refers to education and forming the manners. See Fisch. on Plat. Phæd. C. 30., Loesner on 1 Tim. 4, 6., and Lennep on Phalar. Ep. p. 350. Dr. Doddridge, too, observes that "it was very fit to give this oblique intimation of that perverseness and ingratitude which so early began to prevail among them." To Kuinoel, however, these reasons seem not convincing and he thinks Tpopopoçev preferable, on the following grounds. 1. Tpopopopei (from Tpopòs, nurse, mother, and Dope), which signifies to " carry in the arms like a nurse," to nurse, support, as being less known to the scribes, was changed into the more obvious трожо¶оpeîv.-2. Tpopopope is read in 2 Macc. 7, 27. and Macar. Hom. 46. where it is said of the mother of an infant: ἀναλαμβάνει, καὶ περιθάλπει, καὶ τροφοφορεί ÉV TONNÝ σTOPYŶ. And in Deut. 1, 31. (Sept.) èτρoPopopnoe is the true reading. So, indeed, the passage seems to have been understood by Aquila and Symmachus. Besides (as Mill observes), that reading is required by the argument and scope of the pas sage.-3. Not only in the passage of Deut., but in the present one, ἐτροφοφόρησε is far more suitable to the context. For it is not likely that Paul should have meant to exasperate the minds of his auditors: and, in fact, we do not find that God did patiently bear with the perverse conduct of the Israelites in the desert; nay, the contrary appears from holy writ. (See Ps. 95, 10. Heb, 3, 17.)-4. The reading ἐτροφοφόρησεν is also confirmed by other passages ; as Numb. 11, 12. and Deut. 32, 10. seqq. Thus far Kuinoel. For my own part, though I acknowledge that the arguments for both readings are of nearly equal weight, yet, upon the whole, I am inclined to prefer the common one ἐτροποφόρησε ; 1st, on account of the vast preponderance in point of authority.-2dly, because in almost every passage where τροφοφορεῖν is found, τροποφορεῖν is either the true reading, or, at least, is as suitable as Tρoopopeiv.-3dly, it is the more difficult reading, and therefore the likelier to be genuine.-4thly, I suspect that go opogeîv is irregularly formed, and contrary to the analogy of the language. On this account I would restore the old writing ἐτροποφόρησεν. * 19. κατεκληροδότησεν. Very many excellent MSS. have κатeкλnρоvóunoev, which, as being the more difficult reading, has been deservedly received into the text by Matthiæ and Griesbach. Now κατακληρονο péw not only denotes to possess, obtain, but also, in *For though Wetstein produces from Herodot. 7, 183. ǹ трopòs · ἐφόρες αὐτὴν, yet τροφοφορεῖν can properly only mean to carry the nurse in the arms; and this ratio extends through all the other compounds of φορέω ; as ἀμφοριαφορέω, σαγηφορέω, λαμπαδηφορέω, ἀχθοφορέω, καλαμηφορέω, στεφανηφορέω, δαφνηφορέω, χλοηφορέω, ἀστραπηφορέω, στιγματηφορέω, σκευφορέω, σκαφηφορέω, ξιφηφορέω, πυργωφορέω, δᾳδοφορέω, ῥαβδοφορέω, λιθοφορέω, ἀνθοφορέω, πλινθο φορέω, μισθοφορέω, αχθοφορέω, and an hundred other such, to be found in Hoogevien's Analogical Dictionary, from a careful examination of which I am prepared to assert that this would be the only instance of the irregularity (though there seems some approach to it in διφροφορέω): Nor does φορέω in those compounds always have the literal sense carry and bear, but sometimes the metaphorical, as in καρποφορέω, πληροφορέω, δωροφορέω, δασμοφορέω. into any one's posses a Hiphil sense, to deliver up into sion, as in Judg. 11, 24. 1 Kings, 2, 8. Num. 34, 18. Deut. 3, 28. Zach. 8, 12. From ignorance of this signification, the scribes have also, in other places, made the same charge; as in Deut. 1, 38. 3, 28. 21, 16. Josh. 14, 2. 19, 51. 1 Sam. 2, 8. 1 Macc. 3, 36. (Kuin.) 20. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα — τοῦ προφήτου. This passage has not a little exercised the learning and ingenuity of Commentators. And no wonder: for in 1 Kings 6, 1. "It came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord." Now if these four hundred and fifty years mentioned by St. Paul be added to the forty during which the Israelites abode in the desert, the seventeen years of Joshua's government, the forty of Saul's reign, the forty of David's, the three of Solomon's, before the building was commenced, the sum total will amount to a greater number than is found in 1 Kings 6, 1,; to remove which apparent contradiction the Commentators have devised many methods. 1. According to the opinion of Perizonius, Origg. Egypt., C. 16, p. 321., the years of servitude in which the Israelites, during the time of the Judges, were oppressed by foreigners, and were without native chiefs (1 Kings 6, 1.), are not numbered, since in the public Annals no notice was taken of them, but they were reckoned to those in which Judges ruled over the Israelites. Others number the years of the Judges and of the bondage differently, so, however, as to make out nearly the same number. But all these methods of computation are merely arbitrary; for that the years of bondage were omitted in 1 Kings is only taken for granted, not proved. Others again, as Luther and Beza, alter the common reading partly from MSS., and partly from conjec ture. Finally, there are not wanting those who, as Vossius, Michaelis, Vitringa, and Heinrichs, regard the whole as a mere interpolation. Other conjectures and opinions may be seen in Limborch, Bengel, and Heumann. To me it appears that the words are not from an interpolator, but are St. Paul's, who here followed the mode of computation pursued by the Jewish Chronologists of his age, with respect to the years of the Judges and those during which the Israelites were in subjection to foreign nations: and therefore I suspect that the passage of 1 Kings is corrupt. Koral, which corresponds to the Heb. W, may more properly be rendered Duces populi than judices. (Kuin.) I am so far inclined to agree with the learned Commentator, as to be of opinion that the corruption (if any) rests with the passage of the Old Testament, in the text of which chronological errors, chiefly arising from the use of letters (often very similar) for figures, do occasionally occur. 21. κἀκεῖθεν. Ἐκεῖθεν is properly used of place, but is sometimes, as here, applied to time, like our thence; of which Kuinoel adduces an example from Xen. Hist. 5, 2, 24. τεσσαράκοντα. 21. TEGσagákovτa. How long Saul reigned, we are not told in Scripture. Kuinoel is of opinion that in this St. Paul followed tradition. But it is more probable that he rested on the authority of some historical records, such as Josephus tells us were preserved in the Temple, and by which, it should seem, Josephus himself (Ant. 6, 14, 9.) was guided, when he says that Saul reigned eighteen years during Samuel's life, and twenty-two after his decease. "The years, therefore (continues Kuinoel), during which Samuel ruled over the Jews before Saul was created king, are referred to the above mentioned four hundred and fifty." (See, however, Doddridge.) 22. μeτaσTýσas, removing, deposing; as in Luke 16, 4. Dan. 2, 21. καθιστῷ βασιλεῖς, καὶ μεθιστᾶ. So |